Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dagger of Lath" data-source="post: 3017490" data-attributes="member: 43621">Well I deserved the return of my insensitive comment, though it was an honest opinion. Some of your comment (i.e. "voices of dissention") suggests you've mistaken me for someone else, perhaps the OP... I'm not sure. Anyway, I say sad, because I think people should enjoy any character, if you don't enjoy some of your characters I think that's a sad event. Well, naturally you don't want to be behind the curve of the party. This is why I favour point buy over random generation. Who wants to be stuck with a lousy dice roll for the next year. In D&D there aren't relative terms in stats though. You're a human? Then 10 is average, 3 is racial minimum and 18 is racial maximum with heroes potentially reaching 23 by epic levels. These norms define what an attribute means. By measuring your characters in the different fields by this scale you can see where your characters strengths and weaknesses lie. When your attributes are built from the normal point total, this means your decisions have meaning. If everyone's intelligence is above 13, then the combat expertise feat (and the entire tree built off it) isn't special any more. It's supposed to be available only to certain special characters in the group, much like deflect arrows (dex 13) or power attack (str 13). With stats closer to average each character has their area of speciality.A character with no weaknesses doesn't need the other PCs so they feel like they could adventure on their own. The game turns to turmoil and strife, one PC against the other. (exaggerated to communicate a point). If each character has weaknesses, and just as importantly strengths, then they can easily work together. People know what their character is good at and they trust the other character's to do their role in the party. To put it simply the fighter defends everyone else, the cleric heals them all, the mage does useful spells and the rogue disables traps and picks locks. No confusion or turmoil amongst the party. The group sticks together, argues less, everyone has more fun. (In my experience and with my group of players)Absolutely. My players are good enough friends and confident enough gamers to tell me when they dislike something, and if they still dislike the idea after I explain my reasons then I change the game for them. For example I banned sorcerers and monks from my last game since they didn't suit the western medieval setting, players complained so I put them back in. Me too. I think as long as you take the books in the spirit they're written in, rather than the cold hard rules then power creep won't happen.I think you could happily run a game off the PHB alone. But it may not be as much fun as a game with more resources.Do you think I'm someone else? Because the scenario you described doesn't conform to events on my end. I must admit I'm a little confused.</blockquote>

Verification