Community

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:26PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Technically according to basic, and this is just an assumption as far as the default selections, yes, yes they do.

"Basic" is going to be full of "presumptions", given that it's going to, essentially, be pre-built characters.

So yeah.  I dont' think that's a "problem" - it's actually a goal of "basic".

Why the hell would we be discussing the not-quite-but-almost-pre-built approach to characters that "basic" is/will be/might be bringing to the table?


But let's get back to the actual point of my comments, and not this ridiculous side-track goose-chase you've taken us off on.

"Skills cover it, and Backgrounds cover Skills, and that's enough" is bull.  You have to go as far as any other class (even the Barbarian eventually has a feature to emphasize something that is covered by ability checks) to see it.  Getting caught up in "prescribed flavor" misses how incredibly, incredibly flawed your original "argument" was and remains.

Unlike those classes Fighter has no prescribed flavor stating they would have any particular skills.

Then don't give him any particular skills. 
Give him some options.
Backgrounds existing, as an option, does not preclude other options.

At the most absurd level, the existance of the Bluff or Disguise skills doesn't preclude the Wizard/Illusionist from having non-combat options, even if those options largely overlap with the effects of Bluff or Disguise.

Even worse would that mechanic be there there would have to be a default for basic play and that would instantly ingrain a specificity onto fighter for new players that the fighter class is specifically meant to not have.

Are we pretending that there won't be a "specificity ingrained onto the Fighter" in "basic", when the entire premise (that we're working with, at the very least) is that "basic" will be pre-selected options?

"Whoa whoa whoa, the basic Fighter gets any kind of non-combat feature!?  How dare you tell players how to play!  But hey, all of those pre-selected maneuvers will be just fine, because at least they aren't 'ingraining a specificity'."

You're in the realm of the absolutely absurd.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 7:27PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

optional options...maybe like a background or something...and the circle continues.

Right.  Because you are satisfied with the current elements and options, there shouldn't be any other options for people who aren't satisfied.

Instead, our interests are "wrong", and we should just become satisfied with what we have.  Because that's how human beings work.

Jan 31, 2013 -- 6:03PM, Lawolf wrote:

When the fighter has a 50% chance to climb, jump, swim, etc but a low level levitate has 100% chance to work, you use te levitate. As to homogenization: well considering skill utilities would work like they did in 4e (ie in no way homogenous) I really don't see the problem. Do you think because fighters and rogues have skills they are homogenous? What about clerics and wizards having spells? What about all classes using ability scores, is that homogenous?

You must have previously memorized levitation in order to use it in a climbing situation. And that means one less combat spell you memorize. Your wizard spends her precious resources to exploration, while the fighter has limitless resource.  And, you are adding magic into the equation which makes your argument irrelevant. Wizards can also fly distances in minutes that fighters cannot hope to cover in days. Wizards can even teleport to cities thousand miles away in a heartbeat. So should the fighters get equally powerful utilities to compensate for these kinds of powers also? 

DM: You see a big portcullis ahead, it seems a very heavy and solid etc...
Fighter: Ok, i will tr...
Wizard: Wait, don't trouble yourself, i can lift it a bit with my spell.
Fighter: Oh well, cool... 

DM: A great wide chasm blocks your escape route. With a well performed jump, one of you can make it across and tie a rope...
Fighter: I'll do it...
Wizard: No need, i can dimension door there and rogue can throw the rope to me.

DM: You are ambushed by a band of drow, etc..
Fighter: Cast a spell, I will cover you.
Wizard: Well, I used up most of my spells already. But I have Knock, Identify and Spider Climb left.
Fighter: ?????!!???

Jan 29, 2013 -- 11:43AM, Electricbee wrote:

Jan 29, 2013 -- 11:25AM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

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.

My answer to a question like that is always the same...

1 more.



Are we there yet, Poppa Smurf?

Almost there.