Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6644114" data-attributes="member: 15700">I've been stewing on this for a while, and I still don't know the best way to articulate it.&nbsp; But here goes anyway.If you're expecting 5e to have every PC as good as every other PC in every pillar, then you'll be disappointed.&nbsp; It doesn't do that, and has been designed to specifically not do that.&nbsp; 5e seems to be designed to have it as a team sport, so-to-speak, as the default mode of play.What 5e does do, and does very well between skills, backgrounds, feats, and bounded accuracy, is give players a lot of choice.&nbsp; You can choose to be good at pretty much everything but not be super good at one thing.&nbsp; Or you can choose to be super good at one thing, but not super good at everything else.&nbsp; If you're looking to be super good at everything, or to have no other PC better than you in any of the pillars?&nbsp; 5e is not for you.&nbsp; That's not an attack on your senses or players who prefer that.&nbsp; It's simply stating how I feel the game was designed.&nbsp; I also think 5e is designed under the assumption that you will encounter all three pillars in the average game.&nbsp; Upthread I read someone say, &quot;why bother bringing the fighter along then&quot;.&nbsp; Well, the game assumes that at some point you'll be doing what the fighter does better than everyone else.And I will fully admit my biases when I say that I think it's a huge mistake and goes against the spirit of the game to either have the impression or to try to argue the impression that unless you are the best at something in your group, you shouldn't be doing it.&nbsp; This is a feeling I get a lot whenever I hear people imply or infer that PC X shouldn't attempt task A because PC Y is better.&nbsp; Or that PC X can't do tasks A, B, or C because they are specialized in only task D.Being competent at something =/= having the highest possible mechanical bonus.So basically, in the context of this discussion, the fighter might not be as good at exploration as another class, particularly at higher levels.&nbsp; But that doesn't mean the fighter isn't competent at those tasks and/or shouldn't be attempting them.&nbsp; 5e gives you the choice to build a fighter who is very competent in all three pillars.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 6644114, member: 15700"] I've been stewing on this for a while, and I still don't know the best way to articulate it. But here goes anyway. If you're expecting 5e to have every PC as good as every other PC in every pillar, then you'll be disappointed. It doesn't do that, and has been designed to specifically not do that. 5e seems to be designed to have it as a team sport, so-to-speak, as the default mode of play. What 5e does do, and does very well between skills, backgrounds, feats, and bounded accuracy, is give players a lot of choice. You can choose to be good at pretty much everything but not be super good at one thing. Or you can choose to be super good at one thing, but not super good at everything else. If you're looking to be super good at everything, or to have no other PC better than you in any of the pillars? 5e is not for you. That's not an attack on your senses or players who prefer that. It's simply stating how I feel the game was designed. I also think 5e is designed under the assumption that you will encounter all three pillars in the average game. Upthread I read someone say, "why bother bringing the fighter along then". Well, the game assumes that at some point you'll be doing what the fighter does better than everyone else. And I will fully admit my biases when I say that I think it's a huge mistake and goes against the spirit of the game to either have the impression or to try to argue the impression that unless you are the best at something in your group, you shouldn't be doing it. This is a feeling I get a lot whenever I hear people imply or infer that PC X shouldn't attempt task A because PC Y is better. Or that PC X [i]can't[/i] do tasks A, B, or C because they are specialized in only task D. Being competent at something =/= having the highest possible mechanical bonus. So basically, in the context of this discussion, the fighter might not be as good at exploration as another class, particularly at higher levels. But that doesn't mean the fighter isn't competent at those tasks and/or shouldn't be attempting them. 5e gives you the choice to build a fighter who is very competent in all three pillars. [/QUOTE]

Verification