Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6030453" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Yeah.&nbsp; I was trying to set up 2 scenario (which is why I included the generalist wizard) that would let JC express to you guys (in actual gaming context) how this might work at his table.&nbsp; And then you guys could look at the expression of his table through that context and have a bit of a better platform at communicating to each other.&nbsp; I don't have time to give my opinion fully (and to be honest I don't think it will illuminate anything further so it will be pretty gratuitous).&nbsp; Suffice to say that I do not think that specialization (to the exclusion of the ability to apply yourself, and your character, to a broad swath of challenges) is particularly healthy for most tables.&nbsp; If the players and the DM are very, very much on board, understand the implications and are capable/willing to deal with them then it can work.&nbsp; However, these sorts of tables are extraordinary anomalies...and the DM load under such circumstances will be objectively greater than it would be if all characters were broadly proficient and possessed parity in power.&nbsp; Nonetheless, it can be done.&nbsp; But no, I do not think D&amp;D should be reconstituted around this design aim.&nbsp; I do think that a module * for tables like JC's would be a way to address this (what I perceive as an outlier) playstyle preference.I did DM a character much like this.&nbsp; It was a bard who was extraordinarily well traveled, knew a little bit about everything, and followed the PCs chronicling their adventures for a book he was writing (inspired by Bilbo's &quot;There and Back Again&quot; and Volo's &quot;Travel Guides&quot;).&nbsp; He was an utter coward but he was very functional as a lore-man and face-man.&nbsp; The dynamic at the table was at times &quot;fun&quot; and at times &quot;contentious&quot; (when he refused to attack when a TPK was at risk) and at times &quot;maddening&quot; (on my end) as he was generally objectively better at &quot;cavorting and influencing&quot; than everyone (so he felt that he should always be the one handling social situations and felt that due to his lack of combat influence that others should oblige him here) and whipping up &quot;soft-divinations&quot;.&nbsp; I basically pretended like he didn't exist in combat challenges and worked the party numbers around that premise.&nbsp; At that point I had a group of 2 fantastic, agreeable, great chemistry gamers...2 &quot;kinda just there&quot; guys...1 &quot;my boyfriend drug me here&quot; girl...and the guy outlined above.&nbsp; It was a mish-mashed porridge to be sure.&nbsp; I wouldn't dream of doing it again with a group that incoherent in chemistry and functionality.&nbsp; The load on me was extreme.If I did this in 4e I would likely make the person play a lazy warlord/bard hybrid or multi-class build (Int and Cha) with Vile Scholar, Seer or Oghma's Faithful Theme.&nbsp; Ritual Caster + Feats and skill powers to support Lore Mastery and Leader components of combat support by proxy of &quot;lazy-buffing.&quot;&nbsp; This likely would not be to JC's liking but if someone wanted to play this sort of &quot;colour character&quot; then it might work within the confines of that sort of build.&nbsp; Sort of a Corporal Upham from Saving Private Ryan.As far as 5e goes, I would suggest exactly the three builds that you put forth and if the PC is bound and determined to be &quot;combat irrelevant&quot; then the table would have to demonstrate that they can handle that scenario (and not get bent if the person doesn't contribute if things go awry), that they understand the implications (cross-pillar) on the game, and then I would handle combat encounter balancing as if the PCs are &quot;minus 1&quot; in total numbers.&nbsp; However, if the &quot;Sage&quot; is going to be built to dominate the other pillars, invade niche-space in those pillars and the player has the expectation that the other players will oblige them due to their combat impotency...then I can say unequivocally...I just wouldn't &quot;work&quot; (and I mean &quot;work&quot;) under the auspices of that &quot;social contract.&quot;Some groups may be able to pull this off swimmingly and do it long term.&nbsp; I have yet to see one do either so my guess is that they are extreme outliers. * A module might be able to address these sorts of &quot;colour characters&quot;.&nbsp; A fate point (which affects combat) for playing to archetype (cringing, cowing in fear, being the runner like Corporal Upham, etc) and then using that fate point for some type of fictional advantage (like a &quot;lazy buff&quot;) for your group within the domain of combat might work.