|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 6:38AM
#141
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
Something should be given to the class, honestly. The Fighter is the least flavorful than all the other classes. Everyone else gets other stuff. Personally I think that depending on your Fighting-style should dictate what other abilties you should get. It would give each fighter type more definition. I don't think every fighter should be great in social situations but if the mechanics make the player playing the fighter bored during talking time then its a flaw of the system. If you are unable to participate then of course you will be bored.
I have yet to see a game where a player was unable to participate in a social situation. In any TTRPG I have played.
I will amend my statement to say if a player is bored during social situations it is the fault of the player and/or the DM.
The fighter... Fights. If a player plays a fighter without taking the proper backgrounds or personality traits (how ever they may manifest), then that player should know that his character is not going to thrive in social/exploration pillars mechanically, and had better come up with a character plan for roleplaying. I have no problem with the social fighter.
If we compare a peerage fighter to a mercenary sergeant they will have different backgrounds. The general training comes from the class, it is what all those characters have in common.
The peerage fighter may have spent time in his youth with tutors and courtiers, so he has a very good social skill set. Perhaps he got this through background. If they add the personality trait mechanic (which I am desperately hoping for, and this has made me more enthusiastic about NEXT), the player may choose some characteristic instead.
The merc sergeant had all of his training through fighting, but maybe he learned a bit about interrogating enemies in his training. This would be a good background to add to the social pillar. Maybe the Merc does not want to waste his time on namby pamby talking and takes a combat background instead. Making him gimped in social pillars but optimized for combat. That would be a player CHOICE.
A wizard has spells. That does not make him inherently good in social situations. If the wizard is packing his ESP spell or Charm spell away for social situations that is one less Magic Missile or Web spell he has.
By using background, the Wizard can choose a social one to spare him some spells. He might take the same background as the peerage knight, or the same background as the Merc. Either way there is tweaking for the effectiveness of the character in the pillars by the player. The class does not have to add abilities for the other pillars. The background and Personality mechanic (I hope) can add to it.
Fighters FIght. Wizards cast spells. Rogues and Bards are versatile but should dominate the exploration and social pillars respectively. A combat rogue maybe should fall in the Assassin category. I find a baked in ability of fighters to thrive in a social situation needless when it can be better achieved through other mechanisms.
Regardless of mechanics, nothing stops a player from contributing in the other pillars. They can come up with ideas for exploration, and roleplay in character in social situations. Sometimes their character roleplaying may be detrimental to social situations. That is part of the fun, the rest of the party will have to work around.
I think NEXT is providing the mechanism of tweaking a character through pillars. Yes it may be that the basic game fighter has none of these. If that is unsatisfactory to a group they can then expand to try other game mechanisms.
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 6:51AM
#142
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
if you read the entire thing i posted i said things that stereotype a class were used as an example that is all. i guess this is the reason things are the way they are people cant post ideas or opinions without comments either for or against it that change the discussion into something its not
Using illogical and emotionally charged statements to try to garner support for your opinion is not constructive. Which is why faulty thinking gets pointed out in public discussions. I suggest you read up on this link which will help you understand what you are doing wrong. Personally I think it should be taught in schools with those that can't understand it not being able to graduate, but alas that will never happen.
Pay close attention to the following when you read up on it: If-by-whiskey, irrelevant conclusion, psychologists fallacy, and mind projection fallacy.
Now you may have valid points and we can have a long productive discussion, but first you have to drop all of the emotional and illogical arguments you are using.
The problem that is prevalent on these boards is that most of the time those fallacies are misidentified.
It is easy to try to fit things into categories, but often complexities step in the way.
Misrepresenting Strawmen is probably the most common.
Look there are classes ranging an entire university year on a subset of these fallacies. A wikipedia page is not going to make anyone an expert.
In all fairness this was an emotionally charged comment as well, possibly on the level of the one to which you were replying (And even that was minor):
I'm sorry. I apologize, I was too busy shooting down faulty logic and emotionally charged arguments to suggest how Fighters should contribute out of combat.
