As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Scorpions and Shujenga: Tabletop Games Folded 1000 Times

12357100

Posts

  • DepressperadoDepressperado I just wanted to see you laughing in the pizza rainRegistered User regular
    edited November 2019
    Darmak wrote: »
    I decided to have my necromancer learn mage hand and Maximilian's Earthen Grasp. Now all I need is Bigsby's Hand and along with chill touch (which he already knows), he's committing to a "wizard that likes magical hands" theme :rotate:
    you gotta have a theme! also Mage Hand rules. Arcane Trickster archetype gets Mage Hand legerdemain which makes it invisible and lets you pick locks/pockets and disarm traps and stuff with it.

    I currently only play D&D w/ the same group, but my sister's friend is running a campaign and she invited me and I'm down, but I'm preeeettty anxious about roleplaying with strangers, some of whom are girls.
    I can't decide what kinda style I wanna bring to the group. I like making characters so I have 3 to pick from:
    • A plain ol' mercenary fighter Human guy. a good neutral baseline to figure out how their group works.
    • A Halfling hipster bard. sassy, loyal, chaotic, and is "totally gonna write a book about this someday".
    • A genderfluid bisexual Dragonborn sorcerer who makes extensive use of Disguise Self and Alter Self to try and finally be their real them.

    Depressperado on
  • TynnanTynnan seldom correct, never unsure Registered User regular
    Proficiency with musical instrument (horn) so you can use jazz hands

  • Virgil_Leads_YouVirgil_Leads_You Proud Father House GardenerRegistered User regular
    edited November 2019
    Get yourself a crawling claw familiar or pet

    Virgil_Leads_You on
    VayBJ4e.png
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Fighter is both a good way to feel out the group, and also multi classes well with anything so you can get weird with the character later in the game if it feels natural for the group and story.

  • DepressperadoDepressperado I just wanted to see you laughing in the pizza rainRegistered User regular
    yeah, I was leaning towards it, the Fighter is basically alternate fantasy Me, so that shouldn't be too hard to roleplay, just me but scruffier.

  • sarukunsarukun RIESLING OCEANRegistered User regular
    Straightzi wrote: »
    Psions handle mind magic

    Sorcerers handle elemental magi

    Priests handle body magic

    Abolish wizards

    Somebody’s been hanging around Rorschach Kringle.

  • DrascinDrascin Registered User regular
    edited November 2019
    Delduwath wrote: »
    The wizards brand is "We get literally all special abilities in the game at one point or another".

    Honestly, the Wizard is a design problem. Yes, I know it's traditional, but I realized this in 3rd edition and it hasn't changed in 5th: when your Basic Definitory Magic User, the one that defines What Magic Is Like in your game, is a dude that is at the same time extremely idiosyncratic and absolutely omnicompetent, and who has no actual limitations on his available design space except "no healing spells, I guess? Maybe?", it hamstrings your options for other casters something fierce. Not just that, its omnicompetence pushes the idea that this is the normal, and that other casting classes should be similarly omnicompetent in order to not feel like a sucker's game. And of course, the simple fact is that the D&D Wizard does not actually reflect, well, pretty much any fictional magic user that is not in itself based on the D&D Wizard!

    So yeah, something needs to change with the Wizard.

    Drascin on
    Steam ID: Right here.
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Drascin wrote: »
    Delduwath wrote: »
    The wizards brand is "We get literally all special abilities in the game at one point or another".

    Honestly, the Wizard is a design problem. Yes, I know it's traditional, but I realized this in 3rd edition and it hasn't changed in 5th: when your Basic Definitory Magic User, the one that defines What Magic Is Like in your game, is a dude that is at the same time extremely idiosyncratic and absolutely omnicompetent, and who has no actual limitations on his available design space except "no healing spells, I guess? Maybe?", it hamstrings your options for other casters something fierce. Not just that, its omnicompetence pushes the idea that this is the normal, and that other casting classes should be similarly omnicompetent in order to not feel like a sucker's game. And of course, the simple fact is that the D&D Wizard does not actually reflect, well, pretty much any fictional magic user that is not in itself based on the D&D Wizard!

    So yeah, something needs to change with the Wizard.

    It kind of mirrors my issue with "Fighter" as a class. It's just "guy who fights good" and is so broad any other martial concept could just be a fighter.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    If I had my druthers:

    Wizards would have the biggest range of a decreased list of spells, with the most overall spell slots. They'd have the option to focus on a specific school or diversify in to multiple however they like to reflect that their abilities come from learning.

