|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 8:17AM
#361
|
|
|
I think we have entered some sort of twilight land.
Those of us who say we want the fighter to be in the same ballpark of non-combat utility as other classes (not even as good as other classes, we would be fine being 75% as good as them outside of combat) have suggested a number of possibilities (extra skills or backgrounds, feats of strength cunning or skill, skill tricks, etc). Every suggestion though has been for characters to each get their own unique way to contribute to noncombat situations.
Those who want fighters to be only 25% as capable as everyone else outside of combat then say "haha you want spells lololol".
Then someone else who also likes fighters having no capabilities outside of combat comes into the thread and asks "why would you guys want fighter's to have spells? See 4e homogenization!!!!!!!! You want all classess to be exactly the same!!!!!!!!!!"
It is like these people block every sane reasonable person on the forums and only read eachother's posts.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 9:08AM
#362
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I honestly don't can't even tell what you mean with that response to that post.
No, then?
Aardvark?
I think we have entered some sort of twilight land.
My favorite part are posts saying "You guys just keep repeating the same wrong thing! Now let me repeat my own thing that was shown to be wrong in a previous post."
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 ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 9:32AM
#363
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
My issue with a free skill or
background is that it doesn't really jive with the Fighter-as-warrior-archetype. A specific free skill - or a pseudo-skill (like Strength or Dexterity checks) - might work. A free background... it could be made to work, but I think how well it would "fit" would depend highly on how it was described. A free background because being a Fighter "is easy" or "takes less work than other classes" would be... an unwelcome addition (personally). But I feel like there is a way to make it work, and the white russians are keeping it justout of my mental grasp. More on-point with my original statement, a free skill or background would give the Fighter class some stronger out of combat utility, but I don't feel like it would really be bringing the class into play outside of combat, and that's my concern. EDIT: (Is the font smalleron this paragraph, or am I going insane?)
insane. as far as the font thing goes.The problem isn't with the fighter though. You want him to "come into play" outside of combat. He can, even in basic, via his ability scores. That those ability scores do not operate well enough for your fighter to reliably participate in what you feel to be a meaningful way is the issue. If you pack a 16 into charisma it should be enough to roll in most interaction scenarios, even if a better trained party member is leading the roll your help should always be welcomed.In the context of design for 5e the ability scores are the most important facet of your character. That was a big thing for 5e was that the ability scores be more important than any "toys" one might use to accomplish a task. Thats why the social skill tricks for rogue still revolve around making ability checks (even more so since if you use any skill trick for a social ability you don't get your skill die to the check at all for the most part). Your suggestion moves back to a time where having the "toys" means you solve the problem, and that only someone with "toys" can solve a problem. Thats not 5e design. All the "toys" in 5e are pretty much designed to be nice to have but not required.You ask, 'Why can't we change the fighter class to include more out of combat toys?' and the reason is because he doesn't need the "toys". By base design of the system his ability scores should be enough to carry him through, if they are not then the base system design needs to be altered so that they are. The complaint, 'yeah but I'm never going to put a decent score in Cha', isn't valid because that makes your request, 'I want to be able to dump stat charisma and still roll in social encounters, make that possible'. Your ability scores determine what your capable of, if you never put anything higher than a 10 or 12 in charisma then yeah your not going to do so hot in social encounters (barring specific cases where the social encounter calls for other stats, sometimes those stats even being str, dex, or con).
Even when I say "hey here is a problem, the scores aren't enough to be properly useful, lets change the base system so they actually are", you keep coming out with something akin to 'I don't care if he can accomplish the task I want him to have a unique way to accomplish the task'. You keep saying the unique thing...like I don't get what your saying. I get what your saying and what it overall moves towards (yeah its technically a slipery slope argument I don't care). Your requesting that every single class have, at least optionally, a systemically provided unique way of interacting with any scenario (I phrase it like this because any scenario you try to do this for weather it be social or exploration or anything really the argument is the same), or at least specific situations in every pillar. Not that they always have all of them on every build, but that they all have unique "powers" they could use in every pillar. Unfortunately that isn't 5e design. Classes aren't given things just to even optionality out. Classes are given things that are definitive to that class. The reason fighters don't have any unique social "powers" is because there is no definitive fighter interaction ability. There is no distinctly fighterish unique "power" that you could give to fighters that wouldn't fall into one or both of two categories, prescriptive of flavor (due to being a knight you know how to act at royal court and have an ability to talk well recieve X bonus) and/or Dissociative (using weapon damage to increase your charisma checks). As a side note I'm not even saying your guy's ideas are bad design really I'm saying its not 5e design.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 10:12AM
#364
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
insane. as far as the font thing goes.
I should just screen-cap it. It's still displaying as two different sizes of text, and there's not even anything in the html of the post that could possibly be doing that. So yeah, apparently insane.
The problem isn't with the fighter though. You want him to "come into play" outside of combat. He can, even in basic, via his ability scores.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
How are you so unable to get this?
