|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 10:41AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Sep 10, 2005
|
Fighters and Barbarians are both sadly lacking in out of combat ability. There are tons of things that could be offered.
For interaction there could be social boons. Ranks in military or tribal positions. Perhaps a string of contacts spread across the region due to your travels. Reputation and/or noteriety both could provide interesting benefits. Official sanction could allow for legal powers where appropriate.
For exploration, class features might allow STR checks to manually interfere with traps through brute force. Features akin to 4E's martial practices might be offerred or implemented.
I just think that non-rogue mundanes ought to have more options out of combat.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 11:03AM
#2
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
For interaction there could be social boons. Ranks in military or tribal positions. Perhaps a string of contacts spread across the region due to your travels. Reputation and/or noteriety both could provide interesting benefits. Official sanction could allow for legal powers where appropriate.
Would these be limited to fighters? Otherwise, it just sounds like Background benefits that any character could take and then fighters still don't get anything unique. If it is limited, then I'd have a problem with the class being shoehorned into a specific archtype (and other classes being shoehorned out).
Edited to add: I'm outlining the various arguments and refutations that have been hashed out in this thread.
ARGUMENT 1 (Hobson's Choice Argument): Players choose the fighter or barbarian knowing they are weak in Interaction.
REFUTATION 1.a: If there is no viable class that allows a heavily armored or rage-filled warrior who can participate meaningfully in Interaction, then it is a Hobson's choice because there is no way to play a perfectly viable character concept.
RESPONSE 1.a.i. (Warlord speculation): The warlord class may fill this void.
REFUTATION 1a.i.A: We have seen no warlord class and thus have no idea if it will fill the void.
ARGUMENT 2 (Opportunity Cost Argument): Players can boost their fighters' and barbarians' Interaction through Backgrounds, Specialties, or sacrficing physical Abilities for mental Abilities.
REFUTATION 2.a: If other classes need not use these non-class mechanics to participate meaningfully in all three pillars, then the fighter and barbarian are subject to an opportunity cost to which other classes are not subject.
RESPONSE 2.a.i (Goalpost Shifting Rogue): The rogue is not "equal" to the fighter without two feats.
REFUTATION 2.a.i.A: "Equal" is not the appropriate standard. The rogue can contribute to combat meaningfully without any feats.
RESPONSE 2.a.ii. (The Spell Gambit): Spellcasters have to choose the right spells to meaningfully participate in combat, exploration, or interaction
REFUTATION 2.a.ii.A: Spells are a class mechanic. Spellcasters can use the same Backgrounds and Specialties that fighters and barbarians are required to take and they still have a decent chance of selecting the appropriate spells.
ARGUMENT 3 (The "Meaningful" Quibble): Fighters and Barbarians can participate meaningfully in Interaction with unmodified Ability checks
REFUTATION 3.a: Few people seem to think unmodified Ability checks constitute meaningful participation.
REFUTATION 3.b: With respect to fighters and barbarians, they are additionally burdened by the fact that their class Abilities require them to place their highest Abilities in Strength, Constitution and/or Dexterity, the three Abilities utilized the leastin Interaction. So, even compared to other characters' unmodified Ability checks, the fighter and barbarian will be participating in a less meaningful way than other characters who rely on nothing more than unmodified ability checks.
RESPONSE 3.b.i.: You should use your physical abilities "creatively", such as impressing people with feats of Strength or using Dexterity to wow people with your ballroom dancing skills.
REFUTATION 3.b.i.A.: Such corner cases cannot constitute meaningful participation as they are neither reliable nor particularly credible means of persuasion.
RESPONSE 3.b.i.A.1.: Using Strength to intimidate would not be a corner case.
REFUTATION 3.b.i.A.1.a.: But making a character a one-trick pony would not be meaningful participation either, particularly where the one trick involves negative reinforcement which excludes team-oriented solutions of persuasion. A character who runs around intimidating everything is not generally "playing nice" with the other team members who may want to engage in a softer style of Interaction. When you give the fighter and barbarian only a hammer, they're going to treat everything like a nail.
REFUTATION 3.c: Skill tricks, spells, and rituals dwarf the impact on the Interaction compared to unmodified Ability checks
ARGUMENT 4 (Let's Play Pretend): Interaction could be resolved entirely without mechanics, so there's no need for interaction mechanics.
REFUTATION 4.a.: Since the game is including mechanics for the Interaction Pillar, the game presumes that such mechanics should be used. We cannot simply bury our heads in the sand to avoid an uncomfortable issue. |
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 11:13AM
#3
|
|
|
I would much rather see every class gain about 3-4 skill "utility" abilities over the course of their adventuring career. These would be non-combat boons based on training in a particular skill. Athletics based ones could be lifting massive objects, breaking down solid doors/walls, leaping great distances, etc. Persuasion based ones could be non magically charming or fascinating individuals. Intimidation could allow you to stun or freighten others. This way all classes would gain some non-combat capability.
