The Wizard vs Fighter balance arguement has been going on for awhile. It does not bother me that casters can wield more power than fighters, especially at high levels. However there is a way to balance things without taking away the essence and tradition of the character classes.
Take a page from anime, particularly the anime series Slayers. The big dumb Fighter character had the Sword of Light, which was great against single foes. The Sorceress had a powerful spell called Dragon Slave, which was an area effect spell of massive damage. As the series progressed, there came times when the Sorceress had to cast her spell in such a way that they empowered the sword and thuis the Fighter in order to defeat opponents in combat.
It would require DMs to adjucate and allow creative spell use, but it also balances the combat field so that nobody would feel particularly left out.
I'm sure this is not a perfect answer, but it is a possible answer. What are your opinions?
Quote from: jeff37923;549463The Wizard vs Fighter balance arguement has been going on for awhile. It does not bother me that casters can wield more power than fighters, especially at high levels. However there is a way to balance things without taking away the essence and tradition of the character classes.
Take a page from anime, particularly the anime series Slayers. The big dumb Fighter character had the Sword of Light, which was great against single foes. The Sorceress had a powerful spell called Dragon Slave, which was an area effect spell of massive damage. As the series progressed, there came times when the Sorceress had to cast her spell in such a way that they empowered the sword and thuis the Fighter in order to defeat opponents in combat.
It would require DMs to adjucate and allow creative spell use, but it also balances the combat field so that nobody would feel particularly left out.
I'm sure this is not a perfect answer, but it is a possible answer. What are your opinions?
Slayers is a great example of why that isn't a really workable fix. Gourry spent most of a season lamenting the fact that he was basically useless when the DM took his Sword of Light away. And he wasn't really able to contribute until the DM took pity on him and gave it back. Even when he had it, Gourry was basically a cohort - a guy who existed more for comic relief and as a long-run love interest for the main character than someone who actually advanced the plot himself.
Interestingly: Slayers
also shows how to make a "melee" character who
doesn't feel like a vestigial appendage to an artifact sword: Zelgadis and Filia. Zelgadis is basically a 3e-style melee cleric. He is damn near invulnerable, has a bunch of useful magic (including banishment and healing), and in combat sometimes he can accomplish things by stabbing them with a sword. Filia is only a member of the team at infrequent intervals, but "transforms into a fucking dragon" seems to keep her melee shtick useful when things get out of hand. The reality is that sometimes the enemy is a sea monster or other kaiju, and it's just not really practical to expect your character to accomplish much with a sword (or in Filia's case, a mace). And when that
inevitably happens, a character needs something worthwhile that they can do that
isn't stabbing things with a sword.
-Frank
Quote from: jeff37923;549463What are your opinions?
That this wasn't an issue when taking damage caused a spellcaster to lose the spell she was casting.
Trying to protect the players of magic-users from failure created this problem.
Removing checks and balances from a system is generally not a good idea. "Options, not restrictions" created the wizard problem.
That said, I have only ever encountered this issue on the Internet, and its most serious manifestations tend to happen to people who are horrible jerks. Maybe it's just karma. ;)
In real life, it not uncommon for players to play 1E-3E Wizards very ineffectively.
ADD: Often the "internet people" that proclaim "Wizards rule supreme" are unable to make a workable spell selection in 5mins, whine for rest after they blew their nicest spells and generally work bad under pressure and changing external variables.
The 3E Fighter past level 12 is a bit on the more boring and weaker side, I admit that. But not in a way that we had problems playing till level 23. It is no tlike the game imploded or something. OTOH a 1e 12th level fighter is a force of nature that easily eats wizards for breakfast. He outdungeoneers them all.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;549466That this wasn't an issue when taking damage caused a spellcaster to lose the spell she was casting.
Trying to protect the players of magic-users from failure created this problem.
/thread
Quote from: Settembrini;549471In real life, it not uncommon for players to play 1E-3E Wizards very ineffectively.
Agreed, and guilty as charged.
I was once handed a character sheet for a 12th-level Mage (AD&D 2e). Thinking I'd be fucking invulnerable... I got myself killed at the first combat, by failing to make efficient use of the veritable arsenal of spells and magic items at my disposal.
Instead of forcing the fighter to rely on the wizard, we should make fighters really good at fighting and shit.
I actually rather like the inversion of typical d20 fare that is Star Wars Saga; Force-users (Wizards) start out powerful, but by later levels, everyone pulls out a weapon. Unlike the typical Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard, Saga's "wizard" is front-loaded, but becomes less impressive as the characters level (due to increasing Defenses).
It makes more sense to me why common folk would be amazed/frightened of Wizards, but Kingdoms are ruled by Warriors.
Quote from: B.T.;549485Instead of forcing the fighter to rely on the wizard, we should make fighters really good at fighting and shit.
The fighter should be really good at fighting and shit AND it should rely on the wizard. And the wizard the fighter. Etc.
D&D is a team game. It's not Diablo.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;549490The fighter should be really good at fighting and shit AND it should rely on the wizard. And the wizard the fighter. Etc.
D&D is a team game. It's not Diablo.
More of this.
I honestly made my wizard more of what he was in the first place, more of an exploratory jack of all trades with some combat spells. Also with more buffing spells and less pure offensive spells. But with low HP and all, I tried to create that synergy that both need each other, as well as the other classes.
The other issue that I notice is that the folks who complain the most about casters dominating everything seem the most prone to play in the "15 minute adventuring day" style.
Instead of managing their resources to get through a session, casters use all their spells in the first 1 or 2 encounters and then force everyone to stop and rest until they replenish.
It's a lot easier for spell casters to dominate the game when they don't have to manage their spell use effectively.
I never understood why people played the in the "15 minute day" style. It doesn't sound like much fun.
(My first post here. Hi)
Welcome aboard, Dimitrios!
Quote from: Black Vulmea;549466That this wasn't an issue when taking damage caused a spellcaster to lose the spell she was casting.
Trying to protect the players of magic-users from failure created this problem.
Quote from: Settembrini;549471In real life, it not uncommon for players to play 1E-3E Wizards very ineffectively.
ADD: Often the "internet people" that proclaim "Wizards rule supreme" are unable to make a workable spell selection in 5mins, whine for rest after they blew their nicest spells and generally work bad under pressure and changing external variables.
I've seen plenty of examples of both of these in game.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;549490The fighter should be really good at fighting and shit AND it should rely on the wizard. And the wizard the fighter. Etc.
D&D is a team game. It's not Diablo.
This, definitely. The idea that D&D
is a team game most times seems to get lost in the shuffle.
Quote from: Dimitrios;549496I never understood why people played the in the "15 minute day" style. It doesn't sound like much fun.
(My first post here. Hi)
Pagecount. The answer is as simple and materialistic as pagecount. During the rise of 3e, the "Adventure Path" arose to great popularity with it. Both the WotC AP and even more so the Dungeon/Paizo APs had to provide enough XP from fighting monsters to get you to level 20 in 12 modules flat. That lead to an increasing number of super high CR encounters. Often, single monsters. That lead to all kinds of things:
- single monsters AC could get so high, the non char-opped player characters (even fighters) could not even hit the damn thing.
- you HAD to rest after such a fight, because you knew the next one would be just as super-deadly
- the whole save-and-die hate comes from there. Imagine being a GM. You had to fuill AT LEAST one whole month of gaming with FOUR encounters. Each of which hellishly involved in preparation. Hours of tactics, forum reading and rules checkups. 'cause of course, these four super-monsters would have 17 actions and 489 spell like abilities as well as 234 magic items. Which they MIGHT use. Then a player "just" throws a finger of death at it, monster rolls a "1", fight over after 30 seconds = one quarter of the module over in 30 seconds = the whole planned evening, assuming weekly play.
- From the players side, you can imagine they suffered badly from save-and-die, 'cause the DCs of the super-monsters spell-llikes would be super high. You would never make a non-"good" save.
- etc. etc.
So there it is: pagecount. Oh yes and the willingness of authors and public to actually keep playing that way unquestioningly...
Quote from: Dimitrios;549496(My first post here. Hi)
Welcome to the RPG Site, Dimitrios. :)
Like I said in "pointy stick" thread make both the fighter and wizard like 2e and enforce spell disruption and play a wizard like a part of team not some Diablo wannabe. Wizards are wildcards, they are there to fill the gaps. A buff spells, some information spells, couple of summoning spells, bunch of defensive/utility spells and just maybe 2-3 direct offensive stuff. Why you say? Because the frigging fighter is there to kill stuff, you're there to SOLVE stuff.
Quote from: Dimitrios;549496(My first post here. Hi)
Welcome to the adult swim.
First off, to get this thread a little bit back towards the OP:
if you posit an AD&D-like high level environment where Magic Resistance is very high and ACs aren't a big problem for the swordsmen, then a rule that allowed a magic user to cast their spell into a melee weapon of another character such that the character's attack roll's success or failure was used instead of rolling Magic Resistance,
then there would be more synergy between the magic user and the fighting man and the melee PCs would be less replaceable by groups of hobgoblin mercenaries.
However, and this is important: that
wouldn't actually make the Fighter's ability to take up space actually
matter at high level. Suggestions like this one:
Quote from: Marleycat;549503Like I said in "pointy stick" thread make both the fighter and wizard like 2e and enforce spell disruption and play a wizard like a part of team not some Diablo wannabe. Wizards are wildcards, they are there to fill the gaps. A buff spells, some information spells, couple of summoning spells, bunch of defensive/utility spells and just maybe 2-3 direct offensive stuff. Why you say? Because the frigging fighter is there to kill stuff, you're there to SOLVE stuff.
...Are a complete non-starter. Yes, you can make it so that Wizards lose their spells constantly. And yes, you can make it so that Wizards pop like zits when level-appropriate enemies look at them funny. And this
still doesn't make Fighters actually matter! At low level, it totally does. But at high level, it does not and
cannot. Because at high level, the encounter is this:
(http://thisisthesports.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/fire-breathing-dragon.jpg)
It's an 80 foot long flying lizard with scales as thick as your arm that is incinerating whole city blocks on strafing runs from the clouds. There
is no front line, and it
does not matter how good a Fighting Man supposedly is at holding it. It is flying around at more than 45 miles an hour and never gets closer than 70 feet to the ground. However deadly and sticky the fighter's sword reach is make absolutely no difference because the high level battlefield is simply too epic for a stalwart swordsman to even register on peoples' give-a-fuck meter.
-Frank
I never had a problem of balance between fighters and wizards. I played in countless D&D games, ran many versions of the game myself, including four 3rd edition campaigns, two of which reached high (16th-ish) level of play, and I just did not experience what all the internet theorists keep wanking and raging about endlessly.
I, and all the DMs I played with (including a few on this board who surely will recognize themselves), must have been playing the game wrong. Poor us. That makes us awful gamers in those same theorists' eyes, I imagine. Ah well, we'll keep on having fun the wrong way, I suppose.
Honestly, the problem I have with Wizard vs. Fighter balance is that there was originally an economy of cost, resource management, and complexity balancing the two, but the costs of the Wizard have been reduced and the complexity of the Fighter has been increased.
The Wizard gets more powers and *more complication*. The Fighter was supposed to be the simple alternative: get immediate gratification in the form of more hit points, better attack rolls, and not many fiddly bits to worry about in exchange for knowing that you won't get that much spectacular. The Wizard in exchange is pretty ordinary except for a one-shot power, but slowly adds more one-shot powers (but needs to spend money to get these powers, at least in the original rules.)
If you "balance" the two classes, you make them more alike. What if a player wants something simple? Sorry, can't do that any more, because someone got his panties in a bunch when a 5th level mage cast a one-shot Fireball and killed more monsters faster than he could with his repeated-use sword.
Duh, Frank, you do know the mount of choice for high level fighters are Griffins and especially SUBDUED DRAGONS! And nobody is better in dragon subdual than fighters.
Also see how Frank makes his point via the SUPERMEGAENCOUNTER culture of play.
EDIT: Just so you know, I have had a Tome Fighter in my campaign.
Quote from: Settembrini;549513Duh, Frank, you do know the mount of choice for high level fighters are Griffins and especially SUBDUED DRAGONS! And nobody is better in dragon subdual than fighters.
Also see how Frank makes his point via the SUPERMEGAENCOUNTER culture of play.
EDIT: Just so you know, I have had a Tome Fighter in my campaign.
I don't even think we're talking "supermega encounters" for high level when we're talking about dragons. At high level, the battlefield is epic even when your opponent is simply one dragon. Its regular attack is a 70 foot cone, so when people talk about the Fighter as if they can accomplish something by "standing in front of the cloth wearers", they are thinking in World of Warcraft terms. In a game like WoW or Final Fantasy XI where the enemies
are content to sit there like a spawned mob and trade blows with one armored dude then "standing in front" might have some meaning. But in Dungeons and Dragons, the high level monsters have a normal move that is measured in hundreds of feet and standard actions that fill the entire table with fire.
Yes, you can make a warrior type who contributes to high level encounters by using a lance charge from griffin back that is so brutal that even mighty dragons are forced to take notice (if not die outright). And
those kinds of characters can really matter even on a large battlefield. If the enemy is flying across the battlemap every turn and
so are you, then you aren't being relegated to "also ran", are you?
Wonderwoman and Superman are indeed effective high level Fighters. It's just the people calling for Mad Martigan or Conan to be the
high level Fighter archetypes that need to sit down and rethink their life choices. Those kinds of characters are
low level. Mad Martigan didn't have the skills he needed to contribute in the final battle
even in his own movie. Conan's adventures start with him getting threatened by
a wolf.
The whole "I stand in front and stab anyone who tries to get past me" deal is workable at low level when the enemies actually are basically just dudes who are seriously put out by having to go around and need to actually get close to things in order to stab them in the face. But at high levels? Pit Fiends and Dragons
don't give a fuck about you standing in between their target of choice and their giant red scales, because their attacks are physically large enough that that shit just doesn't matter.
-Frank
I'm not a "real" grognard. I just play one on the Internet. I started gaming in 1992, with the "black box" D&D Introductory Game, followed by D&D Rules Cyclopedia and AD&D 2e.
Now, even in these strange after the Fall of the House of Gygax, DM advice chapters in all these books warned you against players who gamed the system to gain benefit for their characters, in detriment of the emulated reality of the actual campaign. DMs were given ample warning to be careful with magic items and new spells, and encouraged to create and enforce houserules to "nerf" said items or spells if things got out of hand.
However, from 3e on, it seems that somehow the "munchkins", or "twinks", or "powergamers" -- the people who abused the system for the sole benefit of their character -- were no longer officially recognized as a nuisance, but as a segment of the market that had to be placated. WotC started going to greater and greater lengths to keep these fuckers happy, culminating with the clusterfuck that was 4e (not a dig against 4e as a game, but nowadays even they admit that it was a clusterfuck).
And I suppose therein lies my fundamental issue with these game balance threads, esp. those the greow around the "Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard" meme:
I cannot recall of a single instance of people being actually disappointed that the Fighter was not as effective as the Magic-User/Mage/Wizard at my game table. Not as a player, not as a DM; not at high levels and certainly not at low levels.
Maybe it's just a cultural thing, in which people who choose to play a Fighter kind of expect to "suck" at high levels (though I certainly wouldn't call the stuff that high-level Fighters pulled at my table, "sucking", and I don't think the players would either). Maybe it's just that our Magic-User (D&D RC), Mage (AD&D 2e) and Wizard (D&D 3.5e) PCs weren't "optimized". Whatever the case, it was never an issue at our table.
People playing high-level Fighters were happy in their +3 field plates and swinging their +4 two-handed swords. People playing high-level Magic-Users (or Mages, or Wizards) were just as happy swinging their staffs of power and rocking their meteor swarms (or my old favorite, the delayed blast fireball. "Bribing" the enemy guard with that shiny red gem... never gets old :D).
Shit, I'm just ranting, ain't I? What I want to say is that "fixing" any perceived imbalance between sword-swingers and spell-slingers might not be on everyone's agenda. Frank is just one of dozens, maybe hundreds of clever and well-meaning geeks who gets caught up in theoretical minutiae that, while mathematically, logically sound, do not always impact the actual game as often or as profoundly as you'd expect from a rules-only analysis.
Frank... do you feel the game would be actually improved by making Fighters and Wizards "balanced"? Not the game as a mathematical construct, but the game as, you know, something you do with some friends, for fun. Honest question, no snark here; our playstyles are obviously different and I'd like to better understand yours.
I was horribly deprotagonised in today's D&D 3.0 game. My 1st level Ranger, Brunatz the Forester (a cross between Rumcajs (http://www.kepeslap.com/images/21707/mesevegyes25.jpg) and Hagrid) rushed an evil 3rd level priestess (more correctly, he had a jump spell cast on him, wo it was more vaulting than rushing). The priestess used her death touch ability, rolled 11 Hp, and Brunatz, who only had 10 left after the party priestess accidentally shot him in the back with an arrow in the previous combat, immediately dropped dead, another victim of priestess supremacy. Then the rest of the party clobbered the priestess in what was probably the least lucky combat ever - I have never seen that many natural 1s in one stretch. The party Fighter broke his ancestral sword (some ancestry!), the twin sun elf girls and the halfling Thief snapped their bowstrings, and basically hit each other more than their target.
Anyway, I rolled up a 1st level Fighter to avenge Brunatz. He is a disciple of Kelemvor and he is a grim motherfucker out to kick ass. ;)
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549507First off, to get this thread a little bit back towards the OP: if you posit an AD&D-like high level environment where Magic Resistance is very high and ACs aren't a big problem for the swordsmen, then a rule that allowed a magic user to cast their spell into a melee weapon of another character such that the character's attack roll's success or failure was used instead of rolling Magic Resistance, then there would be more synergy between the magic user and the fighting man and the melee PCs would be less replaceable by groups of hobgoblin mercenaries.
However, and this is important: that wouldn't actually make the Fighter's ability to take up space actually matter at high level. Suggestions like this one:
...Are a complete non-starter. Yes, you can make it so that Wizards lose their spells constantly. And yes, you can make it so that Wizards pop like zits when level-appropriate enemies look at them funny. And this still doesn't make Fighters actually matter! At low level, it totally does. But at high level, it does not and cannot. Because at high level, the encounter is this:
(http://thisisthesports.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/fire-breathing-dragon.jpg)
It's an 80 foot long flying lizard with scales as thick as your arm that is incinerating whole city blocks on strafing runs from the clouds. There is no front line, and it does not matter how good a Fighting Man supposedly is at holding it. It is flying around at more than 45 miles an hour and never gets closer than 70 feet to the ground. However deadly and sticky the fighter's sword reach is make absolutely no difference because the high level battlefield is simply too epic for a stalwart swordsman to even register on peoples' give-a-fuck meter.
-Frank
Sure it does if make a fighter a death machine like pre 3e and you play tagteam with the wizard instead of everyone playing like a videogame. Your wizard does the research like they're supposed to do, given it's the entire point of the archetype. Then proceeds to use "fly" on the fighter and lets the fun ensue. Basically the wizard's job is change the environment while the fighter does her job because dragon breath means nothing to them.
My example spells are what happens pre 3x when nothing was guaranteed and to point out that rpg's are a cooperative team endeavour.
The whole problem with point buy or standard array and set hp per level and guaranteed pick your own spells is that it enables powergaming or possibly theorywhank situations to become possible under inexperienced DM's. Random spell acquisition, capped ability scores, to learn % rolls erase this theorectical. It doesn't unbalance it horribly if 3x rules of pick 2 spells per level are used with hard ability caps and harsher %rolls to learn spells etc.
What should be done is a hard limit on total spells known ever. Something like 70-80 not counting cantrips, for high magic settings 150-160 max. And scroll use that costs etc.
Quote from: B.T.;549485Instead of forcing the fighter to rely on the wizard, we should make fighters really good at fighting and shit.
From a while back, but no.
This is the kind of stuff I hate seeing. Don't make the Fighter a veritable superman, don't let him be 'really good at fighting' (which we all know means superpowers that are only fun if your goal is winning).
We need balance, we need options, we need rules that make improvisation intuitive and flavour that works with the setting to encourage roleplaying - what we don't need is crazy powers.
Quote from: pryingeyes;549548From a while back, but no.
This is the kind of stuff I hate seeing. Don't make the Fighter a veritable superman, don't let him be 'really good at fighting' (which we all know means superpowers that are only fun if your goal is winning).
Stupid idea with stupid premises. If the guy whose class name is "fighter" (or "fighting man") isn't good at fighting, then what the fuck good is he? A fighter can be good at fighting good HP, AC, and damage.
Frank is right that the fighter needs something to compensate when he's fighting a gigantic dragon. He's wrong about what that "something" is, though. That "something" in 2e was a high AC, a bunch of hit points, good saves, a strong attack bonus, and multiple attacks. The fighter should be able to whip out a bow and fire an arrow through the dragon's throat. He doesn't need to fly or do magic to win--just take a beating and give it right back.
Quote from: B.T.;549556Stupid idea with stupid premises. If the guy whose class name is "fighter" (or "fighting man") isn't good at fighting, then what the fuck good is he? A fighter can be good at fighting good HP, AC, and damage.
Frank is right that the fighter needs something to compensate when he's fighting a gigantic dragon. He's wrong about what that "something" is, though. That "something" in 2e was a high AC, a bunch of hit points, good saves, a strong attack bonus, and multiple attacks. The fighter should be able to whip out a bow and fire an arrow through the dragon's throat. He doesn't need to fly or do magic to win--just take a beating and give it right back.
In that case, that makes perfect sense - sorry for misinterpreting you!
I just feel that kind of balance should be reflected in the rules (which might include nerfing other classes)
and that fighter powers shouldn't be flavoured as crazy stunts or the like.
Quote from: pryingeyes;549558In that case, that makes perfect sense - sorry for misinterpreting you!
Stop being reasonable. This is the Internet. Everything must be punctuated with rage and bawww. Prepare your capslock key.
Quote from: pryingeyes;549558In that case, that makes perfect sense - sorry for misinterpreting you!
I just feel that kind of balance should be reflected in the rules (which might include nerfing other classes) and that fighter powers shouldn't be flavoured as crazy stunts or the like.
It's no fun when you agree with me and make me look stupid by saying what I've been saying more succinctly on top.:)
Quote from: The ButcherFrank... do you feel the game would be actually improved by making Fighters and Wizards "balanced"? Not the game as a mathematical construct, but the game as, you know, something you do with some friends, for fun. Honest question, no snark here; our playstyles are obviously different and I'd like to better understand yours.
Yes, I unreservedly do. At low level play, where most actual gaming happens, the 3e Fighter and the 3e Wizard are able to play the same game. The Wizard is able to drop several enemies in one shot with a
color spray, but he's really fragile and he can only shoot a color spray a couple of times. The Fighter has more hit points, a better armor class, and his sword blows are perfectly capable of dropping orcs and goblins. The enemies are all on foot and the battlefields are cramped underground monster hotels, so being the toughest guy and standing in the doorway provides considerable benefit to the party all by itself.
Even mid levels are different. But high levels are
really different. For starters, the 3e Fighter loses relative offensive capacity unless you pull some fairly crazy optimization shenanigans - at first level the Wizard drops an enemy with a
sleep or the Fighter drops an enemy with a
sword, at 5th level the Wizard can still totally drop enemies with
deep slumber, but the Fighter's sword strikes are
not putting down a Troll (63 hp) or an Ettin (65 hp) in a comparable timeframe.
At high levels, even the concept of being a meat shield has lost its luster. First we have the core reality that being in a location and threatening to stab anyone who tries to walk past you means jack
and shit when the enemies are flying around roasting city blocks and have plenty of movement to just
go around and also don't even need to because their attacks are plenty large enough to simply hit the meat shield
and the people behind him
at the same time. But even in those circumstances where meat shields would be helpful (such as high level encounters which are merely larger numbers of low level opponents), the harsh truth is that
player character meatshields don't really bring anything to the table that isn't brought by summoned, charmed, created, or hired meatshields.
We've all heard about
wail of the banshee envy - some Wizard snaps his fingers and kills all seven members of the Legion of Doom in one action before the Fighter even gets a turn and now the player is sad. But that's the kind of thing you can balance easily by giving different characters different places to shine. The real issue is
pets. I have
never seen a player get more disgusted with the game than the instant they realize that their character is a meat shield but not actually as good at meat shielding as the Druid's bear companion or the Wizard's charmed hill giant or summoned earth elementals or the Cleric's reanimated zombie chimera. The brutal truth at high level is that even in the moments when meat shielding might be something you care about, you can still do it just fine with the leftovers of minion creating spells that the casters used last Thursday.
People talk about how AD&D got around the problem of Fighter inferiority by having them hand out big damage and having the enemies have few hit points. But the real point is that in AD&D when the Wizard got
animate dead, the Fighter got a castle and an army. At the point where things started to transition to the point that one character's ability to take up space and stab the fuck out of anyone in arm's reach meant dick-all, the Fighter got to order around squads of archers. The big failure point for the 3e Fighter isn't the massive hit point bloat, it's the fact that Leadership became a general feat that was Charisma based - so the Sorcerer was better than you at even that.
Sure, you could go the 4e route and make it so that you
can't summon, reanimate, charm, create, or hire minions. But seriously: fuck that. I'd rather that some of the classes were unplayably horrible than have my entire fantasy neutered so that necromancers can't even make an army of skeletons. When people are throwing the powers of demigods around, the Fighter needs to be in on that action. And I don't mean "The DM took pity on you and gave you an artifact sword that gives you powers that allow you to compete with the Wizard and his charmed Storm Giants", I mean the Fighter needs to actually ramp up to play at that level
without DM pity equipment.
-Frank
Quote from: Dimitrios;549496The other issue that I notice is that the folks who complain the most about casters dominating everything seem the most prone to play in the "15 minute adventuring day" style.
Instead of managing their resources to get through a session, casters use all their spells in the first 1 or 2 encounters and then force everyone to stop and rest until they replenish.
It's a lot easier for spell casters to dominate the game when they don't have to manage their spell use effectively.
I never understood why people played the in the "15 minute day" style. It doesn't sound like much fun.
(My first post here. Hi)
Exactly so, and welcome to theRPGSite.
@Frank, exactly, which is why you have to go back to 2e and before.
1. Limits on wizards/clerics/druids
2. Fighters as death machines
3. Domain management
The middle ground is solution 4...
4. The E6/FC or the proposed 5e solution (horizontal instead of vertical growth) at either a hard level like the former or at a soft level like the middle and latter games.
If you don't want to do the above then at level 9 or above all pure martial classes must be FORCED onto a magical path or 4e's bullshit solution.
Or the solution that makes the most sense but never accepted as core Dnd....magic is dangerous, do something like a hundred other games that rock and use fatigue, paradox, variable results, corruption, insanity, preserver/deifiler mechanisms, et al. Hell, just make all spells above 6th level rituals or similar.
That's not the route 5e is taking at all, though. They're going with more power to spellcasters with at-will, CON hit points at start like everybody else and shit, pretty much the 3rd ed fighter but with prepackaged bundles of feats called "themes" instead, and no rules for hirelings and henchmen, which will be an add-on, a side dish, instead.
Quote from: Benoist;549608That's not the route 5e is taking at all, though. They're going with more power to spellcasters with at-will, CON hit points at start like everybody else and shit, pretty much the 3rd ed fighter but with prepackaged bundles of feats called "themes" instead, and no rules for hirelings and henchmen, which will be an add-on, a side dish, instead.
As long as it's an add-on I'm fine with it. I'm far more worried the basic math is bullshit. I can and will limit stuff to my taste in ANY game I run and will walk out as a player if I decide whatever houserules are in play don't fit my playstyle. Just give me options and get out of the way.
Did it when I played 2e anytime I was invited to play. It's easy.
I don't like the hp situation at all and said so in my feedback. At-will magic? We disagree and you know that. I'm still not comfortable with combat at-will spells though.
Quote from: B.T.;549556Stupid idea with stupid premises. If the guy whose class name is "fighter" (or "fighting man") isn't good at fighting, then what the fuck good is he? A fighter can be good at fighting good HP, AC, and damage.
Frank is right that the fighter needs something to compensate when he's fighting a gigantic dragon. He's wrong about what that "something" is, though. That "something" in 2e was a high AC, a bunch of hit points, good saves, a strong attack bonus, and multiple attacks. The fighter should be able to whip out a bow and fire an arrow through the dragon's throat. He doesn't need to fly or do magic to win--just take a beating and give it right back.
Sure, that's one way of doing it, and it's pretty cool; archers are great. But it's not the only way; how about having enough access to non-combat abilities to lure the dragon close, leap onto it, and thoroughly Sword it to death.
There's more to fighting than just being a big man. The fighter survives because he doesn't just know how to fight, he knows when and where to fight.
Quote from: B.T.;549556Frank is right that the fighter needs something to compensate when he's fighting a gigantic dragon. He's wrong about what that "something" is, though. That "something" in 2e was a high AC, a bunch of hit points, good saves, a strong attack bonus, and multiple attacks. The fighter should be able to whip out a bow and fire an arrow through the dragon's throat. He doesn't need to fly or do magic to win--just take a beating and give it right back.
Don't forget that a fighter by higher levels also has Henchmen, who themselves have large groups of Hirelings (soldiers) at their command. That and they have familiarity with all weapons -- including Ballista -- and general knowledge on siege tactics (both offense, defense, and since flying is a rather familiar trope in fantasy, likely aerial tactics as well). Sure a dragon is a horrible opponent, but even a wizard knows that they are safer behind a fort of lots of fighting men willing and trained to shoot dangerous pointy things at high velocity, repeatedly, at it.
Further, the example also assumes a wizard has prepped his/her death dealing spells when some dragon comes in to attack. Well, if a wizard is prepped to the gills with enemy-appropriate death, why wouldn't a fighter likewise be? Further, just as a wizard would prep scrolls in cases of surprise attacks, likewise a fighter would prep defenses and armories similarly. The challenge is to avoid Arena Fighting thinking. This isn't Street Fighter II, this is war D&D style; there's a lot of room for out-of-the-box thinking.
I agree with Frank. Fighters should be getting way better non-magic strategical forces. I out-strategied our fighter at high levels with my clerical hordes of undead. When you got 70 skeletons to waste, they even help vs. Dragons...not starting to talk about an squad of wraiths...our fighter concentrated on "Charging on a Pegasus four quadruplified power attack up the wazooo", but had no stronghold or army of any kind.
Why didn't he have a stronghold or army? Were there no hirelings at least? Which version of D&D was it?
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549507It's an 80 foot long flying lizard with scales as thick as your arm that is incinerating whole city blocks on strafing runs from the clouds. There is no front line, and it does not matter how good a Fighting Man supposedly is at holding it. It is flying around at more than 45 miles an hour and never gets closer than 70 feet to the ground. However deadly and sticky the fighter's sword reach is make absolutely no difference because the high level battlefield is simply too epic for a stalwart swordsman to even register on peoples' give-a-fuck meter.
-Frank
Unless you limit monster ranges closer to PC arrow ranges, allow the wizard to cast flight on the fighter, allow insane jumping and wrestling the dragon to the ground (and/or using it as a mount, as Sett said), or fight in places with ceilings (like dungeons) or zero-g and flight (like many planar adventures).
Range plus flight is only the win button if the range is unreachable from the ground.
Area somewhat neutralizes meat shielding, but that happens a lot earlier. If it was genuinely a problem I think I'd have noticed it. Thing is, meat shielding isn't all a fighter does. He's also supposed to be an efficient killer.
Quote from: Marleycat;549606@Frank, exactly, which is why you have to go back to 2e and before.
1. Limits on wizards/clerics/druids
2. Fighters as death machines
3. Domain management
The middle ground is solution 4...
4. The E6/FC or the proposed 5e solution (horizontal instead of vertical growth) at either a hard level like the former or at a soft level like the middle and latter games.
If you don't want to do the above then at level 9 or above all pure martial classes must be FORCED onto a magical path or 4e's bullshit solution.
Or the solution that makes the most sense but never accepted as core Dnd....magic is dangerous, do something like a hundred other games that rock and use fatigue, paradox, variable results, corruption, insanity, preserver/deifiler mechanisms, et al. Hell, just make all spells above 6th level rituals or similar.
The idea that the old editions were anything other than caster-centric at the high levels is nostalgia talking. Try naming two high powered original campaigns fighter characters other than Robilar. Now try naming
four high powered original campaigns magic user characters other than Mordenkainen. The fact that the latter is much easier than the former shows how skewed the playing field was at the high end better than any mathhammer demonstration.
But in any case, the 5e plan is just the 4e plan, on steroids (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120618).
Quote from: mearlsThe orc warband that can threaten an 8th-level party is still too few in number to sack a town. A great wyrm can attack the town and destroy it, but it still risks death if the town guard can turn catapults, ballistae, and massed crossbow fire against it. We can avoid a world where a mundane army simply has no chance of even harming, let alone defeating, powerful monsters.
The Great Wyrm, top of the power pyramid of dragons, is apparently supposed to
risk death when fighting "a town". So um...
yeah. If you take all the epicness out of everything so that even the most powerful dragons can get
arrested by the cops, then any questions of Fighter/Wizard balance are easily answered. Fighters and Wizards are already pretty balanced at first level in most editions, so if you're committing yourself to always fighting low level bullshit at every level, it seems pretty easy to make things stay "balanced".
Not a game I want to play. I want to raise armies of the dead and rain fire from the skies. I do not want to be told that there is
an entire wagon of city guardsmen on their way, so both heroes and monsters have to scatter like rival gangs fighting over meth turf. If 4e taught us anything at all, it is that if you paint up a bath salt popping face eater as an "Epic Vampire Lord" or some shit, it's still just as anticlimactic to take him down as it is to shoot an unpainted face eater off an overwhelmed hobo.
If it can't do high level
things, it's
not high level. And if it can't reliably burn down a fucking town, it's
not doing high level things. Nerfing everything down to the level of "kind of strong dudes" is a way to achieve balance of a sort, but far too high a price to pay in my opinion.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549634The idea that the old editions were anything other than caster-centric at the high levels is nostalgia talking. Try naming two high powered original campaigns fighter characters other than Robilar. Now try naming four high powered original campaigns magic user characters other than Mordenkainen. The fact that the latter is much easier than the former shows how skewed the playing field was at the high end better than any mathhammer demonstration.
But in any case, the 5e plan is just the 4e plan, on steroids (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120618).
The Great Wyrm, top of the power pyramid of dragons, is apparently supposed to risk death when fighting "a town". So um... yeah. If you take all the epicness out of everything so that even the most powerful dragons can get arrested by the cops, then any questions of Fighter/Wizard balance are easily answered. Fighters and Wizards are already pretty balanced at first level in most editions, so if you're committing yourself to always fighting low level bullshit at every level, it seems pretty easy to make things stay "balanced".
Not a game I want to play. I want to raise armies of the dead and rain fire from the skies. I do not want to be told that there is an entire wagon of city guardsmen on their way, so both heroes and monsters have to scatter like rival gangs fighting over meth turf. If 4e taught us anything at all, it is that if you paint up a bath salt popping face eater as an "Epic Vampire Lord" or some shit, it's still just as anticlimactic to take him down as it is to shoot an unpainted face eater off an overwhelmed hobo.
If it can't do high level things, it's not high level. And if it can't reliably burn down a fucking town, it's not doing high level things. Nerfing everything down to the level of "kind of strong dudes" is a way to achieve balance of a sort, but far too high a price to pay in my opinion.
-Frank
That is what I am saying the older editions AREN'T caster centric. Fighters were feared motherfuckers. So choice A is to go back to that. Either that or drop the pretense and make fighters wuxia and more and have free reign, no limitation wizards.
The more I read these "pity the poor fighter" threads, the more I'm starting to think that a lot of folks just plain don't think that fighters doing the stuff that fighters do (using weapons to beat the crap out of things) is cool. Or even can be cool, no matter how good they are at it.
If that's the case, I'm not sure there's any fix for it. One of my longest running 1e/2e characters was a straight human fighter and I had blast. Never felt "deprotagonized" or whatever.
Also, I'm a bit skeptical about the "casters dominated in all editions not just 3.5" claim. Maybe at high levels if by high you mean 20+, but who played at those levels back in the day?
Over on rpg.net, I saw someone claim that in 1e wizards completely dominated the game "from 5th level on". One 3rd level spell per day lets you dominate the game? Color me puzzled.
Quote from: Dimitrios;549641The more I read these "pity the poor fighter" threads, the more I'm starting to think that a lot of folks just plain don't think that fighters doing the stuff that fighters do (using weapons to beat the crap out of things) is cool. Or even can be cool, no matter how good they are at it.
If that's the case, I'm not sure there's any fix for it. One of my longest running 1e/2e characters was a straight human fighter and I had blast. Never felt "deprotagonized" or whatever.
Also, I'm a bit skeptical about the "casters dominated in all editions not just 3.5" claim. Maybe at high levels if by high you mean 20+, but who played at those levels back in the day?
Over on rpg.net, I saw someone claim that in 1e wizards completely dominated the game "from 5th level on". One 3rd level spell per day lets you dominate the game? Color me puzzled.
The only version that wizards dominated was 3x and that happened maybe at level 9 or above. Most games I know usually stopped at level 7-8 so it was never an actual issue anyway.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549634The idea that the old editions were anything other than caster-centric at the high levels is nostalgia talking. Try naming two high powered original campaigns fighter characters other than Robilar. Now try naming four high powered original campaigns magic user characters other than Mordenkainen. The fact that the latter is much easier than the former shows how skewed the playing field was at the high end better than any mathhammer demonstration.
