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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 5736089" data-attributes="member: 10479">To my mind, that only raises the question of what the game can do out of the box by design and what the game assumes it will support.  (Just a look at the 1E [since you mention that edition] random treasure tables potions are fairly common when magic is included.  I'll leave it to those who regularly play 1E to feel free to comment on how frequently they are available in modules.)  So, what you again seem to be saying is that in your experience Rich Baker's premise is correct that the last decade of design is less supportive of role-switching.You seem to want to focus on a single class and suggest if you use a particular manner of character creation that supports your premise and under the conditions of playstyle (dungeons over outdoors, while trying to steer away from ranged and mounted combats) there is an optimal way to play that class toward a particular role.  Given the narrow parameters you accept for your premise, it is difficult to discuss.  However, if we discuss this with Rich Baker's assertion being the only consideration and realize that in the last decade systems have moved further toward creating the mindset you seem to embrace then it's not hard to understand how he arrives at the conclusion.  As part of your thought experiement, take a look with fresh eyes at the number of things you take for granted in your example, from the method of ability score generation, the environments the characters will find themselves in, etc. and it seems to support Rich Baker's point.Let me ask, are you assuming there are a certain number of players?  Are you assuming that certain character classes will need to be represented and in certain numbers for a given group?  Your use of the word "tailored" above seems to suggest your premise(s) includes design mindset ideals of the last decade or so.  These are assumptions also made in design over about the last decade or so.  It's not uncommon prior to the last decade or so for groups to be larger, sometimes much larger, than 3-5 players and for campaigns.  While one player might wish to optimize for melee combat if they had an 18 to put into one of their ability scores, there might be several (or more) fighters in a group and given that many campaigns spent as much time out of dungeons as in, or even rarely went into dungeons, ranged and mounted combat were of greater importance.  But you sweep all of that aside as if they are not even a consideration for your thought experiment and that, again, seems to support Rich Baker's premise regarding how "roles" have become codified in the last decade or so.</blockquote>

Verification