Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6087703" data-attributes="member: 6680772">I think the problem is along the lines of what someone mentioned in the &quot;Why can't fighters get skills&quot; thread.&nbsp; They're approaching the game from the idea that background provide skills.&nbsp; Rogues, of course, get extra skills as their schtick.&nbsp; And then Wizards and Clerics, as classes, are basically like backgrounds.&nbsp; I mean, regardless of other Background, Clerics have to have Religious Knowledge, right?&nbsp; Kung-fu monks need to have those acrobatic skills, right?&nbsp; Wizards have to have some lore they are knowledgeable in, right?&nbsp; The problem is, and I think this column makes it clear, they don't have a &quot;handle&quot; for the fighter.&nbsp; The fighter is the guy who fights.&nbsp; That's all they've got.&nbsp; The class conception is just much broader than any other.&nbsp; The class in OD&amp;D through 1e (and Classic D&amp;D) at least was conceived as a soldier of sorts, and if they thought of the fighter that way, it would be the easiest thing in the world to give him a soldierly bonus skill.&nbsp; But their difficulty is that not everyone wants their fighter to be that.&nbsp; If you choose the Wizard, you're choosing a certain archetype.&nbsp; If you choose the fighter, though, it means you want to be good at fighting, but that might be an armored knight, a Mifune-like grizzled samurai, a Westley-type swashbuckler, or a Luke Skywalker-type farm boy with his father's sword.I understand the problem, but I think if you're going to give Wizards, Clerics, Rogues, and Monks all a bonus skill, you should probably be giving one to the Fighter and Barbarian.&nbsp; Track and Handle Animal would be pretty cromulent bonus skills for a Barbarian.&nbsp; I'd say give the Fighter his choice of Knowledge (Warfare), Ride, Handle Animal, or Intimidate.&nbsp; Or come up with a new general fightery skill that all fighter's get automatically, like Athletics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 6087703, member: 6680772"] I think the problem is along the lines of what someone mentioned in the "Why can't fighters get skills" thread. They're approaching the game from the idea that background provide skills. Rogues, of course, get extra skills as their schtick. And then Wizards and Clerics, as classes, are basically like backgrounds. I mean, regardless of other Background, Clerics have to have Religious Knowledge, right? Kung-fu monks need to have those acrobatic skills, right? Wizards have to have some lore they are knowledgeable in, right? The problem is, and I think this column makes it clear, they don't have a "handle" for the fighter. The fighter is the guy who fights. That's all they've got. The class conception is just much broader than any other. The class in OD&D through 1e (and Classic D&D) at least was conceived as a soldier of sorts, and if they thought of the fighter that way, it would be the easiest thing in the world to give him a soldierly bonus skill. But their difficulty is that not everyone wants their fighter to be that. If you choose the Wizard, you're choosing a certain archetype. If you choose the fighter, though, it means you want to be good at fighting, but that might be an armored knight, a Mifune-like grizzled samurai, a Westley-type swashbuckler, or a Luke Skywalker-type farm boy with his father's sword. I understand the problem, but I think if you're going to give Wizards, Clerics, Rogues, and Monks all a bonus skill, you should probably be giving one to the Fighter and Barbarian. Track and Handle Animal would be pretty cromulent bonus skills for a Barbarian. I'd say give the Fighter his choice of Knowledge (Warfare), Ride, Handle Animal, or Intimidate. Or come up with a new general fightery skill that all fighter's get automatically, like Athletics. [/QUOTE]

Verification