|
5 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2008 - 1:11PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Jul 14, 2008
|
Since it does take those items into account AND the lack of a simple +1 can kill the party, the items are indeed needed.
No, they aren't. I have a sword and board fighter (human, not optimized), who made it to 4th without any magical gear (I just bought my +1 plate and got my +1 longsword, because I figure he's due for a reward). I definitely see where the +1 would help, and I admit it will add up as I increase in levels if I don't keep getting the bonuses. But, I could have done just fine (haven't hit 0 yet) without magic (as I did). And again, magic items aren't important, just the bonuses (which the core book told us how to get without items).
One-half of the tabletop gaming news podcast Going LastCo-author on AoA 2-3 and 4-1.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2008 - 1:12PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
That, sir, is quite ridiculous.
Not according to the 4ed experts. According to them, I can make a character with a 14 in the prime stat and be fine, but with a 12 I will fail. That is a +1 difference.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2008 - 1:13PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Apr 22, 2004
|
A Monty Hall campaign is hardly a shining example of "need". Other than the sword, none of those items was "needed", and that assumes he's a melee fighter. If he's ranged, then the bow is the ONE item "needed".
Actually that was following the wealth by level guidelines, and erring on the side of under-funding the PCs. The character in question played both melee and ranged. If we follow your argument, then the only thing needed by a 4E ranger is a magic bow, because of course he'll never get hit, ever.
Jeebus, that's some high level play. I don't think I ever gave out anything better than +5 battle axe/artifact...with lowered plusses, that's about what a party of six had around 10th level in my campaign.
Maybe it's just there are more items at low level? That seems more likely. My higher level dungeons would have more than 4 items, while my lower level ones might only have 1 or two.
Eh, just gotta play a whole campaign in DnD4.0 and see for myself.
Level 20. Went all the way up from 2nd. Truly amazing campaign, despite what Max may assume about it after seeing nothing but a partial item list for one character.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2008 - 1:16PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Nov 10, 2003
|
No, they aren't. I have a sword and board fighter (human, not optimized), who made it to 4th without any magical gear (I just bought my +1 plate and got my +1 longsword, because I figure he's due for a reward). I definitely see where the +1 would help, and I admit it will add up as I increase in levels if I don't keep getting the bonuses. But, I could have done just fine (haven't hit 0 yet) without magic (as I did). And again, magic items aren't important, just the bonuses (which the core book told us how to get without items).
Yeah, that's the thing, you really can't tell 'need' in the first few levels, regardless. I'd have to see something past level 15 or so before 'need' would be the right word.
"Neat to have" sure works well. 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2008 - 1:17PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Nov 10, 2003
|
Not according to the 4ed experts. According to them, I can make a character with a 14 in the prime stat and be fine, but with a 12 I will fail. That is a +1 difference.
Nice. Hmm, I've never even remotely considered making a character with a miserable (in my opinion) prime stat of 14. Gonna have to see what that would look like.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2008 - 1:20PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2007
|
Not according to the 4ed experts. According to them, I can make a character with a 14 in the prime stat and be fine, but with a 12 I will fail. That is a +1 difference.
Who are these "4ed experts," and where can I see/hear them stating this personally?
I ask because there is nothing I can find in the actual gaming product that says this.
Careful, man. That much logic might be illegal on the internet. - Salla
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2008 - 1:22PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Actually that was following the wealth by level guidelines, and erring on the side of under-funding the PCs. The character in question played both melee and ranged. If we follow your argument, then the only thing needed by a 4E ranger is a magic bow, because of course he'll never get hit, ever.
Frankly, the wealth by level guidelines were......excessive. You didn't need half of what they suggested to function well a 3ed game.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2008 - 1:23PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Dec 24, 2007
|
It's not houserule, it is in the core books as option if you want low-magic campaigns.
Exactly. As an option - not standard. Compare standard games. Whatever option you choose to use is fine for gaming, but not for fair comparison - which is what we're attempting here.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.Section Six Soldier Front Door of the House of Trolls If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2008 - 1:24PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Nice. Hmm, I've never even remotely considered making a character with a miserable (in my opinion) prime stat of 14. Gonna have to see what that would look like.
I've been told by many different players that 20 is too much, 16-18 is the sweet spot, and 14 is okay, but low. A 12, absolutely out of the question. That +1 seems to make all the difference. If the game assumes you will need a +5 item, and you have a +2, you're going to fail. That's something that was completely untrue for 3.5.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Oct 24, 2008 - 1:26PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Who are these "4ed experts," and where can I see/hear them stating this personally?
I ask because there is nothing I can find in the actual gaming product that says this.
All the pro-4ed number crunchers. I went through a thread where I said that a 12 SHOULD be fine for someone to put in their prime stat, given that a 12 is above average. I got told over and over again, in no uncertain terms, that a 12 = fail. Many of them said a 14 = fail. However, just as many said a 14 was okay, so 14 seems to be the cut off for success. Lose +1 more with a 12, and game over.
|
|
|
