Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6076487" data-attributes="member: 17106">I ran a campaign with heavy, heavy undead involvement. One PC was a Sun domain cleric who optimized for healing and turning (the player did this without knowing that he was in the perfect campaign for it). Another played a multiclass rogue/warlock. Did player #1 experience greater mechanical success with his character than player #2? Somewhat. The cleric routinely owned undead and was a great healer in any other case. And his character was a minor lord who owned a keep and ruled over a small area, while the other characters had no equivalent standing. The rogue/warlock was a terrible rogue and a mediocre warlock, and scraped by. His character was even captured and tortured by undead once; he wasn't effective against them at all.And yet, both players remember it as a great experience and count it as one of my better efforts. Both got involved in the noncombat aspects of the game, and the rogue was just tank-ish enough to make the party work in combat. Even though the optimized "tier 1" character with a campaign built for him clearly owned, people had fun anyway.Which I attribute to one of two things:1. I as a DM took steps to make it work.2. Mechanical effectiveness isn't everything.I got what I expected out of my ruleset.(To be fair, I later rewrote the rogue, using Trailblazer principles to give it some partial effectiveness against crit-immune creatures. I don't disagree that sneak attack needs a rewrite.)</blockquote>

Verification