Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Evaluating the warlord-y Fighter
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6488823" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>Well, a player can't have it both ways. They either play the type of character they want (and sometimes not take the theoretical "best" choices because they don't fit that type), or they maximize their character at the expense of playing the specific "type". If they want to play the character a certain way... then play it. And sod the idea that the PC isn't maxed out with the "best" choices.</p><p></p><p>That's always been one of the most irritating arguments to me that people have made here on the boards. That if a supposedly "superior" choice exists you HAVE to take it even if you don't want it, and <em>shame</em> on WotC for giving it to us because we're now losing out on possibly more flavorful options we would have taken instead. But you know what? That has nothing to do with WotC... that has everything to do with the player's *ego*. The player wants to be able to play a specific character type (taking flavorful options that help get there) *plus* have the satisfaction of designing the VERY BEST character of that type from the options available.</p><p></p><p>So rather than building the character they want by taking options that fit the concept and purposely ignoring options that might be really good but don't necessarily fit (see the 4E "Weapon Expertise" feats)... they want WotC to design or remove features that don't have those better options AT ALL so that they don't HAVE to make that choice. Their ego just can't handle the idea of not always taking the most optimal choice, so they want WotC to take the choice away from them altogether. Which, honestly, is the ultimate in the fragility of mind.</p><p></p><p>If you want to play a cleric refluffed as a warlord and thus don't want to take <em>Hold Person</em> because it doesn't thematically fit as a spell / combat maneuver that you can justify as potentially "non-magical"... then stand up for your choice and accept the restriction you are placing upon yourself to play the type of character you want. Don't bemoan the fact that WotC is *forcing* you to "play poorly" in order to to do it. That's not their job to make you feel better about yourself.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6488823, member: 7006"] Well, a player can't have it both ways. They either play the type of character they want (and sometimes not take the theoretical "best" choices because they don't fit that type), or they maximize their character at the expense of playing the specific "type". If they want to play the character a certain way... then play it. And sod the idea that the PC isn't maxed out with the "best" choices. That's always been one of the most irritating arguments to me that people have made here on the boards. That if a supposedly "superior" choice exists you HAVE to take it even if you don't want it, and [i]shame[/i] on WotC for giving it to us because we're now losing out on possibly more flavorful options we would have taken instead. But you know what? That has nothing to do with WotC... that has everything to do with the player's *ego*. The player wants to be able to play a specific character type (taking flavorful options that help get there) *plus* have the satisfaction of designing the VERY BEST character of that type from the options available. So rather than building the character they want by taking options that fit the concept and purposely ignoring options that might be really good but don't necessarily fit (see the 4E "Weapon Expertise" feats)... they want WotC to design or remove features that don't have those better options AT ALL so that they don't HAVE to make that choice. Their ego just can't handle the idea of not always taking the most optimal choice, so they want WotC to take the choice away from them altogether. Which, honestly, is the ultimate in the fragility of mind. If you want to play a cleric refluffed as a warlord and thus don't want to take [i]Hold Person[/i] because it doesn't thematically fit as a spell / combat maneuver that you can justify as potentially "non-magical"... then stand up for your choice and accept the restriction you are placing upon yourself to play the type of character you want. Don't bemoan the fact that WotC is *forcing* you to "play poorly" in order to to do it. That's not their job to make you feel better about yourself. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Evaluating the warlord-y Fighter
Top