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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 5867207">Because magic has traditionally been useless in combat right?I think the argument that most martial classes are essentially fighter variants is a powerful one, and I think it's a good argument for archetypes, builds, trees or what have you to allow people to turn the basic martial package into the martial "class" they want to play.I hate multiclassing.  It requires extreme system mastery and is generally an excuse to make poorly thought-out classes(which I would consider any class that is only good in one area).  Not to mention, having a fighter only fight is just plain BORING.  You're basically encouraging players to walk away from the table when they're not in their element.  I do not want to see players encouraged to walk away from the table because their character is useless at everything but fighting/skilling/socializing.Now you've stopped listening and are reading what you think I said and not what I actually said.  I did not say that everyone should be good at everything, I agree that everyone should not be able to do everything equally.  However, no class should be completely cut out from a given element of the game, because that means a player is cut out from a given element of the game.  If you actually read what I wrote you should take note of my breakdown.The fighter should be GREAT at combat, probably good at exploring, and bad at socializing.The Rogue should be good at combat, pretty good at exploring, and pretty good at socializing.The Wizard should be good at combat, bad at exploring, and okay at socializing.Every class and therefore every player should be able to contribute to all aspects of the game.  They shouldn't all be equally good at everything, but they should have something to bring to the table.  Fighter has high Intimidate, Rogue has high diplomacy. Wizard has high Knowledge.  By these skills combined the party is powerful.No.  Just, no.  That is quite frankly not the D&D I'm interested in, in fact it doesn't even sound like D&D.You know what Pathfinder fixed about 3.5's multiclassing?  You don't need it.  Most brilliant decision it could ever have made.  You shouldn't need to have extreme system mastery(which is what multiclassing requires) in order to function normally.  You are right that we're not playing "a fighter", we're playing a person who likes to fight.  That person however can do a lot more than just fight.  To not represent this and instead make classes into extreme charactachures is just plain...bad.I really can't do anything other than facepalm at this statement.  It says so much about what you think of classes and class design.  "Dumping ground", yes, lets tell players that they only have combat ability because the designers considered their class a "dumping ground".  Why doesn't their class work well?  Because the designers didn't care, their class was just a giant trash bin.Why?  Why is it so hard to believe that two people who lived and trained differently fight differently?  What part of that "doesn't make sense"?  Wizards cast magic because they trained in it.  Fighters wield swords because they train in it.  If we're playing well-rounded characters, why should a fighter be useless at anything other than fighting?  Real people don't act like that.  To be any use in any game, most people would have to be fighter1/rogue1/something 1 and that's just silly.  It's indicative of bad game design.</blockquote>

Verification