Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 8049505" data-attributes="member: 6777737">The problem is not Fighters. It's not a problem with Fighters, Rogues, Clerics, or Wizards. The problem is not really with classes.The problem is that there is exactly one social attribute: Charisma. Every social skill keys to one attribute -- with the exception of Insight, which is so vaguely passive that it's essentially only useful to oppose Deception. That's the first part of what's wrong. Charisma carries virtually the entire social pillar on it's back.Then, for the second part, there are several classes whose primary combat attribute is also Charisma. That's an absurd design that exposes the skill design flaw. It means that Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and (to a lesser degree) Paladins are double good at all social interaction for free. Why? Who thought that it was a good design idea to make a third of the classes head and shoulders better at all social interaction? They didn't design a third of all classes to be head and shoulders better at all combat encounters. Why are social encounters different? Why is the entire social pillar warped so badly?The only reason this doesn't come up in actual play is because most tables don't use Charisma or social skills for every interaction. Instead, most tables roleplay things out, and the results are based on the social skills of the player and not on the abilities of the character at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 8049505, member: 6777737"] The problem is not Fighters. It's not a problem with Fighters, Rogues, Clerics, or Wizards. The problem is not really with classes. The problem is that there is exactly [I]one[/I] social attribute: Charisma. Every social skill keys to one attribute -- with the exception of Insight, which is so vaguely passive that it's essentially only useful to oppose Deception. That's the first part of what's wrong. Charisma carries virtually the entire social pillar on it's back. Then, for the second part, there are several classes whose primary combat attribute is [I]also[/I] Charisma. That's an absurd design that exposes the skill design flaw. It means that Bards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and (to a lesser degree) Paladins are double good at [I]all[/I] social interaction for free. Why? Who thought that it was a good design idea to make a third of the classes head and shoulders better at [I]all[/I] social interaction? They didn't design a third of all classes to be head and shoulders better at [I]all[/I] combat encounters. Why are social encounters different? Why is the entire social pillar warped so badly? The only reason this doesn't come up in actual play is because most tables don't use Charisma or social skills for every interaction. Instead, most tables roleplay things out, and the results are based on the social skills of the [I]player[/I] and not on the abilities of the character at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification