|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think the point that is being missed is, playing the monk as is is akin to giving a child a broken toy. He sure might have fun with it, but it's still broken. He can use his imagination all he wants to play with it and get enjoyment out of it, but it's not being used as intended, nor can it be. 
It's all very well to try to ignore the relative balance of mechanics in favor of roleplay. But if you're trying to play Bruce Lee, Kenshiro, or the like, and yet you can't hit or do much damage with your Unarmed Strike, then the mechanics are fighting your concept, and interfering with your roleplay. 
Is it some kind of a new trend to have your first post on the forum as a flamebait for a running war where everyone has said everything already and the only thing achieved is that we have a third "Monks suck/No they don't/yes they do/no they don't/your mother wore combat boots/yeah, and my goat says <Insert Paizo Designer Name> is a bad lover" thread? 
Ah, yes. The typical "Because I can have fun with a badly designed class, it must mean you are a worse player if you cannot" argument. 
The thing is taking 20 on a perception check generally means I roll on the wandering monster table. Since I can't do the latter in PFS play, I don't allow the former at PFS tables. Generally, bringing house rules into PFS play is frowned upon. 
James, for some reason we seem to grate against each other when I think both of us are fundamentally presenting a reasonable view of our own perspective which just happens to be different in this case. It probably is related to a desire for other people to read our so-reasonable posts and say "aha! I get it now." Which doesn't always happen, regrettably. At least in my case, I won't speak for you. Also, it is very hard to have a conversation about fundamental tactics without the other person perceiving the expression of a preferred tactic as a denigration of a different tactic. I've really tried not to do that. I've said all along in this ridiculously long thread that choosing to heal in combat is a perfectly reasonable tactic, and furthermore is a perfectly defensible role playing choice. So, hopefully you will understand that I am not calling combat-healing badwrongfun. It's just a choice. I happen to believe it is a choice with some negative in-game consequences that some people seem not to recognize. Which is not surprising since I am not aware of any tactic that doesn't have some negative in-game consequences. The issue at hand is which tactics appear to me to be tactics which have more in-game benefits and fewer in-game penalties. In my experience, treating healing in combat has several in-game benefits. I'll list a few. 1. It allows other combatants to focus entirely on their non-healing role. That means the full-attacking barbarian can rely on a heal from the party healer and get off another full-attack when without a dedicated healer he might have to spend a round drinking a potion or activating a magic item. 2. It allows the party to have a clear delineation of roles. It has been my experience that parties who have a dedicated healer frequently (not always, but frequently) have other roles as clearly defined. The "tank" the "skill monkey" the "blaster", etc. This is not a "bad thing" since it simplifies the determination of tactics and helps each member to know what to expect in combat. 3. It helps to alleviate the "backpack full of CLW wands" syndrome, which is something that really irks me personally from a role playing perspective. 4. It contributes positively to the combat hit point differential, increasing the amount of damage needed to put a party member down, or to TPK the entire party. 5. It facilitates aggressive combat tactics such as charging, full-on melee, full-attack damage exchange etc. Knowing that a healer is ready to step in at need, that barbarian doesn't have to worry so much about reduced AC while raging and/or potential HP deficit when they stop raging. I'm sure there's a lot more. So you see, I acknowledge the tactical benefits of having a dedicated combat healer. And by "dedicated combat healer" I don't even mean a "healbot" who is wholly dedicated to healing, I just mean a character whose primary combat function is to heal damaged party members. They might be dropping a wall of fire or even buffing up a party member when not healing, or might even take a whack or two at the enemy themselves until the healing becomes necessary. However, there are lots of negative consequences of this approach as well. Here is my off-the-top-of-my-head list: 1. The healer has limited tactical options since they have a clearly defined primary function that is driven by need. This makes the healer necessarily a reactive, not a proactive role. 2. Spell slots dedicated to healing are spell slots not available for other offensive, battlefield control, defensive or buffing spells. This further restricts the party's tactical options in combat. Now, this is somewhat reduced by the ability of clerics to spontaneously cast cure spells, but not all dedicated healers are clerics. And even though a cleric might have "prepared" several non-healing spells, the acknowledged role and the party expectations necessarily make the healer pause and greatly consider the consequences of "wasting" a spell on not-healing when a party member ends up needing healing anyway. 