Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 8526310" data-attributes="member: 7030563">Classes provide a set of mechanics to build the character you want and ensure an element of balance.&nbsp; They should not define the character.&nbsp; Certain classes, specifically Warlock, and to a lessor extent Cleric and Druid, have thematic issues that actually do connect the class to the character definition, but even there you can do away with those elements relatively easily.Which means you flat can't succeed at some elements in the game or the DM has to build a story without those elements.I have played such campaigns and that is difficult and can be troublesome.&nbsp; Not as troublesome as the infamous DM PC, but certainly a problem at times and with some players.&nbsp; It is better if you add a couple NPCs and let the players control them in combat, but to be honest a 4-person party is the norm in 5E and 3 should be as common or more common than 6 players and to do that well you need to be decent at all three pillars with just 3 players.A game with 3 Players and 3 PCs&nbsp; is a lot more fun than a game with 3 players and 6 PCs.That is a solution, but it is not ideal as you still end up with a large party that slows the game down and is as bad as having a bunch of PCs.&nbsp; It is also not as fun when your hired NPC face manages to talk his way past three guard posts to get into the keep and the baron's quarters. It is far more fun when the PC fighter or ranger does it.Also if&nbsp; you are really playing NPCs right there is an element of ambiguity because they are not controlled by players and not part of the social contract between players.&nbsp; Are they really going to stick it through with the party?&nbsp; Is it possible they are spys/infiltrators?&nbsp; Will they run when the going gets tough?&nbsp; If the DM is handwaving that and making them essentially rock solid like the PCs then that detracts quite a bit from the story, or worse they essentially become a DM PC.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ECMO3, post: 8526310, member: 7030563"] Classes provide a set of mechanics to build the character you want and ensure an element of balance. They should not define the character. Certain classes, specifically Warlock, and to a lessor extent Cleric and Druid, have thematic issues that actually do connect the class to the character definition, but even there you can do away with those elements relatively easily. Which means you flat can't succeed at some elements in the game or the DM has to build a story without those elements. I have played such campaigns and that is difficult and can be troublesome. Not as troublesome as the infamous DM PC, but certainly a problem at times and with some players. It is better if you add a couple NPCs and let the players control them in combat, but to be honest a 4-person party is the norm in 5E and 3 should be as common or more common than 6 players and to do that well you need to be decent at all three pillars with just 3 players. A game with 3 Players and 3 PCs is a lot more fun than a game with 3 players and 6 PCs. That is a solution, but it is not ideal as you still end up with a large party that slows the game down and is as bad as having a bunch of PCs. It is also not as fun when your hired NPC face manages to talk his way past three guard posts to get into the keep and the baron's quarters. It is far more fun when the PC fighter or ranger does it. Also if you are really playing NPCs right there is an element of ambiguity because they are not controlled by players and not part of the social contract between players. Are they really going to stick it through with the party? Is it possible they are spys/infiltrators? Will they run when the going gets tough? If the DM is handwaving that and making them essentially rock solid like the PCs then that detracts quite a bit from the story, or worse they essentially become a DM PC. [/QUOTE]

Verification