Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 4303144" data-attributes="member: 307">No, because the house rule isn't the basis for the point I was making. It was asserted that no group of D&amp;D players would put up with someone as a member of the party who was &quot;sub-par&quot; in their ability to contribute to combat situations. I listed several examples from my own experience in which this was decidedly not true. I listed one in which the character was even more hampered by the inclusion of a house rule and low physical ststs and yet was one of the most popular characters in the party - so much so that when the player replaced him with a more &quot;combat capable&quot; character (a standard dwarven cleric) the party went out of its way to have the original character resurrected and brought back into play.The existence of the house rule does nothing to change the point I was making.Yes, you could in 4e, but according to the designers, this is an &quot;unfun&quot; choice, since you won't be a combat monster any more. Of course, they have protected you from making such &quot;unfun&quot; choices by ensuring that even if you do, you will have so many combat skills remaining that it won't matter. But that's not the point I was making by bringing up this character. I was specifically responding to this claim:I pointed out that not only had I seen and had fun playing in or DMing for groups with such characters, but character with even less combat focused prowess than these were popular, well-liked characters.I never said 3e was &quot;all about noncombat&quot;. I said it allowed you to make character with a variety of abilities, not all of which are focused on ensuring that everyone is a combat specialist. This is different than 4e, because in 4e, no matter what, you are a combat specialist. 4e protects you from making the &quot;wrong&quot; choice where &quot;wrong&quot; is defined as &quot;anything that makes you less effective at bonking monsters over the head&quot;. That's a step backwards to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Storm Raven, post: 4303144, member: 307"] No, because the house rule isn't the basis for the point I was making. It was asserted that no group of D&D players would put up with someone as a member of the party who was "sub-par" in their ability to contribute to combat situations. I listed several examples from my own experience in which this was decidedly not true. I listed one in which the character was even more hampered by the inclusion of a house rule and low physical ststs and yet was one of the most popular characters in the party - so much so that when the player replaced him with a more "combat capable" character (a standard dwarven cleric) the party went out of its way to have the original character resurrected and brought back into play. The existence of the house rule does nothing to change the point I was making. Yes, you could in 4e, but according to the designers, this is an "unfun" choice, since you won't be a combat monster any more. Of course, they have protected you from making such "unfun" choices by ensuring that even if you do, you will have so many combat skills remaining that it won't matter. But that's not the point I was making by bringing up this character. I was specifically responding to this claim: I pointed out that not only had I seen and had fun playing in or DMing for groups with such characters, but character with even less combat focused prowess than these were popular, well-liked characters. I never said 3e was "all about noncombat". I said it allowed you to make character with a variety of abilities, not all of which are focused on ensuring that everyone is a combat specialist. This is different than 4e, because in 4e, no matter what, you are a combat specialist. 4e protects you from making the "wrong" choice where "wrong" is defined as "anything that makes you less effective at bonking monsters over the head". That's a step backwards to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification