TheRPGSite

What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

1) There are no boring fighters, only boring players.

2) No

3)Yes

4) I wouldn't know

5)No

6) Sex WITH ice cream FTW!!

Only when they go on and on about how awesome they were before they took an arrow to the knee...

1) I don't find old school fighters boring at all. In fact, when I get to play as opposed to GM, I tend to play fighters because they are a lot of fun to play without a lot of bookwork. I try to avoid bookwork on the rare occasions I get to play as I have enough of record-keeping to do when I GM.

2) Feats (at least as done in WOTC D&D) tend to make fighters more boring, IMHO, by restricting what the character can do to the feats selected.

3) What a character (fighter or otherwise) does in the the campaign/setting is what makes them fun to play for me. Game mechanics just aren't what I'm interested in when I'm playing.

4) I know some people who consider any class that isn't one of their favorites boring, so I'm sure there are people who think fighters are boring because they prefer to play spell-casters (and vice-versa).

5) From what I've seen of 5e (the playtests), I would not call a 5e fighter boring.

6) Both, please.

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

1) No.

2) No.

3) In part.

4) No.

5) No.

6) Sex.

If they're boring it's because you suck as a player

Quote from: Exploderwizard;7384956) Sex WITH ice cream FTW!!

Do you mean incorporating ice cream in your sex, or literally having sex with a bowl of ice cream?

Quote from: Technomancer;738505If they're boring it's because you suck as a player



Do you mean incorporating ice cream in your sex, or literally having sex with a bowl of ice cream?

Both! :)

I don't find them boring. They can get overshadowed, though, if the response to players who find MUs boring is to make life too much easier for MUs (so their zappy spells end up being consistently better at making things keel over than the fighters' blades).

The "old school" offers to my mind a best of two worlds:

1) When we prefer to get quickly to the results of a combat, we can do that.

2) On those occasions when we want to delve into the kinds of details "feats" and "powers" treat, we can do so more flexibly.

Of course not.

I'd be more interested in finding out whether architects, miners and artists are boring.

Quote from: Bill;738494Are old school fighters boring?

Fuck no.

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

1) There are no boring characters, only boring players.
2) No.
3) See 1
4) Probably.  Spell casters bore me
5) I have no idea.
6) Both.

Ages and ages ago, I decided what was interesting about a character isn't what you are, it's who you are.

The again I also felt at some point that D&D characters (esp. fighters) weren't differentiated enough on their character sheets except by their equipment.

So I see both sides of the depressing but inevitable flamewar.

Personally I think part of the art of playing (including GMing) an RPG that should be taught is making "who you are" relevant even if it isn't mechanically represented in the game. So: keep track of past interactions with NPCs and intelligent monsters, and ensure they recur so that the PC has a place in the setting. This is apart from the possibility of having explicit reputation or social status mechanics. Also apart from any mechanic or GMing style that places emphasis on the PCs morality, allegiances, or whatever. Those can be nice but they can also be overdone.

At the same time I like some differentiation within the fighter concept and I'm not sure AD&D 1e/Greyhawk, or B/X or BECMI/RC do it enough or well enough to fully satisfy me. I'm sure this is one of the reasons for the proliferation of fighter-like classes as editions evolved (e.g. Barbarian, Cavalier). At minimum it might be nice to have some sort of cultural/socioeconomic packages such as specifying initial armor, weaponry, equipment (such as having a horse) and specializations for fighter (barbarian), fighter (knight or man at arms), fighter (mercenary), fighter (nomad), etc., without going into the mechanical detail in later editions or competing games.

Finally, though, I'm also attracted to the idea of PCs not being highly differentiated at the start of their careers, and nipping the special snowflake tendency in the bud. This would send a strong message that the important aspect of a character is what they do and what happens to them in play.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;738516Fuck no.

I don't find them boring at all myself, but I have heard many people say they are.

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

1: While not my personal favorite. I do not find fighters boring. They are alot of fun for just wading in and going head to head without the need for alot of micromanagement of quirks. Swing sword-kill stuff.

2: No. It makes them more complex. More micromanagement. If I wanted that I'd play a caster.

3: The fighter is neat and simple. They are the least complex class to play hands down. They are usually easy for players to get into the right mindset for too. Swing sword-kill stuff.

4: I play casters extensively and I do not consider Fighters boring at all.

5: No. Different. Its got more complexity now. But alot of that is focused into chargen. They are still mostly Swing sword-kill stuff. But hard to say where the outlying backgrounds and such will lead yet till more is revealed.

6: Sexy icecream?

Quote from: Technomancer;738505Do you mean incorporating ice cream in your sex, or literally having sex with a bowl of ice cream?

Icecream elemental. How Candyland got populated...

Quote from: Bill;7384941) Do you find them to be boring?

No.

Quote from: Bill;7384942) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

There are some feats that I do think add to the enjoyment I receive from playing fighters (e.g. Power Attack in 3.x).

Quote from: Bill;7384943) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

Yes.

Quote from: Bill;7384944) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

I think some people label the fighters boring because they lack mechanical options. In 3.x, at least, the people who criticize fighters tend to accept barbarians, rogues, and warblades; so I am not sure that it is an issue of preferring casters.

Quote from: Bill;7384945) Is the 5E fighter boring?

Haven't played it.

Quote from: Bill;7384946) Sex or icecream?

Both.

1) No.

2) They make them more tedious. So, no.

3) No. Fighters are fine as they kick ass in combat mechanically. The issue is that when creating mechanical options for other classes, many RPGs do not respect the combat ability and robustness of the Fighter.

4) Some people label them as boring as they lack mechanical options, which is traditionally the reserve of spellcasters. So, its less about preference and more about comparison.

5) Yes

6) Sex.

Quote from: Skywalker;7385331) No.

2) They make them more tedious. So, yes.

3) Fighters are fine as they kick ass. The only issue is that when creating mechanical options for other classes, the combat ability and robustness of the Fighter is often not preserved.

4) Some people label them as boring as they lack mechanical options.

5) Yes

6) Sex.

Just curious, what do you find that makes the 5E fighter boring while others are not, and regarding #2, being tedious means they are not as boring?

Quote from: Arminius;738524Ages and ages ago, I decided what was interesting about a character isn't what you are, it's who you are.

For me, what's most interesting is what you do. The play's the thing.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;738535Just curious, what do you find that makes the 5E fighter boring while others are not, and regarding #2, being tedious means they are not as boring?

I like my fighters to be 'old school' pulp action heroes. I am not a fan of adding mechanical options as it tends to be tedious and interferes with my preferred style of just jumping in and racking up the damage. I especially dislike the imposed specialisation of Fighters in 5e as I think they should be capable of picking up any weapon and kicking ass with it. This is central to their appeal to me as a player: they are easy to play with little restriction.

On saying that I find 5e fighters are better than 3e ones, but I still like them less than 1e fighters.

Oh and re: #2 I missed the "less", so it should be "no" :) Edited.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;738516Fuck no.

This!

Not boring at all.
Actually my class of choice if playing an OSR-type game.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;7384951) There are no boring fighters, only boring players.

I am so glad this was the first response.

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

No

Quote2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

I wouldn't say they make them less boring, but it is a different experience. Sometimes i like feats, sometimes i don't.

Quote3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

I am not sure i quite understand this one. I think fighters are a solid melee class, with good hp and attacks. The mechanics still matter, i just dont need fighters to be outfitted like wizards. But i do think what you are doing in character matters.

Quote4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

Not sure. I think people honestly have different expectations and some folks feeel the fighter eighter doesn't have enough buttons or their baseline attacks and damage are not high enough. I think if you want more buttons, a different game is probably called for. There are plenty of games with maneuvers and abilities for the fighter that are cool but still firmly mundane. but if you just dont like the baseline attack/damage, you can just beef those up as a houserule.

Quote5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

No idea.

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

1) No, but a few little tricks called out in the rules to get your neurons firing is always a good idea.

2) Depends. A few simple ones yes, but when you start restricting the kinds of maneuvers a fighter is capable of without them, it necessarily makes them more boring. Feats should enhance what you can already do.

3) No, but remembering that helps.

4) Probably.

5) I haven't actually played 5e since the first playtest, but I had fun with it then.

6) How kinky and what flavor?

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

i) Fighters are not boring of course not. However, there is a risk that in some games the fighter is relegated to the driver of their equipment.
I have used the example of Captain America and Iron Man before and its apt in this situation as well.
First off both charcters are interesting, no doubt about it.
Second of all Captain America is a much more skilled fighter than iron man.
However, Iron man has a suit that renders Captain America's combat skill if not redundant certainly marginalised.
the key to resolve this is for Captain America to "play the quarterback" and in effect treat Iron Man as one of his weapons.
So in D&D, whch of course is where generic questions on the board always end up, a fighter can be a great character but the game can get to a point where unless the fighter has magic armour, magic shield, magic sword they can not actively participate directly in play at which point the actual fighter could be replaced with someone else just like you can replace iron man with War Machine.
So at that point the fighter should be dictating the tactics of the team using the wizard as a weapon.

2) Feats don't make the fighter less boring although they may allow them to participate more fully without lots of equipment at higher levels.
Personally I would prefer unique powers evolved from play, imbuing high level fighters with a mythic quality.

3) Yes this is what redeems all classes. its's called roleplaying .....

4) No people label then boring because they find them boring. Taste is just a thing. Some people find micromanaagement of resources like spellcasters in AD&D boring (see commnest above round bookkepping and spellcasting). A problme with D&D from the outset has been the proliferation of classes with mechanically unique stuff about them because a lot of people like to have a special mechanical thing they can do, be it monks catching arrows, paladins healing wounds, rangers getting increased damage vs special opponents, or assassin's getting to one-shot kill things. This desire for mechanical advantage has only proliferated as the game has forked.

5) No.

6) Depends, I do like a nice honeycomb and vanilla with a little maple syrup but I also like Bangkok...

Quote from: Skywalker;738539I especially dislike the imposed specialisation of Fighters in 5e as I think they should be capable of picking up any weapon and kicking ass with it. This is central to their appeal to me as a player: they are easy to play with little restriction.

Would you mind expanding on this a bit?


As others have said, it's the player, not the character, that is usually boring.  however, I can't help but notice a trend of the fighter that seems to correlate with how a lot of people complain about how they are boring

1. Fighters were just that: your front line troops.  Best AC and best weapon damage output.  
2. People complained how every other class wasn't regularly doing as much damage as the fighter for every encounter
3. Every other class was bumped up for their damage capability, and also had all these extra powers (spells, thief skills, etc)
4. Suddenly the fighter is boring because he doesn't have all these
5. People demand the fighter get all new powers.


Really, the answer IMO is that all the other classes shouldn't have had their combat capability increased to match the fighter on every encounter, and you wouldn't have created the problem of a boring fighter to begin with, and therefore wouldn't feel the need to give the mundane archetypical warrior superhuman powers

Quote from: Sacrosanct;738631Really, the answer IMO is that all the other classes shouldn't have had their combat capability increased to match the fighter on every encounter, and you wouldn't have created the problem of a boring fighter to begin with, and therefore wouldn't feel the need to give the mundane archetypical warrior superhuman powers

It started off with people complaining that the magic user started weak and then got powerful much later. Then there were the complaints that the fighter was strong at the start and then weak compared to the MU later.

The thief and the cleric rarely heard complaints about them other than the occasional person bitching that their fighter should be able to do all the stuff the thief can or somesuch of the week.

I'll concur with Arminius and Jibbajibba.

D&D fighters can seem simplistic and I wish the game offered ways to differentiate and modify them. Making different classes helped but was an incomplete solution. Personally I like point-buy systems such as GURPS and Hero where you can add things such as Combat Reflexes or a bonus dedicated to removing hit location penalties. Just something to make them mechanically different.

Oh, and ice cream, vanilla usually.

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;738631Would you mind expanding on this a bit?


As others have said, it's the player, not the character, that is usually boring.  however, I can't help but notice a trend of the fighter that seems to correlate with how a lot of people complain about how they are boring

1. Fighters were just that: your front line troops.  Best AC and best weapon damage output.  
2. People complained how every other class wasn't regularly doing as much damage as the fighter for every encounter
3. Every other class was bumped up for their damage capability, and also had all these extra powers (spells, thief skills, etc)
4. Suddenly the fighter is boring because he doesn't have all these
5. People demand the fighter get all new powers.


Really, the answer IMO is that all the other classes shouldn't have had their combat capability increased to match the fighter on every encounter, and you wouldn't have created the problem of a boring fighter to begin with, and therefore wouldn't feel the need to give the mundane archetypical warrior superhuman powers

I don't think "does the most damge and has the most HP" means a class isn't boring.
You are conflating powerful with interesting which is a false position I think.

I might have 1,000 HOP so I can never be killed and I might be able to auto hit twice per round for guarenteed 25 points of damage. Very powerful but incredibly boring to play.

When people say boring they are generally talking about a lack of options not a lack of power. This is mostly about GM style and player engagement.

Amber on paper has the most boring combat system ever. Highest Warfare wins. However, with a good GM and an engaged player if can be fully immersive.

Not if you think outside of the box.

Quote from: Doughdee222;738634I'll concur with Arminius and Jibbajibba.

D&D fighters can seem simplistic and I wish the game offered ways to differentiate and modify them. Making different classes helped but was an incomplete solution. Personally I like point-buy systems such as GURPS and Hero where you can add things such as Combat Reflexes or a bonus dedicated to removing hit location penalties. Just something to make them mechanically different.

Oh, and ice cream, vanilla usually.

not quite my position :)

I dislike the profileration of classes with unique mechnical options.
I dislike a list of combat moves with mechanical modifiers.
I want a simple mechanic to rule over any combat move I can think up. Now I can make this up on the fly but I think a system like D&D that relies so heavily on combat should devote some space to  discussing how to do that and give a robust central mechanic to handle it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;738635When people say boring they are generally talking about a lack of options not a lack of power. This is mostly about GM style and player engagement.

Get the fighter to think and use tactics in a fight.

When I am a player I usually ask the fighter, if any, in the group what the best plan of attack is? Get them thinking and planning.

As a DM I keep the fighter on their toes. "You see a pair of orcs trying to flank you." - "You notice the giant flicks the tree back just before a swing." - "The patrol routs the cultists are using are familiar. But you can't quite place where." etc.

Of course if the player LIKES just leaping in and swinging away. Fine with me. And bemusingly when playing a fighter thats pretty much me. I love just wading into the fray without having to plot and plan sometimes.

Quote from: Omega;738641Get the fighter to think and use tactics in a fight.

When I am a player I usually ask the fighter, if any, in the group what the best plan of attack is? Get them thinking and planning.

As a DM I keep the fighter on their toes. "You see a pair of orcs trying to flank you." - "You notice the giant flicks the tree back just before a swing." - "The patrol routs the cultists are using are familiar. But you can't quite place where." etc.

Of course if the player LIKES just leaping in and swinging away. Fine with me. And bemusingly when playing a fighter thats pretty much me. I love just wading into the fray without having to plot and plan sometimes.

absolutely which is why I sited Amber.

A possible Amber combat on paper is.
PC: I am first in Warfare so I will kill all three of them
GM: Yeah you easily kill all three of them

When I play its more
PC:" My friends I fear you have stumbled apon a Doom that you can not possible defeat"
Gm: "Says you. But I think the three of us can handle a little girl, don't you boys?" As the biggest of the three say this the other two are moving round to the side trying to flank fro left and right. You can tell from the way they move and handle their weapons that they have had some training.
PC: I slide a knife into my left hand from my sleeve as I step towards the big guy. I am going to let the point of my blade dip off to the left, kind of like a rookie fencer might do.
GM: The big fella smiles. "Come to Rowind!", he cries and he charges forward. its a clumsy charge though and he is actually preventing his collegues from pressing home their flanking advantage
PC: I throw the knife into the throat of the one to my left whilst stepping forward in an arc and dipping beneath Rowind's onrushing charge. Rising I will meet it with my blade in his groin and use his momentum to throw him over my head as I gut him from groin to belly.
GM; The guy to the left lets out a gargle as he falls to his knees. Rowind runs into your blade and you lift him cutting upwards as he rolls over your back and into the dust behind you. There is an awful lot of blood and Rowind is screaming.
PC: rising upwards to my full height and turning to face him I fix the remaining guy with a smile. "So do you want to dance as well friend? Or are you going to tell me where Felix is?"

Man, give me an old-school D&D fighter with an average or better charisma for reaction checks and hirelings and I will run the table.  So no, not only not boring, but to me the most interesting class.

I think it is a fair critique of old D&D that you're placing more faith in your GM to say "yeah, that could work, give me a roll" for things like trips and shield bashes and whatever else.  A bad GM, or just a new and clueless one, may end up saying "uh, there's no rules for that, but you can attack this round."  You can look at the feats or powers of 3rd or 4th edition as basically an attempt to idiot-proof D&D from bad game mastering.  And yes, don't play with idiots, but the fact they're out there is a real issue for the hobby.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;738631Would you mind expanding on this a bit?

Not sure what else there is to say. When playing a fighter, I felt the PC was defined more by what they did than specific mechanical options. The HP and combat capability allowed the PC to survive longer even outside of the PC's specialised area. As said, it feels most to me like playing a hero from the stories of Conan or other pulp action heroes.

Quote from: Skywalker;738661Not sure what else there is to say. When playing a fighter, I felt the PC was defined more by what they did than specific mechanical options. The HP and combat capability allowed the PC to survive longer even outside of the PC's specialised area. As said, it feels most to me like playing a hero from the stories of Conan or other pulp action heroes.

I guess I'm still not following.  You said you didn't like how the 5e fighter was implied to have specialization with a particular weapon, and couldn't just pick up any weapon and kick ass with it.

I'm asking why you feel that way, because the 5e fighter very well can pick up any weapon and kick ass with hit.

er... AD&D fighters started off only knowing 4 different weapons...

6. Depends who the sex is with and whether my wife is out of town.

Quote from: Saplatt;7386806. Depends who the sex is with and whether my wife is out of town.

So mostly ice cream then :D

Quote from: Sacrosanct;738667I guess I'm still not following.  You said you didn't like how the 5e fighter was implied to have specialization with a particular weapon, and couldn't just pick up any weapon and kick ass with it.