&nbsp; However, I suspect that by now people understand my antipathy for unconstrained Divination and its accompanying plot circumvention so the design of these types of characters need to be well tested and QCed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6030453, member: 6696971"] Yeah. I was trying to set up 2 scenario (which is why I included the generalist wizard) that would let JC express to you guys (in actual gaming context) how this might work at his table. And then you guys could look at the expression of his table through that context and have a bit of a better platform at communicating to each other. I don't have time to give my opinion fully (and to be honest I don't think it will illuminate anything further so it will be pretty gratuitous). Suffice to say that I do not think that specialization (to the exclusion of the ability to apply yourself, and your character, to a broad swath of challenges) is particularly healthy for most tables. If the players and the DM are very, very much on board, understand the implications and are capable/willing to deal with them then it can work. However, these sorts of tables are extraordinary anomalies...and the DM load under such circumstances will be objectively greater than it would be if all characters were broadly proficient and possessed parity in power. Nonetheless, it can be done. But no, I do not think D&D should be reconstituted around this design aim. I do think that a module * for tables like JC's would be a way to address this (what I perceive as an outlier) playstyle preference. I did DM a character much like this. It was a bard who was extraordinarily well traveled, knew a little bit about everything, and followed the PCs chronicling their adventures for a book he was writing (inspired by Bilbo's "There and Back Again" and Volo's "Travel Guides"). He was an utter coward but he was very functional as a lore-man and face-man. The dynamic at the table was at times "fun" and at times "contentious" (when he refused to attack when a TPK was at risk) and at times "maddening" (on my end) as he was generally objectively better at "cavorting and influencing" than everyone (so he felt that he should always be the one handling social situations and felt that due to his lack of combat influence that others should oblige him here) and whipping up "soft-divinations". I basically pretended like he didn't exist in combat challenges and worked the party numbers around that premise. At that point I had a group of 2 fantastic, agreeable, great chemistry gamers...2 "kinda just there" guys...1 "my boyfriend drug me here" girl...and the guy outlined above. It was a mish-mashed porridge to be sure. I wouldn't dream of doing it again with a group that incoherent in chemistry and functionality. The load on me was extreme. If I did this in 4e I would likely make the person play a lazy warlord/bard hybrid or multi-class build (Int and Cha) with Vile Scholar, Seer or Oghma's Faithful Theme. Ritual Caster + Feats and skill powers to support Lore Mastery and Leader components of combat support by proxy of "lazy-buffing." This likely would not be to JC's liking but if someone wanted to play this sort of "colour character" then it might work within the confines of that sort of build. Sort of a Corporal Upham from Saving Private Ryan. As far as 5e goes, I would suggest exactly the three builds that you put forth and if the PC is bound and determined to be "combat irrelevant" then the table would have to demonstrate that they can handle that scenario (and not get bent if the person doesn't contribute if things go awry), that they understand the implications (cross-pillar) on the game, and then I would handle combat encounter balancing as if the PCs are "minus 1" in total numbers. However, if the "Sage" is going to be built to dominate the other pillars, invade niche-space in those pillars and the player has the expectation that the other players will oblige them due to their combat impotency...then I can say unequivocally...I just wouldn't "work" (and I mean "work") under the auspices of that "social contract." Some groups may be able to pull this off swimmingly and do it long term. I have yet to see one do either so my guess is that they are extreme outliers. * A module might be able to address these sorts of "colour characters". A fate point (which affects combat) for playing to archetype (cringing, cowing in fear, being the runner like Corporal Upham, etc) and then using that fate point for some type of fictional advantage (like a "lazy buff") for your group within the domain of combat might work. However, I suspect that by now people understand my antipathy for unconstrained Divination and its accompanying plot circumvention so the design of these types of characters need to be well tested and QCed. [/QUOTE]

Verification