Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bill Zebub" data-source="post: 9546651" data-attributes="member: 7031982">Ok, I think I was still in the mindset of reading post #139 from [USER=7042567]@MuhVerisimilitude[/USER], and so was responding to you as if it were a continuation of his arguments.If the issue was not that the DM shut down your Barbarian, and really was that the Barbarian itself just couldn't do cool stuff....I'm not sure what to say about that.  Lots of people think (and thought then) that Barbarians were awesome to play.And to flip it around, lots of people hated that 4E Martials were built like casters, with lots of limited use special abilities that, mechanically, are basically spells.  (I may not have this exactly right; I completely skipped 4E so I'm just summarizing the type of arguments I've seen.)But either way, I think that's getting us off-topic into how martials are designed compared to casters. On the other hand, I see there's a connection to the argument that if you don't have explicit abilities, with explicit effects, that you can point to, then martials don't have anything worth doing that doesn't involve violence.  And that brings us around to how action declarations are resolved when they don't invoke explicitly defined abilities. And that's where I think it's about DMing style/skill/philosophy.If I'm still not getting it, please tell me what I'm not understanding.</blockquote>