D&D General When Was it Decided Fighters Should Suck at Everything but Combat?

[Tesral]

There are things your chance of success approaches nil if you're untrained in, though most of them are post-industrial. But someone successfully operating a sailing boat who hasn't even the minimalist experience doing so is going to drop well below the resolution of a D20 at least, and the same would apply to things like, say, alchemy.

Some skills just need training. I have never heard an unskilled person get a tune out of a violin. (I have one, I know). You either can swim, or you can't. All the skills in my list are noted as whether you can use them untrained. Oh and sailing? I wouldn't do it without lessons. I've been on one, it is not easy. Several ones actually, from a 20' lightning sloop to two master schooners. I would rather put a total tyro behind the wheel of a car. That is simpler, IF you don't have a clutch.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well, as the most absolutely basic element regarding the question the thread poses, it kind of is the benchmark as far as I can see. Remember my answer to the thread question is "in OD&D". The fact that combat was dull didn't mean the FM of the time weren't relatively-good at combat in it; how good they were at it, and how interesting the combat was are different questions.

Yeah, the OP wasn't asking about how interesting the combat was, for fighters or anybody else. The question ireslf was explicitly about out-of-combat, with the implication that Fighters were effective in combat (even if the players were bored.)

So I don't know why we keep coming back to OD&D combat as a benchmark for engaging sub-systems.

 

[Tesral]

Dice are great, but too many groups are rolling them for too many things.

Basic GM Rules
4: The Rule of Yes
A) Unless there is a compelling reason to say no, say yes. Playing a game with Dr. No isn't any fun. Players want to have fun and to do things. There is a time and place for obstacles, learn and know that time and place. Trying to find a royal blue shirt or spell components in the market is not that time.
B) A roll is not required for everything, even if a roll is required. Use judgment in applying the dice. Dice are random, random isn't vital even if the rules say it is. Remember the Rule of Yes.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Some skills just need training.

But does that mean you need a skill system, with a list of discrete skills?

I am perfectly content with using background/class: "I was a pirate, so I probably know something about sailing."

I get that some people really enjoy detailed skill systems, and investing variable numbers of points, etc. I'm just saying that it isn't actually needed to differentiate trained vs. untrained. Granularity is only a preference.

EDIT: I have a game somewhere but I honestly can't remember the name...it's designed to introduce RPGs, and is kid-friendly, with kind of basic cartoony art...where character creation is just "allocate 10 points to any concept you want". There's no list; you just make up whatever class/background/profession/hobby you like. So I could put 5 into pirate, 3 into dancer, and 2 into horticulturist. If I can explain why the background would help me with a task, I get to roll a number of d6's equal to the points I allocated. Never actually played it, but I kinda love the idea. "Oh, I'm a pirate, and pirates have to sew and mend their own clothes, so...."

 

[Bill Zebub]

Basic GM Rules
4: The Rule of Yes
A) Unless there is a compelling reason to say no, say yes. Playing a game with Dr. No isn't any fun. Players want to have fun and to do things. There is a time and place for obstacles, learn and know that time and place. Trying to find a royal blue shirt or spell components in the market is not that time.
B) A roll is not required for everything, even if a roll is required. Use judgment in applying the dice. Dice are random, random isn't vital even if the rules say it is. Remember the Rule of Yes.

I 100% agree....and it's a preferred playstyle, not a rule. I want to acknowledge that others here have valid preferences. Yes, even @Lanefan.

 

[FrozenNorth]

4e tried managing this by codifying the defender, leader, striker, and controller roles, thus ensuring you could have a number of different classes fulfilling each role. I think this was a good start but it could use some work and could expand to non-combat applications as well. I'm thinking something along the lines of:

4e actually did do this, though mostly by power source.

The martial power source was striker secondary, so all else being equal, fighters, warlords, rogues and rangers did more damage than equivalent roles with a different power source.

Divine was leader secondary, so paladins had more buff abilities than fighters, for instance.

Arcan was controllers, with swordmages having more control than fighters, bards than warlords or clerics, warlocks more than rogues.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But does that mean you need a skill system, with a list of discrete skills?

I am perfectly content with using background/class: "I was a pirate, so I probably know something about sailing."

I get that some people really enjoy detailed skill systems, and investing variable numbers of points, etc. I'm just saying that it isn't actually needed to differentiate trained vs. untrained. Granularity is only a preference.

EDIT: I have a game somewhere but I honestly can't remember the name...it's designed to introduce RPGs, and is kid-friendly, with kind of basic cartoony art...where character creation is just "allocate 10 points to any concept you want". There's no list; you just make up whatever class/background/profession/hobby you like. So I could put 5 into pirate, 3 into dancer, and 2 into horticulturist. If I can explain why the background would help me with a task, I get to roll a number of d6's equal to the points I allocated. Never actually played it, but I kinda love the idea. "Oh, I'm a pirate, and pirates have to sew and mend their own clothes, so...."

Lack of granularity is also a preference.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Lack of granularity is also a preference.

Coarse granularity is a kind of granularity. So, yes.

 

[Thomas Shey]

When I'm dealing with a skill system, that's how I resolve "knowledge checks" (or any consequence-free action).

Yeah, it becomes pretty clear over time that treating knowledge skills like task skills doesn't really produce things that meet the sniff test in a lot of cases. The roll is just representing too radically a different kind of thing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Some skills just need training. I have never heard an unskilled person get a tune out of a violin. (I have one, I know). You either can swim, or you can't.

This is a bad example here. Almost all animals, and certainly humans, can do a basic dogpaddle style swim if they don't panic when in the water. Now whether that would suffice in any situation where you'd normally ask for a roll is a more complex question, and it tends to depend heavily one what the roll is representing; it might be adequate if you're trying to determine how long it takes them to get across a placid body of water, but its pretty unlikely to get you good results if its to deal with rough water.

There's a reason in most skill based games swimming does have a basic value, just not a particularly high one.

All the skills in my list are noted as whether you can use them untrained. Oh and sailing? I wouldn't do it without lessons. I've been on one, it is not easy. Several ones actually, from a 20' lightning sloop to two master schooners. I would rather put a total tyro behind the wheel of a car. That is simpler, IF you don't have a clutch.

Yeah, I sailed a bit when I was younger. I suspect someone who'd seen it done could self-teach with a small sailing boat and good conditions, but that's not the same thing as "hop in the sailing boat and try to head across this straight."