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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6177245" data-attributes="member: 17106">Of course not. However, I would expect that the aggregate contribution of certain characters, including every conceivable venue for contribution, would be slightly better or worse than others.Not necessarily. NPCs can be influenced by combat prowess and achievements, as well as intimidation tactics. The reality here is more nuanced; are the NPCs more receptive to one type of influence, the other, or both equally? I believe that NPCs living in a D&D world probably have a lot of respect for warrior types, as do other PCs. I find that the typical "leader" or "face" type is most often playing one of the martial classes.The message I take from it was that he made the wrong choice, and later decided to try another path.Nope. The last bard goes back far enough that I don't have any specific recollections of his exploits for better or worse.However, on a macro level, my games tend to involve more Knowledge checks than any other die roll, which you'd think would favor a bard. However, they also tend to involve a lot of outdoor travel and combat, and tend not to take place in urban settings. I see a lot of rangers, a fair number of druids, and the occasional barbarian (i.e. the nature-y classes). I don't see a lot of bards or rogues. When I announced we were playing in a more civilized setting, the appeal of the bard changed naturally.It's also important to note that virtually every player hands me a customized class or list of changes at the start of the campaign, which I then rewrite and we go back and forth on. It's not just bards. In this case, I had written a bard with singing and persuasion abilities, which were inappropriate for a royal servant, so I wrote an "archetype" (in PF terms) to make it based around poetry and benign influence. Enchantment is, after all, illegal.Well, my games tend to involve an enormous number of Knowledge checks, as well as the stealth and perception skills. But yes, melee combat is pretty important on the occasion it arises. I don't think this is a particularly radical development for a D&D game. In any case, no one plays in a vacuum and everyone's style favors something or other.To extend the above, I think "bias" implies that there is something abnormal about it. I don't think that a D&D game that rewards combat skill is particularly abnormal. If I were sitting down to play with a new DM first, I would not play a bard, because I would assume that said character is slightly less likely to be effective than a more conventional adventurer.Again, I don't know why you feel the need to take every statement I make to such extremes. To say that my players favor warriors does not mean that they don't play the other classes, or that it isn't interesting and different when they do. The typical class makeup of my games has been discussed at length elsewhere, but there is plenty of variety. All true. However, I think the system as written inappropriately overweights those advantages and makes small characters more powerful than they should be. I'm not a PF expert, but there still seem to be some subtle differences there.Which is all fine and good. I'm aware of plenty of points of differentiation between classes, but anything that is "second class" would need to be changed or excluded. Which does not preclude the possibility of a class like the bard that is clearly not as well suited for adventuring (combat or otherwise) as the others. Again, it's simply an offbeat choice, not second class.</blockquote>

Verification