Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JacktheRabbit" data-source="post: 7541534" data-attributes="member: 525">Is it balancing the game to have non-combat interactions with dice rolls that due to their min-maxed character design in effect punishes them?That is like saying you cannot have a villain learn. Lets say a party through intentional choice builds a total melee monster party. Everyone swings a big stick and damn do they hit hard. Is it a punishment if the villain the party is opposing throughout the campaign hires a mercenary band or archers to ambush the party because it plays straight to their most blatant weakness?Is it unfair punishment if the clever king asks the character who did the majority of the damage and dealt the killing blow to the dragon to speak for the party in determining their reward? Suddenly the 8INT 7CHR Barbarian is severely punished by being designed 100% for combat. The smart King knows the suave and persuasive Bard of the party will have a well prepared request for a reward that will be hard to deny and save face. On the other hand the Barbarian who is barely smarter than the Hulk is likely to roughly answer "Grog want wine, women, and gold!" all a huge savings compared to what the socially savvy party members would ask to receive.Not trying to play devils advocate here. It is an honest question. Is the game so much about "fun" that a DM should never target a players weakness even when it was a weakness created 100% by the players choices?</blockquote>

Verification