3. Healing is absolutely a net positive in the hit point differential equation. However, it is not usually one of the better spells for contributing to that equation. This is a very difficult concept to get across to some people. But it is quite easy to mathematically demonstrate. A buff spell which provides a +1 to an attack can be modeled using probabilities to estimate what it contributes to a combat encounter purely in terms of hit point differential. A +1 is a 5% increase in a chance to hit. If the entire party is the recipient of that buff, then every PC has a higher chance to hit every single round of combat. If some of those members are full-attacking, then that means they get multiple attacks per round with that 5% increase. Let's say it's a party of four and two of them full attack with 3 attacks per round (melee and ranged we'll say). That means each round contains 8 attacks. If the fight lasts four rounds, that means an average additional hit point damage on the opposition of 1.3333 attacks. Now, does 1.333 attacks contribute more to the hit point differential than one first level cure spell? I would have to say if your characters are built well, yes. So replacing a heal spell with a buff spell in this case contributes more to the hit point differential than the heal spell. Since the hit point differential is the only measure that matters in combat, that's a pretty interesting observation. This is only one example. A buff which adds damage to every hit contributes even more to that differential. A buff which reduces hits on the party does too. So while healing is a net positive, it is frequently not the most efficient way to contribute to a meaningful hit point differential in combat. 4. More aggressive combat is not always good. It exposes the party to additional risks. Leaping into melee not only allows the PC to make a full attack, it allows the opposition to do the same thing. It has been my experience that parties which have a dedicated healer tend to be less careful than parties without one. That means those parties take more damage, which requires more healing which provides a positive feedback loop which appears to show how important healing is. This becomes a cultural thing with many groups. It's "just the way we do it." As I have said, my 4e party has a dedicated healer who enjoys the role and who is incredibly good at it. Does that mean my ranger does foolish things in combat expecting the healer to save his butt? Hell yeah he does! 5. Because heal spells are generally less efficient in managing the hit point differential, that equates to more spells cast in combat. That's just simple math. That means healers tend to run out of spells more quickly, which leads to the "fifteen minute game day" syndrome. It has been my experience over the decades that I've played this game that the single most common situation that causes a party to have to rest to regain spells is when the healer says "uh, guys? I'm low on heals." Anyway, all of these things lead me to prefer preferring a style of play which I believe maximizes combat effectiveness, minimizes party resource expenditure, encourages careful planning and tactical maneuvering and allows all of the party to contribute proactively in combat for the majority of the time. Now, that doesn't mean that my parties never heal in combat. But in my preferred style of play healing is just one more tactic that has its place. It doesn't drive party behavior OK, I'm done with this now. I just hope someone who has always held the traditional "tank, healer, skill-monkey, blaster" idea of adventuring might give it some thought and see if they might be open to a new style of play. Heck, you might find you enjoy it more. My parties seem to. 
The very idea of a party prefering to kill enemies before healing teammates and putting enemy erradication as top strategic priority strikes me as a very "Diablo 2" way of playing. To counter that statement: the idea of must-have-healer-in-party is imho entirely and only based on MMOs, where people go as far as flame you in party chat if you don't keep them full-health at all times (even when it's entirely unnecessary).My issue about the entire healing debate is not if a player wants to play a healer... but rather that some people react in ways that make me sad if I want to play a cleric/oracle/witch/... and NOT be the healer.
If nobody in such groups feels like playing a healer, these groups tend to force one person to be the healer nonetheless, because they think is mandatory (=compulsory, obligatory). The goal here is to explain that healers are not "must-have", they are "nice-to-have": If you like playing one, that's cool, but if you don't you shouldn't be forced to, because others refuse to try different tactics. Imho the one screaming for a healer as necessary, should be the one who has to play it (if nobody else volunteered). :-p
TBH, if that Fighter charged in, though my caster told him not to, my caster is likely to let that fighter bite dust and teach him that tactics lesson rather quickly... :-) I guess he wont do it a second time, let alone a third. ;-) After all my caster doesn't consider herself the babysitter of that mentally disadvantaged show-off bully. (opinion my character would have about such a fighter behavior) And he might end up getting a fox cunning and owls wisdom buff, instead of a bulls strength and bears endurance. :-p My clerics heal in combat all the time - that's what clerics do. That's what clercis can do... they don't have to. They have plenty other things they could also do. The question is what's the best thing to do and that depends on:- party (what else is there)
I'd say that yes, the GM has some responsiblity for making the games interesting, but I'd also say that the beginning of a campaign is one of the hardest things to do effectively. As such, most players who aren't complete jerkasses usually take the GM's hints and come up with some reason why their character should join the group / go to the dungeon / ect. Yeah, you can be a jerkass and say "I'm not going!"...but you're only robbing yourself of the fun of the adventure. After all, if you are really in the game only to sit in a tavern and do nothing...why bother with having the rules at all? Frankly, if I was a GM and the players were determined not to go on the adventure, I'd wrap it up by telling them they all lived boring lives and died of old age, and probably ask then not to say they were here to play the game unless they actually wanted to play the game.