    Sorcerers would be the specialized high level magic user to reflect their inheritance. Somewhat fewer spell slots that can be enhanced to become more powerful, and the highest level spells being reserved for them at the cost of a wider spread of spells.

    Warlocks more or less where they are but I'd like better options than just the Eldritch blast. Keep their spell slots limited but provide better cantrips and bonuses to spells that fall under their patron's domain.

    Psionics would have access to strong cantrips and limited early spell levels that they could cast at higher levels similar to Warlocks, focused around illusion and psychic type magic, along with buff and debuff spells similar to Bards.

    Really just more class specific spells overall. Which would be more time and resource intensive to create so I understand WOTC preferring a generalized list most classes pull from. But those are my druthers.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    I'm still thinking this through but I like the concept of a Wizard only being able to memorize a specific spell once at a time. Force them into having a large variety of spells on hand. Creates further separation between them and Sorcerer, minimizes the Wizard's ability to exploit the very best spells and reinforce their obscure knowledge thing.

    Element focused wizards would be a bit screwed under this without writing a larger variety of each elemental spell. Similar for Illusion-y wizards. Might be a good idea to give actual specialist wizards a school spell at each level that helps them bypass this limit. Or just reclass those classes as sorcerer variants.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • DarmakDarmak RAGE vympyvvhyc vyctyvyRegistered User regular
    Get yourself a crawling claw familiar or pet

    That would fit the necromancer and hand thing perfectly! Would I be able to cast light on the familiar and use it like a mobile torch too?

    JtgVX0H.png
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Yes. Yes you can and yes you should.

  • ElvenshaeElvenshae Registered User regular
    Darmak wrote: »
    Get yourself a crawling claw familiar or pet

    That would fit the necromancer and hand thing perfectly! Would I be able to cast light on the familiar and use it like a mobile torch too?

    A time-honored tradition!

  • DarmakDarmak RAGE vympyvvhyc vyctyvyRegistered User regular
    Fuck yeah, gonna have me a creepy crawly hand that skitters along floors, walls, and ceilings helping me see shit. And that opens and pokes suspicious stuff for me. Thanks, y'all!
    sc938v18jqtd.jpg

    JtgVX0H.png
  • ElddrikElddrik Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    If I had my druthers:

    Wizards would have the biggest range of a decreased list of spells, with the most overall spell slots. They'd have the option to focus on a specific school or diversify in to multiple however they like to reflect that their abilities come from learning.

    Sorcerers would be the specialized high level magic user to reflect their inheritance. Somewhat fewer spell slots that can be enhanced to become more powerful, and the highest level spells being reserved for them at the cost of a wider spread of spells.

    Warlocks more or less where they are but I'd like better options than just the Eldritch blast. Keep their spell slots limited but provide better cantrips and bonuses to spells that fall under their patron's domain.

    Psionics would have access to strong cantrips and limited early spell levels that they could cast at higher levels similar to Warlocks, focused around illusion and psychic type magic, along with buff and debuff spells similar to Bards.

    Really just more class specific spells overall. Which would be more time and resource intensive to create so I understand WOTC preferring a generalized list most classes pull from. But those are my druthers.

    This is why I think wizards (and clerics) should have kept true Vancian casting.

    You want to cast Fireball four times a day? Great. Prepare it. You're not casting dispel magic, fly, lightning bolt, or any of the other great 3rd level spells today. You might cast any of them tomorrow, thanks to your large spellbook offering you access to an enormous variety of possible spells, but in any given day, you lock yourself into a specific set of spells available. The current 5E "prepare spells, then cast from any prepared spell" just doesn't put enough limits on the class and the flexibility available within a set of prepared spells. I would also increase the expected spellbook size, or maybe even just say that your spellbook contains every spell on your class list of appropriate levels, like how cleric works, because that way you don't have to just pick the most powerful spells with your free picks and you have more opportunity to say "today, I'll prepare one copy of this incredibly niche and/or weak spell, because I think it'll do me good today".

    You want to only ever have access to (say) Dispel Magic, Fireball, and Fly, instead of every 3rd level spell, but to cast whichever one seems best at the time? Great. Play a sorcerer. (Or, in this alternate version that I'm creating, a druid for divine equivalent, because I'd have druid be spells-known equivalent; in my hypothetical here, druid is to sorcerer as cleric is to wizard.)

