Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 5815010" data-attributes="member: 7883">I disagree.If everyone is supposed to have parity in all situations, then why not just have one class, and one race.&nbsp; &quot;D&amp;D character&quot;.&nbsp; You can each do the exact same things at all times.There, done.But that's not the way the game is.&nbsp; Some classes are supposed to excel at certain things.&nbsp; The cleric is a better healer than any other character. The wizard is a better blaster.&nbsp; The fighter is the best at armed combat.&nbsp; The bard is supposed to be one of the characters with the best social skills.&nbsp; You can't make them all exactly the same in terms of capabilities in particular roles, because they're *supposed* to be different.&nbsp; The bard should excel in social situations, with better abilities at influencing NPC and monster behaviour than any other character.&nbsp; But, the flip side is that he shouldn't be as good at ripping them into meat gibbets as the fighter is.&nbsp; The problem arises when the rulesbooks, prewritten modules etc. do not give GMs tools to create challenges in all situations, and focus only on balancing combat.&nbsp; Then, characters with a particular specialty (like bards) don't get a chance to shine at the things they're good at.It's definitely possible.&nbsp; I ran swashbuckling adventures, and there's a class called the Courtier who actually has very little combat ability, but significant social abilities...more than any core D&amp;D class.&nbsp; Given, this was a D20 or OGL game, rather than core.&nbsp; But I think the example is useful.&nbsp; In any case, that class sucked in combat....but in that setting/game, there were plenty of times where combat wasn't an appropriate solution, and the Courtier had chances to shine by dominating social encounters, with actual, mechanical abilities intended to allow them to do so.If your game is just a dungeon crawl, then yeah....a focus on pure combat balancing makes more sense, as might roles.But many games aren't just simple like that.It's not about outshining one's friends.&nbsp; It's in the idea that yeah, some classes are better in some situations than others.&nbsp; We shouldn't apologize for that.&nbsp; If you want to be the big, butt kicking knight in armor, don't play a rogue (for instance).&nbsp; That's where the GM should talk to players, and ask about their character concept, and have the tools to help them realize it.Banshee</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Banshee16, post: 5815010, member: 7883"] I disagree. If everyone is supposed to have parity in all situations, then why not just have one class, and one race. "D&D character". You can each do the exact same things at all times. There, done. But that's not the way the game is. Some classes are supposed to excel at certain things. The cleric is a better healer than any other character. The wizard is a better blaster. The fighter is the best at armed combat. The bard is supposed to be one of the characters with the best social skills. You can't make them all exactly the same in terms of capabilities in particular roles, because they're *supposed* to be different. The bard should excel in social situations, with better abilities at influencing NPC and monster behaviour than any other character. But, the flip side is that he shouldn't be as good at ripping them into meat gibbets as the fighter is. The problem arises when the rulesbooks, prewritten modules etc. do not give GMs tools to create challenges in all situations, and focus only on balancing combat. Then, characters with a particular specialty (like bards) don't get a chance to shine at the things they're good at. It's definitely possible. I ran swashbuckling adventures, and there's a class called the Courtier who actually has very little combat ability, but significant social abilities...more than any core D&D class. Given, this was a D20 or OGL game, rather than core. But I think the example is useful. In any case, that class sucked in combat....but in that setting/game, there were plenty of times where combat wasn't an appropriate solution, and the Courtier had chances to shine by dominating social encounters, with actual, mechanical abilities intended to allow them to do so. If your game is just a dungeon crawl, then yeah....a focus on pure combat balancing makes more sense, as might roles. But many games aren't just simple like that. It's not about outshining one's friends. It's in the idea that yeah, some classes are better in some situations than others. We shouldn't apologize for that. If you want to be the big, butt kicking knight in armor, don't play a rogue (for instance). That's where the GM should talk to players, and ask about their character concept, and have the tools to help them realize it. Banshee [/QUOTE]

Verification