Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Themes and Feats
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5900397" data-attributes="member: 6668292"><p>Like I said, starting with a balance is fine. However, I <em>do not</em> want to be forced into competency in all three areas, much less forced into near-perfect balance. I (and my players) <em>like</em> incompetency in certain areas as a part of our character concepts. For us, D&D was never solely about "adventurers" doing adventurous things. The system was a tool for our favored type of RPing, and this includes non-combat sages, socialites, and the like. We play my RPG because it caters to those tastes far more than D&D did (or, at least in ways that we liked more than any edition of D&D did).</p><p></p><p>I want to be able to build a character with a "1" in combat. I might want someone who has a "1" in exploration, too (or social/interaction). Most characters won't be completely incompetent in these areas, mind you, but sometimes one of us has a concept where such a thing is the case.</p><p></p><p>Make it an optional rule, or a rules module, or a "clear-it-with-your-GM" thing, or whatever, but give me a system that doesn't force every character to be competent in every area. Make it the baseline? Sure. Assume it to be the case? I guess so. Balance around it? Sure, you need to start somewhere (put in a disclaimer: "if you change from these assumptions, here is the likely results in balance"). But, if we're seeing my preference come to fruition, then at least <em>give me the option</em> to trade competency, with all the imbalance that it entails.</p><p></p><p>If my concept means I suck at combat, then I'm okay with dying in combat. If it's disruptive ("it'll get us killed! We need someone who can contribute in this combat-heavy campaign"), then give advice on only allowing it if appropriate; it's not really any different from a PC who is competent but won't fight the bad guys, or a thief who steals from the party, or an evil cleric who kills PCs that drop, or whatever. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 5900397, member: 6668292"] Like I said, starting with a balance is fine. However, I [I]do not[/I] want to be forced into competency in all three areas, much less forced into near-perfect balance. I (and my players) [I]like[/I] incompetency in certain areas as a part of our character concepts. For us, D&D was never solely about "adventurers" doing adventurous things. The system was a tool for our favored type of RPing, and this includes non-combat sages, socialites, and the like. We play my RPG because it caters to those tastes far more than D&D did (or, at least in ways that we liked more than any edition of D&D did). I want to be able to build a character with a "1" in combat. I might want someone who has a "1" in exploration, too (or social/interaction). Most characters won't be completely incompetent in these areas, mind you, but sometimes one of us has a concept where such a thing is the case. Make it an optional rule, or a rules module, or a "clear-it-with-your-GM" thing, or whatever, but give me a system that doesn't force every character to be competent in every area. Make it the baseline? Sure. Assume it to be the case? I guess so. Balance around it? Sure, you need to start somewhere (put in a disclaimer: "if you change from these assumptions, here is the likely results in balance"). But, if we're seeing my preference come to fruition, then at least [I]give me the option[/I] to trade competency, with all the imbalance that it entails. If my concept means I suck at combat, then I'm okay with dying in combat. If it's disruptive ("it'll get us killed! We need someone who can contribute in this combat-heavy campaign"), then give advice on only allowing it if appropriate; it's not really any different from a PC who is competent but won't fight the bad guys, or a thief who steals from the party, or an evil cleric who kills PCs that drop, or whatever. As always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Themes and Feats
Top