Are we sure we need a skill guy?

[Umbran]

I was thinking about this. The reason is because the Fighter class models the heavy fighter pretty well but the light fighter not so well. At least, that's my experience, and it's also what I've heard of others' experience. In, say, Arcana Unearthed, they're done very well as separate entities.

Well, we are talking about something that would also call for a bit of an overhaul of skills, and possibly of feats, as well as the classes themselves. The current D&D fighter may not do it well, but I can see no reason why, if you were going to greater abstractions, you couldn't implement a class that does both well.

The argument that other games have them done well as separate entitites does not move me much in this debate - right now, we've a system that does the skill monkey well as several forms of separate entities, but we're talking about eliminating that. The question isn't if it can be done well separately. The question is if it needs to be separate to be done well.

 

[Ry]

Right, that's completely correct. Do you have any examples or ideas for how it could be done well as 1 class (just talking about combining Light and Heavy fighters)?

 

[Mistwell]

There is no required class. You don't need a fighter type. You don't need an arcane caster. You don't need a divine caster. Any type can be replaced by the others, if tailored carefulyl knowing in advance that you need to make up for a missing type.

 

[Ry]

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.

 

[Desdichado]

I think using a Star Wars Saga-like approach to skills--as described in the previews--would probably go a long way towards eliminating the need for a skill guy as a separate entity. Unearthed Arcana has another option that's even simpler, and would probably do the job well enough.

 

[Ry]

Totally agree, Hobo.

 

[Vigilance]

but it's cooooool....

Dingdingding!!!!!!

Winna!!!!

The "skill guy" role is needed because it's an archetype people like to play.

It's a game, not a reality simulator.

That a role is enjoyable is reason enough to include it.

Chuck

 

[The Shaman]

Why is there necessarily a difference between the Heavy and Light fighters? Why not take it down one more level of abstraction - there's those who cast spells, and those who don't - Fighter, Caster.

Congratulations - you just re-invented The Fantasy Trip.

 

[Piratecat]

P-Catt - do you think your game would suffer adverse effects if each player character had 3 or 4 more skill points / level?

Well, average PC intelligence is relatively high, so a lack of skill points is less of a problem than who has what class skill. Yes, I think the game would be poorer for me, with less specialized roles for the heroes, if everyone had 3-4 more skill points.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

A fun game does not need to segment off a fighter-type as a separate class, or an arcande caster as a separate class, or a divine caster as a separate class, either.

I am saying that a skills focused character is no more or less fun, necessary, or useful than any other type of the four main characters.

You don't even need a caster. You could easily work with a heavy fighter, light fighter, and skills-focused character, and have no casters at all. Much like Iron Thrones.