Mearls: Abilities as the core?

[Greg K]

I'm sure that you could find such posts. And since not putting ranks into Swim specifically because you don't think it will come up is making a character decision based on a cost/benefit analysis, it could also qualify as min/maxing or power gaming. However, such a decision is to min/maxing as picking your character's hair color is to roleplaying, that is, it qualifies, but just barely, and that alone does not a roleplayer or min/maxer make.

If the decision is based on cost benefit, we will have to agree to disagree. In my opinon, it is based on strictly metagame concerns based on "what I think my DM will do" regardless if it makes sense for the character. So, they are trying to game the system.

Except that no one here is having that problem. It's something you brought up. Not that I kick a player for not putting ranks in Swim anyway.Yes, I read the section. Yes, DMs should be willing to work with a player to ensure they get the best play experience. But it's still a false solution. I claim it doesn't work very well, you refer me to a section that tells us to just house rule it. But I'm not displeased because I never thought of house ruling it, I'm displeased because I would have to house rule it.

Let's see
1. it shows the fighter giving up somethings for extra skill points each level and a couple of class skills.

Would I have liked to have seen more examples? Hell, yes! However, they showed an example of giving more skill points to the fighter. I and other DMs have used it, successfully, for many variant fighters.

You're right. I absolutely am operating under the assumptions that a given character should be able to cover given things. And that's cool that you don't assume those things.

Correct, neither of us is wrong for having our preferences

I still think it's silly that my hypothetical epic level fighter is in more danger from a shallow river than from the servants of the gods.

Whereas, I think it can be kind of cool, but your character is not, necessarily, in danger from a shallow river. If it the water is relatively calm and not over his head he can wade across (DMG). Now if it is a fast moving river or over his head, you have something to worry about.

 

[Greg K]

... play a game with a good skill system that assumes your character gets better at doing things as he levels.

Are you implying 4e is a good skill system? That is your opinion based on your preferences. For my preferences and all, but a few of my friends, the overly broad skills to the automatic +1/2 level and overly focused on the math makes it very undesirable (to be polite) and a deal breaker. Neither of us is wrong. It is based on our *subjective* opinions.

I agree - I expect fighters to be good at being adventurers and martial heroes. You expect fighters to be bad.

Edit: Funny enough, "fighters aren't skilled" is strictly a 3e phenomenon.

Really? See, this is your problem. You assume, because someone disagrees with the automatic leveling, it means they want fighters to be bad.Where did I say I want fighters to be bad?

I want them to have the option of being as, mechanically, good or as bad in a particular skill as makes sense given the factors mentioned above.

And, I used the term "paltry" for a reason to describe the fighter's skill points. I do think fighters, clerics and the other 2+int classes that don't have Int as their main ability should have received at least 4+Int per level. I even house ruled it give fighters and the other 2+ classes extra skill points. However, I chose not to mention it in my previous example, because I was sticking to solutions that were in in the PHB.

So, please stop jumping to conclusions and prescribing motivations. It might make you seem less like the fanatic that you come across to be.

 

[Pentius]

If the decision is based on cost benefit, we will have to agree to disagree. In my opinon, it is based on strictly metagame concerns based on "what I think my DM will do" regardless if it makes sense for the character. So, they are trying to game the system.

No, I'm totally agreeing that you could find people trying to pick their skills in such a way as to game the system. Metagaming to figure out what the DM will do is part of the cost/benefit analysis, specifically, it's trying to determine how much benefit is inherent in such a choice. I still think that gaming the system when picking one's skills does not a problem player make. There, we may have to agree to disagree.

Let's see
1. it shows the fighter giving up somethings for extra skill points each level and a couple of class skills.

Would I have liked to have seen more examples? Hell, yes! However, they showed an example of giving more skill points to the fighter. I and other DMs have used it, successfully, for many variant fighters.

I agree that this, along with many other house rules, can improve the game experience. I'm not against house ruling, or variant fighters. Heck, fighters need every edge they can get, in my opinion. But if we have to fix it, it follows that it was indeed a problem.

Correct, neither of us is wrong for having our preferences

Whereas, I think it can be kind of cool, but your character is not, necessarily, in danger from a shallow river. If it the water is relatively calm and not over his head he can wade across (DMG). Now if it is a fast moving river or over his head, you have something to worry about.

There are many rivers that are over my head that I would still consider shallow, and just what constitutes fast moving is probably a subjective topic as well. I may be biased, though, since I have lived most of my life within walking distance of rivers that would go over a giant's head, let alone a man's.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I agree that this, along with many other house rules, can improve the game experience. I'm not against house ruling, or variant fighters. Heck, fighters need every edge they can get, in my opinion. But if we have to fix it, it follows that it was indeed a problem.

