It feels like optimization is REQUIRED for combat

43 posts / 0 new
Last post
I've been playing D&D 4e for about a year and a half (so some experience, though not an overabundance) and have been playing in a prolonged game with a DM for about 6 months now.  He uses the monster builder to create monsters and usually has them set to 2-3 levels above the party.  It seems like that they are just incredibly hard to hit and that I am REQUIRED to have attack boosting feats, high prof. weapons, starting 18 in my main stat, and who knows what else on top of that just to have what I'm told is a "normal" hit rate of ~40%.

I know that having a level appropriate weapon is expected and that I should aim for the low defense stat (assuming that I can figure out what that is and have a power to hit it).  Those aren't the issues that I'm talking about.  My problem is that it seems like I have to have everything in the build decked out to accuracy just to get a 13-14 on the die to hit an average defense score, and a 16-17 to hit an average elite/boss defense score.

Here's what I'm talking about.  These things are the common methods to add to attack:

Having a starting 18 in the main stat (instead of 16/16 in two main stats)
Weapon/implement expertise (+1/2/3 at tiers, typically)
Having a weapon with +3 proficiency (instead of the standard +2)

If you don't have those things, at level 12 you have a 20-25% LESS chance to hit an enemy than what is expected to be AVERAGE defense.  It feels like the game is shoe horning players into chooses specific stats, feats, and builds just to have what base attack is concidered to be a 40% chance to hit.  So basically, you get PENALIZED FOR NOT HAVING those bonuses INSTEAD OF REWARDED for having them, thus making your character gimped and having a severly reduced chance to hit.

Does this sound right to everyone else?  Am I just missing a completely obvious reason why it's so frickin' hard to hit basic enemies, let alone elites?  Am I stuck optimizing builds just to be concidered "decent" in combat?

Whenever I'm not playing with this DM it's usually I or someone else creating monsters on the spot, and I just typically use slightly boosted stats from characters in our binders to determine what enemy stats should be.  So I'm not sure if how this DM is handling things is typical or not, but it seems frickin' ridiculous that we have so many problems hitting enemies that not only does he have to drop their defenses by a couple of points, but he also has to cut their hp by a third just so that we aren't spending forever trying to kill one enemy, let alone a group of 6.

Any insight as to what attack and defense scores (for players and monsters) should be at this level (lvl 12) should be and how to obtain them (perferably without being FORCED to optimize) would be helpful.
Sounds like you need a conversation with your DM.

Generally, at level monsters would have something like 26/24/24/24 defenses, +17 to hit AC, +15 to hit the other defenses.

So at level 12, you would have a 60% chance to hit AC with a +18.

16+2(racial) attack stat, boosted at levels 4, 8 and 11 leaves you with a 21 in that ability, meaning +5 to hit. Add to that half level of 6, a +2 proficiency weapon, a +3 weapon, and +2 from expertise, and you've got that covered.



What I read from all of your post is that perhaps your DMs style and yours do not line up. 
For one, introduce him to Monster Manual 3.
Secondly, tell him that if every encounter is brutal, the big boss fight doesn't impress anyone. 

       

Expected AC for a monster is "Level+14".  Expected non-AC is "Level+12".  -2 AC for soft of the artillery/controllers, and for Brutes.  +2 AC for Soldiers.

There-ya-go.  A level 12 monster should have an AC of around 26.  What do you hit an AC of 26 on? 

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Those stats seem a lot more realistic, and pretty close to about how I have enemies of the same level in other games.  One character that I played in the game was a longtooth shifter Ranger with Beast Master build.  Base stats were 16/16 Str/Wis, with a +2 given to to each of those stats due to race and I boosted them each time that I could.  He was weilding an axe+2 (with +2 prof.) and had the axe expertise feat.  His weapon was one point weaker than the rest of the parties (my main died the previous game and he was a backup), but my base attack altogether was a +17 vs. AC.  My animal companion's base attack was +16.  I guess I now know why the DM heard that they "were broken and useless," concidering his enemies' defenses.

