Okay this is a serious thread, let me put on my serious avatar.
Done
So a lot of bile has been spewed on this forum over the issue of class balance. It is my opinion that a system with classes need to have those classes balanced against each other in some manner.
So what is balance. Let's start with what's not balance.
-Imbalance by Level. If the wizard class is weak at low levels and unstoppable at high levels and the fighter is awesome at low levels and loses steam at high levels. This isn't balance because 90% of the time people won't progress enough to see it. If you know for sure that the campaign is not going to last until high levels then you lose nothing by being a fighter. If the game is staring at a higher level then you lose comparatively less or nothing by being a wizard.
-Role protection. If the party needs a fighter, wizard, priest, and thief to get through that dungon than the classes are balanced right? Wrong. Not only dose the paradigm tend to railroad players into a class the don't want to play but unless each classes thing comes up an equal share of the time then some people are contributing more and some people are contributing less.
To give and example, imagine that there is a class called the Lame Guy. He has the worst saves and worst thaco/bab/whatever and no class features but the ability to kill the dreaded fuckoffsaurus instantly at will. This is the only way to deal with a fuckoffsaurus so someone needs to play the Lame Guy if the party is on any adventure that might involve the beasts. The thing is if 95% of the time the Lame Guy's niche is irrelevant than his player isn't going to have any fun. On the other hand if slaying fuckoffsaurus is not properly role protected (say the wizard researches the spell slay fuckoffsaurus) then the class is completely useless.
So what is balance. This is my definition of balance.
-SGT 50%. The Same Game Test measures the ability of a class to complete level appropriate challenges. The idea is that when presented with a list of potential challenges a party could face than that character would solve 50% of them. If a class can't score 50% on the test it need to be beefed up, if a class is scoring say 100% then it need to be toned down. The SGT is not an exact science but I feel the it's a good marker for how a class preforms.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578581So what is balance. Let's start with what's not balance.
-Imbalance by Level. If the wizard class is weak at low levels and unstoppable at high levels and the fighter is awesome at low levels and loses steam at high levels. This isn't balance because 90% of the time people won't progress enough to see it. If you know for sure that the campaign is not going to last until high levels then you lose nothing by being a fighter. If the game is staring at a higher level then you lose comparatively less or nothing by being a wizard.
-Role protection. If the party needs a fighter, wizard, priest, and thief to get through that dungon than the classes are balanced right? Wrong. Not only dose the paradigm tend to railroad players into a class the don't want to play but unless each classes thing comes up an equal share of the time then some people are contributing more and some people are contributing less.
I reject your ad-hoc declaration that these two things are inimical to balance.
Your definition of "Imbalance by level" is based on a wanton and undisclosed assumption of what counts as "strong" or "weak". You're saying "if a wizard is weak at low level", but you don't actually define what makes a wizard weak. To take the classical old-school 1st level wizard as an example, that single Charm or Sleep spell can very well prevent PC death in a situation that a fighter just couldn't cope with. So is that wizard actually weak?
Role protection - obviously,
too much niche protection is a problem, that's true. However, you're argument is going way too far in the opposite direction. You seem to claim that a balanced system gives the same amount or spotlight for all classes. This, however, ignores the fact that players are not all alike. If Johnny is an extroverted alpha-male type player who keeps coming up with ideas while Jimmy is a quiet wallflower who just follows the lead, Johnny will ALWAYS spend more time in the spotlight regardless of who plays which class. Classes cannot compensate for inequality in playstyles and player competence/experience, so blaming them for lopsided success distribution is fallacious.
"SGT 50%" - Okay, this kind of gives a key to everything you've written above. Apparently you buy into the completely not necessarily true notion that "level appropriateness" is
a thing; that it's something basic and fundamental to good design in a level-based RPG. Well, your assumption is wrong. Or at least if you wish it to accept as potentially usable in this debate, then you have to make an actual argument for it first, because we're not buying it just on sight.
Now, quite frankly, your post parses to me thus:
Quote- Let's discuss balance.
- I believe without arguing for my point that classes must be balanced against each other.
- I declare without arguing for my point that these two things are unbalanced:
- Two things new-school D&D-ers typically criticise old-school D&D for. Like, at all the time.
- I propose that this is balance:
- An argument based an axiomatic assumption that new-school D&D-ers typically accept axiomatically.
I might be wrong and you might be ninja-ing me with a deeply thoughtful and original line of reasoning right this very second, but as of now, this looks like nothing more than just yet another regurgitation of WotCD&D-ers' Top Ten chart of
Let's rag on old-school D&D. It must be that time of the year again.
I think you have done a very good job of establishing what is fun for you (and probably a fair number of others out there). This solution will certainly work for those who fit that category. The only problem with these balance debates in my opinion is they often fail to account for differences of preference and style in favor of a one size fits all. For example I find balance over time very fun (even if you don't go all twenty levels) and I also think niche protection can be enjoyable as well. For me the key to good balance (at least for what I prefer) in D&D is to consider things other than combat and create some deliberate disparity there. I want some classes that might be very good at combat, not so great out of combat, vice versa. I also want classes that may be good in some areas out of combat and not so much in others.
I also find when things are too tightly balanced it can feel a bit artificial to me. This is probably not such a common response though. Balance is important in a game but I dont think it is the most important element to focus on. I want there to be room for rough corners. I think this is one of the reaosn why people love the old spell list for example.
I am no knocking what you propose. I believe it works for you. I just think when you are talking about a game like D&D it can be very difficult to pick one approach to balance and assume it will appeal to everyone playing the game. This is very much a badwrongfun kind of thing where one man's broken system is another man's perfect system.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;578586I am no knocking what you propose. I believe it works for you. I just think when you are talking about a game like D&D it can be very difficult to pick one approach to balance and assume it will appeal to everyone playing the game. This is very much a badwrongfun kind of thing where one man's broken system is another man's perfect system.
Exactly, the type of balanced game Lord Mistborn seems to want would be a game I would have no interest at all in playing. I like characters that specialize and do one or two small areas of things much better than they do everything else. I don't mind other characters better better at combat than my character so long as each combat is short is actual time to play out (and I have no interest in RPGs were combats on average are not short to play out even if all characters are equally involved). I don't doubt that there are players who what very type of type of balance that Lord Mistborn wants, but the closer a game gets to this type of balance, the less likely I am to want to actually buy it, let alone play it.
I like many games that have lots of "imbalance by level" and "role protection" and don't think I've seen a game that comes close to the "SGT 50%" criteria that I really enjoy playing. Even skill-based games I really like such as (Classic/Mega/Mongoose) Traveller, Stormbringer, and Call of Cthulthu really don't meet the "SGT 50%" criteria.
Quote from: RandallS;578589I like many games that have lots of "imbalance by level" and "role protection" and don't think I've seen a game that comes close to the "SGT 50%" criteria that I really enjoy playing. Even skill-based games I really like such as (Classic/Mega/Mongoose) Traveller, Stormbringer, and Call of Cthulthu really don't meet the "SGT 50%" criteria.
for me it depends on the game. There are settings where i think I would actually enjoy the sgt 50% thing (maybe not fifty down the line but something where there is a basic level of competence in most broad categories). But i am not interested in D&D doing that.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578581So what is balance. Let's start with what's not balance.
I've stayed on the sidelines in this because I'm not a big believer in balance at all. I think it's non-genre, impossible to achieve and harmful to chase after in that it produces bland rules and blander encounters as anything becomes winable through any method.
RISUS is perhaps the ultimate expression of balance, as one's skill in baking pies has a equal chance of defeating a swordsman in combat. At the other extreme was the attempt of D&D 4E, where special abilities become magic by another name- and it doesn't smell as sweet.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578581-Role protection.
More commonly called niche protection IME. While I don't believe in balance, I do find value in niche protection.
Your example is an extreme case that has no counterpart in any game design that I'm aware of. No reasonable designer would have a major character class usable against only one creature, or only in 5% of a typical game's encounters.
It should be noted that Niche Protection starts with the game design by offering niches up front, but it's effectiveness is determined in play by the GM offering a range of encounters that allow the various niches to shine. A stealth class for example may well be more valuable than a warrior in a campaign where detection equals death. But useless in one that always starts with both sides lined up for battle. Niche protection is thus rather demanding, it requires the GM to offer a good variety of encounters (or requires the players to seek them out). It also requires a group of players that can enjoy watching one of the fellows dominate the game at times.
Lastly I think that as one moves away from D&D, and it's heavy dependence on resource management and unrealistic mechanics, balance become even less important. The selection of a well designed game will alllow player skill in actual play (as opposed to taking advantage of character generation) to overwhelm any mechanically base balance issues between characters.
Quote from: Premier;578584Your definition of "Imbalance by level" is based on a wanton and undisclosed assumption of what counts as "strong" or "weak". You're saying "if a wizard is weak at low level", but you don't actually define what makes a wizard weak. To take the classical old-school 1st level wizard as an example, that single Charm or Sleep spell can very well prevent PC death in a situation that a fighter just couldn't cope with. So is that wizard actually weak?
Well people in the fighter vs wizard thread where saying that it's ok for the wizard to be uber at high levels because they suck at low levels. I was just taking them at their word.
Quote from: Premier;578584Role protection - obviously, too much niche protection is a problem, that's true. However, you're argument is going way too far in the opposite direction. You seem to claim that a balanced system gives the same amount or spotlight for all classes. This, however, ignores the fact that players are not all alike. If Johnny is an extroverted alpha-male type player who keeps coming up with ideas while Jimmy is a quiet wallflower who just follows the lead, Johnny will ALWAYS spend more time in the spotlight regardless of who plays which class. Classes cannot compensate for inequality in playstyles and player competence/experience, so blaming them for lopsided success distribution is fallacious..
I never said that the spotlight has to shine on everyone equally no game can achive that. I was just saying that just because you need all the classes dose not make them balanced.
Quote from: Premier;578584"SGT 50%" - Okay, this kind of gives a key to everything you've written above. Apparently you buy into the completely not necessarily true notion that "level appropriateness" is a thing; that it's something basic and fundamental to good design in a level-based RPG. Well, your assumption is wrong. Or at least if you wish it to accept as potentially usable in this debate, then you have to make an actual argument for it first, because we're not buying it just on sight..
If there is no such thing a level appropriateness why are there levels. If a DM has no way of eyeballing what characters of x level can do than why. What D&D dose well in my opinion is allowing characters to advance. You can go form barely scrape by against a Manticore at 3rd level to not having a problem with them at 6th to fighting them in groups at 9th to being able to fend of huge numbers of them at 12th. As much as numbers need stay on the rails to some extent. What a character is and dose need to transform as people level otherwise you go from fighting boars at 1st level to fighting dread boars at 10th to fighting demon boars at 20th.
Quote from: Premier;578584I might be wrong and you might be ninja-ing me with a deeply thoughtful and original line of reasoning right this very second, but as of now, this looks like nothing more than just yet another regurgitation of WotCD&D-ers' Top Ten chart of Let's rag on old-school D&D. It must be that tie of the year again.
Listen if you're just going to dismiss my points out of hand as gripes against old school then don't post in this thread. I haven't even touched my personal gripes with old school gaming and I don't have any plans of doing so.
Also 50% SGT is not totally incompatible with niche protection or specialization.
Let's say we have Challenges X, Y, Z. and classes A, B, C, D.
Class A is a specialist and challenge X plays to their strengths and the can beat it 90% of the time. challenge Y doesn’t play to their strength but doesn’t hit their weakness so they beat it 50% of the time. Z is almost impossible though and class A only wins 10% of the time.
Class B on the other hand has trouble with X (10%) is even with Y (50%) and rocks at Z (90%).
Classes A and B are balanced against each other fine.
The problem is if class C is say good at X but then fails at both Y and Z or if class D wins at everything.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578598Also 50% SGT is not totally incompatible with niche protection or specialization.
Let's say we have Challenges X, Y, Z. and classes A, B, C, D.
Class A is a specialist and challenge X plays to their strengths and the can beat it 90% of the time. challenge Y doesn't play to their strength but doesn't hit their weakness so they beat it 50% of the time. Z is almost impossible though and class A only wins 10% of the time.
Class B on the other hand has trouble with X (10%) is even with Y (50%) and rocks at Z (90%).
Classes A and B are balanced against each other fine.
The problem is if class C is say good at X but then fails at both Y and Z or if class D wins at everything.
I have been in a lot of discussions about this on different forums and the thing you see is people have much different preferences in terms of these base numbers (whethere they are expressed as perentages or general ratings of something like 1-6 for each area). Some people find ten percent in a single category unacceptable, others see it as needed to have substantive differences between classes. How you break up these categories is important too. Talking about broad groupings like exploration, combat, and role play is very different from talking in terms of specific situations (undead, desert survival, criminal underworld negotiations, sea navigation and survival, etc).
I've always thought that the 2e Thief-Acrobat class had the best balance...
Or was that 1e? 2e would have been a kit...
-clash
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578594Well people in the fighter vs wizard thread where saying that it's ok for the wizard to be uber at high levels because they suck at low levels. I was just taking them at their word.
I'm sure they did say that, because they tend to. But my problem is not with whether they're right or not. My problem is that their statement - and therefore you're taking of it at face value - doesn't actually address the question whether or not their original statement is actually true. Because if it isn't, then your point is also groundless. So we're back to Square 1: In the case you mention, is the wizard ACTUALLY weak at low levels, Y/N? Is the Thief? Is the Cleric?
QuoteI never said that the spotlight has to shine on everyone equally no game can achive that. I was just saying that just because you need all the classes dose not make them balanced.
Now that I could agree with (and only don't because I reject your notion of necessary balance in the first place.) But then, one ought to amend that by saying that needing all the classes does not make them unbalanced, either (if one accepts the notion of necessary balance in the first place, which I don't.)
QuoteIf there is no such thing a level appropriateness why are there levels.
"Level appropriateness", contrarily to its name, has nothing to do with levels. It's simply a WotC buzzword to describe the notion that certain problems or situations might be really hard or really easy for a given party and that is wrong for some reason. Now, that, at least in the dogmatic and formalized way WotC game design uses it, is false; but for argument's sake, let's accept the existence of it.
Now, you imply that "levels exist BECAUSE level appropriateness exists". That's wrong on two counts. One: levels existed for several decades BEFORE WotC coined their concept of level appropriateness. An earlier thing cannot be the consequence of a later thing.
Two:
You don't need levels for that notion to exist. You can have a game like Traveller, which is not only level-less, but the PC's don't even improve the skills and abilities after character creation. Now, assuming for argument's sake that level appropriateness is not bullshit, let's ask ourselves some questions:
- Is it possible in Traveller to put the PCs in a really tough situation? YES, it is.
- Is it possible in Traveller to put the PCs in a really easy situation? YES, it is.
- Assuming that the above two are somehow "inappropriate", is it possible in Traveller to put the PCs in a situation of inappropriate difficulty? YES, IT IS.
See? The concept of "level appropriateness" does not NEED levels to exist. Therefore, levels are not there BECAUSE of it.
But to answer your question, levels are there to represent
improvement over time, which is an important notion in D&D. (It's not necessarily an inherent quality of all RPGs; the aforementioned Traveller, for instance, doesn't have the same type of improvement.) And the concept of your characters' getting better has
nothing to do with how hard or easy the going is.
QuoteIf a DM has no way of eyeballing what characters of x level can do than why.
This is part of WotC's fallacious logic behind Challenge Ratings and the like:
"If there isn't an objective mathematical formula to determine combat power, THEN the DM has no way of eyeballing the characters can do and why." But that's just not true. DM's could eyeball exactly that for decades without Challenges Ratings and Level Adjustments. And no, it wasn't hard. At least it wasn't harder than WotC's methods, where no amount of CR calculations is going to make for a fair encounter if two of the PCs have some ridiculous exploit build that multiplies their actual combat efficiency while leaving their CR intact.
And that's not even going into the wider context of how the concept of level appropriateness has turned a roleplaying game into a miniatures tactical combat game. With everything levelled approprately, the notion of thinking outside the box has disappeared completely, since it couldn't be crammed into the CR algorithm. In old-school thinking, if you have a low-level party and need to take out a high-level dragon, you start looking for creative solutions. Maybe you can convince the nearest king about the threat to his kingdom and have him send his army, his champions and his court wizard against the reptile. Or maybe you can convince the nearby dwarf clan to undermine the dragon's lair and collapse it on its head. Or contract mercenaries to help you. Or arrange for another powerful monster to clash with the dragon, so you can take out the weakened victor. Or you reconsider whether you REALLY need to take it out, and maybe realise you can achieve your actual goals some other way. All that makes for interesting, original, varies and FUN roleplaying and problem-solving. And you can't model problem-solving with your notion of level appropriateness.
That is why level appropriateness is a false conception in the first place. And since the new-D&D notion of balanced is directly based on the notion of level appropriateness, it too is false.
To give a more detailed metaphor (and subject it to some enhanced interrogation techniques.)
Let's say there's a game called Traps, Lizards, and Zombies.
In this game you have to disarm traps, fight big lizards, and kill Zombies which come in hordes.
One class let's call him the rogue is really good at disarming traps, he's ok at fighting Lizards because the have internal organs to stab, but zombies give him problems due to coming in large groups and their immunity to his prescience damage.
The Fighter is not so good with traps and fights fine against lizards but really shines against Zombies due to his cleave and whirlwind attack ability.
Now both the fighter and rogue are balanced in this game if the party has a lot of rogues then zombies are a big problem and traps are easy or vise versa if the party is mainly fighters. The game master easily can mix and match encounters with traps lizards and Zombies to give both classes something to do.
No lets say another class is the Cleric he can turn undead but is bad with both Traps and Lizards. This is going to make it harder for the GM to keep everybody on board especially if there is a rogue in the party so maybe the cleric need to be buffed in some area.
On the other hand let's say the wizard class can use a telekinesis effect at will that makes him great against traps an ice ray at will that's super effective against lizards and a fireball at will that hits a bunch of zombies at once. The wizard is clearly too good and needs to be toned down.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578598Also 50% SGT is not totally incompatible with niche protection or specialization.
Let's say we have Challenges X, Y, Z. and classes A, B, C, D.
Class A is a specialist challenge X plays to their strengths and the can beat it 90% of the time. challenge Y doesn't play to their strength but doesn't hit their weakness so they beat it 50% of the time. Z is almost impossible though and class A only wins 10% of the time.
Class B on the other hand has trouble with X (10%) is even with Y (50%) and rocks at Z (90%).
Classes A and B are balanced against each other fine.
The problem is if class C is say good at X but then fails at both Y and Z or if class D wins at everything.
And if the actual people involved in playing the game don't give a rat's ass about which character sheet has the biggest penis what then?
All of this balance claptrap is predicated on the basis that all participants are in kindergarden and CANNOT have a good time if someone else has a piece of cake with a bit more frosting.
The kind of balance you keep yammering about ONLY matters in competitive games. If side A is playing against side B then the rules need to be impartial and fair to provide unbiased competition.
In a roleplaying game, people just might want to play a character in a setting with a particular flavor. Part of that setting might be that there are those who perform magic and thus do things that are MAGICAL. Not every player wants a magical character and is perfectly happy playing one that isn't magic focused.
The whole "can't contribute" meme is load of steaming shit unless you have a lobotomized ape playing the character. Players should matter. The person at the table is more important than what is scribbled on a sheet. If what you can do in a game begins and ends with whats on the character sheet then the game is nothing more than a pile of rules. Such games are full of fail as roleplaying games.
Without getting back into a discusion about whether wizards are overpowered or not (whoch is a rabit hole i will not go down), yes that is one way to approach balance, but it isnt the only way. You can also factor in weaknesses. It mat be okay to have that one class that is good at all those areas of pay if they ave enough built in downsides. For me this would be acceptible. Again, balance over the campaign works for me as well.
The problem here is you are really just describing what you want from D&D. It works for you, so great. Not everyone wants that. I think one thing 4E helped demonstrate is how "give me game balance" means very different things depending on who is saying it. Not saying you are pushing for 4E style balance jst that it really showed us how too much balance can turn some people off.
My suggestion is if you fee you have a winnning formula with this 50% thing, build a game around it, publish and market it. Maybe you are right and a substantial number of gamers will want to play it. You could even just tweak d20 if you like.
You need to more rigidly define exactly what you think " Class Balance" is. From reading what you wrote I understand what you don't like and that you think SGTs are tits but that doesn't tell me what you think "balance" actually is. SGTs or what would constitute a challenge in an SGT changes from system to system so it's pretty hard to nail what expectations different SGTs my entail because there are classless systems, levelless systems and the like where characters might be specifically built to not have the skills/abilities to approach anymore than 25% of the typical challenges the game may present.
Hell I could make a game specifcically where it is expected/necessary to have at least 3 players/PCs and make it so where each can only interact well with 33% of the game. It wouldn't be a failure on my part as a designer to actually make that happen yet by your standard that means I'm making the game "imbalanced" and that doesn't follow.
Now while I think "balance" is a laudable goal for a system. I think "balance" between classes means that all classes are of equal or near equal value for playing the game (meaning their usefulness is comparable to other classes) and are able to competently participate in various parts of the game. If I were to play 2nd edition again as a wizard I probably would not mind not having the same combat effectiveness of a fighter at lower levels because I don't play arena style (go from one combat to the next) games and since I can participate in exploration, socializing, navigation, research, etc parts of the game having to let the fighter get punched in the face is not something I'd be terribly against.
The problems in DnD come when the fighter's ability to be punched in the face comes at the cost of being able to do anything else while others don't make that kind of sacrifice. I, as a wizard, lose skills for spells but my spells do what a number of skilsl do so it is no major loss. At lower levels it's basically a non issue even in 3rd since the RNG has a large enough range where I'm a lucky die roll away from achieving the success of someone else who has trained for something and low level shennanigans are easy to particpate in no matter who you are. However, at higher levels, not only is just getting bigger numbers boring (which is basically all the fighter does) it starts to fall behind on the usefulness scale when other classes/monsters are getting "real" abilities. At higher levels participating in direct combat gets easier and easier for casters and as long as you aren't specifically hitting them in the nuts they marginalize the usefulness of the fighter's face to fist style of participation.
Now that's a real balance issue because it means that one class choice is specifically (and as some would have it) intentionally worse than every other class choice. That's bad. It is also bad when one class (wizard) stomps all over every part of the game. It is just as bad when you have a class that trivializes all challenges in its way while other classes cannot or if that's not the way the game was designed. Well made wizards can completely curb stomp an SGT100% and this is bad because it means a single class choice becomes an "I win" button for those seeking to exploit it, which in turn builds resentment and distrust over such a thing.
A "better" 3rd edition example of class balance would be the Beguiler in my opinion. It's a class with a protectable theme, it's focused. and has clear weaknesses. A beguiler is your mind controller which means you know what it does, its limitations, and it has abilities that can be useful throughout the range of the game without stomping all over other classes' themes or SGTs.
Having said all this I have to again point out these are not the same assumptions other games have. If I were to play 7th Sea, Shadowrun, Dark Heresy, etc etc the assumptions of the system, setting, and actual game play are different. In Shadowrun if I specialize in magic I'm not meant to be very good at tech and trying to do both is basically a fool's errand (at least that's how I remember it).However in Shadowrun the focus is to pull "jobs" as a team so no matter what specializaation I have I am equally useful since a reasonable team has to prepare for dangers both supernatural, technological, and physical. There may be portions of the game where things are more supernatural or more techy but I can still participate even if I chose another specialization because even in the most magic heavy/industrial environs my tech/magic still functions and I can do "stuff" with it. You wouldn't call Shadowrun particularly imbalanced because of this because that is the focus/function/intent of the game.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;578611In a roleplaying game, people just might want to play a character in a setting with a particular flavor. Part of that setting might be that there are those who perform magic and thus do things that are MAGICAL. Not every player wants a magical character and is perfectly happy playing one that isn't magic focused.
The whole "can't contribute" meme is load of steaming shit unless you have a lobotomized ape playing the character. Players should matter. The person at the table is more important than what is scribbled on a sheet. If what you can do in a game begins and ends with whats on the character sheet then the game is nothing more than a pile of rules. Such games are full of fail as roleplaying games.
So the long knives come out, I wish this was a surprise. Tell me exactly how does, a balanced game takes the magic out of peoples characters or stifles player creativity.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578620So the long knives come out, I wish this was a surprise. Tell me exactly how does, a balanced game takes the magic out of peoples characters or stifles player creativity.
Better question. How does being a character with "magic" stuff on your character sheet force you to use those magical abilities?
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578620So the long knives come out, I wish this was a surprise. Tell me exactly how does, a balanced game takes the magic out of peoples characters or stifles player creativity.
Who mentioned taking the magic out of anything? Balance can shoehorn it IN where it isn't wanted. (4E fighter powers come to mind), from a desire to make sure that all characters are equally capable no matter if its appropriate to the setting or not.
Player creativity thrives in environments where everything isn't nailed down to a die roll or chosen from a list.
Simply put, the more the question "what do you do?" cannot be answered meaningfully without choosing something from the character sheet, the less interest I have in playing.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;578630Simply put, the more the question "what do you do?" cannot be answered meaningfully without choosing something from the character sheet, the less interest I have in playing.
Did you post this not realizing how little sense it makes? I can tell you what every character I've ever played did without referencing the character sheet I used (which I most likely don't have) in every game system from every game I've ever played in. What exactly does this expectation have to do with anything?
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578620So the long knives come out, I wish this was a surprise. Tell me exactly how does, a balanced game takes the magic out of peoples characters or stifles player creativity.
Please check the bottom paragraph or so of my previous post, already mentioned it in passing.
And you'll find your stay here much more pleasantl if you lay off the "long knives come out" persecution complex. All the 3etards and 4vengers do the damn thing every time someone
offends them by
daring to not drink their favourite flavour of Kool-Aid. You should be better than that.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578581So a lot of bile has been spewed on this forum over the issue of class balance. It is my opinion that a system with classes need to have those classes balanced against each other in some manner.
So what is balance. Let's start with what's not balance.
This sentence didn't do you any favors. You really should have expected people to misunderstand because it isn't really clear.
Quote-Imbalance by Level. If the wizard class is weak at low levels and unstoppable at high levels and the fighter is awesome at low levels and loses steam at high levels. This isn't balance because 90% of the time people won't progress enough to see it. If you know for sure that the campaign is not going to last until high levels then you lose nothing by being a fighter. If the game is staring at a higher level then you lose comparatively less or nothing by being a wizard.
This really depends on the pace of leveling, the point at which things cross from unbalanced to balanced to unbalanced the other way, and whether the gap continues to widen at the top.
Quote-Role protection. If the party needs a fighter, wizard, priest, and thief to get through that dungon than the classes are balanced right? Wrong. Not only dose the paradigm tend to railroad players into a class the don't want to play but unless each classes thing comes up an equal share of the time then some people are contributing more and some people are contributing less.
To give and example, imagine that there is a class called the Lame Guy. He has the worst saves and worst thaco/bab/whatever and no class features but the ability to kill the dreaded fuckoffsaurus instantly at will. This is the only way to deal with a fuckoffsaurus so someone needs to play the Lame Guy if the party is on any adventure that might involve the beasts. The thing is if 95% of the time the Lame Guy's niche is irrelevant than his player isn't going to have any fun. On the other hand if slaying fuckoffsaurus is not properly role protected (say the wizard researches the spell slay fuckoffsaurus) then the class is completely useless.
So what is balance. This is my definition of balance.
Niche protection wasn't as strong in the oldest editions. A wizard would open a door with a spell, a rogue would with lockpicks, and a fighter would with strength. People talk about the wizard stepping on everybody's toes, but everybody did everything (ish). And this was intentional. At least in the core of the game which was that low level dungeon crawling.
In any case, no one was really barred from or specialized in the general stuff the game had. Everyone could try to deal with traps, puzzles, monsters, hidden doors, wilderness travel, etc. They just each used different tools for the job.
The truth is that people on both sides of this argument get confused about whether or not they want niche protection or how strong they want it. Here's you (maybe) arguing that niche protection isn't balance and at the same time people complain that the fighter doesn't have his own thing (because everybody fights).
Quote-SGT 50%. The Same Game Test measures the ability of a class to complete level appropriate challenges. The idea is that when presented with a list of potential challenges a party could face than that character would solve 50% of them. If a class can't score 50% on the test it need to be beefed up, if a class is scoring say 100% then it need to be toned down. The SGT is not an exact science but I feel the it's a good marker for how a class preforms.
Actually, in a game where the party can proactively choose its challenges, the party might find something like SGT regardless of whether it was baked in (or might favor the class of the most proactive player, which strikes me as more likely).
Old school gaming posits a world of mixed challenge levels, exploration, decisions to fight or flee, etc. As such it kind of finds its own balance point via that feedback in play.
The main issue the old-schoolers on this board have with the concept of level-appropriateness is that it smacks of having the GM "provide" challenges at that level. And you can see based on the previous two paragraphs why that would be a problem, right?
_______________________________
Otherwise, I agree. None of the above are necessarily balance.
Trying to balance each character with each other using each other class as a measuring stick in games like D&D is faulty. Games like that should never have that as a goal because games like that aren't designed for character classes to face off in a thunderdome style of play.
Games like D&D are team games. The goal for balance should be, "In a particular game session, did everyone feel like they contributed roughly equally."
Not, "In every scenario in the game session,..." I.e., you can easily have balance and niche protection at the same time.
If you try to make everyone equal at every scenario, you end up having all the characters the same, but with a different coat of paint, so to speak. I.e., the mechanical result is the same, but with just different names on how you got there. Then it just becomes meh. If everyone is special, no one is.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;578646Games like D&D are team games. The goal for balance should be, "In a particular game session, did everyone feel like they contributed roughly equally."
Not even this sometimes. If I am playing a thief in a B/X game and a particular session involved a great deal of combat, then I wouldn't expect to contribute equally. The fighter, fights better (duh :)) so I would say he contributed more in that particular instance.
In the next session we end up exploring a trap filled tomb with few monsters and I get to contribute more in that session.
I really think the crux of the whole issue is people hanging all their fun strictly on their mechanical contributions for the session. When I began playing this wasn't an issue and we were 10 year old kids. Have attention spans really gotten THAT much shorter in the past 30-odd years?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;578647Not even this sometimes. If I am playing a thief in a B/X game and a particular session involved a great deal of combat, then I wouldn't expect to contribute equally. The fighter, fights better (duh :)) so I would say he contributed more in that particular instance.
In the next session we end up exploring a trap filled tomb with few monsters and I get to contribute more in that session.
I really think the crux of the whole issue is people hanging all their fun strictly on their mechanical contributions for the session. When I began playing this wasn't an issue and we were 10 year old kids. Have attention spans really gotten THAT much shorter in the past 30-odd years?
Well, yeah. But my gaming sessions tend to be 8-10 hours long, so we rarely have one where there isn't all three of the three pillars in there somewhere. But if you're only playing for a couple hours I can see where one session might be combat heavy and another not, and I'm perfectly OK with that.
Dungeons and Dragons is a very imbalanced game, especially in regards to classes.
In 1st Edition, the classes were intentionally designed to be more/less powerful than each other at different levels. Low-level Magic-Users were designed to be very weak in the beginning, but really powerful at high levels. Fighters, conversely, had more staying power at low levels but got eclipsed in power later on in the campaign.
I don't think that this premise worked out as intended; a low-level Magic-User with the right spells is a glass cannon (weak but packs a powerful punch) with certain spells, such as charm person. As for having things equalize by giving everyone there moment to shine at certain points, there's no guarantee that a campaign will go from 1st to 14th, or even 22nd level. The Magic-User's power was an in-game reward to long-term group play.
I'm not fond of this idea; sometimes I like to run one-shots or short campaigns, and sometimes I want the starting point of a game to be at a higher level of power.
3rd Edition is incredibly unbalanced, even with just the Core books. Ever heard of CoDzilla? It destroys niche protection! A Cleric can be a better necromancer than the Necromancer and melee better than the Fighter. And let's not forget that "trap options" were intentionally designed into the system via Ivory Tower Game Design. Fighters and martial characters, whether by feat or prestige classes, got niche abilities less useful than a stock assortment of spells most of the time.
4th Edition was an attempt to make a balanced game, and in comparison to 1st and 3rd it IS more balanced. But supplement bloat and bad early design of skill challenges worked against it. Also, certain builds can be vastly more powerful than others (there's a way to get a Swordmage to rely on Intelligence for everything). I don't know much more about the mechanics of the system, so a 4th Edition expert can chime in.
Since D&D's a combat-heavy and rules-heavy game in most of its incarnations, having hard-and-fast rules for class powers is necessary. And every class needs ways to contribute both inside and outside of combat.
My ideas for solutions:
Give Mundanes nice things: We've all heard of the dreaded scenario when a flying monster forces the Fighter to rely on a bow he can't use well at all, a monster's blindsight/super-senses foiling a Thief's Stealth check, or spells invalidating entire skills. Sometimes the Wizard dies from a well-placed critical hit, and the Cleric's been afflicted with some eternal sleeping curse. The amount of enemies in D&D which can fly, ignore non-magical attacks, and otherwise bypass mundanes is immense. A party without spellcasters should not be irreversibly boned when fighting other casters and most types of monsters. If we're going to leave spellcasters with a big toolbox of mobility, combat, and ranged spells, then Fighters, Barbarians, Thieves, and other noncasters need abilities of useful equivalency independent of DM Fiat to contribute to the party.
Also, realism and the laws of physics have no place in D&D, especially when they just apply to noncasters.
Role Protection: Every class role, mundane or magical, needs to do unique things that the other roles cannot do. Fighters, Thieves, and noncasters should have innate abilities which can't be replicated by spells.
There should also be restriction on magic, and the idea of "themed casters" is a good idea, like what they did with the Dread Necromancer and Beguiler in 3rd Edition; the Necromancer was good with the undead, but screwed when it came to replicating illusion and divination magic.
D&D's a team game: A good team has particular strengths and skills to aid the party's performance and cover up weaknesses. This means that everything should be capable of contributing and that common enemy tactics shouldn't invalidate entire classes. Classes/abilities which are useless more than 50% of the time pull the rest of the party down and hurt everyone's survival rates.
There's an infinite power loop, that's okay:Many games are chock-full of rules exploits and cheesy combos, and D&D is no stranger to these sorts of shenanigans. Ideally, these things will be few and far between; but just because they exist does not mean that the game's irredeemable; on the contrary, a lot of the ones in D&D require excessive number-crunching beyond routine optimization and ruin the fun for everybody else in the game. If you manage to stumble upon it accidentally, I don't think anybody would complain if the group "retconned" things down to a more reasonable level. I realize that I'm arguing in favor of DM Fiat in extreme cases of unstoppable power, because it never ends well for anybody.
Magical Tea Party will always exist: As I mentioned right before, DM Fiat can be good in some cases. Except when it comes to core conceits about the game or things which happen with regularity; we wouldn't want to pay money for a war game that has no rules for mass combat. DM Fiat should not serve as an end-all be-all solution to class imbalance. Ideally every class can stand on its own without the DM swooping in to fix things.
But there's always going to be things that the rules don't cover. I don't think that the game is enhanced with extraneous details for things which may never come up in most games, such as rules for an intricate economic system. How do you calculate the gp value of wooden arrows in a desert region X miles away from a forest, or factor the precise standards of living from an emerging middle class in an industrial society? Details on these things can add to the world and represent change and interesting adventure hooks, but it's fine for the DM to say "the orcs took over the mines, meaning that metal goods are up 200%" instead of busting out a huge stack of text to calculate the value of forged iron by the pound based on hundreds of factors.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;578647Not even this sometimes. If I am playing a thief in a B/X game and a particular session involved a great deal of combat, then I wouldn't expect to contribute equally. The fighter, fights better (duh :)) so I would say he contributed more in that particular instance.
In the next session we end up exploring a trap filled tomb with few monsters and I get to contribute more in that session.
I really think the crux of the whole issue is people hanging all their fun strictly on their mechanical contributions for the session. When I began playing this wasn't an issue and we were 10 year old kids. Have attention spans really gotten THAT much shorter in the past 30-odd years?
Let's look at this as critically as we can here because this is important. Exactly what makes "being a fighter" more effective than "being a thief" in combat? What exactly about "being a thief" makes you better at finding traps?
Quote from: Libertad;578680Since D&D's a combat-heavy and rules-heavy game in most of its incarnations, having hard-and-fast rules for class powers is necessary.
:rotfl:
Quote from: MGuy;578689Let's look at this as critically as we can here because this is important. Exactly what makes "being a fighter" more effective than "being a thief" in combat? What exactly about "being a thief" makes you better at finding traps?
I will counter with : what makes not being as effective equal to the inability to contribute?
Since people are talking about every edition of D&D in these game balance threads, I think that we can get a lot more discussion out of this and better clarification if people are clear about which edition they're talking about, which editions they have extensive experience with, and which edition sourcebooks they have access to.
When one guy's debating and uses edition X as an example, it doesn't help clarify things for posters whose only experience is with edition Y.
I'll start by saying that I have extensive experience with 3rd Edition. I have not played 1st Edition, but I have the three core books on me (the Reprints). I have limited experience with 4th Edition, but I do not have the core books on me. I do not own, and have no experience with, 2nd Edition, Original D&D, or the Mentzer/BX/BECMI rulesets.
Since things changed a lot between editions, it might be best if we had separate game balanced threads dedicated to different editions of D&D. Otherwise people will continually use examples from sourcebooks that a large portion of involved posters do not own.
Access to:
OD&D & Supplements
Holmes Basic
Moldvay B/X
Mentzer BECM (never bothered with Immortals)
AD&D 1E
AD&D 2E and early splat
3E core and some splat
3.5E and some splat
4E core and some splat
4E Essentials
Most actual playtime goes to AD&D 1E and Moldvay B/X
Quote from: Libertad;578697Since people are talking about every edition of D&D in these game balance threads, I think that we can get a lot more discussion out of this and better clarification if people are clear about which edition they're talking about, which editions they have extensive experience with, and which edition sourcebooks they have access to.
I think the responses would be far more positive if the plan was to design a new game (or a variant game) fixing the balance issues one has in D&D edition X, instead of redesigning edition X and replacing the rules in that edition with rules you prefer.
Quote from: RandallS;578705I think the responses would be far more positive if the plan was to design a new game (or a variant game) fixing the balance issues one has in D&D edition X, instead of redesigning edition X and replacing the rules in that edition with rules you prefer.
How is fixing balance issues different from game redesign and rule replacement? "Fixes" involve the latter two.
Quote from: Libertad;578697Since people are talking about every edition of D&D in these game balance threads, I think that we can get a lot more discussion out of this and better clarification if people are clear about which edition they're talking about, which editions they have extensive experience with, and which edition sourcebooks they have access to.
When one guy's debating and uses edition X as an example, it doesn't help clarify things for posters whose only experience is with edition Y.
I'll start by saying that I have extensive experience with 3rd Edition. I have not played 1st Edition, but I have the three core books on me (the Reprints). I have limited experience with 4th Edition, but I do not have the core books on me. I do not own, and have no experience with, 2nd Edition, Original D&D, or the Mentzer/BX/BECMI rulesets.
Since things changed a lot between editions, it might be best if we had separate game balanced threads dedicated to different editions of D&D. Otherwise people will use continually use examples from sourcebooks that a large portion of involved posters do not own.
I started on 1E, but had very limited experience with it and limited knowledge of the rules. Played and ran 2E heavily from about 89-until the release of 3E (also played quite a bit of the rules cyclopedia version of D&D as a player). During that period I picked up every brown book, blue book and most of the green books. Never touched Skills and Powers. Played most of the settings. When 3E came out, I played that pretty regularly and we incporated most of the completes into our games. Had a lot of experience running for an optimizer group. But lost interest in the system around 2007, when 4E came out, tried it a bit and hated it, so I never really picked it up and I ended up not playing 3E beyond about 2008. Did try Pathfinder but wasn't that impressed with it.
Quote from: Libertad;578706How is fixing balance issues different from game redesign and rule replacement? "Fixes" involve the latter two.
One involves saying "This is my idea for a game I think is better than D&D"
The other is saying " The designers got everything wrong. Let me correct their mistakes."
Quote from: gleichman;578593Lastly I think that as one moves away from D&D, and it's heavy dependence on resource management and unrealistic mechanics, balance become even less important. The selection of a well designed game will alllow player skill in actual play (as opposed to taking advantage of character generation) to overwhelm any mechanically base balance issues between characters.
D&D - and computer games. Anyone have the experience of folks obsessing about class balance with other systems in a comparable way to D&D? In my experience, not close.
In terms of rulebooks for D&D I have access to at the moment:
-3E Core Books (3.0 and 3.5)
-d20 Modern
-d20 Cthulu
-3E Oriental Adventures, Monster Manual III, Complete Arcane, Complete ADventurer, Complete Warrior, Cityscape, Heroes of Battle, Savage Species, Psionic Handbook, Hero Builders Guidebook, Enemies and Allies
-2E core books and a good number of the brown books (as well as Ravenloft setting material and modules)
-1E Core books
-4E PHB and DMG
Quote from: Exploderwizard;578710One involves saying "This is my idea for a game I think is better than D&D"
The other is saying " The designers got everything wrong. Let me correct their mistakes."
Your descriptions both sound the same except in tone.
So you're saying the problem is not with design, but with tone?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;578710One involves saying "This is my idea for a game I think is better than D&D"
The other is saying " The designers got everything wrong. Let me correct their mistakes."
So.... if a person has a problem with a game they mostly like, they should make a new game instead of houseruling? Not discuss house rules on the internet? Awfully RAW or the highway I've got to say.
People have been "fixing" D&D since day one because it's easier than a brand new game.
Quote from: Lynn;578711D&D - and computer games. Anyone have the experience of folks obsessing about class balance with other systems in a comparable way to D&D? In my experience, not close.
The Decker/Rigger problem's a big thing in Shadowrun, and still gets talked about.
Cross-overs in World of Darkness games are infamously hard to do, and even certain kinds of Vampires/Mages have radically different power levels. The New World of Darkness system discourages combat, meaning that mental and social-focused characters are king.
Star Wars RPGs have the "Jedi problem," regarding a trained Force-User's power level in relation to non-Force-using PCs.
Quote from: beejazz;578715So.... if a person has a problem with a game they mostly like, they should make a new game instead of houseruling? Not discuss house rules on the internet? Awfully RAW or the highway I've got to say.
People have been "fixing" D&D since day one because it's easier than a brand new game.
Once again: "This is what I like as houserules"
is not the same as:
"This is what D&D should be."
Quote from: Exploderwizard;578718Once again: "This is what I like as houserules"
is not the same as:
"This is what D&D should be."
People equate "what I like" with "how it should be."
You can try to fight it, or you can understand the intent and not take everything literally. I should warn you the first is an unwinnable fight.
* OD&D & Supplements
* Holmes Basic
* Moldvay B/X
* Mentzer BECMI
* Mentzer/Allston RC/WoI
* AD&D 1E
* AD&D 2E and most splat books through 1995 or so.
The above versions has been played a lot over the years and I really enjoy them. I started playing in 1975 and ran weekly games of using one or more of the above systems (with lots of house rules in some cases) through the early 1990s when sessions became much more irregular. When I think "D&D", games that play like the above editions are what I think of and what I want.
* AD&D 2E Players Option stuff
Tried the Player's option stuff and HATED it. Zero interest in character building or long combats.
* 3E core and some splat
* 3.5E and some splat
Played 3.x some and while I did not hate it (except for the long combats) I only liked it slightly better than the 2E Players Option stuff. Still no real interest in character building.
* 4E core
Played 4E a few times and truly hated it. It is my least favorite version of D&D. I strongly dislike almost everything about it.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;578694I will counter with : what makes not being as effective equal to the inability to contribute?
This... doesn't counter anything and doesn't answer the question I posed. However I will answer it if only to get you to answer mine.
Being less effective doesn't equate to you being unable to contribute. Having a +1 bonus to attack over someone else makes you a more effective attacker but doesn't mean that the other attacker can't contribute. What DOES make you unable to contribute is if your inclusion in the party is a net loss for the team or if you can't seriously do anything that to help the team. If the party is only worse off with your participation, you don't covver any ground that isn't better covered by someone else, and other people can out do you in the one thing you're supposed to do best then you cannot meaningfully contribute.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;578718Once again: "This is what I like as houserules"
is not the same as:
"This is what D&D should be."
That's still just a difference in tone. Why are you being hesitant about admitting that it's all about delivery for you?
Quote from: MGuy;578618You need to more rigidly define exactly what you think " Class Balance" is. From reading what you wrote I understand what you don't like and that you think SGTs are tits but that doesn't tell me what you think "balance" actually is. SGTs or what would constitute a challenge in an SGT changes from system to system so it's pretty hard to nail what expectations different SGTs my entail because there are classless systems, levelless systems and the like where characters might be specifically built to not have the skills/abilities to approach anymore than 25% of the typical challenges the game may present.
The SGT is only realy aplicable to class and level based system. Like I've said it's not a perfect system but it's in my opinoin the best way to evaluate classes in D&D. If a game is published where all the classes scored ~50% on the SGT then that would be a game that's close enough.
Quote from: MGuy;578618The problems in DnD come when the fighter's ability to be punched in the face comes at the cost of being able to do anything else while others don't make that kind of sacrifice. I, as a wizard, lose skills for spells but my spells do what a number of skilsl do so it is no major loss. At lower levels it's basically a non issue even in 3rd since the RNG has a large enough range where I'm a lucky die roll away from achieving the success of someone else who has trained for something and low level shennanigans are easy to particpate in no matter who you are. However, at higher levels, not only is just getting bigger numbers boring (which is basically all the fighter does) it starts to fall behind on the usefulness scale when other classes/monsters are getting "real" abilities. At higher levels participating in direct combat gets easier and easier for casters and as long as you aren't specifically hitting them in the nuts they marginalize the usefulness of the fighter's face to fist style of participation.
That's the thing, given how much D&D devolved into hack and slash every class should have somthing to bring to combat. What that means is being good a combat isn't somthing that can be role protected in 3e. So I agree that the fighter needs to have access to out of combat stuff.
Quote from: MGuy;578618A "better" 3rd edition example of class balance would be the Beguiler in my opinion. It's a class with a protectable theme, it's focused. and has clear weaknesses. A beguiler is your mind controller which means you know what it does, its limitations, and it has abilities that can be useful throughout the range of the game without stomping all over other classes' themes or SGTs.
Yeah the Beguiler/Warmage/Dread Necromancer are the model for balanced casters.
About the Shadowrun thing. Shadowrun is point based and dose not dissolve in hack and slash in the same way D&D dose.
And please people let's not make this an edition war thread
Just a recommendation, Lord Mistborn, but in good faith you should also say what sourcebooks and editions you have experience with/access to. Same goes with other frequent posters in this topic.
Fine
Rules Cyclopedia -never played
2E core -never played
3.5 almost all of the books -played almost since launch
4E core -played once or twice
Quote from: Libertad;578742Just a recommendation, Lord Mistborn, but in good faith you should also say what sourcebooks and editions you have experience with/access to. Same goes with other frequent posters in this topic.
K though by now I think I've said it before:
2E: 2 times. I don't know if the GM included splats or anything.
3E/Pathfinder: Played most. Familiar with most official splats (not as well with Pathfinder) and a decent amount of 3rd party material (Fantasy Craft, Iron Heroes, Iron Kingdoms, Dragonmech, Arcana Evolved, the list goes on)
4E: Played more times than I'd like. I am not familiar with anything beyond the core books and Martial Power.
Quote from: MGuy;578737This... doesn't counter anything and doesn't answer the question I posed. However I will answer it if only to get you to answer mine.
Being less effective doesn't equate to you being unable to contribute. Having a +1 bonus to attack over someone else makes you a more effective attacker but doesn't mean that the other attacker can't contribute. What DOES make you unable to contribute is if your inclusion in the party is a net loss for the team or if you can't seriously do anything that to help the team. If the party is only worse off with your participation, you don't covver any ground that isn't better covered by someone else, and other people can out do you in the one thing you're supposed to do best then you cannot meaningfully contribute.
This is an MMO attitude. If you don't get your DPS to X level then you get booted. :rotfl:
Oh and what you can contribute will be apparent from looking over your character sheet right?
Contributions by the player are meaningless unless they can be translated into rulespeak I suppose. Not my kind of fun for tabletop gaming but have fun with that and game on.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;578787This is an MMO attitude. If you don't get your DPS to X level then you get booted. :rotfl:
Not necessarily. MGuy's post wasn't talking about "doing as much damage as possible" so much as he was talking about having characters who can hold his own weight in the group. This concept's well established in many tabletop games.
In
Shadowrun, you had the hacker who thwarted Matrix security, you had the mage deal with astral barriers, you had the Face negotiate with Mr. Johnson and get on people's good side, and your Street Samurai covers the physical and combat-related needs.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;578787This is an MMO attitude. If you don't get your DPS to X level then you get booted. :rotfl:
Oh and what you can contribute will be apparent from looking over your character sheet right?
Contributions by the player are meaningless unless they can be translated into rulespeak I suppose. Not my kind of fun for tabletop gaming but have fun with that and game on.
-_- Listen if you don't want to contribute to this thread then don't post in it. We're trying to have a mature discussion here and I expect you to argue in good faith.
Mature discussion? You wouldn't know that if it slapped you in the face. We have two sides that literally know nothing of each other's source material and couple middle of the road types stirring the pot. It's boring and a poorly disguised attempt to continue the wizard/fighter shitfest of a thread. At least that was shut down. This I just don't care I have other places to go and post on something relevant. I'm honestly surprised anybody took the bait.
But I guess if you're that bored have at it guys. For me enough is enough and thank the heavens I have other interests beyond rpg's.
Quote from: Libertad;578790Not necessarily. MGuy's post wasn't talking about "doing as much damage as possible" so much as he was talking about having characters who can hold his own weight in the group. This concept's well established in many tabletop games.
In Shadowrun, you had the hacker who thwarted Matrix security, you had the mage deal with astral barriers, you had the Face negotiate with Mr. Johnson and get on people's good side, and your Street Samurai covers the physical and combat-related needs.
DPS was a placeholder for mechanical X at level Y or greater. It could be damage, support, a specialty, etc.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578740That's the thing, given how much D&D devolved into hack and slash every class should have somthing to bring to combat. What that means is being good a combat isn't somthing that can be role protected in 3e. So I agree that the fighter needs to have access to out of combat stuff.
Had you prefaced the entire thread with "I'm specifically talking about 3/4E and nothing else", this statement wouldn't raise an eyebrow. However, it's billed as a generic discussion of levels and balance, so I must take issue with the veracity of this statement.
Considering your experience (absolutely nothing prior to 3E), your observation is perfectly understandable, but, alas, not true. It's specifically the WotC games that devolved into combat, previous editions have a rich tradition of offering much beyond that.
Now, there are plenty of folks here who I'm sure will be happy to enlighten you, explain how things were back then, and help you widen your understanding of D&D. But as the Freemasons say, "if you want to learn about Masonry, ask a Mason" (or whatever, Pundit will correct me). If you genuinely and earnestly want to discuss matters of balance and other game design issues
as relates to D&D in general, it would behoove to actually ask for information on parts and eras of the game you're unfamiliar with, as opposed to making ostensibly generic statements while being ignorant of a significant part of the material you're making declarations about.
Quote from: MGuy;578689Let's look at this as critically as we can here because this is important. Exactly what makes "being a fighter" more effective than "being a thief" in combat? What exactly about "being a thief" makes you better at finding traps?
Jesus, seriously? Look, whatever else you want to tack on for the definition, at the very core all games are one thing: arbitrary. Why is Park Place more expensive than Marvin Gardens? Why does the rook move only in straight lines? Why can a battleship take five hits?
"Fighter" is more effective in combat than "Thief" because the rules say that a "Fighter" is more effective in combat than a "Thief". The concept derives from Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, among other things. The mechanics derive from certain goals, emulation and niche protection among them. Hence, a Fighter is better at fighting, and a Thief is better at thieving.
Pretty straightforward, right?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;578787This is an MMO attitude. If you don't get your DPS to X level then you get booted. :rotfl:
Oh and what you can contribute will be apparent from looking over your character sheet right?
Contributions by the player are meaningless unless they can be translated into rulespeak I suppose. Not my kind of fun for tabletop gaming but have fun with that and game on.
Explode what exactly is your deal? If you cannot DO anything to help adventure why would I put you on my team? MMO logic? Its schoolyard logic. It is lack of contributing to the team that would make people skip over you when selecting people to play a game. If adventurers are to be "realistic" then I'd assume that they wouldn't take anybody on their "save the world" quest that would only get them fucked up especially when that person can be replaced and their role filled out much better by someone who doesn't suck. You don't take civilians into a warzone to help you fight a battle if you can help it. You don't pick someone overweight/out of shape to join your professional football team. You don't pick the gu that hates you to represent you in court. If doing things that are common sense is MMO logic then what MMOs were around when I was choosing not to pick the fat kid to play basketball with in grade school?
You also still haven't answered my earlier question which I suppose means you asked your "counter" question merely as a means to "prove me wrong" instead of actually taking any time to think about what I asked. If you're not going to actually answer my question then there's no point in even talking to you at all.
Quote from: Premier;578806Had you prefaced the entire thread with "I'm specifically talking about 3/4E and nothing else", this statement wouldn't raise an eyebrow. However, it's billed as a generic discussion of levels and balance, so I must take issue with the veracity of this statement.
Considering your experience (absolutely nothing prior to 3E), your observation is perfectly understandable, but, alas, not true. It's specifically the WotC games that devolved into combat, previous editions have a rich tradition of offering much beyond that.
Oh no, you don't get to do this. Hackmaster is a thing that exists, your argument is invalid.
Combat a large part of every edition. Heck the roots of old D&D are as a wargame. The game in all editions has a tendencey to disolve into hack and slash, you may consider that a problem and it's not totally my cup of tea but I would consider a minmum standard for say 5e not to break if people start treating it like a wargame.
3e can do hack and slash, but it can also do other things and yes 4e striping the game of so many non-combat elements was a bad thing.
My point is if combat can not be role protected in D&D then their is a clear problem with a class having "fighing guy" as it's only trait.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578925Combat a large part of every edition. Heck the roots of old D&D are as a wargame. The game in all editions has a tendencey to disolve into hack and slash,
You yourself have said you have no experience with pre-3E editions. How the fuck do you dare pronounce sweeping statements about things you have, by your admission, no knowledge of, and then maintain them in the face of people who ARE speaking from personal experience and who are correcting you hoping you'll stop making an uninformed ass of yourself?
Also, you're moving he goalposts. First you said "D&D devolves into hack'n'slash". I told you it doesn't. Now you're "Combat is a large part of every edition, so I was right." No, you weren't. You ARE right in your second statement, but
that's a completely different claim than your original one. So NO, while combat IS a large part of all D&D, all D&D does NOT "devolve into hack'n'slash". BECMI, for instance, has two entire books dedicated to high-level non-combat-oriented play: managing kingdoms, questing for immortality, tampering with history, etc.. Which you wouldn't know about, of course, because you prefer pulling shit out of your arse to actually getting informed about whatever the fuck you're making entitled declarations about.
Quote from: Premier;578932You yourself have said you have no experience with pre-3E editions. How the fuck do you dare pronounce sweeping statements about things you have, by your admission, no knowledge of, and then maintain them in the face of people who ARE speaking from personal experience and who are correcting you hoping you'll stop making an uninformed ass of yourself?
Also, you're moving he goalposts. First you said "D&D devolves into hack'n'slash". I told you it doesn't. Now you're "Combat is a large part of every edition, so I was right." No, you weren't. You ARE right in your second statement, but that's a completely different claim than your original one. So NO, while combat IS a large part of all D&D, all D&D does NOT "devolve into hack'n'slash". BECMI, for instance, has two entire books dedicated to high-level non-combat-oriented play: managing kingdoms, questing for immortality, tampering with history, etc.. Which you wouldn't know about, of course, because you prefer pulling shit out of your arse to actually getting informed about whatever the fuck you're making entitled declarations about.
If combat is a large part of a game then that game will devolve into hack and slash no mater how much about basketweaving you staple to the rules. I'm not on a crusade against your favorite edition so stop trying to circle the wagons. So let me say this one more time.
-Combat is a large part of D&D so everyone should have some relevence there.
-D&D should also have non-combat stuff and everyone should have somthing useful they can do out of combat.
If a class is only useful in combat then that makes the game even more likely to devolve into hack and slash. At the least that means that any fighter class in future editions should have a skill list that people care about so as not to suffer the disgrace that is the 3e fighter class outside combat.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578934If combat is a large part of a game then that game will devolve into hack and slash no mater how much about basketweaving you staple to the rules.
To quote Wikipedia, [Citation_needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_needed)]
You need to PROVE what you say. With ARGUMENTS and LOGIC (or citations). Which so far you've never really done in this thread, since all you seem to do is state things assertively without bothering to provide actual arguments to support the veracity of your claims. And that just doesn't fly.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578934If combat is a large part of a game then that game will devolve into hack and slash no mater how much about basketweaving you staple to the rules. I'm not on a crusade against your favorite edition so stop trying to circle the wagons. So let me say this one more time.
-Combat is a large part of D&D so everyone should have some relevence there.
-D&D should also have non-combat stuff and everyone should have somthing useful they can do out of combat.
If a class is only useful in combat then that makes the game even more likely to devolve into hack and slash. At the least that means that any fighter class in future editions should have a skill list that people care about so as not to suffer the disgrace that is the 3e fighter class outside combat.
Keep in mind in older editions the thief abilities were largely non combat abilities and unavailable (and in cases like climb available at very, very diminished levels) to most other characters. Their backstab was usually much easier to pull off leading up to combat and quite a bit harder to use during combat in my experience. Bards in 2E were very much a non combat oriented class as well. Wizards were largely seen as having all kinds of cool non combat tricks as well.
Combat rules are a large part of the game, because that is where you are going to have the most disagreement over outcome. That doesn't mean the game was always just about hack n slash (though obviously dungeons crawls and combat have long been an important part of the game). Though I didn't play 1E very long because 2E came out a few years after I started, but I do remember that exploration was a major feature of that edition. It was also the kind fo game where playefs routinely worked around combat challenges by coming up with innovative in game solutions (and the DMG tackles all kins of stuff outside combat).
I cant speak as much on 1E but in 2E there was a lot of focus on stuff outside combat, and game masters were encouraged to reward role play in addition to killing things with XP. NWPs were very much about non combat stuff (with a handful of exceptions like bind fighting). The complete books were very different from their 3E counterparts, with a lot more flavor, background and RP material in general. A setting like ravenloft was explicitly combat light in the rule book itself. Our games were very role play heavy and I think it was largely due to the rules. most of my games in the ravenloft setting were investigation and intrigue (with some exploratory haunted house style adventures as well. When 3E came out it felt like it had a bigger focus on combat than 2E to me.
Quote from: Premier;578936To quote Wikipedia, [Citation_needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_needed)]
You need to PROVE what you say. With ARGUMENTS and LOGIC (or citations). Which so far you've never really done in this thread, since all you seem to do is state things assertively without bothering to provide actual arguments to support the veracity of your claims. And that just doesn't fly.
~60% of the games rules are combat (and the other ~40% is mostly spells) every PHP in every edition has contained the fighter class which specializes only in combat. Like I've said before Hackmaster is a real game the people actually printed as a retroclone.
The game can and dose devolve into hack and slash in every edition so I'm not trying to argue against anyone’s preferred edition or playstyle. I'm not going to fight an edition war here if I can avoid it.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;578937Combat rules are a large part of the game, because that is where you are going to have the most disagreement over outcome. That doesn't mean the game was always just about hack n slash (though obviously dungeons crawls and combat have long been an important part of the game). Though I didn't play 1E very long because 2E came out a few years after I started, but I do remember that exploration was a major feature of that edition. It was also the kind fo game where playefs routinely worked around combat challenges by coming up with innovative in game solutions (and the DMG tackles all kins of stuff outside combat).
Like I said I'm not arguing against anyones edition. 2E attempeted to move away from hack and slash, but given that as I said hackmaster is based on that era I'm not sure how sucessful it was.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578939~60% of the games rules are combat (and the other ~40% is mostly spells) every PHP in every edition has contained the fighter class which specializes only in combat. Like I've said before Hackmaster is a real game the people actually printed as a retroclone.
Hackmaster was printed as a joke based on the Knights of the Dinner Table comic strip. Jolly Blackburn had the old TSR edition rules license given to him by WOTC after they bought the rights to D&D just so that he could make the game that his comic was about. It's a modified set of 1e rules (not 2e) with a huge skill system, crit tables that make Rolemaster look like "Double damage on a cit" but with FAR less style, and an arcane method of tracking personal honor.
It was a playable game, but it was a joke nonetheless. If you're basing all your assumptions about old editions off hackmaster you're entirely mistaken, and even HM has HUGE sections of the rules devoted to out of combat events.
QuoteThe game can and dose devolve into hack and slash in every edition so I'm not trying to argue against anyone’s preferred edition or playstyle. I'm not going to fight an edition war here if I can avoid it.
Like I said I'm not arguing against anyones edition. 2E attempeted to move away from hack and slash, but given that as I said hackmaster is based on that era I'm not sure how sucessful it was.
See above. Hackmaster is a
satire (http://bit.ly/OFwibP). It's like basing your opinion of Jonathan Swift off
A Modest Proposal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal)
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578939~
Like I said I'm not arguing against anyones edition. 2E attempeted to move away from hack and slash, but given that as I said hackmaster is based on that era I'm not sure how sucessful it was.
The reason knights of the dinner table was so succesful in the 90s is because they were making fun of hack and slash style of play. Hackmaster is just a send up of hack n slash based on the kodt using AD&D.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;578940See above. Hackmaster is a satire (http://bit.ly/OFwibP).
That's kinda the point KotDT was a satire of
the way some people played older editions. Excessive hack and slash is a part of that.
D&D can devolve into a hack and slash game and I don't think that "fixing" that part of D&D is somthing possible or even desirable to the game.
I'm not saying older editions are bad or that people shouldn't play them. I'm talking about class balance. To capture 50% on the same game test a class needs to be able to "beat" 50% of a wide selection of challenges that would be appropriate to that level. that need not mean that the class scores 50% of every encounter.
As long as combat is such a large part of D&D then every class needs to be good at some combat, but not necessary all combat.
Conversely if we want to have non-combat be a bigger part of the game than every class need a viable non-combat thing.
If you think that the SGT is a bad way to balance classes and think you have a better way to do so I'm willing to hear it.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578942That's kinda the point KotDT was a satire of the way some people played older editions. Excessive hack and slash is a part of that.
D&D can devolve into a hack and slash game and I don't think that "fixing" that part of D&D is somthing possible or even desirable to the game.
I'm not saying older editions are bad or that people shouldn't play them. I'm talking about class balance. To capture 50% on the same game test a class needs to be able to "beat" 50% of a wide selection of challenges that would be appropriate to that level. that need not mean that the class scores 50% of every encounter.
As long as combat is such a large part of D&D then every class needs to be good at some combat, but not necessary all combat.
Conversely if we want to have non-combat be a bigger part of the game than every class need a viable non-combat thing.
If you think that the SGT is a bad way to balance classes and think you have a better way to do so I'm willing to hear it.
Dungeons and dragons CAN devolve into hack n slash, but that doesn't mean the game needs to cater to and be built around hack n slash assumptions. SGT is just a preference. If you want it to be balanced his way, that is fine, but that doesn't mean the game HAS to be designed that way. All this talk about balance is really just a preference and playstyle issue.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578942That's kinda the point KotDT was a satire of the way some people played older editions. Excessive hack and slash is a part of that.
No, Hackmaster was an in-joke for gamers about what people THOUGHT D&D was about. It was a set of over-exaggerations.
QuoteConversely if we want to have non-combat be a bigger part of the game than every class need a viable non-combat thing.
If you think that the SGT is a bad way to balance classes and think you have a better way to do so I'm willing to hear it.
Every class DOES have a viable non-combat thing. It's called "roleplay". And I'm with the group that feels that balance is the responsibility of the GM, so I haven't even paid attention to what your SGT thing is.
I just couldn't stand to see you so completely wrong about what Hackmaster was supposed to represent.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;578943Dungeons and dragons CAN devolve into hack n slash, but that doesn't mean the game needs to cater to and be built around hack n slash assumptions. SGT is just a preference. If you want it to be balanced his way, that is fine, but that doesn't mean the game HAS to be designed that way. All this talk about balance is really just a preference and playstyle issue.
If you want a game that devolves into hack and slash less than you should be advocating every class having a non-combat thing.
SGT =/= hack and slash
Avoid fighting that dragon, convince the king/duke/some guy to help you, or find the macguffin are all things that could be on a SGT.
If you're going to argue against SGT I'd like to see a viable alternative
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578945If you want a game that devolves into hack and slash less than you should be advocating every class having a non-combat thing.
SGT =/= hack and slash
Avoid fighting that dragon, convince the king/duke/some guy to help you, or find the macguffin are all things that could be on a SGT.
If you're going to argue against SGT I'd like to see a viable alternative
I don't need every class class to have non combat features to not have hack n slash in my games. Whether the game devolves into hack n slash is really up to the group playing it. Personally I don't care if other peoples' games devolve into it (though in my experience it wasn't a problem for most 2E groups I played in---was a much biggger issue in 3E actually). Just because there isn't a "diplomacy" or "detect" button on your sheet it doesn't mean you cant engage the setting in a non combat way. In fact sometimes not having those buttons leads to more of this kind of interaction with the setting ImO. That said, the NWP system 2E offered was more than sufficient for me for out of combat stuff. I was fine with fighter class abilities being pretty much combat focused (though they did get NWPs and followers as well). The SGT formula may be something you feel you need, but I am just fine without it.
I think people have offered viable alternatives here. They might not work for you which is fine. Nothing wrong with SGT. But if you are trying to convince people that SGT is the only and best way to balance, it is on you to prove your case (and I don't think you have or that you can since it is really just a preference). You have offered reasons why it might be a good idea, but you haven't proven that the designers of D&D should embrace it.
There was a very long conversaiton about relative power levels in Cmbat, Exploration, and Role Play. i suggest you try to find it because all the major points you are touching on were addressed pretty well by both sides. Keep in mind, I am not knocking SGT, I am just saying I don't see why I ought to embrace it as a design goal for D&D.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578945If you want a game that devolves into hack and slash less than you should be advocating every class having a non-combat thing.
SGT =/= hack and slash
I've been avoiding the game turning into a hack-n-slash fest for years (since I got bored with hack-n-slash a few months after I started GMing in 1976. I had no trouble doing so in any version of D&D I've GMed (all TSR versions and 3e) - and without worrying about class balance (at least at anything near the level you seem to) or stuff like SGT. So have lots of other GMs. You see, all classes have this very powerful non-combat ability called "roleplay" (which can even be used in combat) By roleplaying (and GM decision making based on that roleplay, what you may have referred to as "mother may I"), all characters have a near infinite number of things they can choose to do.
QuoteIf you're going to argue against SGT I'd like to see a viable alternative
Roleplaying. It's worked for many, many, many campaigns over the years.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578939~60% of the games rules are combat (and the other ~40% is mostly spells) every PHP in every edition has contained the fighter class which specializes only in combat.
You keep spinning in one place beacuse there's a single issue you refuse to understand. I'll lay it out really, really simply:
The contents of the rulebook (of any game) are NOT INDICATIVE of actual gameplay experience. Got that?
Yes, most of the written rules are about combat, but there's also a huge amount of stuff - actual gaming practice, the culture around the game, the nudging by various extra books, things that naturally crop up in a campaign, etc. etc. - which is not in the PHB but also has a significant effect on how the game is played. You don't know about this stuff because you haven't been there to see it yourself. But it's still there, and older, more experienced people than you have actually seen it, and when they're describing this aspect of the game to you, maybe you should say
"I didn't know about that, thanks. It does put things in a different light." rather than put your finger in your ears and go
"NA-NA-NA can't hear you so what you're saying doesn't exist!!!"But you know what? It's fucking pointless. Once again, someone has demonstrated how the human mind is wired to "win" at all costs. You're not going to listen to anything I or Brendan or, were he still alive, Gary Gygax could possibly say. You'd still just stick your finger in your ear and stick to your factually wrong preconceptions, because the
"I must win the argument" is wired into your brain so strongly that making an utter fool and a prick of yourself in public is still less painful to you than admitting that you were ignorant and wrong.