Still good that it was not an emotionally charged argument. I'm sure it could still garner a reaction
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 7:04AM
#143
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
To this question and others like it - Why? Has everyone forgot this is a roleplaying game? Then roleplay!
Let me reiterate that free, rules-lite, D&D knockoff games do this better than D&D. And, hey, it's a roleplaying game, so I can "just roleplay!" as much as D&D. Win win, I guess.
I'm trying to let WotC how they can make a game that I'm interested in playing, so that I'm willing to buy it. You would think the inclusion of a few feels-like-a-Fighter-but-isn't-just-Stab-More-Or-Different options would be inoffensive enough, and begged for for long enough (because I've been seeing this complaint well back into 3.5), to be a shoo in.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 7:13AM
#144
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Most of this is just role playing.
Oh gee, I never expected a roleplaying game to have a roleplaying factor...
Seriously it's like if Wizards doesn't print what a class can do, in black and white, with bolded and enlarged fonts, then that means that class can't do anything out of combat.
CONGRATULATIONS! YOU'VE FIGURED OUT HOW A LOT OF PEOPLE, NOT JUST GAMERS, THINK!
If it is NOT there, a lot of people assume it's NOT THERE.
That's their problem. People should learn not to assume.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 7:13AM
#145
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
I'm not even argueing for balance within the pillars (although I thing it ideal, I think the proffering of the rogue as the 'best at skills' class in next makes calls for real balance a sadly lost cause at this point).
I am arguing for competence. I am arguing for options beyond improvisation. I have offered Ideas.
Fighters might get an additional background.
I think this is a great solution. I am a fan of the backgrounds.
Fighters might get a background boons that grow over time
I don't like the idea of backgrounds being special for the fighter alone. I am OK with Class specific backgrounds, and maybe some of these abilities can be incorporated into a fighter specific background. I have not read enough of background Boons though to make a proper evaluation. I'll have to look back through the playtest.
Fighters might get bonus feats chose from a list of non-combat feats (To help model the majority of the fighters life that is spent OUT of combat.)
This fits along the bonus feat paradigm, but I doubt any feat will make up for the lag like a background can.
Fighters might get reputation.
I have house ruled various reputation systems (modeled on the AD&D Complete Bard book) and Contact systems, and I think everyone should get them in some form. Even if EVERY class got a reputation bonus, the reputation bonus could still give a mechanical boon to those that need them. Maybe make the fighters go up in reputation faster? A real world example, great scientists that are the career equivalent of a professional athlete are usually unknown, where a starting athlete may have a reputation with the general public. It takes alot longer for a scientist to become a superstar than an athlete.
These abilites can overlap with the abilites offered to other classes. Fighters can reasonably have more because they don't spend a rogues time practicing and perfecting their paricular suite of abilites. They don't have the religious obligations or the required book learning of clerics and wizards.
It makes sense both in game and in meta-game to provide fighters a selection of out-of-combat hooks on which to build their narrative. Tradition isn't really an excuse not to do it, a new iteration of the game is being created to grow the game and the hobby. The ability to improvise is not an excuse when all other classes have codified mechanics that can impact out-of-combat game play.
I think this is best done through backgrounds or personality traits of some sort. Give fighters more access to backgrounds, and give a good variety of backgrounds. Some mundane like farmer and some fantastic like acrobat.
CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 7:14AM
#146
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
As for Mand12:
I don't understand your position. It seems to simplify to: "I know we can't strip the out of combat utility from any class but fighters"
Then you've misunderstood, because I'm asking exactly whether we should do that. Not whether it's feasible, necessarily, but whether it would be good.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 7:17AM
#147
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
This isnt about fighters not having nice things. Can't you give that tired and non-existent argument a rest?
But that's precisely what it is. It's trying to shoehorn fighters into the lame "I pick things up and put them down" retard strongman archetype, where literally all they do is fight people, lift things and kick down doors.
