GX.Sigma
Adventurer
Then it's the same problem as my Scenario 2 above: A specialist is better than a non-specialist. Thus, all non-specialists are less viable than they would be if they were specialists. Thus, there's pressure for everyone to specialize.So the specialist isnt gimped, he's still better than other classes at fighting.
To put it simply, yes. Obviously a non-specialist wouldn't be unplayable, but they'd be much less desirable than a specialist (no one wants to play a character that's weaker than it could be). We saw this with 4e's feat taxes. People wanted to take feats that spoke to their character, and often did, but it's terrible game design to force the player to choose between fun and effectiveness.Does your character really have to be maxed out and top to hit to be effective?
Not really, because everyone is pressured to specialize, so everyone is limited.If the axe specialist finds a flaming longsword of doom...he made the choice to specialize, its supposed to be limiting.
I don't know of any creatures that are immune to bladed weapons. Can you name a few?When they fight creatures immune to bladed weapons they may feel a twinge of regret
My point is that power is always better than versatility, because versatility (especially in a team game like D&D) isn't very valuable. If you give players the choice between power and versatility, they will quickly learn that power is the correct choice. Then they will resent you for trying to trick them into choosing the wrong one.
Last edited: