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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 4124106" data-attributes="member: 7635">However, take this from a different point of view.Who would you want to back you up in s street fight; Stephen Hawkings or Indiana Jones (assuming he was a real person)? Stephen can give you insight beyond your wildest dreams on scientific topics, and is probably a helluva lot smarter than Dr. Jones, but when you have 4 guys with table legs coming at you, Mr. Hawking's insights don't amount to much.D&D, by its very nature, is a game where a street fight can break out at any time. And its assumed that a character should be able to handle his weight in the combat. Granted, not equally (a wizard shouldn't be as good of a fighter as a fighter) but they should all add something. A non-combat character (one that has no offensive capacity) essentially becomes deadweight in combat, while a character who has some ability in combat and some out of combat is extremely desirable (It should be noted that the character that is all combat and nothing outside of combat is equally bad: see fighter 3.5) Thus is the tale of the rapier-wielding fighter, the diviner wizard, the pacifist cleric, the diplomat rogue, the floofy bard, and countless other non-combatant class and builds. They drag the group down, unless the DM is especially designing a game to emphasize non-combat encounters and actively seeks to minimize combat, but that is a niche area of D&D's overall style (which emphasizes dungeons, monsters and exploration). I don't mind the idea that it is impossible to build a weak combatant; it means everyone is holding up their end in the street fight and doing something useful outside of it.</blockquote>

Verification