Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The danger of the Three Pillars of D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5818875" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>Sure it as an impact. My gnome's inability to figure out what other people are thinking has an impact, too. The impact is mostly negative -- it reduces the chance of successfully getting an NPC to behave the way our party wants it to.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>All these characters with strengths and weaknesses will inevitably enter a situation that features their weakness at some point. Otherwise, they functionally don't have weaknesses. For me, there's a lot of fun in having my gnome potentially screw up our social plans. It's not the best recipe for "winning the game," but chaos is awesome. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Those all patch over the weakness - omitting the failure. The weakness <strong>should be present</strong>. Sometimes, you should have to roll a dice that you will likely not succeed on. The failure needs to be present. The essence of drama is overcoming a problem -- tension rises (and creativity balloons!) when the odds aren't so great. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Tweaking and drifting are supposedly part and parcel of this 5e project -- making the game into a game you want it, rather than making you play it like anyone else wants you to play it. </p><p></p><p>As long as the druid, ranger, and barbarian can meaningfully contribute to the occasional social interaction with a townsfolk (even at a C or D rank), it'll be fine in any campaign that features all three kinds of play (sucking once or twice a night isn't a problem; sucking constantly is). It's only when the campaign skews to one side that it'll skew the class selection. </p><p></p><p>It's FINE to me that barbarians aren't valid characters in heavily social campaigns (for example). They're still valid characters in standard campaigns featuring a fairly even distribution of the three challenge types -- and they'll weight the game a bit more toward the combat/exploration side of the game. Which is appropriate -- that's kind of the archetype. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm just saying that if you want a character's traits to emerge through play rather than before they sit down at the table, it's probably better to have their play determine their traits rather than their pre-game choices determine these traits. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's either. Both. The task is the thing they want to achieve that has some significant chance of significant failure. Both of those tasks (wooing them or scaring them) fall under the heading of a social skillset.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, but that's not much different from using an axe, a sword, or a bow. The goal is the same regardless of the tool used for it. And in this case, it's actually even all governed by the same ability score: Charisma.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, just as bows and swords and axes all contribute in very different ways. </p><p></p><p>But you're looking too closely at it, I feel. The three pillars are broad things. I can imagine a character who is not good at using any weapon -- just as I can imagine a character who is very good at using almost any weapon. </p><p></p><p>So a character that isn't good at social situations is not great at any of those. Of course, maybe they can try for a successful Intimidate anyway, even when their chance of success isn't that great, or their effect isn't that strong. It's like a 4e character with only a melee basic attack. Useful, just not as useful as a character with more stuff.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, but it should also be possible to have a character who sucks at ALL those things.</p><p></p><p>A druid who has spent her entire life in the forest isn't going to be good at any of those things, except perhaps with regards to wild animals (where she'll be VERY good!). She shouldn't be forced to pick a method to contribute if part of her archetypal weakness is that she CAN'T very effectively contribute to a social challenge. She can make a skill check like anyone else, but she's not as effective as the bard or the paladin or the cleric (who all have more options and varied abilities to use in that context). </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've found that for me, there is a distinction between major and minor encounters. Major encounters require the whole party to contribute something strategically. Minor encounters can be solved with about 2-3 quick die rolls. It's OK to have a character mostly sit out, suck at, or fail, a minor encounter of a given type. But they should have some way of contributing in at least a minor way to a major encounter.</p><p></p><p>Again, the druid above will not try and use her social skills on anyone most of the time. When she is required to help, she won't be as effective as the rest of the party (though she still has a baseline). That's part of the appeal of being a druid: you AREN'T good with people. It's your heroic weakness. It's fun to have.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Don't disagree with any of that.</p><p></p><p>However, "meaningfully contribute" isn't the same as "has an equal chance of success." </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>A broad spread doesn't mean the whole approach is invalid. It just means you need to narrow the spread. 