Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 15214" data-attributes="member: 94">Why? I think you'd need to defend that assertion. Is it an equally &quot;good thing&quot; to force Wizards to have high Strength? Frankly I think it's a &quot;good thing&quot; that folks with high strength can pick up a sword and contribute, and it's an equally good thing that folks with more brains than brawn can master magic. To take your suggestion to its conclusion, it's a &quot;good thing&quot; for every character to have all 13's and 14's. I prefer games where there are mighty (and stupid) warriors and brilliant (and fragile) wizards.I guess when I think Quintessential, I think &quot;iconic,&quot; not &quot;well-rounded.&quot;Wisdom is already important to a fighter (as their miserable Will saves are their big achilles heel) but more importantly, I don't understand what wisdom has to do with physical training. It seems a little forced to me, a balancing mechanic without logic. (Even intelligence would make more sense than wisdom-- as witnessed by the finesse fighter Feats in the PHB that require Int 13+.)Anyhow-- I dare say Mike Tyson is the Quintessential Boxer but I wouldn't put bets on his wisdom.You just said most fighters in existence don't bother with wisdom-- so how will they take advantage of the rules? (Clearly, I need to buy the book... and I will... I'm just askin'...)I think the first duty of the game designer is to provide rules that can be used by most people with a minimum of fuss. (There is nothing more annoying as a player than having to beg your DM to allow a new rules supplement into the game.)One of the great features about d20 is its customizabilty and scalability. Everyone would like to feel that each new piece of OGC fits right in. The more designers who fall back on &quot;It's optional...,&quot; the weaker the entirety of Open Content becomes.At high levels, Clerics are already better fighters than most Fighters, is this going to make the situation worse?Wulf</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wulf Ratbane, post: 15214, member: 94"] Why? I think you'd need to defend that assertion. Is it an equally "good thing" to force Wizards to have high Strength? Frankly I think it's a "good thing" that folks with high strength can pick up a sword and contribute, and it's an equally good thing that folks with more brains than brawn can master magic. To take your suggestion to its conclusion, it's a "good thing" for every character to have all 13's and 14's. I prefer games where there are mighty (and stupid) warriors and brilliant (and fragile) wizards. I guess when I think Quintessential, I think "iconic," not "well-rounded." Wisdom is already important to a fighter (as their miserable Will saves are their big achilles heel) but more importantly, I don't understand what wisdom has to do with physical training. It seems a little forced to me, a balancing mechanic without logic. (Even intelligence would make more sense than wisdom-- as witnessed by the finesse fighter Feats in the PHB that require Int 13+.) Anyhow-- I dare say Mike Tyson is the Quintessential Boxer but I wouldn't put bets on his wisdom. You just said most fighters in existence don't bother with wisdom-- so how will they take advantage of the rules? (Clearly, I need to buy the book... and I will... I'm just askin'...) I think the first duty of the game designer is to provide rules that can be used by most people with a minimum of fuss. (There is nothing more annoying as a player than having to [i]beg[/i] your DM to allow a new rules supplement into the game.) One of the great features about d20 is its customizabilty and scalability. Everyone would like to feel that each new piece of OGC fits right in. The more designers who fall back on "It's optional...," the weaker the entirety of Open Content becomes. At high levels, Clerics are already better fighters than most Fighters, is this going to make the situation worse? Wulf [/QUOTE]

Verification