    It nerfs the most egregious issues with wizard, cleric, and druid all at once, while also creating more differentiation and uniqueness between classes. I understand that not everyone likes Vancian casting, and that's fine, that's why we have sorcerer and druid there for you to play.

  • MaddocMaddoc I'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother? Registered User regular
    Oh fuck, it's Lancer release PDF day, just got mine

  • TallahasseerielTallahasseeriel Registered User regular
    Maddoc wrote: »
    Oh fuck, it's Lancer release PDF day, just got mine

    me toooo

    and holy moly it's pretty.

  • StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    Elddrik wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    If I had my druthers:

    Wizards would have the biggest range of a decreased list of spells, with the most overall spell slots. They'd have the option to focus on a specific school or diversify in to multiple however they like to reflect that their abilities come from learning.

    Sorcerers would be the specialized high level magic user to reflect their inheritance. Somewhat fewer spell slots that can be enhanced to become more powerful, and the highest level spells being reserved for them at the cost of a wider spread of spells.

    Warlocks more or less where they are but I'd like better options than just the Eldritch blast. Keep their spell slots limited but provide better cantrips and bonuses to spells that fall under their patron's domain.

    Psionics would have access to strong cantrips and limited early spell levels that they could cast at higher levels similar to Warlocks, focused around illusion and psychic type magic, along with buff and debuff spells similar to Bards.

    Really just more class specific spells overall. Which would be more time and resource intensive to create so I understand WOTC preferring a generalized list most classes pull from. But those are my druthers.

    This is why I think wizards (and clerics) should have kept true Vancian casting.

    You want to cast Fireball four times a day? Great. Prepare it. You're not casting dispel magic, fly, lightning bolt, or any of the other great 3rd level spells today. You might cast any of them tomorrow, thanks to your large spellbook offering you access to an enormous variety of possible spells, but in any given day, you lock yourself into a specific set of spells available. The current 5E "prepare spells, then cast from any prepared spell" just doesn't put enough limits on the class and the flexibility available within a set of prepared spells. I would also increase the expected spellbook size, or maybe even just say that your spellbook contains every spell on your class list of appropriate levels, like how cleric works, because that way you don't have to just pick the most powerful spells with your free picks and you have more opportunity to say "today, I'll prepare one copy of this incredibly niche and/or weak spell, because I think it'll do me good today".

    You want to only ever have access to (say) Dispel Magic, Fireball, and Fly, instead of every 3rd level spell, but to cast whichever one seems best at the time? Great. Play a sorcerer. (Or, in this alternate version that I'm creating, a druid for divine equivalent, because I'd have druid be spells-known equivalent; in my hypothetical here, druid is to sorcerer as cleric is to wizard.)

    It nerfs the most egregious issues with wizard, cleric, and druid all at once, while also creating more differentiation and uniqueness between classes. I understand that not everyone likes Vancian casting, and that's fine, that's why we have sorcerer and druid there for you to play.

    Yeah, essentially agreed.

    Like, my actual solution is to make wizards and clerics NPC exclusive classes, under the idea that the level of devotion (to books, to gods) required to be one doesn't really mesh with being an adventurer, but I know that's not going to work for a lot of people. I think this sort of thing brings them a step closer to it, although I probably would reinstate the Favored Soul as a divine sorcerer instead of having it fall to the druid (who I see as more of a divine bard (in that I don't want them to be a spellcaster at all but grudgingly accept that it's a part of D&D's whole thing)).

  • ElddrikElddrik Registered User regular
    Straightzi wrote: »
    Yeah, essentially agreed.

    Like, my actual solution is to make wizards and clerics NPC exclusive classes, under the idea that the level of devotion (to books, to gods) required to be one doesn't really mesh with being an adventurer, but I know that's not going to work for a lot of people. I think this sort of thing brings them a step closer to it, although I probably would reinstate the Favored Soul as a divine sorcerer instead of having it fall to the druid (who I see as more of a divine bard (in that I don't want them to be a spellcaster at all but grudgingly accept that it's a part of D&D's whole thing)).

    The ranger takes that "divine bard" area for me, I'd much rather see a ranger with minor quasi-magical abilities but no actual spellcasting.