If you're going to respond to me accusing us of this non-existent argument, don't bother writing anything afterwards. I'm not going to bother reading it. There is no "fighters can't have nice things argument being made."
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 7:30AM
#148
|
Date Joined:
Sep 10, 2005
|
This isnt about fighters not having nice things. Can't you give that tired and non-existent argument a rest?
But that's precisely what it is. It's trying to shoehorn fighters into the lame "I pick things up and put them down" retard strongman archetype, where literally all they do is fight people, lift things and kick down doors.
If you're going to respond to me accusing us of this non-existent argument, don't bother writing anything afterwards. I'm not going to bother reading it. There is no "fighters can't have nice things argument being made."
There are people arguing that fighters can improvise and that can be adjudicated through ability checks. There are people arguing that fighters get a lesser number of skills than other classes but have skills, and that should be enough.
I think the counter to this is that other classes either get extra skills plus magic, or extra skills plus extra facility at skills. Plus all classes have the opportunity to improvise. The descrepancy between the fighter (and to some extent barbarian currently and some iterations of the monk) is too great to feel like the non-magic non rogues have always have basic competence.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 7:37AM
#149
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
On the stripping out of combat from characters, that is close to what 4e did. Sure there where skill lists and noncombat utility power, for the most part your class was purely combat pillar. Add in skill challenges and every PC had near equal out of combat contribution regardless of class.
But in Next, certain class are redundant or (for lack of a better word) outclassed when not fighting UNLESS every other has noting in that area of expertise. Fighter and Barbarian shuts up unless the caster have no social spells and the rogue didn't pick social skills. Not a big problem if you build PCs as a group but terrible if you build separately.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 30, 2013 - 8:11AM
#150
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2012
|
I'm sorry. I apologize, I was too busy shooting down faulty logic and emotionally charged arguments to suggest how Fighters should contribute out of combat. Well here are a few ways they should be able to:
- In combat a Fighter has to be able to read their opponents every move and the glint in their eyes. So give Fighters a bonus to social checks for determining motives and whether the person is telling a lie or not.
- In exploration allow them to mightily exert themselves in some way with physical things, such as enduring pain, surges of strength, constitution, or dexterity.
- Allow them to have good saving throw bonuses because they are the 'tough' characters.
- Allow them to impress people with their reputation. "That one over there slew 3 dragons at one time!"
A lot of what you describe is fine if you want to play that kind of Fighter or Barbarian. It isn't all right if you want to play another type. You should be able to choose to play that kind of character, however we should also be able to choose to play our kind of character. As to 'just role play it'. This has been addressed many many times already. The Cleric can do all the same things, except they can also cast divine might right before that and show up the Fighter. The Wizard can polymorph into a giant sized ape and then do the exact same improvised role playing as the Fighter and have better results. In other words 'just role play it', is a class feature for every class, not just the Fighter, and other classes than the Fighter get things that enhance their role playing.
Haha, no need for apologies, I understand that the heat of the argument affects people in not-so-shining ways.
And I like those ideas although I'm not sure if they should present themselves as fighter feats or passives you gain in levels. I know that you list Cleric and Wizard as examples in how they outshine the fighter, but the problem is because they're casters. While martial classes are confined by the laws of physics and limitation, casters can break them through the arcane (Wizards) or their deity (Cleric), though this is in combat.
I think the Soldier and Knight background benefits should be staples for fighters in this case, or at least a derivitive of them (I'm not fond of backgrounds myself, but that's a personal thing). So to reiterate their benefits, fighters would get;
-- discount when going to taverns or lodgings, or even for free should they be in high standing with the populace or within a guild with similar standings,
-- gain access to friendly encampments where your soldier status is recognized, such as forts, barracks, armories, etc.
But they could have other benefits, too.
I would like the Fighter to get more than just 'bonus feat', honestly. I would support passives as you level and less bonus feats for the fighter. I think it would create a less boring presentation.
|
|
|
