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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6309277" data-attributes="member: 42582">The mechanics of a 4e fighter are stop-motion, turn-based combat. But the fiction is of a fluid combat situation comparable to real life. So within the fiction, interrupts, OAs and the like are just part of the ebb-and-flow of combat.So in the fiction, a fighter is a viciously opportunistic combatant who is less of a threat if you turn and face him/her down. You can like or not like that fiction, but it doesn't strike me as any more "artificial" then any other story element in the game.This seems to me to be a sign of weakness in the underlying mechanics. There is nothing at all objectionable about a an arcane-trickster wizard who turn invisible and then throws dangerous "bombs" at enemies. (It reminds me of the sorts of villains the Flash used to fight back in the day, like Toyman and The Top.)The sorcerer in my 4e game is a bit like this - Invisibility from a ring, drowish Cloud of Darkness, etc - though he doesn't so much through bombs as blast with lightning and thunder.If 3E doesn't let this sort of PC work because of action economy issues, that's a strike against 3E in my book. It makes me feel sorry for your friend, who had a perfectly reasonable PC concept but couldn't make it work because of somewhat arbitrary limits in the mechanics.We have had different experiences, then. The players in my game often surprise me by fighting people I thought they might talk to, or talking to people I thought they would fight. In our session this Sunday just past, they struck a deal with a demon rather than kill it (which they could have fairly easily done), because they wanted to send it ahead of them to sow death and terror among their enemies.</blockquote>

Verification