A player shouldn't be penalized by coming up with a concept that fits with broad tropes but doesn't have the mechanics to back it upUnfortunately the system tends to have quite the trend for lacking mechanics for any non-spellcaster.
I've simply given up trying to fight the system to make more mundane characters work.
"that does not use spells."
Why do people bother including that in their concept I wonder? Ultimately the game relegates you to surviving on potions, scrolls, magic gear and so forth so what's the point in making your character specifically unable to use spells personally?
Many players don't want to manage spell lists. They don't want to pick spells, prepare spells, look for spells, and they'd rather leave the casting to another member of the party.
They should be able to.
The way things are going, especially with the growing number of spellcasting martials, they may have no choice in the matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way things are going, especially with the growing number of spellcasting martials, they may have no choice in the matter.
A player shouldn't be penalized by coming up with a concept that fits with broad tropes but doesn't have the mechanics to back it upUnfortunately the system tends to have quite the trend for lacking mechanics for any non-spellcaster.
I've simply given up trying to fight the system to make more mundane characters work.
"that does not use spells."
Why do people bother including that in their concept I wonder? Ultimately the game relegates you to surviving on potions, scrolls, magic gear and so forth so what's the point in making your character specifically unable to use spells personally?
Many players don't want to manage spell lists. They don't want to pick spells, prepare spells, look for spells, and they'd rather leave the casting to another member of the party.
They should be able to.
To be fair, they did give us the Slayer. If you're like me and want to play something that doesn't cast but wants to be really good at it the Slayer is a godsend.
To be fair, they did give us the Slayer. If you're like me and want to play something that doesn't cast but wants to be really good at it the Slayer is a godsend.The way things are going, especially with the growing number of spellcasting martials, they may have no choice in the matter.
A player shouldn't be penalized by coming up with a concept that fits with broad tropes but doesn't have the mechanics to back it upUnfortunately the system tends to have quite the trend for lacking mechanics for any non-spellcaster.
I've simply given up trying to fight the system to make more mundane characters work.
"that does not use spells."
Why do people bother including that in their concept I wonder? Ultimately the game relegates you to surviving on potions, scrolls, magic gear and so forth so what's the point in making your character specifically unable to use spells personally?
Many players don't want to manage spell lists. They don't want to pick spells, prepare spells, look for spells, and they'd rather leave the casting to another member of the party.
They should be able to.
That's assuming they didn't nerf the Slayer between playtest and release.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many players don't want to manage spell lists. They don't want to pick spells, prepare spells, look for spells, and they'd rather leave the casting to another member of the party.
They should be able to.
Yep. This.
And they can. Full casters are certainly the most powerful classes, but Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins (including spell-less ones), many varieties of Monk, Gunslingers, and even Cavaliers are all actually pretty solid and able to contribute.
And with the ACG, we also get Slayers, Swashbucklers, and Brawlers, and at least the first two are pretty capable of holding their own, judging by the playtest versions. Slayer is particularly awesome since you can use it as a replacement for both Fighter and Rogue very effectively.
It's really pretty much just Fighters, Rogues, and non-archetype Monks that are completely screwed. Changing the rules to narrow or even eliminate the caster/martial disparity would be great, but it's not actually necessary to play a competent martial character.
|
|
That's assuming they didn't nerf the Slayer between playtest and release.
Why would you assume they'd do that? Given the list of changes SKR said were likely...that sounds like they'd get slightly powered up if anything.
The urban ranger could do it, if you see your concept more warrior than the common thief.
And the CRB too restrictive? It's a game that use ''imagination''. Sure there is great stuff in the other book, but you can make almost any concept with the CRB.
Hardly.
|
|
Hardly.The urban ranger could do it, if you see your concept more warrior than the common thief.
And the CRB too restrictive? It's a game that use ''imagination''. Sure there is great stuff in the other book, but you can make almost any concept with the CRB.
Ooh...I missed that one. Yeah, using the corebook alone, quite a few concepts are basically impossible and many more are so horrible mechanically that the game is actively punishing you for playing them.
Not playing doesn't mean you have a mechanically superior character, though. In fact, it means you don't.
You just chose the character that is worse mechanically (the one that doesn't play). That's how you end up with that choice (in a null-hypothesis sort of way).
