Success, yes, but the mechanics don't define what you can RP.
It can be something as simple as
"Here take this wand and cast CLW."
"What are ya, new? I don't mess around with mojo, ya schmuck."
Roleplaying.
"Here take this wand and cast CLW."
"I rolled a 10 on the die for a total of 35. I cast the spell."
OR
"Well lessee here...bippity boppity boo? *Casts CLW*"
Mechanics.
Success, yes, but the mechanics don't define what you can RP.
It can be something as simple as
"Here take this wand and cast CLW."
"What are ya, new? I don't mess around with mojo, ya schmuck."
Roleplaying.
"Here take this wand and cast CLW."
"I rolled a 10 on the die for a total of 35. I cast the spell."
OR
"Well lessee here...bippity boppity boo? *Casts CLW*"
Mechanics.
Again I find myself perplexed.
Role playing is based on what your character has the ability to do. Sure you can "role play" any sort of arbitrary and insane nonsense if you want to, but to me that's not "role playing" it's "play acting."
Role playing means to play your character as the character would act based on their backstory, motivations, ambitions, prejudices and abilities. Increasing your character's abilities increases the options for role playing.
I would think this is self-evident.
Again I find myself perplexed.
Role playing is based on what your character has the ability to do. Sure you can "role play" any sort of arbitrary and insane nonsense if you want to, but to me that's not "role playing" it's "play acting."
Role playing means to play your character as the character would act based on their backstory, motivations, ambitions, prejudices and abilities. Increasing your character's abilities increases the options for role playing.
I would think this is self-evident.
I would have to concur.
I hate to interject (not really), but there is a simple phrase to illustrate this argument:
Which comes first Form or Function?
One is always layered over the other, but depending on how you play, one has to conform to the other.
Again I find myself perplexed.
Role playing is based on what your character has the ability to do. Sure you can "role play" any sort of arbitrary and insane nonsense if you want to, but to me that's not "role playing" it's "play acting."
Role playing means to play your character as the character would act based on their backstory, motivations, ambitions, prejudices and abilities. Increasing your character's abilities increases the options for role playing.
I would think this is self-evident.
Playing a role that is incapable of doing something does not make you less capable of role playing.
You are literally playing the role of someone, pretending to be them. A character with infinite options does not have unlimited role playing capability, he just has infinite mechanical options. Likewise a character with no capabilities does not have less opportunities to play his role.
Now, gaining new abilities might constitute character development, but it doesn't change the role/character you're playing. That's entirely based on the personality and story, not the mechanics.
Think of all the characters in media that kind of stumble out of their element and can't really do anything the other "more competent" characters can because he hasn't acquired the skills they've gained from their life or training. Does that make him any less of a character?
Rynjin, you might as well be speaking Martian as far as I'm concerned.
Eh, okay.
This one's not really worth arguing over TBH, not in this thread anyway.
|
“The Solemn Scout” 8th level elven Fighter.
Str: 12
Dex: 22
Con: 12
Int: 14
Wis: 14
Cha: 9
HP: 8d10 + 8
AC: 26
Touch: 17
Flat: 19
Traits: Eyes and Ears of the City, Bandit
Initiative: + 6
Fort: + 7
Ref: + 8
Will: + 6 (+8 vs Enchantment Spells)(+ 8 vs Fear)
+1 agile dueling sword: + 17/+ 12 1d8 + 10 19 – 20 x2
+1 composite longbow: + 15/+ 10 1d8 + 2
Feats (9): Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Dueling Sword), Iron Will, Weapon Focus (Dueling Sword), Weapon Finesse, Weapon Specialization, Skill Focus: (Perception), Stealthy, Dodge, (Still deciding on the last feat).
Fighter: Armor Training 2, Weapon Training 1, Bravery 2
Skills (40): Perception: + 21, Stealth: + 31, Survival + 13, Knowledge: Dungeoneering + 13, Ride: + 10, Acrobatics: + 11, Profession: (Soldier): + 7, Knowledge: Nature: + 7. (Still have 8 points to use from Favored Class).
Gear: +1 agile dueling sword, +1 shadowed mithral shirt, +1 buckler, Belt of Incredible Dex + 2, Cloak of Elvenkind, Headband of Alluring Wisdom + 2, Ring of Protection + 2, + 1 composite longbow, Masterwork Tool + 2 (Stealth), Masterwork Tool + 2 (Perception),
This is a quick build I did. I may change some stuff around and post it again. I'm still working on the all fighter party.
Now as you can see this fighter is a competent scout. Now I could have done way better with the combat options but I liked the concept of a quick scout with a single weapon.
Eh, okay.
This one's not really worth arguing over TBH, not in this thread anyway.
True. It just seems to me that you started with an arbitrary definition of "role playing" that is causing you to torture logic, common sense and language to the point that it's like looking into a rhetorical black hole where all laws of grammar and sentence construction lose all meaning....
But I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you. :)
I like the scout shallowsoul. Prepare for violent deconstruction though. :)
I like the scout shallowsoul. Prepare for violent deconstruction though. :)I could have done a lot better with the gear but it is after 1am here.
I expected a guided weapon, but I'm not a build expert.
I think it's a perfectly playable build.
]
Agree or disagree with this statement:
Rangers have abilities tied to their class that deal with non-combat situations.
Then, agree or disagree with this statement:
Fighters have abilities tied to their class that deal with non-combat situations.
