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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DreamChaser" data-source="post: 952334" data-attributes="member: 1190">The problem with this argument is that it can be adapted for any class (except fighter and barbarian) and any situtation without ever leaving combat behind.--> My DM runs tons of combat but we never leave the city.  (There goes druid and ranger).--> My DM runs tons of combat but it is always against creatures with tons of SR (there goes wizard and sorcerer).--> My DM runs tons of combat but it is always against undead (there goes rogue).--> My DM runs tons of combat but there is never any undead (there goes cleric).--> My DM runs tons of combat but he also runs a world with relative morality so truely evil creatures are rare (there goes paladin).Do I like the 3.0 bard as it stands in the PH?  No.  Not really.  I think it lacks flavor.  It tries so hard to be a performer but then drops the ball at the last second.  I use Monte's bard.Will I like the 3.5 bard?  I don't know.  I'll have to check the whole package and decide.I don't see the bard as being useless in combat or even a "cohort" class, even as written in the 3.0 PH.  I think that it is a matter of style.  I have watched people drop the ball on any number of classes.  --> I had a gamer who masacred the idea of a druid so thoroughly I wondered what could have possibly gone wrong.--> I had a woman who could not for the life of her play a rogue (no matter how many times she tried) because she could not stop herself from running in on the first charge.  She had fighter insticts and they got in the way.Some of the people I've dealth with noticed that they are not really fit for the class.  Others have feel that I messed up somewhere or that there was an intrinsic problem with the class.I remember one guy who got really ticked because the healer/illusionist was more effective in combat than his druid/invoker (this was homebrew 2e).  He had all the direct damage spells but was painfully uninventive with them.  She had very few direct damage spells but managed to be very inventive with what she had and managed to adapt her nondamage spells to great effect.He blamed me for his lack of ability to play the class.  I rolled my eyes.Not everyone is suited to every class, even if they like the idea of it.  That does not make it the classes fault.  Nor is it really their fault.There are plenty of varients of most of the classes.  Use one more suited to your style if you DM is up for it.  It is OUR game after all.  Not everyone has to like the same things.  The core books are just that: the core.  We can expand as much as we like...we can even do it legally.DCI for the record, cannot play paladins.  For a while I thought it was because the code was too vague or too strict (figure that out) but it turns out that I just could not stand the perfect goodness in the class.  Only a very liberal DM would ever allow me to get away with the crap I would try to pull.  Not a flaw in the class; just a bad fit for me.</blockquote>

Verification