Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7187424" data-attributes="member: 29398">You're saying I can't get thespian with a one-hit wonder?Were you and I at the same table when you said that, my next words would be &quot;Just sit down in that chair right there and let me show you how it's done.&quot;There's so many assumptions baked into this statement that I'm not sure where to start.First off, as a player I still get to see the story - the party's story (which is the one that matters) - play out even if my own role at the table is to, in effect, play a series of bit parts.Second off, in a randomized system there's only so much powergaming one can do (yay!), and skill during play is more important than &quot;build&quot; during roll-up.Third off, you're assuming the individual characters are the protagonists; I approach it from a slightly different view: the party as a whole is the protagonist, though its internal makeup may be in more or less constant flux.As soon as I see the words &quot;damage per round&quot; my first reaction is to want to just skip to the next post; as all they make me think of is 3e-style powergaming crap that's largely anathaemic to the way I prefer to play.We did away with most of those caps ages ago.&nbsp; Were they still a thing, I'd probably more or less agree with your assessment.I've found straight Thieves aren't as bad at combat as you seem to think...provided they don't just wade into the front line and try going toe to toe:Round 1 - sneak into position and hideRound 2 - sneak in, two-weapon backstrike, back out when possible if foe not deadRound 3 - move and hideRound 4 - sneak in, two-weapon backstrike ... (etc.)Now this doesn't work with all opponents, but it's a fine start.No you don't.&nbsp; The MU's no-armour restriction trumps the Fighter-side's ability to wear it, assuming you ever want to cast any spells.Lanefan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7187424, member: 29398"] You're saying I can't get thespian with a one-hit wonder? Were you and I at the same table when you said that, my next words would be "Just sit down in that chair right there and let me show you how it's done." There's so many assumptions baked into this statement that I'm not sure where to start. First off, as a player I still get to see the story - the party's story (which is the one that matters) - play out even if my own role at the table is to, in effect, play a series of bit parts. Second off, in a randomized system there's only so much powergaming one can do (yay!), and skill during play is more important than "build" during roll-up. Third off, you're assuming the individual characters are the protagonists; I approach it from a slightly different view: the party as a whole is the protagonist, though its internal makeup may be in more or less constant flux. As soon as I see the words "damage per round" my first reaction is to want to just skip to the next post; as all they make me think of is 3e-style powergaming crap that's largely anathaemic to the way I prefer to play. We did away with most of those caps ages ago. Were they still a thing, I'd probably more or less agree with your assessment. I've found straight Thieves aren't as bad at combat as you seem to think...provided they don't just wade into the front line and try going toe to toe: Round 1 - sneak into position and hide Round 2 - sneak in, two-weapon backstrike, back out when possible if foe not dead Round 3 - move and hide Round 4 - sneak in, two-weapon backstrike ... (etc.) Now this doesn't work with all opponents, but it's a fine start. No you don't. The MU's no-armour restriction trumps the Fighter-side's ability to wear it, assuming you ever want to cast any spells. Lanefan [/QUOTE]

Verification