Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6641687" data-attributes="member: 996">That's pushing it a bit.&nbsp; The broad competence typically displayed by heroes in genre is hardly on the same level of 'wish fulfillment' as powered super-heroes or the reality-bending of magic-wielders - or the D&amp;D casters that over-deliver on the corresponding archetypes. &nbsp;You often get that when trying to model them in game, but it's really just illustrating the issue.&nbsp;&nbsp; A D&amp;D character isn't going to be able to stack up against everything Conan routinely does without having a lot of levels, probably in at least two classes, but, with Epic levels.&nbsp; It's overkilling levels to make up for the failure of classes to model the basics.&nbsp;Very often the traditional hero isn't absolutely better than everyone around them, but often better rounded than the more specialized supporting cast.&nbsp; It's true that Fellowship type arrangements are the exception in fantasy, though.&nbsp; Even so, you don't see the kind of outright over-specialization you do in D&amp;D, even in something like LotR.&nbsp; As far as keeping a handful of players all engaged, giving each one a dedicated specialist who only gets to participate fully a fraction of the time may not be the best way.&nbsp; Not that that's what D&amp;D does, exactly.&nbsp; Some classes are a lot narrower in their abilities than others.Heh. Conflate the expandability of 'taking point' with leadership.&nbsp;&nbsp; Nice save.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; &nbsp;Some leaders, like a WIS-based Cleric or crossbow-wielding Artificer, sure.&nbsp; Warlords, Ardents, Battle Clerics, and others, though, could be very good lead-from-the-front types.&nbsp; In addition to actually leading in more senses than just taking point.&nbsp;It's not that impossible to keep classes differentiated while also keeping them contributing.&nbsp; The key is to avoid making their talents too narrow.&nbsp; When the Thief wasn't good for much beyond Finding Traps, it was a pretty sad class.&nbsp; 3.0 expanded backstab into SA and it became more capable of contributing in combat.&nbsp; 4e &amp; 5e made SA dependable and generally effective enough for the Rogue to be fully-contributing in combat, while still being very capable in exploration and potentially able to do a little in interaction, as well.&nbsp; 4e 'roles' divided up combat functions into broad specialties, with synergy amongst them, so it was able to make each class fully contributing in combat.&nbsp; Tier 1 caster classes in 3.x could absolutely dominate any pillar, and 5e's full casters aren't any less versatile.&nbsp; Yet, in all those cases, the classes remained quite distinct.&nbsp; Spell lists, powers, class features, source, special abilities, etc... there's a wealth of ways to differentiate classes without making them so different in versatility and effectiveness that they shake out into Optimization Tiers, or end up useful in only one of the Pillars.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6641687, member: 996"] That's pushing it a bit. The broad competence typically displayed by heroes in genre is hardly on the same level of 'wish fulfillment' as powered super-heroes or the reality-bending of magic-wielders - or the D&D casters that over-deliver on the corresponding archetypes. You often get that when trying to model them in game, but it's really just illustrating the issue. A D&D character isn't going to be able to stack up against everything Conan routinely does without having a lot of levels, probably in at least two classes, but, with Epic levels. It's overkilling levels to make up for the failure of classes to model the basics. Very often the traditional hero isn't absolutely better than everyone around them, but often better rounded than the more specialized supporting cast. It's true that Fellowship type arrangements are the exception in fantasy, though. Even so, you don't see the kind of outright over-specialization you do in D&D, even in something like LotR. As far as keeping a handful of players all engaged, giving each one a dedicated specialist who only gets to participate fully a fraction of the time may not be the best way. Not that that's what D&D does, exactly. Some classes are a lot narrower in their abilities than others. Heh. Conflate the expandability of 'taking point' with leadership. Nice save. ;) Some leaders, like a WIS-based Cleric or crossbow-wielding Artificer, sure. Warlords, Ardents, Battle Clerics, and others, though, could be very good lead-from-the-front types. In addition to actually leading in more senses than just taking point. It's not that impossible to keep classes differentiated while also keeping them contributing. The key is to avoid making their talents too narrow. When the Thief wasn't good for much beyond Finding Traps, it was a pretty sad class. 3.0 expanded backstab into SA and it became more capable of contributing in combat. 4e & 5e made SA dependable and generally effective enough for the Rogue to be fully-contributing in combat, while still being very capable in exploration and potentially able to do a little in interaction, as well. 4e 'roles' divided up combat functions into broad specialties, with synergy amongst them, so it was able to make each class fully contributing in combat. Tier 1 caster classes in 3.x could absolutely dominate any pillar, and 5e's full casters aren't any less versatile. Yet, in all those cases, the classes remained quite distinct. Spell lists, powers, class features, source, special abilities, etc... there's a wealth of ways to differentiate classes without making them so different in versatility and effectiveness that they shake out into Optimization Tiers, or end up useful in only one of the Pillars. [/QUOTE]

Verification