Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Speculation on the Barbarian DD Next Class
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6077377" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>Very true... but indeed like I said, you have to specifically build the rogue in that way (and in many ways short-change the exploration aspects of your rogue) to do so. Which is why I would think that *if* the Interaction pillar was to get a more robust mechanical side beyond just CHA checks... I think we might be better served having a class that was mainly Interaction with side branches for Exploration/Combat, just as the Rogue is mainly Exploration with side branches for Interaction/Combat.</p><p></p><p>It's basically the same argument that is given as to whether Ranger should be their own class or not. Some folks say that you shouldn't have it as a class, as you can have a Ranger just by taking the Fighter class and the correct Background and Specialty. Whereas others then say that you've now removed the possibility of different types of Rangers, because rather than having choices for Backgrounds and Specialties to make the Rangers different... you lose that character choices in order to just get to the "base Ranger" off the Fighter chassis. Same thing with the Courtier (or whatever you might call it). You could certainly <em>get there</em> using the Rogue chassis and careful application of Scheme, Background and Specialty... but then all Courtiers are mainly all the same. As opposed to having a Courtier class... which then allows differentiation by allowing players to take different Backgrounds and Specialties.</p><p></p><p>At the end of the day it really doesn't matter though... cause I don't think a Courtier type of class will get made. Mainly because I suspect that any sort of robust social interaction game system is very, very far down their line of stuff to create/work on. And if you don't have that kind of system (and the Interaction pillar is meant to suffice with just CHA checks within the Skill system), then anyone with Backgrounds and a good CHA can participate in the pillar with little to no problem.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6077377, member: 7006"] Very true... but indeed like I said, you have to specifically build the rogue in that way (and in many ways short-change the exploration aspects of your rogue) to do so. Which is why I would think that *if* the Interaction pillar was to get a more robust mechanical side beyond just CHA checks... I think we might be better served having a class that was mainly Interaction with side branches for Exploration/Combat, just as the Rogue is mainly Exploration with side branches for Interaction/Combat. It's basically the same argument that is given as to whether Ranger should be their own class or not. Some folks say that you shouldn't have it as a class, as you can have a Ranger just by taking the Fighter class and the correct Background and Specialty. Whereas others then say that you've now removed the possibility of different types of Rangers, because rather than having choices for Backgrounds and Specialties to make the Rangers different... you lose that character choices in order to just get to the "base Ranger" off the Fighter chassis. Same thing with the Courtier (or whatever you might call it). You could certainly [I]get there[/I] using the Rogue chassis and careful application of Scheme, Background and Specialty... but then all Courtiers are mainly all the same. As opposed to having a Courtier class... which then allows differentiation by allowing players to take different Backgrounds and Specialties. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter though... cause I don't think a Courtier type of class will get made. Mainly because I suspect that any sort of robust social interaction game system is very, very far down their line of stuff to create/work on. And if you don't have that kind of system (and the Interaction pillar is meant to suffice with just CHA checks within the Skill system), then anyone with Backgrounds and a good CHA can participate in the pillar with little to no problem. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Speculation on the Barbarian DD Next Class
Top