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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nutluck" data-source="post: 4125141" data-attributes="member: 4844">I think a better example would be Conan and Indy as your choices. Since Mr Hawking has disabilities and that makes it impossible for him to add anything to a fight. Conan is a much better fighter than Indy is so i think that is a better example. In that choice I would choose Indy.I agree a complete dead weight who can add nothing to a fight rarely helps in a RPG.I disagree completely, I think they add a lot to a game unless you have idiot players who on purpose make it drag the game down.rapier-wielding fighter - had one was a noble concept, worked well and added a lot of flavor and RPing to the game as a whole.pacifist cleric - had something similar, a cleric who refused to take the life of another ever. He would still hold person or use subdue damage ect.diplomat rogue - had one the can work very well, he was a spy for a kingdom. floofy bard - had one but was a noble class(from a 3rd party book) and worked much like the fighter above.non-combat builds does not make them useless in combat. And while DnD might emphasize dungeons, mosters and exploration that is far from the only style that can or should be played with it. Many styles can work it is only a matter of what the group enjoys. So what you see as a problem I see as a strength as it caters to more people.Once more disagree, it limits what a player might want to play and it limits certain game types that might not be heavy combat focused. Which yes most DnD games are but they don't have to be.</blockquote>

Verification