I'm asking why you feel that way, because the 5e fighter very well can pick up any weapon and kick ass with hit.

That's not my experience with 5e. I dont find the added mechanical options and weapon specialisations for the Fighter promote the kind of all round proficency and simplicity that I enjoy for the reasons given.

But I get that you are a big 5e fan, so don't let that get in your way of your own fun. YMMV as always :)

Quote from: Omega;738671er... AD&D fighters started off only knowing 4 different weapons...

Yeah. That sucked. It's better than 3e and 5e as it mechanically defined the PC less compared to feats and masteries, but I found weapon proficiency often more hassle than its worth.

Quote from: Skywalker;738685That's not my experience with 5e. I dont find the added mechanical options and weapon specialisations for the Fighter promote the kind of all round proficency and simplicity that I enjoy for the reasons given.

But I get that you are a big 5e fan, so don't let that get in your way of your own fun. YMMV as always :)

I don't think it has anything do to with me being a fan.  What weapon specialties are you referring to?  A fighter applies his prof bonus to pretty much all weapons.  A warrior fighter applies the crit range to all weapons as well.  I think that's what I'm getting caught up on; there aren't really weapon specialization in 5e.  not in the sense of any previous edition at any rate.

I don't have the playtest document on me, but the latest version had mandatory martial styles which show a focus on a type of weapon or fighting style.

If you can't make a Fighter interesting, you probably suck at gaming. Don't even think of playing WFRP or Traveller.

(1) I don't think Fighters are boring, but it's hard to claim they're as-or-more interesting as spellcasters to most players.  A small handful might find spellcasters more boring (as a few have suggested) but most people find spellcasters more interesting just because there's such a wider array of weird and interesting things they can do.

(2) Feats are a possibly-misguided way of attempting to remedy this fact, and I think they succeed but also open such a can of worms of design and gameplay issues that it's questionable whether the trade-off is worth it.

(3) I'd much rather that later editions of D&D emphasized the Fighter's leadership/strategic capabilities at the domain-management level, but in general 3rd onwards has marginalized domain-level play almost completely.

(4) Yes.

(5) Not sure, but probably fine.

(6) Can I choose sex and creme brulee?

Quote from: LibraryLass;738610How kinky and what flavor?

(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/GoT_joffrey_approves.gif)

Quote from: Saladman;738650Man, give me an old-school D&D fighter with an average or better charisma for reaction checks and hirelings and I will run the table.  So no, not only not boring, but to me the most interesting class.

I like the cut of your jib.

Quote from: The Butcher;738700If you can't make a Fighter interesting, you probably suck at gaming. Don't even think of playing WFRP or Traveller.

There's truth in this.

No, Fighters aren't boring.

On the rare occasions I get to play rather than GM (or, more frequently, when I pop in a D&Desque video game) , I play fighters. While I like tactical combat, I personally find too many "moving parts" stupefying and ultimately redundant.

As others have said, how interesting the fighter is does depend on the player, but also the GM. A lot of modern GMs aren't comfortable with the improvisational rulings necessary for the fighter to really shine in pre-3e D&D. I feel that many of the 3e feats and 4e at-will powers were ultimately designed to codify common improv-rulings and thereby increase their likelihood of showing up across groups.

For those reasons and for my money, the most consistently satisfying fighter experience was delivered by 4e Essentials's Knight and Slayer classes. This is not a knock on previous editions (which I will play or run willingly), just a reflection of certain local circumstances.

Quote from: Omega;738671er... AD&D fighters started off only knowing 4 different weapons...

Yet another reason why I prefer OD&D where a fighter is a master of all weapons and can use whatever is available that is best for the situation at hand without being penalized for it.

I never understood the desire for incompetence in entire classes of weapons as a feature of heroic warrior types all for the sake of providing mechanical difference.

So a wizard gets to be different by choosing different spells and a fighter gets to be different by enforcing selective incompetence? No thanks, I can provide the differences for my character.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;738748Yet another reason why I prefer OD&D where a fighter is a master of all weapons and can use whatever is available that is best for the situation at hand without being penalized for it.

I never understood the desire for incompetence in entire classes of weapons as a feature of heroic warrior types all for the sake of providing mechanical difference.

So a wizard gets to be different by choosing different spells and a fighter gets to be different by enforcing selective incompetence? No thanks, I can provide the differences for my character.

I think its supposed to simulate the opposite. That Warriors tend to specialize with certain weapons or weapon styles.
the truth is that weapons have very different styles and techniques. The differences between a cutlass and broadsword are pronounced the differences between a trident and a long bow are unsurprisingly immense.....

Weapon Proficiency and Non-Weapon Proficiency is an entirely optional chapter in AD&D 2e. As core your class start out proficient in all the weapons they are allowed. Fighters are allowed all weapons. Perhaps AD&D 1e had a restriction I don't remember, but...
:idunno:

(I think WP/NWP was mostly for wizards ever so desperate to wield a sword like Gandalf. Though the Complete Handbook: Fighter is made of right goodness, and makes it more entertaining.)

Quote from: Skywalker;738698I don't have the playtest document on me, but the latest version had mandatory martial styles which show a focus on a type of weapon or fighting style.

"Focus" is a pretty strong word for a small bonus that you choose once and never have to worry about, and doesn't lock you into any one weapon or kind of weapon.  Particularly if you choose the Defense or Protection options, which don't require any specialization of any armor or weapons at all.

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

1) Yes.  Where the B/X, AD&D1, and AD&D2 versions are concerned, they basically don't even require a player once combat starts.  They just need an automatic die roller and someone to announce that they whiffed.  Doing anything interesting with a fighter in older D&D requires a lot of "mother may I?" style play because they mechanically have no options.

Outside of combat, they're fine and the same as any other character.  But their mechanical niche within the game is lackluster and uninteresting.

2) I don't think so.  They just turn it from a one trick pony into a different one trick pony.

3) I suppose that's true if you want to play a fighter who never fights, or you play a fighter because you find combat uninteresting.

4) Basically all the mechanical fun of older editions is in the spellcasters.  They're the only ones that really have any choice during the mechanics of combat, and that only happens after about a year of playing them as extremely limited use magic items.

5) Don't know.  Don't care.

6) Sex.

Quote from: jibbajibba;738752I think its supposed to simulate the opposite. That Warriors tend to specialize with certain weapons or weapon styles.
the truth is that weapons have very different styles and techniques. The differences between a cutlass and broadsword are pronounced the differences between a trident and a long bow are unsurprisingly immense.....

Of course they do. I'm talking about abstract systems such as D&D. In a game without classes, that feature separate weapon skills the issue takes care of itself. A character is skilled in whatever weapon skills he/she invests in.

D&D classes are archetypes. The fighter is the classic weapons master. It makes sense that this is the one class that is just generally skilled with any type of weapon.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;738759Of course they do. I'm talking about abstract systems such as D&D. In a game without classes, that feature separate weapon skills the issue takes care of itself. A character is skilled in whatever weapon skills he/she invests in.

D&D classes are archetypes. The fighter is the classic weapons master. It makes sense that this is the one class that is just generally skilled with any type of weapon.

As you wish.
That doesn't suit my style of play I like bowmen and fencers and knights and sell swords and barbarians wielding axes and etc etc etc

I also don't think "the classic weapons master" is actually a thing. Its a common trope in fantasy novels for the mighty hero to get bested by the new guy with the bolas, boomerang, double handed sword, etc etc before he goes away learns it and due to his natural prowess (ie levels ) beats the other guy with his own weapon. I think this is a much more "classic" feature of the genre.

However, all said and done as has been pointed out the weapon proficiency sub-system can easily be removed entirely for minimal effort. Or just do that for fighters to give them a boon.

Quote from: jibbajibba;738765As you wish.
That doesn't suit my style of play I like bowmen and fencers and knights and sell swords and barbarians wielding axes and etc etc etc

I do as well when playing a simulationist system that supports them. When itching for tactical combat I go straight for GURPS. Beyond weapon skills, the maneuvers and effects in GURPS Martial Arts are awesome and cover the whole spectrum between gritty and full on cinematic.

Quote from: jibbajibba;738765I also don't think "the classic weapons master" is actually a thing. Its a common trope in fantasy novels for the mighty hero to get bested by the new guy with the bolas, boomerang, double handed sword, etc etc before he goes away learns it and due to his natural prowess (ie levels ) beats the other guy with his own weapon. I think this is a much more "classic" feature of the genre.

However, all said and done as has been pointed out the weapon proficiency sub-system can easily be removed entirely for minimal effort. Or just do that for fighters to give them a boon.

My preferred D&D has 3 adventuring archetypes:

Weapons guy.

Wizard guy.

Holy guy.

Pretty broad strokes. Weapons guy has a lot of ground to cover and there are so many different character possibilities in there without introducing mechanical restrictions.

Quote from: Gabriel2;738758Where the B/X, AD&D1, and AD&D2 versions are concerned, they basically don't even require a player once combat starts.  They just need an automatic die roller and someone to announce that they whiffed.  Doing anything interesting with a fighter in older D&D requires a lot of "mother may I?" style play because they mechanically have no options.

:rotfl:

Quote from: Exploderwizard;738768My preferred D&D has 3 adventuring archetypes:

Weapons guy.

Wizard guy.

Holy guy.

Pretty broad strokes. Weapons guy has a lot of ground to cover and there are so many different character possibilities in there without introducing mechanical restrictions.

I've pretty much come around to this.  I'm still on the fence if there's room for a stealthy guy, but in any case I think the greatest freedom resides in three (or four) broad archetypes and as few mechanical character jewjaws as possible.  If there's a desire to have virtually everything about the character mechanically represented, go for something granular like GURPS.  The classic D&D method of creating progressively narrow "archetype" classes and giving them a variety of mechanical doodads is just clunky, muddy, and mostly unsatisfying.  Trying to shoehorn points, skills, and feats on these broad classes just gives you the hot mess that is 3e.

Quote from: Skywalker;738698I don't have the playtest document on me, but the latest version had mandatory martial styles which show a focus on a type of weapon or fighting style.

Yes and no.  There are fighting styles that each fighter gets to select.  But they are not weapon specialization.  They are styles that reinforce an archetype: skirmisher/archer, tank, swashbuckler, etc.

this is what they actually are:

Archery: +1 bonus to attack rolls on any ranged weapon
Defense: +1 AC when wearing armor
Great Weapon: (this one Mearls already said he's pulling out)
Protection: use your reaction to impose disadvantage to someone attacking an ally within 5 feet of you
Two Weapon Fighting: apply your ability modifier to your off hand weapon

So there is no "weapon specialization" in 5e, really.  fighters can pick up any weapon and use it just as effectively as any other.  The closest is archery, and that includes all ranged weapons, not just bows.

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

I'm biased, because Fighter is my favorite class.

1) Depends on who's running the game

2) Yes and no. One the one hand, feats are toys to play with when leveling your character - on the other hand, feats often dictate what your character can't do as much as what they they can do.

3) Pretty much. The discussions about class balance often focuses ont he wrong part: damage output. The actual imbalance is one of agency. High level clerics and wizards get to essentially create their own epic adventures by using their daily spells to open gates to other planes. Fighters and rogues don't get to do that. That said, Rogues can rule a thieves guild and fighters get to command armies in classic D&D, so they actually got a lot more agency before 3E.

4) Fighters are bad in 3E. Just plain bad. By design. People who say that they are boring are probably coming from that ruleset. Fighters are perfectly fine in AD&D, they are fucking tits in RCD&D and 4E, and I think they are clumsily designed but serviceable in 5E.

5) No.

6) Mauve.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;738777Great Weapon: (this one Mearls already said he's pulling out)

I thought this was still up for debate. Where did he say this?

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;738790I thought this was still up for debate. Where did he say this?

I can't remember the exact location, but I know it was based on something like, "If one little minor rule is causing this much divide, then that's not what we want with next, and it won't be part of the core game."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;738796I can't remember the exact location, but I know it was based on something like, "If one little minor rule is causing this much divide, then that's not what we want with next, and it won't be part of the core game."

That upsets me. Not because I'm particularly fond of the rule, but I don't like to see people who throw temper tantrums getting their way.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;738799That upsets me. Not because I'm particularly fond of the rule, but I don't like to see people who throw temper tantrums getting their way.

:rotfl:

Quote from: Exploderwizard;738748I never understood the desire for incompetence in entire classes of weapons as a feature of heroic warrior types all for the sake of providing mechanical difference.

Because swinging a long sword is different from swinging a bastard sword? A mace takes a different technique than an axe? Longbow or crossbow? A fresh off the militia level 1 fighter has had about how long to master anything? Not to mention the logistics of carrying four weapons around. And they can use any weapon they see if they are willing to take the -2 to hit penalty.

The proficiencies seem to represent the weapons the person has trained most with. Which makes sense.

Though personally I'd have granted the proficiencies a bonus and not had a non-proficiency penalty. And bump up everyones starting allotment by 1.

Such is.

When I did play a fighter, which was not often, I usually took broad sword and short bow. And usually rounded that out with hammer and dagger. Or if the GM allowed I'd just take proficiency in the first two and leave the other two blank and fill as the adventure progressed.

Others groups I've been in went at it differently. Such as not even using proficiencies at all.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;738777There are fighting styles that each fighter gets to select.  

That's the ones (along with the Martial Paths). Thanks.

Quote from: Iosue;738755"Focus" is a pretty strong word for a small bonus that you choose once and never have to worry about...

I agree the mechanical effect is lighter than 3e's feats so its an improvement on that. But I still find it to be more tedious and mechanically defining than an earlier edition  fighter which has no such mechanics. So, my comment stands.

Quote from: Opaopajr;738753Weapon Proficiency and Non-Weapon Proficiency is an entirely optional chapter in AD&D 2e. As core your class start out proficient in all the weapons they are allowed. Fighters are allowed all weapons. Perhaps AD&D 1e had a restriction I don't remember, but...
:idunno:

(I think WP/NWP was mostly for wizards ever so desperate to wield a sword like Gandalf. Though the Complete Handbook: Fighter is made of right goodness, and makes it more entertaining.)

I think a 1E fighter has a -2 to hit with all weapons he is not proficient with.

Essentially they can grab any weapon and use it. a -2 is not usually the kiss of death.

1) Do you find them to be boring?

In OD&D, I love them.

In AD&D, they are kinda sad compared to other classes. Unless you are a Dwarf Fighter and then you rock.

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

Feats suck, but I like special abilities.

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

That's the argument for the Hobo with a Shotgun in Rifts and the One Eyed Beggar in Stormbringer. And its true.

That said, its 2014 and what people expect from D&D is different than what we expected in 1974, 84 or 94.


4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

Who the fuck knows why some people say stuff?

I think they're kinda boring in AD&D because standing next to the other  classes, Fighters don't have a defined niche anymore.

In OD&D, the Fighter is a badass. They don't have to compete with Paladins, Rangers, Monks, Barbarians or even Thieves as the Melee Combat Guru.

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

Since 5e is not out yet, I will not debate 5e rules.

However, if the question is about the Playtest Fighter, then I can say having played a Fighter, the fighter is Meh.

Not as cool as my 4e Fighter, but probably an improvement on the AD&D Fighter in regards to how they stand up versus other the other, often equally meh classes.  

6) Sex or icecream?[/QUOTE]

Tonight?

Quote from: Skywalker;738816I agree the mechanical effect is lighter than 3e's feats so its an improvement on that. But I still find it to be more tedious and mechanically defining than an earlier edition  fighter which has no such mechanics. So, my comment stands.

Well, obviously I'm not going to fault you for how you feel.  You know yourself better than anyone and you know your preferences; it's certainly not my place to say they're wrong or anything.

but I will admit I'm having a hard time reconciling it with your comment about how you don't feel 5e fighters are good with everything.  They are.  They can pick up any weapon and have the same attack bonuses from weapon to weapon.  the only time this is different is if one fighter happens to have chosen to be a ranged fighter.  Whether or not a fighter picks up an axe, or a flail, or sword doesn't matter.  He's equally proficient in all.  And as far as martial paths go, the path of the warrior doesn't change any of that either.  He now hits a critical on a natural 19 or 20 instead of just 20, but again, that applies to all attacks he's making.  so in the context of each game (even B/X has modifiers for strength and magic weapons), that one thing to remember isn't all that tedious.  IMO of course.

Quote from: Spinachcat;738825In AD&D, they are kinda sad compared to other classes. Unless you are a Dwarf Fighter and then you rock.

Bwuh-huh?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;738829but I will admit I'm having a hard time reconciling it with your comment about how you don't feel 5e fighters are good with everything.  They are.  

When we played 5e, Fighters became defined by what they could do in terms of the mechanics, and as a natural consequence what they couldn't do in terms of the mechanics (one was specialised in archery, another with dirty tricks (which meant that they weren't as good at causing critical hits etc). This is not what I want to see from my Fighters and the more additional abilities I need to keep track of (including the absence of those abilities) the more tedious I found the experience. Again YMMV

Quote from: jibbajibba;738752I think its supposed to simulate the opposite. That Warriors tend to specialize with certain weapons or weapon styles.
the truth is that weapons have very different styles and techniques. The differences between a cutlass and broadsword are pronounced the differences between a trident and a long bow are unsurprisingly immense.....

What you describe might be true, but part of the problem is the presentation of this concept.

See, if old-school D&D editions said "Here is your THAC0/attack matrix/attack bonus/whatever, this is what you get for being a Fighting Man of your level. And if you specialise in something, you get extra good at it, so here's a bonus", there would be much, MUCH less griping about. Because specialisation should be a bonus, something over and above what you get anyway.

However, old-school D&D (at least, both editions of AD&D, specifically) doesn't do that. What it does is ""Here is your THAC0/attack matrix/attack bonus/whatever, this is what you get for being a Fighting Man of your level. And if you don't specialise, if you remain nothing more than a thoroughly trained warrior, then here's a penalty to your rolls."

That right there is the problem. "Specialisation" should be a bonus to the already established baseline; not a way to avoid a malus to that baseline. A lot depends on presentation, and AD&D presented the concept poorly.

