D&D 5E yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options

[Ashrym]

Cures are obtained from spells and abilities. Remember, this is a land of magic. There are herbalists and holy people with magical healing powers.

You have not acknowledged that Medicine is not used with healing kits. Regardless, Healing Kits are also useless (w/the exception of the Healer feat) because Healing Potions are so much better.

I use medicine as well. I agree that the curative qualities can easily be overshadowed by spells. Medicine does not require the taking of the spell or spending a slot, however.

Where medicine shines is in a murder mystery campaign. It gives players the ability to be the medical examiner to determine things like cause of death, time of death, murder weapon etc by examining the remains.

TV is full of crime shows that can provide inspiration on medicine as an information gathering tool. It falls to the player to attempt the actions along those lines followed by the DM giving a DC if needed. The only thing stopping such checks from entering play is in not attempting them or mispplying which check to make.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I meant exactly what I said. Either you think the sheer percentage of women who have been sexually assaulted is a horrific statistic, in which case one should not crack jokes that equate sexual assault with some douche responding and then blocking you, or you are a garbage human being who thinks that it’s no big deal that women are sexually assaulted with a scary degree of prevalence/thinks that women lie about being sexually assaulted in mass numbers, in which case cracking a #MeToo joke would be a breach of the terms of service. In either case, the “#MeToo” tag was inappropriate, and I would personally appreciate it if people could avoid the joke and we could all drop the subject, as I am pretty sure our entire discussion just strayed out of the terms of service...

Or someone could have just been a bit tone deaf about the situation without being the monster you describe.

But hey, in this one post you managed to call one poster a douche (I won’t even point out the irony of using this insult while at the same time calling out others for being mysogonisic) and other posters garbage humans who have no problems with sexual assault. And I’m pretty sure THOSE are against the rules...

 

[Guest 6801328]

I meant exactly what I said. Either you think the sheer percentage of women who have been sexually assaulted is a horrific statistic, in which case one should not crack jokes that equate sexual assault with some douche responding and then blocking you, or you are a garbage human being who thinks that it’s no big deal that women are sexually assaulted with a scary degree of prevalence/thinks that women lie about being sexually assaulted in mass numbers, in which case cracking a #MeToo joke would be a breach of the terms of service. In either case, the “#MeToo” tag was inappropriate, and I would personally appreciate it if people could avoid the joke and we could all drop the subject, as I am pretty sure our entire discussion just strayed out of the terms of service...

No, sorry, that's incorrect. I mean, that may be true about you, and you may be unable to discern the difference in others, but that doesn't make it factually true.

Somebody can both take an issue very seriously AND have a sense of humor.

Of course, there are always those who think their issue is so sacred it can't be funny. They tend to dismiss those those who disagree as heretics and not committed and "part of the problem" and whatever.

Yeah...it's those people, on both ends of the spectrum, who cause all the misery in the world.

 

[Cyber-Dave]

Or someone could have just been a bit tone deaf about the situation without being the monster you describe.

The case of being tone deaf was covered: “Either you think the sheer percentage of women who have been sexually assaulted is a horrific statistic, in which case one should not crack jokes that equate sexual assault with somebody responding and then blocking you...”

But hey, in this one post you managed to call one poster a douche (I won’t even point out the irony of using this insult while at the same time calling out others for being mysogonisic) and other posters garbage humans who have no problems with sexual assault. And I’m pretty sure THOSE are against the rules...

1) You are right. No matter how lame I think it is to respond to somebody and then block them, I should not have called anyone a douche. I edited my post.

2) I’ve called nobody a monster. I created a set of hypothetical people who range from tone deaf to immoral. I noted that no matter where you fall on the spectrum, the joke is inappropriate. Just how easy it is to offend someone both with the joke and my hypothetical range is exactly why the joke should have never been made and we should drop the conversation.

 

[Cyber-Dave]

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]: when you are hanging out with a small group of close friends who know each other, you can make any jokes you want. There is no reality where a joke about a specific type of victim is acceptable in an environment where it is entirely possible that some of the members are secretly victims of that sort. People who think they have the right to force such jokes on others instead of making their jokes in appropriate environments cause misery in the world.

 

[Maxperson]

I meant exactly what I said. Either you think the sheer percentage of women who have been sexually assaulted is a horrific statistic, in which case one should not crack jokes that equate sexual assault with somebody responding and then blocking you, or you are a garbage human being who thinks that it’s no big deal that women are sexually assaulted with a scary degree of prevalence/thinks that women lie about being sexually assaulted in mass numbers, in which case cracking a #MeToo joke would be a breach of the terms of service. In either case, the “#MeToo” tag was inappropriate, and I would personally appreciate it if people could avoid the joke and we could all drop the subject, as I am pretty sure our entire discussion just strayed out of the terms of service...

This is a False Dichotomy as one poster has already proven by providing a third option.

 

[Cyber-Dave]

This is a False Dichotomy as one poster has already proven by providing a third option.

The poster in question proved nothing, as his “third option” WAS the first option I named. If you understand how horrific the implications of the #MeToo movement are, you should not be making those implications the subject of a joke in a public forum composed of strangers who have lived through who knows what. The insistence that one be allowed to make such jokes in areas outside of their own private purview says nothing good about the one insisting that they be allowed to make jokes at the expense of sexual assault victims.

 

[Maxperson]

The poster in question proved nothing, as his “third option” WAS the first option I named. If you understand how horrific the implications of the #MeToo movement are, you should not be making those implications the subject of a joke in a public forum composed of strangers who have lived through who knows what. The insistence that one be allowed to make such jokes in areas outside of their own private purview says nothing good about the one insisting that they be allowed to make jokes at the expense of sexual assault victims.

It wasn't the first option, as he understands the implications, but feels humor makes it okay. That's different than understanding the implications and thinking you should not make a joke of it.

Here's the quote.

"I don’t consider it a “joke of a movement” in fact I think it’s both important and about 5,000 years overdue...AND I think it’s perfectly ok to use it in jest. I lol’d."

Many jokes use sensitive material. It's understood by most people that they are not actually at the expense of anyone who is a part of the group being used in the joke. When someone fails to understand that, it doesn't mean that it "says nothing good" about that person. It just means someone formed a person opinion about something that they don't understand.

 

[Cyber-Dave]

Again, still the first option. You can think it’s ok to crack jokes that in any way, shape, or form belittle the victims of sexual assault. It’s not. You can think it doesn’t belittle such victims. It’s irrelevant. They get to choose. Not you. You can insist that humour makes it ok. In a small private space, you might be right! The crowd determines that. In a public space such as this one, refusing to listen when people tell you that a subject isn’t humorous to them and makes them uncomfortable just makes one a jerk.

This isn’t a racey stand up comedy show. This isn’t a small, private space full of people who you know well, thus giving you the ability to judge how people will respond to jokes about certain topics. I don’t know any of you well enough to judge the tone of such a joke. None of us know each other well enough to know what traumas we have all been through. In a public forum such as this one, jokes about sexual assault, racism, or politics are toxic to the community. Yes, such jokes might have a place in the privacy of your real lives. Hell, among close friends, people who have lived through sexual assault might use humour to cope. Here, however, forcing people to deal with such jokes, explain why they are unpleasant, or repeatedly request that we please save them for our private game tables is just... let’s go with unfortunate.

 

[Mistwell]

If the fighter came with 3-4 tool proficiencies, would that make sense? Does "tool user" fit the fighter theme in people's perceptions of that class?