Other party members were claiming +19 or +20 on attack and saying that that was normal, though they also admitted to having an 18/14 main/secondary stat spread and optimizing to hit enemies.  But for even +19 being "normal," and "normal" meaning that we were only expected to hit 40% of the time, that seemed pretty ridiculous to me.  Especially because I had a build that had only one unoptimized thing (stats) besides a weaker weapon.

All I can say is that when you roll a 15 on the die against an elite for a total of 32 vs. AC, that should hit just about anything, even if it was an elite monster with AC as it's high defense.  Going based upon what you guys have been telling me, it seems like a 30 AC should have been concidered "high" for the monster.  Oh, and did I mention that there were 3 of those things amongst other elites?  So basically, I couldn't hit for **** the entire battle, hence my frustration.  Literally, I HAD PROBLEMS KILLING MINIONS!
As much as I feel for your troubles, please, have a conversation with your DM.

And, as said, give monster manual 3 a thumb-through. 
As much as I feel for your troubles, please, have a conversation with your DM.

And, as said, give monster manual 3 a thumb-through. 



Trust me, I will.  I just wanted to know if his tactics were the usual expected by Wizards when they made the game and did the math, or if they were anomalous.  Thanks for the help on showing me what the "expected" values are.
Nah, sounds like a DM thing. Only time a 15 should miss is when something wrong has gone on - for example, you've been blinded.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
Now, IMHO it's ok for a game to have diverged heavily from baseline.  We're talking about what the baselines are, and what the games designed for.  Specific games may vary from that.  Maybe that's what the group prefers?

I've run one of those myself: I expected the party to be level 12 or so when they go to this bit of the plot, so the monster sources were all level 14+ monsters.  Instead they decided to go there when they were level 8.  Things were hard to hit for a while...

Maybe that's how he wants to run the game (in which case, yeah.  Optimize for hitting.  Can I suggest a Charger?  CA, +1 for charging, Weapon attack vs. Reflex?  Or an Avenger.  Or both?)   Talk to him, and figure out if it's a short-term thing or you've just got a huge mismatch of expectations.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Actually, that is a fair point. If you guys are "doing the wrong thing" in the plot, then you reap what you sow

That said, I've thrown in monsters of level + 5 before when needed and folks still at least hit on a 15. Even if barely.

I will say: you should always have expertise in paragon+.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
In general, yes, the game does assume a degree of optimization. But it is the DM's job to make sure the optimization level of a party matches the challenges they face. There is a lot of leeway there.

If you play with a party agnostic DM, things can become too difficult or too easy, depending on the DM's inclinations. A DM going by DMG1 recommendations using today's monsters, may make some rather unfun encounters, or could slaughter a less optimized party. I still gripe that there isn't a good DMG that addresses the needs of today's encounter design necessities.

And to note, Expertise is a math fix, it is not an "optimization thing". In many home games it's free, but if it isn't you just take it as tax.
Personally - I think your DM needs to understand that a better way to make an encounter more challenging while keeping it fun, is more monsters at lower level, rather than fewer at higher level.

Even better is the 'right' number of monstters at the 'right' level, but have other factors that make the encounter challenging, such as a time limit to save the girl, or a skill challenge to complete at the same time to stop the ritual, or terrain of significance, or a mobile fight where the real target is running, and you are chasing but have to deal with his mooks, or what ever.
FWIW baseline assumption was that roughly 70% of your feats would be put towards combat effectiveness, parties would coordinate, and strikers would do 20/40/60 at-will damage+novas. If your party isn't doing that... well, you are below baseline, so yes, you need to optimize slightly to meet baseline.

But it sounds like your DM is screwing with system math. Which is kind of like someone who knows nothing about engines trying to make one run better. Close the hood, turn on the car, and enjoy the drive.
Personally - I think your DM needs to understand that a better way to make an encounter more challenging while keeping it fun, is more monsters at lower level, rather than fewer at higher level.

This. A lot of DMs think that just using a high-level monster is a good way to make a fight hard, but in play it's just frustrating and boring.

