Timeline for Is there a D&D 3.5 fighting class with more non-combat use than the fighter?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 7, 2012 at 1:54 | comment | added | mxyzplk | @Toast that is a bad misunderstanding of the point. Roy's value is not defined by skill numbers, but by being an innovative leader. | |
| Feb 6, 2012 at 19:29 | comment | added | Ryre | I like the reference, but OOTS creator Rich Burlew has stated many times that the comic is loosely based on DnD rules. Roy's character, while fun, is not practical to recreate in a game. | |
| Feb 6, 2012 at 7:55 | comment | added | user2862 | Also, the fighter is a special case where the game apparently does go out of its way to make it especially hard for the player to get creative in the first place. I mean, the commoner is considered the absolute baseline and still the fighter has a worse skill list than a simple farmer. *d'oh* | |
| Feb 6, 2012 at 7:53 | comment | added | user2862 | I'd say that this entirely depends on how much meta-gaming is allowed. Pretty much everything Roy does (sh|c)ould be handled with skill checks (primarily Knowledge skills - history, local, tactics, whatyouhave). If the fighter is allowed to do stuff without the required skill ranks, why does the wizard need Spellcraft to identify a spell, why does the ranger need Survival to hunt for food, why does the bard need Perform to sing well enough? Would you allow an opera singer to play a bard without any ranks in Perform and still earn money from singing? | |
| Feb 6, 2012 at 4:08 | comment | added | mxyzplk | +1. Having your conception of your character's utility restricted to things listed on the character sheet is a personal play style problem, not a problem with a given class. | |
| Feb 6, 2012 at 2:37 | comment | added | Brian Ballsun-Stanton | Absolutely, but that's the point I was trying to make: quite a lot of a character's utility comes from the player. Trying to maximize mechanical utility is, in many ways, missing the point. | |
| Feb 6, 2012 at 0:21 | history | answered | Brian Ballsun-Stanton | CC BY-SA 3.0 |