Quote from: Premier;738845What you describe might be true, but part of the problem is the presentation of this concept (...)

(...) That right there is the problem. "Specialisation" should be a bonus to the already established baseline; not a way to avoid a malus to that baseline. A lot depends on presentation, and AD&D presented the concept poorly.

AD&D 2e core has no Weapon Proficiency, which is a fighter -2 atk on non-proficient weapons. That's an optional chapter, labeled optional in the Table of Contents, in the Chapter Title, and within the starting paragraphs. Granted a lot of people assumed what was labeled optional meant canon, but then people also read DMG item tables as canon instead of as examples, too. But at some point you cannot label things any further; the best you can do is splat it out or highlight it in a different color.

And it does retain Weapon Specialization as a bonus to the baseline, as core a reserve to the single class fighter. The Weapon Spec is +1 atk & +2 dmg. And then there's CH:F style specializations, but that's another topic. :)

I never did. One of my longest played PC's was Orion Lawtrue, Lawful Good Fighter.

He was cerebral, tactical, and fun. Of course we didn't worry so much about "special abilities" so much as "Can you the player come up with something interesting to do, and if so, the Gm will say: Roll X..." and if you got a good result it happened.

When D&D started trying to codify the freeform nature of play more and more, to reduce the problems with people, via rule--it created less and less open-ness with play and that of course hurt the fighters, requiring them to codify things to make them more interesting.

Of course Wizards at low levels had similar problems with their very few spells, that went away. This was all before "cantrips" and variant attempts to "fix" the horrid "not quite Vancian" magic. Look, for D&D early editions the limited nature of its magic system WORKED with fighters and wizards to keep them more balanced. Components, hard to find magical texts, and more all created mages who weren't innovators, but but people beholden to lore--dark and light, stolen, bribed,tricked and otherwise obtained at cost for a precious new spell. This made a very interesting social balance--and lets be honest many gamers have trouble with "social" balance.

I love gamers. Let me point this out, but there are gamers who are creative, brilliant people, and then there are some who just keep driving the same old plow down the same old rut--the latter tend to need rules that help them make that rut fun. The others? Never get in the rut in the first place. Two identical fighters by class, skill, and alignment will vary a LOT with the former in AD&D--by personality, by play and other things. The other type of player? They need those mechanics to make "differences" and even then they may have two wildly different rule-set characters that act and behave t he same. Rules will never truly fix the problem of that kind of player. It helps a few. But not all of them.

I've a dear friend who is one of them. when he does break out of his rut, by force of other players he can do an AWESOME job of being a brand new character, but without social pressure, he never will vary from Dwarf/Elf/Fighter/stab em and cause em pain sort...

Quote from: Black Vulmea;738832Bwuh-huh?

The Dwarf Fighter became a joke in RPGA during 2e's Living City campaign because almost every party was Dwarf Fighter, Human Cleric, Halfling Thief and Elf Wizard as the core. Playing a non-Dwarf Fighter was tantamount to heresy and that was the pre-3e, pre-build days.

Even in B/X, the Dwarf was a better choice than Fighter. They were Fighters+1.

Only in OD&D did the Fighter shine. Straight 3D6 rolls meant that the OD&D Ranger and Paladin were severe rarities. Not so much with 4D6 Place'em PCs where you could almost always do better than a Fighter.

Dwarf fighters are not so good horse archers. Ponies really lag in terms of speed & distance.
:p

My other favorite trope gone bye bye to context is the plate armor tank. It sucks so much on my pirate boats, it's still hilariously funny. "The wizard and his thief buddy grabs each end of an oar and scoops the plate armored knight, and themselves, overboard into the water. Gowns and leather are easier to swim in."

Quote from: Black Vulmea;738832Bwuh-huh?

Well, every Dwarf worth his salt ROCKS.



But presumably he was referring to the potential awesome save bonuses?

Quote from: Opaopajr;738935Dwarf fighters are not so good horse archers. Ponies really lag in terms of speed & distance.
:p

My other favorite trope gone bye bye to context is the plate armor tank. It sucks so much on my pirate boats, it's still hilariously funny. "The wizard and his thief buddy grabs each end of an oar and scoops the plate armored knight, and themselves, overboard into the water. Gowns and leather are easier to swim in."

Dwarves really shine as Anchors.

Quote from: Opaopajr;738935Dwarf fighters are not so good horse archers. Ponies really lag in terms of speed & distance.

That's the pony's fault, not the dwarf's. Put those dwarf archers on low slung giant spiders and whatever advantage you lose in speed will be more than compensated for in maneuverability.

From a min/max standpoint, I'd think half orcs are better fighters than dwarves in AD&D.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;738987From a min/max standpoint, I'd think half orcs are better fighters than dwarves in AD&D.

Tell that to a medusa or a vampire :)

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;738986That's the pony's fault, not the dwarf's. Put those dwarf archers on low slung giant spiders and whatever advantage you lose in speed will be more than compensated for in maneuverability.

I see your big spider riding dwarven archers and raise you cockatrice riding blind fighting human cataphracts!
:mad:

Quote from: Opaopajr;738993I see your big spider riding dwarven archers and raise you cockatrice riding blind fighting human cataphracts!
:mad:

A cockatrice petrifies by touch you know. That might not be the most wise troop type. :p

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

1) No, from my reading of AD&D - not that I've played it yet. I'd like to.

2.) No, but it works better for 3E and Pathfinder - the argument of system mechanic.

3.) Yes.

4.) Depends on who's saying it.

5.) Haven't played it yet.

6.) Share the ice cream, and then have sex to work off the calories. ;)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;739003A cockatrice petrifies by touch you know. That might not be the most wise troop type. :p

That's why they are cataphracts, they are in full heavy armor. No glove, no love. Duh! :hand: (i never get to use this smiley.)

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

1) In a game where ogres have 17 hit points, a character that has a great chance for hitting for 10 hit points is plenty good. In old school, characters weren't so limited by their skills, so it didn't really matter whether you were a fighter or a thief at many non-combat things.

2) Totally. It turns a fighter into a one-option character. Old school fighters could pick up a powerful magic trident and use it. A feat-game fighter that isn't trident based can barely figure out which end to use, compared to the one trick his feats allow.

3) As character classes go, yes.

4) Probably even in old school, sure. Now that spellcasters don't have to run to survive, are given all spells they want for free, given a bunch of bonus spells, are able to cast while being melee'd, and given the right to make whatever magic items they want cancelling out any weaknesses left, then yeah, a bit moreso today.

5) Don't know the 5e fighter.

6) Both, but not simultaneously. Ice cream, after.

Quote from: Opaopajr;739042That's why they are cataphracts, they are in full heavy armor. No glove, no love. Duh! :hand: (i never get to use this smiley.)

So in your games a plate clad character is immune the effects of special abilities used by making contact? Interesting.

That certainly makes armor much more valuable than in a typical campaign.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;739116So in your games a plate clad character is immune the effects of special abilities used by making contact? Interesting.

That certainly makes armor much more valuable than in a typical campaign.

I'm wondering more about how they ride something the size of a regular chicken.

Strapped to each foot, like roller skates. What am I your mom? Tidy up your own setting! Obviously the cockatrice legend comes in more than just 'no tutch' 'fun size.'
:rant:

(for the humor impaired, we have closed-captioned this topic sidetrack on the second audio channel. :) )

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

1: No.
2:  No, they make them more so.
3:  No, fighters are fine, period.
4: Possibly.
5: Who cares?  5E is crap.
6: Why choose?  Have both.

Disclaimer:  I play real D&D, not the crap that passes for D&D these days.

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

1. No
2.  No but more restricted if we're talking 3e Dnd.
3. No opinion.
4.  Yes but it's known I'm a Magegirl 1000%.
5. From what I see? No.
6. Sex....honey or how about sex with icecream covered in honey?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;739116So in your games a plate clad character is immune the effects of special abilities used by making contact? Interesting.

That certainly makes armor much more valuable than in a typical campaign.

That's another weird pathfinder thing. Most mage attack spells are touch, and, strangely, that shield and plate your fighter is wearing just doesn't block a ray of frost.

It's like mages basically get a +8 to hit (more than superior to the +1 per level BAB fighters get). Insult to injury, of course, is that Mage Armor does protect fully against touch attacks. Just not a shield (unless it's the Shield spell, in which case, yeah, it does, for some reason).

Quote from: Doom;739433That's another weird pathfinder thing. Most mage attack spells are touch, and, strangely, that shield and plate your fighter is wearing just doesn't block a ray of frost.

It's like mages basically get a +8 to hit (more than superior to the +1 per level BAB fighters get). Insult to injury, of course, is that Mage Armor does protect fully against touch attacks. Just not a shield (unless it's the Shield spell, in which case, yeah, it does, for some reason).

I don't have the 4e fans' typical fetish for perfect balance, but that's some bullshit design right there.

Quote from: Doom;739433That's another weird pathfinder thing. Most mage attack spells are touch, and, strangely, that shield and plate your fighter is wearing just doesn't block a ray of frost.

It's like mages basically get a +8 to hit (more than superior to the +1 per level BAB fighters get). Insult to injury, of course, is that Mage Armor does protect fully against touch attacks. Just not a shield (unless it's the Shield spell, in which case, yeah, it does, for some reason).

well metal has a very low specific heat capacity so armour not blocking heat or cold makes total sense. Padded armour is a better defense then plate versus a cold attack.

Quote from: JRR;739255Disclaimer:  I play real D&D, not the crap that passes for D&D these days.

The D&D I play is more real than the crap that passes for your D&D. And I have no idea what edition you play.

Everybody whip out your penises! You too ladies! We're throwing down for the right to declare who's Elf Pretend Rules are the real-est for real this time. Woot!

Quote from: Bill;738494Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

This is my view and my experience with old-school play. Pre-3e Fighters are (a) competent at fighting and (b) not constrained by the rules in other areas.
Fighter is by far the most popular class in my old-school (usually 1e AD&D or BX) games. And the most favoured attribute is Charisma; the Reaction roll bonus is probably the most powerful element of any character IMCs. :)

Edit: I like the 4e Fighter too, he is (a) competent at fighting (b) has interesting choices to make in combat and (c) with some effort, can be made ok at non-combat stuff like diplomacy. But the interesting choices come at the cost of a very slow game where one combat can take the whole session.

The 3e Fighter of course is a disaster, incompetent at fighting after about 4th level, totally incompetent out of combat, and fiddly to create yet still lacking interesting choices in combat.

Quote from: Spinachcat;739480The D&D I play is more real than the crap that passes for your D&D. And I have no idea what edition you play.

Everybody whip out your penises! You too ladies! We're throwing down for the right to declare who's Elf Pretend Rules are the real-est for real this time. Woot!

Too late.  That contest is over and WOTC D&D lost.

Quote from: jibbajibba;739475well metal has a very low specific heat capacity so armour not blocking heat or cold makes total sense. Padded armour is a better defense then plate versus a cold attack.

I'm a little reluctant to take realism to that level. Besides, the spells are "instantaneous", so heat capacity is irrelevant...it all happens over a milliminimicrosecond. Either hits/hurts your skin or it hits/hurts your shield/armor.

Now, if it was a 10 second blast, a case could be made.

Quote from: Doom;739605I'm a little reluctant to take realism to that level. Besides, the spells are "instantaneous", so heat capacity is irrelevant...it all happens over a milliminimicrosecond. Either hits/hurts your skin or it hits/hurts your shield/armor.

Now, if it was a 10 second blast, a case could be made.

I was being a tad pedantic :D

Quote from: JRR;739584Too late.  That contest is over and WOTC D&D lost.

One might argue that as the owner of the D&D IP, they win by definition.

Quote from: LibraryLass;739629One might argue that as the owner of the D&D IP, they win by definition.

No. WOTC's last penis wasn't big enough for its Hasbro Pimp and is being replaced with a new penis. It may have been fine, but just because it has WOTC tattooed on the side, doesn't mean everyone else needs to put their drawers back on while WOTC prances around the locker room. See the way I see it, WOTC may have had the biggest penis, but others seem to know how to use their tools better.

EDIT: I wish I knew how to do the inline quoting cause my response doesn't have quite the same effect without them. See the last dozen or so posts. :)

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

1. No
2. 3e/Pathfinder feats yes. FantasyCraft/5e feats no.
3. No opinion.
4. No they just have no concept of spotlight balance.
5.  Not that I see.
6. Ice cream.:)

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

Not at all.

Quote2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

Not at all.

Quote3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

Absolutely.

Quote4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

It may be so.

Quote5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

Dunno.

Quote6) Sex or icecream?

Sex, always.

1) Do you find them to be boring?

No.  I often pick fighter most of the time.

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

Depends on the feat in question.  If it adds something new to the fighter, then no.  If not, then the answer is still no.  Mainly because the fighter is not boring even with a boring improvement.

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

Yes.  I see a lot of people treat fighter as a one hit machine.  Even in 3.5 I cringe when I see people playing as fighters only do one attack when they are capable of doing four attacks.  I even flat out tell them you can do other things as well like destroy swords with your sheer might, trip over a guy, and just about any thing other than one attack.

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

Yes.  I seen it happen a few times personally and given the growth spell casters have I can't really blame them.  They get a ton of options while none spell caster classes have limits.

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

No.  Though given the rules I seen for those that love feats there is plenty of fighter growth.  For those that don't like feats there is still plenty of fighter growth.

6) Sex or icecream?

Why not both?

Quote from: Doom;739433It's like mages basically get a +8 to hit (more than superior to the +1 per level BAB fighters get). Insult to injury, of course, is that Mage Armor does protect fully against touch attacks. Just not a shield (unless it's the Shield spell, in which case, yeah, it does, for some reason).

This is wrong actually, Shield and Mage Armor don't add to your touch AC. Since they are [force] effects their bonus applies against incorporeal creatures but they don't apply against regular touch attacks.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;739856This is wrong actually, Shield and Mage Armor don't add to your touch AC. Since they are [force] effects their bonus applies against incorporeal creatures but they don't apply against regular touch attacks.

Neat, I'll have to look that up. Thanks!

Quote from: gamerGoyf;739856This is wrong actually, Shield and Mage Armor don't add to your touch AC. Since they are [force] effects their bonus applies against incorporeal creatures but they don't apply against regular touch attacks.

That makes sense in that shield and mage armor are essentially the same as using a shield and wearing armor.

I do seem to recall a few gm's allowing shield or mage armor to count vs touch attacks, even if it is not raw.

So mage touch attacks are even better!

And their mage armor & shields resist ghosts! (sorry, incorporeal creatures.)

Quote from: Opaopajr;739914So mage touch attacks are even better!

And their mage armor & shields resist ghosts! (sorry, incorporeal creatures.)

mage armour is just a forcefield right.

So should a forcefield be able to contain ghosts and prevent touch attacks?

Can the Invisible Woman contain Kitty Pride in a forcefield?

Quote from: jibbajibba;739951Can the Invisible Woman contain Kitty Pride in a forcefield?

I just got a hard-on.

Quote from: jibbajibba;739951mage armour is just a forcefield right.

So should a forcefield be able to contain ghosts and prevent touch attacks?

Can the Invisible Woman contain Kitty Pride in a forcefield?

Depending on the writer. Yes. In her early appearances she could be stopped by a force field. But given time she might phase through those as well. Doom had her in a force field container when she was stuck intangible. Sooooo.

Probably yes Sue could contain Kitty. Shes also beaten up intangible villains.

So force contain them ghosts! And dont cross the beams.

Quote from: jibbajibba;739951mage armour is just a forcefield right.

So should a forcefield be able to contain ghosts and prevent touch attacks?

Can the Invisible Woman contain Kitty Pride in a forcefield?

Actually thinking on the superhero motiff doesn't Armour have a power that is really just fancy Mage armour with some oriental flavour thrown in?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor_(comics)



(as an aside I do get confused how the x-gene can not only give you physical, mental, or spirtual mutations but can also grant you power over the elements, ancient oriental monsters or let you use magic but hey confusing the issue :) )

Quote from: Bill;7384941) Do you find them to be boring?

Yep. Pre-3e fighters - hell, even 3e fighters, though for different reasons - lack mechanical differentiation.

Characters that happen to be fighters do not have to be boring, and if a character is boring, that's on the player. But the class in and of itself is incredibly dull and requires significant investment on part of the player to differentiate their character from other fighters.

Quote2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

They could, but the implementation of feats - to date - has been spotty and insufficient for significant differentiation. There are a number of "go-to" feats, and once an optimal path has been found, each fighter starts to look significantly similar, which reduces their ability to provide mechanical differentiation.

Feats are akin to pre-MoP WoW talents: while they look like they provide customization, they really don't, because there is generally a small subset of mechanically viable/optimal routes to take, and if you don't follow them, you are screwing yourself for no good reason. Also, the existence of feat traps (such as Toughness) and feat "taxes" implies that feat design in both 3e and 4e was relatively lackluster.

Quote3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

It depends entirely upon the player. Some people are fine without mechanical differentiation, and can find ways to make their characters unique and interesting; others prefer mechanical hooks to assist in this process, or use mechanics to provide context for the fluff and vice-versa; and some people simply enjoy having a lot of crunch, for which old-school fighters are just insufficient.

Quote4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

Possibly? I'm not those people, so I wouldn't know.

Quote5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

Stopped paying attention to 5e quite awhile ago, so I have no idea.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;740018Yep. Pre-3e fighters - hell, even 3e fighters, though for different reasons - lack mechanical differentiation.

Characters that happen to be fighters do not have to be boring, and if a character is boring, that's on the player. But the class in and of itself is incredibly dull and requires significant investment on part of the player to differentiate their character from other fighters.

Not much different from other classes. Casters have "go to" spells and abilities that end up producing pretty much the same character in a strict mechanical sense.

In a class based system, individuality really is up to the player. Mechanics by themselves are generally dull regardless of class. Its what a character actually does in relation with the setting that makes the game interesting.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;740038Not much different from other classes. Casters have "go to" spells and abilities that end up producing pretty much the same character in a strict mechanical sense.

I would not disagree with that assessment. In any system that offers multiple options, over time, one of those options will be typically be found to be optimal. Some systems, I imagine, can overcome that (and I hope to in my own game), but it is definitely a difficult thing to balance.