    I'd be happy with a spell-less bard if they were more like the Athasian bard, assassins and poisoners and negotiators and performers all in one. Historically the spell-less bard has been extraordinarily useless in D&D, as it's very difficult to differentiate them from the thief/rogue without giving them magic.

  • BucketmanBucketman Call me SkraggRegistered User regular
    Hmm in D&D 5e do Arcane Trickster Rogues not have to prepare spells like a wizard does? I'm looking at the rules and it appears they just have a list of spells they know and can cast them as long as they have a slot. So its like Bard spell casting?

  • ElddrikElddrik Registered User regular
    Bucketman wrote: »
    Hmm in D&D 5e do Arcane Trickster Rogues not have to prepare spells like a wizard does? I'm looking at the rules and it appears they just have a list of spells they know and can cast them as long as they have a slot. So its like Bard spell casting?

    Correct. Arcane Tricksters (and Eldritch Knights) learn spells from a subset of the Wizard spell list, but they know and cast them like bards/sorcerers instead of preparing like wizards.

  • StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    I'm going to be honest, I had forgotten that Rangers are technically divine spellcasters because I hate that idea so dang much

    My full druid/bard comparison is that they're both classes that have extremely cool sounding abilities that feel like they should be their primary abilities and then get kind of sidelined by their ability to cast spells

    It turns what should be two of my favorite classes into classes I will never play

  • BucketmanBucketman Call me SkraggRegistered User regular
    edited November 2019
    Yeah I would prefer it if, even if they cast spells, they weren't divine. I always flavor it as like, the spirits of the forest or whatever powered their spells. Spellcasting druids SHOULD feel different from a cleric or a wizard.

    Overall I like 5e a lot, and I liked 4e, but I think they need to take some bits of each to make a better game. The power sources in 4e were really good!

    Edit: Also the new UA Ranger from a few weeks ago fixed this, but rangers having Hunters Mark as a spell and not an ability was dumb

    Bucketman on
  • Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    apparently something went really bad and The One Ring 2e is no more.

    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • BucketmanBucketman Call me SkraggRegistered User regular
    They said it was contract issues

  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy The Astral PlaneRegistered User regular
    edited November 2019
    DCC wizards are powerful but magic is unpredictable and chaotic. You are dealing with powers far beyond your understanding. Critical failures can cause the spell to misfire (your magic missile blows a hole in the floor, you fall to the basement of the dungeon you're in, if applicable) or corruption, which gradually mutates you into a horrible monster:

    wiztrans-783x1024.png

    If you fail a spell but not critically, you lose it for the day. You can spellburn (make a blood sacrifice of a point of a physical stat) to temporarily access a lost spell, but you need an extended, extended rest to recover it completely. Makes it so you can spend resources to continue casting spells, but you gradually become weaker and more fragile

    Casual Eddy on
  • Albino BunnyAlbino Bunny Jackie Registered User regular
    Wizard, Fighter, Thief/Skill Bastard and Cleric is a perfectly fine basis.

    It just quickly becomes very dumb once you add classes that are *wizard but cooler and CHA based* or classes which are just fighter+cleric.

    It's like having two different generations of tech standing next to eachother and insisting they're some how the same.

  • StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    I think the Thief still has a distinct enough niche carved out (although I'd love to hear arguments to the contrary), but yeah, I'd gladly excise the other three.

  • Albino BunnyAlbino Bunny Jackie Registered User regular
    Nah, DnD Rogue/Thief shit has basically zero niche except 'skill monkey' and 'like a DnD rogue'.

    Which is the biggest problem with fighter and rogue. You describe them by how Fighter and rogue were in DnD rather than actual exciting terms.

    A rogue sneak attacks and has skill proficiencies because duh, that's what a rogue does.

    Not because it actually defines a 'rogue' in any given setting.

  • BahamutZEROBahamutZERO Registered User regular
    edited November 2019
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Drascin wrote: »
    Delduwath wrote: »
    The wizards brand is "We get literally all special abilities in the game at one point or another".

    Honestly, the Wizard is a design problem. Yes, I know it's traditional, but I realized this in 3rd edition and it hasn't changed in 5th: when your Basic Definitory Magic User, the one that defines What Magic Is Like in your game, is a dude that is at the same time extremely idiosyncratic and absolutely omnicompetent, and who has no actual limitations on his available design space except "no healing spells, I guess? Maybe?", it hamstrings your options for other casters something fierce. Not just that, its omnicompetence pushes the idea that this is the normal, and that other casting classes should be similarly omnicompetent in order to not feel like a sucker's game. And of course, the simple fact is that the D&D Wizard does not actually reflect, well, pretty much any fictional magic user that is not in itself based on the D&D Wizard!

