Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3829714" data-attributes="member: 22779">Hrm, if I wanted to give someone else a +2 bonus to hit ('cos flanking with my d4 damage isn't doing me anything) I'd play a bard.&nbsp; Have you ever seen Aid Another used in combat?&nbsp; I sure haven't.&nbsp; With my leather armor and d6 hp's, standing in a position to make battlefield control matter means that I'm going to get smacked around lots and, even better, I cannot hurt it back.&nbsp; Those aren't exactly great options.&nbsp; Give someone else a +2 bonus to hit, give someone else a +2 AC bonus or stand somewhere to be a punching bag.&nbsp; I can't imagine why anyone would think those options are not barrels of fun.&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid&nbsp; &nbsp; :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" />Hrm, adventuring in a thousand year old tomb is poor adventure design?&nbsp; News to me.&nbsp; Different strokes I guess.You've yet to give an example of the player getting involved in a way that actually lets him do anything.&nbsp; All you've given examples of are the player doing things that at best help someone else do something.&nbsp; See, the problem here isn't that the rogue is too powerful.&nbsp; After all, we let the rogue sneak attack 75% of the monsters out there and it doesn't seem to hurt the game.&nbsp; My question is, why is changing that number from 75% to 100% a bad thing?&nbsp; Why is it a good thing for the game for a character to only be fun to play 3/4 of the time?&nbsp; If the cleric cannot turn something, he's still got umpteen options for directly influencing the encounter.&nbsp; The rogue doesn't.&nbsp; At best he can indirectly have any effect by giving someone else a bonus.&nbsp; Why is it so bad to let him have a direct effect all the time?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3829714, member: 22779"] Hrm, if I wanted to give someone else a +2 bonus to hit ('cos flanking with my d4 damage isn't doing me anything) I'd play a bard. Have you ever seen Aid Another used in combat? I sure haven't. With my leather armor and d6 hp's, standing in a position to make battlefield control matter means that I'm going to get smacked around lots and, even better, I cannot hurt it back. Those aren't exactly great options. Give someone else a +2 bonus to hit, give someone else a +2 AC bonus or stand somewhere to be a punching bag. I can't imagine why anyone would think those options are not barrels of fun. :uhoh: Hrm, adventuring in a thousand year old tomb is poor adventure design? News to me. Different strokes I guess. You've yet to give an example of the player getting involved in a way that actually lets him do anything. All you've given examples of are the player doing things that at best help someone else do something. See, the problem here isn't that the rogue is too powerful. After all, we let the rogue sneak attack 75% of the monsters out there and it doesn't seem to hurt the game. My question is, why is changing that number from 75% to 100% a bad thing? Why is it a good thing for the game for a character to only be fun to play 3/4 of the time? If the cleric cannot turn something, he's still got umpteen options for directly influencing the encounter. The rogue doesn't. At best he can indirectly have any effect by giving someone else a bonus. Why is it so bad to let him have a direct effect all the time? [/QUOTE]

Verification