Honestly, they probably just didn't like you. These reasons sound really flimsy to permanently remove someone from your social circle (you're not referring to them as friends, so I'm assuming). Don't take me wrong here, but you can't really discuss the topic without discussing the topic. Don't focus on the "oh man I took a glass of milk" thing because if they favored you they'd just overlook it. My friends are idiots all of the time and we have arguments and I just overlook it because they're fun to play with. It's probably that they didn't like you or you rubbed them the wrong way with your conduct (being asked not to curse, cursing anyways) or you played the game wrong and they got mad. Since it's the GM who had to tell you, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the host put the GM up to it and that the GM wanted to let you down easy instead of just telling you to your face that everyone there hated you. This is supported by the fact that everyone there was so socially awkward that it seems like they were too afraid or nervous to even mention to you that what you were doing was wrong. You got told not to drink the host's stuff, drank the host's stuff in front of him and he sat there saying nothing? I'm surprised they didn't stoop down to pretending to cancel the game so you'd stop showing up.
I don't think that's as definitive as you seem to assume. 
What was the player's reason for missing? If it was something like he had to work, he was sick, or had family matters to attend to, then the DM is being a jerk. If it was more of a "I don't feel like playing this week" type of thing, then the DM is well within reason to keep the character a lower level. However, the DM should also adjust encounters accordingly, so that the rest of the group isn't suffering. 
I'm also curious for those who believe that rail roads in tabletop gaming are boring or bad, what is your opinion of adventure paths, which are basically railroad-incarnate (save, arguably, Kingmaker)? Easy. Adventure Paths are outlines. Some of them are more railroad than others (I am looking at you Second Darkness) but for the most part they try really hard to create scenarios rather than plots. In other words, they describe events that are happening and how to encourage your to players to care about those events enough they want to do something about them. Nearly all of the good modules are written in an open ended way that allows players to find their own way through them. The less popular ones (Hi Second Darkness and Council of Thieves) become fixated on complicated plots that they force the players through. A macguffin is not a railroad. 
But the premise of the thread is the myth of Fighter Endurance: That the Fighter can keep on fighting all day, because he doesn't rely on spells. Which is obviously b#+!$*!! if you've ever actually played the game. We comment on the solo Fighter because that's what the OP started with. 
An animal companion, familiar, or eidolon is as much a part of a character as is the character's own arm. By default, the player should control it, not the GM. I would have few qualms of the GM overruling me in sensible situations, however. 
…or neglected to memorize that spell at all for the day. The Wizard doesn't need to have "that one perfect spell" to be successful. That's a pretty terrible myth. The Wizard should have an arsenal of spells that are useful in a wide variety of situations, with significant overlap. The Wizard should also have an arsenal of equally-versatile consumables, thanks to all that character wealth he's saving by not participating in the +whatever rat race.
…or neglected to memorize that spell at all for the day.
Let’s remember the root of where this argument started. Scott was arguing that Wizard’s can always leave to memorize spells and come back, and that any consequences added by the GM for this would be unfair on the part of the GM. The rest of us are saying that the pause button comes with consequences and that if the players can regroup, so can the BBEG. And most of us are saying the BBEG is going to look at the party make up when deciding strategy, if the party makes the mistake of giving the BBEG information about the party (for example, when the party retreats). At this point, Scott seems to be the only one staying with the “Nothing changes, we just keep leaving and coming back to the same stuff” argument. So, on topic, the strength of the Wizard class is that since they can know pretty much any spell, they have the ability to have the right spell at the right time. The weakness of the Wizard class is that it may have used that spell earlier in the day…the wizard is probably the class most vulnerable to an extended work day. If your players can leave and come back with no consequences so the Wizard can rememorize the right spell for the never changing situation they are dealing with, you may have problems with the wizard, since Schrodinger’s Wizard is undefeated.
That's not a rail. That's not even a road. That's just something happening in the game world. Everything is something happening in the game world. If everything that happens is scripted regardless of player actions, read a book.
