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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 6273282" data-attributes="member: 20323">Wow, this is getting far afield from the fighter! <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=":)" /> I'm totally ok with that because what we're discussing is all very relevant to the oriignal question, and at a certain point you can't assert "the system would need to do X to support this class" and you need to define X. I'll see if I can steer us back to the fighter a bit...I ran pretty much exactly that scenario in 2e with Planescape and there was no spell one-upsmanship/escalation with the god. Different system assumptions I guess...it sounds like you're referring to 3e D&D when you say "standard D&D game"?Do you mean to say you think my suggestion for Scry would not be popular among the traditional D&D crowd because it zooms in too much on the intricacies of spellcasting? And trad D&D players like abstracted spells? I'm not sure I follow. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/worried.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":-S" title="Uhm    :-S" data-shortname=":-S" />See, I absolutely think that combat functionality and non-combat functionality need to be siloed, otherwise you will always have rather boring combat machine PCs made by power gamers. I'm no saying thwart the power gamers completey, but maybe reign them in a bit and get them to explore some other fun rules bits. So a player who envisions their fighter as a swashbuckler doesn't need to take Warfare, and instead they might take Noble Ties. What does not work is a system where instead of Warfare they could gain +2 damage to melee attacks. It creates an arms race between characters so that character creation/leveling becomes a question of a false trade off. In a game less combat focused than D&D maybe this could work, but in D&D combat is assumed and it's a big deal. Not having that +2 damage because you chose something more story/non-combat based means the games math has shifted...enough shifts like and you have imbalance in PCs ability to perform a core function: combat.And there's another argument against being able to trade off Warfare for +2 damage, one I think is even more important. I learn nothing about the character from +2 damage, whereas from Warfare I now have creative ideas about possible backgrounds and it makes the player think about how they picked up that skill/ability. Is any player really going to do that for +2 damage? Heck no they won't. As others have argued, fighters are often played by really skilled role-players who develop an important role in the party despite the class mechanics not backing them up (though in some editions mechanics in other parts of the game besides class might). The basic idea behind giving the fighter versatility outside of combat (and NOT letting that be traded off for combat effectiveness) is to provide rules that support those creative players who see fighters as a leader archetype (or whatver archetype they are imagining) and to encourage power-gamers to think beyond combat.</blockquote>

Verification