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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hanez" data-source="post: 5827013" data-attributes="member: 82160">Much of what you say has some truth to it.  Of course being able to make your character worse at combat is still possible, but the way you phrase your reply has some misunderstandings.First - D&D has always (until 4e) had, classes that were balanced more towards exploration or social interaction then combat.  This isnt something that anyone is arguing for because it is a part of D&D, instead it is what you are arguing against.Second - When classes were changed to be equal in combat, it added to the MANY reasons people felt 4e created cookie cutter characters.  This is a common complaint against this version of the game.Third - no one wants to restrict YOUR options, I am fine with the Slayer and the Warlord and Invoker, and the Avenger and whatever class continuing with its strengths as defined when it was created.  BUT, the illusionist, and the rogue, and the bard were always classes that focused on other things.  You are the one arguing that a class doesn't fit into your game, not me.  Fourth - Its not only the feeling of playing a difficult class well that is rewarding (as you snidely pointed out), but ALSO the fact that this is based in realism.  If a player wants to roleplay someone in my world whos defining trait is  playing the banjo and not his sword (e.g. the bard), thats fine, but it is PERFECTLY REASONABLE to assume that he will be worse in combat and better at charming kings and bartenders.   If a wizard wants to concentrate on fireworks and figments of illusion instead of fireball, thats fine, but he should know that fireballs roast undead better then illusions.   Not every single choice has to be equal in every venue, just like in real life.  These arent restrictions as you argue, its just a fact of life and a fact of D&D before it was redefined into a glorified board game (which I may add was a failure).These classes were NEVER the mainstream.  They were NEVER meant to be default options for players.  They exist for players who wanted other things, or had some experience and wanted to try something else.  Its not until recently that they had to be  refluffed, redefined, or removed completely.    So its my argument that of course they need to stay as options because it adds more variety to the game.  You say we want  " the best of both worlds, The "roleplay-centric" character that isn't just a combat-junkie  cookie cutter... and the ego-massage of knowing that they took a bad  concept and made it the best.",  you know what I AGREE.  But how is that less offensive then me saying you want WOTC to hold your hand when your make your character and say "dont worry lil defcon you can choose any power you want, theres no worse choices cause we made them all the same, yeah thats right defcon, everyone is always a winner in this version of D&D, we took all the challenging aspects out just for you"</blockquote>

Verification