Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wingsandsword" data-source="post: 7958756" data-attributes="member: 14159">. . .and there's a LOT more to D&amp;D than just dungeon crawls.The point of D&amp;D classes isn't just dungeon crawling roles, it's to emulate heroes of fantasy.&nbsp; Restricting D&amp;D to being just about combat roles and dungeon crawling is a colossal design mistake, it was one of the major design flaws with 4e, for example.&nbsp; Even AD&amp;D 1e didn't limit the game that strongly to being just about dungeon crawls.There's a lot of precedent in history and fantasy fiction for the idea of a nobleman as a separate skill set.&nbsp; I always thought it silly when reading though lists of major NPC's for settings, how mighty Kings and Emperors are usually listed as high level Fighters or Epic-level spellcasters, that just by being a longtime king you're also a world-class warrior or mage.&nbsp; Especially when you realize that neither Fighters nor Wizards get Diplomacy or other social skills like Sense Motive or Bluff as class skills, which would make them very poor politicians and leaders.&nbsp; A character class that includes the various social skills, plus the martial skill set normally associated with a trained warrior would make a lot more sense for them, essentially a PC class version of the Aristocrat NPC class.I was replying to you saying that Dungeons and Dragons has a limited skill system, where you did NOT qualify what edition you were talking about.&nbsp; Don't try to presume that everyone plays 5e or that by saying &quot;Dungeons and Dragons&quot; everyone just assumes you're talking about 5e.&nbsp; There's a LOT more to Dungeons and Dragons than 5e.I always thought it was silly they made Warlock a core class in later editions, out of dozens of classes they could have taken, they took a class that was literally the same &quot;flavor&quot; and roleplaying as a Sorcerer (i.e. arcane caster that gets spells through something other than study) and gave it a weird, highly counter-intuitive mechanic and shoved it into the core rules.&nbsp; There always seemed to be a LOT of options that would have been better options to put into the core rules instead of Warlock, like Noble, or Favored Soul, or Mystic, or Artificer, or Knight, or Marshal, any of which would have fit far better into core D&amp;D than warlock.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wingsandsword, post: 7958756, member: 14159"] . . .and there's a LOT more to D&D than just dungeon crawls. The point of D&D classes isn't just dungeon crawling roles, it's to emulate heroes of fantasy. Restricting D&D to being just about combat roles and dungeon crawling is a colossal design mistake, it was one of the major design flaws with 4e, for example. Even AD&D 1e didn't limit the game that strongly to being [I]just[/I] about dungeon crawls. There's a lot of precedent in history and fantasy fiction for the idea of a nobleman as a separate skill set. I always thought it silly when reading though lists of major NPC's for settings, how mighty Kings and Emperors are usually listed as high level Fighters or Epic-level spellcasters, that just by being a longtime king you're also a world-class warrior or mage. Especially when you realize that neither Fighters nor Wizards get Diplomacy or other social skills like Sense Motive or Bluff as class skills, which would make them very poor politicians and leaders. A character class that includes the various social skills, plus the martial skill set normally associated with a trained warrior would make a lot more sense for them, essentially a PC class version of the Aristocrat NPC class. I was replying to you saying that Dungeons and Dragons has a limited skill system, where you did NOT qualify what edition you were talking about. Don't try to presume that everyone plays 5e or that by saying "Dungeons and Dragons" everyone just assumes you're talking about 5e. There's a LOT more to Dungeons and Dragons than 5e. I always thought it was silly they made Warlock a core class in later editions, out of dozens of classes they could have taken, they took a class that was literally the same "flavor" and roleplaying as a Sorcerer (i.e. arcane caster that gets spells through something other than study) and gave it a weird, highly counter-intuitive mechanic and shoved it into the core rules. There always seemed to be a LOT of options that would have been better options to put into the core rules instead of Warlock, like Noble, or Favored Soul, or Mystic, or Artificer, or Knight, or Marshal, any of which would have fit far better into core D&D than warlock. [/QUOTE]

Verification