Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Merkuri" data-source="post: 5013049" data-attributes="member: 41321">You don't need to be a powergamer or have an interest in the best &quot;build&quot; to get frustrated with a character's abilities.&nbsp; And you don't need to be explicitly competing against the other players to realize your character isn't able to hold his or her own in a fight.&nbsp; I don't know if 4e is prone to this sort of thing because I don't have much experience playing it, but I know in 3e that it's possible to build a character that's just not a good fit for the type of campaign you're in.&nbsp; You may not find this out until you've played the character for a session or two.&nbsp; For example, I once played a 3e bard in the World's Largest Dungeon and soon learned to regret it.&nbsp; While there were some roleplay encounters they were few and far between so the majority of the bard's toolbox was left to get rusty while I spent battles saying, &quot;I inspire courage... again.&quot;&nbsp; I might have been a useful member of the party, but the lack of combat options I had made for a pretty boring combat experience and I soon realized that this was not the right character for this game.&nbsp; If the DM had offered me the ability to completely switch around the &quot;crunch&quot; of that character while keeping the personality and background the same I probably would've taken him up on the option, and I am in no way a power gamer or interested in optimizing my PCs.&nbsp; Luckily we were near the end of the campaign when this character was introduced, so I didn't end up stuck with the bard in the WLD for very long.This could go the other way around, too.&nbsp; One of your players might have created a PC that's geared towards fighting only to find out that they're no good in the RP sessions of the campaign, and those come up more often than fighting, so the next session that player might want to retool their PC to be more effective at diplomacy.But my point is that even a non-powergamer non-optimizer player can get tired with the mechanics of their PC and want to try something different, so I think giving players the option to rebuild their PCs in the long gap between sessions is reasonable for any type of group.&nbsp; You don't want to end up with a player who's dissatisfied with their character because they could spend those two months between sessions dreading the next game instead of anticipating it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Merkuri, post: 5013049, member: 41321"] You don't need to be a powergamer or have an interest in the best "build" to get frustrated with a character's abilities. And you don't need to be explicitly competing against the other players to realize your character isn't able to hold his or her own in a fight. I don't know if 4e is prone to this sort of thing because I don't have much experience playing it, but I know in 3e that it's possible to build a character that's just not a good fit for the type of campaign you're in. You may not find this out until you've played the character for a session or two. For example, I once played a 3e bard in the World's Largest Dungeon and soon learned to regret it. While there were some roleplay encounters they were few and far between so the majority of the bard's toolbox was left to get rusty while I spent battles saying, "I inspire courage... again." I might have been a useful member of the party, but the lack of combat options I had made for a pretty boring combat experience and I soon realized that this was not the right character for this game. If the DM had offered me the ability to completely switch around the "crunch" of that character while keeping the personality and background the same I probably would've taken him up on the option, and I am in no way a power gamer or interested in optimizing my PCs. Luckily we were near the end of the campaign when this character was introduced, so I didn't end up stuck with the bard in the WLD for very long. This could go the other way around, too. One of your players might have created a PC that's geared towards fighting only to find out that they're no good in the RP sessions of the campaign, and those come up more often than fighting, so the next session that player might want to retool their PC to be more effective at diplomacy. But my point is that even a non-powergamer non-optimizer player can get tired with the mechanics of their PC and want to try something different, so I think giving players the option to rebuild their PCs in the long gap between sessions is reasonable for any type of group. You don't want to end up with a player who's dissatisfied with their character because they could spend those two months between sessions dreading the next game instead of anticipating it. [/QUOTE]

Verification