I'm not talking about the character with the Fighter class "coming into play" outside of combat, I'm talking about the Fighter class itself "coming into play" outside of combat. I'm talking about having something such that the class actually matters outside of combat - that the character archetype itself have some meaningful impact on play.
"Use your ability scores" doesn't invoke the character class, or the character archetype, in the slightest. In invokes the ability scores.
I mean, at the very least, you could instead say something like "Well, it's the only one that doesn't have anything outside of combat, so the lack of anything is the class's something." I mean, that's a pretty stupid response too, in that it completely misses the concern and is really nothing more than a dismissive hand-wave and a disgusted "Bah!", but at least it would actually address the point being made.
You ask, 'Why can't we change the fighter class to include more out of combat toys?' and the reason is because he doesn't need the "toys".
And this is why I consistently characterize your posts as "Well I'm satisfied, so you should be too" - it's what you're actually saying.
Honestly, your position is so contrary to the design of other classes in DDN (by which I mean "Classes don't need 'toys', but they get them"), it's ridiculous.
As a side note I'm not even saying your guy's ideas are bad design really I'm saying its not 5e design.
And I'm saying that your lack of familiarity with 5e design makes you a pretty damn poor judge of that, and your willingness to completely dismiss the addition of options for people who want them is completely contrary to DDN's design principles.
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 ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 10:28AM
#365
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
Barbarian: "um... as usual I can't think of anything new to do during diplomatic situations... I guess I'll just use my muscles to impresss the Dwarven Thane"
DM: "um yeah.. ok.... Make an Athletic Check"
Dwarven Thane: "hey Bard, keep your circus animal on a tight leash..."
As long as that crap doesn't happen in 5e I'll be happy.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 11:06AM
#366
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
insane. as far as the font thing goes.
I should just screen-cap it. It's still displaying as two different sizes of text, and there's not even anything in the html of the post that could possibly be doing that. So yeah, apparently insane.
The problem isn't with the fighter though. You want him to "come into play" outside of combat. He can, even in basic, via his ability scores.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
How are you so unable to get this?
I'm not talking about the character with the Fighter class "coming into play" outside of combat, I'm talking about the Fighter class itself "coming into play" outside of combat. I'm talking about having something such that the class actually matters outside of combat - that the character archetype itself have some meaningful impact on play.
"Use your ability scores" doesn't invoke the character class, or the character archetype, in the slightest. In invokes the ability scores.
I mean, at the very least, you could instead say something like "Well, it's the only one who doesn't have anything outside of combat, so the lack of anything is the class's something." I mean, that's a pretty stupid response too, in that it completely misses the concern and is really nothing more than a dismissive handwave and a disgusted "Bah!", but at least it would actually adress the point being made.
You ask, 'Why can't we change the fighter class to include more out of combat toys?' and the reason is because he doesn't need the "toys".
And this is why I consistently characterize your posts as "Well I'm satisfied, so you should be too" - it's what you're actually saying.
Honestly, your position is so contrary to the design of other classes in DDN (by which I mean "Classes don't need 'toys', but they get them), it's ridiculous.
As a side note I'm not even saying your guy's ideas are bad design really I'm saying its not 5e design.
And I'm saying that your lack of familiarity with 5e design makes you a pretty damn poor judge of that, and your willingness to completely dismiss the addition of options for people who want them is completely contrary to DDN's design principles.
Actually no I read into every single thing the devs say (Admittedly I do miss a fair amount of the twitter stuff). Everything they say, when asked this specific question, when confronted with this specific issue, of if they are going to give out of combat capabilities to the fighter class, is the same. They say something to the effect of (yes I'm paraphrasing because they have said different things each time all amounting to the same thing), 'That isn't what the fighter class is about'. When asked, early on, if balance was a chief concern they basically said, 'We are less concerned with balance and more concerned with making each class feel like it is supposed to feel, by making sure it has the things that class is supposed to have.', not what you want it to have but what it should have as it pertains to defining a character as a member of that class.
Like I said the ideas you put forth are there only for the sake of balance not because it is 100% agreeable that every fighter should have it as it is needed to define who the fighter is in the context of being a fighter, or that a social or exploitative capability is definitive to the class. The only thing definitive to the fighter class is capability in fighting. While I can agree that in stories most fighting men generally have other capabilities I cannot state they all have the same abilities other than capability in the realm of fighting. Nor can I attribute their other capabilities to them being fighters. The broadness of the possible fighters to be made is the limiting factor in what you can give to the class. Because the class needs to be able to cover the pit fighter and the knight and the archer on the city wall and the street fighter and many others no one thing is definitive to a member of the class, common between all members, other than its fighting capability. because of its broad scope adding features is tricky.
