Pity the freaking thing was unkillable…

The most common dichotomy in our group is stealth vs charge in… I often tend to do character that will have the option to do some stealth but their is always at least one character in the group who totally sucks at it. So if we go the stealth route those that suck at it are automatically out of it, where if we choose the charge in approach everybody gets to play… Humm… I wonder what is the most frequent approach we take.

In the previous game we had identified the awaken as the one that suck at combat while every body else sucked at stealth… By fixing the awaken with some swat equivalent gear (automatic riffle, tear gas grenades, gas mask, night vision google) we did manage to bring him to par in the combat as long has he does not get into melee.

We asked the GM to focus the game on tactical interventions because some of the more vocal members of the group prefer action to investigation.

In that aspect, the Awakened is short changed. But the GM graciously opened the equipment gear and now our human partner is equipped with all sorts of cool technological gadgets while we all rely solely on our class abilities and mundane equipment (cleavers and handguns).

Totally understand the non-combat strength vs in-combat strength debate. I think the dichotomy is workable but it would definitely require a particular style of game and story. If you aren’t providing that then the game itself pretty much screws some players while rewarding others and that particular style doesn’t seem to be terribly common. So once you get past the pure theorycraft and into whatever the most active part of your game is (combat, social encounters, whatever) it’s generally best if everyone has an equal stake in it.