I would rather not play than be forced to play a character that can't do what I envision him doing, and there is *no* CRB option that does swashbuckling or unarmed combat worth a damn. The rogue doesn't even work because it has trapfinding and trap sense, neither of which fit that image, plus sneak attack, to be remotely good, requires a flankmate, and every swashbuckler I can think of is a one-on-one duelist type.
So, if i did play, I would simply render that idea unfeasible, and play something else, or not play, as the mood hit me.
That's assuming they didn't nerf the Slayer between playtest and release.Why would you assume they'd do that? Given the list of changes SKR said were likely...that sounds like they'd get slightly powered up if anything.
So as to prevent it from outshining other classes (basically, same reason as the warpriest). I'm willing to bet the result is somewhere between the Ranger and Rogue in terms of power.
But, keep in mind I tend to be heavily cynical on this subject. It allows me to be pleasantly surprised frequently, but at the same time tends to make me rather dour on it. But, look at it this way... we'll see very, very soon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to pick a class that sounded right for the concept. for instance, if I wanted to be a sneaky guy who can spot ambushes, I'd just pick Rogue. This led to me getting burned. Now I look at all options available and tailor make a character's abilities to my concept.
For instance, a Ranger with the Battle Scout archetype and Trapper/Skirmisher archetype does the concept of "sneaky spotty guy" about as good as I need, while not gimping myself. Though I think the Slayer will replace this build for that concept.
In short, I used to play any class any time, but this became no fun. So now I avoid certain classes while still being faithful to their concepts.
Because, maybe the good one is not the better one to fullfill the concept...
Sure, if you want to do a child of the street that live his life with small work and stealing, the Bard and the Alchemist can do the job. But they are not as good for this concept than a Rogue.
Now HOW is the rogue better at this....
The rogue literally has NO mechanical advantage over any other character when it comes to skill..
As for Wrong John's question: Probably an Urban Barbarian/Invulnerable Rager. Go the Dervish Dance route with a scimitar ... assuming I'd be willing to play in a game so annoyingly restricted.CRB only. No "Urban" (although Barbarian is fine), no Invulnerable Rager, and no Dervish Dance.
Sounds like you can't make a character. Not this way. I'll make a Rogue, it fits.
So.. lets pick the ONE time where a rogue has use... maybe...
|
|
So as to prevent it from outshining other classes (basically, same reason as the warpriest). I'm willing to bet the result is somewhere between the Ranger and Rogue in terms of power.
Actually...the general consensus is that that's where it is already. Rangers have spells (including one that lets them apply their FE bonuses to anything) and Animal Companions. The general consensus seems to be that, from a technical optimization perspective, that's better than what the Slayer gets.
And we don't know that Warpriest was powered down. They lost one thing and gained some others...but we're not clear on exactly what was gained yet.
But, keep in mind I tend to be heavily cynical on this subject. It allows me to be pleasantly surprised frequently, but at the same time tends to make me rather dour on it. But, look at it this way... we'll see very, very soon.
Eh. I feel like 'What's the point of assuming the worst?' it just makes one feel worse. I prefer to plan for the worst, but hope for and expect the best. Keeps my mood light. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to play whatever floats my boat at the time. So, yeah, I do it regularly. And, I've never felt underpowered.
Then again, not only do I get creative with what I do, but my groups have generally had campaigns that aren't DPR focused.
I still have fun, because I just don't give a flyin' frag grenade about how many kills I rack up (seriously, Pathfinder isn't a freaking FPS, there aren't any leader boards, WTF do you care about getting the last hit on something!? Attack the wizard that's finishing the evil ritual, not the mook with 1 hp left that I've been soloing!).
Only time I didn't have fun was when I was playing an inquisitor, and the GM ruled that Called Shot + True Shot to the head = auto death, because the cleric was a whiny little *deep breath* that wanted to one-shot the big bad of that particular dungeon on round two. Oh, and this last one where the GM introduced a ton of house rules to turn Pathfinder into some weird Warhammer 40K/Star Trek/Serenity hybrid, equipped his Orks with an I-Win button (bomb that blew the ship if they started losing), and an impenetrable shield vs ranged attacks (and I was a gunslinger). On the other hand, those are due to house rules, not class mechanics...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Much of the fun in a game like Pathfinder is flexing your System Mastery in your build. But to my mind, System Mastery is not about taking a powerful option and cranking it up to eleven. It's about taking a subpar option and making it serviceable.