Hey IT, long time no chat!
What if the 'special ability' of fighters was they were the ONLY class to have 1/1 BAB advancement? Everything else got 3/4 or worse? Would that make them unique in your eyes? Would that make it interesting? Yes, I am aware you are looking for OUT of combat abilities, but what about the ability to be the ABSOLUTE best at combat?
Unique? Yes.
Interesting? No.
Annoying? Yes.
]
Agree or disagree with this statement:
Rangers have abilities tied to their class that deal with non-combat situations.
Then, agree or disagree with this statement:
Fighters have abilities tied to their class that deal with non-combat situations.
Hey IT, long time no chat!
What if the 'special ability' of fighters was they were the ONLY class to have 1/1 BAB advancement? Everything else got 3/4 or worse? Would that make them unique in your eyes? Would that make it interesting? Yes, I am aware you are looking for OUT of combat abilities, but what about the ability to be the ABSOLUTE best at combat?
Hey, hope things are going well.
Not really. I think characters should be inherently more rounded. This does not mean I think everyone should be able to do everything, but rather each class niche be reconsidered less in terms of specific actions, but in their method towards those actions.
I don't have a problem with how Fighter's are balanced in combat. I think the class would benefit from having their concept more broadly applied to the character as a whole, not as a limitation, but rather an additional avenue to encourage roleplaying.
Not really. I think characters should be inherently more rounded. This does not mean I think everyone should be able to do everything, but rather each class niche be reconsidered less in terms of specific actions, but in their method towards those actions.I don't have a problem with how Fighter's are balanced in combat. I think the class would benefit from having their concept more broadly applied to the character as a whole, not as a limitation, but rather an additional avenue to encourage roleplaying.
What about giving them the ability to craft magic arms and armor (much like Master Crasftman) or the ability to modify their weapon enchantemnts to better handle their current/upcoming foe?
I'm not stating that as a specific example (even though I did). I wanted to get an idea of how this additional avenue would go.
I'm aware of the other games you have played in (clearly, as I've played in some with you!), and was wondering if you wanted a mechanic that more fit current Pathfinder, or one that is more akin to a more story based system (FATE, Burning Wheel), or another system.
A concept I've been muddling around in my head is additional uses for skills, unlocked with levels in certain classes, mostly those that have nothing of terrible import yet. The selection of the skills would be done to emphasis an aspect of the style of the class as well. I've been mulling these over for about a week now and it's kind of coming through a chain of threads to get here.
Barbarian : Intimidate
Not a bonus, but interesting ways to use it that would encourage (not demand) a certain way of roleplaying the character. Maybe a Barbarian could use Intimidate to Aid Another when an ally was trying to use Bluff or Diplomacy. It puts an emphasis on the Barbarian's nature to use a direct and forceful method at solving situations.
Fighter : Sense Motive
The idea is that Fighter's read their opponents, usually in life or death situations, such as a battlefield. It's not that hard to imagine applying that same skill in other areas. This one is fuzzier, but I'm imagining some way that the Fighter could glean an additional piece of useful information not normally available through Sense Motive, but more as a careful study type action, not a reactive use of the skill.
A class like a Bard would still shine and dominate social situations, but now the Barbarian or Fighter could actually be mechanically useful to bring along... before swords are drawn. And not just because they have ranks in a skill, but because they are a Barbarian or Fighter (just like an Inquisitor/Cleric/Paladin could be useful for their truth telling spells, or a wizard for additional magic and breadth of knowledge skills, etc).
These are not fully formed ideas, more like vague concepts primarily existing in my head. The would not be altering the math of the game, more than a few points (like the new way of gaining Aid Another), nor attempting to step on pre-existing abilities/spells of other classes.
For submitting sample builds of fighters who are not useless outside of combat, what guidelines should be used?
I.e., point buy, are traits allowed, to what character level, what books are allowed, etc? I assume for the experiment it's single class only?
Also, I will say that I can produce a fighter who is not useless outside of combat. That's all I promise. I do not promise fighters with never-before-seen unique skills or any other ridiculous subject-changing expectations put upon the discussion by the Wrongbadfun Brigade. The thread subject was about fighters who are useful outside of combat, and that is what I aim to show.
Irontruth: That's some good stuff. I think certainly you could at least use those skills in a home game.
I'd love to see for the Sense Motive idea you mention for fighters an archetype based on a fighter who judges his opponents' fighting style before attacking them. While I think that use of the skill could be universal at core, I could see the archetype expanding on it and adding bonuses and such.
I'm not interested in the arguments going back and forth. But could we maybe get a google doc or something listing the builds that people like? I found one on one of the pages, then couldn't remember exactly what it was called or shich page and it took me a while to re-locate it.
EDIT: I'm not rying to be snide, but even I think it sounds that way in my head when I say it. I just meant I want to see the builds in one place without getting myself involved in the very earnest discussion.
|
|
I'm not interested in the arguments going back and forth. But could we maybe get a google doc or something listing the builds that people like? I found one on one of the pages, then couldn't remember exactly what it was called or shich page and it took me a while to re-locate it.
EDIT: I'm not rying to be snide, but even I think it sounds that way in my head when I say it. I just meant I want to see the builds in one place without getting myself involved in the very earnest discussion.
I understand what your saying. Sprinkling a build here and there can be a bit aggravating.
There is a new build thread that's up. It was made because this thread got derailed. (Sorry, Shadowsoul)