I throw a lot of stuff at my group, but nothing with defenses higher than the typical level+2 monster values except maybe for a big boss/climax fight every 2 levels or so. It can be a lot of work to challenge a party in a fun way, and he just might not be willing to put in the time.
I think one of the issues is that he uses a 40% hit rate when concidering enemy defenses, instead of a 60% rate that others mentioned.  While I don't particularly mind this, the bigger issue is that he mentioned basing it off of the attack values of the characters that had maxed their attack.  So 40% hit rate with someone that has a +20 base hit is only a 25-30% hit rate for characters that aren't optimized to hit who have only a +17 or +18 base attack. 

So while, yes, it does make enemies harder for us to kill and gives the party a run for their money, it just gets frickin' fustrating when a 15 on the die misses because the monsters are based upon party members that are optimized, instead of ones that are simply built well (16/16 base stats, a race to improve both those stats, and a weapon expertise).

Thanks everyone for the advice, though.  It gives me some ideas as well for when I DM other games.
He's been using the monster builder in the "adventure's tools" on this site.  I presume it's supposed to be the most up to date monsters.  I'll have to ask him exactly what he does when he uses it, what levels the monsters are at, and what additional things he does to them.

Is there a place where I can look up Monster Manual 3 on Wizard's site (I'm not going to waste money buying it)?  And love to look it over and get a general feel for things myself since I've always just created monsters in my head that I thought were appropriate to the party.
I think one of the issues is that he uses a 40% hit rate when concidering enemy defenses, instead of a 60% rate that others mentioned.  While I don't particularly mind this, the bigger issue is that he mentioned basing it off of the attack values of the characters that had maxed their attack.  So 40% hit rate with someone that has a +20 base hit is only a 25-30% hit rate for characters that aren't optimized to hit who have only a +17 or +18 base attack.

He's clearly building his own monsters, or at least taking existing monsters and giving them a huge boost to defenses.

He needs to stop "considering enemy defenses" completely and just play up-to-date monsters as written. He also needs to realize that a 40% hit rate is not fun because missing is not fun.

One common way of Doing It Wrong as a DM is to build monsters to counteract character choices and invalidate them.  "Oh you spent 3 feats on accuracy? I'll just raise all monster defenses then." That's essentially the same thing as just flat out denying the player three feats. Certainly it's normal (and encouraged) to occasionally throw in monsters that counter a certain type of op, but moving the whole baseline is just lazy/bad DMing.

In short, don't blame the system here, because your DM is not using that sytem. He is 100% of the problem here. If you can't change his mind or get a new DM, I'd make a build that optimizes what you can do on a miss. I think Mello made a thread about that a while back.
Not to repeat myself, but:

But it sounds like your DM is screwing with system math. Which is kind of like someone who knows nothing about engines trying to make one run better. Close the hood, turn on the car, and enjoy the drive.

Pick whatever complex thing your DM understands IRL and use that as an analogy identical to this one. 4e is very balanced, if you don't understand all the math, you shouldn't screw around with it, because all you're doing is screwing the game up.
In my own game, the players rarely miss.  Missing isn't fun, but having monster defense become irrelevant doesn't seem like it's intended either.  At first I did increase monster numbers, but then I realized that I was cheating my players by doing so.

So I took to using monsters that were a little higher level (usually 1 to 2 levels higher).  This way, at least the party gets more experience points out of the deal.  That worked for awhile, but then my players started getting gung-ho about using flanking, daze, and other methods to increase their "to-hit" or lower the enemy defense (a Bane from the party Cleric lowers an enemy's defenses by 6 points!).

What I finally realized is that if the player wants to hit, he will.  Nothing is going to stop him or her, if they are sufficiently determined, and the party as a whole gets behind the idea.  My advice to your DM is that he shouldn't be fighting this battle.  As the DM, he can certainly create monsters the players will miss, but as the monsters get stronger, and more and more player resources are spent trying to match the DM's strategies, the chances of a TPK become stronger and stronger.

