Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jefe Bergenstein" data-source="post: 5650891" data-attributes="member: 31506">I'd say so. The rogue makes an intentionally weak combo, since cleric and rogue dont really share the same main stats. If he's actively spending feats to get powers (again, terrible feats), he's further behind. The character could probably be fluffed into an avenger or something if he really wanted the lightly armored dextrous religious guy angle, keeping the same fluff but increased mechanical effectiveness. That or homebrew him some feats/powers/theme or something to get him up to par. While twin strike could use a bit of a nerf, the rogue is a perfectly cromulent striker and shouldnt be too far behind. I have no idea how the hell the ranger has +4 to +5 to hit on the rogue. Our rogue one time hit on a 1. They have more accurate weapons, talents to boost accuracy, nearly constant combat advantage, and feats to boost accuracy. Again, if he's missing, its because he wanted to make a concept character with no mechanical support behind it. Ideally, the DM will help even that out.  If the rogue doesnt want better house rules support/gear/feats/powers or whatever to help him out, he should at least recognize what he's doing. The guy, who intentionally made aless combat oriented/optimized character, then gets upset  because someone else is better at killing things? Thats like the dude who spends all his time at the buffet bitching because his buddy who works out is losing more weight. IMO, if you make the choice to ignore your own effectiveness, you really shouldnt complain about someone else's. Particularly when it doesnt sound like the ranger is a grotesque abomination of min-maxing. He's not melee, so he doesnt get to abuse prime punisher. Expertise, focus and bracers are not some kind of crazy optimization, any mroe than a 1st edition fighter specializing in longsword. Its pretty routine... I think the character builder even suggests this sort of stuff. If the rogue doesnt have something similar, its through his own choice to take NON-optimized gear/feats.  The ranger popped 2 dailies and and 2 action points, rolled lucky and did a victory dance. Big deal. If your players arent throwing high fives or drinking a toast to crits or groaning over bad ones, that's a game I dont want to be in.        I personally wouldnt have accepted the mandated kukri thing, as its pretty much nothing but a DM mandated nerf for flavor purposes. Its a terribly designed weapon that loses 1 from accuracy for a middling upgrade in damage at the cost of a feat. I'm not even sure if its worth using as a standard weapon. You're definately flushed 3 feats down the drain from an effectiveness perspective. There's nothing preventing you from calling your longsword a gladius and your shield a scutum, or using 2 short swords if you are the tempest fighting style. At the end of it though, if you're fine with your character, who cares? The trouble arises when you have a self/dm made weak character, and then want to bring everyone else down to your level.     Again, a twin strike problem, more than anything else. This is more in line with approaching higher tier optimization, certainly mroeso than the ranger which took basic stuff like "hit more" and "hit harder".  Aside from a few potions of healing, your weapon, armor and neck slots cover most of what it takes to do the job. Not every copper needs to be spent on the next +1. Is he even worried about underperforming? If you're DM'ing, throw him an extra item or something if he needs it. If you're a player, have everyone pitch in and buy/commission something for his character. Or better yet, go on a quest for something for him.   1 no, 3 maybe. 2. Ugh, you're playing a warlord? Yeah, he's probably not up to par and your DM hosed you. That's like saying "no one can wear armor, because we're running a pirate game. Enjoy your suck AC!" 4. See above.</blockquote>

Verification