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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 4308755" data-attributes="member: 307">Once again, you haven't bothered to read what I actually wrote, but instead decided I said something I didn't. I didn't say the fighrter/barbarian would "suck". I said I thought it would be less fun to play than the bard/monk. For someone who gets "offended" that I don't think you read the posts you are responding to, it sure seems like you aren't reading the posts you are responding to.And I didn't say that you couldn't. Once again, you should read what I actually said. Not what you assume I actually said in order to make your argument work.I never said "noncombat specialist". I did say you could have fun with a character who was less than combat optimized and whose primary focus wasn't combat. Like I said, go back and actually read what I wrote: I said that a character who was supposedly "sub-par" at combat - like a rapier wielding chain-shirted fighter, which was not my example, but one brought up by someone who thought that "sub-par" characters wouldn't be tolerated by a gaming group - was not only fun to have in a group, but, in my experience, well-accepted by players of other characters.And that's not the point. You have latched on to this issue and assumed that the argument being made was entirely different from the actual argument being made. It was posited that some character choices in 3e: the rapier wielding fighter, the wizard without conjuration or evocation, the rogue without open lock/diable device, the aofrementioned bard/monk and so on - that these choices were not actual choices because they produced characters that were (not my term) "sub-par" and thus other people in the group would not tolerate a player making those sorts of choices for his character. My argument is that not only were those sorts of characters welcomed at the gaming table, but they were fun, memorable, and valued characters, which invalidates the original claim. And I further pointed out that 4e eliminating the sorts of choices that lead to this sort of character in the name of "fun" is a loss of flexibility, and a step backwards.No, you don't really seem to understand my point, because you keep misstating it, and simply ignoring what I actually wrote.The virtues that 4e is being extolled for in this thread are that it provides clear combat roles for every character, and prevents players from making "bad" choices by restricting the available options to a few ones that "work" for creating combat capable characters. These are the exact same virtues that 1e has.There is no real way to argue that 4e isn't less flexible than 3e, for the simple fact that "unfun" choices have been edited out of the system. Now, before you go around arguing that I said 4e is complete inflexible, I didn't. I said it was less flexible than 3e. In the areas extolled here as virtues of the system, 4e is just as flexible as 1e. Which makes me wonder why I shouldn't just play 1e instead if I want to switch away from 3e - I have dozens of books and adventures for 1e and know that system.If you stay within a very narrowly defined range of what is "fun", "creative", and "exciting" and keep the things you care about concerning the system restricted to combat situations. You can keep 4e, I don't need to be protected from player choices or kept away from sharp tools so I don't cut my little hands on them.</blockquote>

Verification