Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 5864714" data-attributes="member: 7006">But here's the thing, Bedrock... I don't think it's good for the game or most of the players if it's designed to automatically have certain classes really crappy at certain things.  Because a player who wants to make a character really suck at something can most certainly do so if they want (by careful application of ability scores, skill selection, feat selection etc.), without the game having to "help" him doing that.  I think it is far better for all the classes be at least somewhat mediocre in all facets of the game, so that those who want their character to be "good" in that mediocre aspect can move up, and those who want him to be "poor" can easily move down.For example... let's say (by way of example) that classes are designed with 18 points of "power" to be spread out over the three pillars of D&D-- combat, exploration, and interaction.  A class that is equally good over all three pillars would have 6 points of combat ability, 6 points of exploration, and 6 points of interaction.The question then becomes... when designing other classes off of this "middle of the road" class (in terms of power)... how far off the average should they go? Theoretically... you could open design such that all 18 points could be put into a single pillar, completely forsaking the other two.  So a class might have 18 points in combat, and zero in exploration and interaction.  But is that actually a good idea?  Because balance-wise... your range of power in any particular pillar is now 18 points all the way down to 0.  That swing is HUGE.  How can you truly balance the game like that?  A class that's completely designed around combat standing next to a class with NO combat capability at all (through no efforts of the player himself.)  Because we're not talking about a PC that the player himself deliberately gimped... we're talking a class that was designed from the beginning to have NO skill in something.  That does not seem to me to be good design.I for one think it's better off to set at least a minimum level of capability in the design of each pillar for each class.  So that you have to have like at least 4 points of power for example.  As a result, you might have classes whose power distribution might be:Combat 6 / Exploration 6 / Interaction 6 - RogueCombat 10 / Exploration 4 / Interaction 4 - FighterCombat 6 / Exploration 8 / Interaction 4 - RangerCombat 4 / Exploration 7 / Interaction 7 - BardCombat 7 / Exploration 4 / Interaction 7 - PaladinThen... these behind-the-scenes building blocks the game designers have set up gets modified BY THE PLAYER based upon his choices of things like ability score, weapon, skills, feats, spells, etc. etc.  So if the Fighter (which has been designed to primarily be focused on combat) wants to have a bit more use during interaction and roleplay scenes... he can raise his Charisma stat and take those skills or feats needed to get a 1 or 2 point boost, thereby getting closer to what the default Rogue might start like.  Similarily... if you choose a Bard and want him more focused on combat and don't give a rat's ass about exploration... build him the right way so that his combat ability gets better while his exploration is completely ignored.  But at least you've chosen to make him suck at exploration, rather than having the game design it for you that way automatically.At least this way... players can build off of each class to reach at least a GOOD level of competency (compared against the other classes) in any of the three pillars.  Which I think is something we'd all like the option of possibly reaching with whichever class we choose.</blockquote>

Verification