Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jayoungr" data-source="post: 8239120" data-attributes="member: 6702445">No, the player has explicitly said that bards (specifically glamour bards) are the only class she is willing to play for the foreseeable future--i.e. &quot;until things get less stressful,&quot; whenever that might be.&nbsp; She knows how they work, so they're her comfort zone.&nbsp; I think it's been about two years and five games since this person played anything else, and a large percentage of her characters were glamour bards even before that.But that wasn't the only reason I was curious about how other people handle this situation.&nbsp; Just to explain where I'm coming from:The other thing that made me think about it was when our group was putting together characters for a new game that just started.&nbsp; One player leaped in and said he wanted to play a warlock and even had a firm concept for it.&nbsp; I mentioned that I was also interested in playing a warlock but would choose a different patron if I went with that.&nbsp; At that point, the original person said, &quot;No, I'll go with one of my other ideas.&nbsp; Warlocks tend to be all the same at the table.&quot;&nbsp; I'm feeling a little bad that I made him back out of his first choice,So one the one hand I have the bard player encouraging me to still play that bard that I want to get back to, but me not wanting to have to worry about competing with her character for bard-y things.&nbsp; But then on the other hand, when I tried applying that principle to a warlock, thinking that different patrons would give the characters very different flavor, the other guy opted out.&nbsp;&nbsp; So that got me wondering whether other tables ever have this problem and if so, how they deal with it.Is it just specific classes that create this problem?&nbsp; I can see how two fighters (for example) might be easier to manage.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jayoungr, post: 8239120, member: 6702445"] No, the player has explicitly said that bards (specifically glamour bards) are the only class she is willing to play for the foreseeable future--i.e. "until things get less stressful," whenever that might be. She knows how they work, so they're her comfort zone. I think it's been about two years and five games since this person played anything else, and a large percentage of her characters were glamour bards even before that. But that wasn't the only reason I was curious about how other people handle this situation. Just to explain where I'm coming from: The other thing that made me think about it was when our group was putting together characters for a new game that just started. One player leaped in and said he wanted to play a warlock and even had a firm concept for it. I mentioned that I was also interested in playing a warlock but would choose a different patron if I went with that. At that point, the original person said, "No, I'll go with one of my other ideas. Warlocks tend to be all the same at the table." I'm feeling a little bad that I made him back out of his first choice, So one the one hand I have the bard player encouraging me to still play that bard that I want to get back to, but me not wanting to have to worry about competing with her character for bard-y things. But then on the other hand, when I tried applying that principle to a warlock, thinking that different patrons would give the characters very different flavor, the other guy opted out. So that got me wondering whether other tables ever have this problem and if so, how they deal with it. Is it just specific classes that create this problem? I can see how two fighters (for example) might be easier to manage. [/QUOTE]

Verification