Are we sure we need a skill guy?

[Remathilis]

I do think there is a need for a lightly armed/armored skill guy. How else are you going to emulate characters like Han Solo, Robin Hood, Aladdin, Indiana Jones, etc. Certainly, these characters are good combatants, but moreso they are adept at survival through wits, luck, and talent. I mean, if Aladdin (pick one, Disney or mythic) got into a fight with Conan (a true warrior type) who would win?

By denying the game a "rogue" character, you make everyone either an expert fighter or a caster, which eliminates that whole aspect of the "lucky skilled guy". I'd be quicker to remove the arcane/divine division than remove the warrior/skilled guy one.

 

[Ry]

But should Aladdin be in a party with Conan?

Edit: Gave it even more thought

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I'm sure I don't need a skill guy.

 

[Vigilance]

That's not really what I'm talking about Mistwell; I'm talking about whether a fun game needs to have rules that segment off the skill guy as a separate class, not whether the existing game needs him to overcome typical obstacles.

It sounds like you want to get rid of classes altogether.

Why not just play Hero?

Classes are useful for a lot of things. They help party balance.

Even if you got rid of "the skill guy", you'd still wind up with players wanting to play stealth characters.

Fallout 2 was a classless game, but was designed to accomodate melee bricks, ranged snipers, stealth-based characters and charisma-based characters.

I suspect that those general archetypes were accomodated because some people would rather not blast their way through every situation.

 

[hong]

Even if you got rid of "the skill guy", you'd still wind up with players wanting to play stealth characters.

Which is fine. It's a schtick. "Skill guy" is not a schtick, it's an artifact of the ruleset.

 

[Ry]

The reason I want to get rid of the skill guy isn't because I want my players to blast through every obstacle. Actually, it's the exact opposite - it's because I want ALL of my players to have a chance to be involved both in and out of combat. So I want them to have the option of NOT blasting through the obstacle, and not be held back just because skills have been funnelled into a specific class.

 

[hong]

The reason I want to get rid of the skill guy isn't because I want my players to blast through every obstacle. Actually, it's the exact opposite - it's because I want ALL of my players to have a chance to be involved both in and out of combat. So I want them to have the option of NOT blasting through the obstacle, and not be held back just because skills have been funnelled into a specific class.

What this means is YOU do not need a skill guy. Whether this extends to WE do not need a skill guy, as the thread title seems to imply, is not so certain.

 

[Ry]

Fair enough. Still, this thread has given me some good ideas so it's not a complete trainwreck. Actually, hong, I am considering doing a 2-class game: Iron Heroes Man-at-arms (maybe give all skill groups) and a Warlock (same skills as Man-at-arms).

 

[Vigilance]

Which is fine. It's a schtick. "Skill guy" is not a schtick, it's an artifact of the ruleset.

A rule set that says a charisma-based character or a stealth-based character needs more skill points to fill their archetype?

Sure.

But by that token, so is the BAB the fighter needs to fill his archetype, the spells the cleric and mage need for their archetype.

In other words, all the archetypes are artifacts of the rule set.

And?

My point is, those "artifacts" are in the rule set to provide people with archetypes they enjoy, including a couple of "skill guys", one aimed at stealth and the other aimed at interaction (the Bard).

All the classes and mechanics are "artifacts" of the system, but they are there because people wouldn't enjoy the game as much if the only class was Commoner.

 

[Vigilance]

The reason I want to get rid of the skill guy isn't because I want my players to blast through every obstacle. Actually, it's the exact opposite - it's because I want ALL of my players to have a chance to be involved both in and out of combat. So I want them to have the option of NOT blasting through the obstacle, and not be held back just because skills have been funnelled into a specific class.

But the archetypes aren't just there to prevent the players from taking part in scenes.

In part they're there to give certain characters a chance to shine and to reflect the different tastes of different players.

You could just as easily say you want all classes to have the best BAB so everyone can take part in combat, not be held back because combat abilities have been funneled into a certain class.

You'd also have players choosing a very "rogue like" character on their own if they wanted to be stealthy. Since they couldn't use heavy armor, they'd end up limiting themselves and very much resembling a rogue.

Since they weren't wearing armor, in order to scout ahead or climb over obstacles, they'd be less efficient at combat, and end up holding back.