Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 9162209" data-attributes="member: 6901101">Sorry Frogreaver, I should have been clearer since this is a new thread. It is a reference to an old thread. There were players that literally stated their characters would not actively participate in a skill check through the social or exploration pillar because someone in the group was better than them. That person always rolled. This line also references the fact that players stated their social, exploration, and combat never mix.The very fact that this thread was started with math using damage per round suggests otherwise. Again, damage per round started the conversation. People trying to pile on saying look at all the cool things a wizard can do on top of damage per round is where everything becomes hyperbole. Because the second the wizard does do something cool that is not damage, some people seem to hold two things in their mind:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">They act as if the wizard is still doing damage and doing that cool thing</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">They act as if the fighter can't also do cool things</li> </ol>The write-ups for pillars of play in every D&D book literally has examples of PCs doing things they may not be the best at. In fact, they are often with other people who might be better. But because they are playing their character, they do it. The last thread had many people discussing sitting there waiting for only the PC with the greatest chance of success to roll. The others, specifically the fighter, was useless. He just sat there, completely excluded from the game. And this is where the debate is futile. If your table plays that way, then fine, the fighter is lackluster. They will always be lackluster until you convince WotC to make them the superhero you want: the best damage giver and taker combined with the grace and charm of a roguish bard, and on the side a heaping helping of skill monkey. I think that is a fair statement, and I agree, at some tables, this can be a problem. (Not sure it catches what I was saying, but it is fair and accurate, nonetheless.)</blockquote>

Verification