Increasing Out-Of-Combat Effectiveness For All Classes

[BobTheNob]

One of the main reasons I'm optimistic about the idea of backgrounds and themes is that they seem to disconnect feats and skills from classes and if that is really the case than its a good thing in my book.

Warder

Im good and bad on this use of themes.

One the one hand it provides a very versatile mechaism for character definition that is easy for players to latch on to an conceptualize final intended result.

On the other hand, if this is what themes are what you do outside of combat it sorta dooms classes to be what they do inside of combat. Its what the classes end up being that would worry me in this scenario. Take the theif example, would we end up with "Theme:Theif, Class:Agility based knife fighter"?

I think classes should remain the core defining aspect of character capabilities both inside and outside of combat, where themes are extra color with extended capabilities.

 

[Tony Vargas]

[sarcasm]Yeah, no hyperbolic spin on that comparison.[/sarcasm]

Hyperbole was certainly my intent in that last bit. But I have heard virulent objections to encounter as well as daily martial powers, and, yes, even second wind.

 

[Zireael]

Hmm, what would you say if the skills were to be only attribute checks with certain modifiers? That is, instead of checking Athletics or whatever, you check Str, maybe with a +2 bonus for being well-trained. Someone else suggested it in a different thread and I think it's a good idea.

Second, where can I find NWP (Non-Weapon Proficiency) rules? Is it DMG or PH? For AD&D or OD&D? Help, I want to learn more about RPGs in general and D&D in particular!

 

[Ratskinner]

How would you determine success in these situations?

That's a good question, and maybe the resolution system could help out. That is to say, maybe DCs as we have come to know them need to go away or change drastically. Remember those [URL="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110607"]odd articles [/URL]about changing the way skills work? It could be that things work very differently from 3 and 4e. I know NWPs from 2e worked quite differently.

 

[Ratskinner]

Hmm, what would you say if the skills were to be only attribute checks with certain modifiers? That is, instead of checking Athletics or whatever, you check Str, maybe with a +2 bonus for being well-trained. Someone else suggested it in a different thread and I think it's a good idea.

Second, where can I find NWP (Non-Weapon Proficiency) rules? Is it DMG or PH? For AD&D or OD&D? Help, I want to learn more about RPGs in general and D&D in particular!

Given some of the Legends and Lore Articles from last year, that's a very likely scenario. It may also be that being trained in some skills allows you to do things that untrained people can't even attempt.

 

[Ratskinner]

Im good and bad on this use of themes.

One the one hand it provides a very versatile mechaism for character definition that is easy for players to latch on to an conceptualize final intended result.

On the other hand, if this is what themes are what you do outside of combat it sorta dooms classes to be what they do inside of combat. Its what the classes end up being that would worry me in this scenario. Take the theif example, would we end up with "Theme:Theif, Class:Agility based knife fighter"?

I think classes should remain the core defining aspect of character capabilities both inside and outside of combat, where themes are extra color with extended capabilities.

I can see your point, but I disagree with it. There are plenty of people who seem to think that balancing the classes must be done within the three pillars and not among the three pillars. As a fan of Rogues/Thieves, that used to bother me a lot, but the more I think about it, the more I'm okay with it. I think themes and backgrounds could provide an interesting and easy way to do that. (Whether they will or not...who knows...oh yeah, playtesters.)

I know classes are a big part of D&D, but even as far back as 1e, when they introduced NWPs, there's been a tacit recognition that they aren't good at carrying the whole load of character identity and differentiation. Making that work without invoking gobs of complexity that risk balance and slow play/development is the big problem.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Fighters should be able to drink a lot. Fighters should feel free to be drunk at anytime. Inebriated fighters should be more effective than straight edge ones. –Other than ranged fighters of course (whom aren't true fighters at all truth be told).

Not true fighters? A fighter fights with whatever weapon is handy and/or best for the situation. A fighter being charged by a pack of berserkers on an open plain and using a bow to thin the pack before joining melee is just using common sense. The dumb fighter is one archetype but it isn't the only one.

 

[Mallus]

The easiest way to increase PC out-of-combat effectiveness is to view class/mechanically-defined abilities as extraordinary, and then to assume each PC has a broad range of more ordinary abilities/skills which aren't explicitly defined by the system, ie thieves get an almost magical ability to vanish for sight while anyone can duck behind a tree, monks might get wuxia-level jumping abilities while any shmuck not in heavy armor can try to jump over a pit, just about everyone can talk and lie, PCs can have have skills like Dancing and Perform: Tea Ceremony merely by declaring they do, etc.

Unless you really want a large skill/ability list with a multi-tiered costing scheme (so players aren't forced to choose between Stealth and, say, a talent for origami), this is the way to go.

At least at the default complexity level...

 

[Frostmarrow]

Not true fighters? A fighter fights with whatever weapon is handy and/or best for the situation. A fighter being charged by a pack of berserkers on an open plain and using a bow to thin the pack before joining melee is just using common sense. The dumb fighter is one archetype but it isn't the only one.

No no no. A true fighter let's his non-fighter friends do the shooting. Rogues and wizards can shot (-weaklings). True fighters are all about melee and the toughest of the bunch swear oaths not to use and brag about how they are not using ranged weapons. This does not mean a true fighter can't shoot, he just chooses not to on account of being a badass and not a complete wuss.
Who is manlier (and thus more embody the fighter ideal) Boromir or Legolas? Conan or Subotai? Hulk or Hawkeye?

 

[ExploderWizard]

No no no. A true fighter let's his non-fighter friends do the shooting. Rogues and wizards can shot (-weaklings). True fighters are all about melee and the toughest of the bunch swear oaths not to use and brag about how they are not using ranged weapons. This does not mean a true fighter can't shoot, he just chooses not to on account of being a badass and not a complete wuss.
Who is manlier (and thus more embody the fighter ideal) Boromir or Legolas? Conan or Subotai? Hulk or Hawkeye?

So whats a 'true fighter' to do while waiting for his friends to shoot, pick his nose?


True fighters must never reach high level. I can see the tombstone now:

Here lies Guntar. He was a dumbass but nonetheless a true fighter.