Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5827045" data-attributes="member: 54710">I agree with this 80%, but the remaining 20% is also important.Balancing combat with non-combat is tricky, as you say, because (1) different campaigns allocate time very differently between combat and non-combat, (2) different campaigns allocate time very differently between types of non-combat (wilderness exploration, infiltration, engineering, politics, NPC persuasion) and (3) even within a campaign, different sessions will focus on different types of activity.  Because of all these factors, what's balanced for one campaign could be very imbalanced for another.  As such, I agree with the siloing philosophy where characters should all have some combat capabilities (because some combat is important to 90+% of D&D) and some non-combat capabilities.  That's the 80%.Players shouldn't be playing different games at the same table, but they don't need to be equally good at all phases of the game.  It's OK if the barbarian shines more in combat than the illusionist, so long as the illusionist has something to do during combat and contributes meaningfully to the party's efforts.  Similarly, its OK if the illusionist shines more in social gameplay, so long as the barbarian has a way (perhaps a limited way) to contribute so roleplaying with NPCs in a positive way.-KS</blockquote>