|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 4:26PM
#341
|
|
|
I would be perfectly fine if the fighter was 20% more important than the fighter/cleric/rogue in combat but 20% less important for out of combat situations. But this isn't the case.
The cleric/wizard/rogue are all roughly as important as the fighter 95% or so in combat, and have 300% of the fighter's out of combat utility. I mean every thing that can be done with strength can be done by a spell with a 100% success rate (unlike skill/ability checks that have a significant chance of failure - unless you are a rogue). Not only that, but cleric/wizar/rogue all gain one or more bonus skills. Then rogues gain skill tricks, skill mastery and ace in the hole.
I'm fine with rogues, clerics, and wizards having more out of combat utility though, I just think things need to be evened out a little bit better.
I think " skill tricks" should be available to all non-caster classes. If the fighter could learn some athletics, intimidation, knowledge (battle), persuasion, and other skill tricks based on level they would do significantly better in the non-combat arena. I think all classes should grant a choice of a trained skills as well (all PCs would end up with 5 trained skills or so including rogues). Rogues would still have skill mastery and ace in the hole to keep them firmly on top in regards to skills, but fighter, barbarians, and other non-casters would have some cool skill utility as well.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 4:28PM
#342
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />The fighter can still constructively participate outside of combat. Especially given the options available he can in fact be exceedingly helpful outside of combat this portion of your argument is completely false, and ****s the flow of the conversation because we have to spend time refuting it.
Yeah, you still get a background, but so does everyone else. Which means you're objectively worse at doing other stuff.
To make matters worse, a fighter's primary stats are strength and con, which are pretty much the worse stats for doing pretty much anything beyond kicking down a door or climbing a wall.
The fact is that fighters need extra skills to compensate for the fact that thier primary stats aren't really good for much beyond combat.
Best part is the fighter is in fact a part of the variety because he is so different from all the other classes. He in fact is the most differentiated from everyone else at the moment because of how dead set focused on combat he is as a class. Yet not as a character.
Don't confuse "different" with "lacking."
The goal should be to engage the player in all three pillars of the game, not exclude them.
Lacking characters are not good design. it's like building a class that can't do anything useful at all in combat and the PC just sits there ineffectually firing a weapon he's not proficient in whenever combat comes up.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 5:43PM
#343
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Literally covered exactly by having a wisdom score. Note sensing the fight before it happens is exactly sense motive. being able to sense that is in fact attached to being able to sense other things about people. I'm all for the wis based fighter. I also wouldn't want to give up a maneuver for this nor would I want every fighter to have it since all fighters are not like this.
Yes, those things are covered - broadly - by ability scores or skills. And we never give a class features to emphasize a particular aptitude, regardless of background, right?
Just like knowing about gods and religions is literally covered by Knowledge: Religion, but we don't give the Cleric or the Wizard anything related to it.
Just like having more honed athletic skills or senses are literally covered by a variety of skills, but we don't give the Monk anything related to it.
Just like some Rogues might be good thieves or acrobats or other things that are literally covered by a selection of skills, but we don't give the Rogue anything related to those.
To use your own consistently aggravating terminology, your argument/idea/whatever is "faulty".
The problem is is you missed the last and most important part of my statement: "since all fighters are not like this"
All clerics as part of their training are taught about their religion, as part of a polytheistic religion that means learning about all of them at least in part. All Clericsare expected to know their religion.
All Monks in the effort of perfecting themselves and becoming skilled in their form of combat are expected to have spent their life perfecting these abilities.
All Wizards as part of becoming a wizard spent as much time if not more in libraries learning things as a modern PHD holder. They are expected to be knowledgable.
In fact all of these thing are what is carried out by these class features it is prescriptive of what your character is like. It make a generalization about members of the class, such as all clerics have knowledge religion, and then pins it to the class explicitly. Even more than that that skill is there because for clerics knowledge religion would become a skill tax where it not there it would prescribe which backgrounds would be acceptable for most clerics. even if not precisely a skill tax it would be listed as such by a majority of players who have an expectation of it. Even more than that for clerics that skill is there because without it being in any way knowledgeable would make you a 4 - 5 stat character.
For fighters it is harder to just give them a skill because you'd be prescribing the flavor of the class that is distinctly left without flavor because it covers so very many archetypes. '
Personally I would agree with sense motive a trained fighter knows that sense motive is in fact what wins you the fight. However some might insist that that has nothing to do with the fighter they want to build and therin lies the problem. Classes are given capabilities because it is something everyone in the class should have, unfortunately doing that to fighter is so hard because it is so broad.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 5:52PM
#344
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
I would be perfectly fine if the fighter was 20% more important than the fighter/cleric/rogue in combat but 20% less important for out of combat situations. But this isn't the case.