Higher level monsters hit hard, and they tend to not miss.  If the party is focused on accuracy, and not defense or mitigation, the game will turn into rocket launcher tag.  This isn't to say that you shouldn't find ways to challenge a party, but save that for the featured battles.  Instead, focus more on terrain or other factors in a fight.  It's ok if the party wins easily- they're supposed to!      
"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." -The Doctor, Remembrance of the Daleks
I've created the same scenerio to my players as described in the OP (well, except I added extra damage and player debuffs to boot). I also relied on the precept that the party was going to work as a team and use their environment to their advantage. Didn't happen. Warlord jumped off a bridge into the water to save his own hide. Warlock stood as the front line while the rest of the party giggled while he died in 3 hits from rocket launchers. And no one besides their "fearless leader" bothered to take cover while taking rpg's up their behind. Of course, there's also the issue of rocket launchers existing in high fantasy, but that's easily handwaved in a high magic setting.

Long story short, I stopped trying to kill the players because, I realize I could do so VERY easily, and that fun is derived from showing creativity in encounters and challenges, and cooperation with the players ideas, which involve performing fantastic feats.

Anyway, I've corrected my approach by using canon creatures, terrain, traps, hazards, and skill challenges to challenge players rather than create frustratingly difficult monsters. I often include at least 1 intelligent adversary to command the morons I send at the players.

I think it helps that the players like roleplaying, and the group ends up pissing off the royal guard, and now has to deal with bounty hunters with real PC builds, battles in cityscapes, and heavily armed royal commandos (with PC builds and ample magic gear). Oh yeah, excuses for PVP occurs frequently (which saves me a deal of effort).
Uh... If you're using pc builds as monsters, then I'm thinking you didn't really learn your lesson after all. PCs as monsters are just as rocket tag inducing as your apparently literal rocket launchers were.



I have no idea what you mean buy this post.  I'm only using PC attack and defense stats as a guideline to base monster stats off of.  For example, if the average player has an attack of +15, then I'll create monsters that are generally +2 or -2 away from that in defense, depending on the monster type and defense.  This makes it so that on average, an 8-12 on the die is likely to hit.  PC defense stats tended to fall in the same ranges, so I used them for basic rubrics since I didn't know of any better and they seemed about right.

The DM uses the monster builder located on this site (I believe under "Adventurer's Tools").  However it's being used, whether right or wrong, whether with monsters at our levels or several above, the monsters seem to have MUCH GREATER defenses, and sometime attack, than what seems reasonable for a character that didn't optimize for attack.  Which, as stated (hopefully well enough) in my OP, is why I was wondering if players NEEDED to optimize or not.

Apparently, that answer is "no" and my DM has monster defenses at some ridiculous level.
I have no idea what you mean by this post.

He's responding to Boromancer, who indicated he uses PC builds as monsters, which is a terrible idea.

I'm only using PC attack and defense stats as a guideline to base monster stats off of.  For example, if the average player has an attack of +15, then I'll create monsters that are generally +2 or -2 away from that in defense, depending on the monster type and defense.  This makes it so that on average, an 8-12 on the die is likely to hit.

This is not how monsters work. By basing monster stats off PC's, you're basically penalizing PC's for investing in accuracy. Monster math is fixed. Level+14 AC, Level+12 FRW, Level+5 attack vs AC, Level+3 attack vs FRW, with few modifications based on role. Any mucking around with this needs to have a very good excuse.

If PC's can't handle these defenses, they're not optimized enough, either optimize more or use easier encounters. If PC's are crushing them, use harder encounters. Changes should be made at the encounter design level, not the Monster math.
That's only true until you do away with XP, which if you're building "Challenging Encounters for Optimized Players" you absolutely should. Just set reasonable leveling points (ex. 1 level every 2 5 hour sessions that are heavier on combat) and design encounters to keep them entertained and challenged, but not overwhelmed. That being said, just increasing defenses and damage is absolutely wrong when trying to ramp up difficulty in this manner, waves of monsters, terrain and hazards, BBEGs that are unattackable until X, removing short rests between encounters but having some Rest-Like effect for a more limited resource recovery, fights with time limits and optional secondary goals (CALI 3-3 in LFR has a Dragon captured by Thri-Kreen and a surge draining and slowing sandstorm that moves slowly up the map, PCs have to escape on the far side of the map, beating the 'kreen is optional and basically impossible to do completely, with the real secondary objective being freeing the Dragon with a bunch of skill checks).

