Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hawk Diesel" data-source="post: 7902983" data-attributes="member: 59848">I'm less concerned about balance. I do care about balance and I understand very well that both barbarians and paladins are designed strictly for melee. What I am proposing is ways to increase player enjoyment and reduce the need for system mastery. Can barbarians or paladins be built to allow for competency (if not effectiveness) with ranged weapons? Yes. Can they use ranged weapons, even when it is the sub-optimal choice? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean a player is having fun. The way I play and my tables tend to play is to emphasize that all the players are heroes. Does that mean that each one is always the star of the show? No.Does a fighter shine when an area is in an anti-magic field? Absolutely. But how fun is that encounter for the wizard player? I'd argue it's probably not too engaging for that player. Would it break the game to allow the wizard to still cast spells but perhaps at a higher spell slot cost? Or limit them to cantrips? I'd say no. Would it allow that wizard player to still enjoy the encounter and give them a reason to be more invested in how they can participate? Absolutely.So once again, I don't find it very helpful to tell me reasons why you think my idea is dumb. Maybe it is for your table. No one is forcing you to adopt it or trying to convince you of its merit. But what would be really helpful, and what I've been asking for, is shining light on my blindspots in terms of ways that such a rule change may break the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hawk Diesel, post: 7902983, member: 59848"] I'm less concerned about balance. I do care about balance and I understand very well that both barbarians and paladins are designed strictly for melee. What I am proposing is ways to increase player enjoyment and reduce the need for system mastery. Can barbarians or paladins be built to allow for competency (if not effectiveness) with ranged weapons? Yes. Can they use ranged weapons, even when it is the sub-optimal choice? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean a player is having fun. The way I play and my tables tend to play is to emphasize that all the players are heroes. Does that mean that each one is always the star of the show? No. Does a fighter shine when an area is in an anti-magic field? Absolutely. But how fun is that encounter for the wizard player? I'd argue it's probably not too engaging for that player. Would it break the game to allow the wizard to still cast spells but perhaps at a higher spell slot cost? Or limit them to cantrips? I'd say no. Would it allow that wizard player to still enjoy the encounter and give them a reason to be more invested in how they can participate? Absolutely. So once again, I don't find it very helpful to tell me reasons why you think my idea is dumb. Maybe it is for your table. No one is forcing you to adopt it or trying to convince you of its merit. But what would be really helpful, and what I've been asking for, is shining light on my blindspots in terms of ways that such a rule change may break the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification