Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 1132813" data-attributes="member: 5171">Ditto Crothian.  I don't "need" a +15 to Defensively cast a 1st-level spell.  I "need" it if I never want to fail EVER in that attempt.  There's a pretty sizeable difference.  If you only have fun when your character never misses, always succeeds in his skill checks, and has effectively no random elements in his life, perhaps you should consider writing stories rather than playing games with dice.(No offense intended.  I'm a writer as well as a roleplayer, and there are strengths to each style of storytelling.  As a writer, I have complete control of my concept -- if I want him to be the best swordsman who ever lived, he IS.  As a roleplayer, I have to be prepared to accept limitations or work the system to get what I want.)If you max out your ranks in something, you should be considered to be a specialist in that area, sacrificing breadth for depth with respect to your abilities by level.When I played a rogue, I would almost always spread out my skills.  Sure, there were times when I missed a check by 2 or 3 and thought "Dang, if only I'd maxed out my ranks," but there were also times when the skill I might've maxed out was utterly useless for one or more full sessions, and then I had points elsewhere to do cool stuff with.  Breadth versus depth.And with respect, I think that some of your examples were a tad skewed.  Your sneaky rogue example has us up against a master of his trade -- he maxed out his ranks and he either is a naturally catlike fellow (Dex+4) or he is using magical items that  enhance his Dex.  Yet you give our hypothetical listener neither the same uncanny natural ability OR any magical items to enhance his abilities.  This is somewhat like pitting me against a world-class marathon runner and then saying that I suck because I lost the race.  (Um, bad example.  I DO suck at running, but the point is that comparing an average person of that level to the minmaxed specialized paragon of that level is sort of not so good.)Let's say that I'm a level 10 fighter.  I don't have ranks in Spot.  I probably am not going to see him -- at least, provided that he's got half-concealment and can USE that Hide ability.  If he doesn't, hey, wasted skill ranks.  And then he gets close.  He can sneak attack me.  It will probably hit for quite a bit of damage, at least, provided he hits me.  Then I can turn to him and clobber him with my superior fighting ability.  I will take some damage, yes.  The rogue's superior skills, when combined with his special combat abilities, probably mean that we're about evenly matched, percentage-wise.  If he rolled well and gets good rolls right away, he might take me out of the fight.  Otherwise, my nonflashy but very effective whackology system whittles him down right quick.  50/50 chance or thereabouts -- or in other words, about right for two characters of the same level.If the fighter was in a disadvantageous condition (eg, the dark, a room full of veils where the rogue could always hide, a room where fireballs exploded every round and forced reflex saves), the rogue would win.  If the fighter was in an advantageous position (eg, a well-lit featureless gladiatoral ring, using a magical item that negated invisibility), the fighter would win.  I've seen both types of combats.The longer I play, the more I believe that multiclassing is not only permissable but expected and even necessary for most character concepts.  Most people are describing their character concept, and the problem with the fighter not being able to handle it does not lie with the fighter.  I don't even think it lies with the player for not wanting to multiclass.  I think it lies in with the designers, who didn't make it clear that multiclassing was the way it was supposed to be -- that single-classed fighters should be rare and that most "fighting adventurers" had a level of rogue or barbarian or ranger in there somewhere.Dunno.  Could be wrong.  But I'm seeing some underlying accusations that speak to a radically different philosophy in gaming -- ie, having to have full ranks for a skill to be anything other than "shaft-getting", multiclassing being the scourge of the system, etc.</blockquote>

Verification