Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Old Gumphrey" data-source="post: 4311772" data-attributes="member: 12872">Storm Raven: I really don't know where you're getting this stuff from, it's just circular argument. The only legitimate complaint you've made in that regard is my misunderstanding of the author of the chain shirt fighter; which happened due to it being quoted in your post. Other than that, not really.Without being so literal, it's easy enough to infer that if you claim a bard/monk who is rampantly sucky in combat would be ecstatic fun and highly welcome in your gaming group, then it stands to reason that a combat guy barbarian / fighter would have the opposite effect. It's really kind of trivial to do all the quoting and pointing just to prove that you didn't say it in those exact words. It doesn't matter if you did or not; it matters if you think the combat sucking guy is better.Because this is the only point I was ever really trying to make:This quote came after a claim I made that if you could house rule sneak attack out of 3e, then you can do it in 4e as well. Your counter argument is basically "I'm bitter with the 4e design team, so what's the point of bothering to do it?" You can't be ANY LESS combat-focused in 3e than you can in 4e without house rules or rampant multiclassing; at least, as a non-caster. I suppose you could rig a caster with nothing but noncombat divinations to prove your point, but it won't carry any weight with me, even though it would be true (and by that I mean in 15 years of D&D I've never once seen a character play a caster with absolutely 0 combat spells).I then made the point that even in 3e "you will have so many combat skills remaining that it won't matter." Unless you start applying those house rules (or multiclassing into 5 unrelated classes, or filling all your spell slots with Rope Trick, or some other nonsense). Therefore it's just as easy to make a combat sucking character in 4e as it was in 3e.Side note: I think you're being way too cynical about this "unfun" stuff. You're using that as a rope to swing on, and it really doesn't mean anything, other than you not agreeing with a design philosophy. It doesn't really have anything to do with the game or what you can do with it, simply that you vehemently disagree with the designers on what should be a fun choice.The best part about all of this is that if you just, you know, play some D&D, you can use simple house rules to get the effects you are looking for. They aren't protecting you from making something that can't fight worth a crap, they're protecting core D&D from generating crap on accident.Rule 0, right?</blockquote>

Verification