Quote from: RandallS;578947Roleplaying. It's worked for many, many, many campaigns over the years.
Quote from: Premier;578949The contents of the rulebook (of any game) are NOT INDICATIVE of actual gameplay experience. Got that?
Do we have to do this, please tell me you guys aren't going here already... yep you guys went there and now I have to have
this discussion again.
I'm just going to ask nicely that you take the rules vs magic tea party debate to another thread. I'm not knocking anyone here but if you keep trying to shut down the discussion like this I'm going to have to start suspecting you're arguing in bad faith.
Listen If having this debate is so important to you please start another thread.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578955. I'm not knocking anyone here but if you keep trying to shut down the discussion like this I'm going to have to start suspecting you're arguing in bad faith.
.
Wait a second. You're the one making claims about how AD&D (1e and 2e) were like despite never having actually played either one with any significance, and adamantly arguing your position against people who have and still do play it. And you're accusing others of arguing in bad faith?
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about when I bring up hypocrisy. This whole thing is, "if you don't agree with me, you're arguing in bad faith." Sorry, that doesn't fly.
Oh, and this:
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578939~60% of the games rules are combat (and the other ~40% is mostly spells) every PHP in every edition has contained the fighter class which specializes only in combat.
Hate to break it to you, but the AD&D PHB had almost
no rules for combat. You really need to stop making these claims when you know nothing about which you talk. Especially when you're arguing with people who are intimately familiar with the material you're arguing against.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;578958Wait a second. You're the one making claims about how AD&D (1e and 2e) were like despite never having actually played either one with any significance, and adamantly arguing your position against people who have and still do play it. And you're accusing others of arguing in bad faith?
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about when I bring up hypocrisy. This whole thing is, "if you don't agree with me, you're arguing in bad faith." Sorry, that doesn't fly.
Bringing up MTP in a thread about game design is the definition of arguing in bad faith. If you just want people to MTP everything then just release a big book full of pictures and fluff writhing.
This keeps happening, someone says something about the rules or game design and then people immediately get defensive and start drowning the thread in MTP and edition wars.
I've been trying really hard to no make this an edition war thread so why is everyone trying to make it one.
Throwing out the term MTP isn't going to shame anyone into agreeing with you here. How much hack n slash you have in a game has more to do with A) how lethal the combat system is for PCs and b) how the gm designs adventures than hiw much of the rule book is devoted to combat in my experience.
But hat said if you bother to read the 2E and 1E books you will find many sections devoted to stuff like exploration and NPCs. Now I haven't gone through and tallied up everything so there could be something to your claim about their content, but at least read the things and test them a bit before making sweeping pronouncements based only on the fact that Hackmaster exists. The one thing many of us at least bring to the table is we were around playing the game in the 80s and 90s and can shed some light on what was actually going on at our tables at the time. I think a lot of your ideas about "Grognards" is really based on a caricature more than anything else.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;578962But hat said if you bother to read the 2E and 1E books you will find many sections devoted to stuff like exploration and NPCs. Now I haven't gone through and tallied up everything so there could be something to your claim about their content, but at least read the things and test them a bit before making sweeping pronouncements based only on the fact that Hackmaster exists. The one thing many of us at least bring to the table is we were around playing the game in the 80s and 90s and can shed some light on what was actually going on at our tables at the time. I think a lot of your ideas about "Grognards" is really based on a caricature more than anything else.
Most of my ideas about grognards are based on how people conduct themselves on this form and respond to opposing points of view, and now that I think of it several GMs I've gamed with. It's not a pretty picture.
Another factor to consider is this: GM support material matters. When I was running 3E so much of the advice was about structuring your adventure around the right number and level of ELs and CRs. That kind of advice absolutely leads to hack n slash. Contrast that with the stuf TSR was putting out in the 90s which was more about encouraging the Gm to do things beyond hack n slash. Try reading the van richten guides for instance. Those are all about encouraging the Gm to design investigative adventures where the PCs follow clues, research their enemy and interact with NPCs.
People are not just resisting your position to be difficult. Your argument genuinely doesn't match my experience of the game at all.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578963Most of my ideas about grognards are based on how people conduct themselves on this form and respond to opposing points of view. It's not a pretty picture.
With all due respect, it is pretty clear to me you came in here with this impression of grognards already. But even if you didn't I really don't you should let the internet be your basis for judging a group of gamers. There have been a handful of regular posters who attacked you here (a lot of the regulars have simply been avoiding the gamer den discussions, in part because they dont like the tone on either side). But as I have said countless times before, the issue isn't simply that you have a different point of view, it is that a bunch of posters from the den came in about the same time and aggresively pushing their position. Dont act surprised when you get some hostility form folks in a forum with pretty much the opposite mindset of the gaming den. Also from the beginning most of you guys have been condescending and arrogant in the way you make your arguments. Again, no rule against that here but dont be surprised if you get angry responses when you are clearly baiting people.
My advice is ignore people who are overly hostile and try to engage the people who act reasonable.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;578965With all due respect, it is pretty clear to me you came in here with this impression of grognards already.
100% of the older edition fans who I have gamed with have been DMs of the worst kind. So I'm not well disposed to Grognards.
Quote from: Libertad;578717The Decker/Rigger problem's a big thing in Shadowrun, and still gets talked about.
Cross-overs in World of Darkness games are infamously hard to do, and even certain kinds of Vampires/Mages have radically different power levels. The New World of Darkness system discourages combat, meaning that mental and social-focused characters are king.
Star Wars RPGs have the "Jedi problem," regarding a trained Force-User's power level in relation to non-Force-using PCs.
Good examples. Id forgotten about SR.
After reading most of the nWOD core books, it sure doesn't seem to me that the goal was to present a true unified system. Rather, a simple extraction and polishing of a small, shared kernel of a system. In no way does it seem to set out to allow for an expanded universe of "Being Human".
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578960Bringing up MTP in a thread about game design is the definition of arguing in bad faith. If you just want people to MTP everything then just release a big book full of pictures and fluff writhing.
Depending on GM rulings is a perfectly valid type of game design with a long history in both wargaming and roleplaying games. The fact that you apparently do not like game designs which include using GM rulings for portions of their system (and refer to it as "Magic Tea Party" to express your dislike of it) does not make it bad game design nor is suggesting in in a thread on RPG design "arguing in bad faith". Neither is disagreeing with that you believe to be good game design in general.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578967100% of the older edition fans who I have gamed with have been DMs of the worst kind. So I'm not well disposed to Grognards.
Fair enough, some people simpy have incompatible styles and old school gaming may not be for you. but out of curiosity; how many older edition fans have you gamed with? Was there something specific about their approach you didn't enjoy?
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578967100% of the older edition fans who I have gamed with have been DMs of the worst kind. So I'm not well disposed to Grognards.
I'm sorry to hear that. However, I suspect much of that is because you strongly object to large parts of what makes older editions work the way they do. GMs using rulings over rules and enforcing the restrictions on spells and the like in older editions are likely to always seem to be "bad GMs" to you as they are using a style of play you seem to strongly disapprove of.
For example, I suspect if you played in one of my games, you would hate it and hate my GMing. I would not care. I can't please everyone and have seldom had any shortage of players for my games in the many years I've been a GM. Generally have have more players wanting to play than I have space for.
Quote from: RandallS;578970Depending on GM rulings is a perfectly valid type of game design with a long history in both wargaming and roleplaying games. The fact that you apparently do not like game designs which include using GM rulings for portions of their system (and refer to it as "Magic Tea Party" to express your dislike of it) does not make it bad game design nor is suggesting in in a thread on RPG design "arguing in bad faith". Neither is disagreeing with that you believe to be good game design in general.
I think this is well stated. Equating what one likes with "good design" and equating what one dislikes "with bad design" really misses the point ImO. A good game designer can have his preferences but also understand people who come form other perspectives with different sets of preferences. By all means, learn what you like and be that kind of designer, but walking around dismissing people who take other approaches will just lead to blinkered design.
For example, I don't think I share many of lord mistborns preferences in terms of game design and playstyle. But I am interested in what he likes and why he likes it (which is why I have encouraged him to start a thread designing his own d20 game).
Quote from: RandallS;578970Depending on GM rulings is a perfectly valid type of game design with a long history in both wargaming and roleplaying games. The fact that you apparently do not like game designs which include using GM rulings for portions of their system (and refer to it as "Magic Tea Party" to express your dislike of it) does not make it bad game design nor is suggesting in in a thread on RPG design "arguing in bad faith". Neither is disagreeing with that you believe to be good game design in general.
If the GM has to houserule the game into playability that's a huge amount of work to put on someone who didn't sign up to be a game designer. Let the GM sort it out is to game design what homeopathy is to medicine.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;578971Fair enough, some people simpy have incompatible styles and old school gaming may not be for you. but out of curiosity; how many older edition fans have you gamed with? Was there something specific about their approach you didn't enjoy?
If you want some examples than there is a thread on TGD called Aparently Expeditoius Retreat, Swift is broken. Though some of my past GMs have made some far more egregious violations of the social contract.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578975If the GM has to houserule the game into playability that's a huge amount of work to put on someone who didn't sign up to be a game designer. Let the GM sort it out is to game design what homeopathy is to medicine..
It is just a different approach and one that appeals to many, many people. Again it is just preference. Trying to define it as automatically bad is intellectually lazy. It doesn't appeal to you, so for your style it is bad design. But if it fills a need in the community that is a good thing. I think you would get a lot further if you tried to really understand why some peope prefer rules systems like this, instead of just dismissing it as bad design. That doesn't mean you need to embrace it but why does it bother you so much that people out there make these kinds of games and plenty of folks like to play them.
I have been working very heavily, and am joining the party very late.
But in many threads in the past dealing with balance, it is important to undestand that the rulesets were at least attempted to be balanced, but the fulcrum of that balance was very different than people understand. They were balaced on a game that the GM(s) was playing and writing for at that point in time.
This means that GMs who use that ruleset but play a game with a different focus will feel a lot more unbalanced based on this incongruence. And frankly, it takes a better and better GM to overcome these imbalance, as the system takes away time from the other GM tasks.
I know Bedrock and Randdall at least have been on threads we've discussed this, so I am sort of going over old ground, but it is an area I feel very strongly about and have dealt with a lot.
Earlier games were based upon 'the adventure', and exploring the adventure. Resource management and abilities were based upon the challenges the GMs were setting up for these. It was based on creative problem solving, and I really feel the spells of the magi-user to a great job of showing this. The spells were NOT all combat related, but were based on problem solving, whether it was reading languages or creating light.
As the games went into more official editions, with more wilderness, etc, and the coming of 1E, combat mattered a bit more, but the real change in fulcrum became the setting, as the game became campaign based. The roles were more balanced along the ideal of the long term campaign, as if the game was supposed to move on to the high level play. Men at arms, strongholds, weapon proficiency, amount of treasure gained or kept, expenditures for supplies, the RAW became more important fot the balance.
But the next major change was the already noted change to a game based on balancing the combat function of the game as a priority. This is easier to do; since it is more of a straight numerical comparison, but also gives less tools to more creative game solutions.
AS mentioned, this creates a game that is focussed differently, and adventures are also based this way.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578975Though some of my past GMs have made some far more egregious violations of the social contract.
Whose social contract? The is no one social contract for all tables of players. Even how a social contract is selected varies from table to table.
For example, I set the social contract for my table, tell players about it when they ask about my game and if they can't live with it, I expect them to say so and not play. If you showed up at my table expecting your social contract to be followed, you'd likely be very disappointed as I suspect the social contract you would like/expect would be very different from the one at my table.
Other tables set the social contract by mutual consent (usual for groups of people who already know each other) or other methods. I've even seen the players set the contract and then seek out a GM who will do things that way, although this often leaves players having a hard time finding a GM.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578975If you want some examples than there is a thread on TGD called Aparently Expeditoius Retreat, Swift is broken. Though some of my past GMs have made some far more egregious violations of the social contract.
Maybe you could just offer up some examples. I appreciate that you took the time to write up a thread on the experience, but I really dont have time to read it just to find the instances where the GM violated your understanding of the social contract.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;578982Maybe you could just offer up some examples. I appreciate that you took the time to write up a thread on the experience, but I really dont have time to read it just to find the instances where the GM violated your understanding of the social contract.
From my experiences (not just AERSiB)
-tearing up another players character sheet when they wanted to multiclass fighter and barbarian.
-fudging rolls to keep players he likes alive, and the going out of his way to target players he dislikes.
-nerfing or banning stuff on the spot when it gets in the way of their railroad
-trying to "teach" players not minmax by punishing their characters
-forcing me to roll stats when the other players are clearly fudging their rolls
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578983From my experiences (not just AERSiB)
-tearing up another players character sheet when they wanted to multiclass fighter and barbarian.
-fudging rolls to keep players he likes alive, and the going out of his way to target players he dislikes.
-nerfing or banning stuff on the spot when it gets in the way of their railroad
-trying to "teach" players not minmax by punishing their characters
These all seem a bit extreme to me. The nerfing on the spot is something that varies from table to table though. Some GMs do see that as a key function of their role and some players agree, so on that one I think it is important for people to have an understanding before they begin.
The last one seems quite subjective. How I react really depends on whether the Gm is simply not rewarding min/maxing or going out of his way to punish it (two very different things). How I deal with min/max depends on my group. I think it is important if the group isn't min/maxing and min/maxing clealry bothers them, for you as a player to tone it down. I have run for optimizers and non optimizers, so I can easily do both. In my experience being an optimizer doesn't make you a jerk (it isjust a playtsyle). However if your playstyle (whatever it may be) creates issues at the table, the polite thing to do is either leave the group or adapt to them.
Fudging is something I really dislike, and that is more of a 90s, storyteller thing than an oldschool thing. It is one of the major failings of the 2E support material, which often instructed the GM to fudge or ignore rules simply to kee the story going in the "right" direction.
I actually see fudging is more of a pathfinder, adventure path thing these days. My attitude is open dice rolls and let the dice fall where they may.
On the multiclassing. I do think the Gm should have a say in what multiclass options and prestige class options are available in his setting (both for balance and setting concerns) but he shouldn't rip up someone's sheet or belittle them for wanting something. The GM can have final say on this stuff without being a dick.
Also, for what is worth mistborn, at my table when people complain about "powergaming assholes" I am usually the one to point out it is just a playstyle and if your whole group is into optimization it can be fund to GM for them. It is also a great way to master the rules because one thing about optimizers is they really know the system well typically. But like any player, they still need to be aware of how their playstyle impacts the group. A lone optimizer in the group can be disruptive in the same way that a lone "role player"" who always speaks in character can be disruptive, even for minor exchanges.
So like I was saying
Same game test. Pick a level, select a menu of chalenges that characters of that level should be facing. Then see if a character of a selected class measures up against those chalenges at that level. Some chalenges will likely be sure wins some may be sure failures some might go either way but if the class goes roughly 50/50 then the class is balance. If the class is over 50% then it's too good and needs to be weakened. If the class is under 50% then it's going to underpreform.
In 3.5 classes that are >50% and thus to good are the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid. Classes that are just about right are the Beguiler, Warblade, and Rogue. Classes that are <50% and thus are underpreforming are the Fighter, Monk, and CW Samurai.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578983From my experiences (not just AERSiB)
-tearing up another players character sheet when they wanted to multiclass fighter and barbarian.
-fudging rolls to keep players he likes alive, and the going out of his way to target players he dislikes.
-nerfing or banning stuff on the spot when it gets in the way of their railroad
-trying to "teach" players not minmax by punishing their characters
-forcing me to roll stats when the other players are clearly fudging their rolls
Don't Game with Assholes.™
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578987Same game test.
There is absolutely nothing to validate this test to any degree.
Also, I thought we were shutting down threads that drift into the Wizard v Fighter territory...?
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578987So like I was saying
Same game test. Pick a level, select a menu of chalenges that characters of that level should be facing. Then see if a character of a selected class measures up against those chalenges at that level. Some chalenges will likely be sure wins some may be sure failures some might go either way but if the class goes roughly 50/50 then the class is balance. If the class is over 50% then it's too good and needs to be weakened. If the class is under 50% then it's going to underpreform.
In 3.5 classes that are >50% and thus to good are the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid. Classes that are just about right are the Beguiler, Warblade, and Rogue. Classes that are <50% and thus are underpreforming are the Fighter, Monk, and CW Samurai.
This isn't the standard I would use, but if you want to design a game with this approach I think it will achieve the sort of balance you are looking for. But it also depends on how you actually put the 50/50 thing to the test. You are going to have a few monsters for example that one class might always be under ten percent on (for instance a wizard against a magic resistant, magic deouring creature). So how do you intend to factor those kinds of things in?
The other issue is if you are measuring classes in isolation, wont that skew things against more supportive role characters like bards or even clerics (who may not have the time to buff in a one-on-one encounter).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;578990This isn't the standard I would use, but if you want to design a game with this approach I think it will achieve the sort of balance you are looking for. But it also depends on how you actually put the 50/50 thing to the test. You are going to have a few monsters for example that one class might always be under ten percent on (for instance a wizard against a magic resistant, magic deouring creature). So how do you intend to factor those kinds of things in?
Some monsters are going to be Immune: your primary shtick, while some monsters are vunrable to it. I'm suspecting that the prepared casters % may be inflated by people tailoring prepared spells to individual encounters. However I have no doubt that I could write up a spell list that scores 75% which is too high.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;578990The other issue is if you are measuring classes in isolation, wont that skew things against more supportive role characters like bards or even clerics (who may not have the time to buff in a one-on-one encounter).
I never said the test was perfect, suport classes are likely undervalued by the SGT. Like I've said before if you have a better testing metric let's hear it.
Edit
Quote from: StormBringer;578989Also, I thought we were shutting down threads that drift into the Wizard v Fighter territory...?
If people stop bringing it up then I'll stop talking about it. I'm more intrested in seeing if there is a balance metric that everyone can agree on.
Mistborn, i am not trying to debate against your standard as any measure i propose probably wouldnt appeal to your sense of balance (and this is an ussue I have debated endlessly on enworld). I am just raising the question about support classes to help you refine the concept further. I am wondering if you could build in a handicap for such classes. I think you need to factor team play in here. Supporting other classes should count for toward balance.
I say establish a clear set of tests using your proposed method, build a variant system with that in mind, then check your classes for balance against it. Keep in mind though that fifty percent success also means they fail half tge time as well. So i would also think about whether 50% is the number you want.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;579005Mistborn, i am not trying to debate against your standard as any measure i propose probably wouldnt appeal to your sense of balance (and this is an ussue I have debated endlessly on enworld). I am just raising the question about support classes to help you refine the concept further. I am wondering if you could build in a handicap for such classes. I think you need to factor team play in here. Supporting other classes should count for toward balance.
I say establish a clear set of tests using your proposed method, build a variant system with that in mind, then check your classes for balance against it. Keep in mind though that fifty percent success also means they fail half tge time as well. So i would also think about whether 50% is the number you want.
If you don't want to talk about class balance noone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to post in "The class balance thread".
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578740That's the thing, given how much D&D devolved into hack and slash every class should have somthing to bring to combat.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578925The game in all editions has a tendencey to disolve into hack and slash . . .
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578934If combat is a large part of a game then that game will devolve into hack and slash no mater how much about basketweaving you staple to the rules.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578934If a class is only useful in combat then that makes the game even more likely to devolve into hack and slash.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578939The game can and dose devolve into hack and slash in every edition . . .
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578942D&D can devolve into a hack and slash game . . .
So much for "trolling free."
The last quote is the only one containing a demonstrably true statement. That
D&D can "devolve" into hack-and-slash does not mean does not mean it
must do so, as evidenced by the many, many campaigns out there which didn't.
You can keep making that same assertion over and over as much as you like, but that doesn't make it true for anyone but you.
Insists on using terms like "magic tea party"
Says DMs of older editions are the worst kind.
Complains about problems in AD&D despite not having ever really played it
Uses false premises to base arguments on (% of combat rules in PHB)
.....
Complains about others not arguing in good faith
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Trollface.svg/200px-Trollface.svg.png)
Quote from: Premier;578806Had you prefaced the entire thread with "I'm specifically talking about 3/4E and nothing else", this statement wouldn't raise an eyebrow. However, it's billed as a generic discussion of levels and balance, so I must take issue with the veracity of this statement.
Considering your experience (absolutely nothing prior to 3E), your observation is perfectly understandable, but, alas, not true. It's specifically the WotC games that devolved into combat, previous editions have a rich tradition of offering much beyond that.
Now, there are plenty of folks here who I'm sure will be happy to enlighten you, explain how things were back then, and help you widen your understanding of D&D. But as the Freemasons say, "if you want to learn about Masonry, ask a Mason" (or whatever, Pundit will correct me). If you genuinely and earnestly want to discuss matters of balance and other game design issues as relates to D&D in general, it would behoove to actually ask for information on parts and eras of the game you're unfamiliar with, as opposed to making ostensibly generic statements while being ignorant of a significant part of the material you're making declarations about.
Quote from: Premier;578932You yourself have said you have no experience with pre-3E editions. How the fuck do you dare pronounce sweeping statements about things you have, by your admission, no knowledge of, and then maintain them in the face of people who ARE speaking from personal experience and who are correcting you hoping you'll stop making an uninformed ass of yourself?
Also, you're moving he goalposts. First you said "D&D devolves into hack'n'slash". I told you it doesn't. Now you're "Combat is a large part of every edition, so I was right." No, you weren't. You ARE right in your second statement, but that's a completely different claim than your original one. So NO, while combat IS a large part of all D&D, all D&D does NOT "devolve into hack'n'slash". BECMI, for instance, has two entire books dedicated to high-level non-combat-oriented play: managing kingdoms, questing for immortality, tampering with history, etc.. Which you wouldn't know about, of course, because you prefer pulling shit out of your arse to actually getting informed about whatever the fuck you're making entitled declarations about.
Premier speaks for me.
Quote from: LordMistbornIf the GM has to houserule the game into playability that's a huge amount of work to put on someone who didn't sign up to be a game designer. Let the GM sort it out is to game design what homeopathy is to medicine.
or what Paint by numbers is to actual art.
The majority of people need the lines and guidance to do even a passable job, tis true. There will be less screw ups and perhaps less horrible games.
But your way will never produce art.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;578718"This is what I like as houserules"
is not the same as:
"This is what D&D should be."
Exactamundo (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/08/frankengame.html).
Quote from: beejazz;578720People equate "what I like" with "how it should be."
Some people do, yes.
That's their failing, however, and it deserves to be called out.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;579013Premier speaks for me.
Aye. As I said earlier, balancing the ruleset primnarily on combat is a new thing.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578939~60% of the games rules are combat (and the other ~40% is mostly spells) every PHP in every edition has contained the fighter class which specializes only in combat.
My Blu-Ray manual barely mentions watching movies.
Quote from: LordVreeg;579017Aye. As I said earlier, balancing the ruleset primnarily on combat is a new thing.
I never said the ruleset
has to be balanced primarily on combat. The SGT is supposed to be a menu of challenges that characters face at their level. If the game is supposed to have less combat then that game's SGT should have fewer combats.
Now if you excuse me I have grognards to game with. Apparently Expeditious Retreat, Swift Is Broken doesn't write itself.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579007If you don't want to talk about class balance noone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to post in "The class balance thread".
I suggest you re-read my post. I think you are missing the point of my remarks.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579023I never said the ruleset has to be balanced primarily on combat. The SGT is supposed to be a menu of challenges that characters face at their level. If the game is supposed to have less combat then that game's SGT should have fewer combats.
Now if you excuse me I have grognards to game with. Apparently Expeditious Retreat, Swift Is Broken doesn't write itself.
No, but your comments about the devolution of said games into combat-centrism is a feature of newer games. I left D&D in general a while ago, but balancing on multiple fronts is actually very difficult.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579023I never said the ruleset has to be balanced primarily on combat. The SGT is supposed to be a menu of challenges that characters face at their level. If the game is supposed to have less combat then that game's SGT should have fewer combats.
I guess I don't get the "face at their level" bit, as the challenges PCs face in my games are based not on their level but on where they go and what they choose to do. If they go to the "Black Hills" where orcs and goblins are known to live, that's what they will most likely encounter, orcs, goblins, and other creatures that can/would live in the same area. They'll encounter those orcs and goblins regardless of their level because that's what lives there. If they visit Bloodcrag, they'll have a good chance of encountering a couple of older red dragons. Again, red dragons live there whether the PCs are 1st level or 10th level.
Perhaps this is one reason the whole "balance" thing doesn't resonate much with me. I don't design adventures for a specific set of characters at a specific level. I expect the players to interact with the world, discover rumors and facts about places therein and choose where they want to go based on what they want to do, not based on what some set of rules says is a challenge they should be able to beat X% of the time while using Y% of their resources and if they win that encounter they should get Z treasure which moves them about 1/13 of the way (or whatever fraction) to the amount of treasure the rules say they should have when they reach the next level. I have no problem with people who want to run their games that way, but I will not as I (and the people who choose to play in my games) find it boring and unrealistic.
Mistborn, before any rational debate can be had AT ALL you need to clearly define what you think balance is. Calling for SGT isn't going to help because SGT only exists as far as it was implemented for 3rd. It wouldn't work for anything else. If you are talking about class balance in general you need to focus on that. Whether or not a game "can" devolve into hack and slash isn't something you can base an arument on. You can say:
Combat is something everyone is expected to participate in in all editions of DnD and thus everyone should have something of relevant importance to do.
You cannot, however, make the claim that everyone always has to be good at combat because there are a number of games where it wouldn't be beyond texpectations to not participate in combat at all. For example I'd consider any Shadowrun team that can completely avoid any real combat (not including single turn ambushes) and complete objectives to be pretty bad ass.
You have to keep in mind that you started a thread about class balance in general so your assertions have to fit general class based games. Now I agree with you that classes should be relatively balanced in that they should be about as useful as each other. The reason I don't like the fighter class is that while at low level he's a valuable tool at higher levels he falls flat because of his inability to participate in regular high level adventures.
This is important: I don't dislike the fighter because it's good at fighting. I dislike it because it cannot seriously participate in high level shennanians. Now this sentiment only goes for 3e and apparently was intended in 2e. However it doesn't fit for 4e. In 4E there were classes that fall behind say the Ranger (core) quite quickly but even though I didn't like it and my paladin felt like shit he never falls too far behind to not be worth bringin because 4E ONLY ever has you doin low level bullshit.
Second, as you said yourself, you think wizards stomp all over your SGT. So if you're going to advocate a balance point, a place where the game works for you, you should clearly explain what that balance point is, why it's good, and how yu would create a game that could generate that balance point.
As you're going now you're going to get bogged down by nonsense and frankly, the way you're arguing, I wouldn't expect any different.
TL : DR: Clearly define some terms, ideas, and tell us why they are good.
Quote from: Rum Cove;579021My Blu-Ray manual barely mentions watching movies.
:hatsoff:
Quote from: MGuy;579041Clearly define some terms, ideas, and tell us why they are good.
Umm . . . that whole post. Very well said.
Quote from: MGuy;578884Explode what exactly is your deal? If you cannot DO anything to help adventure why would I put you on my team? MMO logic? Its schoolyard logic. It is lack of contributing to the team that would make people skip over you when selecting people to play a game. If adventurers are to be "realistic" then I'd assume that they wouldn't take anybody on their "save the world" quest that would only get them fucked up especially when that person can be replaced and their role filled out much better by someone who doesn't suck. You don't take civilians into a warzone to help you fight a battle if you can help it. You don't pick someone overweight/out of shape to join your professional football team. You don't pick the gu that hates you to represent you in court. If doing things that are common sense is MMO logic then what MMOs were around when I was choosing not to pick the fat kid to play basketball with in grade school?
You also still haven't answered my earlier question which I suppose means you asked your "counter" question merely as a means to "prove me wrong" instead of actually taking any time to think about what I asked. If you're not going to actually answer my question then there's no point in even talking to you at all.
As long as the only contributions you can see come from the character sheet, there is little to discuss.
Quote from: MGuy;579041Mistborn, before any rational debate can be had AT ALL you need to clearly define what you think balance is. Calling for SGT isn't going to help because SGT only exists as far as it was implemented for 3rd. It wouldn't work for anything else. If you are talking about class balance in general you need to focus on that. Whether or not a game "can" devolve into hack and slash isn't something you can base an arument on. You can say:
Combat is something everyone is expected to participate in in all editions of DnD and thus everyone should have something of relevant importance to do.
You cannot, however, make the claim that everyone always has to be good at combat because there are a number of games where it wouldn't be beyond texpectations to not participate in combat at all.
To have a SGT a game needs to have levels and some manner of metric for how chalenging something is. In a point based system the SGT is a non-starter since there are no classes.
When I'm talking about combat I'm talking about D&D, but fine "Combat is something everyone is expected to participate in in all editions of DnD and thus everyone should have something of relevant importance to do"
Quote from: MGuy;579041For example I'd consider any Shadowrun team that can completely avoid any real combat (not including single turn ambushes) and complete objectives to be pretty bad ass.
Shadowrun is a very diffrent game than D&D. It's also not class based.
Quote from: MGuy;579041You have to keep in mind that you started a thread about class balance in general so your assertions have to fit general class based games. Now I agree with you that classes should be relatively balanced in that they should be about as useful as each other. The reason I don't like the fighter class is that while at low level he's a valuable tool at higher levels he falls flat because of his inability to participate in regular high level adventures.
This is important: I don't dislike the fighter because it's good at fighting. I dislike it because it cannot seriously participate in high level shennanians. Now this sentiment only goes for 3e and apparently was intended in 2e. However it doesn't fit for 4e. In 4E there were classes that fall behind say the Ranger (core) quite quickly but even though I didn't like it and my paladin felt like shit he never falls too far behind to not be worth bringin because 4E ONLY ever has you doin low level bullshit.
If this is so then 4e still has huge balance problems. If the Ranger is radically outperforming that Paladin then any encounter that challenges the Ranger will likely destroy the Paladin. 4e has a very bad approach to balance if they simply lowered the difficulty until every class could fight monsters even the ones that are subpar.
Quote from: MGuy;579041Second, as you said yourself, you think wizards stomp all over your SGT. So if you're going to advocate a balance point, a place where the game works for you, you should clearly explain what that balance point is, why it's good, and how yu would create a game that could generate that balance point.
Wizard in general tend to be able to do too many things and do them far too well. While some spells are to good and need to either bumped you in level or nerfed the Wizard/Cleric/Druid's ability to access such a huge and Diverse spell list needs to go. the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are casters it's rare to see complaints about, the Sorcerer and Favored Soul could also potentially be balanced classes (how do Sorcerers score on the SGT anyway).
Fighters tend to fail the SGT so badly not only because the can only do one thing but they often can't do that thing well. I think the Warblade passes the SGT but that class as also very light on non-combat stuff. On TGD I know the talk up the rogue a lot but I haven't seen many optimized rogues at my tables (and remain unconvinced that a Ring of Blink dose what they think is dose at least in 3.5)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;579074As long as the only contributions you can see come from the character sheet, there is little to discuss.
MGuy won't bite on that one as he has been down that path on other threads.
His response I suspect would be something like 'If its not on the character sheet then anyone can do it. If anyone can do it then its a zero sum and doesn't affect the balance of the classes.'
So in effect what differentiates the classes
is what is on the character sheet. The stuff the players bring outside the character sheet is the same for any class.
Now you might argue that in your games that component accounts for 80% of what the character brings and you might say in a 4e game it only accounts for 20%. And from that you might be able to argue that if 80% is about the player then the relative value of the 'character sheet bit' their HP, feats, powers, skills, spells etc is relatively less important because 8/20 versus 17/20 really equates to 88/100 versus 97/100 so they are relatively balanced anyway.
However MGuy will focus on the stuff on the character sheet because logically the rest just nets out anyway in a particular game so all you can compare is the character sheet stuff.
If you see what I mean.
(don't mean to talk for MGuy here and he can feel free to tell me to shut up if I have misconstrued his position)
Quote from: jibbajibba;579096Stuff
I'm gonna +1 this.
Everyone can MTP so using it as a talking point in a thread about class balance is a non-starter
Quote from: RandallS;579031I guess I don't get the "face at their level" bit, as the challenges PCs face in my games are based not on their level but on where they go and what they choose to do. If they go to the "Black Hills" where orcs and goblins are known to live, that's what they will most likely encounter, orcs, goblins, and other creatures that can/would live in the same area. They'll encounter those orcs and goblins regardless of their level because that's what lives there. If they visit Bloodcrag, they'll have a good chance of encountering a couple of older red dragons. Again, red dragons live there whether the PCs are 1st level or 10th level.
Perhaps this is one reason the whole "balance" thing doesn't resonate much with me. I don't design adventures for a specific set of characters at a specific level. I expect the players to interact with the world, discover rumors and facts about places therein and choose where they want to go based on what they want to do, not based on what some set of rules says is a challenge they should be able to beat X% of the time while using Y% of their resources and if they win that encounter they should get Z treasure which moves them about 1/13 of the way (or whatever fraction) to the amount of treasure the rules say they should have when they reach the next level. I have no problem with people who want to run their games that way, but I will not as I (and the people who choose to play in my games) find it boring and unrealistic.
I can see the logic of that I do the same thing myself. However, in your sandbox world do you have areas that are kind of aimed at 1-3rd level PCs, areas that are 4 -6 etc....
I have found that if I don't do that its hard for adventures to occur. Take your area with goblins and orcs for example. Would you add a couple of trolls or a hill giant. Logically its entirely possible that a Hill giant moves in dominates the local goblinoid population and sets himself up as a lord. But from a level of play perspective that is problematic. You don't want 1st level PCs to best a small group of orcs and then suddenly to have to fight a giant, the giant would just smite them. Likewise a bunch of 7th level characters hunting down the giant and his giant mates might get bored wading through 3 dozen goblins to get there.
Likewise your wandering monster tables. D&D suggests you use certain tables for certain risk areas. This is thinly justified through this area is home to lower level creatures but in reality its really this area is set up to provide suitable challenges for lower level PCs.
If the wandering monster table for your spooky castle includes goblins, kobolds, Beholders and ghosts then basically you are saying only go there if you can beat a Beholder and the rest of it is background noise.
Quote from: jibbajibba;579099I can see the logic of that I do the same thing myself. However, in your sandbox world do you have areas that are kind of aimed at 1-3rd level PCs, areas that are 4 -6 etc....
I have found that if I don't do that its hard for adventures to occur. Take your area with goblins and orcs for example. Would you add a couple of trolls or a hill giant. Logically its entirely possible that a Hill giant moves in dominates the local goblinoid population and sets himself up as a lord. But from a level of play perspective that is problematic. You don't want 1st level PCs to best a small group of orcs and then suddenly to have to fight a giant, the giant would just smite them. Likewise a bunch of 7th level characters hunting down the giant and his giant mates might get bored wading through 3 dozen goblins to get there.
Likewise your wandering monster tables. D&D suggests you use certain tables for certain risk areas. This is thinly justified through this area is home to lower level creatures but in reality its really this area is set up to provide suitable challenges for lower level PCs.
If the wandering monster table for your spooky castle includes goblins, kobolds, Beholders and ghosts then basically you are saying only go there if you can beat a Beholder and the rest of it is background noise.
Though in theory it could be possible to have high level monsters in a low level area. So in the Spooky castle you have to avoid the Beholders while you're there. Of course this only works if "Avoid the Beholder" is a much easier chalenge than "Slay the Beholder".
Sort of like Sons of Argul/Devilsaurs/Fel Reavers/ect in WoW
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579102Though in theory it could be possible to have high level monsters in a low level area. So in the Spooky castle you have to avoid the Beholders while you're there. Of course this only works if "Avoid the Beholder" is a much easier chalenge than "Slay the Beholder".
Sort of like Sons of Argul/Devilsaurs/Fel Reavers/ect in WoW
Agreed, but I picked a Beholder because by its nature its pretty fucking hard to sneak past :)
In an entirely logical setting it would make sense to employ something like Christaller's central place theory to place monsters. In effect the high level monsters would be spread evenly across the world with their spheres of influence barely overlapping or focused on areas of highly dense resource concentration that could maintain one or more high level predators (the Serenghetti for example). Lower level critters are spread uniformly between these points. But this is unlikely to create a satisfying game world.
The MMO model of this wood is ful of 10th level baddies and this wood is full of 4th level baddies is illogical because the 10th level baddies would be far better off occuping the 4th level wood where they have less competition for resources.
Dungeons are the same. It makes no sense for all the tough stuff to cluster at the bottom of the dungeon unless the bottom of the dungeon contains a concentration of resources. In fact high level predators are far more likely to concentrate where their prey gathers. A 10HD Dire Wolf is better off preying on 3 HD deer than 10HD giant Lizards, of course size is relevant (lions can't live on mice) but since HD are only loosely related to size.
So if the bottom layers of a dungeon contain a powerful energy source or magic then it makes sense for high level creatures who seek that power to concentrate there and compete for control of those resources. Otherwise they may as well choose to spread themselves out more uniformly to minimise competition and maximise their own access to resources.
Quote from: StormBringer;578989Also, I thought we were shutting down threads that drift into the Wizard v Fighter territory...?
Not if they're in the 'Design, Development, and Gameplay' and are focused on 'Design, Development, and Gameplay'. So I'll jump in (no trolling).
Lord Mistborn is clearly wrong to imply that games
will devolve into hack and slash. However, he's correct that combat is expected to be an important part of each game. Regardless of edition, different characters are expected to contribute in combat (maybe not to the same degree - but they are expected to contribute).
Combat is easy to make a 'team' activity.
Opening a lock, on the other hand, is much harder to make a 'team activity'. Usually only one person can try to pick a lock at a time; or one person can try to bash the door down at a time; or if the wizard unlocks it with magic only the one casting matters. Using all attempts at the same time is a little silly and only
one of them will actually matter - that is, whichever one was successful first. This is a situation where all classes could contribute, but not equally. The Rogue/Thief can unlock an unlimited number of doors per day, so if he is skilled enough, he can overcome all the challenges without expending any 'resources'. The wizard can overcome any single locked door with the proper spell selection, but it comes at the opportunity cost of having something
else that could have been useful. The Fighter (or other high strength character) offers the least contribution - many doors can be secured too well for even an impossibly strong human to break down. Even if that's not the case, making several attempts to open the door is likely to warn the occupants on the other side and actually make the job of exploring the dungeon MORE difficult.
Since the types of challenges in any particular campaign may vary from 'typical expectations', there is a strong possibility that some classes may have their contributions minimized or rendered meaningless. For example, a campaign that focuses almost exclusively on 'urban intrigue' and has few major combats favors rogues and would be bad for Fighters. Similarly, a campaign that is entirely wilderness favors Rangers and Druids.
The thing is, since not every campaign includes all the same features, there should be some effort to ensure that different classes can contribute in some manner to all the different challenges. Just as a Rogue/Thief can make a contribution in combat, a Fighter needs to be able to contribute to exploration.
Balance means that no matter what situation comes up, you feel that your character can do something useful in that scenario.
As far as whether you have something written on your character sheet, it only matters if other people
do. If I have an ability on my character sheet that says
Breaks Down Doors - you have a 90% chance to break down any door you find - that's an ability, and it's pretty easy to see how it works. Does the DM decide that people who don't have that ability can also break down doors and if so, at a lower percentage chance? That ability starts to interact with our understanding of the game, and not in a strictly positive way. Further, all players can contribute equally from abilities that don't exist (at least, except how they interact with attributes). That is, if jumping is not defined in the game, then everyone can suggest jumping over an obstacle - the actual determining whether it will work or not and how well is left to be decided. But if three classes have defined abilities that work in a particular scenario, they can also make a suggestion that's not written on their character sheet. So anybody that has no abilities relevant to that scenario on their character sheet can 'make something up', but so can everyone with abilities. People that have abilities
and the ability to make a creative contribution have
more options than the person that can only make a creative contribution. x + y is greater than x. It doesn't matter how close x is to infinity - the number of possible ideas can be tremendous - the person that can do those things
and a few more has an advantage.
So ensuring that every class has abilities that potentially could contribute in every field of play is important.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail. If the only thing that all classes are relatively good at is combat, there is an incentive to start focusing the game on just combat. Otherwise, even though a class may be good in another area, that doesn't necessarily work for 'group play' - depending on how much of a focus it is. If one player is REALLY good at talking to royalty, but everyone else is REALLY bad at it, if the game is supposed to be 90% about negotiations, the rest of the party is going to find a way to get into a fight - because at least then they're doing something. It's not fun to be a spectator in a role-playing game - at least not for long. When everyone can contribute TOGETHER, that's when the game is most fun. Unfortunately, combat is sometimes the only time that's true.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;579109Balance means that no matter what situation comes up, you feel that your character can do something useful in that scenario.
.
This is certainly one type of balance, but it isn't what I look for in a game at all. In fact, i strongly dislike games that do this. For me it is desired for some characters to great in some situation but very bad in others. I don't mind when circumstances mean I have less to contribute.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;579110This is certainly one type of balance, but it isn't what I look for in a game at all. In fact, i strongly dislike games that do this. For me it is desired for some characters to great in some situation but very bad in others. I don't mind when circumstances mean I have less to contribute.
Tend to agree with Brendan here.
I would say that balance is more -
'Over a course of a typical session all PCs have had an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to game play'
This may seem obvious but the bugbear to this whole ongoing debate is that some , usually Old Shoolers, feel that player skill is most important and so their PCs can always contribute because they can always make suggestions 'not on the character sheet'.
The counter argument of course is that stuff anyone can do, anyone can do. So as DeadDM states the PCs that can do stuff anyone can do and some "more stuff" will dominate play because of the "more stuff".
Quote from: MGuy;579041Mistborn, before any rational debate can be had AT ALL you need to clearly define what you think balance is. Calling for SGT isn't going to help because SGT only exists as far as it was implemented for 3rd. It wouldn't work for anything else. If you are talking about class balance in general you need to focus on that. Whether or not a game "can" devolve into hack and slash isn't something you can base an arument on.
This. Thousand times this.
Old school D&D put a heavy emphasis on an open and non-linear world. Players are supposed to have some say in selecting what challenges they face and how they face them. They can fight, flee, bargain with, disarm, ignore, etc. Even though lots of the advice on FvW threads revolves around taking the pace out of players' hands, all of the rest should be the kind of thing they can decide (at least as long as they make the effort to scout ahead so they're not surprised by everything they encounter).
In newer editions, this is also why I like character build options: No getting stuck with turn undead in a campaign with no undead, and easy houseruling turn undead out when all foes are undead and that ability makes the game too easy.
I think those two systemic solutions are waaaay more important to the SGT than hard and fast guidelines for how often the GM "provides" this or that challenge, or how often the class is given a solution. Although on the first point, random tables may have been used to "nudge" a game closer to an expected default.
Hack and slash is the product of a party built to survive combat or a GM who stocks the world with weak (or appropriate) foes more than it is the product of class design or rules percents. High lethality combat, even if it's more than half the book, can discourage combat.
QuoteCombat is something everyone is expected to participate in in all editions of DnD and thus everyone should have something of relevant importance to do.
You cannot, however, make the claim that everyone always has to be good at combat because there are a number of games where it wouldn't be beyond texpectations to not participate in combat at all. For example I'd consider any Shadowrun team that can completely avoid any real combat (not including single turn ambushes) and complete objectives to be pretty bad ass.
Again with agreement. Everyone participating doesn't mean everyone's a fighter. Healer only can participate, and even be vital, without being good at fighting in particular.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;579109Combat is easy to make a 'team' activity.
Correct. Based on what you go on to say about doors, a good starting point for attaining balance might be to seek out other good "team" encounter types. For myself I'm a huge fan of transversal and hide-and-seek type rules, both because they can make "team" encounters on their own and because they can feed back into the combat engine and make that more interesting.
Giving anyone a non-team niche, based on your criteria, would probably be less satisfying than giving everyone something different to do within a "team" encounter. At least if the door problem is an issue for you.
QuoteSince the types of challenges in any particular campaign may vary from 'typical expectations', there is a strong possibility that some classes may have their contributions minimized or rendered meaningless. For example, a campaign that focuses almost exclusively on 'urban intrigue' and has few major combats favors rogues and would be bad for Fighters. Similarly, a campaign that is entirely wilderness favors Rangers and Druids.
The thing is, since not every campaign includes all the same features, there should be some effort to ensure that different classes can contribute in some manner to all the different challenges. Just as a Rogue/Thief can make a contribution in combat, a Fighter needs to be able to contribute to exploration.
Balance means that no matter what situation comes up, you feel that your character can do something useful in that scenario.
Most of us here prefer adventure-scale balance over encounter-scale. But giving each class a niche that will come up no matter what might be worthwhile. Of the core four: Fighter (fighting), Rogue (transversal / hide and seek), and Cleric (healing) all have that. If Wizard being the back-up-everything at best bothers you it might help to define a similar niche for that class.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;579109Lord Mistborn is clearly wrong to imply that games will devolve into hack and slash. However, he's correct that combat is expected to be an important part of each game. Regardless of edition, different characters are expected to contribute in combat (maybe not to the same degree - but they are expected to contribute).
>__< I never said that D&D
always devolves into hack and slash, just that it's often the case that it turns out like that.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;579109If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail. If the only thing that all classes are relatively good at is combat, there is an incentive to start focusing the game on just combat. Otherwise, even though a class may be good in another area, that doesn't necessarily work for 'group play' - depending on how much of a focus it is. If one player is REALLY good at talking to royalty, but everyone else is REALLY bad at it, if the game is supposed to be 90% about negotiations, the rest of the party is going to find a way to get into a fight - because at least then they're doing something. It's not fun to be a spectator in a role-playing game - at least not for long. When everyone can contribute TOGETHER, that's when the game is most fun. Unfortunately, combat is sometimes the only time that's true.
This is what I was trying to say. The rules of the game exist to support what people are doing in game time. If all/most the classes have combat abilities and one or more classes is heavily weighted towards combat then that implies a game that's combat heavy.
I think you're also touching on another important point. The game should try to avoid locking out one of more characters for a long period of time. If there are say complex social rules and only one character can interact with them then the rest of the party has to spectate while he dose his stuff. This problem is usually summed up by the indictment of the 4e skill challenge system, the rules encourage one player to roll all the dice while everyone else plays Smash Bros or something. If I remember correctly this is also a problem with Shadowrun hacking, in general only one person has something to do and everyone just watches
Quote from: jibbajibba;579099I can see the logic of that I do the same thing myself. However, in your sandbox world do you have areas that are kind of aimed at 1-3rd level PCs, areas that are 4 -6 etc....
Not in any meaningful way -- at least meaningful in the sense that people used to WOTC D&D would recognize as meaningful.
What you encounter in the wilderness is what's there by the map and what wondering monsters might be in the terrain type. One might encounter a dragon in the Black Hills as a wondering monster. It's not super-likely, but it is possible -- the wilderness random monster tables are built on terrain type and monster rarity, the level of the party present does not factor into the tables.
Dungeons tend to have weaker monsters near the surface and stronger monsters as you go deeper, but the random tables I use for populating most rooms with monsters include a strong possibility of what would be considered very "level-inappropriate monsters" by WOTC D&D standards. For example, most monsters on the first level of a dungeon are going to be of the skelton, kobold, goblin, gnoll, ghoul, zombie, etc. level, but one room in 6 with monsters is likely to have much stronger monsters like harpies, wererats, and giant snakes or even gargoyles, wraiths, and orges.
This isn't an issue in play as 1) PCs aren't expected to be able to take on (in combat with much of a chance of winning) everything they run across. 2) Monsters need not auto-attack. In fact, unless the party is acting very hostile or the monsters have some reason to attack everyone who comes into their area, a reaction check is rolled on 2d6 with only a 2-5 indicating the monsters are automatically hostile (and only a roll of 2 generally means they automatically attack regardless of what the party does. Therefore, since combat is not the assumed result of every encounter with monsters, there's really little need to be sure that nearly everything the party is likely to encounter is either level appropriate or just a bit above or below level appropriate.
QuoteYou don't want 1st level PCs to best a small group of orcs and then suddenly to have to fight a giant, the giant would just smite them.
The thing is that they don't have to fight the giant just because they encounter him. Sure, he's likely to be pissed that they killed some of his orc tribe, but they can run away, bargain with the guy, be captured for later sacrifice or cooking and have to escape, etc. Having a giant leader of a bunch of orcs is really only a problem if the PCs are never going to have any options save fighting the giant in "fair fight" combat.
QuoteLikewise a bunch of 7th level characters hunting down the giant and his giant mates might get bored wading through 3 dozen goblins to get there.
Combat is very fast in my games so even if the 7th level PCs choose to fight all 3 dozen goblins, it will not take up that much time -- especially as the goblins are likely to quickly fail their morale checks against such a party and run home to the protection of the rest of their tribe and the giant.
QuoteIf the wandering monster table for your spooky castle includes goblins, kobolds, Beholders and ghosts then basically you are saying only go there if you can beat a Beholder and the rest of it is background noise.
Again, that's only the message if the players are expected to fight everything they come across.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579114>__< I never said that D&D always devolves into hack and slash, just that it's often the case that it turns out like that.
Quote from: Lord MistbornIf combat is a large part of a game then that game will devolve into hack and slash no mater how much about basketweaving you staple to the rules.
Pants on fire.
Quote from: RandallS;579120Not in any meaningful way -- at least meaningful in the sense that people used to WOTC D&D would recognize as meaningful.
What you encounter in the wilderness is what's there by the map and what wondering monsters might be in the terrain type. One might encounter a dragon in the Black Hills as a wondering monster. It's not super-likely, but it is possible -- the wilderness random monster tables are built on terrain type and monster rarity, the level of the party present does not factor into the tables.
Combat is very fast in my games so even if the 7th level PCs choose to fight all 3 dozen goblins, it will not take up that much time -- especially as the goblins are likely to quickly fail their morale checks against such a party and run home to the protection of the rest of their tribe and the giant.
Again, that's only the message if the players are expected to fight everything they come across.
I agree with the not fighting everything you meet deal and it was an argument I used myself against wandering monsters being this panecea that fixes imbalance because it prevents wizards from resting and relearning spells.
However, even you have said that 'most' monsters the party meet on the 1st level of a dungeon will be low level stuff even if 1 in 6 is not. The game itself though is designed like that. the DMG wondering monster tables specifically grade risk in terms of monster level. After all there is no reason why the first level of a dungeon has skeletons and what not maybe it is a suitable lair for wights as well.
If you truely make no effort to have areas for low level play and areas for higher level play then your games are indeed very different to most.
Quote from: Premier;579121Pants on fire.
You were claiming that rules for things other than combat somehow will prevent the game from devolving, this is not true. I have claimed that D&D has a tendancy to devolve into hack and slash not that it always will. There is a reason the kill them and take their stuff meme exists.
Please stop playing word games and act like an adult.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579123You were claiming that rules for things other than combat somehow will prevent the game from devolving, this is not true.
I - I didn't say that. YOU said that "heavy on combat rules = devolve into combat", and in reaction I've said that it's not true because NON-RULE factors also influence the actual gameplay. Don't try to put words in my mouth.
II - Even if somebody else had said that, your summary "this is not true" is still bullshit. It's exactly what I've already called you out on: loud declamations devoid of any actual support. PROVE this is not true. PROVE that having non-combat rules in D&D fails to prevent it from devolving. PROVE it. Note that anecdotal evidence ("I personally have had a couple of bad experiences") is not proof.
Quote from: Premier;579126I - I didn't say that. YOU said that "heavy on combat rules = devolve into combat", and in reaction I've said that it's not true because NON-RULE factors also influence the actual gameplay. Don't try to put words in my mouth.
II - Even if somebody else had said that, your summary "this is not true" is still bullshit. It's exactly what I've already called you out on: loud declamations devoid of any actual support. PROVE this is not true. PROVE that having non-combat rules in D&D fails to prevent it from devolving. PROVE it. Note that anecdotal evidence ("I personally have had a couple of bad experiences") is not proof.
What I assumed is I wouldn't have to teach game design 101. An RPG is defined by It's rules and the rules of an RPG exist to create the kind of experience that people want out of the game. If the developers do not want combat to be a large part of their game then devoting a lot of rules to combat is counter productive. If you want to discourage combat that need not take up a lot of pagespace.
If every D&D character has combat abilities up to having an entire class that is often criticized for being useless outside combat and an entire core book full of mobs to fight. Then yes I assume that D&D encourages DMs and players to have a lot of combat. The fact that non-4e D&D also has lots of non-combat rules gives players/the DM the option of doing something other than dungeon crawling/fighting mobs is something I'm totally behind because D&D's main strength is that it's versatile and relatively adaptable without losing focus.
You're not going to argue that D&D old and new never ever devolves into hack and slash.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579130What I assumed is I wouldn't have to teach game design 101.
What do you know about game design 101? How many games have you designed?
QuoteAn RPG is defined by It's rules and the rules of an RPG exist to create the kind of experience that people want out of the game. If the developers do not want combat to be a large part of their game then devoting a lot of rules to combat is counter productive. If you want to discourage combat that need not take up a lot of pagespace.
This is so not true that it's laughable. The reason why a significant portion of pages are dedicated towards combat (which you were also wrong on, btw in your claim above) is because resolving combat is more often than not reliant on a mechanical, mathematical resolution system. Most everything outside of combat didn't require a ton of designated rules explanations because it was role-played out at the game table based on common sense and logic. Lack of explicit role-play rules doesn't mean that player didn't spend a lot of time role-playing. I mean, Christ, a huge portion of the PHB is spells, but the game doesn't end up being nothing but spellcasting.
But this has already been pointed out to you, and yet you continue to hold onto these positions that have been proven as false. You also have no experience on games you are making these generalizations about. And you're outright lying to boot. Each time someone points this out to you, you start complaining about how people aren't fair to you and are not arguing in good faith.
:jaw-dropping:
That's why I'm beginning to think that you're less of an incompetent like I earlier thought, and now more of just a troll. Otherwise, most people at this point would have just said, "I've never played those games, and I was totally wrong with my preconceived notions about how they were played."
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579130What I assumed is I wouldn't have to teach game design 101. An RPG is defined by It's rules and the rules of an RPG exist to create the kind of experience that people want out of the game.
This is the way some people feel RPGs should be designed. Other people feel differently. While you may have your favorite theory of the correct way to design TTRPGs, that does not mean everyone agrees with that theory or uses it.
The amount of rules devoted to something might not have anything to do with how much of game time the designers think the players should spend on it. Instead they might devote detailed rules to things that caused the most arguments during playtest. Perhaps actual combat only took about 30 minutes of actual play time out of every 5 hour playtest session but without detailed rules generated about an hour of arguments, so the designers provided detailed rules for it. Far more detailed than the rules for exploration as while exploration took over 2 hours of actual play time in most playtest sessions, even with only a few pages of rules it generated practically no argument.
Also, some things take up a lot of space in a rule book even though they do not take up much actual play time. For example, feat list descriptions, equipment lists and descriptions, spell lists and descriptions. In many games these can take up entire rulebooks, this does not mean that the designers thing these things should take up an amount of play time proportional to the number of pages they take up. They are just information that is important to have detailed info on in case it is needed during play.
Quote from: gleichman;578593I've stayed on the sidelines in this because I'm not a big believer in balance at all. I think it's non-genre, impossible to achieve and harmful to chase after in that it produces bland rules and blander encounters as anything becomes winable through any method.
RISUS is perhaps the ultimate expression of balance, as one's skill in baking pies has a equal chance of defeating a swordsman in combat. At the other extreme was the attempt of D&D 4E, where special abilities become magic by another name- and it doesn't smell as sweet.
More commonly called niche protection IME. While I don't believe in balance, I do find value in niche protection.
Your example is an extreme case that has no counterpart in any game design that I'm aware of. No reasonable designer would have a major character class usable against only one creature, or only in 5% of a typical game's encounters.
It should be noted that Niche Protection starts with the game design by offering niches up front, but it's effectiveness is determined in play by the GM offering a range of encounters that allow the various niches to shine. A stealth class for example may well be more valuable than a warrior in a campaign where detection equals death. But useless in one that always starts with both sides lined up for battle. Niche protection is thus rather demanding, it requires the GM to offer a good variety of encounters (or requires the players to seek them out). It also requires a group of players that can enjoy watching one of the fellows dominate the game at times.
Lastly I think that as one moves away from D&D, and it's heavy dependence on resource management and unrealistic mechanics, balance become even less important. The selection of a well designed game will alllow player skill in actual play (as opposed to taking advantage of character generation) to overwhelm any mechanically base balance issues between characters.
Holy shit, a g-man post I agree with almost completely. Wonders never cease. I disagree about D&D's ability to allow player skill to shine, or that it's mechanics are to any degree more or less realistic than the vast majority of other RPGs. Otherwise, I agree with the more relevant to this thread bits.
Quote from: jibbajibba;579096MGuy won't bite on that one as he has been down that path on other threads.
His response I suspect would be something like 'If its not on the character sheet then anyone can do it. If anyone can do it then its a zero sum and doesn't affect the balance of the classes.'
So in effect what differentiates the classes is what is on the character sheet. The stuff the players bring outside the character sheet is the same for any class.
Now you might argue that in your games that component accounts for 80% of what the character brings and you might say in a 4e game it only accounts for 20%. And from that you might be able to argue that if 80% is about the player then the relative value of the 'character sheet bit' their HP, feats, powers, skills, spells etc is relatively less important because 8/20 versus 17/20 really equates to 88/100 versus 97/100 so they are relatively balanced anyway.
However MGuy will focus on the stuff on the character sheet because logically the rest just nets out anyway in a particular game so all you can compare is the character sheet stuff.
If you see what I mean.
(don't mean to talk for MGuy here and he can feel free to tell me to shut up if I have misconstrued his position)
This is pretty much it. I've got nothing to add on that front.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;579132This is so not true that it's laughable. The reason why a significant portion of pages are dedicated towards combat (which you were also wrong on, btw in your claim above) is because resolving combat is more often than not reliant on a mechanical, mathematical resolution system.
I'm not sure I completely dis/agree with either of you. DnD started out as a war game and fighting stuff is the default assumption of the game. While "technically" not a lot of page space is spend directly on the mechanics of combat MOST of the game (at least as far back as 2E) is dedicated to fighting. Weapons lists, armor lists, most spells have combat effects (and are obviously intended to be used in combat), a large number of class abilities have a direct combat effect, etc. Even if you excuse the amount of combat rules to claim that other sections of the game didn't need to be fleshed out that still means most of the game's rules focused on combat to some degree. Combat in DnD is doubtlessly an expectation. Most conversations about DnD is about combat. The very act of going into a dungeon suggests that there' will be combat and you are expected to fight dragons in most games of DnD.
I mean that much is everywhere. Discussions about DnD, anecdotal stories about actual game play, it's what designers often talk about, etc. While Combat may not be all there is to DnD the designers put a lot of work into forging the combat engine and that does promote combat oriented play. If more emphasis was put on "not" fighting or there was a better minigame for things other than direct conflict then I'd agree more with Sacro. As it stands however more "stuff" is geared towards the combat minigame than any other thing you can participate in for DnD.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579114This is what I was trying to say. The rules of the game exist to support what people are doing in game time. If all/most the classes have combat abilities and one or more classes is heavily weighted towards combat then that implies a game that's combat heavy.
Actually some classes might be more weighted to different portions of the game but that highly depends on how the game rules work. For example you'd magine that the Bard Class (3e) would be weighted very well toward the social/espionage part of the game. The bard's abilities are almost all things you'd imagine someone could use out of combat for intrigue and the like. However the Bard class falls behind because the game is geared more towards combat. Now that's not to say people can't do anything other than combat what I'm saying is more that there are so little social mechanics that the Bard's abilities often feel useless and unnecessary.
[tangent]Now this is the major problem with lacking a coded social minigame and not necessarily with the bard class itself. Given a robust and important social minigame the Bard Class would outshine others when socializing however because the rules for socializing are so FUBAR the Bard's special bits are either reduced to his High Diplomacy bonus and his "socializing" becomes a single die roll and nothing else affair or people who don't like social rules instead "role play" it out and the bard's abilities are wasted because you are playing MTP instead. This is another subject though.[/tangent]
QuoteI think you're also touching on another important point. The game should try to avoid locking out one of more characters for a long period of time. If there are say complex social rules and only one character can interact with them then the rest of the party has to spectate while he dose his stuff. This problem is usually summed up by the indictment of the 4e skill challenge system, the rules encourage one player to roll all the dice while everyone else plays Smash Bros or something. If I remember correctly this is also a problem with Shadowrun hacking, in general only one person has something to do and everyone just watches
This is something I wholesale agree with. While I don't mind a solo encounter if the rest of the group (in game) just isn't where the action is happening the game should never have a portion where, despite the whole team being present, only one person gets to do anything. 4E's Skill Challenges were bad because the math was bad and (personal experience) sometimes punished the group for having everyone participate. Shadowrun Matrix stuff is equallt frustrating.
I came up with this (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=268539) solution to a problem I have with other games. To break it down for those who don't want to read it is a (still unfinished) mechanic that dictates how many useful NPCs, Holds, Vehicles, Organizations, etc a PC can get to do "stuff". They work as being extra hands and allowing the players to expend a resource to directly effect/change the plot. The details and an example for how I want it to work is actually in the thread but I figure it is an example of using the rules to influence styles of play. I figure if you want to get people geared towards doing different things than expanding on that section of the game works about as well as having the GM pushing players into it. If people read your rules and think to themselves: I like the way the social/exploration/combat rules work they are more likely to pick up your rules and use them for that purpose.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;579132What do you know about game design 101? How many games have you designed?
This is so not true that it's laughable. The reason why a significant portion of pages are dedicated towards combat (which you were also wrong on, btw in your claim above) is because resolving combat is more often than not reliant on a mechanical, mathematical resolution system. Most everything outside of combat didn't require a ton of designated rules explanations because it was role-played out at the game table based on common sense and logic. Lack of explicit role-play rules doesn't mean that player didn't spend a lot of time role-playing. I mean, Christ, a huge portion of the PHB is spells, but the game doesn't end up being nothing but spellcasting.
But this has already been pointed out to you, and yet you continue to hold onto these positions that have been proven as false. You also have no experience on games you are making these generalizations about. And you're outright lying to boot. Each time someone points this out to you, you start complaining about how people aren't fair to you and are not arguing in good faith.
:jaw-dropping:
That's why I'm beginning to think that you're less of an incompetent like I earlier thought, and now more of just a troll. Otherwise, most people at this point would have just said, "I've never played those games, and I was totally wrong with my preconceived notions about how they were played."
You know, I normally agree with much of what you say, But I disagree with some of this post.
The amount of space taken up by any part of a game system is a pretty good determiniate of the type of game you should be playing with it. I am not saying you are wrong about earlier games, where the roleplay and problem solving did not take up that much space; but i notate that most games and what gamestyle they are built for can be seen by how much rulespace is dedicated to it. Maybe not as an absolute rule, but if a ruleset has simple combat rules but tons of rules for acquiring social power and social classes and clan structures, that tells you a lot about the type of game it is built for.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;579132Christ, a huge portion of the PHB is spells, but the game doesn't end up being nothing but spellcasting.
50% of the "standard party"(fighter, rouge, priest, mage) are casters.
6 out of 8 2E phb classes cast spells
7 out of 11 3E phb classes cast spells
yeah I think spellcasting is a big part of D&D and most of those spells are probably used in combat. ^_^
Quote from: RandallS;579133This is the way some people feel RPGs should be designed. Other people feel differently. While you may have your favorite theory of the correct way to design TTRPGs, that does not mean everyone agrees with that theory or uses it.
The idea that the rules of the game should work to enable the sort sort of experience that the designers intend is the crux of modern game design. If I'm a designer and I find out that most people are ignoring the rules I wrote and MTP things instead then I would have to assume that those rules don't work and probably need to be written. CoC is not a game about fighting Cthulhu so they adjudicate the problem of "fighting Cthulhu" very simply, he just eats 1d6 investigators per round.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;579132That's why I'm beginning to think that you're less of an incompetent like I earlier thought, and now more of just a troll. Otherwise, most people at this point would have just said, "I've never played those games, and I was totally wrong with my preconceived notions about how they were played."
You see from where I'm sitting it's more like this.
Me/MGuy/deadDM: Game design stuff and well reasoned arguments.
Grognards: Those infidels! Advocating anything other than a return to old school, clearly they are OCD autistic rules lawyer munchkins who hate fun. We must circle the wagons and never concede any points to them ever.
Quote from: LordVreeg;579160The amount of space taken up by any part of a game system is a pretty good determiniate of the type of game you should be playing with it.
Poker has no rules for bluffing.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;579171Poker has no rules for bluffing.
However the rules of Poker encorage and reward bluffing.
There are no rules in the 3e books for minmaxing either.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579170The idea that the rules of the game should work to enable the sort sort of experience that the designers intend is the crux of modern game design.
If true (instead of just your opinion), that might explain why many so-called "modern" TTRPGs turn me off. Fortunately, I don't have to play them, design them, or even stand by quietly while people attempt to replace the rules good "non-modern" designs with rules based your favorite modern design theory.
QuoteIf I'm a designer and I find out that most people are ignoring the rules I wrote and MTP things instead then I would have to assume that those rules don't work and probably need to be written.
Whereas I'd simply assume that this shows that people don't want mechanical rules for that part of the game and would prefer to have the GM simply rule on things. After all, if my rules were bad and they wanted rules instead of the GM rulings they are using, they would have likely created some rules to replace the ones of mine they do not like.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;57917050% of the "standard party"(fighter, rouge, priest, mage) are casters.
6 out of 8 2E phb classes cast spells
7 out of 11 3E phb classes cast spells
yeah I think spellcasting is a big part of D&D and most of those spells are probably used in combat. ^_^
For those of you following along at home, this is pretty textbook goalpost shifting. In the first instance, we have 50% of the "standard party", but the other two are total classes. In 1st edition, there are ten total classes, and only four of them could be considered 'spell users'. The Paladin and the Ranger eventually get spells, but it is at about mid-levels, and they are never particularly powerful. The classes could be considered a half, taken together, so 45% of the original AD&D classes are spell-users.
In 2nd edition, once again, Paladins and Rangers do not get spells until mid-levels, although the Bard gets spells almost right away. So, out of the eight classes in the core book, four of them could be called 'spell casters'. Another 'half' for Paladins and Rangers makes 56.25%.
Secondly, as I have done before, an examination of the spell lists themselves shows a pretty even mix of combat, non-combat, and utility spells. Perhaps a third of the spells are usable more or less strictly in combat; another third can be useful in combat, but mostly used outside of combat; and the remaining third are utility spells that don't have any direct combat applications. 'Most' of the spells are not used in combat, in other words.
About half the classes in 1st and 2nd edition are casting classes. A small number of spells are strictly combat oriented. Hardly the overwhelming super-majorities the above argument claims. I thought Lord Mistborn had been advised that speaking with authourity about editions where he has neither knowledge nor experience is a bad idea.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579173However the rules of Poker encorage and reward bluffing.
How so? Cite a poker 'rule' that encourages or rewards bluffing.
Quote from: StormBringer;579181How so? Cite a poker 'rule' that encourages or rewards bluffing.
There are no rules in Poker that encourage or reward bluffing. There are rules in the playing of poker for money , ie gambling over poker that reward and encourage bluffing.
If you play poker without gambling then bluffing is pointless.
Does D&D (any edition) reward combat?
Yes. You get experience points for murdering humanoids and anything else that's called a 'monster'.
If you want to level-up, which is a built-in assumption of the game, you need to plan on killing things.
Suggestions for giving XP for 'bypassing' an encounter or as a 'role-playing' award are just that - suggestions. While different DMs may encourage other styles of play, they're swimming upstream.
So while it's possible that the game having only 1 page devoted to combat and 99 pages devoted to everything else might seem to have little in it to encourage combat, you can get a true sense of what the game 'intends' based on how characters are rewarded. In D&D, it's by killing monsters (and/or stealing treasure).
It doesn't have to be 'hack & slash' which is intended to be derogatory, but it tends to have a significant amount of combat - and the game REWARDS success in combat. That's part of the reason why all classes need to be good at combat - if only Fighters were good at it, they'd be the only one advancing to name level.
