|
6 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 9:45AM
#1
|
|
|
I was thinking out how to give fighters more in the social and interaction pillars and it down on me that if rogues are the masters of skills which is a background component, why not have fighters be the masters of the background trait. So here is my idea.
Warriors Tradition
While training in your fighting style you were taught the traditions followed by your mentor or organization that trained you. Be it learning philosophies of military school, surviving in a cutthroat gang or developing strong religious beliefs, these traditions have influenced you. For better or worst, you have developed a reputation, habit, belief, etc from the association.
Benefit: You gain an addition background, but only gain the benefit of the trait associated with that background.
 | Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts
D & D: A Documentary Kickstarter (http://kck.st/SyKNzf)
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl |
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 1:28PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
The short response to this idea is that background traits are, almost without exception, useless. Most of them never come up, most of the rest are things I would have let the character do anyway with a relatively easy skill check or a handful of gold (and there's almost always someone skilled enough to auto-succeed at the check and more than enough gold to not consider that a cost). Therefore, extra traits wouldn't help those classes contribute.
Even if you disagree with that position, traits are a lousy way of giving the fighter something to do outside of combat. They are - by design - highly stuational, which means whenever that situation isn't around the fighter still has nothing to do. Four extra skills covers a lot more game space; heck, one extra skill covers a lot more game space. You could give the fighter every trait in the packet and it still wouldn't add up to 4 extra skills, much less skill tricks or spells.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 05, 2013 - 1:57PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
Yeah, I'd rather gain something useful that's let me contribute in the other 2 pillars. A single skill, even use rope, has more use that any of the traits.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 06, 2013 - 9:10AM
#4
|
|
|
The short response to this idea is that background traits are, almost without exception, useless. Most of them never come up, most of the rest are things I would have let the character do anyway with a relatively easy skill check or a handful of gold (and there's almost always someone skilled enough to auto-succeed at the check and more than enough gold to not consider that a cost). Therefore, extra traits wouldn't help those classes contribute.
If your just going to hand out easy check then there is no need to have a way to contribute since your already handing out successes for free. Anyone can contribute under the circumstances you describe.
Even if you disagree with that position, traits are a lousy way of giving the fighter something to do outside of combat. They are - by design - highly stuational, which means whenever that situation isn't around the fighter still has nothing to do. Four extra skills covers a lot more game space; heck, one extra skill covers a lot more game space. You could give the fighter every trait in the packet and it still wouldn't add up to 4 extra skills, much less skill tricks or spells.
If I disagreed with you, why would I think its lousy? Thats just a rediculous statement.
I don't disagree with you that traits aren't equal to skills, nor should they be. I see no reason that fighters need to have something to make them equal to rogues; they need to have enough to be able to contribute.
Traits are something that I think could represent a fighters reputation. Yes traits are vague in their application, but so is reputation. If the fighters reputation in a given situation leads to a easier dc for the rogue or cleric then he has contributed. And in the social pillar traits are going to have more impact then use rope skill.
@elecgraystone yeah I can understand that. I'm just posting with my personal preference.
| Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts
D & D: A Documentary Kickstarter (http://kck.st/SyKNzf)
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl |
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 06, 2013 - 9:22AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Apr 14, 2004
|
@elecgraystone yeah I can understand that. I'm just posting with my personal preference.
it's not a bad idea per se, but IMo it really doesn't really 'give fighters more in the social and interaction pillars ', at least in any meaningful way. I see traits as more of a source of adventure hooks and situational modifiers than an active ability for use in the othe 2 pillars. I guess it depends what the minimum amount ability in the pillars is ok for you.
|
|
|