Also, fighters and barbarians should get bonus skills just like wizards, clerics, and rogues. In fact, i think it would be better if everyone started with 5 trained skills regardless of class. Don't shoehorn a class into the skill monkey role. The rogue can be the "skilled" class because he gets better results (through skill mastery) not because he has 2x as many skills as the fighter.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 11:22AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
I think the shoe-horning could be avoided by having a few options for each class. For instance, a fighter who didn't want to have a traveller backstory could instead have deeper ties to narrower region or organization, such as a military company, a city guard, a school of swordsmanship, etc. Every back story worth a darn is going to have somebody you're connected to, who taught you how to use those weapons and armors you're the master of and gave you your first taste of real combat experience. While that's true of non-fighters too, you can argue that the level of esprit de corps you're calling on to make this a class feature is "fighter only" because that level of loyalty is pretty much limited to those who have put their lives in each other's hands, and even the company wizard/warlord is an outsider to the grunts.
But yeah, at some level it's going to be hard to justify saying that one set of mundane characters can do something another set of mundane characters cannot. Personally, I'd rather completely arbitrarily say that only fighters can do this than leave fighters with nothing to do.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 11:25AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Man how many times are you guys gunna restart the same topics.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 11:43AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Sep 10, 2005
|
Man how many times are you guys gunna restart the same topics.
Personally, I'm going to ask that it be addressed with each playtest packet, as it is still an issue.
That said, i'd like to see a mixture of skills and bonus background elements that tie into the character's backstory and place in the campaign.
I want to offer characters the opportunity to have a range of options, including but not limited to trained skills.
Maybe fighters should just receive 2 backgrounds instead of other classes one.
Perhaps it would work better to build backgrounds that fit fighters, but then layer on fighter specific boons as the character levels and grows in prestige and fame. Anyone can be a veteran, but a veteran fighter can call on favors due to his class that others might not (at least without feat expenditure).
I'm all for brainstorming, but I think that we're currently not offerning fighters and rogues much to do outside of combat, and I don't think that is acceptable.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 11:48AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Why?
Seriously, why?
Why should classes contribute anything out of combat? What's wrong with establishing class as something that relates only to combat, and that non-combat things are handled by other character structures?
Doing this would sidestep all the combat/noncombat balance problems that classes have had in every edition ever, allow for more flexible and fluid character concept realization, and overall I think do a hell of a lot to improve things.
Now, if this were the case, then those other structures would have to step up their game, because right now they're dominated by classes in every way. But I think it's worth asking the question: are classes the best way to describe and represent noncombat capability? I'm not sure defaulting to "yes" is a good thing.
Discuss?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 11:57AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Sep 10, 2005
|
Why?
Seriously, why?
Why should classes contribute anything out of combat? What's wrong with establishing class as something that relates only to combat, and that non-combat things are handled by other character structures?
Doing this would sidestep all the combat/noncombat balance problems that classes have had in every edition ever, allow for more flexible and fluid character concept realization, and overall I think do a hell of a lot to improve things.
Now, if this were the case, then those other structures would have to step up their game, because right now they're dominated by classes in every way. But I think it's worth asking the question: are classes the best way to describe and represent noncombat capability? I'm not sure defaulting to "yes" is a good thing.
Discuss?
History is probably the biggest obstacle. One mundane class is focuses on non-combat options (the rogue). Spell casting classes in general are focused at will on whatever area of play the player chooses. If you are going to represent non-combat ability outside of classes, you reasonably ought to strip it out of all classes, and I don't see that happening.
I don't see the designers changing tack to that extent at this point, so I'd rather focus on making the best of the system that is actually being devloped.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 11:58AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
Mand:
That would be fine, if it were true. But it isn't, it never will be, and we have to make our peace with that and fix the problems that it causes.
Wizards and clerics will receive spells that are useful outside of combat. Rogues will recieve extra skills/tricks that are useful outside of combat. Monks will receive extra movement powers that are useful outside of combat. Dump all of that, and it would be fine to say "class is only about combat." But so long as all of that exists, it's not fine to say "but the fighter doesn't get any of those things, and we'll make up for it by making him unkillable in melee."
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 29, 2013 - 12:31PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2009
|
Why not give fighters the ability to double or even triple their skill dice when making Strength checks or Constitution checks?
This would allow them to achieve otherwise impossible results and contribute to the exploration phase. Their non-combat functionality then becomes overcoming physical obstacles.
And yes, the DM might not have physical obstacles (massive doors or portcullises, raging rivers, fallen rocks, long underwater tunnels) negating that advantage; but then the DM also may not have locks or traps in his adventure, taking the wind out of the classic Rogue. That's a DM issue, not a character issue.
And if you aren't playing a High Strength fighter, I'm betting you are playing a charming swashbuckler "face" character anyways, and already have a non-combat role.
|
|
|
