[D&D/d20 Discussion] Paper Dragons (2024)

Goumindong wrote: »

Yes but "i have a skill" is an integral part of a character. "i have money" is not.

"I have money" can absolutely be a defining factor of a character. Lots of games have explicit backgrounds for being poor or being rich. I liked the Noble talent in Star Wars Saga where every time you leveled up, you straight up got 5,000 credits x your level, due to ongoing long-term investments. That's a resource like any other, and it implies something about your character as codified by the rules. Bethesda's upcoming game Starfield has a trait to have living parents and a nice home you can go back and visit, but a portion of your money is deducted from what you earn that you send back to them. Even so, that's a mild form of wealth/value which defines part of your character. That's perfectly fine.

Having any resources your character can draw upon represents something you've invested your time in for a personal benefit. That doesn't have to be represented as a physical skill.

So sorcerers should get keeps?

If the game designers believe a keep ought to be offered to sorcerers as a resource/balancing factor, then yes. If instead they think a sorcerer is roughly equivalent to a wizard in resources they can already draw on, then they can design the class in such a way to imply other pursuits that any representative sorc has invested their time in instead.

I mean, I assume you would agree with this. If you truly believe that all sorcs have been handed their magic on a silver platter and have therefore been able to spend their time doing whatever they want, then why would that be limited to social investments? Why aren't they all trained to backstab? Why haven't they picked up a bunch of martial training with various weapons? In the interest of balance, the fiction must dictate that no sorcerers spent their time picking up other classes' skills. Whether you like it or not, part of your backstory was decided for you. If you got your magic for free and have done no training, then inherently you must've wasted a lot of your time on frivolous pursuits, or been indisposed/languished, or lived a basic subsistence life, etc.

So your wizard can roleplay away your fighter bonuses?

As much as any class can roleplay away others' bonuses. A fighter could "roleplay away" the wizard's bonuses by murdering him, or burning his spellbook, or stealing his component pouch, or asking the DM for permission to train in cantrips, or learn to cast from scrolls, etc. None of that is a good idea. Likewise, if it's not codified by the rules that the wizard attracts followers, then they're going to have to ask the DM's permission, and they're able to say no.

A good DM will work toward keeping any player from overshadowing another, and as discussed, the ability to automatically attract followers and form an organization for everyone but wizards is a powerful resource to draw on. If those rules go ignored by the DM or the player because they consider it too much of a headache to manage, then of course the martials will be lacking even more than they ought to be.

There are entire games built around the idea of having contacts and an organization you can draw on. If the rules don't say you get access to an organization, then good luck. If the DM gives you one anyway, then expect the other players to feel a bit miffed.

This is, quite exactly, my point. If you're playing DnD then it does not make sense that fighters get keeps and that wizards are poor. This is not what you do in DnD. That is neither how the fluff nor the system works. You're over here saying "well this is an alien game but you can't play as a marine and there are no xenomorphs"

It is what happens in D&D if that's what's codified by the system. If the rules say that fighters get keeps and the wizards don't, then the fiction necessarily bends to support that. For the same reason the fiction bends to make sure xenomorphs show up in Alien, or all rogues know how to backstab, or all clerics serve a god, or all monks must maintain a vow of poverty. You can try to play as a greedy monk if you want, but that's not what the rules say.

When you say it's not how it works, that comes from a flawed understanding that the rules somehow promise that the DM won't be required to generate NPCs whole cloth to support a class feature. But they don't say that anywhere. You can look right under the fighter entry and see the class feature right there. That means that all fighters have been building up those connections in the course of their lives, whether it happened explicitly at the table or not, like every other class feature.