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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="keterys" data-source="post: 6244656" data-attributes="member: 43019">That's fine, as long as the game doesn't _prevent_ you from making a character who can.And I'll add that I'd like it to make sure the system stops you from shining in _every_ encounter. 3.5 wizard(/cleric/druid) syndrome.I think you're overreading that statement. A chance to shine in each encounter means a _chance_, and that you _won't_ shine in every encounter.Like, say, convincing the animals in the castle to assist in creating fear and doubt within the Baron (hordes of rats join his chamber to look at him, his horses turn away from him, etc) until he confesses? As long as it's a choice, and it's not the system saying no rogue can be good at combat, absolutely.Eh, that's really not what I saw. Some classes just were better than other classes. Sometimes drastically so. And it would vary adventure to adventure - you'd have your "undead rampage" where the rogue and druid would both underperform, sometimes for extended periods. Like finding out after the campaign start that the campaign was shifting to focus around certain aspects, and suddenly certain classes were second class citizens for the entire campaign. Whether you were making the bard with tons of contacts thrown into the World's Largest Dungeon, the sneak attack rogue facing the invasion of the lich, his undead servants, and automatons, or whatever.And certain level ranges kinda voided the usefulness of certain classes on their own. That and some DMs. I had some _very_ mixed luck with all of the rogue/bard skills in 2e, for example, where sometimes it was actually a _hindrance_ to make a roll, because a failure would put me in a worse position than someone who hadn't made a check at all.Thankfully, 5e is doing a lot to avoid the monster type trumps class concept.</blockquote>

Verification