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 LIVE! 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
*Dungeons & Dragons
yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options
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="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7552209" data-attributes="member: 6775031"><p>I don't mean that you're adding rules to the book. I mean that you're altering the situation under discussion, such that certain rules would now apply where they previously did not. If you change the situation such that it favors one character over another, then that changes how the characters will approach dealing with the situation, but it doesn't address the underlying factors in a generalized environment.</p><p>Cultures, and how they interact with various social classes, are an aspect of setting. There is no basis for assuming that fighters are the most common occupation, because those details are expected to vary between settings. At most, you might be able to generalize about some published settings; but even then, setting-dependent evaluations are no reflection on class mechanics.</p><p>Okay, but whether or not they <em>should</em> be, the fact of the matter is that (at many tables) they <em>are</em>. You might consider that to be a problem with the basic rules of the game. </p><p></p><p>Personally, I'm fine with those rules being what they are, but I take issue with how the rules interact inconsistently with other rules. For example, the rules governing initial attitudes are completely independent from the rules governing skill modifiers, which means that the outcome of a situation can depend on <em>how</em> the DM chooses to apply the rules at hand. Whether an NPC is friendly toward one PC and unfriendly toward another; or neutral to the party, with Advantage or Disadvantage depending on who does the talking; the choice of model can be more important than the underlying reality which the model is trying to represent. One of the biggest issues is how a DM decides whether or not the outcome of a check is uncertain, and I have my own interpretation which is internally consistent, but other DMs are free to rule differently, and it can completely change the course of events.</p><p>The OP's complaint would still be valid if the DM really was "inhabiting" their game world, unless the nature of that world provided a social benefit to fighters. And since we have no way of knowing about any game world they might be using, the setting details are as likely to hinder fighters as it is to help them.</p><p>That is one solution, although it would have significant ramifications on the values of tertiary stats. It's hard enough for a fighter to justify putting anything in Charisma, as it is, even if it fits their concept.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 7552209, member: 6775031"] I don't mean that you're adding rules to the book. I mean that you're altering the situation under discussion, such that certain rules would now apply where they previously did not. If you change the situation such that it favors one character over another, then that changes how the characters will approach dealing with the situation, but it doesn't address the underlying factors in a generalized environment. Cultures, and how they interact with various social classes, are an aspect of setting. There is no basis for assuming that fighters are the most common occupation, because those details are expected to vary between settings. At most, you might be able to generalize about some published settings; but even then, setting-dependent evaluations are no reflection on class mechanics. Okay, but whether or not they [I]should[/I] be, the fact of the matter is that (at many tables) they [I]are[/I]. You might consider that to be a problem with the basic rules of the game. Personally, I'm fine with those rules being what they are, but I take issue with how the rules interact inconsistently with other rules. For example, the rules governing initial attitudes are completely independent from the rules governing skill modifiers, which means that the outcome of a situation can depend on [I]how[/I] the DM chooses to apply the rules at hand. Whether an NPC is friendly toward one PC and unfriendly toward another; or neutral to the party, with Advantage or Disadvantage depending on who does the talking; the choice of model can be more important than the underlying reality which the model is trying to represent. One of the biggest issues is how a DM decides whether or not the outcome of a check is uncertain, and I have my own interpretation which is internally consistent, but other DMs are free to rule differently, and it can completely change the course of events. The OP's complaint would still be valid if the DM really was "inhabiting" their game world, unless the nature of that world provided a social benefit to fighters. And since we have no way of knowing about any game world they might be using, the setting details are as likely to hinder fighters as it is to help them. That is one solution, although it would have significant ramifications on the values of tertiary stats. It's hard enough for a fighter to justify putting anything in Charisma, as it is, even if it fits their concept. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options
Top