QuoteIn a class based system, individuality really is up to the player. Mechanics by themselves are generally dull regardless of class. Its what a character actually does in relation with the setting that makes the game interesting.

In the strictest sense, I will allow that. However I would contend that class-based systems that have options within those classes - such as the 3.5 ranger, with the option between melee and ranged - allow for greater variability between classes.

In addition, mechanical systems outside of classes, such as skills and feats, can lend greater customization and further differentiate members of the same class.

And obviously the progress of the game itself will differentiate between characters of the same class. Bob the fighter is not Joe the fighter, in terms of personality, history, etc. However, that does not mean jack to differentiation within the system, which is the only meaningful approach to this topic - otherwise, why have any classes or races at all, if differentiation made through gameplay trumps mechanical differentiation, then mechanical differences can be done away with. Yes, obviously hyperbolic, but that should illustrate my point that mechanical differentiation is still important.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;740018But the class in and of itself is incredibly dull and requires significant investment on part of the player to differentiate their character from other fighters..

Round these parts, we call this significant investment "role-playing".

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740047Round these parts, we call this significant investment "role-playing".

Role-playing is hard.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740047Round these parts, we call this significant investment "role-playing".

It's also independent of the class.  

It's the old fallacy, "The rules are brilliant because I rewrote them to suit my tastes."  No.  The rules sucked.  Your input was the portion that had merit.

Quote from: Benoist;740057Role-playing is hard.

Apparently.  I've played dozens of fighters over the years (one of my favorite classes) and the only two that I played almost the exact same were father and son both named Merdock.  Other than that, each one had unique personalities, motivations, and style of play.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740058It's also independent of the class.  

.

Not really.  The class gives you a foundation for your role-playing.  After all, you won't role-play a magic user the same as you would a fighter.

And to head off the inevitable (not necessarily by you, but by someone), yes, you do role-play in combat.  Or at least, you should.  The game doesn't make you stop role-playing and shift into boardgame tactical once a combat encounter starts.  Or at least it shouldn't if it wants to call itself a true role-playing game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740060Not really.  The class gives you a foundation for your role-playing.  After all, you won't role-play a magic user the same as you would a fighter.

And to head off the inevitable (not necessarily by you, but by someone), yes, you do role-play in combat.  Or at least, you should.  The game doesn't make you stop role-playing and shift into boardgame tactical once a combat encounter starts.  Or at least it shouldn't if it wants to call itself a true role-playing game.

Nonetheless there is some validity in Gnomeworks position.
If you say that non character stuff is a wash between all classes after all all classes can be role-played. Then the mechanics differentiate.
Now I am very much from the roleplay school but I can't deny the logic.

Quote from: jibbajibba;740061Nonetheless there is some validity in Gnomeworks position.
If you say that non character stuff is a wash between all classes after all all classes can be role-played. Then the mechanics differentiate.
Now I am very much from the roleplay school but I can't deny the logic.

Well of course you aren't limited to how you roleplay a certain class, but they are in fact not independant either.  That's all I'm saying.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740063Well of course you aren't limited to how you roleplay a certain class, but they are in fact not independant either.  That's all I'm saying.

Tenser might disagree :D

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740059Apparently.  I've played dozens of fighters over the years (one of my favorite classes) and the only two that I played almost the exact same were father and son both named Merdock.  Other than that, each one had unique personalities, motivations, and style of play.

But what was his AC, thaco and number of attacks?   :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;740064Tenser might disagree :D

Even Tenser didn't rush into melee battle fists-a-flailing every time it came up.  And certainly you can't deny that as a general rule, players will play a magic user differently than a fighter from a role-playing perspective.

While you could take the personality of Conan and play a wizard that way, the vast majority of players, who want to play a PC with such a personality as Conan, would play a fighter-type class.

Quote from: Bill;740065But what was his AC, thaco and number of attacks?   :)

And?  None of those things factored into the fact that with Merdock (both), I played them as front line defenders, always trying to protect the weaker classes and using formations and tactics when I could, and with Orion, he would just bull rush into battle and let the other PCs figure out what they wanted to do on their own.  Or Thonolen, who preferred to use a bow before resorting to melee as a last resort.  The PCs could have similar AC, THAC0, and # of attacks, but they played very differently.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740066Even Tenser didn't rush into melee battle fists-a-flailing every time it came up.  And certainly you can't deny that as a general rule, players will play a magic user differently than a fighter from a role-playing perspective.

While you could take the personality of Conan and play a wizard that way, the vast majority of players, who want to play a PC with such a personality as Conan, would play a fighter-type class.

Now here we differ I think.
First off I rarely play fighters that rush into battle fists flying.
Secondly I could totally see a MU and a fighter played with the same personality just with different weapons.
Take a military tactician character. I can see that working as a fighter or a wizard.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740067And?  None of those things factored into the fact that with Merdock (both), I played them as front line defenders, always trying to protect the weaker classes and using formations and tactics when I could, and with Orion, he would just bull rush into battle and let the other PCs figure out what they wanted to do on their own.  Or Thonolen, who preferred to use a bow before resorting to melee as a last resort.  The PCs could have similar AC, THAC0, and # of attacks, but they played very differently.

That was kind of Bill's point Sac:)

Quote from: jibbajibba;740068Now here we differ I think.
First off I rarely play fighters that rush into battle fists flying.
Secondly I could totally see a MU and a fighter played with the same personality just with different weapons.
Take a military tactician character. I can see that working as a fighter or a wizard.

I think it bears repeating:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740063Well of course you aren't limited to how you roleplay a certain class, but they are in fact not independant either.  That's all I'm saying.

Also, let me rephrase this:

As a general rule, if a player wants to play a PC with the personality of Conan, Lancelot, or Fafhrd, what types of classes will those players choose?

And no, your exception does not override the general rule, so I'll stop you before you post that again.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740070I think it bears repeating:



Also, let me rephrase this:

As a general rule, if a player wants to play a PC with the personality of Conan, Lancelot, or Fafhrd, what types of classes will those players choose?

And no, your exception does not override the general rule, so I'll stop you before you post that again.

So Conan and Fafhrd are thieves and Lancelot is a Paladin? :)

I know what you are saying except that I would argue that you are conflating personality of the PC with what actions you want to take in game.
Take the personality type of a cautious idealist who wants to improve the lot of the poor serfs he sees in the land about his family estate. That is a good little personality it has a nice scope you can see why there might be adventure hooks backstory all sorts of things. What class is the guy? well meh who knows. I guess that depends on his stats. If we talk 2e I could see him as a bard using a herald or skald or a gallant, maybe a fighter or a paladin or a cavalier, or a wizard who learns his magic through his tutor using his father's extensive library? A priest of the local deity etc etc etc .....

So I would probably separate the characters personality from the way they play in game.

I think you're trying to dance a dance and refuse to admit that as a general rule, a player who chooses to play a fighter will role-play that character differently than they would if they were playing a magic user, outside of defined class features.

Also, personality is what drives behavior.  Come on now.

Quote from: jibbajibba;740068Now here we differ I think.
First off I rarely play fighters that rush into battle fists flying.
Secondly I could totally see a MU and a fighter played with the same personality just with different weapons.
Take a military tactician character. I can see that working as a fighter or a wizard.

I love fighters that wade in, make frontal assaults, etc...Especially Paladins and Warpriests.

In a game I was playing in Sunday, the party's scouts were spying on some gnolls that were only about 50'away. When the scouts returned they told the rest of the party including my character that they say a half dozen gnolls that were discussing which hostage to eat first.

Ooops! They said Hostages.

My warpriest immediately yelled "Hostages?!!!!" and charged full speed ahead into the Gnolls.

Great fun. There was no way in the nine hells my good warpriest was going to fart around with some silly plan while the hostages were devoured.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740067And?  None of those things factored into the fact that with Merdock (both), I played them as front line defenders, always trying to protect the weaker classes and using formations and tactics when I could, and with Orion, he would just bull rush into battle and let the other PCs figure out what they wanted to do on their own.  Or Thonolen, who preferred to use a bow before resorting to melee as a last resort.  The PCs could have similar AC, THAC0, and # of attacks, but they played very differently.

I was agreeing; being sarcastic.

Quote from: Bill;740078I was agreeing; being sarcastic.

I think the big disconnect here is the lack of acknowledgement of the middle ground, which is the position I'm arguing for.  The fact that there are exceptions doesn't contradict my point, but in fact supports it.  Likewise, those exceptions don't override the rule.

While you are not forced to role-play any particular class a certain way, it is true that as a general rule, the class type does impact how you role-play that character outside of the mechanical class features.

I.e., if the typical person is playing a fighter, they will not role-play that character to avoid getting into a combat at all costs.  That's why they are a fighter.  Just like for the typical person playing a magic user, they will not role-play that PC with an attidue and personality where they want to leap directly into the fray of every battle.  Just because there might be someone who does here and there, in no way disproves the general rule.

As I mentioned in my comment that was in response to yours, I clearly illustrated how even though the mechanical parts were the same, I played the PCs all differntly.  However, I also played them similarly in that because they were fighters, they were not adverse to getting in a fight and using their size/martial ability to impact their behaviors and how I role-played them.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740058It's also independent of the class.  

It's the old fallacy, "The rules are brilliant because I rewrote them to suit my tastes."  No.  The rules sucked.  Your input was the portion that had merit.

It's the old fallacy, "The rules suck because I don't like them."

No, the rules were brilliant.  Your imagination sucked.

If you're playing a fighter in a pre-WotC version of the game and all you can do is charge every time and let the dice and pure statistics decide the outcome of every combat situation, I'm very sorry for you. It means you suck both at tactics and role-playing. I'd suggest you stick to tic-tac-toe. Less of a risk of a potential seizure that way.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740075I think you're trying to dance a dance and refuse to admit that as a general rule, a player who chooses to play a fighter will role-play that character differently than they would if they were playing a magic user, outside of defined class features.

Also, personality is what drives behavior.  Come on now.

I think there are some people that see classes as just templates.

I see the personality as discrete from the class.

In the world of D&D what a PC "does" is, arcing back to Gnomeworks earlier post, determined to a large extend by their mechanical abilities. How they do it and their personality is the roleplay part.

So two characters might both decide to get revenge of the goblins raiding their town how they do that will vary with their abilities.

Quote from: Benoist;740082If you're playing a fighter in a pre-WotC version of the game and all you can do is charge every time and let the dice and pure statistics decide the outcome of every combat situation, I'm very sorry for you. It means you suck both at tactics and role-playing. I'd suggest you stick to tic-tac-toe. Less of risk of a potential seizure there.

Yep.

The fighter whose only tactic is "CHARGE!" will last about half of one combat.

Quote from: Gabriel2;7387581) Yes.  Where the B/X, AD&D1, and AD&D2 versions are concerned, they basically don't even require a player once combat starts.  They just need an automatic die roller and someone to announce that they whiffed.  Doing anything interesting with a fighter in older D&D requires a lot of "mother may I?" style play because they mechanically have no options.

It really sucks when you and the Dm are not on the same wave length.  Real easy to spot, mother may I becomes 'you're a fucking idiot'.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740079I think the big disconnect here is the lack of acknowledgement of the middle ground, which is the position I'm arguing for.  The fact that there are exceptions doesn't contradict my point, but in fact supports it.  Likewise, those exceptions don't override the rule.

While you are not forced to role-play any particular class a certain way, it is true that as a general rule, the class type does impact how you role-play that character outside of the mechanical class features.

I.e., if the typical person is playing a fighter, they will not role-play that character to avoid getting into a combat at all costs.  That's why they are a fighter.  Just like for the typical person playing a magic user, they will not role-play that PC with an attidue and personality where they want to leap directly into the fray of every battle.  Just because there might be someone who does here and there, in no way disproves the general rule.

As I mentioned in my comment that was in response to yours, I clearly illustrated how even though the mechanical parts were the same, I played the PCs all differntly.  However, I also played them similarly in that because they were fighters, they were not adverse to getting in a fight and using their size/martial ability to impact their behaviors and how I role-played them.

You stated yourself that one of those fighters only resorted to fighting as a last resort. Extrapolate from there.
We have all been playing for long enough that we have played hundreds of characters.
My last D&D character, Sgt Crowe, hated combat and would avoid it at all costs. He got to 5th level by being alive at the end of each fight and putting himself at the minimal risk. And yes he was a fighter.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;740043In the strictest sense, I will allow that. However I would contend that class-based systems that have options within those classes - such as the 3.5 ranger, with the option between melee and ranged - allow for greater variability between classes.

What you refer to as variability I call enforced incompetence.[cue commercial]

 When the divide between specialty and general skill grows wide you get a competency gap. When you get a competency gap, everyone specializes. When everyone specializes you get trivialized challenges. when you get trivialized challenges you get challenge creep. When you get challenge creep only the highly specialized can do anything. When only the highly specialized can do anything , the rest of the party sees imaginary butterflies and wanders into something highly illegal.

Don't see imaginary butterflies and wander into something highly illegal, just say no to enforced incompetence. :)

So, speaking mechanically, variability leads to the kind of shit that causes flying monsters to only be able to hop in combat else the melee focused characters cry because they feel useless. The world doesn't become romper room because you feel the need to be special mechanically.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;740043In addition, mechanical systems outside of classes, such as skills and feats, can lend greater customization and further differentiate members of the same class.

See above.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;740043And obviously the progress of the game itself will differentiate between characters of the same class. Bob the fighter is not Joe the fighter, in terms of personality, history, etc. However, that does not mean jack to differentiation within the system, which is the only meaningful approach to this topic - otherwise, why have any classes or races at all, if differentiation made through gameplay trumps mechanical differentiation, then mechanical differences can be done away with. Yes, obviously hyperbolic, but that should illustrate my point that mechanical differentiation is still important.

Why hyperbolic? I play OD&D. The difference between Bob and Joe the fighter is the name plus whatever the player wants to come up with. Everything else is just an intrusion of different types of mechanics trying to shoehorn themselves into an abstract game.  

If mechanical difference is that important then I will play GURPS and custom build all of my abilities from the ground up. That's the advantage of a classless system.

Quote from: Sommerjon;740087It really sucks when you and the Dm are not on the same wave length.  Real easy to spot, mother may I becomes 'you're a fucking idiot'.

And knowing that, if you don't make any effort to come to an understanding, dig your heels in and keep on doing the same thing "because fuck it, that's why", and then come to a forum to bitch about how your DM is a meanie who sucks all the fun at the game table for you, you ARE a fucking idiot.

Quote from: Benoist;740082If you're playing a fighter in a pre-WotC version of the game and all you can do is charge every time and let the dice and pure statistics decide the outcome of every combat situation, I'm very sorry for you. It means you suck both at tactics and role-playing. I'd suggest you stick to tic-tac-toe. Less of a risk of a potential seizure that way.

It does help a lot if the gm is creative. What bores me is when a gm forces you to fight everything you meet, and does not allow any real strategy, tactics, or morale to matter.

Quote from: Bill;740093It does help a lot if the gm is creative. What bores me is when a gm forces you to fight everything you meet, and does not allow any real strategy, tactics, or morale to matter.

That would suck, I agree.

Quote from: Old Geezer;740081It's the old fallacy, "The rules suck because I don't like them."

No, the rules were brilliant.  Your imagination sucked.

OK.  If that's your position.  Then your imagination sucks and Gary Gygax's writings are the only things which lend you merit.  

But that's not what I said.  

What I said is that it's stupid how RPGers will create so much stuff for themselves, and then ascribe it to the greatness of the original rules as written, when those had little to do with the final result or actually stood as an obstacle to the final result.

Saying, "but Fighters can be roleplayed great!" is not an endorsement of the old school Fighter class which is nothing more than a collection of so-so mechanics.  It's a testament to what the player brings to the game, not the class.  Everything can conceivably be fun to role play.  A fucking useless 1d4 HP commoner could be fun to role play.  It doesn't bespeak to the quality and potential of the 0-level commoner class.

Quote from: jibbajibba;740088You stated yourself that one of those fighters only resorted to fighting as a last resort. Extrapolate from there. .

Reading comprehension issues?

I said he resorted to melee combat as a last resort, not that he resorted to fighting as a last resort.  Make no mistake, he was one of the first to draw weapons and fight.

Preferably at range.

Quote from: Benoist;740094That would suck, I agree.

I am biased heavily toward gm's encouraging and supporting creative play.
Not that anyone will agree about what that really is.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740095Saying, "but Fighters can be roleplayed great!" is not an endorsement of the old school Fighter class which is nothing more than a collection of so-so mechanics.

You mean the mechanics that are forty years old, that a fuckton of people still play with, and *THE HUMANITY!* keep having fun using? Holy shit. Those are "so-so" mechanics of suck, I agree!

Not.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740095It's a testament to what the player brings to the game, not the class.

It's a testament to the game that lets players breathe life into it with their imagination. Having players with an imagination sure brings a lot to the table, that said. Even mentally handicapped people have an imagination and can have fun playing a fighter, so that's great!

Vegetables need not apply.

Quote from: Bill;740097I am biased heavily toward gm's encouraging and supporting creative play.
Not that anyone will agree about what that really is.

Back in the day we awarded XP for creative play.  Now, as my gaming group is older, we all just play creatively anyway out of habit, and don't track XP nearly as anally as we used to as teens.

Quote from: Bill;740093It does help a lot if the gm is creative. What bores me is when a gm forces you to fight everything you meet, and does not allow any real strategy, tactics, or morale to matter.

If this was someone's only experience with TSR D&D no wonder that they think it's the system that sucks. If game=rules then older editions aren't worth looking at (and neither is any game where rp actally matters).

Quote from: Gabriel2;740095Saying, "but Fighters can be roleplayed great!" is not an endorsement of the old school Fighter class which is nothing more than a collection of so-so mechanics.  It's a testament to what the player brings to the game, not the class.  Everything can conceivably be fun to role play.  A fucking useless 1d4 HP commoner could be fun to role play.  It doesn't bespeak to the quality and potential of the 0-level commoner class.

Actually, it sort of is.  "Modern" fighters, will all their "modern" rules, powers, and clearly defined abilities, has had an effect of implying to the player that their PC fighter was limited to said abilities.  Whereas those "old school" rules simply stated, "You wear armor and use weapons and fight.  Go to town."  

