|
5 years ago ::
Oct 06, 2008 - 12:21PM
#631
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
My 4e group has several PCs who weren't made with optimization in mind. We're also a man down (running KotS with 4, and no wizard until the last 2 sessions). Good tactics are still keeping us in fine shape, however (and now that we have a wizard, our tactics are really good!). The DM has even talked about beefing up future encounters. If one of the other PCs were a little weaker yet, I think we'd still be OK. Even though no one PC can win encounters, it's very possible to play without a group of powerhouses. If we actually had a 5 man party, someone could be really, really bad without dragging us down. I don't see how that would be fun, but maybe that's my problem 
That's cool. Sounds like both editions are in the same boat, there.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 06, 2008 - 12:33PM
#632
|
|
|
That's cool. Sounds like both editions are in the same boat, there.
You'll see a lot of people posting stuff here like "You need an 18 in your attack stat just to be average, a 20 to be good!" and it really isn't true. As always, DMs vary, so if you have a DM who routinely hits you with level +2 encounters all day long, you might actually need to have a PC on the cutting edge of optimization. But the reality is that you can mostly ignore optimization and just pick stuff that sounds neat, as long as your whole party doesn't think "neat" means dumping your attack stats, throwing magic items in the trash, and only using basic attacks.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 06, 2008 - 12:37PM
#633
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2008
|
Pretty much. A 14 is all that's really needed to get the job done in a stat. (Grant it I hope you are shooting for some kind of multiclass build there) 16 is around average to good. 18 is good.. 20 is you've sacrificed way to much to get a 20 (assuming you aren't rolling).
A 16 in your high stat (as your high stat after adjustment even) can handle pretty much the entire range the dm can throw at you (up to five levels higher than you in other words) and you can get by allright. You'll do better with an 18 there instead but a 16 gets the job done.
I'd say a 14 works probably up to three levels higher.
A 20, and it's your character and all.. but I think you've dumped way too much just to have a "super awesome and win" stat.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 06, 2008 - 12:47PM
#634
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2005
|
I can never seem to participate in these kinds of discussions as much as I'd like, because everyone insists on using "role-playing" to mean "everything you do that isn't combat", and I don't see it that way at all. To me, everything you do in an RPG is role-playing, or it should be. At the same time I think that D&D - every edition, more or less to the same degree - is a game that heavily focuses on combat. It is a game about exploring dungeons and killing monsters. So in a game like D&D, you're always role-playing and you're usually in combat.
It really bothers me when people marginalize combat in D&D and treat it as this little diversion that's maybe fun in tiny doses because to me, this is the game. This is why I have these books and dice and character sheets. I've been in games where the number of dice rolled averaged maybe 1/hour. These games consisted mostly of the players method-acting at each other - while I sit, bored, because I want to PLAY D&D.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 06, 2008 - 1:02PM
#635
|
|
|
Pretty much. A 14 is all that's really needed to get the job done in a stat. (Grant it I hope you are shooting for some kind of multiclass build there) 16 is around average to good. 18 is good.. 20 is you've sacrificed way to much to get a 20 (assuming you aren't rolling).
A 16 in your high stat (as your high stat after adjustment even) can handle pretty much the entire range the dm can throw at you (up to five levels higher than you in other words) and you can get by allright. You'll do better with an 18 there instead but a 16 gets the job done.
I'd say a 14 works probably up to three levels higher.
A 20, and it's your character and all.. but I think you've dumped way too much just to have a "super awesome and win" stat.
Yeah, 20s are often foolish. However, a 20 Int wizard or 20 Dex rogue or archery ranger could work, since they would all get a benefit to AC and Ref. Con would be a little low, except for a staff wizard who put a 14 there. A 20 Con Hell-lock would also work, since he'd be really, really tough. But yeah, a 20 (or 18 w/out racial mods) generally is asking for trouble. I'm baffled every time I see someone saying you "need" an 18-20. I wonder if some people are trying to get other people's characters killed :p
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 06, 2008 - 1:05PM
#636
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2008
|
Yeah, 20s are often foolish. However, a 20 Int wizard or 20 Dex rogue or archery ranger could work, since they would all get a benefit to AC and Ref. Con would be a little low, except for a staff wizard who put a 14 there. A 20 Con Hell-lock would also work, since he'd be really, really tough. But yeah, a 20 (or 18 w/out racial mods) generally is asking for trouble. I'm baffled every time I see someone saying you "need" an 18-20. I wonder if some people are trying to get other people's characters killed :p
Given the scum and villainy that roams these forums that would not surprise me in the least. :P
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 06, 2008 - 1:10PM
#637
|
|
|
I can never seem to participate in these kinds of discussions as much as I'd like, because everyone insists on using "role-playing" to mean "everything you do that isn't combat", and I don't see it that way at all. To me, everything you do in an RPG is role-playing, or it should be. At the same time I think that D&D - every edition, more or less to the same degree - is a game that heavily focuses on combat. It is a game about exploring dungeons and killing monsters. So in a game like D&D, you're always role-playing and you're usually in combat.
It really bothers me when people marginalize combat in D&D and treat it as this little diversion that's maybe fun in tiny doses because to me, this is the game. This is why I have these books and dice and character sheets. I've been in games where the number of dice rolled averaged maybe 1/hour. These games consisted mostly of the players method-acting at each other - while I sit, bored, because I want to PLAY D&D.
No kidding eh. I play D&D coz I want to roll dice and kill stuff. What's up with all the people who just wants to walk and talk.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 06, 2008 - 1:11PM
#638
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2006
|
Got news for you, that character would have been railroaded out of a lot of 3E games, too -- and probably with the same groups of people that would railroad it out of 4E.
Actually it's really up in the air whether or not that character would be kicked, as all we know about it is it has low Int, high Cha, and took Bluff instead of Theivery. As a 3rd ED Bard you can make an invincible build or a total wreck using those guidelines, and I'm willing to bet in 4th that will remain true (with Cha probably being the bards go to stat and Int or Dex being secondary.) There's no reason to kick that character because of it's build, because it doesn't have a build just a RP concept and a strange sense of certainty that being good at RP means you obviously suck at combat. The rest of the post is similarly flawed.
Well... At least we got custom avatars....
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 06, 2008 - 1:13PM
#639
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2008
|
No kidding eh. I play D&D coz I want to roll dice and kill stuff. What's up with all the people who just wants to walk and talk.
I play it for the combat aspect a lot more than the talking (although a bit of that is fun), however, I do not like predictable combats, I like knowing that I could die to a save or die (yes, someone is going to bring up my experience with D&D, as if I cared at this point (I play online too guys)), it makes the game feel like a gunfight in real life actually (except no cover and variable effectiveness body armor).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 06, 2008 - 1:19PM
#640
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2008
|
I play it for the combat aspect a lot more than the talking (although a bit of that is fun), however, I do not like predictable combats, I like knowing that I could die to a save or die (yes, someone is going to bring up my experience with D&D, as if I cared at this point (I play online too guys)), it makes the game feel like a gunfight in real life actually (except no cover and variable effectiveness body armor).
If you think Fourth Edition combat is predictable you've not even looked within the confines of the Phb. Much less actually played it.
|
|
|
