Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 5816387" data-attributes="member: 5100">It depends on the kind of game you want to play. I've always had a ton of fun playing incredibly unbalanced small groups or solos. A ranger, a thief, a couple of fighters, even a solo wizard can all be fun if the player(s) are up to the style those choices promote. Those styles are rarely a full frontal assault on a dungeon, though. That doesn't mean you can't do dungeon crawls or are constrained to city adventures -- I ran a solo game for a dwarven fighter with a human fighter hireling that ran for quite some time. Likewise, the solo wizard actually has time to role-play the research, knowledge gathering, and scrying that is required to dominate. Survival in these sorts of games often requires the player(s) to be really creative and play to their strengths in ways that a team-oriented group would never consider. The really bothersome trend in 3e, Pathfinder, and 4e is to codify and restrict feats, spells, and abilities in such a way that the players are unable to use them in ways not foreseen by the game developers. 4e is the worst, but it didn't come about spontaneously. The changes to polymorph are some nods in 3.5.I wouldn't advocate knowingly leaving ridiculously broken elements in place. I just think that, at some point, the rules shifted from trying to provide some vague equity to a paranoia that someone may be able to screw another player out of 5 minutes of attention. In the process, the game became hostile to non-standard play.So, yeah. Individualism trumps team because a group of competent individuals will make a better team. That's a long way from saying any class can do anything another could do.</blockquote>

Verification