That's a disingenuous argument. The names of mages in the Greyhawk campaign are known because of the spells named after them in AD&D. Most people don't actually know much about the original Lake Geneva campaign at all, or just enough to confirm their bias the way you are right now. Those that do know the campaign will be able to name fighters such as Yrag, Erac's Cousin and the like.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549634It's an 80 foot long flying lizard with scales as thick as your arm that is incinerating whole city blocks on strafing runs from the clouds. There is no front line, and it does not matter how good a Fighting Man supposedly is at holding it. It is flying around at more than 45 miles an hour and never gets closer than 70 feet to the ground. However deadly and sticky the fighter's sword reach is make absolutely no difference because the high level battlefield is simply too epic for a stalwart swordsman to even register on peoples' give-a-fuck meter.
Clearly you have never seen Reign of Fire ;)
In all seriousness though, in my AD&D campaign with my fighter Merdock (the highest level character I've ever had at level 14, but I'll get to that in a moment), he took out a dragon with a ballista. Since you know, fighters are skilled with
all weapons, and not just swords.
QuoteThe idea that the old editions were anything other than caster-centric at the high levels is nostalgia talking.
-Frank
95% of actual game play in AD&D was not at levels higher than 9 or so. It always bugs me when people trot out the argument that something that hardly ever happens breaks the whole game. It's almost like people are just looking at the rulebook for endgame rules without ever having actually played the game in practical application.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549507It's an 80 foot long flying lizard with scales as thick as your arm that is incinerating whole city blocks on strafing runs from the clouds. There is no front line, and it does not matter how good a Fighting Man supposedly is at holding it. It is flying around at more than 45 miles an hour and never gets closer than 70 feet to the ground. However deadly and sticky the fighter's sword reach is make absolutely no difference because the high level battlefield is simply too epic for a stalwart swordsman to even register on peoples' give-a-fuck meter.
What version of
D&D has 80-foot long red dragons?
1e
D. conflagratio horriblis is 48 feet long and its breath weapon incinerates about thirty yards, not '"whole city blocks," at a maximum range of less than a football field, putting it well in range of a bow, crossbow, or even a sling. It's capable of using that breath weapon a grand total of three times a day.
That said, only an idiot fights a flying dragon. That may mean fighting it in its lair, or luring it to the ground, frex, placing a treasure or sacrificial virgin the dragon wants inside twisting caverns. Then the "stalwart swordsman" will trip the dragon's "give-a-fuck meter" like he's a Bally bandit.
The idea that one must take the fight to the dragon in the air is shit-for-brains tactics.
Quote from: Dimitrios;549641The more I read these "pity the poor fighter" threads, the more I'm starting to think that a lot of folks just plain don't think that fighters doing the stuff that fighters do (using weapons to beat the crap out of things) is cool. Or even can be cool, no matter how good they are at it.
If that's the case, I'm not sure there's any fix for it. One of my longest running 1e/2e characters was a straight human fighter and I had blast. Never felt "deprotagonized" or whatever.
Also, I'm a bit skeptical about the "casters dominated in all editions not just 3.5" claim. Maybe at high levels if by high you mean 20+, but who played at those levels back in the day?
Over on rpg.net, I saw someone claim that in 1e wizards completely dominated the game "from 5th level on". One 3rd level spell per day lets you dominate the game? Color me puzzled.
Same here. Wizard domination at median levels (5-9th) is combination of 3X isms: piss poor spell disruption, cheap/plentiful wands & scrolls, and whiny bitch magic user players who, despite these advantages, kept prematurely ejaculating their magic at every encounter then demanded a rest.
Part of the blame also must rest on the rest of the game design which moved away from sandbox exploration and towards "challenge" hurdles that PCs were subjected to.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;549658The idea that one must take the fight to the dragon in the air is shit-for-brains tactics.
I no rite? ;)
Quote from: Black Vulmea;549658That said, only an idiot fights a flying dragon. .
Or the DM decides to attack the keep with a dragon while your PCs are enjoying a 1cp ale ;)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;549661Or the DM decides to attack the keep with a dragon while your PCs are enjoying a 1cp ale ;)
Heh. If my character is drinking that cheap shit then I'm certainly 1st level and will be looking for cover, not a fight. ;)
Quote from: Melan;549526I was horribly deprotagonised in today's D&D 3.0 game. My 1st level Ranger, Brunatz the Forester (a cross between Rumcajs (http://www.kepeslap.com/images/21707/mesevegyes25.jpg) and Hagrid) rushed an evil 3rd level priestess (more correctly, he had a jump spell cast on him, wo it was more vaulting than rushing). The priestess used her death touch ability, rolled 11 Hp, and Brunatz, who only had 10 left after the party priestess accidentally shot him in the back with an arrow in the previous combat, immediately dropped dead, another victim of priestess supremacy. Then the rest of the party clobbered the priestess in what was probably the least lucky combat ever - I have never seen that many natural 1s in one stretch. The party Fighter broke his ancestral sword (some ancestry!), the twin sun elf girls and the halfling Thief snapped their bowstrings, and basically hit each other more than their target.
Anyway, I rolled up a 1st level Fighter to avenge Brunatz. He is a disciple of Kelemvor and he is a grim motherfucker out to kick ass. ;)
Clearly your dungeon master is a complete dick who is trying to destroy the hobby.
Quote from: Opaopajr;549624Don't forget that a fighter by higher levels also has Henchmen, who themselves have large groups of Hirelings (soldiers) at their command. That and they have familiarity with all weapons -- including Ballista -- and general knowledge on siege tactics (both offense, defense, and since flying is a rather familiar trope in fantasy, likely aerial tactics as well). Sure a dragon is a horrible opponent, but even a wizard knows that they are safer behind a fort of lots of fighting men willing and trained to shoot dangerous pointy things at high velocity, repeatedly, at it.
Further, the example also assumes a wizard has prepped his/her death dealing spells when some dragon comes in to attack. Well, if a wizard is prepped to the gills with enemy-appropriate death, why wouldn't a fighter likewise be? Further, just as a wizard would prep scrolls in cases of surprise attacks, likewise a fighter would prep defenses and armories similarly. The challenge is to avoid Arena Fighting thinking. This isn't Street Fighter II, this is war D&D style; there's a lot of room for out-of-the-box thinking.
This was the response I did not have time to give yesterday.
If your game is scaled so dragons are going to be combatants, the ability for the fighter to raise troops, use alternate (disatance) weapons, and have countermeasures.
Quote from: Benoist;549660I no rite? ;)
:confused:
Quote from: Sacrosanct;549661Or the DM decides to attack the keep with a dragon while your PCs are enjoying a 1cp ale ;)
So you let the dragon go after the treasure room in the dungeon and kick its ass.
Then go back and order the good stuff to celebrate your victory.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;549659Same here. Wizard domination at median levels (5-9th) is combination of 3X isms: piss poor spell disruption, cheap/plentiful wands & scrolls . . .
I think the item creation rules were the first thing I nerfed when I ran 3e.
Quote from: LordVreeg;549666If your game is scaled so dragons are going to be combatants, the ability for the fighter to raise troops, use alternate (disatance) weapons, and have countermeasures.
Yeah, the whole 'raise troops' thing goes to pot when the dragon flies overhead and all the 0-levels flee in panic.
There's a reason heroes, not armies, fight dragons.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;549667:confused:
I mean "yes", the idea that a fighter ought to fight a dragon in the air, that there's no game outside of the capacities given to the fighter by the rules or no actual planning and tactics that the fighter could use to level the playground (by setting up a trap, using an army to take the dragon down on favorable terrain, searching for the beast's lair instead of going after it in the fields, etc) is dumb as shit. And further, the idea that this sort of dumb thinking ought to be cattered to by the game's design itself is mind-boggling to me.
Just to put my 2 cents in here.
This is a common mistake that I have seen in every fantasy RPG. A wizard's spells are not tactics. A fighter's attacks, feats, and powers are not tactics. Tactics are what the PC's do with their particular special class abilities in situations, in concert with each other in the group.
This goes back to my OP where I suggested that D&D was team play.
EDIT: Personally, I do not reward bad tactics in my games.
The fighter with Fly cast on him makes me smile. In that case, I can easily see the dragon feeling playful and flying just out of reach of the fighter until the spell wears off and then following that fighter down while they plummet to Earth, taunting them all the way down.
The couple times I've been party to killing dragons in the open it's been the fighters focusing on it with longbows and trying to spread out so the dragon can't kill them all with one breath (don't think I've ever done this with a red, tho). Armies don't work, they run when they see it or definitely after it breathes the first time (if you can get them to come at all) and ballistas only work if you manage to bait the dragon into its line of fire, and if you can do that, you can do a whole lot of other things too.
Quote from: jeff37923;549672This is a common mistake that I have seen in every fantasy RPG. A wizard's spells are not tactics. A fighter's attacks, feats, and powers are not tactics. Tactics are what the PC's do with their particular special class abilities in situations, in concert with each other in the group.
I agree, as well as thinking in actual game world tactics, outside the box of the rules, to create the combat situation and circumstances in which said skills or abilities or advantages will become defining factors for victory (<-- actual, real world tactics). Like luring the dragon into an enclosed place, catch it and pin it, make diversions, etc etc. There's a game outside the rules for fuck's sakes. The rules are a mean, a tool, not an end.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;549669Yeah, the whole 'raise troops' thing goes to pot when the dragon flies overhead and all the 0-levels flee in panic.
There's a reason heroes, not armies, fight dragons.
Range and artillery are wonderful things. and it was also about hirelintgs and henchmen. but the zero level fear thing is certainly a factor.
Quote from: LordVreeg;549682Range and artillery are wonderful things. and it was also about hirelintgs and henchmen. but the zero level fear thing is certainly a factor.
Totally.
Quote from: Benoist;549671I mean "yes", the idea that a fighter ought to fight a dragon in the air, that there's no game outside of the capacities given to the fighter by the rules or no actual planning and tactics that the fighter could use to level the playground (by setting up a trap, using an army to take the dragon down on favorable terrain, searching for the beast's lair instead of going after it in the fields, etc) is dumb as shit.
Ah. Yeah, u rite. :)
Quote from: jeff37923;549672This is a common mistake that I have seen in every fantasy RPG. A wizard's spells are not tactics. A fighter's attacks, feats, and powers are not tactics.
No, they're not (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/03/grumbler.html).
Quote from: jeff37923;549672Tactics are what the PC's do with their particular special class abilities in situations, in concert with each other in the group.
Well, isn't that what 4e tries to do, with its roles?
Quote from: jeff37923;549672The fighter with Fly cast on him makes me smile. In that case, I can easily see the dragon feeling playful and flying just out of reach of the fighter until the spell wears off and then following that fighter down while they plummet to Earth, taunting them all the way down.
:)
Quote from: Benoist;549674I agree, as well as thinking in actual game world tactics, outside the box of the rules, to create the combat situation and circumstances in which said skills or abilities or advantages will become defining factors for victory (<-- actual, real world tactics). Like luring the dragon into an enclosed place, catch it and pin it, make diversions, etc etc. There's a game outside the rules for fuck's sakes. The rules are a mean, a tool, not an end.
Of course, the reply is, luring the dragon into a trap is a 'mother-may-I' situation where the players are asking the referee to let the dragon fall into their trap - and of course the referee will never le his pet dragon get killed like that, so as long as the referee can say no, there is no chance it will succeed, so the players must have the ability to defeat the dragon on its own ground.
And now I need to go rinse the vomit out of my mouth.
I've come to the conclusion that nearly all RPG arguments over the years basically boil down to those who game with people they know and trust vs people who game with people they don't know and/or don't trust.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;549712Well, isn't that what 4e tries to do, with its roles?
I can see where it tries to do that, but it does it in such a strict and ham-fisted way that the Powers are used instead of actual tactics. TCO touched on this in another thread, where he declared that he didn't want to think and just wanted menu items to choose from. Tactics require a flexible and creative mind to achieve with any success, since battlefield conditions may change in an instant requiring a re-evaluation of the situation in response.
This is confusion of tactics and character abilities is something that also applies to science fiction RPGs. In a lot of
Traveller games, I've seen Players mistake powerful equipment as tactics -- the two biggies being Battle Dress and Plasma/Fusion Guns. In
Star Wars games, the common belief is that Force Powers can replace tactics.
It's like vampires draining 2 levels on a hit. "OMG OMG THIS IS SO BROKENZ!!ONE"
Huh. No. Fuck no. That means the vampire is actually a fucking terrifying undead. If you are dumb enough to go in melee with a vampire, you are the moron who is to blame for your stupidity.
As I said elsewhere, the appropriate tactical response when you find a vampire's lair is to get the fuck out of here as quickly as possible to regroup and strategize about (1) the way to avoid the area entirely or make a deal with the vampire if you're evil or whatnot, or divert some other enemies into taking down the vampire for you or weaken it significantly so that then you can finish it/them, (2) the way to take it down appropriately by alerting the local temple, taking all the men-at-arms of the village bearing torches with you to clean up the shit out of the place, with holy water and acolytes and everything, and so on, so forth. When you know what you're up against, then you can actually strategize. But facing a vampire in melee and expect to win? LOL U dumb or wat?
Quote from: One Horse Town;549717I've come to the conclusion that nearly all RPG arguments over the years basically boil down to those who game with people they know and trust vs people who game with people they don't know and/or don't trust.
I actually agree with that. I've come to the same conclusion.
Quote from: One Horse Town;549717I've come to the conclusion that nearly all RPG arguments over the years basically boil down to those who game with people they know and trust vs people who game with people they don't know and/or don't trust.
How does that apply to this? I'm not completely following you here.
Quote from: jeff37923;549721How does that apply to this? I'm not completely following you here.
People who complain about wiz vs fighter being unbalanced are basically playing with people they don't trust to adjudicate fairly or properly without a ruleset to tell them how to.
Quote from: One Horse Town;549723People who complain about wiz vs fighter being unbalanced are basically playing with people they don't trust to adjudicate fairly or properly without a ruleset to tell them how to.
Or collaborating with people who might have a level or two more than their own characters', but whom they know are playing with them, not against them, and know they're not competing in a dick-waving contest in the first place.
Quote from: One Horse Town;549723People who complain about wiz vs fighter being unbalanced are basically playing with people they don't trust to adjudicate fairly or properly without a ruleset to tell them how to.
OK, I got you now.
Quote from: jeff37923;549718I can see where it tries to do that, but it does it in such a strict and ham-fisted way that the Powers are used instead of actual tactics. TCO touched on this in another thread, where he declared that he didn't want to think and just wanted menu items to choose from. Tactics require a flexible and creative mind to achieve with any success, since battlefield conditions may change in an instant requiring a re-evaluation of the situation in response.
A friend of my daughter's recently introduced her to the Pokémon TV series, which is twenty minutes of I-use-this-power-to-counter-that-power.
And once again I'm reminded of how much 3e [strike]deck[/strike] character builds came to resemble
M:tG.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;549712Of course, the reply is, luring the dragon into a trap is a 'mother-may-I' situation where the players are asking the referee to let the dragon fall into their trap - and of course the referee will never le his pet dragon get killed like that, so as long as the referee can say no, there is no chance it will succeed, so the players must have the ability to defeat the dragon on its own ground.
What do you want me to answer to someone saying something like this, honestly? "I'm sorry if your DMs universally sucked and you can't find it in you to play an actual role playing game for a change"? I mean, seriously. That type of outlook on the game is completely insane, as far as I'm concerned, to the point where I'd wonder if the dude actually played an RPG in his life. That level of LOLWUT.
Quote from: One Horse Town;549723People who complain about wiz vs fighter being unbalanced are basically playing with people they don't trust to adjudicate fairly or properly without a ruleset to tell them how to.
There it is. The sheer obliviousness of this post is amazing. Apparently OHT is some sort of Mary Tzu who always comes up with tactics so brilliant that he doesn't need to actually have any relevant skills to be able to defeat the most difficult challenges. Either that or he relies so heavily on the DM coddling him that he doesn't even
notice how ridiculous it is that he keeps getting patronized and told that he "wins" over and over again no matter how objectively outclassed he is in whatever situation he finds himself.
Like a character in a poorly written fantasy novel, OHT's fighter will always come out on top because the author (DM) is just going to let whatever hare-brained scheme he comes up with succeed. Even if that plan is essentially ridiculous, there will at the very least be some sort of last minute deus ex machina.
Against that kind of impervious anti-logic, discussion is basically impossible. OHT will always succeed because of generous DMing, so he considers actual abilities on the part of his character superfluous. From the standpoint of
his game, he's actually right. His character could indeed succeed just as well if his character sheet was just a Münchausen writeup (name, title, underline) and his background was just a rant about how awesome his mustache was. Of course, from the standpoint of
the game, or indeed anyone else's game where the DM actually asks your character to
have abilities you want to
use, that is a wall of horse shit so high it cannot even be climbed.
For everyone else, the fact that the Dragon flies at hundreds of feet per round and
breathes fire means that any plan to "lure" it somewhere probably involves getting
set on fire. Cunning plans are certainly possible, but considering that the beast in question is specifically
smarter,
faster,
more perceptive, and
better looking than your character, that plan better be pretty damn cunning. And it's probably not going to work anyway.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549745For everyone else, the fact that the Dragon flies at hundreds of feet per round and breathes fire means that any plan to "lure" it somewhere probably involves getting set on fire. Cunning plans are certainly possible, but considering that the beast in question is specifically smarter, faster, more perceptive, and better looking than your character, that plan better be pretty damn cunning. And it's probably not going to work anyway.
You fail at imagination, Sir.
Quote from: Benoist;549719It's like vampires draining 2 levels on a hit. "OMG OMG THIS IS SO BROKENZ!!ONE"
Huh. No. Fuck no. That means the vampire is actually a fucking terrifying undead. If you are dumb enough to go in melee with a vampire, you are the moron who is to blame for your stupidity.
As I said elsewhere, the appropriate tactical response when you find a vampire's lair is to get the fuck out of here as quickly as possible to regroup and strategize about (1) the way to avoid the area entirely or make a deal with the vampire if you're evil or whatnot, or divert some other enemies into taking down the vampire for you or weaken it significantly so that then you can finish it/them, (2) the way to take it down appropriately by alerting the local temple, taking all the men-at-arms of the village bearing torches with you to clean up the shit out of the place, with holy water and acolytes and everything, and so on, so forth. When you know what you're up against, then you can actually strategize. But facing a vampire in melee and expect to win? LOL U dumb or wat?
This is absolutely correct. I think a common problem is that people look at stat blocks of the monsters, look at the abilities on their character sheet in the context of the combat rules, and expect that every monster be defeat-able within that context.
How many times do we hear people complain about wanting everything detailed out? How many times do we hear people complain, "If I have to think outside of the box for things not explicit, then it's bad design."?
I
like monsters that aren't just another meat bubble, and require a creative way to defeat. I
like monsters that make the players say, "Holy shit, get the fuck out of here!" Being an adventurer is not like mowing the grass--it should have a significant risk of death or disfigurement tied to it. Otherwise everyone and their grandma's dog would be raising that goblin cave.
Besides, and maybe it's just me, but I find the most fun and memorable encounters to be those that weren't just another combat walk thru, but were overcoming a terrible foe through ingenuity. That's why I remember that battle with the dragon using a ballista mentioned earlier. Yeah, I know "only idiots" fight an airborne dragon, but when you really don't have a choice (LG fighter protecting the keep from a dragon strafing), it makes it a memorable battle when you borrow the ranger's boots of leaping and striding, combined with your own girdle of frost giant strength, and pick up said ballista like a crossbow, bouncing up and down the battlements like a gummi bear avoiding the dragon's attacks and keeping it constantly in a line of sight for your rope-trailing ballista bolts, eventually bringing the beast down in a tangle of ropes and bolts.
Quote from: Benoist;549746You fail at imagination, Sir.
If you say you trust your DM to allow you to beat an enemy far more powerful than you, allow me to say that I trust my DM to allow me to lose.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549749If you say you trust your DM to allow you to beat an enemy far more powerful than you, allow me to say that I trust my DM to allow me to lose.
-Frank
I trust my DM to adjudicate fairly, win or lose.
The trouble is that you have a hard time considering anything in the game beyond the rules it employs, and from there can't possibly see how a bunch of lowly non-flying fighters could actually beat the crap out of a dragon by actually strategizing and using real world tactics against it. That's what I call an imagination failure on your part.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549745For everyone else, the fact that the Dragon flies at hundreds of feet per round and breathes fire means that any plan to "lure" it somewhere probably involves getting set on fire. Cunning plans are certainly possible, but considering that the beast in question is specifically smarter, faster, more perceptive, and better looking than your character, that plan better be pretty damn cunning. And it's probably not going to work anyway.
There it is. Frank Trollman sucks at
D&D.
So, how fast does a red dragon fly, anyway?
D. conflagratio horribilis clocks in at 24 tabletop inches per round, which works out to screaming 8.2 miles per hour - the same speed as a light horse. As far as moving "hundreds of feet per round,"
so do human beings - 12 tabletop inches per round is three hundred sixty feet per minute.
As far as "
smarter,
faster,
more perceptive, and
better looking than your character,"
D. conflagratio horribilis's Intelligence is exceptional - equivalent to a score of 15 or 16, or on a par with the party's magic-user in most cases. Faster? We've already covered
Draco's flight speed, but on the ground he's actually
slower than a human, with a speed of nine inches per round. He's perceptive enough to spot hidden or
invisible characters within eight inches, which means you can remain concealed until he's well in range of a charge, and it's possible to sneak up on him while he's sleeping. And while on my character's worst hair day he won't inspire a
fear aura, there is nothing to suggest that a dragon's "
better looking."
Dragons should be played as crafty. Dragons should be cognizant of the kinds of tactics used against them, and they should be prepared for many of them. But dragons are not omniscient superbeings, at least before the absurd power inflation of 2e. Dragons can be tricked, particularly younger, smaller dragons who are nowhere near as experienced or fearsome as their old and ancient relatives, and they are arrogant and avaricious, at least the way I run them.
And should a fighter have a
potion or
ring of fire resistance if he wants to face down
D. conflagratio horribilis? Wouldn't be a bad idea. Does a fighter need to have an elemental resistance power? Don't be fucking ridiculous.
Thing is, against you guys, Trollman is right.
'Cause there's the RQ-style high-level antipathy flowing in your veins. Frank and I have seen high levels and were not afraid. As Rob Kuntz and EGG did.
They were not afraid of high levels. And they played mean: Robilar. THAT is THE model for a true D&D fighter. If I cannot be like Robilar, the version in question is wrong.
Quote from: Settembrini;549776Thing is, against you guys, Trollman is right.
'Cause there's the RQ-style high-level antipathy flowing in your veins. Frank and I have seen high levels and were not afraid. As Rob Kuntz and EGG did.
They were not afraid of high levels. And they played mean: Robilar. THAT is THE model for a true D&D fighter. If I cannot be like Robilar, the version in question is wrong.
I'm totally for fighters playing mean and hard. And Robilar wasn't winning because of greater cleave, maneuvers encoded in the rules and similar bullshit. He was winning because he was played smart, used armies of orcs to trigger traps in the Tomb of Horrors and the like. Playing outside the box and throwing everything you got at the challenges Gary was throwing at you was the way to play. It was expected you'd bring your A game or die trying (http://lordofthegreendragons.blogspot.ca/2009/03/up-on-tree-stump-2.html), because Gary sure would bring his. That's what was fun for them.
Quote from: Rob Kuntz"His opponents were the players, we all knew that, and he did too. There wasn't an ordering of political correctness and a false cloud of pretentiousness which I've seen portrayed in modern RPGs. This was a game of strategy and tactics, and that meant, on both sides, that outwitting the opponents involved was now at hand..."
This is to make it utterly clear that this is how we (players and DMs) perceived this. The fairness of DMs is never a question, for in doing so you must honor the neutrality of the station maintained. That's part of the game, just as any other games has rules sets; and we are definitely dealing with many Masters here of not only games design, history, game theory and so forth, but mature adults (wel,, I as on my way with all the guys coaxing/coaching, and at a frenetic pace and speed). We are here talking about some of the best game designers of the time--Gygax, Mike Carr, Arneson, Don Lowry, Mike Reese, Leon Tucker, Jeff Perren, and the list goes on.
So, No, there was no abuse, but the idea that we were still opponents, well, that is consistent in all games, and was no different then. I really do not see where the other line of thought ever entered into the picture, really, as a DM, though not adversarial, still role-plays adversarial NPCs/Monsters (and if good, to their fullest), and that through the conduit of his or her mind, as he or she, fortunately, can't afford a brain transplant, let's say, to that of an ORC, at mid-point of the adventure... Gary being a mighty fine opponent only transferred his toughness into those encounters and they were played smartly and without reserve, just as he had done on the tabletop or sand table :)
Quote from: Benoist;549751[T]here can't possibly see how a bunch of lowly non-flying fighters could actually beat the crap out of a dragon by actually strategizing and using real world tactics against it.
Now we're into the ADRPG conundrum: on what basis do you decide whether or not the dragon falls for your clever trick? Int rolls? As Frank pointed out, the dragon's smarter than you. There's no Tactics skill, and we all hates 3E, we hates it my precious, so a prestige class with an Outwit Dragons class feature is right out.
Tell you what, why don't you both put your money where your mouth is. Frank, select a writeup for a dragon from some edition that you think reflects the situation you've described, and Benoist can wow us with his amazing tactics that would defeat the dragon.
Quote from: daniel_ream;549778Now we're into the ADRPG conundrum: on what basis do you decide whether or not the dragon falls for your clever trick? Int rolls? As Frank pointed out, the dragon's smarter than you. There's no Tactics skill, and we all hates 3E, we hates it my precious, so a prestige class with an Outwit Dragons class feature is right out.
No. A Red Dragon (MM p.33) has an Exceptional intelligence, which equals to a 15-16 rating per MM (p.6), which is about on par with the average MU using Method I to generate ability scores. Then you do something that might seem outlandish to you braindead theorists but you role play the situation. You get in character, as the Red Dragon, interpreting his personality traits, tastes, strengths and weaknesses. It's called role playing. You should try it some time.
Quote from: daniel_ream;549778Tell you what, why don't you both put your money where your mouth is. Frank, select a writeup for a dragon from some edition that you think reflects the situation you've described, and Benoist can wow us with his amazing tactics that would defeat the dragon.
I would rather quit RPGs than play with Frank as DM.
Quote from: Benoist;549780I would rather quit RPGs than play with Frank as DM.
'I can totally fly...I just don't want too, so there!'
Black Dragon: 8-10 Intelligence (Average).
Blue Dragon: 11-12 Intelligence (Very).
Green Dragon: 8-12 (Average to Very).
White Dragon: 7-9 (Average -low-).
Quote from: Kord's Boon;549781'I can totally fly...I just don't want too, so there!'
It's the same type of situation than the ridiculous 'test' gleichman had in mind to 'demonstrate' how people just can't keep track of a fight in their mind's eye. Basically, the argument is based on using actual tactics and elements surrounding the situation pitting you against the dragon, with the opportunity to strategize and select circumstances and timing depending on specific campaign circumstances. Arguing about a completely theoretical situation in a vacuum is validating Frank in his theorist attitude, and I am certainly not going to give him that pleasure.
Quote from: Benoist;549780No. A Red Dragon (MM p.33) has an Exceptional intelligence, which equals to a 15-16 rating per MM (p.6), which is about on par with the average MU using Method I to generate ability scores.
So your answer to the charge that it is unreasonable to expect your
Fighter to outwit the Dragon is to point out that the Dragon is no smarter than the
Magic User. I detect goalpost shifting.
How smart is the Dragon compared to, say, the
fighter that you were supposedly talking about?
-Frank
Quote from: Settembrini;549776Thing is, against you guys, Trollman is right.
'Cause there's the RQ-style high-level antipathy flowing in your veins. Frank and I have seen high levels and were not afraid. As Rob Kuntz and EGG did.
You're talking out of your ass, Sett. You might want to see to that.
Quote from: Benoist;549782Black Dragon: 8-10 Intelligence (Average).
Blue Dragon: 11-12 Intelligence (Very).
Green Dragon: 8-12 (Average to Very).
White Dragon: 7-9 (Average -low-).
I assume these are 1e dragons? This whole discussion is kind of pointless unless we know which edition is being talked about. I get the feeling Frank is using a different edition than you or Black Vulmea. Nothing wrong with that but I for one would like some clarification.
Quote from: Benoist;549783Basically, the argument is based on using actual tactics and elements surrounding the situation pitting you against the dragon, with the opportunity to strategize and select circumstances and timing depending on specific campaign circumstances.
It might also be that apt word for first claiming that others 'lack imagination' concerning how to take down a rampaging ancient red.
Then saying 'I'd do it with like...stuff... and things, ya know context"
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549597Sure, you could go the 4e route and make it so that you can't summon, reanimate, charm, create, or hire minions. But seriously: fuck that. I'd rather that some of the classes were unplayably horrible than have my entire fantasy neutered so that necromancers can't even make an army of skeletons. When people are throwing the powers of demigods around, the Fighter needs to be in on that action. And I don't mean "The DM took pity on you and gave you an artifact sword that gives you powers that allow you to compete with the Wizard and his charmed Storm Giants", I mean the Fighter needs to actually ramp up to play at that level without DM pity equipment.
-Frank
I'm generally on the same side as OHT, and Ben, and Black Vulmea -- mainly on account of the fighter/wizard imbalance never having been an issue on my games (though I admit to not having played a lot of high-level (9+) D&D with any edition).
Nonetheless, I'd like to know what would you do to make the fighter competitive, mechanically speaking, without neutering high-level wizards.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549784So your answer to the charge that it is unreasonable to expect your Fighter to outwit the Dragon is to point out that the Dragon is no smarter than the Magic User. I detect goalpost shifting.
Your claim is that the dragon naturally outsmarts the characters. I'm just pointing out, like Black Vulmea before, that the intelligence of the dragon is actually 15-16.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549784How smart is the Dragon compared to, say, the fighter that you were supposedly talking about?
And
now, you are shifting the goalposts.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549784So your answer to the charge that it is unreasonable to expect your Fighter to outwit the Dragon is to point out that the Dragon is no smarter than the Magic User. I detect goalpost shifting.
How smart is the Dragon compared to, say, the fighter that you were supposedly talking about?
-Frank
You do know that the fighter won't be in a vacuum and will definitely be asking his wizard buddy or maybe a Ranger friend, or local sage or whoever he has as a contact that may be relevant to the subject at hand, about Dragon lore so he can set up tactics, which don't absolutely need to raw intelligence to succeed.
Quote from: Marleycat;549786I get the feeling Frank is using a different edition than you or Black Vulmea. Nothing wrong with that but I for one would like some clarification.
Yeah, it seems The Troll Man is using one of the, "DRAGONZ ARR THE MOS AWSUMIST POW3RZ IN THE UNIV3RZ!!11lol!!" editions.
Quote from: Kord's Boon;549787It might also be that apt word for first claiming that others 'lack imagination' concerning how to take down a rampaging ancient red.
Then saying 'I'd do it with like...stuff... and things, ya know context"
It certainly demonstrates a lack of imagination to think that the game is the rules, and the rules the game. Something that Frank has shown in spades over, and over, and over again over what, years of arguing about shit.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;549791Yeah, it seems The Troll Man is using one of the, "DRAGONZ ARR THE MOS AWSUMIST POW3RZ IN THE UNIV3RZ!!11lol!!" editions.
If I remember correctly dragons in 1e were very beatable by a prepared party. Heck I think that Fighters had the ability to subdue them and pretty much have a pet dragon if they did it right.
I duffed up a dragon once with a 3rd level fighter using nothing but a wet paper bag and autism meds.
Alternatively, Frankie-boy hasn't played much dungeons & dragons.
Quote from: Marleycat;549795If I remember correctly dragons in 1e were very beatable by a prepared party. Heck I think that Fighters had the ability to subdue them and pretty much have a pet dragon if they did it right.
As much as I can't stand Larry Elmore (
ptui!), his painting of the adventurers standing around a small dragon hanging from a tree limb by a noose is pretty accurate as far as my experiences playing 1e went.
Dragons were meant to be fought in 1e, not treated as demigods (Bahamut and Tiamat being the obvious exceptions).
Quote from: Black Vulmea;549798As much as I can't stand Larry Elmore (ptui!), ...
He isn't my favorite artist, but he's one of the nicest "big boys" in the industry I've had the pleasure of talking to.
QuoteDragons were meant to be fought in 1e, not treated as demigods (Bahamut and Tiamat being the obvious exceptions).
This is very true. They are in the
basic book for Christ's sake (designed for level 1-3 characters), and certainly appear in enough official AD&D modules to give the impression that they should be fought as early 3rd level or so.
Quote from: Marleycat;549786I assume these are 1e dragons? This whole discussion is kind of pointless unless we know which edition is being talked about. I get the feeling Frank is using a different edition than you or Black Vulmea. Nothing wrong with that but I for one would like some clarification.
I am talking about a "Great Wyrm", just as Mike Mearls was in the 5e preview piece I linked to earlier. Why these yahoos are resorting to quoting stats off an "Ancient Dragon" (who is not, by the way, a high level monster in AD&D) is completely beyond me.
Since we were talking about high level encounters, insisting on ranting about a White Dragon writeup with only 5-7 hit dice is pretty obviously disingenuous. I mentioned an Ettin earlier, but I wasn't such a lying sack of shit as to try to shell game it in as a "high level encounter", it's a fucking Ettin! I introduced it as a low-mid-level monster, because that is what it is and always has been.
Dragons in various editions have been variously powerful. The AD&D ones are ones you are expected to fight when you're around 9th level. This is
obviously not what it makes sense to talk about when we talk about high level dragon encounters. If we were talking about AD&D and high level dragon encounters, we'd need to bring up dragons from AD&D that were actually high level encounters. I don't know, Shadow Dragons or something.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549800Dragons in various editions have been variously powerful. The AD&D ones are ones you are expected to fight when you're around 9th level. This is obviously not what it makes sense to talk about when we talk about high level dragon encounters. If we were talking about AD&D and high level dragon encounters, we'd need to bring up dragons from AD&D that were actually high level encounters. I don't know, Shadow Dragons or something.
-Frank
2 things. First, dragons were meant to be fought long before 9th level in AD&D (see above). Secondly, in AD&D, 9th level
was considered high level. Or more accurately, "Name level". That's when characters became heroes, ran castles, etc.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;5498012 things. First, dragons were meant to be fought long before 9th level in AD&D (see above). Secondly, in AD&D, 9th level was considered high level. Or more accurately, "Name level". That's when characters became heroes, ran castles, etc.
That should have said "
by 9th level". Obviously the 5 hit die White Dragon that Benoist was ranting about as if it was some sort of counterexample for high level play was only much of a challenge
considerably before 9th level.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549802That should have said "by 9th level". Obviously the 5 hit die White Dragon that Benoist was ranting about as if it was some sort of counterexample for high level play was only much of a challenge considerably before 9th level.
-Frank
Actually, I mentioned the intelligence of a White Dragon once. The Red has 9-11 hit dice, which is the one I kept talking about with a 15-16 Intelligence. But whatever lie helps your case, right?
Also?
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549507First off, to get this thread a little bit back towards the OP: if you posit an AD&D-like high level environment where Magic Resistance is very high and ACs aren't a big problem for the swordsmen, then a rule that allowed a magic user to cast their spell into a melee weapon of another character such that the character's attack roll's success or failure was used instead of rolling Magic Resistance, then there would be more synergy between the magic user and the fighting man and the melee PCs would be less replaceable by groups of hobgoblin mercenaries.
However, and this is important: that wouldn't actually make the Fighter's ability to take up space actually matter at high level. Suggestions like this one:
...Are a complete non-starter. Yes, you can make it so that Wizards lose their spells constantly. And yes, you can make it so that Wizards pop like zits when level-appropriate enemies look at them funny. And this still doesn't make Fighters actually matter! At low level, it totally does. But at high level, it does not and cannot. Because at high level, the encounter is this:
(http://thisisthesports.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/fire-breathing-dragon.jpg)
It's an 80 foot long flying lizard with scales as thick as your arm that is incinerating whole city blocks on strafing runs from the clouds. There is no front line, and it does not matter how good a Fighting Man supposedly is at holding it. It is flying around at more than 45 miles an hour and never gets closer than 70 feet to the ground. However deadly and sticky the fighter's sword reach is make absolutely no difference because the high level battlefield is simply too epic for a stalwart swordsman to even register on peoples' give-a-fuck meter.
-Frank
It's totally obvious you were talking about a 3.5 Great Wyrm, right?
The whole "problem" is bullshit.
In AD&D a 10th level magic user can drop 4 or 5 fireball spells (assuming they can use those based on the environment or have them memorized). So we have our 10th level fireball. 10d6. Average: 30 points. Save for half: 15.
And the lucky mage can do that 5 times a day.
Meanwhile, the 10th level fighter who has, say, a 17 strength and a +3 longsword is doing 13 points of damage, average 6. GASP. ONLY HALF WHAT THE MAGIC USER WHY THAT'S DEPROTAGONIZING OF A GYGAXIAN LEVEL OF FUCKERY. Except when that fireball-throwing is over, the fighter can draw his sword and do his average 6 damage. Again. And again. And again. And again. Oh, right, that same fighter is also bringing it twice every other round. So now the average is up to 9. Again, and again, and again. Meanwhile the "all-mighty magic-user" is back to lobbing bottles of burning oil.
Dig it.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549507Because at high level, the encounter is this:
*snip image*
-Frank
I never had Apache helicopters in my AD&D encounters.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549800I am talking about a "Great Wyrm", just as Mike Mearls was in the 5e preview piece I linked to earlier. Why these yahoos are resorting to quoting stats off an "Ancient Dragon" (who is not, by the way, a high level monster in AD&D) is completely beyond me.