I appreciate this post more than I can tell you, because it adds a third aspect to what's normally a dully repetitious either/or scenario.
Because if a caster wants to they can pretty much regulate anyone who is playing an underpowered class to "Henchmen" status. Even worse, a caster can do this accidentally merely by making logical decisions.
Personally, I don't have a problem with this because I don't think that every spellcaster necessarily has access to the right spell for occasion. Beyond that, I don't think spell success is necessarily a given, even without optimized characters.
And again, a lot of this has to do with meaningful, well-designed encounters. I mean, look, as the GM, given the right amount of time I can come up with all manner of impossible situations for the characters. We all, after all, laugh about stuff like the "Top 100 Things You Wouldn't Do As An Evil Mastermind list". Where's the fun in that, though? No one is flawless, much less so in fiction. There should always be dramatic moments to seize, foibles to exploit, etc.
...
(1) Have you ever played in a totally-optimized meatgrinder campaign like Age of Worms on steroids, in which only fully-optimized parties have any chance of success?
(2) If so, did you intentionally weaken the whole party? What were the other players' reactions?
...
1) Yes, but not since 3.0. I sometimes like it, but just can't find a group that has that style around me.
2) In that case I would not build something that brings down the party average. But I still won't try to build one that is better than everyone else in the party.
.
.
I feel like I'm missing a logic train somehow.
Okay, you have your concept. There are, let's say, three classes that can be built to fulfill that concept. One is good, one is average, one is below average.
Why would you not pick the good one?
.
First: I think you are defining good as in relation to combat power. I do not always define it that way..
Second: very, very rarely have I found that more than one class will fit the concept as well as another.
.
But even so, I would probably pick the one that is average in relation to combat power. In my current group of players, that will probably put me at about the same combat level as the other PC's.
.
.
I will say I have a point of view that I know not everyone shares with repect to combat power.
a) Most GM's will up the power level of encounters to try and give all party members a challenge if you are stomping through without trouble.
b) Not everyone optimizes for combat with the same priority or skill as everyone else.
c) That means if I make a super combat monster way better than the rest of the group, I have actually hurt the group. The GM will boost up the encounters to challenge me and the others may not be able to survive. This actually has the potential to hurt the group more than if I brought a complete pacifist non-combat PC.
My players find that the story adapts to their power. if there is an odd one out it has never been a problem. The optimists have generally given me in-ordinarily good reasons to make NPC's hate them (Just having Fireball on your sheet doesnt mean you cast it every time you see a mobb of angry people, especially if you have no idea what they are saying) and sub-optimized characters get plenty of help during development if the other players are all super optimized.
On the other hand.
Optimized fighters and cavaliers shine plenty in my games. Though idd like a better variety of methods to do so. I'm tired of Two-handed style martial combat (two-weapon style for cavaliers though).
Good rouge players have plenty fun in my games, bad rouge players dont, its not a forgiving class unlike casters who tend to be rather point-click, the first time a player in my group realized the value of Wall spells it was a real pain.
I play a lot of monks, they are super fun. Lots of options. Played a fighter to 8th the other campaign and it's good to kill everything in front of you without getting whacked much, but they have so few options when things aren't in front of them. Rogues are OK, but a second level spell or a potion is far better than a good rogue. Skills are spelled away. Who needs sense motive when you can zone of truth them, far better for less cost. Invisibility is better than stealth and it gets to be massively improved at higher levels. Too many spells ruin the fun, IMO so I play "weak" characters and rock it, most of the people in my campaigns think monks are overpowered.
Yes I play arcane casters.
What? They aren't clerics.
I've seen all 3 of the so called "weak" classes played all the way through several APs, and they were still able to contribute and be useful, sometimes even party MVP, in the 15th-17th level range. If a character is useful and survivable through the entire run of an AP, and the player is happy playing it, I'm not sure what other metrics matter.
When I played Runelords(original, not AE), we had a monk. He was pretty much the entire reason we didn't TPK on big X. Useful all the way through.
