Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 4500027" data-attributes="member: 7635">This might be where we differ then...The number #1 group activity in D&D is combat. Each character before 3e had a definitive role in combat. A fighter fought toe-to-toe. A wizard unloaded devistating damaging spells. A cleric healed and buffed and also fought in melee. A thief? Well, it couldn't fight like a fighter (or even a cleric) and couldn't cast like a cleric or wizard. In combat (after it may/may not have gotten in its single backstab, I found them rare in older D&D) he was pretty useless. I never bought the "useless in combat, useful elsewhere" line. With the sole exception of the fighter (who classicaly reversed it) every other class had in-combat and out-of-combat abilities. Wizards had all manner of useful spells out of combat (divinations, enchantments, transmutations) and clerics had more out of combat spells than in (healing, divination, protection). Druids could tell if water was poisonous and then turn into a bear and maul you. Bards cast arcane/druid spells (depending on edition) and paladins and rangers also gain limited casting (as well as ranger track/survival skills and paladin healing). Every other class, for the most part, could do something cool in-and-out of combat. Thieves were one-trick ponies.Personally, I think the 3e SA was the best route, expanded to affect all monsters (not just those with anatomies.) It gave them something in combat (perhaps too much when coupled with multiple atks, but that could be fixed) as well as some defensive abilities (evasion, uncanny dodge) that fit with agile combatant well. Now, I feel I'm contributing on both-sides of the game (sneaky/social/traps, as well as a solid blow or two in combat).</blockquote>

Verification