Since we were talking about high level encounters, insisting on ranting about a White Dragon writeup with only 5-7 hit dice is pretty obviously disingenuous. I mentioned an Ettin earlier, but I wasn't such a lying sack of shit as to try to shell game it in as a "high level encounter", it's a fucking Ettin! I introduced it as a low-mid-level monster, because that is what it is and always has been.
Dragons in various editions have been variously powerful. The AD&D ones are ones you are expected to fight when you're around 9th level. This is obviously not what it makes sense to talk about when we talk about high level dragon encounters. If we were talking about AD&D and high level dragon encounters, we'd need to bring up dragons from AD&D that were actually high level encounters. I don't know, Shadow Dragons or something.
-Frank
Well I did use Otiluke's Resilient Sphere or whatever it was once, to suffocate the big dragon down to the ground and the Fighters pulverized it from there. This was a Epic level 3.5e one off though and wasn't the usual type of games/campaigns I was in involved in.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549745There it is. The sheer obliviousness of this post is amazing. Apparently OHT is some sort of Mary Tzu who always comes up with tactics so brilliant that he doesn't need to actually have any relevant skills to be able to defeat the most difficult challenges. Either that or he relies so heavily on the DM coddling him that he doesn't even notice how ridiculous it is that he keeps getting patronized and told that he "wins" over and over again no matter how objectively outclassed he is in whatever situation he finds himself.
Like a character in a poorly written fantasy novel, OHT's fighter will always come out on top because the author (DM) is just going to let whatever hare-brained scheme he comes up with succeed. Even if that plan is essentially ridiculous, there will at the very least be some sort of last minute deus ex machina.
Against that kind of impervious anti-logic, discussion is basically impossible. OHT will always succeed because of generous DMing, so he considers actual abilities on the part of his character superfluous. From the standpoint of his game, he's actually right. His character could indeed succeed just as well if his character sheet was just a Münchausen writeup (name, title, underline) and his background was just a rant about how awesome his mustache was. Of course, from the standpoint of the game, or indeed anyone else's game where the DM actually asks your character to have abilities you want to use, that is a wall of horse shit so high it cannot even be climbed
-Frank
Welcome to D&D, chummer.
Want to know the best part of my "mother-may-I" playstyle? When I'm not at the table I get to stop giving a shit about D&D and go do something else.
That means I'm out pub crawling, or at band practice, or at trivia, or playing racquetball, or out at a show, or trying new recipes in my kitchen, or at home finding inventive ways to fuck my girlfriend...while the guys who play the game like they're building a fucking magic deck are locked in a miasmic basement and furiously jacking off over a pile of sourcebooks and empty Zyprexa bottles in an attempt to overcome every challenge during the character generation phase.
Why the fuck are you even here? You're not a gamer. You're a petty, soulless bureaucrat who just wants to turn the game into a rules mastery arms race, so you can bully everyone else at the table with your super autism theorywank powers. Fuck you and all your aspie basement case friends.
Here's the thing about D&D and other RPG's...they are not about the rules. They aren't. We know this is true because the rules for absolutely every roleplaying game ever have largely been utter shit that doesn't work. No one actually knows how to make a game, because all attempts thus far have resulted in either a jumbled mess that doesn't do what it's goddamned supposed to, or a carefully designed piece of math that is about as much fun to play at the table as a spreadsheet. As it turns out, the only things anyone really ever NEEDS to play a game is a resolution mechanic, friends and imagination.
Of course all this is utter anathema to you, Frank. Your version of D&D doesn't actually involve other people. Your version of D&D is all about you, and about swinging around the biggest rules dick in the room...and nuisances like GM's and other players only get in the way. Besides, you're too intellectually impotent to make decisions in the game without some sort of procedure to guide you. In the end, you want a game where all of the power is in the rules, which are themselves an immutable source code that automates all functions of the game. In other words...not a roleplaying game at all...but the shittiest, most low tech videogame ever.
So I have to ask again...what the fuck are you doing here? This is a forum for gamers...and you're not a gamer. You're a fidgety autist whose hobbies are theorycrafting and annoying others with your incessant rules fappery. I thought you were a doctor or something anyway...so go turn your pedantry toward curing something and let those of us who still have imaginations left actually discuss the game.
Quote from: Declan MacManus;549822Welcome to D&D, chummer.
Want to know the best part of my "mother-may-I" playstyle? When I'm not at the table I get to stop giving a shit about D&D and go do something else.
That means I'm out pub crawling, or at band practice, or at trivia, or playing racquetball, or out at a show, or trying new recipes in my kitchen, or at home finding inventive ways to fuck my girlfriend...while the guys who play the game like they're building a fucking magic deck are locked in a miasmic basement and furiously jacking off over a pile of sourcebooks and empty Zyprexa bottles in an attempt to overcome every challenge during the character generation phase.
Why the fuck are you even here? You're not a gamer. You're a petty, soulless bureaucrat who just wants to turn the game into a rules mastery arms race, so you can bully everyone else at the table with your super autism theorycrafting powers. Fuck you and all your aspie basement case friends.
Here's the thing about D&D and other RPG's. They are not about the rules. They aren't. We know this is true because the rules for absolutely every roleplaying game ever have largely been utter shit that doesn't work. No one actually knows how to make a game, because all attempts thus far have resulted in either a jumbled mess that doesn't do what it's goddamned supposed to, or a carefully designed piece of math that is about as much fun to play at the table as a spreadsheet. As it turns out, the only thing one really needs to play a game is a resolution mechanic, friends and imagination.
Of course all this is utter anathema to you, Frank. Your version of D&D doesn't actually involve other people. Your version of D&D is all about you, and about swinging around the biggest rules dick in the room...and nuisances like GM's and other players only get in the way. besides, you're too intellectually impotent to make decisions in the game without some sort of procedure to guide you. In the end, you want a game where all of the power is in the rules, which are themselves an immutable source code that automates all functions of the game. In other words...not a roleplayign game at all...but the shittiest, most low tech videogame ever.
So I have to ask again...what the fuck are you doing here? This is a forum for gamers...and you're not a gamer. You're a fidgety autist whose hobbies are theorycrafting and annoying others with your incessantly rules fappery. I thought you were a doctor or something anyway...so go turn your pedantry toward curing something and let those of us who still have imaginations left actually discuss the game.
The best post I've seen on this website in a long time. It's a bit cliche, but it's the only rational response to Trollman's nonsense.
Everyone bookmark this post. In the future, when you feel tempted to respond to Trollman's bullshit, just click this bookmark, and remind yourself of why it's a completely fucking futile exercise that drags down the entire forum by indulging it.
The arguement seems to have debased into 'but the stuff I fought when I played old editions was different tot eh stuff you fought.'
Ben at al are a correct that a group of 5th level PCs in D&D could easily kill a medium aged dragon or even an older one if they were prepared. Also corredct that over a old school dungeon delve game where resource menagement is key the fighter (providing magical healing is available as hte HP are one of his main resources) will balance out with the Wizard who at 9th level would have a dozen or so spells they could cast and probably a couple of magic items that were MU only.
Frank is right in that if the DM threw a dragon at the Party of 9th -12th level adventurers that was a 15hd flying monstrosity then the fighter's role to affect it without magical help would be very limited. Typicaly this would not be a resource focused game as dragons like that represent the BIG bad that the party tool up to hunt down and take out.
They are different play styles.
I can site an example from actual play.
3 PCs
My 11th level thief
A 9th level Barbarian with ludicrous HP and stats who was allowed to use a magic sword
A MU who had taken a level as a fighter then dual classed to a MU so they could use a sword and had marginally better HP Fighter 2 MU 9
The party were in a castle and under attack by a very large red dragon. the DM thought the dragons in AD&D were crap and that dragons should be hosing villages, so its a 15HD fuck off big red dragon. Now its not important whether that means the 'dragon' is not a real dragon, the point is that the dragon was the High Fantasy threat we were facing.
I had a magic carpet. In our first encounter I flew towards the dragon from above to get suprise and the barbarian and I dropped down on it me using a ring of feather fall to try to get a backstab in the Barbarian onto it's head.
Suffice it to say it fucked the shit out of us but luckily I used a ring of jumping and the carpet to escape and the Barbarian had a fuck of a lot of hit points.
For the next encounter we roused the MU who had been doing reserach in another part of the castle.
The wizard cast Poly self, enlarge, fly and Miror Image on himself and then with the aid of a wand of frost some clever polymorph tricks and finally a lightning bolt took the entire dragon out himself.
Now I agree that after he had done all that he was depleted but ...
The point is that in a High fantasy encounter the 1e/2e Fighter can not complete at high levels with the wizard. Its not just that the wizard has grown tougher its that the wizard has far far far more options and options win powerful combats.
Now if you don't want to do High fantasy with 15hd dragons then fine. If you want to stick to the dungeon/widerness explore paradigm then I think its true the MU can make a big splash at high level but can't sustain it for a whole adventuring day like the fighter can but at high level often the type of adventure changes and from my experience being able to let off all your fire works at one go is a more useful as sustained resource management is a less common play style at named level.
Anyone that says all a 9th level magic user can do is let off 5 fireballs so they are rubbish has a huge lack of imagination. A clevel 9th level MU can defeat a fighter of the same level with a single first level charm person or a phantasmal force or for the big guns a hold person and a cloudkill.
Now I have no problem with that its not an issue in another encounter the Wizard enlarged the barbarian and he ploughed into a whole bunch of fire giants.
But the tactical benefit of having a lot of options, which is what magic gives you, cannot be over estimated.
By the way my thief had another most excellent plan to defeat the dragon had the wizard been fried to a crisp. We had found a magical mirror and when you looked upon it you rolled under your Wis or stared marvelling at your reflection until the mirror was covered up. Whilst the barbarian was trying to recover from the lost hit points and the wizard was flying out to tackle the dragon I took my carpet to go and fetch the mirror. The plan being to trap the dragon with the object. However I spent the entire fight staring at my own reflection ... which I knew was a risk but i also knew was a fuck of a long way away from the dragon so ...... :)
BTW I just checked. My current fighter character has an INT of 13, which is not that far off the Red Dragon with his 15-16 INT.
Quote from: Benoist;549826BTW I just checked. My current fighter character has an INT of 13, which is not that far off the Red Dragon with his 15-16 INT.
But Ben is that really important?
The question isn't really can a party outsmart an AD&D dragon if played by the book because I think Frank's argument isn't about whether dragons are geniuses or supra-geniuses or even if they have 9hd or 15 hd.
The argument realy is about what could a fighter do against an opponent that was as tough as the one he posts in that picture.
Does a fighter have the tools to compete on a stage with that sort of critter in that sort of game?
Now if I end up playing a fighter in a game like that then I treat the high level wizard like a tool I can use. Often to me the High Level Wizard is just another weapon I, as the fighter and so tactical lead of the combat, can use to defeat the opponent.
That however might well be more about the meta-game level than any mechanical considerations.
Outside of oil flasks and a torch, my other favorite area effect toy was sacks of flour and a torch. That and it's amazing how much you can clear out a dungeon lair with a proper smokey fire at a cave entrance. Oh, and ten foot poles for the win!
(This discussion reminds me when someone asked what was the most powerful weapon in Diablo II. I replied that beyond the context of Diablo II's video game limitations, the Teleport Scroll was the most powerful weapon. Having a village use Teleport scrolls (and never going back into their own portal, which closes it) and any disposable bomb (Fulminating or Poison Gas potions) they could constantly strafe any room with area effect death and then run back to safety of the town's healer.
It was either a hilarious or unwelcome revelation to people. But it also became a useful litmus test for who'd do well with my style of table top role playing. There's either something liberating -- or power fantasy deflating -- about having mundane tools being so effective.)
Quote from: jibbajibba;549830The argument realy is about what could a fighter do against an opponent that was as tough as the one he posts in that picture.
Does a fighter have the tools to compete on a stage with that sort of critter in that sort of game?
Since when did cover and ranged weapons disappear from the game? I see a castle in the pic, is all its masonry made of marshmallows? Was there an edition where all ranged weapons stop at 79 feet? If fighters could shoot down faster birds in flight, like when they normally go hunting, why should a massive dragon moving at human strolling speed be harder? What sort of gimped edition of AD&D are we talking about here?
It may take some time, but a fighter can lay out a lot of missile fire in a battle, while moving too. And he/she can shoot for so many more times greater than a wizard's slots spell slots. Where is this helpless fighter image coming from?
Quote from: Opaopajr;549839Since when did cover and ranged weapons disappear from the game? I see a castle in the pic, is all its masonry made of marshmallows? Was there an edition where all ranged weapons stop at 79 feet? If fighters could shoot down faster birds in flight, like when they normally go hunting, why should a massive dragon moving at human strolling speed be harder? What sort of gimped edition of AD&D are we talking about here?
It may take some time, but a fighter can lay out a lot of missile fire in a battle, while moving too. And he/she can shoot for so many more times greater than a wizard's slots spell slots. Where is this helpless fighter image coming from?
Plus, why are the fighters waiting around in town while the dragon approaches? Send those with bows to sneak out of town. Keep one guy in town. Cast Fly on the one guy, who zooms up in the air, attracts the dragon's attention, and then hits it where it hurts: he flies straight towards the dragon's
lair. Where the archers should have arrived to set up an ambush.
See now you guys are talking about actually playing a fucking role playing game, something frank knows nothing about. Stop trying to confuse him with this stuff outside the rules he doesn't want to even consider actually exists.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;549808The whole "problem" is bullshit.
In AD&D a 10th level magic user can drop 4 or 5 fireball spells (assuming they can use those based on the environment or have them memorized). So we have our 10th level fireball. 10d6. Average: 30 points. Save for half: 15.
And the lucky mage can do that 5 times a day.
Meanwhile, the 10th level fighter who has, say, a 17 strength and a +3 longsword is doing 13 points of damage, average 6. GASP. ONLY HALF WHAT THE MAGIC USER WHY THAT'S DEPROTAGONIZING OF A GYGAXIAN LEVEL OF FUCKERY. Except when that fireball-throwing is over, the fighter can draw his sword and do his average 6 damage. Again. And again. And again. And again. Oh, right, that same fighter is also bringing it twice every other round. So now the average is up to 9. Again, and again, and again. Meanwhile the "all-mighty magic-user" is back to lobbing bottles of burning oil.
Exactly. It's like us old-timers have to dust off the books and show these whippersnappers how to play. :)
QuoteDig it.
Excuse me, stewardess, I speak 'jive'.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2VmCbvQyl1s/Th8gYP9UuTI/AAAAAAAASR0/y7vPnMT6KaQ/s400/BBillingsley+4.jpg)
Quote from: J Arcane;549823The best post I've seen on this website in a long time. It's a bit cliche, but it's the only rational response to Trollman's nonsense.
Everyone bookmark this post. In the future, when you feel tempted to respond to Trollman's bullshit, just click this bookmark, and remind yourself of why it's a completely fucking futile exercise that drags down the entire forum by indulging it.
I agree and I did bookmark it to help myself remember why I hate theorywank and spherical cows.
Quote from: jibbajibba;549830The argument realy is about what could a fighter do against an opponent that was as tough as the one he posts in that picture.
Does a fighter have the tools to compete on a stage with that sort of critter in that sort of game?
.
I shall repeat, if in that scenario?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CiARj4w8LEk/SjrVvIS108I/AAAAAAAAAdo/WQKZW_fubQg/s400/medieval+ballista.jpg)
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549507First off, to get this thread a little bit back towards the OP: if you posit an AD&D-like high level environment . . .
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549800I am talking about a "Great Wyrm", just as Mike Mearls was in the 5e preview piece I linked to earlier. Why these yahoos are resorting to quoting stats off an "Ancient Dragon" (who is not, by the way, a high level monster in AD&D) is completely beyond me.
Who the fuck do you think you're kidding with this?
Here's what I don't get: D&D has always had the fighter class be the guy who swings a sword and wears armor. He was supposed to be so good at this that he could use his basic, totally boring, "I hit the monster" attack to fight dragons and demons and deities. Now, all of a sudden, he needs special powers to do what he's always done? Dumb.
Quote from: TalysmanPlus, why are the fighters waiting around in town while the dragon approaches? Send those with bows to sneak out of town. Keep one guy in town. Cast Fly on the one guy, who zooms up in the air, attracts the dragon's attention, and then hits it where it hurts: he flies straight towards the dragon's lair. Where the archers should have arrived to set up an ambush.
Wow. The level of player entitlement in this post is
intense. As a
fighter, you're going to track the
dragon to its lair "in great hills or mountainous regions". You're going to do that with your tracking abilities? Or maybe you're going to cast some divinations and track it down that way? Oh right, you
don't have those abilities because you're a Fighter! Well, maybe you can go to town and do some legwork with the research and social skills... that you also do not have.
Then, having used any of a number of information gathering abilities that your character conspicuously lacks, you're going to
secretly sneak a
small army to its lair. Its lair which I now remind you the dragon has had literally centuries to conceal and secure. But sure, once you get them to the dragon's home turf and miraculously turn all the dragon's defenses against it, your plan is to have a single tiny man fly overland
much slower than the dragon can in order to lure it back to its home (and not, for example, intercept the guy and rip him in half). Then, having outrun a faster pursuer through the air over many miles, the rest of your tiny men leap from ambush,
don't succumb to the dragon's fear aura, and shoot it to ribbons.
That is your answer? What makes you think you can accomplish
any of that? Is your DM so accommodating that they'll just let you use the abilities of a Ranger, a Cleric, and a Thief despite you not having any of those talents on your character sheet? Are you seriously just going to hold the game hostage with your character's lack of legwork and logistical abilities, demanding that the DM relent and have an exposition NPC give you directions every time you need to get somewhere?
Quote from: The Butcher;549788I'm generally on the same side as OHT, and Ben, and Black Vulmea -- mainly on account of the fighter/wizard imbalance never having been an issue on my games (though I admit to not having played a lot of high-level (9+) D&D with any edition).
Nonetheless, I'd like to know what would you do to make the fighter competitive, mechanically speaking, without neutering high-level wizards.
Talysman is actually correct that a Fighter
should be able to take the fight to the Dragon. He should be able to do that
in combat (either by flying to the Dragon or by grounding the Dragon with ranged attacks), and he should be able to do that
out of combat. The Fighter needs some sort of legwork
abilities such that he can actually get places without riding the DM Railroad from plot point to plot point.
A Fighter
should be able to just look at a map and narrow the Dragon's lair down to no more than three potential sites. A Fighter
should be able to lead an army to a stealthy approach of a fortified dragon cave. A Fighter
should be able to gauge the defenses of the Dragon's mountain. Logistical, tactical, informational
abilities.
And not what he actually is, which is a character who literally cannot even
get to the combat zone without the DM taking pity on him and advancing the plot with DM-Fiat events.
I actually agree with Talysman that his warrior should be able to do the things he talks about his warrior doing. Those are reasonable plans. The problem is that the actual Fighter in the actual books has no chance of actually pulling any of that shit off. If you agree to play a character with limitations, it is
bad roleplaying to insist on playing as if those limitations don't exist. Of course, it is also
bad design to have characters like the Fighter be quite
as helpless to affect in-game goals as they are.
-Frank
Best dragon killing story I have heard was told by Gretchen at my local pub.
She was playing a demolitions expert in Stargate SG-1 (d20) and they ran into a dragon offworld. So, Gretchen force fed a cow some c-4 and a remote detonator, then the party placed it near the dragon's lair with an apology note for attacking it earlier. The dragon ate the booby-trapped cow and Gretchen blew it up.
Dragon killed by Exploding Cow. You just have to love that!
Quote from: Sacrosanct;549854I shall repeat, if in that scenario?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CiARj4w8LEk/SjrVvIS108I/AAAAAAAAAdo/WQKZW_fubQg/s400/medieval+ballista.jpg)
Yeah but anyone can use that not just a figther and in a high fantasy game I suspect the guy in charge of artillery is a wizard, well he out to be as that is the obvious choice.
Oh as as for missile fire, sure, maybe you have a fighter with a magic bow and magic arrows that can hit a dragon, maybeyou have Bard Bowman and he has an arrow of dragon slaying... maybe.
Quote from: jibbajibba;549877Yeah but anyone can use that not just a figther and in a high fantasy game I suspect the guy in charge of artillery is a wizard, well he out to be as that is the obvious choice.
That depends on if it needs a roll to hit or not, if it does I want someone firing it that has a decent bonus.
What I did to kill Dragotha:
1) brew up a ridiculous amounts of holy water
2) throwing in huge amounts (>250 000 IIRC) of silver
3) pour it into a portable hole
4) scry (the whole group had to do adventuring to actually make that possible)
5) teleport above Dragotha
6) open portable hole
The DM ruled, though, that isntead of killing him outright, he was reduced to half HP. Then the Fighter-Lance guy and Thief finished him off in the first round. Olde Bonedragon could only get off some quickened free action spells and that was him. Hehe.
Quote from: Benoist;549719It's like vampires draining 2 levels on a hit. "OMG OMG THIS IS SO BROKENZ!!ONE"
Huh. No. Fuck no. That means the vampire is actually a fucking terrifying undead. If you are dumb enough to go in melee with a vampire, you are the moron who is to blame for your stupidity.
As I said elsewhere, the appropriate tactical response when you find a vampire's lair is to get the fuck out of here as quickly as possible to regroup and strategize about (1) the way to avoid the area entirely or make a deal with the vampire if you're evil or whatnot, or divert some other enemies into taking down the vampire for you or weaken it significantly so that then you can finish it/them, (2) the way to take it down appropriately by alerting the local temple, taking all the men-at-arms of the village bearing torches with you to clean up the shit out of the place, with holy water and acolytes and everything, and so on, so forth. When you know what you're up against, then you can actually strategize. But facing a vampire in melee and expect to win? LOL U dumb or wat?
Yeah but having to think doesn't allow the PC's to win just by being heroic. :rolleyes:
Quote from: B.T.;549860Here's what I don't get: D&D has always had the fighter class be the guy who swings a sword and wears armor. He was supposed to be so good at this that he could use his basic, totally boring, "I hit the monster" attack to fight dragons and demons and deities. Now, all of a sudden, he needs special powers to do what he's always done? Dumb.
If I'm getting the gist of this right from TBP, once you are at high levels, you should switch from playing D&D to what amounts to d20 Exalted.
Which is, of course, BS.
That melee fighters that can't fly have difficulty with flying creatures is a point worth considering. But this consideration should be in the realm of DM game planning or party strategy, not necessarily in class design.
If you're talking about AD&D, then the thread was over when the restrictions on magic-users were brought up. Components, interruption, side-effects of casting, system shock, memorization time, all of these removed partially or completely.
However, one of the biggest controls on Magic-Users was the fact that they had to have a spell book in the first place and they had to memorize from it. A Magic-user having the Time Stop and Meteor Swarm spell was not automatically assumed in earlier editions. You had to find spells.
As was said earlier, you remove all limitations on something, you shouldn't be surprised when it becomes overpowered. It's not a D&D problem, it's a WotC-D&D problem.
As far as Dragons go, I'm more MERP/2e in that area. A Great Wyrm waking is something that needs to be dealt with on a Kingdom-wide level as it's practically an Extinction Level Event.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;549894That melee fighters that can't fly have difficulty with flying creatures is a point worth considering. But this consideration should be in the realm of DM game planning or party strategy, not necessarily in class design.
The challenges that the game actually offers
should be reflected in class design. If there's a level at which you're expected to fight gods, the characters should have god fighting abilities at that level. I find it difficult to wrap my mind around the fact that you even think this is a point worthy of discussion.
-Frank
Bah, the D&D engine has always shuddered and pitched at high levels. Powergamers can fuck off and let the 90 per cent of us who spend 90 per cent of our time playing at level 1-8 get on with things.
Even at mid levels, Wizards have tight restraints on their power. Finding new spells should not be easy. Each new spell is a treasure to be sought out, discovered, and fought for. If you're handing out spells like candy each time a Wizard advances, you're playing wrong.
Oh, and OCD mini-maxers looking for perfect balance will never be happy. Ever.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549872Wow. The level of player entitlement in this post is intense. As a fighter, you're going to track the dragon to its lair "in great hills or mountainous regions". You're going to do that with your tracking abilities?
-Frank
And this folks, is a core difference between Frank and a lot of folks here. Frank seems to think that unless it's written on your character sheet with a specific success measurement, then you can't attempt it.
IMO, that's bullocks and you can keep that sort of playstyle to yourself. Having a player say they want to attempt things not on their character sheet is not "player entitlement". That's common sense. Any reasonable request should not be unreasonably denied. That's what discussion is for between DM and players.
Quote from: jibbajibba;549877Yeah but anyone can use that not just a figther and in a high fantasy game I suspect the guy in charge of artillery is a wizard, well he out to be as that is the obvious choice..
No other class is going to be as effective with a ballista than a fighter. The MU might run out of spells, not have the right spells, or not be able to get past the dragon's magic resistance. The fighter can lob ballista bolts all day.
QuoteThat is your answer? What makes you think you can accomplish any of that? Is your DM so accommodating that they'll just let you use the abilities of a Ranger, a Cleric, and a Thief despite you not having any of those talents on your character sheet? Are you seriously just going to hold the game hostage with your character's lack of legwork and logistical abilities, demanding that the DM relent and have an exposition NPC give you directions every time you need to get somewhere?
Whatever happened to working as a team? Or doing a little research and legwork and recruiting an army or even a specialized A-Team style strike team?
Quote from: Haffrung;549903Bah, the D&D engine has always shuddered and pitched at high levels. Powergamers can fuck off and let the 90 per cent of us who spend 90 per cent of our time playing at level 1-8 get on with things.
Even at mid levels, Wizards have tight restraints on their power. Finding new spells should not be easy. Each new spell is a treasure to be sought out, discovered, and fought for. If you're handing out spells like candy each time a Wizard advances, you're playing wrong.
Oh, and OCD mini-maxers looking for perfect balance will never be happy. Ever.
Spot on!
There are always going to be a certain percentage of people that are OKAY with having a character that is demonstrably less capable than other characters in the game.
Clearly, the specifics of the various levels of discrepancy vary depending on the edition.
However, what should be clear is that the individual power-levels (or relative contribution) of each class can be determined by reviewing the experience of play when that class is removed, or a party entirely composed of members of that class is used.
In 3.5, I enjoy playing Fighters until 4th level. I absolutely can't stand to take Fighter 5 - no class abilities, no increase in saves - the only thing you get is a +1 to BAB.
While D&D is meant to be a cooperative team game, there may be times when the players have to work alone. If the Fighter is trying to mount a rescue of his companions taken by drow, he's clearly in trouble.
The other classes clearly have advantages.
First off, tracking is worth talking about. It's been a while since I've played 1st or 2nd edition, but I believe tracking is a real thing with real rules. To say 'the fighter gets it because he needs it' even though other classes are described as having tracking as an ability. Claiming that the Fighter should be able to track is as spurious as claiming that the Fighter should be able to cast magic-missile.
If you're having fun, you're doing it right.
But for lots of people, myself included, I want to feel like I'm making a valuable contribution to the game. One of the longest 2nd edition campaigns I was involved with I played a fighter. There was a point, around 11th or 13th level, where I was clearly superfluous compared to the fire-specialist wizard. This was exacerbated by a lucky draw from a deck of many things that gave the wizard a huge bonus in experience points.
In general, I prefer the game to allow players to contribute equally. The fighter fails that in all editions at some point.
If the fighter is hoping that the wizard casts fly on him so he can contribute, that's bad design. Because the wizard can cast fly on himself, instead, and possibly take on the dragon single-handedly (as evinced by actual stories from play).
Blindly ignoring class weaknesses is silly - addressing these issues is better. Thinking deeply about the theory of game design is useful. If you're having fun DESPITE the rules, that's good. If you're having fun BECAUSE of the rules, that's better. In the first case, you have to rely on different DMs of different caliber fixing problems. I've played enough D&D as a player and a DM to know that you can't rely on the DM's house rules to fix all the problems - it's better if the rules come in a fashion that there is either no need to create house rules or they are MINIMAL. This does not reduce the game to playing with spreadsheets.
As someone who spends a large amount of my time thinking about game design and working out my own RPG, I also consider attacks that lump me in with 'basement-dwellers' in poor taste. I have a job, a house, a wife, kids, a pet and I participate in plenty of other activities. Thinking about the game and trying to find ways to make it better can be fun and doesn't need to eliminate the need for other activities.
In my opinion, FrankTrollman's posts are always worth reading. While he may be dismissive of other points of view, it's because he actually has thought through the issue very completely. In countless threads, I've seen people dismiss what he says because of who he is, not because of what he says.
Since I don't have his reputation, let me say it another way -
In a high fantasy game, like D&D, we expect high level characters to do things that normal townspeople can't do. We expect high level characters to fight AND WIN against GODS. A high level fighter can't even get there without a wizard nice enough to bring him along. When a fighter leaves town, it's on foot unless he either buys a flying mount, or manages to subdue it and train it - both difficult propositions for a character that isn't very good at sneaking and isn't very good at engaging or immobilizing a flying target. Most of the time, if you see an effective high level fighter, it's because other characters with real options were nice to him.
If you don't mind living off the charity of your friends, it's not hard to enjoy being a fighter. If you want to have a meaningful contribution of your own, it is.
Welcome to the RPG Site, DDMW.
Quote from: Benoist;549917Welcome to the RPG Site, DDMW.
Ditto! :)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;549916Claiming that the Fighter should be able to track is as spurious as claiming that the Fighter should be able to cast magic-missile.
.
I disagree with this, and it's a bad analogy. Casting magic missile is an all or nothing thing. Tracking isn't. Hell,
I can track, to some effect, but that's not something that I'd say is a core part of my "class". Just like I can catch and throw a football despite not being a football player. I won't be as good as a football player, but I can still attempt it. With magic missile, there isn't any partial success. You either know how to do it, or you don't.
I love playing fighters! Always have and always will. My highest AD&D character was a 15th level fighter. My highest 3.x D&D character was a 25th level fighter. My highest 4e D&D character was a 30th level fighter.
Sure, there were times when these character took a backseat to the casters in the game, but there sure were other times when the casters thanked their lucky stars that they had a buddy who could fight the boogies trying to claw out their faces while casting those spells.
In all the iterations of (A)D&D I have never had a problem with keeping my fighters viable in the game. *shrug*
Quote from: Sacrosanct;549923I disagree with this, and it's a bad analogy. Casting magic missile is an all or nothing thing. Tracking isn't. Hell, I can track, to some effect, but that's not something that I'd say is a core part of my "class". Just like I can catch and throw a football despite not being a football player. I won't be as good as a football player, but I can still attempt it. With magic missile, there isn't any partial success. You either know how to do it, or you don't.
I understand where you're coming from on this - but you should recognize that you're INVENTING rules. There are rules for 'tracking' that are part of a class. That is to say, someone has rules for tracking ON THEIR CHARACTER SHEET. The complaint people have for FrankTrollman is that he seems to feel that he can't do it if it's not on his character sheet.
If it's not on his character sheet and he should be allowed to do it, it shouldn't be on ANYONE's character sheet because anyone can do it. Once you make it an ability that some people have access to and some people don't, to pretend that everyone has access means you're making a houserule.
Pretending that Fighters can track just like Rangers can track (making up a rule) isn't really any different than pretending Fighters can cast magic missiles just like wizards - the only difference is the first hardly strains credibility while the second busts right through that barrier.
That's why the rules are bad in this situation - to make the fighter CAPABLE, you have to pretend he has abilities that other classes get to write on their character sheet. Best case, the designers are guilty of an error of omission - they meant the Fighter to be able to do it and forgot to acutally say so - but worst case, you're just giving abilities to make one class better because you subconsciously recognize how weak it is.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;549931That's why the rules are bad in this situation - to make the fighter CAPABLE, you have to pretend he has abilities that other classes get to write on their character sheet. Best case, the designers are guilty of an error of omission - they meant the Fighter to be able to do it and forgot to acutally say so - but worst case, you're just giving abilities to make one class better because you subconsciously recognize how weak it is.
I disagree. The fighter *is* capable at, you know, fighting. ;)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;549931I understand where you're coming from on this - but you should recognize that you're INVENTING rules. There are rules for 'tracking' that are part of a class. That is to say, someone has rules for tracking ON THEIR CHARACTER SHEET. The complaint people have for FrankTrollman is that he seems to feel that he can't do it if it's not on his character sheet.
If it's not on his character sheet and he should be allowed to do it, it shouldn't be on ANYONE's character sheet because anyone can do it. Once you make it an ability that some people have access to and some people don't, to pretend that everyone has access means you're making a houserule.
Pretending that Fighters can track just like Rangers can track (making up a rule) isn't really any different than pretending Fighters can cast magic missiles just like wizards - the only difference is the first hardly strains credibility while the second busts right through that barrier.
That's why the rules are bad in this situation - to make the fighter CAPABLE, you have to pretend he has abilities that other classes get to write on their character sheet. Best case, the designers are guilty of an error of omission - they meant the Fighter to be able to do it and forgot to acutally say so - but worst case, you're just giving abilities to make one class better because you subconsciously recognize how weak it is.
You mean to say just because fishing is not on my character sheet I can't do it just because there might be a skill called fishing or a background called Sailor? Stupid.
I may not be good at it or suffer massive penalties to it but I better be able to try it just like IRL.
Again, I disagree. Of course rules are being invented, it's a face to face role-playing social game. It's impossible to have rules for every scenario that could possibly be encountered, so we make judgement calls all the time.
I also disagree with this:
QuoteIf it's not on his character sheet and he should be allowed to do it, it shouldn't be on ANYONE's character sheet because anyone can do it. Once you make it an ability that some people have access to and some people don't, to pretend that everyone has access means you're making a houserule.
Just because you have an official skill, in no way means that
only those characters who have learned that skill can attempt it. It only means that those characters who have learned it are
significantly better at it than other players.
If you were a DM and you told me that my fighter, who had spend years adventuring and fought thousands of creatures in numerous locations (because he's high level after all), couldn't even attempt to track a beast, I'd close my book and go home. That's simply ridiculous. I wouldn't expect to be nearly as successful as the ranger, but the tracks are right there and I should at least have an opportunity to try. Same with disarming a trap, climbing a rope, whatever. These are skills that have varying levels of success, unlike casting spells. Apples and oranges.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;549916In general, I prefer the game to allow players to contribute equally. The fighter fails that in all editions at some point.
Not in my experience.
Like Drohem, I've been playing my share of fighting men throughout editions (the pure fighter is my favorite class along with the pure MU). There's always something you can do to contribute. The idea that you are staring at your character sheet going through a checklist of options wondering what to do next is anathema to role playing games, to me. You certainly can do that, but it's just one tiny part of the game, not the game as a whole, nor the
finite amount of choices offered to you by the game of your imagination.
In combat, what I do is visualize the situation first, including its tactical components (are there pieces of furniture in the room? Where are the walls, the exits, how high is the ceiling? How many enemies are we facing? What's between us and them? etc), and then I take decisions based on that. The rules are there to support the resolution of those decisions,
not the other way around. After the company of others, the snacks ( ;) ), the role playing and all that, it's the part of the D&D game, specifically, I enjoy the most. It's an ongoing strategic and tactical challenge to explore the unknown, and die or get rich in the process. That's the idea.
The idea that a group of PCs can't track because of a completely misguided attempt at 'niche protection' for the ranger and a wrong interpretation of the tracking guidelines to boot (the high percentiles of success of the ranger tracking an enemy do not mean that other characters can't possibly track, it means they won't do it
as well as the ranger, probably - that's why you have a live DM at the table - to adjudicate these types of situations, and if Frank was telling me I can't track because "tracking" is not written on my character sheet, I'd know right then and there his game wouldn't be for me) is an adventure-stopper, a non-starter, as far as I'm concerned, particularly when we are talking about seasoned adventurers who probably have transitioned from the dungeon to the wilderness some time before being faced by the threat of the great wyrm in question.
The simple fact is that the sum of the game is not contained within the covers of the rules book. You have live individuals participating in a hobby, chatting over a game table and collaborating in creating a shared game world via the use of their imaginations, their communication, and some tools of adjudication (the rules/guidelines in the book). The idea that the rules are the game, and the game the rules turns role playing games into a shit board game, an exercise in futility that is more akin to playing Magic: the Gathering with invible cards than anything else.
That's not what I want out of a role playing game. And the armchair theorists can go fuck themselves, if that rubs them the wrong way.
Quote from: Drohem;549932I disagree. The fighter *is* capable at, you know, fighting. ;)
Ditto.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;549934These are skills that have varying levels of success, unlike casting spells. Apples and oranges.
Casting spells only appears to be "unlike" those others because the game system defines them that way. In early versions of D&D, tracking is a you-have-it-or-you-don't class feature just like casting spells is.
You're essentially arguing that class features are binary when you like the result and aren't when you don't. That's just a matter of personal preference.
Since everyone here has the expectation that the Fighter be able to track which I agree with, I don't understand why people are defending the rules that don't actually say that.
You pick your favorite edition. Read the rules for how a ranger tracks (assuming rangers are in that edition). Is there any explanation for how others track (such as a penalty)? If there is, fine, the rules cover it. If there isn't, you're forced to make houserules.
Since tracking is such a fundamental skill that all high level fighters should have, it's unfair to expect every DM to come up with their own version of it. What that means is that you have some reasonable DMs that allow it (with or without penalty) and you have some that don't allow it (becuase the rules say Rangers can track and nobody else can).
The rules are best when they address the things that'd you expect to see in every game. I think that it's a shame when they don't, or worse, when they explicitly say 'this class can't do that'.
In 3.5, the rules explicitly say that Fighters cannot find and disarm traps. That's bullshit, but that's the rules. In other editions, if that SHOULD be possible, it'd be nice if they said how it works - or what kind of penalty you have compared to a Thief.
