Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Falling Icicle" data-source="post: 6177591" data-attributes="member: 17077">Overreact much? You're acting like I sent rules ninjas to your house to piss in your cheerios. You accuse me of wanting to &quot;force you to play a combat-type.&quot; Please explain to me how I could force you to do anything? I can't, and even if I could, I wouldn't.All I said is that each class needs to have a certain degree of competence in combat. Your character might only be 50% of the combat focused character, or some other percentage. I never said you had to make a character that's great at combat. There's plenty of room in this system for optimization, as well as its opposite. All we probably differ on is just how big of a difference the system should allow there to be between optimized and un-optimized characters. This is also, of course, assuming the default rules of the game, which you are free to change at your table however you like.I won't apologize for wanting a well balanced core rule set that allows all characters to participate in all three pillars of the game to at least a somewhat meaningful degree. I don't want the game to have trap options. Too many times I've seen people make characters that end up sucking at combat or other aspects of the game unintentionally and not having much fun as a result, all because the rules were poorly designed to begin with. I think it's best that the game's default rules avoid such things. But if you deliberately want to make your character suck at combat, go right ahead. I won't stop you.[Edit] As of right now, 40% of the votes are for making sneak attack a mandatory/common feature for all rogues. So are all of those people rules Nazis that have no respect for your opinion? Maybe you should show some respect for their opinion, which is just as valid as yours. (FYI, I voted for option B).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Falling Icicle, post: 6177591, member: 17077"] Overreact much? You're acting like I sent rules ninjas to your house to piss in your cheerios. You accuse me of wanting to "force you to play a combat-type." Please explain to me how I could force you to do anything? I can't, and even if I could, I wouldn't. All I said is that each class needs to have [I]a certain degree of competence[/I] in combat. Your character might only be 50% of the combat focused character, or some other percentage. I never said you had to make a character that's [I]great[/I] at combat. There's plenty of room in this system for optimization, as well as its opposite. All we probably differ on is just how big of a difference the system should allow there to be between optimized and un-optimized characters. This is also, of course, assuming the default rules of the game, which you are free to change at your table however you like. I won't apologize for wanting a well balanced core rule set that allows all characters to participate in all three pillars of the game to at least a somewhat meaningful degree. I don't want the game to have trap options. Too many times I've seen people make characters that end up sucking at combat or other aspects of the game unintentionally and not having much fun as a result, all because the rules were poorly designed to begin with. I think it's best that the game's default rules avoid such things. But if you deliberately want to make your character suck at combat, go right ahead. I won't stop you. [Edit] As of right now, 40% of the votes are for making sneak attack a mandatory/common feature for all rogues. So are all of those people rules Nazis that have no respect for your opinion? Maybe [I]you[/I] should show some respect for [I]their[/I] opinion, which is just as valid as yours. (FYI, I voted for option B). [/QUOTE]

Verification