Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Edgar Ironpelt" data-source="post: 9588790" data-attributes="member: 32075">I tried to finesse the issue in my Brotherhood of Rangers game (3.5e) by having all the PCs be gestalt-rangers (fighter-ranger gestalt, wizard-ranger gestalt, cleric-ranger gestalt, etc.) None of the PCs were "the party Ranger" because they all were rangers in the wilderness-heavy setting. But it was still useful for them to pick different classes for the non-ranger side of their gestalts for the sake of each PC having a niche (and in the case of the two fighter-rangers, for them to pick two different fighter-niches; one specializing in archery & the other in two-handed sword.)So even if the system and the game setting doesn't make 'balanced' parties into a survival imperative for the PCs, something resembling a balanced party is still good for niche protection and thus for player fun.  Opposing this is the question of what abilities every PC in the party needs to have in order to be viable, and not a load that the rest of the party wishes (in character!) that they could just leave behind.</blockquote>