Tracking is a great example of where DMs make the reasonable choice to give Fighters an ability that the rules indicate they don't actually have.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;549938You pick your favorite edition. Read the rules for how a ranger tracks (assuming rangers are in that edition). Is there any explanation for how others track (such as a penalty)? If there is, fine, the rules cover it. If there isn't, you're forced to make houserules.
It's called adjudication. It's why you have a live DM at the game table, and the game isn't bad or broken for it. The game is the stuff that happens at the game table, not whatever is written in the book. The rules are not the game. The game is not the rules.
Quote from: daniel_ream;549937Casting spells only appears to be "unlike" those others because the game system defines them that way. In early versions of D&D, tracking is a you-have-it-or-you-don't class feature just like casting spells is.
You're essentially arguing that class features are binary when you like the result and aren't when you don't. That's just a matter of personal preference.
Not at all. I'm not sure how much clearer I can put it.
With tracking (or climbing, or disarming traps, etc), there is a level of success. Anyone can attempt it with varying degrees as the result. With casting spells, there is no level of success. You either cast it, or you don't. Full stop.
That's a huge, and relevant, difference.
Quote from: Benoist;549939It's called adjudication. It's why you have a live DM at the game table, and the game isn't bad or broken for it. The game is the stuff that happens at the game table, not whatever is written in the book. The rules are not the game. The game is not the rules.
Benoist,
The funny thing is that we really agree for the most part. We want the same things in the game.
The difference is, since this is something that comes up a lot, it makes sense that the rules cover it. If the DM is making the same adjudication multiple times over multiple game sessions he's either consistent (which means IT IS A RULE) or he's inconsistent (which means my chance of success is better if I fellate my DM).
Since, as a player, I have a vested interest in knowing what my character has a reasonable chance of succeeding when I try it, consistent rules are better than inconsistent rules.
Since Tracking is a 'basic thing' that you 'expect a high level fighter to have a chance of doing' it would be great if the actual rules covered it - since they addressed tracking in the context of a Ranger anyway - they might as well have given at least a base chance and the improved chance.
Frank's contention is that DMs and Players alike are giving abilities to the Fighter that are not listed on the character sheet (things that are probably reasonable for a fighter to have) because the rules didn't actually say what they can and can't do. It'd be nice if they actually covered some of the most common things you'd want to do.
I can't imagine anyone arguing against the inclusion of rules in a game, but here we have it. At the bare minimum, the rules should offer guidelines for how characters do things in the game world. The fighter should be able to track and sneak up on the dragon, yes, but this is not automatic, so I expect rules for tracking (even if they are as simple as "make a Wisdom check").
Quote from: Sacrosanct;549934Just because you have an official skill, in no way means that only those characters who have learned that skill can attempt it. It only means that those characters who have learned it are significantly better at it than other players.
You are forgetting the Ricky Bobby principle which dominates the modern gamer:
IF YOU'RE NOT FIRST YOU'RE LAST!!!!!!
In practice this means that unless you are the shiznit at any given gimmick don't even fucking try it or you are loser if you do.
It is WASTING AN ACTION!! My god man don't you understand that you stick to things your sheet says you do the best or you will make the party suxxorrzzz. :rolleyes:
I mean, why do you think its better to sit out on a skill challenge unless you can convince the DM to let you roll against the skill you have the highest bonus in? Sitting on your hands is much preferable to doing something and being unsuccessful.
As a player you have a right to be the bestest at every given moment. If the DM presents a challenge where this is not possible then you are being screwed. :p
ok my sarcasm engine just overheated.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549902The challenges that the game actually offers should be reflected in class design. If there's a level at which you're expected to fight gods, the characters should have god fighting abilities at that level. I find it difficult to wrap my mind around the fact that you even think this is a point worthy of discussion.
Well, take a look around. Obviously I'm not alone. And I am much more a "kewl powers" game than the older school crowd here. But I do differ with the philosophy that every challenge in the game must be directly handled by an entry on your character sheet.
I'm of the school that many challenges must be solved by either or both teamwork and/or interacting with the game world, not by giving the fighter weaboo fightan magic. This goes especially for epic level gaming; IMC, if you need to take out a demigod, you need allies, artifacts, blessings and like.
For my tabletop gaming, I reject the 4e-ish "everything is an encounter " design philosophy.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;549940Not at all. I'm not sure how much clearer I can put it.
With tracking (or climbing, or disarming traps, etc), there is a level of success. Anyone can attempt it with varying degrees as the result. With casting spells, there is no level of success. You either cast it, or you don't. Full stop.
That's a huge, and relevant, difference.
And this is why there's no class ability in Hulks and Horrors besides caster powers that is actually a class exclusive and not just a bonus to doing something.
And even then, there's optional rules in the DM chapter for allowing other classes to learn caster powers on a limited basis.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;549943You are forgetting the Ricky Bobby principle which dominates the modern gamer:
IF YOU'RE NOT FIRST YOU'RE LAST!!!!!!
In practice this means that unless you are the shiznit at any given gimmick don't even fucking try it or you are loser if you do.
It is WASTING AN ACTION!! My god man don't you understand that you stick to things your sheet says you do the best or you will make the party suxxorrzzz. :rolleyes:
I mean, why do you think its better to sit out on a skill challenge unless you can convince the DM to let you roll against the skill you have the highest bonus in? Sitting on your hands is much preferable to doing something and being unsuccessful.
As a player you have a right to be the bestest at every given moment. If the DM presents a challenge where this is not possible then you are being screwed. :p
ok my sarcasm engine just overheated.
It's disheartening, but so true. :(
Quote from: deadDMwalking;549941The difference is, since this is something that comes up a lot, it makes sense that the rules cover it.
Not really. On one hand, tracking might not come up in the game until the group is well established and has transitioned from dungeon exploration to wilderness exploration (talking about the O/AD&D paradigm here), and on the other hand, it's not because some situation comes up regularly in the game that you necessarily HAVE to have rules to cover it. Besides, the guidelines are right there: that's the tracking ability of the ranger in AD&D. I use that to extrapolate some chances of success for the group without a ranger, and we move on with the game. Role playing comes up a lot in a role playing game, right? Well, some people feel that rules shouldn't impede on the actual process of role playing, whereas others will feel they need diplomacy and intimidate rules for that.
I'm squarely in the camp that considers that a flesh-and-blood DM making rulings at the game table according to specific campaign circumstances is infinitely better than a set of rules trying to cover every single possible case that might arise in the course of play from the game designer's stance, sitting in his cubicle, considering issues in a completely theoretical vacuum.
The center-piece that makes role playing games function is the people participating in the past time together. The rules are not an arbiter, not a referee. They are a tool at the disposition of people to maintain a level of consistency in the game that brings them pleasure as they share the worlds of their imaginations. That's the whole point.
What I like to do as a player is just play the actual game, not game the rules just for the sake of it. When I want to do something that seems logical to me but isn't covered by the rules, I have a flesh-and-blood referee in front of me to tell me whether my actions are possible, if I need to roll a die, or if for this or that reason, known or unknown to my character, I cannot attempt it or see it fail outright. I trust that referee to be fair, win or lose, and consistent in his rulings. This is part of the job. I've been actually, in actual play, rarely disappointed by the DMs I've played with (with now quite a few of them posting on this board, actually). And if some divergence of opinion or inconsistency occurs, I keep playing the game. I might ask later what the ruling was about. Sometimes I might be told "I can't tell you. Your character doesn't know why the spell failed at this point" and that's good enough for me.
Really, what I see is, like OHT was saying, a lack of trust in people to actually get a good game going without making the rules the final arbiter of the going-ons around the table. That's a non-starter to me, as far as role playing games are concerned. The people are in charge, not the rules, and I trust them to play the game with me to the best of their ability.
Quote from: Drohem;549947It's disheartening, but so true. :(
No disrespect to Drohem or ExploderWizard, it's not been my experience that PCs want to be 'the best' at everything - or at least, not most of them.
Most players want to be effective within their chosen role, and they want a certain amount of 'niche protection'.
I don't play 4th edition and never have, but I understand that the skill challenges are designed that 1) the same task is HARDER as you go up in level and 2) that total number of successes compared to total number of failures matters - so if you want to HELP your team succeed, you should NOT ROLL unless you are one most likely to succeed.
Effectively, against a challenge the person that is best equipped to defeat it is most likely to accumulate the necessary number of successes without accumulating too many failures by working alone.
The rules should support the type of play you want. If you want players to CONTRIBUTE, their contribution should be more valuable than choosing to sit on their hands. Apparently 4th edition failed in that regard, even without a strawman of claiming everyone wants to be 'the best'.
Regarding the Fighter - lots of people think he should be good - at fighting. I agree.
But in order to be good at fighting, he needs to have ways of getting to the fight. That might mean he needs to have ways of actually training griffons to fly him around or it might mean he needs reasonable rules adjudicating how he can climb up a building and jump down on the dragon when it flies by.
In 3rd edition, a cleric with the proper buffs was a better fighter than a fighter. In 3rd edition, a cleric with summon monster could summon a better fighter than a fighter. Most CR 5 creatures you can summon are
better than a 5th level fighter. They hit harder, they have more attacks, they have increased mobility, and are often harder to hit, etc. Back to the OP's point, the Fighter needs 'artifact level weapons' to remain meaningful.
I don't want Fighters to need artifact weapons. I won't want them to cast spells. I want them to have rules to support being effective characters. I don't want to have to trust that my DM will be nice to me so I can contribute in a meaningful way with other characters that are claimed to have the same power-level as I do.
The fighter in D&D is to the wizard what Green Arrow in Avengers is to Iron Man. The fact that they're on the same team and expected to face the same opponents is made possible by the DM playing nice and not actually pitting them against the same challenges.
The fighter has a narrative role in D&D, but it's usually as a side-kick, and that's a shame.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;549905And this folks, is a core difference between Frank and a lot of folks here. Frank seems to think that unless it's written on your character sheet with a specific success measurement, then you can't attempt it.
I didn't say you couldn't
attempt it. I said it was completely absurd to expect that you were actually going to
succeed without direct DM intervention on your behalf. Think about the very first action that Talysman wanted to declare. He wants to:
- Track an ancient paranoid flying genius with no known associates over miles of inhospitable mountainous terrain while stealthfully leading a small army to a place no mortal has found in centuries without giving away their location or numbers to the target, who is intimately familiar with the region and as previously mentioned can fly.
with
- No more relevant skill in any part of this than a random blacksmith from the local village and indeed likely considerably less local area knowledge.
Sure, you can
try, but presenting that plan as something that has a snowball's chance in Hell of success is laughable at best. And that's just the beginning of Talysman's fool's errand.
The whole milieu of "I don't need special abilities, I have ingenuity and a ten foot pole!" only works when the challenges you are being met with are in fact on the human scale. When your challenges are super human, you need some damn abilities. Yes, you don't actually need anything written on your character sheet to hammer some pitons into the wall or lower a torch down a pit with a rope, but when the problem is
not something that "anyone can do" and is instead something that the general expectation is that it is impossible for a normal person, then
you can't do it either unless you got some kind of mojo that says otherwise.
It's miles of treacherous mountainous wilderness, and somewhere in it there's a centuries-old flying bastard who never goes to town for supplies and never calls his mum. This is the kind of scenario where General Pershing would scour the mountains with nearly five thousand troops for nearly two years and then
give up. And Talysman wants to be able to succeed before he even has to make a cookfire with, and this needs to be bolded:
no relevant abilities at all!Again and still: if you are faced with tasks that a random dude who is "kind of strong" and "has a ten foot pole" can't be expected to accomplish, you'd better have more on your character sheet than "is kind of strong" and "has a ten foot pole" if you expect to accomplish them. That's
axiomatic.
-Frank
You know what's cool about everyone being able to try anything?
No one feels useless just because they don't have the right number on their character sheet.
Everyone can try.
The point that's being missed here is that there's an equalizing effect when EVERYONE at the table can give something a shot, even the guy with 5 STR.
No one's had their gimmick taken away, but no one has to feel powerless either, and no one has to feel constrained in what they can attempt by the system.
Want to try something? Sure, roll the stat check. Bam.
This is how I run Hulks and Horrors, and it is literally some of the most fun I have had gaming in years, even as a DM, because it's so freeing to be able to not rely on that one or two party members with the right skill. Instead, if anyone in the party comes up with a clever plan, all they are is a skill check away from seeing if it succeeds.
That's so liberating, for everyone involved. I will never run or play a game any other way again, and I honestly can't even conceive of willingly putting myself back in that "rules as straightjacket" mindset anymore. Fuck that shit for a game of soldiers. Literally. If I want Rules Uber Alles I'll go back to miniatures gaming.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;549950No disrespect to Drohem or ExploderWizard, it's not been my experience that PCs want to be 'the best' at everything - or at least, not most of them.
I think to be fair, over the course of 3.x there was an escalation in expected competence to the point where only being absolutely fucking awesome at something meant you had no chance of beating the DC and really needed to optimised your character to compete.
And it dosen't seem to be an internet only thing, I know people who never visit forums complaining that having a total bonus of +30 in Move Silently means that NPCs cannot fail to hear them.
It one of the reasons I am really hoping Bounded Accuracy works.
Quote from: B.T.;549942I can't imagine anyone arguing against the inclusion of rules in a game, but here we have it. .
Rules bloat, man. You can't have a rule that covers everything, and any attempt to do so will result in 1000 pages of various rules that no one wants to spend the time to read anyway.
I would rather have a situation where the gaming group comes up with a way to handle something than to carry around 25 pounds of books.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;549950In 3rd edition, a cleric with the proper buffs was a better fighter than a fighter.
If you play a cleric and you memorize the specific sequence of buffs just so you can cast them on yourself and not the fighter, to be better than the fighter at fighting just because you can, and feel like it, you're a shit player. You could have memorized a buttload of other, more useful, spells for the party, or cast them on the fighter to assist him in his tasks, but you deliberately went out of your way to shit on another player's playground instead.
It means you're a shit player. Full stop.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;549957I would rather have a situation where the gaming group comes up with a way to handle something than to carry around 25 pounds of books.
Five books man, five books. It's in Marley's Guide to the Functional Completist. You should pick it up sometime.:D
QuoteIf you play a cleric and you memorize the specific sequence of buffs just so you can cast them on yourself and not the fighter, to be better than the fighter at fighting just because you can, and feel like it, you're a shit player. You could have memorized a buttload of other, more useful, spells for the party, cast them on the fighter to assist him in his tasks, but you deliberately went out of your way to shit on another player's playground instead.
It means you're a shit player. Full stop
Agreed. Just play a Fighter and be done with it. It's just like the wizard taking a bunch of spells to be a better Rogue than the Rogue, total waste of resources.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;549957I would rather have a situation where the gaming group comes up with a way to handle something than to carry around 25 pounds of books.
If the group is consistent, it's a rule.
What you're saying here is that you trust your gaming group to come up with BETTER rules than the Game Designers.
I think you're right. You probably can.
But not everyone wants to work that hard. If you have to constantly work out how to resolve actions around the table (even if you take copious notes so you never need to discuss it again) that's time that you're not engaging in the story. In the 'rules - meh' thread, there's a lot of people that like the idea of not needing to engage the rules - they disappear into the background and you never notice them because they never get in the way.
In my opinion, every time you come to a place that the rules provide NO DIRECTION, you have to engage them. You have to figure out a workable solution that everyone thinks is reasonable. If I'm spending money on a game, I expect the designers to have done that already.
Quote from: Benoist;549960If you play a cleric and you memorize the specific sequence of buffs just so you can cast them on yourself and not the fighter, to be better than the fighter at fighting just because you can, and feel like it, you're a shit player. You could have memorize a buttload of other, more useful, spells for the party, and you deliberately went out of your way to shit on another player's playground.
It means you're a shit player. Full stop.
I don't know if I'd call them a shit player, but what often gets missed in these types of comparisons is that spells are limited time only folks. Sure, the cleric might be better than the fighter
for a few minutes, but if you have several encounters in a day (which typically happens unless your DM lets you rest fully between each fight---not my style thank you very much), then not only does the fighter keep dishing out damage, but now you have a cleric who burned through all of her spells and can't help anyone else (healing, buffs, etc) AND is mediocre at fighting.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;549962If the group is consistent, it's a rule.
What you're saying here is that you trust your gaming group to come up with BETTER rules than the Game Designers.
I think you're right. You probably can.
Better is completely subjective, and varies from table to table. In fact, I would posit "guidelines over detailed rules for everything" is
better game design, because it allows players to customize the game they want to play it, which leads to a better gaming experience for more people other than just those people who like RAW.
QuoteBut not everyone wants to work that hard.
That hard? It's not hard man. A couple of minutes tops. And it's something gamers have been doing for decades and we managed just fine.
I'm really baffled at this mindset that coming up with a rule on the fly is this horrible time consuming, mentally taxing process. We've been doing it since 1974 with nary a blink of an eye.
The problem with "anyone can try anything" is that it translates to "anyone can try anything...and so can the wizard, plus he gets spells, too." I really don't get why people are opposed to letting fighters have skills. It just seems like dumbfuck grognardery.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;549950No disrespect to Drohem or ExploderWizard, it's not been my experience that PCs want to be 'the best' at everything - or at least, not most of them.
Most players want to be effective within their chosen role, and they want a certain amount of 'niche protection'.
To clarify, 'the best' means at a particular schtick, not at everything. When the game system requires hyper-specialization to merely be competent at anything you will see this happen.
The root of the problem is the competence treadmill. We want the best to remain challenged throughout the campaign. A side effect of doing this means that anyone not so specialized stands little chance of success at anything.
In effect, the specialsts become the merely competent, the competent become extra lame, and the regulars best not even try. The whole purpose of specialization is to be amazing at a narrower range of stuff in exchange for competence in a broader range of stuff.
Cranking up the DCs to "challenge" specialists is fucking them over. It turns everyone into one trick ponies just to be remotely capable at their specialty and that isn't right.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;549963I don't know if I'd call them a shit player, but what often gets missed in these types of comparisons is that spells are limited time only folks. Sure, the cleric might be better than the fighter for a few minutes, but if you have several encounters in a day (which typically happens unless your DM lets you rest fully between each fight---not my style thank you very much), then not only does the fighter keep dishing out damage, but now you have a cleric who burned through all of her spells and can't help anyone else (healing, buffs, etc) AND is mediocre at fighting.
That's the point it's a waste of resources and a mismanagement of your strengths. Far better to buff the fighter into an even better death dealing machine and still have slots left over for your actual niche and strength and still be able to act as a nasty flanking buddy for the fighter.
Quote from: Benoist;549960If you play a cleric and you memorize the specific sequence of buffs just so you can cast them on yourself and not the fighter, to be better than the fighter at fighting just because you can, and feel like it, you're a shit player. You could have memorized a buttload of other, more useful, spells for the party, or cast them on the fighter to assist him in his tasks, but you deliberately went out of your way to shit on another player's playground instead.
It means you're a shit player. Full stop.
Hate to double post, but this is SHIT.
First off, there's about a million different 'flavors' of cleric. If you're a cleric of a WAR GOD, you should spend your time wading into combat and smiting your enemies. I fucking love the Song of Roland - and Archbishop Turpin is waist deep in blood just as often as the Knights. If I want to play a cleric of a war god, I should play it in a way that makes sense.
Now, it's unfair to expect a cleric of a God of Necromancy and Undeath to spend all his spell slots healing people so they can stay in the fight. To be fair to his schtick, he should be using his spells to raise undead creatures to fight for me.
For the war cleric, he should be using his spells to fight.
As a player, it's NOT MY FAULT that the cleric is BETTER than the fighter with a single buff.
First off, note that the Fighter's main advantage compared to other classes is a 'good BAB'. At 4th level, that's a +1 over what the cleric has. Any of a dozen spells bridges that gap -
Bull's Strength, for example. Why does it matter if a cleric casts
bull's strength on himself or on the fighter, if they're both equally effective?
It's NICE if the cleric decides to help make the Fighter 'all he can be', but that's the point I'm trying to make here - the Fighter HAS to rely on the kindness of his friends to be as good as they are in his 'niche'.
There are people that think we don't need fighters. They should all be Shadow Lords or some shit.
I think there's plenty of room for Fighters, but not if people try to ignore the problems. A 1st level fighter is one-shotting orcs and goblins. A 10th level fighter isn't one-shotting anyting anymore. The fighter's power erodes constantly from level 1 on RELATIVE TO EVERY CLASS. And it's not going to get better until people who actually LIKE the fighter recognize that it's true. If your Fighter is effective after 10th level, it's probably because monsters are fighting him on easy mode - they're walking up and letting him trade blows. Very few appropriate monsters at 10th level NEED to do that.
Quote from: Benoist;549960If you play a cleric and you memorize the specific sequence of buffs just so you can cast them on yourself and not the fighter, to be better than the fighter at fighting just because you can, and feel like it, you're a shit player. You could have memorized a buttload of other, more useful, spells for the party, or cast them on the fighter to assist him in his tasks, but you deliberately went out of your way to shit on another player's playground instead.
It means you're a shit player. Full stop.
Now that is bollocks.
If your character demands that that is how you play then that is how you play.
A shit player is one that plays all their characters identically.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;549962If the group is consistent, it's a rule.
What you're saying here is that you trust your gaming group to come up with BETTER rules than the Game Designers.
I think you're right. You probably can.
But not everyone wants to work that hard.
Nuh-huh, mister. You made a shortcut to build a strawman here. You made an equivalence between a consistent ruling and a rule to then conclude it's game design and thus "work". That's precisely where your equivalence falls apart: making a ruling is not "work". It's actually playing the game from the referee's side of the screen. Just remembering the ruling from session to session, writing it down at some point, is not "work". It's playing the game.
QuoteI think there's plenty of room for Fighters, but not if people try to ignore the problems. A 1st level fighter is one-shotting orcs and goblins. A 10th level fighter isn't one-shotting anyting anymore. The fighter's power erodes constantly from level 1 on RELATIVE TO EVERY CLASS. And it's not going to get better until people who actually LIKE the fighter recognize that it's true. If your Fighter is effective after 10th level, it's probably because monsters are fighting him on easy mode - they're walking up and letting him trade blows. Very few appropriate monsters at 10th level NEED to do that.
To me this is directly attibutable to the removal of the endgame that the fighter used to have before 3e. The game changed between 9-12th level and fighters had armies doing this stuff for them.
Quote from: jibbajibba;549971Now that is bollocks.
If your character demands that that is how you play then that is how you play.
A shit player is one that plays all their characters identically.
A player that deliberately gets out of his way to play outside of the function of the class to take a dump on another player's niche is a shit player. Full stop.
The cleric is meant to assist other player characters, to encourage them, boost them, heal them, take conditions off their back and act as a secondary line of defense in the process. If you do not understand this, and don't understand that you are in fact a LOT more efficient for the group as whole doing this, rather than taking a dump on the fighter's playground, you are a shit player.
It's okay to not like the Cleric's schtick and want to play a more frontline, active character. But then, roll yourself a fighter, for God's sakes.
Quote from: B.T.;549966The problem with "anyone can try anything" is that it translates to "anyone can try anything...and so can the wizard, plus he gets spells, too." I really don't get why people are opposed to letting fighters have skills. It just seems like dumbfuck grognardery.
I believe in skills, that is not the issue. I prefer the skills be very broad but that's me. All skills should do is make you BETTER at something not unique or lock out the untrained guy.
Go ahead and try and enter an athletic contest as a wizard no magic allowed. Sure you can run, jump and throw but most likely someone with those skills will beat you 9/10ths of the time. But many times your innate talent will get the job done in a passable way.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;549970Hate to double post, but this is SHIT.
First off, there's about a million different 'flavors' of cleric. If you're a cleric of a WAR GOD, you should spend your time wading into combat and smiting your enemies. I fucking love the Song of Roland - and Archbishop Turpin is waist deep in blood just as often as the Knights. If I want to play a cleric of a war god, I should play it in a way that makes sense.
Now, it's unfair to expect a cleric of a God of Necromancy and Undeath to spend all his spell slots healing people so they can stay in the fight. To be fair to his schtick, he should be using his spells to raise undead creatures to fight for me.
For the war cleric, he should be using his spells to fight.
To fight, and support others fighting alongside him. Which is basically the Cleric's schtick to begin with. When you are getting out of your way to just do your thing with complete disregard for the guy who plays the fighter next to you, you are a selfish fuck of a player. Full stop.
If, in the alternative, the fighter finds it fun to fight alongside your Cleric war machine and you cooperate to get your kicks out of the combats, then... where the fuck is the problem here? Just shut the fuck up and roll the dice, for fuck's sakes.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;549970As a player, it's NOT MY FAULT that the cleric is BETTER than the fighter with a single buff.
It's also your RESPONSIBILITY as a player to play WITH the other players around the game table and ensure that everyone has fun with you playing the game. This is NOT the sole responsibility of the DM. If the Fighter player has a problem with you playing a warmachine cleric and you deliberately get out of your way to take a dump on his Cheerios, you are a shit of a gamer, you fail at basic social skills, and you deserve the boot from the game table. FULL STOP.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;549970I think there's plenty of room for Fighters, but not if people try to ignore the problems. A 1st level fighter is one-shotting orcs and goblins. A 10th level fighter isn't one-shotting anyting anymore. The fighter's power erodes constantly from level 1 on RELATIVE TO EVERY CLASS. And it's not going to get better until people who actually LIKE the fighter recognize that it's true. If your Fighter is effective after 10th level, it's probably because monsters are fighting him on easy mode - they're walking up and letting him trade blows. Very few appropriate monsters at 10th level NEED to do that.
Nobody is 1-shotting anything at level 10, that's a disingenuous argument. It also completely misses the point I mentioned above: a MU or cleric might have a more effective attack for only a couple times a day, but the fighter keeps going and going all day long.
If MU could cast lightning bolt indefinitely and not worry about fucking up his spell or getting interrupted, maybe you'd have a point.
Quote from: Benoist;549974The cleric is meant to assist other player characters, to encourage them, boost them, heal them, take conditions off their back and act as a secondary line of defense in the process. .
This is only true of very early clerics. With 2e and on, clerics became specialized with spell spheres, so their role could be one other than the above.
Quote from: B.T.;549966The problem with "anyone can try anything" is that it translates to "anyone can try anything...and so can the wizard, plus he gets spells, too." I really don't get why people are opposed to letting fighters have skills. It just seems like dumbfuck grognardery.
Honestly, ripping skills out of class and making them Backgrounds is probably my second favourite thing so far about 5th.
Quote from: Benoist;549935Not in my experience.
Like Drohem, I've been playing my share of fighting men throughout editions (the pure fighter is my favorite class along with the pure MU). There's always something you can do to contribute. The idea that you are staring at your character sheet going through a checklist of options wondering what to do next is anathema to role playing games, to me. You certainly can do that, but it's just one tiny part of the game, not the game as a whole, nor the finite amount of choices offered to you by the game of your imagination.
In combat, what I do is visualize the situation first, including its tactical components (are there pieces of furniture in the room? Where are the walls, the exits, how high is the ceiling? How many enemies are we facing? What's between us and them? etc), and then I take decisions based on that. The rules are there to support the resolution of those decisions, not the other way around.
After the company of others, the snacks ( ;) ), the role playing and all that, it's the part of the D&D game, specifically, I enjoy the most. It's an ongoing strategic and tactical challenge to explore the unknown, and die or get rich in the process. That's the idea.
The idea that a group of PCs can't track because of a completely misguided attempt at 'niche protection' for the ranger and a wrong interpretation of the tracking guidelines to boot (the high percentiles of success of the ranger tracking an enemy do not mean that other characters can't possibly track, it means they won't do it as well as the ranger, probably - that's why you have a live DM at the table - to adjudicate these types of situations, and if Frank was telling me I can't track because "tracking" is not written on my character sheet, I'd know right then and there his game wouldn't be for me) is an adventure-stopper, a non-starter, as far as I'm concerned, particularly when we are talking about seasoned adventurers who probably have transitioned from the dungeon to the wilderness some time before being faced by the threat of the great wyrm in question.
The simple fact is that the sum of the game is not contained within the covers of the rules book. You have live individuals participating in a hobby, chatting over a game table and collaborating in creating a shared game world via the use of their imaginations, their communication, and some tools of adjudication (the rules/guidelines in the book). The idea that the rules are the game, and the game the rules turns role playing games into a shit board game, an exercise in futility that is more akin to playing Magic: the Gathering with invible cards than anything else.
That's not what I want out of a role playing game. And the armchair theorists can go fuck themselves, if that rubs them the wrong way.
That is all true.
However, there are things that a mudane warrior can not beat which is when you run, hide in a tower or die gloriously. There are very few things that a high level MU can not beat fewer still that a high level MU can't beat that a high level Fighter can beat. Not necessarily an issue its just a thing but no point denying it.
I do worry about player skill. I think that often player skill trumps roleplaying. This was something that Gygax himself raised in late 1e saying that the game was becoming more of a roleplay focus than a game focus. Now he wanted more game, more player skill. That isn't my prefered play style.
Now you get to a sticky point. If I am in a game that encourages a roleplay focus above a player skill focus then what my character can do is important because otherwise my default position is what I as a player can do if you see what I mean.
We discussed on the magic in 5e threads the fact that at at will magical attack appeals to some players more than my wizard casts his sleep spell and then he can still throw oil and do x and y because anyone can throw oil, use a bag of flour and a torch, make napalm from greek fire and soap and all those things that we as tabletop adventurers have been doing since we were 10.
Quote from: B.T.;549966The problem with "anyone can try anything" is that it translates to "anyone can try anything...and so can the wizard, plus he gets spells, too." I really don't get why people are opposed to letting fighters have skills. It just seems like dumbfuck grognardery.
This. Also when you're stuck with "anyone can try anything" then any challenge that can't be done "by anyone" can't be done
at all. Except by spells, which still totally can.
It's actually this very attempt to be "inclusive" that paradoxically results in "Fighters can't have nice things". Every task that can be accomplished without superhuman abilities can be accomplished just as well by the Wizard as by anyone else, and any other task is automatically Wizard-only.
Without a genuine tracking
ability, then either the Dragon's Lair is "easy to find", in which case the Wizard will find it without the Fighter's help. Or it's
not findable, which means that either the DM inserts a helpful NPC who arbitrarily knows where the lair is (and the Fighter is useless) or the Wizard finds it with a spell (and the Fighter is useless). The Fighter only has any reason to
be there if the lair
can't be found by a random farmer scouting the mountains
and he has a genuine tracking
ability that lets him find it anyway.
-Frank
Quote from: Sacrosanct;549979This is only true of very early clerics. With 2e and on, clerics became specialized with spell spheres, so their role could be one other than the above.
Just another reason to play AD&D, or, as I like to call it, "Actual D&D". ;)
Quote from: jadrax;549981Honestly, ripping skills out of class and making them Backgrounds is probably my second favourite thing so far about 5th.
Yeah, that seriously rocks because if you want a Gandalf all you have to do is take a background and not actually have to multiclass or maybe take away from base feats (I do hope that they still give you some open feats tied to total character level outside of backgrounds/themes).
QuoteJust another reason to play AD&D, or, as I like to call it, "Actual D&D". ;)
Pah!:D
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549983This. Also when you're stuck with "anyone can try anything" then any challenge that can't be done "by anyone" can't be done at all. Except by spells, which still totally can.
It's actually this very attempt to be "inclusive" that paradoxically results in "Fighters can't have nice things". Every task that can be accomplished without superhuman abilities can be accomplished just as well by the Wizard as by anyone else, and any other task is automatically Wizard-only.
Without a genuine tracking ability, then either the Dragon's Lair is "easy to find", in which case the Wizard will find it without the Fighter's help. Or it's not findable, which means that either the DM inserts a helpful NPC who arbitrarily knows where the lair is (and the Fighter is useless) or the Wizard finds it with a spell (and the Fighter is useless). The Fighter only has any reason to be there if the lair can't be found by a random farmer scouting the mountains and he has a genuine tracking ability that lets him find it anyway.
-Frank
Nonsense. I can't figure out what game you"re describing or playing but it isn't Dnd as I define or know it.
Quote from: Benoist;549974A player that deliberately gets out of his way to play outside of the function of the class to take a dump on another player's niche is a shit player. Full stop.
The cleric is meant to assist other player characters, to encourage them, boost them, heal them, take conditions off their back and act as a secondary line of defense in the process. If you do not understand this, and don't understand that you are in fact a LOT more efficient for the group as whole doing this, rather than taking a dump on the fighter's playground, you are a shit player.
It's okay to not like the Cleric's schtick and want to play a more frontline, active character. But then, roll yourself a fighter, for God's sakes.
That is bollocks too.
A cleric has no party 'role' as part of the game.
A cleric's role is to be a priest of his diety. They have personal motivation and they have some divine stuff they need to do. They have no 'game' role to act as healers buff the tank or any of that crap.
If my cleric is a bit of a shit and he wants to erode the fighter's power because the figther is a follower of some Lord that stands opposed to the will of my God then I will buff myself fight better then him and deminish him in the eyes of his followers. That in that case is my role.
Quote from: jibbajibba;549988That is bollocks too.
A cleric has no party 'role' as part of the game.
A cleric's role is to be a priest of his diety. They have personal motivation and they have some divine stuff they need to do. They have no 'game' role to act as healers buff the tank or any of that crap.
If my cleric is a bit of a shit and he wants to erode the fighter's power because the figther is a follower of some Lord that stands opposed to the will of my God then I will buff myself fight better then him and deminish him in the eyes of his followers. That in that case is my role.
That sure wouldn't convince me to actually want you at my table because you decided that your God's mission "is to crap on the lawn of any and all fighters in my party", I don't think you would do something like this as a player but this is why there must be a table talk before the game starts.
Quote from: jibbajibba;549988That is bollocks too.
A cleric has no party 'role' as part of the game.
A cleric's role is to be a priest of his diety. They have personal motivation and they have some divine stuff they need to do. They have no 'game' role to act as healers buff the tank or any of that crap.
If my cleric is a bit of a shit and he wants to erode the fighter's power because the figther is a follower of some Lord that stands opposed to the will of my God then I will buff myself fight better then him and deminish him in the eyes of his followers. That in that case is my role.
Don't you understand!? If you play a Cleric and don't keep up with heals on the tank, Benoist is going to kick you out of the raid before you even get to lot for loot!
-Frank
Quote from: Sacrosanct;549978Nobody is 1-shotting anything at level 10, that's a disingenuous argument. It also completely misses the point I mentioned above: a MU or cleric might have a more effective attack for only a couple times a day, but the fighter keeps going and going all day long.
If MU could cast lightning bolt indefinitely and not worry about fucking up his spell or getting interrupted, maybe you'd have a point.
Hold Person is a one-shot take-down for a wizard or cleric, as is
Hold Monster.
Finger of Death is a one-shot take-down for a wizard at 13th level and
slay living works for a cleric at 9th level.
Forcecage is a good example of a 'why wizards win' spell. Unless the fighter is carrying around a metric ton of arrows, he's trapped for a full day while the wizard can unload everything he has on the Fighter.
These are all examples from 3rd edition, but with the failure of 4th edition, I worry that people will draw the wrong lessons about the fighter. In 4th edition, it seems like they nerfed every character. In D&D Next it sounds like they plan to make the Fighter suck and other classes better.
And while they might not mean to, they appear to be making every class better at FIGHTING than the Fighter. The fact that a cleric in 3.5 makes a better fighter WITHOUT EVEN TRYING is BAD DESIGN.
The fact that BUFF SPELLS that some argue the cleric should cast on the FIGHTER often have a range of PERSONAL meaning that the cleric is the ONLY VALID TARGET is BAD DESIGN.
The Fighter SHOULD be good at fighting. The rules DON'T support that. That's a shame.
Quote from: jibbajibba;549988That is bollocks too.
A cleric has no party 'role' as part of the game.
A cleric's role is to be a priest of his diety. They have personal motivation and they have some divine stuff they need to do. They have no 'game' role to act as healers buff the tank or any of that crap.
If my cleric is a bit of a shit and he wants to erode the fighter's power because the figther is a follower of some Lord that stands opposed to the will of my God then I will buff myself fight better then him and deminish him in the eyes of his followers. That in that case is my role.
If the fighter PLAYER has no issue with this (personally, talking as a player in our hypothetic game, I would have NO problem whatsoever with that kind of stuff, because you are running out of spells and buffs at some point - I don't, and I would value the rivalry and role playing coming out of this - I'm sure we'd had a LOT of fun playing this, and combats where we're fighting alongside each other would be a lot of fun, probably with some sort of rough camaraderie coming of it, I'd presume), I don't see where the problem is. AT ALL.
If the fighter PLAYER has a problem with it and you get out of your way to role play your character to annoy the fuck out of him, you are a shitbag and deserve the boot from the table.
Play with the other players, or don't play at all.
Quote from: J Arcane;549953You know what's cool about everyone being able to try anything?
No one feels useless just because they don't have the right number on their character sheet.
Everyone can try.
The point that's being missed here is that there's an equalizing effect when EVERYONE at the table can give something a shot, even the guy with 5 STR.
No one's had their gimmick taken away, but no one has to feel powerless either, and no one has to feel constrained in what they can attempt by the system.
Want to try something? Sure, roll the stat check. Bam.
This is how I run Hulks and Horrors, and it is literally some of the most fun I have had gaming in years, even as a DM, because it's so freeing to be able to not rely on that one or two party members with the right skill. Instead, if anyone in the party comes up with a clever plan, all they are is a skill check away from seeing if it succeeds.
That's so liberating, for everyone involved. I will never run or play a game any other way again, and I honestly can't even conceive of willingly putting myself back in that "rules as straightjacket" mindset anymore. Fuck that shit for a game of soldiers. Literally. If I want Rules Uber Alles I'll go back to miniatures gaming.
I am all in favour of this. Never say no just roll the dice.
