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="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5820629" data-attributes="member: 2067">It's sort of the old bard argument. If you have a jack-of-all-trades, they are necessarily eclipsed by a party of specialists. On the other hand, if you have a character capable of equalling the specialists in all areas, they are necessarily overpowered -- they have none of the weaknesses of the rest of the party.You kind of have to have all characters be equally competent on all the pillars, or you have to have a character with strengths and weaknesses. I vastly prefer the latter. It is more varied, more chaotic, more interesting, more fun. I personally find that the main appeal of the former is a fear of being "unbalanced," but if there's a strictly even balance, it is deeply unsatisfying to a large portion of D&D players (including me). Variety is what keeps things interesting and entertaining in my book, and a precariously balanced game has no inherent appeal to me.Not to say that balance has no value, just that diversity is much more valuable to me. I don't want my artificer to be able to contribute well to a social encounter. I'm glad she can roll a Diplomacy check if she has to (she isn't Always Failing) and I'm glad she's not great at it, so usually some other party member needs to.For me, this plays into the nature of D&D has a party game. You could say that 4e's combat roles work similarly. Everyone can deal damage, not everyone is a Striker, and some classes (Pacifist Cleric; Lazylord) don't deal damage themselves at all. Everyone can roll check for a social skill success, but not everyone is equally good at it. That's the job of the specialist.</blockquote>

Verification