4e did a pretty lousy job of keeping skill bonuses in check, though it did a pretty GOOD job of keeping attack and defense bonuses in check. Just equate them, and use the same maths for them, and you're good to go. </p><p></p><p>It's part of character design to have a character who sometimes sucks at something that the party needs to do. It's a fun part of the game to fail in a way of your own choosing (as happens when you choose your class fully aware of what they're good at and what they're bad at), or to try and succeed despite low odds (looking for things like "advantage" or addressing the fiction or using special abilities to better those odds).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 5818875, member: 2067"] Sure it as an impact. My gnome's inability to figure out what other people are thinking has an impact, too. The impact is mostly negative -- it reduces the chance of successfully getting an NPC to behave the way our party wants it to. All these characters with strengths and weaknesses will inevitably enter a situation that features their weakness at some point. Otherwise, they functionally don't have weaknesses. For me, there's a lot of fun in having my gnome potentially screw up our social plans. It's not the best recipe for "winning the game," but chaos is awesome. :) Those all patch over the weakness - omitting the failure. The weakness [B]should be present[/B]. Sometimes, you should have to roll a dice that you will likely not succeed on. The failure needs to be present. The essence of drama is overcoming a problem -- tension rises (and creativity balloons!) when the odds aren't so great. Tweaking and drifting are supposedly part and parcel of this 5e project -- making the game into a game you want it, rather than making you play it like anyone else wants you to play it. As long as the druid, ranger, and barbarian can meaningfully contribute to the occasional social interaction with a townsfolk (even at a C or D rank), it'll be fine in any campaign that features all three kinds of play (sucking once or twice a night isn't a problem; sucking constantly is). It's only when the campaign skews to one side that it'll skew the class selection. It's FINE to me that barbarians aren't valid characters in heavily social campaigns (for example). They're still valid characters in standard campaigns featuring a fairly even distribution of the three challenge types -- and they'll weight the game a bit more toward the combat/exploration side of the game. Which is appropriate -- that's kind of the archetype. I'm just saying that if you want a character's traits to emerge through play rather than before they sit down at the table, it's probably better to have their play determine their traits rather than their pre-game choices determine these traits. It's either. Both. The task is the thing they want to achieve that has some significant chance of significant failure. Both of those tasks (wooing them or scaring them) fall under the heading of a social skillset. Sure, but that's not much different from using an axe, a sword, or a bow. The goal is the same regardless of the tool used for it. And in this case, it's actually even all governed by the same ability score: Charisma. Sure, just as bows and swords and axes all contribute in very different ways. But you're looking too closely at it, I feel. The three pillars are broad things. I can imagine a character who is not good at using any weapon -- just as I can imagine a character who is very good at using almost any weapon. So a character that isn't good at social situations is not great at any of those. Of course, maybe they can try for a successful Intimidate anyway, even when their chance of success isn't that great, or their effect isn't that strong. It's like a 4e character with only a melee basic attack. Useful, just not as useful as a character with more stuff. Sure, but it should also be possible to have a character who sucks at ALL those things. A druid who has spent her entire life in the forest isn't going to be good at any of those things, except perhaps with regards to wild animals (where she'll be VERY good!). She shouldn't be forced to pick a method to contribute if part of her archetypal weakness is that she CAN'T very effectively contribute to a social challenge. She can make a skill check like anyone else, but she's not as effective as the bard or the paladin or the cleric (who all have more options and varied abilities to use in that context). I've found that for me, there is a distinction between major and minor encounters. Major encounters require the whole party to contribute something strategically. Minor encounters can be solved with about 2-3 quick die rolls. It's OK to have a character mostly sit out, suck at, or fail, a minor encounter of a given type. But they should have some way of contributing in at least a minor way to a major encounter. Again, the druid above will not try and use her social skills on anyone most of the time. When she is required to help, she won't be as effective as the rest of the party (though she still has a baseline). That's part of the appeal of being a druid: you AREN'T good with people. It's your heroic weakness. It's fun to have. Don't disagree with any of that. However, "meaningfully contribute" isn't the same as "has an equal chance of success." A broad spread doesn't mean the whole approach is invalid. It just means you need to narrow the spread. 4e did a pretty lousy job of keeping skill bonuses in check, though it did a pretty GOOD job of keeping attack and defense bonuses in check. Just equate them, and use the same maths for them, and you're good to go. It's part of character design to have a character who sometimes sucks at something that the party needs to do. It's a fun part of the game to fail in a way of your own choosing (as happens when you choose your class fully aware of what they're good at and what they're bad at), or to try and succeed despite low odds (looking for things like "advantage" or addressing the fiction or using special abilities to better those odds). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The danger of the Three Pillars of D&D
Top