|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 3:19PM
#381
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
It is "fixed" in Cleric =/= It must be "fixed" in Fighter
Hell, you don't even have to go with a "... and you get Training in a Skill why not" feature at all.
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 ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 3:29PM
#382
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
It is "fixed" in Cleric =/= It must be "fixed" in Fighter
Hell, you don't even have to go with a "... and you get Training in a Skill why not" feature at all.
and any extraneous class feature you give them still says something about all members of the class. even if there is a pool of things to select from you can find a common thread within that subset and say something about the fighter based upon that class feature.
Much like with the cleric you can say:
Being a Cleric means you have mystical knowledge not known by most normal men.
because of his Religious Knowledge feature.
were the fighter to have some extraneous mechanic full of a bunch of options you could compile those options determine how they are all similar and say.
Being a fighter means X.
it is really hard to fill 'X'with much other than, "You are highly skilled at fighting", because anything you put into 'X' other than that isn't true of some, if not many, characters that are supposed to be buildable via the fighter class.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 3:34PM
#383
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
It is really hard to fill 'X'with much other than, "You are highly skilled at fighting"
Then "fill X" with "You are highly skilled at fighting".
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 ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 4:25PM
#384
|
|
|
Except clerics, wizards, monks, and rogues are also expected to be able combatants, and are given combat capabilities.
Um, no. The Cleric's and Wizard's combat capabilities completely depend on spell selection. It's perfectly reasonable to expect them to take utilitarian spells.
The Rogue has built in combat capability in the form of MDD. And I would prefer that this was changed so it wasnit baked in and the pure skill monkey was an option.
The Monk is the only one in that list I expect to have combat ability.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 4:28PM
#385
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Add the skil die to anything related to combat. Talking about combat or weaponry...add the skill die. Apraising weaponry...add the skill die. Attempting an action, other than attacking, in combat...add the skill die. Attempting to assess an enemy's combat weakness, add the skill die. This wouldn't make you privy to the same info a monster knowledge check would just assessing an enemy for combat. Nothing else makes sense so give them their own unique thing that does. This ability does not stack with skill training (just to keep bonuses in line). Would something like that work? Essentially no othe skill would be universally acceptable were it to show up. So give them their own unique skill. Essentially you are trained in the skill Combat. The simplicity of this almost enrages me we hadn't either of us said it earlier. Would this satisfy your need for the class possibly bringing something unique and fighterish to out of combat situations?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 5:04PM
#386
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2012
|
Add the skil die to anything related to combat. Talking about combat or weaponry...add the skill die. Apraising weaponry...add the skill die. Attempting an action, other than attacking, in combat...add the skill die. Attempting to assess an enemy's combat weakness, add the skill die. This wouldn't make you privy to the same info a monster knowledge check would just assessing an enemy for combat. Nothing else makes sense so give them their own unique thing that does. This ability does not stack with skill training (just to keep bonuses in line). Would something like that work? Essentially no othe skill would be universally acceptable were it to show up. So give them their own unique skill. Essentially you are trained in the skill Combat. The simplicity of this almost enrages me we hadn't either of us said it earlier. Would this satisfy your need for the class possibly bringing something unique and fighterish to out of combat situations?
I would agree with this. I mean someone trained in combat would know about combat toys and perhaps with a skill check be able to learn how use it without proficiency unless they fail. I'd also give them some kind of appraise weapon and arms bonus as well since they should be able to recognize the worth of something great or something of no worth at all.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 6:14PM
#387
|
|
|
It is really hard to fill 'X'with much other than, "You are highly skilled at fighting"
Then "fill X" with "You are highly skilled at fighting".
No, because the entire point is that you want to be able use the Fighter to create something that isn't just "dumb jock who's good at hitting things". That you should be able to create Fighters that are bodyguards, Night Watchmen, Grizzed Sergents, Lauded Generals, Loved Gladiators, Farmboys who totally aren't the chosen one, Savvy Mercinaries etc, and have the mechanics which back that up.
Fighters shouldn't have a SET ability, because Fighters are too basic open-ended for that, people are saying Wizards and Clerics get set abilities, but they don't because their out of combat primary abilities are spells, which are openended. All of the other 3 basic classes are openended with their out of combat abilities, and the Fighter should be too.
What Fighters need is a lessor version of the Rogues abilities, tailored to their needs, just like the Rogue already has a lesser version of the Fighter's tricks. They need to be able choose extra skills (it can be three instead of four, so Rogues still have the most), and have their own set of skill tricks, ALL based on out of combat stuff, because manouvers are their in combat stuff, and they should get these skill tricks at levels 3 & 9. Now obviously both their skills and skill tricks are going to be based on being a Pirate/Soldier/Knight/Watch/Bounty Hunter/Farmboy/Famous Duelist instead of being based on being a Theif/Spy/Cad/Assassin/etc, because they're Fighters not Rogues.
It's not that complicated, WotC just have to get the idea that Fighters are are People in a world that have developed their fighting skills for a specific reason, to fill a specific role in society, not damage dealing robots with no other skills beyond hitting things with swords and surviving falls out of airships and hot air ballons at 3,000 feet without dying.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 7:13PM
#388
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Yet again how many different ways do you need to adjudicate, "I talk to the guy to try and get some horses."?
6.
7 if the horse understands interperetive dance.
My horse did, she was awesome or actuallly I was so bad at it.. that it made her laugh... on the other hand she was quite expressive using it.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 8:54AM
#389
|
|
|
There are two separate problems here: one real, and one imaginary. The imaginary problem is that fighters need extra abilities to contribute in exploration. The fact is that given the right combination of race and background, you can make a decent exploring fighter. For instance, a dwarf with the guide background. You get Knowledge (dungeoneering), Climb, Survival, Swim, and Track. If you choose the Expert specialty, you can also add two more skills. Or if you choose the Hedge Magician specialty for a bunch of other out-of-combat goodies. The only drawback is that you'll need to give one of your better stats to INT or WIS. But that's okay because there should be a difference between fully-optimized characters and well-rounded ones. Creating a well-rounded character is the player's responsibility, not the system's. The system just needs to make it possible, which Next definitely does.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 8:57AM
#390
|
|
|
The real problem is that the rogue is just overpowered at this point. The bonus skills should be dropped to two, Skill Mastery should happen at a higher level, and the MDD should be either removed or changed to a lower die step, maybe even a D3. Also, their BAB progression should be slowed. One the rogue is fixed, the fighter won't look so bad.
|
|
|