Quote from: jibbajibba;579183There are no rules in Poker that encourage or reward bluffing. There are rules in the playing of poker for money , ie gambling over poker that reward and encourage bluffing.
If you play poker without gambling then bluffing is pointless.
DAmnit, beat me to it.
Sigh, once again deadDMwalking states my position better than I do.
Apparently StormBringer can't into not only logic but also sarcasm.
Quote from: StormBringer;579180Secondly, as I have done before, an examination of the spell lists themselves shows a pretty even mix of combat, non-combat, and utility spells. Perhaps a third of the spells are usable more or less strictly in combat; another third can be useful in combat, but mostly used outside of combat; and the remaining third are utility spells that don't have any direct combat applications. 'Most' of the spells are not used in combat, in other words.
This is something I'd like to see evidence for. No need to worry about 'sample size', but how do you figure?
In my experience, outside of combat there usually isn't PRESSURE to use spells. There are some times when time pressure may be an issue (we need to storm the castle before Prince Humperdink marries Buttercup) but mostly, if there's no pressure for immediate success, spells are unnecessary.
Some spells like
overland flight might count for these purposes, but really they're used to 'skip' the travel montage stuff. Same for
teleport. Usually, if they're IMPORTANT, it's because they're used in combat. But I think counting a spell that allows you to bypass combat (especially random encounters) could be construed as a 'combat' spell, even if it's not cast in combat. That is to say, if a spell is used either to defeat a combat or avoid a combat, the significance of the spell is related to how frequent combat occurs.
A further argument that spells that allow you to avoid combat (like
magnificent mansion or heal up from combat damage (like
restoration are important again because of combat - even if they're strictly used outside of the combat encounter.
I guess I'm curious to see what spells besides
legend lore are most useful without considering their relevance to combat by:
a) making you more formidable for combat (ie, buff)
b) reducing an enemy's capability for combat (ie, debuff or attack)
c) allowing you bypass encounters (ie, mobility spells, most illusions)
d) recovering from combat damage (ie, cures)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;579186Does D&D (any edition) reward combat?
Yes. You get experience points for murdering humanoids and anything else that's called a 'monster'.
If you want to level-up, which is a built-in assumption of the game, you need to plan on killing things.
Suggestions for giving XP for 'bypassing' an encounter or as a 'role-playing' award are just that - suggestions. While different DMs may encourage other styles of play, they're swimming upstream.
So while it's possible that the game having only 1 page devoted to combat and 99 pages devoted to everything else might seem to have little in it to encourage combat, you can get a true sense of what the game 'intends' based on how characters are rewarded. In D&D, it's by killing monsters (and/or stealing treasure).
It doesn't have to be 'hack & slash' which is intended to be derogatory, but it tends to have a significant amount of combat - and the game REWARDS success in combat. That's part of the reason why all classes need to be good at combat - if only Fighters were good at it, they'd be the only one advancing to name level.
Not entirely true in 1e you get most of your reward for getitng gold, the reward for killing monsters is relatively low. So killing an ettin 1950 +14/hp, getting the Ettin's treasure worth 10,000 gp = 10,000xp ....
A typical 1st level PC woudl need to kill c 200 goblins to get to 2nd level but they could find a gem worth 2000gp and that woudl be all they need.
So yes Combat is rewards but stealing stuff is rewarded more.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;579196This is something I'd like to see evidence for. No need to worry about 'sample size', but how do you figure?
In my experience, outside of combat there usually isn't PRESSURE to use spells. There are some times when time pressure may be an issue (we need to storm the castle before Prince Humperdink marries Buttercup) but mostly, if there's no pressure for immediate success, spells are unnecessary.
Some spells like overland flight might count for these purposes, but really they're used to 'skip' the travel montage stuff. Same for teleport. Usually, if they're IMPORTANT, it's because they're used in combat. But I think counting a spell that allows you to bypass combat (especially random encounters) could be construed as a 'combat' spell, even if it's not cast in combat. That is to say, if a spell is used either to defeat a combat or avoid a combat, the significance of the spell is related to how frequent combat occurs.
A further argument that spells that allow you to avoid combat (like magnificent mansion or heal up from combat damage (like restoration are important again because of combat - even if they're strictly used outside of the combat encounter.
I guess I'm curious to see what spells besides legend lore are most useful without considering their relevance to combat by:
a) making you more formidable for combat (ie, buff)
b) reducing an enemy's capability for combat (ie, debuff or attack)
c) allowing you bypass encounters (ie, mobility spells, most illusions)
d) recovering from combat damage (ie, cures)
There are a number of other spell types in 1e and 2e
i) Knowledge gathering - divination of various sorts
ii) Outdooors survival stuff, create food, resist cold etc
iii) spells that make a wizards life easier, tensers floating disk, unseen servant etc
iv) meta spells that affect other spells
v) spells that act to restict access to certain things, explosive glyphs, sepia snake sigil, alarm etc
there are others as well.
The loss of those spells in later editions (well 4e, I am sure they are there in 3e too ...) is a huge loss to the depth of the game.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;579186Does D&D (any edition) reward combat?
Yes. You get experience points for murdering humanoids and anything else that's called a 'monster'.
If you want to level-up, which is a built-in assumption of the game, you need to plan on killing things.
You get more experience for taking things. Often, combat is a pointless and unrewarding choice that only expends resources for a very small return.
QuoteSuggestions for giving XP for 'bypassing' an encounter or as a 'role-playing' award are just that - suggestions. While different DMs may encourage other styles of play, they're swimming upstream.
Wholly incorrect. 2nd Edition had a pretty solid set of actual rules for awarding xp for actions that weren't directly related to combat. The Individual Awards got a blue optional section, but Table 34: Individual Class Awards (pg 48) did not. It was as official as anything else in the books. And a good deal of those involved very non-combat activities.
Nowhere in that section does it state that opponents must be killed to earn the experience points. It constantly refers to 'defeated' opponents. And the optional section at the bottom of the third column on page 47 provides for the previous version's 'xp for gold' activity as well.
QuoteSo while it's possible that the game having only 1 page devoted to combat and 99 pages devoted to everything else might seem to have little in it to encourage combat, you can get a true sense of what the game 'intends' based on how characters are rewarded. In D&D, it's by killing monsters (and/or stealing treasure).
So, what the game authours intended is secondary to how you interpret it.
QuoteIt doesn't have to be 'hack & slash' which is intended to be derogatory, but it tends to have a significant amount of combat - and the game REWARDS success in combat. That's part of the reason why all classes need to be good at combat - if only Fighters were good at it, they'd be the only one advancing to name level.
It also REWARDS success in avoiding combat and taking the treasure by other means. In fact, 1st Edition rewards that more highly, because you don't risk your party members, and the payoff is higher.
That is why Fighters are the only ones that need to be really good at combat; the other classes have a myriad of ways to earn experience that relate to the non-combat functions their classes fulfil. Only later editions assumed that the vast majority of experience was earned by killing opponents, taking that misconception and basing a game paradigm around it (ie, all classes should be good at combat).
EDIT: Ninja'd!
Quote from: jibbajibba;579198Not entirely true in 1e you get most of your reward for getitng gold, the reward for killing monsters is relatively low. So killing an ettin 1950 +14/hp, getting the Ettin's treasure worth 10,000 gp = 10,000xp ....
A typical 1st level PC woudl need to kill c 200 goblins to get to 2nd level but they could find a gem worth 2000gp and that woudl be all they need.
So yes Combat is rewards but stealing stuff is rewarded more.
Since this has been brought up I'm thinking that this is a problematic rule. 3e PCs will walk off with everything with a gp value because gp=magic items=charater power. If gp=xp I can only imagine that the problem of PCs tearing up the scenery for gp would be even worse.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579207Since this has been brought up I'm thinking that this is a problematic rule. 3e PCs will walk off with everything with a gp value because gp=magic items=charater power. If gp=xp I can only imagine that the problem of PC tearing up the scenery for gp would be even worse.
What it means is the game actually rewards people who can get the treasure without violence because that is often the safest approach. It is one method of handling XP. There are a number of methods out there.
By 2E it does shift to xp for killing monsters. Though they also list off a bunch of other things to reward players with xp for. Ravenloft, which is a combat light setting, suggests giving players most of their xp for doing things like competing adventures because they generally wont be mowing down as many foes.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579207Since this has been brought up I'm thinking that this is a problematic rule. 3e PCs will walk off with everything with a gp value because gp=magic items=charater power. If gp=xp I can only imagine that the problem of PC tearing up the scenery for gp would be even worse.
I think its fair to say it was problematic to some and was toned down and modified by 2e.
And yes PCs prize the eyes out of statues, collect any rare bits of dead monsters they can sell later, try to see if they can remove large marble statues from temples and the like...
Quote from: jibbajibba;579213I think its fair to say it was problematic to some and was toned down and modified by 2e.
And yes PCs prize the eyes out of statues, collect any rare bits of dead monsters they can sell later, try to see if they can remove large marble statues from temples and the like...
Collecting bits of monsters was practically a sideline for my Magic User at low levels. I am glad we usually ignored the fact that he was walking around with several pounds of rotting meat at any given time. :)
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;579212What it means is the game actually rewards people who can get the treasure without violence because that is often the safest approach. It is one method of handling XP. There are a number of methods out there.
By 2E it does shift to xp for killing monsters. Though they also list off a bunch of other things to reward players with xp for. Ravenloft, which is a combat light setting, suggests giving players most of their xp for doing things like competing adventures because they generally wont be mowing down as many foes.
The problem for giving XP for achieve plot objectives is the risk of rail roading. Yes I won't force you to recue the princess but if you don't there is no xp.
The problem with using the full 2e model for spells, cast skills used, etc etc is that its fine in a Computer game but impractical in actual play and encourages a lot of dice rolling.
A compromise I moved to is PCs setting their own objectives. You have 3 objectives which may or may not corespond to the plot when you achieve these you get XP defiend by the relative risk.
Quote from: StormBringer;579216Collecting bits of monsters was practically a sideline for my Magic User at low levels. I am glad we usually ignored the fact that he was walking around with several pounds of rotting meat at any given time. :)
Belt of many pouches and silk bags. I carried another PC round like that for weeks until we found someone that could res him..... course I had to chop him up quite small so he would fit, terrible scaring but meh...
Quote from: jibbajibba;579218Belt of many pouches and silk bags. I carried another PC round like that for weeks until we found someone that could res him..... course I had to chop him up quite small so he would fit, terrible scaring but meh...
Awesome! :rotfl:
The 3e xp approach probably needs some work as well. In 3e PCs get xp for overcoming challenges cross-referencing the CR with their level. Now monsters and traps have a defined CR but as far as I know WotC never nailed down how to CR other things. (I know that Red Hand of Doom had CRs for it's social encounters and you got xp for them.) I think the way the system is set up has merits since it encourages PC to seek out harder challenges rather than grind on easy stuff.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579221The 3e xp approach probably needs some work as well. In 3e PCs get xp for overcoming challenges cross-referencing the CR with their level. Now monsters and traps have a defined CR but as far as I know WotC never nailed down how to CR other things. (I know that Red Hand of Doom had CRs for it's social encounters and you got xp for them.) I think the way the system is set up has merits since it encourages PC to seek out harder challenges rather than grind on easy stuff.
That seems like a good model.
Quote from: jibbajibba;579204There are a number of other spell types in 1e and 2e
i) Knowledge gathering - divination of various sorts
ii) Outdooors survival stuff, create food, resist cold etc
iii) spells that make a wizards life easier, tensers floating disk, unseen servant etc
iv) meta spells that affect other spells
v) spells that act to restict access to certain things, explosive glyphs, sepia snake sigil, alarm etc
there are others as well.
The loss of those spells in later editions (well 4e, I am sure they are there in 3e too ...) is a huge loss to the depth of the game.
I totally agree here.
Again, one can see how much the resource management etc were based on exploriing and not combat by looking at the low level magic user spells. Knock? Comp Lang? Light? Tenser's floating disc? Jump? Enlarge? It was a good and fun mix, contributing to the actual exploration.
Quote from: jibbajibba;579225That seems like a good model.
CR is still a buggy system, Dragons and Outsiders are often more boss then their CR would suggest(remember the Bone Devil). Giants, Vermin, and Animals after level 5 or so tend to be weak unless they're in confined spaces with the PCs. Traps cap out at CR 10 though I have no idea why (Wail of the Banshee trap is CR 10 enjoy your DC 23 save vs death) and like I said their are no gudelines for CRing things that are not monsters or traps.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;57917050% of the "standard party"(fighter, rouge, priest, mage) are casters.
6 out of 8 2E phb classes cast spells
7 out of 11 3E phb classes cast spells
yeah I think spellcasting is a big part of D&D and most of those spells are probably used in combat. ^_^
Yeah, a 1st level party has a total of 2 spells per day in your group. Maybe more if the cleric has a high WIS. Those sessions totally turned into spell casting sessions. :rolleyes: And that's assuming half the party were casters, which they often weren't. It should be a huge surprise when I tell my group that they have to have 50% casters in the party because spells take up 50% of the rules, so obviously by your logic 50% of the time was spent casting spells in the game.
Look dude, you keep making these assumptions despite pretty much everyone saying that you're wrong.
Stop. Please.
QuoteYou see from where I'm sitting it's more like this.
Me/MGuy/deadDM: Game design stuff and well reasoned arguments.
Grognards: Those infidels! Advocating anything other than a return to old school, clearly they are OCD autistic rules lawyer munchkins who hate fun. We must circle the wagons and never concede any points to them ever.
Whatever dude. You've said some really objectively false claims that have been shown to you over and over how and why they are false. And rather than admit to being wrong, you're blaming it on everyone else? There are hundreds of posts by probably more than dozen posters showing you why you're wrong, and rather than address any of them, you're acting like everyone is Benoist or Declan.
Grow up. Be a man and take responsibility for yourself at least once. For someone who loves to accuse others of being dishonest, you have been one of the worst, as exampled by this post.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;579233Yeah, a 1st level party has a total of 2 spells per day in your group. Maybe more if the cleric has a high WIS. Those sessions totally turned into spell casting sessions. :rolleyes: And that's assuming half the party were casters, which they often weren't. It should be a huge surprise when I tell my group that they have to have 50% casters in the party because spells take up 50% of the rules, so obviously by your logic 50% of the time was spent casting spells in the game.
posters who can't into sarcasm: StormBringer Sacrosanct
geez I thought the ^_^ would clue people in that I wasn't being serious with the spells thing.
Quote from: LordVreeg;579227I totally agree here.
Again, one can see how much the resource management etc were based on exploriing and not combat by looking at the low level magic user spells. Knock? Comp Lang? Light? Tenser's floating disc? Jump? Enlarge? It was a good and fun mix, contributing to the actual exploration.
The interesting thing about exploration spells is that it doesn't matter if you have them or not. Other than Enlarge they don't provide a real combat advantage and are more focused on effecting the plot. These are the kind of spells I'd say are plot spells. If you prepare them they have a "certain" effect on the plot. If you don't the plot will continue anyways. The best example is Comprehend Languages. A lot of times this little spell will save you a lot of trouble but you will never
need it. I say that because if you don't have it it will almost never come up. If it does come up the plot will continue anyway. You'll never know what that thing's words were but you won't need to by the end. You'll either find out some other way or it won't be important.
Quote from: jibbajibba;579225That seems like a good model.
I prefer either not using XP at all or having experience given out based on completing signifcant tasks. Tracking XP is tedious and unecessary in my opinion. I figure it is better to have them gain a level at appropriate benchmarks such as whenever they overcome their personal challenge for the level.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579173However the rules of Poker encorage and reward bluffing.
Yes, they do, without ever explicitly mentioning bluffing. It's an emergent property of game-play.
Rules may not tell you everything you need to know about a game.
The thread title should read: "The 3e class balance thread"
Quote from: deadDMwalking;579186In D&D, it's by killing monsters (and/or stealing treasure).
I was aware that gold=XP, it's just that usually taking something's treasure means killing it. Certainly not always, and it may depend on what treasure it has, but often the treasure is in the lair or carried by the monster. I've never met a DM that let us loot a lair regularly without defeating the monster first.
Even a spell like
Tenser's Floating Disc is really about avoiding combat. You want to load a bunch of treasure and get out of the dungeon because if you leave and come back the treasure is either gone or defended by new monsters.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;579251I was aware that gold=XP, it's just that usually taking something's treasure means killing it. Certainly not always, and it may depend on what treasure it has, but often the treasure is in the lair or carried by the monster. I've never met a DM that let us loot a lair regularly without defeating the monster first.
Even a spell like Tenser's Floating Disc is really about avoiding combat. You want to load a bunch of treasure and get out of the dungeon because if you leave and come back the treasure is either gone or defended by new monsters.
Having progression being marked by wealth is also bad. It promotes greedy/miserly game play. You'd want a game where treasure doesn't equal power I'd imagine because Greyhawking is a thing and that's not good for most people.
Also, my bicycle doesn't catch any fish. That is clearly an error.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;579251I was aware that gold=XP, it's just that usually taking something's treasure means killing it. Certainly not always, and it may depend on what treasure it has, but often the treasure is in the lair or carried by the monster. I've never met a DM that let us loot a lair regularly without defeating the monster first.
Even a spell like Tenser's Floating Disc is really about avoiding combat. You want to load a bunch of treasure and get out of the dungeon because if you leave and come back the treasure is either gone or defended by new monsters.
Monsters can be relieved of their treasure without killing them. Treasure can be stolen or tricked out of monsters in addition to just being gained through slaughter. Some types of things such as mindless undead cannot be negotiated with but even a room full of zombies can be tricked into following bait somewhere that they can be trapped, while their original location is searched for treasure.
Also note that XP for overcoming monsters can be awarded for tricking, or negotiating a deal in addition to killing.
The original game was designed for players to explore and THINK before rushing straight into combat. Everyone enters the dungeon with about 1d6 hit points. Each attack deals about 1d6 damage (or more). Do the math. Repeated engagement in straight-up fights is a death sentence.
Quote from: MGuy;579237The interesting thing about exploration spells is that it doesn't matter if you have them or not. Other than Enlarge they don't provide a real combat advantage and are more focused on effecting the plot. These are the kind of spells I'd say are plot spells. If you prepare them they have a "certain" effect on the plot. If you don't the plot will continue anyways. The best example is Comprehend Languages. A lot of times this little spell will save you a lot of trouble but you will never need it. I say that because if you don't have it it will almost never come up. If it does come up the plot will continue anyway. You'll never know what that thing's words were but you won't need to by the end. You'll either find out some other way or it won't be important.
Main reason you wouldn't need these things is an open ended game. They don't represent a way to overcome a choke point, and they can never really be "forced" on you like combat. But there's a difference between not needing them and them not being beneficial. Personally I don't always put the monster's treasure *on* the monster, for example, so some of those spells for finding things would be valuable in that respect. In a game with gold-based xp, those finding spells are a really efficient use of resources for obtaining xp. Potentially moreso than combat.
Quote from: MGuy;579237The interesting thing about exploration spells is that it doesn't matter if you have them or not. Other than Enlarge they don't provide a real combat advantage and are more focused on effecting the plot. These are the kind of spells I'd say are plot spells. If you prepare them they have a "certain" effect on the plot. If you don't the plot will continue anyways. The best example is Comprehend Languages. A lot of times this little spell will save you a lot of trouble but you will never need it. I say that because if you don't have it it will almost never come up. If it does come up the plot will continue anyway. You'll never know what that thing's words were but you won't need to by the end. You'll either find out some other way or it won't be important.
Um.
Yeah, my whole point was that the spells of the earlier game show that ruleset was role-balanced on exploration, not on combat.
So, yes, many of the spells did not effect combat since combat was one part of exploring the space. But you are wrong to think that they just advance plot. they were a central resource management; a tool for the player to beat an exploration issue or, as the magic was orginally designed, to allow a boost to another niche.
And sometimes you did need comp lang. I still run games the same way that Randall does, things are placed and created based on in game logic, not with CR or EL or a railroaded plot in mind.
Quote from: LordVreeg;579365Um.
Yeah, my whole point was that the spells of the earlier game show that ruleset was role-balanced on exploration, not on combat.
So, yes, many of the spells did not effect combat since combat was one part of exploring the space. But you are wrong to think that they just advance plot. they were a central resource management; a tool for the player to beat an exploration issue or, as the magic was orginally designed, to allow a boost to another niche.
And sometimes you did need comp lang. I still run games the same way that Randall does, things are placed and created based on in game logic, not with CR or EL or a railroaded plot in mind.
Its more than that though.
The spells in 1e are there for in game reasons. An invisible bulter than can fetch your slippers make tea, iron your newspaper is just the sort of thing a wizard ought to have.
So the spells are not plot spells because of the games organic growth. What you have is a pot of spells that have evolved because the game evolved and was not formed whole cloth.
This is the reason for stuff like Tenser's floating disc, and its hte reason why 4e for example removed the 'piontless stuff'.
If you go back to the inspiration for the spells, Dying Earth, you will find numerous spells that make the Wizard's life easier. They are translated into the game because the game tries to create a world.
So the spell comprehend languages exists because its a spell that a wizard would create and use a lot not becuase it fulfils a useful gap ion a wizards arsenal. Yes in play its going to be useless because a plot is never designed such that if you don't find the scroll in room 3 or you are not able to read it then you have no idea what to do or where to go next. That is possibly 'realistic' but its also poor design. You can eliviate the poorness of it or play in a sandbox with lots of similar hooks that can be followed or not.
So when I design a new spell I try to work out where and why it first developed and then try to find an interesting use for it. The Unseen servant for example happens to be a magical invisible creature who can follow quite complex instructions and carry 30lbs of weight. because he can not be damaged expect by magic he is perfect for removing mundane traps. He wasn't designed to be the ideal minesweeper but he is great at it.
So Alberlard my high level mage created Albelard's Maddening Massage. A spell that causes a number of disembodied hands to come into being that act as a distraction they basically poke, twist, nudge and annoy the target, they tie shoelaces together, empty pockets, pour out the contents of potion bottles and undo straps and remove clothing. Now in D&D terms this effect is devastating. It prevents spell casting, destroys or loses magic items, reduces amour class etc etc
Now it emerged from Albelard's Erotic Massage which was itself developed because Wizard academies are notoriously male dominated places ....
So spells in D&D were never diesigned to complement the system. They weren't designed to enabel play or to complement the Pillars of exploration, roleplay and Combat. They were simply things that felt like the sort of things that Wizards would have or create spells to be able to do.
Perhaps a lot of Wizards end up with Sleep, Charm, Fly, Invisibility, FireBall but these are really the boring spells.
Quote from: jibbajibba;579381Perhaps a lot of Wizards end up with Sleep, Charm, Fly, Invisibility, FireBall but these are really the boring spells.
I enjoyed your entire post and agree with it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;579381Its more than that though.
The spells in 1e are there for in game reasons. An invisible bulter than can fetch your slippers make tea, iron your newspaper is just the sort of thing a wizard ought to have.
So the spells are not plot spells because of the games organic growth. What you have is a pot of spells that have evolved because the game evolved and was not formed whole cloth.
This is the reason for stuff like Tenser's floating disc, and its hte reason why 4e for example removed the 'piontless stuff'.
If you go back to the inspiration for the spells, Dying Earth, you will find numerous spells that make the Wizard's life easier. They are translated into the game because the game tries to create a world.
So the spell comprehend languages exists because its a spell that a wizard would create and use a lot not becuase it fulfils a useful gap ion a wizards arsenal. Yes in play its going to be useless because a plot is never designed such that if you don't find the scroll in room 3 or you are not able to read it then you have no idea what to do or where to go next. That is possibly 'realistic' but its also poor design. You can eliviate the poorness of it or play in a sandbox with lots of similar hooks that can be followed or not.
So when I design a new spell I try to work out where and why it first developed and then try to find an interesting use for it. The Unseen servant for example happens to be a magical invisible creature who can follow quite complex instructions and carry 30lbs of weight. because he can not be damaged expect by magic he is perfect for removing mundane traps. He wasn't designed to be the ideal minesweeper but he is great at it.
So Alberlard my high level mage created Albelard's Maddening Massage. A spell that causes a number of disembodied hands to come into being that act as a distraction they basically poke, twist, nudge and annoy the target, they tie shoelaces together, empty pockets, pour out the contents of potion bottles and undo straps and remove clothing. Now in D&D terms this effect is devastating. It prevents spell casting, destroys or loses magic items, reduces amour class etc etc
Now it emerged from Albelard's Erotic Massage which was itself developed because Wizard academies are notoriously male dominated places ....
So spells in D&D were never diesigned to complement the system. They weren't designed to enabel play or to complement the Pillars of exploration, roleplay and Combat. They were simply things that felt like the sort of things that Wizards would have or create spells to be able to do.
Perhaps a lot of Wizards end up with Sleep, Charm, Fly, Invisibility, FireBall but these are really the boring spells.
Most of the things you mention though are background deals. While I do think that it is common sense that people would apply technology (in this case magic) to comfort and that the existence of that magic would have an undeniable effect on the world at large these are not the things you concentrate on when you're playing the game. I am willing to bet that most of your games are more of the adventurous sort and you wouldn't spend too much time concentrating on how the wizard puts his slippers on at home or how exactly his tea gets made. The kind of spells you describe may be interesting for the setting but they often times don't interact much with the adventure.
Sleep, charm, fly, invisibility, and fireball may be direct and unsophisticated uses of arcane power but they are also relevant and effective to the adventure you're likely to be on. If I have somebody who wants a background spell of very limited relative use like "Unseen Servant" I would loathe to have them exchange adventure effectiveness for it. This is why I like the idea of Catrips. Cantrips barely cost anything to have and are typically spells that don't get a lot of real traction on an adventure. In Pathfinder Cantrips are not limited to per day use and I think that is a good thing.
My exact issues with other spells I refer to as "Plot Spells" are many fold. Some I don't think should exist but do because it makes sense for them to. Case in point: Jump. Jump is a spell I have many problems with. For one its usefulness is terribly limited. Anything you can jump over can be approached in a number of different, more effective/efficient, ways. It eats up one of your limited slots per day but doesn't do anything worth hamstringing yourself for the rest of the day. It also cheapens the Jump skill. However, even having said all this, it makes sense that a spell like this would exist and it is just a bit "too good" to be an all day use cantrip (mostly because it would totally ruin the worth of the jump skill). In the entirety of my time playing DnD I've never, once, seen anyone prepare or purposefully learn this spell.
This isn't true for all spells though. Take Comprehend Languages. If your team doesn't have Comprehend languages at all you never miss it. Sure, you don't know what certain things say but you go on with your adventure anyway. If you completely bypass something without it and you never know you did or you find out after it is too late then that's just a different plot then the one you would've had if your group had it. It, like jump, shouldn't be a cantrip because that cheapens the effort people who went and learned different languages put into it. The spell is not in a tough position though because those who get it are usually people who prepare their spells and they most likely just won't prepare it unless they know they are headed to a situation where they need it. As long as their spell selection is robust enough to make having it not feel like a punishment or if the campaign they are in necessitates heavy use of it Comprehend Languages has measurable value to a given caster.
@Lordvreeg: CR logic has nothing to do with what I said. In fact if you play your games sandboxxy style that highlights my point. If players don't have the particular exploration magic tools to solve a problem they are either not punished by it or there is simply another solution. Jump will almost never beat straight up being able to fly and in situations where you're too low level to fly you have a very limited spell resource and it would not be served by having a spell like "jump" prepared. Comprehend Languages, while interesting, is simply not necerssary to just adventure. The plot will go on whether or not you have comprehend languages prepared. It has to because a given group doesn't necessarily have it.
@beejay: They are beneficial (of that there is no doubt) but certain spells are undeniably better than others and more mundane approaches are simply more efficient than clogging up a casting slot. Comprehend languages is simply not as useful for exploration/navigation as Invisibility or even Light for that matter and, as I said before, unless you know you're going to use/need it you are less likely to attempt to learn it and even less likely to actually prepare it. Something like Knock isn't going to be prepared if you have a rogue in the party. If you don't then the fighter is just going to bust down the doors. If he can't then I am willing to bet that a given caster has prepared it for that day, at least not enough times to get through a dungeon with 2 or more locked (unbustable) doors unless he has foreknowedge that he will have to (and that's if he bothered to learn it).
Quote from: MGuy;579433Most of the things you mention though are background deals. While I do think that it is common sense that people would apply technology (in this case magic) to comfort and that the existence of that magic would have an undeniable effect on the world at large these are not the things you concentrate on when you're playing the game. I am willing to bet that most of your games are more of the adventurous sort and you wouldn't spend too much time concentrating on how the wizard puts his slippers on at home or how exactly his tea gets made. The kind of spells you describe may be interesting for the setting but they often times don't interact much with the adventure.
Sleep, charm, fly, invisibility, and fireball may be direct and unsophisticated uses of arcane power but they are also relevant and effective to the adventure you're likely to be on. If I have somebody who wants a background spell of very limited relative use like "Unseen Servant" I would loathe to have them exchange adventure effectiveness for it. This is why I like the idea of Catrips. Cantrips barely cost anything to have and are typically spells that don't get a lot of real traction on an adventure. In Pathfinder Cantrips are not limited to per day use and I think that is a good thing.
Ah but this is where we differ because I will quite happily play a Wizard with absolutely no offensive, defensive or exploration spells.
Our games often involve nothing you would recognise as an adventure. We can have an in game dinner party that lasts for 2 hours of the session where the aim is to embarass the host because those Iridian tupips are so last year....
We had a series of sessions where the aim was to breed the most sucessful fighting Aardvark for a tourney.
When we play high level wizard games which we have very much enjoyed doing we basically take everything from Dying Earth. A typical dying earth plot will be the adventurers try to pursuade a rich heiress to give them her magic parot. Each are after the parot so each counters the other plans whist of course remaining entirely freindly and polite to each other face to face.
If you aren't familiar with Dying Earth perhaps it will make no sense.
This bleeds into other games so often the wizard will be an expert in Butterfly collecting or architecture and will devote a slew of spells to that topic.
One of the Challenges of course is finding a way to eliminate the ancient red dragon using only comprehend languages, rope trick, nystuls magic aura and feign death.....
Looking at 1e spell lists from 1-3rd level that is 78 spells I would say maybe just over a dozen are on your terms 'useless'. They are obviously most of my favourite spells. But the best spells in 1e come from the Greyhawk hardback. You can't argue about the potency of Bigby's Bookworm Bane or Morkenkainen's Protection from Avians (should be renamed to Morkenainen's Avian Antithesis "protection from" is so .... non-Vancian). I do think there need to be more spells for creating food though..... I might have to publish a spell book called Mandor's Miraculous Menu .....
Oh and as an aside if you prepare the reverse of comprehend languages it makes an excellent way to transfer an unbreakable code between 2 wizards... just saying :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;579381Its more than that though.
The spells in 1e are there for in game reasons. An invisible bulter than can fetch your slippers make tea, iron your newspaper is just the sort of thing a wizard ought to have.
So the spells are not plot spells because of the games organic growth. What you have is a pot of spells that have evolved because the game evolved and was not formed whole cloth.
This is the reason for stuff like Tenser's floating disc, and its hte reason why 4e for example removed the 'piontless stuff'.
If you go back to the inspiration for the spells, Dying Earth, you will find numerous spells that make the Wizard's life easier. They are translated into the game because the game tries to create a world.
So the spell comprehend languages exists because its a spell that a wizard would create and use a lot not becuase it fulfils a useful gap ion a wizards arsenal. Yes in play its going to be useless because a plot is never designed such that if you don't find the scroll in room 3 or you are not able to read it then you have no idea what to do or where to go next. That is possibly 'realistic' but its also poor design. You can eliviate the poorness of it or play in a sandbox with lots of similar hooks that can be followed or not.
So when I design a new spell I try to work out where and why it first developed and then try to find an interesting use for it. The Unseen servant for example happens to be a magical invisible creature who can follow quite complex instructions and carry 30lbs of weight. because he can not be damaged expect by magic he is perfect for removing mundane traps. He wasn't designed to be the ideal minesweeper but he is great at it.
So Alberlard my high level mage created Albelard's Maddening Massage. A spell that causes a number of disembodied hands to come into being that act as a distraction they basically poke, twist, nudge and annoy the target, they tie shoelaces together, empty pockets, pour out the contents of potion bottles and undo straps and remove clothing. Now in D&D terms this effect is devastating. It prevents spell casting, destroys or loses magic items, reduces amour class etc etc
Now it emerged from Albelard's Erotic Massage which was itself developed because Wizard academies are notoriously male dominated places ....
So spells in D&D were never diesigned to complement the system. They weren't designed to enabel play or to complement the Pillars of exploration, roleplay and Combat. They were simply things that felt like the sort of things that Wizards would have or create spells to be able to do.
Perhaps a lot of Wizards end up with Sleep, Charm, Fly, Invisibility, FireBall but these are really the boring spells.
Damnit, I could swear I wrote a reply to this earlier, and lost it.
Yes, I get this, since one of the reasons I ended up creating my own systems is because I like the spells to reflect what magic is and should feel like.
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14956571/True%20Weight%20of%20Silver
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14956398/Summon%20Restil
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955498/Disrupt%20Moon%20Cycle%20spell
and so on.
Quote from: MGuy;579433This isn't true for all spells though. Take Comprehend Languages. If your team doesn't have Comprehend languages at all you never miss it. Sure, you don't know what certain things say but you go on with your adventure anyway.
Comprehend Languages is one of the most useful low level spells in the game if you play according to old school rules and principles. The Comprehend Languages spell lets a party member talk to monsters when you get a neutral or positive reaction on encountering them. Sure, sign language can often get across something simple like "you leave us alone and we'll leave you alone" but nothing beats being able to talk when it comes to exchanging information about the area or trying to coordinate joint action again a mutual enemy two strong for either the monsters or the party alone. And it never fails that just when you really need to talk, no one in the party knows the language needed.
Quote from: RandallS;579486Comprehend Languages is one of the most useful low level spells in the game if you play according to old school rules and principles. The Comprehend Languages spell lets a party member talk to monsters when you get a neutral or positive reaction on encountering them. Sure, sign language can often get across something simple like "you leave us alone and we'll leave you alone" but nothing beats being able to talk when it comes to exchanging information about the area or trying to coordinate joint action again a mutual enemy two strong for either the monsters or the party alone. And it never fails that just when you really need to talk, no one in the party knows the language needed.
Randall, I'm not saying Comprehend Languages isn't useful. I'm saying it is unnecessary, and that if you don't have it the adventure continues anyway. Old school or new school there is always a certain usefulness for knowing different languages but whether you do or don't the adventure
will continue.
Quote from: jibbajibba;579446Ah but this is where we differ because I will quite happily play a Wizard with absolutely no offensive, defensive or exploration spells.
Our games often involve nothing you would recognise as an adventure. We can have an in game dinner party that lasts for 2 hours of the session where the aim is to embarass the host because those Iridian tupips are so last year....
We had a series of sessions where the aim was to breed the most sucessful fighting Aardvark for a tourney.
When we play high level wizard games which we have very much enjoyed doing we basically take everything from Dying Earth. A typical dying earth plot will be the adventurers try to pursuade a rich heiress to give them her magic parot. Each are after the parot so each counters the other plans whist of course remaining entirely freindly and polite to each other face to face.
If you aren't familiar with Dying Earth perhaps it will make no sense.
This bleeds into other games so often the wizard will be an expert in Butterfly collecting or architecture and will devote a slew of spells to that topic.
One of the Challenges of course is finding a way to eliminate the ancient red dragon using only comprehend languages, rope trick, nystuls magic aura and feign death.....
Looking at 1e spell lists from 1-3rd level that is 78 spells I would say maybe just over a dozen are on your terms 'useless'. They are obviously most of my favourite spells. But the best spells in 1e come from the Greyhawk hardback. You can't argue about the potency of Bigby's Bookworm Bane or Morkenkainen's Protection from Avians (should be renamed to Morkenainen's Avian Antithesis "protection from" is so .... non-Vancian). I do think there need to be more spells for creating food though..... I might have to publish a spell book called Mandor's Miraculous Menu .....
Oh and as an aside if you prepare the reverse of comprehend languages it makes an excellent way to transfer an unbreakable code between 2 wizards... just saying :)
My hat is off to you sir. I have never run or been a part of any game that focused so heavily on doing nothing but having an extended social encounter with a motive as subtle as embarassing another. While I have attempted to make characters that specifically avoid fights (on at least 8 different occassions) I have always had a GM practically necessitate it because the rest of the party is geared towards fighting. I have experienced this in every system I've played (except Vampire which has other issues I don't like).
Quote from: MGuy;579500Randall, I'm not saying Comprehend Languages isn't useful. I'm saying it is unnecessary, and that if you don't have it the adventure continues anyway. Old school or new school there is always a certain usefulness for knowing different languages but whether you do or don't the adventure will continue.
IMHO, that's true of just about ANY spell or ability -- even combat abilities. After all, you can almost always avoid combat unless the GM is a dick or your characters have done something stupid and been ambushed. Even then you, you could surrender and try to escape later. The only time the adventure will not continue in some why is if you are on a badly designed railroad being ran by an unskilled GM who doesn't dare deviate from printed text.
Quote from: RandallS;579486Comprehend Languages is one of the most useful low level spells in the game if you play according to old school rules and principles. The Comprehend Languages spell lets a party member talk to monsters when you get a neutral or positive reaction on encountering them. Sure, sign language can often get across something simple like "you leave us alone and we'll leave you alone" but nothing beats being able to talk when it comes to exchanging information about the area or trying to coordinate joint action again a mutual enemy two strong for either the monsters or the party alone. And it never fails that just when you really need to talk, no one in the party knows the language needed.
I really don't think WoTC D&D uses reaction rolls, and that's why things like this get overlooked. I mean, just look at my Let's Play B/X thread. Very first encounter the PCs are deciding to parlay instead of fight the group of kobolds. Favorable reaction result so they don't attack the PCs. If the party didn't have a dwarf who happened to speak kobold, what then? You're pretty much left to fight the kobolds, which very well could result in a TPK. The adventure doesn't continue
then, does it? ;)
Quote from: MGuy;579504My hat is off to you sir. I have never run or been a part of any game that focused so heavily on doing nothing but having an extended social encounter with a motive as subtle as embarassing another. While I have attempted to make characters that specifically avoid fights (on at least 8 different occassions) I have always had a GM practically necessitate it because the rest of the party is geared towards fighting. I have experienced this in every system I've played (except Vampire which has other issues I don't like).
Ah, matching game and system again...
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14956024/Ridicule
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955397/Chance%20Meeting
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955404/Chaotic%20Encounters
My players spend less than half of their time in the adventure, since we try to make the adventuring a means to an end...and the players enjoy these ends. The social skills are used as much as any other types.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;579515I really don't think WoTC D&D uses reaction rolls, and that's why things like this get overlooked. I mean, just look at my Let's Play B/X thread. Very first encounter the PCs are deciding to parlay instead of fight the group of kobolds. Favorable reaction result so they don't attack the PCs. If the party didn't have a dwarf who happened to speak kobold, what then? You're pretty much left to fight the kobolds, which very well could result in a TPK. The adventure doesn't continue then, does it? ;)
I agree, and I think that is a nice root example. Every game I play has some version of a social CC or reaction roll. Because the players are supposed to have other options.
It is also important to reward these, as I make sure their are exp rewards for using social skills well.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;579515I really don't think WoTC D&D uses reaction rolls, and that's why things like this get overlooked.
Yes, WOTC D&D seems to have lost reaction rolls and morale, two things that help prevent every monster encounter from becoming a fight to the death.
Quote from: RandallS;579505IMHO, that's true of just about ANY spell or ability -- even combat abilities. After all, you can almost always avoid combat unless the GM is a dick or your characters have done something stupid and been ambushed. Even then you, you could surrender and try to escape later. The only time the adventure will not continue in some why is if you are on a badly designed railroad being ran by an unskilled GM who doesn't dare deviate from printed text.
You can't always avoid combat. Sometimes you piss off the wrong people and they are trying to kill you. Sometimes you're in a place where violent shit can/will attack you. My point is more that Jump, Comp Language, similar spells pale in comparison to more versatile and useful (for adventuring) spells like invisivbility, fly, etc.
As far as every fight being a fight to death that's generally not the way I run games where Intelligent enemies are involved. Even animals will run away before fighting to the death. Intelligent attackers will retreat when death is inevitable unless they are particularly inspired to not do so. I mean there's no reason they can't just come back later. I find that players are often geared toward the stand and never retreat style of play. I tend to run enemies as logically as I can.
Quote from: LordVreeg;579519It is also important to reward these, as I make sure their are exp rewards for using social skills well.
Oh, absolutely. I have always tended on giving extra xp for creative ways to handle things. Over the past 30 years, I have found that giving extra XP for stuff like this tends to attract players who create diverse characters, and that in turn creates a more fulfilling and rich role-playing experience other than "what's in the next room? I attack"
You might have the player who min/maxed his character and is able to defeat enemies in straight up combat, and they might get the bulk of monster XP for that, but if you can find a creative way to beat the same challenge (like talking your way out of it, or drawing the creature out to chase something while the others sneak in and get the loot) usually gets a bit extra from me.
YMMV.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;579553Oh, absolutely. I have always tended on giving extra xp for creative ways to handle things. Over the past 30 years, I have found that giving extra XP for stuff like this tends to attract players who create diverse characters, and that in turn creates a more fulfilling and rich role-playing experience other than "what's in the next room? I attack"
You might have the player who min/maxed his character and is able to defeat enemies in straight up combat, and they might get the bulk of monster XP for that, but if you can find a creative way to beat the same challenge (like talking your way out of it, or drawing the creature out to chase something while the others sneak in and get the loot) usually gets a bit extra from me.
YMMV.
Yes, lots of this.
And I went to a skill-based system years ago where about 30% of experience is gotten for defeating difficulties (traps, monsters, situations), 40% is from skill use (you defended 9 hits, that's 27 exp in protection skills; you cast 'Adept's Heal', take 3 exp per SP cast in that spell type, and distribute 5 more per HP healed among the same spell types, you used basic social or a sub of basic social to ascertain what guilds the magistrate's family is indebted to, take 85 exp in social skills used, or you took 10 points of damage, gain 100 exp in HP), 30% is roleplay bonus and quest/achievement bonus.
There is a lot behind this, but players 'become what they play', and they can gain as much experience in avoiding combats and social encounters and achievements as they do in combat.
I think that's really the essence of old school D&D. Sure, you had groups that did nothing but hack and slash, but I think you find that in every edition for every game. But I'm pretty sure most of us played like what we just described.
The problem is that sometimes people who never played TSR D&D pick up a book and see "Oh, you get most xp for treasure? So you killed all the monsters and took the treasure to level up?" I think they make this assumption because there aren't any real rules for diplomacy, trickery, etc, so there's this assumption that you didn't do it in the game. Just look at this thread. They come right out and say that since the rulebook had rules on combat, then the game must have been mostly about combat.
It wasn't. Not at all, really. We just role-played the scenarios and made stuff up as we went.
Quote from: MGuy;579539My point is more that Jump, Comp Language, similar spells pale in comparison to more versatile and useful (for adventuring) spells like invisivbility, fly, etc.
Only for a very narrow style of play that assumes classes should be tuned for combat.
Quote from: StormBringer;579590Only for a very narrow style of play that assumes classes should be tuned for combat.
No he's totally right. Comp. languages does something easily replicated by mundane means so it's low on the list of spell you want to prepare. Jump on the other hand leans on a skill and isn't usefull in many situations. Wizards can only prepare a limited number of spells Fireball and Sleep are combat spells yes but unless you're playing a very nonstandard game you always prepare mostly combat spells anyway. If there is a something that needs jumping across or languages that need to be comprehended you'll be wanting a spell for that but you won't usually die if you don't have it. If you need combat spells and you do not have any then you
die.
Not only that but there are a metric ton of spells that have uses both in and out of combat. Invis. and Fly let you both bypass encounters but also gain an advantage in them a well. We haven't even brought up the king of spells Silent Image. 3e illusions are weaker than their 2e counterparts and they still get tons use. People don't just pass on Comp. languages and Jump because they are bad but because they compete with spells whose only limitation is that players imagination.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579819No he's totally right.
No, he's not, and you are both wrong for the same reason; there is more to D&D specifically and RPGs generally than combat.
Comprehend languages is not 'easily replicated by mundane means', because there are no mundane means to understand every language in a game world, unless you have them limited to Common and Orcish. Just making that statement shows you aren't really thinking about what you are typing.
Quote...they compete with spells whose only limitation is that players imagination.
The only limitation for any spell is the player's imagination. Try being a bit more creative with spells before writing them off as useless because they don't have a combat function.
Quote from: StormBringer;579821No, he's not, and you are both wrong for the same reason; there is more to D&D specifically and RPGs generally than combat.
Comprehend languages is not 'easily replicated by mundane means', because there are no mundane means to understand every language in a game world, unless you have them limited to Common and Orcish. Just making that statement shows you aren't really thinking about what you are typing.
The only limitation for any spell is the player's imagination. Try being a bit more creative with spells before writing them off as useless because they don't have a combat function.
I'm not knocking Comp. languages for being a non-combat spell. I'm knocking it for being a narrow noncombat spell. If I'm a 2e Wizard with my 4 spell slots why should one of them be Comp. languages rather than Phantasmal Force (2e Silent Image), Sleep, or Charm Person or another more versatile spell. Everyone with 9 or better Int gets another language so I'm thinking that things will need to be Charmed or I'll get to Illusion creatively far more often than nobody can understand what the monster is babbling about (and we care).
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579824I'm not knocking Comp. languages for being a non-combat spell. I'm knocking it for being a narrow noncombat spell. If I'm a 2e Wizard with my 4 spell slots why should one of them be Comp. languages rather than Phantasmal Force (2e Silent Image), Sleep, or Charm Person or another more versatile spell. Everyone with 9 or better Int gets another language so I'm thinking that things will need to be Charmed or I'll get to Illusion creatively far more often than nobody can understand what the monster is babbling about (and we care).
Sleep is no less narrow than
Comprehend Languages, and without the latter spell, good luck talking to that Svirfneblin you just charmed. What? You don't speak Deep Gnome? Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Besides, how are you supposed to outshine the Thief and their Read Language skill without
Comprehend Language?
Quote from: StormBringer;579828Sleep is no less narrow than Comprehend Languages, and without the latter spell, good luck talking to that Svirfneblin you just charmed. What? You don't speak Deep Gnome? Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Besides, how are you supposed to outshine the Thief and their Read Language skill without Comprehend Language?
I'm not saying that CompLang is useless it's just that it's use tends to come up less and if the party thief has a skill for it then why do I need the spell again, this only gives me more reason to prepare Silent Image.
Listen we can argue the merits of combat and noncombat spells just like we can argue chocolate vs peanut butter. However why are you fighting so hard against acknowledging the delicious chocolate peanut butter cup that is Silent Image a spell that is just as good out of combat as it is in combat.
Stormbringer,
I'm going to try to explain things in a different way. Lord Mistborn has trouble expressing himself, and while Mguy's posts are really clear to me, his intent seems opaque to the rest of the board.
First, assume that you have some kind of 'plot' - not necessarily a railroady kind of plot, but some kind of adventure. The PCs are trying to accomplish something. You can consider any and every published module you've ever seen.
Now, in that adventure, there are times when it would be useful to know comprehend languages. It can make the adventure much easier by letting you turn a potential enemy into a potential friend by talking to them. However, if the party is fairly Intelligent (has access to additional languages) and diversified, the number of languages they won't know may be very small. But assuming that none of the PCs you've had know any of the common languages that their adversaries may speak, imagine that you have comprehend languages. That just made the adventure easier. Good for you.
Now, imagine that you don't have comprehend languages. Either it is not one of the small number of spells the wizard knows, or if he does know it, he decided not to prepare it on this particular day.
Now you can't talk to the potential friend.
What happens now?
Either you manage to succeed in communicating using hand signals or you end up fighting them and the adventure is harder.
But you know what? It doesn't stop the adventure. The adventure does not presume that you'll have access to the language of the potential friend nor does it presume that you have comprehend languages. As a result, the adventure can continue just fine even if you don't have the spell. The adventure is designed with the assumption that you won't be able to speak to the enemies or they speak common anyways if negotiation is supposed to be the 'one way to succeed'.
There are other situations, however, where combat is the only way to proceed. If your mission is to kill the evil demon summoner, you will have to kill him. Combat spells may be needed to advance the plot (ie, accomplish what you need to accomplish). A utility spell, while it can provide a useful shortcut, is never assumed to be the solution, and as such, you can continue the adventure just fine without ever using them.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579824I'm not knocking Comp. languages for being a non-combat spell. I'm knocking it for being a narrow noncombat spell. If I'm a 2e Wizard with my 4 spell slots why should one of them be Comp. languages rather than Phantasmal Force (2e Silent Image), Sleep, or Charm Person or another more versatile spell. Everyone with 9 or better Int gets another language so I'm thinking that things will need to be Charmed or I'll get to Illusion creatively far more often than nobody can understand what the monster is babbling about (and we care).
Because understanding people who speak other languages could save your characters lives or make getting what you need to survive/travel/find a way home/buy stuff/undertsand an opponent/etc that much easier. It is a very useful spell, especially if you are not just hacking everything that moves and the GM pays the slightest attention to stuff like languages.
Quote from: LordVreeg;579558Yes, lots of this.
And I went to a skill-based system years ago where about 30% of experience is gotten for defeating difficulties (traps, monsters, situations), 40% is from skill use (you defended 9 hits, that's 27 exp in protection skills; you cast 'Adept's Heal', take 3 exp per SP cast in that spell type, and distribute 5 more per HP healed among the same spell types, you used basic social or a sub of basic social to ascertain what guilds the magistrate's family is indebted to, take 85 exp in social skills used, or you took 10 points of damage, gain 100 exp in HP), 30% is roleplay bonus and quest/achievement bonus.
There is a lot behind this, but players 'become what they play', and they can gain as much experience in avoiding combats and social encounters and achievements as they do in combat.
So in Amber I started to use a different XP system. I mentioned it above. the PCs set 3 objectives , their own personal ones. Become chamberlain of Amber, attune myself to the jewel of judgement, Discover
relationship with Fiona.
Each of those then gets an XP reward.
In addition to this I have a plot. The plot has a load of similarly sized things worth similar Xp values (in Amber these are 1-5 points).
The PCs can follow their own objectives and get XP and as they achieve one they can add another. If they pursue the plot , which is more a web of interlinked plots than a linear one they can get Xp.
So I have been trying to port this to D&D. It's tricky because you want to avoid railroading but that is what the personal stuff is for. Its also tricky because there is a feeling, strengthened by CRPGs that you use a skill and get points for it. So in Skyrim everytime you use your sword your sword skill can get better. This is where the move from 1e collecting gold moved to the 2e xp for using your skills comes from its kind of the most intuitive way to do XP. The book-keeping is a chore though. Rewarding achivement is an alternate choice. Its easy in Amber as experience counts for only so much when you can go and train in one combat move for 4 years at almost no cost to yourself bar boredom. Much harder to get a workable model for D&D.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;579834Because understanding people who speak other languages could save your characters lives or make getting what you need to survive/travel/find a way home/buy stuff/undertsand an opponent/etc that much easier. It is a very useful spell, especially if you are not just hacking everything that moves and the GM pays the slightest attention to stuff like languages.
Of course in 2e and 1e you might not have that much choice.
If the options are 2 from comp lang, read magic, erase, light and ventrioquism ....
Quote from: jibbajibba;579837Of course in 2e and 1e you might not have that much choice.
If the options are 2 from comp lang, read magic, erase, light and ventrioquism ....
You forgot Silent Image/Phantasmal Force.
Not only that but Complang doesn't even let you speak to people so I don't thing it helps in Storm's example now that I think about it.
Put another way -
Despite the accusation that the 'denners' believe that every wizard will have every spell available to them at all times (they don't - they just believe that a normal wizard will have a handful of useful spells, some examples of which they typically provide), that is not something adventures assume.
If a spell is required to 'win' the adventure (ie, you must fly up to the ledge or you must use speak languages to convince someone that you're friendly, etc), it's bad adventure design. Many groups will never be able to succeed because they don't have the right spell or they don't have it prepared.
Therefore, while the spell in question might make the adventure easier. there MUST be another way to 'win' (even if it takes more work) without using a particular spell.
Don't have 'fly'? Use ropes, grappling hooks, and pitons.
Don't have 'speak language'? Figure out if you have any common languages. Maybe the elf knows gnome and one of the goblins knows gnome, too. So the elf translates what the party leader says into gnome and the goblin translates it from gnome to goblin - is that likely to cause problems? Yes, but the adventure continues.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;579841Put another way -
Despite the accusation that the 'denners' believe that every wizard will have every spell available to them at all times (they don't - they just believe that a normal wizard will have a handful of useful spells, some examples of which they typically provide), that is not something adventures assume.
If a spell is required to 'win' the adventure (ie, you must fly up to the ledge or you must use speak languages to convince someone that you're friendly, etc), it's bad adventure design. Many groups will never be able to succeed because they don't have the right spell or they don't have it prepared.
Therefore, while the spell in question might make the adventure easier. there MUST be another way to 'win' (even if it takes more work) without using a particular spell.
Don't have 'fly'? Use ropes, grappling hooks, and pitons.
Don't have 'speak language'? Figure out if you have any common languages. Maybe the elf knows gnome and one of the goblins knows gnome, too. So the elf translates what the party leader says into gnome and the goblin translates it from gnome to goblin - is that likely to cause problems? Yes, but the adventure continues.
In a plot led game you are right. If the game requires a mcguffin, even if that is a speak with this guy mcguffin or a get to that hanging cage in the middle of the cavrn mcguffin then you need to have alternates becuase you can't let the game stop because of the lack of a particualr spell, item etc
However, in sandbox play there is no plot, the plot develops from the game. the Party encounter a group of Bugbears because they visit the Gris Chasm, or even because the DM rolls a random encounter with Bugbears. There is no longer term reason. If they can't talk to the old man chained up in the Bugbears cave then they don't learn about the lost city that lies beneath. But instead of that adventure ending they just leave and go somewhere else instead.
Now that sort of Sandbox is uncommon. Most DMs don't design a lost city under a mountain and then accept gleefully that the PCs will never find it. They find a way to reintroduce it.
However that is the principle behind the idea so ...
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579840You forgot Silent Image/Phantasmal Force.
Not only that but Complang doesn't even let you speak to people so I don't thing it helps in Storm's example now that I think about it.
You are right that Comp Languages is reading not speaking so most of the old school examples are moot.
I didn't forget Silent image ... the PC doesn't have the spell these are the only 1st level spells in their book. this is not uncommon in older D&D.
But As I noted above the reverse of comp languages makes an excellent unbreakable code (well mundanely unbreakable).
I dont think we run the same kinds of adventures, but even so what you say is akso true of combat spells. By your standard an adventure that requires burning hands to win is bad design. Lke burning hands comprehend languages is a tool that helps you overcome challenges. I assume not all your challenges are combat based (and i assume your adventures can include intrigue, politics and investigigation), so i am not seeing why comprehend languages would be a less valuable tool than burning hands. It depends on what your characters are doing of course. But i have seen comprehend language memorized and used to great effect in scenarios where burning hands would have been pointless to memorize.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;579850I dont think we run the same kinds of adventures, but even so what you say is akso true of combat spells. By your standard an adventure that requires burning hands to win is bad design. Lke burning hands comprehend languages is a tool that helps you overcome challenges. I assume not all your challenges are combat based (and i assume your adventures can include intrigue, politics and investigigation), so i am not seeing why comprehend languages would be a less valuable tool than burning hands. It depends on what your characters are doing of course. But i have seen comprehend language memorized and used to great effect in scenarios where burning hands would have been pointless to memorize.
This is D&D friend where you need to set people on fire far more often then you need to understand what they are saying.
Quote from: jibbajibba;579848You are right that Comp Languages is reading not speaking so most of the old school examples are moot.
).
Comprehend languages in 2e lets you understand written or spoken words. But it doesn't let you communicate in the language by writing or word.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579851This is D&D friend where you need to set people on fire far more often then you need to understand what they are saying.
So you have never had an urban adventure in D&D? You have never had to understand what people are saying in a land that speaks different languages than you in D&D?
D&D isnt just about hacking and casting fireball. If you think it is, then you have been missing all kinds of exciting possibilities.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;579855So you have never had an urban adventure in D&D? You have never had to understand what people are saying in a land that speaks different languages than you in D&D?
D&D isnt just about hacking and casting fireball. If you think it is, then you have been missing all kinds of exciting possibilities.
That was a joke do I need to use smileys every time I'm being facetious
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;579853Comprehend languages in 2e lets you understand written or spoken words. But it doesn't let you communicate in the language by writing or word.
Yes its changes in 2e probably becuase the 1e version was too weak :( Its arguable that the 2e nerfed version is also too weak and that allowing communication wouldn't be too tough.
still great for codes though :)
You can compare it to the weakest ever X-man Cypher who's power was to understand all languages. In a team with plenty of telepaths and few geniuses this wasn't exactly a level 5 mutation....
Quote from: jibbajibba;579864Yes its changes in 2e probably becuase the 1e version was too weak :( Its arguable that the 2e nerfed version is also too weak and that allowing communication wouldn't be too tough.
still great for codes though :)
You can compare it to the weakest ever X-man Cypher who's power was to understand all languages. In a team with plenty of telepaths and few geniuses this wasn't exactly a level 5 mutation....
It is a first level spell and often came in handy at my table. There are other handy first level spells to choose from and often the best choice is determined by the situation you face. I really dont see an issue with comprehend languages. I have memorized it plenty of times over other choices.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;579870It is a first level spell and often came in handy at my table. There are other handy first level spells to choose from and often the best choice is determined by the situation you face. I really dont see an issue with comprehend languages. I have memorized it plenty of times over other choices.
I agree I am just saying they bumped it up in 2e becuase the designers thought it was too weak and I don;t think it woudl have broken the spell if it allowed 2 way communication....
And the 2e wouldn't let the Party in the B/E kobold example talk to the kobolds either so all the OSR usage ideas don't fly. The fact they everyone thought it did is indication that the spell could allow communication and not cause power disparity issues.
Tongues does do this but its a 3rd level Wizard or 4th level Clerical spell and it has a duration of 10 minutes and I would say that is a weak spell compared to of similar level. Doesn't mean I woudln't select it of course just means its weak.
Quote from: jibbajibba;579874I agree I am just saying they bumped it up in 2e becuase the designers thought it was too weak and I don;t think it woudl have broken the spell if it allowed 2 way communication....
And the 2e wouldn't let the Party in the B/E kobold example talk to the kobolds either so all the OSR usage ideas don't fly. The fact they everyone thought it did is indication that the spell could allow communication and not cause power disparity issues.
Tongues does do this but its a 3rd level Wizard or 4th level Clerical spell and it has a duration of 10 minutes and I would say that is a weak spell compared to of similar level. Doesn't mean I woudln't select it of course just means its weak.
I may be stingy, but I actually think preventing two way communication for a 1st level spell and saving it for the 3rd level spell is a good idea. Being able to understand your enemies and characters you interact with can be very important (not to mention being able to translate inctercepted communications). That feels like an appropriate level of power for a first level spell. But that is a judgement call I suppose.
All utility spells basically suffer from the same general problem - if you don't know if you'll need it, you might be wasting your precious spell slots. If you have the reasonable expectation that they'll be helpful, it's worth preparing them. But in terms of preparing them, they tend to fill slots that seldom see use for other purposes. Ie, when you have 7th level spells, a 2nd or 3rd level 'utility slot' might be used, but if 3rd is your highest level? Not nearly as often.
Utility spells are shortcuts, but they usually make things easier for the party - but they can usually be replicated by mundane means given enough time and effort. Ie, if you really need to read the book, you can take it to a specialist or prepare comprehend languages the next day.
One thing that I'm about to try in a 3.x game is allowing a Wizard to cast any prepared spell based on their total number of spell slots. Ie, if you have 3 3rd levels spells a day, you could prepare fireball, tongues, and fly. You could cast each spell once; cast fireball 3 times, or any combination as long as you don't exceed your maximum of three 3rd level spells per day. The hope here is that utility spells will be prepared more often (Sorcerers get other things to make them still viable). I'm looking forward to seeing how it goes - but the point still remains - a spell can make the game go in interesting directions, but if you don't have the spell the game will continue in different interesting directions, so you don't really lose anything by never using them. Other than some experiences that you might have enjoyed. But if you're having fun anyway, well, it doesn't really matter.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;579875I may be stingy, but I actually think preventing two way communication for a 1st level spell and saving it for the 3rd level spell is a good idea. Being able to understand your enemies and characters you interact with can be very important (not to mention being able to translate inctercepted communications). That feels like an appropriate level of power for a first level spell. But that is a judgement call I suppose.
First off I was wrong about 1e version I pulled my books andreading it back its hte same as well I am gettign old :(
It doesn't stack up well to other spells though. ESP is a 2nd level Magic user spell. So at 2nd level I can understand what you are thinking but I can only communicate with you at 3rd level via a spoken language.. And I am not comparing it to the slew of defense/offense/explor options.
You can see the comments of other players. The Min/max crew won't even give it the time of day as a 1st level spell that allowed them to talk to other creatures everyone else assumed it did....
I conceed it has a nice world depth to it. I conceed that it is a nice flavourful spell (though it ought to be renamed to Larimores Lazy Lexicon or Lairtes Langid Linguist ) and that making language relevant is a nice idea but I can't see why it couldn't allow 2 way communication and still not be too tough.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579851This is D&D friend where you need to set people on fire far more often then you need to understand what they are saying.
depends on the game you run.
Not my games. The fighters handle the beatings, the mages are often the ones who solved the real problems that the guys with armor could not.
Deaddm i memorize utility spells all the time. So do many of my players. Using utility spells is a lot more fun in my opinion than lobbing a lightning bolt or fireball. Sometimes you memorize spells that you dont have much use for in the course of the day, sometimes they pay dividends. A large part of the enjoyment comes from trying to gauge that and memorizing the spells you thini will come in handy. If you dont like stuff like tongues or comprehend languages, that is fine, but I am really not buying to attempt to prove these spells are no good or not as useful. It all depends on what you end up facing in the course of the day. Personally I like having a good selection of tools to draw on, and as a wizard one way to do that is memorize a large variety of spells, many of which may or may not be needed.
Quote from: jibbajibba;579881First off I was wrong about 1e version I pulled my books andreading it back its hte same as well I am gettign old :(
It doesn't stack up well to other spells though. ESP is a 2nd level Magic user spell. So at 2nd level I can understand what you are thinking but I can only communicate with you at 3rd level via a spoken language.. And I am not comparing it to the slew of defense/offense/explor options.
You can see the comments of other players. The Min/max crew won't even give it the time of day as a 1st level spell that allowed them to talk to other creatures everyone else assumed it did....
I conceed it has a nice world depth to it. I conceed that it is a nice flavourful spell (though it ought to be renamed to Larimores Lazy Lexicon or Lairtes Langid Linguist ) and that making language relevant is a nice idea but I can't see why it couldn't allow 2 way communication and still not be too tough.
I think we just disagree on the issue, which is fine since it is largely a matter of judgment. I can see the argument but think it is fine as is (there are spells I would change but this isnt one of them).
As to the min/max crowd, I am not all that concerned about converting them to my way of thinking on the issue. In my own games, spells like this are a lot of fun. For me that is all that matters.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;579883Deaddm i memorize utility spells all the time. So do many of my players. Using utility spells is a lot more fun in my opinion than lobbing a lightning bolt or fireball. Sometimes you memorize spells that you dont have much use for in the course of the day, sometimes they pay dividends. A large part of the enjoyment comes from trying to gauge that and memorizing the spells you thini will come in handy. If you dont like stuff like tongues or comprehend languages, that is fine, but I am really not buying to attempt to prove these spells are no good or not as useful. It all depends on what you end up facing in the course of the day. Personally I like having a good selection of tools to draw on, and as a wizard one way to do that is memorize a large variety of spells, many of which may or may not be needed.
it all depends, frankly, on context. IN 75% of my games, memorizing too many combat spells emans the group won't get anywhere. The guys with the armor are supposed to handle that. that is what they are there for.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579832Listen we can argue the merits of combat and noncombat spells just like we can argue chocolate vs peanut butter. However why are you fighting so hard against acknowledging the delicious chocolate peanut butter cup that is Silent Image a spell that is just as good out of combat as it is in combat.
I'm not actually the one being disagreeable.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;579833First, assume that you have some kind of 'plot' - not necessarily a railroady kind of plot, but some kind of adventure. The PCs are trying to accomplish something. You can consider any and every published module you've ever seen.
None of which required any particular spell, nor did any of them actually require a spell caster.
QuoteBut you know what? It doesn't stop the adventure. The adventure does not presume that you'll have access to the language of the potential friend nor does it presume that you have comprehend languages. As a result, the adventure can continue just fine even if you don't have the spell. The adventure is designed with the assumption that you won't be able to speak to the enemies or they speak common anyways if negotiation is supposed to be the 'one way to succeed'.
There are other situations, however, where combat is the only way to proceed. If your mission is to kill the evil demon summoner, you will have to kill him. Combat spells may be needed to advance the plot (ie, accomplish what you need to accomplish). A utility spell, while it can provide a useful shortcut, is never assumed to be the solution, and as such, you can continue the adventure just fine without ever using them.
Not only is that wrong, but they are contradictory. You will need to pick one of those paragraphs or the other. Either some particular action will stop the adventure or it will not. If there is only one solution to a particular problem, we are talking about a railroad plot that you assured us wasn't present a couple of paragraphs ago. You think combat is awesome and the only part worth using, and can't imagine a scenario with out it. Welcome to the railroad, because that is no different than requiring a spell caster with access to
web to cross some chasm.
Ok so it looks like conversation has hyped up a bit. First Brendan, it is not that spells like Comp languages aren't useful, it is that they are far more situational than more general use spells like Silent Image. When you're low level and you can only take a few spells with you on your journey and you don't have a good feeling that you will need Comp Languages you shouldn't be preparing it because to do so is unrealistic. As mentioned before, unless you know or are close to knowing that you might need it you prepare something more general use. Most situations where you would need comp languages aren't time sensitive and most likely you won't get stuck if you don't have it.
Basically what I'm saying is this: There are no major consequences in an encounter where not having a spell like Comp Language makes you fail. There however are major consequences for not being prepared for combat. If you don't have Read MAgic prepared you won't die for it. If you don't have enough fireballs to defend yourself and the party from trolls you will likely die because of it. The spells any reasonable adventuring caster would realistically have on hand are spells geared towards adventuring. As a player you will not be overtly punished for failing at exploration but you will be punished for failing combat*.
*Note that this means bypassing, retreating from, straight up winning, or otherwise getting through a combat encounter in some successful fashion.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;579883Deaddm i memorize utility spells all the time. So do many of my players. Using utility spells is a lot more fun in my opinion than lobbing a lightning bolt or fireball.
I agree. And I also use utility spells on the rare occasion that I'm playing a wizard. They can allow the game to go in interesting directions. But while that's the case, it's also true that they end up being shortcuts. It's hard to discuss without concrete examples, but
comprehend languages has been done to death. I picked another at random:
secure shelter.
Quote from: SRDYou conjure a sturdy cottage or lodge made of material that is common in the area where the spell is cast. The floor is level, clean, and dry. In all respects the lodging resembles a normal cottage, with a sturdy door, two shuttered windows, and a small fireplace.
There's more - but that the gist. So, what does the spell
do? Basically, it makes a relatively safe place to rest, which is convenient if you're in a place that you don't feel safe. But if you were in such a situation and you
didn't have the spell, what would you do?
You'd probably spend more time finding a defensible place, perhaps one that is less secure than the
secure shelter, so you might have to double up on watches (and therefore spend longer overall resting). The spell is
useful, but with enough time and effort, the party will
duplicate the utility of the spell through mundane means.
Very rarely will a utility spell 'change' the game - it just 'speeds it up' - but that can be a lot of fun. Busting out a
secure shelter feels like a win and is a real contribution to a party, rather then looking for a cave with only a single easily defended entrance.
Quote from: StormBringer;579901None of which required any particular spell, nor did any of them actually require a spell caster.
That is exactly my point. None of the modules require any particular spell. Therefore, the module presumes that you can 'overcome' any challenges without recourse to any particular spell.
