Allow me to make stupid decisions, please....

[Heresiarch]

I don't like artificial limitations. Weapons can be unwieldy if you aren't strong enough, but being unable to swing a sword, because you are a mage or a cleric (yeah, I know D&D has it for clerics and bladed weapons) is just plain dumb. If you don't want your fighters to be underpowered, give them combat bonuses instead of artificially limiting the weapon selection for other classes. It's a no-brainer. Same goes for artificial class restrictions.

[AGX-17]

I don't like artificial limitations. Weapons can be unwieldy if you aren't strong enough, but being unable to swing a sword, because you are a mage or a cleric (yeah, I know D&D has it for clerics and bladed weapons) is just plain dumb. If you don't want your fighters to be underpowered, give them combat bonuses instead of artificially limiting the weapon selection for other classes. It's a no-brainer. Same goes for artificial class restrictions.

 

A game is a set of artificial limitations. That's why you don't win a game of chess by flipping the board in frustration because you're losing under the artificial limitations of the game.

 

Anyway, the bigger issue at hand is that the OP is confusing clarity of design intent with the player agency in character growth. The example J.E. Sawyer has used more than once is that the weapons and respective skills in Fallout and Fallout 2 were tiered, with Guns being the lowest, Big Guns being the middle and Energy Weapons being the highest. Meaning players couldn't make an informed decision on which skills to take when creating a character. Not to mention all of the garbage skills that you use half a dozen times in the game, or the utterly useless ones like Gambling. This is never expressed to the player in any way over the course of either game. Although Fallout 2 mitigated some of the weapon skill issues with weapons like Gauss pistols and rifles (whose ammo had the best armor mitigation,) it was still the Pulse EWs that did the highest damage-per-shot.

Edited December 30, 2012 by AGX-17

[Heresiarch]

I don't like artificial limitations. Weapons can be unwieldy if you aren't strong enough, but being unable to swing a sword, because you are a mage or a cleric (yeah, I know D&D has it for clerics and bladed weapons) is just plain dumb. If you don't want your fighters to be underpowered, give them combat bonuses instead of artificially limiting the weapon selection for other classes. It's a no-brainer. Same goes for artificial class restrictions.

 

A game is a set of artificial limitations. That's why you don't win a game of chess by flipping the board in frustration because you're losing under the artificial limitations of the game.

 

And a watermelon is a combination of molecules. That's why you don't eat it by shovelling pieces up your backside.

 

Seriously, what's it with people and inappropriate comparisons?

 

A game is a set of rules. Rules can take numerous forms. Artificial limitations are artificial, because they are illogical. If my character can't cast spells, because he isn't a mage, that's totally fine. If he can't pick up a gun and pull the trigger, because he is an elf, it's just stupid. The difference between two situations is so vast, that I believe pretty much everyone can grasp it without any further clarification.

[lomifeh]

so they shouldn't use an axe based on their beliefs. That seems more like a roleplaying/moral decision. There is no good reason that a cleric shouldn't have the skill to carry an axe. Let him be ostracized by other clerics and priests. Then let him kill those other clerics and priests with his axe if he so chooses.

 

Well priests/clerics are a bad example. Since they are supposed to be exemplars of their faith in appearance, deed, and word then he'd either be labeled a heretic and be stripped of powers by his god or something similar. A better example is other skills maybe that would not really fall afoul of tenants of a faith. Say a priest who happens to be really good at gambling even though technically he should not be doing so.

[.Leif.]

I was just talking about classes requiring you to have 14 Wisdom (or so) to start level one. Sometimes you might want to play a character blessed in his or her core skills. Sometimes you play an Orc Bard.

 

Since the conversation has shifted to Clerics and their weapon use I'd like to chime in that perhaps different classes could get a different amount of weapon category unlocks. The Warriors would get to adopt and specialize in a wide selection of weapons and the Mages would get to select what sort of weapons they could defend themselves with. What must happen is an improvement over the 3.whaver system of Basic, martial and Exotic. I don't believe that priests should categorically be denied the ability to use bladed weapons. It's too Second Edition for my tastes, it feels dated.

[Karkarov]

There seems to be alot of misunderstandings about D&D here. Yes in the original game clerics had these restrictions, but Gygax pretty much said in 2nd Ed. "Hey guys we gets lots of feedback about this, so we are just going to include our own house rules in the real rules this time! Weapon restrictions for Priests is based on faith now, not class!" So unless your DM was a **** he had no issue at all with a dude who worshiped say the equivalent of Ares using a sword or axe. The reason things like this didn't make it into a lot of CRPG's based on D&D is because either the designers were lazy, considered it a balance issue (???), or just didn't think it was important enough to put in. But in real D&D from 2nd Ed. on it was perfectly viable to have a Cleric with an Axe. Or a wizard for that matter, what he was going to do with it though is anyone's guess.

[.Leif.]

Or a wizard for that matter, what he was going to do with it though is anyone's guess.

 

He could wave it threateningly if an enemy should happen to wander his way.

Or use it akin to a Spellblade, channeling his spells through his weapon.

 

Axe-Wizards are oft underestimated.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I think part of good design is making sure no skill is "gimped" so while I agree with you in theory I will borrow a 3rd Edition D&D implementation. A Fighter in 3rd Ed is obviously not a master of stealth, by nature he is not well trained in moving silently or hiding in shadows. HOWEVER, he can still learn these skills just at greater cost and a longer investment period, also he is limited in that while he can ultimately become good at it he will never be as good as a rogue is. So you pay a price, get what is considered a "sub optimal" choice for your character, but it is still a viable choice that gives you a skill that IS useful just not ideal for your chosen class.

