5 years ago ::
Oct 06, 2008 - 1:20PM
Actually it's really up in the air whether or not that character would be kicked, as all we know about it is it has low Int, high Cha, and took Bluff instead of Theivery. As a 3rd ED Bard you can make an invincible build or a total wreck using those guidelines, and I'm willing to bet in 4th that will remain true (with Cha probably being the bards go to stat and Int or Dex being secondary.) There's no reason to kick that character because of it's build, because it doesn't have a build just a RP concept and a strange sense of certainty that being good at RP means you obviously suck at combat. The rest of the post is similarly flawed.
After all these months, I'm becoming convinced that the strawman "4e kills my RP by implicitly disallowing this character I refuse to fully describe" arguments will never die. In other news, I'm trying to rewrite Bowie's "Starman" as "Strawman", but I'm really struggling to keep the same meter. I guess we could just replace the one word, but it feels like a halfway effort.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.Quotation of the moment
Quotation of ALL moments
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.