Therefore, while a spell may be helpful and provide a 'shortcut', it is clear that they are not actually providing a 'solution'. The 'adventure/puzzle' can be
solved other ways, too. So it's nice when a utility spell
provides an easy solution, but it's
NEVER the only solution.
Quote from: deadDMwalkingBut you know what? It doesn't stop the adventure. The adventure does not presume that you'll have access to the language of the potential friend nor does it presume that you have comprehend languages. As a result, the adventure can continue just fine even if you don't have the spell. The adventure is designed with the assumption that you won't be able to speak to the enemies or they speak common anyways if negotiation is supposed to be the 'one way to succeed'.
There are other situations, however, where combat is the only way to proceed. If your mission is to kill the evil demon summoner, you will have to kill him. Combat spells may be needed to advance the plot (ie, accomplish what you need to accomplish). A utility spell, while it can provide a useful shortcut, is never assumed to be the solution, and as such, you can continue the adventure just fine without ever using them.
Quote from: StormBringer;579901Not only is that wrong, but they are contradictory. You will need to pick one of those paragraphs or the other.
Now you're being a dumbass again. I can't blame you - you haven't actually
stopped being a dumbass, but I'd prefer to avoid calling you out on it if I could. In this case, I can't.
Quote from: StormBringer;579901Either some particular action will stop the adventure or it will not. If there is only one solution to a particular problem, we are talking about a railroad plot that you assured us wasn't present a couple of paragraphs ago.
I gave the specific example of 'your mission is to kill someone'. I suppose poisoning the opponent wouldn't strictly count as 'combat', but in a loose sense, it does. And of course, if they find out you just tried to poison them, they may initiate combat directly. If you're trying to defeat someone that is independently powerful, disabling them will be necessary. Now, that doesn't
have to be the mission. But for the example I provided, it just happened to be the mission the PCs chose.
Quote from: deadDMwalkingIf your mission is to kill the evil demon summoner, you will have to kill him.
I didn't explain WHY that's the mission, nor did you ask. If the mission is to 'DRIVE OFF' the evil demon summoner, than you wouldn't have to kill him.
Now, while an adventure, especially one built around defeating a particular enemy
assumes you'll try to defeat that enemy, the module doesn't assume that you'll use any single tactic. And to grab the macguffin on the first level you can use a variety of different means - you could have a
summoned monster grab it for you, you could use
spider climb to get it, or you could use climbing ropes - or any number of other solutions limited only by your imagination. Because it's a Role Playing Game. Lots of 'problems' have multiple solutions. All you have to do is find one that works.
And in every game I've ever played or run, there was at least one situation where the only remaining solution turns out to be combat. Usually because the goals of the opposition are diametrically opposed to the goals of the PC. For example, the PCs want to save the princess, and the assassin wants to kill her. If the assassin is not 'defeated' or 'disabled' (usually via combat) than the PCs would 'lose'.
Quote from: StormBringer;579901You think combat is awesome and the only part worth using, and can't imagine a scenario with out it.
No. I don't think combat is awesome and the only part worth using. I
do think you're a dumbass. That's a pretty weak strawman, especially since I never said that. I can think of plenty of scenarios where combat is
not necessary. I can also think of plenty of scenarios where combat
is necessary. Since every game I've ever played in, and just about every game I've ever
heard of eventually involved combat of some kind or another. What do you want me to say? That everyone I've talked to is doing it wrong?
Clearly, if they're having fun, they're doing it right. Why don't you tell me about a 10+ level campaign that never had a fight. I'd love to hear it.
Quote from: StormBringer;579901Welcome to the railroad, because that is no different than requiring a spell caster with access to web to cross some chasm.
And we've reached a new kind of stupid. What the hell are you trying to say?
I've said that if you come across a chasm, you could cross it in any number of ways. You could use a rope to climb down one side and climb up the other. You could
summon an air elemental to ferry the party across. You could jump really far and cross it. Or you could cast
web to span the chasm and I
suppose if you've cast
spiderclimb you could walk across the web. I don't know why you wouldn't just climb down the chasm and then back up, but maybe there's a dragon down there or something... But getting stuck in the web wouldn't be my first choice, and if I can bypass the chasm
without using a
web spell (which, coincidentally, has combat applications), that would be better as well.
So since you have trouble with understanding my point the first four times, I'll try again.
Utility Spells allow you to 'shortcut' certain parts of the adventure to achieve success more quickly and/or easily. That's great because it lets you do other things. That said, if you
don't have the right utility spell available, the adventure will continue anyway. They're good to have, but they're not
strictly necessary.
If combat does become
strictly necessary, combat spells will be useful. Most spell casters seem to prepare a preponderance of combat spells because they KNOW that if they're needed, it'll be important to have them on hand. Utility spells are added in 'lower level spell slots' - when you have 5th level combat spells, you'll probably not use many 2nd level combat spells. Those slots then get repurposed to utility spells. This is part of why high level wizards are so effective - they have a bunch of 'fun shortcuts' on hand, and they can still kill monsters. But if they
don't prepare
any utility spells, the adventure will go on - it might be longer and more difficult, but it doesn't automatically make it impossible.
Quote from: MGuy;579942Ok so it looks like conversation has hyped up a bit. First Brendan, it is not that spells like Comp languages aren't useful, it is that they are far more situational than more general use spells like Silent Image. When you're low level and you can only take a few spells with you on your journey and you don't have a good feeling that you will need Comp Languages you shouldn't be preparing it because to do so is unrealistic. As mentioned before, unless you know or are close to knowing that you might need it you prepare something more general use. Most situations where you would need comp languages aren't time sensitive and most likely you won't get stuck if you don't have it.
Basically what I'm saying is this: There are no major consequences in an encounter where not having a spell like Comp Language makes you fail. There however are major consequences for not being prepared for combat. If you don't have Read MAgic prepared you won't die for it. If you don't have enough fireballs to defend yourself and the party from trolls you will likely die because of it. The spells any reasonable adventuring caster would realistically have on hand are spells geared towards adventuring. As a player you will not be overtly punished for failing at exploration but you will be punished for failing combat*.
*Note that this means bypassing, retreating from, straight up winning, or otherwise getting through a combat encounter in some successful fashion.
I think you're making a mistake by assuming that the Mage will be the only person in the party capable of dealing with a given situation. The trolls are just as easily dealt with by a mage using a bottle of oil and the ignite cantrip once they're knocked down by melee as they are by a mage using fireball. And the mage is being every bit as effective, with less magic expenditure.
Edit: DDM illustrates my point really well here:
Quote from: DeadDMWalkingThere's more - but that the gist. So, what does the spell do? Basically, it makes a relatively safe place to rest, which is convenient if you're in a place that you don't feel safe. But if you were in such a situation and you didn't have the spell, what would you do?
You'd probably spend more time finding a defensible place, perhaps one that is less secure than the secure shelter, so you might have to double up on watches (and therefore spend longer overall resting). The spell is useful, but with enough time and effort, the party will duplicate the utility of the spell through mundane means.
Very rarely will a utility spell 'change' the game - it just 'speeds it up' - but that can be a lot of fun. Busting out a secure shelter feels like a win and is a real contribution to a party, rather then looking for a cave with only a single easily defended entrance.
Even the combat spells are really just a shortcut. They're not the only answer to the fight, they just speed it up, the same way that the utility spells he's talking about do.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579824I'm not knocking Comp. languages for being a non-combat spell. I'm knocking it for being a narrow noncombat spell.
You should also note that things like fireball and Sleep can be used for out of combat purposes. You put guards to sleep to sneak past them. You place delegates to sleep after a meal and go through their pockets looking for secrets. Fireball can be used as a signal, for intimidation, to ignite some other thing, etc etc. The capacity to use these spells in and out of combat is there. Comp Languages has far less uses at all and can't be used in combat at all. Copy pasta this for things like Jump, Read Magic, etc.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;579946I think you're making a mistake by assuming that the Mage will be the only person in the party capable of dealing with a given situation. The trolls are just as easily dealt with by a mage using a bottle of oil and the ignite cantrip once they're knocked down by melee as they are by a mage using fireball. And the mage is being every bit as effective, with less magic expenditure.
No, that's fine, too. If it works out that the Fighters and/or other party members take down all the trolls and the party lights them up using mundane means, that works - and it saves spells. Great.
Now, let's say the Wizard held back and the Trolls just tore all his companions apart. In this situation, if his only third level spell is tongues, he's probably dead (and so are his companions).
Mguy points out that if you don't win in a fight, you might die. If you don't succeed in talking to someone, who know what might happen? It might mean a fight you could have avoided, but the likelihood that it is an unavoidable fight that can not be won, and the
only solution was talking to the other party in a language no one in the party speaks, seems pretty small. Besides, that's pretty shitty adventure design.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;579948No, that's fine, too. If it works out that the Fighters and/or other party members take down all the trolls and the party lights them up using mundane means, that works - and it saves spells. Great.
Now, let's say the Wizard held back and the Trolls just tore all his companions apart. In this situation, if his only third level spell is tongues, he's probably dead (and so are his companions).
Mguy points out that if you don't win in a fight, you might die. If you don't succeed in talking to someone, who know what might happen? It might mean a fight you could have avoided, but the likelihood that it is an unavoidable fight that can not be won, and the only solution was talking to the other party in a language no one in the party speaks, seems pretty small. Besides, that's pretty shitty adventure design.
Fair enough, but I'd call poor design on any situation where one party member makes ALL the difference. There should always be alternatives, torchbearers on the end of 10' poles to find traps, fighters with 18 STR to break open doors, potions for healing, etc. Each one is a technique. It may not be the preferred technique, but it's a technique. The same for magic.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;579946I think you're making a mistake by assuming that the Mage will be the only person in the party capable of dealing with a given situation. The trolls are just as easily dealt with by a mage using a bottle of oil and the ignite cantrip once they're knocked down by melee as they are by a mage using fireball. And the mage is being every bit as effective, with less magic expenditure.
Edit: DDM illustrates my point really well here:
Even the combat spells are really just a shortcut. They're not the only answer to the fight, they just speed it up, the same way that the utility spells he's talking about do.
The fireball thing was just an example and is faster/easier/safer than waiting for melee to finish up the trolls.
Second while yes, combat specific spells, are just a shortcut they are focused on the part of the adventure that has the most grave consequences. As a mage you can choose to outfit yourself with the most narrow spells (like comp language, jump, alarm, etc) but that only puts you and the rest of your party in danger. If you're an adventuring mage you prepare adventuring type spells.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;579949Fair enough, but I'd call poor design on any situation where one party member makes ALL the difference.
No one is saying this.
In fact I think I spoke at length about how I don't like the fact that the fighter can't really do much outside of low level shennanigans and is reduced to being basically a pair of hands at higher level becaus eof his lack of other "real" abilities.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;579946Even the combat spells are really just a shortcut. They're not the only answer to the fight, they just speed it up, the same way that the utility spells he's talking about do.
I think the better part of what they're saying is that:
1) You can't always opt out of combat (people attack you).
2) Combat spells affect the likelihood of success in combat.
3) Combat can kill you.
Basically because you can't always pick your combat encounters, and because they represent a point at which the game may end, you're more likely to need (in the survival sense) combat spells than non-combat spells.
____________________________
Comp lang has been used as the example, which adds two minor points:
1) Utility spells can bypass combat entirely.
1a) But you're glad you had complang because combat.
1b) Therefore if you didn't have it, and prepared combat spells, you'd still be glad you prepared combat spells.
2) Some spells are not required here and now. You can delay on translating a book, or ignore the runes on the walls.
How a game is run adds:
1) There shouldn't be chokepoints that depend on a utility spell in a linear adventure.
2) In a nonlinear adventure there can be chokepoints for optional content (I mentioned requiring a spell to get treasure, which would make it the difference between xp and no xp in some editions).
And then there's the last little scraps:
1) Some spells (flight, invisibility, most illusions) are both combat and non combat.
2) Some spells have (more time consuming or difficult) alternatives that don't rely on a spell slot. Comp lang isn't a great example. Maybe knock? Why waste the spell slot if you've got a rogue?
______________________________
Does that more or less sum up the state of the argument at the moment?
EDIT: I'm now realizing I've lost the connection between this and class balance. Care to sum it up, anybody?
Quote from: beejazz;579969EDIT: I'm now realizing I've lost the connection between this and class balance. Care to sum it up, anybody?
We where arguing about how much combat is in D&D relating to my point that "good in combat" is not a thing that should be role protected. This devolved into a debate about the relative merits of CompLang vis a vis Silent Image and Sleep. Thanks for giving me an excuse to get this thread back on track.
Quote from: MGuy;579951In fact I think I spoke at length about how I don't like the fact that the fighter can't really do much outside of low level shennanigans and is reduced to being basically a pair of hands at higher level because of his lack of other "real" abilities.
So this is a thing. The fighter classes conceptual space is limited to "dude with a sword". As characters advance in levels they will reach a point where the fighter's limited conceptual space prevents him from gaining relevant abilities.
Discuss.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579971So this is a thing. The Fighter classes conceptual space is limited to "dude with a sword". As characters advance in levels they will reach a point where the fighters limited conceptual space prevents him from gaining relevant abilities.
Discuss.
we have already had that discussion dozens of times in just the last two to three months. I don't see any benefit to rehashing it with the same players.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;579973we have already had that discussion dozens of times in just the last two to three months. I don't see any benefit to rehashing it with the same players.
At high levels in any edition you are expected to fight monsters the size of city buses and sword them to death. Even in older editions the fighter class goes from human with a sword to superhuman with a sword. All I'm arguing is that superhumanity be leveraged into some real lateral advancement. Otherwise you end up with the high level fighter being useless.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579974At high levels in any edition you are expected to fight monsters the size of city buses and sword them to death. Even in older editions the fighter class goes from human with a sword to superhuman with a sword. All I'm arguing is that superhumanity be leveraged into some real lateral advancement. Otherwise you end up with the high level fighter being useless.
I know your argument. You have already made it several times. Mcguy has also made a very similar argument more than you have. There is no more mileage in that discussion.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;579975I know your argument. You have already made it several times. Mcguy has also made a very similar argument more than you have. There is no more mileage in that discussion.
Agreed.
No ones minds are going to be changed.
If we are continuing with this thread then we need to focus on something like the importance of balance, what balance means and more overarching themes than focusing on individual balance issues, I suggest....
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;579975I know your argument. You have already made it several times. Mcguy has also made a very similar argument more than you have. There is no more mileage in that discussion.
So is your response.
A) You're right LM a 9th level fighter being able to singlehandedly defeat a insect the size of a short bus is clear proof that where not dealing with "normal" humans.
B) That's wrong LM, fighters should always remain in the ballpark of what a normal human can do even at level 20.
Edit: This very important. If the fighter is not allowed to keep up at high levels then taking levels in fighter should not be an option passed that point. At least in a balanced system.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579977So is your response.
A) You're right LM a 9th level fighter being able to singlehandedly defeat a insect the size of a short bus is clear proof that where not dealing with "normal" humans.
B) That's wrong LM, fighters should always remain in the ballpark of what a normal human can do even at level 20.
Edit: This very important. If the fighter is not allowed to keep up at high levels then taking levels in fighter should not be an option passed that point. At least in a balanced system.
I responded to this several times over the past few months. Nothing is going to be gained be re-exploring this subject except thread derailment. Making the same exact point you and mcguy made last month to the same exact people who disagreed with you last month is pointless.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;579979I responded to this several times over the past few months. Nothing is going to be gained be re-exploring this subject except thread derailment. Making the same exact point you and mcguy made last month to the same exact people who disagreed with you last month is pointless.
Listen if you're going be passive-aggressive like this then stay out of this thead and be a negative Nellie elsewhere.
OK,
people who are not BedrokBrendan. Is the fighter class limited to what a real human could plausibly do Y/N.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579981Listen if you're going be passive-aggressive like this then stay out of this thead and be a negative Nellie elsewhere.
OK, people who are not BedrokBrendan. Is the fighter class limited to what a real human could plausibly do Y/N.
You asked me a direct question and I gave my answer. I am not the only one who made this observation. I have a feeling lots of others agree with my assessment.
Lord Mistrborn,
BedrockBrendan is right. We've had this discussion before. Some people (like BedrockBrendan) think it's okay that the Fighter is 'good' at low-levels where the Wizard kind of blows, but it 'evens out' because the Wizard is awesome at high levels while the Fighter blows. You see, you trade 'good now' for 'sucky later' or 'sucky now' for 'good later'. While that doesn't work for me, it works for quite a few people around these parts.
Secondly, a number of people refuse to agree that a character that can do anything the player can imagine plus has additional abilities written on his character sheet that nobody else can do has more options than someone with just his imagination.
A few other posters have basically said 'of course high level Fighters are crappy compared to Wizards in 3.x; everyone knows that, why is this debate going on for 4000+ posts'. I'm paraphrasing, but that's RPGPundit's view.
Some of those people agree that it was an issue in high level play in earlier editions, but it doesn't matter because who gets to high levels anyway?
Some of those people disagree - they think the Fighter was awesome in earlier editions, but not 3.x - in large part because the Fighter is at the same level but everyone else got a boost - and so making the Fighter better is not a priority, and if they were doing anything about it, they'd make everyone else suck (mostly make spells more dangerous and make disruption easier).
Finally, there is a very vocal group that don't care if the game doesn't work because the DM can always fix it. Play the game, not the rules.
And nobody has been convinced to change their position in a meaningful way. As far as it relates to 'play style', it doesn't matter. But in any case, outright denial of the issue at least in 3.x is mostly gone away.
This is a thread about balance.
If a class is definitionaly not allowed meaningful abilities at high levels then if we want a balanced game the option of still taking levels in that class can not be on the table at high levels. This is A=A people.
Now what I'm also saying is the idea that old edition fighters never step out of the just a guy with a sword paradigm is false. If you stack enough levels you will get to the point where you can beat an huge earth elemental to death with your bear hands.
Given that high level fighters are already superhuman then to what extent are they allowed to spin that superhumanity into lateral advancements.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579981OK, people who are not BedrokBrendan. Is the fighter class limited to what a real human could plausibly do Y/N.
In any D&D edition, I'm going to play or GM, fighters are limited to what a real human could do. Of course, in the editions, I play, high level fighters generally have troops under their command, retainers, a good collection of magical items, and once they reach 15th level or so, they probably have at least one useful permanent spell cast on them. So they don't have to take on those city-bus sized monsters alone -- and they have learned enough strategy and tactics to not take such a monster on in a standup "fair" fight unless they have no choice (and they try hard to avoid having no choice).
Then they likely have a magic-user buddy or two -- they guy they protected and and kept alive at low levels is now a fairly powerful wizard who owes them his life a few times over and can be persuaded to come along and try to soften up the target before the fighter and his group move in on it. Etc.
I realize that this is apparently not the type of play you and Mguy seem to want for the fighter at high level, but it works well for a lot of people who don't want fighters gaining all sorts of supernatural abilities as they level up.
Quote from: RandallS;579986In any D&D edition, I'm going to play or GM, fighters are limited to what a real human could do. Of course, in the editions, I play, high level fighters generally have troops under their command, retainers, a good collection of magical items, and once they reach 15th level or so, they probably have at least one useful permanent spell cast on them. So they don't have to take on those city-bus sized monsters alone -- and they have learned enough strategy and tactics to not take such a monster on in a standup "fair" fight unless they have no choice (and they try hard to avoid having no choice).
Then they likely have a magic-user buddy or two -- they guy they protected and and kept alive at low levels is now a fairly powerful wizard who owes them his life a few times over and can be persuaded to come along and try to soften up the target before the fighter and his group move in on it. Etc.
I realize that this is apparently not the type of play you and Mguy seem to want for the fighter at high level, but it works well for a lot of people who don't want fighters gaining all sorts of supernatural abilities as they level up.
The thing is the fighter is already going to be superhuman. Even the weaksauce 3e fighter can punch a short bus sized monster to death at 10th level. (Gargantuan Monstrous Centipede is CR 6 truefacts.)
Quote from: beejazz;579969I think the better part of what they're saying is that:
1) You can't always opt out of combat (people attack you).
2) Combat spells affect the likelihood of success in combat.
3) Combat can kill you.
Basically because you can't always pick your combat encounters, and because they represent a point at which the game may end, you're more likely to need (in the survival sense) combat spells than non-combat spells.
____________________________
Comp lang has been used as the example, which adds two minor points:
1) Utility spells can bypass combat entirely.
1a) But you're glad you had complang because combat.
1b) Therefore if you didn't have it, and prepared combat spells, you'd still be glad you prepared combat spells.
2) Some spells are not required here and now. You can delay on translating a book, or ignore the runes on the walls.
How a game is run adds:
1) There shouldn't be chokepoints that depend on a utility spell in a linear adventure.
2) In a nonlinear adventure there can be chokepoints for optional content (I mentioned requiring a spell to get treasure, which would make it the difference between xp and no xp in some editions).
And then there's the last little scraps:
1) Some spells (flight, invisibility, most illusions) are both combat and non combat.
2) Some spells have (more time consuming or difficult) alternatives that don't rely on a spell slot. Comp lang isn't a great example. Maybe knock? Why waste the spell slot if you've got a rogue?
______________________________
Does that more or less sum up the state of the argument at the moment?
EDIT: I'm now realizing I've lost the connection between this and class balance. Care to sum it up, anybody?
Well, a few people tried to bring in the class balance thing.
The class balance part of the whole 'comp lang vs fireball' is that the guy with the armor is there to fight, it's what he does, it's his niche, role, whatever.
The guy with thr holy symbol heals, takes care of undead, and does some fighter support in most games, and later got some spells specific to these tasks.
The guy with the leather armor is important for town games and exploration games (in later games one of the biggest screw ups was trying to make this roguish fellow better in combat, since that IS NOT WHAT HE WAS DESIGNED FOR) since he finds traps, defuses them, unlocks doors and is the best scout (an incredibly important part of many games). Also decent with a bow to support the guy with the armor.
The guy in the robes is none of these, he's the utility guy. That's what the mage really is. Look at the spell list, especially the low level spell list for magic users in the first couple generations. In the adventuring mode, if the group is going to a high combat area, the magic user can aid the fighters. If the group is going inot a heavily evil or undead area, protection from evil is there. If there is lots of sneaking, we have audible glamer and ventriliquism, and if they are going into an alien place from an ealier group, comp lang and detect magic are critical. But the guy in the robes is not there to replace the fighter.
So this is an attempt to tie the spell conversation back to the original ideas of class balance.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579985. This is A=A people.
.
no it isnt.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;579984Lord Mistrborn,
BedrockBrendan is right. We've had this discussion before. Some people (like BedrockBrendan) think it's okay that the Fighter is 'good' at low-levels where the Wizard kind of blows, but it 'evens out' because the Wizard is awesome at high levels while the Fighter blows. .
Just so you know, the fighter doesn't necessarily blow at high levels. My highest level character ever was a fighter in AD&D, and he didn't blow at high levels at all.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;579990no it isnt.
Look I don't thing it's a coincidence that at 8th-9th levels in 2e the real martial classes (not the one you're stuck with as a booby prize because you're stats are too low.) start getting
spells.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;579991Just so you know, the fighter doesn't necessarily blow at high levels. My highest level character ever was a fighter in AD&D, and he didn't blow at high levels at all.
And I assume that he glowed like a Christmas tree under detect magic.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579992Look I don't thing it's a coincidence that at 8th-9th levels in 2e the real martial classes (not the one you're stuck with as a booby prize because you're stats are too low.) start getting spells.
I dont think any suggested it was a coincidence.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;579991Just so you know, the fighter doesn't necessarily blow at high levels. My highest level character ever was a fighter in AD&D, and he didn't blow at high levels at all.
And to be clear my argument wasnt that the fighter "blowed" at higher levels, just that the wizard started out weaker than him but ended up stronger.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;579997And to be clear my argument wasnt that the fighter "blowed" at higher levels, just that the wizard started out weaker than him but ended up stronger.
No worries, your position was clear. I just wanted to clarify that his misrepresentation of your argument wasn't necessarily true.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579992Look I don't thing it's a coincidence that at 8th-9th levels in 2e the real martial classes (not the one you're stuck with as a booby prize because you're stats are too low.) start getting spells.
And I don't think it's any cooincedence that magic users's
THAC0 in 2e got better as they leveled up. :rolleyes:
QuoteAnd I assume that he glowed like a Christmas tree under detect magic.
How many times do we really need to go over this? If you take away magic items from a fighter, then you take away magic items for a MU as well (including his spell book). The fighter class was specifically designed to be the one class that had the best range to magic items. That's a core aspect of the class design, just like hit points and the ability to cast spells.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579971So this is a thing. The fighter classes conceptual space is limited to "dude with a sword". As characters advance in levels they will reach a point where the fighter's limited conceptual space prevents him from gaining relevant abilities.
Discuss.
It should be noted that while I'm more accepting of rangers, paladins, rogues that they suffer from similar issues so we shouldn't get too focused on a single "class" but again keep the conversation about general class balancing.
Instead you should argue about how havinng your effectiveness (relative to other classes dependent on playing at certain levels is bad. You can argue about why requiring characters to use external resources (that is resources that aren't guaranteed to them) to be effective at all is a bad thing. You can argue about why making wealth translate to power is bad. Bringing up fighters specifically is like beating a dead horse.
I think what you would want to talk about is how "balanced" it is to have a subset of people bound with what they can do in game while having other classes much less bound.
For example you could explain why it is not good to have superman and green arrow on the same team.
Ooooh! Is this where I get to break out the logic again? I knew it would only be a few days at most until these guys wrested the conversation back there; it's like Tourette's with them. "Balance! Motherfucker! Piss Shit! Balance!"
I think this image needs to be re-captioned to
"OK! I'm sorry I said you blowed"
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/-hZGL_rfBYzY/TmxzPqYZO5I/AAAAAAAAJ3o/M4IGLaPyaOM/Sad%25252520Fighter%25252520Magic%25252520-%25252520Magick%25252520Warriors%252525203.jpg)
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;579971We where arguing about how much combat is in D&D relating to my point that "good in combat" is not a thing that should be role protected. This devolved into a debate about the relative merits of CompLang vis a vis Silent Image and Sleep. Thanks for giving me an excuse to get this thread back on track.
"Good in combat" isn't one feature, it's a plethora of features.
When you talk about a class being "useless" you're usually engaging in hyperbole. What it basically means is that the party would be better off with a member of some other class. So let's say that one class is best in combat compared with the others. You get into combat and you're going to want a party made up entirely of that guy. Problem is that if the game really has you needing anything else ever? Having a party of all combat monsters wouldn't work.
You can argue that the higher stakes of survival mean that combat is a more attractive niche when players are allowed to build their characters. Hell, I'll even agree with that bit. But that doesn't mean "best in combat" (as opposed to "good in combat") isn't a fair niche to protect.
Now, as I said, there are also niches within combat. In RPGs, there is a difference between:
survivability and offense
damage per round vs targets per round
mobility and range
All of the above are ways of breaking up in-combat niches in meaningful ways. If you could only pick one on any of the above axes, you'd still end up with 8 niches. And saying you could only pick one is arbitrary. And then there are roles not covered (like support and terrain manipulation and zones of control and debuffing). Being good at combat can mean a hell of a lot of things.
Now, you can say that every class should have an equal share of the niches to go around, but based on what? Fact is that if their out of combat role is sufficiently necessary it shouldn't hurt if they have neither good movement nor good range. Or neither DPR nor TPR strength.
Quote from: beejazz;580019"Good in combat" isn't one feature, it's a plethora of features.
Absolutely, and we haven't even defined what "good in combat" is supposed to mean yet. Pure DPS? Encounter ending attack? Morale breaking ability? And more important than a straight statistical analysis, are any of them
fun? Which is highly subjective, of course. For some groups, "KAMEHAMEHA 9000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" that splits the planet is huge fun. For others, it's the edge-of-the-seat suspense of outwitting and outmanoeuvring a pack of Kobolds when the characters only have slightly more hit points than the Kobolds.
Making the claim that every class should be 'good in combat' without qualification is almost useless, in other words. For myself, I don't think there is a definition that would convince me of the premise anyway. Like Brendon, I don't think every class should be 'good in combat' in the same way to begin with.
I refer again to
Conan the Destroyer; Princess Jehnna was the NPC focus of the escort mission, but both Malak and Akiro were PCs. Malak almost never engaged in combat, but when he did, it was from behind and then he scuttled away again. Akiro never directly attacked anyone, and the fight with the other Wizard was a battle of wills. Neither of them were 'good in combat', but both played crucial roles in completing the 'adventure'. Great fun for Vintage grognards like myself, painfully boring for the Dungeons and DragonballZ players, I am sure.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580005How many times do we really need to go over this? If you take away magic items from a fighter, then you take away magic items for a MU as well (including his spell book). The fighter class was specifically designed to be the one class that had the best range to magic items. That's a core aspect of the class design, just like hit points and the ability to cast spells.
We can have this discussion as many times as you want. It wont make your point an less dumb. Apples =/= Oranges.
In the interest of not banging my head against the wall though, Clerics don't need a book to prepare their spells. the Psion is a thing that exists even in old editions, if we're talking about 3e then so do Sorcerers. You must know that your argument is lame. Wizards have a spellbook, it's right in their class description. Nowhere in the fighters class descriptions is it written he gets a magic sword.
So if you take away one of his class features then yes the wizard is not so good. the Psion or Sorcerer though are still better than you, even if they're naked.
Quote from: StormBringer;580014Ooooh! Is this where I get to break out the logic again? I knew it would only be a few days at most until these guys wrested the conversation back there; it's like Tourette's with them. "Balance! Motherfucker! Piss Shit! Balance!"
Tell me again. What did I say about trolling this thread?
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580051Tell me again. What did I say about trolling this thread?
I don't know or care but enlighten me given this whole thread is one big troll. Why do you think whatever you say has any value when all you're talking about is a playstyle issue not a rule issue?
Quote from: Marleycat;580053I don't know or care but enlighten me given this whole thread is one big troll. Why do you think whatever you say has any value when all you're talking about is a playstyle issue not a rule issue?
He actually believes a definition for balance can be arrived at through discussion. One that everyone here will agree on, or that will serve all kinds of games.
Humor him. It's gonna take a while, and for him to figure it out on his own a bit, but he'll learn otherwise.
Now, I don't see rules design as a playstyle issue, but even there different games are designed with different goals in mind. For example, if you can assign stats and choose class, you're going to need a different kind of balance than if you can roll well and get a gestalt class. Apples and oranges and all.
Quote from: beejazz;580059He actually believes a definition for balance can be arrived at through discussion. One that everyone here will agree on, or that will serve all kinds of games.
Several posters have conceded they don't care if their game is balanced. many of them have had the decency not to troll my thread. If people are are posting in this thread, then they are by defintion arguing that some degree of game balance is desirable.
Quote from: beejazz;580059Humor him. It's gonna take a while, and for him to figure it out on his own a bit, but he'll learn otherwise.
Well fuck you too. ^_^
Quote from: beejazz;580059Now, I don't see rules design as a playstyle issue, but even there different games are designed with different goals in mind. For example, if you can assign stats and choose class, you're going to need a different kind of balance than if you can roll well and get a gestalt class. Apples and oranges and all.
Don't say such things here, it makes people call you autistic.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580046We can have this discussion as many times as you want. It wont make your point an less dumb. Apples =/= Oranges.
In the interest of not banging my head against the wall though, Clerics don't need a book to prepare their spells. the Psion is a thing that exists even in old editions, if we're talking about 3e then so do Sorcerers. You must know that your argument is lame. Wizards have a spellbook, it's right in their class description. Nowhere in the fighters class descriptions is it written he gets a magic sword.
So if you take away one of his class features then yes the wizard is not so good. the Psion or Sorcerer though are still better than you, even if they're naked.
Fighters by their very nature rely on physical equipment like swords, shields and armor. Most people are fine with this and dont feel a need for those things to be impended in a warrior's body somehow.
Congratulations you have derailed your own thread.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580062Don't say such things here, it makes people call you autistic.
Eh. They know me here.
Personally I prefer "parity" to "balance." Parity is narrower in scope and easier to apply. For example, keeping things numerically within certain tolerances can improve parity. It would be really really hard to argue otherwise.
Balance is a weird bugaboo modified by the context of actual play, with a discussion so polluted by concepts like "spotlight" that it's hard to get anywhere.
A good example would be turn undead: Potentially useless, potentially really really useful. Always depends on context. You could force a certain frequency of undead encounters, but I prefer one or both of the following:
1) Character build options mean players get to select talents to suit the challenges they face frequently.
2) Non-linear adventures mean players get to select challenges that suit their talents.
For me, 1, 2, parity, and weak niche protection are more than enough to be called balance.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580066Fighters by their very nature rely on physical equipment like swords, shields and armor. Most people are fine with this and dont feel a need for those things to be impended in a warrior's body somehow.
Congratulations you have derailed your own thread.
Needing a sword to use your class features is fine. It's when you need to be decorated like a Christmas tree with magic bling to keep up that it's a problem.
Quote from: beejazz;580068Eh. They know me here.
Personally I prefer "parity" to "balance." Parity is narrower in scope and easier to apply. For example, keeping things numerically within certain tolerances can improve parity. It would be really really hard to argue otherwise.
Balance is a weird bugaboo modified by the context of actual play, with a discussion so polluted by concepts like "spotlight" that it's hard to get anywhere.
A good example would be turn undead: Potentially useless, potentially really really useful. Always depends on context. You could force a certain frequency of undead encounters, but I prefer one or both of the following:
1) Character build options mean players get to select talents to suit the challenges they face frequently.
2) Non-linear adventures mean players get to select challenges that suit their talents.
For me, 1, 2, parity, and weak niche protection are more than enough to be called balance.
INdeed we do.
You understand the term, "Necessary Complication"
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580069Needing a sword to use your class features is fine. It's when you need to be decorated like a Christmas tree with magic bling to keep up that it's a problem.
In my campaigns i dont do things to let the players keep up with each other. The fighter ends up with whatever magic items he can manage to find or track down. Some fighters exceed others because of this, some fall below. Same for other classes though. Magic items are always potential game changers.
At a certain point a fighter without at least +x weapons will be hard pressed to face certain challenges. Dont see this as an issue or as a reaosn to embed their magical effects into the class itself.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580076In my campaigns i dont do things to let the players keep up with each other. The fighter ends up with whatever magic items he can manage to find or track down. Some fighters exceed others because of this, some fall below. Same for other classes though. Magic items are always potential game changers.
At a certain point a fighter without at least +x weapons will be hard pressed to face certain challenges. Dont see this as an issue or as a reaosn to embed their magical effects into the class itself.
Please don't remind me about pre-3.5 DR it's painful.
There is a difference between needing items to keep up with the numbers, needing items to have any hope of lateral advancement, and magic items being nice. For a wizard Winged Boots or a Cape of the Mountebank are like having an extra spell slot, for a fighter those items can be the difference between contributing and being useless.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580098Please don't remind me about pre-3.5 DR it's painful.
There is a difference between needing items to keep up with the numbers, needing items to have any hope of lateral advancement, and magic items being nice. For a wizard Winged Boots or a Cape of the Mountebank are like having an extra spell slot, for a fighter those items can be the difference between contributing and being useless.
As I said, these are all things we have covered before. If you like having the same discussion over and over feel free, but this thread is very quickly losing any interest it may have held for me.
Quote from: Premier;578936To quote Wikipedia, [Citation_needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_needed)]
You need to PROVE what you say. With ARGUMENTS and LOGIC (or citations). Which so far you've never really done in this thread, since all you seem to do is state things assertively without bothering to provide actual arguments to support the veracity of your claims. And that just doesn't fly.
It's a TGD thing. When they're not talking about actual math numbers, they toss off broad statements casually as if they were absolute proven fact. It comes from spending too much time in the echo chamber. They don't realize that these things they say are not facts.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580099As I said, these are all things we have covered before. If you like having the same discussion over and over feel free, but this thread is very quickly losing any interest it may have held for me.
Once again I don't have magic mind powers that make you read or post in this thread. If you have no interest in this discussion than don't read or post in this thread.
Quote from: CRKrueger;580103It's a TGD thing. When they're not talking about actual math numbers, they toss off broad statements casually as if they were absolute proven fact. It comes from spending too much time in the echo chamber. They don't realize that these things they say are not facts.
If you think we're wrong then by all mean step up and join in on the debate.
Wizard vs. Fighter Balance Thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23138)
And now it's time for an open letter to Rum Cove and Marleycat.
Hello, both of you have landed yourselves on LM's ignore list. Why is that? It's because you never seem to post anything worth reading. You two don't add anything to the discussion with your vapid me-tooism and I don't think the grognards appreciate it either. It's this sort of circlejerking that turned StomBringer Sacrosanct and Benoist into the dysfunctional posters they are.
So one more time things LM wants to see in his threads
-debate
things LM doesn't want to see in his threads
-trolling
-me-tooism
-Strom and Kaelik/MGuy's continuing bitchfest from the Bone Devil thread
-passive aggressive bullshit (fortunately gleichman knows well enough to keep out of this thread.)
-Sacrosanct still being butthurt about me calling him names.
In exchange I'll stop bringing up how awful you people are
Deal?
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580114And now it's time for an open letter to Rum Cove and Marleycat.
Hello, both of you have landed yourselves on LM's ignore list. Why is that? It's because you never seem to post anything worth reading. You two don't add anything to the discussion with your vapid me-tooism and I don't think the grognards appreciate it either. It's this sort of circlejerking that turned StomBringer Sacrosanct and Benoist into the dysfunctional posters they are.
So one more time things LM wants to see in his threads
-debate
things LM doesn't want to see in his threads
-trolling
-me-tooism
-Strom and Kaelik/MGuy's continuing bitchfest from the Bone Devil thread
-passive aggressive bullshit (fortunately gleichman knows well enough to keep out of this thread.)
-Sacrosanct still being butthurt about me calling him names.
In exchange I'll stop bringing up how awful you people are
Deal.
One wonders if it is worth the effort, and moreover, if there would be many people left to post with said conditions in place.
Quote from: LordVreeg;580115One wonders if it is worth the effort,
It's not. He's one of the most disingenuous people I've ever seen online, and seeing as how most of my points of reference are TPB and SA, that says a lot.
At this point, I'm wondering just how many more times he'll say some stupid and incorrect statement, have someone point out how and why he's wrong, just to have him completely ignore it and say, "If I'm wrong join the debate instead of being all meany to me."
The levels of his hypocrisy truly are astounding. At this point I am beginning to seriously think that after everyone else decides to ignore him rather than continue to point out his errors, he'll get to the point where he'll claim victory.
"No one has disagreed with me so I'm right!" When it's less "no one disagrees with me" and more "we're all just tired of pointing out the same thing over and over again."
I'm guessing that traffic is pretty light over at TGD, so that's why he's here.
You can post the same argument as many times as you want, it doesn't make the argument any less wrong.
On cue, irony overload.
I do question how old some posters are.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580114are.
So one more time things LM wants to see in his threads
-debate
things LM doesn't want to see in his threads
-trolling
-me-tooism
-Strom and Kaelik/MGuy's continuing bitchfest from the Bone Devil thread
-passive aggressive bullshit (fortunately gleichman knows well enough to keep out of this thread.)
-Sacrosanct still being butthurt about me calling him names.
?
Are you for real?
I learned two things from this thread:
1) Player Empowerment extends to Forum Entitlement.
2) BedrockBrendan has the patience of a Saint.
Does this post count as a "me-tooism"?
Well it's time for another long LM post that everyone will ignore.
Grognards of all people should not be preaching magic items as a way for fighters to get their lateral advancement. The odds of having something off the random treasure charts that you need in an encounter are vanishingly small, smaller than the wizard or cleric having the proper utility spell. You can say it's your personal preference that fighters rely on items but don't say that's game balance. It's not.
If one class relies on magic items more than another class then the balance between those classes will be harder to maintain than if this was not the case. Once again this is A=A people.
If the class A is far weaker than class B at level 1 and far stronger at level 10. then at those points one class is weaker and the other class is stronger and the classes are not balanced. Once again A=A.
If there is a problem with the rules ignoring the rules does not mean that there is not a problem in the rules. It means you're ignoring the rules. A=A
Having hands and the ability to bullshit the DM is not a replacement for class features. If it's part of your play-style that's fine but it can't take the place of having class features, everyone can bullshit the DM and some people have stuff like Illusions than only open more horizons for "player creativity". A=A
A=A is not disputable, now in the future I may declare A+B=C which is a point that can be disputed and debated. Some people probably have no interest in a balanced game, they don't need to be part of the class balance thread. Some people may want to balance the game in a different way and I will disagree with them but I still welcome they're comments.
Actual class balancing coming next post to hopefully move away from edition war nonsense.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580138Actual class balancing coming next post to hopefully move away from edition war nonsense.
It would probably be helpful if you first demonstrate an
imbalance, and then demonstrate that it needs to be corrected.
Lord mistborn. How old are you?
Quote from: StormBringer;580142It would probably be helpful if you first demonstrate an imbalance, and then demonstrate that it needs to be corrected.
Fighter-low relevance out of combat -all editions
Fighter-weak against foes with exotic movement types -all editions
Fighter-excessive dependence on magic items -all editions
Thief- weak in 2e combat/wizard and 10ft poles poach on his terf
Wizard- starts taking over games after a point (5th in 3e 7th-9th in older editions)
Wizard- too versatile, spells can do everything -all editions
Polymorph- do I have to elaborate
Cleric- better at fighting than fighter -3e
Monks- problem class in all editions
Multiclassing- broken- 2e
Also the 2e Summon Monster spell fills me with incoherent rage. (not a balance problem just somthing I noticed when I went through the 2e phb.)
Seriously lord mistborn you should read the entire wizard vs fighter thread someone just linked. These were all discussed in depth. In many instances I think compelling cases were made that each was very much over blown as a concern and often flatly false if you fully understand the 1E and 2E rules. Read the thread. Read AD&D and play it for yourself.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580145Also the 2e Summon Monster spell fills me with incoherent rage. (not a balance problem just somthing I noticed when I went through the 2e phb.)
was it the second paragraph?
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580145Fighter-low relevance out of combat -all editions
...etc
Aside from none of these actually being provably true, that isn't a demonstration to begin with. Listing your mis-conceptions doesn't make an argument.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580148was it the second paragraph?
Nope the first one.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580148was it the second paragraph?
What what the second paragraph, the one he had to have someone read to him? I believe that was probably more like 'all of them'. :)
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580153Nope the first one.
What bothered you about it?
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580145Fighter-low relevance out of combat -all editions
Fighter-weak against foes with exotic movement types -all editions
Fighter-excessive dependence on magic items -all editions
Thief- weak in 2e combat/wizard and 10ft poles poach on his terf
Wizard- starts taking over games after a point (5th in 3e 7th-9th in older editions)
Wizard- too versatile, spells can do everything -all editions
Polymorph- do I have to elaborate
Cleric- better at fighting than fighter -3e
Monks- problem class in all editions
Multiclassing- broken- 2e
Also the 2e Summon Monster spell fills me with incoherent rage. (not a balance problem just somthing I noticed when I went through the 2e phb.)
You've never played AD&D, how would you know?
You don't. This is something that is
repeatedly pointed out to you and you keep trotting out the same incorrect assumptions.
so that begs the question, why? Why do you continue to say stuff like this after it's already been proven false at least a dozen times?
For the same reason MGuy and deadDM are still here. You have failed to convince us with your arguments. It took almost all of that 4000 post monstrosity and a thunderdome for people to stop insisting Wizard vs Fighter wasn't a problem in 3rd but people did backpedal.
I can't criticize older editions directly anyway since the resulting grognard spazout will get the thread locked and me banned. So I've been trying to talk general design as much as I can. However if people keep using 2e/1e as a shield I'm going to have to start critiquing it more directly and I don't want to start that if I don't have too.
Of course no mater what logical arguments I make they're going to be dismissed with ”play the game not the rules” so why should I take any of you seriously when talking about game design.
The point is moot because this isn't suposed to be an edition war thread. This is suposed to be about general game design theroy not tied to any one edition. Can we not do the edition war thing this time.
1) We aren't saying "play the game not the rules" we are saying play the actual game so you can comment on it intelligently.
2) no one gets banned here for insulting earlier editions of D&D. This is demonstrably untrue about therpgsite. I have been here a long time and being contrarian or anti- x edition isn't going to get you banned or get a thread closed. Most forums would have banned you, mcguy, deaddm and kaelik long ago. Notice that hasn't occured here for some reason.
3) Nobody convinced anyone else of their position on the fighter versus wizard thread. However ought to at least characterize the discussion accuratley. Your summary is highly misleading.
4) feel free to criticize 1E or 2E. No one expects you to like editions that dont suit your preferences. Clearly AD&D isnt going to be your cup of tea.
5) if you dont want to make it an edition war thread I suggest you stop relitigating the fighter versus wizard debate, which requires people to talk about features of specific editions.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580170For the same reason MGuy and deadDM are still here. You have failed to convince us with your arguments.
When you've got everyone who
has actually played the game, and has pointed out to passages in the book showing you where you're clearly wrong and you still aren't "convinced"? That says a whole lot about you, not everyone else.
QuoteI can't criticize older editions directly anyway since the resulting grognard spazout will get the thread locked and me banned. So I've been trying to talk general design as much as I can. However if people keep using 2e/1e as a shield I'm going to have to start critiquing it more directly and I don't want to start that if I don't have too.
Who has been banned for that? No one. Stop whining. And people aren't using AD&D as a shield.
You are the one making claims about AD&D that aren't remotely true, so don't be surprised when people keep pointing this out to you.
QuoteOf course no mater what logical arguments I make they're going to be dismissed with "play the game not the rules" so why should I take any of you seriously when talking about game design.
Well, try making a logical argument and see how that goes. Because the arguments you're making aren't logical. They've been disproven a dozen times over and yet you keep making them.
Given how defensive people are about older editions I find it hard to take people at their word when they say they're fine with them being criticized. I'm willing to bet that someone will argue 2E Wizard 20=2E Fighter 20 for 100 pages. Say what you want about the 3e crowd we at least are cognizant about the flaws in out game of choice. Since this line of discussion is going nowhere. I'm going to ask one more time if anyone else has a metric for game balance.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580145Fighter-low relevance out of combat -all editions
Not really true in OD&D, B/X, BECMI, or 1e. (Probably not in 2e either, but I have not played 2e enough to be sure).
QuoteFighter-weak against foes with exotic movement types -all editions
Bows, Crossbows handle a lot of this. And in TSR editions of D&D, fighters could be quite good with them.
QuoteFighter-excessive dependence on magic items -all editions
Not an issue for me or many other people. The ability to use magical weapons and armor that other classes could not was designed into the class,
QuoteThief- weak in 2e combat/wizard and 10ft poles poach on his terf
Thieves aren't supposed to be good in combat. Combat isn't their thing. The 10-foot pole bit has never been an issue in any game I've seen. In some versions of D&D, thieves don't even have a "detect trap" ability for this to step on.
QuoteWizard- starts taking over games after a point (5th in 3e 7th-9th in older editions)
It's more like 14th level and higher in older editions of D&D, and even then it is not nearly as noticeable as in 3e. Especially as the spell lists prior to late 2e were pretty short compared to 3e. Also magic was much more limited, easier saves than 3e, no concentration meant any hit before a spell was cast meant the spell did not work and it disappeared from memory, etc. Also, casters were supposed to be better at high levels BY DESIGN to balance their weakness at low levels.
QuoteWizard- too versatile, spells can do everything -all editions
Not really, the number of spells existing were very limited in core 2e and before. There were relatively few of them and many of the problem spells from 3e either did not exist or were much more limited than in 3e. And it was much harder to get and be able to use the spells you wanted.
QuotePolymorph- do I have to elaborate
Nerfed in early versions of D&D compared to 3e. Polymorph Self did not give one anything more than appearance -- no abilities. Polymorth Other did, but required a System Shock roll or the target died.
QuoteCleric- better at fighting than fighter -3e
Might be true. I haven't played enough 3e to say for sure.
QuoteMonks- problem class in all editions
As I don't run oriental campaigns, I've seldom used them. They did not seem to be much of a problem in 0e or 1e, however. A bit weak on the weak side, in fact.
QuoteMulticlassing- broken- 2e
Perhaps, but not nearly as broken as in 3e, IMHO.
I think a lot of this was covered in the Wizards vs Fighters thread, but here it is again.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580173Given how defensive people are about older editions I find it hard to take people at their word when they say they're fine with them being criticized.
Since few people playing older editions are concerned about the RAW, the criticisms are different. People who play older editions can argue for pages over things like undead level drain. However, the arguments are about whether one likes level drain or not and what to replace it with if you don't like it. Few people claim the game is "broken" and needs to be fixed because undead drain levels (and those who do say things like "game broken" are generally laughed at), instead they say they don't like level drain and replace it with "X" in their campaigns. As they aren't trying to convince others that some rule is "broken" and this means you people who like the rule as it is don't have any reason to get defensive.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580173Given how defensive people are about older editions I find it hard to take people at their word when they say they're fine with them being criticized. I'm willing to bet that someone will argue 2E Wizard 20=2E Fighter 20 for 100 pages. Say what you want about the 3e crowd we at least are cognizant about the flaws in out game of choice. Since this line of discussion is going nowhere. I'm going to ask one more time if anyone else has a metric for game balance.
In other words, no, you have no basis for your assumptions, and refuse to acknowledge anyone who disagrees with you.
Shine on crazy diamond.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580177In other words, no, you have no basis for your assumptions, and refuse to acknowledge anyone who disagrees with you.
Shine on crazy diamond.
In other words you're just going to assert I'm wrong and not engage with any of my argumets, that's cool.
Quote from: RandallS;580174Not really true in OD&D, B/X, BECMI, or 1e. (Probably not in 2e either, but I have not played 2e enough to be sure).
How? no skills/NWPs untill 2e Theif/Cleric/Wizard all have utility stuff the fighter just has a sword and a Str score.
Quote from: RandallS;580174Bows, Crossbows handle a lot of this. And in TSR editions of D&D, fighters could be quite good with them.
Bow's and Crossbows are of limited help agaist things that teleport, walk though walls, are invisible, have DR your +X is to low for, or any number of ways the game can leave you behind.
Quote from: RandallS;580174Not an issue for me or many other people. The ability to use magical weapons and armor that other classes could not was designed into the class,
If the fighter needs his items to compte it opens a fairly large can of worms, the issue of magic items is something still under debate at the Den.
Quote from: RandallS;580174Thieves aren't supposed to be good in combat. Combat isn't their thing. The 10-foot pole bit has never been an issue in any game I've seen. In some versions of D&D, thieves don't even have a "detect trap" ability for this to step on.
The problem with the Theif/Rogue is that alot of his usefulness is steaked on being the trap guy. If you don't need him to deal with traps then why is he in the party. According to the Den by potentially being good in combat also the 3e rogue came closser then any of the other 3e mundanes to being able to party with casters.
Quote from: RandallS;580174It's more like 14th level and higher in older editions of D&D, and even then it is not nearly as noticeable as in 3e. Especially as the spell lists prior to late 2e were pretty short compared to 3e. Also magic was much more limited, easier saves than 3e, no concentration meant any hit before a spell was cast meant the spell did not work and it disappeared from memory, etc. Also, casters were supposed to be better at high levels BY DESIGN to balance their weakness at low levels.
Once again this is not indicative of a balanced system.
Quote from: RandallS;580174Not really, the number of spells existing were very limited in core 2e and before. There were relatively few of them and many of the problem spells from 3e either did not exist or were much more limited than in 3e. And it was much harder to get and be able to use the spells you wanted.
2e spells are often better than their 3e counterparts. 3e casters are stronger because they have more spells and are better at getting them off in combat not because of anything about the spells themselves.
Quote from: RandallS;580174As I don't run oriental campaigns, I've seldom used them. They did not seem to be much of a problem in 0e or 1e, however. A bit weak on the weak side, in fact.
I had heard that their is an edition where monks were op but monks sucking fits with my expectations of D&D. The monk class is problematic because they get a pile of class features designed to allow them to fight without weapons or armor, in 3e it's not enough but I could see them overshooting it in older editions
Quote from: RandallS;580174Perhaps, but not nearly as broken as in 3e, IMHO.
Nope the 3e rule that's most like 2e mulitclassing is called gestalt an optonal rule that is well known for its brokeness.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580173Given how defensive people are about older editions I find it hard to take people at their word when they say they're fine with them being criticized. I'm willing to bet that someone will argue 2E Wizard 20=2E Fighter 20 for 100 pages. Say what you want about the 3e crowd we at least are cognizant about the flaws in out game of choice. Since this line of discussion is going nowhere. I'm going to ask one more time if anyone else has a metric for game balance.
I dont care if you dislike 2E or think it is imbalanced. Now if you try to tell me I ought to agree with your conlcusions I may explain why I dont share your view, but I let Benoist and others attack second edition without getting defensive, it isnt going to bother me if you criticize it.
We have already established that younhave a different sense of what balance should be than most other posters on this forum. I am fine with a 20th level wizard and 20th level fighter being different, particularly when the situation is inverse at level 1.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580104If you think we're wrong then by all mean step up and join in on the debate.
Put forth something to debate that includes on your side actual proof of
anything, otherwise you're just saying the moon is made of green cheese and asking us to go to the moon to prove it's not.
You have absolutely no experience with any version of D&D pre-3e and yet somehow expect any contention you make about TSR editions to be taken at face value. Not.Gonna.Happen.Ever.
Quote from: CRKrueger;580198Put forth something to debate that includes on your side actual proof of anything, otherwise you're just saying the moon is made of green cheese and asking us to go to the moon to prove it's not.
You have absolutely no experience with any version of D&D pre-3e and yet somehow expect any contention you make about TSR editions to be taken at face value. Not.Gonna.Happen.Ever.
I.Own.The.Fucking.Books. If I make a wrong claim then correct me by chapter and page number by all means.
You guys are the ones who are circling the wagons whenever anyone even implies that your favorite edition isn't the bestest edition ever.
If it absolutely has to be done I will go through my 2e core books and Rules Cyclopedia and subject them to the same withering analysis that people have turned on 3e for the past decade and they will do no better.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580181In other words you're just going to assert I'm wrong and not engage with any of my argumets, that's cool.
:jaw-dropping:
People have been showing you how you're wrong for a month now. Are you serious?
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580203I.Own.The.Fucking.Books. .
So. I own Molecular Driving Forces : Statistical Thermodynamics in Chemistry and Biology, 3rd edition. But if I have never actually studied or used chemisty and start making claims about chemistry and a bunch of chemists start telling me how I'm wrong, I would be an idiot to say, "well, you guys haven't convinced me of anything and are just circling the wagons so why should I take any of you serious if you're not going to have a grown up conversation."
I mean, Jesus, how can you not see this? Are you in grade school or something?
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580184How? no skills/NWPs untill 2e Theif/Cleric/Wizard all have utility stuff the fighter just has a sword and a Str score.
And DEX, INT, WIS, CON, and CHR scores. Saving vs attribute scores is common in old school games. Yes, it is not in the RAW, but it's been done since shortly after D&D was published. 1e had secondary skills. Late 1e has NWP, BECMI had weapon mastery and later actual skills. Also, old school play was about challenging the player not the character, so characters could think up just about anything their players could. (Yes, I know you don't want to count that as you don't like GM rulings, but your dislike of it does not change the fact than other people play that way, enjoy doing so, and don't want to be told it's wrong by people who object to it on principle.)
QuoteBow's and Crossbows are of limited help agaist things that teleport, walk though walls, are invisible, have DR your +X is to low for, or any number of ways the game can leave you behind.
Invisibility can be handled with flour, paint, etc. The ability to walk through walks doesn't require any special ability to counter. Teleport is nerfed pre-3e. Etc. Yes, some monsters are going to be hard for some character classes to handle alone. So what? There are monsters that only really affect magic-users too. If you think every classes has to be able to take on every monster in direct combat without requiring any other classes, you are looking for a completely different game than I am.
QuoteIf the fighter needs his items to compte it opens a fairly large can of worms, the issue of magic items is something still under debate at the Den.
Why should I care what the Den thinks/decides? Especially when it seems obvious from reading posts at the Den that what they want from a game is often the opposite of what I want from a game.
QuoteThe problem with the Theif/Rogue is that alot of his usefulness is steaked on being the trap guy. If you don't need him to deal with traps then why is he in the party.
Thieves have many other abilities besides removing traps. Hiding in shadows, move silently, pick pocket, et al can be very useful at getting the treasure from monsters one cannot beat in a fight. Thieves -- at least in most settings I'm familiar with -- also have underworld connections that can be very useful to a party of characters. Combat ability is not the be-all and end-all of the game -- at least not for many of us. Saying that is is or should be isn't going to change out minds.
QuoteAccording to the Den by potentially being good in combat also the 3e rogue came closser then any of the other 3e mundanes to being able to party with casters.
Again, why should I care what the Den concludes. Thieves have been useful to almost every session a thief has been in since I started playing D&D. Just as useful in their own way as casters -- who have never saw the need to memorize spells that duplicate thief abilities either.
QuoteOnce again this is not indicative of a balanced system.
As you define balance, this is probably true. As I define balance, it's fine.
Quote2e spells are often better than their 3e counterparts. 3e casters are stronger because they have more spells and are better at getting them off in combat not because of anything about the spells themselves.
Core 2e spells are generally not as powerful as their 3e versions. There are not nearly as many core 2e spells as there are core 3e spells. Pre-3e, casting them successfully is much harder -- and they are harder to obtain.
QuoteI had heard that their is an edition where monks were op but monks sucking fits with my expectations of D&D. The monk class is problematic because they get a pile of class features designed to allow them to fight without weapons or armor, in 3e it's not enough but I could see them overshooting it in older editions
Monks seem fine in older editions, perhaps even a bit weak.
QuoteNope the 3e rule that's most like 2e mulitclassing is called gestalt an optonal rule that is well known for its brokeness.
For a broken rule, a lot of people seem to use 3.x gestalt classes without any problems (or at least any that they care about).
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580203If it absolutely has to be done I will go through my 2e core books and Rules Cyclopedia and subject them to the same withering analysis that people have turned on 3e for the past decade and they will do no better.
Since you've actually never played any of it, let me know when your analysis from actually having at least read it starts.
Quote from: CRKrueger;580212Since you've actually never played any of it, let me know when your analysis from actually having at least read it starts.
Hey, i've only read a number of Storygames that i criticise.
Quote from: RandallS;580209There are monsters that only really affect magic-users too..
Not to mention, in AD&D monsters had magic resistance. Not the pansy magic resistance you see in 3e, but an outright % chance of ignoring all magic. That % was often pretty high too.
Quote from: One Horse Town;580213Hey, i've only read a number of Storygames that i criticise.
Remeber when you said the people here could have a mature discussion about class balance. I'm begining to think you're wrong.
Sigh, you know what. I'm not going to beat my head into the wall arguing about older editions. If I've learned anything here it's that making grognards concede any points is like pulling teeth. If people really want to continue a decade old edition war they can do it from my ignore list.
So I'll ask this one more time. How the fuck do we balance a class based game anyway. Tomorrow I'll start posting some potential balance solutions, I've procrastinated on finishing this week's AERSiB for far too long.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580216from my ignore list.
So I'll ask this one more time. How the fuck do we balance a class based game anyway. Tomorrow I'll start posting some potential balance solutions, I've procrastinated on finishing this week's AERSiB for far too long.
first we have to define balance
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580219first we have to define balance
Balance is subjective. Thus ultimately useless as a discussion trying to pin it down.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580216I'm not going to beat my head into the wall arguing about older editions.
It certainly would be more painful then actually opening one of the books and reading it.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580216If I've learned anything here it's that making grognards concede any points is like pulling teeth. If people really want to continue a decade old edition war they can do it from my ignore list.
All you left out was the *shrug*.
Quote from: One Horse Town;580220Balance is subjective. Thus ultimately useless as a discussion trying to pin it down.
beejazz managed to define his concept of balance and noted that it was subjective. No arguments there, and it is a good place to begin discussion.
Lord Mistborn has claimed that his own views on balance are objective.
Quote from: Rum Cove;580224Lord Mistborn has claimed that his own views on balance are objective.
That's why the IL is so cool.
Quote from: One Horse Town;580225That's why the IL is so cool.
Ignoring someone is a pathetic tactic in mature debates. All posts need to be addressed so that onlookers and outsiders can understand the truth.
Quote from: LordVreeg;580071INdeed we do.
You understand the term, "Necessary Complication"
Heh, I swear I use the "you're conflating a bunch of things" argument like five times a week, but it happens a lot. There's a reason "realism" got ditched as a design term and got replaced by discussions on abstraction, verisimilitude, immersion, and simulation.
Parity is a real thing. Numerical parity is relatively easy to measure. Niche protection has some weirdness but can be described pretty clearly. Spotlight on the other hand is almost entirely situational, and often isn't a design priority. And the system of seeing problems and answers in spells and the like (don't know if this line of thought has such a good name yet) is pretty Den and charop specific, but I'd place it somewhere between niche protection and spotlight in terms of clarity.
Quote from: Rum Cove;580224beejazz managed to define his concept of balance and noted that it was subjective. No arguments there, and it is a good place to begin discussion.
Lord Mistborn has claimed that his own views on balance are objective.
What I'm seeing here is that in a game where characters are built deliberately, classes may have measurable relative worth. The party is better off with a "fighter and x" than a fighter. Not an issue in a roll-em-up game, but with character building you don't want "necessary" or "trap" items. Additionally, while I mentioned that:
1) You can build characters to face the challenges common in the campaign and
2) You can select encounters / adventures you are equipped to handle,
LM brings up the somewhat valid points that:
1) You can't always opt out of combat and
2) Combat is high stakes (you fail you die)
therefore LM's conception of balance is one where characters have the resources to be good at combat and something else. This is distinct from the 4e goal of limiting the game to combat entirely.
Mind: there are other solutions to LM's issues, and those issues aren't even issues in a roll-em-up game. Like EVER. So if he's presenting either his problems or solutions as objective or universal he's a fool.
EDIT: What I'm not as clear on is how he's classifying things between "nothing" and "best." The whole idea that if you aren't the best at something you "can't contribute" still baffles me a bit. Especially in regards to combat and the like.
Quote from: One Horse Town;580220Balance is subjective. Thus ultimately useless as a discussion trying to pin it down.
I would agree with you. The OP seems to be searching for some kind of ideal balance that is univeraal and it doesnt really exist. But i think it is possible to clarify what a persons means by balance for the purpose of a specific project.
Ugh, Mist, you have GOT to stop responding to everyone otherwise you'll get side tracked. Sacro cannot hand being shown he's wrong even if you quote him, even if you repost what he actually said and tell him how he was wrong one step at a time he will not budge. Storm is so unwilling to change his views that he will argue with you about how a rule works even if you are the one who wrote the rule. Marley openly admits she doesn't know how game design works. Rum argued that the fighter being able to open doors makes him a valuable party member. Brendan believes in a balance where in your character's effectiveness (relative to other classes) depends on what level he's at. I've ignored CRK so long that I don't even remember anything about his position. These are not people who are going to give you an actual discussion about class balance. Hell most of them can't hold up a coherent discussion.
I said ealier but you need to quit getting bogged down with this edition bullshit and stop concentrating on the fighter class. Dead and I have laid down some points for you that have to do with balance. Beej, as far as I can tell, has been very reasonable thus far. You still have to lay down what you believe actual balance is. I gave you my view on it (That classes should be relatively useful as one another and each be able to contribute something of value to every part of the game so whole sections of the game aren't filled with them sitting around with their thumbs up their asses) so do you agree with that or is there another definition for balance you're trying to advertise?
Quote from: MGuy;580246Sacro cannot hand being shown he's wrong even if you quote him, even if you repost what he actually said and tell him how he was wrong one step at a time he will not budge.
Show me where I've been clearly wrong and couldn't handle it. Go ahead, I'll wait. I mean, it should be easy, right, if that's what I do. Although I imagine it's much easier for you just to talk shit without backing anything up. Classic ad hominem. Seems to be modus operandi at this point for you.
Quote from: MGuy;580246Hell most of them can't hold up a coherent discussion.
You said the magic words, you win $100.
We'll take a step back and look at general 'balance' in a minute, but let's look at this one first:
Premise#1: A Magic-User who can use any spell at any time is more powerful than a Fighter.
Premise#2: A Magic-User can use any spell at any time.
Conclusion: A Magic-User is more powerful than a Fighter.
I wrote up a 3e class called the Mega-Über Magic-User; this class can, in fact, use any spell they want at-will. Is this class more powerful than a standard Fighter?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580215Not to mention, in AD&D monsters had magic resistance. Not the pansy magic resistance you see in 3e, but an outright % chance of ignoring all magic. That % was often pretty high too.
Yeah, that Mind Flayer MR was freakin' 90%....completely different monster in AD&D.
Don't forget, MR was modified by 5% per level relative to being name level (11th, for magic-users). An 18th level arch-mage had a great 50% chance of nailing a Flayer with an uber-fireball. On top of that, of course, was the saving throw chart.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578581To give and example, imagine that there is a class called the Lame Guy. He has the worst saves and worst thaco/bab/whatever and no class features but the ability to kill the dreaded fuckoffsaurus instantly at will.
Pretty much every single thing you posted was as irrelevant through its extremism as this.
Your effort to keep this thread "trolling free" failed in your very first post.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;580293Pretty much every single thing you posted was as irrelevant through its extremism as this.
Your effort to keep this thread "trolling free" failed in your very first post.
Gee, did I miss the obvious? I said that at the jump. Fuck this silly bullshit. I will see you guys either after this stupidity or the end of football season. At least there this crap gets called out immediately.
Frikken Cowboys, next up for them is a real team. The Giants are pussies, no way to say it nicer. That performance was horrible.
Quote from: Rum Cove;580228Ignoring someone is a pathetic tactic in mature debates.
Let me know when there is one.
Quote from: MGuy;580246I gave you my view on it (That classes should be relatively useful as one another and each be able to contribute something of value to every part of the game so whole sections of the game aren't filled with them sitting around with their thumbs up their asses) so do you agree with that or is there another definition for balance you're trying to advertise?
MGuy you're a bro.
What you have here is 90% of my idea of balance. To elaborate it's fine if their are parts of the game that some characters are less relevant in, but a choice of class should not completely lock a character out of one part of the game. If the game has any character customization resources they should be built to push people into specing outside their classes field.
So even if say the bard has less combat features baked in to his class he should have the option of specing into a more combat focused build (like in 3e when the bard takes Dragonfire Inspiration and Snowflake Wardance and sings the song of ice and fire). Conversely all classes should have some out of combat utility from their class with the option of getting more from their character options (feats/kits/PrCs).
The important thing here is to think less about protecting niches and more about having a good idea of what a character of X level should be capable of and then applying it to all classes. Also like I've said before parts of the game that odds are one or more characters probably wont be able to interact with should stay short. If only so people don't end up playing Smash Bros while one player is basically on a solo mission.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580307So even if say the bard has less combat features baked in to his class he should have the option of specing into a more combat focused build (like in 3e when the bard takes Dragonfire Inspiration and Snowflake Wardance and sings the song of ice and fire). Conversely all classes should have some out of combat utility from their class with the option of getting more from their character options (feats/kits/PrCs).
I assume you are talking only about D&D 3.x here?
Why this assumption: Prior editions really don't have builds (even 2e kits really aren't builds) nor do they have feats or PrCs. Pre-2e, they really don't even have any options to select from other than a few weapon and non-weapon proficiencies.
If you want that sort of balance it is a valid preference. But personal i need more variety. I think if we imagine three areas of the game with four levels of competence (awesome, great average, suck) and layer on top of that some specific Shine situations and perhaps specific weaknesses, you might have a measure of balance that at least has some texture to it. But i still think quantifying every power and ability is virtually impossible. You will have to eye ball stuff to a degree.
It might look something like this:
Class A: exploration suck, comba average, roleplay great
Class B: exploration average, combat average, role play average
Class C: exploration great, combat average, role play suck
Class D: exploration suck, combat suck, roleplay awesome
Etc...
