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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5736040" data-attributes="member: 54877">Note that having "class skills' in any shape or form, is pushing certain roles--i.e. if you want to be nature boy, you better get a druid or ranger to start with, or be prepared to lose options elsewhere. To the extent that abilities are key to certain skills, this is also indirectly reinforced--though so haphazardly in the games where it matters, the effect is somewhat muted.  On the class/combat role front being determinative, my experience is that this is less driven by rules than by the campaign style. Certainly, in 1st ed, with no options to speak of, you'd need house rules to allow certain morphing away from the expectations. (For example, we mistakenly allowed wizards to use short bows, but not long bows or crossbows in Basic, and liked the effect so much that we sometimes kept it as a house rule.) Even then, you could do a bit with magic items. However, given some options in the rules, they only matter if the campaign will allow them to happen. If the campaign is heavy on the fighter being "the guy" that holds the line, all the time, then he will get the best armor and melee weapons the group will find, and will be expected to spend his options on doing that. He won't be using a crossbow much or a bag of tricks or spending a feat on Nature training or any other diversion. If the campaign backs away from that a bit, then the fighter will still mainly be holding the line and/or smacking things that try to cross it, but his diversions will be whatever interests that player and/or fit in his conception of the character.</blockquote>

Verification