So the 300lb 6 stength wants to climb the cliffs of dispair.. okay roll some dice
However, do not expect to always suceed.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549990Don't you understand!? If you play a Cleric and don't keep up with heals on the tank, Benoist is going to kick you out of the raid before you even get to lot for loot!
-Frank
He just might. It would be his call if he is running the game. Seriously these are the kinds of issues that need to be ironed out either at the pitch/table talk phase or outside the game in between sessions.
QuoteI am all in favour of this. Never say no just roll the dice.
So the 300lb 6 stength wants to climb the cliffs of dispair.. okay roll some dice
However, do not expect to always suceed.
That's why I prefer broad skills and attribute checks.
Coming into this late, but the thing that strikes me as weird is how some people are implying the choice is between (1) use only old-school D&D rules with no explicit variants; or (2) have super-complicated rules and be totally unable to make rulings or stray from the rules under any circumstances.
That goes against all my experience. I use non-old-school rules all the time while still being able to make rulings, extrapolate reasonably, and so forth.
Quote from: Benoist;549974A player that deliberately gets out of his way to play outside of the function of the class to take a dump on another player's niche is a shit player. Full stop.
The cleric is meant to assist other player characters, to encourage them, boost them, heal them, take conditions off their back and act as a secondary line of defense in the process. If you do not understand this, and don't understand that you are in fact a LOT more efficient for the group as whole doing this, rather than taking a dump on the fighter's playground, you are a shit player.
It's okay to not like the Cleric's schtick and want to play a more frontline, active character. But then, roll yourself a fighter, for God's sakes.
So if I play a frontline, active cleric, then I'm shitting on another player - but if I play a frontline, active fighter, then I'm fine?!? That doesn't make sense to me.
My issue is that I like characters who don't conform to the usual stereotypes of their race and class. I think it makes the game more interesting.
A couple months ago, I played Lamentations of the Flame Princess as GMed by the authr. In that, I played a heavy-metal cleric who used a polearm, and I played him as a very frontline active character. I don't think I was being a shit player. (Below is the link to my con report)
http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/cons/solmukohta2012.html#Lamentations%20of%20the%20Flame%20Princess
I think there should be room for having more than one frontline, active character.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549990Don't you understand!? If you play a Cleric and don't keep up with heals on the tank, Benoist is going to kick you out of the raid before you even get to lot for loot!
-Frank
Shut the fuck up, Aspie non-gamer. Go play an actual D&D game with live people for once, then come back to me to talk about your actual experiences shitting all over other people's fun. That's going to be something to remember. Maybe when you crawl out of your basement and stop hating on the picture of Mearls on your wall, heh?
How exactly does a cleric become a better fighter than the fighter in any TSR edition?
(WOTC wankery is in a category all its own and broke so much shit it qualifies as D&D in name only)
All of this, indeed the focus of this whole thread is due to WOTC crap.
Quote from: Benoist;549984Just another reason to play AD&D, or, as I like to call it, "Actual D&D". ;)
Wrong.
(http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=31404&t=o) (http://gifsoup.com/view/31404/wrong.html) GIFSoup (http://gifsoup.com/)
*Edit* For the record, I prefer 1e to other editions, but I do use 2e cleric spheres because made the cleric much more interesting.
Quote from: jhkim;549995So if I play a frontline, active cleric, then I'm shitting on another player - but if I play a frontline, active fighter, then I'm fine?!? That doesn't make sense to me.
Well that doesn't make any sense because it isn't what I said. I was talking about the people sitting around the game table and how the fighter player feels about you gaming the rules to shit on his Cheerios. If the fighter player has no problem with you doing this, then where the fuck is the problem again?
If the fighter player has a problem with it, then it's time to play something that fits the group. Not being a selfish bastard who wants his way or the highway.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;549905No other class is going to be as effective with a ballista than a fighter. The MU might run out of spells, not have the right spells, or not be able to get past the dragon's magic resistance. The fighter can lob ballista bolts all day.
Can't agree with that.
The wizard is smarter and can (if you use late 1e + NWP) use maths.
Maths and brains are far better for using a ballista than 18(00) Stength and superhuman endurance.
There is a reason why most people working on targetting missiles at remote locations are scientists not WWE wrestlers.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550000Can't agree with that.
The wizard is smarter and can (if you use late 1e + NWP) use maths.
Maths and brains are far better for using a ballista than 18(00) Stength and superhuman endurance.
There is a reason why most people working on targetting missiles at remote locations are scientists not WWE wrestlers.
I'm talking about the To Hit tables. A fighter will be more effective than any other class. If you're wanting to use math (and intelligence) to impact to hit bonuses for missile weapons and say a MU will be better than a fighter in martial combat?
Not really playing D&D.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;549997How exactly does a cleric become a better fighter than the fighter in any TSR edition?
(WOTC wankery is in a category all its own and broke so much shit it qualifies as D&D in name only)
All of this, indeed the focus of this whole thread is due to WOTC crap.
First you pick up the Priest's Handbook for 2e. Then you trade
most of your spellcasting spheres for kicking ass and taking names in combat because you're a Priest of Crom or something. By the time you're as good at stabbing things in the face as a Fighter, you have a pretty short spell list. But you're still as good as a Fighter at stabbing things in the face and you have a spell list at all. Make sure you have a couple of buffs on that list
and cast them at some point. Rock out with your cock out.
For AD&D Cleric beatdowns, it's relatively harder because frankly the rules aren't as clear and it's not even obvious what expansion materials are supposed to be usable together. But at the very least you can summon up angels and such that are every bit as good as the Fighter and then because you have more than one and your own trusty hammer, your total melee badassery is considerably more than the Fighter.
The change in 2e wasn't so much that Clerics started being able to outperform the Fighter. It's that they started being able to do that
from first level.
-Frank
Of course, originally...
Knock = Memorise if you don't have a Thief in the party.
Detect Traps = Um, i've seen this somewhere before...
Thief read scrolls....if you haven't got an M.U in the party.
You get the drill.
This did get diluted in 3e with its ridiculously easy multi-classing rules and proliferation of cleric buff spells, though.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550000Can't agree with that.
The wizard is smarter and can (if you use late 1e + NWP) use maths.
Maths and brains are far better for using a ballista than 18(00) Stength and superhuman endurance.
There is a reason why most people working on targetting missiles at remote locations are scientists not WWE wrestlers.
That is an issue of Player Knowledge vs. Game Knowledge. In a game like Dnd Wizards are not typically versed in military tactics and strategy despite having an INT score of 18.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550000Can't agree with that.
The wizard is smarter and can (if you use late 1e + NWP) use maths.
Maths and brains are far better for using a ballista than 18(00) Stength and superhuman endurance.
There is a reason why most people working on targetting missiles at remote locations are scientists not WWE wrestlers.
Actually the best ballista operator is a high DEX fighter.
The ballista is a weapon and uses the weapon attack tables.
It is a missile weapon.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;549998Wrong.
Right.
(http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbqsb36B1U1qe0eclo1_r3_500.gif)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;549997How exactly does a cleric become a better fighter than the fighter in any TSR edition?
(WOTC wankery is in a category all its own and broke so much shit it qualifies as D&D in name only)
All of this, indeed the focus of this whole thread is due to WOTC crap.
Wizards of the Coast owns the Intellectual Property that is Dungeons and Dragons.
If you are happy with 1st or 2nd edition and you have enough friends that are happy with 1st or 2nd edition that you will never need to play a different game, it doesn't matter what Wizards of the Coast has done or will do.
If you are hoping that there will be a version of Dungeons and Dragons better than any that have come before, one that you will enjoy playing and will draw new players to the game, you should focus on what WotC is doing, because they own the property and will make the final decision.
And if they hear everyone telling them 'fighters are too powerful' they're going to screw the pooch on the next edition. I EXPECT them to do that, but I really hope they don't. So if I can convince any grognards hanging out here that the Fighter can be BETTER at FIGHTING without being 'super-magical', I might have a chance of convincing WotC the same thing.
I like Fighters. I want fighters in my game. I want fighters to have level-appropriate abilities, without necessarily being 'magic'. This may not be easy, but getting closer to that should be easy. But it won't be as long as people believe that Fighters are 'okay' being unable to contribute in a high-level game. Whether that's because most people stop playing by level 8 or because they really think it's fine for the Fighter to be the Wizard's sidekick at 15th level - doesn't matter. But I want Fighters to remain relevant at all levels of play. And in 3rd edition they tried to CLAIM that it was true, but it wasn't.
Quote from: Marleycat;549989That sure wouldn't convince me to actually want you at my table because you decided that your God's mission "is to crap on the lawn of any and all fighters in my party", I don't think you would do something like this as a player but this is why there must be a table talk before the game starts.
For me its about the roleplay.
The personality of the character is the point of playing.
My cleric migh be helpful and kind or evil and manipulative, a coward or a hero. They might be evil and still be a hero willing to lay down their live for their beliefs.
That is why I am playing an RPG and not WoW.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;550002First you pick up the Priest's Handbook for 2e. Then you trade most of your spellcasting spheres for kicking ass and taking names in combat because you're a Priest of Crom or something. By the time you're as good at stabbing things in the face as a Fighter, you have a pretty short spell list. But you're still as good as a Fighter at stabbing things in the face and you have a spell list at all. Make sure you have a couple of buffs on that list and cast them at some point. Rock out with your cock out.
For AD&D Cleric beatdowns, it's relatively harder because frankly the rules aren't as clear and it's not even obvious what expansion materials are supposed to be usable together. But at the very least you can summon up angels and such that are every bit as good as the Fighter and then because you have more than one and your own trusty hammer, your total melee badassery is considerably more than the Fighter.
The change in 2e wasn't so much that Clerics started being able to outperform the Fighter. It's that they started being able to do that from first level.
-Frank
Maybe you need to refresh your reading of those books. Fighters got weapon specialization. Clerics did not. That's huge.
And ONCE AGAIN, the cleric's spells were very temporary.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550009For me its about the roleplay.
The personality of the character is the point of playing.
My cleric migh be helpful and kind or evil and manipulative, a coward or a hero. They might be evil and still be a hero willing to lay down their live for their beliefs.
That is why I am playing an RPG and not WoW.
Sure. But that must be known and accepted by everybody at the table. As long as it's understood and accepted game on!
(1) Frank doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about. That's an established fact by now.
(2) No "Complete Aspie" books automatically allowed at the game table. Core only. If you want to play something else, run it with the group first. The DM has final say in allowing or disallowing it. If the fighter player has a problem with you playing your Cleric of Crom, it's time to reconsider your approach to your character (I wouldn't have any problem with that personally, and I'm guessing most players wouldn't give a shit about it either, but there it is: the possibility exists).
Quote from: Benoist;550013(1) Frank doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about. That's an established fact by now.
I don't think 'established fact' means what you think it means.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;550005Actually the best ballista operator is a high DEX fighter.
The ballista is a weapon and uses the weapon attack tables.
It is a missile weapon.
I would never run artillery as missile weapons that use dex because its illogical. I would give level benefits probably but even then. A 15th level fighter who just wondered out of the forest for the first time is not going to be as effective with a balista than a 0 level balista team that have been doing it for years. Even if he could read the manual :)
Now I don't mind fighters being weaker at high levels than MUs not a big deal to me and I am certainly not goign to give them a bunch of illogical perks to make it up to them.
If you say fighters aren't weak because a good player playing a fighter can do
then you have to accept that the same player playing a wizard or a 1st level hobbit thief could do the same things.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550010Maybe you need to refresh your reading of those books. Fighters got weapon specialization. Clerics did not. That's huge.
And ONCE AGAIN, the cleric's spells were very temporary.
On top of that fighters got new toys in their own handbook, better THAC0 progression, and a better hp die.
The cleric could self heal, which was an advantage, but then there are fewer of the spell slots for those buff spells.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550010Maybe you need to refresh your reading of those books. Fighters got weapon specialization. Clerics did not. That's huge.
And ONCE AGAIN, the cleric's spells were very temporary.
Dude: War, Complete Priest's Handbook.
You can and must take weapon specialization.
The buffs may be temporary, but they are strictly better than the "nothing" you would otherwise have.
-Frank
Quote from: Benoist;550013(1) Frank doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about. That's an established fact by now.
(2) No "Complete Aspie" books automatically allowed at the game table. Core only. If you want to play something else, run it with the group first. The DM has final say in allowing or disallowing it. If the fighter player has a problem with you playing your Cleric of Crom, it's time to reconsider your approach to your character (I wouldn't, and I'm guessing most players wouldn't give a shit about it, but there it is).
That's pretty much what we did. In fact the exact procedure is what Drohem does, these books are allowed and run something by me if it may be a corner case. This is the most sensible way for any game beyond early 1e and absolutely required for 3e.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550014I don't think 'established fact' means what you think it means.
Well I guess we all have different experiences with the man. You can keep on sucking dick all you want, but Frank doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about when talking about any of the TSR versions of D&D.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;549775There it is. Frank Trollman sucks at D&D.
Quote from: Benoist;549780I would rather quit RPGs than play with Frank as DM.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;549791Yeah, it seems The Troll Man is using one of the, "DRAGONZ ARR THE MOS AWSUMIST POW3RZ IN THE UNIV3RZ!!11lol!!" editions.
Quote from: One Horse Town;549796Alternatively, Frankie-boy hasn't played much dungeons & dragons.
Quote from: Declan MacManus;549822You're a fidgety autist whose hobbies are theorycrafting and annoying others with your incessant rules fappery.
Quote from: Benoist;549846See now you guys are talking about actually playing a fucking role playing game, something frank knows nothing about. Stop trying to confuse him with this stuff outside the rules he doesn't want to even consider actually exists.
You folks sure are...
invested in hating on Frank.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;549944Well, take a look around. Obviously I'm not alone. And I am much more a "kewl powers" game than the older school crowd here. But I do differ with the philosophy that every challenge in the game must be directly handled by an entry on your character sheet.
I'm of the school that many challenges must be solved by either or both teamwork and/or interacting with the game world, not by giving the fighter weaboo fightan magic. This goes especially for epic level gaming; IMC, if you need to take out a demigod, you need allies, artifacts, blessings and like.
For my tabletop gaming, I reject the 4e-ish "everything is an encounter " design philosophy.
I think you're conflating two things here. The worst, most fundamental problem with 4E is that there aren't consistent rules (which sounds odd because 4E has huge, heaping PILES of rules, but bear with me). In combat, you have abilities that (e.g.) produce a burst of flame, doing damage and some minor effect. Out of combat, that does nothing. If you use it on a door, you have no idea what will happen from one table to the next, and only a tenuous idea what will happen from one door to the next.
In 3E (not that 3E is especially virtuous, it just makes a very good foil to 4E), you can use that to burn though a wooden door, because there are rules for how fire interacts with objects. What's more (and this is the key part), it interacts the same way every time. It's realistic, in that you can guess what amount of fire would be needed to light a door-fire, and and your character can too (regardless of whether those are different heats). It's verisimilitudinous, because it's consistent across different doors (the oak door in the kobold caves is the same as the oak door in the lich castle). It's empowering, both on success and failure, because either way your character's outcomes are determined by their preparation, foresight, and abilities. It's a better game, because without the deterministic input-output, your results are random and you may as well be playing snakes-and-ladders. Finally, it makes for much, much better stories, if only because sometimes the door doesn't burn, and you have to deal with that.
So what does that have to do with your larger point?
Everything. You say "I'm of the school that many challenges must be solved by either or both teamwork and/or interacting with the game world". That is
exactly the strongest argument for a consistent ruleset. If part of the ranger's role is tracking, and everyone else can track too, the ranger is actually failing to add anything. That's not failing as in "Oh noez! A suboptimal action!" it's actually removing the unique advantage which his class brings to the party. Protecting roles is what encourages and incentivizes teamwork.
It's even more pronounced with world interaction. Take the god-slaying example where you need to go find allies, artifacts, blessings, etc. If those don't have predictable effects, they're nothing more than plot-coupons: collect enough and you get to move to the boss battle. When the Yeti Blade is just a thing need to get to bypass Bob The Unliving's plot invulnerability, getting it is a chore that you do so you can do the thing you actually wanted to do all along. When Bob instead has DR 40/Yeti, it's instead your best option, and you can tell much more interactive stories (maybe the Yeti Blade is what keeps Yetiland cool enough for Yetis to frolic, so the players are faced with a Terrible Choice™) about how the PCs decided to leave the Yeti Blade, drink waterbreathing potions, and grapple and drown Bob instead. Or maybe it's an actual high-level story, where Bob is hiding in various dimensions, and needs to be somehow lured into standing on an X in the open, so someone can drop a midas meteor on him. Or whatever.
Allies are even more clear cut: if the fighter can suddenly track just by wanting it, there's no incentive to go find Deadeye Steve, who can follow a trail over solid stone (unless there's already a party ranger, in which case why would you even want an NPC hogging the spotlight?).
I know this is a bit expansive for a first post, but so it goes.
Quote from: Benoist;549999Well that doesn't make any sense because it isn't what I said. I was talking about the people sitting around the game table and how the fighter player feels about you gaming the rules to shit on his Cheerios. If the fighter player has no problem with you doing this, then where the fuck is the problem again?
If the fighter player has a problem with it, then it's time to play something that fits the group. Not being a selfish bastard who wants his way or the highway.
This didn't happen in my Lamentations of the Flame Princess game, but let's suppose it did.
So what I did is this: I created a cleric, but I play him as a frontline, active cleric - who charges in to the fight himself. Another player is playing a fighter, and he complains "Hey, you can't do that!!! You're shitting on my Cheerios. You need to play a fighter if you're going to be in the front line."
Your claim is that the fighter player is right.
I'm willing to listen to the player, but unless there's something I'm missing, the player sounds like a fucking whiner. I don't have a problem with his frontline active character - why does he have a problem with my character? I liked my heavy-metal priest.
Quote from: Benoist;549992If the fighter PLAYER has no issue with this (personally, talking as a player in our hypothetic game, I would have NO problem whatsoever with that kind of stuff, because you are running out of spells and buffs at some point - I don't, and I would value the rivalry and role playing coming out of this - I'm sure we'd had a LOT of fun playing this, and combats where we're fighting alongside each other would be a lot of fun, probably with some sort of rough camaraderie coming of it, I'd presume), I don't see where the problem is. AT ALL.
If the fighter PLAYER has a problem with it and you get out of your way to role play your character to annoy the fuck out of him, you are a shitbag and deserve the boot from the table.
Play with the other players, or don't play at all.
The first part I agree with the second is a problem.
If I play a charater and because you don't like it because I can do a thing that you want to do better then you can and you make a fuss about it then Fuck you.
If I was being a shit just to annoy him then its a different thing.
Of course I would never do that :) but I totally commit to a character idea.
Quote from: Marleycat;550018That's pretty much what we did. In fact the exact procedure is what Drohem does, these books are allowed and run something by me if it may be a corner case. This is the most sensible way for any game beyond early 1e and absolutely required for 3e.
I detect some moving of goal posts here.
TSR made it possible for the cleric to be a better fighter than a FIGHTER. Disallowing supplements they published doesn't change the fact that TSR published those supplements.
WotC makes it possible for a cleric to be a better fighter than a FIGHTER. Since that's core, it's hard not to automatically do it.
There's room to make Fighters better without diminishing anyone else. More to the point, if the things that make Fighters 'okay' are abilities that EVERY OTHER CHARACTER has, then every other character is STILL better than a fighter - especially if they perform better in combat. The wizard can outperform the fighter in combat, which is supposed to be where fighters shine - if fighters aren't the best at FIGHTING, why are they called fighters? If fighters CAN ONLY fight, and they're not that good at it, they don't really serve a purpose.
I think fighters need to be BETTER than they are. They need to play the same game as everyone else. This is not new to recent editions - it's just more clearly apparent.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550008And if they hear everyone telling them 'fighters are too powerful' they're going to screw the pooch on the next edition. I EXPECT them to do that, but I really hope they don't. So if I can convince any grognards hanging out here that the Fighter can be BETTER at FIGHTING without being 'super-magical', I might have a chance of convincing WotC the same thing.
I think this may not play well with this:
Quote from: deadDMwalking;549948I'm only on this board because I'm curious about D&D Next - not enough to actually play-test the rules, because I'm of the 'meh' camp. I don't NEED a new edition of D&D - I'm doing fine with my long established gaming group.
Honestly though, I share your concern, and we only have three levels of Fighter so its hard to know what the fuck High level will be like.
But so far, the 5th edition Fighter Seems to be a bit of a powerhouse. He has a +1 to hit and a +4 to damage over everyone else, From his Class, at first level. This is better than the cleric's Self buff. He has the same Skills as everyone else, so can actually be interesting without having to cross-class or any such shit. He has access to the same themes as everyone else, so can customise.
It's not a bad fucking start. Out of five pre-gens it is the only one that every single player has expressed a desire to play.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550025I detect some moving of goal posts here.
TSR made it possible for the cleric to be a better fighter than a FIGHTER. Disallowing supplements they published doesn't change the fact that TSR published those supplements.
WotC makes it possible for a cleric to be a better fighter than a FIGHTER. Since that's core, it's hard not to automatically do it..
But only for a short period of time before the spells wear off. Players do not get spell resets after every encounter. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this more than once. I'm curious as to why you keep ignoring it, because it's pretty relevant.
Quote from: jhkim;550022This didn't happen in my Lamentations of the Flame Princess game, but let's suppose it did.
So what I did is this: I created a cleric, but I play him as a frontline, active cleric - who charges in to the fight himself. Another player is playing a fighter, and he complains "Hey, you can't do that!!! You're shitting on my Cheerios. You need to play a fighter if you're going to be in the front line."
Your claim is that the fighter player is right.
No. I'm not claiming the fighter player is right. Actually, when you read my previous post, what I say is:
If the fighter player has a problem with you playing your Cleric of Crom, it's time to reconsider your approach to your character (I wouldn't, and I'm guessing most players wouldn't give a shit about it, but there it is).Role playing games are a social hobby, first and foremost. People come first, PERIOD. If the fighter player has a problem with you playing this or that character, then you talk it over and try to find a way to make it work for the group. If really there's no way to make it work for him, since your choice of your character is yours and yours alone, it's time to reconsider, play something else, and get on with the game. If you can't possibly do that, then yeah, there's a problem in your order of priorities.
Now, the same could be said about the fighter player having a tantrum over you playing your Cleric of Crom, obviously. As I said, I personally wouldn't have a problem with it: I would instead search for ways to make the role playing interesting with my own character, working on a little competition or tough camaraderie as I said to Jibba.
But if I was to create a Cleric of Crom, that the fighter player had a real problem with me fighting better than he does (which is HIGHLY arguable because of the spell allotments and spell durations, as pointed out by Sacrosanct multiple times already), I would retool my character simply by selecting different ways in which I could support him in his fighting, rather than getting in his face "because it's me role playing my character". It'd be a dick move, and it would no longer be important whether the fighter player was right or not to get annoyed in the first place: I would have deliberately given in to shit on his cheerios, and that would have made me a worse player than he is.
I prefer to be the adult in the room trying to make the game fun for everyone around me. Don't you?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550025I detect some moving of goal posts here.
TSR made it possible for the cleric to be a better fighter than a FIGHTER. Disallowing supplements they published doesn't change the fact that TSR published those supplements.
I don't think this is the case, supplements or not. I'll consult my 2E books when I get home from work and crunch some numbers. IIRC a war cleric in 2E wasn't as all around as good a fighter as the fighter at pure combat.
Quote from: fectin;550020You folks sure are... invested in hating on Frank.
Welcome to the RPG Site, fectin.
And no, we're not "invested in hating on Frank". We just treat his bullshit for what it is. Bullshit.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550025I detect some moving of goal posts here.
TSR made it possible for the cleric to be a better fighter than a FIGHTER. Disallowing supplements they published doesn't change the fact that TSR published those supplements.
WotC makes it possible for a cleric to be a better fighter than a FIGHTER. Since that's core, it's hard not to automatically do it.
There's room to make Fighters better without diminishing anyone else. More to the point, if the things that make Fighters 'okay' are abilities that EVERY OTHER CHARACTER has, then every other character is STILL better than a fighter - especially if they perform better in combat. The wizard can outperform the fighter in combat, which is supposed to be where fighters shine - if fighters aren't the best at FIGHTING, why are they called fighters? If fighters CAN ONLY fight, and they're not that good at it, they don't really serve a purpose.
I think fighters need to be BETTER than they are. They need to play the same game as everyone else. This is not new to recent editions - it's just more clearly apparent.
There is no moving of the goalposts it's just how EVERY actual game I have been in works. Just because a book is published does not put me or any DM I play under some obligation to allow said book. I do tend understand and somewhat agree about your opinion of fighters but it is not the prevailing opinion here. I do believe if you insist on removing the domanin management game from the game you get these issues unless you stop with the pretense and just allow fighters to get nice things but admit that they ARE in fact magic users in all but name past 9-12th level (maybe earlier in 3x). Just own up to it and go all wuxia and play.
QuoteYou folks sure are... invested in hating on Frank.
Hate Frank? Hell, I like him I just don't agree with everything he says. And he knows his math big time and has seriously good points other times.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;550029I don't think this is the case, supplements or not. I'll consult my 2E books when I get home from work and crunch some numbers. IIRC a war cleric in 2E wasn't as all around as good a fighter as the fighter at pure combat.
I have to check the cleric book too. But for 2e at least, you have to account for the boost the complete fighter gives to fighters as well. In my experience of running 2e we never really encountered the super cleric you sometimes get in 3E.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550025TSR made it possible for the cleric to be a better fighter than a FIGHTER. Disallowing supplements they published doesn't change the fact that TSR published those supplements.
Who gives a flying fuck about what supplements TSR published or not? That doesn't matter at my game table, and it certainly shouldn't matter at yours either. It's all supplemental stuff. You have final say in what you want to allow or disallow at your game table, period. The play's the thing, what happens to the game table is what actually matters as far as your game is concerned. I certainly don't give a shit whatever nonsense was splattered all over Unearthed Arcana when I run the game. Why should I?
Quote from: Benoist;550034Who gives a flying fuck about what supplements TSR published or not? That doesn't matter at my game table, and it certainly shouldn't matter at yours either. It's all supplemental stuff. You have final say in what you want to allow or disallow at your game table, period. The play's the thing, what happens to the game table is what actually matters as far as your game is concerned. I certainly don't give a shit whatever nonsense was splattered all over Unearthed Arcana when I run the game. Why should I?
From the point of view of the development of 5th, which DeadDMWalking has said his is concern, its a legitimate worry they might choose to cherry pick bits of shit supplements. After all, they did when making 4th.
Quote from: jadrax;550036From the point of view of the development of 5th, which DeadDMWalking has said his is concern, its a legitimate worry they might choose to cherry pick bits of shit supplements. After all, they did when making 4th.
From that POV, as far as 5e's development is concerned, OK. Fair point.
That's not what Frank was talking about though. He was answering the question "How exactly does a cleric become a better fighter than the fighter in any TSR edition?" which is clearly an actual play question that introduced the kicker of this post: (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=549997&postcount=195) "WOTC wankery is in a category all its own and broke so much shit it qualifies as D&D in name only."
Quote from: jadrax;550036From the point of view of the development of 5th, which DeadDMWalking has said his is concern, its a legitimate worry they might choose to cherry pick bits of shit supplements. After all, they did when making 4th.
As long as they don't insist EVERYTHING is core like 4e it'll be ok. That to me was a huge issue and helped turn me off the game.
The difference between Class systems and Skill systems is a big one.
Early D&D Class systems are based on general archetypes, anything else is "Ruling not Rules." Not satisfactory for some, but there it is.
From 3.0 on, D&D has been a mixture of Class and Skill systems, which never really works out too well because the dividing line between "what is a power unique to a class" and "what is a skill that anyone can do" gets muddied and different people have different opinions on where that line should be.
Since life is a Skill system and not a Class system, usually a non-magical ability should be represented by a Skill, which causes problems with Rogues/Rangers etc...
There's kind of no point arguing back and forth when one side is standing in AD&D land without a skill system, and the other is standing in 3.0 land where skills are specifically defined.
Quote from: Benoist;550028No. I'm not claiming the fighter player is right. Actually, when you read my previous post, what I say is: If the fighter player has a problem with you playing your Cleric of Crom, it's time to reconsider your approach to your character (I wouldn't, and I'm guessing most players wouldn't give a shit about it, but there it is).
Role playing games are a social hobby, first and foremost. People come first, PERIOD. If the fighter player has a problem with you playing this or that character, then you talk it over and try to find a way to make it work for the group. If really there's no way to make it work for him, since your choice of your character is yours and yours alone, it's time to reconsider, play something else, and get on with the game. If you can't possibly do that, then yeah, there's a problem in your order of priorities.
Quote from: Benoist;550028I prefer to be the adult in the room trying to make the game fun for everyone around me. Don't you?
I don't think that being an adult means I should necessarily do whatever another player insists on. For example, if he's being a tantrum-throwing whiner who insists on getting his way, then I don't think it's good for the social dynamic to give in to him. The whole game suffers if everyone gives him his way.
It depends on the specific people and situation. I've seen very close to this dynamic when my two nephews play. (They're brothers, age 10 and 12 last summer when I last played RPGs with them.) One would often get upset at what the other did. I'd talk to the complainer and say that he should adjust and learn to respect his brother's choice.
Quote from: jhkim;550043I don't think that being an adult means I should necessarily do whatever another player insists on.
Cool. I'm not saying that either.
Ahhh here we are. Crossboard drama is afoot, in fact. I was wondering why we had so many new recruits here coming in to support Frank. That's because he retreated to the Gaming Den to bitch about us. (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=270502#270502) That makes sense, now.
Quote from: Frank on the Gaming DenTo see how incredibly entrenched the idea that Fighters don't need nice things, go ahead and check out actual neckbeards in their natural environment. They have been relying on DM Pity so long that they don't even realize that they don't have abilities.
I mean, what the fuck do these assholes need legwork abilities, when they can already attempt to track an ancient paranoid flying genius with no known associates over miles of mountainous wilderness and expect to succeed because their DM will take pity on them?
We love you too, Frank. :D
Quote from: daniel_ream;549937Casting spells only appears to be "unlike" those others because the game system defines them that way. In early versions of D&D, tracking is a you-have-it-or-you-don't class feature just like casting spells is.
You're essentially arguing that class features are binary when you like the result and aren't when you don't. That's just a matter of personal preference.
Are you saying that if a fighter heads off in the direction a dragon was flying, and happens across the carcasses of a dozen cows, a burnt out village, and clawed tracks 6 inches deep, that for some reason, he can't see any of this because he's not a ranger?
I started DMing when 3rd edition first came out. I can still remember the episode of Dexter's Laboratory that made me decide to start playing Dungeons and Dragons in the first place. In my experience since starting I've run into the Fighters vs Wizard problem pretty much since I had my players reach 6th level for the first time. I may not have known exactly what the issue was back then because I was the only DM I knew about in my town and wasn't really "up" on using the internet for information on how to do better. However it boggles my mind how anyone (barring people who just play 4th) could have played the game and not run head first into the Mundane v. Magic problem. Maybe it was my players who pointed out the discrepancy first, maybe I realized it when I was making encounters, but I don't see how anyone could have played the game for any decent length of time and not realized that fighter without magic gear is substantially worse than not only a caster but pretty much most of the monster manual. Sure if you magic item him up such that his magic items have better and more useful abilities than the fighter has he may "seem" good but that's just an illusion because for all the benefits he gets from his magic equipment they dwarf his actual original abilities.
Now I've had a LOT of practice in masking the shortcomings of various classes and concepts so I can see how a good DM who knows what they are doing can disguise how crappy the fighter plays and downplay the pure awesomeness of casting. This does not excuse the fact that the fighter is just bad.
To make this clearer I want to bring up something Frank dropped earlier. At higher levels Dragons can hit the entire battlefield at once. A fighter cannot protect from that. He can't protect ANYBODY from that. So any defense that supposes that the fighter can, in fact, be useful by protecting the wizard is kicked squarely in the nuts. A fighter (without something that gives him magic) can't even effectively fight the dragon. A fighter without the use of Supplements, that may or may not be available, doesn't even have a lot of choices as to "how" to fight anything and without supplements such as the "complete" series which without those he's stuck with "I attack".
Now lets step away from dragons and go with something more melee focused like a Giant. A Wizard, without a bunch of "special" gear stands a good chance at taking out a given giant of equal level. This is ESPECIALLY true if we assume there is a DND campaign surrounding it and other factors such as finding, preparing for, and ambushing the giant are options for the wizard. A Fighter, without magic or supplements, does not have the same chance even if he sneaks up on it first because without the boon of someone else buffing him, magic (from weapons or items) or something else that is explicitly not his own ability set, he cannot stand toe to toe with something that is thematically what he's supposed to fight. You can then copy and paste this for most of the monsters in the core monster manual that just "get" special abilities that ruin the fighters day. The sad fact is that the fighter can barely take on anything in the book of opposition (aka monster manual) so its not just that the wizard can out do him in melee combat with creative use of their spells but that he can't even keep up with level appropriate monsters without an external power source.
Quote from: JRR;550047Are you saying that if a fighter heads off in the direction a dragon was flying, and happens across the carcasses of a dozen cows, a burnt out village, and clawed tracks 6 inches deep, that for some reason, he can't see any of this because he's not a ranger?
LOL!! Reminds me of an ancient red dragon named Josey Wales.:D
" Can't be too hard to track. He leaves dead men wherever he goes."
Quote from: MGuy;550049To make this clearer I want to bring up something Frank dropped earlier. At higher levels Dragons can hit the entire battlefield at once. A fighter cannot protect from that. He can't protect ANYBODY from that. So any defense that supposes that the fighter can, in fact, be useful by protecting the wizard is kicked squarely in the nuts. A fighter (without something that gives him magic) can't even effectively fight the dragon. A fighter without the use of Supplements, that may or may not be available, doesn't even have a lot of choices as to "how" to fight anything and without supplements such as the "complete" series which without those he's stuck with "I attack".
That's a completely theoretical argument that falls apart as soon as you are considering the specific circumstances of the fight. This assumes there are no rocks in the cave, no walls or corridors or niches above where you can take cover, no castle (unlike the picture depicted) with 6 feet thick stone walls to protect you from the dragon's breath. No habitations, no door to said habitations, no tools and no thick skin or hide to use as a fire shield when running from cover to cover. No well. No secret passages. No feature nor terrain at all, no weapons, no siege engines, no henchmen, no troops, nothing you can rely on to make a choice beyond your sword, no imagination involved whatsoever, no description of what your character does or thinks or attempts beyond "I attack".
This is not role playing. This is a theoretical thought exercise in a vacuum completely divorced from an actual game and campaign unfolding around the characters involved.
@Jadrax -
I'd like 5th edition to be awesome. If it's awesome, I'll play it. Further, it will make my life easier because it's much easier to bring a new player into a group if they're familiar with the rules. If I have my own rules that are better than anything 'officially publisehed', I still have to show them to an interested party, get their buy-in, and give them a chance to learn the rules. To a large portion of the gaming community, D&D IS role-playing. Many haven't experimented with any other systems and many don't want to experiment with other systems. But if 5th edition is super-awesome, I can play it, and I'll have no trouble finding gamers that are either familiar with it or interested in trying it.
I don't expect 5th edition to be awesome. If it's not awesome, I'll keep doing what I've been doing for the last 4 years with 4th edition - pointedly ignoring it and having fun without recourse to an 'officially sanctioned product'. That's not a terrible thing, but it's not the best possibility, either.
@Sacrosanct -
Buffs may have a short duration but that doesn't always matter. Even without buffs a cleric with good rolls can perform as well as a fighter. If on a particular day you have two fights - one where the cleric uses buffs and one where they don't - you're still likely to notice the cleric outperforming the Fighter. A cleric without spells isn't significantly weaker than a fighter at fighting... With spells, the cleric is significantly better. The idea that every day will have 3-10 encounters is laugable. Some adventurers will have 5 encounters in one day, 1 encounter the next day, and no encounters for 4 weeks while they work on building an economy for their dominion. As the number of encounters per day approaches 1 or less, the cleric's superiority is clear. Outside of the dungeon, multiple encounters in a day is a little hard to justify - not impossible, but should be rare.
@Benoist -
Who cares what supplements TSR published? I don't. I didn't bring it up. Some people think that the Fighter started to 'fail' in 3rd edition. I believe the problem exists in 1st and 2nd edition as well, even though I enjoyed playing fighters. The problems were definitely there in high level play. I think it'd be nice if they were addressed in the next edition of D&D.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550053@Benoist -
Who cares what supplements TSR published? I don't. I didn't bring it up. Some people think that the Fighter started to 'fail' in 3rd edition. I believe the problem exists in 1st and 2nd edition as well, even though I enjoyed playing fighters. The problems were definitely there in high level play. I think it'd be nice if they were addressed in the next edition of D&D.
I think it's a fair point to make as it relates to the assertion "WotC started the mess." I obviously don't have the "problems" you guys keep ranting about, but TSR has fucked around with the rules too, as far as your POV's concerned, no question about it. *nod*
Quote from: Benoist;550046Ahhh here we are. Crossboard drama is afoot, in fact. I was wondering why we had so many new recruits here coming in to support Frank. That's because he retreated to the Gaming Den to bitch about us. (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=270502#270502) That makes sense, now.
We love you too, Frank. :D
And here it is that I said I like Frank and he calls me a neckbeard! I'm a girl I have no beard.:D
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550033I have to check the cleric book too. But for 2e at least, you have to account for the boost the complete fighter gives to fighters as well. In my experience of running 2e we never really encountered the super cleric you sometimes get in 3E.
