Testing a theory

[Ahnehnois]

I don't usually play fighters mainly because while I think they are awesome in smacking things around they don't have any skills for outside of combat. I find that limiting.

I like to be flexible with class skills. I also sometimes use the Thug variant to expand options. Don't particularly disagree with [MENTION=25619]haakon1[/MENTION] either. The point is, it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I spend about equal time playing and DMing, and when I play I'm as likely to run a fighter as I am a wizard, cleric, rogue, or "other," and I've never spent any time worrying about caster balance. It's one of those problems I only know exists because I've read about it on the Internet.

 

[Elf Witch]

It depends on whether "outside combat" is strictly about skill checks, or about more open ending role-playing of a more AD&D style. If it's more about just talking to NPC's in character, rather than Perform checks, Diplomacy checks, Gather Information checks, etc., class rules and skill points aren't as key. It's not like Fighters are mute . . .

The way I run it is skill checks are when something difficult comes up. You want to convince someone to change their mind. Talking to the stable boy or the gate guard isn't a skill check. Talking them into telling you what's in other inn guest's saddle bags, or letting you bring a kobold "guest" into town, those would be tell me what you're saying + skill check.

When I'm talking about Fighter-types, I mean Fighter + Ranger + Paladin, and Rangers have a lot of skill points, of course, while Paladins have Diplomacy as a class skill. I've often seen Paladins in the "face" role -- my 3e and 4e Paladins were usually the best at Diplomacy in the party.

About nobility, I pretty much let below take any background they want. I never had anybody ask for "heir to the throne" or even heir to a noble title, but I've had 2nd son of an important noble, distant bastard cousin of the king, and a daughter of the bishop. For me, there's no money or skill points from those, but it influences NPC's reactions in roleplaying. For example, [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] and [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=3]#3 [/URL] on that list find it easier to get in to TALK to a nobleman, but no guarantee of success -- just more likely to talk the servants into giving them access, rather than telling them to go away.

If you play third edition which we do skills are important. You can not claim to have a good knowledge of say history with out having ranks in it all knowledge skills are trained only. Which means a fighter with no ranks in royalty and nobility has very little idea on the subject. They may have a vague idea of that a king is the highest but who outranks who a baron or a count. That is where a skill roll comes in.

If you just handwave things like that away then you are basically saying that skills don't matter and this hurts the players who actually put ranks in them.

I like skills but I do see some of the issues involved with them. I hate playing with DMs who rarely use them specially if I am playing a character who has a lot of them. It is truly nerfing the skill monkey.

I think one of the issues it get rid of cross class skills. So what if the fighter has pick lock the way to balance this is on how many skill points someone gets every level.

Yes you can role play anything I can put a 3 in charisma and ignore it if my DM lets me. To me that is a form of cheating the same as if I had a 8 in strength and didn't take the minus off my attack rolls.

If I have a charisma of 10 no ranks in diplomacy, nobility and royalty why am I the one talking to the kings envoy the party member who has better skills should be doing that.

In the game I played in with that character we didn't really have a party face we had a paladin but he was all about killing undead he was a simple farmers son who had no clue on the ins and outs of the political intrigue that can be a big part of a Kingdoms of Kalamar game. That is where my character came in. Sure I could have made a bard or a wizard but I wanted to play a kick ass fighter who had a background as an EX Commander of a Kalamar legion.

 

[Elf Witch]

I like to be flexible with class skills. I also sometimes use the Thug variant to expand options. Don't particularly disagree with [MENTION=25619]haakon1[/MENTION] either. The point is, it doesn't have to be that way.

I think themes is one way to address this the same as getting away from the idea of cross classed skills.

But a fighter played by the RAW in 3E is boring to me when I make them I usually just pour all my skills in swim so I have a chance of not drowning if I fall in water with plate armor on. Especially in games where I am stuck with a 26 point buy.

 

[DM_Trav]

I don't worry about it at all. If the party wants to ignore the main quest entirely to chase red herrings and random encounters, that's their prerogative. But D&D isn't Skyrim....there should be real (and often dire) consequences to ignoring the main quest for several days. Or even a few hours, depending on the adventure.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There's a reason for this: it usually wasn't much of a slog. Most monsters simply didn't have very many h.p., so if you could hit them hard they'd either go down, run away, or be easy pickin's next round. Failing that, they'd hit you hard, same result the other way. In any case the combat was short.

Sure, occasionally you'd get situations where the AC of both combatants far outstripped their ability to hit*, and those would go on for a while. But those are uncommon at worst, and more likely quite rare; and can happen in any edition.

* - worst case of this I ever saw was a mid-level Fighter who had put all her wealth into defensive items - had by far the best AC in the game, but limited offense - aaand she went through a Mirror of Opposition and met her own clone, which had the same equipment.

That one took 38 rounds. I counted. I can't remember if each needed a natural 20 to hit the other, or whether a 19 would do, but it was something like that. The only saving grace was that as it was a one-on-one fight each round went by really fast!