As I'm typically a player and not a DM, these are just some of the methods I've experienced first-hand. Other people on these forums like Matyr, Keithric, mellowship, Alcestis, etc. are better suited to giving advice on "how to make encounters difficult without just making enemies harder to hit".

You also have to be careful to not always make things "as challenging as possible" because then, yes, they'll feel like their effort in optimizing was meaningless; let them blow up armies from time to time, it feels good. If the DM's just going to make things more difficult as a reaction to PC optimization, there's no point in optimizing at all, in fact that encourages creating the absolute worst characters possible since the DM's matching encounters to optimization level.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
There's been a few comments re DMs using the monster builder and assuming the math is correct.  People should know that the stats for early 4e monsters listed in the builder that have not been officially updated in some later source (ie, monster box) have NOT been updated to new numbers or design philosophies.  You need to pay attention to the source, and make sure the monster is from a later book.

This gets confusing, however, because monsters that have been completely re-written in recent sources still list the original book they were printed in, even if they're basically entirely new monsters now.  This gets very confusing when you find essentials monster box monsters with correct game math and quality design philosophy next to other monsters with terrible old math and outdated design both listed right next to each other and both claiming to be from the MMI.  Chromatic Dragons, for instance, suffer from this, with some age categories having been updated and others having been left behind.

It's a very frustrating situation, and while the monster builder is a very useful tool for adjusting monsters, its value as a reference is significantly diminished by failing to note which older monsters have been updated.  I advise keeping physical copies of the monster vault and MMIII on hand, despite the annoyance of manual reference, then just use the builder to make any necessary modifications to the monsters you find there.
I'm a DM and I did't find it's hard to seperate old and new monsters.

Just look at its LV and damage, that's it. 


Up to date monster chart from lv1-30 (thanks to Sly Flourish)

slyflourish.com/master_dm_sheet.pdf


Expect damage calculator for post mm3 monster standard at any LV (again, thanks to Sly Flourish)

slyflourish.com/dice.html

Up to date monster chart from lv1-30 (thanks to Sly Flourish)

slyflourish.com/master_dm_sheet.pdf

Just a quick note, average AC and FRW are one point too high on that chart.
Well, he's not differentiating by role or even necesarily monster level instead of PC level. So, you're going to see some ups and downs as a result.

It is an interesting way to look for total outliers, I suppose. 
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
Up to date monster chart from lv1-30 (thanks to Sly Flourish)

slyflourish.com/master_dm_sheet.pdf

Just a quick note, average AC and FRW are one point too high on that chart.


Yeah, I have no idea why this +15 AC +13 NADs lie gets perpetuated when WotC released something official saying it's 14 and 12 (Brutes have 2 lower AC, Soldiers have 2 higher AC so the average doesn't even change).

Well, I guess I know now, some stubborn jackhole at sly flourish doesn't feel like updating his chart, and people keep referencing it. There's a couple other math errors in the damage and HP, relatively decent guidelines though.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
I'll admit, I'd rather folks just listed average damage rather than dice, but folks like listing their dice. 
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
It should be required. 

Putting aside the game system, and focusing just on the narrative:  why should a scrub who just futzes around with his abilities, choice of equipment, and training stand even a snowball's chance in a dragon's breath...er, of surviving a dragon's breath?

You should have to put effort into being good at not getting killed, otherwise you should get killed.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Up to date monster chart from lv1-30 (thanks to Sly Flourish)

slyflourish.com/master_dm_sheet.pdf

Just a quick note, average AC and FRW are one point too high on that chart.


Yeah, I have no idea why this +15 AC +13 NADs lie gets perpetuated when WotC released something official saying it's 14 and 12 (Brutes have 2 lower AC, Soldiers have 2 higher AC so the average doesn't even change).