I never played too much 2e, but I played a little. Here's a couple things I do remember: The fighter gets an attack rate of 5/2 at 13th level, plus an offhand attack if he wishes. Bring in the cheese from Complete Fighter and he can dual wield longswords of speed and that's 7 attacks every two rounds, plus an offhand attack each round. That's 9/2. If he drinks a potion of speed he gets twice that. A cleric gets one attack. Two if he drinks the potion of speed. So, yeah, I'd say the cleric was MUCH better than the fighter.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549872Wow. The level of player entitlement in this post is intense. As a fighter, you're going to track the dragon to its lair "in great hills or mountainous regions". You're going to do that with your tracking abilities? Or maybe you're going to cast some divinations and track it down that way?
You've said it is a huge great wrym. That means it is a truly ancient dragon who has been laired up somewhere for many, many years -- feeding from the territory around its lair, etc to be able to grow to that size. Therefore, chances are where its lair is is a known fact in the game world. My fighter may not know where that is, but unless he has an INT of 3-5 or the like, he knows how to find a sage-type person and ask.
This would work in any campaign I've ever ran (or played in more than once) because for it to be otherwise would require an extraordinary string of occurrences. Dragons just don't grow to that age and size without becoming well-known in their territory and the areas around it. Unless, of course, one isn't playing in a campaign world but in some type of extreme "my precious encounters" setup where nothing outside the current encounter really exists. And I don't play in any form of "my precious encounters" game, let alone one that extreme.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550053@Jadrax -
I'd like 5th edition to be awesome. If it's awesome, I'll play it. Further, it will make my life easier because it's much easier to bring a new player into a group if they're familiar with the rules. If I have my own rules that are better than anything 'officially publisehed', I still have to show them to an interested party, get their buy-in, and give them a chance to learn the rules. To a large portion of the gaming community, D&D IS role-playing. Many haven't experimented with any other systems and many don't want to experiment with other systems. But if 5th edition is super-awesome, I can play it, and I'll have no trouble finding gamers that are either familiar with it or interested in trying it.
I don't expect 5th edition to be awesome. If it's not awesome, I'll keep doing what I've been doing for the last 4 years with 4th edition - pointedly ignoring it and having fun without recourse to an 'officially sanctioned product'. That's not a terrible thing, but it's not the best possibility, either.
Like i Said in another post, as it currently stands I would rather play 5th than pretty much any other edition, but there is only three levels and four classes, so we haven't seen a fucking lot yet.
Bounded Accuracy and Backgrounds alone I think have basically pushed it into the my favourite D&D edition slot. There are of course 'better' games out there, but they don't deliver the D&D experience I sometimes want. I am just praying they do not utterly fuck it up now.
But if you want to make it more to your liking, your much better of doing a spot of play-testing and submitting some feedback and discussing it from an informed view point than just wading into an argument on here that has been going since the place was run by squirrel fetishists.
Quote from: Benoist;550051That's a completely theoretical argument that falls apart as soon as you are considering the specific circumstances of the fight. This assumes there are no rocks in the cave,
That the Fighter can use, but so can the cleric and the wizard. Having rocks in the encounter DOES NOT make the Fighter more capable compared to other characters.
Quote from: Benoist;550051no walls or corridors or niches above where you can take cover,
Walls, corridors, and niches where you can take cover can be used by clerics and wizards just as effectively as they can be fighters. Having walls and niches in the encounter DOES NOT make the Fighter more capable compared to other characters.
Quote from: Benoist;550051no castle (unlike the picture depicted) with 6 feet thick stone walls to protect you from the dragon's breath.
Castles can be used by clerics and wizards to protect them from the dragon's breath just as effectively as they can by a Fighter. Having a castle (unless the fighter owns it) DOES NOT make the Fighter more capable compared to other characters.
Quote from: Benoist;550051No habitations, no door to said habitations, no tools and no thick skin or hide to use as a fire shield when running from cover to cover.
If a thick hide can protect a fighter from a blast of dragon fire, it can provide the same protection to a cleric or wizard (besides they also have spells that protect them above and beyond what the thick hide does). Being able to hide under a blanket DOES NOT make the Fighter more capable compared to other characters.
Quote from: Benoist;550051No feature nor terrain at all, no weapons, no siege engines, no henchmen, no troops, nothing you can rely on to make a choice beyond your sword,
Any feature or terrain, any weapons or siege engines can be used as effectively or nearly as effectively by any class. Any henchmen or troops can be commanded by a cleric or wizard just as effectively as they can by a Fighter. Anything that you can rely on beyond your sword and your class abilities can be just as effectively used by other classes. These things DO NOT make a Fighter more capable compared to other characters.
Your argument seems to be that a Fighter that doesn't have a useful class ability can find something better to do. That's true for every class - the difference is that they USUALLY have something that is MORE USEFUL that they can do because of their class abilities.
Fighters need to be BETTER at SOMETHING than other classes. Trying to claim they are BETTER is hard, because clerics and wizards have lots of options. It's pretty easy to show an example where the cleric and wizard are OBJECTIVELY better than the Fighter. That's not to say that the Fighter player can't have fun, but I posit that it would be better if the Fighter Player was able to contribute in a meaningful fashion - compared to other characters of the same level.
Quote from: Benoist;550051This is not role playing. This is a theoretical thought exercise in a vacuum completely divorced from an actual game and campaign unfolding around the characters involved.
No, it's not. It's a complaint based on playing Fighters in games with classes that BY THEIR NATURE render the Fighter obsolete - even without meaning to. The Wizard that charms a Frost Giant now has a 'Fighter Equivalent' and still gets to do Fighter things.
The Fighter never gets to pick up a 'wizard equivalent' by using his swording effectively.
If the wizard can be a Fighter Plus a Wizard with a single spell, how can the Fighter remain relevant?
Quote from: Benoist;550051That's a completely theoretical argument that falls apart as soon as you are considering the specific circumstances of the fight. This assumes there are no rocks in the cave, no walls or corridors or niches above where you can take cover, no castle (unlike the picture depicted) with 6 feet thick stone walls to protect you from the dragon's breath. No habitations, no door to said habitations, no tools and no thick skin or hide to use as a fire shield when running from cover to cover. No feature nor terrain at all, no weapons, no siege engines, no henchmen, no troops, nothing you can rely on to make a choice beyond your sword, no imagination involved whatsoever, no description of what your character does or thinks or attempts beyond "I attack".
This is not role playing. This is a theoretical thought exercise in a vacuum completely divorced from an actual game and campaign unfolding around the characters involved.
We can go on and on about what 'may" or "may not" exist in a given scenario. I could also argue that each and everything you mentioned can be bypassed by the dragon (IE siege weapons take a longer time to load and fire with a group of easily fire bombed helpers and are inaccurate) but I'm not going to waste time doing that. We cannot argue effectively when either of us can "invent" things to place in the situation that may or may not matter or make a difference. Of course there are ways to set up encounters such that the fighter has such a huge advantage over the dragon that he can win despite his lack of ability to do so in any "fair" or rational fashion. So in order to debate at all we have to go with absolutes. We know the dragon can hit the entire battlefield with its breath weapon or its reach. We know that the fighter (in the core rule books) do not get anything that prevents the dragon from hitting anyone else on the battlefield. We know that (with core rules) the fighter cannot effectively fight the dragon. These are things that are hard coded, not just theory. These are things we can absolutely KNOW.
But lets say instead I give you that other circumstances can allow the fighter to do "something". I'll have to then point out that the fighter needs A LOT MORE stuff going in his favor to "maybe" win while a caster needs a lot less. What's more is the circumstances necessary to allow the fighter to triumph ANYONE of ANY class can benefit from while the way a Druid fights the Dragon under most circumstances will be unique to the Druid's abilities. So your argument still fails in that the only way the fighter "can" win in your mind is if they are essentially given the victory.
Quote from: Benoist;550046Ahhh here we are. Crossboard drama is afoot, in fact. I was wondering why we had so many new recruits here coming in to support Frank.
Personally, it's more because the past week has been full of fairly vitriolic discussions on the exact same topic there (with diversions into what people want for fighters), so I followed, and I saw an IRL friend posting here, so I spoke. Usually, I'd have just lurked; Frank is more than capable of fighting his own fights. My impetus is, as ever, people being wrong on the internet (http://xkcd.com/386/).
I am curious though. Clearly, a good set of friends and a good GM can make anything fun and fair. I'd even say FATAL could be playable if the whole table tacitly ignored the bowel-churningly bad bits. Would you say that setup makes FATAL a good game?
I'm asking seriously, because I can see a sane and rational response that says that anything which gets people together having a good time is a good game, and it looks like you agree with that.
Quote from: MGuy;550064So your argument still fails in that the only way the fighter "can" win in your mind is if they are essentially given the victory.
See this is the point where you have exposed the fact that you have no fucking clue what a role-playing game is about.
Hi, MGuy. Welcome to theRPGSite.
I never played high-level 3e or 4e. However, my experience of AD&D1 from a long time ago is similar to what you say. I think it's pretty natural from what high-level wizards can do. If you've got character with massive supernatural powers, someone with no inherent powers will tend to be overshadowed. Fighters were good at lower levels, and could get by at higher levels with a lot of magical equipment. However, their inherent abilities were to be tough and be good at hitting things (but not at damage), which didn't matter that much at higher levels.
We never had fighters facing off against clerics or wizards. Rather, everyone was working as a team. Everyone was involved in the planning, but in the execution, the big effects all hinged on spells and magic items.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550062Having walls and niches in the encounter DOES NOT make the Fighter more capable compared to other characters.
I'm going to take that one and just disregard the whole thing because that's basically the same logic.
YES, IT DOES when your complaint is that the fighter can't get in contact with a melee weapon. He could not use a melee weapon at all, use a bow, order people to use a bunch of ballistas and trebuchets instead, use the door and thick hide to create a rudimentary wet pavis allowing him to sneack from rock to rock, house to house, to climb on top of the Church's tower and wait until the dragon flies by to jump on its back. Set up an ambush with his henchmen and hirelings and let them get out of the fucking way to shoot from a distance when the beast arrives. And on and on.
He could do a zillion other things, all depending on the particular circumstances of the adventure and campaign, whatever he's got at his disposition to take advantage of the fact that he's a badass motherfucker with loads of hit points and the best armor and weapon proficiencies in the game who can beat the crap out of a giant lizard like no one else can. And when the wizard runs out of ineffective fireballs and shit, he'll still be going at it and fighting he's way to fell the beast.
It's called role playing. You should try it sometimes.
I see a lot of problems for Organized Play or similar tournament gaming issues, where players and Dungeon Masters are not the same regular group that knows each other well and can talk about things that go outside the rules. For the rest of us, not so much.
Quote from: MGuy;550064We can go on and on about what 'may" or "may not" exist in a given scenario.
It's called actual play. It's the fucking point.
Welcome to the RPG Site, by the way. ;)
Quote from: JRR;550058I never played too much 2e, but I played a little. Here's a couple things I do remember: The fighter gets an attack rate of 5/2 at 13th level, plus an offhand attack if he wishes. Bring in the cheese from Complete Fighter and he can dual wield longswords of speed and that's 7 attacks every two rounds, plus an offhand attack each round. That's 9/2. If he drinks a potion of speed he gets twice that. A cleric gets one attack. Two if he drinks the potion of speed. So, yeah, I'd say the cleric was MUCH better than the fighter.
Those things cost proficiency slots and are available to characters of any class. The Complete Fighter's Handbook powers up
anyone who fights on the front line, whether they are nominally a Fighter, a Paladin, or a Priest.
That's a simple Goose/Gander thing. The Priest of Ares can use all the fighting style and style specialization stuff that you allow. Not the Warrior Kits, of course, but the cheese you're thinking of isn't really in kits for the most part.
-Frank
Your smug superiority is grating.
I enjoy role-playing games for the 'role-playing' aspects. I enjoy creative problem solving. I enjoy coming up with outside-of-the-box solutions to problems.
But I recognize that the Fighter lacks any 'role protection' that other classes enjoy. If the fighter is 'defined' by his ability to 'fight enemies' and every other class also 'fights enemies' the fighter isn't special. Fighters get very little time in the spotlight.
Because I like fighters, despite their design inferiority compared to other characters, I'd like some of the mechanics of the game to support their effectiveness. You trust your DM to reward your creative playing and give you a chance of success, regardless of how difficult the task at hand might be. I've played with DMs that didn't.
If the rules are guidelines (and they should be), there should be guidelines for how the Fighter can be effective. They're sorely lacking.
@Jh: Thanks for the welcome but I've been lurking here for a while. Just never felt the need to say anything because I don't visit this site very often. But I do not disagree with what you said. At low levels fighters are comparable to casters. There is no doubt. However once you get to level 6 (some would say 3 but it only really hits hard consistently for me at level 6) you can easily notice how much everyone else can do (even the rogue) than the fighter.I'm all for team play and all, and hell I like to play melee characters every now and again (I pretty much roll a dice to decide what I'm going to be whenever I play) but I cannot and will not turn a blind eye to the discrepancies between what someone can do as a fighter v everything else. A fighter can be good at combat yes, but everybody can. You want someone tough? Get a cleric or druid. A cleric can tank better than a fighter and a druid can turn into a bear that fights better than a fighter.
@Jad: Your post just shows that you have no argument.
@Benoist: Again, I've been here a year. Just never posted. You completely missed the point. Its not that the fighter can't do those things you listed. Its that even if he does, even if doing so actually makes a difference, none of those things are "FighteR" specific abilities. Having henchmen, ordering them around, grabbing a sword to stab stuff, etc etc etc ANYONE of ANY class can do all that but instead of those being the only options they have they ALSO have CLASS SPECIFIC options on top of that. So being anything else with more options is like being a fighter but with more options. That makes the fighter useless.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;549938Since everyone here has the expectation that the Fighter be able to track which I agree with, I don't understand why people are defending the rules that don't actually say that.
They don't play by the rules, and they consider that a virtue in and of itself. It allows them to do what they want, nothing else is important to them.
I don't get the nerd rage directed at Frank. I happen to think both he and Benoist make valid points. I'm pretty sure there's room for compromise between the two positions. Personally, I fail to see the difference between "class ability that gives the fighter a castle" and "class ability that gives the fighter tracking." In both cases, the fighter gets something that everyone can do--it's just the fighter does it better.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550074Your smug superiority is grating.
Your inability to look beyond the rules when we are talking about a role playing game likewise.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550074I enjoy role-playing games for the 'role-playing' aspects. I enjoy creative problem solving. I enjoy coming up with outside-of-the-box solutions to problems.
Somehow I doubt it.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550074But I recognize that the Fighter lacks any 'role protection' that other classes enjoy. If the fighter is 'defined' by his ability to 'fight enemies' and every other class also 'fights enemies' the fighter isn't special. Fighters get very little time in the spotlight.
That's a bullshit argument based on the idea that the rules are the game and the game the rules. It isn't true. Your fighting man is not the only character fighting enemies, but he's the fucking best at it. He's a battled war veteran with the best weapon proficiencies in the game, the best armor, the best weapons, the best hit points, the followers he attracts at name level to build his keep, rule his land, and those he hires well before that. Play the fucking game. Play your character. Have at it.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550074Because I like fighters, despite their design inferiority compared to other characters, I'd like some of the mechanics of the game to support their effectiveness. You trust your DM to reward your creative playing and give you a chance of success, regardless of how difficult the task at hand might be. I've played with DMs that didn't.
No. I expect the DM to adjudicate fairly as needed. If my idea is in fact stupid and my character should die, so be it.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550074If the rules are guidelines (and they should be), there should be guidelines for how the Fighter can be effective. They're sorely lacking.
They are right there in the game. You're just unwilling to look beyond your class's description.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550074But I recognize that the Fighter lacks any 'role protection' that other classes enjoy. If the fighter is 'defined' by his ability to 'fight enemies' and every other class also 'fights enemies' the fighter isn't special. Fighters get very little time in the spotlight.
See I think this is fair comment, it is when stupid arguments about Dragons get dragged in its goes to all to pot.
Balance is very GM dependent though, a GM can easily shut down Spell casters which gives a Fighter to shine. In my personal experience it dosen't happen much because a lot of games are caster centric, but that's the GM responding to the players. I ran 8 sessions in a dead magic zone and guess who felt special?
To me the Fighter should be best at fighting. I do not acre what fucking domain the cleric has, he should not be better at combat than the fighter.
The Fighter should also have the opportunity to be the best at communicating with other martial characters and I think there is also the case that as the most normal class, should have the opportunity to be the best at communicating with the common man.
I thin fighters should enjoy parity of skills with every class apart from the Rogue, and should also enjoy parity of customisation. And I think the GM should strive to make sure everyone gets equal fucking spotlight time, if the player wants it. But I don't think that last one can be done by rules.
The Fighter S*Should* have nice things, but those things should not be spells or work like spells, the 4th edition thing had failed and been revered by the time we got to essentials, let alone 5th. So in terms of *Unique* abilities your pretty limited, the best you are ever going to get to be absolutely fucking awesome at things everyone can theoretically do.
Rargh if you want rules you are playing wrong whaaaaarghlebargle
For the people who are new here: Benoist doesn't feel the need to make coherent arguments. For fuck's sake, his actual position on Fighter power is this:
- Fighters don't need abilities because:
- The DM will allow them to accomplish tasks as if they have abilities they don't have, and:
- The other characters will use their abilities to buff the Fighter, even when they could accomplish more by summoning or buffing themselves, because:
- The Fighter player will throw a temper tantrum if the other players show him up with their actual abilities or the DM slaps his plans down "just" because the character has no actual ability to carry them out.
Seriously. Fighter players will throw temper tantrums if you don't have the rest of the players pretend that the Fighter is the bestest and Fighter players will throw temper tantrums if they aren't allowed to succeed at epic tasks without any epic abilities. And then, apparently because the Fighter
player is a whiny cry baby who will torpedo the game if the Cleric dares to actually use his actual abilities to get the spotlight on himself, the Fighter is "balanced".
It's a shared screentime balance argument that rests upon the idea that since any player can be an out-of-game douchebag that everyone is going to be gingerly handed relatively equal screentime regardless of in-game competences. The other option being Benoist throwing the aforementioned temper tantrum for the DM being mean to his creativity or the other players being "powergamers" or whatever.
The best part is when he gets deeply into circularity. Fighters are never overshadowed in actual play, so when I brought up the historical example of me seeing actual Fighters actually overshadowed by actual summons in actual play, that actual play
doesn't count. Hence his endless rants about how I don't "really" play RPGs. Because having actual experiential data that conflicts with his prejudices
in addition to iron clad raw numeric comparisons to show that he is mathematically wrong is unthinkable for him. Of course, a lot of things are unthinkable for Benoist, which is why he has so many posts and so few arguments.
-Frank
Personally I'm just amused by how accurate and flexible people seem to think medieval siege weaponry is.
What I will say is that this discussion beats work.
Quote from: Marleycat;550004That is an issue of Player Knowledge vs. Game Knowledge. In a game like Dnd Wizards are not typically versed in military tactics and strategy despite having an INT score of 18.
Agreed but if a wizard and a fighter both came across an artillery piece with no previous the smarter one can work out how to use it which is probably the wizard.
If they are a combat wizard in a military campaign then typically they train with artillery both magic and mundane as its where they are most effective.
But my point is the wizard, rogue, priest or fighter all have the same ability unless they buy a nwp to cover it and use of seige weapons is int driven.
Not a major deal.
But england are 1-0 up so who cares :-)
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549952I didn't say you couldn't attempt it. I said it was completely absurd to expect that you were actually going to succeed without direct DM intervention on your behalf. Think about the very first action that Talysman wanted to declare. He wants to:
- Track an ancient paranoid flying genius with no known associates over miles of inhospitable mountainous terrain while stealthfully leading a small army to a place no mortal has found in centuries without giving away their location or numbers to the target, who is intimately familiar with the region and as previously mentioned can fly.
with
- No more relevant skill in any part of this than a random blacksmith from the local village and indeed likely considerably less local area knowledge.
Sure, you can try, but presenting that plan as something that has a snowball's chance in Hell of success is laughable at best. And that's just the beginning of Talysman's fool's errand.
Wait, you were serious? I thought you were being sarcastic, because your objections were so ridiculous.
First: Let's get something out of the way: I'm not answering questions about later editions. This is not just because I don't play 'em, but also because I agree with the rule "you break it, you bought it." If you choose to move towards later editions because you want your dragons (frex) to be more fearsome and powerful, you can't complain that your fighter is no longer able to deal with the new, more powerful dangers in your system of choice. YOU CHOSE IT. If you don't like it, switch systems, or tweak the rules in your fave system. Don't complain about it.
Second: No smuggling in later stuff, either, and then complaining about that. Same reason. A supplement is a
supplement, something you add to an existing system. If you add The Compleat Book Of Codzilla supplement and suddenly clerics look much better than fighters... whose fault is that, really? And more to the point, if you use a late-edition dragon, with genius intelligence (not in the original rules) and a fear aura (not in the original rules) and all sorts of stuff to make dragons AWESOME POWER, then you can't pit it against a 0e Fighter and say "See? Fighters were always underpowered from the start!" They are underpowered because you chose to make them that way. Deal with it.
Third: You also can't drop stuff and then complain that you can't play the game without it. I'm thinking here about the rules "anyone can try anything" and "solve problems by using resources available instead of punching it". If you refuse to let characters have simple skills because "he's a fighter, not a ranger" or "he didn't spend points on that skill", well, again, you broke it, you bought it.
I play and GM 0e. No Greyhawk supplement. You know what the odds of success for a fighter doing something out of the ordinary are? 4 in 6 chance, unless you're trying to escape from an already dangerous situation, in which case it's 2 in 6. Special measures can improve the odds. Ability scores can modify the odds, if allowed. It's pretty easy to get a 100% chance of success if you think about it a little -- and that's if the 0e GM is being a hard-ass about skills. Yes, if you add a "realistic" skill system and assess huge penalties for people without a listed skill, you're going to run into problems. Whose fault is that?
Finally: The dragon situation is pretty vague. I'm assuming that, if a dragon has attacked a town, either it has a lair very close or it has recently relocated nearby and has no lair yet. Either way, the lair isn't "miles" away; OK, maybe a league or two, max, which means 2 to 5 miles... but that's a two-hour journey. If the dragon's lair is that close, people would have seen it flying out of its lair. Heck, town watchmen probably saw it on the horizon. Basic direction of lair should be easy to determine, unless the GM is being a dick. Is the lair concealed? A big lumbering monster just crawled out of it, so of course not. Traps in the lair? Who cares? We're just trying to get the dragon to go where *we* want; we can find cover outside the lair and ambush it there.
If you have enough archers, you can do significant damage even at a distance. Dragon breath is at a much shorter range than a bow. Keep in mind also that 0e has a hit location system in the aerial combat system, and a hit to the head or wings is going to bring that flyer down, possibly doing lots of damage from the fall. If you have a ballista stuck just inside the tunnel, that's going to do a lot of damage, too. Taking down a dragon isn't a cakewalk -- probably a couple people will die -- but it's not hard, if you think about it.
On the other hand, if you dismiss every possibility until the scenario is "you're a fighting thrashing around in zero-G, with no solid surface in sight. There's a dragon flying towards you! Also, you are naked and unarmed!" Then yeah, the fighter is going to be outclassed.
But then... whose fault is that?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550053@Sacrosanct -
Buffs may have a short duration but that doesn't always matter. Even without buffs a cleric with good rolls can perform as well as a fighter.
Your logic is that if a cleric rolls really well, he's as good as a fighter? That really doesn't sell your point, because if any class rolls well, they'll be good, and you're comparing one player rolling good while the other rolls average. That's hardly an equal playing field.
QuoteIf on a particular day you have two fights - one where the cleric uses buffs and one where they don't - you're still likely to notice the cleric outperforming the Fighter. A cleric without spells isn't significantly weaker than a fighter at fighting...
Uh, yeah they are. No weapon spec, less hp, lower THAC0, less melee damage, the list goes on.
QuoteWith spells, the cleric is significantly better. The idea that every day will have 3-10 encounters is laugable. Some adventurers will have 5 encounters in one day, 1 encounter the next day, and no encounters for 4 weeks while they work on building an economy for their dominion. As the number of encounters per day approaches 1 or less, the cleric's superiority is clear. Outside of the dungeon, multiple encounters in a day is a little hard to justify - not impossible, but should be rare.
.
Obviously you've never heard of a Random Encounter Table. Honestly, I'm beginning to wonder if you have every played 1e or 2e. A typical adventure module had several encounters per day. That's hardly laughable. There's a reason why spells for MU and clerics are called "resource management". In practical application of gameplay for 1e and 2e (at least, I haven't played 3e or 4e to know), you couldn't buff up at every encounter. Not even close.
But this goes back to the same thing I've been saying all along. "Your" side just looks at the books and comes to a conclusion that casters are uber powerful based on a spell description whilst totally forgetting how actual play works and ignoring restrictions placed on casters that were there to preserve balance (spell interrupts, limited spells, needing to find spellbooks rather than automatically getting new spells, spell components, etc).
Quote from: daniel_ream;550088Personally I'm just amused by how accurate and flexible people seem to think medieval siege weaponry is.
Indeed :-)
Quote from: MGuy;550076@Jad: Your post just shows that you have no argument.
No Argument? It's the same fucking argument that has been going on since the fucking 90s you pig-ignorant whining cunt.
Quote from: jadrax;550094No Argument? It's the same fucking argument that has been going on since the fucking 90s you pig-ignorant whining cunt.
Yes... You have no argument. You just showed it yourself in your last two posts.
Quote from: MGuy;550076@Benoist: Again, I've been here a year. Just never posted. You completely missed the point. Its not that the fighter can't do those things you listed. Its that even if he does, even if doing so actually makes a difference, none of those things are "FighteR" specific abilities. Having henchmen, ordering them around, grabbing a sword to stab stuff, etc etc etc ANYONE of ANY class can do all that but instead of those being the only options they have they ALSO have CLASS SPECIFIC options on top of that. So being anything else with more options is like being a fighter but with more options. That makes the fighter useless.
Some options, most of them with temporary use like spell slots, but less weapon proficiencies, less armor, no iterative attacks, less hit points, no men-at-arms coming to you at name level and no keep, no ability to use fighter-specific magic items, WAY worse saving throws against Breath Weapons, etc. All shit the fighter keeps on doing all fucking day long and then some. When you are fighting that great wyrm coming for the castle, chances are you ARE the Lord of the fucking castle/freehold in the first place, or about to be, or you are coming from the neighbouring fief to defend your lieges. Act like a leader of men. Do your thing. You're a hero. Act like one.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;550087For the people who are new here: Benoist doesn't feel the need to make coherent arguments. For fuck's sake, his actual position on Fighter power is this:- Fighters don't need abilities because:
- The DM will allow them to accomplish tasks as if they have abilities they don't have, and:
- The other characters will use their abilities to buff the Fighter, even when they could accomplish more by summoning or buffing themselves, because:
- The Fighter player will throw a temper tantrum if the other players show him up with their actual abilities or the DM slaps his plans down "just" because the character has no actual ability to carry them out.
-Frank
You know, prior to today, I didn't know you from Adam. But after today, you have to be one of the most disingenuous people I've seen on the internet. And that's an accomplishment.
You keep doing things like this (and your post on the other forum) that are nothing more than weak strawmen.
Let's look at your list
point 1: What he's saying, and what I've been saying, is that a fighter, especially one who is a hero who has been in hundreds of battles and trekked across all the lands, should be able to attempt to do something that
I can do right now. You are seriously saying that even if the tracks are plain as day, the character can't follow them unless they have the ability? That is not DM pity, or whatever other term you want to use. That's fucking common sense. You sir, are a nut case.
point 2: this is based on the assumption that a cleric is better than a fighter
all the time in every encounter, which is objectively false. In addition, his point was that if a player is choosing to play a fighter and another player is choosing a cleric with the sole purpose of showing up the fighter, than there is a problem. And that is true as well. Players should never be in competition with each other.
Quote from: daniel_ream;550088Personally I'm just amused by how accurate and flexible people seem to think medieval siege weaponry is.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550090Agreed but if a wizard and a fighter both came across an artillery piece with no previous the smarter one can work out how to use it which is probably the wizard.
In the context of AD&D, it's treated like any other weapon and WP aren't used. Therefore, a fighter is by far the best at utilizing one. If you want to model realism, you're playing the wrong fucking game, no offense.
Quote from: TalysmanFirst: Let's get something out of the way: I'm not answering questions about later editions. This is not just because I don't play 'em, but also because I agree with the rule "you break it, you bought it." If you choose to move towards later editions because you want your dragons (frex) to be more fearsome and powerful, you can't complain that your fighter is no longer able to deal with the new, more powerful dangers in your system of choice.
This is quite frankly horse shit. The original discussion was about
high level challenges, not Dragons specifically. People keep bringing up low- and mid-level dragons from older editions only to obfuscate the discussion. Whether the opposition is specifically a Dragon or not is completely immaterial.
As long as you have levels and you keep gaining levels and gaining levels keeps making you more powerful, the expected opposition is
eventually going to be very powerful. Powerful enough that the players are going to need actual powerful abilities to beat them. Maybe it happens at level 13, maybe it happens at level 53, but it will
eventually happen. Sooner or later, if you keep gaining levels you will stop being challenged by whatever your basic enemies were and be challenged instead by immortals. You might gain some expertise, mastery, or companions in between.
Picking semantic arguments about whether such-and-such an age category of such-and-such a color of dragon happens to be one such paradigm shifting encounter in your edition of choice is meaningless fuckery. The reality is that
eventually there is going to be
something that crosses that line. If you go high
enough in level, your opponent is
eventually going to be this guy:
(http://pds20.egloos.com/pds/201102/17/59/d0029159_4d5cab326a0e7.jpg)
So you can fap all you want to how being "pretty good with a 10 foot pole" is enough to adventure at whatever level in your favorite edition or not-D&D game system, but
eventually it won't be.
-Frank
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550100In the context of AD&D, it's treated like any other weapon and WP aren't used. Therefore, a fighter is by far the best at utilizing one. If you want to model realism, you're playing the wrong fucking game, no offense.
Nah mate my table my rules.
If i have an artilery piece you don't get to aim it like hand crossbow.
And saying that's the rule so nah nah is um..... daft.
Now i know for a fact high level wizards arevtougher that high level fighters.
Its part of the game deal with it. For the first 3 levels the wizard was the guy that drew the map and held the coats while the grown ups deal with the hoardes of evil cats. At 9th level they can fuck you right up and at 20th they are gods.
No point whining about it. Its an rpg you play the character you create for better or worse.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;550087For the people who are new here: Benoist doesn't feel the need to make coherent arguments.
You got it all wrong, Frank. The difference between you and I is that when I am talking about actual role playing games, I'm talking about actual play situations with actual real people sitting next to each other around the table to play the game together, sharing a world of their imaginations. That's what I'm talking about.
You, on the other hand, fap on rules all day long as though they had a life of their own, and defined the entirety of the role playing game experience. It's just unfathomable to you that there is an actual game activity going on beyond the rules, an activity not treating them as a ultimate word of law, but instead as a bunch of tools and guidelines allowing them to play the game however they want.
For you, it's about gaming the rules, and nothing but the rules. When you got a choice before you, it's got to be on your character sheet or it doesn't exist. This, in my experience as an actual player and GM at real game tables, makes for a piss poor role playing experience.
What you are really doing, Frank, is manage to turn role playing games into a shit hobby for OCD-type people, and gut the imagination out of the worlds of our imagination. Your theories are just that: theories festering in your brain unable to extrapolate about any real world gaming situations in which the 'problems' you invent in search for a solution might arise. The rules are the game. The game the rules. That's shit gaming from start to finish, assuming you're gaming at all, which I seriously doubt for some reason.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550098point 1: What he's saying, and what I've been saying, is that a fighter, especially one who is a hero who has been in hundreds of battles and trekked across all the lands, should be able to attempt to do something that I can do right now. You are seriously saying that even if the tracks are plain as day, the character can't follow them unless they have the ability? That is not DM pity, or whatever other term you want to use. That's fucking common sense. You sir, are a nut case.
What I'm hearing is that if the FIGHTER can do it, anyone can do it. If the Fighter can only do the kinds of things you or I could do RIGHT NOW, even though we haven't been a hero in hundreds of battles, it probably doesn't rate as an ABILITY.
And if the Fighter CAN do it, why not have the rules say so? If it says what a Ranger's chance for success is, where is the guide for what a Fighter's chance of success is.
If your DM allows you to make a roll, great, but as I'm reading through various threads, I'm seeing plenty of examples of people who played in games where the DM didn't allow people to do things that weren't in the rules.
Quote from: SacrosanctIn the context of AD&D, it's treated like any other weapon and WP aren't used. Therefore, a fighter is by far the best at utilizing one. If you want to model realism, you're playing the wrong fucking game, no offense.
In the context of AD&D, siege weapons have their own fucking THAC0 and it makes no difference
at all how skilled or not any member of the crew is. A Heavy Ballista has a crew of 4, fires once every four turns, does 3d10 damage, and attacks like a 3rd level Fighter. A fighter or a wizard of any level to even be
thinking of fighting a monster that is even arguably high level would be wasting their time manning such a device.
-Frank
Quote from: jibbajibba;550090Agreed but if a wizard and a fighter both came across an artillery piece with no previous the smarter one can work out how to use it which is probably the wizard.
If they are a combat wizard in a military campaign then typically they train with artillery both magic and mundane as its where they are most effective.
But my point is the wizard, rogue, priest or fighter all have the same ability unless they buy a nwp to cover it and use of seige weapons is int driven.
Not a major deal.
But england are 1-0 up so who cares :-)
That going into another problem area of game skills vs. ability scores. I like a system of thresholds of success to help mitigate this situation.
*Cool that England is up I want them to win the Eurocup. Not a huge soccer fan but I do follow the World Cup and they are showing all the games of the European Championship on ESPN at normal times.
Quote from: Marleycat;550107*Cool that England is up I want them to win the Eurocup. Not a huge soccer fan but I do follow the World Cup and they are showing all the games of the European Championship on ESPN at normal times.
We will now defend rather than attacking and concede two goals.
Quote from: talysman;550091First: Let's get something out of the way: I'm not answering questions about later editions. This is not just because I don't play 'em, but also because I agree with the rule "you break it, you bought it." If you choose to move towards later editions because you want your dragons (frex) to be more fearsome and powerful, you can't complain that your fighter is no longer able to deal with the new, more powerful dangers in your system of choice. YOU CHOSE IT. If you don't like it, switch systems, or tweak the rules in your fave system. Don't complain about it.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;550101This is quite frankly horse shit. The original discussion was about high level challenges, not Dragons specifically. People keep bringing up low- and mid-level dragons from older editions only to obfuscate the discussion. Whether the opposition is specifically a Dragon or not is completely immaterial.
You break it, you bought it.
People keep bring up low- and mid-level dragons from older editions to show you that it's not a problem with the game, it's a problem with the way you *choose* to play the game. You said you want high-level challenges. Well, guess what?
Quote from: FrankTrollman;550101As long as you have levels and you keep gaining levels and gaining levels keeps making you more powerful, the expected opposition is eventually going to be very powerful. Powerful enough that the players are going to need actual powerful abilities to beat them. Maybe it happens at level 13, maybe it happens at level 53, but it will eventually happen. Sooner or later, if you keep gaining levels you will stop being challenged by whatever your basic enemies were and be challenged instead by immortals. You might gain some expertise, mastery, or companions in between.
And whose fault is that?
The problem is that you chose to play a game of infinitely-increasing challenges. The game originally wasn't designed for that. You can add that if you want, but then if it *breaks*... that's your problem.
I don't play the game that way. I don't even allow 7th level spells. If there's something crazy powerful, either you aren't meant to fight it, or you're supposed to find a shortcut, like the old "stake the vampire through the heart" trick, or "let's you and him fight". If your fighter needs "powers", there's a reason why ONLY fighters are able to use magic swords, some of the most powerful magic items in the game.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550105What I'm hearing is that if the FIGHTER can do it, anyone can do it. If the Fighter can only do the kinds of things you or I could do RIGHT NOW, even though we haven't been a hero in hundreds of battles, it probably doesn't rate as an ABILITY.
Again, there are levels of success involved here. This is not a situation of "pass or fail." It's an ability because people who have spent the time/energy/resources to learn the ability will be significantly better than those that haven't. But that in no way means that others can't even attempt it.
QuoteAnd if the Fighter CAN do it, why not have the rules say so? If it says what a Ranger's chance for success is, where is the guide for what a Fighter's chance of success is.
Because unless you're retarded, the rules aren't necessary. There are enough rules as it is, and rules bloat is never a good thing. And honestly, if you can't figure out "The ranger has a 90% chance of following tracks, what would a 14th level fighter have?" on your own, then I feel sorry for you. That seems like a pretty easy problem to come up with a reasonable answer to.
QuoteIf your DM allows you to make a roll, great, but as I'm reading through various threads, I'm seeing plenty of examples of people who played in games where the DM didn't allow people to do things that weren't in the rules.
That's a DM problem, not a game problem. I'm getting tired of people blaming the game for shit DMs. The DM you are describing sounds exactly like Frank (not on your sheet, you can't even attempt), and quite frankly, if I were at a gaming table with Frank and he pulled that BS I'd tell him to shove it and leave.
In every edition, the DM makes judgement calls all the time that don't have a firm rule for them. We aren't playing a board game, we're playing a role-playing game. The very nature of it means we make these judgement calls. To deny a reasonable request because you can't find a rule makes you (in general, not you specifically) an idiot. Do they not teach problem solving skills in kindergarten any more?
Quote from: jadrax;550108We will now defend rather than attacking and concede two goals.
Normaly true but not today :-)
One thing is funny though who are arguing that fighter / mu are well balanced are the very same people who generally abhore the quest for balance.... go figure :-)
Quote from: jadrax;550108We will now defend rather than attacking and concede two goals.
