This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.

Author Topic: (D&D) Should the Fighter be good/great at out-of-combat stuff?  (Read 3558 times)

Rum Cove

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • R
  • Posts: 427
    • View Profile
(D&D) Should the Fighter be good/great at out-of-combat stuff?
« Reply #30 on: August 22, 2012, 07:42:18 pm »
Quote from: Broken-Serenity;575466
as a brit i have to say NFL and NHL are probably the 2 sports(not counting psudo sports/entertainment like ufc and wrestling) i actually give a damn about so yeah the new season of nfl cant come early enough.


Are you willing to accept the Jaguars as your team?

Sacrosanct

  • cisgrog
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7224
    • View Profile
    • http://www.sacrosanctgames.com
(D&D) Should the Fighter be good/great at out-of-combat stuff?
« Reply #31 on: August 22, 2012, 08:01:23 pm »
Quote from: Marleycat;575057


(Football season is nearly here so I am getting a bit "blonde"). I love my Seattle Seahawks and we have a quarterback! Watch out 49ers!!:)


Maybe so, but our best QB is the rookie who won't get playing time because we just paid Flynn a ton of money
D&D is not an "everyone gets a ribbon" game.  If you're stupid, your PC will die.  If you're an asshole, your PC will die (probably from the other PCs).  If you're unlucky, your PC may die.  Point?  PC's die.  Get over it and roll up a new one.

Marleycat

  • Sybil\'s Kitty
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7264
    • View Profile
(D&D) Should the Fighter be good/great at out-of-combat stuff?
« Reply #32 on: August 22, 2012, 08:06:55 pm »
Quote from: Sacrosanct;575547
Maybe so, but our best QB is the rookie who won't get playing time because we just paid Flynn a ton of money


10 million isn't anything compared to other QB's. I am not ready to jump on Wilson's bandwagon. He is starting against KC this week and I wouldn't want to be Pete Carroll if he goes lights out. Anyway this is way off topic so back to your regularly scheduled thread.:)

I have no issue with a fighter getting nice things I just disagree with how the "denners" want to implement it.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2012, 08:09:42 pm by Marleycat »
Don't mess with cats we kill wizards in one blow.;)

Tahmoh

  • Sarcastic Wanker.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1352
    • View Profile
(D&D) Should the Fighter be good/great at out-of-combat stuff?
« Reply #33 on: August 22, 2012, 08:30:41 pm »
Quote from: Rum Cove;575538
Are you willing to accept the Jaguars as your team?


Lol i dont really have a set team i follow as the channel that shows nfl over here tends to just show whatever the sunday night game on nbc happens to be that week(and even then i think it's dependent on east coast feeds), but if they happen to be in any games featured im sure they'd be a team to root for over say the cowboys(who i believe are abit to similar to manchester united in there ridiculously overpaid players).

Imp

  • Tiny Outsider
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 855
    • View Profile
(D&D) Should the Fighter be good/great at out-of-combat stuff?
« Reply #34 on: August 23, 2012, 04:00:38 am »
Quote from: Libertad;574907
My thoughts on the matter are "yes."  I see nothing wrong with a 3rd Edition/Pathfinder Fighter having access to Knowledge skills, social interaction skills, and more "sneaky" skills like Stealth and Disable Device.  I also think that giving more "versatile" and pseudo-magical abilities to Fighters useful in and out of combat can be good as well, such as having high ranks in Jump/Acrobatics granting you sort-of-but-not-quite-flight at middle-high levels, or a "mage hunter" getting Spell Resistance or the ability to detect/shrug off magical effects.

Awaiting your opinions and answers!


Mentioned this elsewhere here, a while back, but my skill fix for the 3e fighter was to let the fighter pick any two skills that fit into a theme; he gets 4 ranks in those 2 skills and they are now considered class skills. This lets you do things like an eagle-eyed archer (Spot + Search), pirate captain (Prof: Sailing + Survival (or Use Rope, I guess)), wizard's bodyguard (Spellcraft + Use Magic Device), thug/highwayman (Hide + Move Silently), noble knight (Diplomacy + Knowledge: Nobility) etc. etc. without having to multiclass all the time for every damn thing.

deadDMwalking

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2236
    • View Profile
(D&D) Should the Fighter be good/great at out-of-combat stuff?
« Reply #35 on: August 24, 2012, 10:25:23 am »
D&D is a 'team game' and it's suggested for parties of 4 or more players.  But the easier the game is to play, and the more it supports smaller parties, the better the game is in the long-run.  Getting 5 people together to start playing is orders of magnitude harder than getting two people together to start playing.  But once you have a game running, addiing people to the existing game is pretty easy.  

If you can start with two players, you can add players until you reach your 'happy point'.  But if you can't start without the 'minimum number of players' you can't ever get started.  

Class design should reflect that.  The game should be interesting and playable with a single character of a single class.  It should be BETTER with more players, but the game should be POSSIBLE with just one.  

I really find that Fighters can be interesting as solo-characters for only a very short time before the game breaks.  Rogues, Clerics, and Wizards can pretty much solo at all levels of play.  Obviously the casters have spells that help address some 'deficiencies' that they have; the non-casters can use potions for some of the caster type issues; but rogues can do more of that...  Once a door gets arcane locked, the Fighter literally gets stuck.  

I think that having out-of-combat abilities is important to ALL characters.  It's a requirement to enable solo-play, which is desireable, even if group play is MORE desireable.
When I say objectively, I mean 'subjectively'.  When I say literally, I mean 'figuratively'.  
And when I say that you are a horse's ass, I mean that the objective truth is that you are a literal horse's ass.

There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all. - Peter Drucker