Go watch some kids play RPGs for the first time and you'll see what I mean.  The adage, "what is not expressely forbidden is permitted" rings true with them.  Then put a game like 3e or 4e in front of them.  You'll see the ad-libbing stop almost immediately as they check to see if there is a skill check or power that covers what they want to do.  If not, they shelve the idea.

Sad, really.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740101Actually, it sort of is.  "Modern" fighters, will all their "modern" rules, powers, and clearly defined abilities, has had an effect of implying to the player that their PC fighter was limited to said abilities.  

Yep, that's what I've noticed. I judge the Fighter class within the context of the game it's in. Take older D&D vs newer (especially 3rd ed) and I see a huge difference. The relative simplicity that I see in older editions "seems" to promote more open ended limitations on what characters could do. With huge skill lists and Feats and all that, suddenly it looks like a Fighter really IS just about whacking shit with a stick and not much else.

So I'm in the camp that feels that older edition Fighters seem LESS boring than newer ones.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740099Back in the day we awarded XP for creative play.  Now, as my gaming group is older, we all just play creatively anyway out of habit, and don't track XP nearly as anally as we used to as teens.

I hate xp awards, but what I meant by encourage and support was essentially not stifling creativity.

Like when a player says "I try to push a table in the way to block a door to slow the guards" and the gm sort of says "No..too heavy! stop doing anything but stabbing the enemy!"

Quote from: Exploderwizard;740100If this was someone's only experience with TSR D&D no wonder that they think it's the system that sucks. If game=rules then older editions aren't worth looking at (and neither is any game where rp actally matters).

"Chess, the Rpg." I play the bishop, and the gm is a dick and makes me only move diagonally!

Quote from: Necrozius;740103Yep, that's what I've noticed. I judge the Fighter class within the context of the game it's in. Take older D&D vs newer (especially 3rd ed) and I see a huge difference. The relative simplicity that I see in older editions "seems" to promote more open ended limitations on what characters could do. With huge skill lists and Feats and all that, suddenly it looks like a Fighter really IS just about whacking shit with a stick and not much else.

So I'm in the camp that feels that older edition Fighters seem LESS boring than newer ones.

It is possible for both older and newer edition fighters to be boring or interesting. In either case if the DM can only see RAW mechanical operations then the player is in for a boring game no matter how many or few doodads the class has mechanically.

Quote from: Bill;740105I hate xp awards, but what I meant by encourage and support was essentially not stifling creativity.

Like when a player says "I try to push a table in the way to block a door to slow the guards" and the gm sort of says "No..too heavy! stop doing anything but stabbing the enemy!"

Oh no, I get what you mean, and I totally agree.  I'm just saying that back in the day, not only did we not disuade that sort of creative thinking, we rewarded it with XP points.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740095Saying, "but Fighters can be roleplayed great!" is not an endorsement of the old school Fighter class which is nothing more than a collection of so-so mechanics.  It's a testament to what the player brings to the game, not the class.  Everything can conceivably be fun to role play.  A fucking useless 1d4 HP commoner could be fun to role play.  It doesn't bespeak to the quality and potential of the 0-level commoner class.

The stupid, it burns us.

Also, in the words of Master Yoda, "My pee hole, you may tongue."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740101Actually, it sort of is.  "Modern" fighters, will all their "modern" rules, powers, and clearly defined abilities, has had an effect of implying to the player that their PC fighter was limited to said abilities.  Whereas those "old school" rules simply stated, "You wear armor and use weapons and fight.  Go to town."  

Go watch some kids play RPGs for the first time and you'll see what I mean.  The adage, "what is not expressely forbidden is permitted" rings true with them.  Then put a game like 3e or 4e in front of them.  You'll see the ad-libbing stop almost immediately as they check to see if there is a skill check or power that covers what they want to do.  If not, they shelve the idea.

Sad, really.

Just this weekend at GaryCon Tim Kask said almost exactly the same thing.  "They sit there staring at their character sheet waiting for something that triggers one of their skill rolls."

Quote from: Exploderwizard;740100If this was someone's only experience with TSR D&D no wonder that they think it's the system that sucks. If game=rules then older editions aren't worth looking at (and neither is any game where rp actally matters).

Well, my opinion is that the "game" is the interaction of GM and player with each other to create the experience.  The rules are spices.  They're not the meat of the experience, but still important to what experience gets produced.

Quote from: Old Geezer;740113Just this weekend at GaryCon Tim Kask said almost exactly the same thing.  "They sit there staring at their character sheet waiting for something that triggers one of their skill rolls."

What a sad state of affairs. :(

Quote from: Exploderwizard;740115What a sad state of affairs. :(

The interesting thing is that I had noted that independently, and so had many other of the referees there.

It was AMAZING when I was running OD&D and somebody else was running SWd20 alternately, WITH THE SAME PLAYERS.

In OD&D, when a situation arose, everybody started talking to each other.
In SWd20, when a situation arose, everybody looked at their character sheets for 90 seconds.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740101The adage, "what is not expressely forbidden is permitted" rings true with them.

I find with less experienced players that the reverse is more often true.  "What is not expressly permitted is forbidden."  Regardless of edition or ruleset.

Couldn't a player used to such improvisation and resourcefullness just as easily use those same traits in a modern game with a similarly resourceful GM, regardless of the mechanics on the sheet?

Quote from: Old Geezer;740119The interesting thing is that I had noted that independently, and so had many other of the referees there.

It was AMAZING when I was running OD&D and somebody else was running SWd20 alternately, WITH THE SAME PLAYERS.

In OD&D, when a situation arose, everybody started talking to each other.
In SWd20, when a situation arose, everybody looked at their character sheets for 90 seconds.

Same players. Wow. I would love to observe those two games in action in hopes of making my head unexplode.

Quote from: Bill;740128Same players. Wow. I would love to observe those two games in action in hopes of making my head unexplode.

That aligns with my experiences as well.  It's less, "we're experienced players, so we know better in spite of the rules" and more of "these are the rules, so the game is expected to play that way."  You can put the players right back into b/x and the creativity would come right back.  The thing is, when you have a predefined expected outcome "as a reaction, you can do X power if the enemy moves within Y squares....", that's what people will look for.

Pretty basic human behavior.

I mean, I kind of see what they're saying. Looked at purely as a game piece within the codified rules, the fighter has the least to do. Roleplaying and improvising are an emergent property of the game, kind of the same way that bluffing is in poker (and without which poker would not be nearly so much fun.) But also like poker, that emergent property is what makes the game what it is and can't be ignored when talking about the gameplay. So yeah, fighters are lots more fun than they look.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740123Couldn't a player used to such improvisation and resourcefullness just as easily use those same traits in a modern game with a similarly resourceful GM, regardless of the mechanics on the sheet?

Yeah, so long as the DM handles actions as they are stated and doesn't constantly refer the player to the pre-defined effect list every time he/she wants to do something.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;740140Yeah, so long as the DM handles actions as they are stated and doesn't constantly refer the player to the pre-defined effect list every time he/she wants to do something.

It goes back to the 3e discussion of, "Can a PC without the bluff skill bluff?"

The answer you'll get is, "technically yes, but it won't ever happen as long as there is a player there who does have the skill, or at least has a higher CHA modifier."

Compare that to TSR era D&D, where if a player wanted to bluff the guard, they simply said, "I'm gonna try to bluff my way in" and you role-played the scenario or came up with some other way to resolve it right there.  Or the player didn't even say they were going to bluff, they just did as part of the natural role-playing interaction between them and the DM.  You didn't have the players look at their character sheets to see who had the highest skill modifier in mid conversation.

Quote from: Bill;740128Same players. Wow. I would love to observe those two games in action in hopes of making my head unexplode.

Well, people don't play the same at conventions as they play at home.  They also don't play the same with a freshly received pre-gen as they do with characters they made themselves and played for months.  There's the matter of the unfamiliarity of the setting, the character, and the GM.

Personally, I see it as an example of what I'm talking about.  In the SWd20 game the players obviously felt the mechanics were useful and went to them as a valid option.  In OD&D the players didn't find the mechanics as valuable and/or felt they had no mechanical leg to stand on, so resorted to conspiring to see what the GM would let them do.  Speaking for myself, I wouldn't want all of one or the other.  I'd like a healthy mix of both.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740153In OD&D the players didn't find the mechanics as valuable and/or felt they had no mechanical leg to stand on, so resorted to conspiring to see what the GM would let them do. .

That's a pretty odd assumption to make.

LOL I love it. The players "conspiring" to "see what the DM would allow". :cheerleader:

Quote from: Gabriel2;740153Well, people don't play the same at conventions as they play at home.  They also don't play the same with a freshly received pre-gen as they do with characters they made themselves and played for months.  There's the matter of the unfamiliarity of the setting, the character, and the GM.

Personally, I see it as an example of what I'm talking about.  In the SWd20 game the players obviously felt the mechanics were useful and went to them as a valid option.  In OD&D the players didn't find the mechanics as valuable and/or felt they had no mechanical leg to stand on, so resorted to conspiring to see what the GM would let them do.  Speaking for myself, I wouldn't want all of one or the other.  I'd like a healthy mix of both.

"Mechanical leg to stand on" and "Conspiring to see what the gm would let them do" ????? It must be me, but how many players actually think that way?
when I play I just do whatever the hell it feels like my character would do.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740155That's a pretty odd assumption to make.

Why do you say that?

If I was GMing a game for you right now, and you were playing a AD&D1e pre-UA fighter, how would you know what I'd allow you to do outside of swinging your sword (or whatever) against THAC0?  Wouldn't you necessarily feel the need to appeal to me as a GM to allow you to do things outside the limited mechanics?  Why is that a strength of the Fighter class?  Why isn't that a strength of a particular GM?  What can the fighter do in this method that technically every other AD&D1e character can't also do?  Or for that matter what every other character in every other game ever can't also do?

Quote from: Gabriel2;740171Why do you say that?

Because assuming that players of OD&D don't think the rules have a leg to stand on and they will conspire to see what the can get away with is an odd assumption to put it politely.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740173Because assuming that players of OD&D don't think the rules have a leg to stand on and they will conspire to see what the can get away with is an odd assumption to put it politely.

OK.  Well, I thought there was still discussion to be had.  It's clear you don't agree.  Oh well, it burned a slow day at work.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740177OK.  Well, I thought there was still discussion to be had.  It's clear you don't agree.  Oh well, it burned a slow day at work.

Dude,  you said players of OD&D must think the rules are broken/worthless and conspire against the DM to see what they can get away with.  That's not discussion.  That's either horribly obvious trolling, or something that a broken individual says.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740123Couldn't a player used to such improvisation and resourcefullness just as easily use those same traits in a modern game with a similarly resourceful GM, regardless of the mechanics on the sheet?

Yes. (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/06/social-skills-and-roleplaying.html)

Quote from: Gabriel2;740177OK.  Well, I thought there was still discussion to be had.  It's clear you don't agree.  Oh well, it burned a slow day at work.

Yeah, this is the sort of discussion you should never try to have on theRPGsite. Any suggestion here that MTP isn't the pinnacle of game design is just going to result in a certain subset of the regular posters doing an acrobatic pirouette off the handle and the thread degenerating into stupid.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;740184Yeah, this is the sort of discussion you should never try to have on theRPGsite. Any suggestion here that MTP isn't the pinnacle of game design is just going to result in a certain subset of the regular posters doing an acrobatic pirouette off the handle and the thread degenerating into stupid.

Let's be fair, here: you're doing the degeneration into stupid pretty well all on your own. :hatsoff:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740155That's a pretty odd assumption to make.

Only if you assume good faith.

This thread is immensely entertaining with all the people posting who are on my Tongue My Pee Hole list.  It's rather like "Idiots Blathering about D&D Mad Libs" where I use sensible comments to fill in the dumb shit I can't see.

Quote from: Benoist;740186Let's be fair, here: you're doing the degeneration into stupid pretty well all on your own. :hatsoff:

It really is kind of odd.  The arguments are always the same.  There's an assumption that lack of rules means MTP (catering to a DM's whims hoping they will appease you).  The truth is that that is only true if you are playing with an asshole DM.  For the rest of us who like rules lite games, all we expect is for the DM to be reasonable.  MTP and mother-may-I is literally never an issue if everyone acts like an adult.  so why do people keep making these same arguments?

Follow me as I connect the dots

* If you play with a reasonable DM, feeling like you have to cater or kiss up to a DM is never an issue.
* Since you think it is an issue, you must play with asshole DMs, as they are the only ones who make it an issue
* Most people who find a DM to be an asshole stops playing with said DM and finds another group/DM, leaving asshole DM all alone looking for a group
* asshole players are dropped from good groups, leaving asshole players alone looking for a DM
* all you have left are asshole DMs looking for players, and asshole players looking for groups.
* if all you can find to play with you are asshole DMs, that makes you...

What is MTP? Sounds like a Hasbro spin off... My Tyrant Pony. Hardcore Edition!!! :eek:

magical tea party

Quote from: Omega;740195What is MTP? Sounds like a Hasbro spin off... My Tyrant Pony. Hardcore Edition!!! :eek:

Magic Tea Party.  An implication that the DM is running a tea party dictating to the players everything that happens while they all just sit there like stuffed animals.

Quote from: Benoist;740091And knowing that, if you don't make any effort to come to an understanding, dig your heels in and keep on doing the same thing "because fuck it, that's why", and then come to a forum to bitch about how your DM is a meanie who sucks all the fun at the game table for you, you ARE a fucking idiot.

Other classes have impact on the game without having to "make an effort to come to an understanding"

It's what happens when you have a DM who has their blinders on about what a Fighter should be and how they should be played.

Quote from: Sommerjon;740200Other classes have impact on the game without having to "make an effort to come to an understanding"

Untrue. You visibly haven't played a 1st ed MU ever. Or any other class, for that matter.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740197It really is kind of odd. The arguments are always the same. There's an assumption that lack of rules means MTP (catering to a DM's whims hoping they will appease you)

Yeah let me cut you off there before you start being stupid. The term "Magic Tea Party" actually means "resolving stuff without using rules".

Quote from: gamerGoyf;740206Yeah let me cut you off there before you start being stupid. The term "Magic Tea Party" actually means "resolving stuff without using rules".

This conversation has been had here before.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;740209This conversation has been had here before.

and yet he still somehow managed to get it wrong.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;740206Yeah let me cut you off there before you start being stupid. The term "Magic Tea Party" actually means "resolving stuff without using rules".

"Magic Tea Party" has a clear imagery associated with it.  Explain why that phrase would come into being simply for resolving stuff without rules?  It makes no sense.  Please explain the correlation between resolving a challenge without a rule, and a tea party, and why that particular phrase is the best for what you say it is?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740211"Magic Tea Party" has a clear imagery associated with it.  Explain why that phrase would come into being simply for resolving stuff without rules?  It makes no sense.  Please explain the correlation between resolving a challenge without a rule, and a tea party, and why that particular phrase is the best for what you say it is?

I always assumed the term had come from a tea party which is little kids playing "Lets Pretend" and magic well cos D&D has magic in it.

Effectively we are saying that a player who is able to present a cogent argument to the DM can pursuade them to allow a range of actions not codified in the rules, or is that "Mother may I?"

You could we all agree play a game of D&D or whatever, with no rules at all. The roleplay the exploration the whatever are all on top of the rules as they stand.

If we add a simple mechanical structure say roll 2d6 for any action and you suceed on an 8. then we have a game. I roll to hit.... A 9... but I parry... a 3 (damn) etc etc ...
Now given that this is the case we can codify the game still further and add some classes. Now thievess can try all thiefy stuff, wizards can try all magic stuff and fighters can try all fighty stuff.
But Hold on surely my wizard can still hit someone, yeah my theif too... okay so they can still do that becuase its logical.
Now you have a game where the thief has thiefy skills, the wizard has magic skills and the fighter has fighty skills but everyone else has them too. So we make the fighter better at the fighty stuff. He suceeds on a 7 everyone else needs a 9, hell lets make the wizard need a 10.
But hold on the one thing we do every game at least 4 times is fight stuff. We do some thiefy stuff but everyone complains because only the thief can do it. The magic stuff is the same so we just let the magic stuff effect the rest of the game. So lets give the thief and the wizard some other stuff they can do in combat so they are not always subpar.
And that in a nutshell is the development of class based RPGs and the reason why the fighter gets short shrift :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;740226I always assumed the term had come from a tea party which is little kids playing "Lets Pretend" and magic well cos D&D has magic in it.
)

There are a million kinds of "let's pretend", and most of them would be more appropriate and representative to what goes on in a session of D&D.  So why "tea party"?  Look at what a tea party is, then try to convince me it's not a phrase meant to degrade.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740234There are a million kinds of "let's pretend", and most of them would be more appropriate and representative to what goes on in a session of D&D.  So why "tea party"?  Look at what a tea party is, then try to convince me it's not a phrase meant to degrade.

Actually I attended a tea party in a game of CoC. the party were regathering for a new adventure after the last trauma.
Being nerdy roleplayers we roleplayed that tea party for about 4 hours. Great session.

I like tea parties by the way. You have tea, cake, if you are lucky scones and strawberry jam. In fact if there was a thing I really miss about the UK its tea parties round my sister's house....

Even if tea parties are actually awesome, the term is a reference to little girls playing tea party and is meant to be derogatory when referring to adults playing RPGs.

Tea, some home made scones and then add magic?  Awesome.  Sign me up.

Quote from: jibbajibba;740235Actually I attended a tea party in a game of CoC. the party were regathering for a new adventure after the last trauma.
Being nerdy roleplayers we roleplayed that tea party for about 4 hours. Great session.

I like tea parties by the way. You have tea, cake, if you are lucky scones and strawberry jam. In fact if there was a thing I really miss about the UK its tea parties round my sister's house....

In the US tea parties don't refer to actual tea parties but pretend tea parties with stuffed animals as guests.

Quote from: NathanIW;740242Even if tea parties are actually awesome, the term is a reference to little girls playing tea party and is meant to be derogatory when referring to adults playing RPGs.