Maybe it's just me, but you're twisting "we changed the fighter into something that fits my concept better" to "we fixed the fighter because it sucked." Those are two very different things.

Saying that 3.Xe is full of problems that cannot be overlooked and permeate every group is just like saying 4e plays like a board game and everyone has to force role playing upon it. Neither statement is true, though individuals and groups have experienced both.

It's just different anecdotal evidence, different experiences, and different preferences. All systems (not just D&D editions) probably have issues. Not all groups encounter those issues when using those systems.

Just my opinion. It's getting very close to a full fledged edition war, and that's too bad, because this could be an interesting discussion.

As always, play what you like

 

[Greg K]

I agree that this, along with many other house rules, can improve the game experience. I'm not against house ruling, or variant fighters. Heck, fighters need every edge they can get, in my opinion. But if we have to fix it, it follows that it was indeed a problem.

When it came to skills, I think all of the 2+Int classes that did not have Int as their main ability had the same problem- not just the fighter. So, lack of skill points I do concede and the situation could have been just as easily fixed with more skill points.

I think one of the differences is that 3e is much more of a toolbox and it was left to the DM to institute the changes they felt necesssary . However, they gave a lot of guidance. For example, the PHB had the fighter variant example (and we saw more- especially, in the UA) . The DMG discussed training requirements (good for those finding 3e multi-classing to be too free), wizards having to find spells, and variant spell lists (including unique spell lists by deity). Not necessarily friendly for new/inexperienced DMs and more work than some DMs want to put in, but for myself much more satisfying and rewarding as a DM and as a player.

There are many rivers that are over my head that I would still consider shallow, and just what constitutes fast moving is probably a subjective topic as well. I may be biased, though, since I have lived most of my life within walking distance of rivers that would go over a giant's head, let alone a man's.

I just have the Los Angeles River and we get people every year swept away during rain season, because they go in the storm channels. I don't know how deep it is, but it can get very rapid during a storm. Then, there are the beaches with the undertow that will pull even experienced swimmers under and give them problems.

 

[Mark CMG]

By roleplaying it. Hard to imagine, eh?


Incidentally, the difference between a trained skill and an untrained skill is rather sizable. Your standard fighter with 8-10 intelligence will, when he enters paragon, still have less knowledge: arcana then a level 1 wizard who has it trained. It's not like everyone is an expert at everything (except bards, but that's sorta their schtick).

Still interested in this swimming skill thing. You're saying the system makes him a swimmer automatically but I can RP that he is not, and that I cannot, by the system, divert the swimming skill he gains toward something else if I want to RP a non-swimmer. I just want to be clear because you seem to have lost the crux of our discussion.


Once you clear this swimming skill thing up for me, let's talk about climbing. Is that automatically increased at each level too?

4e's skill system is basically better at everything.

Well, if what you're telling me about the swimming skill thing is the way it seems to be, then I'm not following the logic that leads to this conclusion.

 

[Pentius]

Maybe it's just me, but you're twisting "we changed the fighter into something that fits my concept better" to "we fixed the fighter because it sucked." Those are two very different things.

Saying that 3.Xe is full of problems that cannot be overlooked and permeate every group is just like saying 4e plays like a board game and everyone has to force role playing upon it. Neither statement is true, though individuals and groups have experienced both.

It's just different anecdotal evidence, different experiences, and different preferences. All systems (not just D&D editions) probably have issues. Not all groups encounter those issues when using those systems.

Just my opinion. It's getting very close to a full fledged edition war, and that's too bad, because this could be an interesting discussion.

As always, play what you like

What I'm saying is that I expect a fighter(or equivalent 'athletic guy' class) to be able to perform a few different actions(which tend to fall under skills) well. This list includes swimming, as well as jumping and climbing. Given that the 3.5e(since that is the specific book I am looking at) fighter cannot do all three of these things reliably unless he is A) House ruled, B) Given a 12 or higher in what is normally considered an unimportant stat for his class, or C) is Human, and that even if one of these options comes into play, he won't have the skill points to do any more than those three activities, I claim that the 3.5 Fighter is insufficient for portraying the class's archetype in a way that is satisfactory for me.

I am not saying that 3.5 is full of problems that cannot be overlooked, or that these problems permeate every group.

 

[Lanefan]

What I'm saying is that I expect a fighter(or equivalent 'athletic guy' class) to be able to perform a few different actions(which tend to fall under skills) well. This list includes swimming, as well as jumping and climbing.

