Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zurai" data-source="post: 3809778" data-attributes="member: 52324">And my example didn't assume he was naked. Wizards generally don't use armor, and using magic items defeats the purpose of the example. You DID say &quot;unarmed&quot; and implied &quot;without magic&quot;, though, which is the ruleset I used.I don't see how you can possibly reason that the level 20 magicless wizard is more capable in combat than the level 1 fully geared knight, except that the wizard can withstand ever so slightly more punishment.On top of that, with the same example characters, the Knight won't be any worse than the wizard at any skills you should expect him to be reasonable at. Climb? He's got a -3 check from armor, but a +3 strength and as many as 4 skill points in it; the wizard has a --4 strength and at most 11 skill points in it - but most probably 0. The knight would reasonably have a +4, but the wizard would likely have a -4&nbsp; (I've seen even fewer wizards put points in Climb, cross-class, than I've seen devote points to strength).Ride? Not even a contest. The knight has a +1 dex bonus and almost certainly 4 ranks in the skill, while the wizard has a -2 to -4 dex penalty and, again, few if any cross-class ranks.Tumble? Neither character's likely to put any points there.Spellcraft? Of course the level 20 wizard is going to be more proficient at that than the knight! It's his job!But combat checks and non-combat checks DON'T operate differently at all in 3rd edition. That's the entire POINT of the d20 ruleset. All checks are the same - roll a d20 and check against a set DC. The only difference between attack rolls and skill checks is that a 20 isn't an auto-success on a skill check.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zurai, post: 3809778, member: 52324"] And my example didn't assume he was naked. Wizards generally don't use armor, and using magic items defeats the purpose of the example. You DID say "unarmed" and implied "without magic", though, which is the ruleset I used. I don't see how you can possibly reason that the level 20 magicless wizard is more capable in combat than the level 1 fully geared knight, except that the wizard can withstand ever so slightly more punishment. On top of that, with the same example characters, the Knight won't be any [b]worse[/b] than the wizard at any skills you should expect him to be reasonable at. Climb? He's got a -3 check from armor, but a +3 strength and as many as 4 skill points in it; the wizard has a --4 strength and at most 11 skill points in it - but most probably 0. The knight would reasonably have a +4, but the wizard would likely have a -4 (I've seen even fewer wizards put points in Climb, cross-class, than I've seen devote points to strength). Ride? Not even a contest. The knight has a +1 dex bonus and almost certainly 4 ranks in the skill, while the wizard has a -2 to -4 dex penalty and, again, few if any cross-class ranks. Tumble? Neither character's likely to put any points there. Spellcraft? Of course the level 20 wizard is going to be more proficient at that than the knight! It's his job! But combat checks and non-combat checks DON'T operate differently at all in 3rd edition. That's the entire POINT of the d20 ruleset. All checks are the same - roll a d20 and check against a set DC. The only difference between attack rolls and skill checks is that a 20 isn't an auto-success on a skill check. [/QUOTE]

Verification