The cleric/wizard/rogue are all roughly as important as the fighter 95% or so in combat, and have 300% of the fighter's out of combat utility. I mean every thing that can be done with strength can be done by a spell with a 100% success rate (unlike skill/ability checks that have a significant chance of failure - unless you are a rogue). Not only that, but cleric/wizar/rogue all gain one or more bonus skills. Then rogues gain skill tricks, skill mastery and ace in the hole.
Why would you prep those spells when you know you have a guy that can get it done without magic. In game it doesn't make sense because you know that need is covered and you could cover something the group isn't already covering. out of character its needless showboating and purposeful overshadowing, 5 yard penalty repeat first down for unsportsman like conduct. Doesn't matter that it is an option matters how you use it.
I'm fine with rogues, clerics, and wizards having more out of combat utility though, I just think things need to be evened out a little bit better.
I think " skill tricks" should be available to all non-caster classes. If the fighter could learn some athletics, intimidation, knowledge (battle), persuasion, and other skill tricks based on level they would do significantly better in the non-combat arena. I think all classes should grant a choice of a trained skills as well (all PCs would end up with 5 trained skills or so including rogues). Rogues would still have skill mastery and ace in the hole to keep them firmly on top in regards to skills, but fighter, barbarians, and other non-casters would have some cool skill utility as well.
and there is the homogeny.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 6:03PM
#345
|
|
|
When the fighter has a 50% chance to climb, jump, swim, etc but a low level levitate has 100% chance to work, you use te levitate.
As to homogenization: well considering skill utilities would work like they did in 4e (ie in no way homogenous) I really don't see the problem.
Do you think because fighters and rogues have skills they are homogenous? What about clerics and wizards having spells? What about all classes using ability scores, is that homogenous?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 6:31PM
#346
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
When the fighter has a 50% chance to climb, jump, swim, etc but a low level levitate has 100% chance to work, you use te levitate. As to homogenization: well considering skill utilities would work like they did in 4e (ie in no way homogenous) I really don't see the problem. Do you think because fighters and rogues have skills they are homogenous? What about clerics and wizards having spells? What about all classes using ability scores, is that homogenous?
The problem there is that the fighter, and really anyone without training, has too low of a chance to complete tasks even with a baller ability score. Hey here we go with my suggestion...lower all DCs by 2 or possibly even 3 then reduce the size of skill dice.
Rather than patching the system in the classes or other sub systems to fix the problem fix the actual problem.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 7:05PM
#347
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
The problem is is you missed the last and most important part of my statement: "since all fighters are not like this"
And not all Clerics have Knowledge: Religion, and not all Wizards have Knowledge: Arcana, and not all Monks have Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Listen, Sneak, Spot or Tumble.
Hell, not all Rogues have Sneak.
Why? Because not all X are Y isn't some problem that you've just managed to stumble upon with the Fighter - it's something the designers are intentionally dealing with in other facets of the game.
I know options is apparently a dirty word to you, but that's exactly how it's handled in other classes, and it's easily how it could be handled in the Fighter - at a minimum.
But, that wasn't my point. My point was that "But these things are handled by skills, and skills are handled by backgrounds, so you don't need (and shouldn't have) things that deal with them included in the class" - is just flat out incorrect in DDN.
In fact all of these thing are what is carried out by these class features it is prescriptive of what your character is like. It make a generalization about members of the class, such as all clerics have knowledge religion, and then pins it to the class explicitly. Even more than that that skill is there because for clerics knowledge religion would become a skill tax where it not there it would prescribe which backgrounds would be acceptable for most clerics. even if not precisely a skill tax it would be listed as such by a majority of players who have an expectation of it. Even more than that for clerics that skill is there because without it being in any way knowledgeable would make you a 4 - 5 stat character.
I get the impression that you're not actually familiar with DDN in a significant fashion, which explains some of your trepidation.
All Clerics are expected to know their religion.
Apparently DDN disagrees with you, because it understands that not all X are Y, and provides a choice.
For fighters it is harder to just give them a skill because you'd be prescribing the flavor of the class that is distinctly left without flavor because it covers so very many archetypes.
Man, it sure would be terrible to be given some choices. Or maybe some optional options. Yeah. That'd be terrible. With the "prescribed flavor"... if you wanted it.