    So yeah, something needs to change with the Wizard.

    It kind of mirrors my issue with "Fighter" as a class. It's just "guy who fights good" and is so broad any other martial concept could just be a fighter.

    How would you prefer to mechanically differentiate people who fight good?

    BahamutZERO on
    BahamutZERO.gif
  • DelduwathDelduwath Registered User regular
    Hey, so we're mostly talking about RPGs here, but I accidentally came across a tabletop game Kickstarter last night (a YouTuber I follow who does Transformers toy reviews put up some videos with a preview of this game) that looks really cool. Not gonna link it per forum rules, but the name is "Necromolds".

    It's a tabletop tactical wargame that seems to be aimed mainly at kids; all the units seem to have a "gross-out monster" aesthetic. Here's the hook: you make all the units yourself, on the spot, by filling plastic molds with Play-Doh-- I'm sorry, Spell Dough. The two-part plastic molds are done up to look like arcane spell tomes: imagine closing a two-part mold and then wrapping a book cover around it. So open the book, mush some Spell Dough in there, close the book and press it tight, open it again and pull out your new monster.

    The front cover of the book has artwork of the monster it produces; the back has the combat stats for it. How are more powerful monsters balanced? Simple, they just take more Spell Dough to make. You don't get "army build points" or whatever to purchase and equip your army, you get 3oz of Spell Dough and then you make as big an army as you can manage.

    What happens when you kill an opponent's monster? Oh nothing, you just smash it with your signet ring, turning a proud and fierce monster into a blob of Spell Dough with your personal emblem stamped into it.

    Honestly, this is one of the most innovative approaches to wargaming that I've seen. I like that it has one foot in the "hobby serious beardy-man wargame" world and one foot in the "it's a toy c'mon let's just have fun ya nerd" world. Being able to make your own minis on a short time scale, and recycle them into a new unit comp for the next game, is obviously brilliant. It has a certain Creepy Crawlers feel to it; I always wanted one of those things as a kid, but never got one.

    I wish my kid was older, so I could use that as a flimsy excuse to get this.

  • Albino BunnyAlbino Bunny Jackie Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Drascin wrote: »
    Delduwath wrote: »
    The wizards brand is "We get literally all special abilities in the game at one point or another".

    Honestly, the Wizard is a design problem. Yes, I know it's traditional, but I realized this in 3rd edition and it hasn't changed in 5th: when your Basic Definitory Magic User, the one that defines What Magic Is Like in your game, is a dude that is at the same time extremely idiosyncratic and absolutely omnicompetent, and who has no actual limitations on his available design space except "no healing spells, I guess? Maybe?", it hamstrings your options for other casters something fierce. Not just that, its omnicompetence pushes the idea that this is the normal, and that other casting classes should be similarly omnicompetent in order to not feel like a sucker's game. And of course, the simple fact is that the D&D Wizard does not actually reflect, well, pretty much any fictional magic user that is not in itself based on the D&D Wizard!

    So yeah, something needs to change with the Wizard.

    It kind of mirrors my issue with "Fighter" as a class. It's just "guy who fights good" and is so broad any other martial concept could just be a fighter.

    How would you prefer to mechanically differentiate people who fight good?

    Be able to do basic stuff like 'trip a man over' without it needing to be a sub class specific option limited like it's some kind of mystical spell.

    Also don't have weapons split such that the idea of 'good with every weapon' is a fucking joke.

  • BahamutZEROBahamutZERO Registered User regular
    edited November 2019
    Making tripping a universal thing doesn't help the case of making mechanically unique fighting people. Having weapon proficiency be the big defining difference between a pikeman and a Roman gladiator also doesn't seem like very fertile class design ground, given how D&D weapons are abstracted to damage dice, a damage type that rarely matters, and maybe range or reaching or thrown properties.

    BahamutZERO on
    BahamutZERO.gif
  • StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Drascin wrote: »
    Delduwath wrote: »
    The wizards brand is "We get literally all special abilities in the game at one point or another".

