Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8086200" data-attributes="member: 12731">No.Ever since 3rd edition, the design intent has been that every class needs to be competent in combat, since that is the cornerstone of D&D gameplay.Have some classes do okay in social or exploratory, while others don't.But not at the expense at combat power.Remember the 3E Bard. The assumption that being 50% as good at many roles equals being 100% good in just one role did not hold up.Instead make every class 100% good at combat*. If you have a class with zero abilities outside of combat that might just MAYBE justify it getting to be 105% or 110% good in combat TOPS, even though other classes might reach 50%, 90% or even 100% proficiency in social or exploratory.*) somehow. Obviously it's fine - expected even - that some are tanks, some are damage dealers, and some are healers and buffers. As long as everyone has a role to play in combat and none come across as the fifth wheel in combat.Playing a "simple" fighter is a choice. Your reward and compensation for not getting any ability in exploration or social is... having a class that is simple to play.Don't expect any compensation for your lack of social or exploratory abilities. The simpleness of your choice of class is more than enough reward.</blockquote>