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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5524963" data-attributes="member: 957">I'll start with a disclaimer that you may simply consider a dodge, but I do not.  In a great game, everyone should have times to shine but there is no need whatsoever for everyone to shine equally at all times.  If you play a fighter and want to be equal to a bard in social events then you are either being foolish, or you are setting up an interesting distinct challenge for your self. But, you didn't say "equal to the bard", you just said better than a commoner.D&D game are generally about conflict.  I think we can agree with that.  And generally, the idea of physical combat is near.  You may be talking with enemies for whom a fight is potentially imminent.  You may be talking with allies about an upcoming fight.  You may be talking with a neutral third party about any variety of issues.  And in any case the fighter brings being a serious force in combat to the non-combat situations.  But you could further ask about puzzle solving or truly non-combat related conversations.  To that I would say: "the fighter brings nothing the commoner doesn't bring."  Then I would add: "Hurray!".  He is a fighter mixing in a bunch of other crap would be just that: crap.  You want a fighter with a special build, there are a ton of ways to get there in 3E.  I don't WANT fighters being implicitly good at non-fighting things.  I don't consider arguing that they are not a meaningful point.  It may be interesting to point out that in the flickering moments between when I first heard that 4E was coming and when I first discovered it was not going to reach my standards, one of the wish list items I threw out was a hope that Wizards would lose their BAB (or whatever equivalent 4E was to have).  I specifically said that commoners, imo, have no implicit reason to improve in combat ability and every class should be commoners, except for where they get better as part of the class concept.  Wizards who want to get better at actual fighting have ways to do that.  Fighters that want to get better at non-fighting have ways to do that.  But the core class concepts are just what they are.  (You can probably imagine my reaction to the "all classes get the same bonus" reality.)I disagree that you have covered all versions of Merlin that have been generally accepted.  But I could also point to Pug and Thomas, or any vast number of D&D novels which are steadily consumed.  I think you are missing the forest point for the minor details of a few trees.You disagree that my games exist?    Again, my games demonstrate that you are wrong in declaring these things objectively unequal.Well, if "mascot" or your general description apply for you here, then 3E clearly is not the game for you.  The "pseudo-diceless" point is interesting.  The tone I read into what you say there is negative on this.  And I think this fits in with my disappointment in 4E's attempt to cover everything with +1/2 levels and the such and my earlier comment about 3E not having a safety net.  (And even the whole "board gamey" complaint against 4E, with the whole idea that the answer is in the book and relying on a good DM to interpret and judge gets into this taboo "pseudo" game land.)Yeah, pseudo diceless happens all the time.  A commoner and a fighter may have exactly the same *game system quantified* skill in Intimidate.  So they have the exact same chance of successfully intimidating an orc.  But if they both threaten the orc with direct physical violence, then I probably won't even let the common roll.  Or, if they are both there and the commoner threatens the orc with violence, from the fighter, then that is just as good.  But the commoner needed the presence of the fighter, so the difference stands.Maybe to you this an an unacceptable hand wave and a failure of the system.  I've never seen a great roleplaying game that didn't assume that quality GM intervention and quality rules need to meet somewhere and trade back and forth.  Circumstantial bonuses and deciding what rules are even allowed in the first place is a huge part of it.And really, to roll that all up, I believe my system allows me to have my cake and eat it to.  The raw skills of the default fighter are basically the same as the raw skills of the commoner and that is great.  And the fighter has a consistent and fun impact on non-combat situations, and that is great.</blockquote>

Verification