On top of that you could give each class specific weaknesses and shine:
Class b: shine against undead, weak against lycanthropes
The problem with this sort of approach is you end up building the flavor around the mechanical structure, so balance will dictate the flavor of the game to an enormous extent and I am not sure that is a good thing at all.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580311The problem with this sort of approach is you end up building the flavor around the mechanical structure, so balance will dictate the flavor of the game to an enormous extent and I am not sure that is a good thing at all.
This method tends to produce classes that make little sense in any setting but one designed around them. I want classes designed organically: you look at a profession group in the genre (or setting if you are designing a game around a specific setting) and create a class that has those abilities. You do that for every class you want. Fiddle a bit if needed to get them generally "balanced". This tends to produce classes that aren't balanced enough for the folks who want games designed around balanced characters but that actually work well in play for most people -- and fit the genre. Designing classes mechanics and balance first (and place in the world second) tends to end up with games I cannot stand to play (e.g. 4e).
Quote from: RandallS;580309I assume you are talking only about D&D 3.x here?
Why this assumption: Prior editions really don't have builds (even 2e kits really aren't builds) nor do they have feats or PrCs. Pre-2e, they really don't even have any options to select from other than a few weapon and non-weapon proficiencies.
I'm talking about any game that gives people options. I thinks feats are the simplest way to implement it. 2e has kits, 3e leaned more on PrCs, Pathfinder is more about alternate class features, and I advocate a system where feats matter more.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580311If you want that sort of balance it is a valid preference. But personal i need more variety. I think if we imagine three areas of the game with four levels of competence (awesome, great average, suck) and layer on top of that some specific Shine situations and perhaps specific weaknesses, you might have a measure of balance that at least has some texture to it. But i still think quantifying every power and ability is virtually impossible. You will have to eye ball stuff to a degree.
It might look something like this:
Class A: exploration suck, comba average, roleplay great
Class B: exploration average, combat average, role play average
Class C: exploration great, combat average, role play suck
Class D: exploration suck, combat suck, roleplay awesome
Etc...
On top of that you could give each class specific weaknesses and shine:
Class b: shine against undead, weak against lycanthropes
The problem with this sort of approach is you end up building the flavor around the mechanical structure, so balance will dictate the flavor of the game to an enormous extent and I am not sure that is a good thing at all.
One, how the fuck is a class going to be "good at roleplay".
Two, I'd say that that my idea will work for far more people in far more games if the DM is focusing his game on combat then people who want to play class D can spec into more combat potential. On the other hand if the DM wants to include more social stuff people can spec into having relevant stuff even if their class doesn't give them it.
Quote from: RandallS;580316This method tends to produce classes that make little sense in any setting but one designed around them. I want classes designed organically: you look at a profession group in the genre (or setting if you are designing a game around a specific setting) and create a class that has those abilities. You do that for every class you want. Fiddle a bit if needed to get them generally "balanced". This tends to produce classes that aren't balanced enough for the folks who want games designed around balanced characters but that actually work well in play for most people -- and fit the genre. Designing classes mechanics and balance first (and place in the world second) tends to end up with games I cannot stand to play (e.g. 4e).
I would agree with you.
Not only are games built this way not fun for me to play, i dont find them enjoyable to design either.
But if you are going to obsess with balance i would at least like the balance to have room for being terrible in a portion of the game instead of the always being useful thing. That gives much needed variety.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580318One, how the fuck is a class going to be "good at roleplay".
These are just sample categories based on the ones they are uing for D&D next. Role play here just means social interaction. So if you have skills like diplomacy, this character would be good at those. If yiu have social interacion abilities in the game, this character would likely have those. You might have a mundane ability for exampe that makes it easier for the character to recruit people or establish a network of followers.
QuoteTwo, I'd say that that my idea will work for far more people in far more games if the DM is focusing his game on combat then people who want to play class D can spec into more combat potential. On the other hand if the DM wants to include more social stuff people can spec into having relevant stuff even if their class doesn't give them it.
I think my approach has broader appeal than yours based on discusdions i have followed on the D&D next discussions at en world and elsewhere. Though i do think it is close with about 40 percent wanting something you offer and 60 perent prefering something like i am suggesting. But of course that is just my impression. I for one wiuldnt enjoy a game using your method.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580318One, how the fuck is a class going to be "good at roleplay".
.
Als if you want a mature discussion, make mature posts, rather than this sort of stuff. It really makes it hard to take your calls for "mature debate" seriously.
I also think this demonstrates a key issue with balance. Lordmistborn just assumes his definition has universal appeal, but it soesnt (and neither does mine). If you talk to lots of gamers about balance you see there are many different campsof preferences and it is vey difficult to enforce one approach on a broad appeal game likeD&D. This is why 4E had such a back lash. They took a balance appriach that appealed strongly to one crowd but was distasteful to the others. So while your approach will strongly appeal to players like you and mguy, it will probably be jst as fanbase splitting as 4E. Now you could make a new game intended for peope like you and mguy as the target audience. That is actually probably a good idea. but if you walk around thinking your preferences are universal and more valid than others, you are going to be puzzled. Balance and preferences are very subjective things. All you are doing is creating criteria based on your preferences.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580328I also think this demonstrates a key issue with balance. Lordmistborn just assumes his definition has universal appeal, but it soesnt (and neither does mine). If you talk to lots of gamers about balance you see there are many different campsof preferences and it is vey difficult to enforce one approach on a broad appeal game likeD&D. This is why 4E had such a back lash. They took a balance appriach that appealed strongly to one crowd but was distasteful to the others. So while your approach will strongly appeal to players like you and mguy, it will probably be jst as fanbase splitting as 4E. Now you could make a new game intended for peope like you and mguy as the target audience. That is actually probably a good idea. but if you walk around thinking your preferences are universal and more valid than others, you are going to be puzzled. Balance and preferences are very subjective things. All you are doing is creating criteria based on your preferences.
The reasons people dislike 4e are
-the 4e power system being samey, bland, and incredibly dumb when applied to martial classes
-the removal of 90% of the non-combat games
-making the combat bland and deterministic
-trying to have non-combat via the skill challenge mechanic and failing at it.
-saying they where going to trim down the magic item Christmas tree and then instead making items mandatory to keep up with the math.
Say what you will about 3e it didn't split the fanbase the way 4e did, people did like d20 enough to clone the shit out of it. Barring a small handful of hopeless grognards and 4vengers, The majority of people out there will settle for 3.75 if the design is sound. Which is basically what me and MGuy are trying to do.
Don't hold your breath though. That's never going to come out of Wizards. Heck Pathfinder will probably still out compete whatever Mearls writes for 5e even though it's designers can't into game design 101 just on it's merits as a d20 clone.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580330The reasons people dislike 4e are
-the 4e power system being samey, bland, and incredibly dumb when applied to martial classes
-the removal of 90% of the non-combat games
-making the combat bland and deterministic
-trying to have non-combat via the skill challenge mechanic and failing at it.
-saying they where going to trim down the magic item Christmas tree and then instead making items mandatory to keep up with the math.
Say what you will about 3e it didn't split the fanbase the way 4e did, people did like d20 enough to clone the shit out of it. Barring a small handful of hopeless grognards and 4vengers, The majority of people out there will settle for 3.75 if the design is sound. Which is basically what me and MGuy are trying to do.
Don't hold your breath though. That's never going to come out of Wizards. Heck Pathfinder will probably still out compete whatever Mearls writes for 5e even though it's designers can't into game design 101 just on it's merits as a d20 clone.
3E didnt split tthe base, i agree, it was very popular. But your approach to balance is similarly rigid to the 4E approach in my opinion. I also agree there is an appetite for 3.75, but I dont think your solutiion provides it. I think you are offering somehting that will appeal to a smaller portion of 3E players than you believe. I certainly could be wrong. But like I said, based on what I have heard from people on discussions of balance, not everyone is on board for this approach. I personally think my approach, as much as I think it is misguided in the firstplace, has broader appeal because people want characters that are good at some things, bad at others and they want real variety. If everyone is good at combat, good at exploration, good at intrigue, the game gets boring very quickly.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580332If everyone is good at combat, good at exploration, good at intrigue, the game gets boring very quickly.
This wasn't my point. In say LM's d20 clone classes that are good at one thing have the option of branching out into doing more thing or beefing up what they're good at. The core of it is seeing feats as options that have a degree of separation form class.
If people want to build Fighty McFightsalot or Socialguy McUselesssincombat people will do that. The game just shouldn't railroad people into it.
I think you are being unclear then, because it looks like you are both saying it is okay for characters to suck at things, but they should be at all things as well from your other posts.
If you are fine with including a class that sucks at combat, but there exist options in the game to build that charcter up, i do think there may a larger demand for that sort of balance. But you still seem to be focusing a lot on stuff like combat for my taste. Also if the game requires weeabo, you know my position on that.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580330The reasons people dislike 4e are
-the 4e power system being samey, bland, and incredibly dumb when applied to martial classes
-the removal of 90% of the non-combat games
-making the combat bland and deterministic
-trying to have non-combat via the skill challenge mechanic and failing at it.
-saying they where going to trim down the magic item Christmas tree and then instead making items mandatory to keep up with the math.
You forgot the biggest one: dependance on minis and a battlemap.
QuoteSay what you will about 3e it didn't split the fanbase the way 4e did, people did like d20 enough to clone the shit out of it.
.
Actually, 3e did split the gamer base. However, I suspect you aren't old enough to remember those discussions. The difference, and the reason why Pathfinder took off (a clone of 3e) was the OGL. When 3e came out, there was no OGL for fans of 2e to keep playing new material. That's hugely significant because you pretty much had to move on, whereas when 4e came out, you could play 3e and still get new material.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580339Actually, 3e did split the gamer base. However, I suspect you aren't old enough to remember those discussions. The difference, and the reason why Pathfinder took off (a clone of 3e) was the OGL. When 3e came out, there was no OGL for fans of 2e to keep playing new material. That's hugely significant because you pretty much had to move on, whereas when 4e came out, you could play 3e and still get new material.
Of course some of old Grognards stuck with 2e anyway :)
Quote from: MGuy;580246Rum argued that the fighter being able to open doors makes him a valuable party member.
Let those that have ears hear.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580334I think you are being unclear then, because it looks like you are both saying it is okay for characters to suck at things, but they should be at all things as well from your other posts.
I'm pretty sure it was MGuy that wanted to give everyone "something to do" in each of the broad spheres of gameplay. I think LM just wants everyone to have something in combat and something else. His argument being that no one wants to choose weakness in combat because you can be attacked and dying is unpleasant.
Old school D&D had weaker niche protection than anyone seems to get, though. You had something to do in all spheres because very few spheres were in any way class specific. Of course, there's a difference between having something to do in any given sphere and having something *unique* to do in any given sphere. I've got no strong leaning one way or the other on that front.
Quote from: jibbajibba;580342Of course some of old Grognards stuck with 2e anyway :)
I understand my anecdotal evidence really isn't all that special, but I recall the transition to 3e as such:
AD&D 2e S&P and C&T came out. Some people thought there were some cool things there. Most people were like, "WTF is this shit? Sorry, not including this in my campaign."
WoTC took over shortly after in 1997, and people were, "I wonder what's going to happen to D&D. WoTC has tons of money, so let's see."
3e came out. And there was much bitterness. Gamers were split between the "this is just C&T on roids, so hell no!" and "all these options are pretty cool, and WoTC is promoting the hell out it to bring in new players."
Flame wars ensued. But AD&D players were screwed because without an OGL, their game was permanently shelved and no longer available. In those days, there wasn't even a repository on the internet of AD&D stuff that was available. Pretty much every new player who joined the rpg ranks had 3e as the only D&D option available to them.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580328I also think this demonstrates a key issue with balance. Lordmistborn just assumes his definition has universal appeal, but it soesnt (and neither does mine). If you talk to lots of gamers about balance you see there are many different campsof preferences and it is vey difficult to enforce one approach on a broad appeal game likeD&D.
THIS. Different people want different types of balance. There is no one best type of balance -- even though many people believe the type of balance they like is the best. There is no way to objectively "prove" one type of balance is better than another in general, although one
might (and note that I stress "might") be able to do so for a specific style of play.
Quote from: beejazz;580348I'm pretty sure it was MGuy that wanted to give everyone "something to do" in each of the broad spheres of gameplay. I think LM just wants everyone to have something in combat and something else. His argument being that no one wants to choose weakness in combat because you can be attacked and dying is unpleasant.
.
I seem to have got those a bit mixed. But i still dont have much love for the combat and something else approach. I think having a combat weak character is fine. The combat weak character in a party simply has to watch out when combat arises (like the AD&D thief for example). I personally found that much more interesting to play than the 3E version.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580307MGuy you're a bro.
What you have here is 90% of my idea of balance. To elaborate it's fine if their are parts of the game that some characters are less relevant in, but a choice of class should not completely lock a character out of one part of the game. If the game has any character customization resources they should be built to push people into specing outside their classes field.
So even if say the bard has less combat features baked in to his class he should have the option of specing into a more combat focused build (like in 3e when the bard takes Dragonfire Inspiration and Snowflake Wardance and sings the song of ice and fire). Conversely all classes should have some out of combat utility from their class with the option of getting more from their character options (feats/kits/PrCs).
The important thing here is to think less about protecting niches and more about having a good idea of what a character of X level should be capable of and then applying it to all classes. Also like I've said before parts of the game that odds are one or more characters probably wont be able to interact with should stay short. If only so people don't end up playing Smash Bros while one player is basically on a solo mission.
Now this is what I was looking for. This is a clear idea I can fllow and that can be debated. As long as you avoid letting people drag you into conversations that aren't this thing right here the thread will work out fine.
For the most part, I agree with you. Being extra good at fighting, exploring, info gathering, healing, etc should be options but shouldn't be something you're absolutely held to when you make a character annd shouldn't make you lose most of your ability to help out in other parts of the game in a significant fashion.
What I don't agree with is is not caring about niche protection. Without niche protection you might as well not have class system. Some kind of niche needs to be protected and that should be important to class design. I think the best/easiest niche to protect is theme. There should be clear and readily apparent differences between how I can approach obstacles as a ranger that are obviously different from how I approach them as a druid. If I put "Sorcerer" on my character sheet I should have abilities that set me significantly apart from having "wizard" on my character sheet.
Also, worrying about what "everyone" should be able to do isn't the way to go. I don't think that the solution to the problem "a lot of things fly after level X" is to give everyone auto flight at level X. I think a better solution is to make sure that flight (while useful) isn't the end all be all be all ability. There should be clear ways to counter flight for everyone and everyone should have options that are relatively as useful as flight. Short Range Teleportation, jumping really high, moving really fast on the ground, etc can all have about as much utility as being able to fly. If flight is otherwise such a boss ability that everyone has to fly at a certain point then flying is no longer an option but a requirement and if it becomes that then it makes being able to fly less special.
Quote from: Rum CoveWhen confronted (out of combat) with a door - who is opening it?
Quote from: meI'm going to let you flush out the scenario a bit. Because the way it reads now I'd have to say "anyone with hands to turn a nob, or anybody who can push/pull it.
Quote from: Rum CoveThe answer is the Fighter.
Quote from: meI know I've been downing the fighter a lot in this thread but I'm going to at least put the class's usefulness above that of "official door opener". I can mage hand a door open.
Just gonna leave this here.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580356I seem to have got those a bit mixed. But i still dont have much love for the combat and something else approach. I think having a combat weak character is fine. The combat weak character in a party simply has to watch out when combat arises (like the AD&D thief for example). I personally found that much more interesting to play than the 3E version.
You realize you can make someone in 3e that can't do combat right? The rogue starts off with 6 hp (default) and the wizard/sorcerer starts off with 4 HP. I'm not sure what exactly you did in your 3e game but nothing is stopping you from being too frgaile to do combat and nothing is stopping you from making a character that can't do shit in combat.
Quote from: MGuy;580359Just gonna leave this here.
You should, because it's an excellent illustration as to your lack of knowledge with AD&D and the ruleset, and sums up the past month pretty well. I.e., you and Lord Mistborn making assumptions and claims about all editions, and not having the first clue as to what you're talking about.
Quote from: MGuy;580361You realize you can make someone in 3e that can't do combat right? The rogue starts off with 6 hp (default) and the wizard/sorcerer starts off with 4 HP. I'm not sure what exactly you did in your 3e game but nothing is stopping you from being too frgaile to do combat and nothing is stopping you from making a character that can't do shit in combat.
Yes. My issue with 3E rogue is many fold. But being able to make a character bad at combat and always having that class be bad in combat are not the same thing.
Quote from: StormBringer;580262You said the magic words, you win $100.
We'll take a step back and look at general 'balance' in a minute, but let's look at this one first:
Premise#1: A Magic-User who can use any spell at any time is more powerful than a Fighter.
Premise#2: A Magic-User can use any spell at any time.
Conclusion: A Magic-User is more powerful than a Fighter.
I wrote up a 3e class called the Mega-Über Magic-User; this class can, in fact, use any spell they want at-will. Is this class more powerful than a standard Fighter?
Quote from: MGuy;580358Now this is what I was looking for. This is a clear idea I can fllow and that can be debated. As long as you avoid letting people drag you into conversations that aren't this thing right here the thread will work out fine.
Now, how did I know you would be ignoring my post? I must be psychic. I would imagine you are going to continue ignoring it, because it isn't the exact discussion with the exact parameters you want to have.
The next time you complain about 'logic' or whine about not getting a 'cohesive discussion', remember to shut the fuck up. Because you don't actually want either of those things.
Quote from: StormBringer;580392Now, how did I know you would be ignoring my post? I must be psychic. I would imagine you are going to continue ignoring it, because it isn't the exact discussion with the exact parameters you want to have.
The next time you complain about 'logic' or whine about not getting a 'cohesive discussion', remember to shut the fuck up. Because you don't actually want either of those things.
Storm I specifically asked you not to continue your bitchfest with MGuy in this thread.
Quote from: StormBringer;580392Now, how did I know you would be ignoring my post? I must be psychic. I would imagine you are going to continue ignoring it, because it isn't the exact discussion with the exact parameters you want to have.
The next time you complain about 'logic' or whine about not getting a 'cohesive discussion', remember to shut the fuck up. Because you don't actually want either of those things.
You're being ignored because you're using false premises.
I don't care about your home-brew. I've never played in a game where a magic-user can use any spell at any given time.
The magic-user doesn't need access to any particular spell at any given time to have more options than a similar level fighter. He does need access to some 'reasonable' assortment of spells. Reasonable may vary between groups (based on randomly found treasure), but every wizard I've seen in play has a 'reasonable' assortment as far as I'm concerned - if played intelligently, they can obviate the need for a Fighter in the party. Most don't seem to play to their abilities because that's not very polite.
But in any case, if you have something you want to discuss, maybe you should bring it up. There's plenty of room for logic in this discussion, but you're not bringing it.
Quote from: StormBringer;580392Now, how did I know you would be ignoring my post? I must be psychic. I would imagine you are going to continue ignoring it, because it isn't the exact discussion with the exact parameters you want to have.
It's not entirely on topic for the thread. Right now they're trying to pin down what balance means (I think most agree at this point that balance is contextual, but it remains useful to balance particular games for particular goals). Rehashing FvW isn't really the point so much as something this thread keeps getting dragged into.
Now, resource management as it applies to niches and such does bring up a thorny problem: Classes that can respec the way a wizard does whenever he prepares spells. They're an entirely different beast than classes that don't.
To simplify: hypothetical class can be as good as a rogue and as good as a fighter, but not on the same day. Balanced?
I'm fairly sure I've stated several times that I was ignoring storm. I didn't know that there was any doubt that I was skipping over every one of his posts after it became clear that he doesn't know how to actual debate an issue. Well I will reaffirm the fact that I am ignoring certain people. You don't have to be psychic to guess that I'm going to ignore you when I say "I'm going to ignore you".
Quote from: beejazz;580401It's not entirely on topic for the thread. Right now they're trying to pin down what balance means (I think most agree at this point that balance is contextual, but it remains useful to balance particular games for particular goals). Rehashing FvW isn't really the point so much as something this thread keeps getting dragged into.
Now, resource management as it applies to niches and such does bring up a thorny problem: Classes that can respec the way a wizard does whenever he prepares spells. They're an entirely different beast than classes that don't.
To simplify: hypothetical class can be as good as a rogue and as good as a fighter, but not on the same day. Balanced?
I think there is a fudamental divide on the power of resource management to balance. I think if a class can be as good as a rogue or fighter but only once or twice a day through use of specific spells, it isnt a big problem. I think you can also give one class smething that outshines others so long as its weighted with anegative (long casting time, inherent danger of use etc). These can all make the game more balanced imo.
Quote from: MGuy;580358Also, worrying about what "everyone" should be able to do isn't the way to go. I don't think that the solution to the problem "a lot of things fly after level X" is to give everyone auto flight at level X. I think a better solution is to make sure that flight (while useful) isn't the end all be all be all ability. There should be clear ways to counter flight for everyone and everyone should have options that are relatively as useful as flight. Short Range Teleportation, jumping really high, moving really fast on the ground, etc can all have about as much utility as being able to fly. If flight is otherwise such a boss ability that everyone has to fly at a certain point then flying is no longer an option but a requirement and if it becomes that then it makes being able to fly less special.
The thing is that many of the iconic fantasy monsters can fly. The reason it's a big deal for mythic heros to slay a dragon is that it's a giant flying firebreathing lizard that's not supposed to be a fair fight for some shumck with a fancy sword. The problem is that a leveling system posits that
this will be fair fight to a badass enough fighter. You can't say "I want to be able to slay a multi-ton armor plated deathlizard that is capable of terrorizing an entire nation with a sword and bow while still being totally within the bounds of a normal human being" it just doesn't work.
After over 9000 posts and several new threads how should the hero with a sword be able to fight the dragon burninating the countryside and/or peasants. Should he be able to ride out on his horse and challenge it one on one or should he regardless of level have to get blinged up with magic items until he glows or have to sneak into it's lair like a coward an cut it's throat while it's sleeping.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580408The thing is that many of the iconic fantasy monsters can fly. The reason it's a big deal for mythic heros to slay a dragon is that it's a giant flying firebreathing lizard that's not supposed to be a fair fight for some shumck with a fancy sword. The problem is that a leveling system posits that this will be fair fight to a badass enough fighter. You can't say "I want to be able to slay a multi-ton armor plated deathlizard that is capable of terrorizing an entire nation with a sword and bow while still being totally within the bounds of a normal human being" it just doesn't work.
After over 9000 posts and several new threads how should the hero with a sword be able to fight the dragon burninating the countryside and/or peasants. Should he be able to ride out on his horse and challenge it one on one or should he regardless of level have to get blinged up with magic items until he glows or have to sneak into it's lair like a coward an cut it's throat while it's sleeping.
A fighter who cant fly taking on a dragon that can is iconic. Without fly characters have to do stuff like lure the animal into a trap, set up waves of arrows or even catapults to drop it, wrangle it with ropes to hinder its flying etc. I a not seeing why the existence of flying dragons means fighters must also be able to do stuff like fly.
I think you just want weeabo and you are trying to prove others should as well. I have played countless rpgs with flying dragons and non flying fighters and it has never once been a problem for me or anyone at the table. So i see no reason to adopt your preference as a universal rule her.
If this is an issue, as mguy points out, make sure there are ways to disrupt flight in the game.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580411A fighter who cant fly taking on a dragon that can is iconic.
Beowulf [2007] (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0442933/)
With thanks to acaeum.com:
Cover to D&D Basic Set (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/basic12th.html)
Cover to D&D Expert Set (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/expert4th.html)
Cover to D&D Companion Set (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/companion.html)
Cover to D&D Master Set (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/master.html)
If this isn't a continuation of the Wizard vs Fighter thread, then what else needs to be balanced? Wizard vs Cleric?
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580408....or have to sneak into it's lair like a coward an cut it's throat while it's sleeping.
That's cowardly??? It sounds more like the stuff or legend to me.
Lone warrior sneaks into the lair of the great dragon that had been terrorizing villages and decimating units of the King's Army and single-handedly kills it in its sleep. In its death throws, the dragon brought down the roof of it lair and the warrior barely escaped with his life -- and a small fortune in jewelry he managed to snag as he out ran the cave's collapse.
Quote from: RandallS;580422That's cowardly??? It sounds more like the stuff or legend to me.
One should distract it with a Silent Image, while hiding Invisibly, watching summoned monsters kill it while it sleeps.
Up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, A, B and start!
Quote from: Rum Cove;580421With thanks to acaeum.com:
Cover to D&D Basic Set (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/basic12th.html)
Cover to D&D Expert Set (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/expert4th.html)
Cover to D&D Companion Set (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/companion.html)
Cover to D&D Master Set (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/master.html)
If this isn't a continuation of the Wizard vs Fighter thread, then what else needs to be balanced? Wizard vs Cleric?
Don't forget Moldvay's basic as well
(http://scottpaeth.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/24/basicdnd.jpg)
But man, you mean fighters who can't fly are worthless against dragons? If only there were examples in wide-spread literature to pull from.....
Who knew that Bard (the Hobbit) could fly? Or St. George?
Quote from: beejazz;580401It's not entirely on topic for the thread. Right now they're trying to pin down what balance means (I think most agree at this point that balance is contextual, but it remains useful to balance particular games for particular goals). Rehashing FvW isn't really the point so much as something this thread keeps getting dragged into.
Now, resource management as it applies to niches and such does bring up a thorny problem: Classes that can respec the way a wizard does whenever he prepares spells. They're an entirely different beast than classes that don't.
To simplify: hypothetical class can be as good as a rogue and as good as a fighter, but not on the same day. Balanced?
Oh, sure, but starting with a specific claim made about a specific 'balance' issue (Class1 is better than Class2) seems a good place to start. I guess we can circle back to it instead.
How about:
Premise #1: Spells are the most powerful element in D&D
Premise #2: Classes that can use spells are more powerful than classes that cannot.
Premise #3: Magic Users, Clerics, et al, can use spells
Premise #4: Fighters, Thieves, et al, cannot use spells.
Conclusion: Magic Users, Clerics, et al are more powerful than Fighters, Thieves, et al.
They aren't going to define 'balance', they aren't going to engage in any discussion they don't have absolute control over, and they will continue to whine about those two things almost endlessly. It doesn't really matter if I start with a specific issue and move outwards, or if I start with the general position and move inwards. As soon as someone actually presents a 'cohesive discussion' or offers a purely 'logical' path, we are treated to more whining about how we are supposed to prove them wrong and repeat after repeat of statements that have already been proven wrong as absolute fact.
FvW isn't a unlucky happenstance from this line of discussion.
It's the only thing they really want to argue. The entirety of their balance discussion is based on Wizards being far superior to Fighters, and just about everyone else.
I understand no wants to re-hash FvW, but that is the very nucleus of their arguments. Balance for them begins and ends with the relative power of Wizards and Fighters. And now that I have offered them their 'logical' discussion to prove how awesome they are at logic, and how unquestionably correct their assertions are. What happens? They go scuttling off into the dark corners again.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580407I think there is a fudamental divide on the power of resource management to balance. I think if a class can be as good as a rogue or fighter but only once or twice a day through use of specific spells, it isnt a big problem. I think you can also give one class smething that outshines others so long as its weighted with anegative (long casting time, inherent danger of use etc). These can all make the game more balanced imo.
I left out time-based resource management because I didn't want to get into a discussion on the various loopholes, how the adventure must be paced around it, or how parties can or can't control the pace.
But to answer my own question there's no good solution. If the class can be as good as one of two classes, but only on different days there's no reason to choose one of the two classes over the respeccing class. If the class is never as good in his own field as a specialist that might not be satisfying either.
Quote from: StormBringer;580431Oh, sure, but starting with a specific claim made about a specific 'balance' issue (Class1 is better than Class2) seems a good place to start. I guess we can circle back to it instead.
How about:
Premise #1: Spells are the most powerful element in D&D
Premise #2: Classes that can use spells are more powerful than classes that cannot.
Premise #3: Magic Users, Clerics, et al, can use spells
Premise #4: Fighters, Thieves, et al, cannot use spells.
Conclusion: Magic Users, Clerics, et al are more powerful than Fighters, Thieves, et al.
Since we're talking generally, #1 depends on edition, spell level, party level and a bunch of other things. Never mind that this isn't just about D&D.
Premise #2 doesn't necessarily follow from premise #1, and again isn't necessarily true depending on the method of resource management.
Even premise #4 is somewhat circumstantial (a class-based game can have dabbling).
And without premise #2 in working order the conclusion is shot.
QuoteFvW isn't a unlucky happenstance from this line of discussion. It's the only thing they really want to argue. The entirety of their balance discussion is based on Wizards being far superior to Fighters, and just about everyone else.
I try to avoid attributing motive or jumping in with "what people
really want to talk about" when I can avoid it.
Thread's been dragged back down by people on both "sides." Probably just because it's on peoples' minds and the other thread got locked. Not remotely surprising nor a conspiracy on anybody's part probably. It is, however, mildly annoying.
QuoteI understand no wants to re-hash FvW, but that is the very nucleus of their arguments. Balance for them begins and ends with the relative power of Wizards and Fighters. And now that I have offered them their 'logical' discussion to prove how awesome they are at logic, and how unquestionably correct their assertions are. What happens? They go scuttling off into the dark corners again.
Um... or they could be compulsive homebrewers interested in discussing balance for their own nefarious purposes of tinkering on their homebrews.
Relative power arguments are common regardless of the class pair (in circles that commonly have these arguments). Clerics bloat more with splats than wizards (since they have access to their entire spell list) and the monk is even more bitched about online than the fighter.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580411A fighter who cant fly taking on a dragon that can is iconic. Without fly characters have to do stuff like lure the animal into a trap, set up waves of arrows or even catapults to drop it, wrangle it with ropes to hinder its flying etc. I a not seeing why the existence of flying dragons means fighters must also be able to do stuff like fly.
I think you just want weeabo and you are trying to prove others should as well. I have played countless rpgs with flying dragons and non flying fighters and it has never once been a problem for me or anyone at the table. So i see no reason to adopt your preference as a universal rule her.
If this is an issue, as mguy points out, make sure there are ways to disrupt flight in the game.
The reason the fighter class (and to a lesser extent the rogue) fails to keep up in so many games is that any suggestion that if a fighter of Xth level is capable of anything that is impossible for a normal human the model train enthusiasts come out and scream their denial.
So I want everyone to think long and hard on this one. If you keep asking the designers "I want to kill a city bus sized armored firebreathing death-lizard with my sword while still being totally within the realistic capabilities of an ordinary human" your never going to get that, ever.
Listen I have no interest in a game where some classes are capable of whatever because they have the (Su) tag while others can't have anything that the model train enthusiasts wont swallow.
For someone who keeps whining about not wanting trolling, you sure say a lot of vitriolic hyperbole meant for no other reason than to rile people up.
Newsflash: it doesn't make you sound any more grown up kid.
This one is spinning bigger donuts than all the other failed attempts.
Label the thread "3.x/PF/d20" or shut'er down!
Quote from: beejazz;580436I left out time-based resource management because I didn't want to get into a discussion on the various loopholes, how the adventure must be paced around it, or how parties can or can't control the pace.
But to answer my own question there's no good solution. If the class can be as good as one of two classes, but only on different days there's no reason to choose one of the two classes over the respeccing class. If the class is never as good in his own field as a specialist that might not be satisfying either.
.
Not sure what you mean exactly by respeccing class but judging by ocntext here I dont see why this forces the conclusion there is no reason to choose the other two classes. Just because class a can mimix their abilities on a limited basis, that doesn't mean it preferable. There is a substantial difference between having an ability to use all day versus having that same ability with limited uses per day.
However we are also talking very abstractly so a little hard to know what you have specifically in mind here.
Mind you, i am not saying you have to agree with me that this produces more enjyable or balanced play. But I think balancing a game in this way is entirely valid.
Quote from: StormBringer;580431Oh, sure, but starting with a specific claim made about a specific 'balance' issue (Class1 is better than Class2) seems a good place to start. I guess we can circle back to it instead.
Yes. We can talk about what balance is desireable before we discuss how different classes are balanced. Because even if we agree the classes 'aren't balanced', unless we know what balance is desireable, we can't really move toward solutions.
Quote from: StormBringer;580431How about:
If I remember correctly, you've said that denners have some kind of hard-on for logic. Or maybe they wank to it. Something to that effect. If that's the case, why do you keep pretending to want to use logic?
But if you do, it'd be best to avoid starting with false premises.
Quote from: StormBringer;580431Premise #1: Spells are the most powerful element in D&D
There are a number of factors that contribute to 'power'. If spells were the 'most powerful element', then a gnome would be more powerful than a dwarf, because gnomes get
speak with animals for free, and dwarves don't have any spells. Spells are
among the most powerful
resouces in D&D - largely because they are flexible, scalable, and renewable. This premise is
falseQuote from: StormBringer;580431Premise #2: Classes that can use spells are more powerful than classes that cannot.
This isn't necessarily true. First off, some classes can use more spells more often and/or more reliably than others. A bard isn't necessarily 'more powerful' than a Fighter because he has access to spells. In 3.x, people talk about the Beguiler and in Pathfinder the Summoner as a good class - while they are
less powerful than a straight wizard or cleric, they are fun because they're built on a theme. A standard wizard might have a spell that kills people instantly
finger of death, lots of mobility spells (
teleport, dimension door, fly, etc). Spells are a resource. Access to a resource is a net gain in power. The quality of the resource determines which is more powerful. Thus, someone could argue that 'fighters are more powerful' because they have 'better access' to feats. Feats are a resource, like spells, and having more of, and better access to, increases character power.
In the case of D&D 3.x, spells scale more quickly than feats, so in the long run, it is a more 'powerful' resource, assuming sensible selection of spells.
Quote from: StormBringer;580431Premise #3: Magic Users, Clerics, et al, can use spells
This is mostly true, but isn't necessarily true. A Wizard in Full Plate can't use spells. A Wizard with an Intelligence of 10 can't use spells. A wizard that is affected by a feeblemind spell, therefore, doesn't have access to his spells. But
in general, this statement is
largely true. Not enough to stand up to a strict logical evaluation, but this one I'll generally grant you.
Quote from: StormBringer;580431Premise #4: Fighters, Thieves, et al, cannot use spells.
Again, not strictly true. Use Magic Device is a skill. With enough ranks in the skill, a Fighter or Rogue could cast spells. Drinking a potion is 'using a spell'. Let's say that Fighters are Rogues have limited access to spells, and
generally, the access that they DO have is not as flexible, scalable, or powerful as that available to equal level 'spell casters'.
Quote from: StormBringer;580431Conclusion: Magic Users, Clerics, et al are more powerful than Fighters, Thieves, et al.
While this totally doesn't follow from your premises, yes, generally speaking clerics and wizards are more powerful than fighters or rogues. More specifically, it is true
at high levels when spellcasters have
better access to spells making them more
flexible, allowing their powers to
scale to a level-appropriate effect, and they get the
most powerful abilities in the game. How many 'sword strokes' is
finger of death equivalent to?
In any case, if you value logic SO MUCH, you should be willing to explain your point, and then use logic in support of it. As is, it looks like you're trying to build an easily torn apart straw man. If I agree with your premises, you'll point out that they're false like I just did. I don't agree with your premises, so if you want to attack
my argument, you can do that without turning to 'illogic'.
Quote from: StormBringer;580431They aren't going to define 'balance', they aren't going to engage in any discussion they don't have absolute control over, and they will continue to whine about those two things almost endlessly.
People have defined balance several times in this thread, including Mguy and LordMistborn. What I think is that you'll never admit that people have done what you asked. Nobody in the 'they' that you mention has any control over the discussion, and they are 'engaged'. Further, they're 'asserting', not 'whining'. I've heard several claims that those 'assertions' have been 'refuted', but despite having read every post in this thread and the Fighter v Wizard balance bullshit thread, I haven't seen that happen.
Quote from: StormBringer;580431I understand no wants to re-hash FvW, but that is the very nucleus of their arguments. Balance for them begins and ends with the relative power of Wizards and Fighters. And now that I have offered them their 'logical' discussion to prove how awesome they are at logic, and how unquestionably correct their assertions are. What happens? They go scuttling off into the dark corners again.
Relative balance of Fighters and Wizards is
illustrative of concerns I have with balance. I want balance, and that's a very easy way to explain why high level games aren't balanced. Considering how many people have been willing to INSIST that high level Fighters pull their weight in 3.x (even though it is apparently a game they know little about), it's lucky that we're using the most obvious example, because the less stark cases (while still illustrative) are a little harder to see. You want to talk about why the Paladin isn't as powerful as a Cleric? Do you want to discuss Multi-Attribute Dependency versus Single-Attribute Dependency? Because we could.
But I'm not interested in 'your logic', which isn't logical. Nor am I scuttling off to a dark corner. I'll continue to discuss the positions in good faith (depsite accusations to the contrary) because I believe that most of our positions are not as far apart as you might like to pretend.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580442For someone who keeps whining about not wanting trolling, you sure say a lot of vitriolic hyperbole meant for no other reason than to rile people up.
Newsflash: it doesn't make you sound any more grown up kid.
I'm just asking the grognards stop hedging.
Either the mundane classes are not limited by "what's realistically within human capability" which if this is the case all the anti-weeaboo arguments are just kvetching about personal taste or they are intended to be so limited and that means the game has to be radically redesigned.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580449I'm just asking the grognards stop hedging.
No you're not. You're insisting on using inflammatory hyperbole while in the same breath trying to call for "rational" discussion?
And you wonder why no one but your echo chamber brother takes you seriously.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580452No you're not. You're insisting on using inflammatory hyperbole while in the same breath trying to call for "rational" discussion?
And you wonder why no one but your echo chamber brother takes you seriously.
I have to agree with sacrosanct. Like I said it is hard to take your calls for robust and serious debate seriously when every other thing you say is an insult about grognards. I also have to say when people try to declare themselves "winners of debate and masters of logic" it gives the impression that they are neither (a bit like bragging how studly one is). If your arguments ae strong it should be obvious without the bravado.
Having an answer to flight =/= having flight.
Ranged attacks allow non-flyers to contribute to combats with flight. As long as these dragons don't have range greater than arrows they can be killed by characters of mundane capability (so long as they have sufficient combat stats). This is more of a monster design thing than a class design thing anyway, though if you expect PvP or PC-built-NPCs, limiting the range on flying class capabilities would work well.
"Everyone needs flight past level x" is just kind of stupid and narrows the band of classes the game can handle pretty severely.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580446Not sure what you mean exactly by respeccing class but judging by ocntext here I dont see why this forces the conclusion there is no reason to choose the other two classes. Just because class a can mimix their abilities on a limited basis, that doesn't mean it preferable. There is a substantial difference between having an ability to use all day versus having that same ability with limited uses per day.
However we are also talking very abstractly so a little hard to know what you have specifically in mind here.
Mind you, i am not saying you have to agree with me that this produces more enjyable or balanced play. But I think balancing a game in this way is entirely valid.
I'm not talking in spells per day limits. That has it's own argument around it. Specifically I don't want to go down the "five minute workday" line of discussion, both because it's been done to death and because I'm interested in something else.
I'm constructing a situation where Teusday you can be a rogue all day and Wednesday you can be a fighter all day. Why would you choose to be a rogue or a fighter if you could take this hypothetical class and have the option of being either?
Conversely, if you can be a slightly sub-par rogue all day Wednesday and a slightly sub-par fighter all day Thursday, there is a use for this class (plugging holes in a small party) but there remains the risk that this player is a bit miffed by constantly being sub-par.
The point is to talk about casters' ability to re-specialize on a day by day basis without taking into account the resource management. I'm not trying to make a point about the game the way it is so much as trying to disentangle that aspect from resource management and see what it looks like afterwards.
Quote from: beejazz;580460I'm not talking in spells per day limits. That has it's own argument around it. Specifically I don't want to go down the "five minute workday" line of discussion, both because it's been done to death and because I'm interested in something else.
I'm constructing a situation where Teusday you can be a rogue all day and Wednesday you can be a fighter all day. Why would you choose to be a rogue or a fighter if you could take this hypothetical class and have the option of being either?
So you can be a fighter (or a thief) on both tuesday and wednesday.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580449I'm just asking the grognards stop hedging.
Either the mundane classes are not limited by "what's realistically within human capability" which if this is the case all the anti-weeaboo arguments are just kvetching about personal taste or they are intended to be so limited and that means the game has to be radically redesigned.
::Snort::
So what you want us to do is to either agree that fighters can have supernatural abilities or if we don't want that agree that the entire game has to be radically redesigned? Just to choose which way we surrender?
My answer? NUTS. Translation: Neither, as some editions of the game work just fine for a large percentage of their players with at most a bit of tweaking, no supernatural fighter abilities and no radical redesign needed. If you want to design a variant version with supernatural abilities for fighters or radically redesigned to meet your personal desires for balance, go for it, but don't it to replace the standard editions of D&D for the majority of D&D fans.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580463So you can be a fighter (or a thief) on both tuesday and wednesday.
Point is you get to choose any given day which you are, while the other two don't get to re-choose their skill set.
It's a hypothetical to get the conversation about respeccing going without bringing time-based resource management into it.
Sorry if I'm not being clear.
Quote from: beejazz;580466Point is you get to choose any given day which you are, while the other two don't get to re-choose their skill set.
It's a hypothetical to get the conversation about respeccing going without bringing time-based resource management into it.
Sorry if I'm not being clear.
I get it. Under the hypothetical you can only be a fighter one of those days right? So then a fighter is still valuable because many people will want to be a fighter both those days. If you are proposing a class that can mimic the abilities of all other classes but they are only able to do so once per week (so seven classes a week or something), that is interesting but also a serious limitation. So on tuesday they can do what the thief can do, but not the other days of the week. Since you are going to want a thief every day of the week, the thief is still important.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580468I get it. Under the hypothetical you can only be a fighter one of those days right? So then a fighter is still valuable because many people will want to be a fighter both those days. If you are proposing a class that can mimic the abilities of all other classes but they are only able to do so once per week (so seven classes a week or something), that is interesting but also a serious limitation. So on tuesday they can do what the thief can do, but not the other days of the week. Since you are going to want a thief every day of the week, the thief is still important.
I shouldn't have given specific days of the week.
The hypothetical is that you can choose your class every morning, while other classes can not. You could choose to fill the rogue's niche every day. You could choose to fill the fighter's niche every day. I wouldn't say that there was no point to rogue and fighter in this hypothetical if you couldn't be one or the other every day, because as you point out that is really obviously wrong.
So if a class can respec every morning (before we get into resource management) it should be less good than a dedicated expert in any given field it can respec into. Or at least you can see an argument for this mindset. Right?
Quote from: beejazz;580472I shouldn't have given specific days of the week.
The hypothetical is that you can choose your class every morning, while other classes can not. You could choose to fill the rogue's niche every day. You could choose to fill the fighter's niche every day. I wouldn't say that there was no point to rogue and fighter in this hypothetical if you couldn't be one or the other every day, because as you point out that is really obviously wrong.
So if a class can respec every morning (before we get into resource management) it should be less good than a dedicated expert in any given field it can respec into. Or at least you can see an argument for this mindset. Right?
I would have to see it in action. But i still dont think it would be a problem. Once you pick a class you are stuck with it that day. It is no different than having another rogue or another fighter in the party that day. I think given the classes flexibility you would want to build in a downside (but it doesnt neccesarily have to be less effective at the class abilities). But to decide what the downside ought to be I will really need to playtest the class in some actual adventures and campaigns.
Quote from: RandallS;580465::Snort::
So what you want us to do is to either agree that fighters can have supernatural abilities or if we don't want that agree that the entire game has to be radically redesigned? Just to choose which way we surrender?
My answer? NUTS. Translation: Neither, as some editions of the game work just fine for a large percentage of their players with at most a bit of tweaking, no supernatural fighter abilities and no radical redesign needed. If you want to design a variant version with supernatural abilities for fighters or radically redesigned to meet your personal desires for balance, go for it, but don't it to replace the standard editions of D&D for the majority of D&D fans.
Let me give an example. Like I've said before If a 10th level fighter can beat an insect the size of a short buss to death with his bear hands then he's clearly outside the bounds of what a normal human can do. This isn't the fighter steeping out of his conceptual space it's just a natural result of him accumulating levels. I never said fighters needed anything (Su) but at least let them have (Ex) abilities. The fighter being able to jump good or wall run isn't any more (Su) than being able to kill a flying armored lizard the size of an SUV with a longbow or hack to death a 12ft tall 5'000 pound iron statue animated by magic with your sword. If your playing D&D at high level characters are already doing the impossible just via damage and hp abstraction.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580477I would have to see it in action. But i still dont think it would be a problem. Once you pick a class you are stuck with it that day. It is no different than having another rogue or another fighter in the party that day. I think given the classes flexibility you would want to build in a downside (but it doesnt neccesarily have to be less effective at the class abilities). But to decide what the downside ought to be I will really need to playtest the class in some actual adventures and campaigns.
Historical Note: This is similar to how elves worked in pre-Greyhawk OD&D. Each time they went on an adventure they had to pick if they would be a fighter for that adventure or a magic-user for that adventure.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580483Let me give an example. Like I've said before If a 10th level fighter can beat an insect the size of a short buss to death with his bear hands then he's clearly outside the bounds of what a normal human can do. This isn't the fighter steeping out of his conceptual space it's just a natural result of him accumulating levels. I never said fighters needed anything (Su) but at least let them have (Ex) abilities. The fighter being able to jump good or wall run isn't any more (Su) than being able to kill a flying armored lizard the size of an SUV with a longbow or hack to death a 12ft tall 5'000 pound iron statue animated by magic with your sword. If your playing D&D at high level characters are already doing the impossible just via damage and hp abstraction.
The example doesn't change my answer. It's still neither supernatural abilities or a radical redesign is really needed -- at least not for TSR D&D. Perhaps the redesign is needed for WOTC editions, but I really have my doubts for 3.x given the number of people who play(ed) and enjoy(ed) it without having supernatural fighters or the radical redesign.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580394You're being ignored because you're using false premises.
How are they false?
QuoteI don't care about your home-brew. I've never played in a game where a magic-user can use any spell at any given time.
Also not the point. Are you saying that Magic Users are limited in their ability to use spells?
QuoteThe magic-user doesn't need access to any particular spell at any given time to have more options than a similar level fighter.
So, wait, now a Magic User doesn't need spells at all to be more powerful than the Fighter? If a certain Magic User only had Feather Fall spells for all their first level slots, they still have more options than the Fighter?
QuoteBut in any case, if you have something you want to discuss, maybe you should bring it up. There's plenty of room for logic in this discussion, but you're not bringing it.
Not the simple to dismantle kind I am sure you are looking for, because you have likely already realized that any moderately rigorous examination of your position will show how ridiculous your whole argument is from the beginning.
I offered another argument in the response to BeeJazz, perhaps you would care to address that one instead?
Quote from: beejazz;580436Since we're talking generally, #1 depends on edition, spell level, party level and a bunch of other things. Never mind that this isn't just about D&D.
Premise #2 doesn't necessarily follow from premise #1, and again isn't necessarily true depending on the method of resource management.
Even premise #4 is somewhat circumstantial (a class-based game can have dabbling).
And without premise #2 in working order the conclusion is shot.
Sure, and I posted that in your response as an example of one direction the previous argument could take. I don't mind discussing it with you, but I largely agree with your assessment. I was hoping one of the people who piss and moan about 'logical' discussions could take a look at it, though.
QuoteUm... or they could be compulsive homebrewers interested in discussing balance for their own nefarious purposes of tinkering on their homebrews.
For most people, I would certainly agree, and I would have taken a different tack in addressing their concerns or ideas. The Denners have made it plainly clear they have just about zero interest in any other game besides D&D 3.x
QuoteRelative power arguments are common regardless of the class pair (in circles that commonly have these arguments). Clerics bloat more with splats than wizards (since they have access to their entire spell list) and the monk is even more bitched about online than the fighter.
And they certainly
can be useful discussions. When the starting point is 'it's a fact that class A is wildly more powerful than class B', then not so much.
Quote from: RandallS;580485The example doesn't change my answer. It's still neither supernatural abilities or a radical redesign is really needed -- at least not for TSR D&D. Perhaps the redesign is needed for WOTC editions, but I really have my doubts for 3.x given the number of people who play(ed) and enjoy(ed) it without having supernatural fighters or the radical redesign.
The fighters are already superhuman.
An Iron Golem is 5'000 lbs. of solid iron given motion, purpose and imunity to magic by a spellcaster. This is supposed to be the encounter in which the fighter shines btw. The fighter is then supposed to kill 2 1/2 tons of malevolent metal with sharpened pieces of steel, likely while it punches him in the face. There is no way in hell you're going to do that while "remaining within the bounds of a normal human."
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580489The fighters are already superhuman.
not really, and here's why:
QuoteAn Iron Golem is 5'000 lbs. of solid iron given motion, purpose and imunity to magic by a spellcaster. This is supposed to be the encounter in which the fighter shines btw. The fighter is then supposed to kill 2 1/2 tons of malevolent metal with sharpened pieces of steel, likely while it punches him in the face. There is no way in hell you're going to do that while "remaining within the bounds of a normal human."
A fighter of a high enough level to beat an iron golem will be one of the best in the world. It's not superhuman powers that defeat the golem, it's skill and experience at fighting. He knows when to feint, when to move in for the attack, and which parts are the weak areas susceptible to damage. He uses his experience and elite fighting skill to avoid taking direct hits, all the while whittling down the golem until it is destroyed.
There. Pretty simple. Just because these are alien concepts to you, doesn't mean they are invalid concepts to begin with. At this point, you sound an awful lot like a teenager who is adamant that he knows everything about the real world and how it works and all the adults are just wrong and bitter.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580447While this totally doesn't follow from your premises, yes, generally speaking clerics and wizards are more powerful than fighters or rogues. More specifically, it is true at high levels when spellcasters have better access to spells making them more flexible, allowing their powers to scale to a level-appropriate effect, and they get the most powerful abilities in the game. How many 'sword strokes' is finger of death equivalent to?
In any case, if you value logic SO MUCH, you should be willing to explain your point, and then use logic in support of it. As is, it looks like you're trying to build an easily torn apart straw man. If I agree with your premises, you'll point out that they're false like I just did. I don't agree with your premises, so if you want to attack my argument, you can do that without turning to 'illogic'.
Oh, no, it's even simpler than that. If all of those premises are false, then how about you come up with a set that makes your conclusion true? All I have heard since your cohort arrived is that Wizards are more powerful because spells.
How many sword strokes are equivalent to
Finger of Death? I dunno, how many sword strokes are usable once per day?
QuotePeople have defined balance several times in this thread, including Mguy and LordMistborn. What I think is that you'll never admit that people have done what you asked.
Then you shouldn't have any problem quoting that post. At the very least, "They have defined balance in post #XX, again in post #XX and one more time in post #XXX"
QuoteRelative balance of Fighters and Wizards is illustrative of concerns I have with balance. I want balance, and that's a very easy way to explain why high level games aren't balanced.
Then you could, perhaps,
illustrate it instead of simply asserting it. That way,
your premise would not be false. "High level games aren't balanced" is a conclusion, and "Fighters and Wizards aren't balanced" might be a premise, but is certainly isn't an explanation for the former, nor is it a premise that supports your conclusion.
If this is what you call 'logic', it's no wonder you avoid it like the plague.
QuoteBut I'm not interested in 'your logic', which isn't logical. Nor am I scuttling off to a dark corner. I'll continue to discuss the positions in good faith (depsite accusations to the contrary) because I believe that most of our positions are not as far apart as you might like to pretend.
Then dazzle me with your brilliance. Let's see this awesome display of logic that makes your case as watertight as you believe it is. Because every time you assert "Wizards are more powerful than Fighters" without a set of premises that supports that, you may as well be agreeing with the premises I provided.
Quote from: MGuy;580359Just gonna leave this here.
As I already point out to you in the other thread, 3e
mage hand only lets you lift something of five pounds or less. That's not enough force to open a "stuck or heavy door," which is what the fighter's usually the best at by virtue of having the highest Strength score in the party.
You were wrong about this the first time you brought it up (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=557253&postcount=2148), too.
Quote from: StormBringer;580487Sure, and I posted that in your response as an example of one direction the previous argument could take. I don't mind discussing it with you, but I largely agree with your assessment. I was hoping one of the people who piss and moan about 'logical' discussions could take a look at it, though.
The only truth to be had really is that spells give you more options.
Each spell is basically an option that a non caster doesn't have.
Wearing armour and having good HP are also options, as are thief skills.
At low levels wizards, for example, but we could apply it to monks or whoever, don't get the option of wearing armour or swinging a sword effectively. As they gain levels their options increase.
The fighter does get the option of using a sword and wearing armour.
As they advance in levels the number of new options open to the fighters grows less quickly than the number of options open to the caster. Thus at some point the caster has more options than the fighter.
Logically speaking
A = W + Y(level)
B = T + Z(level)
If Y is bigger than Z that at some point A will surpass B whatever the values of W & T (their starting options)
Most people would say that a 30th level Wizard in 2e D&D was more powerful than a 30th level fighter. Most people say that a 20th level wizard was more powerful.... a question to ask would be what is the lowest level value where this starts to be the case.
Another critical question is are you happy with balance being over a campaign and not at any particular level (for any and all defintions of balance). If this is the case then You have to ask if the disparity between fighters and casters at the low levels is a balance for a disparity at high levels - you are likely to play at. That last bit is key because is you consider all levels then the caster will always win because their are infinite levels. In reality do your games peak at 12th? 8th? 20th? 30th ?
If we postulate that the tipping point is 12th level (where casters surpass fighters) and your games peeter out at 8th level then the balance issue you have is propably that your wizard needs to be tougher at low levels.
If we decide that the tipping point is 8th level and your games quickly get to this point and you play for years at levels 15 -20 then maybe the fighter needs help at higher levels.
Then you have a slew of fixes. Some of which are in the game already and might work for your group. Magic items are a classic example. If you are happy with items dominating the game then equiping the high level fighter with items or indeed the low level Wizard fixes the imbalance easily. Not everyone is going to like that method.
You can change the focus of play and move from adventures to Domain Management. Some players will be happy with this. I expect a larger group will want to continue in the style they played earlier (this is supported by the move in D&D away from Domain Management to continued adventure style play at high levels in future releases).
You can allow fighters and other mundanes to take new classes. Prestige classes with magic powers or just dip into magic using classes. This is the 3e fix.
You can add new powers that classes collect as they level, feats. the very powerful ones can be like magic powers.
You can houserule stuff so that mundane classes get spell like powers or add new feats or whatever
Or you can live with the disparity.
The things that have frustrated me most in this whole balance malestrom (I know no one cares but what the heck :) ), are the refusal to accept any disparity at any point and the arguement that because PCs are run by players there are infinite options at all levels.
I think one of the few points that has been clearly demonstrated through logic is that options not related to the actual character ie 'stuff on the character sheet' balances out for all classes or ...
A+B > A for any value of A
(we can discount B = 0 because very few games don't have any character sheets at all, although having B as a negative integer where character sheets are merely restrictions on actions PCs can take is an interesting path to persue .....)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580492A fighter of a high enough level to beat an iron golem will be one of the best in the world. It's not superhuman powers that defeat the golem, it's skill and experience at fighting. He knows when to feint, when to move in for the attack, and which parts are the weak areas susceptible to damage. He uses his experience and elite fighting skill to avoid taking direct hits, all the while whittling down the golem until it is destroyed.
This, or while maneuvering it to where it gets stuck, falls, etc. Or for the most fun, herds it into a rust monster. I've had fighters beat iron golems in single combat in TSR D&D before. Not even that high a level of a fighter in one case, 8th or 9th level as I recall, but he had a Rusty Sword (a old, rusty looking sword that causes metal it touches to turn to rust where it hits) which allowed each blow to do extra damage and managed to get the golem to trip and fall.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580492not really, and here's why:
Enlighten me.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580492A fighter of a high enough level to beat an iron golem will be one of the best in the world. It's not superhuman powers that defeat the golem, it's skill and experience at fighting.
Is that so.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580492He knows when to feint, when to move in for the attack, and which parts are the weak areas susceptible to damage.
Wait what, it's a Golem it has no flesh and no organs it's just 2 1/2 tons of iron given motion by a bound earth elemental. I specifically chose the golem because it a large monster made out of an undifferentiated substance.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580492He uses his experience and elite fighting skill to avoid taking direct hits, all the while whittling down the golem until it is destroyed.
That's wrong and you know it. This is a Fighter 80% of his AC is coming from his armor which only should count if the golem is making contact. When 5'000 lbs. of iron punches you, you're not getting back up unless you've left regular humanity behind a long time ago.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;580497As I already point out to you in the other thread, 3e mage hand only lets you lift something of five pounds or less. That's not enough force to open a "stuck or heavy door," which is what the fighter's usually the best at by virtue of having the highest Strength score in the party.
You were wrong about this the first time you brought it up (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=557253&postcount=2148), too.
At this point, the conversation has been so circular I can script out replies ahead of time.
Grognard: You're a 3rd level MU, and your party enters a dungeon. A group of 6 orcs surround you all with weapons."
Denner: "The MU is better than all other classes, because I cast sleep and take them out all at once."
Grognard: "The orcs were guarding a treasure chest, but it's locked."
Denner: "The MU is better than all other classes, because I cast knock to open the chest, rendering the thief useless."
Grognard: "Assuming you didn't just die from a trap, we'll let you open it. In the chest is a necklace with inscriptions."
Denner: "The MU is better than all other classes because I cast identify. The bard is useless."
Grognard: "I'm not even going to look see if you just so happened to have sleep, knock, and identify as your memorized spells. I'll give you benefit of the doubt, although I am highly dubious. Attracted by the earlier battle, 6 orcs come at your group form the passage you entered the room at."
Denner" "Once again, the MU is best because I cast sleep."
Grognard :"Sorry, you're out of spells. There is a door on the side of the room closest to you to escape from, but it is locked."
Denner: "I mage hand the door open."
Grognard: "Sorry, but like I said, you're out of spells."
Denner: "Knock."
Grognard: "out of spells."
Denner: "Then we rest."
Grognard: "You're in the middle of a battle. So just how is a MU better than everyone else again?"
Denner: "I'm just going to ignore you because you old bitter people can't handle logic and refuse to partake in an adult conversation."
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580507Is that so.
Yes, it is. I explained it already. What's the difficult part?
QuoteWait what, it's a Golem it has no flesh and no organs it's just 2 1/2 tons of iron given motion by a bound earth elemental. I specifically chose the golem because it a large monster made out of an undifferentiated substance.
An object doesn't need to have flesh to be damaged. Ever taken a hammer to a brick wall? Holy christ....
QuoteThat's wrong and you know it. This is a Fighter 80% of his AC is coming from his armor which only should count if the golem is making contact. When a 5'000 lbs. of iron punches you, you're not getting back up unless you've left regular humanity behind a long time ago.
Once again this is an example of you knowing jack shit about the game you professing to know stuff about. Do you know what HP are? Here's a lesson, pay attention. Hit points include things like "experience and luck to avoid taking direct hits." I'm pretty sure every edition has a description like that. Not everything is AC. Hell, in the AD&D PHB, it
explicitly talks about hit points being used to avoid taking direct hits even if the monster rolls max damage, using a war horse as an example. Since you "Own.The.Fucking.Books.", you should have known that, right?
But I suspect you'll complete ignore this. Here is a concrete example of someone pointing out to you how and why you are wrong, and I bet dollars to donuts you and MGuy will
still claim that we're just being mean to you and not refuting any of your logic.
Do you even
play D&D? I gotta ask, because you're missing some of the most basic concepts.
Quote from: RandallS;580505This, or while maneuvering it to where it gets stuck, falls, etc. Or for the most fun, herds it into a rust monster. I've had fighters beat iron golems in single combat in TSR D&D before. Not even that high a level of a fighter in one case, 8th or 9th level as I recall, but he had a Rusty Sword (a old, rusty looking sword that causes metal it touches to turn to rust where it hits) which allowed each blow to do extra damage and managed to get the golem to trip and fall.
So here the disparity was fixed because of a magic sword.
Or are we saying a 9th level figther without a magic sword could beat an iron golem....
Quote from: jibbajibba;580513Or are we saying a 9th level figther without a magic sword could beat an iron golem....
I hope not because it's assumed, and built into the rules, that a fighter of high level would have a magic weapon. Having a magic weapon doesn't make the fighter super human. It's a tool. The same as me having a .308 allows me to destroy a milk jug from 100 meters out.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580511An object doesn't need to have flesh to be damaged. Ever taken a hammer to a brick wall? Holy christ....
It's 12ft tall and made of iron it's not like some of the squsiher big monsters where you could plausabilly be cutting arteries. Somehow the fighter has to make a 2 1/2 ton metal moster notfuntional with his sword. Without being superhuman of course.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580511Once again this is an example of you knowing jack shit about the game you professing to know stuff about. Do you know what HP are? Here's a lesson, pay attention. Hit points include things like "experience and luck to avoid taking direct hits." I'm pretty sure every edition has a description like that. Not everything is AC.
But I suspect you'll complete ignore this. Here is a concrete example of someone pointing out to you how and why you are wrong, and I bet dollars to donuts you and MGuy will still claim that we're just being mean to you and not refuting any of your logic.
Do you even play D&D? I gotta ask, because you're missing some of the most basic concepts.
The game always says the hp are luck and/or some other bullshit to stop the model train enthusiasts (who really should just be playing GRUPS instead) from whinging it's still bullshit. HP only make sense as a measure of how much you can be punched in the face. If you want to have this debate that's fine, go ahead make my day.
Quote from: StormBringer;580486How are they false?
Are you trying to show everyone that you lack reading comprehension skills?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580447But if you do, it'd be best to avoid starting with false premises.
Quote from: StormBringer;580431Premise #1: Spells are the most powerful element in D&D
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580447There are a number of factors that contribute to 'power'. If spells were the 'most powerful element', then a gnome would be more powerful than a dwarf, because gnomes get speak with animals for free, and dwarves don't have any spells. Spells are among the most powerful resouces in D&D - largely because they are flexible, scalable, and renewable. This premise is false
Quote from: StormBringer;580431Premise #2: Classes that can use spells are more powerful than classes that cannot.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580447This isn't necessarily true. First off, some classes can use more spells more often and/or more reliably than others. A bard isn't necessarily 'more powerful' than a Fighter because he has access to spells. In 3.x, people talk about the Beguiler and in Pathfinder the Summoner as a good class - while they are less powerful than a straight wizard or cleric, they are fun because they're built on a theme. A standard wizard might have a spell that kills people instantly finger of death, lots of mobility spells (teleport, dimension door, fly, etc). Spells are a resource. Access to a resource is a net gain in power. The quality of the resource determines which is more powerful. Thus, someone could argue that 'fighters are more powerful' because they have 'better access' to feats. Feats are a resource, like spells, and having more of, and better access to, increases character power.
In the case of D&D 3.x, spells scale more quickly than feats, so in the long run, it is a more 'powerful' resource, assuming sensible selection of spells.
Quote from: StormBringer;580431Premise #3: Magic Users, Clerics, et al, can use spells
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580447This is mostly true, but isn't necessarily true. A Wizard in Full Plate can't use spells. A Wizard with an Intelligence of 10 can't use spells. A wizard that is affected by a feeblemind spell, therefore, doesn't have access to his spells. But in general, this statement is largely true. Not enough to stand up to a strict logical evaluation, but this one I'll generally grant you.
Quote from: StormBringer;580431Premise #4: Fighters, Thieves, et al, cannot use spells.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580447Again, not strictly true. Use Magic Device is a skill. With enough ranks in the skill, a Fighter or Rogue could cast spells. Drinking a potion is 'using a spell'. Let's say that Fighters are Rogues have limited access to spells, and generally, the access that they DO have is not as flexible, scalable, or powerful as that available to equal level 'spell casters'.
Quote from: StormBringer;580431Conclusion: Magic Users, Clerics, et al are more powerful than Fighters, Thieves, et al.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580447While this totally doesn't follow from your premises, yes, generally speaking clerics and wizards are more powerful than fighters or rogues. More specifically, it is true at high levels when spellcasters have better access to spells making them more flexible, allowing their powers to scale to a level-appropriate effect, and they get the most powerful abilities in the game. How many 'sword strokes' is finger of death equivalent to?
So, if you've read all this, you know that I explained how they were false. You know what I didn't do? I didn't ignore you.
Quote from: StormBringer;580392Now, how did I know you would be ignoring my post? I must be psychic. I would imagine you are going to continue ignoring it, because it isn't the exact discussion with the exact parameters you want to have.
You know what you did? You ignored my post. I explained why your premises were flawed and then you asked me to explain why they were false (even though I just did so). I guess it isn't the exact discussion with the exact parameters 'you want to have'. I'm not going to pitch a fit about it like you did, you whiny little dumbass, because I don't really care if you ignore my posts. As I've said before, you're a dumbass, and I don't respect you or your opinions. But if you're going to ignore my posts, do it right. Don't quote part of it, leave out the part that I gave you the response, and then pretend that I didn't respond - that's the definition of disingenuous you little shit.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580514I hope not because it's assumed, and built into the rules, that a fighter of high level would have a magic weapon. Having a magic weapon doesn't make the fighter super human. It's a tool. The same as me having a .308 allows me to destroy a milk jug from 100 meters out.
See my larger post.
Magic items are a method provided by the rules to decrease disparity between classes.
They are not of them selves part of the class - unless you are suggesting some trade XP for a magic sword or a x level fighter needs a sword that is x/2 by default as an entitlement - which I doubt.
So the fighter + balancing factor A (a magic sword) is able to beat the golem.
The fighter sword combo can realistically not be considered 'mundane' any longer. He has a sword that can cut through a giant iron man.
Does it matter if that sword was
a) Given to him through random play - ie random treasure rolls
b) Given to him by the DM as a 'plot device' because he knew there was an Iron golem coming up
c) Granted to him through a class based entitlement - x items per level
d) Not an actual sword but some class base power that replicated the power of the sword (liek a barbarian in 1e being able to hit creatures that can be hit by magic without magic so in effect chopping up the iron golem with an ordinary sword)
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580516It's 12ft tall and made of iron it's not like some of the squsiher big monsters where you could plausabilly be cutting arterys. Somehow the fighter has to make a 2 1/2 ton metal moster notfuntional with his sword. Without being superhuman of course.
Or with a weapon that can damage iron.
Or luring the golem into a trap
Or hitting gears
Seriously kid, why is it so hard for you to think outside of the box? Do you need instructions for putting on your underwear?
QuoteThe game always says the hp are luck and/or some other bullshit to stop the model train enthusiasts (who really should just be playing GRUPS instead) from whinging it's still bullshit. HP only make sense as a measure of how much you can be punched in the face. If you want to have this debate that's fine, go ahead make my day.
Let's put aside the fact that you think HP should only be about physical damage (because that's a stupid thing to think because 100s of conversations have shown why it would make no sense in D&D). Let's focus instead on
that's the way the game is written. Who gives a flying fuck if you disagree with it? It's a clear example that shows why you are wrong, and now you want to change the rules to fit your (incorrect) assumption? You made an assumption, and I pointed out why it was wrong. That's objective fact. Grow a pair and own up to your mistakes for once in your entitled little life.
Quote from: jibbajibba;580519See my larger post.
Magic items are a method provided by the rules to decrease disparity between classes.
They are not of them selves part of the class - unless you are suggesting some trade XP for a magic sword or a x level fighter needs a sword that is x/2 by default as an entitlement - which I doubt.
So the fighter + balancing factor A (a magic sword) is able to beat the golem.
The fighter sword combo can realistically not be considered 'mundane' any longer. He has a sword that can cut through a giant iron man.
Does it matter if that sword was
a) Given to him through random play - ie random treasure rolls
b) Given to him by the DM as a 'plot device' because he knew there was an Iron golem coming up
c) Granted to him through a class based entitlement - x items per level
d) Not an actual sword but some class base power that replicated the power of the sword (liek a barbarian in 1e being able to hit creatures that can be hit by magic without magic so in effect chopping up the iron golem with an ordinary sword)
The argument is that the fighter can't do any of this and remain a normal human. Getting a tool that helps does not suddenly make the fighter superhuman. It's the fighter's skill and experience that allows him to make maximum effective use of his tools. A 1st level fighter with a +2 sword won't be able to kill the golem. But a 15th level fighter probably could. Because he's using his
mundane experience, skill, and training to maximize the tool to beat the golem.
