Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 5525426" data-attributes="member: 7883">While I don't necessarily agree with everything that has been said, I do agree with these points.I suspect WotC went this way, as they were starting to crystalize the whole &quot;striker, tank, etc.&quot; roles, and the game was intended for use for adventuring, going in dungeons and all that, and to give a fighter these social skills would mean they take away from the schtick that the cleric and bard have....even though fighters having those skills would make sense.Similarly, we lost all the stuff about&nbsp; name levels and gaining a keep, and how high level play differs from low level play by being more political.&nbsp; Personally, I think D&amp;D lost alot by having that aspect taken away.&nbsp; But likely it's been something that was&nbsp; harder to design for and run, hence, unnecessary.With respect to the social skills conundrum, I got around it by using feats I found in Swashbuckling Adventures.&nbsp; Basically, they were talent feats where you could take a feat such as &quot;Commander&quot; that would add several skills to your class skill list....Diplomacy, Sense Motive, etc.&nbsp; You wouldn't have any ranks...it's just that from the point you took the feat, it was now a class skill.Simple and elegant.&nbsp; You want a fighter who's a leader of men?&nbsp; Take the feat, and now you can start putting skill points into your new class skills on a 1 for 1 basis, and you max would be char lvl +3, instead of char lvl +3/2.Banshee</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Banshee16, post: 5525426, member: 7883"] While I don't necessarily agree with everything that has been said, I do agree with these points. I suspect WotC went this way, as they were starting to crystalize the whole "striker, tank, etc." roles, and the game was intended for use for adventuring, going in dungeons and all that, and to give a fighter these social skills would mean they take away from the schtick that the cleric and bard have....even though fighters having those skills would make sense. Similarly, we lost all the stuff about name levels and gaining a keep, and how high level play differs from low level play by being more political. Personally, I think D&D lost alot by having that aspect taken away. But likely it's been something that was harder to design for and run, hence, unnecessary. With respect to the social skills conundrum, I got around it by using feats I found in Swashbuckling Adventures. Basically, they were talent feats where you could take a feat such as "Commander" that would add several skills to your class skill list....Diplomacy, Sense Motive, etc. You wouldn't have any ranks...it's just that from the point you took the feat, it was now a class skill. Simple and elegant. You want a fighter who's a leader of men? Take the feat, and now you can start putting skill points into your new class skills on a 1 for 1 basis, and you max would be char lvl +3, instead of char lvl +3/2. Banshee [/QUOTE]

Verification