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="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 7550065" data-attributes="member: 6688937"><p>I think my only concern with giving them OoC abilities is that "Fighter" has come to encompass quite a bit in peoples' minds.* So that makes it harder to nail down a good mechanical ability to add without either a) "locking down" the class to a particular OoC role or b) giving it such a sweeping OoC ability that it starts stepping on other classes toes as well. (Of course, an OoC role that <em>isn't</em> stepping on other classes might be possible...I don't know what it would be but still...)</p><p></p><p>Of course, this leads me to question the whole premise. If the fighter won't rogue (or bard or whatever) because he won't be as good (mechanically**) as the rogue (or bard or whatever)....<em>can you</em> even create an ability that makes him confident enough to attempt it without rivaling the rogue (or bard or whatever)? Perhaps there is a serious question as to how much of this is "fighters can't do OoC" and how much is "fighter players hate to miss rolls too much." ::shrug:: Conversely, as in my previous, does the fighter not outshine the others in combat sufficiently to make up for being outshone OoC?</p><p></p><p>A broader way of looking at the problem is the possibility that the whole traditional D&D class system is flawed in this regard from the beginning. Perhaps <em>every</em> character needs to effective in and out of combat roles (maybe even to the point of having two progressions/classes), and the idea of balancing across pillars is ineffective/unworkable out of the gate.</p><p></p><p>*I think this started way back in AD&D 2e times, when, IIRC, the followers tables died. That opened the fighter for more than "the man who will be king"</p><p></p><p>**often by only a few points of bonus.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 7550065, member: 6688937"] I think my only concern with giving them OoC abilities is that "Fighter" has come to encompass quite a bit in peoples' minds.* So that makes it harder to nail down a good mechanical ability to add without either a) "locking down" the class to a particular OoC role or b) giving it such a sweeping OoC ability that it starts stepping on other classes toes as well. (Of course, an OoC role that [I]isn't[/I] stepping on other classes might be possible...I don't know what it would be but still...) Of course, this leads me to question the whole premise. If the fighter won't rogue (or bard or whatever) because he won't be as good (mechanically**) as the rogue (or bard or whatever)....[I]can you[/I] even create an ability that makes him confident enough to attempt it without rivaling the rogue (or bard or whatever)? Perhaps there is a serious question as to how much of this is "fighters can't do OoC" and how much is "fighter players hate to miss rolls too much." ::shrug:: Conversely, as in my previous, does the fighter not outshine the others in combat sufficiently to make up for being outshone OoC? A broader way of looking at the problem is the possibility that the whole traditional D&D class system is flawed in this regard from the beginning. Perhaps [I]every[/I] character needs to effective in and out of combat roles (maybe even to the point of having two progressions/classes), and the idea of balancing across pillars is ineffective/unworkable out of the gate. *I think this started way back in AD&D 2e times, when, IIRC, the followers tables died. That opened the fighter for more than "the man who will be king" **often by only a few points of bonus. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
yes, this again: Fighters need more non-combat options
Top