Estlor said:
There is a school of thought in the real world that believes intense faith in something makes you less perceptive. Dogma often reduces fuzzy topics into clear black and white to make it easier on the people that believe it.
I'll agree to this because I find it not only a thoughtful and well-written counterpoint to my argument for including sense motive on the cleric's class skill list, but factually true in many cases (real world or no). It's something I had not considered but should have. I still think there is a case that can be made for giving clerics sense motive, but I'm not so worked up over it now.
I think it would have been better if the revision team could have provided a variant option for each class in the PHB, such as how to make an Inquisitor (with sense motive), an urban street fighter (with bluff, intimidate, gather information), etc. Not only would that make it easier to accomodate everyone's character vision, but it would make it easier on the DM to have balanced PC/NPC options to pick from, right there in the PHB. I know there's something about this in the DMG, but official variants in the PHB at the end of each class would be cool. Maybe it would confuse newbies, I don't know, but it would be nice to have.
I still feel the sorcerer is a "wuss" and needs the added flavor and power that added charisma based class skills would give him. Flavor, because it shows he has a special heritage that commands respect, fear or awe, and Power, because he has reduced spellcasting progression and is a poor choice except as a one level multiclass for otherwise non-spellcasters. I would prefer sorcerers have their own, separate list of spells (perhaps mixing some but not all arcane and divine magic) based on their individual bloodline, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
Yes, I min/max and power game, but everybody does to a certain extent. Why? Because you DIE if you don't, or suffer undue hardship because you are not maximized to handle unpleasant or dangerous situations, AND suffer the derision of your fellow adventurers (and their players: "Your character sucks! Haha!"). There is some pleasure to be had in RPing a shrinking violet with no way to save herself in a fight, but generally, everyone plays the game to have their PC kick some ass (mentally, magically, or physically) so the player can blow off steam on a friday night with their friends. In typical D&D games, telling a story--RPing--is important, too, but ultimately not as important as kicking ass and taking names. D&D is all about ass-kicking in one form or another as far as the designers---and I'll wager most players---are concerned. Those who want a more RP intensive and oriented game will frequently go to WW or GURPS or something even more obscure (what's that thing called? Harn?); because they are more set up for exploring such issues. D&D can be used for such, but it is not the best system for doing so (thankfully, books like Dynasties & Demagogues are trying to disprove this and expand the game into more RP intensive areas with some egree of success).
D&D is only used for RP heavy stuff because it is known by the largest number of people and may be easier to implement in that regard. If D&D were more about RPing your character, then we'd get more than two pages on personality and background in the PHB, now wouldn't we? What D&D needs as a supplement is something like the old Task Force Games "Heroes of Legend," which was 100 pages of fun tables on how to design every aspect of your character's life (for any game system), either randomly or by picking what sounded best. Unfortunately, many D&D characters exist in a void, with no (or relatively little) background, no family, no friends, no sense of belonging to the world around them, nothing except the sword in their hand and a desire to grab some treasure. The more detailed the character background, the more plot hooks the DM (and player) has to exploit, which only help to add to the fun of the game and make the charracter and his world more "real."