    Honestly, the Wizard is a design problem. Yes, I know it's traditional, but I realized this in 3rd edition and it hasn't changed in 5th: when your Basic Definitory Magic User, the one that defines What Magic Is Like in your game, is a dude that is at the same time extremely idiosyncratic and absolutely omnicompetent, and who has no actual limitations on his available design space except "no healing spells, I guess? Maybe?", it hamstrings your options for other casters something fierce. Not just that, its omnicompetence pushes the idea that this is the normal, and that other casting classes should be similarly omnicompetent in order to not feel like a sucker's game. And of course, the simple fact is that the D&D Wizard does not actually reflect, well, pretty much any fictional magic user that is not in itself based on the D&D Wizard!

    So yeah, something needs to change with the Wizard.

    It kind of mirrors my issue with "Fighter" as a class. It's just "guy who fights good" and is so broad any other martial concept could just be a fighter.

    How would you prefer to mechanically differentiate people who fight good?

    Alright here's my pitch.

    First off, we need two classes. There's the brawler and the soldier.

    The brawler is somewhere between a monk and a barbarian, partially because I'm looking for any excuse to remove monks from D&D, and they specialize in improvised combat and combat maneuvers. Special moves for tripping people, bonuses to grappling and throwing stuff, flat damage regardless of what they're using as a weapon (if anything).

    The soldier picks up the fighter's whole "proficient with every weapon" thing. Which doesn't sound like much, but I'd also rework weapons to provide special action abilities for each one (which you can use if you're proficient in the weapon). Spears brace against charges, axes ruin shields, and so on. The soldier knows how to do them all, and can come equipped with all the weapons necessary.

    Continue having the Barbarian and the Ranger as well of course, and if you're part of the getting rid of the rogue sect, throw in a finesse based swashbuckler type as well.

    That gives you five martial classes that all have mechanically distinct ways of fighting.

  • BahamutZEROBahamutZERO Registered User regular
    That sounds more like you want to redo the uncomfortably orientalist monk more than dismantle The Class What Fights Good, I do like the idea of special actions for the fighter based on weapon to incentivize carrying around several types though

    BahamutZERO.gif
  • StraightziStraightzi Here we may reign secure, and in my choice, To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User regular
    I mean, I want both, and I feel like they're two things that can be done at the same time. But to keep it fighter specific, they're essentially two different takes on the way that the fighter works.

    The Brawler is a class that can pick up any weapon (weapon, in this instance, refers more to rocks and broken bottles and bits of wood, but it could also mean a sword that they don't technically know how to use) and do reliable damage with it. They can also do cool combat stuff that is not specific to the weapon that they are using. To me, they actually represent the purer form of the fighter, as someone who is just good at fighting, no matter what, although obviously I am drawing a fair bit from the monk as well.

    The Soldier is a class that can pick up any weapon and use it proficiently, which for 95% of weapons would mean doing reliable damage with it. They can also do cool combat stuff, but theirs is specific to the weapon that they are using. This is designed to emphasize the tactical choice of weapons, and even have a bit of a preparation element to it - as the wizard decides what spells they need at the beginning of the day (I know this isn't a thing anymore, just give it to me), so does the soldier strap a shamshir and a tabar to his belt.

  • Albino BunnyAlbino Bunny Jackie Registered User regular
    I mean the answer is really if DnD is a system that makes weapon choice matter and if making it a focus for a whole ass class/sub class is really worth it (especially considering the infinity gold any PC above level 3 is swimming in for practical purposes).

  • DelduwathDelduwath Registered User regular
    A fighter who studies a whole lot and can cast-- I'm sorry, use a wide range of maneuvers, provided they boned up on their manuals the night before.

    A fighter who's just super-good at a couple of specific maneuvers, like supernaturally good, like they probably have some demon blood.

    A fighter who is only good at fighting because they made a deal with a bigger, stronger boy - like maybe even an eighth-grader! - and whenever they get into a fight that bigger boy comes in and beats up whoever is bothering the fighter (but the fighter has to let the bigger boy read their Superman comics whenever the bigger boy wants, even on weekends).

    A fighter who's so good at dancing that whenever they dance at people, those people get hurt.

  • GrogGrog My sword is only steel in a useful shape.Registered User regular
    I like the dichotomy of "My weapon and I are one" and "I could kill you with anything in this room" as the core of a Fighting Man

  • TallahasseerielTallahasseeriel Registered User regular
    A fighter who comes loaded with 4 air to air missiles and a 20mm gun

This discussion has been closed.