I'm running Runelords AE right now, and the group has two fighters. They kill things so efficiently that I've had to adjust prepared spellcaster's spell lists just to deal with it. (Presuming they get forewarning, I don't just hose PCs without an in game justification)
I played through Carrion Crown with a fighter, in fact a terribly unoptimized one, and the GM still felt that I should have toned it back a bit. (He was a sword and board fighter who took no shield feats at all)
I ran Serpent's Skull and one player's rogue is basically responsible for the group being able to defeat the end boss.
So yeah, my group and I will play these classes and we will have fun doing it.
The ability to do this varies by GM and group. I ran a group through AoW Kingmaker but around level 15 the fighter which would have been OP in many other people's games started to fall off fast. He did a lot of damage, and had a high AC, but other than hitting things hard he did not do much, and he was not hard to negate. I just had to tone back when I did it so the player would have fun.
Agreed, it's better when everyone can feel properly balanced. I'd say that in our case, the economy is designed such that a full-on wizard would find themselves limited as well--not enough spells,
Why is this? I understand at low levels, but later on it is not normally problem, unless the caster insist on casting every round which is may not be good resource management. In fights where the party has taken over I will just use a crossbow or a cantrip, but I know that would make some people bored.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ya, the "not enough spells" argument is super weak past level 5. If you blow 20+ spells in single day of adventuring you are doing something wrong, or your campaign is having 8+ encounters a day, which is not the norm.
A Number crunching, min-maxing, optimizing, and overall trying to think of ways to break the system in order to achieve a sense of victory...
Everyone optimises, and those other things you mentioned are not needed, but I do think your point is that you don't have the time or energy to care more about mechanics. As long as you have fun you are happy.
I've seen all 3 of the so called "weak" classes played all the way through several APs, and they were still able to contribute and be useful, sometimes even party MVP, in the 15th-17th level range. If a character is useful and survivable through the entire run of an AP, and the player is happy playing it, I'm not sure what other metrics matter.
When I played Runelords(original, not AE), we had a monk. He was pretty much the entire reason we didn't TPK on big X. Useful all the way through.
I'm running Runelords AE right now, and the group has two fighters. They kill things so efficiently that I've had to adjust prepared spellcaster's spell lists just to deal with it. (Presuming they get forewarning, I don't just hose PCs without an in game justification)
I played through Carrion Crown with a fighter, in fact a terribly unoptimized one, and the GM still felt that I should have toned it back a bit. (He was a sword and board fighter who took no shield feats at all)
I ran Serpent's Skull and one player's rogue is basically responsible for the group being able to defeat the end boss.
So yeah, my group and I will play these classes and we will have fun doing it.
Cool. Two of the monk's greatest strengths, being able to soak spells and immense mobility, the ability to very quickly advance, retreat or move from place to place are often overlooked.
Sure, the monk can fail their saves, and it happens, but I find them rather good, and they have so many feats and abilities now I find customising them very easy and rewarding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being in a RP heavy group, yes. No class fills the story of a character who grew up on the streets quite like the rogue, all the classes have a number of stories they tell best
Does it? Every character who grew up on the streets is half an assassin who knows how to backstab? I REALLY think the urban ranger fits it much better. Just because the name, rogue, hints at this doesn't mean the mechanics back that up.
Looking at it this way the archaeologist bard fits as well as the rogue. Luck helps a lot on the streets and the spells are no more odd than sneak attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Based on what you described, that comes down to campaign design and the GM.I played a monk/fighter at the start of Carrion Crown. It was not fun.
** spoiler omitted **
Sue you could say it is the GMs fault. It sure as hell is (at least partly the APs fault) but if you don't know the AP you are going to play or the GM that is mastering it, this is a strong incentive to build a self reliant PC that can deal with a maximum of situations. Both of which are things the rogue, fighter and monk are ill equipped for. Especially at low levels.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly can't play a Rogue anymore, they just get so little to work with. I'm the kind of player who's always calculating my odds and thinking about my resources, so playing a character who doesn't have resources is really difficult. I even steer my players away from Rogue too, since it gets so little.
I would play a Fighter, since I'm such a sucker for feats, and I don't steer others away from it since it's basic battling, but I always feel bad when I see someone playing a Rogue when they could have played something else.
