Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="phloog" data-source="post: 4208061" data-attributes="member: 59219">I guess this is further evidence that I am weird.For me D&D is cooperative - not only cooperation between the players, but cooperation between players and DM to have a good time.  I've played with players who felt like it was a competition for most powerful PC, and I've played with DMs who felt like they 'lost' if the party actually put together a great plan and as a result succeeded easily against the DMs Favorite BBEG.  For 'competitive' games, this balance is probably required.I have played characters that are sub-optimal, despite being ABLE to minmax some insanely powerful character.  I am currently playing (ah!  a break from constant DMing!) a fifth level rogue who is maxed out in Forgery and Craft: Woodcarver.While I like that 4e may make it possible for all characters to play a role, I didn't have that problem with 3.x anyway.So why would I ever take Toughness?  Because my character is really tough.  And I'm not sure that all the 'useless feats' are useless, if they begin a chain to more powerful feats.The problem is not the presence or lack of player mastery, but the lack of DM mastery.  I think that removing the issue IS probably a good thing for a model where DMs buy off-the-rack premade modules and run players through them, but I never do that.  As DM I always customize any purchased content, and more often just write from scratch.  When I work in this way, I make sure that Player X who is the Rokk Godd of Ultimate Combat (insert random umlauts in that title, please) gets to show his stuff, while Player Y who wanted to be a bard has equal opportunities to shine.  Even during a combat, there may be opportunities for any character to play a role....tripping levers, sneaking into the treasure vault, upsetting the ritual, etc.I guess while I like the balancing act they're doing for 4E for its impact on off-the-shelf games, I don't see the need in my own campaign...and frankly I have a problem with it...It seems oriented toward BATTLE effectiveness...so while almost all of the dramatic products (books, movies, etc.) I enjoy have weaker and stronger characters in terms of combat, this system seems to build a party of combat equals - - again, that's probably what 99% of people want, just not working for me.  I LIKE the idea of the combat-weak character - the hobbit that has to sneak around and accomplish important tasks while others lock up with the monsters.  I understand the design philosophy that makes everyone equal in combat - I just think it's out of line with my own style.  I think that a thoughtful DM eliminates the need to have every character exactly as effective in every combat as any other character.The world needs Short Rounds, too.  (at least my world does)</blockquote>

Verification