Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6029638" data-attributes="member: 6668292">That's kinda my point. I'd rather be able to point to the paid professional (who should probably be a Fighter, and probably above level 1, but regardless) and say "that guy is going to win" and then have the mechanics back it up. Just because no edition does it well does not mean that the new edition shouldn't. That reasoning means that D&D never branches out, ever. I'm pretty against that.I'm not sure people think I don't realize this. It's kind of baffling. I'm calling for change, not disputing history.I don't understand this. How can an optional opt-out with clear, supported mechanics not support the game for people who want those types of characters? I'm missing something in your point.Which is why I've also called for those mechanics to get expanded and for support for non-combat to be well-supported.Imagine there was non-combat support. Now give me further reasons.I get the min-max reference, of course. It's about a trade-off of breadth for depth. Specialization and hyper-specialization. This is about being able to play specific, well-known archetypes, like the wise old sage who seemingly knows everything but sucks in a fight.If the players are well-informed about what specialization and hyper-specialization entail, and they all accept the player swapping away from the default to do so, and it makes for a more enjoyable game for everyone, then hell yes I'm for it. Then again, our descriptions are different, aren't they?Obviously moving away from 3/3/3 isn't for you, huh? If your group can't have fun with it, then don't do it. You can sit comfortably in broad competency, have everyone have some breadth to their abilities, and never even touch the default setting. Easy, yeah? Win / win, no? As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />EDIT: You just posted something I want to reply to:No, this isn't min-maxing, it's optimizing. Min-maxing is "minimizing your flaws while maximizing your abilities/power/etc." That's not what I'm trying to do; your 5/1/1 character might be deeply flawed if he can't contribute more often, can't defend himself, etc. However, when optimizing for your non-combat Sage concept, you'd need to get rid of your combat ability (optimally), while boosting his know-it-all skills (optimally). At least, that's the basic gamer jargon as I know it to be casually used. I'm for optimization (something anybody who pursues a specific concept usually does), not min-maxing. Again, as always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification