|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 1:01PM
#181
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
You want a game where each class is pretty much classless
Quote where people are asking for this or stop making up strawmen.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 1:02PM
#182
|
|
|
Thank you. Now we are back at.....
Cleric being good at healing and buffing
Fighter being good at fighting
Rogue being good at doing rogue stuff(sneaking, conning, disarming traps, etc)
and Wizard being good at support
Asking for one class to do another class job is out of the question.
For things that are actually determined by class, yes.
Out of combat tasks should not be determined by class. If any member of any class wants to be able to sneak, or pick locks, or smooth talk, then he should be allowed to do so. 'Class skill lists' is an idea that needs to go away.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 1:06PM
#183
|
|
|
Thank you. Now we are back at.....
Cleric being good at healing and buffing
Fighter being good at fighting
Rogue being good at doing rogue stuff(sneaking, conning, disarming traps, etc)
and Wizard being good at support
Asking for one class to do another class job is out of the question.
For things that are actually determined by class, yes.
Out of combat tasks should not be determined by class. If any member of any class wants to be able to sneak, or pick locks, or smooth talk, then he should be allowed to do so. 'Class skill lists' is an idea that needs to go away.
Class skill lists did go away. When did they come back?
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 1:13PM
#184
|
|
|
Class skill lists did go away. When did they come back?
Crow wants them back (on top of all his other really bad ideas), from what I can tell.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 1:16PM
#185
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2010
|
Thank you. Now we are back at.....
Cleric being good at healing and buffing
Fighter being good at fighting
Rogue being good at doing rogue stuff(sneaking, conning, disarming traps, etc)
and Wizard being good at support
Asking for one class to do another class job is out of the question.
For things that are actually determined by class, yes.
Out of combat tasks should not be determined by class. If any member of any class wants to be able to sneak, or pick locks, or smooth talk, then he should be allowed to do so. 'Class skill lists' is an idea that needs to go away.
When did I mention Class skill list?
Edit: Also would you like to tell me why my ideas are bad or you just insulting me?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 1:18PM
#186
|
|
|
Thank you. Now we are back at.....
Cleric being good at healing and buffing
Fighter being good at fighting
Rogue being good at doing rogue stuff(sneaking, conning, disarming traps, etc)
and Wizard being good at support
Asking for one class to do another class job is out of the question.
For things that are actually determined by class, yes.
Out of combat tasks should not be determined by class. If any member of any class wants to be able to sneak, or pick locks, or smooth talk, then he should be allowed to do so. 'Class skill lists' is an idea that needs to go away.
When did I mention Class skill list?
When you mentioned all those skills that you think only rogues should do. "Only rogues should sneak, con, or disarm traps" is saying 'You want a class skill list' by any reasonable interpretation. And it's bull. There's no reason anybody can't 'sneak, con, or disarm traps' or anything else governed by skills.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 1:40PM
#187
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2012
|
The original point the OP was making was that everything was balanced around combat nowadays and that he wished for combat balanced class and non-combat balanced classes.
Surely the best solution would be for each class to have a variety of Powers, feats and other options which can balance them to one side?
Let's take the Rogue for example.
One Rogue could be a daredevil assassin, leaping around the field of combat driving blades into the backs of his opponents without a care in the world.
The other could be a cowardly, yet talented individual with the uncanny ability to avoid notice, unlock doors and chests, disable traps and fool others with the most outrageous lies.
4E's Probelm is that you have to spend the majority of powers, feats and other choices you made to be combat-oriented to continue to be effective in combat, whereas doing so wouldn't negatively affect your out of combat abilities much. A character who was build 100% for combat would still be very effective in other areas of the game. The way I believe it should be is if that you build a character purely for combat, they will suck outside of combat, regardless of class. If you build a character for skill challenges, social encounters and other non combat encounters, they will suck in combat.
If you build a character with combat challenges and non-combat challenges in mind, they will be capable in both.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 1:44PM
#188
|
Date Joined:
May 14, 2010
|
Thank you. Now we are back at.....
Cleric being good at healing and buffing
Fighter being good at fighting
Rogue being good at doing rogue stuff(sneaking, conning, disarming traps, etc)
and Wizard being good at support
Asking for one class to do another class job is out of the question.
For things that are actually determined by class, yes.
Out of combat tasks should not be determined by class. If any member of any class wants to be able to sneak, or pick locks, or smooth talk, then he should be allowed to do so. 'Class skill lists' is an idea that needs to go away.
When did I mention Class skill list?
When you mentioned all those skills that you think only rogues should do. "Only rogues should sneak, con, or disarm traps" is saying 'You want a class skill list' by any reasonable interpretation.
Rogues get something called a rogue scheme.
Thanks to rogue scheme, they can get twice amount of skills compare to the fighter.
So when the figther get 3 skills, the rogue gets 6 skills. So if the fighter trying to do what a rogue do(sneak, disguise, gather information), well the rogue can do that plus do 3 other skills.
Also the rogue have skill tricks that makes his skills more powerful.
Everybody can sneak, but some people do it way better then other people.
Not everybody is going to have the same background or speciality.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 1:46PM
#189
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2010
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />4E's Probelm is that you have to spend the majority of powers, feats and other choices you made to be combat-oriented to continue to be effective in combat, whereas doing so wouldn't negatively affect your out of combat abilities much. A character who was build 100% for combat would still be very effective in other areas of the game. The way I believe it should be is if that you build a character purely for combat, they will suck outside of combat, regardless of class. If you build a character for skill challenges, social encounters and other non combat encounters, they will suck in combat.
If you build a character with combat challenges and non-combat challenges in mind, they will be capable in both.
No, that's a bad design. You never want people to be able to trade non-combat abilities for combat abilities. You instead want to force people to take both, that's the general goal of a class/level system, to force people into advancing in a more well-rounded fashion instead of a freeform points system (like GURPS) where you can just advance one stat fully without advancing anything else.
Because here's the thing, by just having the wizard exist at all, you're ensuring that everyone has combat and noncombat stuff, because the wizard can learn both combat and noncombat spells just by virtue of picking the wizard class. That means the other classes need to be equally well rounded.
The idea that anyone can be the big dumb fighter with no skills needs to die in a fire. That shouldn't even exist as an option.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 31, 2012 - 1:54PM
#190
|
|
|
Thank you. Now we are back at.....
Cleric being good at healing and buffing
Fighter being good at fighting
Rogue being good at doing rogue stuff(sneaking, conning, disarming traps, etc)
and Wizard being good at support
Asking for one class to do another class job is out of the question.
For things that are actually determined by class, yes.
Out of combat tasks should not be determined by class. If any member of any class wants to be able to sneak, or pick locks, or smooth talk, then he should be allowed to do so. 'Class skill lists' is an idea that needs to go away.
When did I mention Class skill list?
When you mentioned all those skills that you think only rogues should do. "Only rogues should sneak, con, or disarm traps" is saying 'You want a class skill list' by any reasonable interpretation.
Rogues get something called a rogue scheme.
Thanks to rogue scheme, they can get twice amount of skills compare to the fighter.
So when the figther get 3 skills, the rogue gets 6 skills. So if the fighter trying to do what a rogue do(sneak, disguise, gather information), well the rogue can do that plus do 3 other skills.
Also the rogue have skill tricks that makes his skills more powerful.
Everybody can sneak, but some people do it way better then other people.
Not everybody is going to have the same background or speciality.
Which is fine.
That's not what you've been saying.
You've been saying ONLY ROGUES should be allowed to do those things, and THAT is terrible design.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