Tea, some home made scones and then add magic?  Awesome.  Sign me up.

Bingo. I do realize that GD crowd do also use it to refer to the non-mechanically mediated aspects of play but they do also seem to go in and out of that use and a more pejorative one.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740234There are a million kinds of "let's pretend", and most of them would be more appropriate and representative to what goes on in a session of D&D.  So why "tea party"?  Look at what a tea party is, then try to convince me it's not a phrase meant to degrade.

My youngest sister had this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WcOTYZFVT_0#t=460 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WcOTYZFVT_0#t=460)

Yeah, It sounds derogatory to me too. But reading up on its usage it seems a YMMV sort of thing.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;740243In the US tea parties don't refer to actual tea parties but pretend tea parties with stuffed animals as guests.

Or Teddy Bear Picnic as some areas called it and a Tea party was something the adult ladies went to.
Seems the usage flips around depending on locale or individual.

Back on topic.

Like alot of things in D&D and RPGs in general. The fighter is what you make them into. Brawler, tactician, swashbuckler, knight, barbarian, etc. Which is part of the fighters strength and attraction. Its such an open and easy class that you can mold it ti your personal views of a fighting man easily.

I may not play one often. But I certainly appreciate them.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;740243In the US tea parties don't refer to actual tea parties but pretend tea parties with stuffed animals as guests.

I thought in the US they were political groupings of folks that thought universal healthcare provision, immigration and gun control were BAD IDEAS....

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740145Compare that to TSR era D&D, where if a player wanted to bluff the guard, they simply said, "I'm gonna try to bluff my way in" and you role-played the scenario or came up with some other way to resolve it right there.  Or the player didn't even say they were going to bluff, they just did as part of the natural role-playing interaction between them and the DM.  You didn't have the players look at their character sheets to see who had the highest skill modifier in mid conversation.

Yet earlier, was there not a discussion about how a wizard would not be played similarly to a front-line fighter, because of the inherent mechanical differences in the classes? Mages are squishy, don't wear armor, can't really use weapons; you don't expect them to wade into melee, because that's not what they do. That isn't saying they can't, as I'm sure there are exceptions; but as a general rule, players will play mages with a degree of caution.

This is an approach entirely informed by the mechanics of the game. It is a sensible response to the squishiness of wizards.

Likewise, should not the character with the best ability to bluff be the one attempting to bluff people, presuming a scenario in which the whole of the group is together? By removing the mechanical aspects - by making social interaction mechanics consist of "talk it out with the DM" - you risk making the character irrelevant, mechanically.

It could be argued, I suppose, that a good RP'er will roleplay the character appropriately in these scenarios. And given my own experience in this sort of thing, that's a pretty solid argument: people who are good at the RP aspect will tend to not roleplay a character with a low Charisma as being James Bond himself, or whatever. But there's no requirement that that's how it's done, there's no way to enforce that sort of thing. A DM can do things like try to take the character's Charisma into account, to prevent the silver-tongues in the group from dominating IC discussions all the time - but isn't that the same as requiring a Bluff skill, essentially, just a lot faster and looser?

I can see the point that games with heavier mechanics, like 3e and 4e, tend to result in players looking to their sheets to see if they have the ability to do something, as opposed to more rules-light games like earlier editions of D&D where people just try things. I'd be curious to see, though, if that same sort of thing happens in games like GURPS and RoleMaster - is this a problem endemic to games with crunch-heavy rulesets? Although I would argue this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it indicates - to me - that players acknowledge that their characters are different from themselves, and that the character has a different set of skills, and thus want to ensure that what they are going to attempt is within the character's ability. Just because Bob has a dayjob as a locksmith doesn't mean he should be able to bring to bear all his knowledge of locks to the game regardless of what his character is capable of, and I am willing to trade a bit of look-up time on his part to determine what his character knows of locks than to let him use his OOC knowledge all the time.

I'm not gonna lie, a game actually about having magical tea parties (possibly with dolls and/or teddy bears) sounds like a blast to me. I don't have a clue how it'd work but it sounds wild. But then I tend to think more games should involve friendly fairies and mermaids and talking animals and stuff like that, so it's possible that I just have girly tastes.

Quote from: jibbajibba;740235Actually I attended a tea party in a game of CoC. the party were regathering for a new adventure after the last trauma.
Being nerdy roleplayers we roleplayed that tea party for about 4 hours. Great session.

I like tea parties by the way. You have tea, cake, if you are lucky scones and strawberry jam. In fact if there was a thing I really miss about the UK its tea parties round my sister's house....

This man gets it.

Remember kids, trolls can't regenerate damage caused by starvation.

Quote from: LibraryLass;740288I'm not gonna lie, a game actually about having magical tea parties (possibly with dolls and/or teddy bears) sounds like a blast to me. I don't have a clue how it'd work but it sounds wild. But then I tend to think more games should involve friendly fairies and mermaids and talking animals and stuff like that, so it's possible that I just have girly tastes.

Fuzzy Heroes and its expansions is close. Stuffed animals that battle it ot with other toys at night. Using actual plushes and toys as the minis. More a minis wargame than a RPG. But still bemusing.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;740270Yet earlier, was there not a discussion about how a wizard would not be played similarly to a front-line fighter, because of the inherent mechanical differences in the classes?
.

So the more mechanical differences there are between characters (skills, powers, feats, etc), the more restrictive it is on the players as they all look at their character sheets to see which one has the highest rating in whatever they want to do, and only that player gets to engage?  

I agree. ;)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740328So the more mechanical differences there are between characters (skills, powers, feats, etc), the more restrictive it is on the players as they all look at their character sheets to see which one has the highest rating in whatever they want to do, and only that player gets to engage?

Yes.

If a group of individuals is confronted with a problem, whoever is best at resolving that class of problems will be put forward as the individual to solve it, if the problem requires only one individual for its resolution.

If Bob goes to talk to Joe and Alex about his car problems, and Joe is an auto tech and has years of experience, while Alex knows nothing about cars, is Bob going to give equal attention to their opinions? No, not if he is a rational person. Alex's contribution to the conversation is almost assuredly going to be negligible, and there isn't any reason for him to attempt to answer the question posed. Pay attention to the conversation, perhaps; but not try to act as a source of knowledge.

Quote from: Benoist;740201Untrue. You visibly haven't played a 1st ed MU ever. Or any other class, for that matter.

Last time I checked, a MU was allowed to memorize whatever spells they want within the scope of the rules.
No need to "make an effort to come to an understanding" with him, stroke his ego, compromise, or any other platitude.
They have an impact on the world without having to resort to "making an effort to come to an understanding".

Quote from: Sommerjon;740483Last time I checked, a MU was allowed to memorize whatever spells they want within the scope of the rules.
No need to "make an effort to come to an understanding" with him, stroke his ego, compromise, or any other platitude.
They have an impact on the world without having to resort to "making an effort to come to an understanding".

Ouch...quit while you're well behind, man.

Quote from: Doom;740495Ouch...quit while you're well behind, man.

Does he ever?  He already admitted he hasn't played AD&D about a year or so ago, so I'm not sure why he insists on going down this road.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740499Does he ever?  He already admitted he hasn't played AD&D about a year or so ago, so I'm not sure why he insists on going down this road.

I did?

Quote from: Doom;740495Ouch...quit while you're well behind, man.

Nah I'm so far ahead of you, I've got up to you again.

Quote from: Sommerjon;740483Last time I checked, a MU was allowed to memorize whatever spells they want within the scope of the rules.
No need to "make an effort to come to an understanding" with him, stroke his ego, compromise, or any other platitude.
They have an impact on the world without having to resort to "making an effort to come to an understanding".

That's what you got wrong, the way spells are actually described, for instance, which isn't comparable to 3rd/4th editions self-referencing reality-bending rules, and relies on adjudication by the DM at times, and therefore, requires to come to an understanding and maybe to ask questions to know details that may not be readily apparent of any given situation - you know, that really hard work thing called "communication". Hence, you've definitely demonstrated you don't know squat about first edition in actual play.

Example: Fireball. The space occupied by the conflagration is expressed in cubic feet. You might want to ask about the height of the ceiling before you go about shooting your fireball in a 30'x30' room. For instance.

Quote from: Sommerjon;740512I did?

*Edit*  Ok, my mistake.  You said you only broke it out once a year.

Quote from: Benoist;740554You might want to ask about the height of the ceiling before you go about shooting your fireball in a 30'x30' room. For instance.

Yeah, you haven't lived until you've 'accidentally' torched yourself and the rest of your party with your fireball. Good times.

Quote from: Benoist;740554That's what you got wrong, the way spells are actually described, for instance, which isn't comparable to 3rd/4th editions self-referencing reality-bending rules, and relies on adjudication by the DM at times, and therefore, requires to come to an understanding and maybe to ask questions to know details that may not be readily apparent of any given situation - you know, that really hard work thing called "communication". Hence, you've definitely demonstrated you don't know squat about first edition in actual play.

Example: Fireball. The space occupied by the conflagration is expressed in cubic feet. You might want to ask about the height of the ceiling before you go about shooting your fireball in a 30'x30' room. For instance.

If I have to constantly ask the Dm for details that my character is able to deduce, fuck no, I don't call that "communication".

Wasn't my point though.
A MU doesn't have to ask the DM to memorize Magic Missile over Charm Person, if he has it in his spellbook and has the slot he is able to memorize it.
The player has a choice without having to "come to an understanding" with the DM.

The Fighter doesn't have that.  He has to "come to an understanding" with the DM for everything he does in the game.  Whoa be the player who has a DM with very stringent ideas on the Fighter.

Quote from: Sommerjon;740621The Fighter doesn't have that.  He has to "come to an understanding" with the DM for everything he does in the game.

Bullshit, assmunch (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=285136#post285136).

Quote from: Black Vulmea;740620Yeah, you haven't lived until you've 'accidentally' torched yourself and the rest of your party with your fireball. Good times.

Ever have a player that bitched when you told them its not an exact science to place a fireball, and even warned them about back blast?

Some players think its easy to perfectly place that 40' sphere of flame, 100 feet away, only striking enemies in the middle of a hectic battle.


Once I nuked myself and my friends on purpose, but it was either that or the pack of ghouls were going to feast on paralyzed adventurer.

Quote from: Sommerjon;740621If I have to constantly ask the Dm for details that my character is able to deduce, fuck no, I don't call that "communication".

Wasn't my point though.
A MU doesn't have to ask the DM to memorize Magic Missile over Charm Person, if he has it in his spellbook and has the slot he is able to memorize it.
The player has a choice without having to "come to an understanding" with the DM.

The Fighter doesn't have that.  He has to "come to an understanding" with the DM for everything he does in the game.  Whoa be the player who has a DM with very stringent ideas on the Fighter.

You're applying two different standards to each class.  A MU chooses spells like a fighter chooses weapons.  In both cases, no, the DM doesn't need to give permission first.  The only time a fighter has to "come to an understanding" is when they want to do something not clearly defined as a class function/ability.  Surprise, the MU has to do the same thing.

Quote from: Bill;740624Ever have a player that bitched when you told them its not an exact science to place a fireball, and even warned them about back blast?

Some players think its easy to perfectly place that 40' sphere of flame, 100 feet away, only striking enemies in the middle of a hectic battle.


Once I nuked myself and my friends on purpose, but it was either that or the pack of ghouls were going to feast on paralyzed adventurer.

In 5e, you can actually do that.  Well, not every mage, but if you focus as an evoker specialty, you do get a sculpt spells ability which allows to you miss desired targets in an area of effect.

Or more specifically, it's: 1+1 target per level will automatically make their saving throw, and if they save, they suffer no damage.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740631In 5e, you can actually do that.  Well, not every mage, but if you focus as an evoker specialty, you do get a sculpt spells ability which allows to you miss desired targets in an area of effect.

Or more specifically, it's: 1+1 target per level will automatically make their saving throw, and if they save, they suffer no damage.

That's cool, although I picture Evokers as getting more damage instead of finesse.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740631In 5e, you can actually do that.  Well, not every mage, but if you focus as an evoker specialty, you do get a sculpt spells ability which allows to you miss desired targets in an area of effect.

Or more specifically, it's: 1+1 target per level will automatically make their saving throw, and if they save, they suffer no damage.

See, I consider that more of a bug than a feature. It was the same thing in 4e, where basically your AOE effects only targeted the red dots on your screen.

I'm not sure I like magic being so scientific, but that is the modern theme of games.

Quote from: Sommerjon;740621If I have to constantly ask the Dm for details that my character is able to deduce, fuck no, I don't call that "communication".

Wasn't my point though.
A MU doesn't have to ask the DM to memorize Magic Missile over Charm Person, if he has it in his spellbook and has the slot he is able to memorize it.
The player has a choice without having to "come to an understanding" with the DM.

The Fighter doesn't have that.  He has to "come to an understanding" with the DM for everything he does in the game.  Whoa be the player who has a DM with very stringent ideas on the Fighter.

Semi related; technically a 1E Cleric does need gm permission to memorize spells above level 2. If I recall correctly. The idea was that a 'good' cleric might not receive 'evil' spells automatically from a good deity. I never felt the need to invoke that myself. You can always explain your evil ways to your god when you die.

Quote from: Doom;740639See, I consider that more of a bug than a feature. It was the same thing in 4e, where basically your AOE effects only targeted the red dots on your screen.

I'm not sure I like magic being so scientific, but that is the modern theme of games.

I think its ok if only one type of wizard has it.

Quote from: Doom;740639See, I consider that more of a bug than a feature. It was the same thing in 4e, where basically your AOE effects only targeted the red dots on your screen.

I'm not sure I like magic being so scientific, but that is the modern theme of games.

Admittedly I'm not too fond of it either.  I would have liked to see more at-will elemental effects and growing resistance to elemental type of damage myself.  The fire mage who is immune to fire at higher levels, for instance.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740642Admittedly I'm not too fond of it either.  I would have liked to see more at-will elemental effects and growing resistance to elemental type of damage myself.  The fire mage who is immune to fire at higher levels, for instance.

Well, I would be tempted to house rule it a bit. Evoker should get more devastation, not finesse.
And regardless, a save bonus is more appropriate than immunity.

It would be kind of neat to let such a magic user attempt to find a way to protect his/her allies from getting hurt by their spells. Perhaps creating/finding special magic items or perhaps some kind of ritual that can be done to magically "mark" allies so that they are immune to an individual spell-caster's area effects. Adventure material right there, if you ask me.

OOh perhaps they have to find and perform some kind of elaborate, vaguely sinister ritual in which the spellcaster's friends have to each give up a square of their own skin or all of their hair or part of their soul or whatever. Bwah ha hhah. ANYTHING except for a sterile number that goes up mechanically as the magic user levels up.

Sorry for the derail, that's enough from me.

Quote from: Sommerjon;740621If I have to constantly ask the Dm for details that my character is able to deduce, fuck no, I don't call that "communication".

Maybe you should find another hobby then, because really the practice of any role playing game is based on that "communication" thingy I was talking about. Not sure about something? Ask the GM. If you don't want to partake in that kind of activity that's cool. There's always World of Warcraft for you, assuming you ditch the helmet and mute everybody, of course (which there too, would make you a shit player, let's face it, but you'd have the luxury to blissfully ignore people complaining while you play).

Quote from: Sommerjon;740621Wasn't my point though.
A MU doesn't have to ask the DM to memorize Magic Missile over Charm Person, if he has it in his spellbook and has the slot he is able to memorize it.
The player has a choice without having to "come to an understanding" with the DM.

The Fighter doesn't have that.  He has to "come to an understanding" with the DM for everything he does in the game.  Whoa be the player who has a DM with very stringent ideas on the Fighter.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;740622Bullshit, assmunch (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=285136#post285136).

Check.

In the 80s, when NES was leading the charge to bring console gaming back into every house, we had worries that computer rpgs would destroy tabletop rpgs, assuming that people would spend their time playing the video games and never touch the tabletop games ever again.  That of course would result in no one playing tabletop games ever again.

Little did we know, 30 years later, that the real destruction to tabletop rpgs from video games wasn't that people would leave, but that they'd take their expectations from the video games into the tabletop games.

"I don't want to have to think outside of the box, I just want to mash buttons."
"I don't want to have to have discourse with a 'rulemaker', every scenario should have a rule for it."
"I want an easy mode, where there isn't any real risk of PC death and having to start all over again."

I cannot understand the world of a person who would consider asking questions to a referee "hard work", who quite literally would foam at the mouth at the idea to have to ask how high the imaginary ceiling is, how wide or deep the imaginary pit is, whether you can make knots with the imaginary rope, or what angle the imaginary slope is at.

I also cannot understand how in the world these people would enjoy a role playing game session, any role playing game session really, at all. This is puzzling, in a mind-bending kind of way, to me.

Quote from: Bill;740641I think its ok if only one type of wizard has it.

In theory, yes, but in practice, if one class has the ability that enhances fireball (say) and nobody else does, then at some point you're not going to see any players except that one class using that fireball.

It's like "selective channeling"...it sort of turns into a feat tax, or at least a "must have" that players can't do without.

Quote from: Necrozius;740650It would be kind of neat to let such a magic user attempt to find a way to protect his/her allies from getting hurt by their spells.

"I can totally protect you from my Fireballs!..."

Pregnant pause...

"First we have to get some dragon piss. Then we have to cover ourselves in it..."

Quote from: Black Vulmea;740620Yeah, you haven't lived until you've 'accidentally' torched yourself and the rest of your party with your fireball. Good times.

Lightning bolt. First time using it I zapped a minotaur at the end of a 50ft long hall. I cast the bolt centered near point blank at the minotaur. Bolt bounced back and jolted everyone, including the minotaur. But it gets better. The damn thing then bounced off the wall behind us and jolted everyone, except the minotaur, again.

About the closest I've ever come to a self TPK.

Fireball was next.

Quote from: Omega;740707Lightning bolt. First time using it I zapped a minotaur at the end of a 50ft long hall. I cast the bolt centered near point blank at the minotaur. Bolt bounced back and jolted everyone, including the minotaur. But it gets better. The damn thing then bounced off the wall behind us and jolted everyone, except the minotaur, again.

About the closest I've ever come to a self TPK.

Fireball was next.

