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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dormammu" data-source="post: 3948878" data-attributes="member: 28738">The best example I can come up with from memory is the intention to make Sneak Attack usable versus almost anything (ie, they are removing immunity from constructs and undead and so forth).Now some people may think "Hey, great!  Rogues now don't struggle in those fights!"  But all I see is that it made sense before and there's nothing wrong with Rogues struggling in those fights.  I see the difference between an RPG (even an über war-gamey one like D&D) and a computer or miniature wargame is that RPGs are reflecting fiction and storytelling.  If you look at stories, the idea of foes that tax the abilities of the character are a fundamental point.Spider-Man cannot beat the hell out of the Juggernaut.  Conan cannot strangle a ghost or hack it to pieces with his sword.  Why can't the inability for a Rogue to "backstab" a stone golem be a place for the Rogue to use brains to help the party in another way?  Maybe he just has to rely on his companions more in that fight.  It's ok, when they need to get into the fortress and they wait for him to scale the wall and let them in he'll get to pay the favor back.There are other decisions similar to this.  The "fire elementals aren't immune to fire" discussion elsewhere on the boards come to mind.  The idea of Clerics being healers who don't have to spend actions to heal so they can still kick ass is another case.  They're just dumb imo because its the designers balancing combat to the point where commonsense story elements are being sacrificed.  It's also making the roles of the different classes more generic.  How is it cooler to make sure every character can attack to do damage every round all the time?  There was a time when that's what defined Fighters.</blockquote>

Verification