Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Shard O'Glase" data-source="post: 447608" data-attributes="member: 1134">Basically D&amp;D comes down to spending your resources what ever classes let you acomplish your goals with the least resources spent are seen as the best classes.&nbsp; In a flat out dungeon crawl the speciclists spend the least amount of resources as a general rule.&nbsp; But if you face more varied encounters a lot of resources are spent helping the dead weight fighter get by in the no fight based encounters.&nbsp; The ranger thanks to there skills/spells cover a wide range of ground with a small expenditure of resourses and can even help other classes get by through spells in there weak departments.Now the generalists like the ranger spend more resourses to get through encounters that cater to a specialists area of expertise, so if the vast majority of encoutners don't require a broad range of abilties like the standard dungeon crawl then overall the specialists spend fewer resources, if the encoutners are diverse and require a broader range of abilities then the generalists spend less resourses over all.&nbsp; The one exception to this is the case where the encoutner is suited to a single person handling the situation.&nbsp; Traps are probably the biggest exmaple, it is a somewhat diverse encounter yet one single specialist easily covers the entire party.&nbsp; Other encoutners requiring stealth, communication, gathering info where usually the entire party might get involved having a specialist usally has one of two results either a player who twiddles thier thumbs and does nothing(therefore not contributing to reducing a resource expenditure), or a player who participaltes but may actually cost the party more resources by flubbing things up.&nbsp; Again here is where the generalists shine, by making shure the party over the course of the campaign spend less resources.&nbsp; Now personally I think the pure spell casters might break this basic rule in that they spend less resouces in specialist sitations than the speicalist, and they spend less resources than you would overall with a generalist.(IOW spells cover far too much ground)&nbsp; So I think all spellcasters are a little too good.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shard O'Glase, post: 447608, member: 1134"] Basically D&D comes down to spending your resources what ever classes let you acomplish your goals with the least resources spent are seen as the best classes. In a flat out dungeon crawl the speciclists spend the least amount of resources as a general rule. But if you face more varied encounters a lot of resources are spent helping the dead weight fighter get by in the no fight based encounters. The ranger thanks to there skills/spells cover a wide range of ground with a small expenditure of resourses and can even help other classes get by through spells in there weak departments. Now the generalists like the ranger spend more resourses to get through encounters that cater to a specialists area of expertise, so if the vast majority of encoutners don't require a broad range of abilties like the standard dungeon crawl then overall the specialists spend fewer resources, if the encoutners are diverse and require a broader range of abilities then the generalists spend less resourses over all. The one exception to this is the case where the encoutner is suited to a single person handling the situation. Traps are probably the biggest exmaple, it is a somewhat diverse encounter yet one single specialist easily covers the entire party. Other encoutners requiring stealth, communication, gathering info where usually the entire party might get involved having a specialist usally has one of two results either a player who twiddles thier thumbs and does nothing(therefore not contributing to reducing a resource expenditure), or a player who participaltes but may actually cost the party more resources by flubbing things up. Again here is where the generalists shine, by making shure the party over the course of the campaign spend less resources. Now personally I think the pure spell casters might break this basic rule in that they spend less resouces in specialist sitations than the speicalist, and they spend less resources than you would overall with a generalist.(IOW spells cover far too much ground) So I think all spellcasters are a little too good. [/QUOTE]

Verification