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: 6177291" data-attributes="member: 6681948">I don't see the unlikeliness of ever attaining "perfect balance" making it any less of a target worth striving for - we may never reach it, but we can look to get closer, rather than further away.  The fact that certain classes are "underpowered" or "overpowered" can be recognized, and efforts made to correct that.See, here we come to giving bonuses to players who don't want to invest character resources in certain areas.  In the source material, I would agree the typical leader is most often a martial character.  He is also most often a charismatic, fairly sharp character, and not a low CHA, dull-witted brute.  When we see the latter in the source material, he tends to be a minion at least as good at combat as the "hero" (ie a lower level character who dedicated all his resources to combat so he can match the higher level character in that one area) or a much more potent combat threat than the Leader, who can't simply be defeated in face to face combat, but must be defeated by teamwork, clever thinking or some other approach that offsets the fact this Brute is a superior combatant (same level, but focused much more on combat than the Leader).Or we just hand out free bennies to the warriors so they can do the same things classes with less combat benefits can do, and act surprised when this is perceived as a bias towards warrior characters, or a reason why one's players might gravitate to warriors rather than other classes who don't get the same bonus freebies.  I could just as easily note that Wizards or Clerics are typically held in awe and viewed as sources of sage advice (or powers to be feared), leading to NPC's being inclined to take their advice very seriously - that is, their skills and accomplishments command a lot of respect.  For that matter, nobles often want to be seen as educated, erudite, literate and artful - so they were patrons of the very arts the Bard epitomizes.  So shouldn't they also show respect for those achievements and accomplishments.Now, if they show equal regard for each of these areas of achievement - oh my, we're back to using the actual characters' skills to differentiate their success in the social arena.  But if we assume that only warrior types command respect, so they get free bonuses to their efforts in the social arena, then we give those characters freebies.  Part of the problem is that we imprint specific classes on fictional characters.  Maybe that clever, charming Knight isn't a L11 Fighter.  Perhaps he is a L5 Fighter/L8 Rogue - same BAB, but a lot more social skills.  And maybe he has a 14 STR, 12 CON, 12 DEX, saving some stats to invest in CHA and INT (or maybe, just maybe, he's not constrained by the point buy or random roll limits imposed by a game where teamwork is desired).Well, I would agree, at least in part.  I believe he concluded (consciously or otherwise) that he made the wrong choice for your game (including both your and your fellow players' playstyles and attitudes), and later decided to try another path better suited for success in that game.  That's no different than selecting Power Attack because your GM uses a lot of Giants with low AC's and high hp's, but choosing Weapon Focus in a different game because that GM uses a lot of high AC low hp undead, or picking Ranger favoured enemies based on the type of monsters the GM likes to use - making character choices to suit the game style.You can have lots of rolls without those rolls being overly meaningful.  Does failing those knowledge checks lead to character death, or to combats that gather more xp and loot?  With the classes you cite, and your comments on locale, I also wonder whether it is knowledge of nature specifically which is valuable in your games.  I wonder how much of this is simply dumping abilities your games don't favour to pick up abilities your games do favour.  Here again, I don't see how we can compare classes under the rules if you're not using classes under the rules.  If, for example, every rewrite I propose that would create a favourable class focused on combat in the style for which a Halfling is best suited for gets rewritten so it would be better for a high STR brute, I'll quickly learn not to play Halfling warriors.  Since your game already seems to shy players away from non-warriors (again, which I can attribute to the manner in which revised classes get accepted and rejected), why would I ever play a Halfling at all?Customizing each character also allows a far greater scope for bias to be exercised than sticking largely or entirely to the RAW.  I'm curious how your players would make out in a game that did stick to the rules, rather than customize each and every aspect of a character.  I suspect they would perceive a completely different game (for good or ill).Your assumption is, in itself, a bias.  I would expect players who have only experienced a game where warriors are favoured would not choose to play a bard in a new game with an unknown GM, but might come around to a different way of thinking if, in that game, the Clergy are well-respected and warriors looked upon as scruffy ne'er do wells at best and dangerous bloodlusting madmen at worst, especially if the game also involves a lot of undead and other challenges best resolved with the abilities of clerics.I think a D&D game that rewards melee combat to a greater extent than ranged combat skills, magical skills, etc. is not "the norm".  It is easy to render the Rogue undesirable - just lean enemies towards those immune to sneak attacks.  Providing reduced opportunities to use their special skills will also discourage them.  It sounds like your game is very "clanky warrior" focused, so either those stealth rolls are seldom successful, or you set the DC's low enough that these warrior types can generally succeed, in which case there is no great benefit to having a character with greater stealth capabilities (or maybe your revised classes just tend to swap out something of low value in your game for Stealth being added as a class skill).Didn't you just get through telling us how DISADVANTAGED a small character is?  Here again, that view can lead to a bias to provide greater benefits to other character concepts than to Small characters."Not as well suited for adventuring" seems to me to be second class.  An aristocrat or an expert is not as well suited for adventuring as a PC class either.  As well, I suggest the proof is in the play - classes that are rarely, if ever, selected in your game (not that your game is actually using the PHB classes anyway, apparently) seem likely to be second-class character choices in your game.  While I wouldn't call that proof positive, it seems very persuasive evidence to me.</blockquote>

Verification