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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 5827278" data-attributes="member: 5143">That's exactly my point.  Allowing some of those things in the game imbalances it...so you either have 2 choices: Imbalance the system on purpose to make people happy because they get to play their favorite class exactly how they want to OR restrict that choice and keep the game balanced.And since this is a group based game, allowing that choice might make the game fun for the person playing the class that is overpowered...but how does the rest of the group feel about it?  Does the DM get frustrated because things don't go anywhere near the way he planned and end up in a not-fun way for him?  Do the other players feel overshadowed because their awesome combat abilities never get used since the Illusionist bypasses all the encounters?  Or does the Rogue get annoyed that his ability to open locks is completely useless since another party member bought a magic item that opens all locks?And is all of that worth it in order to give choice to the one person who IS having fun?And I agree...to a point.  "Specializing" in an area should make you maybe 100% better than someone who didn't specialize in it.  The problem is, most people don't want characters to be that close.  They call it "bland" and "everyone is the same".  They want their Bard to wave his hand in front of every NPC and have them obey their every wish while the Fighter can only stare at NPCs until they walk away awkwardly.When proper specialization should say "If the fighter has a 40% chance to succeed at convincing someone to do something, the Bard should have a spell that has an 80% chance of doing whatever the Fighter could convince them to do.  The problem is, most of the situations turn out to be more like "The Bard has a 100% chance to make NPCs do things that the Fighter has a 0% chance of succeeding in."It often isn't a matter of choosing to "specialize" in something.  It's a matter of choosing whether you want the ability to do it at ALL.It might be worth it if it makes the game more fun for the other 5 people sitting around the table.  And what if it just made your gnome illusionist better?  What if you got to keep all the abilities you used to have but now also get a bunch of cool combat abilities you didn't used to have?Any mythic "focus on roleplaying" was entirely the focus of your OWN group and not the game system itself.  I played a combination 1e/2e game for many years.  Trust me, the idea that someone would play an illusionist was kind of silly in most of our games.  They were underpowered(and often close to useless) in combat and exploration and since 80-90% of the game was combat and exploring dungeon passages...Well, we questioned why they were even in the game.  After all, the game was about combat, being able to fool someone with an illusion might get an enemy to move away from a door or something, but you'd just have to fight them somewhere else.</blockquote>

Verification