Or would choices take your choices away?
Oh, right, you think they would.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 7:26PM
#348
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
The problem is is you missed the last and most important part of my statement: "since all fighters are not like this"
And not all Clerics have Knowledge: Religion, and not all Wizards have Knowledge: Arcana, and not all Monks have Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Listen, Sneak, Spot or Tumble.
Hell, not all Rogues have Sneak.
Technically according to basic, and this is just an assumption as far as the default selections, yes, yes they do. If you don't catch it this is the inherent problem. It prescribes flavor. I'd venture a guess that in basic yes every cleric has knowledg religion, every wizard has knowledge arcana, every rogue is sneaky, every monk has (I actually can't make a distinct call on their default options I'd go with balance and tumble but not 100% sure on that).
even with the options in standard:
Every Cleric is expected to know about either religion, arcana, or forbiden lore
Every Wizard is expected to be know about either arcana, forbidden lore, nature, or sciences.
Every Rogue is expected to be skilled in some way(really just abandon him as an example he is the skill monkey trying to say he shouldn't have skills is foolish at this point)
Every Monk is expected to be some combination of well Balanced, a skilled Climber, a consumate Escape Artist, Aware of his surroundings weather it be visual or aural, having notable skill with stealth, or notable Tumbling skill.
Its pre scribed flavor that apparently most people filling out the surveys agree on.
Unlike those classes Fighter has no prescribed flavor stating they would have any particular skills. I'd say sense motive would work for me because all fighting is based off of it even if you don't know your doing it. However some would argue the point avidly thinking it only useful to social situations. it isn't that skills shouldn't be handed out by classes or that classes don't hand out skills they obviously do it is that any skill you hand to a fighter instantly prescribes flavor for it and therefore instantly diminishes the possible characters you can make with the class. Even if the option was give them any on skill we start getting into a realm where the mechanic was included for no reason other than balance, it has no business there because it isn't class defining in any way. Even worse would that mechanic be there there would have to be a default for basic play and that would instantly ingrain a specificity onto fighter for new players that the fighter class is specifically meant to not have.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 7:27PM
#349
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Man, it sure would be terrible to be given some choices. Or maybe some optional options. Yeah. That'd be terrible. With the "prescribed flavor"... if you wanted it.
Or would choices take your choices away?
Oh, right, you think they would.
optional options...maybe like a background or something...and the circle continues.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 7:43PM
#350
|
Date Joined:
Aug 11, 2006
|
I am really horrified to see some people still claiming that the fighter has nothing outside combat. Guys, have you ever played a D&D campaign where all around the table just role-played, not roll-played? Why do we really need such mechanical feature for fighters - for any of the classes - to help them perform in exploration and social pillars? It is already in there, already in your ability scores. Fighter excels in heavy duty situations where raw strength, durability, endurance, hard work needed.
* Fighter is the one that opens up the way for the party using his strength, when a door, portcullis, or such obstacle blocks the way.
* Fighter is the person that can carry injured companions to safety.
* Fighter is the person that can pull a companion up, if she lacks the ability to climb or swim.
* Fighter is the one that will force march the longest.
* Fighter will be the one that will help all around him in any way imaginable that needs brute force, and endurance.
* Fighter is the person who will protect people in a tavern brawl with his unarmed fighting where backstabbing, using spells may cause trouble with the law.
* Fighter's abilities are bare, right in front of eyes, not subtle, not tricky, not mystical, just natural. That's why fighters above all are respected among common folk, where other classes are not understood well and they are shunned. The fighter will be the one that will establish good social relations with the peasants, ordinary citizens, because those people respect strength and the abilities that they can see and understand.
It will be a shame for the game to bring rules to players and DMs who should be the ones responsible for good story building and good role playing.
I've got a trained bear that can do those things.
A Strength Based Rogue/Thief can also do those things, and MORE! And guess what, with the right spells, SO CAN THE WIZARD! There's nothing there that makes the Fighter unique.
I missed the memo that "spellcasting" was now being considered a "pillar of play".
So now D&D is about Combat, Exploration, Interaction, and Spellcasting?
There is nothing stopping a character with the fighter class from being good in the interaction pillar.
Lack of skills is. Even with backgrounds (WHICH ARE OPTIONAL, MEANING IF THE DM SAYS NO, GUESS HOW DOESN'T HAVE ANY SKILLS?) there's not as much for the Fighter.
|
|
|
