Fun Stuff > CLIKC

Dungeons and Dragons Online

<< < (3/4) > >>

Alex C:
Yeah, but before then they're crazy buffing machines that bring counter magic, craft wands and scrolls and can use illusions to take on a minor scouting role if necessary. Meanwhile, monks of the same level range punch things and scout. Lower level mages are more useful than glamorous, but they're still definitely worth bringing along. Plus, it almost never pays to try and deal damage as a mage, tbh. I always just look to throw out the bare minimum of disabling spells needed to tip the battle to our favor and then I hold back, maybe throwing in some minor spells with my wands or something. I'm the kind of weirdo that thinks Rope Trick and Stinking Cloud are actually probably better than Fireball, all things considered.


And c'mon, we can all agree that druids and clerics were at least as ridiculous in 3.x as monks ever were in 3.0, right? I mean, they still had spell slot limitations, but the ability to have know such a wide variety of spells made them obscene if they had any chance to customize their spell load out for the coming encounter. Even if they didn't have a chance to do that, lord knows there's nothing wrong with just prancing around casting Hold Person and Divine Power before mashing everyone with your mace.

Bastardous Bassist:
I can agree with you there.  My last DM (before I moved and started DMing 4th edition) thought that druids and clerics were terrible.  I had no idea where he got that from; he was otherwise very smart about D&D.  Also, I was in no way implying that wizards were worse than monks ever.  Of course, you're talking to a guy who kept trying to develop a bard into a duelist, which resulted in the worst of everything.  Still, I loved the character and I'm in general against twinking.

Alex C:
Yeah, I know I come across as a min maxer at times, but I do such analysis in part to figure out how to keep things even. It's kinda sad when one class has to actively hold itself back a bit to not overshadow even a twinked version of a weaker class. For example, when I play 3.x clerics I often to just stick to the bandaid role rather than proactively stomp around like a jacked up Fighter with crowd control spells and a small fleet of skeletal servants, particularly if we have a new player in the group. It's not the newbie's fault that the classic sword 'n' board fighter in 3rd sucks, after all. By all rights such an archetype should work better than it does, but sadly the dice don't lie.

Bastardous Bassist:
I am a terrible min maxer in D&D video games, because I want to achieve the most that I can on my first playthrough.  However, with the table-top version, I'm much more character-driven.

Alex C:
Yeah, in table top I tend to min-max the hell out of weak classes so I can fit an archetype I like without being a complete waste and play the powerful ones super casual, although often times a gm is initially taken aback a bit by some of the sheets I come up with. For example, I really do like the warrior archetype. At heart, I'm a melee guy more often than not. That just doesn't always work out in high fantasy or sci-fi settings though when other guys aren't afraid to throw their abilities around. I just try to fit the table I'm at, basically.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page