Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7436476" data-attributes="member: 42582">That's one way. But I don't think it's the way that [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] is interested in. Introducing social constraints of the sort you describe can be used to &quot;reward&quot; or &quot;punish&quot; any build of any sort, as the GM chooses.Whereas I think CapnZapp has in mind a knife thrower who has the same sort of chance of contributing to victory in combat in a standard module/AP as does a hand crossbow specialists or a great weapon fighter.If someone wants an archetype to be mechanically viable (under fairly understandable, even if not shared, assumptions about what &quot;viability&quot; means), then it doesn't help them to tell them not to want it!Whereas I think this is the sort of answer that actually speaks to the OP's concerns. What sorts of tweaks to 5e will resolve the issues raised? This makes me wonder: is it a virtue that there is that one-or-two-point gap? Or is it an inevitable side effect that in principle would be avoided, but in practice is going to crop up in any rule set?I'm not sure about you (Oofta) - but some posters in this thread seem to be saying that it is a virtue - that it would be undesirable for the system to not include that gap. For my own part, I don't understand that view. I don't see what the damage gap between those two strategies for dealing damage adds to the game.(If the answer is that the gap is, in fact, balanced by other considerations - eg action economy (though in this particular case I think that runs the other way) - or that once there are magic weapons there is less of a gap because the dual wielder gets to deploy two bonus weapons - then in fact, in the sense the OP cares about, there is no gap. I'm asking the above question on the assumption that the gap in mechanical effectiveness is a real one.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7436476, member: 42582"] That's one way. But I don't think it's the way that [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] is interested in. Introducing social constraints of the sort you describe can be used to "reward" or "punish" any build of any sort, as the GM chooses. Whereas I think CapnZapp has in mind a knife thrower who has the same sort of chance of contributing to victory in combat in a standard module/AP as does a hand crossbow specialists or a great weapon fighter. If someone wants an archetype to be mechanically viable (under fairly understandable, even if not shared, assumptions about what "viability" means), then it doesn't help them to tell them not to want it! Whereas I think this is the sort of answer that actually speaks to the OP's concerns. What sorts of tweaks to 5e will resolve the issues raised? This makes me wonder: is it a virtue that there is that one-or-two-point gap? Or is it an inevitable side effect that in principle would be avoided, but in practice is going to crop up in any rule set? I'm not sure about you (Oofta) - but some posters in this thread seem to be saying that it is a virtue - that it would be [I]undesirable[/I] for the system to not include that gap. For my own part, I don't understand that view. I don't see what the damage gap between those two strategies for dealing damage adds to the game. (If the answer is that the gap is, in fact, balanced by other considerations - eg action economy (though in this particular case I think that runs the other way) - or that once there are magic weapons there is less of a gap because the dual wielder gets to deploy two bonus weapons - then in fact, in the sense the OP cares about, there [I]is[/I] no gap. I'm asking the above question on the assumption that the gap in mechanical effectiveness is a real one.) [/QUOTE]

Verification