I once did a all barbarian one-shot and it was hilarious, but not good for a full campaign. I also played a campaign with all warlocks, where all our patrons didn't like each other but were working together to summon a devastating storm to overtake the world (it was an evil campaign) and that was pretty fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone, there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
All one class? Probably not. Seems overly limiting on the players.
All one background? Yeah, I could see doing that. For sure.
Limiting to one class with allowance for varied archetypes is less limiting than limiting to one background? The variety of the stories has always made my games more exciting, not the actions they do in combat. Interesting take, I just don’t agree is all.
All one class? Probably not. Seems overly limiting on the players.
All one background? Yeah, I could see doing that. For sure.
Limiting to one class with allowance for varied archetypes is less limiting than limiting to one background? The variety of the stories has always made my games more exciting, not the actions they do in combat. Interesting take, I just don’t agree is all.
I respectfully disagree. All the same class will mean that you will have very similar character builds and stats. All spellcasters mean that everyone will have a good primary casting stat which in turn will mean that everyone will gravitate to similar skills and even feats. Martial classes might have a little more variety but the problem exists to some extent. An all paladin party will have everyone with good Charismas. All Ranger will have all good Wisdom and Dexterity. And mechanically you will have problems with everyone having the same saves and thus the same weaknesses.
On the flip side, an all soldier party could have any variety of classes and skills. Different abilities and saves. Even different spell selections. Variety of stories seems an invalid argument. No reason why a group of soldiers, outlanders or criminals couldn't have different stories. And to my mind the reason behind a 'all the same class' is so the PCs will all have something in common. Easier to accomplish with the same background versus same class. IMO.
All one class? Probably not. Seems overly limiting on the players.
All one background? Yeah, I could see doing that. For sure.
Limiting to one class with allowance for varied archetypes is less limiting than limiting to one background? The variety of the stories has always made my games more exciting, not the actions they do in combat. Interesting take, I just don’t agree is all.
I respectfully disagree. All the same class will mean that you will have very similar character builds and stats. All spellcasters mean that everyone will have a good primary casting stat which in turn will mean that everyone will gravitate to similar skills and even feats. Martial classes might have a little more variety but the problem exists to some extent. An all paladin party will have everyone with good Charismas. All Ranger will have all good Wisdom and Dexterity. And mechanically you will have problems with everyone having the same saves and thus the same weaknesses.
On the flip side, an all soldier party could have any variety of classes and skills. Different abilities and saves. Even different spell selections. Variety of stories seems an invalid argument. No reason why a group of soldiers, outlanders or criminals couldn't have different stories. And to my mind the reason behind a 'all the same class' is so the PCs will all have something in common. Easier to accomplish with the same background versus same class. IMO.
Respectful disagreement is unacceptable! I demand you acknowledge my superior intellect and argument. 🙂
The patron rules from tashas might have the desired effect, without any build limits. I also enjoy theroycrafting parties around a theme. A divine soul sorc, glory pal, sun soul monk, light cleric, and celestial warlock would have a fun light theme.
My posting scheduled is irregular: sometimes I can post twice a week, sometimes twice a day. I may also respond to quick questions, but ignore harder responses in favor of time.
My location is where my character for my home game is (we're doing the wild beyond the witchlight).
"The Doomvault... Probably full of unicorns and rainbows." -An imaginary quote
I once did a all barbarian one-shot and it was hilarious, but not good for a full campaign. I also played a campaign with all warlocks, where all our patrons didn't like each other but were working together to summon a devastating storm to overtake the world (it was an evil campaign) and that was pretty fun.
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone, there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
- Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert
All one class? Probably not. Seems overly limiting on the players.
All one background? Yeah, I could see doing that. For sure.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
Limiting to one class with allowance for varied archetypes is less limiting than limiting to one background? The variety of the stories has always made my games more exciting, not the actions they do in combat. Interesting take, I just don’t agree is all.
I respectfully disagree. All the same class will mean that you will have very similar character builds and stats. All spellcasters mean that everyone will have a good primary casting stat which in turn will mean that everyone will gravitate to similar skills and even feats. Martial classes might have a little more variety but the problem exists to some extent. An all paladin party will have everyone with good Charismas. All Ranger will have all good Wisdom and Dexterity. And mechanically you will have problems with everyone having the same saves and thus the same weaknesses.
On the flip side, an all soldier party could have any variety of classes and skills. Different abilities and saves. Even different spell selections. Variety of stories seems an invalid argument. No reason why a group of soldiers, outlanders or criminals couldn't have different stories. And to my mind the reason behind a 'all the same class' is so the PCs will all have something in common. Easier to accomplish with the same background versus same class. IMO.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
Respectful disagreement is unacceptable! I demand you acknowledge my superior intellect and argument. 🙂
The patron rules from tashas might have the desired effect, without any build limits. I also enjoy theroycrafting parties around a theme. A divine soul sorc, glory pal, sun soul monk, light cleric, and celestial warlock would have a fun light theme.
Pronouns: he/him/his.
My posting scheduled is irregular: sometimes I can post twice a week, sometimes twice a day. I may also respond to quick questions, but ignore harder responses in favor of time.
My location is where my character for my home game is (we're doing the wild beyond the witchlight).
"The Doomvault... Probably full of unicorns and rainbows." -An imaginary quote
I ran an all paladin module once. It was fun.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.