Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 5068047" data-attributes="member: 40177">No doubt.&nbsp; However...Imagine you are a new to RPGs guy.&nbsp; Now, imagine you are told your role is &quot;Defender&quot;... along with another guy.&nbsp; Now, imagine that other guy is not only being a defender, but hitting more often than you.&nbsp; Hitting on OA's more often than you.&nbsp; In short, being a better defender than you.He might not be a hugely better Defender than you, but if you're missing a lot more and seemingly doing little more than taking damage destined for other PCs, well... it can kind of kill your enjoyment of the game.I've seen this happen in other editions, for sure.&nbsp; The guy playing a 2e wizard with a longsword, because he didn't know the rules (and then insisted on using said longsword, instead of casting spells - and then wondered why he was the least effective character in the group).&nbsp; The 3e &quot;I want to be a sorcerer&quot; guy who constantly fizzled on spells because he had a relatively low charisma (despite warnings this might not be a good idea).&nbsp; And the 2e Dark Sun elven thief who didn't think dexterity was all that important, and that a 35% Pick Pockets was &quot;good enough&quot; to justify trying to pick a templar's pocket.The point is, failing as a newbie can be fun.&nbsp; But building a character that is destined to fail more often than your companions can ruin your perception of the game.&nbsp; Two of those three players only played once or twice before leaving the campaign, never to be seen again.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 5068047, member: 40177"] No doubt. However... Imagine you are a new to RPGs guy. Now, imagine you are told your role is "Defender"... along with another guy. Now, imagine that other guy is not only being a defender, but hitting more often than you. Hitting on OA's more often than you. In short, being a better defender than you. He might not be a hugely better Defender than you, but if you're missing a lot more and seemingly doing little more than taking damage destined for other PCs, well... it can kind of kill your enjoyment of the game. I've seen this happen in other editions, for sure. The guy playing a 2e wizard with a longsword, because he didn't know the rules (and then insisted on using said longsword, instead of casting spells - and then wondered why he was the least effective character in the group). The 3e "I want to be a sorcerer" guy who constantly fizzled on spells because he had a relatively low charisma (despite warnings this might not be a good idea). And the 2e Dark Sun elven thief who didn't think dexterity was all that important, and that a 35% Pick Pockets was "good enough" to justify trying to pick a templar's pocket. The point is, failing as a newbie can be fun. But building a character that is destined to fail more often than your companions can ruin your perception of the game. Two of those three players only played once or twice before leaving the campaign, never to be seen again. [/QUOTE]

Verification