Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6238995" data-attributes="member: 17106">Uh, can't help you there. I don't know how much clearer the book could possibly have made it. It says "While not equal to members of many other classes in combat". That's pretty clear. Then it says all some stuff about how while they aren't equal, they aren't worthless. There is some space in between.That's debatable. Their main class feature, as that text I quoted notes, is their 8+Int mod skills. Some of which have some combat applications, but I don't read the class entry and see mostly combat stuff. I see trap detection and trap sense, an evasion ability that's useful in combat and against those peksy traps, and a special ability list with combat and non-combat options. Then I see the two uncanny dodges, and sneak attack, which is one ability that scales with level.Congratulations! They're much better.I assume you also want it so that no character can ever sing a single song better than a bard, or no character can ever be a better healer than a cleric, and so on? That's just not realistic.Everything is a bell curve. There are always going to be some instances of clerics, druids, wizards, rogues, bards, and everyone else being better in at fighting than some fighters. There are also going to be some instances where the fighter player makes some genius suggestion that the player of the 18 Int wizard doesn't. Stuff happens.Don't get me wrong, I'd rewrite all the classes in a heart beat (and did, though it took longer than that). I think every one of them should be better at achieving the underlying concept. But since those concepts are all different, I don't believe in making these apples to oranges comparisons. If a typical fighter (or even rogue) was outpaced by a typical animal companion (or a typical buffed cleric, or what have you), I guess that would be a minor issue you'd want to address in revisions. Since this is not the case, I don't see the big deal.</blockquote>

Verification