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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 9008238" data-attributes="member: 6901101">Thank you for the example. It is appreciated.And I understand what you are saying, but again, it still all boils down to the DM. Who tells the barbarian that intimidation is not the way to go? What happens if the DM sets it up where intimidation is never the way to go? What happens if the barbarian didn't take the intimidation skill? Now they only get their +3 or +4, or in my barbarian's case, a +2. And then there is this...How is it that people only seem to envision scenarios where the DM is dense? I mean, a cleric of helm might have a low charisma, but can persuade a town mayor in danger more easily than a bard that looks as though they might run. The mayor might also turn towards the barbarian as a sign of hope, wanting to believe a muscle-bound, rage-machine, more than a bard that can play a lute. Most DMs in that situation would call for advantage for the cleric or barbarian. They might even call for a disadvantage for the bard. This is especially true of the bard had no look or preceding reputation.This scenario has gone on since the beginning of D&D. And it is so class, deity, species, etc. related, that it shows that the DM's scenario makes for contributions, not a rules adjustment. And that doesn't even include the roleplaying aspects of the players themselves! (Which, in my experience, contributes more to party direction and social outcomes than any roll I've ever seen.)I guess, in the end, I am glad certain players are getting a barbarian that can now do even more. But I am wary of getting more equaling more fun for players.</blockquote>

Verification