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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="cignus_pfaccari" data-source="post: 4159162" data-attributes="member: 14557">You're not forced into a specific role.  No one's saying that the wizard isn't allowed to be on the front lines.  You are advised to play to your class's strengths, which is something that you've been supposed to do for the last three editions as well.Correct...but remember, this isn't any different from 3/3.5.  A magic-using fighter was very difficult to pull off well without torturous multiclassing.  If you want to refer to the ranger as an archer, then you can. SFAICT, this is because most NPCs only exist for combat purposes.  There's really no point to figuring out kobold # 12's score in Craft (Basketweaving) if he's going to stop an arrow in the third round of combat.  The DMs for my group have been running many combat NPCs with even less information (AC, saves, attack/damage, HP).Actually important NPCs will likely be statted up.  But why spend time on something you don't need?I don't quite get the point here.  Having more interesting things to do than swing over and over is, IMNAAHO, a Good Thing.  If the caster can toss a Fireball or a Flamestrike, why is the fighter left swinging in the same old way?As did 2E, and 1E, and I imagine BECMI.  Note that Eberron was developed with the existence of magic in mind, though.See my response to 3.  Many monsters are similar to each other, so there's no real reason to add needless complexity and half-page stat blocks that you're not going to use.So...how do you demonstrate that these come from computer games?  I'm really not getting this at all.And even if they do...so?  Good design is good design, no matter what source it's from.Brad</blockquote>

Verification