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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vayden" data-source="post: 4021383" data-attributes="member: 57791">Two arguments here:1) Everyone should have something useful to do in combat. Since combat is a major part of the game, suckiness in combat should not be a "balancing factor" for being good out of combat (and vice-versa). 4E, Rechan and I think this is a good idea, Reynard disagrees. I'm not sure how much argument you can have here - we think that "time that your character is doing something interesting" should not be a balancing chip (rogue, you're interesting during the trap, bard, you can have the conversation with the king, wizard, you're interesting until you run out of spells, fighter, you're never interesting after level 6), Reynard thinks its fine. *shrug* We disagree.2) Doing something useful in a fight = dealing damage. I don't think 4E is really going this way - the warlord and the cleric can do damage, sure, but they aren't going to be dealing anywhere near as much direct damage as the wizard, fighter, and rogue. They're going to be supporting the other characters, which is what the bard will be doing too (arcane leader). The problem w/ the 3E bard is that his support of the other characters a) sucked and b) was boring. I think the 4E bard will be much more dynamic, doing different things to support throughout the combat, ie Turn 1 - I activate bardic music, that lasts for the encounter. Turn 2 - I spin an illusion around the enemy wizard, causing him to fireball his friends instead of usTurn 3 - I provide encouragement to the fighter who just got dropped, getting him back on his feetTurn 4 - I move up to flank the enemy fighter, getting in a light hit and setting him up for the rogue to finish him. etc etc.</blockquote>

Verification