As an example I'll use the pinacle of fighting men in my regard: Lan Mandragoran from the wheel of time series. Lan has many many capabilities outside of his combat abilities, but none of those come from his training to be a fighter. Those capabilities are there for other reasons. Those capabilities are there because he has baller ability scores, he was raised in the borderlands, because he is a noble, because he was trained as a battle leader, because he is in fact a caddie to a caster (prestige class) (in series it nets him extra bonuses over what a normal fighting man would have, and in the series, in character, the casters are acknowledge to be worth 100's to 1000's of soldiers). While he has a ton of other capabilities they all pertain to everything about him that isn't the fighter class itself.
Yes use the ability scores doesn't invoke the class, but that is because the fighter class defines your fighting capability because that is the definition it gives to characters. Other classes define other out of combat things because those other classes have a common thread between all members of the class that defines their out of combat selves. The fighter class does not have that common thread between all members of the class. Not all members of the fighter class have an out of combat bonus and therefor the class need not have any character defining out of combat feature because having the fighter class doesn't define any out of combat character traits.
You are referring to the perceived design goal, "make everyone happy", something that obviously isn't true. Another common answer from the devs is along the lines of, 'If you like your older edition of D&D, or whatever game you enjoy playing, then by all means continue playing that game we aren't trying to take away your old game were just making a new one that we hope a lot of people like.', basically a we know for a fact not everyone is going to like this game feel free to give us input about what you do and don't like and we will take that under advisement.
They also on the regular say and press the ideology of the ability scores are everything, that the ability scores should be the most character defining traits of the game that all capability should stem from the ability scores. their insistence that we use the terminology ability check instead of skill check things like that more than allude to them wishing to base the game more around the ability scores than the "toys".
"Well, it's the only one who doesn't have anything outside of combat, so the lack of anything is the class's something " I actually have basically said that before. I refrain from doing so because it is a weak argument here mainly because you guys are completely unaccepting of the fact that some classes are less character defining or differently character defining than others.
EDIT: Yet again it isn't that fighters can't have nice things just that it is ****in tricky as hell to give them nice things.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 11:09AM
#367
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Barbarian: "um... as usual I can't think of anything new to do during diplomatic situations... I guess I'll just use my muscles to impresss the Dwarven Thane"
DM: "um yeah.. ok.... Make an Athletic Check"
Dwarven Thane: "hey Bard, keep your circus animal on a tight leash..."
As long as that crap doesn't happen in 5e I'll be happy.
As far as my general fantasy setting goes:
I think a dwarven thane would be impressed by athletesism at least a bit dwarves are known to prise physicality at least somewhat...elven thane...not so much though in that case if you have a decent dexterity it might provide a bonus to the bards charisma check.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 12:25PM
#368
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
EDIT: Yet again it isn't that fighters can't have nice things just that it is ****in tricky as hell to give them nice things.
Except when people propose such things, you don't give a substantive critique. You just tell people that they don't need it. Which is a total non sequitur and totally irrelevant since all classes get stuff they don't "need".
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 1:09PM
#369
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
EDIT: Yet again it isn't that fighters can't have nice things just that it is ****in tricky as hell to give them nice things.
Except when people propose such things, you don't give a substantive critique. You just tell people that they don't need it. Which is a total non sequitur and totally irrelevant since all classes get stuff they don't "need".
now you ignore my meaning, or I have explained it poorly.
1 you don't need it. More precisely you shouldn't need given the stated design goals that ability scores are the most defining portion of your character and should be enough to accomplish a task. If that is untrue spot fixes throughout the classes is the wrong way of fixing the problem fix the system so you don't need the extra.
2 given that you don't need it to accomplish a task the only reason to include it would be to add further definition to the class so as to make it look like a member of the class.
Clerics are given knowledge religion because they are expected to know about religion.
Wizards are given Knowledge arcana because they are expected to know about magic
Monks are given balance and tumble because they are expected to be well balanced and adept tumblers
Rouges are given stealth and lockpicking because they are expected to have it.
Fighters are given combat capabilities because they are expected to be able combatants.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 1:20PM
#370
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
EDIT: Yet again it isn't that fighters can't have nice things just that it is ****in tricky as hell to give them nice things.
Except when people propose such things, you don't give a substantive critique. You just tell people that they don't need it. Which is a total non sequitur and totally irrelevant since all classes get stuff they don't "need".
now you ignore my meaning, or I have explained it poorly.
1 you don't need it. More precisely you shouldn't need given the stated design goals that ability scores are the most defining portion of your character and should be enough to accomplish a task. If that is untrue spot fixes throughout the classes is the wrong way of fixing the problem fix the system so you don't need the extra.
2 given that you don't need it to accomplish a task the only reason to include it would be to add further definition to the class so as to make it look like a member of the class.
Clerics are given knowledge religion because they are expected to know about religion.
Wizards are given Knowledge arcana because they are expected to know about magic
Monks are given balance and tumble because they are expected to be well balanced and adept tumblers
Rouges are given stealth and lockpicking because they are expected to have it.
Fighters are given combat capabilities because they are expected to be able combatants.
Except clerics, wizards, monks, and rogues are also expected to be able combatants, and are given combat capabilities.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
