Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5819779" data-attributes="member: 996">Also more stereotype than archetype.  A PC, even a barbarian, shouldn't just be 'dumb muscle,' leave that shallow concept to all the namless 'Human Thug Minion 5's out there.And 'not so smart' (low INT) gets in the way of social & exploration, how, exactly?  Social skills are CHA, you can be dim but charming or even a natural leader (I'll leave it to the reader to fill in a presidential example, here).  Nature, Perception, and Dungeoneering are all WIS.  A not-so-bright dwarven fighter could be an expert dungeoneer, a not-so-bright barbarian could be virtually at one with the wilderness.Social challenges can still be contributed to in other ways.  What if your artificer makes a delightful gift (bribe) for the more socially adept characters to present?  What if he rigs up a magical spying gizmo to get information prior to a negotiation?  He can still 'not get' people while helping out in one way or another.The 'pillars' are a nice concept, and they're really quite broad, 'social' could include a lot of things besides being charming.Then think of class abilities as self-serve, you don't have to take /all/ of them.  You can choose to play a weak character because you want to choose a weak character, but that shouldn't force everyone with the same class to have the same weakness.</blockquote>