Originally posted by NephthysIt was the Kobold Hall adventure for 4e. Young White Dragon is only a level 3 solo encounter (meaning it takes 4 level 3 characters to fight it alone)
Geez, if you're killing dragons at level 3 I think you might be min-maxing a little too much.Or the setting is just too easy.
And I do tend to min-max quite a bit. Justified simply by, "I can't role-play worth a damn yet" and that my group tends to make a very, very low optimized characters. So low that if I do not, a Level-3 appropriate encounter could kill us.
Originally posted by Stealth MoosePfft. Imho, 3.5 is FAR more powergamer friendly. See: Batman Wizard. Pun-Pun. Tippyverse. Uberchargers. CoDzilla. Etc etc.
No, that's 4e. Powergamer friendly.I will never leave 3.5. Never.
4e at least lets things keep up with the casters, meaning I don;t have to work my azz off to keep the rest of the party alive.
Originally posted by Pwned
Pfft. Imho, 3.5 is FAR more powergamer friendly. See: Batman Wizard. Pun-Pun. Tippyverse. Uberchargers. CoDzilla. Etc etc.4e at least lets things keep up with the casters, meaning I don;t have to work my azz off to keep the rest of the party alive.
Don't even go there. You can munchkin-ize any version of DnD, but 4e basically takes all the work out of it and streamlines the entire system, while bastardizing and streamlining much of the core elements, gods, races, etc.
Originally posted by Pwned
4e is honestly probably the easiest of them to learn.Stealth, its just been my observation that with 4e, the munchkinizing typically goes to a similiar degree due to the streamlining. Previous editions only the powergame tends to munchkin due to the amount of stuff required to do it properly.
I won't deny that some people munchkinize their characters. (There's some monks that make Cleric John Preston and Jet Li look like they're standing still) But 4e again, I could not love. And I do have the handbook, back from a time when I ran a character in a 4e setting. It just felt like someone had dumbed-down DnD. And no small dragon should ever be a level 3 group enemy, unless that group are you know, level 3 deities.
Pffft, a level 3 deity would still be at least a CR 20. All his domain powers as SLA at-will? 20 outsider HD? Crap tons of immunities and bonuses? Yeah.
4e is simpler, yeah, but I enjoy it from time to time when I want to be a melee guy and do a 300-esque slaughter time. 3.5, I only play casters. The melee sucks way too much compared to them.
Honestly, I enjoy both editions depending on the mood, and I have never quite gotten why people hate 4e so much. Sure, its simpler, but its not ment to be played like 3.5 is. Admittedly, 4e is pretty much an experiment for balance in the classes and such, and from the playtest of 5e, I think that the stuff they learned is being put to good use.
Originally posted by DarthTheDominatBecause they enjoy it, I imagine.
Honestly why do people think The Avengers was such a good film? I've already expressed my dislike of it in the general discussion forum but really, could somebody enlighten me as to how it's anything more than a "good" action film with high production values?
Why does anyone like something?
But that is the thing. People don't seem to be able to give subjective reasons for it. I acknowledge that it is opinion that the storytelling in the films is incredibly poor and almost nonexistant. But even the people who liked the film will agree. What they liked is the action, but people have not provided reasons for why they enjoyed watching objects crashing into other objects, some living, some inanimate, for over an hour. This isn't like a boxing scene where there is real artistry behind the choreography. The action in Avengers was purely loud noises and big visuals in the form of crashes and explosions and the like. When it gets down to it people are unable to provide reasons for liking such mindless action. And it's probably because of the use of hypnotism and subconscious seeds that trick you into thinking that you are enjoying it that many shady filmmakers employ in their productions.
That's because you're not asking them what they like the movie, you're asking them to justify it, which, again, is anathema to a subjective decision. Asking "why do people like action movies" isn't something you can answer in a paragraph. There's decades of research conducted by psychologists/sociologists on why exactly on-screen violence appeals to people. It's an innate feeling, not a conscious decision. People don't consciously decide to enjoy violent movies.
I liked the movie because I thought it was funny and I like how Whedon handled the main cast.
The characters are fun and well developed. If there's something Whedon can do, it's write a group of fun characters and make them all interesting, relevent and enjoyable to watch. Furthermore, Avengers is just an extremely well executed film. It's well directed, well acted and theres a true energy on the screen. It just has that Awesome factor to it.