Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6069119" data-attributes="member: 58416">The problem I see with that is that being better at fighting is pretty much always useful in D&amp;D style adventures.Being good at moving through nature is only better if the adventure is taking place in nature.How do you make up for those things not being equally useful?Edit:&nbsp; I'm ok with different classes having different strengths and weaknesses.&nbsp; It doesn't bother me if the fighter is better at combat than the bard, but worse at social interaction.&nbsp; What bothers me is when a class like the cleric is a better cleric than the fighter, but then also ends up being a better fighter than the fighter at the same time.&nbsp; For a more extreme example, it also bothers me that the druid is a far better caster than the fighter, but then the druid also gets what is essentially a fighter sidekick (animal companion) as a class feature... oh, and did I mention that the druid can cast while also being a giant bear?I think it's also worth mentioning that the editions of D&amp;D I'm most familiar with are more weighted toward combat as a solution to problems.&nbsp; I believe this is especially true in 4E.&nbsp; No, I'm not saying the tired old argument that you cannot roleplay with the game.&nbsp; I am merely saying that PCs, their adversaries, encounters, and the game are all built in such a way that might tends to make right more often than not.&nbsp; As such, while I'm ok with the base idea that some classes are better than others in some area, and I'm ok with that idea in a vacuum, I'm not necessarily ok with that idea when applied to what seem to be the modern ideals behind D&amp;D design.&nbsp; If one method of conflict resolution (combat) is most often the right answer to challenges or is most often a better answer to challenges, it stands to reason that a class which is built toward being good at that one method is going to be better than other classes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 6069119, member: 58416"] The problem I see with that is that being better at fighting is pretty much always useful in D&D style adventures. Being good at moving through nature is only better if the adventure is taking place in nature. How do you make up for those things not being equally useful? Edit: I'm ok with different classes having different strengths and weaknesses. It doesn't bother me if the fighter is better at combat than the bard, but worse at social interaction. What bothers me is when a class like the cleric is a better cleric than the fighter, but then also ends up being a better fighter than the fighter at the same time. For a more extreme example, it also bothers me that the druid is a far better caster than the fighter, but then the druid also gets what is essentially a fighter sidekick (animal companion) as a class feature... oh, and did I mention that the druid can cast while also being a giant bear? I think it's also worth mentioning that the editions of D&D I'm most familiar with are more weighted toward combat as a solution to problems. I believe this is especially true in 4E. No, I'm not saying the tired old argument that you cannot roleplay with the game. I am merely saying that PCs, their adversaries, encounters, and the game are all built in such a way that might tends to make right more often than not. As such, while I'm ok with the base idea that some classes are better than others in some area, and I'm ok with that idea in a vacuum, I'm not necessarily ok with that idea when applied to what seem to be the modern ideals behind D&D design. If one method of conflict resolution (combat) is most often the right answer to challenges or is most often a better answer to challenges, it stands to reason that a class which is built toward being good at that one method is going to be better than other classes. [/QUOTE]

Verification