Quote from: jibbajibba;580519Does it matter if that sword was
a) Given to him through random play - ie random treasure rolls
b) Given to him by the DM as a 'plot device' because he knew there was an Iron golem coming up
c) Granted to him through a class based entitlement - x items per level
d) Not an actual sword but some class base power that replicated the power of the sword (liek a barbarian in 1e being able to hit creatures that can be hit by magic without magic so in effect chopping up the iron golem with an ordinary sword)
I agree part of the function of the magic sword is to power up the fighter. But All of these do matter to me. B tends to irk me if it is obvious. C tends to irk me because it doesnt account for what happens in the game. D just bothers me unless it is just light enough that the fighter still feels mundane (being able to strike with a regular weapon as if it is magical is still within the realm of believabillity, but if the fighter is launching bolts of electrici out of his sword or something like that, that kind of skinning changes the internal logic of the setting. I can brush off a plus one bonus that overcomes the "must have a magic weapon requirement" as he is just really, really good at sword play. It is still larger than life but not outrageous ImO.
For me I think what happens in the setting should matter and I prefer magic items placement to feel natural. Just a preference, but it works well for me.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580521The argument is that the fighter can't do any of this and remain a normal human. Getting a tool that helps does not suddenly make the fighter superhuman. It's the fighter's skill and experience that allows him to make maximum effective use of his tools. A 1st level fighter with a +2 sword won't be able to kill the golem. But a 15th level fighter probably could. Because he's using his mundane experience, skill, and training to maximize the tool to beat the golem.
+2 won't do shit cos you need +3 or better to hit it :)
So your arguement for fixing the power disparity is to give the mundane fighter magic kit.
That is fine its a possible resolution mechanism.
the more interesting question is does it matter how he gets that sword? And I guess what you want to do about say the Barbarian who is also mundane but can hit the golem unaided.
I might still argue that to beat a golem a 15th level figther woudl need a magic shield and magic armour.
I might argue that there is a point at which the level of the fighter driving the armour and shield and sword becomes moot.
I suspect a 7th level figther with a +5 sword +5 Plate and Sheild would be more effective against the golem than a 15th level one with a chain vest and a +3 sword... but i can't be arsed to do the maths :)
So does it matter where the sword comes from?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580520Or with a weapon that can damage iron.
Or luring the golem into a trap
Or hitting gears.
What gears it's not powered by clockwork it's powerd by an earth elemental.
You're aproching this from the worng perspctive. I'm not saying that the fighter can't kill the iron golem.
I'm aruing that he can without magic items even (ok he need weapon +3 to hit it I tend to forget how dumb 2e DR is). This proves my point about Fighters already being above and beyond what a human is capable of.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580520Let's put aside the fact that you think HP should only be about physical damage (because that's a stupid thing to think because 100s of conversations have shown why it would make no sense in D&D). Let's focus instead on that's the way the game is written. Who gives a flying fuck if you disagree with it? It's a clear example that shows why you are wrong, and now you want to change the rules to fit your (incorrect) assumption? You made an assumption, and I pointed out why it was wrong. That's objective fact. Grow a pair and own up to your mistakes for once in your entitled little life.
Listen HP is a dumb mechanic in many ways. The fact that high HP let you swim in acid fall from orbit and get punched in the face by Iron golems is somthing the doesn't bother me a bit, I am after all arguing that high level maritals should be surpassing human limitations.
So you have one last chance to back off your absurd claim about HP.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580527What gears it's not power by clockwork it's powerd by an earth elemental.
You're aproching this from the worng perspctive. I'm not saying that the fighter can't kill the iron golem. I'm aruing that he can without magic items even. This proves my point about Fighters already being above and beyond what a human is capable of.
Listen HP is a dumb mechanic in many ways. The fact that high HP let you swim in acid fall from orbit and get punched in the face by Iron golems is somthing the doesn't bother me a bit, I am after all arguing that high level maritals should be surpassing human limitations.
So you have one last chance to back of your absurd claim about HP.
You are right about gears its a golem nota warforged dodad.
You are wrong about HP. They make no sense they are an awkward mechanic the healing methods in 2e and earlier make shten even worse but its not a fight worth having. Just accept that the fact that the fighter can take a 20 point hit fromt he golem means that it's mighty blow just grazed him and he's not daunted by it. Don't thing Rocky versus Clubber Lang think Jacky Chan vs Benny the Jet.
You can't make assumptions about the game and then later try to change the rules of the game to fit your assumptions.
Well, you can, but people will treat you like an idiot.
"There is no way you can have a score of 5 for a team in the game of American Football."
"Yes you can. A safety and a field goal."
"Well, safeties are a stupid rule and should be eliminated."
"That's all fine and good, but you can have a score of 5, so you're objectively wrong."
HP are a vast simplificiation of what happens in combat, but they are a simpification that makes D&D work. The problem is no one is on the same page when it comes ot what HP loss means. People havent been for decades. That is why healing surges created such a stir, but why people who accepted them couldn't understand why others found them so tough to swallow. I think once you accept that everyone is walking around with a different idea of what HP mean, then these conversations start to make sense.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580532You can't make assumptions about the game and then later try to change the rules of the game to fit your assumptions.
Well, you can, but people will treat you like an idiot.
"There is no way you can have a score of 5 for a team in the game of American Football."
"Yes you can. A safety and a field goal."
"Well, safeties are a stupid rule and should be eliminated."
"That's all fine and good, but you can have a score of 5, so you're objectively wrong."
Look its no big deal you just made a mistake with what + you needed to hit a golem I was only kidding when I brought it up don't get upset.
Quote from: jibbajibba;580529You are right about gears its a golem nota warforged dodad.
Warforged aren't clockwork either they're living wood, stone and metal if you want constructs with gears you're wanting Inevitables.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580537Warforged aren't clockwork either they living wood, stone and metal if you want constructs with gears you're wanting Inevitables.
Fair enough.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580517You know what you did? You ignored my post. I explained why your premises were flawed and then you asked me to explain why they were false (even though I just did so). I guess it isn't the exact discussion with the exact parameters 'you want to have'. I'm not going to pitch a fit about it like you did, you whiny little dumbass, because I don't really care if you ignore my posts. As I've said before, you're a dumbass, and I don't respect you or your opinions. But if you're going to ignore my posts, do it right. Don't quote part of it, leave out the part that I gave you the response, and then pretend that I didn't respond - that's the definition of disingenuous you little shit.
No, I saw that part, as well as the part where you quoted something I said wildly out of context. Are you sure you want to be flinging around something like 'disingenuous' when your own house is made of such fragile, fragile glass?
I didn't ignore your post, I just discounted it; you haven't actually shown any of the premises to be
false:
QuoteThere are a number of factors that contribute to 'power'. If spells were the 'most powerful element', then a gnome would be more powerful than a dwarf, because gnomes get speak with animals for free, and dwarves don't have any spells. Spells are among the most powerful resouces in D&D - largely because they are flexible, scalable, and renewable.
Gnomes don't get the spell
speak with animals for free. They get an ability that mimics
speak with animals for free. If you are trying to demonstrate that spells are not the ultimate determinant of power, you would be best advised to stick with actual spells. The gnome's innate spell-like ability is irrelevant. Rearranging a sentence is also not a refutation. In other words, you don't get to just toss out a few sentences then claim a premise is false. You actually have to demonstrate why it is false. Watch:
Premise #1: If the Green Bay Packers wear their red uniforms, they will win the Super Bowl
Premise #2: The Green Bay Packers are wearing their red uniforms
Conclusion: They will win the Super Bowl.
The Green Bay Packers don't have a red uniform, therefore both premises are wrong.
See how that works?
QuoteThis isn't necessarily true. First off, some classes can use more spells more often and/or more reliably than others. A bard isn't necessarily 'more powerful' than a Fighter because he has access to spells. In 3.x, people talk about the Beguiler and in Pathfinder the Summoner as a good class - while they are less powerful than a straight wizard or cleric, they are fun because they're built on a theme. A standard wizard might have a spell that kills people instantly finger of death, lots of mobility spells (teleport, dimension door, fly, etc). Spells are a resource. Access to a resource is a net gain in power. The quality of the resource determines which is more powerful. Thus, someone could argue that 'fighters are more powerful' because they have 'better access' to feats. Feats are a resource, like spells, and having more of, and better access to, increases character power.
In the case of D&D 3.x, spells scale more quickly than feats, so in the long run, it is a more 'powerful' resource, assuming sensible selection of spells.
So, with a fairly narrow and specific selection of spells, this could be true. With a different selection of spells, it might not be true. Again, not a refutation. This isn't a court of law, you don't get 'reasonable doubt' as a shield.
Also, it doesn't matter how a Beguiler, a Summoner, an Illusionist, or a Lollipop Shaman compares to a Wizard, we are talking about casters v non-casters, so that is irrelevant.
'Access to a resource is a net gain in power' is not a first cause. If access to any resource is a net gain, then the Fighter's access to the resource of any weapon and any armour is a 'net gain'. We can count 'access to resources' all day long, it hardly proves anything, let alone refutes anything.
Demonstrate how spells scale more quickly than feats before you claim victory, also. And if we are assuming a 'sensible selection of spells', there must be a selection that isn't sensible, hence, a Wizard is not absolutely more powerful. Note that I said nothing about a 'sensible selection of spells', so adding qualifiers isn't exactly a resounding proof. Perhaps, after the I-don't-know-how-many-billionth time, you could provide this absolutely unbeatable spell load-out.
QuoteAgain, not strictly true. Use Magic Device is a skill. With enough ranks in the skill, a Fighter or Rogue could cast spells. Drinking a potion is 'using a spell'. Let's say that Fighters are Rogues have limited access to spells, and generally, the access that they DO have is not as flexible, scalable, or powerful as that available to equal level 'spell casters'.
With enough ranks, a Fighter or Rogue can
read scrolls, which is not 'casting a spell', and there are a pile of restrictions besides. Drinking a potion is absolutely not 'using a spell', let alone casting it. You damn well know
both of those things.
In any case, 'casting a spell' is not a class ability for either of those classes, so one or two edge cases where they can do something like casting a spell doesn't make them 'spell using classes'. Are you sure you know what 'disingenuous' means?
QuoteWhile this totally doesn't follow from your premises, yes, generally speaking clerics and wizards are more powerful than fighters or rogues.
So, this is the point where you get to demonstrate your conclusion now. If my premises are false (and you haven't actually shown that they are or how), that doesn't automatically mean your argument is correct. And this is where you always fail miserably.
We have your conclusion, "Spell casters are more powerful than non-spell casters". Now you get to prove it. Or concede the argument. Your choice.
Quote from: jibbajibba;580519a) Given to him through random play - ie random treasure rolls
b) Given to him by the DM as a 'plot device' because he knew there was an Iron golem coming up
c) Granted to him through a class based entitlement - x items per level
d) Not an actual sword but some class base power that replicated the power of the sword (liek a barbarian in 1e being able to hit creatures that can be hit by magic without magic so in effect chopping up the iron golem with an ordinary sword)
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580524I agree part of the function of the magic sword is to power up the fighter. But All of these do matter to me. B tends to irk me if it is obvious. C tends to irk me because it doesnt account for what happens in the game. D just bothers me unless it is just light enough that the fighter still feels mundane (being able to strike with a regular weapon as if it is magical is still within the realm of believabillity, but if the fighter is launching bolts of electrici out of his sword or something like that, that kind of skinning changes the internal logic of the setting. I can brush off a plus one bonus that overcomes the "must have a magic weapon requirement" as he is just really, really good at sword play. It is still larger than life but not outrageous ImO.
I agree with you on C&D, but I don't see a problem with B. How many quests are simply for the weapon or item that will defeat the Ogre harassing the kingdom, or banish the Demon back to the Abyss? If the DM just dropped it in the player's lap, that would be bullshit. But searching for
Golem Bane, Bulwark against Constructs, before seeking the lair of the powerful Machine Mage Cognitor the Unyielding would be entirely sensible.
And how many times has the Evil Overlord kept the key item in relatively close proximity to the creature it is made to defeat? :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;580513So here the disparity was fixed because of a magic sword.
The discussion was about a HIGH Level fighter. i simply pointed out that I had seen even a mid-level fighter beat an iron golem. Yes, he happened to have a magic item that made it possible, but magic items are part of fantasy literatuire and the game.
QuoteOr are we saying a 9th level figther without a magic sword could beat an iron golem....
Unlikely, but not impossible assuming said fighter isn't stupid enough to try to beat the iron golem is a stand-up fight.
So I decided to run some numbers. 2e Fighter 13 vs Iron Golem
The fighter has a +3 one-handed sword no other magic items and he's wearing full plate and carrying a sheild, his stats are Str 17 Dex 10 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 10 Cha 10 His thac0 is 3 he can do 5/2 attacks per round for 1d12+6 damage and he has AC 0 and 80 hp.
As he and the Iron Golem hack away at each other it takes him about 2.7 rounds to kill the golem, the golem takes about 4 rounds to kill him so this match is clearly in the fighters favor. It's not even a close fight.
No tactics, no items beyond the one need to hit the danm thing and the fighter hacks to death a 12ft tall 5'000 lbs. piece of magically animated Iron. I think that counts a superhuman feat.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580560I think that counts a superhuman feat.
Except for the way hit points work. The Fighter disrupted the magical field that animated the golem, weakening it each round until it was no longer able to move. Nothing 'superhuman' about it.
Quote from: StormBringer;580563Except for the way hit points work. The Fighter disrupted the magical field that animated the golem, weakening it each round until it was no longer able to move. Nothing 'superhuman' about it.
HP are still HP no matter how hard you handwave. not only can this hypothetical fighter hack an iron golem to death with his sword, he is exactly as hard to stab to death as said 12ft tall 5,000 lbs. being of solid iron.
Quote from: jibbajibba;580536Look its no big deal you just made a mistake with what + you needed to hit a golem I was only kidding when I brought it up don't get upset.
My post wasn't directed at you.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580560So I decided to run some numbers. 2e Fighter 13 vs Iron Golem
The fighter has a +3 one-handed sword no other magic items and he's wearing full plate and carrying a sheild, his stats are Str 17 Dex 10 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 10 Cha 10 His thac0 is 3 he can do 5/2 attacks per round for 1d12+6 damage and he has AC 0 and 80 hp.
As he and the Iron Golem hack away at each other it takes him about 2.7 rounds to kill the golem, the golem takes about 4 rounds to kill him so this match is clearly in the fighters favor. It's not even a close fight.
No tactics, no items beyond the one need to hit the danm thing and the fighter hacks to death a 12ft tall 5'000 lbs. piece of magically animated Iron. I think that counts a superhuman feat.
What, exactly, is super human? Be specific. What particular action that the fighter does is beyond human ability?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580477I would have to see it in action. But i still dont think it would be a problem. Once you pick a class you are stuck with it that day. It is no different than having another rogue or another fighter in the party that day. I think given the classes flexibility you would want to build in a downside (but it doesnt neccesarily have to be less effective at the class abilities). But to decide what the downside ought to be I will really need to playtest the class in some actual adventures and campaigns.
An unrelated weakness would probably be the best route for this sort of thing. Funny that I hadn't thought of it.
Quote from: RandallS;580484Historical Note: This is similar to how elves worked in pre-Greyhawk OD&D. Each time they went on an adventure they had to pick if they would be a fighter for that adventure or a magic-user for that adventure.
Have you ever played that way? If so, was it cool, or was it weird? I can see having a hard time explaining it.
Quote from: StormBringer;580487For most people, I would certainly agree, and I would have taken a different tack in addressing their concerns or ideas. The Denners have made it plainly clear they have just about zero interest in any other game besides D&D 3.x
From lurking on the den and from reading stuff like Soul Fantasy on here it seems like they're interested in 3.x more as a baseline than something inescapable. The discussion here has been pretty tethered to 3.x both because it's their shared baseline and because it's something both sites are at least familiar with. Bringing in links to their respective homebrews would confuse the discussion. I'd love to use my game-in-progress in these discussions, and I do sometimes, but I try to avoid it when arguing general cases for the sake of clarity.
QuoteAnd they certainly can be useful discussions. When the starting point is 'it's a fact that class A is wildly more powerful than class B', then not so much.
In FvW, it was a terrible starting point. But IIRC it was jeff that started that one (I think... not even worth a look though) and it caught the eye of those at the den.
In this particular case, the topic is broader. I see no reason to assume it's about something the participants claim it isn't about.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580565HP are still HP no matter how hard you handwave. not only can this hypothetical fighter hack an iron golem to death with his sword, he is exactly as hard to stab to death as said 12ft tall 5,000 lbs. being of solid iron.
Welcome to D&D, I guess...?
Are you saying the very basic tenets and mechanics of D&D are not to your liking now? Honestly, your only recourse is find another game. That's not even being a dick; you don't appear to like anything about D&D.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580565HP are still HP no matter how hard you handwave. not only can this hypothetical fighter hack an iron golem to death with his sword, he is exactly as hard to stab to death as said 12ft tall 5,000 lbs. being of solid iron.
As I said before, and as is mentioned in the books, HP is also a reflection of luck, skill, and experience, to name a few things. Especially at high levels. This too is explicitly pointed out in the manual. It is entirely possible that the reason the fighter can take so much damage is because he's so skilled (a level 15 fighter is a superhero of legends) he manages to side-step or deflect the blows at the last moment.
[size=19]Hit Points is not a 1 for 1 reflection of ability to take damage[/size]
I hope you can finally understand that now and cease with this nonsense.
Quote from: beejazz;580569From lurking on the den and from reading stuff like Soul Fantasy on here it seems like they're interested in 3.x more as a baseline than something inescapable.
When it is the baseline as well as the only resource, I am not sure I see the difference, but I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this.
QuoteThe discussion here has been pretty tethered to 3.x both because it's their shared baseline and because it's something both sites are at least familiar with. Bringing in links to their respective homebrews would confuse the discussion. I'd love to use my game-in-progress in these discussions, and I do sometimes, but I try to avoid it when arguing general cases for the sake of clarity.
Understandable, but I think discussing each on its own merits in separate threads with some cross-talk isn't terribly burdensome.
QuoteIn FvW, it was a terrible starting point. But IIRC it was jeff that started that one (I think... not even worth a look though) and it caught the eye of those at the den.
It's the only thing that caught their eye. As a group, they have engaged in almost no other discussion.
QuoteIn this particular case, the topic is broader. I see no reason to assume it's about something the participants claim it isn't about.
Perhaps, but I have been burned too often giving the benefit of the doubt. I won't castigate you for your choice, but we will simply have to disagree about the matter.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580568What, exactly, is super human? Be specific. What particular action that the fighter does is beyond human ability?
Indeed, Conan wrestled an iron golem, eventually defeating it with a magical dagger.
It's what fighters do.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580379Yes. My issue with 3E rogue is many fold. But being able to make a character bad at combat and always having that class be bad in combat are not the same thing.
So you only feel good when a rogue can never be good at combat? That is a pretty hard kick in the nuts for assassin types.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580407I think there is a fudamental divide on the power of resource management to balance. I think if a class can be as good as a rogue or fighter but only once or twice a day through use of specific spells, it isnt a big problem. I think you can also give one class smething that outshines others so long as its weighted with anegative (long casting time, inherent danger of use etc). These can all make the game more balanced imo.
I don't disagree with you.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580408The thing is that many of the iconic fantasy monsters can fly. The reason it's a big deal for mythic heros to slay a dragon is that it's a giant flying firebreathing lizard that's not supposed to be a fair fight for some shumck with a fancy sword. The problem is that a leveling system posits that this will be fair fight to a badass enough fighter. You can't say "I want to be able to slay a multi-ton armor plated deathlizard that is capable of terrorizing an entire nation with a sword and bow while still being totally within the bounds of a normal human being" it just doesn't work.
After over 9000 posts and several new threads how should the hero with a sword be able to fight the dragon burninating the countryside and/or peasants. Should he be able to ride out on his horse and challenge it one on one or should he regardless of level have to get blinged up with magic items until he glows or have to sneak into it's lair like a coward an cut it's throat while it's sleeping.
Dude this is a "denner" you're talking to. You know I'm cool with fighters being able to jump up to that flying lizard and use his "sword cuts mountain" bankai form sword technique on the dragon. All I'm saying is there should be more than just "give everybody flight" as an option to deal with flying threats and airborne adventures.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580411A fighter who cant fly taking on a dragon that can is iconic. Without fly characters have to do stuff like lure the animal into a trap, set up waves of arrows or even catapults to drop it, wrangle it with ropes to hinder its flying etc. I a not seeing why the existence of flying dragons means fighters must also be able to do stuff like fly.
I think you just want weeabo and you are trying to prove others should as well. I have played countless rpgs with flying dragons and non flying fighters and it has never once been a problem for me or anyone at the table. So i see no reason to adopt your preference as a universal rule her.
If this is an issue, as mguy points out, make sure there are ways to disrupt flight in the game.
First off I agree with he main thrust of this as I just said but I would like to note that there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting anime like action in a game. BESM is a thing.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580441The reason the fighter class (and to a lesser extent the rogue) fails to keep up in so many games is that any suggestion that if a fighter of Xth level is capable of anything that is impossible for a normal human the model train enthusiasts come out and scream their denial.
So I want everyone to think long and hard on this one. If you keep asking the designers "I want to kill a city bus sized armored firebreathing death-lizard with my sword while still being totally within the realistic capabilities of an ordinary human" your never going to get that, ever.
Listen I have no interest in a game where some classes are capable of whatever because they have the (Su) tag while others can't have anything that the model train enthusiasts wont swallow.
Yeap.This is why I'm not going to have a class named "fighter" in my game. Despite my previous disbelief at this notion it has been pretty strongly supported here.
Quote from: beejazz;580454Having an answer to flight =/= having flight.
Ranged attacks allow non-flyers to contribute to combats with flight. As long as these dragons don't have range greater than arrows they can be killed by characters of mundane capability (so long as they have sufficient combat stats). This is more of a monster design thing than a class design thing anyway, though if you expect PvP or PC-built-NPCs, limiting the range on flying class capabilities would work well.
"Everyone needs flight past level x" is just kind of stupid and narrows the band of classes the game can handle pretty severely.
Yeap.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;580497As I already point out to you in the other thread, 3e mage hand only lets you lift something of five pounds or less. That's not enough force to open a "stuck or heavy door," which is what the fighter's usually the best at by virtue of having the highest Strength score in the party.
You were wrong about this the first time you brought it up (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=557253&postcount=2148), too.
So you're going to skip over the part where I asked him to clarify "again"? More importantly are you defending the "fighter = official door opener" contribution case?
Quote from: jibbajibba;580513So here the disparity was fixed because of a magic sword.
Or are we saying a 9th level figther without a magic sword could beat an iron golem....
I brought this up at length but yea this all day.
Quote from: MGuy;580603So you're going to skip over the part where I asked him to clarify "again"? More importantly are you defending the "fighter = official door opener" contribution case?
I'm not defending anything. There's nothing to clarify.
I'm simply pointing out that you're wrong about how
mage hand works.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;580610I'm not defending anything. There's nothing to clarify.
I'm simply pointing out that you're wrong about how mage hand works.
Only wrong if the door is somehow stuck. I "can" open a door with mage hand barring bullshit. In what way was I wrong since he did not clarify?
Quote from: MGuy;580614Only wrong if the door is somehow stuck. I "can" open a door with mage hand barring bullshit. In what way was I wrong since he did not clarify?
When the 'grognards' are talking about fighters opening doors, they're talking about the fact that dungeon doors are often treated as "stuck or heavy," and require an Open Doors roll as described under the Strength attribute in 1e - I'm sorry, but I'm on my laptop right now, and I don't have my pdfs to quote the relevant sections for you.
Mage hand allows you to pick up bread or apples or small rocks - maybe even a little duck - not force open an iron-bound oak door that's swelled due to soaking up subterranean moisture. That, however, is exactly what the Open Doors roll is for.
Mage hand will also not allow you to bend the bars of an iron portcullis or break a pair of manacles, both of which a high Strength can accomplish, without allocating a spell slot.
Quote from: MGuy;580614Only wrong if the door is somehow stuck. I "can" open a door with mage hand barring bullshit. In what way was I wrong since he did not clarify?
Mage Hand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mageHand.htm)
Level: Brd 0, Sor/Wiz 0
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One nonmagical, unattended object weighing up to 5 lb.
Duration: Concentration
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
You point your finger at an object and can lift it and move it at will from a distance. As a move action, you can propel the object as far as 15 feet in any direction, though the spell ends if the distance between you and the object ever exceeds the spell's range.
A door is neither unattended nor weighs five pounds or less. Do you even read the spells you argue about, Grand Master of Logic?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;580616When the 'grognards' are talking about fighters opening doors, they're talking about the fact that dungeon doors are often treated as "stuck or heavy," and require an Open Doors roll as described under the Strength attribute in 1e - I'm sorry, but I'm on my laptop right now, and I don't have my pdfs to quote the relevant sections for you.
Mage hand allows you to pick up bread or apples or small rocks - maybe even a little duck - not force open an iron-bound oak door that's swelled due to soaking up subterranean moisture. That, however, is exactly what the Open Doors roll is for.
Mage hand will also not allow you to bend the bars of an iron portcullis or break a pair of manacles, both of which a high Strength can accomplish, without allocating a spell slot.
All things not specified when I asked him to clarify.
Quote from: StormBringer;580617Mage Hand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mageHand.htm)
Level: Brd 0, Sor/Wiz 0
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One nonmagical, unattended object weighing up to 5 lb.
Duration: Concentration
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
You point your finger at an object and can lift it and move it at will from a distance. As a move action, you can propel the object as far as 15 feet in any direction, though the spell ends if the distance between you and the object ever exceeds the spell’s range.
A door is neither unattended nor weighs five pounds or less. Do you even read the spells you argue about, Grand Master of Logic?
Stormie you almost had me interested with whatever bullshit this thread may be pretending to be about because you mentioned football. Just get your terms right ok? Lord Miatborn, heads up... you listening? Ok? I have decided since you are completely stupid I may just lurk here to troll you for entertainment while football is on.
Just heads up guys. More likely I won't care to even come and post until January* but you never know. And I am disappointed with the current threads on this site.
*Trolling Lord Mistborn when I'm bored is the exception.
Quote from: Doom;580581Indeed, Conan wrestled an iron golem, eventually defeating it with a magical dagger.
It's what fighters do.
But Conan he is a bit superhuman wouldn't you say... typically?
Quote from: StormBringer;580617Mage Hand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mageHand.htm)
Level: Brd 0, Sor/Wiz 0
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One nonmagical, unattended object weighing up to 5 lb.
Duration: Concentration
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
You point your finger at an object and can lift it and move it at will from a distance. As a move action, you can propel the object as far as 15 feet in any direction, though the spell ends if the distance between you and the object ever exceeds the spell's range.
A door is neither unattended nor weighs five pounds or less. Do you even read the spells you argue about, Grand Master of Logic?
I know this seems like a daft notion but Figthers do not automaticlaly have high stength.
In early D&D the requirement was 9 and often you took figther as the best of a bad set of options.
By 1e when Player entitlement had reached the point that 2 stats over 15 was seen as minimum requirement a fighter is likely to have 15+ Strength. Although in play for scores of 15 or 16 Con is more useful and so is Charisma but 15+ Str gives you the XP bonus which metagamely useful.
Even in this case being a fighter and having high strength are not tied together in the rules.
The ability to open heavy doors in a dungeon (and I love it when all the doors are stuck but the denizens can move about unresticted :) ) is dependent on Strength not on being a fighter. The two are certainly related but they are not explicitly tied together in the rules.
As an aside using MAge Hand to open a door is a rubbish idea.
An Unseen Servant is far far superior as ther eis no need to concentrate on it so you can get on with something else whist it polishes the gold you found earlier.
I notice the 3e version (below) has been slightly nerfed as a trap locator as it now disapates after 6 points of 'area' damage where as previously it was magical damage and they have a specific nerf about pressure plates.
Unseen Servant Conjuration (Creation)
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M
Casting time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect: One invisible, mindless, shapeless servant
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
An unseen servant is an invisible, mindless, shapeless force that performs simple tasks at your command. It can run and fetch things, open unstuck doors, and hold chairs, as well as clean and mend. The servant can perform only one activity at a time, but it repeats the same activity over and over again if told to do so as long as you remain within range. It can open only normal doors, drawers, lids, and the like. It has an effective Strength score of 2 (so it can lift 20 pounds or drag 100 pounds). It can trigger traps and such, but it can exert only 20 pounds of force, which is not enough to activate certain pressure plates and other devices. It can't perform any task that requires a skill check with a DC higher than 10 or that requires a check using a skill that can't be used untrained. Its speed is 15 feet.
The servant cannot attack in any way; it is never allowed an attack roll. It cannot be killed, but it dissipates if it takes 6 points of damage from area attacks. (It gets no saves against attacks.) If you attempt to send it beyond the spell's range (measured from your current position), the servant ceases to exist.
Material Component: A piece of string and a bit of wood.
Quote from: StormBringer;580570Welcome to D&D, I guess...?
Are you saying the very basic tenets and mechanics of D&D are not to your liking now? Honestly, your only recourse is find another game. That's not even being a dick; you don't appear to like anything about D&D.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580571As I said before, and as is mentioned in the books, HP is also a reflection of luck, skill, and experience, to name a few things. Especially at high levels. This too is explicitly pointed out in the manual. It is entirely possible that the reason the fighter can take so much damage is because he's so skilled (a level 15 fighter is a superhero of legends) he manages to side-step or deflect the blows at the last moment.
Hit Points is not a 1 for 1 reflection of ability to take damage
I hope you can finally understand that now and cease with this nonsense.
Sigh, I can't be helped, if this is really the argument you guys want to make a stand on that's fine.
HP is totally a 1 to 1 reflection of a characters ability to get punched in the face. The game handwaves really hard about it and tries to pretend it's not because like I said the model train enthusiasts hate the idea of the fighter having even the smallest of superhuman abilities.
HP as anything other than a raw measure of toughness breaks down logically even under the lightest scrutiny.
-Magic Missiles automatically hit and do not target a location on the body. fighter 13 can take 20 of the things and still be standing when a 1st level smuck goes down to 2 of them.
-Poisoned Crossbow bolts have to hit to deliver their poison, the fighter can get shot 20 or more times with those Drow hand crossbows while some 1st level shmuck goes down to 2-3 of them.
-Falling damage. No amount of skill or luck will let an ordinary human survive a 200+ ft. fall on to solid stone but someone with 70 or more hp can totally just keep on walking after that. Once again for some low level shmuck that's guaranteed death. Heck if falling damage caps at 20d6 in 2e the way it does in 3e then that fighter can fall from any height on to any surface and walk it off.
-The Fighter 13 takes a swim in "deadly" acid, well not really. When I said "deadly" acid the deadly was in massive sarcasm quotes. He could take a bath in the stuff, put it on cereal, rub it right into his eyes it's not deadly at all to him. Once again some low level shmuck is going to dissolve in 1-3 rounds.
-The Fighter 13 and two 1st level fighters light themselves on fire. The Fighter 13 is still burning like some kind of demented human candle long after the other 2 are charred corpses.
-The fighter is under the effect of hold person, is unable to move or dodge, and the Iron Golem punches him right in the face. In 2e in fact it takes that Iron Golem the same amount of time to beat a held fighter to death as it does to beat him to death when he isn't magically paralyzed.
These are just the exaples I have off the top of my head. If you really want I can find even more by pageing through my 2e books.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580655Sigh, I can't be helped, if this is really the argument you guys want to make a stand on that's fine.
HP is totally a 1 to 1 reflection of a characters ability to get punched in the face. The game handwaves really hard about it and tries to pretend it's not because like I said the model train enthusiasts hate the idea of the fighter having even the smallest of superhuman abilities.
HP as anything other than a raw measure of toughness breaks down logically even under the lightest scrutiny.
-Magic Missiles automatically hit and do not target a location on the body. fighter 13 can take 20 of the things and still be standing when a 1st level smuck goes down to 2 of them.
-Poisoned Crossbow bolts have to hit to deliver their poison, the fighter can get shot 20 or more times with those Drow hand crossbows while some 1st level shmuck goes down to 2-3 of them.
-Falling damage. No amount of skill or luck will let an ordinary human survive a 200+ ft. fall on to solid stone but someone with 70 or more hp can totally just keep on walking after that. Once again for some low level shmuck that's guaranteed death. Heck if falling damage caps at 20d6 in 2e the way it does in 3e then that fighter can fall from any height on to any surface and walk it off.
-The Fighter 13 take a swim in "deadly acid", well not really. When I said "deadly acid" the deadly was in massive sarcasm quotes he could take a bath in the stuff put it on cereal rub it right into his eyes it's not deadly at all to him. Once again some low level shmuck is going to dissolve in 1-3 rounds.
-The Fighter 13 and two 1st level fighters light themselves on fire. The Fighter 13 is still burning like some kind of demented human candle long after the other 2 are charred corpses.
-The fighter is under the effect of hold person, is unable to move or dodge, and the Iron Golem punches him right in the face. In 2e in fact it takes that Iron Golem the same amount of time to beat a held fighter to death as it does to beat him to death when he isn't magically paralyzed.
These are just the exaples I have off the top of my head. If you really want I can find even more by pageing through my 2e books.
No really it is broken and not worth arguing about. HP are just silly so accpet it and move on.
Quote from: jibbajibba;580656No really it is broken and not worth arguing about. HP are just silly so accpet it and move on.
I didn't want to have to do that, like I said it can't be helped. They want to be model train enthusists and say the fighters are and ought to be within the limit of ordinary humans.
What my point is is that
they're not and
that's OK.
Fighters should be surpassing the limits of normal humans after level X. If people want to cap character advancement before that point that's fine. I don't think that's a good way for D&D to go.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580657I didn't want to have to do that, like I said it can't be helped. They want to be model train enthusists and say the fighters are and ought to be within the limit of ordinary humans.
What my point is is that they're not and that's OK.
Fighters should be surpassing the limits of normal humans after level X. If people want to cap character advancement before that point that's fine. I don't think that's a good way for D&D to go.
But arguing about Hit points is a pointless exercise. All classes have HP all monsters have HP.
Given the range and variation of damage in the real world a 1st level character should have closer to 100HP and a sword for example should deal 15d10 with the addition of damage from bleeding.
Its explicitly stated that HP do not represent direct physical damage so whilst all your arguments are correct-ish they are like a broken pencil....
Now interestingly I would say that an Iron Golem's HP do represent actual physical damage just liek I woudl say the same about a horse or an elephant or a stone idol.
So this is not a fight that is worth fighting.
Everyone agrees the fighter needs a magic sword to be effective or an equivalent power. The detail then comes down to how much a PC is their kit, does how the kit is acquired matter, what about powers? Brendan didn't mind that a Barbarian could hit a creature that was normally hit by magic because it seemed like a mundane power but if the fighter had a power that he could imbue his weapons with magical Chi power that woudl then cause them to glow and be able to hit creatures normally hit by magical weapons that might be a deal breaker.
So at this point it almost comes down to the description of the 'power'.
The Story about how the equipment/effect is generated is as important as the rules about how the power works and its effects.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580560No tactics, no items beyond the one need to hit the danm thing and the fighter hacks to death a 12ft tall 5'000 lbs. piece of magically animated Iron. I think that counts a superhuman feat.
The fighter required no supernatural powers or built-in magical abilities to do so. All he needed was the magic sword required to hit the iron golem and his mundane fighting abilities. You can call this a superhuman feat if you wish, as it is something no 0 level human could do, but by this meaning of superhuman a 1st level fighter killing a wererat is superhuman. However, as nothing but mundane (but extraordinary good) fighting abilities were used, this does not justify giving a fighter supernatural or magical powers built-in at any point -- in fact, the fact that a high level fighter can kill the iron golem so easily shows that such class abilities are actually NOT needed.
Quote from: RandallS;580665The fighter required no supernatural powers or built-in magical abilities to do so. All he needed was the magic sword required to hit the iron golem and his mundane fighting abilities. You can call this a superhuman feat if you wish, as it is something no 0 level human could do, but by this meaning of superhuman a 1st level fighter killing a wererat is superhuman. However, as nothing but mundane (but extraordinary good) fighting abilities were used, this does not justify giving a fighter supernatural or magical powers built-in at any point -- in fact, the fact that a high level fighter can kill the iron golem so easily shows that such class abilities are actually NOT needed.
In a game numbers are supposed to mean something, not just be something you write on your character, the fact that a the average Joe on the street is represented as level 0-1 and the Fighter class can go all the way up to 20 means something.
A bunch of 0 level peons can take down a wererat or an Oger. However even factoring out the Golem's immunity to normal weapons the number of peons it takes to bring down a Golem or a 13th level fighter posits a power disparity that makes high level characters superhuman almost by definition.
Let's bring in an even lower level example. A Huge Earth Elemental. The thing is twice a big as the Iron Golem. The game expects you to kill a 32ft tall 24 ton mass of undifferentiated rock with a bad attitude, with your sword. Good luck with that mister totally a normal human fighter guy.
Quote from: MGuy;580603First off I agree with he main thrust of this as I just said but I would like to note that there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting anime like action in a game. BESM is a thing.
I agree that there's nothing wrong with anime-like action
in an anime game. D&D, however, is not an anime game and I have zero interest in it becoming one -- or in playing it if it did.
Quote from: jibbajibba;580662So at this point it almost comes down to the description of the 'power'.
Exactly
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580667Let's bring in an even lower level example. A Huge Earth Elemental. The thing is twice a big as the Iron Golem. The game expects you to kill a 32ft tall 24 ton mass of undifferentiated rock with a bad attitude, with your sword. Good luck with that mister totally a normal human fighter guy.
Yet fighters can do so without adding any supernatural/magical special class abilities. Saying that their ability to kill them means they are already supernatural so you can't object to adding supernatural/magical special class abilities to the fighter just isn't an argument that is going to convince anyone who does not want fighters with supernatural/magical special class abilities.
I would have no objection to an optional "Supernatural/Magical/Anime Powers for Everyone" D&D supplement as long as GMs were absolutely free to say "we are not using this supplement in this campaign". As core rules or rules that players were otherwise somehow going to feel entitled to have used in any D&D campaign, no.
Quote from: RandallS;580668I agree that there's nothing wrong with anime-like action in an anime game. D&D, however, is not an anime game and I have zero interest in it becoming one -- or in playing it if it did.
I dont think any of us are saying wanting anime in D&D is wrong. If someone wants that kind of play, the game can be tweaked to achieve it, and 3E came close to making it an asumption of play (one reason many of us were wary of builds). What I dispute is LMs claim that deep down, D&D is and must be about weeabo. That it is inevitable if one examines the logic of the mechanics or if one wants any semblance of balance. One can orefer that, but clearly we an all reasonably disagree on 1) what the rules themselves suggest about the flavor of the game and 2) whether fighters require innate magic powers to have any parity with spell casters
Quote from: RandallS;580673Yet fighters can do so without adding any supernatural/magical special class abilities. Saying that their ability to kill them means they are already supernatural so you can't object to adding supernatural/magical special class abilities to the fighter just isn't an argument that is going to convince anyone who does not want fighters with supernatural/magical special class abilities.
Their is a diffrence between (Su) and (Ex) I suggest you go learn it.
The fighter already has one (Ex) ability. He can sword to death things that by all logic no human could sword to death. After you allow the fighter to kill 24 tons of rock without magic items everything else you have to discuss with me is quibbling over fluff.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580674I dont think any of us are saying wanting anime in D&D is wrong. If someone wants that kind of play, the game can be tweaked to achieve it, and 3E came close to making it an asumption of play (one reason many of us were wary of builds). What I dispute is LMs claim that deep down, D&D is and must be about weeabo. That it is inevitable if one examines the logic of the mechanics or if one wants any semblance of balance. One can orefer that, but clearly we an all reasonably disagree on 1) what the rules themselves suggest about the flavor of the game and 2) whether fighters require innate magic powers to have any parity with spell casters
But we do all agree that they need something. Its just the description of that something.
So a figther who can fly by default is a no no. But a fighter who can fly because he found winged boots is fine
A fighter who can empower his soul bound sword to make it +3/+3 with his Chi power is a no no. But a figther who found a +3/+3 sword is fine.
A fighter who can dodge a mighty blow and turn 25 points of damage into a scratch is fine but one that can take a 25 point blow full in the face and grin it off isn't
Now these things are mechanically the same but some fit the D&D stage dress and some don't.
In the end its all about the sort of story you want to tell I guess.
So I guess the people that care about the perceived power disparity can just use magic items to bridge the gap or give feat like powers that replicate magic items.
A couple of approaches :
i) The GM identifies the PCs gaps and writes in magic treasure
ii) The GM allow PCs to pick treasure or roll it off a defined list
iii) The GM creates class powers that mirror the effect of certain items. So skin of steel, PC get +3 AC; Chi Leap, the PC can leap and spring as if they were carrying a ring of jumping - jump forward 30 feet upwards 10 feet backwards 15 feet allfrom a standing position usage 3 times per day or 1 for every 3 levels
Quite how you do it depends on what stage dress you want. Final Fantasy, Conan, Arthurian etc etc
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580655Sigh, I can't be helped, if this is really the argument you guys want to make a stand on that's fine.
HP is totally a 1 to 1 reflection of a characters ability to get punched in the face. The game handwaves really hard about it and tries to pretend it's not because like I said the model train enthusiasts hate the idea of the fighter having even the smallest of superhuman abilities.
HP as anything other than a raw measure of toughness breaks down logically even under the lightest scrutiny.
-Magic Missiles automatically hit and do not target a location on the body. fighter 13 can take 20 of the things and still be standing when a 1st level smuck goes down to 2 of them.
-Poisoned Crossbow bolts have to hit to deliver their poison, the fighter can get shot 20 or more times with those Drow hand crossbows while some 1st level shmuck goes down to 2-3 of them.
-Falling damage. No amount of skill or luck will let an ordinary human survive a 200+ ft. fall on to solid stone but someone with 70 or more hp can totally just keep on walking after that. Once again for some low level shmuck that's guaranteed death. Heck if falling damage caps at 20d6 in 2e the way it does in 3e then that fighter can fall from any height on to any surface and walk it off.
-The Fighter 13 takes a swim in "deadly" acid, well not really. When I said "deadly" acid the deadly was in massive sarcasm quotes. He could take a bath in the stuff, put it on cereal, rub it right into his eyes it's not deadly at all to him. Once again some low level shmuck is going to dissolve in 1-3 rounds.
-The Fighter 13 and two 1st level fighters light themselves on fire. The Fighter 13 is still burning like some kind of demented human candle long after the other 2 are charred corpses.
-The fighter is under the effect of hold person, is unable to move or dodge, and the Iron Golem punches him right in the face. In 2e in fact it takes that Iron Golem the same amount of time to beat a held fighter to death as it does to beat him to death when he isn't magically paralyzed.
These are just the exaples I have off the top of my head. If you really want I can find even more by pageing through my 2e books.
The way hit points normally are visualized as working aren't as being purely physical or wholly dodge-based. Most GMs I think will look at the PCs hit points and describe a wound differently depending. The 1st-level guardsman is probably "run through" by a 5 HP sword thrust, while the 50 HP mini-Conan just takes a nasty scratch and is bleeding slightly. Players will I think look at a GM very strangely if they describe the 5 HP as being stab through the aorta, or say "OK...you duck aside from the orc's blow at the last second with a powerful acrobatic manuever...oh, and take off five hit points."
Stuff like the drow crossbows isn't an issue since the bolts would be 'hits', just in somewhere more painful for the low-level character. Same with the magic missiles; they hit automatically but that doesn't mean a higher-level character can't roll with the blow somehow (angling himself so they need to punch through armour, or putting out an arm so they home in on that instead of hitting them in the chest, moving sideways at the last second so the missiles have to curve around and lose forward momentum - its magic, so you'll need to use your imagination here).
The hit point system falls apart a bit when it gets to situations where a character couldn't reasonably do anything to minimize the damage. The 2E PHB does have a lengthy diatribe on how falling damage depends on dumb luck, elasticity, shock waves and etc. (pg. 104).
In the case of being wholly immersed in acid, the phb. lists this specifically as an instance of something that will kill a character regardless of hit points - and the golem attacking the Held fighter could well come under this rule as well (Inescapable Death, pg. 106), although 2E doesn't have defined coup de grace rules as 3E does.
The really tricky thing that is genuinely inconsistent with the system IMHO is the healing rates i.e. how a cure light wounds spell doesn't help a high-level fighter heal as much. 3E at least increases natural healing to [level/day] although doesn't fix the CLW issue. (3E also has Con damage for stuff like poison, blood loss and so on, which since each 2 points does =level damage, is good for representing inescapable damage, which can't be rolled with).
Sorry pet peeves, go on with whatever the thread was actually about.
Quote from: jibbajibba;580676But we do all agree that they need something. Its just the description of that something.
So a figther who can fly by default is a no no. But a fighter who can fly because he found winged boots is fine
A fighter who can empower his soul bound sword to make it +3/+3 with his Chi power is a no no. But a figther who found a +3/+3 sword is fine.
A fighter who can dodge a mighty blow and turn 25 points of damage into a scratch is fine but one that can take a 25 point blow full in the face and grin it off isn't
I dont think they need or are entitled to have these things. Most will have some kind of magic item that levels the field or even makes them stand above the other characters...but it should not be a certainty in my opinion. Rather it should be an outgrowth of in game events. At least when it cimes to magic items that is how I feel.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;580679words
Handwave harder I'm enjoying the breeze.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580441The reason the fighter class (and to a lesser extent the rogue) fails to keep up in so many games is that any suggestion that if a fighter of Xth level is capable of anything that is impossible for a normal human the model train enthusiasts come out and scream their denial.
So I want everyone to think long and hard on this one. If you keep asking the designers "I want to kill a city bus sized armored firebreathing death-lizard with my sword while still being totally within the realistic capabilities of an ordinary human" your never going to get that, ever.
Listen I have no interest in a game where some classes are capable of whatever because they have the (Su) tag while others can't have anything that the model train enthusiasts wont swallow.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580449I'm just asking the grognards stop hedging.
Either the mundane classes are not limited by "what's realistically within human capability" which if this is the case all the anti-weeaboo arguments are just kvetching about personal taste or they are intended to be so limited and that means the game has to be radically redesigned.
Perhaps you don't understand the scope of the original game and what 'normal human capability' actually means in the context of D&D.
A Hero (4th level fighter) in D&D is an individual that fights with the power of 4 ordinary men. Relative to the normal trained man-at-arms this is fairly fantastic as is. A Superhero (8th level fighter), fights with the power of 8 ordinary men. This borders on the supernaturally awesome.
So when you toss around terms like 'ordinary human capability' remember that the OD&D fighter already supercedes that by a mile without needing to give him rainbow colored bolts of power springing from his asshole.
Quote from: jibbajibba;580513So here the disparity was fixed because of a magic sword.
Or are we saying a 9th level figther without a magic sword could beat an iron golem....
It is the nature of that particular creature to require an enchanted weapon to destroy it. Hand that +3 longsword to the magic user and see how well he would fare.
Quote from: jibbajibba;580641But Conan he is a bit superhuman wouldn't you say... typically?
Absolutely. Conan is a Superhero and then some by OD&D standards. It doesn't mean that he has magical powers though.
Stormbringer,
Everyone else has you on ignore. I'm just a glutton for punishment. But here we go. One more time.
Quote from: StormBringer;580431Premise #1: Spells are the most powerful element in D&D
You have not provided any support for this position, and as phrased, it is incorrect.
Magic Missile is a spell. It is incapable of taking any action in the game independently. Therefore, it has no 'power' on its own. Any power contained within the spell comes from the ability of some creature to use the spell in an effective way. Spells are like bullets or nuclear bombs - they're powerful 'elements' of national power if they can be delivered. But they're also just tools. Its not a missile that's Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
In order to make this premise meaningful, you have to recognize that
access to spells - the ability to
utilize spells is what contributes to an individual character's power.
Because increased ACCESS equates to increased POWER, your premise needs to address it.
Further, your premise appears to set up a false-equivalency. Not every spell is more powerful than every ability. The Feat Iron Will provides a +2 bonus to every Will Save. The spell
resistance provides a +1 bonus to saves for 1 minute. Which one is 'more powerful'? The spell is more flexible - it applies to all saves made during the 1 minute duration. It also 'stacks' with Iron Will, so someone who access to both is more 'powerful' than someone with access to only one. However, in general terms, I'd probably agree that 'Iron Will is more powerful than
resistance'. That is, the feat is better than a 0th level spell. But compare Iron Will to
protection from evil. In my opinion, the spell is significantly more 'powerful' than Iron Will. Even if you fail a save, it protects you from enchantment (charm) and enchantment (compulsion) effects.
So while Iron Will makes you more resistant to
hold person,
protection from evil makes you immune.
You need to recognize that spells are a resource, as are hit points, as are attack bonus, as are magical items, as are feats, etc. If you believe spells are a more powerful resource, that should be the basis of your argument.
Quote from: StormBringer;580431Premise #2: Classes that can use spells are more powerful than classes that cannot.
Spells as a resource are in competition with every other resource for 'most powerful'. A class that has a powerful ability that is not 'a spell' might be more powerful than a class that has spells. A druid uses wildshape (not a spell) to turn into an animal. It is possible that such an ability is more powerful than most spells, or even ALL spells. That said, if spells are a resource and each additional spell you have access to increases your power (the way each additional feat increases your power), the more spells you can cast, the more powerful you are. This is definitionally true. If you take something and start adding abilities (even if the abilities are very minor) the character is more powerful than if they did not have those abilities. This would only be false if using those abilities included a 'downside'.
Adding access to 3rd level spells carries no downside. So a character with 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spells is more powerful than the exact same character with access to only 1st and 2nd level spells. A+B>A. It doesn't matter what B is (as long as it is more than 0).
Your premise, if one were to accept it, fails to address access to different sources of power. Blindly accepting it would lead us to presume a 1st level wizard is more powerful than a 20th level fighter. That is false. While a 20th level fighter does not have better access to magic than a 1st level wizard, he has other sources of power. He may even have a magic sword that shoots a scorching ray, or something, so he might have access to some limited number of spells that are more powerful than those the Wizard has, but even without that, he has far more hit points, feats, attributes, weapons etc.
To say that there are multiple soures of power does not mean that the relative power each offers can't be measured or compared. It's easy to compare apples and apples. It's harder to compare apples and oranges, but it can be done. You can analyze the sugar-content of each fruit and the presence or absence of various vitamins. Considering all of that, you might even be able to determine one is 'more nutritious' than the other - but that doesn't mean that they don't both have advantages and disadvantages. But as you increase the number of spells, it's like adding side-items or vitamin supplements. An apple might be nutritious, but an orange with a multi-vitamin and a tall glass of low-fat milk is far and away the more nutritious option.
Quote from: StormBringer;580431Premise #3: Magic Users, Clerics, et al, can use spells
This one is true with limited situational exceptions. However, since it is not true all the time, we can't use it to build a logical arguement without modifying it to exclude those situations.
Quote from: StormBringer;580431Premise #4: Fighters, Thieves, et al, cannot use spells.
Quote from: StormBringer;580544With enough ranks, a Fighter or Rogue can read scrolls, which is not 'casting a spell', and there are a pile of restrictions besides. Drinking a potion is absolutely not 'using a spell', let alone casting it. You damn well know both of those things.
Quote from: SRDUse Magic Device
Use a Scroll
If you are casting a spell from a scroll, you have to decipher it first. Normally, to cast a spell from a scroll, you must have the scroll's spell on your class spell list. Use Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. The DC is equal to 20 + the caster level of the spell you are trying to cast from the scroll. In addition, casting a spell from a scroll requires a minimum score (10 + spell level) in the appropriate ability. If you don't have a sufficient score in that ability, you must emulate the ability score with a separate Use Magic Device check (see above).
This use of the skill also applies to other spell completion magic items.
You don't know the rules of the game. Quit pretending you do. You sound like an idiot.
Quote from: StormBringer;580544'Access to a resource is a net gain in power' is not a first cause. If access to any resource is a net gain, then the Fighter's access to the resource of any weapon and any armour is a 'net gain'. We can count 'access to resources' all day long, it hardly proves anything, let alone refutes anything.
Access to any resource
is a net gain. Fighter's access to weapon and armor
is a net gain. These ones are actually
easy to compare. Access to armor can be measured by how often a particular enemy is able to hit and how much damage they do. A weapon's damage can be compared against another attack's damage. Having a sword is better than having a dagger. How much better? If the sword does 1d6 and the dagger does 1d4, the difference is 1 point on average, per successful attack. That's easy.
Comparing spells to armor or weapons is tricky because we don't know exactly what spells a particular character will have. So we can point out a whole bunch of possible spells and some combination of them may be superior to a particular armor or weapon. For example, chain mail is +5 AC. Mage Armor is +4 AC. The armor is 'better' protection. Greater Mage Armor is +6 AC. That spell is 'better' protection. Greater Displacement causes attacks to miss 50% of the time; that's pretty good, too. It provides a different type of effect than armor, but it does reduce the likelihood of being hit, so it can be compared to armor on those lines.
Quote from: StormBringer;580544Demonstrate how spells scale more quickly than feats before you claim victory, also.
Wow. That's easy. Weapon Focus provides a +1 to attack with a particular weapon. Divine Power provides a +1 to attack and damage with a particular weapon, and that bonus increases based on the caster level. Done. Flawless Victory!
Quote from: StormBringer;580544And if we are assuming a 'sensible selection of spells', there must be a selection that isn't sensible, hence, a Wizard is not absolutely more powerful.
You're right. A wizard isn't absolutely more powerful - but he absolutely could choose to be more powerful. If a wizard is entitled to two free selections of any spell that he can cast (as in 3.5) each time he gains a level, unless he chooses poorly, he will have a 'sensible selection of spells'. But a wizard could prepare
speak with animals in every spell slot (even 9th level slots). At that point, I'd say he's more powerful than a 1st level fighter (becuase a 20th level wizard with a quarterstaff is actually a better combatant than a 1st level Fighter), but he's not comprable to a 20th level Fighter.
But recognize that the Wizard's choices made that happen, not the Fighter's. It's not hard to be more powerful than the Fighter, but it's also not hard to make yourself 'weaker'. If that's the contest, though, we have to ask which character can kill themselves more easily? Personally, I think the Wizard will be able to commit suicide more quickly because of his lower hit point total.
Quote from: StormBringer;580544Note that I said nothing about a 'sensible selection of spells', so adding qualifiers isn't exactly a resounding proof. Perhaps, after the I-don't-know-how-many-billionth time, you could provide this absolutely unbeatable spell load-out.
And you're dense and I have to keep explaining things to you like an idiot. First off, a 'sensible selection of spells' may not be what you said, but it is what you should have said. Otherwise you're strawmanning. There are so many good spells (most of them) that it doesn't necessarily matter which specific ones you have. Greater Displacement or Invisibility? Doesn't matter which one - if you have ONE, you have a pretty good spell. Fireball or Scorching Ray? Doesn't really matter - if you have one, you have a pretty good fire-damage spell.
Quote from: StormBringer;580544In So, this is the point where you get to demonstrate your conclusion now. If my premises are false (and you haven't actually shown that they are or how), that doesn't automatically mean your argument is correct. And this is where you always fail miserably.
Your premises are supposed to support your conclusion. I've pointed out that your premises are false. That doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong. It just means you're guilty of arguing from false premises. But in this thread I'm not arguing that casters are the most powerful class. I already did that for over 4000+ posts, and my arguments there haven't been refuted. But I know how to change gears when I need to. Don't be so butt-hurt that you lost and people now freely admit that high level casters are more powerful than high level 'mundanes' in 3.5. It's not that big a deal.
Quote from: StormBringer;580544We have your conclusion, "Spell casters are more powerful than non-spell casters". Now you get to prove it. Or concede the argument. Your choice.
That is not my conclusion. It's close, but you need to add some qualifiers. But how about this -
My conclusion is that: "All else being equal, access to spells makes a character more powerful."
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580675Their is a diffrence between (Su) and (Ex) I suggest you go learn it.
.
I suggest you learn what hit points are. I mean, you said you "have.the.fucking.books." Go read it, because you're coming off like a complete idiot. This is what the book actually says:
QuoteEach character has a varying number of hit points,' just as monsters do.
These hit points represent how much damage (actual 01: potential) the
character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit
points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained.
The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands
for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take
about 5 hit points of damage before being Killed. Let us suppose that a 10th
level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his
constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This IS the equivalent of about 18 hit
dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It
is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic flghter can take that much
punishment. The some holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and
the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit paints aresymbolic of combat
skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.
It specifically addresses your assumptions as wrong in black and white. You said something objectively wrong, and were called on it. Hit points in D&D are not what you think they are. You're response is, "You're just handwaving."? Seriously? Are you that big of a douche that you still react like that?
On the second point, you still haven't shown exactly what the fighter is doing that is superhuman. And I doubt you can. You're making yet another assumption based on your very narrow viewpoint of the world. In the context of D&D, a 15th level fighter is about the biggest bad ass you'll ever find. You want real world examples? Here. Read it. No, seriously. (http://www.cracked.com/article_19492_the-5-most-badass-tales-wartime-survival.html) And then read this one. (http://www.cracked.com/article/197_the-7-most-badass-last-stands-in-history-battle/) And then this one. (http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-pussy.html) And then read the PHB before posting again.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580680I dont think they need or are entitled to have these things. Most will have some kind of magic item that levels the field or even makes them stand above the other characters...but it should not be a certainty in my opinion. Rather it should be an outgrowth of in game events. At least when it cimes to magic items that is how I feel.
I know and you are happy with the disparity between classes because you think the figther had it good awhen they were all kids so ...
But if people are saying that the 15th level fighter can beat the golem because they have a magic sword and when pressed they say that a 15th level figther will always have a magic sword its assumed by the rules then there is an underlying assumption of entitlement there.
the magic kit of the fighter has been used as reason why he can beat a dragon and a host of other discussions. We are in danger of gettign to a point where its not 'expected' but its still ubiquitous.
Quote from: jibbajibba;580700I know and you are happy with the disparity between classes because you think the figther had it good awhen they were all kids so ...
But if people are saying that the 15th level fighter can beat the golem because they have a magic sword and when pressed they say that a 15th level figther will always have a magic sword its assumed by the rules then there is an underlying assumption of entitlement there.
the magic kit of the fighter has been used as reason why he can beat a dragon and a host of other discussions. We are in danger of gettign to a point where its not 'expected' but its still ubiquitous.
Getting to that point? People all but lose their marbles if you suggest that he should be able to function without it. I completely understand necessitating that the fighter get magic in order to compete at higher levels. I don't understand the resistance the idea of "baking it in" to the fighter class. It seems completely backwards to basically have a "You must have a magic sword and magic pants to continue adventuring" tag on a class but not have any way of guaranteeing those things or any way of actually keeping them from being stolen.
Quote from: jibbajibba;580700But if people are saying that the 15th level fighter can beat the golem because they have a magic sword and when pressed they say that a 15th level figther will always have a magic sword its assumed by the rules then there is an underlying assumption of entitlement there.
If they don't have the magic sword, they can't beat the iron golem in a stand-up fight. So what? Not every monster ever encountered has to be beatable in a stand-up fight with special equipment -- at least not in any game I want to play.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;580690Perhaps you don't understand the scope of the original game and what 'normal human capability' actually means in the context of D&D.
A Hero (4th level fighter) in D&D is an individual that fights with the power of 4 ordinary men. Relative to the normal trained man-at-arms this is fairly fantastic as is. A Superhero (8th level fighter), fights with the power of 8 ordinary men. This borders on the supernaturally awesome.
This is exactly my point, the fighter borders on the supernaturally awesome that's what (Ex) means you're only agreeing with me here, welcome to weeaboo land my friend.
Now how do the fighters superhuman abilities translate into lateral advancement.
Quote from: RandallS;580702If they don't have the magic sword, they can't beat the iron golem in a stand-up fight. So what? Not every monster ever encountered has to be beatable in a stand-up fight with special equipment -- at least not in any game I want to play.
Quite I agree. But then we get to the naked figther discussion we have been down before.
A 15th level figther without their magic items is not very impressive and finds it hard to participate fully in a game of that level.
You can argue that the wizard with no spells is similarly disadvantaged but getting spells is as MGuy would say 'baked' into the class.
the arguement seems to have followed this path
i) Mundane classes at high level are no match for magic
ii) No they can participate fully becuase of their magic items
iii) But if we take away their items?
iv) They are assumed as part of play a figthers magic armour and sword as as much part of the character as a wizard's spells
v) So they have entitlement to items as part of their class?
vi) No they can operate fine without items
For x = 1 to i
let x = x+1
goto (v)
....
Mage Hand object to push open door. Yes, you can do that. Not exactly something complicated. I have cats that can nudge open free swinging doors in my house. Not a big deal. If you want to add "the door is stuck, heavy, barred, iron, etc" to the mix then that's fine I have can handle all of those with, you know, a team of people with hands or a single spell if I'm inclined to waste one on the task. So the fuck what? The idea is still stupid and I have no idea why anyone would want to defend it.
What's more is I don't know why there are people who don't think the fact that a man with a sword can put enough force behind swinging a 2ton metal thing to damage straight up iron isn't a superhuman feat. I also don't know why the fuck people are arguing about HP since HP is wonky anyway and leads to sudden critical existence failure when it runs out. I don't know why people would want to rationalize HP as some kind of defense of fighter's super human actions but that's just stupid since the very fat that HP exists is unrealistic.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580697I suggest you learn what hit points are. I mean, you said you "have.the.fucking.books." Go read it, because you're coming off like a complete idiot. This is what the book actually says:
It specifically addresses your assumptions as wrong in black and white. You said something objectively wrong, and were called on it. Hit points in D&D are not what you think they are. You're response is, "You're just handwaving."? Seriously? Are you that big of a douche that you still react like that?
You can quote that all you want, it's still bullshit. It's just bullshit writen by the game developers. The books will handwave the issue really hard in every edition to keep model train enthusists from sending the writers death threats. At the end of the day the high level figher is still surviving absurd falls, able to run around on fire for 10-20 times as long as some low level peon, and get punched in the face by an Iron Golem. Deal with it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;580700I know and you are happy with the disparity between classes because you think the figther had it good awhen they were all kids so ...
But if people are saying that the 15th level fighter can beat the golem because they have a magic sword and when pressed they say that a 15th level figther will always have a magic sword its assumed by the rules then there is an underlying assumption of entitlement there.
the magic kit of the fighter has been used as reason why he can beat a dragon and a host of other discussions. We are in danger of gettign to a point where its not 'expected' but its still ubiquitous.
Don't you think putting a 15th level fighter against a magical construct with immunity to most magic items while not giving him a weapon able to damage the creature a bit of a disingenuous matchup? By the time a character reaches 15th level, it's not a leap of logic to assume they will have an item that could damage the creature.
So it seems from my position that by saying the fighter can't have a magic weapon, you're arguing for a scenario that never happens with any statistical significance and therefore is a moot argument.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580711You can quote that all you want, it's still bullshit. It's just bullshit writen by the game developers. The books will handwave the issue really hard in every edition to keep model train enthusists from sending the writers death threats. At the end of the day the high level figher is still surviving absurd falls, able to run around on fire for 10-20 times as long as some low level peon, and get punched in the face by an Iron Golem. Deal with it.
You're a fucking idiot. Sorry, that's all there is to it. You can say I'm making a personal attack towards you, but there's no other proper term. When a guy keeps arguing that the sun is blue despite being show that the sun is yellow/orange, "idiot" is about the only thing left.
They didn't "handwave" the term away. They clearly defined it as a rule in the context of the game. You clearly have no fucking clue as to what you're talking about. And you obviously didn't read any of those links because a lot of these "superhuman" things you mention
happened in real life.
Grow up, learn some history, and read how the rules work before you keep making stupid claims that are easily disproved.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580714Don't you think putting a 15th level fighter against a magical construct with immunity to most magic items while not giving him a weapon able to damage the creature a bit of a disingenuous matchup? By the time a character reaches 15th level, it's not a leap of logic to assume they will have an item that could damage the creature.
So it seems from my position that by saying the fighter can't have a magic weapon, you're arguing for a scenario that never happens with any statistical significance and therefore is a moot argument.
Well If you want to make fighters less item dependent maybe ditching the mechanic that says "you must have at least a +X weapon to fight this monster" should probably be the first thing on the chopping block.
Please allow me to point out that it did finally died out completely in 3.5 when they switch to DR X/stuff instead of DR X/+Y
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580711You can quote that all you want, it's still bullshit. It's just bullshit writen by the game developers. The books will handwave the issue really hard in every edition to keep model train enthusists from sending the writers death threats. At the end of the day the high level figher is still surviving absurd falls, able to run around on fire for 10-20 times as long as some low level peon, and get punched in the face by an Iron Golem. Deal with it.
Basically what you are saying is you want hit points to work differently than they do in D&D? Therefore, since you want them to work differently, you are going to assume they work the way you want them to (instead of they way the designers says they do) when trying to make points about why classes need to be changed to the way you want them?
You may not agree that this is what you are doing, but it is sure what it looks like you are going from reading your messages. Unfortunately, it isn't going to convince anyone who does not agree with you.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580716You're a fucking idiot. Sorry, that's all there is to it. You can say I'm making a personal attack towards you, but there's no other proper term. When a guy keeps arguing that the sun is blue despite being show that the sun is yellow/orange, "idiot" is about the only thing left.
They didn't "handwave" the term away. They clearly defined it as a rule in the context of the game. You clearly have no fucking clue as to what you're talking about. And you obviously didn't read any of those links because a lot of these "superhuman" things you mention happened in real life.
They defined it yes, their defintion is dumb and does not stand up to logic.
So one more time
-A Fighter
-Kills 24 tons of Earth Elemental
-By hitting it with a sword.
Explain how this is not superhuman.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580718Well If you want to make fighters less item dependent maybe ditching the mechanic that says "you must have at least a +X weapon to fight this monster" should probably be the first thing on the chopping block.
Please allow me to point out that it did finally died out completely in 3.5 when they switch to DR X/stuff instead of DR X/+Y
Sacro not getting logic is one thing but if you're going to entertain this subject (as I did in the FvW thread) you should make mention of a few things:
1: Fighter with just +x weapon and armor STILL don't have enough options to make them competent on an adventure.
2: Casters at these higher levels even when the fighter gets their +X stuff STILL beat the breaks off of a fighter at combat.
3: Casters can charm, raise, summon, mind control people that range from a bit worse to straight up better than the fighter when it comes to combat.
4: Fighter's with +X weapons/pants STILL can't do anything of relevance outside of combat.
5: Fighters are STILL playing the numbers game while casters have moved on to having horizontal as well as vertical power. Or, in other words, casters have way more shit they can straight up do.
6: Monsters at higher levels have the ability to fight as well as or only slightly worse than an equal leveled fighter with +X equipment AND get spells or abilities that allow them to do more than fight or at least gives them more interesting stuff to do.
If you're going to continuously entertain more fighter vs caster stuff at least make sure to pull out all your guns and force people like Sancro to have to handwave a bunch of stuff instead of just one or two things.
Edit: Also don't bother with the links. The first one is just a bunch of people who ran/walked for a long time and the second are a bunch of people who fucking died to low level bullshit. In none of them did someone jump off a cliff and walk it off or get hit by a truck just to get up and hack the truck to death so don't bother with them.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580720Explain how this is not superhuman.
It's generally impossible to prove a negative -- this is especially true when what is to be proven is "subjective". "Superhuman" is there is no generally agreed upon standard for what constitutes "superhuman" and what does not.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580720They defined it yes, their defintion is dumb and does not stand up to logic.
So one more time
-A Fighter
-Kills 24 tons of Earth Elemental
-By hitting it with a sword.
Explain how this is not superhuman.
There's a difference between amping up the power on what normal people can do and doing things normal people can't.
Killing monsters / breaking things : something anyone can do.
Killing gods / knocking down buildings: something a heroic someone can do.
Flying: not so much.
Getting back to the original argument that you were getting at (that the fighter already defies logic, so why not do it more?) this is why it's pointless to really discuss hp any further. Point is that even if you were right about how they work, it doesn't follow that one either should or might as well "bake in" magic in a nonmagic class.
