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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8494139" data-attributes="member: 6987520">(bold added)Hmm, ok, just to make certain I am understanding you (please correct me if I'm wrong):1. Spamming attack is a problem because it is tedious (short of using a magic item this was an issue from the beginning of D&D IMO). In combat, pure martials are always attacking in one fashion or another (Paladins and Rangers obviously have spells, which is why I say "pure").2. Your conception to master the battlefield via brains (more or less some form of tactics I would think?) is trying to influence the scope of the encounter in a more meaningful way. Similar to how a single spell could turn the tide due to mass effect, finding something that martials could do would even the field (no pun intended).My first PC was a magic-user, and back then my concern was just keeping him alive until he had enough HP to handle common threats. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Well, I don't know if that is the right question, but certainly a valid one!As far as the martials stupid thing, to me that is mostly about the player. But, I get your point, because even a clever player is limited by the scope of what their PC can do. But even in that light, many of the suggestions still revolve around combat (understandably) or don't really take way from the "stupid" thing (Hulk leap and smash, for instance!).Can you give me an example of something you feel that would take away from the dichotomy, particularly outside of combat?</blockquote>

Verification