Well, I guess I know now, some stubborn jackhole at sly flourish doesn't feel like updating his chart, and people keep referencing it. There's a couple other math errors in the damage and HP, relatively decent guidelines though.


It's because they use numbers for level 1 characters and monsters, and forget that +1 actually changes the number.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I'll admit, I'd rather folks just listed average damage rather than dice, but folks like listing their dice. 

To be fair, not everyone knows (or can be bothered to figure out) the average damage by die type.

(This next part not directed at the person I'm quoting, or any other CharOp regulars.) For anyone who's somehow wandered in here without knowing average damage per die:
Generally, it's half the max for the die +0.5 (e.g., 2.5 for a d4, 5.5 for a d10).  Or you could actually figure it out yourselves, since averaging is not exactly rocket surgery. =P

I made a cheatsheet that converts all the damage expressions to d6+X through heroic and 2d6+X through paragon and epic, with the caveat of dealing 1d6 extra damage per tier on a non-minion crit. As a result, all I need in front of me are d20's and d6's. Each DM out there will have their own preferences, and tweak their charts in whatever way serves their needs. 
The problem is that having Xd6 + Y isn't any more helpful for looking at something that does Fd12 + G and figuring out if it's on par. Especially if the person can't figure out averages

So you're better off just listing:

L1:
Low: 7
Med: 9
High: 11
High Ltd: 13 


Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
Also, for those that do have trouble figuring out what the average is of one or more damage die, particularly when you start using brutal, it's much easier to add the lowest possible to the highest possible, and divide by 2.


1d6 brutal 2 +5 then is lowest 8, highest 11, average 9.5.



  
Also, for those that do have trouble figuring out what the average is of one or more damage die, particularly when you start using brutal, it's much easier to add the lowest possible to the highest possible, and divide by 2.


1d6 brutal 2 +5 then is lowest 8, highest 11, average 9.5.



  



When I do brutal I always mentally change the die amount.

2d6b1  = 2d5+2 ~ 8
1d12b3 = 1d9+3 ~ 8

Edit: I also hate having brutal on monsters. 
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
Brutal 1 is just +0.5 average damage and Brutal 2 is just +1 average damage, per die. If you have a cheat sheet/don't want to do the math. It's an average of two numbers just increasing by 1, so it just goes up by 1/2 each time. 
XdY BZ = Xd(Y-B) + XZ

for the curious
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Wow.  I've gotten a lot more replies, and good ones at that, than what I was expecting out of this post.  I was expecting the stereotypical "Suck it up" responses.  Instead, I've gotten a ton of useful information about how to DM, what monster's attack, damage, and defenses should be, and some general information on how to keep fights from simply being a beatdown feast (either way) each time.

Thank you to everyone who posted help and advice on here.  It's very much appreciated.
Wow.  I've gotten a lot more replies, and good ones at that, than what I was expecting out of this post.  I was expecting the stereotypical "Suck it up" responses.  Instead, I've gotten a ton of useful information about how to DM, what monster's attack, damage, and defenses should be, and some general information on how to keep fights from simply being a beatdown feast (either way) each time.

Thank you to everyone who posted help and advice on here.  It's very much appreciated.


Oh crap, I forgot this was CharOp!

STFU NOOB, Clearly your Problem is that You just Suck and don't understand the game as well as we do, because we're smarter than you, and drive bugati's, and date spanish news weatherladies.

(Please don't ORC me, that was all in complete jest, except the last part <3 ya Maria!)
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
Oh crap, I forgot this was CharOp!

STFU NOOB, Clearly your Problem is that You just Suck and don't understand the game as well as we do, because we're smarter than you, and drive bugati's, and date spanish news weatherladies.

(Please don't ORC me, that was all in complete jest, except the last part <3 ya="" maria="" quote="" br="" class="mbQuoteSpacer">

Ah, now my forum experience is complete.  You can't have posting without someone calling someone else a FNG.  Oh, and great sci-fi series, btw.