Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6175478" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Remind me of how many new players have come to your game, and how many new GM's you have played with, in the past 10 years or so.&nbsp; Have you not been telling us you play with the same group over many years?I think considering bards uniformly silly is as clear an expression of bias as any I have ever seen, which pretty clearly illustrates the point that most people have a tough time acknowledging their own biases.It seems no less biased than your glowing description of a Warlord followed by &quot;some minstrel&quot;.I'm sure we could poke any number of holes in the build or tactics of the witch with a full description.&nbsp; We would have some posters who conclude the witch should have mopped the floor with the PC's and others who feel the witch should have known he/she was completely outclassed and never even engaged.To me, the first thing I look for in a solo spellcaster is &quot;how many ways does this character have to evade, deter or get out of a melee&quot;, because once closed in melee, that spellcaster is dead.&nbsp; [Sidenote: No Lich needs any 4th level spell other than Dimension Door!]&nbsp; If the witch lacked the Fly hex, or ever landed to let the PC's engage in melee, that seems a tactically poor choice against four or more armed, armored adversaries.Whereas you, of course, would be a consummate professional in your own line of work...NO QUOTEYou've commented above about the work of trying new systems.&nbsp; D&amp;D with dozens of house rules and modifications is just as much a &quot;new system&quot;, and a lot of work to get into.&nbsp; This is one reason players with limited time on their hands prefer one (or a few) favoured systems and prefer playing the game without a slew of house rules in each game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="N'raac, post: 6175478, member: 6681948"] Remind me of how many new players have come to your game, and how many new GM's you have played with, in the past 10 years or so. Have you not been telling us you play with the same group over many years? I think considering bards uniformly silly is as clear an expression of bias as any I have ever seen, which pretty clearly illustrates the point that most people have a tough time acknowledging their own biases. It seems no less biased than your glowing description of a Warlord followed by "some minstrel". I'm sure we could poke any number of holes in the build or tactics of the witch with a full description. We would have some posters who conclude the witch should have mopped the floor with the PC's and others who feel the witch should have known he/she was completely outclassed and never even engaged. To me, the first thing I look for in a solo spellcaster is "how many ways does this character have to evade, deter or get out of a melee", because once closed in melee, that spellcaster is dead. [Sidenote: No Lich needs any 4th level spell other than Dimension Door!] If the witch lacked the Fly hex, or ever landed to let the PC's engage in melee, that seems a tactically poor choice against four or more armed, armored adversaries. Whereas you, of course, would be a consummate professional in your own line of work... NO QUOTE You've commented above about the work of trying new systems. D&D with dozens of house rules and modifications is just as much a "new system", and a lot of work to get into. This is one reason players with limited time on their hands prefer one (or a few) favoured systems [B]and[/B] prefer playing the game without a slew of house rules in each game. [/QUOTE]

Verification