forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

I've had my players create their characters separately, with little knowledge of what the others have come up with. With 4/6 characters created, the company is already well-balanced with all the Journey roles covered with at least two points. They've got a Woodman healer as well!

Woodclaw wrote: (...)
I'm with Yusei on this one. While the suggestions from Hermes and Corvo are absolutely correct if you want a maxed out party, I think that it's more interesting to have less well rounded group, allowing for some weird stuff to happen and providing more story hooks for the characters.

There is a reason I wrote that these suggestions were bordering on the Munchkin territory. Yet I think it's what the OP was asking for

On my part, I had my PCs create an all-barding group, so there were many areas where all the fellowship was weak: stealth, awareness, athletics, let alone hunting (the group's bugbear). Yet we felt it was appropriate: it was the story of a group of 16 y.o. youngsters, thrown in a dangerous world they were ill-equipped to face.
Now the heroes are 26, renowned veterans of the Battle of Erebor, and they love to joke about their past blunderings

-"Following the wolf's trails? Like when you led us in the troll's cave?"
-"I don't remember"
-"The troll hit you first"

Yusei wrote:
Don't get me wrong, it's ok for characters to evolve and become stronger, but there is nothing wrong with having weak characters first. Bilbo or Frodo certainly did not have Travel at 3 when they started their adventures, and it was fine. If I became a player and had to create a character, I would be tempted to be decent at everything, but I would refrain from that. I'd rather be strong at one or two things, and horrible at the others. It's not optimal, but it's fun.
.

I completely agree. Furthermore, but "optimizing" and ensuring you're good in all important areas, it robs the experience of one the iconic elements of the game: Fellowship.

The fact that each person has an area that they excel at and areas that they struggle with, allows the heroes to help one another; provide bonuses based off of Greater/Exceptional successes, or LORE checks to aid someone in their TRAVEL checks.

Finally - the other iconic aspect of the game is use of traits/distinctive features that set your hero apart from others of your kind. Invoking these for auto-successes is paramount to success in the game, and is a huge part of the fun interactive entertainment that the game provides. If you can succeed at everything, there's no use in ever trying to find a reason to narrate how your trait is going to play a role in your success of a task.

Robert

My group that I GM for has skills all over the place. the one guy with Travel 1 is the guy that rides the cart (gets the skip the check task). the rest have some travel, one hobbit always the guide has travel 4.

Most of the rest are mid level combatants or support. no real super fighters. 2 lookouits 2 hunters, one explorer / hunter. some with the skills needed say 2 levels favored, some 1 level, etc. one with 3 explore.

Which I agree with it's great to have the skills at 3, mechanically story wise, it's more dramatic if it isn't a wilderness seal team in mirkwood, but a bunch of would be heroes finding they have to rely on each other.

They don't blow a lot of hope, they just take the fatigue and at camp talk about their homes, dreams etc. The hobbits cheer people up with their antics.