NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6663615" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya.Just chiming in on this... In the first paragraph you basically contend that if a character isn't "always good in all situations" that it is suddenly a bad design. I don't think this is true in the least.Just because a particular classes skill-set makes them a "sub-par fighter" when not in their particular element, doesn't make then "not fun to play" or otherwise "a bad choice for a PC". Maybe the Ranger is a sub-par fighter when not in his element (re: wilderness), but when he is in his element, he shines very brightly indeed.And, campaigns, IMHO, are best when the players make their own "story decisions". IME, a DM who has planned out some epic year+ long story for his campaign and doesn't give the players the "back cover" (re: doesn't tell them what the overall story arc and setting is going to be), is not being very fair to his players. So, if the player knows that the campaign is taking place in the Lands of Deepearth, and chooses to make a Ranger anyway...that's on him. If a player knows the campaign is going to be a seafaring, swashbuckling, pirates and privateers type campaign, and chooses to make a heavily armored two-handed sword wielding Fighter...that's on him. If a player know the campaign is based in and around intrigue, cities, and the noble houses and powerful merchants guild, and chooses to make a Druid...that's on him. If you, the DM (general you/DM) just says "Lets start a new campaign. Make some guys.", with no focus, just a let's play and see what happens type sandbox campaign, then, again, all those character choices are up to the PLAYERS. If nobody talks to each other about what characters they want to make, what type of adventuring they want to do, etc., and one ends up with a "niche" type character that doesn't fit with the others...that's on him.What it all boils down to is this: Specialized characters should be RARE. Back in 1e, in addition to just the obvious 'specialized' classes, we also had stat requirements. The specialty classes had some pretty high ability score reqirements! What was the result? Well, as you would expect...those character classes were rare. If someone rolled up stats capable of being a Paladin, the player basically immediately told the group he was thinking about making a Paladin. If someone was dead set on making a LN Fighter and another wanted to make a TN Thief, then the guy with the great rolls probably shouldn't make a Paladin. So he wouldn't. Choosing to do so anyway, despite knowing what the other players are wanting to make/play, shows a lack of, pardon the pun, "character" on the part of the player. It's like someone going to a friends place who is having a party for their 12 year old son...and then deciding to get rip-roaring drunk because "it's a party". Not. Cool.Ranger, Paladin, Druid, Illusionist, Monk, Assassin, Cavalier, Barbarian ... all were "specialty classes". But over the years, they got diluted and flattened out in the ever-going quest for "balance" (numerical, cold, by-the-book, nobody-should-be-better-at-anyone-ever, 'balance'), all the things that made these classes unique and unusual got lost. But the core ideas of these classes (sans Barbarian...they were never "rage-induced berzerkers" in 1e) were still used...even though the actual abilities started to reflect this less and less. ^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification