|
9 months ago ::
Sep 11, 2012 - 8:35AM
#1061
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
The other problem with usefull in all situations for every character is that it allows people to outshine others no matter what. If you have a bunch of characters that are all usefull in all situations it now becomes a case that the loudest and most outspoken individual now outshines all other players regardless of class. They can contribute effectively in all situations, and they will, loudly, and without regard for fellow players. There is no need for them to not talk, and let the quieter individuals come up with stuff to say. The louder person will just do everything, because they can, and the quiet person in their shell will stay there, and get outshone by the more outgoing players. D&D is supposed to build you up and give you confidence. If you never get told your needed you might not think it on your own. As a DM you can hardly even do it for a player, give them a spotlight moment, because anyone else can come along and take the moment you designed for someone.
It's also a myth, at least the way Lokiare and Cheesethorne are describing it. Social interactions with the rogue will happen far, far, FAR more often than the party will be in a castle needing to figure out the power structure. The way they are stating it, it would only be balanced if the DM contrives ways for each memeber to be useful equally often.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 11, 2012 - 8:42AM
#1062
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
I think it would beneficial if there were guidelines to "rate" a character build and/or adventure by pillar. It would make it easier to determine if a character concept is ill-fitting for a specific adventure. Not saying it can't be fun, but it would at least give some advanced caution.
Just need to give some sort of pillar-value to each game element, be it class/subclass, background, and/or specialty. I would hope races are pillar-independant, but I could see even races may have a disposition to certain pillars.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 11, 2012 - 11:33AM
#1063
|
|
|
Social interactions with the rogue will happen far, far, FAR more often than the party will be in a castle needing to figure out the power structure.
And the current way is better? Just let the Fighter sit and do nothing while the social stuff is going on, except of course, contribute in a way that anyone else can do, but always better than he can?
Also keep in mind that having a keen eye for determining power structures was simply Lokiare's possible idea for the Fighter's area of expertise in the social pillar.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 11, 2012 - 11:36AM
#1064
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Social interactions with the rogue will happen far, far, FAR more often than the party will be in a castle needing to figure out the power structure.
And the current way is better? Just let the Fighter sit and do nothing while the social stuff is going on, except of course, contribute in a way that anyone else can do, but always better than he can?
What are you talking about? This isn't 3e where the fighter gets screwed. The fighter can take any background and be good with whatever skills he wants.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 11, 2012 - 12:39PM
#1065
|
|
|
What are you talking about? This isn't 3e where the fighter gets screwed. The fighter can take any background and be good with whatever skills he wants.
Any class can take any background. However, on top of that background we can see that all of the other classes seem to have access to spells or abilities that are useful in social situations. The Fighter has nothing in those pillars of the game except the Background.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 11, 2012 - 1:04PM
#1066
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
What are you talking about? This isn't 3e where the fighter gets screwed. The fighter can take any background and be good with whatever skills he wants.
Any class can take any background. However, on top of that background we can see that all of the other classes seem to have access to spells or abilities that are useful in social situations. The Fighter has nothing in those pillars of the game except the Background.
I don't see an issue. Best at fighting and decent at social is as good to me as good at fighting and good at social. The fighter is decent at social and can contribute, so he doesn't NEED more.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 11, 2012 - 1:21PM
#1067
|
|
|
I don't see an issue. Best at fighting and decent at social is as good to me as good at fighting and good at social. The fighter is decent at social and can contribute, so he doesn't NEED more.
I'm not sure where you can say the fighter is "decent" at social? All classes have backgrounds and literally every class they have presented to us so far has at least one spell or ability that can be useful in social situations, thus giving them the potential to all be better at social interactions than the Fighter.
This, of course, doesn't even count the fact that some classes are going to want to put points into attributes that are just naturally social orientated to benefit their class abilities (such as Chr for the Sorcerer or Wis for the Cleric) and the Fighter has no class-related reason to focus on those attributes.
And of course, the "best" at fighting might not even hold up as exceptionally well as you are hoping. I'm pretty sure that other posters have shown that if the wizard can consistently get at least two creatures in most of his spell casting he out damages the fighter. If the Rogue is able to get advantage every round, through whatever means, they can approach or exceed the damage of the Fighter class.
Now, damage isn't everything and killing things quickly isn't the only measure you can use, but if the Fighter isn't leaps and bounds above everyone else, I don't think that justifies its complete lack of abilities in the exploration and social pillars other than what it gets out of its background.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 11, 2012 - 1:30PM
#1068
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
I'm not sure where you can say the fighter is "decent" at social? All classes have backgrounds and literally every class they have presented to us so far has at least one spell or ability that can be useful in social situations, thus giving them the potential to all be better at social interactions than the Fighter.
Not really.
Wizard has what? Charm? They put into the charm spell that the person knows that they have been charmed. That's a huge anchor around the neck of the wizard. At the very least, when the charm wears off, there will be local hell to pay. In a world where the DM actually thinks about consequences to actions, charm against an innocent will probably carry with it huge fines and/or imprisonment. Goverments tend to frown on people other than themselves messing with the minds of their citizens.
The Cleric has what? Command? Hardly useful for more than a few seconds and only compounds the social problems at hand.
This, of course, doesn't even count the fact that some classes are going to want to put points into attributes that are just naturally social orientated to benefit their class abilities (such as Chr for the Sorcerer or Wis for the Cleric) and the Fighter has no class-related reason to focus on those attributes.
You're absolutely right. Roleplaying is no reason at all. 
The fact is, fighters are decent in any area they wish to be decent in. Hell, they can even be good if the buy/roll well in the stat they want to use for their skill.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 11, 2012 - 2:55PM
#1069
|
|
|
But that's not what he said. Take his example of the four main classes interacting in the social pillar. When you need to manipulate someone, the Rogue shines because he is best at that aspect of Social stuff, but when you need to understand power dynamics of the various people involved at the castle the Fighter steps up and shines.
Why would a fighter understand the social power dyamic of a castle? There's nothing about swinging weapons in there? There's no reason for him to be the best at that.
Because fighters are trained weapon users which means they trained somewhere whether they were a city guard, a squire to a knight, or went to a formal school. They learn how power structures work and understand power dynamics between people in power and their subordinates...
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 11, 2012 - 2:57PM
#1070
|
|
|
The other problem with usefull in all situations for every character is that it allows people to outshine others no matter what. If you have a bunch of characters that are all usefull in all situations it now becomes a case that the loudest and most outspoken individual now outshines all other players regardless of class. They can contribute effectively in all situations, and they will, loudly, and without regard for fellow players. There is no need for them to not talk, and let the quieter individuals come up with stuff to say. The louder person will just do everything, because they can, and the quiet person in their shell will stay there, and get outshone by the more outgoing players. D&D is supposed to build you up and give you confidence. If you never get told your needed you might not think it on your own. As a DM you can hardly even do it for a player, give them a spotlight moment, because anyone else can come along and take the moment you designed for someone.
Actually the DMs job is to give each player a chance to contribute. I have this happen in my games with my nephews all the time. The way I handle it is I have them roll initiative and each of them gets a turn. Basically your throwing up a very specific rare instance to disprove a way to balance the entire game...
|
|
|
