Omernon's page

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

The 2 skill points per level is also horribly crippling in a skill-based system.
.

If the fighter could.. well.. fight, it would at least be fullfilling its core function.

It really doesn't though. When you go to make your character do what you want your character to do out of all the options out there something else probably does it better or just takes a fighter dip.

One handed fighter? Swashbuckler

Unarmed fighter? Monk/brawler

Sword and board? Sword and board ranger

Two weapon fighting? two weapon fighting ranger

Mounted combat? Cavalier

Archer? Ranger archery style

Two handed weapon? B b. barbarian.

Imagine if the listed classes were weaker than the fighter at these fighting styles. Would there be any reason to play them? In my opinion fighter is a good class, because it is a "build whatever you want" kind of class, therefore by design it cannot be better than aforementioned classes in their areas of expertise. You can make fighter specialize at any weapon or fighting style and it is much easier to build character's background around this class than any other, because it gives you more freedom.

Also, comparing martial classes to casters is like comparing cars to helicopters. It is pretty logical that casters have more options, because magic by definition breaks the laws of physics and stands in opposition to technology.

An all spellcaster party would be extremely powerful. Do you argue that druids, summoners are weak at level 1?

Also imo a wizard is significantly more powerful than a fighter at level 1. If you want to to prove you are right, we can make a new thread and I can show you the difference.

Not in a regular play, no. I've been running games for many different groups (I'm quite well reputed in my area) and although wizards can be extreamly potent even at low levels, it's the martial classes that take the most kills. Reason? Wizards have access to only a few spells at first level and they usually take up the role of battlefield control (they soften up enemies, they put them to sleep and use all soft of nasty tricks, so that fighters and other melee classes can quickly finish their enemies).

Without protection of their meatshields, they are nothing in games that demand skill and tactical thinking. For example, they can't clear dungeons in SWAT-style, because after 4-5 spells they run out of usability and if they don't clear dungeons in SWAT-style, then they will get overruned quickly, because monsters (especially intelligent humanoids) are not waiting patiently in their rooms for their guests to come and slaughter them.

TPKs are common in my games, because new people come to me with their AP experience where every encounter is well-balanced, enemies are stupid and everything feels like in video game, where the storyline is tailored around the PCs. While my games are set in living, breathing worlds, filled with creatures that have their own desires and needs, other than being slaughtered by the adventuring party. So, visiting a cave that is a home of the orc tribe means that unless you are quiet and cautious, you will have very soon the entire tribe of orcs (minus the females, elderly and kids) going after you. Yet the same players still come to me, because of the difficulty, authenticity and freedom of my games.

BTW. Wizards are very important and powerful (I don't doubt that), but the entire group of them would be a suicide in old-school sandbox games (well, at least at first levels).

I'm afraid that most non-munchkin players won't use multiclassing to achieve their desired effect. Casuals won't be looking at warrior-priest combo, they will take paladin instead because it meets thir aims and it simplifies the entire process of character creation and development.

Good roleplayer will take warrior class and roleplay fearsome bandit, noble knight, gladiator, swordsman, swashbuckler and he won't have any problem with it but what about casuals or less creative players? Good roleplayer won't mind seperate warrior-like class and it will certainly benefit new players that are looking for something that they feels comfortable to roleplay.

I will say it once again:

We - Game Masters - shouldn't ever stop players from picking or even creating class they want, unless it will disturb fun of other gamers (as long as character suits the setting & theme of your adventure and it's not vastly overpowered compared to other characters). Don't get me wrong, player characters shouldn't ever be equal or well-balanced - diversity makes parties more interesting - but we GM should craft adventures in a way that every character will have something to do. For example; back in D&D 3.5 adventure set in Forgotten Realms campaign one of the players picked a diviner wizard. She decided to roleplay her as a gypsy with all sorts of witchcrafting like fortelling from bones etc. She had no fancy fireball spells because who the hell would expect from a gypsy to cast magic missile in someone's face? She roleplayed her character in a way she wanted and even though most of her group consisted of battle-hardened mercenaries I manipulated adventure in the way that she could fully roleplay her character and feel useful in her group.

So, for this reason I want to see more classes even if they are not as good in combat as others, because at the end of the day player will choose only one class from hundreds others.