Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="amethal" data-source="post: 6298078" data-attributes="member: 22784">So, over 700 posts and we still haven't had a definitive answer.&nbsp;I'm going to stick my neck out and go for the latter. I think so, but who cares? If there is a rogue in the party, then let the rogue do the rogue stuff. If there isn't, then no comparison is needed.&nbsp;Actually, this one has been answered. About a minute, apparently.I think it can, but it might not be.&nbsp;Dunno, too difficult.No, because none of the real world examples, as far as I am aware, involve magic.I think the problem is the disparity between the power levels of potential player characters. Some stuff comes with a &quot;health warning&quot; e.g. the Commoner class is described as an NPC class, and has a very uninspiring name. Other stuff e.g. Vow of Poverty has an uninspiring name but you might think it was a valid option. Other stuff has a great name e.g. &quot;heavy crossbow&quot; so is a trap option.The way we deal with these problems in our group is we try to ensure all the PCs are roughly similar in ability. The classes that we think are weaker are heavily optimised, or avoided completely. The DM (me) is more lenient to some characters than to others, and more lenient to inexperienced players than to old campaigners. Encounters are re-balanced in mid combat - usually to beef up the bad guys, often in the form changing some of their signature abilities into swift actions.This is a form of play which is anathema to many players - who view it as cheating. It requires an experienced DM (I've been DMing for 30 years) and a lot of trust within the group. I'd also like to think it requires a good DM, but then I would think that!My preferred alternative would be to play some sort of E6 / P6 game, but the rest of the group love high level Pathfinder so that is out of the question.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="amethal, post: 6298078, member: 22784"] So, over 700 posts and we still haven't had a definitive answer. I'm going to stick my neck out and go for the latter. I think so, but who cares? If there is a rogue in the party, then let the rogue do the rogue stuff. If there isn't, then no comparison is needed. Actually, this one has been answered. About a minute, apparently. I think it can, but it might not be. Dunno, too difficult. No, because none of the real world examples, as far as I am aware, involve magic. I think the problem is the disparity between the power levels of potential player characters. Some stuff comes with a "health warning" e.g. the Commoner class is described as an NPC class, and has a very uninspiring name. Other stuff e.g. Vow of Poverty has an uninspiring name but you might think it was a valid option. Other stuff has a great name e.g. "heavy crossbow" so is a trap option. The way we deal with these problems in our group is we try to ensure all the PCs are roughly similar in ability. The classes that we think are weaker are heavily optimised, or avoided completely. The DM (me) is more lenient to some characters than to others, and more lenient to inexperienced players than to old campaigners. Encounters are re-balanced in mid combat - usually to beef up the bad guys, often in the form changing some of their signature abilities into swift actions. This is a form of play which is anathema to many players - who view it as cheating. It requires an experienced DM (I've been DMing for 30 years) and a lot of trust within the group. I'd also like to think it requires a good DM, but then I would think that! My preferred alternative would be to play some sort of E6 / P6 game, but the rest of the group love high level Pathfinder so that is out of the question. [/QUOTE]

Verification