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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6117224" data-attributes="member: 7006">The solution for my money is already baked into the game-- you just beat the crap out of the undead the old fashioned way.That's the thing... these abilities we're talking about aren't the ONLY solutions to a particular problem.  They're just potentially the best solution if it happens to be available.  So giving Turn Undead to just a Cleric does not mean a party is incapable of facing undead... it just means they have to find other ways-- less "I win!" ways-- to solve the problem.  And I don't think having that exclusitivity is wrong or a bad thing.And the same holds true for martial maneuvers.A party of 2 Rogues and 2 war Clerics can get into a melee combat against a mass of kobolds.  They can survive this fight, they probably can win this fight.  It'll just take them X number of rounds to do it.  But if we replace one of those Clerics with a Fighter who has Cleave (the only class who can GET Cleave)... the fight might now take 2 rounds less because the Fighter is able to kill more kobolds in a single round due to cleaving through them.I don't see why that's a bad thing.  The Fighter is meant to be a strong melee combatant, and he has a bennie that allows him to BE that strong melee combatant.  What is truly to be gained by letting the Rogue and Cleric get that bennie too?  What's wrong with winning the fight in X rounds, rather than X-2 rounds?  The end result is exactly the same, and the Fighter gets to keep his unique bennie.Basically, it's still the same old "why can't the Fighter have nice things?" argument.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification