Quote from: StormBringer;361060The second one.  Evening out damage potential across all attacks, but making them all essentially 'at-wills' would fit the mechanics into what people already know about physical reality.  Perhaps a feat or something to boost damage a few times a day to keep up with the casters, although I have never seen that problem personally.  

Yeah, I think balance is pretty unimportant for the purposes of this discussion.

So OK. Preferences established. We're immersed in our characters, etc. There's a big challenge in your face, biggest thing you've seen in a while. Two of your party members are down.

Are you OK with the fact that you can't muster up any extra effort? Your character has no reserves to draw on?

Quote from: StormBringer;361060The second one.  Evening out damage potential across all attacks, but making them all essentially 'at-wills' would fit the mechanics into what people already know about physical reality.  Perhaps a feat or something to boost damage a few times a day to keep up with the casters, although I have never seen that problem personally.  

Swap out weapon bonuses of less than +3 or +4 to something mundane rather than magical, to keep the magical weapons as something that is really magical.  A 'mundane' mithril steel sword has a non-magical +4, but if you have the heart of a dragon and a piece of a star, you can make any weapon +5.  It would be unlikely someone would waste all that effort on a dagger, so perhaps a proportional level of enchantment is in order.  The same applies to armour.  That way, the Fighter has the magical, near artifact level stuff, and the other classes wouldn't bother because the cost is too high.  Then a Fighter's boosts can be regulated a bit more organically.

And yes, stripping the Fighter of his gear would then drop the power level, but let's face it:  is that any different than a Magic-User without their spellbooks?  A Cleric without their holy symbol?  A Thief without their tools?  Fighters aren't the only ones dependent on gear, and they never have been.

Might work, but I still think a Spell point/ Fatigue Point model offers a clearer balance and real world explanation. I knwo managaging another counter might be a pain and the benefit of computer games that do this is that the bookkeeping is done for you.
Hey maybe that is one of those neat little gimmics you can sell a Fatigue/point hitpoint/Spell point tracker. a little digital clock with 3 read outs where you can spend points and they recover at a set rate. Sounds like an ideal Ipod App to me

I woudl dearly like to get away from everyone being gear dependent as well but that is a whole other bag of worms and D&D has always been gear dependent its in its DNA.

Quote from: RandallS;360893In OD&D (snip)

Didn't we already say no more OD&D in this thread? Does no one pay attention anymore?

Quote from: Sigmund;361063I don't mind extra effort being available to martial characters, but the approach 4e uses is not to my taste. Perhaps using a point system, such as spell points for magic and fatigue points for martial types would be more palatable for me. I was disappointed enough with 4e that I left my gaming group who decided to stay with the system and have been looking for a fantasy game I enjoy more. Digging on Iron Gauntlets now, but also checking out BRP. I would definitely play older versions of DnD too so not having cool maneuvers is something I'm ok with too.

Or just go with some system that provides some kind of hero point mechanism. I picked up Barbarians of Lemuria recently, and it looks like it hits a sweet spot in terms of crunch vs. simplicity.

Quote from: Thanlis;361065Yeah, I think balance is pretty unimportant for the purposes of this discussion.

So OK. Preferences established. We're immersed in our characters, etc. There's a big challenge in your face, biggest thing you've seen in a while. Two of your party members are down.

Are you OK with the fact that you can't muster up any extra effort? Your character has no reserves to draw on?

I would be. Victory should never be assured.

Quote from: IMLegend;361067Didn't we already say no more OD&D in this thread? Does no one pay attention anymore?

No! Because OD&D is like fucking Jason Voorhees...it just won't goddamn die already : (

Quote from: Sigmund;361069I would be. Victory should never be assured.

Moot point -- nobody said "assured." Come on, we're doing pretty well here. I'm just talking extra effort.

Quote from: Thanlis;361065Yeah, I think balance is pretty unimportant for the purposes of this discussion.

So OK. Preferences established. We're immersed in our characters, etc. There's a big challenge in your face, biggest thing you've seen in a while. Two of your party members are down.

Are you OK with the fact that you can't muster up any extra effort? Your character has no reserves to draw on?

I would prefer that the player draws on their reserves.  A clever tactic or desperate ploy keeps the DM on their toes as well, providing a challenge for everyone at the table.  Tracking which rule intersects with which situation is dreadfully boring to me.  It's a way of rewarding the rules lawyers, which I am generally against, in principle.

Besides, good planning means you won't need to muster the extra effort.  As Sun Tzu says, if you don't go into battle with the outcome already decided, you are going to lose.  

Quote from: Thanlis;361065Yeah, I think balance is pretty unimportant for the purposes of this discussion.

So OK. Preferences established. We're immersed in our characters, etc. There's a big challenge in your face, biggest thing you've seen in a while. Two of your party members are down.

Are you OK with the fact that you can't muster up any extra effort? Your character has no reserves to draw on?

You mean the point in the game where you really have to test yourself - yeah that's where it gets interesting.  If you've always got that one trick left that will win the day then it nullifies your actual success.

Quote from: Thanlis;361071Moot point -- nobody said "assured." Come on, we're doing pretty well here. I'm just talking extra effort.

To be fair, if the 'extra effort' has no real effect in the outcome, it's neither 'extra' nor is it 'effort'.  I know you weren't saying it's a guaranteed victory, but without some enhanced odds of turning the battle to your favour, it's not really useful.  I prefer to have the battle turn from the cleverness of the players, not strictly from the application of the rules.

EDIT:  Also, what Kryyst said.  Fucking ninja posting.  

Quote from: thedungeondelver;360892If this is what you think I mean:



When I suggest you think of creative ways to use a "low power" character and quit trying to be motherfucking Gandalf the White at 1st level, then yeah, I can definitely understand why you have reading comprehension problems.  

Seriously, I love how every time I or anyone else suggests that characters start off slow, think outside the box, and look back in n sessions from atop the peak they've climbed there's this chorus of BAAAAAAAWWWWWWW GYGAX KICKED ME IN THE NUTS AND TOOK MY LUNCH MONEY BAAAAAAWWWWWWWWW.  Listen, I will openly admit to not being the sharpest pineapple in the basket sometimes, but I got it when I played it the first few times, and I got it again when I picked it back up in '99.  I've introduced AD&D to people whose sole experience with RPGs prior to was video games, and they got it.  My seven year old gets it.  Why can't you?  Oh, wait, I'm sorry, the old way is broken, right.  :roll:

So, kiddies, since AD&D worked for millions of people (and still does for more than just my gaming group), maybe it's you who need to get over it.

{zzzzzzzzz} {snort} Huh? ... what?... what are you still grognarding on about? {yawn} AD&D rulz, and no one knows how to play as good as you, and 4e players are stupider than your 7 year old? (skip/repeat, skip/repeat, skip/repeat) {yawn} Jesus will someone fix that fucking record, it seems broken. {yawn} I'm going back to bed...{grumble}...fucking grognards...{grumble}...{zzzzzzzzz}

And of course, Magic-Users were severely restricted in spell use, but those rules were often ignored.  Memorization times, when properly enforced, kept the casters precisely in line with the non-casters.  The amount of rest needed depended on the highest level of spell to be recovered, up to 12 hours if you needed your 9th level spells back.  In addition, it took 15mins of study per spell level for each spell.  Cast two fireballs today?  An hour and a half to get those back, after resting for 6hrs.

The problem, from what I can see, is that most groups didn't enforce the very rules that were meant to keep things more or less balanced.  Honestly, I can't recall any literature where the wizard was blasting things left and right.  Merlin was more of a diviner than anything, Gandalf didn't fireball his way through Moria, and even Robert Aspirin's humourous Myth series has pretty limited spell use, and that was a high magic milieu.  Similar to other humour books, like Discworld, it was a parody precisely because in serious literature, all the allegedly ultra-powerful wizards never cast spells.

The whole idea of wizards blasting everything in sight only came about after computer games with spell points, near as I can tell.  So I have to disagree that casting spells more often is an innovation or improvement.  I think the underlying idea for that came about as a failure to enforce the rules that were in place to begin with, as well as a misinterpretation of the role of spell casters.

Quote from: StormBringer;361074To be fair, if the 'extra effort' has no real effect in the outcome, it's neither 'extra' nor is it 'effort'.  I know you weren't saying it's a guaranteed victory, but without some enhanced odds of turning the battle to your favour, it's not really useful.  I prefer to have the battle turn from the cleverness of the players, not strictly from the application of the rules.

That's fair. So you're not really interested in the idea of ebb and flow a la story -- you're more digging on the idea of players using their minds to overcome obstacles?

Quote from: Thanlis;361080That's fair. So you're not really interested in the idea of ebb and flow a la story -- you're more digging on the idea of players using their minds to overcome obstacles?

Generally, that would be a fair assessment.  I prefer the story to emerge organically from the interactions of the players, rather than having something in mind before events take place.

Quote from: StormBringer;361084Generally, that would be a fair assessment.  I prefer the story to emerge organically from the interactions of the players, rather than having something in mind before events take place.

That is not exactly what I mean, insofar as I don't say "I'm going to use this daily in this combat." It's more I like being able to react to the situation with something other than "welp, it's a big problem, I guess I keep hitting it."

But I dig the desire to be tactically smart as well. I mean, one of the things I like a lot about 4e is that it provides for some rich tactical decisions, after all.