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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 7246932" data-attributes="member: 6877472">I don't know about Tika's supposed thieving skills, I don't recall her robbing anyone in the books, but it's been awhile since I read Dragons of Autumn Twilight.  On the other hand, I do remember that she actually gained combat training later in the series- I recall that one of the characters comments that she's not very good with a sword, but had great talent with shield maneuvers (shield bash especially).  The D&D classes have always had a bit of oddness about them when it came to "qualifying" for them.  Wizards especially were implied to require years of training, so that the archetype usually included old men- Merlin and Gandalf and Dumbledore (and women- I didn't forget you, Bavmorda).  But it also had to include beautiful (possibly evil) women- Morgan LeFay, Circe, Polgara.  Sure the implication could be that they use magic to look young and pretty, but the archetype also has to include the bumbling yet possibly talented young apprentice- Ged, Skeeve, Mickey Mouse (lol).This creates a strange disconnect when one member of a group thinks that it should take years to learn how to cast magic missile, and another is a big Harry Potter fan.But enough about Wizards, you see this with characters who are obviously "Fighters" as well.  I could list examples of young warriors for days (Parn, Mark, Arthur Pendragon, Rand Al Thor, etc. etc.).  Sure, they don't have the experience of a veteran, and that's never ignored, but they have enough raw talent (or backup) to survive and become great warriors.  Again, it's strange to have the game tell us that Bruenor Battlehammer, an aged dwarf and Tika Wayland, a teenaged girl are both valid 1st-level Fighters, but since D&D is a game that allows you to play (within reason) whatever kind of character you want, then yes, "Warrior Princess Jenny" and "Oldfist MacOldbeard" can both be 1st-level Fighters in the same party.And it's up to the players and the DM to make sense of that.Wow, um, we have strayed a bit from the "bonus Feats" argument.  And I'm partially to blame, my apologies.  Something I think we need to consider is the Rogue.  So the Fighter has mostly combat class features, and a few extra ASI's to round him out.  But the Rogue has all kinds of class features that cover all three pillars of play- a Rogue can throw a bucket of dice at you, withdraw or hide as a bonus action in combat, have expertise on any skill they like, reduce damage taken from sword or spell, even get proficiency in an extra save (eventually)!  And yet, they ALSO get bonus ASI's...If the bonus ASI/Feat argument says that's enough to make the Fighter able to contribute outside of combat, then what's the Rogue doing with bonus ASI's/Feat's?  They're already able to contribute in all three pillars of play (and that's not even taking subclasses into account).EDIT: for some reason I thought Rogues got 2 extra ASI's, just at later levels.  Nope, it's just 1.  I don't think that changes my point though; we got one class with few toys and mostly abilities that apply to 1 pillar, and people say "it's ok, he has two bonus ASI's", and another class with lots of toys and abilities that apply to all 3 pillars, AND a bonus ASI...</blockquote>

Verification