Let me define what I mean by “The Rail” Something is going on. The DM knows exactly what it is. Generally it is a plot being hatched by a BBEG, sometimes it is some kind of other event that is proceeding. That is the rail. Now where on the rail the PCs interact is determined by what they do. Once in a game I played a PC derailed an entire story arc because one player happened to have see invisibility on and saw a permanently invisible evil BBEG who was hiding and watching us, he cast disintegrate and the BBEG rolled a one. The GM, paused for a second, then said that since the creature was permanently invisible, that none of us saw the “dust” and all of us just thought the PC who disintegrated the BBEG who was supposed to be a story arc was crazy when he said “I saw a bug thing and I killed it!” The GM, who is a very good GM, then proceeded with the story as he thought it would go if that particular BBEG was suddenly killed and the players were concerned about the mental health of the wizard. The story always proceeds regardless of any one character, because there should always be enough stuff going on for the story to proceed. There is never one "rail". There are always lots and lots of "rails". It is a world, after all. Similarly, once we found a crypt, and in that crypt a tomb that was sealed with a magical sword, covered in runes and instructions to not remove it under any circumstances or you would release a great and powerful evil. This was written in a language every character in the party could read…except one…who was the only person who wasn’t incapacitated by the trap that hit us as we entered the room. So he pulled the sword. Stuff happened that became months and months of plotline. All because of a choice we made, that we weren’t supposed to make. We were supposed to find the room before the BBEG we were fighting did, and to stop them from freeing the Super BBEG. The sword being the key was GM fluff which would be a reward if we completed the ritual that prevented the Super BBEG from being raised. Instead, we freed the Super BBEG, because the guy couldn’t read and pulled the sword that was keeping him trapped out. The players decisions mattered. The GM did not constrain them. The GM created a world and at every step asked the question “What would happen now?” Not all GMs can do that. Good ones can. If you don’t have a good GM, enjoy the train ride. Good GMs can go off road without going off a cliff. 
@Bandavaar - Look at these links: Greater Bull Rush does NOT give YOU a free attack on a Knockback Rage Power. Note that RAW - GBR gives all your ALLIES and specifically says "not you" the AOO and the Knockback doesn't provoke any AOOs at all. Not sure where you got the idea from to be able to do this, but you may want to reconsider your build unless it's a house-rule that allows you to do what you want. It's generally considered very wise to try to get pounce as a Barbarian because if you can move AND full attack in a round, that's just sweet. Otherwise you bull rush in, knock things down and let your allies get the free AOOs with the build you are using.
I'm hearing a lot of "our way is the only smart way" crap from a lot of folks here. You know, the reason that many people bail on groups and the hobby altogether..... Sometimes what people "hear" and what people "say" are not exactly the same thing. 
I agree; "encourages min-maxing" and "because Gary said so" are not valid arguments against point-buy. Equally, "it's more fair" and "it's faster" have been shown not to be valid arguments for point-buy. What we're left with is "our group's personal preference is X," which is a valid argument for your group and method of choice. 
Why do people imply that there is no Min/Maxing in Rolled stats? Putting that randomly rolled 18 to INT and that randomly rolled 7 to CHA in a wizard build is just as munchkiny as choosing to have a 18 and a 7. Choosing to make a fighter because you rolled 16 for STR and 8 for INT is also "min/maxing". Don't get me wrong, I've played and enjoyed many games with both rolled stats and point buy. I think they are both valid options, but if I can choose, I'll take point buy every time. It's pretty cool to be able to choose what you want to play instead of letting the dice make the decisions. Fairness in characters' stats doesn't hurt either. Also, the "Gygax Did it/In old days we did things this way" argument just doesn't cut it with me.
Also, the "Gygax Did it/In old days we did things this way" argument just doesn't cut it with me. Me too. Mainly because I am one of the old codgers who did it this way in the old days. We quit doing things that way for a reason. 
[I'm 200% with you on this. And I never (you can read my previous posts, they're few) said every oracle or cleric should be played like that, infact I recall saying (or better, writing) that the beauty of this class is its versatility. The fact is, I do believe that a party with a character who's good ALSO at healing in the middle of a fight is stronger than a party without it. Some people seem to think otherwise, and that's completely fine with me, everybody is entitled to their opinion. I just get itchy all over when somebody says "that's the way it should be played otherwise you're just plain wrong". The OP was advocating position 2 which also makes sense. 
