NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Asisreo" data-source="post: 8547275" data-attributes="member: 7019027">I'm not going to pretend to sympathize, though. I want to actually sympathize, but I need to understand otherwise I'm just patting people on the back saying "there, there. Maybe one day WoTC will do what you want."And I'm trying to give those who want to explain in full a platform. It's easy to say what you want, but being questioned allows you to explain how and why you want what you want. I'm looking towards a theoretical future where perfection is possible and the results still doesn't seem very profitable. So if the best-case still doesn't seem great, then the realistic model would at least be subpar as well. Again, in terms of profit/making it worthwhile. From my perspective, what the fighter gains is less. And that less is more for some people. I've mentioned before, but some people don't want to engage with any more of the rules and story than they must. Personally, I've had players upset that whenever they're in a situation, they are the ones who have to use their utility options because they're expected to. Theoretically, you could not engage with something out-of-combat if you don't want to. Realistically, if the fighter has the power to break mountains, then when the party faces a mountain, the fighter would be expected to break it on behalf of the party. It happens all the time. The rogue with expertise in lockpicking is volunteered to pick locks, even if the lock might be booby-trapped and the rogue loses HP. The bard is expected to cast a charm on a person even if they might fail and cause the situation to go hostile. While you could say it's a party being bad, most would say it's common sense since those players are optimized to succeed. A fighter doesn't have to worry about being asked to do much at their own risk or detriment. Nor are they expected to. They get to enjoy the game with less interactability and less expectations. I don't see this as a bad thing. My question: why should I?Because combat is generally the longest and deadliest parts of D&D. If a character is bad at combat, they likely are going to die and they won't be a character anymore. Combat is also generally one of the most fun aspects for, from my experience, most players. Social and exploration are a more niche category of the game and players use those to get to the next fight quite often. It's important to know "social" and "exploration" is distinct from narrative.</blockquote>

Verification