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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5525384" data-attributes="member: 87792">From the SRD:Challenge Rating       This shows the average level of a party of adventurers for which one creature would make an encounter of moderate difficulty.  In more detail, IIRC a CR equal to the party is meant to be the level of  challenge that will make them expend 25% of their daily resources.  It  tells you not to do every fight like this because that gets tedious.  It's bad DMing because it's boring.  And that's why the DMG tells you not to do it.  And it needs to do it because it is an easy trap as that's what the system is supposedly balanced around.Or what is your belief in what CR means?Given that you seem to want to define the meaning of words and phrases the way you want to rather than by their orthodox meanings (for instance you claim things to be spherical cows when people have observed and experienced them - spherical cows being theoretical constructs based on impossible simplifications), I'm not surprised you have problems discussing things.All the fighter can do is fight.  And he can't even do that especially well.  The part of fighting the fighter is good at is hitting people.  Not controlling the battlefield.  Not strategy.  Not tactics.  Not logistics.  Not morale.  Simply the mechanical motions involved in weapon meeting face.The Leverage RPG arrived from Amazon for me yesterday.  You know the name of one of the classes in there?  Hitter.  He hits people and does it well as the name would apply.  But, unlike the fighter, he's a professional at dealing with dangerous situations - and has things he has learned other than how to hit people.  This is the approach I like.  People with a good basic level of competence.  And with stuff they've picked up along the way.It's like he's got a screwdriver - when everyone else has an entire toolkit involving screwdrivers, hammers, saws, etc.  Yes, it's a nice ratchet screwdriver.  Shinier than the bard's - and doesn't need to spend time on the charger unlike the wizard's electric screwdriver.  Most people get a toolkit (for the moment we'll ignore that the monk's toolkit is unfinished and will give you splinters unless you wear heavy gloves).  The fighter gets ... a screwdriver.I did.  Because that to me is the heart of the problem.  There are 36 skills (not counting subspecialties) in 3.X (Pathfinder has, to its credit, fewer).  Fighters get 2+int mod skill points per level and a pathetic skill list.And, pray tell, why would the fighter be more relevant than any other class here.  After all, everyone can fight.  And the rogue might even be able to give you advance warning.Something the fighter isn't inherently good at.  Issues outside axe meeting face?  Would knowing about them be Int or Wis based?  Either way there is no inherent reason within 3.X that the wizard and the cleric wouldn't be better at them than the fighter.  (The fighter can't even take Profession (mercenary) as a class skill).So does every other class.  PC Bards are a serious force in combat.  Not quite the force fighters are, but certainly not insignificant.  (And if you're talking about it to potential allies, Inspire Courage may well add more than the fighter does).The first problem is that they aren't good at fighting things other than direct physical combat.  The second problem is that they aren't even particularly good at that by the standards of other classes.  If the classes were the Leverage array of Hitter/Hacker/Mastermind/Grifter/Thief with each having a separate role then I'd see your point.  But in both 3.X and 4e, the role of every class is combat.  By talking about fighters in the way you are you are saying that their only role is a role shared by every other class.Here I strenuously disagree.  In ten levels, a wizard who goes adventuring will probably have used his staff to defend himself from orcs, goblins, ogres, the occasional dragon, footpads, highwaymen, possibly a few demons, and much much more.  If he isn't fitter, tougher, more battlewise, and generally better at hitting people over the head than a first level wizard, I want to know why.  And that tenth level wizard is still less dangerous with a staff than a first level fighter.  (Unless he's put some work into it).  So the whole idea of wizards hitting people over the head with their staff never comes up in practice.And this, I think brings us to the root cause of our disagreement.  Your character concept starts with the word "Wizard".  My character concept has the word "Adventuring" as the first word.  So you get the Adventuring Wizard, the Adventuring Cleric, etc.  Yes, there is no reason the average wizard shouldn't be a total klutz with no competence at all with a staff.  He also probably sits in his tower, researching or writing heated exchanges and sending them via crystal ball to other wizards.  Or possibly summoning succubi or watching them on crystal balls.  For games of D&D he is also an NPC.  As is the cleric who tends his flock and hasn't ever seen a weapon drawn in anger - indeed when he shows up everyone puts down the swords out of sheer embarrassment.  Not at all the same thing as the cleric who goes into the crypt to face down the undead.  And that is why I'm glad 4e PC classes are for PCs only.Wizards who don't want to get better at actual fighting should stay away from adventuring.The exceptions that prove the rule.  Fictional wizards who are like D&D wizards tend to be D&D derived.There is if it's used too heavily.  You end up with the "Shadowrun Decker" problem.  Pseudo-diceless takes a lot of time and a lot of focal time if done heavily.For me it would depend how the commoner was played.  Why does the commoner have an intimidate as high as the fighter?  How does he specialise in intimidating people?  I can see a musclebound thug (commoner) having more chance of intimidating people with physical violence than a debonair swashbuckler (fighter).  On the other hand if the fighter is musclebound and the commoner is weedy, why the hell is he threatening the orc with direct violence?  That's certainly a circumstance penalty.</blockquote>

Verification