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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 9181387" data-attributes="member: 7030563">If meaningful for you means optimal, then there are very few meanigful choices for you, but that is specific to you as a player.The other characters are not really relevant IMO and being viable has more to do  with ability scores than it does the choices you make.There are weaker choices absolutely, but most of them are viable.  A strength-based fighter who chooses a dagger is objectively weaker compared to the other fighter in the party who fights with a longsword, and if you really want to split hairs, the fighter with a longsword is objectively weaker than the one who chooses a warhammer.  But all 3 characters are still viable.  All three of these fighters will generally be successful and while they are objectively not equal it is unlikely their choice will result in failure.To be not viable you would need to use a blowgun, or fight with a longsword when you have a low strength.They can be overshadowed by a lot of things and of those luck is the biggest in-game driver, with choices (both build and in-game) being a close second and mechanical design being a distant third place.This argument also does not consider player personality.  MANY players do not want to play the focus or leader or guy doing everything.  MANY players are introverted and prefer a subdued role.  You also have many players who are extremely extroverted and will overshadow other players regardless, the Barbarian with a 7 Charisma who needs to walk into every situation and act like the bull in the China shop.I am playing in a game right now and my Monk with a 13 Charisma and no Charisma skill proficiencies is the party face.  We have a Warlock with an 18 or 19 Charisma and skills, but the player does not like to do any of the social things.  Occasionally if we anticipate we will need to make a tough check on a Charisma skill we will ask him to do it, but most of the time he does not want to "do the talking" for the group.   The other two characters have a low Charisma FWIW.Yes and I get what you are saying, 2 feats vs 1 is better than 3 feats vs 2, but that argument does not hold when you consider what feats do at this level.This argument overlooks that at 6th level a feat matters more to a fighter (or any martial) than it does to a caster.  A feat at this level is a bigger boost for a fighter or other martial than it is for a caster.  The "second best" choice for a fighter is going improve the fighter more at this level than the first choice for a Wizard will improve the Wizard at this level.And the 3rd string at this level improves the fighter more than the Wizard is improved by the Wizard's second string at this level.This is something I love.  I would hate to see us go back to a design like we had in 3E where you can't take most feats and I am not a fan of the tiered system in ONE either, even though it is far better than 3E was.</blockquote>

Verification