NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hikaizer" data-source="post: 5820146" data-attributes="member: 6689474">Part of the problem is whether you plan for every character to be able to contribute equally in any given encounter, or whether you balance over an adventure. You do risk homogenising gameplay if you focus into too small a level of detail in this. The real trick would be finding the right point to try and balance this at. This is as much a responsibility of the GM as it is of the system. We've seen at least some annecdotal evidence of games which have balanced things out better in previous editions already. It's important for the system to provide a good foundation for the GM to use, but it's up to the GM to actually utilise it. A system that builds your adventure for you entirely risks feeling a little hollow I fear.As for Fighters and social encounters again...well it's generally not fun if someone can do everything. Part of what makes a gaming group fit together nicely from my years of experience has been that everyone has a role that they can excel in. This is because people like having something they're good at and can make their own often. Not only this but when people excel in similar areas they begin to compete for the spotlight in the session. Specialisation is a good thing in DnD and again it's something previous editions (perhaps ignoring 4e a little) have tried to emphasise. Should classes be allowed to specialise into other pillars than their typical focus? I personally think that would be great. Certainly exploring the possibilities for each pillar for each class would be a creative challenge, but if this is a core design paradigm for 5e wouldn't it be worthwhile?</blockquote>

Verification