Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Character Builds & Optimization
Are the core base classes enough to build what you want to play?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 1698794" data-attributes="member: 158"><p>Because sometimes, <em>just sometimes</em>, the enjoyment of the players needs to come before other aesthetics, such as propping up an imbalance between two characters who are supposed to have the same duties (such as act as a main-line fighter). I didn't say a fighter built as swashbuckler was unplayable; but they aren't different classes, they are the same class, and the swashbuckler-fighter who chooses dodge, combat expertise, and tripping will not be in the same league as the guy who did the roleplay-counter-intuitive thing and picked every "right" feat for the fighter class.</p><p></p><p>To me, acknowledging and preserving the inferior build over the superior is a punishment for wanting to roleplay a different concept than what the rules favor. The guy or gal whose party NEEDS a tank, yet wants to play a swashbuckler, is going to be taking a beating in combat.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Would it not be a negative incentive to roleplay, rather than a positive one? If Bob creates a traditional heavy-armored, power-attacking fighter, and Joe creates an effete, rapier-attacking swashbuckler, yet gets his head handed to him because he is too lightly armored, and can't defeat enemies because he's using all he ha into his expertise to keep from keeping creamed, does this teach Joe that playing a different role is fun, or does it teach him to make a tank when his current character dies? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh, agreed! But to be fun, a character should be effective in their role. If the player doesn't mind being less effective, then great; but the fighter class and 3.5 edition feats lend themselves to supporting tank fighters rather than swashbucklers. Heck, the rules support <em>Archers</em> better than swashbucklers!</p><p></p><p><em>If the players decide to play swashbuckling type characters, then their adventures will be different as well, thus negating the need for additional bonusses on other fronts anyway. A swashbuckler is not a tank, and should thus be played differently!</em></p><p></p><p>We're not taking a swashbuckling oriented campaign into consideration here; we are taking into consideration a mixed group, which OFTEN happens in a D&D game. The Wizard is a witch from the Amedio Swamps, the Burly Fighter is from the mercenaries guild, and the Swashbuckler is from the sea-port of Hardby, that sort of thing. If the whole game is swashbuckling in theme, that's a totally different scenario. But if the swashbuckler is the only fighter, then he's screwed, because he's not holding the line for anybody.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You wouldn't be doing what I'm suggesting then. What I'm suggesting is to tailor the abilities or feats the character has available to support them if the basic rules does not support an effective version of that archetype. Similarly, if a cleric wanted to be a summoner under 3.0 edition, he's screwed; at low-levels the creatures take a full round to summon, they had no special abilities worth mentioning when they got there, and they stayed only a few seconds. With the advent of the augment summoning feat in 3.5 and the Thaumaturgist PrC, the summoner became a more viable archetype, at the expense of other powers and feats.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Henry, post: 1698794, member: 158"] Because sometimes, [I]just sometimes[/I], the enjoyment of the players needs to come before other aesthetics, such as propping up an imbalance between two characters who are supposed to have the same duties (such as act as a main-line fighter). I didn't say a fighter built as swashbuckler was unplayable; but they aren't different classes, they are the same class, and the swashbuckler-fighter who chooses dodge, combat expertise, and tripping will not be in the same league as the guy who did the roleplay-counter-intuitive thing and picked every "right" feat for the fighter class. To me, acknowledging and preserving the inferior build over the superior is a punishment for wanting to roleplay a different concept than what the rules favor. The guy or gal whose party NEEDS a tank, yet wants to play a swashbuckler, is going to be taking a beating in combat. Would it not be a negative incentive to roleplay, rather than a positive one? If Bob creates a traditional heavy-armored, power-attacking fighter, and Joe creates an effete, rapier-attacking swashbuckler, yet gets his head handed to him because he is too lightly armored, and can't defeat enemies because he's using all he ha into his expertise to keep from keeping creamed, does this teach Joe that playing a different role is fun, or does it teach him to make a tank when his current character dies? Oh, agreed! But to be fun, a character should be effective in their role. If the player doesn't mind being less effective, then great; but the fighter class and 3.5 edition feats lend themselves to supporting tank fighters rather than swashbucklers. Heck, the rules support [I]Archers[/I] better than swashbucklers! [I]If the players decide to play swashbuckling type characters, then their adventures will be different as well, thus negating the need for additional bonusses on other fronts anyway. A swashbuckler is not a tank, and should thus be played differently![/I] We're not taking a swashbuckling oriented campaign into consideration here; we are taking into consideration a mixed group, which OFTEN happens in a D&D game. The Wizard is a witch from the Amedio Swamps, the Burly Fighter is from the mercenaries guild, and the Swashbuckler is from the sea-port of Hardby, that sort of thing. If the whole game is swashbuckling in theme, that's a totally different scenario. But if the swashbuckler is the only fighter, then he's screwed, because he's not holding the line for anybody. You wouldn't be doing what I'm suggesting then. What I'm suggesting is to tailor the abilities or feats the character has available to support them if the basic rules does not support an effective version of that archetype. Similarly, if a cleric wanted to be a summoner under 3.0 edition, he's screwed; at low-levels the creatures take a full round to summon, they had no special abilities worth mentioning when they got there, and they stayed only a few seconds. With the advent of the augment summoning feat in 3.5 and the Thaumaturgist PrC, the summoner became a more viable archetype, at the expense of other powers and feats. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Character Builds & Optimization
Are the core base classes enough to build what you want to play?
Top