Neonchameleon
Legend
On the other hand you can play the odds. There are times when scouting as the rogue is detrimental. All they can do is play the odds.But that's the thing. How would your wizard truly know the familiar isn't the right tool? If all your wizard knows is that the enemy's base is ahead, why wouldn't they do what they always do? It may end up being detrimental, but the wizard might not be able to predict it.
At times yes. First the shadow monk and the rogue can not fly. Or slip through tiny spaces. Secondly if you do something too foolish with your familiar the immediate consequences are that you need 10GP of incense and 10 minutes. Meanwhile if you do something too foolish with the sort of people that are paranoid enough to have deliberate anti-familiar protections and you're playing a monk or a shadow rogue the immediate consequences may be that you need to roll up a new character.But are they better than the shadow monk or the rogue?
Is the familiar always better? No. You play the odds. And playing the odds is part of the skills of any PC.
The wizard isn't specialised in stealthing either. But despite not being specialised it has a tool that is basically unlimited use that means that there are situations it's better than the shadow monk or rogue.Plus, even a strength fighter can give up 1 AC as long as they have a +2 dex, and not have stealth disadvantage.
But a fighter isn't specialized in stealthing, so again, what about the shadow monk and rogue?
So: Fighter and wizard are both unspecialised at stealthing. And because of the presence of one spell that doesn't even use a spell slot you want me to compare the wizard with the two most strongly stealth-focused options in the game. I think that speaks volumes about the difference in adaptability, don't you?
The familiar is never detrimental. Sometimes it is better to not use it and instead either park it on your shoulder or dismiss it. But that doesn't make having the option detrimental unless there's an actual trade-off.But sometimes the familiar is detrimental.
Indeed. And there is no reason it shouldn't.It's clear you're displeased with the fighter, but your interpretation of the fighter doesn't prove it underperforms anywhere. It just means you have a preference and the
fighter doesn't provide that for you.
The question is what doesn't? Why do you want other people to not have fun playing what they want to?The question is: what makes your distaste for fighter a priority?
If they can suggest reasonable ways to simplify the barbarian I'll support them. One of the two issues here is that the fight-only musclehead is more barbarian than fighter. The other is that variety is good.Let's flip it. Some people have the opinion that the fighter, and all martials, are too complex to enjoy their fantasy of fight-only musclehead. Do you think your opinion holds more merit than the
I'll also support the simple pyromancer as a concept so it's easy to play a spellcaster.