|
6 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 12:34AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
Without resources to manage such as feats, talents and powers its hard to give fighters out of comabt abilites beyond skill checks.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 3:44AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
I think a "prestige" social class feature would be ok with the fighter archetype.
Fighters are generally more "acceptable" than other classes as heroes by the people.
The other archetypes are generally less acceptable or "too exotic".
Wizards are dangerous and self-centered, not to be trusted if you are between them and magic. They are not like us.
Rogues are basically… untrustworthy. At best, they are a necessary evil. They are not like us.
Bards are not serious people, and a danger for our daughters. They are not like us.
Divine classes don't really care about us, they will side with their gods if they decide to turn against us, and they are always judging what we do. They are not like us. The heroes are the ones who appears like fighters.
Fighters are what normal serious people can become with enough hard work. When they have the choice, most people will chose to speak about serious matters to a fighter, even if he is uglier than the wizard, the cleric or the rogue.
I think the better social acceptation of fighters could be translated as a class feature.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 4:27AM
#53
|
|
|
That is not a bad idea MM, adds something without chalenging the Rogue's "schtick"
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 8:55AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2006
|
Seperating classes is easy. You have one class do something well, and a different class do another thing well.
The things that really make the rogue stand out: light, deft, doesn't hit hard but hits in a sensitive spot - out of combat, they steal things, they sneak places.
The things the make the fighter stand out: incredibly tough, hits hard, keeps your attention, combat capable - out of combat, they're tough, they're athletic, they know how to survive.
So you give the rogue access to ways to move across the battlefield deftly and swiftly, you give them the ability to greatly increase their damage if they hit a sensitive spot - and out of combat, you give them ways to steal things, ways to be sneaky.
You give the fighter access to abilities that let them keep standing long after a weaker person would have been dead or dying. You give them abilities that make the enemy focus on them, and not the squishy guy in back waving his hands and wearing PJs. You give them options on how to engage which enemy. Now out of combat? You give them ways to be tough, tougher than the other people in the group. You make them athletic, able to do things that you only see olympians do. And you give them ways to survive in situations that the street-savy rogue, bookish wizard, and pious cleric just don't quite have the experience in.
It's that easy.
Want the tl;dr of my posts? Read the bold text; I put it there to highlight the main points for ease of skimming.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 9:12AM
#55
|
|
|
The onus is on the guy providing the content (that could be the DM, or if you're buying content it could be the module designer). The fighter is supposed to have something to do by dint of having the highest STR in the party. He's the bend bars/lift gates guy. You expand on that or diverge from it wth his background, but as a class, he's the only one who is very richly rewarded for having a high STR score and should thus be shining whenever a feat of athletics is called for in addition to whenever his Background skills are needed.
I know someone's going to reply that it shouldn't be the burden of the DM to make any one character's skills relevant in the campaign, but that's not a reasonable expectation of the system. You can't design a game system that will force a DM to let everyone have equal time being the best at something, force the DM to call upon everyone's set of skills equally without it feeling forced. I think that's one of the reasons everyone groans when they hear the term "skill challenge.
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish."
D&D Outsider
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 9:18AM
#56
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I think a "prestige" social class feature would be ok with the fighter archetype.
The problem with your otherwise very interesting proposal is that it shoehorns characters into roles. Why is my rogue inherently untrusted? I'm a jewel thief who hobnobs with the wealthy, getting invited ot parties where he can case the joint and later abbscond with the goods. He has a high Charisma, as he should, modeled on Catwoman from the most recent Batman movie, or on the Pink Panther (the thief, not the bumbling inspector).
Why is my cleric suspect? He doesn't worship a god. Like the polytheistic priests of old, he is an intercessor, interceding with the gods on behalf of mortals. He's a public servant who uses his knowledge and worship of the deities to bring sustenance and protection to the flock.
Essentially, to make the "we only like fighters" work, you have to eliminate a lot of perfectly plausible character concepts.
It also begs the question of multiclassing. If my fighter takes a level of wizard is he suddenly untrustworthy? Or does a rogue dip into fighter so he can better bamboozle the townsfolk into thinking he's a reasonable gent?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 10:39AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
I think a "prestige" social class feature would be ok with the fighter archetype.
The problem with your otherwise very interesting proposal is that it shoehorns characters into roles. Why is my rogue inherently untrusted? I'm a jewel thief who hobnobs with the wealthy, getting invited ot parties where he can case the joint and later abbscond with the goods. He has a high Charisma, as he should, modeled on Catwoman from the most recent Batman movie, or on the Pink Panther (the thief, not the bumbling inspector).
Why is my cleric suspect? He doesn't worship a god. Like the polytheistic priests of old, he is an intercessor, interceding with the gods on behalf of mortals. He's a public servant who uses his knowledge and worship of the deities to bring sustenance and protection to the flock.
Essentially, to make the "we only like fighters" work, you have to eliminate a lot of perfectly plausible character concepts.
It also begs the question of multiclassing. If my fighter takes a level of wizard is he suddenly untrustworthy? Or does a rogue dip into fighter so he can better bamboozle the townsfolk into thinking he's a reasonable gent?
