|
The only D&D opinion that I think is really bad that you expressed there is the "gently caress you play a rogue" one. Why do you have to be less effective just because your character concept is "sneaky guy" instead of "singing guy"? As long as you're roleplaying it appropriately and consistently what does it matter what the mechanics say you are? I see it as basically the same thing as changing the flavor of attacks to better fit the character. I like all the characters to pull their own weigh both in games I run and games I'm playing in though so I suppose I might just be coming at it from a bit of a different angle.
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Pvt.Scott posted:That's why I don't really generally care what stats my player's PCs have in 3.5/Pathfinder poo poo. After a few sessions I'll have their power roughly pegged anyway (which includes teamwork and actually exploiting abilities) and just eyeball encounters. If I make a character, I'm a crazy sperglord powergaming optimizer, but since I usually play with laid back people who don't give a poo poo, I use that knowledge to craft weird characters that are still useful to the party. Like the time I played a commoner as the party tank for shits and giggles and nobody really noticed. Smart race/stat/feat/skill selection and solid tactical play go a long way some times. The approach of optimizing something really dumb is my favorite way of building characters in Pathfinder/3.5. Really I think the most important thing is that characters are on similar power levels so nobody feels useless and encounter design isn't a total nightmare for the DM. That and actually having a decent character concept and putting some effort into roleplaying of course.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
Yeah I think a little bit of looking at gear would probably not be a bad thing as long as it doesnt take up half the video or something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 21:38
|
|