Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4460543" data-attributes="member: 22779">On the rogue - I SPECIFICALLY noted IN COMBAT.&nbsp; How often are you using your rogue skills in combat?&nbsp; And, how useful are you really being in combat if you are using skills and not attacking?&nbsp; In combat, when the rogue loses his sneak attack, he's about as useful as a commoner.&nbsp; Maybe a warrior.&nbsp; That's about it.Note, I'm not arguing that mechanics don't need flavour.&nbsp; I'm arguing that flavour based mechanics primarily focus on flavour and NOT what's happening at the table.JRRNeikalot (I think) referred to characters not acting &quot;openly evil&quot; around the paladin.&nbsp; What about Detect Evil?&nbsp; Your paladins simply never used it on the PC's?&nbsp; An ability which removes the PC from the group for an extended period of time is a BAD ability from the view of the group first.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with being a &quot;special snowflake&quot;.&nbsp; It has to do with the idea that making a player a spectator for extended periods of time is bad.Sure, you might be able to sit down with your DM and play special sessions.&nbsp; But, many people don't have that kind of free time.&nbsp; Many people just want to play D&amp;D, not turn it into this massive time sink.&nbsp; And the rules should not force groups to do so.&nbsp; If they want to do it, fine, but, having mechanics in place which actually require this is bad.Mechanically, and flavour wise, there's nothing wrong with the paladin as written in any edition.&nbsp; It's interesting, it's archetypal and pretty balanced against the other classes.&nbsp; Not too weak, not too powerful.&nbsp; Pretty good.&nbsp; But, the flavour based mechanics fly in the face of group first design.&nbsp; The idea that game mechanics should focus on how the game is played, not on trying to force a certain type of story on the group.You need more examples?&nbsp; Since, apparently the ones I've given so far aren't good enough.&nbsp; How about the 1e rules for Druids and Monks having to fight for every level beyond a certain point?&nbsp; These are entirely flavour based mechanics, and damned good flavour at that.&nbsp; The idea of the Grand Druid is fantastic.Until it comes time at the table when the entire group has to stop and let John do his Druid challenge to level up.&nbsp; And then get shafted because John failed his challenge and loses a level.&nbsp; Not a huge deal in 1e since levels weren't quite so important, but, still a pretty large time sink.Sure, campaign decisions, as Irda Ranger points out, will change the effects of different classes and mechanics.&nbsp; But, the game never assumes a naval based campaign.&nbsp; So, the classes don't really work in that style of game.&nbsp; But, the game does assume a certain amount of going to dungeons, or cities, or forests, or mountains or any number of other terrains where a horse isn't so useful.&nbsp; I would think that mechanics, certainly core mechanics, should be created with an eye for what is most likely going to happen in most campaigns.Again, how many campaigns feature horseback riding?&nbsp; As a major element?&nbsp; Looking at modules, I'm thinking it's pretty few and far between.&nbsp; I'm sure YOUR campaign featured horse lords battling across the plains, but, I'm thinking that's the outlier not the main.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4460543, member: 22779"] On the rogue - I SPECIFICALLY noted IN COMBAT. How often are you using your rogue skills in combat? And, how useful are you really being in combat if you are using skills and not attacking? In combat, when the rogue loses his sneak attack, he's about as useful as a commoner. Maybe a warrior. That's about it. Note, I'm not arguing that mechanics don't need flavour. I'm arguing that flavour based mechanics primarily focus on flavour and NOT what's happening at the table. JRRNeikalot (I think) referred to characters not acting "openly evil" around the paladin. What about Detect Evil? Your paladins simply never used it on the PC's? An ability which removes the PC from the group for an extended period of time is a BAD ability from the view of the group first. It has nothing to do with being a "special snowflake". It has to do with the idea that making a player a spectator for extended periods of time is bad. Sure, you might be able to sit down with your DM and play special sessions. But, many people don't have that kind of free time. Many people just want to play D&D, not turn it into this massive time sink. And the rules should not force groups to do so. If they want to do it, fine, but, having mechanics in place which actually require this is bad. Mechanically, and flavour wise, there's nothing wrong with the paladin as written in any edition. It's interesting, it's archetypal and pretty balanced against the other classes. Not too weak, not too powerful. Pretty good. But, the flavour based mechanics fly in the face of [u]group first[/u] design. The idea that game mechanics should focus on how the game is played, not on trying to force a certain type of story on the group. You need more examples? Since, apparently the ones I've given so far aren't good enough. How about the 1e rules for Druids and Monks having to fight for every level beyond a certain point? These are entirely flavour based mechanics, and damned good flavour at that. The idea of the Grand Druid is fantastic. Until it comes time at the table when the entire group has to stop and let John do his Druid challenge to level up. And then get shafted because John failed his challenge and loses a level. Not a huge deal in 1e since levels weren't quite so important, but, still a pretty large time sink. Sure, campaign decisions, as Irda Ranger points out, will change the effects of different classes and mechanics. But, the game never assumes a naval based campaign. So, the classes don't really work in that style of game. But, the game does assume a certain amount of going to dungeons, or cities, or forests, or mountains or any number of other terrains where a horse isn't so useful. I would think that mechanics, certainly core mechanics, should be created with an eye for what is most likely going to happen in most campaigns. Again, how many campaigns feature horseback riding? As a major element? Looking at modules, I'm thinking it's pretty few and far between. I'm sure YOUR campaign featured horse lords battling across the plains, but, I'm thinking that's the outlier not the main. [/QUOTE]

Verification