In the words of Master Yoda,

"A feature, not a bug, this is, hmmmm?" :D :D :D :D :D

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740657In the 80s, when NES was leading the charge to bring console gaming back into every house, we had worries that computer rpgs would destroy tabletop rpgs, assuming that people would spend their time playing the video games and never touch the tabletop games ever again.  That of course would result in no one playing tabletop games ever again.

Little did we know, 30 years later, that the real destruction to tabletop rpgs from video games wasn't that people would leave, but that they'd take their expectations from the video games into the tabletop games.

"I don't want to have to think outside of the box, I just want to mash buttons."
"I don't want to have to have discourse with a 'rulemaker', every scenario should have a rule for it."
"I want an easy mode, where there isn't any real risk of PC death and having to start all over again."

Werl, I was just talking to Rob Kuntz about this at GaryCon.

The folks who developed Diablo (Blizz?) stated explicitly that they spent serious effort and funds to research casino gambling and found that the most money-making games are the nickel slots... frequent, intermittent, small reinforcements.

This is also the perfect formula for a Skinner box.

Unfortunately, that reinforcement pattern is extremely powerful and tends to bypass the higher thought processes.

If your goal is to make maximum money, then that's how you'll set up your game.

Quote from: benoist;740658i cannot understand the world of a person who would consider asking questions to a referee "hard work", who quite literally would foam at the mouth at the idea to have to ask how high the imaginary ceiling is, how wide or deep the imaginary pit is, whether you can make knots with the imaginary rope, or what angle the imaginary slope is at.

I also cannot understand how in the world these people would enjoy a role playing game session, any role playing game session really, at all. This is puzzling, in a mind-bending kind of way, to me.

Ermagehrd yoo have deprotagonizeded meeeee!!!!!!

Quote from: Omega;740707Lightning bolt.

I figured out damn quick that lightning bolt was highly dangerous to the party - it was fireball that kept sneaking up and scorching my butt-hairs.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;740734I figured out damn quick that lightning bolt was highly dangerous to the party - it was fireball that kept sneaking up and scorching my butt-hairs.

Same experience. I've seen more than a few fireballs backfire. Lightning bolts bouncing, I've seen it happen, but nowhere near as much. Guess some MUs are just trigger-happy once they reach that 3rd level of spells and get to learn that fireball . . . OMG Firebaaaall!! :)

My first experience with a fireball backfire wasn't a 5th level MU, but a 2nd level MU who found the scroll of fireball in KoTBL and used it in the owl bear den.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;740622Bullshit, assmunch (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=285136#post285136).

And not a single one of those 'questions' is exclusive to the Fighter class.

Quote from: Sommerjon;740750And not a single one of those 'questions' is exclusive to the Fighter class.

If you close your eyes, clear your mind, and look again, you may realize that those trees are the forest.

Other classes may be to share in some of those various questions, but no other class can share in all of them.  The cleric may be able to select from the same armor and shields as the fighter, but they only have 5 choices for weapons, none of which are edged or long-ranged.  Thieves and monks may come closer in their choices of weapons, but they are utterly screwed when comes to armor.  In theory, other classes can engage in melee, charges, overbearing, etc.  But in actuality, only fighters have the HP, armor, and to-hit progression to make it worthwhile.  Magic-users can throw darts and daggers, druids can sling stones, thieves and throw darts and daggers AND sling stones, monks can throw daggers and fire crossbows.  But if you want set-up steady fire of 2 missiles per round at enemies 210 yards away, firing on them all the way down till they get into melee range, you need a fighter.  And then someone to toss aside the bow, take up a long spear and prevent the enemy from drawing even closer, you need the fighter.  And then to drop the spear, draw their bastard sword, and throw down, you still need the fighter.

For some odd reason, a lotta folks said, "Forget all that!"  And only had their fighter draw his sword and engage in melee at close range.  And then when either their character died, or they got bored with just going, "I attack.  I attack.  I attack," they had to gall to say, "The Fighter is boring."

Certain folks on TBP will have the gall to say "the AD&D Fighter is boring", and then say, "4e fighters are not because they have a role!  They are Defenders!"  So, yeah.  The guy who used to be the combat powerhouse at long, medium, medium-short, and short range is now just a "defender."  He wades into melee and hits things that move or hit his allies.  His exclusive long-range ability?  Given to the Ranger.  His exclusive ability to use any weapon and any armor?  Given to the Paladin.  His ability to command men in combat?  More or less given to the Warlord.

I like the 4e Fighter well enough for its purposes given the granular "one attack is one-swing" mode of play in 4e.  I don't think it's especially a step up from the AD&D fighter in the "camera-pulled back, more abstract" mode of play in 1e.

Quote from: Iosue;740763If you close your eyes, clear your mind, and look again, you may realize that those trees are the forest.

Other classes may be to share in some of those various questions, but no other class can share in all of them.  The cleric may be able to select from the same armor and shields as the fighter, but they only have 5 choices for weapons, none of which are edged or long-ranged.  Thieves and monks may come closer in their choices of weapons, but they are utterly screwed when comes to armor.  In theory, other classes can engage in melee, charges, overbearing, etc.  But in actuality, only fighters have the HP, armor, and to-hit progression to make it worthwhile.  Magic-users can throw darts and daggers, druids can sling stones, thieves and throw darts and daggers AND sling stones, monks can throw daggers and fire crossbows.  But if you want set-up steady fire of 2 missiles per round at enemies 210 yards away, firing on them all the way down till they get into melee range, you need a fighter.  And then someone to toss aside the bow, take up a long spear and prevent the enemy from drawing even closer, you need the fighter.  And then to drop the spear, draw their bastard sword, and throw down, you still need the fighter.

For some odd reason, a lotta folks said, "Forget all that!"  And only had their fighter draw his sword and engage in melee at close range.  And then when either their character died, or they got bored with just going, "I attack.  I attack.  I attack," they had to gall to say, "The Fighter is boring."

Certain folks on TBP will have the gall to say "the AD&D Fighter is boring", and then say, "4e fighters are not because they have a role!  They are Defenders!"  So, yeah.  The guy who used to be the combat powerhouse at long, medium, medium-short, and short range is now just a "defender."  He wades into melee and hits things that move or hit his allies.  His exclusive long-range ability?  Given to the Ranger.  His exclusive ability to use any weapon and any armor?  Given to the Paladin.  His ability to command men in combat?  More or less given to the Warlord.

I like the 4e Fighter well enough for its purposes given the granular "one attack is one-swing" mode of play in 4e.  I don't think it's especially a step up from the AD&D fighter in the "camera-pulled back, more abstract" mode of play in 1e.

Good post.

One 'problem' I see is when a game has 'too many' rules, or 'unneeded rules' and players feel obligated to use them without question.

In 1E, a fighter would usually be able to swap weapons around without any trouble. One minute round is plenty of time.

In 3X and 4E, actions are more precise and the time to perform them much shorter than a minute round.

So you end up with 'how long does it take to draw a weapon' and stuff like that.

And the "I can only do what the rules specifically allow"

Quote from: Bill;740823One 'problem' I see is when a game has 'too many' rules, or 'unneeded rules' and players feel obligated to use them without question.

In 1E, a fighter would usually be able to swap weapons around without any trouble. One minute round is plenty of time.

In 3X and 4E, actions are more precise and the time to perform them much shorter than a minute round.

So you end up with 'how long does it take to draw a weapon' and stuff like that.

And the "I can only do what the rules specifically allow"

Not really sure what you're trying to say here.

In 4e (and I think 3e), a weapon takes a Move action to draw.  So a combatant can draw a weapon and attack (standard action), draw as an action and move, but not both.  That's the default rule.  If the character has Quick Draw then readying a weapon is a free action, so they can move and attack or perform a full round action.

I honestly don't know what the codified rule is for the same situation in 1e.  I know that I've often seen it played that if the character doesn't have the weapon already out and ready then it takes a full round to draw it.  In practice, I've often seen it played as the mechanical opposite of the 4e rule:  drawing the weapon takes the place of the attack (standard action) but the character can still move.  Is this the real 1e rule?  I'm not sure, and I'm not necessarily faulting the rules for it.  However, I have seen a lot of player bargaining in regards to drawing their weapon because of the ignorance on the matter in 1e.

So, I certainly don't see the idea of a rule for readying a weapon as being an unneeded rule.  I don't think that was a good example.  I think the 4e rule for readying a weapon is simple, intuitive, and works well in play.  It removes doubt, because it's clear.  The situation comes up a lot.  The rule is extremely valuable, not unneeded.    

However, in a broader sense, I agree with the general idea that rules can get too complex to use and adhere to in actual play.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740828Not really sure what you're trying to say here.

In 4e (and I think 3e), a weapon takes a Move action to draw.  So a combatant can draw a weapon and attack (standard action), draw as an action and move, but not both.  That's the default rule.  If the character has Quick Draw then readying a weapon is a free action, so they can move and attack or perform a full round action.

I honestly don't know what the codified rule is for the same situation in 1e.  I know that I've often seen it played that if the character doesn't have the weapon already out and ready then it takes a full round to draw it.  In practice, I've often seen it played as the mechanical opposite of the 4e rule:  drawing the weapon takes the place of the attack (standard action) but the character can still move.  Is this the real 1e rule?  I'm not sure, and I'm not necessarily faulting the rules for it.  However, I have seen a lot of player bargaining in regards to drawing their weapon because of the ignorance on the matter in 1e.

So, I certainly don't see the idea of a rule for readying a weapon as being an unneeded rule.  I don't think that was a good example.  I think the 4e rule for readying a weapon is simple, intuitive, and works well in play.  It removes doubt, because it's clear.  The situation comes up a lot.  The rule is extremely valuable, not unneeded.    

However, in a broader sense, I agree with the general idea that rules can get too complex to use and adhere to in actual play.

In 1E a melee round is 60 seconds. The time to draw a weapon is not something you need to track. Totally unneeded in my opinion.

I have never seen a gm in 1E require a player to spend a melee round to draw a weapon.

You would find in 4E, if you made drawing a weapon a free action, the game would be fine. Who cares if a fighter draws a longsword to stab you or instead grabs an mace from his belt and attacks? Tracking that is a waste of effort.

Quote from: Iosue;740763If you close your eyes, clear your mind, and look again, you may realize that those trees are the forest.

Other classes may be to share in some of those various questions, but no other class can share in all of them.  The cleric may be able to select from the same armor and shields as the fighter, but they only have 5 choices for weapons, none of which are edged or long-ranged.  Thieves and monks may come closer in their choices of weapons, but they are utterly screwed when comes to armor.  In theory, other classes can engage in melee, charges, overbearing, etc.  But in actuality, only fighters have the HP, armor, and to-hit progression to make it worthwhile.  Magic-users can throw darts and daggers, druids can sling stones, thieves and throw darts and daggers AND sling stones, monks can throw daggers and fire crossbows.  But if you want set-up steady fire of 2 missiles per round at enemies 210 yards away, firing on them all the way down till they get into melee range, you need a fighter.  And then someone to toss aside the bow, take up a long spear and prevent the enemy from drawing even closer, you need the fighter.  And then to drop the spear, draw their bastard sword, and throw down, you still need the fighter.

For some odd reason, a lotta folks said, "Forget all that!"  And only had their fighter draw his sword and engage in melee at close range.  And then when either their character died, or they got bored with just going, "I attack.  I attack.  I attack," they had to gall to say, "The Fighter is boring."

Certain folks on TBP will have the gall to say "the AD&D Fighter is boring", and then say, "4e fighters are not because they have a role!  They are Defenders!"  So, yeah.  The guy who used to be the combat powerhouse at long, medium, medium-short, and short range is now just a "defender."  He wades into melee and hits things that move or hit his allies.  His exclusive long-range ability?  Given to the Ranger.  His exclusive ability to use any weapon and any armor?  Given to the Paladin.  His ability to command men in combat?  More or less given to the Warlord.

You . . . complete me.

Quote from: Sommerjon;740621The Fighter doesn't have that.  He has to "come to an understanding" with the DM for everything he does in the game.  Whoa be the player who has a DM with very stringent ideas on the Fighter.

Adding to Iosue excellent reply. You are forgetting that human referee is there to adjudicate ACTIONS THAT ARE DESCRIBED. The rules are just a aide for the referee in making his judgments consistent.

In the tabletop roleplaying the rules don't define the limit of what the character can do. The setting is what ultimately arbitrate what physical actions are possible.

If using the quasi medieval setting implied by the D&D game then things like body slams, disarming, and whacking an opponent hand are possible. Because the setting is a reflection on our own medieval time period. And those actions were possible then. Granted not as easy just trying to whack the enemy.

Quote from: Bill;740830In 1E a melee round is 60 seconds. The time to draw a weapon is not something you need to track. Totally unneeded in my opinion.

I have never seen a gm in 1E require a player to spend a melee round to draw a weapon.

You would find in 4E, if you made drawing a weapon a free action, the game would be fine. Who cares if a fighter draws a longsword to stab you or instead grabs an mace from his belt and attacks? Tracking that is a waste of effort.

Perhaps it is for you, and perhaps it even is for me.

However, at least there is a baseline point from which we can start from.  The rule exists and gives a definitive guideline.  If I play in a D&D4e game, I know the default standpoint is that I can draw my weapon as a move action, barring a feat which makes drawing it free.  Since it takes that move action, I can't draw it as a reaction and have available to me abilities which use my weapon which trigger upon a reaction.  It does have an effect sometimes.  But you are correct, the game would function just fine if we negotiated and decided that readying the weapon was a truly free action, effectively meaning it is always at the ready.

As our different experiences with the 1e situation show, the absence of a default rule results in different interpretations of what is allowable and when, thus requiring communication to even determine what is possible.  If you had played in games that I had played in you would have discovered that the GM required characters to spend time readying their weapons.  In your games you would be wondering why I'm taking so much effort to define when I have my weapon readied and available.

(And I admit that the ruling of the GM's I played with may be due to ignorance of an actual rule.  I'm now curious if this point was ever addressed in the 1e books.)

Plus, there are situations where this can become important.  There have been characters in 1e and 2e (optional classes from Dragon and Kits) which received AC bonuses when their weapons were out and available for parrying.  Since drawing the weapon is completely free, would the character receive the bonus at all times in the games you're familiar with?

These are very little things, true, but a RPG session is always a million little things combined into one big thing.

Quote from: estar;740851Adding to Iosue excellent reply. You are forgetting that human referee is there to adjudicate ACTIONS THAT ARE DESCRIBED. The rules are just a aide for the referee in making his judgments consistent.

This is the widest disconnect bridge to cross for those who believe that the rules ARE the game, and that game begins and ends with them.In this mindset, the DM is no more than a CPU that tracks die rolls and maintains the stats of the enemy AI.

In other words, they just don't fucking "get" rpgs.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740853Perhaps it is for you, and perhaps it even is for me.

However, at least there is a baseline point from which we can start from.  The rule exists and gives a definitive guideline.  If I play in a D&D4e game, I know the default standpoint is that I can draw my weapon as a move action, barring a feat which makes drawing it free.  Since it takes that move action, I can't draw it as a reaction and have available to me abilities which use my weapon which trigger upon a reaction.  It does have an effect sometimes.  But you are correct, the game would function just fine if we negotiated and decided that readying the weapon was a truly free action, effectively meaning it is always at the ready.

As our different experiences with the 1e situation show, the absence of a default rule results in different interpretations of what is allowable and when, thus requiring communication to even determine what is possible.  If you had played in games that I had played in you would have discovered that the GM required characters to spend time readying their weapons.  In your games you would be wondering why I'm taking so much effort to define when I have my weapon readied and available.

(And I admit that the ruling of the GM's I played with may be due to ignorance of an actual rule.  I'm now curious if this point was ever addressed in the 1e books.)

Plus, there are situations where this can become important.  There have been characters in 1e and 2e (optional classes from Dragon and Kits) which received AC bonuses when their weapons were out and available for parrying.  Since drawing the weapon is completely free, would the character receive the bonus at all times in the games you're familiar with?

These are very little things, true, but a RPG session is always a million little things combined into one big thing.

I don't recall ever having a problem with 'what weapon is in a characters hands'

I don't see adjudicating if a particular weapon is available for parrying as particularly difficult.

And, I expect every gm to do things differently.

If a gm for some reason wanted drawing  a weapon to take a full round, that's fine. I would consider it a mistake, but well within the scope of a gm running a game.

Now, unlimbering a pike strapped to ones back, should take more effort than drawing a dagger.
So a flat rule for how long it takes fails logic anyway.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740853Perhaps it is for you, and perhaps it even is for me.

However, at least there is a baseline point from which we can start from.  The rule exists and gives a definitive guideline.

A good tabletop RPG rule acts a effective tool for adjudicating some action that the character attempts. Otherwise the referee need to fall back on the description of the setting (spell take 10 second to cast) or real life experience (drawing a sword take only seconds with a small chance of being longer as result of something getting hooked or constrained during the draw.)

Quote from: Gabriel2;740853If I play in a D&D4e game, I know the default standpoint is that I can draw my weapon as a move action, barring a feat which makes drawing it free.  Since it takes that move action, I can't draw it as a reaction and have available to me abilities which use my weapon which trigger upon a reaction.

Since we are talking about a physical action if it squares with the experience of somebody knowledgeable then it is a good rule otherwise it is a counter intuitive game mechanic.

Having played and refereed D&D4e the entire system is a comic book fantasy game with superheroic characters. Real world knowledge and common sense has little part in the in the design of the core powers. Which means the only knowledge of the physics of the game is from reading the rules.

Note that there is nothing about the core design of D&D4e that forced them to design it this. It not a flaw of the design but a flaw of what the designer choose to present.

OD&D combat in contrast was design to reflect what Arneson, Gygax, and Upper Midwest gamers knew about medieval combat in a rules lite abstract package. Because the campaigns focused not on the emulation of realism but on the exploration of unknown dungeons, and wilderness.

This is important to remember because Gygax, Arneson and associated gamers did opt for a focus on realism when the focus was on accurately recreating past battles using miniatures.

The thrill of D&D for the early campaigns was ability to attempt anything that a character could do and exploring all the weird stuff Gygax and Arneson created in their respective campaigns.