I hope not. What's their history? I know that they are real good but have they won the championship before? Because it seems Germany does all the time.
QuoteOne thing is funny though who are arguing that fighter / mu are well balanced are the very same people who generally abhore the quest for balance.... go figure :-)
Not exactly true in my case. I abhor 4e's way and definition of balance but in no way do I abhor balance. I just believe that it should be achieved asystemetrically. Also I am not a believer in virtual spotlight balance either. Some archtypes are better at some things other archtypes other things and some archtypes are completely inappropriate for the setting or campaign at hand.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550112One thing is funny though who are arguing that fighter / mu are well balanced are the very same people who generally abhore the quest for balance.... go figure :-)
I don't think anyone is saying they are well balanced. The argument I'm hearing is "fighters are worthless" vs. "no they are not."
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550110Again, there are levels of success involved here. This is not a situation of "pass or fail." It's an ability because people who have spent the time/energy/resources to learn the ability will be significantly better than those that haven't. But that in no way means that others can't even attempt it.
Because unless you're retarded, the rules aren't necessary. There are enough rules as it is, and rules bloat is never a good thing. And honestly, if you can't figure out "The ranger has a 90% chance of following tracks, what would a 14th level fighter have?" on your own, then I feel sorry for you. That seems like a pretty easy problem to come up with a reasonable answer to.h
That's a DM problem, not a game problem. I'm getting tired of people blaming the game for shit DMs. The DM you are describing sounds exactly like Frank (not on your sheet, you can't even attempt), and quite frankly, if I were at a gaming table with Frank and he pulled that BS I'd tell him to shove it and leave.
In every edition, the DM makes judgement calls all the time that don't have a firm rule for them. We aren't playing a board game, we're playing a role-playing game. The very nature of it means we make these judgement calls. To deny a reasonable request because you can't find a rule makes you (in general, not you specifically) an idiot. Do they not teach problem solving skills in kindergarten any more?
but that isn't the real point and you know it :-)
The point really is that a 14th level fighter has as much tracking skill as a 14th level wizard and if you are being honest a bit less than a 14th level thief.
And its all totally off the point which really comes down to a question of what to do with a fighter in a high level game.
It's probably beyond questin that a high level fighter is not as effective in combat as a high level mu unless he is well buffed and has lots of magic kit.
But the point that frank misses is that doesn't matter. Some people are tough some are shit its an rpg that never promised that everyone was always going to be a special snowflake so suck it up and play your character. If you grow really jealous of the mu then just hire an assasin to kill him :-)
And england have won.... It's coming home, it's coming home football's coming home.... repeat to fade......
Quote from: Marleycat;550113I hope not. What's their history? I know that they are real good but have they won the championship before? Because it seems Germany does all the time.
No, we never have. And this pretty off topic and do not want the ire of Pundit. ;o)
The fighter is a hardened warrior who can track dragons and lead armies. Problem is that the wizard and cleric and thief are all those things, too. Thus, whatever the fighter does, they can do just as well unless the DM arbitrarily decides otherwise. The fighter wants to rally a bunch of soldiers to slay the dragon? The cleric can, too. The fighter eants to track the jabberwock's trail? The wizard can, too. With that style of game, the fighter doesn't get anything unique to him.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550115but that isn't the real point and you know it :-)
The point really is that a 14th level fighter has as much tracking skill as a 14th level wizard and if you are being honest a bit less than a 14th level thief.
That's not how I interpreted him. I interpreted him as saying that if you don't have the tracking skill, then you can't track, regardless if you're a fighter, MU, whatever. Otherwise don't have it as a skill at all.
And that's bullocks. Everyone can kick a football, but people specifically trained to kick a football are a lot better (and get paid well for it to boot). So "kicking a football" is an ability worth having. But if you don't happen to have it, doesn't mean that the DM should tell you "no" when you say you're going to attempt to kick it.
Quote from: talysman;550109The problem is that you chose to play a game of infinitely-increasing challenges. The game originally wasn't designed for that. You can add that if you want, but then if it *breaks*... that's your problem.
Right. Not to mention, if you are actually playing AD&D using the tools given to you by the rules books and not fudging dice rolls to catter to your players "just so" they have the
illusion of challenge without ever actually risking their characters' lives, it's
fucking hard to reach name level. It's not a cake walk, with lots of twist and turns, multiple PCs you created to replace old ones who've been brought back to life since then and stuff. There's a whole game context that is completely ignored in these types of arguments. Systematically. This is really stupid.
Quote from: B.T.;550118The fighter is a hardened warrior who can track dragons and lead armies. Problem is that the wizard and cleric and thief are all those things, too. Thus, whatever the fighter does, they can do just as well unless the DM arbitrarily decides otherwise. The fighter wants to rally a bunch of soldiers to slay the dragon? The cleric can, too. The fighter eants to track the jabberwock's trail? The wizard can, too. With that style of game, the fighter doesn't get anything unique to him.
Except that this is incorrect. The fighter is especially good at attracting and leading armies. It's right there in the class description (in 1e anyway). I don't need a rule that says that a cleric also can attract followers, but it won't be as good as a fighter because it's explicitly called out as a perk for being a fighter.
Quote from: B.T.;550118The fighter is a hardened warrior who can track dragons and lead armies. Problem is that the wizard and cleric and thief are all those things, too. Thus, whatever the fighter does, they can do just as well unless the DM arbitrarily decides otherwise. The fighter wants to rally a bunch of soldiers to slay the dragon? The cleric can, too. The fighter eants to track the jabberwock's trail? The wizard can, too. With that style of game, the fighter doesn't get anything unique to him.
Read the AD&D PH, you moron.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550112One thing is funny though who are arguing that fighter / mu are well balanced are the very same people who generally abhore the quest for balance.... go figure :-)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550114I don't think anyone is saying they are well balanced. The argument I'm hearing is "fighters are worthless" vs. "no they are not."
Yeah, it's a weird thing.
My opinion is that the classes aren't balanced, but for a reason. The Fighter is simple and direct. You get the best initial abilities if you pick the Fighter. The Fighter gets steadily more powerful. The Fighter is uncomplicated. The Wizard, though, doesn't get the Fighter's initial boost, and is never going to do as well as the Fighter in ordinary combat. What the Wizard gets is one-shot resources, each with its own rules. The Wizard is more complicated to play, and although any one spell may "outshine" the Fighter or another class, that's for one minute, or ten minutes, or some other very limited time... ONCE.
And that's at a cost, at least in early editions. Originally, 1st level M-Us got one book that contained all the standard 1st level spells. When they increased to 3rd level, they got... nothing. If they spend at least 4,000 gp, they have a chance -- a *chance* -- of successfully adding a new second level spell to their repertoire.
Want to cast Fireball? OK, earn 20,000 xp and spend a minimum of 8,000 GP. If you're *lucky*, you have successfully researched Fireball after three weeks of work. 90% of the time, however, you have to spend more money.
AD&D watered this down a bit by giving M-Us one free spell every time they went up a level. Also, I think it lets you bypass the research rule if you find a spell in a spellbook or scroll, lowering the cost to a couple hundred GP (still more than just about any piece of equipment a Fighter would need... but still much cheaper than the original.) I have no idea what god-awful changes were added even later, but if that makes the disparity between Fighters and Wizards even more enormous... well, whose fault is that?
Quote from: jibbajibba;550115It's probably beyond questin that a high level fighter is not as effective in combat as a high level mu unless he is well buffed and has lots of magic kit.
I forgot to address this part. This is only true if you neuter the fighter class of one of his best high level abilities: followers (in the context of 1e)
A high level fighter will have an army behind him at high level. It's part of his class benefits, just like casting high level spells is a class benefit of the MU. Why would you compare the two when you're throwing away a bit part of one class and not the other? Doesn't really seem fair.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550119That's not how I interpreted him. I interpreted him as saying that if you don't have the tracking skill, then you can't track, regardless if you're a fighter, MU, whatever. Otherwise don't have it as a skill at all.
And that's bullocks. Everyone can kick a football, but people specifically trained to kick a football are a lot better (and get paid well for it to boot). So "kicking a football" is an ability worth having. But if you don't happen to have it, doesn't mean that the DM should tell you "no" when you say you're going to attempt to kick it.
Agreed but as pointed out up post that again plays to the mu.
Anything a fighter can do the mu can attempt, only worse (often much worse) where the fighter is a specialist, the fighter can not do the same he is by the rules banned from even trying the wizards specialism.
Now in the thread on thieves skills i was attacked for suggesting that non thieves should be allowed to learn thieves' skills but that thieves should get more points to spend on those skills. I was told by the OSR Mafia (only kiddin :-)) thatbthat ruined the niche protection for thieves
And yet...
Now i don't want to fix this imbalance. I think you can reduce it through a spell point system that makes low level mus more flexible and limits their power at the top end but it won't go away and i don't really have an issue with it. I just accept it for what it is.
I think part of the issue is people are talking past one another.
A lot of what one side sees as *Unique* fighter abilities, the other side simply see as abilities that everyone gets but the fighter gets to do better.
So something like Weapon Specialisation is not *Unique* because anyone can attack with a weapon, even if they are utterly crap at it.
The problem is, abilities that are *Unique* for Fighters in that sense are essentially nonsensical.
Quote from: Benoist;550097Some options, most of them with temporary use like spell slots, but less weapon proficiencies, less armor, no iterative attacks, less hit points, no men-at-arms coming to you at name level and no keep, no ability to use fighter-specific magic items, WAY worse saving throws against Breath Weapons, etc. All shit the fighter keeps on doing all fucking day long and then some. When you are fighting that great wyrm coming for the castle, chances are you ARE the Lord of the fucking castle/freehold in the first place, or about to be, or you are coming from the neighbouring fief to defend your lieges. Act like a leader of men. Do your thing. You're a hero. Act like one.
Maybe I'm making a mistake by expecting you to get the over all point without addressing the specifics. It seems as though if I don't shoot down your specific examples instead of making an overarching condemnation of them you will continue to mention these options as if they matter.
Temporary: Yes, but this does not make them not options. Ammo, falling rocks, a door, half the things you mentioned that the fighter can use is "temporary", and worse, are situation specific.
Uses up Spell Slots: Yes. This does not make them not options.
Weapon Proficiencies: Almost completely useless to even mention but Casters can get them with a feat.
Less Armor: Clerics wear heavy armor and use shields, Druids use medium armor and use shields and can gain natural armor via their own spells. Wizards can cast armor and shield.
Iterative Attacks: Iterative attacks only matter at 6th level, only if a fighter can get a full attack in (which is easily avoidable if the target simply moves out of range or otherwise prevents the fighter from getting a full action). That's not to mention that the casters can morph into a creature that gets multiple attacks, use spells that make attacks look boring and end a fight in a single shot, or allows the ENTIRE group to avoid a fight altogether.
Less Hit Points: Cleric/Druid only have slightlly less HP/level and both of them can heal themselves making them better at tanking and surviving.
Men at arms/Keep: Anyone can get these.
Fighter Specific Magic Items: Doesn't matter. Different classes have different appropriate magic items. There's o loss in not having whatever "fighter specific" items you're talking about.
Worse Saving throws: I have no idea what you're talking about. They get a higher fort save then most casters. That's about it. Worse, they can even this up with their spells. Plus Fort does not protect against Fire Breath at all. Reflex does.
All classes can be leaders of men, be heroes, and fight. There is nothing that the fighter can do that other classes can't do but better. And that's the point. The only way your idea works is if you set up a situation where the fight is given to the fighter.
Now, can you answer a question. Why is it do you think that the fighter "should" beable to do less than practically every other class?
Quote from: jibbajibba;550125Now in the thread on thieves skills i was attacked for suggesting that non thieves should be allowed to learn thieves' skills but that thieves should get more points to spend on those skills. I was told by the OSR Mafia (only kiddin :-)) thatbthat ruined the niche protection for thieves
And yet...
.
I guess you could say I'm part of the OSR mafia but I don't have a problem with this as long as thieves are far and away better at thief skills than a fighter.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550124I forgot to address this part. This is only true if you neuter the fighter class of one of his best high level abilities: followers (in the context of 1e)
A high level fighter will have an army behind him at high level. It's part of his class benefits, just like casting high level spells is a class benefit of the MU. Why would you compare the two when you're throwing away a bit part of one class and not the other? Doesn't really seem fair.
In a certain narrow game style and where you don't let the wizard hire a fuck load of soliders with all that gold he is sitting on....
Balancing classes through environmental campaign effects i find narrows play reduces option and often breaks common sense.
An army of 0 level soliders are useless in most high level adventures unless you get into battlesystem miniture type stuff, which I do love to do. That dragon that keeps coming up kills all of your army, who can't hit it anyway, in round 1.....
Quote from: MGuy;550127Men at arms/Keep: Anyone can get these.
I don't have the books in front of me, but as I mentioned above, this is only true from a literal sense, but fighters will have a keep/men-at-arms far superior to any other class.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550128I guess you could say I'm part of the OSR mafia but I don't have a problem with this as long as thieves are far and away better at thief skills than a fighter.
All fighter's?
A focused ranger hunter type with move silent? A mountain man with climbing? A specialist armourer craftsman type at open locks?
Maybe.....
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550130I don't have the books in front of me, but as I mentioned above, this is only true from a literal sense, but fighters will have a keep/men-at-arms far superior to any other class.
You're going to have to explain that one.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550129In a certain narrow game style and where you don't let the wizard hire a fuck load of soliders with all that gold he is sitting on....
Balancing classes through environmental campaign effects i find narrows play reduces option and often breaks common sense.
An army of 0 level soliders are useless in most high level adventures unless you get into battlesystem miniture type stuff, which I do love to do. That dragon that keeps coming up kills all of your army, who can't hit it anyway, in round 1.....
A fighter would have more money than a MU, because 1) he doesn't need to pay for spell components and attempts to learn spells, and 2) he gets tax income. So not only could he hire more people than the MU, he also gets a ton of people just as a fighter perk that the other classes don't get.
His army is not 0 level soldiers. Again, I don't have the book here, but he gets several higher level troops. And even then, you're on crack if you think a dragon will wipe out the entire army in round 1. Just how big of an area of effect does a dragon's breath have, anyway? Also, a natural 20 is an automatic hit. So several of those thousands of soldiers are bound to do something.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550130I don't have the books in front of me, but as I mentioned above, this is only true from a literal sense, but fighters will have a keep/men-at-arms far superior to any other class.
Well what if I am the Lanisters and offer tripple pay?
Trouble is anyone with lots of cash and the name of a decent architect can build a castle
Quote from: jibbajibba;550125Now in the thread on thieves skills i was attacked for suggesting that non thieves should be allowed to learn thieves' skills but that thieves should get more points to spend on those skills. I was told by the OSR Mafia (only kiddin :-)) thatbthat ruined the niche protection for thieves
And yet...
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550128I guess you could say I'm part of the OSR mafia but I don't have a problem with this as long as thieves are far and away better at thief skills than a fighter.
Indeed, in my experience, the OSR complains about the thief more than anything else, mainly because it brought in the concept of niche protection, because people started saying "But what about the poor thief? The thief is upstaged by the M-U who learns the Knock spell, which was part of the game before thieves were added! Waah! Waah!"
Quote from: MGuy;550132You're going to have to explain that one.
In AD&D, when fighters hit name level, part of their class benefit is having a keep and soldiers. Way more than any other class. I wish I had the book here so I could pull that part out and quote it.
Quote from: MGuy;550127Maybe I'm making a mistake by expecting you to get the over all point without addressing the specifics. It seems as though if I don't shoot down your specific examples instead of making an overarching condemnation of them you will continue to mention these options as if they matter.
Because they do for people interested in actual play. You know, that thing role playing games are built for?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550136In AD&D, when fighters hit name level, part of their class benefit is having a keep and soldiers. Way more than any other class. I wish I had the book here so I could pull that part out and quote it.
Here you go.
Quote from: AD&D PH, p. 22When 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.
The detail of the body of men-at-arms and leaders is described in the DMG p. 16. We're talking about a
minimum of 80 heavy infantry men plus 5th level leader.
Quote from: Benoist;550137Because they do for people interested in actual play. You know, that thing role playing games are built for?
Ahh, I see if I point out the specifics of how you are wrong you choose the option to just not read them. So this isn't so much a debate where you're interested in listening to the other side. I suppose you're more interested in believing that other people who also play DnD should come to the same (unsupported) conclusions you did.
Here we go:
QuoteAt level 9, the fighter lord may establish a freehold by building some type of castle and clearing the land in an area of a radius of twenty to fifty miles. The fighter will then attract a body of men-at-arms led by an above average fighter which will serve him as long as he pays reasonably and maintains his freehold, and will collect seven silver coins for every sentient inhabitant of the area through trade, tariffs, and taxes.
The cleric gets something similar, but is capped at 20-200 followers. No other class has this as a perk. It's safe to assume that as the fighter gets higher than level 9 and earns reputation, his army will only increase.
So at level 18 (when a MU finally gets her level 9 spell), the fighter very well could have an army of thousands.
It's a different aspect of the game (realm management), but it's important nonetheless because it is a class feature that can have a huge impact upon the game, just like a high level spell. I understand why the 3e fighter gets a bad rap because they took away this part of the game, but didn't gimp the MU or cleric to keep a semblance of balance.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550136In AD&D, when fighters hit name level, part of their class benefit is having a keep and soldiers. Way more than any other class. I wish I had the book here so I could pull that part out and quote it.
Quote from: Gary GygaxWhen a fighter attains 9th level (Lord), he or she may opt to establish a freehold. This is done by bu8ilding 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.
(From the Players Handbook, pp.22)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550133A fighter would have more money than a MU, because 1) he doesn't need to pay for spell components and attempts to learn spells, and 2) he gets tax income. So not only could he hire more people than the MU, he also gets a ton of people just as a fighter perk that the other classes don't get.
His army is not 0 level soldiers. Again, I don't have the book here, but he gets several higher level troops. And even then, you're on crack if you think a dragon will wipe out the entire army in round 1. Just how big of an area of effect does a dragon's breath have, anyway? Also, a natural 20 is an automatic hit. So several of those thousands of soldiers are bound to do something.
,
He gets hundred of soldiers not thousands, 200 soliders in a tight pike formation occupy an area about 10m square and a red dragon's breath weapon is a 9" by 3" cone which outside is 30 yards long and 10 yards wide and even an averaged aged ad&d dragon with just 9hd will deal 45 hp damage with a breath weapon so even if they make their 15% chance of a save they take enough to kill an average 4th level fighter and they are probably paralysed with fear (save versus fear atbless than 3 hd no save at all for less than 1hd.... So no they are pretty fucked.... You have played ad&d right :-)
Quote from: jibbajibba;550142,
He gets hundred of soldiers not thousands,
He
starts with that, and then hires more. Like I said, his army could easily grow into the tens of thousands as he acquires more funds, which he will have more of than the MU because he doesn't have to spend a fortune on spell research.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550140The cleric gets something similar, but is capped at 20-200 followers. No other class has this as a perk. It's safe to assume that as the fighter gets higher than level 9 and earns reputation, his army will only increase.
Hold on, a few pages back, you were saying that fighters could track, despite not having it listed as an ability. Now (say) MUs can't raise an army,
because they don't have it as an ability?
That seems inconsistent.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;550141(From the Players Handbook, pp.22)
Yup and from page 29 I can hire a range of soldiers at 1-6 gp a month along with captains and all that malarky.... Your point?
Quote from: fectin;550144Hold on, a few pages back, you were saying that fighters could track, despite not having it listed as an ability. Now (say) MUs can't raise an army, because they don't have it as an ability?
That seems inconsistent.
No, and I'd suggest you read what I've been actually posting, because I've gone over this a few times.
I've said, a few times now, that the fighter will do it better than anyone else because it's a class perk. I never said no other class can never raise an army. In fact, I had even used a MU as a comparison on how easier it would be for a fighter than a MU to raise an army, and listed reasons why.
There's nothing inconsistent with my position. Tracking is a class perk of a ranger, so the ranger will be far and away better than other classes. Raising an army is a perk of the fighter, so raising an army is far and away better for a fighter than other classes. That doesn't mean other classes can't track, or raise an army.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550143He starts with that, and then hires more. Like I said, his army could easily grow into the tens of thousands as he acquires more funds, which he will have more of than the MU because he doesn't have to spend a fortune on spell research.
But the mu can literally create gold......... or raise an army of undead hordes or do all the wizard shit those little bastards get up to.
If you think the free 80 heavy infantry and 6th level captain you are likely to end up with can beat my 9th level wizard with clouldkill and fireball I'd take that bet :-)
Oh and clerics get an army too and if you check page 16 its actually tougher because they get to roll against each category of troops......
Quote from: MGuy;550139I suppose you're more interested in believing that other people who also play DnD should come to the same (unsupported) conclusions you did.
I'm more interested in talking about actual role playing games and in-game situations, instead of raging Rainman-style on the rules because they don't give me cookie-cutter, move-per-move abilities that would make me feel worthwhile at a role playing game table.
"I want my perks on my character sheet... whaa..."
(http://humormood.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/cry-baby.jpg)
Quote from: jibbajibba;550147But the mu can literally create gold......... or raise an army of undead hordes or do all the wizard shit those little bastards get up to.
If you think the free 80 heavy infantry and 6th level captain you are likely to end up with can beat my 9th level wizard with clouldkill and fireball I'd take that bet :-)
.
Ok, I'm only going to say this one more time, and I hope you actually pay attention.
A wizard does not collect tax income. A wizard has expenditures throughout his career astronomically higher than a fighter (some have been mentioned, like spell research, etc). Assuming the party does an equal share of treasure, the fighter will have a lot more money than the wizard. So you're not just looking at 80 infantry and a captain. You're looking at that plus thousands of other hired soldiers
in addition to those other followers who continue to come in as the player's rep increases.
You take a 9th level wizard and put him up against a level 9 fighter, 100 troops, a captain, AND other hired soldiers that number 5-10x the number the wizard can afford? And you still say the wizard will kick ass? Doubtful.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550149You take a 9th level wizard and put him up against a level 9 fighter, 100 troops, a captain, AND other hired soldiers that number 5-10x the number the wizard can afford? And you still say the wizard will kick ass? Doubtful.
The point is moot anyway because the fighter and MU will fight
alongside each other against the giant lizard attacking the keep in front of them.
Quote from: Benoist;550148I'm more interested in talking about actual role playing games and in-game situations, instead of raging Rainman-style on the rules because they don't give me cookie-cutter, move-per-move abilities that would make me feel worthwhile at a role playing game table.
See i haven't complained that a fighter is weak at high levels compared to wiz but i admit it and just don't think it matters
I hate the 4e fighter with martial magic powers. Love fighters and battlesystem games and all that no complaints from me. I would complain that healing is ridiculously slow of course :-)
I liked the UA additions of specialisation and complete fighters little tactical nods but my fighters have always been more "set my guard in tierce then try to advance toward the table and trying to keep his eye on the tip of my blade I scoop the cushion off the floor with my leading foot towards his face and follow it up with a sything attack at his legs keeping low and extending myself toward the window" rather than "roll to hit" :-)
Fun cool and love playing them but balanced....... nah not so much...
Quote from: jibbajibba;550151Fun cool and love playing them but balanced....... nah not so much...
Ultimate, extreme, game balance based solely on rules is a pipe dream. It's complete bullshit, because people with different tastes and inclinations, personalities and IQs mingling well or not with the type of character they chose for themselves and their relationships with each other will matter even more into the actual play equation. It's another rainman delusion, as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550146No, and I'd suggest you read what I've been actually posting, because I've gone over this a few times.
I've said, a few times now, that the fighter will do it better than anyone else because it's a class perk. I never said no other class can never raise an army. In fact, I had even used a MU as a comparison on how easier it would be for a fighter than a MU to raise an army, and listed reasons why.
There's nothing inconsistent with my position. Tracking is a class perk of a ranger, so the ranger will be far and away better than other classes. Raising an army is a perk of the fighter, so raising an army is far and away better for a fighter than other classes. That doesn't mean other classes can't track, or raise an army.
Fair enough. So how do you determine how much better the fighter is? Or, alternately, when my wizard builds his own stronghold, what happens? How many tiny men do I get? How much do I get in taxes? How much does it all cost?
Quote from: fectin;550153Fair enough. So how do you determine how much better the fighter is? Or, alternately, when my wizard builds his own stronghold, what happens? How many tiny men do I get? How much do I get in taxes? How much does it all cost?
The costs should all be there in the DMG. I would say that since the perk is specifically outlined for a fighter (and cleric to an extent), other classes wouldn't get as much. The exact level is up to you and the DM. I don't think it would be very hard to hash out.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550149Ok, I'm only going to say this one more time, and I hope you actually pay attention.
A wizard does not collect tax income. A wizard has expenditures throughout his career astronomically higher than a fighter (some have been mentioned, like spell research, etc). Assuming the party does an equal share of treasure, the fighter will have a lot more money than the wizard. So you're not just looking at 80 infantry and a captain. You're looking at that plus thousands of other hired soldiers in addition to those other followers who continue to come in as the player's rep increases.
You take a 9th level wizard and put him up against a level 9 fighter, 100 troops, a captain, AND other hired soldiers that number 5-10x the number the wizard can afford? And you still say the wizard will kick ass? Doubtful.
at 9th level a wizard can print their own money.... I can charm or dominate the emperor into giving me his army, create 9 cubic feet of gold that t i exchange for platinum befor teleporting out of town. Money really isn't an issue.
And think about what you are now saying. Youare saying that the troops tht the fighter gets at named level are a tiny part of the army he can hire because he he has more money. So in effect you are saying that the pc with the most money will win and that will be the fighter because he can raise a few thousand gp in tax each month....... Because he is a fighter... Not because he is king, married the princess, killed the old lord and took over but because he is a fighter.... Weak sauce i fear the potential for a high level wizard to make huge sums of cash are greater than those of the fighter because of all those options. ....... and my summoned dragon will make all you 0 level troops run away anyway :-)
Quote from: Benoist;550152Ultimate, extreme, game balance based solely on rules is a pipe dream. It's complete bullshit, because people with different tastes and inclinations, personalities and IQs mingling well or not with the type of character they chose for themselves and their relationships with each other will matter even more into the actual play equation. It's another rainman delusion, as far as I'm concerned.
I agree totally although i would be unlikely to mock someone with aspergers or autism to make my point :-)
So why argue high level fighters are a match for the wiz?
DnD gets closest to balance round about 5-7 its the sweet spot. That is why E6 is popular
Quote from: jibbajibba;550156at 9th level a wizard can print their own money.... I can charm or dominate the emperor into giving me his army, create 9 cubic feet of gold that t i exchange for platinum befor teleporting out of town. Money really isn't an issue.
What spell allows your 9th level MU to create 9 cubic feet of gold?
QuoteAnd think about what you are now saying. Youare saying that the troops tht the fighter gets at named level are a tiny part of the army he can hire because he he has more money. So in effect you are saying that the pc with the most money will win and that will be the fighter because he can raise a few thousand gp in tax each month....... Because he is a fighter... Not because he is king, married the princess, killed the old lord and took over but because he is a fighter.... Weak sauce i fear
Hell, I could roleplay a scenario where my fighter marries a goddess. Point is, is that looking at RAW and not some wild scenario you make up to break the rules, the fighter has a clear advantage. Not only because he has a steady income stream coming in, but because he gets an extra bonus in the form of followers.
Quotethe potential for a high level wizard to make huge sums of cash are greater than those of the fighter because of all those options. ....... and my summoned dragon will make all you 0 level troops run away anyway :-)
What 9th level MU can summon a dragon to make an entire army run away. And again, the army isn't 0 level. Do you even read what people are saying? I ask because these things have been pointed out several times and yet you keep ignoring them.
If you argument comes down to an 18th level fighter vs an 18th level magic user, big fucking deal because who plays with those characters? 99.99% of the game play is at levels way lower than that, and therefore it's such an outlier that it's not significant.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550157So why argue high level fighters are a match for the wiz?
It's not my contention. I've been answering all along to this post of Frank (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=549507#post549507) that basically posits that fighters
don't fucking matter at all. There's a nuance here. The point isn't that fighters are somehow unequal, or should approach problems differently than MUs at high(er) levels. It's that fighters don't matte
r at all when it comes to facing a dragon in the game. And it's bullshit. Total, complete, bullshit, from start to finish, that's since devolved into yet more Rainman "the rules are the games" BS from there.
Can people talk about their experience with army raising?
In my AD&D experience (ages ago), we never went into building castles and raising armies even when we got past 9th level, because it seemed hard to reconcile it with the adventuring we wanted to do - i.e. going to dungeons or similar in remote locations, rather than overseeing construction and collecting taxes.
Also, for me spell research happened but it was the exception because we would tend to get spells by other means - such as by capturing spellbooks of defeated enemies, or sharing spells with allies whom we helped.
So for those who do it...
What's it like? Does the fighter run the NPC followers as if they were his own characters? Do you regularly take a big army out on adventures, or is it uncommon and most adventures just have the PCs plus a few hirelings/followers?
@Benoist: The only real, in game situation you've given is that a fighter if handed the victory can win in a fight. I pointed out that anybody in the same situation (no matter what the class) that you present for the fighter can win that same fight AND also do it when not in a situation where the victory is handed to them. You response to that is that I'm crying because I don't know how real DnD goes. I do not believe you are actually reading my actual posts and the more you respond with childish name calling and denying that my personal experiences (at the table) even exist the more I am forced to believe that Frank has got you pegged.
Seriously Benoist you are proving yourself to be exactly the kind of neckbeard Frank is talking about. You are so stuck with this train of thought that you seem literally incapable of imagining a game where a fighter CAN do interesting things. You're not even making a coherent argument against what other people are saying. I can't speak for others but I know I believe in balance between the classes. Not balance created artificially by the DM's ability to make up rules but balance through the rules.
Hell you even say that ultimate balance is unbelievable so your solution is to what? Not try? I don't expect to be able to make a game or play a game where player choice is so meaningless that no matter what they do everything turns out right. I expect to create a game that comes close enough such that every class can be functionally competitive with every other class. I want to create a game such that there isn't a class or an option that is so much better/worse than other ones that it becomes accepted that some classes are inherently shit (fighter) while others have no bounds and can be either or depending on how play (IE wizard).
~Anyways~
I'm not sure having an army and a fort that, conceivably, any class can buy makes the fighter look all that much better. I'll admit my experience with 2ed is very limited and I never played a game that got past 4th level so I don't know how much one can care about having an army at 9th level. I understand that around about 9th and 10th level or so you should be prepping to fight gods so an army is looking pretty flimsy and doesn't solve issues like inter dimensional travel, flight, turning your lover back to normal after an evil wizard came along and turned her into a donkey. Not saying that armies aren't cool and awesome to have but they don't solve basic high level issues associated with high level DnD (again at least from what I've been told about those levels in 2ed).
Quote from: B.T.;550080Personally, I fail to see the difference between "class ability that gives the fighter a castle" and "class ability that gives the fighter tracking." In both cases, the fighter gets something that everyone can do--it's just the fighter does it better.
Maybe I'm just dumb.
This is one of the reasons stuff like xp progression tables matter in older editions. How powerful the wizard becomes really does depend largely on the kind of campaign you run. Personally i felt the balance in 1e and 2e was much better than 3e. 4e I felt was too obsessive about balance (and i hated having every class structured identically to achieve it). I was always comfortable with wizards starting out weak and ending up powerful. But their power was tempered by stuff like casting times, resource management, spell risks, low hp, etc. All I know is I was totally fine with how AD&D played, a bit more uneasy with 3E and highly unsatisfied with 4E. We could probably go back and forth crunching the numbers, running through scenarios, etc to see what the power disparities may or may not have been between fighters and wizards in prior editions. To me what matters is the game achieved what I was looking for in play.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550155The costs should all be there in the DMG. I would say that since the perk is specifically outlined for a fighter (and cleric to an extent), other classes wouldn't get as much. The exact level is up to you and the DM. I don't think it would be very hard to hash out.
No? It seems at least a little complex. There are, broadly speaking at least four offhand things to figure out.
- Initial cost of clearing/building. May be higher (not a fighter) or lower (can cast wall of stone, though not at level 9)
- Ongoing cost of maintenance. Not listed for the fighter either, so it's really hard to say.
- Number of tiny men. Is this just a percentage of the fighter's number? A flat number?
- Tax rate. Is this still 7 silver? If not, why not?
Worse, if I'm a MU, should I be saving up for a castle or not? Getting income from a holding is something most people today could do, so it seems weird that MUs couldn't. If the income is fairly high, it makes a lot of sense for a MU to save up for one, because then he can fund his studies better and more stably. If not, he should go for research. Further, he should be able to have some idea which way things will go, based on what other MUs have done.
Quote from: jhkim;550160So for those who do it...
What's it like? Does the fighter run the NPC followers as if they were his own characters? Do you regularly take a big army out on adventures, or is it uncommon and most adventures just have the PCs plus a few hirelings/followers?
When I did it in a Rolemaster game, the game became about reclaiming the Empire from the Orc hoards. The party had pretty much outgrown adventuring by then. An AD&D game I was in was similar, in the main thrust of it was the clash of armies, but the PCs tended to act as in independent strike force, basically the armies air support (via Dragon Mounts).
I was in a WFRP where something similar happened, (without the armies) and know that one player really reacted badly to the fact that the game vastly changed pace. So I think it needs broadcasting that it is going to happen well ahead of when it does.
Just spent some time reading my Official Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook by E. Gary Gygax from 1978.
When describing the Fighter, Paladin and Ranger, it was clear that the benefits of being a ranger (which include tracking) were not intended to apply to a normal fighter (or a magic-user, for that matter). To allow the Fighter to track is to extend them a class ability that they are not listed as having. While reasonable, this would be an extension of the rules beyond their stated scope.
Likewise, it is clear that in 1st edition, the Fighter gains the benefit of automatic followers, but not everyone else does.
But in 1st edition, you also have issues where there are creatures that require a +3 or better weapon to hit. Since the men-at-arms of the Fighter are not likely to have these powerful weapons, it's possible that a single one of them can kill every single one of the fighter's men-at-arms. And the fighter, without the help of his wizard friend, probably can't save them.
It's great that the DM is being nice to Fighters even in first edition, and not deliberately screwing them.
By 3rd edition, it was clear Fighters weren't playing the same game.
If you play an earlier edition, it doesn't matter to ME that you're satisfied. I think 3rd edition is the best version of the game SO FAR, despite some obvious weaknesses. From my perspective, the reason to try to fix the Fighter NOW is because of D&D Next. If you're playing an older edition and you're still happy with it, more power to you. That doesn't address the fact that Fighters were weak in 3rd edition and that's a real possibility in the next version - especially when people insist that they have abilities THEY CLEARLY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE.
But that's just me.
Quote from: jhkim;550160Can people talk about their experience with army raising?
In my AD&D experience (ages ago), we never went into building castles and raising armies even when we got past 9th level, because it seemed hard to reconcile it with the adventuring we wanted to do - i.e. going to dungeons or similar in remote locations, rather than overseeing construction and collecting taxes.
Also, for me spell research happened but it was the exception because we would tend to get spells by other means - such as by capturing spellbooks of defeated enemies, or sharing spells with allies whom we helped.
So for those who do it...
What's it like? Does the fighter run the NPC followers as if they were his own characters? Do you regularly take a big army out on adventures, or is it uncommon and most adventures just have the PCs plus a few hirelings/followers?
As I said before my experience with DnD prior to 3e is limited. However I CAN tell you that I had several campaigns where I wanted to be a face man (in one of the rare instances that I play instead of run) and all except for a very close friend stopped me dead in my tracks because I was raising my army too soon (all of my deeds happened at low level and the campaign always died before we can get to higher levels) and turning the encounters into cake walks or avoiding them which was making the fighters mad. So in every instance I tried to rely on NPCs or my ability to gain followers I was shot down. I should note that none of the times did I do was I a fighter. In order of the campaigns that I did this in and the systems involved I was a:
Cleric (3rd) Community Leader
Cleric (3.5) Trying to start a church
Bard (3.5) Wanted to invent a religion
Paladin (3.5) Wanted to start a Holy War against neighboring nation
Evangelist (Warhammer Fantasy) Wanted to Start a Church again
No Class (Gurps) A face man. I wanted to go the entire game without attacking anything
No Class (Gurps) Ditto
Bard (take 2 in 3.5) Tried the start a religion thing again. People just stopped allowing me to make checks.
Noble (SAGA) Wanted to become a crime lord.
Noble (SAGA) Ditto except this time after the DM caught on I was forced off planet and forced to fight over and over with things I "couldn't" talk over for one reason or another.
Paladin (4th) Crusade idea again.
Summoner (Pathfinder) Just wanted to raise an army.
Summoner (Pathfinder) Ditto except I was allowed to since the DM was a personal friend. Campaign died out because of issues between the DM and one of the players.
Wisdom: the pertinent issue here is the STRUCTURAL denial of strategic gaming on WotC's and Paizo's part.
Conjecture: Second, third and later generations of authors do NOT understand/care for wargames.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550168Just spent some time reading my Official Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook by E. Gary Gygax from 1978.
When describing the Fighter, Paladin and Ranger, it was clear that the benefits of being a ranger (which include tracking) were not intended to apply to a normal fighter (or a magic-user, for that matter). To allow the Fighter to track is to extend them a class ability that they are not listed as having. While reasonable, this would be an extension of the rules beyond their stated scope.
Likewise, it is clear that in 1st edition, the Fighter gains the benefit of automatic followers, but not everyone else does.