[I'm 200% with you on this. And I never (you can read my previous posts, they're few) said every oracle or cleric should be played like that, infact I recall saying (or better, writing) that the beauty of this class is its versatility. The fact is, I do believe that a party with a character who's good ALSO at healing in the middle of a fight is stronger than a party without it. Some people seem to think otherwise, and that's completely fine with me, everybody is entitled to their opinion. I just get itchy all over when somebody says "that's the way it should be played otherwise you're just plain wrong". In my experience, there are 4 basic positions people take on this issue: 1) You should never heal in combat. If someone dies in combat, they deserve it. If someone asks for a heal in combat, they suck and clearly don't know game strategy. 2) Most healing should be done out of combat. Healing in combat is usually not the best idea, but it sometimes the optimal tactical decision. You can play without a full divine caster, you just have to take less risks. 3) Healing is an important aspect of combat. It allows players to make mistakes, it allows for more risk-taking, and it offsets unlucky dice-rolls. You should always have a full divine caster in the party, and atleast some of their feats should help them heal. 4) The cleric's(or oracle's) job is to heal me in combat. If I die in combat, it is the cleric's fault. If the cleric uses any spells except healing spells, he is wasting resources he could be using to heal me! The OP appears to take position #2. You appear to take position #3. There is quite a bit of overlap between these positions, and depending on your GM, your party composition, and your party's tactical skill, either one could be "right." Positions #1 and #4 are wrong. Completely and totally wrong. Always. I primarily encounter people who take position #4 in my gaming store. It is remarkable infuriating. People constantly tell me that I'm playing my Cleric wrong. They insult me for not taking channeling feats. They get upset when they end a battle at 30% hp, saying "they could have died." They pationize me and tell me my role should be healing them. I primarily encounter people who take position #1 in the forums. I tend to suspect that they take position #1 as a direct result of encountering people who take position #4.
Actually the best games are run by GM's who are creative and smart enough to give the PCs wide open choice without letting the game go off the rails. Some GMs just can't hack it. 
Actually as both GM and player, I like actions to have meaningful consequences, both negative and positive- while i'm not sneering down over my glasses at your play-style, its certainly not one I enjoy. Even in Kingmaker, a delay on my players part cost them a pretty brutal attack on their capital. An attack which I fully rolled out with their NPC's defending the castle walls and in which major allies died. If the NPC's hadn't been so successful in defending it for so long, the place would have been sacked by the time my PC's arrived back. I ran the mass combat out in the open for my players to read as they raced home, right up until the last mass combat round (to preserve a little suspense). If your playstyle involves there never truly being an incentive to hurry or knowing OOC that you won't be 'too late' for anything, of course the advantage goes to wizards and their ilk... Even in Paizo AP's, I have my villains be pro-active. They aren't simply sat in a dungeon room, waiting to be killed off, waiting to start their ritual just as the PC's burst in. Now that is simply my preferred playstyle; but I can tell you that the gap between Wizards and the other classes does not seem nearly as vast as you imply it is in such a playstyle. I often do not even see a disparity until 10th level +, due to a variety of reasons I am sure. Here are a few i'm fairly sure about- 1. Reactive world/playstyle and a sense of player urgency. It becomes fairly clear in my games that if your going to try and clear a dungeon or enemy stronghold bit by bit, novaing every encounter, that bad things are going to happen. This isn't just limited to counterattacks or reinforcements. 2. Intelligent tactics. A wizard has a very mighty toolbox. But there are counters to their spells and encounters do not occur on their terms in my games nearly as much as seems to be implied. Illusion magic in particular can make a wizard blow a significant portion of his payload on a minor threat and readied actions to shoot the spellcaster as he casts remain significant as long as the damage remains reasonably competitive. 3. Perception checks. I mean, seriously. The DC is not particularly high to hear your allies being slaughtered through the next door, or hear the wizard insisting everyone waits while he casts an endless series of buffs on himself. Adequately prepared and armed with foreknowledge, there is no denying the Wizard in my games is always a force to be reckoned with; the most potent force in fact- when he gets everything on his terms. Villains and adversaries allowing this to happen is, in my eyes, some pretty poor DMing and quite possibly metagaming, depending on their intelligence and the resources available to them. 
Paladins are vastly less survivable than Experts and are a huge danger to the party. As soon as something evil shows up that just can't be ignored, the Paladin basically forces the rest of the party into confrontation, where the Expert will say "Hey, why don't we just ignore that guy and do something a little less suicidal. Sure, everyone in the village will die, and that's terrible... but its not my village and I don't want to die." Well-run Paladins generally aren't the flavor of Lawful Stupid that insists on forcing the group into committing suicide. 
