Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 6177944" data-attributes="member: 2303">I will peek in and sat I am say I am for siloing - that is to have a class have certain minimum capacity in different areas, such as combat, social, and exploration. I have GMed games that started out as almost entirely non-combat, and where one PCs ended up almost completely incapable in combat. As combat elements slowly crept into the story, this turned out to be a problem - the character was not only incapable of combat, but also completely uninterested in it. Because the character had been made without any combat capabilities, the player had drawn the logical conclusion and given the PC a personality to match. This was in a point-bye system (my homebrew), meaning there was no siloing at all - you could put all your points wherever you liked. The very point of a class system for me is the siloing. Classes come with certain built-in abilities for different areas. In 5E, these areas have been defined - they are combat, exploration, and social. Each class is to have some competence in each area. In addition to this core competence, there can be a few freebie points (like feats) that can go into any area.Now, I am not saying that a rogue HAS to have sneak attack. But if each class has a certain minimum (and maximum) combat ability, it becomes much easier to make encounters and scenarios. Taking out sneak attack (the rogue's most important combat schtick) and replacing it with something in one of the other two areas (exploration or social) might take the rogue out of the expected level of competency.In conclusion, a great GM can make the game work for any group, but the GM's work is still made easier by a bit of siloing in the class system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Starfox, post: 6177944, member: 2303"] I will peek in and sat I am say I am for siloing - that is to have a class have certain minimum capacity in different areas, such as combat, social, and exploration. I have GMed games that started out as almost entirely non-combat, and where one PCs ended up almost completely incapable in combat. As combat elements slowly crept into the story, this turned out to be a problem - the character was not only incapable of combat, but also completely uninterested in it. Because the character had been made without any combat capabilities, the player had drawn the logical conclusion and given the PC a personality to match. This was in a point-bye system (my homebrew), meaning there was no siloing at all - you could put all your points wherever you liked. The very point of a class system for me is the siloing. Classes come with certain built-in abilities for different areas. In 5E, these areas have been defined - they are combat, exploration, and social. Each class is to have some competence in each area. In addition to this core competence, there can be a few freebie points (like feats) that can go into any area. Now, I am not saying that a rogue HAS to have sneak attack. But if each class has a certain minimum (and maximum) combat ability, it becomes much easier to make encounters and scenarios. Taking out sneak attack (the rogue's most important combat schtick) and replacing it with something in one of the other two areas (exploration or social) might take the rogue out of the expected level of competency. In conclusion, a great GM can make the game work for any group, but the GM's work is still made easier by a bit of siloing in the class system. [/QUOTE]

Verification