Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6184007" data-attributes="member: 2525">We're going in circles now, as your viewpoint was already presented by others, and addressed.  Inherent in this view is taking the concept to the extreme, and claiming "a great deal" of combat prowess is given up.  We're not talking about that.  Nobody is saying you should be able to trade all your combat abilities, or even most of them, away for a non-combat one.  It's not an argument of "let's set this precedent with X, and then also spread that same concept to Y and Z too".We're talking specifics here, not generalities.  Specifically, we're talking about swapping sneak attack for a more non-combat ability.  And as I've already addressed, the rogue is not crippled in combat by losing the sneak attack ability.You're NEVER going to achieve perfect equality in all things by all classes.  Nor is that a desirable thing to constantly move towards, because it tends to result in all the classes feeling roughly the same, which was one major complaint with 4e (whether you agree with that complaint or not).  Based on feedback given to WOTC in their surveys, a majority of people want characters that have a wide variation in their abilities and focuses, and balance between the classes in all things is not the highest priority.  It's OK if one character is better at social encounters than another, one is better at combat over great distances than another, one is better at combat at short distances than another, one is good at capers that require a lot of sneaking around and scouting than another, etc..  It's not an undesirable thing that the classes are not equally balanced in all these things.This is up to the DM, not what's written on character sheets.  Why the heck not, it's what his character does best! Just like it's what the fighter does best when in melee combat, or what the wizard does best against groups of creatures, or what the archer does best at long distance combat, etc...So engage them as a DM.  That's your job, not the job of the rules.  You're basically arguing everyone should be using their character sheets to seek out options for that kind of encounter, instead of just telling you what they do and interacting with the DM and other players.  That's, in my experience, not the most conducive method of engaging players (even the ones good at that task).Well, they won't.  In no version of the game did they, and clearly in this version they won't either.  Some people will be better at some things than others, as it should be, as it's always been.  And if the Wizard has time to re-memorize spells or buy a scroll of what he needs, he will flip his abilities in a single day, trading a combat spell for a non-combat one.  There is no way to make everyone as good at everything as everyone else, without the game becoming incredibly boring.Well, by saying you don't want it allowed, you're saying you want your playstyle to be forced on everyone.  I don't get that.  Not everyone plays the same as you, or has the same style as you, or desires this equality that you seem to value very highly.  They should have at least optional rules in a future rules module/supplement that lets them adapt the game to the way they want to play it.So I guess you want ability modifiers to be removed from everything as well? Because they have to given up an ability score somewhere to have a high charisma, which means they traded being good at persuasion-abilities for being bad at something else.  And of course the wizards could no longer switch spells in a day.  This goal you're seeking is unreachable, and not desirable to begin with.  People LIKE their character being good at something nobody else is good at.  This is the whole friggen purpose of the class system.  D&D isn't a class-less system.  There are plenty of other games out there much better suited to the goals you're stating, but in no way is D&D one of those, because it's all about unique classes and abilities not shared by all the other PCs.</blockquote>

Verification