Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 5054427" data-attributes="member: 40177">(Another &quot;house rule&quot; question that came up during a pregame conversation...)Okay.&nbsp; Let's assume that two character classes are perfectly balanced against one another, or pretty closely balanced.&nbsp; Let's assume that each class is equally viable to the game, and that the game will run just fine if both classes are present, neither is present, or only one is present (ie, the group is not goign to be hurt if they &quot;don't have a cleric&quot;).&nbsp; Let's also assume that players can choose from either class during PC generation.Is it right, or let's say &quot;Moral&quot; to say &quot;if you play class A, I will give you an extra benefit over class b?&quot;***To be more specific.&nbsp; Let's say I'm making a lower-magic D&amp;D game using 4e rules, and I want to encourage martial characters and barbarians as the main PC roles.&nbsp; Is it generally right to say &quot;if you play one of these characters, you will get a free feat&quot;?&nbsp; And then also apply a penalty to Arcane characters (in the sense of &quot;arcane characters are mistrusted by the populace&quot; sense, with some possible limitations on their powers as well)?I mean, I realize it will help establish the world tone I want, but it is it right to essentially make one character choice obviously better than the others, which will perpetually punish players that don't &quot;toe the line&quot; with my preferred choices?&nbsp; In other words, if you want to play a non-martial character in my campaign, you will always be a feat behind those that chose a martial character.&nbsp; Is this a good idea?&nbsp; What are some other ways you can weigh the party towards certain choices without nerfing those that go against the grain?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 5054427, member: 40177"] (Another "house rule" question that came up during a pregame conversation...) Okay. Let's assume that two character classes are perfectly balanced against one another, or pretty closely balanced. Let's assume that each class is equally viable to the game, and that the game will run just fine if both classes are present, neither is present, or only one is present (ie, the group is not goign to be hurt if they "don't have a cleric"). Let's also assume that players can choose from either class during PC generation. Is it right, or let's say "Moral" to say "if you play class A, I will give you an extra benefit over class b?" *** To be more specific. Let's say I'm making a lower-magic D&D game using 4e rules, and I want to encourage martial characters and barbarians as the main PC roles. Is it generally right to say "if you play one of these characters, you will get a free feat"? And then also apply a penalty to Arcane characters (in the sense of "arcane characters are mistrusted by the populace" sense, with some possible limitations on their powers as well)? I mean, I realize it will help establish the world tone I want, but it is it right to essentially make one character choice obviously better than the others, which will perpetually punish players that don't "toe the line" with my preferred choices? In other words, if you want to play a non-martial character in my campaign, you will always be a feat behind those that chose a martial character. Is this a good idea? What are some other ways you can weigh the party towards certain choices without nerfing those that go against the grain? [/QUOTE]

Verification