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: 6177493" data-attributes="member: 6681948">This assumes the advantages of being big outweigh the advantages of being small.  They don't have to.  The big guy can have advantages which carry the day about half the time, and the small one can have advantages that result in him winning the other half.I would suggest a larger party creates a greater bias towards multi-target buffs.  No difference from incentivizing same.  If I am biased in favour of bards, I will tend to incentivizing players to run them.  If I am biased against them, I will tend to disincentivize them.  The smaller party can only be an expression of your bias if you contribute to that smaller size (and, of course, your reasons for a desired group size may include numerous non-Bard related biases or reasons).I suspect a PS would be appropriate, such as PS:  Strategist/Tactician, PS: Military Leadership or perhaps lumping it under PS: Soldier.  KS: History could also be relevant, as it subsumes great battles of the past, but I'd see it as more complementary than the base skill.  Nothing in the rules suggests that a high BAB equates to a knowledge of larger scale strategy and tactics.  A pit fighter would have a high BAB as high as an equal level military leader.Neither will he logically consider the views of a loner with a warrior class equally valid to those of an experienced military leader of the same, or lower, level.Absolutely.  So Graak the 8 INT 6 CHA Barbarian with no social skills is unlikely to impress anyone with his knowledge of strategy and tactics (absent an investment in that type of knowledge), while Slick, the 20 CHA con artist with +18 Bluff might well trick the Duke into believing he is a wise and experienced tactition - at least until someone with actual skill and some credibility assesses his choices (or the army is dead, but then it's too late).You said maybe more randomness is desirable.  I provided a list of items which could be randomized.  How many, and which, do you think would make for a better game?  For myself, I like "character build" better than "random roll".Which would be a reason to assess a small fighter based on his own advantages and drawbacks, not force him to try to match the large fighter.  Each plays to their own strengths, and there is no reason they cannot be equally viable in the game.No, I mean if he got all those unique abilities, but in a manner which did not allow him to use them to have any real impact on the game.  Perhaps because his "blink" is treated more as a Dimension Door, so he is stunned for a round after its use.  We allowed the character, but rendered it much less viable than the other characters in the group.  He should be OK with that, since he chose that specific type of character, assuming being balanced against the other characters is not really an issue.</blockquote>

Verification