Lanefan

Yes, but it also meant the fights were tactically uninteresting in the extreme. Getting them over quickly (if indeed they DID end quickly, was mercy from that standpoint). I also disagree that in general rounds went all that fast. They COULD, in some circumstances. I also recall very many AD&D fights which went on for 1.5 or 2 hours, and there STILL weren't any interesting tactics. It was POSSIBLE to very carefully build an encounter were tactics mattered, but it was by far not the default (and was rare in modules).

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I mostly DM but I "worry" about fighters not having any abilities that are particularly "fun" in the same way that a spell or special class ability is. I certainly worry about casters not being able to do squat at low levels and then dominating gameplay with nuclear options. I worry about clerics being designed and viewed as hit point battery chargers. I also worry about a misperception that every character, every class, every race, every option needs to be balanced with every other lest the game be considered badly designed. Nothing wrong with sub-optimal choices unless you're designing the game to emphasize (especially to the players)that making those kind of choices is Doing It Wrong. I worry about paladins having been deemed so cool and so powerful that every deity/alignment had to have a class just like it for thier own. I worry that rogue skills are FAR too easily invalidated by abilities given to other classes - especially spellcasters. I worry that a game designed by committee and popular vote has no soul and no unifying vision.

Of COURSE I worry about all this stuff. What's NOT to worry about?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I mostly DM but I "worry" about fighters not having any abilities that are particularly "fun" in the same way that a spell or special class ability is. I certainly worry about casters not being able to do squat at low levels and then dominating gameplay with nuclear options. I worry about clerics being designed and viewed as hit point battery chargers. I also worry about a misperception that every character, every class, every race, every option needs to be balanced with every other lest the game be considered badly designed. Nothing wrong with sub-optimal choices unless you're designing the game to emphasize (especially to the players)that making those kind of choices is Doing It Wrong. I worry about paladins having been deemed so cool and so powerful that every deity/alignment had to have a class just like it for thier own. I worry that rogue skills are FAR too easily invalidated by abilities given to other classes - especially spellcasters. I worry that a game designed by committee and popular vote has no soul and no unifying vision.

Of COURSE I worry about all this stuff. What's NOT to worry about?

What bothers me about sub-optimal is what it says about that archetype. It is like the 1e monk. You had to basically be practically useless in order to play what was aesthetically and conceptually a very cool class (admittedly a bit out of place in most campaigns, but none-the-less cool). WHY pray tell does one class have to be ineffectual? I can't see even one archetype that doesn't have a fine heritage from myth, legend, or literature of quite bad-assed heroes, and yet there's this theory that somehow there's some kind of 'flavor' that is enhanced by having some classes be drastically underpowered compared to others?

Frankly it is that very concept that IMHO should have to be answering for itself, NOT making all the classes roughly equal in effectiveness. Since when did that NEED any justification. In fact what the heck is with this thread??!!! Justify telling me that to play a monk I have to suck. Please, give me one single good reason.

 

[Lanefan]

If you play third edition which we do skills are important. You can not claim to have a good knowledge of say history with out having ranks in it all knowledge skills are trained only. Which means a fighter with no ranks in royalty and nobility has very little idea on the subject. They may have a vague idea of that a king is the highest but who outranks who a baron or a count. That is where a skill roll comes in.

If you just handwave things like that away then you are basically saying that skills don't matter and this hurts the players who actually put ranks in them.

I like skills but I do see some of the issues involved with them. I hate playing with DMs who rarely use them specially if I am playing a character who has a lot of them. It is truly nerfing the skill monkey.

I think one of the issues it get rid of cross class skills. So what if the fighter has pick lock the way to balance this is on how many skill points someone gets every level.

The simple answer - though likely not many 3e types would agree - is to get rid of all social and knowledge skills entirely; and let role-playing rule the day.

My namesake character here is a Fighter, and he makes it his business to know stuff. If he doesn't know it and he thinks he needs to know it, he goes and finds the right people to give him the right information so he does know it. Then he uses that knowledge (not always wisely, but hey) the best he can; and if he can't he just hoards the information until such time as it might come in handy.

In your example above, if it mattered whether a Baron outranked a Count, in character I'd just go and ask some scholar to rattle off the whole ranking system; and I'd write it down for future reference.

The 3e skill system would wreck the way I play him.

Lanefan

 

[Ahnehnois]

can role play anything I can put a 3 in charisma and ignore it if my DM lets me. To me that is a form of cheating the same as if I had a 8 in strength and didn't take the minus off my attack rolls.

If I have a charisma of 10 no ranks in diplomacy, nobility and royalty why am I the one talking to the kings envoy the party member who has better skills should be doing that.

In the game I played in with that character we didn't really have a party face we had a paladin but he was all about killing undead he was a simple farmers son who had no clue on the ins and outs of the political intrigue that can be a big part of a Kingdoms of Kalamar game. That is where my character came in. Sure I could have made a bard or a wizard but I wanted to play a kick ass fighter who had a background as an EX Commander of a Kalamar legion.

You're right that the system does not handle these things well. I've move things around to emphasize mental ability scores more, given out extra background skill points, and generally ignored/handwaved class skill restrictions. I recall that when I played it closer to the book I hada those kinds of frustrations.

Hopefully 5e isn't as restrictive. Fighters shouldn't be as skilled as rogues, but they don't need to be morons either.