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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 67114" data-attributes="member: 2205">Nobody has addressed my question, really.  My question is, is this class balanced against a fully utilized fighter (for example).  Questions about issues like "well, making sacrifices to the potential of the class is what D&D is all about, because you have to weaken your character to play a concept that differs from the core archetype" which is what I've heard a number of times, have nothing whatsoever to do with what I asked, and to me, reflect a narrow D&D-ish paradigm that doesn't even seem to realise that in many other games you can essentially create your own class in this way, and it doesn't make it any more powerful than a D&D core class.Of course not, nobody has responded with a post that really addressed balance against core classes, they've only addressed balance against multiclassed characters.  That's not really my question.  And the issue of making sacrifices in order to create a custom concept I've already responded to.  Of course I'm not going to agree with those posts, because I fundamentally don't agree with that archaism in D&D.Yes, but in your last quote you thought I was still taking a fighter's feat progression.  I don't know what to make of your evaluation because you haven't yet evaluated the concept as presented.  I'm also not convinced that I can actually do that much more damage.  In order to use bluff/sneak attack, I have to give up an attack.  I don't really do mathematical analysis of my character's killing potential, but I'd be willing to wager that the extra damage I'd get from sneak attack wouldn't be as high as what I could get from an extra attack.  A point that all the munchkin-criers have yet to address.So what?  It's not like I didn't give up anything.  The favored enemy and spell-casting are significant abilities from the ranger that I did not retain.  The uncanny dodge and other rogue abilities are significant advantages that I did not retain.I've already posted my thoughts on the fallacy that I find role-playing balance to be in any game I've played in years, recognizing that for some its still an important aspect of the game.  And so what if I get rid of goodies I don't want in favor of goodies I do?  What does that have to do with anything?  If I play a fighter to his full potential, I use all of his goodies and don't miss out on what I don't have.  Is a fighter in all his glory still weak compared to my character concept?  I don't think so.  Nobody has really shown me that it is otherwise.  Nobody has even addressed it except to say things like "in D&D you have to give something up to get something else."  That's BS.  And, it's only true if you want to play outside of the core archetypes anyway.  My point is that I wanted to create a character that was also fully utilized, unlike multiclassed characters, but who wasn't more powerful than a fully utilized fighter, rogue, cleric, etc.  Nobody has even addressed this yet, so of course I disagree with much of what has been posted here regarding my concept.</blockquote>

Verification