The wealthy are either thieves (often assassins, even indirectly) or too much into their ivory towers to differentiate a beggar wearing red from santa claus !
Polytheistics clerics are cattle killers, even chickens and dove must flee these clerics. People who play and make jokes with animals entrails are not serious people !
More seriously, there is a problem with being closer to the archetype, but the problem wouldn't be so important if the rogue and cleric archetypes were more defined.
A high Charisma rogue tricking wealthy people has to work a lot before being able to do that. Even being able to spot the bloated ego to play with requires work (skills).
Some functions (classes) give an inherent acceptation or reject, without having to work on it. Just like wearing the right clothes can radically change the attitudes around you.
By giving a prestige class feature, maybe just as an option, the fighter would just capitalize on something that is already in the brains of people, without having to be someone else in any ways.
A rogue would have to wear an armor and carry some weapons and know how to move around naturally with them, mimic the attitude, learn the fighters jargon (as all profession have its jargon) and be careful when speaking about battles he never made. If he can do that, the rogue can trick anyone and enjoy fighter's prestige.
This can't be a passive benefit for the rogue archetype, IMO.
And then there's the cleric.
A polytheistic cleric wasn't a warrior, or it was just a part-time job.
The polytheistic warrior-cleric is not an archetype outside of D&D.
We have no reference, so it's hard to tell the place they would have in a society. They would challenge the warrior caste, for sure, just like it happened between armed clergy and nobles in europe, so it wouldn't always be a peaceful cohabitation.
In europe, clerics were often feared.
If I'd gave a passive social ability to the D&D warrior-cleric, it would be based on fear.
For the classic polytheistic cleric, I think a passive social ability would just attract people about personal affairs.
A class is not "suspect" if not a fighter. A paladin or druid would also (passively) attract people, but for specific interests.
About multiclass, I think a rogue is easily able to capitalize on the fighter's prestige. He gains a free disguise, mimic and profession knowledge with the multiclass. A rogue is (should be) an opportunistic class, so I think the better option wins. he would hide the rogue behind the other class.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 11:07AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
And then, we have Fighters whom would never be thought of highly in civilized society. That is, unless you think the common folk would approach an infamous bandit over some bumbling hedgemage. Or that all notorious bandits are Rogues/Barbarians/Anything but Fighters.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 12:03PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2006
|
The onus is on the guy providing the content (that could be the DM, or if you're buying content it could be the module designer). The fighter is supposed to have something to do by dint of having the highest STR in the party. He's the bend bars/lift gates guy. You expand on that or diverge from it wth his background, but as a class, he's the only one who is very richly rewarded for having a high STR score and should thus be shining whenever a feat of athletics is called for in addition to whenever his Background skills are needed.
I know someone's going to reply that it shouldn't be the burden of the DM to make any one character's skills relevant in the campaign, but that's not a reasonable expectation of the system. You can't design a game system that will force a DM to let everyone have equal time being the best at something, force the DM to call upon everyone's set of skills equally without it feeling forced. I think that's one of the reasons everyone groans when they hear the term "skill challenge.
As a GM, I can make a non-combat challenge interesting for the rogue - who has skill 1, 2, 3 or 4, out-of-combat utility ability 1, 2, and 3, can try to use magic casty item 1 or 2
OR
I can make a non-combat challenge interesting for the fighter who can...be strong.
Yes, the GM should make sure that each of his players have times that they shine. That is a responsibility of a good GM. HOWEVER it is the system's responsibility to make that as easy as possible for the GM. A GM should not have to stretch his imagination and struggle to find some new way of making a non-combat encounter interesting for the fighter - while making non-combat challenges interesting for the caster, or the rogue, or anybody else is pretty damn easily done.
(As an aside that has nothing to do with the thread, I think people groan when they hear "skill challenge" because it was a poorly designed system - a good step forward, a new and innovative system that has a lot of good ideas, but ultimately needs more refinement and support from the system mechanics to be as ingrained as it was made out to be. I have not made use of the default by-the-book skill challenge system for years now; I have house-ruled it and modified it until it no longer bears any resemblance to what is in the book - simply the idea, with a different set of rules and I still wish there were more systems in place in the game that supported it.
Want the tl;dr of my posts? Read the bold text; I put it there to highlight the main points for ease of skimming.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 12:40PM
#60
|
|
|
The problem here is that people want the fighter to be the best in combat. I think the fighter is currently the best in combat in DDN. However, the rogue is not useless in combat. Ideally the fighter would have the same utility out of combat as the rogue would have in combat.
I would give fighters a class feature of an additional special 'fighter' based background. Much like choosing Artful Dodger etc. as a rogue. Quick example:
Military Officer: You have a background in military command training. gain diplomacy, intimidate, a bonus when assisting others in the performance of their skills, and some kind of flavor/story advantage (the ability to organize a group of people to be more efficient in a task)
You could have "Brawler," "Enlisted Soldier," "student of combat" etc.
|
|
|
