|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Malk_Content wrote:Oh yes absolutely it can be right for a group. Just wanted to offer a counter point to whether it is advisable or not. I don't feel it would be, as I'm of the strong opinion that correct amounts of restriction make choices flourish.
Yeah, I'm genuinely happy to get counter points and different perspectives. You're always one to contribute in a positive way!
There are a lot of things I'm struggling with, so it helps a lot to get different viewpoints.
Well, then, here's my viewpoint:
I think a lot of the debate boils down to peoples' reasons for playing. Think about it this way: if you create a character that sucks (whatever your definition of sucks is), what happens to you?
For some people, it's soul crushing. They're stuck playing a sucky character (which may be a fine character but just not fine tuned like the rest of the party) and it ruins their experience.
For others, they will laugh at their gimped character and have a blast anyway.
I'm way closer to the second type. I used the word "icosahedral" at work and a bunch of us found out we had played RPGs when younger. We played D&D 5e because our first GM knew that system best, and then PF1 because our first GM wanted to play and our second GM knew PF1. I picked alchemist because there was no D&D alchemist. So it's all kind of whatever to me, if PF2 alchemist sucks then it sucks, if I can't take a feat because I didn't plan ahead then maybe my next character. It's unreasonable for me to expect to play through more than 2-3 characters before PF3 comes out, so I'm never going to see the difference between a storm druid and a leshy druid anyway.
I totally understand if people who play way more, or with groups way more serious, want to fine tune their characters. They're the race car drivers that look at fuel-air ratios and restore '65 Mustangs and whatnot. I'm the idiot who brings my car in for an oil change every 20,000 miles.