Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6944683" data-attributes="member: 12731">Let me just say I wasn't that guy, but I could have been. Yes, this is a good explanation why "covering your weaknesses" doesn't generally lead to as effective results as "focusing on your strengths". This is also what is behind a seismic shift in what "jack of all trades master of none" characters get.In 3E, the naive (but understandable) idea was that if you are good at everything, you should probably only be half as good as those that are best. If a Fighter gets +10 at fighting and a Wizard gets +10 at spelling, a Bard gets +5 at both. All three gets a total of +10 so that's fair, right?But what you have expressed in your post tells us, is that only being best really counts. And so 5E bards are more like getting +8 at fighting and +8 at spelling. Even though their total is now +16, they still feel balanced.This is the real insight that separates somebody not introduced to minmaxing from someone that is: being best at one thing is probably better than being good at three things.IRL, there are too many things to be good at in most cases / for most people. But in D&D, the number of things is quite limited. So a party can easily afford the luxury of divvying up the things among the party members, and are amply rewarded for it.</blockquote>