Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 7549192" data-attributes="member: 2525"><p>Here is where I really struggle with this issue. It's a matter of rules being the source of role playing vs rules getting in the way of it. That's not a precise way of putting it, so let me explain.</p><p></p><p>OD&D (1974) had very few rules which themselves supported out of combat challenges, aside from traps. If you wanted to persuade an NPC to do something - you just had to persuade them with the players role playing it. There was sometimes a Charisma check, sometimes not, but no skills. And if you wanted to climb a wall, you might make a Dexterity check, or maybe the DM would just make a ruling based on what you said you did to try and make the climb (until the Thief class was published). But the bottom line was, baring magic (which was more rare) everyone just did stuff out of combat by trying their best to explain what their PC was doing, sometimes in character, and the DM just made the call. And that system functioned just fine and was fun.</p><p></p><p>Over the years and various editions we've gotten more PC abilities which suppport of out combat adventuring, which codify how those challenges are overcome. Which I don't dislike - I think those rules have often added something to the game. However, it also defines how things are done which means some alternative methods of doing those same things become more difficult to pull off. It's not that you can no longer persuade the DM to accept your superb role playing of the PC to influence an intimidation role (you can) it's just that you will be rolling a Charisma (Intimidation) check against a fixed or rolled DC as part of this and you will not likely be able to simple role play it out without such a check (though it's possible - just less likely). And of course carry that philosophy across hundreds of types of challenges.</p><p></p><p>A bard PC (for example) has a lot of rules-based support for out of combat checks. They get lots of skill training (any three to start, plsu some tools). They get jack of all trades to add to that skill training. They get expertise in two more skills. Their abilty bonuses (dex and charisma) tend to have more skills tied off of them than a fighters skills (strength and constitution). They get bardic inspiration to use on skill checks. They have spells and rituals from early levels which can influence skill checks (Friends, Prestidigitation, Animal Friendship, Speak with Animals, Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Disguise Self, Feather Fall, Illusory Script, etc..), the bottom line is they have a ton of rules-based support to influence out of combat skill challenges. </p><p></p><p>And when that character is in the game, it becomes more difficult for the player of a Fighter PC to try and do the same things as the Bard PC while lacking that rules-based support for those same actions. The Fighter's player could try and befriend the bear the party encounters, but they will be left making an untrained Animal Handling check while the Bard could be speaking to the bear with a spell, charming an animal with a spell, disguising himself in a more bear-friendly visage with a spell, or making a check which is more likely to be trained (or even with expertise) but even if it's not they will be able to use Jack Of All Trades to help with the check.</p><p></p><p>So that's my conflict. In an edition like this one with a fair amount of rules-based support for out of combat actions, the DM is in a more difficult position to adjudicate simply well-role-played actions when another PC may well have rules-based abilities for that very type of check.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 7549192, member: 2525"] Here is where I really struggle with this issue. It's a matter of rules being the source of role playing vs rules getting in the way of it. That's not a precise way of putting it, so let me explain. OD&D (1974) had very few rules which themselves supported out of combat challenges, aside from traps. If you wanted to persuade an NPC to do something - you just had to persuade them with the players role playing it. There was sometimes a Charisma check, sometimes not, but no skills. And if you wanted to climb a wall, you might make a Dexterity check, or maybe the DM would just make a ruling based on what you said you did to try and make the climb (until the Thief class was published). But the bottom line was, baring magic (which was more rare) everyone just did stuff out of combat by trying their best to explain what their PC was doing, sometimes in character, and the DM just made the call. And that system functioned just fine and was fun. Over the years and various editions we've gotten more PC abilities which suppport of out combat adventuring, which codify how those challenges are overcome. Which I don't dislike - I think those rules have often added something to the game. However, it also defines how things are done which means some alternative methods of doing those same things become more difficult to pull off. It's not that you can no longer persuade the DM to accept your superb role playing of the PC to influence an intimidation role (you can) it's just that you will be rolling a Charisma (Intimidation) check against a fixed or rolled DC as part of this and you will not likely be able to simple role play it out without such a check (though it's possible - just less likely). And of course carry that philosophy across hundreds of types of challenges. A bard PC (for example) has a lot of rules-based support for out of combat checks. They get lots of skill training (any three to start, plsu some tools). They get jack of all trades to add to that skill training. They get expertise in two more skills. Their abilty bonuses (dex and charisma) tend to have more skills tied off of them than a fighters skills (strength and constitution). They get bardic inspiration to use on skill checks. They have spells and rituals from early levels which can influence skill checks (Friends, Prestidigitation, Animal Friendship, Speak with Animals, Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Disguise Self, Feather Fall, Illusory Script, etc..), the bottom line is they have a ton of rules-based support to influence out of combat skill challenges. And when that character is in the game, it becomes more difficult for the player of a Fighter PC to try and do the same things as the Bard PC while lacking that rules-based support for those same actions. The Fighter's player could try and befriend the bear the party encounters, but they will be left making an untrained Animal Handling check while the Bard could be speaking to the bear with a spell, charming an animal with a spell, disguising himself in a more bear-friendly visage with a spell, or making a check which is more likely to be trained (or even with expertise) but even if it's not they will be able to use Jack Of All Trades to help with the check. So that's my conflict. In an edition like this one with a fair amount of rules-based support for out of combat actions, the DM is in a more difficult position to adjudicate simply well-role-played actions when another PC may well have rules-based abilities for that very type of check. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options
Top