Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6658083" data-attributes="member: 6790260">You clearly have a different understanding of what it was, and even what it is, to be trained as a soldier today. Because there's a hell of a lot more to being a knight, samurai, Hunnic horse-archer, etc. than just making things dead. Even modern soldiers need to develop skills, connections, etc. that aren't directly applicable to combat, but which help make "the life of a soldier" easier, simpler, or more effective.They don't have to make no sense. You just have to be careful about how you design them. That you can demonstrate that some non-magical resources are "nonsensical," in your opinion, does not make absolutely all of them garbage. That's (part of) why I said I would need to think very carefully about the set of options for the Fighter. And, since there really are people who hate the idea of, or are not comfortable playing with, "resource-based" mechanics, a well-designed set of options should include at least two purely passive, always-on options, so that way everyone actually has some degree of choice and not a Hobson's choice.I'll let <a href="http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120430" target="_blank">Mike Mearls</a> provide my defense here.2. The Fighter Draws on Training and Experience, not Magic Fighters master mundane tactics and weapon skills. They don’t need spells or some sort of external source of magical power to succeed. Fighters do stuff that is within the limits of mundane mortals. They don’t reverse gravity or shoot beams of energy.I apologize; I should have specifically spelled out that ability checks are, generally speaking, almost purely non-combat. (There are some ability checks that can occur in combat, but they're comparatively corner cases.) Rolling a skill is not a "declarative" ability though, for exactly the same reason that "rolling an attack" is not a declarative ability--they meet the definition I gave, but only in an incredibly trivial way.I don't believe "Fighter" means "Absolutely Everything I Do Is About Doing Violence To Something Or Someone." Why make any class whose definition precludes it from contributing to a character's competence in the things the designers consider fundamentally, "universally" important? (At least as much as anything can be "universal" in D&D.) That would be...utterly unbelievable to me.And as stated, I think that's a <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> choice. Don't force people to choose between participating at all in some things vs. participating better in others, when ALL of those things you can participate in are explicitly defined as Fundamentally Important To The Game.</blockquote>

Verification