When creating a character to play in a game, I always struggle with what type of character I want to create.
This is because, often, games are most enjoyable when there is some attention paid to combat, and how characters (and a party) will act and interact in combat.
Combat optimization is often used as a slur, but the reality is this: most games are designed around combat as the primary form of conflict resolution, so what fun is it if you suck.
Nobody wants to suck.
Or, maybe people do, but then, likely, their fellow party members do not want this.
The “problem” is that games inherently subsist on combat, so why focus on anything else?
Why dump points into non-combat skills, if, at that most crucial point, you are bringing the team down, and consequently, reducing your chance for survival.
A game where characters can excel in non-combat areas, and pulling back even more, a game that places as much weight, narratively and mechanics-wise, on non-combat while maybe even making non-combat conflicts more the norm, this game encourages me to play a character I want to play, and my primary concern is do I want to be the only character of my type.
You can be the bad-ass archer, you can be the tough fighter, you’re the all-powerful enigmatic wizard, of course you can be the paragon ranger…. I want to be the heart of the team.
Does your system allow for that?