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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rhenny" data-source="post: 5906082" data-attributes="member: 18333">I'm not so sure we should have rules that make a specific "well-rounded" party the first and foremost condition for playing with other people.  If players play what they want to play, and create an interesting and unique character concept, the entire party could be all fighers, or all rogues, or all wizards, or all healers of sorts.  What's most important is that players don't feel railroaded into playing a specific class because the party is lacking stealth, thievery, healing, dps, or high AC tank.  Also consider the party of 2 or party of 3.  If they don't have healing or thievery, there has to be a way for one of them to pick it up if they (and the DM) want it.  From what I've read about the 5e approach with themes and backgrounds, this may be possible..and I'm all for it.In some games, I can even see non-spellcasters (who are intelligent enough or wise enough), learn limited spell casting if the story of the campaign makes it logical.  The dabblers will never be as powerful as the full time mage or cleric, but they can be apprentice class (multi-class or dipping).  And for game balance?  If the options are available to any PC who has the prerequisites, and they sacrifice something to gain what they want, I think it will be balanced.  Overall, PCs should be defined by how they interact with the game world, their character personalities, and their overall contributions to the party.  They should not be defined solely on what they can do and can't do.</blockquote>

Verification