Restoration and Raise are not "healer" spells. That is post-combat stuff. Stuff you want to stick on scrolls to cover your butt when the dust have settled. The usefulness, or even NEED for those, is something I would never contest. What I do contest is the use of actions on casting cure lights or whatnot while the fighting is going on. Could have used that spell for a bless at the start, and made the fight easier. Preemptive, not reactive, is what wins. 
"Sandbox" does not mean, "The monsters all sit in their holes waiting for the adventurers to come along. The adventurers can retreat and rest every time they clean out two rooms, and then come back and pick up where they were." The monsters have brains, too. PCs who regularly attempt 15-minute workdays in one of my games will regularly run into foes who, alerted by the initial attack, have organized and prepared themselves to meet the return of the PCs with maximum force. Opposition that is survivable as 4 separate encounters of CR equal to APL is a bit trickier as a single organized ambush. And then the battered surviving members of the party (if any) will find the opposition sensibly hid the treasure while the PCs were gone the first time. So now the PCs can in their seriously weakened state search around for it in an unexplored dungeon . . . or retreat poorer for the resources they expended defeating the foe. Strategic surprise is a valuable asset. Parties that waste it should regret their profligacy, whether or not they're working under a time limit. 
A Lesser metamagic persistent rod is great for making spells more sticky and for extending the lifespan of your lower level spells. Ultimate combat added no-spell-failure Eastern Armor: Haramaki or Silken Ceremonial Armor Regarding pearls: I would take a first level pearl and possibly a second level pearl, and leave it at that. 
I just can't see a Good character who, after being harmlessly pranked, would launch a full power lethal attack at a person who had likely helped him on his own adventures and likely saved his life, even hatred of dragons/dragon bloodline sorcerer. Lets put it in a more real world example (blah blah real world alignment blah blah): Lets say your group of soldiers in WW2 is stuck behind enemy lines in Germany. You hate the Japanese for Pearl Harbor, but a half-Japanese man is willing to help you, even fight with you, against the Reich. After some time together, he slips a whoopee cushion under your seat as a prank, so you shoot him full auto in the face. Really? I could see, either with cold words or an angry yell, that the barbarian declare to the sorcerer "Do not act as if you were a friend I would forgive such actions from, because you are not. I still do not trust you, dragonspawn, and your actions do not encourage me to do otherwise." Or just: "Do that again and I will kill you, dragonspawn." Barbarian does not equal psychopath or even anger-management issues, unless he wants to put that specifically in his backstory, in which case ANY class can be that way, and barbarian is not an excuse. Besides, you can have plenty of interparty drama without killing party members. Sarenrae help me, my group is proof of that. Your player needs to learn how to be a team player before he tries to be edgy and dark with his roleplaying. 
I just want to make it clear that i dont have any resentment toward sean. He seems like a genuinely nice guy who created a cool concept for a tournament-style match up and he made the matches exciting with his solid commentary. I was just disappointed because I felt I made a solid, well-rounded character who would be a solid competitor based on the guide-lines that sean set. But then the rules werent quite respected so I got the short end of the stick. I am sure many ppl feel the same way... 
But the bad side is it's a bit TOO simplistic. Mainly the part where you can't have multiple factors of Advantage and that Disadvantage cancles everything else out. I agree that it might be a bit too simplistic in that mutiple factors don't stack, however as I read it a single Disadvantage doesn't cancel out every Advantage, rather if you have more Advantages than Disadvantages you have Advantage, and vice versa. I think this is one thing WotC really needs to clarify.
This will be your LE advice for the thread. Follow at your own peril. You are noble. What right has this commoner to instruct you? This hedge wizard believes he knows what's best for you? He has no respect for your class, your position, embarrassing you before your peers. If his "god" and his blood make him so mighty, let us just see how well he does without your help. And when he, beaten and bloody without the spells you cast to enhance him and your team, needs aid and healing, that is when you should instruct him of his error. Only when he vows to show you the proper respect, and only then, should you bail him out of the danger his own ego caused. You are a noble. He is a peon. The only mistake you've made is to forget these facts.
Point-buy and dice rolling each have advantages and disadvantages -- or, more accurately, they each have points which some consider a bug, and others a feature. That's OK. When you find a group, TALK to them. Find out their playstyle and make your choices accordingly. Don't agree to play and then stomp off in a huff because they don't all agree with what you decide is the "right" way to play. ^ This I agree with completely ^
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts
