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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6316117" data-attributes="member: 5143">I've had about 10 of those DMs.  My original group had 12 people in it and almost all of them DMed a game.  We voted each week on which game to play in.  Sometimes we'd switch 2-3 times in one session.  All the DMs felt this way about the rules.Even after that group fell apart, I've had numerous DMs since then and they've all felt similarly.  Everyone felt that the Rogue scouting ahead was splitting the party.  It meant playing a game just for one member of the party while everyone else watched him constantly make rolls to stealth, search for traps, listen, look for hidden enemies, and pick locks.  It was boring for almost everyone involved.Plus, as I said, it was considered splitting the party.  As the axiom goes, you NEVER split the party.  Most of our DMs were of the same mind: It's unlikely you'll die as long as you don't do anything stupid.  Splitting the party was considered stupid and doing so meant the DM felt justified in killing the person who did so.  As much because getting spotted when you were on your own meant fighting an encounter designed for 6 people by yourself as deterrent to avoid having to constantly run solo scenes with the rogue.To me, it isn't that at all.  It's that all the thief skills are solo skills.  You almost never need to pick someone's pockets unless you are trying to steal extra money for yourself.  You can climb walls, but no one else can so no one can follow you most of the time.  You can hide and move silently but no one else can so doing so means splitting the party.  Which is why, in our groups, basically the only skill people put points into was Find and Remove Traps.  Because it was the only group friendly skill.Also, our DM didn't make traps go off immediately when you failed.  He found it was much more fun to say "No, you don't find any traps" then when you open the door, cause everyone to fall in a pit who was standing back while you searched "just in case".As for the multiclassing.  We did that because none of the thief's abilities were useful in combat.  So, you needed a combat class to go with your non-combat class.My point wasn't that 5% of the time they fail to contribute.  It's that 5% of the time they risk causing real harm to their own party in a way that no other class does.  Plus, compared to a normal wizard whose spells succeed 100% of the time, they fail 5% more often for no real benefit(in fact, a large portion of the time, they were were casting at lower level than a normal wizard in exchange for that 5% chance of failure).See above.  It isn't that they are failing to contribute, it's that they are doing damage to their own party or causing ill effects to them.  The fighter rolling a one does the same thing as if they rolled a 2-8 most of the time.</blockquote>

Verification