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="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8187259" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think it can matter quite a bit, yeah. I get your point, but when there's one or a few characters who are effectively covering all needs, those other ones that aren't doing anything are just kind of along for the ride. I don't think that wanting to meaningfully contribute is something that is a separate issue, because this phenomenon is pretty pervasive throughout the entire system.I think the problem with 3.x design was it kind of diversified things too much....I think players from earlier editions felt too locked in to their archetypes and roles, and wanted to see the ability to buck those limits. But I think 3.x went too far, and allowed all kinds of situations that create a tail wagging the dog kind of situation. I think part of it is so much of the design is about bonuses.....everything gives you +3 or +5 to a check of some kind, or a collection of checks. So you get situations where characters like a Bard or Sorceror who require Charisma for their primary function then outshine someone like a Barbarian who wants to intimidate people. It's like....this is the one social interaction where that character may shine.....we need someone to scare the pants off this guard. Get me Ragnar......oh wait, he has a +6 and the Bard has +12? Okay, get me Silas Sevenstrings to come intimidate the guard.If they did something like Advantage/Disadvantage or bonus dice or something.....then you can let the archetypes we're looking for be what we kind of expect them to be. So the Barbarian is allowed to be the big scary bastard we all want him to be, and the Bard is more the charming guy. When it's nothing but bonuses.....then it's just "who has the highest total?" rather than anything based on the fiction.</blockquote>

Verification