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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alatar" data-source="post: 6993793" data-attributes="member: 38424">I'm a poor roleplayer in a roleplaying light group, and I feel the same way. One of our players is on his second warlock in two campaigns. The first one was slain outright by his patron for refusing to betray the party. He has a better arrangement this time, by all accounts. No one is dipping into warlock.Certainly, I would get bored by doing the same thing over and over. That used to be the knock against playing a fighter.Sorta. The DM won't put the time into building that NPC that I put into building my character, and he can't run an NPC party as well as 5 players can run 5 PCs.And tastes will change over time. In the late days of 3.5, I built a focused specialist wizard that just threw orbs of force. He was unstoppable, and being unstoppable was a lot of fun until eventually it wasn't. My last 3.5 wizard focused on battlefield control.Sure, but if that player with the sorcerer chose Subtle Spell, the most un-DPR-ish of metamagic options, for just that kind of rarely occurring scenario, are you really going to foil all that investment for your story? I hope not. Yes, it is your job to bring the adversity, while avoiding inadvertent TPKs. There is no story otherwise. Or it could just mean that the player has chosen to fill a particular role in the party. You could have one caster who skews toward battlefield control and another who specializes in ranged attack spells, cantrips included, a third who focuses on AOE stuff, a fourth who mostly does buffs. Or one of your casters might split his attention between any two of those areas of focus. Over many levels, an odds and sods adventuring party can morph into a killing machine. In 4e, it started that way. The 4e adventuring party was a combat unit. The default construct was a leader, a controller, a defender and two strikers.</blockquote>

Verification