I myself can't see why some people are so shackled to flavor though. I could play a knight as a Barbarian with a "combat focus" instead of a rage, or a 'rogue' who's an Alchemist and just manages to pick up the right potion for the job. Honestly I wonder why UMD is so heralded for Rogues when a Bard does it infinitely better aside from "All Bards are FOPS!" that seems to be going around.
I just don't see any reason to make a weaker character, but I am on the higher end up the optimization spectrum, which causes me a bit of stress building lower end characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So as to prevent it from outshining other classes (basically, same reason as the warpriest). I'm willing to bet the result is somewhere between the Ranger and Rogue in terms of power.That's assuming they didn't nerf the Slayer between playtest and release.Why would you assume they'd do that? Given the list of changes SKR said were likely...that sounds like they'd get slightly powered up if anything.
That's where it was at the second playtest. It was better than the rogue, did not quite match the ranger and provided a far better platform to build most Rogue or Fighter based concepts than those classes.
Edit:
By the way, the only two classes that really fit the street urchin fluff are commoner (for the beggar who didn't learn a lot) or expert for the one who got some training whatever kind it may be.
Anything more, even the rogue is metagaming and sacrificing fluff for power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I have played all the so called underpowered classes, and found that none of them are really underpowered at all.
The oposite is also true, from experience I can honestly say there are no overpowered classes either.
I don't see how it is a better fit: the ranger got a martial knowledge far better than some thug of the street. He is A) a genius at fighting B) trained in fighting
And if I don't whant the character to disarm trap, there is plenty of Rogue Archetype that take it off.
The classes you are looking for are NPC classes. You are interested in being mundane, normal, noneheroic. A street thug would be an warrior or maybe an expert. Warriors have full BAB, experts have 6 + Int skill points.
I play a character in every game I'm in. What 'classes' that character trains in is based on the character's motivations and experience, not the 'power' it could achieve.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play a character in every game I'm in. What 'classes' that character trains in is based on the character's motivations and experience, not the 'power' it could achieve.
OK, back to my question, then: say you're in an insanely optimized high-stakes game in which your primary motivation is survival, and achieving it requires you to pull out all the stops and amp your power to 11. Does that affect your statement in any way?
I keep harping on this because there exist more than one style of play.
If the game supported them all equally, there would be no need for disagreement -- one group could play for all flavor and the DM could downgrade challenges accordingly, another group could play a hardcore hunter-killer team and the DM could upgrade challenges accordingly, and everything in between. But that's not the case. All of the classes can be made to function in the former game, but only some of them are viable in the latter game.
Ideally, I'd like to be able to see past my own particular preferences, and advocate for a game that everyone can play equally -- rather than smugly declaring, "it supports my style, and everyone else can go f--- themselves!"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My father always said it's better to have and not need than need and not have.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play a character in every game I'm in. What 'classes' that character trains in is based on the character's motivations and experience, not the 'power' it could achieve.
I also play a character. What class he is listed as on his character sheet depends on which one's mechanics most accurately reflect the picture of him I have in my head. Again, regardless of power. You can tell by how I almost exclusively play things other than full casters, because I prefer to imagine my character doing things with their own hands, not magic alone.
However, that picture in my head? It always involves a fair degree of competence, since I like my character to succeed at things, and it ruins my image of him if he's completely useless at large portions of what the game involves. Y'know what class violates that image? Rogue. Y'know what else is part of that image? Things like being charming, knowledgeable, and effective at what amounts to a variety of skills. Y'know what violates that image? Fighter.
If I'm playing a character, I'm thinking Oberyn Martell, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, Elric of Melnibone, Conan, Inigo Montoya, Allan Quatermain, John Carter of Mars, Logen Ninefingers, James Bond, or The Man With No Name. Fighter and Rogue don't let you play any of those things, since all have both actual combat prowess and useful skills outside it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play a character in every game I'm in. What 'classes' that character trains in is based on the character's motivations and experience, not the 'power' it could achieve.OK, back to my question, then: say you're in an insanely optimized high-stakes game in which your primary motivation is survival, and achieving it requires you to pull out all the stops and amp your power to 11. Does that affect your statement in any way?
I keep harping on this because there exist more than one style of play.
