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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Transformer" data-source="post: 5818701" data-attributes="member: 70008">I'm with this guy, at least on a very abstract level. I want a system where I can choose to be good at or suck at any of the three pillars, in any combination. I can be a fighter who fights and tracks but sucks in social encounters. I'll be good at both, but not as good as a pure combat fighter, or pure exploration ranger or rogue. I could play a wizard with some combat spells, some utility spells, and some resources invested in social skills and a social theme. I'm proficient at all 3 pillars, but not as good at any one of them as somone who specialized in only one or two.A few problems immediately present themselves:1. It would be nice if--as a pure fighting fighter--even if I'm no good outside of combat, I still have something to do when the group isn't engaged in combat. I want to be able to support others, make auxiliary search checks, maybe have one applicable social skill (intimidation).2. We don't want to trap noobs in characters that are more limited than they wanted. The rulebooks need to make it clear, if you're building a fighter who sucks at everything but fighting, that you will suck at most everything but fighting. We also don't want any clearly inferior options, be they skills, themes, or whatever. Perfect balance is impossible, of course, and no one's denying it, but Wizards needs to at least have a go at making everything reasonably equitable and useful. No trap options that are obviously trap options to the designers and to experienced players but that screw over noobs.Anyway, this is awfully abstract. But it's my ideal theorycraft framework.</blockquote>

Verification