Later when D&D started spread, it ran into groups of players where for them it was important to have the details specified. Especially for obscure topics like medieval combat. Hence the creation of games like Chivalry & Sorcery and Runequest. For Runequest the authors drew on their experience with the Society of Creative Anachronisms.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740853the game would function just fine if we negotiated and decided that readying the weapon was a truly free action, effectively meaning it is always at the ready.

Negotiation only needs to occur when the referee has limited or incomplete knowledge of the things he need to know to make a ruling. Among a mature group of players, the process is everybody sharing their knowledge to figure how it actually works in life or in some cases in the setting for things like supernatural abilities.

For example in GURPS you have the core books and you have GURPS Martial Arts. If the referee knows about how kendo fighting works then he doesn't need GURPS Material ARts. He can use just the core book and adjudicate what the player wants to do with his character.

However it somebody like me who doesn't know much about kendo. Then GURPS Martial Arts is an valuable aide because it tells me how to apply the various core mechanics to represents the techniques of kendo in the GURPS combat system.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740853As our different experiences with the 1e situation show, the absence of a default rule results in different interpretations of what is allowable and when, thus requiring communication to even determine what is possible.

Most of these problems occur with physical actions. They result because we have to reduce the actions into a simulation using dice rolls and modifiers. And for many actions there are lot of closely related methods that achieve the similar result but focus on different things. All of this constrained by the fact there is limit on detail because there is a game to be run.

What I do is apply the same methodology I do for handling bugs in the software I maintain for a small company. Due to limited time and resources combined with the software's complexity, it is nearly impossible to be bug-free for each new release. But what I can do make sure that the ability to identify, fix, and generate a new release to fix issues is as quick, reliable, and fast as possible. And largely we have achieved that.

For tabletop RPGs even with the most detailed of system no two campaigns are going to be a like with human referees running things. The referee job is two fold; communicate as effectively as possible his way of adjudicating things. And to be efficient and fair about issues that come up during play. On the player's side, he needs to remember that it is a leisure activity, that as a newcomer there is going to be learning curve. The result is that when things come up, you take a minute to hash it out, everybody comes to an understanding and that how it is from then on.

If later the referee decides it was the wrong call, then AFTER or BEFORE the game sit down with the players, talk about the issue again and then after an agreement that how it is afterwards.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740853These are very little things, true, but a RPG session is always a million little things combined into one big thing.

For my players I tell them think about it as if you are really there doing this. And that how I going to rule. That takes care 8 of 10 of these type of questions.

For classic D&D there no way you are going to fuck up a draw of a weapon within 10 to 60 seconds. (depending the specific edition). It is a free action because of the length of the combat round.

GURPS in contrast has 1 second rounds. Drawing a weapon takes a second period. Unless you practiced it, as represented by the fast draw skill, then you can attempt to draw it as free actions. But because you are just trying to yank it out as fast possible there is a chance of failure. Not just a failure it means you still consume a round drawing it. But a critical failure where it gets caught or fumbled as well. It reflects in the opinion of the authors the real life or genre tradeoffs.

In Hackmaster 5e, drawing a weapons takes a number of seconds depending on the weapon. Hackmaster doesn't use rounds so a fighter trying to get out a dagger versus a fighter trying to release a halberd is going to get their weapon ready first. Like GURPS there are mechanics to shorten the draw but there is the risk of a critical failure making things worse.

Again this makes sense from the author's personal knowledge. Removing and readying a short object from a sheath is inherently faster then releasing and readying what is in essence a long pole from straps.

It only with games like D&D 4e that rules mastery become critical because "reality" is just window dressing. How things work is solely defined by the rules. And after 30 years of gaming tabletop I find this a poor tool to use during a campaign. Which is why I use GURPS more than Hero System for everything but superheroes.

Quote from: Gabriel2;740828Not really sure what you're trying to say here.

In 4e (and I think 3e), a weapon takes a Move action to draw.  So a combatant can draw a weapon and attack (standard action), draw as an action and move, but not both.  That's the default rule.  If the character has Quick Draw then readying a weapon is a free action, so they can move and attack or perform a full round action.

Drawing (or stowing) is a Minor action.  So you can draw, move, and attack (or move, draw, and attack, or draw, attack, and move).

QuoteI honestly don't know what the codified rule is for the same situation in 1e.  I know that I've often seen it played that if the character doesn't have the weapon already out and ready then it takes a full round to draw it.  In practice, I've often seen it played as the mechanical opposite of the 4e rule:  drawing the weapon takes the place of the attack (standard action) but the character can still move.  Is this the real 1e rule?  I'm not sure, and I'm not necessarily faulting the rules for it.  However, I have seen a lot of player bargaining in regards to drawing their weapon because of the ignorance on the matter in 1e.

In AD&D, it goes like this.  A Turn is 10 minutes.  A Round is 1 minute, thus 10 Rounds = 1 Turn.  A Round is then further divided into ten 6-second Segments.  Initiative (and surprise) is a relative contest using a d6 to vie for those first six segments of a round.  So, if I roll a 4 and you roll a 2, my turn starts on segment 1, and yours starts on segment 3 (4-2=2, so I get a two segment headstart).  If I need to draw a weapon (or any other action, such as drinking a potion, etc.), the DM adjudicates how many segments it takes, based on the time frame of 6 seconds in a segment.  Drawing a weapon is not specifically spelled out in the rules.  However, in one example, it is suggested that pulling a potion out of a pouch and hurling it would be "1, possibly 2 segments", so I'm pretty comfortable saying that any DM charging more than 1 segment to draw and ready a standard sized weapon is doing it wrong.

Now, another thing to consider with AD&D is that the camera is "pulled back", and combat is resolved with more of an overview than simulated in the thick of it.  You can't close to striking range and attack in the same round, unless you charge.  This is to represent coming in carefully to engage the enemy without taking attacks.  Unlike with a charge, where you take an AC penalty in order to make your attack that round.  That said, you could certainly draw on the move, since the move will take up at least one segment.

I suspect that DMs forcing people to wait a round if they have to draw a weapon were applying a mistaken understanding of BD&D rules to AD&D.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;740857This is the widest disconnect bridge to cross for those who believe that the rules ARE the game, and that game begins and ends with them.In this mindset, the DM is no more than a CPU that tracks die rolls and maintains the stats of the enemy AI.

In other words, they just don't fucking "get" rpgs.

NONONONONONO!!!!!

The rules are there to protect the EVIL GM from touching my character in a bad way!!!!!



Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack.  At the point of D&D's explosive growth in popularity from "1000 copies?  You'll never sell all them!" to "Featured in the #1 grossing movie of the time", most players never even read the rules.

The game started with "Tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you what to roll."

Quote from: Old Geezer;740874The game started with "Tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you what to roll."

It basically still is the best way to play, from my POV, and part of the reason for its growth in popularity in the first place.

Quote from: Benoist;740887It basically still is the best way to play, from my POV, and part of the reason for its growth in popularity in the first place.

I agree.  The game has always been about fostering imagination, and that's not just picturing a scene in your head or pretending to be Bob the elf, but also coming up with imaginative ways to resolve challenges and conflicts.

Quote from: Old Geezer;740874The game started with "Tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you what to roll."

but it didn't end there. Thank goodness for that, otherwise the hobby would have died a long time ago.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;740895I agree.  The game has always been about fostering imagination, and that's not just picturing a scene in your head or pretending to be Bob the elf, but also coming up with imaginative ways to resolve challenges and conflicts.

Exactly.  I've said many times that I still play this stupid game because if I've thought of ten ways to resolve something, the players will come up with ways eleven through spinach.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;740945but it didn't end there. Thank goodness for that, otherwise the hobby would have died a long time ago.

I doubt the tabletop RPG hobby would have died, but I guess the tabletop RPG industry might not have done as well. After all, the industry as we know it makes most of its money selling "rules" and if rules were only needed by GMs, the industry would not be what it is today.

Whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing depend on who you believe should be in the "game design" driver's seat: the hobby or industry.  Personally, I prefer the hobby. Just as my golf-playing uncle would prefer that the rules of the game not be subject to the commercial needs of those who make golf equipment, I'd prefer that the rules of tabletop RPGs not be driven by the commercial needs of publishers. Just because company X's sales are down doesn't mean that the hobby needs a new (and incompatible with the old) edition of their game A, for example.

Quote from: Iosue;740872Drawing (or stowing) is a Minor action.  So you can draw, move, and attack (or move, draw, and attack, or draw, attack, and move).


In AD&D, it goes like this.  A Turn is 10 minutes.  A Round is 1 minute, thus 10 Rounds = 1 Turn.  A Round is then further divided into ten 6-second Segments.  Initiative (and surprise) is a relative contest using a d6 to vie for those first six segments of a round.  So, if I roll a 4 and you roll a 2, my turn starts on segment 1, and yours starts on segment 3 (4-2=2, so I get a two segment headstart).  If I need to draw a weapon (or any other action, such as drinking a potion, etc.), the DM adjudicates how many segments it takes, based on the time frame of 6 seconds in a segment.  Drawing a weapon is not specifically spelled out in the rules.  However, in one example, it is suggested that pulling a potion out of a pouch and hurling it would be "1, possibly 2 segments", so I'm pretty comfortable saying that any DM charging more than 1 segment to draw and ready a standard sized weapon is doing it wrong.

Now, another thing to consider with AD&D is that the camera is "pulled back", and combat is resolved with more of an overview than simulated in the thick of it.  You can't close to striking range and attack in the same round, unless you charge.  This is to represent coming in carefully to engage the enemy without taking attacks.  Unlike with a charge, where you take an AC penalty in order to make your attack that round.  That said, you could certainly draw on the move, since the move will take up at least one segment.

I suspect that DMs forcing people to wait a round if they have to draw a weapon were applying a mistaken understanding of BD&D rules to AD&D.

Except that if you say for example use the weapon vs armour table and you have people selecting from a large menu of weapons to get the best bonus against a range of oponents then the ability to switch weapons with no pelalty in a combat round has a major impact and in doing so throws the abstraction of you are engaged in combat a mix of hack and slash until you land one genuine hit into a tail spin because if you are changing weapons and whatever you are not mounting an active defensive.

I always use the old standard of if you draw a weapon you add double the weapon speed to your initiative. But then i have always hated one minute combat rounds and moved to a 6 second round in about 1982 simply because whilst 1min rounds are fine at abstracting the melee of a battle they are crap at emulating the sort of combat that occurs in the genre fiction i was trying to emulate.
D&D's strength of course is that that doesn't matter cos the dm can just slide stuff about to meet the new time scale

Quote from: Bill;738494What do people think about the older dnd versions of Fighter?

1) Do you find them to be boring?

2) Do feats make a fighter less boring?

3) Are fighters fine because what the fighter is doing in character in the setting is what matters?

4) Do some people label them boring just because they prefer spellcasters?

5) Is the 5E fighter boring?

6) Sex or icecream?

1) I find most games boring. There is nothing worse than playing a fighter and:

a - waiting in a dungeon for three people crowding the hallway to die before you can take your turn.

b - playing in a game where your fighter can't interact with the world. Your -1 charisma adjustment never seems to be overshadowed by your deeds, so you can't get anything across by role playing, and all the enemies are immune to swords at high level unless you have or do just the right thing.

c - when your fighter is always a pud in the story. It doesn't matter if you are 12th level and killed the dragon, the king and all his men are 20th and will shit on you right now if you get off the rails.

2 - No, feats don't make fighters less boring. Feats make character creation more engaging if you like that sort of thing. Feats make a fighter more boring because before feats, I could say things like, "when he backs up, I follow," or, "I swing on the rope and shoot my bow." Now I can't do that stuff without "Step Up," or, "Shot on the Run."

3 - That is what matters most. Unfortunately the fighter (unless there is a Paladin around) is the fall guy for all the GM's antics. Only the GM can make the fighter fun by running a good game. A wizard can still be played in a fun way against a bad GM because a wizard can be abusive.

4 - Yes

5 - Can he run out of sword?

6 - Sex

Quote from: Iosue;740763If you close your eyes, clear your mind, and look again, you may realize that those trees are the forest.

Other classes may be to share in some of those various questions, but no other class can share in all of them.  The cleric may be able to select from the same armor and shields as the fighter, but they only have 5 choices for weapons, none of which are edged or long-ranged.  Thieves and monks may come closer in their choices of weapons, but they are utterly screwed when comes to armor.  In theory, other classes can engage in melee, charges, overbearing, etc.  But in actuality, only fighters have the HP, armor, and to-hit progression to make it worthwhile.  Magic-users can throw darts and daggers, druids can sling stones, thieves and throw darts and daggers AND sling stones, monks can throw daggers and fire crossbows.  But if you want set-up steady fire of 2 missiles per round at enemies 210 yards away, firing on them all the way down till they get into melee range, you need a fighter.  And then someone to toss aside the bow, take up a long spear and prevent the enemy from drawing even closer, you need the fighter.  And then to drop the spear, draw their bastard sword, and throw down, you still need the fighter.

And a DM who is willing to let the Fighter pause the game world so he can don the new armor for just this right situation?
Have numerous Shield and Weapon Bearers to carry the golf bags of weapons so the Fighter is able to maximize his ability to use oodles of weapons?

Quote from: Iosue;740763For some odd reason, a lotta folks said, "Forget all that!"  And only had their fighter draw his sword and engage in melee at close range.  And then when either their character died, or they got bored with just going, "I attack.  I attack.  I attack," they had to gall to say, "The Fighter is boring."

For some odd reason a lotta folks said "How the hell does the Fighter carry all these weapons and armors?" And had their Fighter carry one set of armor and a select few weapons that were easily at hand.  They thought long and hard on how to carry a long spear, bow and quiver, shields and bastard sword, multiple armors, adventuring equipment, while also having at least a hand free to manipulate the world. Just couldn't figure out how to do that. Their Dm had adjudicated that the shear bulk of the items they wanted was too much for one person to carry.
Shame on them for not realizing that is why you have henchmen.  You pay someone to carry your weapons and extra armors for the off chance you will be able to use it enough to justify the expense of hiring them.  The ablative hitpoints is a bonus though.  

Quote from: Iosue;740763Certain folks on TBP will have the gall to say "the AD&D Fighter is boring", and then say, "4e fighters are not because they have a role!  They are Defenders!"  So, yeah.  The guy who used to be the combat powerhouse at long, medium, medium-short, and short range is now just a "defender."  He wades into melee and hits things that move or hit his allies.  His exclusive long-range ability?  Given to the Ranger.  His exclusive ability to use any weapon and any armor?  Given to the Paladin.  His ability to command men in combat?  More or less given to the Warlord.

And what about the Ranger and Paladin in 1e?

Quote from: Iosue;740763I like the 4e Fighter well enough for its purposes given the granular "one attack is one-swing" mode of play in 4e.  I don't think it's especially a step up from the AD&D fighter in the "camera-pulled back, more abstract" mode of play in 1e.

And for a lot of people it is.

Quote from: estar;740851Adding to Iosue excellent reply. You are forgetting that human referee is there to adjudicate ACTIONS THAT ARE DESCRIBED. The rules are just a aide for the referee in making his judgments consistent.

In the tabletop roleplaying the rules don't define the limit of what the character can do. The setting is what ultimately arbitrate what physical actions are possible.

If using the quasi medieval setting implied by the D&D game then things like body slams, disarming, and whacking an opponent hand are possible. Because the setting is a reflection on our own medieval time period. And those actions were possible then. Granted not as easy just trying to whack the enemy.

So?

My point way back there has nothing to do with this.
Do people find Old School Fighters Boring?
Yes some do.
Why?
Because they have nothing.
"The principal attribute of a fighter is strength. To become a fighter, a character must have a minimum strength of 9 and a constitution of 7 or greater. A good dexterity rating is also highly desirable. If a fighter has strength above 15, he or she adds 10% to experience points awarded by the Dungeon Master. Also, high strength gives the fighter a better chance to hit an opponent and causes an increased amount of damage.
Fighters.have a ten-sided die (d10) for determination of their hit points per level. No other class of character (save the paladin and ranger (qq.v.) subclasses of fighters) is so strong in this regard. Fighters ore the strongest of characters in regards to sheer physical strength, and they are the best at hand-to-hand combat Any sort of armor or weapon is usable by fighters.
Fighters may be of any alignment - good or evil, lawful or chaotic, or neutral.
Although fighters do not have magic spells to use, their armor and weapons can compensate. They have the most advantageous combat table and generally have good saving throw (q.v.) possibilities as well.
Fighters can employ many magical items, including potions; "protection" scrolls; many rings; a few wands; one rod; many other magic items; and all forms of armor, shields and weapons.
When a fighter attains 9th level (Lord), he or she may opt to establish a freehold. This is done by building some type of castle and clearing the area in a radius of 20 to 50 miles around the stronghold, making it free from all sorts of hostile creatures. Whenever such a freehold is established and cleared, the fighter will:
1. Automatically attract a body of men-at-arms led by an above average
fighter. These men will serve as mercenaries so long as the fighter maintains his or her freehold and pays the men at-arms; and
2. Collect a monthly revenue of 7 silver pieces for each and every inhabitant of the freehold due to trade, tariffs, and taxes."
This is what players see in their handbook for the game.
Some people like nifty things that a class offers.  Ima MU. I cast spells. I(Jon) get to choose what spells my character memorizes.  I do not need to pass it by the DM to get his adjudication on the matter.

I know around here that idea is heretical.  Around here a player wanting to have choice without the DM giving his approval strays over that storygame line.   That is, bad.
Makes one think that perhaps that is the real issue.

I think most of the people who've played fighters in any of my old-school campaigns would certainly say that playing a fighter isn't boring.

Playing a fighter is kind of a "boring-Rorscach" test for some combination of the player and the game.

If it's boring, either you, or the game, is actually the boring thing.

Quote from: robiswrong;742947Playing a fighter is kind of a "boring-Rorscach" test for some combination of the player and the game.

If it's boring, either you, or the game, is actually the boring thing.

If others in the same game are playing fighters and are NOT bored, then that narrows things down a bit further.

We've had plenty of fighters who were awesome.  If you want a guy who's always on the frontline then that's the class for you.