Building on this, there's also a significant difference between how cross-class skills work in 3E/3.5 and how they work in Pathfinder. In 3E/3.5, CC skills cost twice as many points to advance (essentially -- you buy half-ranks) and your max is well below what it is for characters that have that skill as a class skill. At low levels, the CC skills are simply lower than class skills, but by a relatively small margin. At high levels, the CC skills are so far below class skills that it's often impossible for a CC skill to make a check that is targeted at a character of your level. E.g. a rogue may have +30 in Open Lock while a determined, lock-lovin' fighter has +15. A 40 DC lock is not extraordinarily difficult for the rogue to pick, but it is literally impossible for the fighter to pick. The end result is that at higher levels, cross class skills become virtually worthless because the system consistently punishes you for not mix-maxing to a class' strengths.

 

In Pathfinder, class skills receive an immediate and permanent +3 bonus the first time you put a rank in one. Cross class skills don't have half-ranks, but they also don't get a bonus. In addition to being simpler overall, the system accomplishes a few things: 1) it keeps CC skills at a more-or-less fixed point distance (3) from class skills, all other things being equal 2) it encourages players to spread their skill points out among class skills, since they get more bonuses the more skills they put ranks in 3) ultimately, it reinforces the idea that classes will generally tend to be better at class skills without crushing characters playing "against type".

 

The reason I'm comparing these two things is to show that on the design side, we have many different ways we can allow you to be "sub-optimal". Both 3E and Pathfinder allow you to buy cross class skills, but in the former it's a more-or-less dead end. In the long run, they're mostly wasted points. In Pathfinder, you're usually at a disadvantage compared to someone focusing on a class skill, but it's a fixed distance disadvantage, meaning that sub-optimal actually means "sub-optimal" -- not "terrible".

[rjshae]

^^^

I like your point, but from another sense it seems like a cheap way to game the system: at first level just put a single point in each of the class skills you want to advance. Would it be better to use a point-matching scheme for the first three points you assign to a class skill (at any level)?

[Adhin]

I'd imagine the bonus is for any skill you have a class for that you have points in, not it requiring you do it 'at' level 1. That and you would still have to have the class 'with' said skills as there core skills to even get a +3. I like the idea of a bonus like that, didn't even know pathfinder did that but I'm not up to date on Pathfinder like I should be. Personally I feel +3 is a bit to low in general to be a real difference, more so in a game with so many ways to bring skills up artificially. But I prefer that idea over the half-point thing for sure, less gimpy, easier to multiclass stuff since your not skimping on stuff you feel is your top few skills.

 

-edit-

Oh I really hope PE has some kinda multiclassing in place, always loved that option.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Adhin

[J.E. Sawyer]

+3 is ostensibly a +15% chance of success all other things being equal. However, often all other things are not equal. Class skills tend to also align with the most common primary stats for the classes taking them. It's true that a high-Dex fighter can be quite viable in 3E and Pathfinder, but they aren't as common as high-Dex rogues. Even an additional +2 means that the gap is 25% -- not enough to make most checks impossible for the non-specialist, but significantly more difficult.

[Adhin]

Yeah attributes definitely can make up a good bit of the difference there if a fighters doing the str route and still wants lock picking. Though most fighters wont go sneak/hide if they're strength based rockin' full plate. Having to get into there skivvies for the sake of stealthing is beyond less then ideal for someone whos spent there life training to be sneaky. Least in that case I'd imagine the fighters dex based. Then again he probably also has 4 or so levels of rogue and has that +3 bonus to go along with it all as well.

 

Well, either way, can't wait to get info on what the non-combat skill stuff is gonna be in PE, and level progression and when we get talent and skill points and all that good stuff.

[PIP-Clownboy]

What lore reason is there for a Cleric being unable to wield an axe?

 

Yeah, Clerics not being able to use edged weapons is one the silliest and most pointless tropes around. If my priest wants to use a big F-off axe I don't see why he shouldn't. He's still a killer either way.

[Ineth]

What lore reason is there for a Cleric being unable to wield an axe?

 

Their religious code forbids it, probably.

[ogrezilla]

What lore reason is there for a Cleric being unable to wield an axe?

 

Their religious code forbids it, probably.

which is a moral dilemma, not a skill dilemma. Priests should have the physical ability to carry an axe even if they aren't allowed to.

[Ieo]

Speaking of sub-optimal, I'm enjoying my current run through BG:EE on my Cleric/Thief (favorite oddball combination) and one of the least popular weapons in the franchise, the staff (until the Staff of the Magi, yes). I'll add a point in club later, perhaps. I just wish I could choose any race.... and back-stab with a blunt weapon... and have better THAC0.... Heh.

[Tamerlane]

Seems Sawyer's basic philosophy is, "If we give you an option to take, we should give you content that supports that option". If you can take "Shillelagh Specialist" as a feat, you can bet you're going to run in to some sweet-ass mother****ing shillelaghs over the course of the game. Not everything has to be equal, and different combinations will by necessity be better than others, but taken on their own, everything should be useful.

 

EDIT: Calice. I am a horrible person who did not read past the first page and also did not read post dates.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Tamerlane

[TRX850]

The Battleguard of Tempus from IWD2 is a great example of why axe-wielding clerics rock.

[JFSOCC]

Actions have consequences, but they shouldn't be crippling if you get it wrong incidentally. Mistakes should be ok, many mistakes and you should feel the stares and glances coming your way