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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6176620" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Strength can be important without being all-important.  The Halfling simply needs to focus on skills, strategies and tactics other than "big hulking melee brute".  Several exist.  He makes an excellent ranged combatant.  His DEX and size combine to provide an AC advantage.  As a riding combatant, he can ride many creatures that can make their way around a dungeon environment, an option closed to the much larger half orc.That half orc, dull witted and lacking any leadership skills, may be a great thug or a brute, but he does not fit the mold of "leader of men"  nor "brilliant tactician", also fine roles for a fighter type.Who said "better at magic"?  He's better at practical magic - spellcasting.  He's also hideously unbalanced - no one is seriously arguing he should be added to the game.  But neither do I perceive any benefit to having a similar power spread between any character classes.  If the Bard is a "suboptimal choice" and the Barbarian a "superior choice", that is a failure in the design of the game.  They should be more or less equal choices, as the game plays out.  The Barbarian will be a clear superior in some situations, and the Bard in others.  Those situations should balance out, not merely allow the Bard an occasional glimpse at the glory the Barbarian (or some other class) routinely basks in.Then why do you have an objection to a class which has more spellcasting ability, but less finesse, than a Wizard?  Tell you what - we'll remove all the Knowledge skills from the SpellSage's class list - after all, he never learned those subtle areas.  All he's worried about is practical casting.  We'll remove Scribe Scroll and Familiar, too - these are too theoretical.  He's just the best that he can be in casting spells.  That's all he's good at.Other than "relative equal viability" to some other concept, such as one or more other character classes, what is the reason for this very focused, pragmatic spellcaster to be inappropriate?  What is lost, other than some nebulous and arbitrary construct of "balance"?I have never seen a player set out to play a sidekick who will have limited or no impact on the game as compared to the other players' characters.  Useful in different ways, and different circumstances, sure, but not "I'll play Useless the Sidekick"  YMMVSome time above you mentioned a party made up of martial/melee characters.  To me, that suggests your game style favours such characters, your players realize this and they have designed characters which will be favoured by that game style.  How many of them have selected a Bard?  If any, has this been after several months playing in your game, after becoming used to the fact you consider them a "silly, suboptimal" concept, or a character brought in who was not allowed to serve a useful purpose, and was therefore retired or killed off?Most stories do not have players running a character each.  RPG's are a team pastime, and best simulate the source material with a variety of characters with different skills and abilities, strengths and weaknesses - source material where the characters tend to be relative equals.  But if you truly favour the disparate power approach, consider offering the players the option of selecting Martial characters (BAB +1/level and d10+ HD) who are 1st level, quasi martial characters (BAB 3/4; d8 HD) of 2nd level, non-martial characters (all others) of 3rd level or "silly concept" characters (bards only from what I see, but add any others you perceive as clearly suboptimal - maybe Halfling fighters) of 4th level.  See how many choose the clearly weaker  - that is, suboptimal - character options...no advance consultation, just pick what kind of character you will playThis "mystical standard" goes a long way to explaining the drift from random rolls to character design, actually.  No one gets an advantage due to luck of the dice, so the characters are more equal.  Every redesign has touted better balance, back to reducing the power of many standard spell choices in moving from 1e to 2e - if there were no demand for balance, then this would logically not be highlighted in each and every edition change (or even errata).  If you and your players are not looking to run more or less balanced characters, I suggest it is your group which is unusual, not those who are seeking a balance between various races, classes, etc.</blockquote>

Verification