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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7891743" data-attributes="member: 7006">Really?  When does the game tell us the PC fights against a random town guard?  I didn't realize that was a requirement of the rules.And therein lies my point.  The fiction of the story is about what actually happens... not what COULD happen.  Could a 1st level PC be defeated by a town guardsman?  Mechanically, sure.  But if that 1st level PC never fights one (because there's no reason in the story for that fight to happen), then it doesn't matter.  I care about what actually happens in the narrative, not what the mechanics tell us COULD happen.  Because when you only care about "could", you have no choice be to look at the totality of the mechanics and make determinations completely devoid of story.  The Best Swordsman In The Land HAS to be a level 20 Battlemaster or Oath of Vengeance Paladin (or whatever white-room sim you've come up with), because every other character is less than that.It's the same reason why I find it silly when people complain that a Rogue is a "better" arcanist than a Wizard, because the Rogue could take Expertise in the Arcana skill (and thus the Wizard will never have the potentially best score in it.)  But the problem with that is... no games ever actually HAVE Rogues that have taken Expertise in Arcana to keep "showing up" all the wizards in the campaign.  It doesn't happen.  That story never actually plays out.  So it doesn't matter in the slightest that mechanically-speaking the Rogue as a class COULD be the most Arcana-based character in the game.  If they don't appear, then they don't exist.Now... that's not to say a player couldn't actually do that-- have their Rogue character take an 18 INT and take Expertise in Arcana, eventually bumping their INT to 20 and so on and so forth.  But if that player chooses to do that, I'm fairly certain that player will be roleplaying to the hilt that their "non-wizard" somehow knows more about wizardry than any other character in the story.  And the DM will hopefully run with that story potential as well, giving ample opportunities to show it off.  If that player is going all-in, then we would hope the character and their story is going to be all about it.  At which point, then yeah, it's perfectly acceptable that the Rogue be the best Arcana skill-based class in the game, because the story is going to exemplify it.But guess what?  This whole scenario can also play out with a Rogue who doesn't have Expertise in Arcana and only has a 16 in INT.  Why?  Because the player plays the character exactly the same way... and the DM presents challenges that allows the Rogue player to potentially still exemplify it.  The Rogue PC out-Arcanas the wizards in this campaign story, and continually shows off his ability, even without having the best possible mechanics to do it.  And why?  Well, maybe the times when the Rogue PC shows off their knowledge of Arcana the player keeps rollings 17, 18, or 20s and the wizards NPCs roll 4s, 7s, and 8s.  And the Rogue keeps winning these "contests" in arcana lore even without being the best mechanical representation.  Even against wizards that might 2, 3, 5 levels "higher" than the PC.  In the story those "levels" do not matter, the actual Arcana skill number doesn't matter......all that matters is that in-story, this Rogue has exemplified their superiority.  And at that point... the DM does the proper improvisational "Yes, And..." and goes along with the idea that in this story in this campaign, this random Rogue PC apparently is the most knowledgeable magical-lore person in the land.  And the story will be geared towards enhancing and challenging that assertion in interesting and campaign setting ways... not just having the Rogue face random town guards that they could mechanically fail to defeat.  Because what would be the point of that?  That's the complete absence of drama, and to me, a complete waste of time.</blockquote>

Verification