Search Posts
The weapon proficiency section of the Brawler class states they are proficient with all weapons in the Close Weapon Group. The Close Weapon Group lists Unarmed Strike in it. Does this mean the Strangler is proficient in Unarmed Strikes but can't deal lethal damage with it or does Unarmed Strike not count as a "Weapon"?
I'm at work right now, I posted the original message over lunch. The game I play in is at a comic store. Players show up when they're available and play whatever character they have and is of appropriate level. I, personally, don't like to be stereotyped based on my character class, so when someone asks me for it I will instead explain what roles I feel my character fills effectively. As such I don't generally ask other people their build unless it's really interesting and I can't figure it out myself. In regards to Walter Sheppard's comment, I get the impression from many of the other players that they may view surviving as a satisfying win. It's not like we leave every evening tired and drained and glad we got by. I'm saying that just surviving is not something I personally view as a win while I feel the rest of the party may. I'll try to post more information after work. Thanks for the responses!
I guess I'm fairly new to Society. I've posted a few questions about Society on the Boards before and I've played somewhere between ten and twenty scenarios. So I can't assume I have a complete picture of Society as a whole. But every time I play with my local group I always end up feeling like our party is completely incompetent. We bumble into ambushes from enemies, we search for traps with our Hit Points, and it generally seems like our main skill as a team is being ridiculously resilient. I don't feel like the measure of success for any scenario should be just surviving. That seems like a very reactive approach to the game. Instead, I feel like we should be proactive; setting up ambushes ourselves, using terrain to our advantage, and generally approaching combat in such a manner as is favorable for us instead of betting on surviving the odds. It's difficult for me to come up with specific examples, but I would think this approach would minimize expenditure of resources and maximize our chances of surviving. What I don't know is whether this is how the scenarios are written or if this is just the particular group I play with. I would be interested in hearing some perspectives and opinions from those of you who have played more. As it stands now, I generally feel like an idiot after we finish a Society Scenario. |
