NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 7850208" data-attributes="member: 6802951">Its a . . . Mitchell & Webb(?) sketch that was popular in D&D forums because of its relevance in highlighting some issues of the game.Essentially its a skit involving two heroes: BMX Bandit who is a skilled but mundane 'realistic' hero, and Angel Summoner  - who can summon hordes of celestial superbeings.The main thrust of the sketch (and why is was regarded as relevant to D&D, particularly 3.5e) is that BMX Bandit is frustrated that any task he can do, Angel Summoner can do much better and easier. Even when Angel Summoner tries to stick to a 'support role', the difference in versatility and magnitude of their powers means that it is still all about Angel Summoner's contribution, rather than BMX Bandit's.This leads to BMX Bandit insisting on trying to do something themselves and getting killed in the attempt where Angel Summoner could have easily won. And next episode Angel Summoner will be paired with Gymkhana Girl, another 'realistic' hero(ine).This sketch wasn't just used to illustrate class tier discrepancies in 3.5, but also the issues in having highly-optimised vs interesting-concept characters in the same party.  I don't really have an issue with it for a couple of reasons:1) There is only a need to roll if the DM thinks that there is a chance a character does not know something. I would regard a question involving a facet of the cleric's own faith, or a spell the wizard has in their spellbook as something that they probably automatically know (or at least a reduced DC perhaps).2) Most knowledge skills are much wider than what those classes would focus on. Arcana covers much more than just spells. Religion covers much more than just the cleric's own and related faiths. Nature covers more than what the Druid has personally experienced.3) Skills are often no substitute for magic. The Bard Sage might remember more about the history of a magic item,  - but the wizard can cast Identify. The Outlander Rogue may have studied more books regarding flora and fauna from distant lands, but the Ranger has class abilities that shortcut the need without needing a roll.4) Practical vs Theoretical: The surgeon analogy is a good one. A Wizard is very much an engineer, with the training to use complex tools (spells), and enough theoretical knowledge to design new tools. The Rogue with Arcana expertise is just a theorist: while the wizard was training in how to make the precise gestures and intonations needed to actually cast a spell, the rogue was learning about planar history, or dragon biology. A multidisciplinary professor in Biology probably knows more about mitochondrial DNA descent than a surgeon, but the surgeon actually has the training to perform a medical procedure.</blockquote>

Verification