Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6179002" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think you've slightly misunderstood my point (which isn't to say that there's anything wrong in what you've said - I just think what you've said is a bit orthogonal to my point).The initial trigger for my exchange with [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] was a though about why it is that rogues are better at knocking people out with one blow than are fighters. One approach to answering that question focuses on ingame, rules-as-physics considerations. And it is hard to get a good answer out of that approach. (Do only rogues study anatomy as part of their combat training? Even if they're illiterate back-street thugs?)A different approach to answering that question focuses on the metagame, thematic/aesthetic framing of the classes. A rogue is a backstreet thug. Therefore, when you play a rogue, your PC will play as a backstreet thug - including sapping people from behind. A fighter is a front-rank gloryhound. Therefore, when you play a fighter, your PC will stand in the front-rank, never falling, stopping the baddies from breaking through to your friends. Try to play a fighter as a dishonourable backstree thug and the rules will push back against you (eg you won't, under the rules, be able to knock people out with saps).Of all versions of D&amp;D that I know (which is most, but not all - eg I don't know 13th Age very well) 4e comes closest to adopting this second sort of approach. It's not about classes modelling ingame occupations. It's about classes expressing, and channelling the play of them into, distinctive fantasy tropes. (That said, the 4e rogue isn't quite a backstreet thug. S/he is more of a dirty-fighting swashbuckler.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6179002, member: 42582"] I think you've slightly misunderstood my point (which isn't to say that there's anything wrong in what you've said - I just think what you've said is a bit orthogonal to my point). The initial trigger for my exchange with [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] was a though about why it is that rogues are better at knocking people out with one blow than are fighters. One approach to answering that question focuses on ingame, rules-as-physics considerations. And it is hard to get a good answer out of that approach. (Do only rogues study anatomy as part of their combat training? Even if they're illiterate back-street thugs?) A different approach to answering that question focuses on the metagame, thematic/aesthetic framing of the classes. A rogue is a backstreet thug. Therefore, when you play a rogue, your PC will play as a backstreet thug - including sapping people from behind. A fighter is a front-rank gloryhound. Therefore, when you play a fighter, your PC will stand in the front-rank, never falling, stopping the baddies from breaking through to your friends. Try to play a fighter as a dishonourable backstree thug and the rules will push back against you (eg you won't, under the rules, be able to knock people out with saps). Of all versions of D&D that I know (which is most, but not all - eg I don't know 13th Age very well) 4e comes closest to adopting this second sort of approach. It's not about classes modelling ingame occupations. It's about classes expressing, and channelling the play of them into, distinctive fantasy tropes. (That said, the 4e rogue isn't quite a backstreet thug. S/he is more of a dirty-fighting swashbuckler.) [/QUOTE]

Verification