Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kae'Yoss" data-source="post: 307577" data-attributes="member: 4134">Ah. Good. I was already warming up on a "charisma-based skills shoud /shouldn't be roleplayed"-argument. Yea, I think that the classes need some more skill points, and some more class skills. I generally agree.Bard, of course. They usually have a higher CHA and it's class skill, too. Sorcerers could profit from their high CHA here, too, but they may spend their skill points for something else, and can use magic for that sort of problem, anyway. Paladins have high CHA, too, but often don't use such "underhanded ways"Well, they profit from WIS here, a couple of ranks, and the Sonse Motive Modifiers should do the rest. And those get quite high: +10 for the stuff where it starts to matter, and even the stuff where a good bluffer should get away with most of the time gets +5.That's no problem of the rules, but of rule interpretation. The type of situation you describe should put the "it's-way-out-there"-signal in the DM's head on. If they think they get away with such a BS, the other get's a +20 bonus on his sense motive check. That should cancel out the rogue's bonus (except at high levels, and at high levels you should really be able to accomplish something), or even be more than the bonus the rogue gets. Combine that with the wisdom modifier and the couple of ranks the other one has, and it doesn't look good for that rogue anymore. You can always attempt something. It's another matter if you succeed...It's only fair: rogues tend to suck at situations where combatant types excel, especially if they can't get their sneak attack off (undead, constucts, oozes, plants, dragons.... or just not the opportunity). If you played a rogue who is in the way in most combats AND can't shine on other occasions, would you have a good time playing? Don't think so. You need balance, before everything else. I have seen a lot of situations where someone didn't like a rule and changed it so it better suited him. And it often made sense. But it almost always made one class or the other almost unplayable.... (in 2e, I play a wizard/thief whose thief part was intended to be the assassin type. But after the third boss or so who had avery single square inch of his hide-out brightly illuminated and stood with the back to the wall, so I couldn't even attempt my backstab, he just became a wizard that can open locks and disarm traps, goodbye to my old character concept!)??? You talk about fainting?Well, question being, do they need to purchase those? A fighter has no problem hitting foes. He can fight the enemy right on, just take the weapon and stick it repeatetly into the enemy. He hits most of the time and does tremendous damage. They don't need tricks. But the rogue is pracitacally lost without tricks.The designers had to make sure every class could stand out in combat, one way or the other. That's important because Basic D&D is much about combat. And therefore all characters can make themselves useful in battle. In other setting, where there's more emphasis on politics and such like, that has not to be the case (see the courtier class in Rokugan)The fighter in D&D can fight. He can fight very well. He can't do much else! It's not so bad for him that he won't be so keen as the scour (a rogue or ranger) for once the enemy makes his move, he's in a world of trouble. No, you don't. That's because you're a wizard, you're not so attentive cause you're always reading those books ;-)No, seriously: If those bandits are very good in hiding, how could you see them? It doesn't help you to know what you have to look for if ther's nothing to look for because those bandits are to good in what they do (and you're not using your magic..)Sounds like a problem of rule interpretation, again. If you know that's lead in your hand and that Rogue tell's you it's really gold, than there's no bluff check. The DM just says that it's impossible to make you believe that without magic, and there's no roll. Or he says that it's practically impossible and sets the bonus to your sense motive check to +40 or so. If you have many ranks in bluff, you also know what you can do and what you can't. That's why the low level punkt Rogues can fake you out everytime. And that Wizard's got to have a low int if he buys his spell components from lew level punk rogues, anyway!Or you have looked up a thousand times. Everytime the ceiling of the caves was wet and slimy. And only two times out of that thousand that was an ooze creature. You looked there always, but you don't see!I know people who drove for years and still can't really dive! It's not doing, it's learning. I know someone who has crashed half a dozen cars (well, not quite, but It was 4 cars or so!) within the first half year after he had got the licence. And the next car always had more power than the last....I don't think so. I could get persuaded that everyone should get more skill points per level, and the class skill lists need some expanding, but I don't think it'a good idea to just grant skill ranks. Yes, that's true. Adding a d20 always results in a great measure of randomness (you have to get high-level before you have the ficed part of any roll - except weapon damage - greater than the random part of the d20). But's the way d20 is, and I think it's not that bad.</blockquote>

Verification