As for the golem, apparently the magic can be disrupted by sufficient physical trauma. Which doesn't have to mean total annihilation. HP are a a catch-all for many things. They aren't always just meat.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580720They defined it yes, their defintion is dumb and does not stand up to logic.
So one more time
-A Fighter
-Kills 24 tons of Earth Elemental
-By hitting it with a sword.
Explain how this is not superhuman.
I already did a few pages above. Then you decided that you wanted to change the definition of how hit points worked to something other than what the game defined them as.
How about you answer my question. What specific action did the fighter take in that combat round that was superhuman? You like to ask questions and ask for proof, but you haven't ever actually provided proof for any of your claims.
Seriously, how old are you? I'm guessing 12 or 13.
Quote from: beejazz;580723As for the golem, apparently the magic can be disrupted by sufficient physical trauma. Which doesn't have to mean total annihilation. HP are a a catch-all for many things. They aren't always just meat.
That just makes it worse because then you have to explain how a human with a stick ( a very shiny stick that is probably very valuable) can produce enough force swinging it to cause a significant amount of trauma to a large chunk of iron.
Quote from: MGuy;580721Sacro not getting logic is one thing but if you're going to entertain this subject (as I did in the FvW thread) you should make mention of a few things:
No he really shouldn't. We're talking general class balance and (ostensibly) no one wants to get dragged back into that bullshit thread.
It helps to isolate points to debate, and bringing up unrelated tangents gets nobody anywhere.
His argument is that the fighter is already absurd therefore why not magic? Bringing in the rest of it does not support that point, it just shifts the topic of conversation to something we're all already sick to death of going over.
Quote from: RandallS;580719Basically what you are saying is you want hit points to work differently than they do in D&D? Therefore, since you want them to work differently, you are going to assume they work the way you want them to (instead of they way the designers says they do) when trying to make points about why classes need to be changed to the way you want them?
No HP clearly work one way.
The way they work is very unrealistic and make high level characters explicitly superhuman, this doesn't bother me at all.
However the way HP actually works will make model train enthusiasts rage.
So the designers pretend it works one way when they explain the HP mechanic even though so much of the mechanics only make sense if you view HP as a measure of raw toughness.
There is a reason that no modern "realistic" RPGs use HP.
Understood?
Quote from: MGuy;580727That just makes it worse because then you have to explain how a human with a stick ( a very shiny stick that is probably very valuable) can produce enough force swinging it to cause a significant amount of trauma to a large chunk of iron.
If it's a magic stick? No problem. Nonmagic stick breaks. Magic weapons disrupt the protective magic of some monsters and the animating magic of some undead and constructs.
Fighter doesn't have to break the iron to disrupt the enchantment and kill the thing.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580704This is exactly my point, the fighter borders on the supernaturally awesome that's what (Ex) means you're only agreeing with me here, welcome to weeaboo land my friend.
Now how do the fighters superhuman abilities translate into lateral advancement.
The fighter is way more than a regular guy. WTF does that have to do with flying or defying gravity?
Quote from: MGuy;580709Mage Hand object to push open door. Yes, you can do that. Not exactly something complicated. I have cats that can nudge open free swinging doors in my house. Not a big deal. If you want to add "the door is stuck, heavy, barred, iron, etc" to the mix then that's fine I have can handle all of those with, you know, a team of people with hands or a single spell if I'm inclined to waste one on the task. So the fuck what? The idea is still stupid and I have no idea why anyone would want to defend it.
What's more is I don't know why there are people who don't think the fact that a man with a sword can put enough force behind swinging a 2ton metal thing to damage straight up iron isn't a superhuman feat. I also don't know why the fuck people are arguing about HP since HP is wonky anyway and leads to sudden critical existence failure when it runs out. I don't know why people would want to rationalize HP as some kind of defense of fighter's super human actions but that's just stupid since the very fat that HP exists is unrealistic.
So to sum up, the fighter is worthless because a mage can expend a limited daily resource to do something the fighter can with a shove and you don't like the way D&D treats HP.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580711You can quote that all you want, it's still bullshit. It's just bullshit writen by the game developers. The books will handwave the issue really hard in every edition to keep model train enthusists from sending the writers death threats. At the end of the day the high level figher is still surviving absurd falls, able to run around on fire for 10-20 times as long as some low level peon, and get punched in the face by an Iron Golem. Deal with it.
Again, the bottom line is that you fundamentally dislike D&D. Thats perfectly fine, it isn't everyone's cup of tea. I just don't understand why WOTC chose to listen to those who hate D&D instead of those that love it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;580700I know and you are happy with the disparity between classes because you think the figther had it good awhen they were all kids so ...
But if people are saying that the 15th level fighter can beat the golem because they have a magic sword and when pressed they say that a 15th level figther will always have a magic sword its assumed by the rules then there is an underlying assumption of entitlement there.
the magic kit of the fighter has been used as reason why he can beat a dragon and a host of other discussions. We are in danger of gettign to a point where its not 'expected' but its still ubiquitous.
The key thing is by that level they likely have access to a number of magic tools they can use against a variety of threats. It is expected but not assured because campaign events matter. The fact that a fighter can weild a +4 sword effectively when he gets his hands on one is important to balance. It isnt assured though because a built in draw back of being a mundane is you have to possess tools like that in order to use them.
Others may be suggesting they are entitled to the sword (and in some campaigns that is how it works). I am saying they find what they find in the course pf the campaign (and given how the treasure tables are set up it is very likely they will have some useful tools by 15th level). Theu can also quest for specific items if there is something they feel they need.
Quote from: beejazz;580728His argument is that the fighter is already absurd therefore why not magic? Bringing in the rest of it does not support that point, it just shifts the topic of conversation to something we're all already sick to death of going over.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;580732The fighter is way more than a regular guy. WTF does that have to do with flying or defying gravity?
Tell me when I said the fighter need to fly. The fighter does need some kind of lateral advancement.
LM's argument is as followed
The conceptual space "ordinary human with training" is sharply limited and the game needs to acknowledge that.
If that really is the limit to the conceptional space for the fighter class then the class needs to end as soon as the can't meaningfully participate in adventures without stepping outside his conceptual space. This means that the fighter ends at 5-7 end of story
Now if you acknowledge that the fighters conceptional space the much more versatile "person who can surpass human limits through training and being a badass." then you can push the fighters point of obsolescence back much further. Possibly to level 20. What exactly being a surperhuman with training in weapons and armor lets you do still needs to be hashed out.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580714Don't you think putting a 15th level fighter against a magical construct with immunity to most magic items while not giving him a weapon able to damage the creature a bit of a disingenuous matchup? By the time a character reaches 15th level, it's not a leap of logic to assume they will have an item that could damage the creature.
So it seems from my position that by saying the fighter can't have a magic weapon, you're arguing for a scenario that never happens with any statistical significance and therefore is a moot argument.
I think its okay to have uneven match ups where the pcs are missing tools needed to win (though that doent mean they cant figure out an alternative way out). This turns simple encounters into something much more. You can have a whole adventure trying to figure out the golems weakness or tracking down a weapn powerful enough to kill him.
But i think you nail it here: it is very likely by 15th level that the fighter does have the weapin even if it isnt a certainty. There is a mixture of luck andhard work involved in this. Personally i find that more rewardong and surprising than: all 15th level fighters are handed a +4 sword, boots of speed, etc.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580714Don't you think putting a 15th level fighter against a magical construct with immunity to most magic items while not giving him a weapon able to damage the creature a bit of a disingenuous matchup? By the time a character reaches 15th level, it's not a leap of logic to assume they will have an item that could damage the creature.
So it seems from my position that by saying the fighter can't have a magic weapon, you're arguing for a scenario that never happens with any statistical significance and therefore is a moot argument.
Well not I could pick any number of monsters about as tough as iron Golem. I didn't pick the monster I am just participating in the thread.
As for my argument I think you may have misconstrued it.
I am saying there is a disparity. The most common solution is magic items. You seem to agree that that is the most common solution.
I then go on to compare that solution to some others and to point out that mechanically they are the same so the key differentiator is story or how the effects are described.
So I am not arguing that a fighter has no magic. I am arguing that fighters will have magic (if that is the chosen solution of the DM) but that if that is the chosen solution and its always goign to be the case as you point out then we recognise it as a solution.
MGuy went on to postulate that it be 'baked' into the class. I had suggested that was an option since it is already ubiquitous, as you yourself agree.
Quote from: beejazz;580723There's a difference between amping up the power on what normal people can do and doing things normal people can't.
Killing monsters / breaking things : something anyone can do.
Killing gods / knocking down buildings: something a heroic someone can do.
Flying: not so much.
Getting back to the original argument that you were getting at (that the fighter already defies logic, so why not do it more?) this is why it's pointless to really discuss hp any further. Point is that even if you were right about how they work, it doesn't follow that one either should or might as well "bake in" magic in a nonmagic class.
As for the golem, apparently the magic can be disrupted by sufficient physical trauma. Which doesn't have to mean total annihilation. HP are a a catch-all for many things. They aren't always just meat.
BJ,
how would you respond to my take on uquitous magic being akin to any baked in power and giving DMS the option of doing just that to ensure that a PC is engaged in play at all levels?
Baking it in produces a certainty and uniformity that i think kills the experience of the game and its setting (at least for me). It is a solution, but they are trying to argue it is a solution we have to embrace. How they gain the items matters.
Quote from: beejazz;580731If it's a magic stick? No problem. Nonmagic stick breaks. Magic weapons disrupt the protective magic of some monsters and the animating magic of some undead and constructs.
Fighter doesn't have to break the iron to disrupt the enchantment and kill the thing.
That might be the most stretched explanation of a figther against an iron golem I have ever heard.... It doesn;t damage itit disrupts the feild of magical energy that makes it work.... really. In my game the figher is chopping big chunks of iron off with his magic sword.... just like conan would do.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580725I already did a few pages above. Then you decided that you wanted to change the definition of how hit points worked to something other than what the game defined them as.
How about you answer my question. What specific action did the fighter take in that combat round that was superhuman? You like to ask questions and ask for proof, but you haven't ever actually provided proof for any of your claims.
Seriously, how old are you? I'm guessing 12 or 13.
OK so this earth elemental it's really big. 32ft tall in fact. It's massive, 24 tons of rock and dirt. It's also totally undifferentiated. It has no blood to bleed, no veins to cut, no organs to puncture, it has in fact no discernible anatomy whatsoever. So with your sword you need to somehow render inanimate this 32ft tall 24 ton earthen behemoth, while it's smashing you with arms that are bigger than your entire body and weigh around 2-3 tons each. Good luck with that mister ordinary human.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580741Baking it in produces a certainty and uniformity that i think kills the experience of the game and its setting (at least for me). It is a solution, but they are trying to argue it is a solution we have to embrace. How they gain the items matters.
I woudl tend to agree with you I am a roleplayer that likes stories but ..
Does it though if they exist in a world of entitlement where the items are statistically guarenteed?
Why not allow a choice or a random roll off a table each level?
Quote from: MGuy;580709Mage Hand object to push open door. Yes, you can do that. Not exactly something complicated. I have cats that can nudge open free swinging doors in my house. Not a big deal.
I'm gonna hazard a guess and say that your cat probably weighs more than five pounds, and can exert more than five pounds of force in any case.
But you're also drawing an equivalence between a hollow-core residential door on hinges with modern lubricants and a solid door swollen by moisture hanging from rusty hinges in a dungeon, which is a pretty ridiculous comparison. This is why there's actually a rule for pushing open doors earlier editions of
D&D, because it is, in fact, a fairly big deal for dungeon explorers.
Quote from: MGuy;580709If you want to add "the door is stuck, heavy, barred, iron, etc" to the mix then that's fine I have can handle all of those with, you know, a team of people with hands or a single spell if I'm inclined to waste one on the task. So the fuck what? The idea is still stupid and I have no idea why anyone would want to defend it.
Translation? "I was wrong, but the whole thing is stupid, so it doesn't matter anyway."
C'mon, try to be better than that.
Now, you could use a "team of people with hands" if you want to put, say, a battering ram or a long prybar in those hands, and now all those hands are filled with wooden log or iron bar instead of weapons or spell components once that door is open and whatever's on the other side is revealed.
And you could use
knock -
if it's among the spells available to your character - which means that you're giving up
web or
invisibility or
levitate or
detect evil, because spells are a finite resource to be managed in
D&D.
MGuy, if you haven't played a game where this sort of thing is relevant, I can totally understand why you would find the argument to be silly. There's a school of refereeing thought which says that stuff like doors which are hard to open is simply pixel-bitching, cock-blocking the fun of The Encounter Almighty. But, again, in older editions of the game, and in the culture which surrounds those editions, dealing with doors in a dungeon is actually A Thing, so much so that there're specific rules for it in both the
PHB and the
DMG in 1e (and I believe in
OD&D as well).
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580736The conceptual space "ordinary human with training" is sharply limited and the game needs to acknowledge that.
Your argument re:hp was that the fighter is
not within the bounds of ordinary human with training.
If you are correct on that point, why does the game need to acknowledge a conceptual space the fighter has already surpassed? Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise when it comes to the hp argument.
QuoteIf that really is the limit to the conceptional space for the fighter class then the class needs to end as soon as the can't meaningfully participate in adventures without stepping outside his conceptual space. This means that the fighter ends at 5-7 end of story
Good thing you got into a lengthy argument over how that isn't the limit of the conceptual space. Looks like the fighter can continue after level five.
QuoteNow if you acknowledge that the fighters conceptional space the much more versatile "person who can surpass human limits through training and being a badass." then you can push the fighters point of obsolescence back much further. Possibly to level 20. What exactly being a surperhuman with training in weapons and armor lets you do still needs to be hashed out.
As I said earlier, there's a difference between doing things anyone can do but better (everyone can break stuff but not everyone can pull a Samson on the badguys' temple) and doing things people plain can't do (telekinesis, flight, invisibility, etc).
And there's also a difference between having abilities foes have at level x (such as flight) and having an answer to those abilities (such as arrows).
The fighter's conceptual space is fine where it is. The "ideal" mechanical expression of that space varies table to table and is quibbling over nothing terribly related to balance on the whole.
These tangents don't really support any larger argument.
Quote from: jibbajibba;580740BJ,
how would you respond to my take on uquitous magic being akin to any baked in power and giving DMS the option of doing just that to ensure that a PC is engaged in play at all levels?
What, as a variant in D&D? Sure. Vow of Poverty works kind of like that in 3rd, and it works okay. May or may not be a bit minmaxable but whatever.
Quote from: jibbajibba;580742That might be the most stretched explanation of a figther against an iron golem I have ever heard.... It doesn;t damage itit disrupts the feild of magical energy that makes it work.... really. In my game the figher is chopping big chunks of iron off with his magic sword.... just like conan would do.
With a stick? The hypothetical I was answering was kind of absurd to begin with. How would you explain DR/magic if not by a magical force (either protection or animation) being disrupted?
Quote from: beejazz;580746Your argument re:hp was that the fighter is not within the bounds of ordinary human with training.
If you are correct on that point, why does the game need to acknowledge a conceptual space the fighter has already surpassed? Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise when it comes to the hp argument.
My point is that the fighter is already superhuman and he should be able to leverage that into at least some lateral advancement
Quote from: beejazz;580746As I said earlier, there's a difference between doing things anyone can do but better (everyone can break stuff but not everyone can pull a Samson on the badguys' temple) and doing things people plain can't do (telekinesis, flight, invisibility, etc).
You do realize the Samson's stregnth was (Su) right.
Quote from: beejazz;580746And there's also a difference between having abilities foes have at level x (such as flight) and having an answer to those abilities (such as arrows).
The fighter's conceptual space is fine where it is. The "ideal" mechanical expression of that space varies table to table and is quibbling over nothing terribly related to balance on the whole.
These tangents don't really support any larger argument.
Like I said I never said the fighter needs to have spells or (Su) class features. It's just hitting things can't be the only thing that he gets from his class.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580736Tell me when I said the fighter need to fly. The fighter does need some kind of lateral advancement.
LM's argument is as followed
The conceptual space "ordinary human with training" is sharply limited and the game needs to acknowledge that.
If that really is the limit to the conceptional space for the fighter class then the class needs to end as soon as the can't meaningfully participate in adventures without stepping outside his conceptual space. This means that the fighter ends at 5-7 end of story
Now if you acknowledge that the fighters conceptional space the much more versatile "person who can surpass human limits through training and being a badass." then you can push the fighters point of obsolescence back much further. Possibly to level 20. What exactly being a surperhuman with training in weapons and armor lets you do still needs to be hashed out.
Explain 'lateral advancement' .
Quote from: Exploderwizard;580750Explain 'lateral advancement' .
So as characters level up they get better at the thing they alread can do. Fighters Bab/Thac0 gets better, The Rogue/Thief get's better at his skill's. The Wizard/Cleric get a better CL/ can do more damage with spell/heal more hp.
However characters can also learn to do things they could not do before. This is lateral advancement. Casters get this in huge amounts, the start to fly, teleport, force saves vs death, replicate skills. So what kind of lateral advancment should the fighter get.
Without items a 20th level fighter is only really diffrent from a level 1 fighter in the fact that his numbers are better.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580749My point is that the fighter is already superhuman and he should be able to leverage that into at least some lateral advancement
Then give some damn examples of how you think that should work, if you think that's actually relevant (it's not). At least then people wouldn't have to guess what you're arguing for.
QuoteYou do realize the Samson's stregnth was (Su) right.
And when a bulldozer does it it's (Su) too right? Point was about the breaking of things, not the guy who did it.
QuoteLike I said I never said the fighter needs to have spells or (Su) class features. It's just hitting things can't be the only thing that he gets from his class.
So give him more skills and skill points.
But then there's the argument that everything needs to be codified in the form of button mashing. Give the guy some stat bonuses, code some cool shit into high level stat checks, and most people won't know the difference.
This line of argument still doesn't do shit to get us closer to a definition of balance.
Quote from: beejazz;580728No he really shouldn't. We're talking general class balance and (ostensibly) no one wants to get dragged back into that bullshit thread.
Actually the points I bring up are completely related considering that Sacro is bringing out the ole "magic item" part of the conversation to argue how a fighter stays relevant in combat. So IF he is going to bother getting bogged down by the magic item Christmas Tree fighter he might as well bring up the broader points about how the fighter (with the shit necessary to swing a sword) still can't compete with other better classes.
Preferably I'd like the conversation to be about general class design but somehow we are inescapably tethered to talking about fighters.
Quote from: beejazz;580731If it's a magic stick? No problem. Nonmagic stick breaks. Magic weapons disrupt the protective magic of some monsters and the animating magic of some undead and constructs.
Fighter doesn't have to break the iron to disrupt the enchantment and kill the thing.
So why isn't it the same for bus sized insect, earth elemental, animated objects?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;580732So to sum up, the fighter is worthless because a mage can expend a limited daily resource to do something the fighter can with a shove and you don't like the way D&D treats HP.
-Facepalm- First off, no and second no. I'm a convinced you are trolling me because not only is HP not something I brought up/weighed in on/said was bad but ANY FUCKING BODY CAN OPEN A GOD DAMN RANDOM DOOR!
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580735It isn't assured though because a built in draw back of being a mundane is you have to possess tools like that in order to use them.
What?
Quote from: beejazz;580752Then give some damn examples of how you think that should work, if you think that's actually relevant (it's not). At least then people wouldn't have to guess what you're arguing for.
And when a bulldozer does it it's (Su) too right? Point was about the breaking of things, not the guy who did it.
So give him more skills and skill points.
But then there's the argument that everything needs to be codified in the form of button mashing. Give the guy some stat bonuses, code some cool shit into high level stat checks, and most people won't know the difference.
This line of argument still doesn't do shit to get us closer to a definition of balance.
I would think it would work like the monk (save for the class being subpar at whatever it does I would think) as he just gets powers for discipline and blah and there's no reason to assume that sword masters would get something similar.
Quote from: beejazz;580752Then give some damn examples of how you think that should work, if you think that's actually relevant (it's not). At least then people wouldn't have to guess what you're arguing for.
So examples of lateral advancement for fighters, how about the ability to
-pinpoint the location of an invisible creature with perception skills
-jump superhuman distances
-run up walls
-block spells and the like with a weapon and/or shield
-hit people very hard, hard enough to ignore DR/not hurt except by +X
-shrug off debilitating conditions with raw willpower
Quote from: jibbajibba;580744I woudl tend to agree with you I am a roleplayer that likes stories but ..
Does it though if they exist in a world of entitlement where the items are statistically guarenteed?
Why not allow a choice or a random roll off a table each level?
Personally I think it changes the game a lot to do this. I have no problem with them including these options, but the more the game goes down the road of this being default, the quicker it loses my interest as a player and GM.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580751So as characters level up they get better at the thing they alread can do. Fighters Bab/Thac0 gets better, The Rogue/Thief get's better at his skill's. The Wizard/Cleric get a better CL/ can do more damage with spell/heal more hp.
However characters can also learn to do things they could not do before. This is lateral advancement. Casters get this in huge amounts, the start to fly, teleport, force saves vs death, replicate skills. So what kind of lateral advancment should the fighter get.
Without items a 20th level fighter is only really diffrent from a level 1 fighter in the fact that his numbers are better.
So what types of things can a fighter learn to do? In old school, after getting as good as someone can reasonably get at personal ass-kicking, the fighter attracts followers and gets to command troops, and rule some land. This is very fitting for a military leader. What kind of other non-combat abilities would the fighter logically get?
D&D combat was designed to be abstract and quickly resolved. It was never meant to simulate blow by blow combat. So giving the fighter a HAWK STRIKE DEATH BLOW that does extra damage is rather out of place in the abstract model.
Quote from: MGuy;580754ANY FUCKING BODY CAN OPEN A GOD DAMN RANDOM DOOR!
Providing that strength levels are relatively equal, yes.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580693You don't know the rules of the game. Quit pretending you do. You sound like an idiot.
So, the scroll allows a Fighter or Thief to memorize the spell contained thereon and cast it later whenever they want?
QuoteYour premises are supposed to support your conclusion. I've pointed out that your premises are false.
And with a very few examples, you have managed to show there might be some minor problems with these premises. 'Pointing out' they are false is not the same as
demonstrating they are false. The best you have managed is that they are not
absolutely true, but I think that is what people have been telling you all along. And we still haven't seen this awesome spell-load out that puts Wizards way ahead of Fighters. Sorry, I meant 'sensible' load out.
QuoteMy conclusion is that: "All else being equal, access to spells makes a character more powerful."
Ok. Where are the premises? You are quite clever at nit-picking semantic details out (ie, use of a scroll is 'casting a spell' because of the skill description, so Fighters can 'cast spells' sometimes.), but so far you have utterly failed to demonstrate any reason why your conclusion should be even be treated as a conclusion, let alone considered seriously. Show us how these few spells you mention in your post can be used by the Wizard day in and day out, with no impact on their regular activities. And by 'regular activities', I mean 'contributing to the adventure', not 'showing up the Fighter, Thief, and anyone else once or twice a day just because it might be possible'.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;580760So what types of things can a fighter learn to do? In old school, after getting as good as someone can reasonably get at personal ass-kicking, the fighter attracts followers and gets to command troops, and rule some land. This is very fitting for a military leader. What kind of other non-combat abilities would the fighter logically get?
He get's what an noncater can get out of the skill system, and I assume starts to become unreasonably good at personal ass-kicking
Quote from: Exploderwizard;580760D&D combat was designed to be abstract and quickly resolved. It was never meant to simulate blow by blow combat. So giving the fighter a HAWK STRIKE DEATH BLOW that does extra damage is rather out of place in the abstract model.
Please reread my examples.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580758So examples of lateral advancement for fighters, how about the ability to
-pinpoint the location of an invisible creature with perception skills
-jump superhuman distances
-run up walls
-block spells and the like with a weapon and/or shield
-hit people very hard, hard enough to ignore DR/not hurt except by +X
-shrug off debilitating conditions with raw willpower
-Detect Invisibility
- Jump
- Spider Climb
-Minor Globe/Antimagic Shell, etc.
- magic weapon
-(isn't this the very definition of a saving throw?)
So, other than magical abilities and procedures which already exist what else you got?
Remember, reskinning magical powers to be "martial" is the route 4E took. While it produced a fairly 'balanced ' combat game it also sucked donkey balls at being D&D. The 4E implied setting was tacked on as an afterthought to the rules structure.
This is what is bound to happen whenever you attempt to put the cart(rules) before the horse(game).
In other words, if what you are looking for is "not D&D" there is plenty of it already out there.
Most of what you're talking about can be baked into the math without "button mashing." Since DCs are GM-side and spells/feats are player-side, one method of codification presents an "easy mode" for new or casual players.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580758So examples of lateral advancement for fighters, how about the ability to
-pinpoint the location of an invisible creature with perception skills
Skill points in listen. Attack bonus to offset penalties.
Quote-jump superhuman distances
Jump skill. Good strength.
Quote-run up walls
This one's pretty meh if you've got that jumping working right.
Quote-block spells and the like with a weapon and/or shield
Functionally not different from having good saves. Flavor-wise kind of stupid. Actually doesn't do as much as interruption (pre-3e, since 3e kind of nerfed interruption).
Quote-hit people very hard, hard enough to ignore DR/not hurt except by +X
Mostly numbers. Just nix DR/magic.
Quote-shrug off debilitating conditions with raw willpower
Second saves. I'm pretty meh on those. My game has concentration based duration spells. So a punch in the face can end spell effects, including those that affect an ally (this kind of interruption has broader utility than a second save).
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580758So examples of lateral advancement for fighters, how about the ability to
-pinpoint the location of an invisible creature with perception skills
Anyone or anything with senses other than sight gets to try this in my games, after all invisibility does not block sound, smell, touch, etc.
Quote-jump superhuman distances
It depends on what you mean by superhuman distances. I might be willing to give a small bonus to high level fighters (say +1 foot per level over ten to standing broad jump and +1.5 feet per level over 10 to running broad jump -- MAX)
Quote-run up walls
Not in my games.
Quote-block spells and the like with a weapon and/or shield
Probably not -- unless it destroyed the weapon on shield used to block the spell -- and area effect spells would not be blockable. Even here, I would have to try it in the game for a good while before giving final approval.
Quote-hit people very hard, hard enough to ignore DR/not hurt except by +X
I've used 3.x so little that I can't say. However, I have allowed fighters to hit monsters that need magic weapons to hit without one in the past (in some settings) starting with monsters that need +1 weapons to hit at 5th level, +2 weapons to hit at 10th level, +3 weapons to hit at 15th level. This was NOT a superhuman ability, however, it was defined as the fighter's combat expertise allowing him to find places to hit the monster to damage it.
Quote-shrug off debilitating conditions with raw willpower
My answer would depends on the condition.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580759Personally I think it changes the game a lot to do this. I have no problem with them including these options, but the more the game goes down the road of this being default, the quicker it loses my interest as a player and GM.
See I hate super frequent magic item adventures. I hate being presented with the fact that by 15th level my fighter will have on average found 120 magic swords so probably has a +5 defender or equiv. This was a debate on the FvW thread.
I hate the fact that magic is so ubiquitous that magic swords and super armour are an expected thing found through just rooting round in old caves and whatnot. I hate that my fighter changes his sword every level cos he can trade up to something better.
My perfect world would have none of these mundane magic items, all items would be akin to artefacts and they would be very rare so by 15th level my fighter may have encountered a dozen or so and perhaps owns 1.
But as I have been informed D&D doesn't work like that.
So what could I do to fix it. Well I looked at the actual mechanical advantage of magic items. What do they actually do? and there is a slew of stuff but basically heal, defend, attack, mobility and utility. Is there a way to fill those gaps for the mundane classes, and they do have the worse of this, without the huge number of items without the constant trading up in gear.
I am not sure there is but the idea that the fighter's sword levels with him somehow maybe not his very first sword but his first magic sword. Maybe he finds it in lair and its +1/+1 but maybe by the time he is 10th level its +3/+3 and is when it kills an opponent it releases a wave of fear and any withn 10 feet must make a save. Maybe he finds a shield at 4th level and its +2 but by the time he is 15th level its +4 and has the ability to cause gaze reflection.
I am not sure I like it yet. I am not sure how it relates to my fundamental desire to make fighters totally mundane and get rid of all the magic and have them able to dodge and not take damage or block and parry and all the other stuff I have raised in the past. But I know I don't like the magic item train where keeping on using your father's sword is seen as a daft roleplay pretension.
I think magic items are a default assumption of the game. Ravenloft attempted to go magic light and the nature of the setting allowed it to work pretty well in my opinion. I ran campaign into the higher levels that worked pretty well even without a crazy number of magic items (though even there you still expect fighters might have magic swords with bonuses to attack). I havent played a 2E ravenloft campaign in a while but some of the stuff that made it work:
-the gm was encouraged to give monsters specific weaknesses: this vampire in particular is immune to anything but a stake fashioned by one of his ancestors (something the pcs are expected to figure out through investigation). This allowed you to get around the need for +x weapon to hit.
-magic was very dangerous in ravenloft. Some spells by their nature required a powers check just to cast them. Stuff like teleport, divination, etc were changed by the demiplane. Many other spells and magic items had unexpected effects.
-focus wasnt on combat: in ravenloft there was a lot less focus on combat, adventures tended to be rp heavy and investigative...and this meant you really didn't care as much about who is contributing what in a fight.
-combat was meant to be scary. Players being overwhelmed by a threat and needing to flee was okay. Dungeon crawls were not encouraged.
I found the game worked just fine. I dont know that changing how fighters worked would have added anyting useful. Especially since they were pretty effective in 2E in my opinion.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580743OK so this earth elemental it's really big. 32ft tall in fact. It's massive, 24 tons of rock and dirt. It's also totally undifferentiated. It has no blood to bleed, no veins to cut, no organs to puncture, it has in fact no discernible anatomy whatsoever. So with your sword you need to somehow render inanimate this 32ft tall 24 ton earthen behemoth, while it's smashing you with arms that are bigger than your entire body and weigh around 2-3 tons each. Good luck with that mister ordinary human.
So no, you can't give me a specific thing that the fighter is doing that is superhuman.
Big surprise. Oh, and "not super human" =/= "ordinary"
I'd like to apologize to all of the other posters here for my kneejerk reactions. Clearly LM isn't arguing in good faith and blatantly ignores half of the objective facts that prove him wrong, and outright changes the definition of the other half.
There is really no point in me continuing with someone who ignores the stuff right in front of his face. It would be a futile effort to try with someone like that.
Congrats LM, you got me with your trolling.
Quote from: MGuy;580754. . . ANY FUCKING BODY CAN OPEN A GOD DAMN RANDOM DOOR!
Translation? "LA-LA-LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
So, in order to makes your respective arguments, Lord Mistborn ignores the rules for hit points and you ignore the rules for opening doors, and you wonder why so many here - other than jj, who doesn't know shit about the rules, either - think you guys are less-than-serious.
It's one thing to say, 'I don't care for that rule, and here's how and why I would change it.' It's another thing altogether to say, 'That rule sucks, so I ignore it since it doesn't fit my argument.'
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580779I think magic items are a default assumption of the game. Ravenloft attempted to go magic light and the nature of the setting allowed it to work pretty well in my opinion. I ran campaign into the higher levels that worked pretty well even without a crazy number of magic items (though even there you still expect fighters might have magic swords with bonuses to attack). I havent played a 2E ravenloft campaign in a while but some of the stuff that made it work:
-the gm was encouraged to give monsters specific weaknesses: this vampire in particular is immune to anything but a stake fashioned by one of his ancestors (something the pcs are expected to figure out through investigation). This allowed you to get around the need for +x weapon to hit.
-magic was very dangerous in ravenloft. Some spells by their nature required a powers check just to cast them. Stuff like teleport, divination, etc were changed by the demiplane. Many other spells and magic items had unexpected effects.
-focus wasnt on combat: in ravenloft there was a lot less focus on combat, adventures tended to be rp heavy and investigative...and this meant you really didn't care as much about who is contributing what in a fight.
-combat was meant to be scary. Players being overwhelmed by a threat and needing to flee was okay. Dungeon crawls were not encouraged.
I found the game worked just fine. I dont know that changing how fighters worked would have added anyting useful. Especially since they were pretty effective in 2E in my opinion.
We have played magic light games for years and aside from changing HP wounds and recovery its worked really well but we had a mundane party. When that balance was upset with the addition of a wizard ally things became less easy to manage.
Similarly the DM was running a game for mundanes. His magic was high magic and inexplicable.Thw whole thing very S&S.
then we more recently played a more standard D&D game. The need to upgrade equipment each level was palpable.
I didn't do so enjoying the character with the stuff he had and not wanting to Xmas tree him. He dies as a result at 8th level.
So I am looking to see if a minor change in the narrative of D&D which no real change to the rules or the way it plays might fill my need for less bling whilst making mundane characters still able to compete past 8th level.
Quote from: jibbajibba;580786We have played magic light games for years and aside from changing HP wounds and recovery its worked really well but we had a mundane party. When that balance was upset with the addition of a wizard ally things became less easy to manage.
Similarly the DM was running a game for mundanes. His magic was high magic and inexplicable.Thw whole thing very S&S.
then we more recently played a more standard D&D game. The need to upgrade equipment each level was palpable.
I didn't do so enjoying the character with the stuff he had and not wanting to Xmas tree him. He dies as a result at 8th level.
So I am looking to see if a minor change in the narrative of D&D which no real change to the rules or the way it plays might fill my need for less bling whilst making mundane characters still able to compete past 8th level.
The whole constant upgrade thing was never an issue for us in B/X or 1E. Some campaigns had a lot more magic items than others but I don't remember need X amount just to survive.
It must be a 3E thing because of all the WBL assumptions baked into the math.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580780So no, you can't give me a specific thing that the fighter is doing that is superhuman.
Big surprise. Oh, and "not super human" =/= "ordinary"
He's hacking appart 24 tons of living rock while it's trying to kill him. That's pretty superhuman in my book.
Listen at the end of they day you're going to have to fight
(http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG41.jpg)
The guy on the right (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm#balor) at level 20. He's not only bigger, faster, and stronger than you he has his own list of spell-like abilities. He can teleport, cast save or dies, summon some of his demoinc bro's to fight with him, and yeah he can fly. What the fuck is the fighter suposed to be able to do against that.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580791What the fuck is the fighter suposed to be able to do against that.
His job. Face the bad guy as part of a team.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;580792His job. Face the bad guy as part of a team.
What is he contributing to the team at this point other the carrying everyone else's stuff. The Balor is going to fly above the party cast Fire Storm, Quickened Telekinesis and Insanity, then when the party has been whittled down he's going to start stunlocking people with his at-will Power Word Stun. The his vorpal blade goes snicker-snack as he finishes off the party. How does the fighter prevent any of this from happening.
A equal level fighter has to fight the following. How can he ever succeed without using superhuman feats or powers!!!!
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120829071160/powerlisting/images/d/d8/Orc.jpg)
(http://wiki.belegarth.com/images/3/3c/Bugbear.jpg)
(http://im.glogster.com/media/4/30/35/54/30355449.jpg)
(http://www.hoax-slayer.com/images/giant-rabbit2.jpg)
Oh wait....I guess that argument only holds water if the fighter is up against an epic level opponent with magical powers and protections, and even then only if you take away all of his tools and ignore some of the rules...
REMEMBER FOLKS! 3rd edition is the only edition of D&D that existed!
Quote from: jibbajibba;580786We have played magic light games for years and aside from changing HP wounds and recovery its worked really well but we had a mundane party. When that balance was upset with the addition of a wizard ally things became less easy to manage.
Similarly the DM was running a game for mundanes. His magic was high magic and inexplicable.Thw whole thing very S&S.
then we more recently played a more standard D&D game. The need to upgrade equipment each level was palpable.
I didn't do so enjoying the character with the stuff he had and not wanting to Xmas tree him. He dies as a result at 8th level.
So I am looking to see if a minor change in the narrative of D&D which no real change to the rules or the way it plays might fill my need for less bling whilst making mundane characters still able to compete past 8th level.
i think the change would work fine for what you want. My only point is if we are talking design principles (as lordmistborn is) then making that the default "good design goal" of D&D is going to be a problem for lots of players (as an optional rule it wont be). Especially when people have vastly different experiences regaridng the level of actual disparity.
Originally Posted by deadDMwalking
You don't know the rules of the game. Quit pretending you do. You sound like an idiot.
Quote from: StormBringer;580762So, the scroll allows a Fighter or Thief to memorize the spell contained thereon and cast it later whenever they want?
No. You don't know the rules of the game. Quit pretending you do. You sound like an idiot.
Quote from: SRDUse Magic Device
Use a Scroll
If you are casting a spell from a scroll, you have to decipher it first. Normally, to cast a spell from a scroll, you must have the scroll's spell on your class spell list. Use Magic Device allows you to use a scroll as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. The DC is equal to 20 + the caster level of the spell you are trying to cast from the scroll. In addition, casting a spell from a scroll requires a minimum score (10 + spell level) in the appropriate ability. If you don't have a sufficient score in that ability, you must emulate the ability score with a separate Use Magic Device check (see above).
This use of the skill also applies to other spell completion magic items.
Since you have the attention span of a gnat and the reading comprehension ability of a cocker spaniel, let me translate.
Use the skill, turn the scroll into a spell. The scroll disappears. You
do not prepare spells from a scroll. They
do not count toward your normal total of spells per day.
Originally Posted by deadDMwalking
Your premises are supposed to support your conclusion. I've pointed out that your premises are false.
Quote from: StormBringer;580762And with a very few examples, you have managed to show there might be some minor problems with these premises.
In logic, if there if there is an exception to your premise, it is false. I won't bill you for the tutoring fees, but I'll happily refer you to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise
Quote from: StormBringer;580762'Pointing out' they are false is not the same as demonstrating they are false.
Actually, pointing out a scenario in which they are false demonstrates that they are false. Since I can't trust you're smart enough to click on a link and read any of the page, I'll quote some of it here:
If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
This is a false premise, even if the only time the streets have been wet is after rain. Even if there is never a situation in which the street is wet without rain, there are plenty of possible explanations that COULD happen. Even if they don't, the premise is still false.
If there is a single exception to any of your premises, the premise is false. This is logic, not 'being right'.
Quote from: StormBringer;580762The best you have managed is that they are not absolutely true, but I think that is what people have been telling you all along.
If you think those are premises, then you are an idiot. You have the reading comprehension of a cocker spaniel. I repeat myself a lot when I respond to your posts because you are
really dense. I hope that if I repeat myself enough, you might understand what I'm saying. But you're a dumb ass, so small hope of that. But let me go back to my premise at the end of my response, when I point out that you're being an idiot
again.
Quote from: StormBringer;580762And we still haven't seen this awesome spell-load out that puts Wizards way ahead of Fighters. Sorry, I meant 'sensible' load out.
You understand that this is a thread about 'class balance' in general, not specifically about Fighter versus Caster inequities? No? Of course not. You're a dumb ass. But in any case, your 'request' for an 'awesome' spell-load is pointless. I don't care how you generate your spells. Assume a non-specialist wizard. Open up the 3.5 DMG. Count how many spells are available at each level. Divide those spells up so there is an equal chance of any single spell being prepared. Do that for the 1st level spells three times, the 2nd level spells three times, etc, until you've filled out the spell list of a 15th level Wizard with a 24 Intelligence (don't forget bonus spells). I'll choose one of those three lists for each level and show you an 'awesome spell-load that puts Wizards ahead of fighters'. The reason that happens is that there are a
ton of good spells. If a spell
isn't good, it isn't likely to keep getting printed. So, a random selection of spells is good enough to prove that Wizards have more options than a Fighter in any number of different situations. You could even start a new thread for it. You have to deliberately choose sub-optimal spells in order to not have more options than a Fighter. Because Lord Mistborn is right - spells provide lateral advancement (you can do
different things with spells). Further, a cleric has access to 'every spell' when they do their preparation. So the 'lack of availability of scrolls' doesn't apply to their spell selection. What part of that is difficult for you to grasp?
If you choose effective spells, you will have effective options.
Fighters may get very few 'choices' in the game. While they have possibly more
bad choices available to them than the Wizard, a Wizard does need to make
good choices. The game makes it hard for a Wizard to make bad choices, but if a player tries hard enough, it can happen.
Quote from: StormBringer;580762Ok. Where are the premises? You are quite clever at nit-picking semantic details out (ie, use of a scroll is 'casting a spell' because of the skill description, so Fighters can 'cast spells' sometimes.), but so far you have utterly failed to demonstrate any reason why your conclusion should be even be treated as a conclusion, let alone considered seriously.
Thank you for this. I'm quoting you here because I'm about to make you look like an idiot again.
Originally Posted by deadDMwalking
My conclusion is that: "All else being equal, access to spells makes a character more powerful."All else being equal could be represented as A=A. This is definitionally true.
Access to spells means adding something to A. A+B cannot equal A unless B is zero. It cannot be less than A unless B is a negative number. Since I'm adding an ability, A+B > A
Now, if B is a single casting of
magic missile, that's a very minor increase in power. If B is the ability to cast any spell in any published source at will, that's a very major increase in power. But at that point, we're just talking about how much extra power B is.
Further, If B > C, then A+B > A+C. This is also definitionally true.
So, if we start with identical characters and we add abilities to them both, we can compare what gets added and then determine which one is 'greater'. I posit that spells in aggregate are greater than other 'resources' for the most part, because when a Fighter picks the 'best resource available', I can find a spell that is better.
Of course, some of this will vary based on situation. Which is better? A bonus of +10 3/day or a +2 bonus all the time? Clearly if it comes up less than 3/day, the first bonus is better. If 6 days it comes up 1/day, and 1 day it comes up 10/day, which is better? Those are the areas we could debate the quality or efficacy of a spell.
Quote from: StormBringer;580762Show us how these few spells you mention in your post can be used by the Wizard day in and day out, with no impact on their regular activities.
Stop being an idiot. I never made this claim. It doesn't have to be true for the Wizard to have more options than a Fighter.
Quote from: StormBringer;580762And by 'regular activities', I mean 'contributing to the adventure', not 'showing up the Fighter, Thief, and anyone else once or twice a day just because it might be possible'.
I know what your problem is. Besides being functionally illiterate and a dumb ass. You think that I want the Wizard to be superior. You think that I like 'awesome kickass wizards' that can do everything. You think that I want the wizard to show how awesome he can be all the time.
You're an idiot.
I like Fighters. I want Fighters to be fun and interesting to play. I want them to be able to contribute at high levels. I like playing a Fighter and doing Fighter things.
I object that the game defines Fighters as being 'comprable' to an equal level wizard at all levels of play when that is not true. I object that the entire contribution that a Fighter can make to the adventure can be duplicated by the use of a spell OUTSIDE of the daily limits. If you don't like the ruling of
charm monster to convince a monster to help you do things, you can consider
dominate monster. As a 9th level spell, the minimum duration is 17
days!
It's nice that D&D is a team game. As a team player, I value my ability to contribute to the team. If I recognize that my contribution is negligible, I would be doing a service to the team to retire that character and make a more effective character. I don't like the fact that the game fails to provide options for a high level Fighter to contribute in a non-negligible fashion, which happens more quickly and often then you'd care to realize.
Further, if the Fighter has dozens of men-at-arms and siege engines, that's fine if the problems come to him, but it doesn't help him address problems around the multi-verse.
While Wizards are just starting to do 'epic' things like saving worlds, the Fighters are forced to content themselves with a fief.
I think it's clear that at high level, the Fighter is playing a 'different game' than the Wizard. Since I think it's a more exciting game, I want that type of game for my Fighters.
I wouldn't care if I didn't care about Fighters.
So let me bring this back to the thread. Class Balance is important, because without it, people don't feel like they can play the class that would be the most fun for them because it doesn't contribute well to group play. I don't wan the Druid to 'hold back' because he's afraid of 'showing me up'. I want him to play his character in a fun and rewarding way. It's not his fault that his character actually gets abilties and can do 'cool things' at high level, while I'm still making the same kind of attacks I did at level 1 (even if I get to roll them more often).
D&D has reasonable class balance at low-levels (and I agree, that matters most), but it is LAUGHABLE at high levels. And that's a shame, because high level play could be fun if they had managed to achieve 'reasonable' balance.
And for my purposes, reasonable balance means the ability to make a 'meaningful contribution' to a level-appropriate challenge. If the outcome is not affected by your presence or absence, you're not 'contributing'.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580811No. You don't know the rules of the game. Quit pretending you do. You sound like an idiot. .
I'm not defending Stormbringer at all on this, but maybe you want to direct that comment to your own buddies there.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580811And for my purposes, reasonable balance means the ability to make a 'meaningful contribution' to a level-appropriate challenge. If the outcome is not affected by your presence or absence, you're not 'contributing'.
So deadDMwalking, in this scenario
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580798The Balor is going to fly above the party cast Fire Storm, Quickened Telekinesis and Insanity, then when the party has been whittled down he's going to start stunlocking people with his at-will Power Word Stun. The his vorpal blade goes snicker-snack as he finishes off the party. How does the fighter prevent any of this from happening.
How should the fighter be contributing meaningfully, for bonus points spell out some lateral advancement that would help him in this encounter you would like to see added to the fighter class.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580811If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
The streets are wet. (premise)
Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)
I dont know what you two are trying to prove in this argument, but I just want to step in and comment on this because the growing trend of invoking logic 101 to prove something is badwrongfun in D&D is mind-splittingly pathetic. I minored in philosophy as an undergrad and it makes me cringe to see people pull this stuff to intimidate the other side into agreeing with them.
In this case, it would be bad decuctive reasoning, but it is a fair form of adbuction to identify what is likely to be the case (though it needs to be worded differently and with more care). The streets could be wet fron all other kinds of things and pointing one or two of those out, makes the first premise invalid. But that doesn't mean you ought not assume it has rained when the streets are wet. In fact when the streets are wet the most likely cause is rain.
Interesting to see people use the standard text book examples. It indicates a lot of googling and wikipedia surfing. Has anyone tried done "all men are mortal" yet?
Sorry to get a bit negative there, but do you guys have any idea how terrible you sound when you pull out the logic 101 to prove how smart you are on the internet? Particularly when the subject is "are fighters underpowered". I mean this is exactly the sort of thing that gives gamers a bad name.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580800REMEMBER FOLKS! 3rd edition is the only edition of D&D that existed!
See the grognards do learn. As soon as they're confronted with a 3e monster they run away with their tails between their legs, because they've learned the hard way that when 3E made it's monsters it didn't fuck around.
For those curious, in 2e, how does a 13th level fighter do against a 13 HD Pit Fiend?
Here's what the core rules 2.0 spit out:
Pit fiend: AT 6/1, Dmg: 1d4/1d4/1d6/1d6/1d12/1d8, AC: -5, THAC0: 7, HP: 65, Special: +3 or better weapons to hit, +3 hp regen, poison attacks, +6 damage with each attack
Dwarf fighter: AT: 5/2, Dmg: 1d8+14, AC: -7, THAC0: 0, HP: 96
armed with battle axe +3, full plate+4, shield+4, girdle of frost giant strength. Saving Throw vs Poison: 1
Pit fiend hits 35% of the time, the dwarf hits 75% of the time. Average damage in odd rounds: 20.65 for pit fiend, 27.75 for dwarf. In round 2, 20.65 for pit fiend, 41.6 for dwarf.
Since the dwarf will make his save versus poison every round, that attack is moot. The pit fiend will die in 3 rounds, even with its regeneration. 2 rounds without it. The fiend also has 50% magic resistance, so that is also moot since the fighter isn't casting spells.
And before people say the items should be taken away, remember the context of this is balance. The game balance, and the fighter's balance, was under the assumption that a high level fighter like that would have some serious items (all of those items are pretty typical for level 8-12 adventure modules. Just open up Against the Giants if you don't believe me).
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580827For those curious, in 2e, how does a 13th level fighter do against a 13 HD Pit Fiend?
Here's what the core rules 2.0 spit out:
Pit fiend: AT 6/1, Dmg: 1d4/1d4/1d6/1d6/1d12/1d8, AC: -5, THAC0: 7, HP: 65, Special: +3 or better weapons to hit, +3 hp regen, poison attacks, +6 damage with each attack
Dwarf fighter: AT: 5/2, Dmg: 1d8+14, AC: -7, THAC0: 0, HP: 96
armed with battle axe +3, full plate+4, shield+4, girdle of frost giant strength. Saving Throw vs Poison: 1
Pit fiend hits 35% of the time, the dwarf hits 75% of the time. Average damage in odd rounds: 20.65 for pit fiend, 27.75 for dwarf. In round 2, 20.65 for pit fiend, 41.6 for dwarf.
Since the dwarf will make his save versus poison every round, that attack is moot. The pit fiend will die in 3 rounds, even with its regeneration. 2 rounds without it. The fiend also has 50% magic resistance, so that is also moot since the fighter isn't casting spells.
And before people say the items should be taken away, remember the context of this is balance. The game balance, and the fighter's balance, was under the assumption that a high level fighter like that would have some serious items (all of those items are pretty typical for level 8-12 adventure modules. Just open up Against the Giants if you don't believe me).
Ha ha ha wrong. Your fighter dies like a bitch to Fireballs while the Pit Fiend is flying and Improved Invisible.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580829Ha ha ha wrong. Your fighter dies like a bitch to Fireballs while the Pit Fiend is flying and Improved Invisible.
II only gives a -4 penalty to hit, which means the fighter still hits more than 50% of the time, and he'd just use his hammer of thunderbolts (which did 1d8+15 points of damage, and yes, it was on the character sheet).
You still fail. And that's assuming an encounter with the pit fiend would be way out in the open.
I would think that at this point you'd stop talking about editions that you don't know about.
In 2E it wouldn't be a problem if a pit fiend was deadly to a 13th level fighter. It ought to be. Using HD to measure challenge is a rough guideline (and I am frankly not even sure if it was an official guideline or one we came up with on our own) but they are meant to be nasty foes. I would be a lot more worried about the wish spell once a year than invisibility actually. Pit fiend are nasty. They are also tough on wizards given their spell resistance.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580832II only gives a -4 penalty to hit, which means the fighter still hits more than 50% of the time, and he'd just use his hammer of thunderbolts (which did 1d8+15 points of damage, and yes, it was on the character sheet).
You still fail. And that's assuming an encounter with the pit fiend would be way out in the open.
I would think that at this point you'd stop talking about editions that you don't know about.
Ok the ran some numbers and It's looks likes this is a battle of atrition that the fighter is probably losing rather than the total slaughter I thought it would be, What's the Fighters save vs spell anyway.
Of coures you end up fighting the Pit Fiend out in the open the things telaport at will cast illusions and turn invisible, you fight them when and where they want to not the other way around.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580834Ok the ran some numbers and It's looks likes this is a battle of atrition that the fighter is probably losing rather than the total slaughter I thought it would be, What's the Fighters save vs spell anyway.
.
You ran numbers huh? Why not show them?
Round 1, it turns invisible, fighter still does an average of 20 points per damage assuming a 50% hit rate
Round 2, it casts fireball that does a whopping 17 or so points of damage (assuming dwarf makes save, which is a 3 or better), fighter hits again for 20 more points.
Round 3: fireball again?
Round 4, Fighter is still has 1/2 hp and the pit fiend goes down.
Sorry, the only way it wins hands down is if it hasn't used a wish spell at all in the year, and that's a really rare thing. How many monsters would a level 13 fighter face that can cast wish?
*Edit* Oh, and as the teleporting out in the open thing? Why would the fighter follow him. No, the fighter will stay there, ransacking the pit fiend's horde waiting for it to come back. And if it doesn't, free treasure.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580834Ok the ran some numbers and It's looks likes this is a battle of atrition that the fighter is probably losing rather than the total slaughter I thought it would be, What's the Fighters save vs spell anyway.
For 2e, a 13th level fighter saves vs spell on a 8 or higher. However, a dwarf gets a +1 bonus to spell saves for every three points of CON. (And gets a +1 to rolled CON). Assume a CON of only 12 and this fighter saves vs spells on a roll of 4 or higher. 15 CON and its 3 or higher. 18 CON is unlikely, but that would be 2 or higher.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580835You ran numbers huh? Why not show them?
Round 1, it turns invisible, fighter still does an average of 20 points per damage assuming a 50% hit rate
Round 2, it casts fireball that does a whopping 17 or so points of damage (assuming dwarf makes save, which is a 3 or better), fighter hits again for 20 more points.
Round 3: fireball again?
Round 4, Fighter is still has 1/2 hp and the pit fiend goes down.
It goes more like this
Round 1 The Pit Fiend Fireballs you because it's already invisible
Round 2 The Pit Fiend Teleports eleswhere and regens his hp back
rinse repeat untill the fighter is a charred corpse.
If the Pit Fiend can't teleport to a safe spot he can also spam the Battlefeild with Advanced Illusions of Pit Fiends casting Fireball good luck finding the real one.
Gosh it's like the Bone Devil all over again how do you even beat Pit Fiends anyway.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580837It goes more like this
Round 1 The Pit Fiend Fireballs you because it's already invisible
Round 2 The Pit Fiend Teleports eleswhere and regens his hp back
rinse repeat untill the fighter is a charred corpse.
Oh, so you're changing the rules again. You should really stop doing that. For one, why does it get an extra round to turn invisible? Secondly, it would take 10 rounds to regen it's hp back from 1 attack. The fighter would have it's treasure by then and probably gone.
keep trying.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580837It goes more like this
Round 1 The Pit Fiend Fireballs you because it's already invisible
Round 2 The Pit Fiend Teleports eleswhere and regens his hp back
rinse repeat untill the fighter is a charred corpse.
It will be likewise with the wizard.
(This is the part where you display your deck building prowess by posting a super-duper Balrog-killing wizard build that would only exist in a white room thus proving the superiority of casters)
Right?
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580837It goes more like this
Round 1 The Pit Fiend Fireballs you because it's already invisible
Round 2 The Pit Fiend Teleports eleswhere and regens his hp back
rinse repeat untill the fighter is a charred corpse.
Why would the fighter still be there? At 3hp regen per round, it takes the PF 7 rounds to regenerate from the 20 points of damage the fighter gave him. After a time or two of battle, PF teleports away to regenerate, returns an average of 7 rounds later to do it again, a lone fighter would have to be pretty dumb to stand around waiting for more if he did not think he could beat the PF.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;580840It will be likewise with the wizard.
(This is the part where you display your deck building prowess by posting a super-duper Balrog-killing wizard build that would only exist in a white room thus proving the superiority of casters)
Right?
I could do it in 3rd. Not in 2e though I'm genuinely stumped.
Quote from: RandallS;580841Why would the fighter still be there? At 3hp regen per round, it takes the PF 7 rounds to regenerate from the 20 points of damage the fighter gave him. After a time or two of battle, PF teleports away to regenerate, returns an average of 7 rounds later to do it again, a lone fighter would have to be pretty dumb to stand around waiting for more if he did not think he could beat the PF.
Actually, that was a typo. They only regen 2 hp per round.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580843Actually, that was a typo. They only regen 2 hp per round.
Hunts up 2e MM. You're right.
This makes it even less likely that the fighter would hang waiting to be fried by the pit fiend again. I guess he'd hang around just so he could die and therefore demonstrate Lord Mistborn's premise that (stupidly played) fighters really cannot hold their own again powerful opponents. Of course, I happen to agree that stupidly played high level fighters do very poorly just as stupidly played high level characters of other classes do.
Quote from: RandallS;580844Hunts up 2e MM. You're right.
This makes it even less likely that the fighter would hang waiting to be fried by the pit fiend again. I guess he'd hang around just so he could die and therefore demonstrate Lord Mistborn's premise that (stupidly played) fighters really cannot hold their own again powerful opponents. Of course, I happen to agree that stupidly played high level fighters do very poorly just as stupidly played high level characters of other classes do.
What exactly stoping the Devil from using hit and run tactics, The Pit Fiend ambushes the fighter does damage then teleports to safety. The fighter can't win unless he has some way of preventing the Pit Fiend from finding him or he can somehow shut off the Devils Teleport.
To satisfy my curiosity, I also ran with a level 13 generic magic user, and what spells would probably be best for a battle against demons (of those available to memorize)
Mage
1st Level
Protection From Evil x2
Read Magic
Shield
Tenser's Floating Disc
2nd Level
Blindness
Fog Cloud
Protection From Paralysis
Strength
Wizard Lock
3rd Level
Blink
Lightning Bolt
Maximilian's Stony Grasp
Wall of Water
Wraithform
4th Level
Charm Monster
Dimension Door
Fire Shield
Minor Spell Turning
5th Level
Attraction
Cloudkill
Conjure Earth Elemental x2
6th Level
Demi-shadow Magic
Invisible Stalker
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580845What exactly stoping the Devil from using hit and run tactics, The Pit Fiend ambushes the fighter does damage then teleports to safety. The fighter can't win unless he has some way of preventing the Pit Fiend from finding him or he can somehow shut off the Devils Teleport.
Fighter takes his treasure and leaves. How is the pit fiend going to find him?
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580842I could do it in 3rd. Not in 2e though I'm genuinely stumped.
Oh please use 3rd.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580848Fighter takes his treasure and leaves. How is the pit fiend going to find him?
Well he can only go so far in 10 rounds with his flight and teleporation I assume finding the fighter again wont be to hard, and why does the Devil care about the fighter taking his stuff if he can take it back from his charred corpse.
Also
Quote from: LM;580838If the Pit Fiend can't teleport to a safe spot he can also spam the Battlefeild with Advanced Illusions of Pit Fiends casting Fireball good luck finding the real one.
That's a thing too.
Once again, in your Denner mentality of "all spells, all the time, instantly", you keep forgetting that it takes a round to cast each spell. When is the fiend going to do that? While he's getting killed in 3 rounds? Exactly when is the pit fiend going to be casting all these spells? The fighter isn't just going to sit there and wait until it's ready.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;580849Oh please use 3rd.
Well in 3e if you know an Illusion is not real you can disbelive it and then it's transparent so If you know your surrounded by Illusions you can will disbelive them all. See invis is on your spell list. After that Any optimized Orb blaster can 1 round somthing with the less.
Full round action: Occular Split Maximized Orb of Electricity is 360 damage that's enough to kill almost everything.
Once an Incantrix blaster hits his 15th level the monsters he can not kill in one round are next to none. There is a reason Incantrixes are banned in my games.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580851Once again, in your Denner mentality of "all spells, all the time, instantly", you keep forgetting that it takes a round to cast each spell. When is the fiend going to do that? While he's getting killed in 3 rounds? Exactly when is the pit fiend going to be casting all these spells? The fighter isn't just going to sit there and wait until it's ready.
If the Pit Fiend has his spells at will then there is no reason not to keep stuff like invis. up all day. Then while he's invisible he can set up the illusion hall of mirrors, the fighter doen't know what's up untill it's too late
I can burp at will, but I don't do it all day long just because I can.
Really, all these conversations (like this and the FvW thread) have shown is that when WoTC took over, they created the shittiest version of D&D ever in 3e, because all of these problems didn't really exist in previous editions. And if you guys are an example of how a 3e adventure is run, it also has the shittiest DMs in history as well.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580855I can burp at will, but I don't do it all day long just because I can.
Really, all these conversations (like this and the FvW thread) have shown is that when WoTC took over, they created the shittiest version of D&D ever in 3e, because all of these problems didn't really exist in previous editions. And if you guys are an example of how a 3e adventure is run, it also has the shittiest DMs in history as well.
So you would prefer that the Pit Fiend just stand around like a MOB all day next to it's pile of treasure untill you enter the room and stab it in the face.
Also lolwut at-will teleports and illusions have been around since at least 2e, I doubt the Den is the first place to realize that DM's could leverage them into unbeatable monsters.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580851Once again, in your Denner mentality of "all spells, all the time, instantly", you keep forgetting that it takes a round to cast each spell. When is the fiend going to do that? While he's getting killed in 3 rounds? Exactly when is the pit fiend going to be casting all these spells? The fighter isn't just going to sit there and wait until it's ready.
I feel the need to quote myself, because obviously you haven't read it.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580811No. You don't know the rules of the game. Quit pretending you do. You sound like an idiot.
In other words, 'reading a scroll' is not the same as 'spell-casting class'.
QuoteActually, pointing out a scenario in which they are false demonstrates that they are false.
Uh huh. But the scenario has to be 'true', or at least reasonable. Watch:
It
could be the case that Fighters are made of solid adamantium and can shoot infinite damage rays from their eyes, so obviously the claim that spell casting classes are superior is false.
See how that works now? A Thief with a scroll is not and never will be a 'spell-casting class'. That they can occasionally - but not reliably - use scrolls does not change the definition of 'spell-casting'. It doesn't even make them 'spell-using', it makes them 'occasionally scroll-using'. There are differences between 'spell' and 'scroll' beyond the different letters.
QuoteThis is a false premise, even if the only time the streets have been wet is after rain. Even if there is never a situation in which the street is wet without rain, there are plenty of possible explanations that COULD happen. Even if they don't, the premise is still false.
Ummm... If there is never a situation in which the street is wet without rain, then you pretty much removed all the instances that would make that premise false. But you still claim it's false. Good one.
QuoteIf there is a single exception to any of your premises, the premise is false. This is logic, not 'being right'.
Interesting. So, if there is a single exception to a statement like "All else being equal, access to spells makes a character more powerful", then the statement is false? (Protip: That's a premise, not a conclusion;
If all else is equal,
then access to spells is more powerful)
QuoteAll else being equal could be represented as A=A. This is definitionally true.
That's about the dumbest thing I have read in a while.
So, not going to provide this 'sensible' spell list, then? Because you keep saying retarded shit like this:
QuoteI object that the entire contribution that a Fighter can make to the adventure can be duplicated by the use of a spell OUTSIDE of the daily limits.
Hence, without providing a demonstration of that, ie a spell list, then you keep stating something that is demonstrably false. Most people call that 'lying'.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580817I dont know what you two are trying to prove in this argument, but I just want to step in and comment on this because the growing trend of invoking logic 101 to prove something is badwrongfun in D&D is mind-splittingly pathetic. I minored in philosophy as an undergrad and it makes me cringe to see people pull this stuff to intimidate the other side into agreeing with them.
In this case, it would be bad decuctive reasoning, but it is a fair form of adbuction to identify what is likely to be the case (though it needs to be worded differently and with more care). The streets could be wet fron all other kinds of things and pointing one or two of those out, makes the first premise invalid. But that doesn't mean you ought not assume it has rained when the streets are wet. In fact when the streets are wet the most likely cause is rain.
Interesting to see people use the standard text book examples. It indicates a lot of googling and wikipedia surfing. Has anyone tried done "all men are mortal" yet?
I am totally with you. I knew exactly where this was going when these folks started yelling about 'cohesive arguments' and 'logic'.
What I am trying to 'prove' is that their opponents are held to the absolute strictest definitions for 'logic', while they get to lazily slop nonsense like "I object that the entire contribution that a Fighter can make to the adventure can be duplicated by the use of a spell OUTSIDE of the daily limits", when challenged demanding people prove them wrong, and then get quite upset at the notion that the burden of proof does not sit with other people. I suspect it's because they know their 'arguments' will fall to pieces when scrutinized with the least amount of rigor.
Thank you, One Horse Town.
Quote from: Rum Cove;580877Thank you, One Horse Town.
My pleasure.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580857Also lolwut at-will teleports and illusions have been around since at least 2e, I doubt the Den is the first place to realize that DM's could leverage them into unbeatable monsters.
Why would the DM want to do that? Leveraging weird rules or ability combos into over-powered or unbeatable monsters is just as dickish as players doing it in character design. This type of min-maxing is bad for most play-styles whether the players or the GM is doing it. (Yes, I realize that for ultra-competitive play-styles, it may be common and not dickish behavior.)
The DM always could leverage any monster into unbeatability, though.
I seem to remember more than a few "killer kobolds" adventures; basically that's what Dragon Mountain was.
I know that for some people, the arms race between characters and monsters is what's the most important thing, where acquiring the most powerful traits/spells/feats is the priority. I guess for me, it just misses the spirit of the game. For me, TTRPGs are a social event, where interacting with your fellow friends and going on the adventure itself are the most important. We talk about the three pillars, which means to me each is as important as the other. Not 80% combat or combat prep, 10% interaction, 10% exploration. If all I wanted was to see what kind of build I could do, I can do that on my PC at home.
Now I feel old.
Quote from: StormBringer;580869In other words, 'reading a scroll' is not the same as 'spell-casting class'.
No. Reading a scroll isn't the same as 'casting a spell'. Casting a spell from a scroll is 'casting a spell'. If a particular character has access to a large number of scrolls, has the ability to cast use a large number of scrolls (such as through Use Magic Device) and is able to do so reliably, then he would definitionally have access to spells and spellcasting. He wouldn't be a 'spellcaster', because those specifically refer to characters who get spell casting as a class feature.
Quote from: StormBringer;580869It could be the case that Fighters are made of solid adamantium and can shoot infinite damage rays from their eyes, so obviously the claim that spell casting classes are superior is false.
Since you keep bringing logic into it that isn't necessarily the case. When you argue from false premises, as you insist on doing, your conclusion MAY be correct. But it wouldn't necessarily follow.
Example:
Premise: Stormbringer spends most of his time covering his penis with peanut butter and having a dog lick it.
Conclusion: Stormbringer is a dumb ass.
The premise is false. You don't spend
most of your time so engaged.
The conclusion is still true. You are a dumb ass.
Quote from: StormBringer;580869See how that works now? A Thief with a scroll is not and never will be a 'spell-casting class'. That they can occasionally - but not reliably - use scrolls does not change the definition of 'spell-casting'. It doesn't even make them 'spell-using', it makes them 'occasionally scroll-using'. There are differences between 'spell' and 'scroll' beyond the different letters.
Yes. There are. Nobody said otherwise. But it is not 'being a spellcaster' that makes spellcasters powerful. Is that what you think? What a dumb ass!
It is
reliable access to a powerful resource (which spells are) that make spell casting classes so powerful compared to mundanes. It doesn't matter
how a class accesses this resource - the better their access to it, the more powerful they will tend to be. Are you dense? What part of this paragraph do you disagree with? Or are you just disagreeing because you like to show the world you're a dumb ass?
Quote from: StormBringer;580869Ummm... If there is never a situation in which the street is wet without rain, then you pretty much removed all the instances that would make that premise false. But you still claim it's false. Good one.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580817In this case, it would be bad decuctive reasoning, but it is a fair form of adbuction to identify what is likely to be the case (though it needs to be worded differently and with more care). The streets could be wet fron all other kinds of things and pointing one or two of those out, makes the first premise invalid. But that doesn't mean you ought not assume it has rained when the streets are wet. In fact when the streets are wet the most likely cause is rain.
My point is that you are arguing from false premises. That doesn't mean your conclusion is false (it happens to be true), but you're trying to tout logic and then not using it. Let me interject here to respond to BedrockBrendan's other point.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580817I dont know what you two are trying to prove in this argument, but I just want to step in and comment on this because the growing trend of invoking logic 101 to prove something is badwrongfun in D&D is mind-splittingly pathetic.
Stormbringer seems to be upset that I profess the Fighter is weaker than the Wizard and Cleric in high level 3.5 play. It has been demonstrated numerous ways, and been explained numerous times. Because the Fighter Versus Wizard thread was closed, he seems to think that he can build a bad argument, couch it as logical, get me to agree that is my argument, and then demolish the premises. He keeps trying to bring logic into the argument, and he keeps doing it badly. I'd rather he not try, because he's embarrassing himself (or at least, he would be if he were smart enough to realize what an idiot he is showing himself to be). But since he keeps insisting on bringing it up, I don't mind taking the time to explain why he's being a dumb ass. I'm sorry if it's interrupted your enjoyment of this thread.
Quote from: StormBringer;580869Interesting. So, if there is a single exception to a statement like "All else being equal, access to spells makes a character more powerful", then the statement is false?
It would be false under that circumstance, yes. It could still be true under other circumstances. However, since I believe it is true in all circumstances (at least as far as D&D is concerned) I would accept a situation where it is not true as a refutation. Since spells don't cause sanity loss or other ill effects to the caster, having them available is always a net increase in power in D&D. Please provide a scenario where it is not true.
Just to be fair, I'm laughing at you now because you've painted yourself into a corner. This is where I expect you to run off and hide in some dark corner of the internet. No, who am I kidding. You'll ignore this part of the post, assert that the burden of proof is not on you and then refuse to accept that the premise is true.
