Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6263060" data-attributes="member: 6681948">So what are we really saying here?&nbsp; That a good player, who builds a PC to concept, should get a result which means his character is largely ineffectual when compared to a character optimized for pure mechanical effectiveness?&nbsp; To me, the system should reward concept building, not min/maxing.&nbsp; If flavourful, interesting concepts are sidekicks at best, then I think the designers have failed.This is a completely different question, and several posters have noted the question of whether &quot;optimized for combat&quot; will, in fact, be &quot;optimized&quot;.&nbsp; The game could divide character resources between combat, exploration and interaction, rather than letting players dump two in favour of the third.&nbsp; Perhaps that should be the default, with an explicit statement that a character focusing all his resources in one area is likely to find challenges in his area of expertise too easy, and find himself useless in challenges in the other areas, so maybe that's a bad idea.Of course, we can always have a party with an expert in each of the three areas, who shines in his own niche and sucks in the rest.&nbsp; To the example of the Barbarian and the Rogue, perhaps the Rogue would have felt better if the game had mixed combat challenges (where the Barbarian shines and the Rogue is a bit player) with social and/or exploration challenges where the Rogue shines and the Barbarian largely stands off to one side.&nbsp; Then they would both have opportunities to shine.That's often how it works in the source material - the expert shines in his area of expertise, and leaves the spotlight when someone else's specialty is the focus.&nbsp; Some players are fine with this approach.&nbsp; Others want to meaningfully contribute to every challenge.&nbsp; The latter should then not be building towards a one trick pony.&nbsp; I think D&amp;D Next should default to one of the two (perhaps characters who range from equal across all three pillars to characters 50% devoted to one pillar and 25% devoted to each of the other two) and include shifting the balance of characters beyond those ranges to an optional module with clear guidance that this may mean everyone optimizing to the same pillar, and a game that focuses on that aspect, or one trick ponies who excel in one area and stand around being bored in the others.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="N'raac, post: 6263060, member: 6681948"] So what are we really saying here? That a good player, who builds a PC to concept, should get a result which means his character is largely ineffectual when compared to a character optimized for pure mechanical effectiveness? To me, the system should reward concept building, not min/maxing. If flavourful, interesting concepts are sidekicks at best, then I think the designers have failed. This is a completely different question, and several posters have noted the question of whether "optimized for combat" will, in fact, be "optimized". The game could divide character resources between combat, exploration and interaction, rather than letting players dump two in favour of the third. Perhaps that should be the default, with an explicit statement that a character focusing all his resources in one area is likely to find challenges in his area of expertise too easy, and find himself useless in challenges in the other areas, so maybe that's a bad idea. Of course, we can always have a party with an expert in each of the three areas, who shines in his own niche and sucks in the rest. To the example of the Barbarian and the Rogue, perhaps the Rogue would have felt better if the game had mixed combat challenges (where the Barbarian shines and the Rogue is a bit player) with social and/or exploration challenges where the Rogue shines and the Barbarian largely stands off to one side. Then they would both have opportunities to shine. That's often how it works in the source material - the expert shines in his area of expertise, and leaves the spotlight when someone else's specialty is the focus. Some players are fine with this approach. Others want to meaningfully contribute to every challenge. The latter should then not be building towards a one trick pony. I think D&D Next should default to one of the two (perhaps characters who range from equal across all three pillars to characters 50% devoted to one pillar and 25% devoted to each of the other two) and include shifting the balance of characters beyond those ranges to an optional module with clear guidance that this may mean everyone optimizing to the same pillar, and a game that focuses on that aspect, or one trick ponies who excel in one area and stand around being bored in the others. [/QUOTE]

Verification