See, there's a difference right there 'tween you and me, as I have no such built-in expectations. In any edition.

Swimming in particular is not something everyone can automatically do, even if they're a trained warrior and as strong as an ox. I mean, just look at Trafalgar-era sailors - mostly fit and in-shape men who spent their lives around water, yet it's an often-verified stereotype that surprisingly few of them could swim.

And correct me if I'm wrong - I've forgotten a fair bit about 3e - but aren't jumping and climbing skills that can be used without ranks? If so, then the fighter (who is - or should be - strong) is going to be naturally somewhat good at them anyway in comparison to a normal commoner - which is, after all, the baseline here. A fighter who has put a bunch of ranks in is a lot better than good.

Lan-"how many ranks in climb do I need in order to climb a feat tree?"-efan

 

[Greg K]

By roleplaying it. Hard to imagine, eh?

Incidentally, the difference between a trained skill and an untrained skill is rather sizable. Your standard fighter with 8-10 intelligence will, when he enters paragon, still have less knowledge: arcana then a level 1 wizard who has it trained. It's not like everyone is an expert at everything (except bards, but that's sorta their schtick).

And, if it makes no sense for a given character to have access to areas knowledge covered by Arcana. Verisimilitude goes out the window. With 3e you can control this much better to represent the character.

No, 4e's skill system is basically better at everything. Heck, name something 3e's system is better at doing? I'll even give you one: a case in which a character is literally developmentally challenged in such a way that they do not become better at doing things as they grow older and/or more experienced. There. That is the epitome of the limited 3e skill system.

If the characters stop doing adventures that cover certain things for a while, you can represent that by not purchasing skill ranks in those skills and putting them in relevant in skills. In 4e, you are going to have improvement based on the +1/2 even if it makes no sense for the given character.

When you defended their abborantly tiny number of skills.

Actually, I didn't defend the tiny number of skills. What I did was point out that the there were options in the PHB for more skills points (which can be used to get more skills) including an option that gave a permanent increase of 2 skill points per level (8 at first) and two additional class skills.

That you have houseruled it more or less shows that you have problems with the system, too. The only question is, can you find the root of your problems and not the symptoms?

I do have a problem with the number of skill points listed under the fighter and some of the other classes and I do think some classes could have slightly expanded skill lists. However, they gave a solution for the fighter in the PHB (that many DMs ignore it is their own problem).

However, the 4e approach is far more drastic than needed to be done, in my opinion, and, definitely, not my preference. I would have been more satisfied had they stuck with the 3e system, but
1. Given more skill points to specific and added a couple of additional skills
2. Instituted the Cityscape web enhancement of wilderness/urban skill swaps
3. Given a few more examples of class variants
4. Maybe shown a little more DM guidance on using common sense with diplomacy or reworked it
5. added extended skill checks (UA)/Skill Challenges

 

[JamesonCourage]

What I'm saying is that I expect a fighter(or equivalent 'athletic guy' class) to be able to perform a few different actions(which tend to fall under skills) well. This list includes swimming, as well as jumping and climbing. Given that the 3.5e(since that is the specific book I am looking at) fighter cannot do all three of these things reliably unless he is A) House ruled, B) Given a 12 or higher in what is normally considered an unimportant stat for his class, or C) is Human, and that even if one of these options comes into play, he won't have the skill points to do any more than those three activities, I claim that the 3.5 Fighter is insufficient for portraying the class's archetype in a way that is satisfactory for me.

I'd like to note a few opinions of mine:
1) Not everyone has the same views on you do as to what that archetype should always fulfill, under every condition. Mark CMG is pretty much stating that in this thread.
2) House rules are embraced by 3.5, at its core. There are a few sections that go into house ruling in both the base PHB and the DMG. Heck, I'd say that house rules are embraced by D&D, at its core. So, many people will have no qualms about house ruling something to better fit what they had in mind.
3) It's about preferences. You are not wrong to want the fighter, or any other class, to fulfill a particular archetype. That's your preference. Someone else can prefer a style that gives them the basics, and house rules and homebrews a ton of stuff for their game, and they aren't wrong. Others can stick to RAW, and they aren't wrong if that's what they prefer.

I am not saying that 3.5 is full of problems that cannot be overlooked, or that these problems permeate every group.

Awesome I'm glad you don't think they do. I think if most people understood what you do, or said this, than a lot of arguments would slide back into a discussion (which is a good thing, in my opinion!).

As always, play what you like