Quote from: StormBringer;580869So, not going to provide this 'sensible' spell list, then? Because you keep saying retarded shit like this:
Originally posted by deadDMwalking
I object that the entire contribution that a Fighter can make to the adventure can be duplicated by the use of a spell OUTSIDE of the daily limits.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580811I repeat myself a lot when I respond to your posts because you are really dense. I hope that if I repeat myself enough, you might understand what I'm saying. But you're a dumb ass, so small hope of that.
Just thought I'd throw that in there before I show you were I provided that response (that you failed to comprehend).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580811If you don't like the ruling of charm monster to convince a monster to help you do things, you can consider dominate monster. As a 9th level spell, the minimum duration is 17 days!
I wonder why you didn't include that part of my quote? Is it because it made you feel like a dumb ass? Because it sure makes you look like one.
Quote from: StormBringer;580869Hence, without providing a demonstration of that, ie a spell list, then you keep stating something that is demonstrably false. Most people call that 'lying'.
I fail to see how a specific spell list is relevant. Perhaps you should try to explain that to me. I've explained that a randomly generated list you provide is sufficient example of a 'net increase in power'. But you tell me why you want it, and I'l be happy to provide it.
Also, please tell me what is 'demonstrably false'. I know you don't like having the burden of proof, but I think I've shown that the 3.5 Fighter is useless compared to at least one specific 9th level spell
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580814How should the fighter be contributing meaningfully, for bonus points spell out some lateral advancement that would help him in this encounter you would like to see added to the fighter class.
At high levels, I can't see a way for the 3.5 Fighter to contribute in what I'd consider a 'meaningful fashion'. Killing the creature with hit point damage is inefficient. Banishment or other 'instant kill' is better. Since hit point loss doesn't render an opponent more vulnerable to those kinds of spells, it really means that if the Fighter 'fights' the creature, whether he hits or misses will tend to be irrelevant - it's just a question of if he can distract it long enough for a 'lucky spell' to take it out. Thus, the Fighter is best off 'absorbing blows' and using the full defense and combat expertise. But ideally, the Fighter would have ways of 'taking out' a high level opponent and hit point damage would render the creature more vulnerable to spells and other negative effects. Thus, if the wizard can't banish him at full strength, but the Fighter can reduce him to half hit points, allowing the Wizard to succeed, I'd consider that a pretty fair contribution. That's involve some major reworking of the hit point system, at the least.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;580781Translation? "LA-LA-LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
So, in order to makes your respective arguments, Lord Mistborn ignores the rules for hit points and you ignore the rules for opening doors, and you wonder why so many here - other than jj, who doesn't know shit about the rules, either - think you guys are less-than-serious.
It's one thing to say, 'I don't care for that rule, and here's how and why I would change it.' It's another thing altogether to say, 'That rule sucks, so I ignore it since it doesn't fit my argument.'
Vulmea, please go back, look at the quotes I placed. I need you to then look REALLY HARD at the place where I asked Rum Cove to clarify his statement. Look really long and hard at where I asked him to do that and his response was essentially you use fighters to open doors. After you do that you can come back and tell me exactly where I started ignoring the rules because thus far it looks like you believe that Fighters being able to open doors is a reason to have them on your team as if nobody can ever open a god damn door without a fighter. A stuck door,an iron door, etc can be opened through means other than having a fighter in your party especially when I can teleport past, go through, use an applicable spell (like warp wood) or any number of other options and that is all ignoring the fact that there is no guarantee I can't do it my self with my hands, some tools, or the rest of the party.
Seriously this door thing is really stupid and I have no idea why you're trying to push it like it is a legitimate argument.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;580788The whole constant upgrade thing was never an issue for us in B/X or 1E. Some campaigns had a lot more magic items than others but I don't remember need X amount just to survive.
It must be a 3E thing because of all the WBL assumptions baked into the math.
Never played 3e so ...
My PC had a +1 longsowed with a cool power when it killed someone it generated a fear effect. and a +1 suit of chain that he had taken from an officer at a battle.
When we reached 8th level my AC was simply not sufficient to avoid being hit each round. I should have done what everyone woudl do and bought field plate or used some +2 split mail we found. But those things didn't suit my character ormy image of him so I didn't.
The standard response is but why wouldn;t you use the best equipment you can get access to but its a role play choice. Split and plate are hot and sweaty and uncomfortable. The chain came from a really cool battle that had happened when the PC was 2nd level and I wanted to maintain that thread and tie back to it.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580910No. Reading a scroll isn't the same as 'casting a spell'. Casting a spell from a scroll is 'casting a spell'. If a particular character has access to a large number of scrolls, has the ability to cast use a large number of scrolls (such as through Use Magic Device) and is able to do so reliably, then he would definitionally have access to spells and spellcasting. He wouldn't be a 'spellcaster', because those specifically refer to characters who get spell casting as a class feature.
So, when I was talking about 'spell using classes' and 'non-spell using classes', you only brought up some extreme edge case because...?
QuoteThe conclusion is still true. You are a dumb ass.
And yet, you can't come up with even the simplest of premises for your conclusions.
QuoteYes. There are. Nobody said otherwise. But it is not 'being a spellcaster' that makes spellcasters powerful. Is that what you think? What a dumb ass!
It is reliable access to a powerful resource (which spells are) that make spell casting classes so powerful compared to mundanes. It doesn't matter how a class accesses this resource - the better their access to it, the more powerful they will tend to be. Are you dense? What part of this paragraph do you disagree with? Or are you just disagreeing because you like to show the world you're a dumb ass?
Reliable access to spells (the powerful resource) is the definition of a 'spell caster', but being a spell caster isn't what makes them powerful, it's access to a powerful resource (spells). So, spell casters aren't powerful because they can cast spells, they are powerful because they can cast spells. I guess...?
What were you saying about being a dumbass? Did you want to go over tautologies again real quick? Because you seem to be having some troubles with them.
Also, which non-spell casters have reliable access to the powerful resource of casting spells? Since being a spell caster doesn't seem to be the requirement for casting spells, according to you. Or are you hanging your entire argument on 'reliable'? I am going to borrow the argument from Mguy or Kaelik or whatever: there is an infinite plane of scrolls, so now mundanes have access to a reliable source of spells, too. Is that reliable enough?
QuoteMy point is that you are arguing from false premises. That doesn't mean your conclusion is false (it happens to be true), but you're trying to tout logic and then not using it.
And for the last several pages, you seem to have forgotten that what I presented
isn't even my own argument. It's roughly your argument. Your whole argument is that spellcasters are automatically more powerful than non-spell casters in pretty much any measurable degree because spells. But now you are saying these premises are false without providing a set of premises that are true.
I guess we can conclude that the only way you can address 'logic' is by nitpicking a few examples apart and claiming victory.
You are awesome.
QuoteStormbringer seems to be upset that I profess the Fighter is weaker than the Wizard and Cleric in high level 3.5 play. It has been demonstrated numerous ways, and been explained numerous times.
No, it's been claimed numerous times. And almost as many times, I have provided you with the one golden opportunity to shut down any and all arguments against it: list the spells needed to obviate the Fighter. Actually, I gave you an easier one to start with, the Thief, but you passed on that as well. Indignation at having to actually demonstrate a point does not count as either proof or refutation.
QuoteBecause the Fighter Versus Wizard thread was closed, he seems to think that he can build a bad argument, couch it as logical, get me to agree that is my argument, and then demolish the premises.
I would actually prefer if you agree to anything and present an argument. Your only activity seems to be delaying tactics and unsupported positive assertions. Example:
QuoteI object that the entire contribution that a Fighter can make to the adventure can be duplicated by the use of a spell OUTSIDE of the daily limits.
For which your entire support is a single spell, which you think that is the game winning point:
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580811If you don't like the ruling of charm monster to convince a monster to help you do things, you can consider dominate monster. As a 9th level spell, the minimum duration is 17 days!
One spell. One
ninth level spell. That a Wizard would have to be at least
17th level to obtain. And would be the only one they could cast that day.
Also,
quelle surprise, it doesn't work the way you think it does:
QuoteDominate Monster
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Sor/Wiz 9
Target: One creature
This spell functions like dominate person, except that the spell is not restricted by creature type.
QuoteDominate Person
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 4, Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 round
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One humanoid
Duration: One day/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
You can control the actions of any humanoid creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind.
If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities. If no common language exists, you can communicate only basic commands, such as “Come here,” “Go there,” “Fight,” and “Stand still.” You know what the subject is experiencing, but you do not receive direct sensory input from it, nor can it communicate with you telepathically.
Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth). Because of this limited range of activity, a Sense Motive check against DC 15 (rather than DC 25) can determine that the subject’s behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect (see the Sense Motive skill description).
Changing your instructions or giving a dominated creature a new command is the equivalent of redirecting a spell, so it is a move action.
By concentrating fully on the spell (a standard action), you can receive full sensory input as interpreted by the mind of the subject, though it still can’t communicate with you. You can’t actually see through the subject’s eyes, so it’s not as good as being there yourself, but you still get a good idea of what’s going on.
Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it.
If you don’t spend at least 1 round concentrating on the spell each day, the subject receives a new saving throw to throw off the domination.
Protection from evil or a similar spell can prevent you from exercising control or using the telepathic link while the subject is so warded, but such an effect neither prevents the establishment of domination nor dispels it.
There seem to be more than a couple of limitations to the spell. Limitations are always something you seem to forget or ignore when it comes to claiming the ultimate superiority of spell-casters.
What is that you keep saying about not knowing how the rules work?
QuoteI fail to see how a specific spell list is relevant. Perhaps you should try to explain that to me. I've explained that a randomly generated list you provide is sufficient example of a 'net increase in power'. But you tell me why you want it, and I'l be happy to provide it.
Of course you don't see why it is relevant. If you provide one, your paper-thin argument will be instantly shredded. And I am pretty sure you fully understand why it has been requested several dozen times. If the Wizard so easily overshadows the Fighter, you should easily be able to provide the spell load out that demonstrates that.
QuoteAlso, please tell me what is 'demonstrably false'. I know you don't like having the burden of proof, but I think I've shown that the 3.5 Fighter is useless compared to at least one specific 9th level spell
Actually, I've shown why that spell doesn't work like you think it does (no surprise there). More to the point, do you really think a single spell of any level actually removes the need for a whole class? Seriously? If the Fighter had that spell as a scroll, does that mean the Wizard is no longer needed, because the Wizard is now useless because the Fighter has one specific 9th level spell?
QuoteAt high levels, I can't see a way for the 3.5 Fighter to contribute in what I'd consider a 'meaningful fashion'. Killing the creature with hit point damage is inefficient. Banishment or other 'instant kill' is better.
Wow, an unsubstantiated claim presented as objective fact. I never expected that.
Congratulations, then, you have managed to defeat the parody of your own argument I have constructed. Access to spells is what makes spell casters so much better (except that isn't what makes them better, somehow), and yet you insist that Fighters and Thieves have access to those same resources by way of scrolls, except that undoubtedly isn't 'reliable' enough when it contradicts the 'scrolls equals spells' argument. I guess with all the goal post shifting and backpedalling up there, I got rather lost in what exactly you were trying to say.
Are you ready to present your own argument now? Do you have even a single premise as to why anyone should agree that a Wizard is always more powerful than a Fighter under any circumstances?
Who am I kidding? That's not going to happen.
Quote from: MGuy;580920Seriously this door thing is really stupid and I have no idea why you're trying to push it like it is a legitimate argument.
Because your claim that
mage hand can open a door is not only false, it's really fucking stupid. Which clearly demonstrates the fact that most of you Denners simply don't know how the spells work while you claim they are able to do pretty much anything you think they should.
You said
mage hand could open a door unless (essentially) the DM was being a dick. Except, there is nothing in the description for
mage hand that indicates anything like opening doors. It's as though you overheard someone say the cantrip can move things, assumed it was an actual hand, and made the rest of it up whole cloth. Which is fine. But then you somehow thought that is what the spell
really really did, and everyone else is just an asshole for not agreeing.
Is it becoming a bit clearer why people don't take the Denners claims that 'magic can do anything' seriously? It's like you have a list of spell
names, but no spell
descriptions, so you guess at it and insist your guess is correct.
Quote from: RandallS;580885Why would the DM want to do that? Leveraging weird rules or ability combos into over-powered or unbeatable monsters is just as dickish as players doing it in character design. This type of min-maxing is bad for most play-styles whether the players or the GM is doing it. (Yes, I realize that for ultra-competitive play-styles, it may be common and not dickish behavior.)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;580895I know that for some people, the arms race between characters and monsters is what's the most important thing, where acquiring the most powerful traits/spells/feats is the priority. I guess for me, it just misses the spirit of the game. For me, TTRPGs are a social event, where interacting with your fellow friends and going on the adventure itself are the most important. We talk about the three pillars, which means to me each is as important as the other. Not 80% combat or combat prep, 10% interaction, 10% exploration. If all I wanted was to see what kind of build I could do, I can do that on my PC at home.
Now I feel old.
As far as I know DMs in every edition tend to shy away from repeated teleport ambushes, even if the monster can do it by default with its statblock. If you only think of at-will SLAs being used in the 3 rounds you're stabbing the Pit Fiend to death then they don't seem like a problem, I'd say it's more out of character for the Pit Fiend with it's genius (17-18) Int to not try to stet up an illusion ambush or teleport away at low health and try for another go later.
What Greater Teleport at-will means is that the monster is mobile in away the PCs have 0 hope of matching. As long as the designers aren't very careful what SLAs get the at-will designation some monsters will kill the party if they are played intelligently and some of those are supposed to be smart enough to realize it.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580966As far as I know DMs in every edition tend to shy away from repeated teleport ambushes, even if the monster can do it by default with its statblock.
In TSR editions, teleport does not work as well as it apparently does in WOTC editions. To teleport you needed a very clear image of your destination in your mind to reduce your chance of dying by teleporting partially or fully into the ground or other solid object. (In 1e because I don't have the 2e player's handbook handy) Very familiar with the area (an area one know intimately like one's bedroom) was only on target on a roll of 03-99 on a D100. Visited and studied carefully was safe only on a roll of 05-98. Seen casually was safe on 09-96. Viewed once was safe only on 17-92. And never seen was safe only on 33-84. The higher and lower numbers meet you arrived too low or too high. Given that, teleport was only used by intelligent beings when they were desperate or when they were very familiar with an area.
QuoteIf you only think of at-will SLAs being used in the 3 rounds you're stabbing the Pit Fiend to death then they don't seem like a problem, I'd say it's more out of character for the Pit Fiend with it's genius (17-18) Int to not try to stet up an illusion ambush or teleport away at low health and try for another go later.
How illusions were handled in TSR D&D was mostly up to the GM. Many (if not most) GMs gave targets a save vs spell (rolled privately by the GM so the players would not have a hint to try to disbelieve) and then allowed them a disbelieve check if the player thought it was an illusion and spent time disbelieving. If they made the save or disbelieved, the illusion was obviously an illusion. Our 13th level Dwarf Fighter would not be fooled by many illusions.
QuoteWhat Greater Teleport at-will means is that the monster is mobile in away the PCs have 0 hope of matching. As long as the designers aren't very careful what SLAs get the at-will designation some monsters will kill the party if they are played intelligently and some of those are supposed to be smart enough to realize it.
There is no "Greater Teleport" in 2e -- at least not in core 2e. Also, there aren't really "at-will" powers. Pit fiends many be able to teleport as often as they want, but each teleport takes as much time as the spell -- at least the way most people played it.
However, you are avoiding my question: Why would the DM min-max his monsters given that min-maxing was generally considered sign of a bad player or GM in TSR D&D?
Quote from: RandallS;580972However, you are avoiding my question: Why would the DM min-max his monsters given that min-maxing was generally considered sign of a bad player or GM in TSR D&D?
this is a very important difference between wotc and tsr era D&D. Min maxing was explicitly discouraged as was rules laywering. These were regarded as problem playstyles that the GM was supposed to curtail. With 3E these styles almost felt officially endorsed.
Quote from: RandallS;580972There is no "Greater Teleport" in 2e -- at least not in core 2e.
WRONNNGG.Sorry for using the 3.5 name and offending your delacate grognanrd sensibilities. Read it and weep
Quote from: 2e Players HandbookTeleport Without Error (Alteration)
Range: Touch
Componets: V
Casting Time: 1
Area of Effect Special
Saving Throw: None
This spell is similar to the telepot spell. The caster is able to transport himself along with the material weight noted for a teleport spell to any known location in his home plane with no chance for error.
heck it's better than 3E grater teleport if you read the full description it let's you hop to a diferent plane, you can't do that with Greater Teleport that's a diffrent Sorc/Wiz spell. Devils can cast this spell when ever they want.
Teleport without error is indeed a powerful seventh level spell. I do not have my PHB on me at the moment but there is an important caveat to the "without error", you can teleport without error anywhere in your home plane. If you teleport to a plane other than your own you are still subject to the error chart (and the best category you can get is studied carefully, provided you have studied the area carefully). Pit fiends are from the nine hells so if this battle is taking place in the PCs homeworld, its teleport without error will be more limited. They are still highly formidable opponents though,
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580975this is a very important difference between wotc and tsr era D&D. Min maxing was explicitly discouraged as was rules laywering. These were regarded as problem playstyles that the GM was supposed to curtail. With 3E these styles almost felt officially endorsed.
What the fuck this isn't the DM min-making his monster. Minmaxing wold involve reworking monsters feat/skill/spell selection if they have spells. The DM is playing the monster using the best tactics he can think of and having the monster take full advantage of it's natural powers. I've never played 2e before but the second I started picking tactics for the Pit Fiend you guys immediately stop arguing the fighter could beat it and started complained that a DM who used such tactics would be unfair.
The Pit Fiend is not just some MOB guarding a pile of treasure. Pit Fiends are the top enforcers and generals of
Hell itself. Their
Summon has no chance of failure becuse when the boss calls the other Devils knows not to fuck around. They're also crazy smart, probably smarter than me or you with their Genius (17-18) Intellect.
They also know a bunch of spells all usable when ever the want to, that's what SLA=at-will means. They can cast their spells all they want and never run out of slots. When I see a monster with a shit-ton of SLAs I can recognize it for exactly what it is a giant scaly wizard. Why exactly pray tell should the giant scaly genius wizard general fight you in face-stabbing range when he can burn you to death from afar.
I am not commenting on a pitfiends tactics, just a key difference between TSR D&D and wotc D&D, which matters on the topic of game balance.
Regarding how to play mpnsters in combat: the GM doesn't simply play the best tactics he can think of, he pkays the monster the way he thinks it would act given what it wants and knows. I the case of a pit fiend, this means a very powerful and deadly foe that is highly intelligent. But context matters also matters. Being intelligent means you dont always attack until the other side is killed. Intelligent creatures dont ake needless risks and engaging a powerful dwarven fighter (even if the pit fiendhas a significant chance of winning) is a needless ridk unless the creature has a good reason to engage and or kill the fighter. The GM needs to consider: the context, the pitfiend's description of its culture, the needs and desires of the individual pitfiend and it's resources. It isnt always about making the most optimimal choice in terms if killing the PC. In the case of the pitfiend, i think they would be pretty relentless, but the point is these are not mere pieces on a chess board.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;580910Premise: Stormbringer spends most of his time covering his penis with peanut butter and having a dog lick it.
Conclusion: Stormbringer is a dumb ass.
The premise is false. You don't spend most of your time so engaged.
The conclusion is still true. You are a dumb ass.
.
Keep banging the drum of "mature debate" guys.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580980WRONNNGG.
Sorry, I did not have the any Monster Manuals handy this morning (and was not going to risk waking my wife just to get one). However, Teleport without Error does not work for the pit fiend unless the battle is taking on his home plane (that is, the without error part does not work, the PF can still teleport with the normal chances of error). If it is on the Prime Material Plane (which is far more likely given a lone 13th Level Dwarf Fighter), the teleport is still subject to the normal error chances as the PF is not teleporting between two points on his home plane.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580987I am not commenting on a pitfiends tactics, just a key difference between TSR D&D and wotc D&D, which matters on the topic of game balance.
Regarding how to play mpnsters in combat: the GM doesn't simply play the best tactics he can think of, he pkays the monster the way he thinks it would act given what it wants and knows. I the case of a pit fiend, this means a very powerful and deadly foe that is highly intelligent. But context matters also matters. Being intelligent means you dont always attack until the other side is killed. Intelligent creatures dont ake needless risks and engaging a powerful dwarven fighter (even if the pit fiendhas a significant chance of winning) is a needless ridk unless the creature has a good reason to engage and or kill the fighter. The GM needs to consider: the context, the pitfiend's description of its culture, the needs and desires of the individual pitfiend and it's resources. It isnt always about making the most optimimal choice in terms if killing the PC. In the case of the pitfiend, i think they would be pretty relentless, but the point is these are not mere pieces on a chess board.
If the the Pit Fiend doesn't want to fight the the dwarf he dosen't have to he can just leave via teleport, heck in 2e he can take all his stuf with him when he does. I was assuming the in this case the Pit Fiend realy wants this dwarf dead. If the Pit Fiend can kill the fighter he's probly going to want to so he can get his claws on the pile of magic items the fighter is carrying around with him. Even if he cant use them him self I'm betting that some lower level figher is willing to sell his soul for them. Pit Fiends are dicks like that they're literaly made of evil.
Quote from: RandallS;580990Sorry, I did not have the any Monster Manuals handy this morning (and was not going to risk waking my wife just to get one). However, Teleport without Error does not work for the pit fiend unless the battle is taking on his home plane (that is, the without error part does not work, the PF can still teleport with the normal chances of error). If it is on the Prime Material Plane (which is far more likely given a lone 13th Level Dwarf Fighter), the teleport is still subject to the normal error chances as the PF is not teleporting between two points on his home plane.
He only needs to jump between two points anyway. The place where the fighter is which he's been to and some place the fighter can't reach maybe Hell or the elemental plane of sauerkraut or realy any other place the Devil is familiar with. That's assuming the fill the room whith illusions doesn't work and the Pit Fiend is confident enough not to summon another Pit Fiend because he can do that too.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580986What the fuck this isn't the DM min-making his monster. Minmaxing wold involve reworking monsters feat/skill/spell selection if they have spells.
Min-maxing to many people -- especially those who don't play WOTC D&D -- also means not using ultra-powerful ability/power combos just because you can. In gaming styles, where combat is not a competition between ruthless players using every rules trick in the book to beat a ruthless GM using every rules trick in the book, neither monsters nor player chatracters are likely to be played the way they are in games where this the game is a competition between the players and the GM.
In non-competitive games, BedrockBrendan pegs it, monsters are played the way the GM thinks they would be act based on their goals, personality, orders, etc. Also, in non-competitive play-styles, it's likely that neither the GM nor the players are the tactical experts that they become in competitive-oriented combat-centric campaigns -- nor are either interested in becoming such an expert.
Quote from: RandallS;580994Min-maxing to many people -- especially those who don't play WOTC D&D -- also means not using ultra-powerful ability/power combos just because you can. In gaming styles, where combat is not a competition between ruthless players using every rules trick in the book to beat a ruthless GM using every rules trick in the book, neither monsters nor player chatracters are likely to be played the way they are in games where this the game is a competition between the players and the GM.
So you want a gentelmans agrement from you GM that he'll let you stab the monsters in the face rather than die in flames never having laid eyes on the moster that has killed you. The Pit Fiend has a bunch of spells that he can cast at-will but in your view the DM is obligated to not let him.
Quote from: RandallS;580994In non-competitive games, BedrockBrendan pegs it, monsters are played the way the GM thinks they would be act based on their goals, personality, orders, etc. Also, in non-competitive play-styles, it's likely that neither the GM nor the players are the tactical experts that they become in competitive-oriented combat-centric campaigns -- nor are either interested in becoming such an expert.
The Pit Fiend has every reason to kill the Dwarf. Like I said unless the Dwarf has already pledged allegiance to Asmodeus his bosses are going to be thrilled that he murdered a champion of good and acquired a pile of powerful magic items for the Baatezu.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580798What is he contributing to the team at this point other the carrying everyone else's stuff. The Balor is going to fly above the party cast Fire Storm, Quickened Telekinesis and Insanity, then when the party has been whittled down he's going to start stunlocking people with his at-will Power Word Stun. The his vorpal blade goes snicker-snack as he finishes off the party. How does the fighter prevent any of this from happening.
I'm just going to note that you're basically saying that stunlocking monsters are good design and that the fighter is bad because they don't have "answers" to powers like that.
Stuns have or should have a save.
Same goes for illusions.
Neither of these things requires lateral advancement of any kind so they don't support your point.
Now, let's say I give you the better invisibility and teleport without error as things a fighter can't deal with. What? Every class needs an answer to these things? Is that what you're arguing? Why not just build an answer into the spell? For example by using baseline invisibility. I'm sorry, but beefing up all classes to deal with one monster is functionally identical to nerfing the monster slightly. And the nerf takes less text to do it.
The solution to your problem is neither a flying/teleporting/see invisibling fighter. The solution is to reduce the teleportation range and give conditions to end the invisibility (such as whenever the thing hits or is hit).
If the monster doesn't pose a challenge in a stand up fight against one character, doesn't have the means to separate them or prevent escape, and all it has left is the ability to flee and heal forever? Those ambush tactics aren't scary. They're tedious.
Quote from: beejazz;580996I'm just going to note that you're basically saying that stunlocking monsters are good design and that the fighter is bad because they don't have "answers" to powers like that.
Stuns have or should have a save.
Same goes for illusions.
Neither of these things requires lateral advancement of any kind so they don't support your point.
Now, let's say I give you the better invisibility and teleport without error as things a fighter can't deal with. What? Every class needs an answer to these things? Is that what you're arguing? Why not just build an answer into the spell? For example by using baseline invisibility. I'm sorry, but beefing up all classes to deal with one monster is functionally identical to nerfing the monster slightly. And the nerf takes less text to do it.
The solution to your problem is neither a flying/teleporting/see invisibling fighter. The solution is to reduce the teleportation range and give conditions to end the invisibility (such as whenever the thing hits or is hit).
If the monster doesn't pose a challenge in a stand up fight against one character, doesn't have the means to separate them or prevent escape, and all it has left is the ability to flee and heal forever? Those ambush tactics aren't scary. They're tedious.
So your solution is to never write any abiltiy that can't be overcome by some ordinary shmuck with a sword.
That makes it really hard to have stuff like 24 ton mosters of living rock, or huge flaming bodied spellcasting demon generals, or even giant flying armored firebreathing death-lizards as regular opponents at highlevels. I don't know about you but I've always considered those thing a big part of Dungeons and Dragons. Maybe that's just me.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580995So you want a gentelmans agrement form you GM that he'll let you stab the monsters in the face rather than die in flames never having laid eyes on the moster that has killed you. The Pit Fiend has a bunch of spell that he can cast at-will but in your view the DM is obligated to not let him.
There are different styles of play. Not everyone plays using your preferred style of play. Nor do they want to use your style of play any more that you would likely want to use theirs. Nor did I ever say the DM is obligated not to do anything, likewise he isn't obligated to do what you would do if you were DM. Deal.
QuoteThe Pit Fiend has every reason to kill the Dwarf.
Perhaps in your campaign, but that isn't necessarily true in other campaigns. Things like this are very setting and situation dependent. For example, in one of my settings, devils are FAR more interested in converting people or in tormenting them and leaving them alive to tell others of the horrible power of devils than they are in killing every good-aligned person they meet. This is especially true of higher level devils who have many responsibilities in the hierarchy of hell and get power from those they have defeated or forced to serve them. Killing them just send their soul on, even if it goes to hell, they don't get the power -- the lords of hell do. (setting dependence). Even if this setting, however, a pit fiend might try to instant kill the dwarf if they dwarf had harmed his plans in a major way or was about to (situation dependence)
QuoteLike I said unless the Dwarf has already pledged allegiance to Asmodeus his bosses are going to be thrilled that he murdered a champion of good and acquired a pile of powerful magic items for the Baatezu.
As I said above this depend on the setting.
For the third time:
Spells are not at-will to be cast instantly in 2e. The caster has to win initiative and the spell goes off on its turn. And that spell is interrupted if an attack lands.[/color]
This whole list of spells that you're saying the pit fiend is casting before fighter can even act is wrong. And why do you constantly shift the goalposts by constantly changing the conditions to favor the demon? Do you think a 15th level fighter would prepare as well? You're allowing the demon to prepare, you can bet a fighter would as well.
For one, if I was that fighter, I'd be wearing glasses of true seeing. At 15th level, I'm sure I'd have the resources to find/buy/ or borrow one.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;581000Spells are not at-will to be cast instantly in 2e. The caster has to win initiative and the spell goes off on its turn. And that spell is interrupted if an attack lands.[/color]
Thank you for saying that there are no at-wills in 2e far better than I've done it.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580997So your solution is to never write any abiltiy that can't be overcome by some ordinary shmuck with a sword.
That makes it really hard to have stuff like 24 ton mosters of living rock, or huge flaming bodied spellcasting demon generals, or even giant flying armored firebreathing death-lizards as regular opponents at highlevels. I don't know about you but I've always considered those thing a big part of Dungeons and Dragons. Maybe that's just me.
Bullshit. Nobody said anything about an ordinary shmuck.
Stat wise, high damage, sufficient range, and sane magical abilities on the part of foes is fine.
Would giving fighters decent saves and downgrading the invisibility and jumping really make this demon general less like a demon general? No.
Is giving everyone an answer to these spells and nerfing them functionally identical? Not strictly now that I think on it. Downgrading improved invis to invis actually lets the damn thing be invisible for a while. Giving everybody see invisibility actually makes the monster weaker and less scary than the nerf would. Letting the fighter teleport without error at will still wouldn't help because he couldn't trace the teleport, while letting him trace or stop the teleport would neutralize that ability. Short jumps would leave the teleporting stronger relative to the party than giving the party a straight up answer would.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;581000For the third time:
Spells are not at-will to be cast instantly in 2e. The caster has to win initiative and the spell goes off on its turn. And that spell is interrupted if an attack lands.[/color]
This whole list of spells that you're saying the pit fiend is casting before fighter can even act is wrong. And why do you constantly shift the goalposts by constantly changing the conditions to favor the demon? Do you think a 15th level fighter would prepare as well? You're allowing the demon to prepare, you can bet a fighter would as well.
For one, if I was that fighter, I'd be wearing glasses of true seeing. At 15th level, I'm sure I'd have the resources to find/buy/ or borrow one.
The Pit Fiend gets to ambush you becaues it's invisible and you are not and while you can't see him he sets up his illusions.
and wait the Wizard is so limited by what spells he can find but then the fighter just gets whatever magic items he wants.
At long last you've buckled down and admited it it's not the fighter's class that's keeping him in the game at this point. He's just a platform for the Hammer of Thunderbolts. One that also apparently needs Glasses of True Seeing to hit anything.
Quote from: StormBringer;580955Reliable access to spells (the powerful resource) is the definition of a 'spell caster', but being a spell caster isn't what makes them powerful, it's access to a powerful resource (spells). So, spell casters aren't powerful because they can cast spells, they are powerful because they can cast spells. I guess...?
A 1st level wizard is a 'spell caster'. A 9th level wizard is a 'spell caster'. It is not the fact that they are 'spell casters' that make them powerful. It is the degree of access to spells that make them powerful. A 1st level wizard is not a 'powerful' character. A 1st level wizard is approximately as powerful as a 1st level Fighter. Usually, you'd expect characters at the same level to have approximately the same level of power.
It is hardly surprising that a character of higher level than another would be more powerful. Your parody of my argument asserts that a 1st level Wizard is more powerful than a 20th level Fighter because you assert that power comes from being a 'spellcaster'.
I assert that access to spells is what contributes to a spellcasters power. Thus, the more spells you are capable of casting in a given time frame (say per day), the more powerful you are. The more powerful those spells are, the more powerful you are.
It just happens that a 15th level wizard has access to some high level spells, and they have lots of lower level spells. Thus, 'power' comes not from being a 'spell caster' but from the spells themselves.
Quote from: StormBringer;580955Also, which non-spell casters have reliable access to the powerful resource of casting spells? Since being a spell caster doesn't seem to be the requirement for casting spells, according to you. Or are you hanging your entire argument on 'reliable'? I am going to borrow the argument from Mguy or Kaelik or whatever: there is an infinite plane of scrolls, so now mundanes have access to a reliable source of spells, too. Is that reliable enough?
While there are an infinite number of scrolls in the game, access to them requires resources (such as gold) or the ability to take them from other people (combat) or to find where they're hidden (exploration). That doesn't sound like 'reliable' access. Further, Fighters don't get Use Magic Device as a class skill, so access to scrolls usually won't help them. But if Fighters (or Rogues) have access to spells, they are more powerful than if they don't have access to spells. All else being equal, access to spells makes a character more powerful.
Quote from: StormBringer;580955And for the last several pages, you seem to have forgotten that what I presented isn't even my own argument.
Then why do you keep bringing it up and defending it. It's stupid and you're stupid. You are strawmanning. You're trying to present a stupid argument that is simply refuted so you can point out that my argument is stupid. But you're not presenting my argument. You're just being a dumb ass and wasting the time of the people who aren't smart enough to ignore you.
Quote from: StormBringer;580955It's roughly your argument. Your whole argument is that spellcasters are automatically more powerful than non-spell casters in pretty much any measurable degree because spells.
No. No. No. Dumb ass. Dumb ass. Dumb ass.
Let's see if I can lay it out for you using small words.
Spells are a resource that are primarily limited by a character's imagination. Even if a given spell
doesn't exist in the game, there are rules for how a wizard can research unique spells. Thus, anything that you could imagine accomplishing with magic is
possible with the right spell.
Because there are so many possible spells, including those already included in the core game, there is a wealth of possibilities available to anyone that has broad access, particularly to high level spells (more powerful effects).
A wizard (or other spellcaster) has potential access to a large number of useful effects. Individual specific effects don't matter as much as you seem to think - a wizard with a particular spell list might use a particular spell while someone with a different spell list will accomplish the same thing using a different spell. For example, if you need to sneak past a guard check point you could use
invisibility to walk past unseen, or you could use
dimension door to instantly 'skip' the guard post. To use spells effectively, you have to consider what you're trying to accomplish and what spells can help you do that.
A large number of spells in the game are known as 'save or suck' or 'save or die' or 'I win'. If a monster has 200 hit points and the Fighter hits it for 7 or 8 rounds, reducing it to 2 hit points and the Wizard succeeds at
finger of death, it doesn't really matter that the Fighter almost killed it on his own. If he hadn't been there, the creature would still be dead.
If the Fighter's only meaningful contribution were soaking up damage, there are other more effective ways to do that without risking the life of a valued friend. Summoned or Called monsters, for instance, can perform the same function, and since they won't be around for long, their death is hardly tragic.
At high level play, Wizards and other characters with broad access to a large number of useful spells come to dominate the battlefield without even trying. This has been my experience in a large number of games with a large number of playing groups, even though nobody wanted to make anyone look bad.
Quote from: StormBringer;580955But now you are saying these premises are false without providing a set of premises that are true.
Yes. I am saying your stupid premises are false without providing a set of premises that are true. But you can look at what my argument above is and tell me where you disagree and why. But basically, I point out that spells let you do things that you couldn't do without spells, thus, as you get more spells, you get to do more things that you couldn't do before. That seems pretty simple to me.
Quote from: StormBringer;580955I guess we can conclude that the only way you can address 'logic' is by nitpicking a few examples apart and claiming victory.
You could conclude that - if you're a dumb ass. You keep trying to make this an exercise in logic 101, despite apparently being out of your depth. Nobody has refuted my positions given above, and a number of people have agreed with them. If I recall, RPGPundit admitted that 'everyone knows casters break the game at high level' or something to that effect. Since he said that, just about everyone here has agreed that casters are more powerful than Fighters in high level play - except you, Stormbringer. You're the lone bastion defending a demonstrably false position. You actually think that Wizards and Fighters are BALANCED in high level 3.5 play? You are a dumb ass.
Quote from: StormBringer;580955You are awesome.
Thank you. It's kind of you to say. You're still a dumb ass and I still don't respect your opinions.
Quote from: StormBringer;580955No, it's been claimed numerous times. And almost as many times, I have provided you with the one golden opportunity to shut down any and all arguments against it: list the spells needed to obviate the Fighter. Actually, I gave you an easier one to start with, the Thief, but you passed on that as well. Indignation at having to actually demonstrate a point does not count as either proof or refutation.
And I have given you a way of generating a spell list that will provide you the information you need. Why do I need to do it. You're the one that wants to see it.
Quote from: StormBringer;580955I would actually prefer if you agree to anything and present an argument. Your only activity seems to be delaying tactics and unsupported positive assertions.
Since you have a tendency to read only portions of my post, or because you have the reading comprehension of a cocker spaniel, I will point out that I did present my argument above. In this very post. The one that explains why people with access to spells are more powerful than people without.
Quote from: StormBringer;580955For which your entire support is a single spell, which you think that is the game winning point:
One spell. One ninth level spell. That a Wizard would have to be at least 17th level to obtain. And would be the only one they could cast that day.
No. That is one example. How many do you need? And again, the spell could be cast on a Sunday (a day of rest) and spending 1 round/day concentrating on the spell is easy. So, again, that is something a wizard could easily do, but then wait until the following Sunday to make use of the spell. The fact that it can be resisted is not an argument against it working - it just means it can't be trusted 100% of the time. But if a creature will fail their save 50% of the time (and it could be much higher) than you need to cast the spell once or twice before it works. You can come back every day of the week to make the spell 'stick' if you want to. If you don't need the particular creature for seven days, you could get lots of opportunities.
Quote from: StormBringer;580955Also, quelle surprise, it doesn't work the way you think it does:
There seem to be more than a couple of limitations to the spell. Limitations are always something you seem to forget or ignore when it comes to claiming the ultimate superiority of spell-casters.
I don't think we talked about how it does or doesn't work. But I assure you, it works the way I think it does. This is the problem here. If I provide a specific example, then it needs to be seen in play. If I present it in play, then even if the rules are followed, the DM is bad/wrong/stupid. Or the players are. Well, I assure you, this spell can be used to make a dominated creature fight for you.
Quote from: StormBringer;580955What is that you keep saying about not knowing how the rules work?
That you're a dumb ass and you don't know how the rules work. As evinced by pointing out the spell description of a spell that I mentioned and trying to tell me it doesn't work the way I think it does when 1) it does, and 2) I didn't talk about how it works in the example - just pointed out that it could work. But this deserves special attention because you're such a dumb ass.
If a spell doesn't work at all, then there is no point in having it. So if you're saying dominate monster doesn't let you have a dominated monster do stuff for you in the game - stuff like fighting for you, then you're a dumb ass. What do you think it is supposed to do?
Quote from: StormBringer;580955Of course you don't see why it is relevant. If you provide one, your paper-thin argument will be instantly shredded. And I am pretty sure you fully understand why it has been requested several dozen times. If the Wizard so easily overshadows the Fighter, you should easily be able to provide the spell load out that demonstrates that.
But my point is that any 'reasonable' spell load will do that. So if I prove one specific spell load, then you'll ask me to prove a different spell load. Since there are an infinite number of possible combinations (or at least, really close to that depending on sources allowed) this would take the rest of my natural life. Just pick a randomly generated spell list. That will work.
Quote from: StormBringer;580955Congratulations, then, you have managed to defeat the parody of your own argument I have constructed.
Good. Maybe you can stop bringing it up as if it were my argument.
Quote from: StormBringer;580955Access to spells is what makes spell casters so much better (except that isn't what makes them better, somehow), and yet you insist that Fighters and Thieves have access to those same resources by way of scrolls, except that undoubtedly isn't 'reliable' enough when it contradicts the 'scrolls equals spells' argument. I guess with all the goal post shifting and backpedalling up there, I got rather lost in what exactly you were trying to say.
Must be because you're a dumb ass. Access to spells is what makes casters powerful. Generally speaking, Fighters and Rogues
don't have access to spells, or if they do, it is very limited. For example, a rogue might be able cast a scroll, but he probably doesn't have many of them. A Fighter might be able to cast
scorching ray from his Flaming Sword of Flambe once per day. That would prove they have access to spells, but the access is fairly limited. A 1st level Wizard is a 'spell caster' but they don't really have access to more spells than the Fighter - therefore his access to spells doesn't make him more powerful. But high level wizards get access to lots of known spells and are able to prepare a large number of spells. They are able to have wands and scrolls to further extend their use of spells, and they are able to use those items much more easily and reliably. Therefore, high level casters, because they have reliable access to a wide variety of spells, have a great source of power. More powerful, in fact, than any other non-spell source of power.
For the love of god deadDM just put StormBringer on your ignore list. I'm not sure if he's trolling or really that much of an idiot, it's probably both. Just stop, stop before you both get my thread locked.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;581000And why do you constantly shift the goalposts by constantly changing the conditions to favor the demon? Do you think a 15th level fighter would prepare as well? You're allowing the demon to prepare, you can bet a fighter would as well..
If you're going to quote me, at least fucking read what I said, because your response to this was yet again, "the fiend gets to do all these things before hand before the fighter even gets to go."
Jesus....
Quote from: Sacrosanct;581009If you're going to quote me, at least fucking read what I said, because your response to this was yet again, "the fiend gets to do all these things before hand before the fighter even gets to go."
Jesus....
How do you stop the invisble Pit Fiend from seeding the battle field with illusions again.
You also didn't answer my other point re: your fighter only being a platform for his phat loot.
Serious question. Are you functionally retarded? Because if you are, then I know it's cool, you can't help yourself. I'm pretty sure I already explained how spells work in 2e. Yeah, I did. The only explanation why you are still under this assumption that a pit fiend will cast invisibility and spam illusions instantly is that something is mentally deficient with you.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;581007For the love of god deadDM just put StormBringer on your ignore list. I'm not sure if he's trolling or really that much of an idiot, it's probably both. Just stop, stop before you both get my thread locked.
You might as well put Sacro on ignore so you can stop responding to the same shit over and over. He is being almost exactly like Storm. Seriously think about the responses you've gotten since you started having the Pit Fiend use basic hit and run tactics.Think about how some of these people whined that Kaelik didn't immediately start face humping the party that entered his cave. Think about how spike whined that I had the nerve to use "Solid Fog" and how jeff complained that I didn't have fucking "fireball" on my spell list. Seriously when you are facing people who on the inside just want to kick wizards
AND monsters in the nuts so their fighters can still matter then there is seriously nothing you can say to that. You can acknowledge that they hate when people with magic use their magic in any way that doesn't allow the fighter the chance to swing or sword or make use of his thumbs and move on.
I mean look just a few pages back when you've got people rolling their eyes over the fact that anybody can use a door. There comes a point in an argument where you have to ask yourself "What exactly am I fighting against?". I am going to assume that you made this thread
NOT to argue about fighters but to share ideas about good game design. Could you please steer the conversation back in that direction?
Quote from: MGuy;581028Seriously think about the responses you've gotten since you started having the Pit Fiend use basic hit and run tactics.
You mean responses like, "No, you can't do that. That's not how the rules work."?
Wow, you guys are something special, that's for sure.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;581022Serious question. Are you functionally retarded? Because if you are, then I know it's cool, you can't help yourself. I'm pretty sure I already explained how spells work in 2e. Yeah, I did. The only explanation why you are still under this assumption that a pit fiend will cast invisibility and spam illusions instantly is that something is mentally deficient with you.
and so the flaming begins, why don't we get Benoist and his cronies in here to start calling people autistic because that's always helpful to discussion.
The Pit Fiend is invisible before you even enter there room because he can keep casting invisibility all day. When you enter the room then he has alot of options. What he probaly does is creat an illusion of fire that fills there room and blocks your line of sight. Hopfuly you realize it's an illusion and then don't take any damage form it (because unlike in 3e figments can do damage) then the Pit Fiend starts making illusions of monsters to hide behind while he casts spells (unlike in 3e illusions are not transparent if you disbelive them) so unless you have true seeing you burn to death from fireballs never even being able to locate the monster you're fighting.
OK, I'm done. It's obvious that not only do you not have a clue as to how 2e works, you have no desire to figure it out because despite people telling you that's not how spells work, you keep ignoring it and repeating the same mistakes.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;581000For the third time:
Spells are not at-will to be cast instantly in 2e. The caster has to win initiative and the spell goes off on its turn. And that spell is interrupted if an attack lands.[/color]
This whole list of spells that you're saying the pit fiend is casting before fighter can even act is wrong. And why do you constantly shift the goalposts by constantly changing the conditions to favor the demon? Do you think a 15th level fighter would prepare as well? You're allowing the demon to prepare, you can bet a fighter would as well.
For one, if I was that fighter, I'd be wearing glasses of true seeing. At 15th level, I'm sure I'd have the resources to find/buy/ or borrow one.
So youi are agreeinhg with my point that if you use magic to narrow the gap beteeen mundanes and casters there should be a method by which the mundanes cvan get items they want to fill the gaps they see.
I am still not entirely convinced but interesting that a firm OSR guy holds that belief not just the 4e entitlement crew
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;581036and so the flaming begins, why don't we get Benoist and his cronies in here to start calling people autistic because that's always helpful to discussion.
The Pit Fiend is invisible before you even enter there room because he can keep casting invisibility all day. When you enter the room then he has alot of options. What he probaly does is creat an illusion of fire that fills there room and blocks your line of sight. Hopfuly you realize it's an illusion and then don't take any damage form it (because unlike in 3e figments can do damage) then the Pit Fiend starts making illusions of monsters to hide behind while he casts spells (unlike in 3e illusions are not transparent if you disbelive them) so unless you have true seeing you burn to death from fireballs never even being able to locate the monster you're fighting.
Mist, seriously, it is no use talking to Sacro about how he's fucked up. He won't ever "get" the fact that monsters have spells or why they would do anything smart with them. Even with this explanation for how a monster would tactically use abilities to approach an encounter in relative safety he will not get it. Throwing logic at him won't work. Showing him what he said and how it contradicts other things he said on't work. You are just wasting your time responding to him because he is not interested in logic or critical thinking. Seriously he is like Storm's understudy.
Can we get back on topic please?
Quote from: MGuy;581028You might as well put Sacro on ignore so you can stop responding to the same shit over and over. He is being almost exactly like Storm. Seriously think about the responses you've gotten since you started having the Pit Fiend use basic hit and run tactics.Think about how some of these people whined that Kaelik didn't immediately start face humping the party that entered his cave. Think about how spike whined that I had the nerve to use "Solid Fog" and how jeff complained that I didn't have fucking "fireball" on my spell list. Seriously when you are facing people who on the inside just want to kick wizards AND monsters in the nuts so their fighters can still matter then there is seriously nothing you can say to that. You can acknowledge that they hate when people with magic use their magic in any way that doesn't allow the fighter the chance to swing or sword or make use of his thumbs and move on.
Quote from: MGuy;581028I am going to assume that you made this thread NOT to argue about fighters but to share ideas about good game design. Could you please steer the conversation back in that direction?
Since Sarc. has stopped refuting my points I assume I finally nailed down something his fighter couldn't get out of without true seeing.
So the reason I started this thread was to get an idea what peoples ideas of game balance are, seeing what people where willing to accept the fighter doing, and see if One Horse Town was right about this form being able to discuss balance without trolling.
When writing a fantasy game the mundanes vs. magic question needs to be one of the first things you nail down. D&D as one of the first true rollplaying games in a way predates rpg design, so it's hard to have an answer to that question.
This thread has confirmed my suspicion that grognards will never be able to talk game design the way 3e players can. A big part of what the 3e online community does is think deeply about the rules. We acknowledged our systems problems a long time ago because the 3e era coincided with the rise of web 2.0 and 3e was subjected to a level of analysis that the older editions never were. The 3E folks have had this thread many times, and we've become increasingly efficient at it.
The thing is that people who love older editions realize that the new editions they hate where created by game designers in an attempt to fix problems in the editions they love. This causes them to latch on even tighter to their favorite edition. The end result is if someone points out a problem in the rules it goes over poorly. This has become increasingly clear from my conversation with Sarc.
Sarc: See the fighter can totally kick the Pit Fiend's ass.
LM: hmmm. the 2e Balor was a big disappointment let's look up the 2e Pit Fiend, Gosh its got quite the list of SLAs.
LM: So you can stab a Pit Fiend in the face what about a flying invisible Pit Fiend burning you to death with fireballs.
Sarc:Improved Invis. doesn’t work that way in 2e.
LM: Oh right it doesn’t, repeated teleport ambushes I guess
Others: Teleport ambushes are unfair
Sarc: ...
LM: well Maze of Illusion works too
Sarc: that's wrong and you're a retard.
LM: checks the 2e illusion rules then spells out the scenario fully
Sarc: ...
Edit: Next post is going to be a big one summing up everything I've argued in this thread so look forward to it
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;581007For the love of god deadDM just put StormBringer on your ignore list. I'm not sure if he's trolling or really that much of an idiot, it's probably both. Just stop, stop before you both get my thread locked.
I'll stop. But it'll be hard when he starts his insufferable whining and claims victory.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;581005But my point is that any 'reasonable' spell load will do that. So if I prove one specific spell load, then you'll ask me to prove a different spell load. Since there are an infinite number of possible combinations (or at least, really close to that depending on sources allowed) this would take the rest of my natural life. Just pick a randomly generated spell list. That will work.
:hatsoff:
This is what Denner 'good faith' looks like. That's all for me, enjoy the veal, and don't forget to tip the waitstaff!
Quote from: deadDMwalking;581056I'll stop. But it'll be hard when he starts his insufferable whining and claims victory.
Like I did in the Bone Devil Thunderdome?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;581056I'll stop. But it'll be hard when he starts his insufferable whining and claims victory.
Like I did in the Bone Devil Thunderdome?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;581056I'll stop. But it'll be hard when he starts his insufferable whining and claims victory.
With all due respect, this is exactly what you guys are ding as well (some might even say this is all you guys are doing). The thread, like so many lately, is nothing but two sides screaming and claiming victory, interupted by occassional moments of reason. Claims that you somehow have the higher ground are pretty non sensical.
Quote from: MGuy;581028He is being almost exactly like Storm.
You mean showing how everything you say is almost always the exact opposite of 'correct'?
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;581053Since Sarc. has stopped refuting my points I assume I finally nailed down something his fighter couldn't get out of without true seeing.
While I can't speak for Sarc, I suspect he has probably given up because NOTHING we can tell you about how 2e or other versions of TSR D&D are played seems to convince you that they do not work like 3e and do not have nearly the balance issues you have with 3e. This does not mean Sarc is admitting you are right (as you are not) but simply admitting that talking to you about it is a waste of valuable time. As far as I can tell you simply cannot handle rules and play styles different than 3e rules played in accordance with your favored style of play --
or perhaps "cannot" should be "will not".
Perhaps you should take discussions like this thread's to TGD (or similar mainly 3e board) where you do not have to deal with people who prefer TSR D&D instead of 3e and do not have deal with people who prefer styles of play very different from those you expect. So long as you discuss it here and start general threads about "class balance" instead of specific threads about "class balance in 3e with charop players" you are likely to find them derailed by people talking about other editions of D&D and other styles of play.
Quote from: StormBringer;581060Like I did in the Bone Devil Thunderdome?
Yep, exactly like the thunderdome
Quote from: RandallS;581065While I can't speak for Sarc, I suspect he has probably given up because NOTHING we can tell you about how 2e or other versions of TSR D&D are played seems to convince you that they do not work like 3e and do not have nearly the balance issues you have with 3e. This does not mean Sarc is admitting you are right (as you are not) but simply admitting that talking to you about it is a waste of valuable time. As far as I can tell you simply cannot handle rules and play styles different than 3e rules played in accordance with your favored style of play -- or perhaps "cannot" should be "will not".
Perhaps you should take discussions like this thread's to TGD (or similar mainly 3e board) where you do not have to deal with people who prefer TSR D&D instead of 3e and do not have deal with people who prefer styles of play very different from those you expect. So long as you discuss it here and start general threads about "class balance" instead of specific threads about "class balance in 3e with charop players" you are likely to find them derailed by people talking about other editions of D&D and other styles of play.
I does not matter how people play the game, I arguing facts about the rules not subjective playstyle bullshit.
A Pit Fiend can, with his SLAs repeatedly teleport ambush the fighter or fireball him to death from behind layered illusions.
Now will the DM play the Pit Fiend that way is a question of playstyle. Playstyle does not change the underlying fact that Pit Fiends have Fireball, Improved Invisibility, Advanced Illusion and Teleport Without Error as spell like abilities at will because that's a fact not subject to opinions.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;581069I does not matter how people play the game, I arguing facts about the rules not subjective playstyle bullshit.
Hilarious.
Just want to point out, while teleporting away to its home plane is entirely feasible, there is a chance of misteleporting if he comes back to the room or site of the battle (assuming it is on the pkayers homeworld). Repeatedly coming back and forth would probably be seen as taking needless risk.
And yes playstyle changes everything (how the monsters are played, why the encounter occurs in the first place, how much of a heads up the players have going in, how much pressure the gm puts on the pcs during combat....playstyle is very important to how these things resolve). Saying playstyle doesn't matter is a bit like arguing system doesn't matter. They both shape play at the table.
Quote from: One Horse Town;581072Hilarious.
Please tell me how playstyle changes the fact that in 2e Pit Fiends have Fireball, Improved Invisibility, Advanced Illusion and Teleport Without Error as spell-like abilities at-will.
Playstyle effects how the monster uses its spells, if it uses its spells and when it used its spells. It also effects how prepared pcs are for the spells. Playstyle has a palpable impact on play.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;581075Please tell me how playstyle changes the fact that in 2e Pit Fiends have Fireball, Improved Invisibility, Advanced Illusion and Teleport Without Error as spell-like abilities at-will.
"I am going to make an unsubstantiated positive assertion, and the burden of proof falls on everyone else to prove it wrong!"
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;581069I does not matter how people play the game, I arguing facts about the rules not subjective playstyle bullshit.
Since I do not worship at the altar of RAW, all I can do is laugh at this statement.
QuoteA Pit Fiend can, with his SLAs repeatedly teleport ambush the fighter or fireball him to death from behind layered illusions.
You know, I never heard the term SLA you Denners came to this forum.
QuotePlaystyle does not change the underlying fact that Pit Fiends have Fireball, Improved Invisibility, Advanced Illusion and Teleport Without Error as spell like abilities at will because that's a fact not subject to opinions.
Except they are not "spell-like abilities at will" in TSR D&D. They are the ability to use those spells without having to memorize them. They are not cast instantly nor are they cast in addition to other actions during the round. If a Pit Fiend want to teleport, teleporting is his action for the round and changes are the teleport will come later in the round that the attack from the fighter. If he isn't teleporting between locations on his home plane, the normal teleport spell chances for coming in too high or too low apply.
In core 3e, it might work just as you say, but not in core 1e or core 2e. No matter how loudly and how often you shout "spell like abilities at will", in 1e or 2e that just is not so. 1e and 2e did not have these "spell like abilities at will" for GAME BALANCE reasons, just as 1e and 2e had many other restrictions on magic (than help keep magic in check for game balance) that 3e dropped.
Quote from: StormBringer;581079"I am going to make an unsubstantiated positive assertion, and the burden of proof falls on everyone else to prove it wrong!"
Wait are you seriously asking for prof the Pit Fiend has it's SLAs go look it up in you're monster manual
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;581078Playstyle effects how the monster uses its spells, if it uses its spells and when it used its spells. It also effects how prepared pcs are for the spells. Playstyle has a palpable impact on play.
The Pit Fiend has Advanced Illusion as an SLA now the DM can chose to ignore that and have the Pit Fiend stand next to a pile of level apropriate treasure untill the fighter walks up and starts smashing it with his hammer. If the monster is going to act like it's Genius (17-18) Intelect suggests then it's going to do what it thinks will kill the fighter with minimal risk to himself instead of acting like an MMO mob. This likely involves fooling the fighter with an elaborate web of illusions while burning him to death with fireballs.
When I fight creatures with at-will illusions I
expect to have to nagivagte an elaborte web of decption and lies woven from magic. If I wanted to fight mobs I'd play World of Warcraft. Geez what happend to all that imagination and player creativity you guys were banging on about.
Quote from: RandallS;581082Except they are not "spell-like abilities at will" in TSR D&D. They are the ability to use those spells without having to memorize them. They are not cast instantly nor are they cast in addition to other actions during the round. If a Pit Fiend want to teleport, teleporting is his action for the round and changes are the teleport will come later in the round that the attack from the fighter. If he isn't teleporting between locations on his home plane, the normal teleport spell chances for coming in too high or too low apply.
In core 3e, it might work just as you say, but not in core 1e or core 2e. No matter how loudly and how often you shout "spell like abilities at will", in 1e or 2e that just is not so. 1e and 2e did not have these "spell like abilities at will" for GAME BALANCE reasons, just as 1e and 2e had many other restrictions on magic (than help keep magic in check for game balance) that 3e dropped.
You're an idiot. SLA means spell like ability. It means the monster can cast that spell exactlly as If he had it prepared. at-will just means that Pit Fiend never runs out of his "spells". This isn't rocket surgery people if you don't know 3e stuff just look it up it's all up on the d20 SRD
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;581086Wait are you seriously asking for prof the Pit Fiend has it's SLAs go look it up in you're monster manual
I still don't know what 'SLAs' are. Super Level Attack?
EDIT: This was explained while I was posting. Abbreviating everything is kind a pet peeve of mine.
Anyway, your positive assertion isn't what special abilities a Pit Fiend has; that's trivial to ascertain. Your positive assertion is that they work in exactly this manner and will be used in precisely that manner, at every table for all time. All the while failing to realize that you made the assertion, so you are responsible for providing the proof.
It seems to be something of a cultural marker for the Den.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;581086When I fight creatures with at-will illusions I expect to have to nagivagte an elaborte web of decption and lies woven from magic.
Not at will in 1e or 2e. Repeating this nonsense in every post does not make it true.
Also, the 2e 13th Level Dwarf fighter will save vs those illusions on a roll of 4 or higher, just like he will against any other spell the Pit Fiend casts. Heck, he'd save vs such spells cast by a 20th level or a 200th level or a 2000th level wizard. The power level of the caster doesn't affect the target's ability to save in 1e or 2e.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;581086When I fight creatures with at-will illusions I expect to have to nagivagte an elaborte web of decption and lies woven from magic. If I wanted to fight mobs I'd play World of Warcraft.
What you are describing is your prefered playstyle.
At this point i can only presume that you're trolling for lolz.
Now, why should i let this shit-stain of a thread remain open?
Maybe if you didn't do what you asked others not to do in your thread title, it might be worth saving. Maybe if your minions don't do another rush after this post it might be worth saving. Maybe if people who disagree with your prefered playstyle took a leaf out of Brendan's book, it might be worth saving.
What about his megalomaniacal overconfidence in his ability to crush the feeble mortals without using his full power?
Or his desire to toy with the pathetic meatbags before he devours their souls and sends them to his dark lord?
Or maybe he's in a game where the DM is using the Demons box set and he's granted his powers to his followers and so doesn't have access to them himself.
Most likely, if a party is going up against a Pit Fiend and knows it, they're aware of their abilities, and they're walking around with suitable countermeasures such as rings of fire resistance and periapts of true seeing. They're going after a fairly high HD (20? Been a long time since I looked at those) outsider. I would like to think they're properly equipped. It's not like anyone over the age of 14 is just going to have a pit fiend sitting in the bottom of a hole next to a "level appropriate(? I would think it would be monster-appropriate, there's no accounting for level in the way you roll up treasure) pile of treasure"
Quote from: RandallS;581089Not at will in 1e or 2e. Repeating this nonsense in every post does not make it true.
Also, the 2e 13th Level Dwarf fighter will save vs those illusions on a roll of 4 or higher, just like he will against any other spell the Pit Fiend casts. Heck, he'd save vs such spells cast by a 20th level or a 200th level or a 2000th level wizard. The power level of the caster doesn't affect the target's ability to save in 1e or 2e.
In this case it doesn't matter weather or not you disbelive in the Illusions they aren't there to hurt you just stop you from finding and trageting the Pit Fiend that's Fireballing you. Assuing you ever realize you dealing with a Pit Fiend or Illusions you don't get a disbelife saving throw automaticlly you need to suspect your facing illusions.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;581087You're an idiot. SLA means spell like ability. It means the monster can cast that spell exactlly as If he had it prepared. at-will just means that Pit Fiend never runs out of his "spells". This isn't rocket surgery people if you don't know 3e stuff just look it up it's all up on the d20 SRD
Why the hell should I care about 3e stuff when we are talking about a 2e Pit fiend battling a 2e 13th level dwarf Fighter?
Well this is it. LM's big summation of balance, fighters, wizards, 24 ton rock monsters, magic items, and everything since if we go further with the Pit Fiend OHT is going to lock the thread.
D&D is a game of fantasy, however some classes are by their nature supposed mundane. It's clear that the sorts of things people will accept the Fighter or Rogue doing are sharply limited. If the fighters and rogue really break out of human limitations especially if they're blatant about it then a section of the playerbase is going to riot and whine about weeaboo fightan' magic. The means the fighter class operates on hard limits, ones that other class do not.
The Monk has always been implemented badly but it's still totally possible to write a balanced Monk class that people can accept because the already practice quasi-supernatural martial arts. If the monk can jump 100ft in the air and punch a dragon in the face that still fits his conceptual space. If a fighter does that people will rage unless he's wearing boots of jumping 100ft and carrying a +2 sword of dragon stabbing.
The fighter especially at high levels was never really meant to be a completely mundane human. High level fighters where supposed to be mythic heroes. Hercules is after all one of the inspirations for the fighter class. That's very clear from the sort of monsters you're supposed to sword to death. It's had to see Spartacus hacking apart the 32ft tall 48'000 lb. Huge Earth Elemental, but it's easy to see Hercules doing it though. Hercules is not a mundane fighter of course he's half-god and his Strength is (Su). The thing is that in D&D the fighter has to start as Spartacus and eventually become Hercules.
When I posted my example of the fighter hacking the Iron Golem to death there was resistance to that even though hacking Golems to death is one of the first examples people tend to bring up re:usefulness of the fighter at high levels. Someone was so uncomfortable with that example that they claimed the fighter wasn't really hacking up 5'000 lbs. of iron instead the magic in his sword was just disrupting the Golems animating force.
Which is a great time to segway into my next point, magic items. The idea of mythic heroes getting a lot of their powers from their equipment has a lot of traction. The problem is that it's really hard to implement in D&D. For one thing it requires a lot of cognitive dissonance to keep things balance if the Fighter need's his items he need's to be entitled to them and that makes a lot of people unhappy. It also clashes with the level based system, you have to wonder why the fighter is even tracking xp if the items he has matter so much more than his level. It also makes it really hard to have fighters as opponents. If once you have Excalibur you can also track down Cu Cuchulain and stab him to death and now also have his Gáe Bulg that could easily get out of hand. You also need a way for the fighter to not still fall behind the other martial classes with real superpowers like the Paladin and Ranger who presumably can also use those items.
What worries me the most is if future editions don't wise up. If they take what's in my view the worst possible route. If the fighter is just a normal guy and noone can be strictly better than him it puts the game in a vice and then starts to squeeze. You see alot of this in 4e where huge aspects of the game were removed in the name of keeping the fighter relevent. Leaving the fantasy in our fantasy game of choice feeling increadably unfantastic.
I've hinted a lot that I have my own fantasy heartbreaker in the works, based heavly on 3.5. In the end even with more blatently superhuman martial classes I had to cap characters at 13th level and revise spell lists a lot to get the game at a place where I could like the fluff and still have a balanced game.
All you are doing lord mistborn is asserting that all other playstyles result in Gms playing the monsters the way you expect monsters to be played in D&D. This is a silly notion. You are accustomed to games where the GM plays monsters like pieces in a game, metagaming their way to victory against the PCs. I am accustomed to games where Gms play monsters from the monsters point of view. Others are accustomed to games where the GM plays monsters to be a fun challenge. In the later case, they will see the monster's abilities as a roster of fun things to throw at a party during combat, but not neccesarily as things that have to be used. Some GMs try to play fair against the party and don't use monsters to their full potential (this is actually probably the most common style of Gming i have encountered even if it isn't my cup of tea). This is very simple. People play the game differently and with different ends in mind. This determines things like how a Gm plays monsters against a party. It has an effect. That fact is about as inescapable as 2+2 = 4
Now, i have said a pitfiend is a serious challenge. The fact that they get wish once per year makes them a super threat and I would be reluctant to send my 14th level dwarven anything against one for that reason alone. So I dont think dealing with a pitfiend is going to be a breeze if the Gm is playing full throttle. But you are talking as if all the uncertain outcomes here don't matter at all. It matters very much if the fighter disbelieves. It matters very much that the pitfiend cant telepot 100% accurately to a plane that isn't its own. What magic items the fighter happens to have will also be an enormous factor. And you cant just assume the thing will be invisible and have a maxed out illusion trap when the fight starts "just because". The initial fight set up will be entirely dependant on what is going on in the adventure. We dont have that info so we dont know what that is going to be. I think the pitfiend has a significant advantage in this encounter (as it frankly should) but you keep assuming the best possible outcomes for the pitfiend and the worst possible outcomes for the fighter,all the while focusing only on the weakest critcisms made by posters as you ignore the most substantial ones.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;581100All you are doing lord mistborn is asserting that all other playstyles result in Gms playing the monsters the way you expect monsters to be played in D&D. This is a silly notion.
Listen this is like the Bone Devil. The Designers never intened to the Pit Fiend to fight the way I'm proposing, they just didn't think things all the way through when they decided that monsters should have spells useable as many times as they want. Now my interpertation is that Devils are very smart and to represent this in the most logical way they should be played in the way that is most likely to kill the players. This isn't something most DMs are willing to do. Like MGuy said I think people on this forum somtimes seem like they feel entitled to have the monsters charge right into sword range even if that's not the most viable tactic. That's even more unreaistic than anything Kaelik suggested with the Bone Devil or I suggested fror the Pit Fiend. Just because a thing is unrealistic doesn't stop it from happeing in people game though.
So you acknowledge now that playstyle very much impacts how the monster will use its abilties. Great lets move on to something else then.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;581113So you acknowledge now that playstyle very much impacts how the monster will use its abilties. Great lets move on to something else then.
ahem
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;581097Giant post not about Pit Fiends
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;581110Listen this is like the Bone Devil. The Designers never intened to the Pit Fiend to fight the way I'm proposing, they just didn't think things all the way through when they decided that monsters should have spells useable as many times as they want.
And people have shown demonstrably that in 2E the abilities that a pitfiend has doesn't automatically produce the outcome you are advancing here. I agree they are super opponents to fight. But you keepassuming everything goes the pitfiends way no matter how many times people correct your understanding of the 2E rules, What is more, they are meant to be a signiifcant threat to a party. There is no reason to assume they didn't expect GMs to use these abilities in any number of ways. These are creatures from the nine hells after all.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;581114ahem
I am sorry Lm but your calls to keep the thread free of trolling or derailment ring a bit hollow at this point.
Especially when you make a post about moving on from pitfiend but then follow it up with another post about pitfiend.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;581115And people have shown demonstrably that in 2E the abilities that a pitfiend has doesn't automatically produce the outcome you are advancing here. I agree they are super opponents to fight. But you keepassuming everything goes the pitfiends way no matter how many times people correct your understanding of the 2E rules, What is more, they are meant to be a signiifcant threat to a party. There is no reason to assume they didn't expect GMs to use these abilities in any number of ways. These are creatures from the nine hells after all.
Just like the bone devil there has come a point where this need to stop and this is it
Now
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;581097Giant post not about Pit Fiends
Lets get this thread back on track
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;581119Lets get this thread back on track
this thread never was on track.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;581121this thread never was on track.
Does that mean that my point about theRPGsite being unable to have a discussion about class balance has been proven.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;581122Does that mean that my point about theRPGsite being unable to have a discussion about class balance has been proven.
No, it means my point about you being a troll has been proven (again and again over the course of this thread).
There is no track to get back onto - your great summation said nothing other than repeating some stuff you've read on the internet and trolling a couple of people who said stuff you found funny.
You're hitting way too many buttons for it to be unintentional.
Closed.