If the game supported them all equally, there would be no need for disagreement -- one group could play for all flavor and the DM could downgrade challenges accordingly, another group could play a hardcore hunter-killer team and the DM could upgrade challenges accordingly, and everything in between. But that's not the case. All of the classes can be made to function in the former game, but only some of them are viable in the latter game.
Ideally, I'd like to be able to see past my own particular preferences, and advocate for a game that everyone can play equally -- rather than smugly declaring, "it supports my style, and everyone else can go f--- themselves!"
Honestly, I've never had an experience like this. I've never felt in competition with the other characters. If I have a character that is weaker in combat situations than the others, I simply play him as such. He acts more cautiously, he is always the one trying to talk the party into stepping back and resting, etc. 'Underpowered' might imply a weaker combatant, but not a weaker character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll somewhat steer away from system polemics, because it's been written and re-written a million times before, and just say that I tend not to play what people typically consider tier 1 classes, unless it matches a concept I really want to play.
I will play rogues, fighters and monks, but tend to mid-tier classes that combine fightyness, skills and often some casting. I like the combinations of abilities they often bring to the table on both a combat, problem solving and narrative level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Face it, there are simply two major types of RPG gamers and this question obviously hits at the crux of it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Face it, there are simply two major types of RPG gamers and this question obviously hits at the crux of it.
This is overly simplistic. There are way more factors at play than just the type of games people enjoy, or what things they focus on. Party size, whether the group uses published adventures, degree of optimization by other players, how far the GM goes to make everyone feel included. All that kind of thing.
Face it, there are simply two major types of RPG gamers and this question obviously hits at the crux of it.This is overly simplistic. There are way more factors at play than just the type of games people enjoy, or what things they focus on. Party size, whether the group uses published adventures, degree of optimization by other players, how far the GM goes to make everyone feel included. All that kind of thing.
Very true, however, I believe that your points on degree of optimization by other players and the part about the GM falls strongly into the very simplistic point I just made. Party size, however, is definitely a demographic where these things can come into play.
To your point about published adventures...where do you stand on your belief as far as how Paizo publishes AP paths? I know they are generally made for a 15 point buy 4 person party if I recall...but do you feel they focus on creating them for more..as you say...optimized parties? I've only played in one of their APs with our group and there are 5 players and we rolled for our stats with the average being probably around a 20 point buy equivalent. I have not come across any difficulties with the party and have had to scale the encounters up about 25% for a bit of a challenge...and all characters are definitely not optimized. Would you say that is typical? Or is it a case of lucky dice combined with it being Rise of the Runelords?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I've never had an experience like this.
A lot of people enjoy that kind of game though, and do experience this problem. Are they "wrong" for doing so, to the point that making some of the underperforming classes (monk, fighter, rogue) up to par would be tantamount to abetting a crime? I, personally, have never had an immunodeficiency problem, but I don't go around proclaiming that AIDS doesn't exist. Instead, I contribute to AIDS reasearch. Other playstyles are not wrongbadfun, and awareness and sympathy of playstyles other than one's own is NOT a bad thing.
I've never felt in competition with the other characters.
Hopefully no one does. It's all about playing in a team, not against your teammates. But here's the thing: in a very tough game, some of us want to be able to contribute to the team on equal footing, not simply tag along and force everyone else to compensate for our inadequacies. Like I keep saying, if four kids are playing nerf basketball in the driveway, it's all good. But if little Timmy from the driveway is suddenly in the NBA playoffs, he'll have lots of fun, but the rest of his team is forced to carry him, to their detriment. If you never play in that kind of game, you won't ever see this, but again, that doesn't mean it isn't a thing.
'Underpowered' might imply a weaker combatant, but not a weaker character.
You're missing the boat here. At higher levels, the fighter, rogue, and monk have no ability to do anything other than obligingly tag along, while their caster friends are given the ability to change the storyline as a class feature. That means, at upper levels, some classes are relegated to being lackeys at best and spectators at worst -- if the casters are actually using their abilities. The fighter is still great at combat, but he can't really do anything else, and that's a major weakness unless your game is nothing but combat.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Other playstyles are not wrongbadfun, and awareness and sympathy of playstyles other than one's own is NOT a bad thing.
I want to see this permanently emblazoned in 64-point letters directly above the post reply area... :)