Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Blog: Sneak Attack Vs. Backstab 3/28/12
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GnomeWorks" data-source="post: 5867182" data-attributes="member: 162"><p>Right... I'll agree that combat is a large part of D&D. There are going to be many classes good at it, but when you distill them down, they're almost always "fighter with a different flavor/approach/other non-combat stuff."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Meh? I think I disagree. It's right there in the name: <strong>Fight</strong>er. If you want to be good at other stuff, too, don't play a fighter. Or multiclass. Or some other option. But the default stance of the fighter should be all about fighting.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You're right, they won't. But that doesn't mean that everyone should be able to be good at everything.</p><p></p><p>You are not your class. If they have any kind of functional multiclassing, this should be an obvious statement. Fighters should be, to use your metrics, 100/0/0 (or close to it). If you want more variety, invoke multiclassing. In this manner, if you want a mage who has some combat skill, take a level of fighter... likewise, if you want a fighter good at social stuff, take a level in a class that is good at that. Treat the classes more as parts of a buffet that each level grants you things that say "I am good at X," rather than considering them as strait-jackets.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You don't "play a fighter." You play a character with fighter levels. An important distinction. This (hopefully) isn't going to be 4e with its weird roles and heavy-handed restrictions and take on multiclassing. Character design via classes will hopefully be a lot more fluid, similar to 3.5, without the higher-level fail that that method entailed.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not really sure what I think an assassin should be, but it would be a useful dumping ground for the rogue's combat ability. *shrug*</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In which case you would probably be of the opinion that the few base classes should cover as different ground as possible to ensure maximum coverage of the in-between areas.</p><p></p><p>It doesn't make sense, in that vision, that both fighters and rogues should have combat ability, even if it's different. Rogues should be more exploration-focused, and fighters combat-focused. If you want to mix and match, then mix and match classes.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GnomeWorks, post: 5867182, member: 162"] Right... I'll agree that combat is a large part of D&D. There are going to be many classes good at it, but when you distill them down, they're almost always "fighter with a different flavor/approach/other non-combat stuff." Meh? I think I disagree. It's right there in the name: [b]Fight[/b]er. If you want to be good at other stuff, too, don't play a fighter. Or multiclass. Or some other option. But the default stance of the fighter should be all about fighting. You're right, they won't. But that doesn't mean that everyone should be able to be good at everything. You are not your class. If they have any kind of functional multiclassing, this should be an obvious statement. Fighters should be, to use your metrics, 100/0/0 (or close to it). If you want more variety, invoke multiclassing. In this manner, if you want a mage who has some combat skill, take a level of fighter... likewise, if you want a fighter good at social stuff, take a level in a class that is good at that. Treat the classes more as parts of a buffet that each level grants you things that say "I am good at X," rather than considering them as strait-jackets. You don't "play a fighter." You play a character with fighter levels. An important distinction. This (hopefully) isn't going to be 4e with its weird roles and heavy-handed restrictions and take on multiclassing. Character design via classes will hopefully be a lot more fluid, similar to 3.5, without the higher-level fail that that method entailed. I'm not really sure what I think an assassin should be, but it would be a useful dumping ground for the rogue's combat ability. *shrug* In which case you would probably be of the opinion that the few base classes should cover as different ground as possible to ensure maximum coverage of the in-between areas. It doesn't make sense, in that vision, that both fighters and rogues should have combat ability, even if it's different. Rogues should be more exploration-focused, and fighters combat-focused. If you want to mix and match, then mix and match classes. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Blog: Sneak Attack Vs. Backstab 3/28/12
Top