2 added 13 characters in body
source | link

This is both a risk and an opportunity.

This is both a risk and an opportunity.

It is a risk if the GM designs an adventure with no regard for the party capabilities. If there is an obstacle or a foe that requires raw strength to overcome, the party will be stuck. But that would be just as much a GM error as sending a bunch of barbarians and rangers into a library to hunt for ancient spells. 

It is an opportunity if the GM designs adventures to let the players play to their advantage. With lots of high-charisma characters, there could be lots of social interaction without the barbarian player saying "booooring, where is my brawl" ...

In games, there are "everybody needs it" skills and abilities and "once per party" skills.

  • Only one character in the party has to roll to find the hidden door in a dungeon, or to read the tracks of a monster in the forest. The rest follows. 
  • Every character must be able to ride a horse or to sneak through a goblin camp. If one character fails, the party has failed. 

You can design adventures so that Charisma and related skills are "once per party" skills. There is the smooth-talking bard who talks to the duke, or the mayor, or the abbot, while the barbarian stands there and picks his nose and the thief nicks the table silver. Some adventures work that way.

Or you design adventures to that Charisma and related skills are "everybody needs it" skills. The The duke asks the entire party to come to the audience and to explain their latest harebrained scheme, and he expects all of them to be polite and respectful.

That being said, a good adventure design gives every player a chance to shine and stand in the limelight once per session, just as there should be at least one fight, one negotiation, and one puzzle per evening. If If the characters are too similar, the GM will have a harder time to design that into adventures. With a paladin, a bard, and a druid, you have variety. More More paladins could be problematic.

This is both a risk and an opportunity.

It is a risk if the GM designs an adventure with no regard for the party capabilities. If there is an obstacle or a foe that requires raw strength to overcome, the party will be stuck. But that would be just as much a GM error as sending a bunch of barbarians and rangers into a library to hunt for ancient spells.

It is an opportunity if the GM designs adventures to let the players play to their advantage. With lots of high-charisma characters, there could be lots of social interaction without the barbarian player saying "booooring, where is my brawl" ...

In games, there are "everybody needs it" skills and abilities and "once per party" skills.

  • Only one character in the party has to roll to find the hidden door in a dungeon, or to read the tracks of a monster in the forest. The rest follows.
  • Every character must be able to ride a horse or to sneak through a goblin camp. If one character fails, the party has failed.

You can design adventures so that Charisma and related skills are "once per party" skills. There is the smooth-talking bard who talks to the duke, or the mayor, or the abbot, while the barbarian stands there and picks his nose and the thief nicks the table silver. Some adventures work that way.

Or you design adventures to that Charisma and related skills are "everybody needs it" skills. The duke asks the entire party to come to the audience and to explain their latest harebrained scheme, and he expects all of them to be polite and respectful.

That being said, a good adventure design gives every player a chance to shine and stand in the limelight once per session, just as there should be at least one fight, one negotiation, and one puzzle per evening. If the characters are too similar, the GM will have a harder time to design that into adventures. With a paladin, a bard, and a druid, you have variety. More paladins could be problematic.

This is both a risk and an opportunity.

It is a risk if the GM designs an adventure with no regard for the party capabilities. If there is an obstacle or a foe that requires raw strength to overcome, the party will be stuck. But that would be just as much a GM error as sending a bunch of barbarians and rangers into a library to hunt for ancient spells. 

It is an opportunity if the GM designs adventures to let the players play to their advantage. With lots of high-charisma characters, there could be lots of social interaction without the barbarian player saying "booooring, where is my brawl" ...

In games, there are "everybody needs it" skills and abilities and "once per party" skills.

  • Only one character in the party has to roll to find the hidden door in a dungeon, or to read the tracks of a monster in the forest. The rest follows. 
  • Every character must be able to ride a horse or to sneak through a goblin camp. If one character fails, the party has failed. 

You can design adventures so that Charisma and related skills are "once per party" skills. There is the smooth-talking bard who talks to the duke, or the mayor, or the abbot, while the barbarian stands there and picks his nose and the thief nicks the table silver. Some adventures work that way.

Or you design adventures to that Charisma and related skills are "everybody needs it" skills. The duke asks the entire party to come to the audience and to explain their latest harebrained scheme, and he expects all of them to be polite and respectful.

That being said, a good adventure design gives every player a chance to shine and stand in the limelight once per session, just as there should be at least one fight, one negotiation, and one puzzle per evening. If the characters are too similar, the GM will have a harder time to design that into adventures. With a paladin, a bard, and a druid, you have variety. More paladins could be problematic.

1
source | link

This is both a risk and an opportunity.

It is a risk if the GM designs an adventure with no regard for the party capabilities. If there is an obstacle or a foe that requires raw strength to overcome, the party will be stuck. But that would be just as much a GM error as sending a bunch of barbarians and rangers into a library to hunt for ancient spells.

It is an opportunity if the GM designs adventures to let the players play to their advantage. With lots of high-charisma characters, there could be lots of social interaction without the barbarian player saying "booooring, where is my brawl" ...

In games, there are "everybody needs it" skills and abilities and "once per party" skills.

  • Only one character in the party has to roll to find the hidden door in a dungeon, or to read the tracks of a monster in the forest. The rest follows.
  • Every character must be able to ride a horse or to sneak through a goblin camp. If one character fails, the party has failed.

You can design adventures so that Charisma and related skills are "once per party" skills. There is the smooth-talking bard who talks to the duke, or the mayor, or the abbot, while the barbarian stands there and picks his nose and the thief nicks the table silver. Some adventures work that way.

Or you design adventures to that Charisma and related skills are "everybody needs it" skills. The duke asks the entire party to come to the audience and to explain their latest harebrained scheme, and he expects all of them to be polite and respectful.

That being said, a good adventure design gives every player a chance to shine and stand in the limelight once per session, just as there should be at least one fight, one negotiation, and one puzzle per evening. If the characters are too similar, the GM will have a harder time to design that into adventures. With a paladin, a bard, and a druid, you have variety. More paladins could be problematic.