But in 1st edition, you also have issues where there are creatures that require a +3 or better weapon to hit. Since the men-at-arms of the Fighter are not likely to have these powerful weapons, it's possible that a single one of them can kill every single one of the fighter's men-at-arms. And the fighter, without the help of his wizard friend, probably can't save them.
It's great that the DM is being nice to Fighters even in first edition, and not deliberately screwing them.
By 3rd edition, it was clear Fighters weren't playing the same game.
If you play an earlier edition, it doesn't matter to ME that you're satisfied. I think 3rd edition is the best version of the game SO FAR, despite some obvious weaknesses. From my perspective, the reason to try to fix the Fighter NOW is because of D&D Next. If you're playing an older edition and you're still happy with it, more power to you. That doesn't address the fact that Fighters were weak in 3rd edition and that's a real possibility in the next version - especially when people insist that they have abilities THEY CLEARLY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE.
But that's just me.
Personally I am fine with them doing things in next to make the fighter good at fighting. My only issue I dont want it done through 4e style powers or resource management. Give fighters stuff like flat bonuses to damage, lowered crit ranges, etc. There are easy ways to bake in things to the class so they are consistently good at fighting and on par with other classes.
At the same time I am no worried about balancing all classes around combat. Snce a fighter fights, he should be good at that. But 100% okay with the thief being best at stuff like detecting traps, stealing, climbing but not being so great in a battle.
Quote from: MGuy;550161@Benoist: The only real, in game situation you've given is that a fighter if handed the victory can win in a fight.
No. That's what Frank keeps repeating, deforming what I've been saying all along, which is that I expect the referee to adjudicate fairly, win or lose, and that if my actions somehow don't work and my character gets killed in the process, I'm completely fine with it. That said, any such type situation in the game comes along with an entire immediate context in the game world, including environment, circumstances, specific objectives etc etc, as well as an entire campaign around it (prior histories of the characters, their roles and options available from there, such as in the case the fighter is actually Lord of the Keep being attacked with the retinue and siege weapons that come along with it in one of our possible examples) which actually provide a shitload of choices for the fighter to do stuff.
The point is to play the game, not the rules, with the implication that the DM is there to adjudicate when necessary. Not always ruling my way or I walk, but ruling fairly, and competently, taking into account the specific situations as they arise so the game may proceed, one way or another. A DM that does not take anything into account beyond the rules to adjudicate any specific situation and basically tells you that your 10th level fighter can't track because the ability is not written on the sheet, despite him having explored and cleared the wilderness around the keep for the last four levels or so, is not ruling fairly, nor competently.
If there is one thing Frank has demonstrated in this thread to me, is that he would be a God awful DM to play with, that he sucks at understanding role playing games, and understands FUCK ALL about actual play. It's not like it's anything new to me, to tell you the truth, but there it is. Again.
Quote from: MGuy;550161Hell you even say that ultimate balance is unbelievable so your solution is to what? Not try?
My solution is to actually play the fucking game so shut up, and roll some dice. ;)
Quote from: MGuy;550161I expect to create a game that comes close enough such that every class can be functionally competitive with every other class.
There is no competition going on between the players, unless you put it there by looking over your shoulder to stare at other people's character sheets. You do know that adventurers of widely different levels adventuring with each other is kind of a part of AD&D's game play, right? That there's no such expectation that everyone will be neatly at the same level at all times, or even in the same level neighborhood within the same party at times, right? This 'problem' of competition between classes is a bogus meme invented by people who can't stand that the guy next to them found the Sword +1 in the dungeon and not them, who need to have a laundry list of options because they feel like they suck, the DM is "out to get them", and the guy next to them just gets stuff by imagining shit while they suck at it. "It's not fair! Whaaa!"
It's a complex of whiners and rules lawyers. The very kind of players we looked upon years and years ago to tell them: "Shut the fuck up and roll some dice." Move on. Play the game. Try to have fun instead of blocking on bullshit like that. Geez. :rolleyes:
Quote from: fectin;550020
Fectin? Your real name isn't Josh is it? If so, this is Alan, your biweekly GM. Hi.
QuoteI think you're conflating two things here.
(...)
So what does that have to do with your larger point? Everything.
You say "I'm of the school that many challenges must be solved by either or both teamwork and/or interacting with the game world". That is exactly the strongest argument for a consistent ruleset. If part of the ranger's role is tracking, and everyone else can track too, the ranger is actually failing to add anything.
I think if any conflating is going on here, it's you conflating my argument with that of other folks here. I'm not the one who said anyone should be able to try to track here, though I will say, if we are putting a fine point on it
digression...I'm not exactly fond of the niche-protection that goes on in 1e-3e with respect to tracking. I am pretty satisfied with the solution that Pathfinder and Fantasy Craft have for this. To wit, in both anyone with survival can track, and classes that specialize in it get either numerical (PF) or situational (FC) bonuses to do so. I'm perfectly okay with anyone being able to try something but specialists being the best.
QuoteThat's not failing as in "Oh noez! A suboptimal action!" it's actually removing the unique advantage which his class brings to the party. Protecting roles is what encourages and incentivizes teamwork.
Absolutely, and absolutely why I think Frank is wrong. If my fighter needs to fly to be effective, I should not be all sad-faced that he needs the wizard to help me do so. My job is to cut holes in things.
QuoteIt's even more pronounced with world interaction. Take the god-slaying example where you need to go find allies, artifacts, blessings, etc. If those don't have predictable effects, they're nothing more than plot-coupons: collect enough and you get to move to the boss battle. When the Yeti Blade is just a thing need to get to bypass Bob The Unliving's plot invulnerability,
The thing I didn't say here is that I run plot-driven style at all. I consider the philosophy the same if I am running sandbox game. Bob the unliving can be pre-written up in a manner than group B rolling dice in the next house with just the right person in their party may not need to get that one special ability. It'll be part of the rules. But if your group lacks the special thing you need, that's when it's time to put your investigative skills and find someone who has that special thing that is already defined in the rules.
I occasionally handwave stuff, but it sort of raises my hackles. I prefer to operate within the defined rules pretty much for the exact reason you state: consistency. And I find that when you just let the PCs bang around in the sandbox a bit, interesting things happen that don't always happen when you have them on the plot train.
QuoteAllies are even more clear cut: if the fighter can suddenly track just by wanting it, there's no incentive to go find Deadeye Steve, who can follow a trail over solid stone (unless there's already a party ranger, in which case why would you even want an NPC hogging the spotlight?).
Again, such things are dictated by necessity in my games, not by me deciding it is so. Which I hope you know by now.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550158What spell allows your 9th level MU to create 9 cubic feet of gold?
Hell, I could roleplay a scenario where my fighter marries a goddess. Point is, is that looking at RAW and not some wild scenario you make up to break the rules, the fighter has a clear advantage. Not only because he has a steady income stream coming in, but because he gets an extra bonus in the form of followers.
What 9th level MU can summon a dragon to make an entire army run away. And again, the army isn't 0 level. Do you even read what people are saying? I ask because these things have been pointed out several times and yet you keep ignoring them.
If you argument comes down to an 18th level fighter vs an 18th level magic user, big fucking deal because who plays with those characters? 99.99% of the game play is at levels way lower than that, and therefore it's such an outlier that it's not significant.
So .... Major Creation is the 5th level spell in question
you can't say 'my fighter has a castle and followers but you aren't allowed to roleplay' that is daft. If you are using thte campaign trappings then its all in. The potential for a wizard to amke cash by selling spells, cons and other nefarious activities using magic is huge.
The dragon was a joke :)
Course I could obviously create an illusion of a dragon to put the shits up some of your boys but ....
The army is 0 level , well all the followers that a fighter gets at 9th level are apart from the leader who is likely to be 5th or 6th ... you need to read the actual rules you refer to.
The troops you hire... well as DM I enforce the stand rules of groups of humans as found in the MM for say bandits where roughly 1 in 10 are 1st level 1 in 30 or so are 2nd and they have a handful of captains. Men at arms especially an army of 1000s are 0 level. Just ask Ben to confirm it if you don't believe me.
If I was an 18th level Wizard I would just Wish your army to not be there any more .... so meh...
Not meaning to rag on you and this has gone far further than I envisaged , I blame the beer and the iconic English victory.
9th -10th is where the magic user starts to pull away from the fighter and does so quite rapidly.
All the troops and the castles and stuff are fine but they rarely come up in play. I have been through the cycle a few times and as MGuy says an army of 80 loyal footmen and a hired force of 4,000 mercenaries are just not condusive to many game styles. I have platyed entire campaigns of battles using figures and battlesystem rules and all sorts and it really stops being D&D and becomes well miniature wargaming of course and that isn't what most people want.
Commonly what happens is the 'party' leaves the Lord's lands and head off to another plane or a dangerous dungeon where the 0 level cannon foder just can't compete so they get left to mind the country for a few weeks.
Quote from: fectin;550166No? It seems at least a little complex. There are, broadly speaking at least four offhand things to figure out.
- Initial cost of clearing/building. May be higher (not a fighter) or lower (can cast wall of stone, though not at level 9)
- Ongoing cost of maintenance. Not listed for the fighter either, so it's really hard to say.
- Number of tiny men. Is this just a percentage of the fighter's number? A flat number?
- Tax rate. Is this still 7 silver? If not, why not?
Worse, if I'm a MU, should I be saving up for a castle or not? Getting income from a holding is something most people today could do, so it seems weird that MUs couldn't. If the income is fairly high, it makes a lot of sense for a MU to save up for one, because then he can fund his studies better and more stably. If not, he should go for research. Further, he should be able to have some idea which way things will go, based on what other MUs have done.
All the costs are in the DMG. Really the only thing you need to figure out is "Do I get followers?" MUs were designed to be the masters of lone arcane towers and not leaders of a province or kingdom, but it wouldn't be so hard to do so I imagine.
In my case, I'd answer the question, "You can get a few apprentices, but everything else has to be hired out."
Benoist all you've done is prove my point. Instead of having an actual discussion about how to make balanced rules your solution is screw the rules play the game. So the minute someone says "These rules are imbalanced" you don't provide a real solution. You only suggest that people who pay attention to what the rules say are doing it wrong. At no point in anything you've posted have you suggested an actual solution that doesn't involve the DM making the fighter win. You have not posted one thing that answers the counter question I asked you, "What benefit does it give the game to have a class that is functionally worse than other classes". You've only either continued to hide behind the Oberoni (in that any problem with the rules is not a problem because the DM can make shit up). This is not a sound argument for the rules. Yes, you can stilll have fun with a bad ruleset. Yes the DM can make it so team hero always wins no matter what. However, NONE of that makes the RULES not bad. None of that makes up for the fact that the rules aren't satisfactory.
Quote from: jhkim;550160Can people talk about their experience with army raising?
Sure! :)
Quote from: jhkim;550160What's it like? Does the fighter run the NPC followers as if they were his own characters? Do you regularly take a big army out on adventures, or is it uncommon and most adventures just have the PCs plus a few hirelings/followers?
My character was a 15th level fighter based in the Greyhawk setting. He won the Silver Star of Vuluna and Gold Crown of Furyondy. He became a Knight of the Order of the Hart.
Well, it took a bucket load of gold to build the castle itself, and several years of game time. He built his castle on the northern border of Furyondy as a shield against Iuz.
Yes, if and when I ran any of his followers the DM let me control them nearly every time they were in play. No, he wouldn't regularly take out big armies, but we did have some major battles when his castle was under attack by the forces of Iuz.
The DM used the rules in 2e AD&D Supplement
The Castle Guide for the construction of the castle, its cost, and time for completion.
Quote from: jhkim;550160Can people talk about their experience with army raising?
In my AD&D experience (ages ago), we never went into building castles and raising armies even when we got past 9th level, because it seemed hard to reconcile it with the adventuring we wanted to do - i.e. going to dungeons or similar in remote locations, rather than overseeing construction and collecting taxes.
Also, for me spell research happened but it was the exception because we would tend to get spells by other means - such as by capturing spellbooks of defeated enemies, or sharing spells with allies whom we helped.
So for those who do it...
What's it like? Does the fighter run the NPC followers as if they were his own characters? Do you regularly take a big army out on adventures, or is it uncommon and most adventures just have the PCs plus a few hirelings/followers?
we took a different option.
we built a world and then each of 4 players populared a part of it. they we all spend all our money on minis and built armies.
Then we ran a war. Before each battle there would be a role play session that affedcted the battle. So 3 Orc scouts woudl try to break into the human camp to steal some battle plans or assasinate a general, or a small group of knights woudl try to get through to an isolated village to get some muguffin or whatever.
The DM would be the guy who's army was defending so in the Orc scout example I ran the adventure as I was the humans. One off sessions but characters gained XP and became 'featured' npcs in the armies.
Lasted a year with a battle between 2 players each wekeend and a role play sesison the friday before (we were just off to college and then at college so...) but the role play bits just became more fun than the battles because a battle between armies of 400+ figures take 8 hours to resolve and are fiddly and a bit shit really.
I can assure you that even limited by our strict rules on power creep a wizard was a huge resource on the battlefield. A 9th level warrior can lead a unit give it morale pluses even act as a unit on its own if its bad enough a 9th level wizard can turn the tide of an entire Battle and wipe out an army.
Because even veteran troops the elite , immortals are generally 3rd level which means they will totally cream a force 3 times their size will be anhiliated by a fireball. even if they save they die and the volumes invovled are huge. And don't mention Cloudkill...... + gust of wind.....
Quote from: jibbajibba;550175So .... Major Creation is the 5th level spell in question
In what edition? 3rd? We're talking about AD&D here. And even in 3rd edition, it has a duration. Good luck with that. The person you just screwed is probably going to do everything they can to hunt your ass down and kill you. And you figure they are going to be pretty powerful if they have enough platinum to exchange several tons of gold for.
Quoteyou can't say 'my fighter has a castle and followers but you aren't allowed to roleplay' that is daft.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you can literally role play anything, and if you role play something to get around the rules, that's hardly the game design's fault.
Weird, whenever i played an M.U i was constantly being asked "what have you got to get us out of this?", "Get him!" "What do you mean, you've hardly got any spells left?"
and no, we didn't engage in the 15 minute adventuring day.
Quote from: MGuy;550179"What benefit does it give the game to have a class that is functionally worse than other classes."
There, right there is where you failed here today: the premise of your argument is wrong. Period.
Fighters are not functionally worse than other classes.
Quote from: MGuy;550179Benoist all you've done is prove my point.
Ah! LOL. Right. OK then. :D
Quote from: One Horse Town;550183Weird, whenever i played an M.U i was constantly being asked "what have you got to get us out of this?", "Get him!" "What do you mean, you've hardly got any spells left?"
and no, we didn't engage in the 15 minute adventuring day.
This is what lots of people forget about casters. They do run out of the big hit spells and they are limited by what they choose to prepare each dayl in practice I haven't found their power levels anywhere what people online seem to suggest. Againk these kinds of things are very campaign specific, but that is my experience. Whereas the fighter can chop and chop all day long.
Quote from: One Horse Town;550183Weird, whenever i played an M.U i was constantly being asked "what have you got to get us out of this?", "Get him!" "What do you mean, you've hardly got any spells left?"
and no, we didn't engage in the 15 minute adventuring day.
You obviously are a neckbeard grogtard who just speaks out of nostalgia. The DM was house-ruling the game to make you spend your spells and make the fighter win just by adjudicating whatever he was talking about. :rolleyes: ;) :D
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550182In what edition? 3rd? We're talking about AD&D here. And even in 3rd edition, it has a duration. Good luck with that. The person you just screwed is probably going to do everything they can to hunt your ass down and kill you. And you figure they are going to be pretty powerful if they have enough platinum to exchange several tons of gold for.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you can literally role play anything, and if you role play something to get around the rules, that's hardly the game design's fault.
2e ... Ad&D I could look it ups but meh ...It has a duration sure but I am going to change it so .... and they might try to hunt me down good luck with that as I was using an alter self spell when i sold it ... the point really is just that Wizards can very easily make money very easily. I am nefarious by nature well my wizards tend to be .. but just being a guy that sells calirvoyance, Clairvoyance, illusionary script, and general utility spells to the nobility of a town or city will bring in good money not to mention the free money you get from charmed merchants and princesses ...doh me being nefarious again :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;5501882e ... Ad&D I could look it ups but meh ...It has a duration sure but I am going to change it so .... and they might try to hunt me down good luck with that as I was using an alter self spell when i sold it ... the point really is just that Wizards can very easily make money very easily. I am nefarious by nature well my wizards tend to be .. but just being a guy that sells calirvoyance, Clairvoyance, illusionary script, and general utility spells to the nobility of a town or city will bring in good money not to mention the free money you get from charmed merchants and princesses ...doh me being nefarious again :)
According to the OSRIC SRD, which I think is AD&D?
MAJOR CREATION
SC Transmutation/ Alteration
Level 5 illusionist
R 10 ft
D 6 turns/ level
AoF 1 cubic ft/ level
CT 1 turn
SV None
Comp V, S, M
This spell is simply a more powerful version of minor creation, allowing the caster to create objects of mineral as well as of vegetable origin.
MINOR CREATION
SC Transmutation/ Alteration
Level 4 illusionist
R Touch
D 6 turns/ level
AoF 1 cubic ft/ level
CT 1 turn
SV None
Comp V, S, M
With a small piece of material, the caster may use this spell to create an object made of that same material. The base material cannot be alive and must come from a plant. Thus, within the caster's limits on the item's volume, he or she could create a basket from a piece of straw, a door or club from a splinter of wood, a cloak from a piece of wool, etc. The item exists only for the duration of the spell.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550186This is what lots of people forget about casters. They do run out of the big hit spells and they are limited by what they choose to prepare each dayl in practice I haven't found their power levels anywhere what people online seem to suggest. Againk these kinds of things are very campaign specific, but that is my experience. Whereas the fighter can chop and chop all day long.
But I think you would conceed that when you reach the higher levels the type of game changes. A 9th level wizard has what a dozen spells but by that level they probably have some sort of artiillery piece as well, staff, wand etc.
Typically , in my experience low level games have lots of small opponents you bypass some trick some fight some as you go up the opponets get tougher from goblins to orcs to gnolls but then the balance of the game changes I guess to avoid the 'always fighting orcs' scenario and I suppose because of the way healing works in general. You move towards games where you don't wade through hordes of weaker oppoents rather you are politicking and problem solving and investigating and then you fight the big bad.
I know its a generalisation but as I say in my experience.
For those sorts of games being able to avoid the small stuff and then launch all your arsenal and the one big bad plays into the Wizards hands a bit.
After 9th the gap quickly widens. the fighter drops to only getting 4hp per level so that gap narrows relatively and the wizard starts to pick up a lot more spells.
By 15th level the wizard has close to 30 spells and we all know that not only are spells of 4th level and up game changers but the lower level spells keep stacking up so a 15th level burning hands will deal 15 damage to everything within 5 feet of the front facing of the wiz, no save.
Quote from: jibbajibba;5501882e ... Ad&D I could look it ups but meh ...It has a duration sure but I am going to change it so .... and they might try to hunt me down good luck with that as I was using an alter self spell when i sold it ... the point really is just that Wizards can very easily make money very easily. I am nefarious by nature well my wizards tend to be .. but just being a guy that sells calirvoyance, Clairvoyance, illusionary script, and general utility spells to the nobility of a town or city will bring in good money not to mention the free money you get from charmed merchants and princesses ...doh me being nefarious again :)
Yeah, and you don't think that the world around that wizard is prepared for such things? Does he exist in a vacuum? ;)
Quote from: Benoist;550187You obviously are a neckbeard grogtard who just speaks out of nostalgia. The DM was house-ruling the game to make you spend your spells and make the fighter win just by adjudicating whatever he was talking about. :rolleyes: ;) :D
Every game is different, even if you're playing the same game. Every table has different expectations, even if you're playing the same game. Every player has different goals, even if the party as a whole pulls in the same direction (that's teamwork, btw - a dirty word in some quarters. Especially when the rules-lawyers come a callin').
M.Us have never been a problem when compared to other classes in games i've played in. Why? Because we are on the same fucking side when playing.
M.U out of spells? Fuck! Hide behind the fighter. Shit! The fighter's sword has broken! Hide behind the Ranger! The thief has killed the Ogre Mage with a cool back-stab! Hoorah! Oh, noes! That has infringed on my Cleric's coolness!
What a load of fucking bollocks.
Quote from: jadrax;550190According to the OSRIC SRD, which I think is AD&D?
MAJOR CREATION
SC Transmutation/ Alteration
Level 5 illusionist
R 10 ft
D 6 turns/ level
AoF 1 cubic ft/ level
CT 1 turn
SV None
Comp V, S, M
This spell is simply a more powerful version of minor creation, allowing the caster to create objects of mineral as well as of vegetable origin.
MINOR CREATION
SC Transmutation/ Alteration
Level 4 illusionist
R Touch
D 6 turns/ level
AoF 1 cubic ft/ level
CT 1 turn
SV None
Comp V, S, M
With a small piece of material, the caster may use this spell to create an object made of that same material. The base material cannot be alive and must come from a plant. Thus, within the caster’s limits on the item’s volume, he or she could create a basket from a piece of straw, a door or club from a splinter of wood, a cloak from a piece of wool, etc. The item exists only for the duration of the spell.
okay so 9 cubic feet of gold from a gold coin that lasts 36 turns. (all the gold every found on earth woudl fit into a cube the size of 2 tennis courts by the way)
You make a beautiful gold statue to sell it for much less than its worth because you are getting on a ship and have to be back in blah blah in a few days and the merchant man can't carry it.
You sell it the guys lock it in his vault the next day its gone and so are you with a few thousand gold ready to repeat in the next town owly with a diamond the size of a football.... yes all cons get caught in the end unless they can charm their guards alter their appearance and teleport overseas easliy :)
PS I have actually used this very trick except I animated the statue by means of an improved phantasmal force and sold it to a sultan. I got the idea from Chitty chitty Bang bang :)
One of the things not be acknowledged is that, for a significant fraction of the playing population, the pace of play is dictated by the spell-casters (especially the healer) by default. The Dungeon Master has to introduce time-sensitive objectives that actually matter to the players--not their guys, them--to get a lot of people (and, as I see it, the most influential group of them) to push past the exhaustion of a party's primary spell-casters. We know this as "The 15min. workday".
Quote from: Drohem;550192Yeah, and you don't think that the world around that wizard is prepared for such things? Does he exist in a vacuum? ;)
well 9th level wizards are pretty rare motherfuckers so yeah pretty much. :)
But again its off the point someone that can actually do real magic can easily make money unless you are in a world where magic is mundane and workmen are relaced by invisible servants and all that jazz.
I don't know for you guys, but reading all the examples and what-if situations in this thread make me want to play this actual adventure where the Great Wyrm assaults the Keep on the Borderlands. That would be totally fucking epic.
I'll even play the fighter, if you pussies don't want to. :D
Quote from: Benoist;550200I don't know for you guys, but reading all the examples and what-if situations in this thread make me want to play this actual adventure where the Great Wyrm assaults the Keep on the Borderlands. That would be totally fucking epic.
I'll even play the fighter, if you pussies don't want to. :D
Are you going to feel butthurt if I have to cast fly on you?
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;550201Are you going to feel butthurt if I have to cast fly on you?
Fuck no. Go ahead! I'm the rocket man, baby! :D
(http://cdn.mos.musicradar.com/images/features/puddle-of-mudd-album-feature/elton-john-rocket-man-corbis-660-80.jpg)
Quote from: Benoist;550202Fuck no. I'm the rocket man, baby! :D
(http://cdn.mos.musicradar.com/images/features/puddle-of-mudd-album-feature/elton-john-rocket-man-corbis-660-80.jpg)
With that Hat that can cast Tasha's Uncontrolable Hideous Lagughter and your Glasses od true seeing you might just have a chance.... :)
I have to play a MU using that pic as his character portrait now. :D
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550186This is what lots of people forget about casters. They do run out of the big hit spells and they are limited by what they choose to prepare each dayl in practice I haven't found their power levels anywhere what people online seem to suggest. Againk these kinds of things are very campaign specific, but that is my experience. Whereas the fighter can chop and chop all day long.
You're talking about nebulous "online claims". Not knowing what claims you're talking about, I don't know if I agree or disagree.
In my experience, if fighting the sort of opponents that call for big hit spells, the fighters will lose hit points rapidly (especially given special attacks like poison, breath weapons, etc.). They couldn't just chop and chop all day long, because we were serious about damage. High level monsters did huge damage. They needed a cleric handy.
Within this thread, my experience of actual D&D play is closer to the descriptions of MGuy and Frank than the opposing side. High level AD&D1 play for me was dominated by magic - though that included magic items (sometimes wielded by fighters) as well as spells.
Quote from: jhkim;550206Within this thread, my experience of actual D&D play is closer to the descriptions of MGuy and Frank than the opposing side. High level AD&D1 play for me was dominated by magic - though that included magic items (sometimes wielded by fighters) as well as spells.
Yet, at high levels, magic resistance is quite common.
Where the fuck is your M.U supremacy then?
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;550174Fectin? Your real name isn't Josh is it? If so, this is Alan, your biweekly GM. Hi.
That's me. I figured this name is uncommon enough to be a tip-off, but didn't want to put you on the spot. It was a bit frustrating though; I kept thinking of examples where things have gone well in that campaign, but avoided them for that reason.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;550174I think if any conflating is going on here, it's you conflating my argument with that of other folks here.
Quite possibly. It looked like you were implying that 4E's encounter-only effects were the root of its lack of interactivity; I claim it's the lack of a consistency. Tracking is a handy example, but may have muddled the issue.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;550174I'm not the one who said anyone should be able to try to track here, though I will say, if we are putting a fine point on it
digression...
I'm not exactly fond of the niche-protection that goes on in 1e-3e with respect to tracking. I am pretty satisfied with the solution that Pathfinder and Fantasy Craft have for this. To wit, in both anyone with survival can track, and classes that specialize in it get either numerical (PF) or situational (FC) bonuses to do so. I'm perfectly okay with anyone being able to try something but specialists being the best.
I completely agree. I'd characterize the PF/FC approach as setting up a robust subsystem, then having class abilities interact with that subsystem, and the early DnD approach as making it a class-exclusive feature (much like barbarian rage, or early dwarven berserking). Either of those is workable, but if it's a class feature, you shouldn't expect other classes to be able to do it, and the rest of the system should support it as a big deal.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;550174Absolutely, and absolutely why I think Frank is wrong. If my fighter needs to fly to be effective, I should not be all sad-faced that he needs the wizard to help me do so. My job is to cut holes in things.
Sure; you play the hand you're dealt. A game doesn't have to be well-balanced or well-thought out to be fun to play. But Frank usually comes at questions from a design perspective of "how should the world best be arranged?", not a user perspective of "how do I best conduct myself within a world thus arranged?" From that perspective, I agree with him: the fighter is bad at the things it nominally does, and has an overnarrow role to boot.
I've played, and had a lot of fun with, a whole range of not-very-good characters, in several different systems. It's fun to leverage little bits of ability into asymmetrical effect, and fun to just watch a story unfold. I wouldn't call those characters well designed though.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;550174The thing I didn't say here is that I run plot-driven style at all. I consider the philosophy the same if I am running sandbox game. Bob the unliving can be pre-written up in a manner than group B rolling dice in the next house with just the right person in their party may not need to get that one special ability. It'll be part of the rules. But if your group lacks the special thing you need, that's when it's time to put your investigative skills and find someone who has that special thing that is already defined in the rules.
Actually, this adventure path had a couple good examples. The part where we were hunting around the city is a great example: we were scrabbling for any advantage, had a fairly good idea of what the various outcomes would be, and had a grand time playing off factions against eachother. Later, where the module called for a plot coupon scavenger hunt with no way to bypass it (for the crystals to get the passageway open), you skipped it. Just going by the way you run that game, we are in violent agreement.
Quote from: jhkim;550206Within this thread, my experience of actual D&D play is closer to the descriptions of MGuy and Frank than the opposing side. High level AD&D1 play for me was dominated by magic - though that included magic items (sometimes wielded by fighters) as well as spells.
Well, there's a goal post shift. I don't think anyone has been arguing that high level AD&D game play wasn't dominated by magic. But, so what? That still doesn't render the fighter useless.
Why didn't the high level fighters have magic items on par with any other high level class?
Quote from: fectin;550211Actually, this adventure path had a couple good examples. The part where we were hunting around the city is a great example: we were scrabbling for any advantage, had a fairly good idea of what the various outcomes would be, and had a grand time playing off factions against eachother. Later, where the module called for a plot coupon scavenger hunt with no way to bypass it (for the crystals to get the passageway open), you skipped it. Just going by the way you run that game, we are in violent agreement.
Yeah, you guys threw me a few curve balls there. Fortunately, the city module is sort of made a bit sandboxy, so for the most part things worked out okay. I did engage in a bit of cat-herding though. When you guys wanted to more of less straight up go to war with one of the other factions, I had to emphasize that might not be your best option. :)
My "bypassing" most of the vaults in the vaults module was, I must confess, just as much informed as much by the fact that I found the idea of a series of mini dungeon crawls having great potential for being way too repetitive.
Quote from: Drohem;550184There, right there is where you failed here today: the premise of your argument is wrong. Period.
Fighters are not functionally worse than other classes.
How aren't they? There's tons of reasons why not so why do you think they are "just as good" as other classes?
Quote from: jhkim;550206You're talking about nebulous "online claims". Not knowing what claims you're talking about, I don't know if I agree or disagree.
Just a general observation that in my experience people forget about a lot of the things holding back a wizards power in the game.
QuoteIn my experience, if fighting the sort of opponents that call for big hit spells, the fighters will lose hit points rapidly (especially given special attacks like poison, breath weapons, etc.). They couldn't just chop and chop all day long, because we were serious about damage. High level monsters did huge damage. They needed a cleric handy.
Yes, they eventually drop. The point i was making is they don't run out of spells like wizards. Their basic mode of attack is pretty consistent.
Absolutely fighters take damage. But so do clerics and wizards (and wizards fall much faster than anyone else unless). Again this is all going to turn on what you are facing and how you are positioned.
QuoteWithin this thread, my experience of actual D&D play is closer to the descriptions of MGuy and Frank than the opposing side. High level AD&D1 play for me was dominated by magic - though that included magic items (sometimes wielded by fighters) as well as spells.
Certainly everyone's experience is going to vary. In my own, I always felt the wizards felt special at higher level, but like I said that was the trade off for starting out so weak (and again xp progressions matter there). But at the same time, I do think claims about how overpowered the wizard is is overblown. Played 2e for years pret regularly and just never had any issues with the game on that front (but then maybe I wasn't all that worried about how much the wizard was doing compared to my fighter or thief). I know I had just as much fun playing every class. When 3E came out I noticed some big problems with spell casters. There were definitely more obvious power issues there. With 4E i had absolutely no fun, and I think the whole combat parity thing was largely to blame.
There is room for all the different opinions here. If frank doesn't like older editinos because he feels wizards are too powerful, that is totally fine. If you feel the same, that is great too. But we also play the game and apparently our experiences are quite different. I just don't see the big need here to prove the other side is wrong when so much of this boils down to the specifics of play at the table. Personally I never had much of an issue with spellcasters in 2E. If Franktrollman did, I am not going to tell him he didn't.
Quote from: Drohem;550213Well, there's a goal post shift. I don't think anyone has been arguing that high level AD&D game play wasn't dominated by magic. But, so what? That still doesn't render the fighter useless.
Why didn't the high level fighters have magic items on par with any other high level class?
How aren't they useless? Why would I play a Fighter than any other class at high level? It does less than other classes.
Quote from: MGuy;550215How aren't they? There's tons of reasons why not so why do you think they are "just as good" as other classes?
I think people have already made arguments for why they think they are just as good. You can either accept them or not accept them.
Violent agreement is my favorite kind.
I agree with everything Fectin just said. It may be approaching the game from a different perspective, but I think it can still be valid. Further, as much as opinion has an influence on D&D Next, having this discussion laid out NOW is better than later.
Quote from: One Horse Town;550210Yet, at high levels, magic resistance is quite common.
Where the fuck is your M.U supremacy then?
As long as we are on this topic...
The more I think about it, the more I think this is where 3.5 went wrong with the high level play. I ran a game into high levels in 3e and had a blast, never running into many of the problems folks hammer on on places like TBP.
In fact, if you look though some old ENWorld archives, you might find a thread where I complain about my wizards so seldom being the star...
But 3.5 brought a proliferation of stuff like powerful scaling Conjuration spells that bypass SR and divinination spells that reduce SR. It's like one major check-and-balance that was part of the high level game since 1e was being giddily bypassed by the 3.5 designers.
Quote from: MGuy;550217How aren't they useless? Why would I play a Fighter than any other class at high level? It does less than other classes.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550218I think people have already made arguments for why they think they are just as good. You can either accept them or not accept them.
This. I don't buy your argument. You have not convinced me. I have no need to convince you otherwise. I can agree to disagree. Can you? :)
Quote from: fectin;550211Quite possibly. It looked like you were implying that 4E's encounter-only effects were the root of its lack of interactivity; I claim it's the lack of a consistency. Tracking is a handy example, but may have muddled the issue.
Whoops, missed this.
No, I wasn't really making a commentary on 4e class design (but have different issues with it), but rather the way I hear that 4e gameplay/adventures tend to be "mostly about the encounters". I like lots of build-up and investigation between combats and like the players to engage in problem solving.
But really, this started before 4e with the whole delve-design thing in 3.5.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550216Just a general observation that in my experience people forget about a lot of the things holding back a wizards power in the game.
Yes, they eventually drop. The point i was making is they don't run out of spells like wizards. Their basic mode of attack is pretty consistent.
Absolutely fighters take damage. But so do clerics and wizards (and wizards fall much faster than anyone else unless). Again this is all going to turn on what you are facing and how you are positioned.
Certainly everyone's experience is going to vary. In my own, I always felt the wizards felt special at higher level, but like I said that was the trade off for starting out so weak (and again xp progressions matter there). But at the same time, I do think claims about how overpowered the wizard is is overblown. Played 2e for years pret regularly and just never had any issues with the game on that front (but then maybe I wasn't all that worried about how much the wizard was doing compared to my fighter or thief). I know I had just as much fun playing every class. When 3E came out I noticed some big problems with spell casters. There were definitely more obvious power issues there. With 4E i had absolutely no fun, and I think the whole combat parity thing was largely to blame.
There is room for all the different opinions here. If frank doesn't like older editinos because he feels wizards are too powerful, that is totally fine. If you feel the same, that is great too. But we also play the game and apparently our experiences are quite different. I just don't see the big need here to prove the other side is wrong when so much of this boils down to the specifics of play at the table. Personally I never had much of an issue with spellcasters in 2E. If Franktrollman did, I am not going to tell him he didn't.
Personally, I haven't had much trouble at the table with Mundane v Magic inclusion at my table but I fully acknowledge that the only reason I haven't is because 1) I slanted the game such that I obscured the difference by giving fighters weapons with interesting abilities and 2) I never had a caster at the table really do much in the way of trying to steal face time.
My personal ability as a DM to make the game fun however does not make the rules better. The rules have flaws, I don't like and acknowledge those flaws. Just because I am able to veil their weaknesses does not mean that they don't exist. The instant people like Ben come along and start forgiving the rules because they can ignore them people start ignoring what's wrong and fixing the issues becomes just that much harder. Its even worse when people like Frank come along who not only can tell you what the problems are but can come up with solutions (he made his own game system) and people like Ben instead call him names instead of taking him seriously.
Quote from: Drohem;550221This. I don't buy your argument. You have not convinced me. I have no need to convince you otherwise. I can agree to disagree. Can you? :)
You can disagree, is there a problem with me asking YOU why YOU think fighters are competitive. My argument has facts to support it and lacks the Oberoni Fallacy ever present in most of the proponents that think the fighter is even with casters. The fact that Franks dragon example has yet to be toppled by anyone on this board is evidence enough.
Quote from: MGuy;550224You can disagree, is there a problem with me asking YOU why YOU think fighters are competitive. My argument has facts to support it and lacks the Oberoni Fallacy ever present in most of the proponents that think the fighter is even with casters. The fact that Franks dragon example has yet to be toppled by anyone on this board is evidence enough.
How does that Kool-Aid taste? ;) :D
Quote from: MGuy;550179Benoist all you've done is prove my point. Instead of having an actual discussion about how to make balanced rules your solution is screw the rules play the game. So the minute someone says "These rules are imbalanced" you don't provide a real solution. You only suggest that people who pay attention to what the rules say are doing it wrong. At no point in anything you've posted have you suggested an actual solution that doesn't involve the DM making the fighter win.
This is Benoist's MO: claim the rules aren't broken, complain that rules aren't broken in play, dismiss anecdotal and empirical evidence demonstrating the rules are broken, and finally admit the rules may be broken but a good DM will change them anyway. Usually there will come a point where the discussion reaches angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin inanity, where he claims that we can't know the intent of the designers (therefore imbalance is intentional and thus good) or that the rules were only imbalanced in
your campaign (because you're a bad DM).
Quote from: MGuy;550223Personally, I haven't had much trouble at the table with Mundane v Magic inclusion at my table but I fully acknowledge that the only reason I haven't is because 1) I slanted the game such that I obscured the difference by giving fighters weapons with interesting abilities and 2) I never had a caster at the table really do much in the way of trying to steal face time.
My personal ability as a DM to make the game fun however does not make the rules better. The rules have flaws, I don't like and acknowledge those flaws. Just because I am able to veil their weaknesses does not mean that they don't exist. The instant people like Ben come along and start forgiving the rules because they can ignore them people start ignoring what's wrong and fixing the issues becomes just that much harder. Its even worse when people like Frank come along who not only can tell you what the problems are but can come up with solutions (he made his own game system) and people like Ben instead call him names instead of taking him seriously.
you are certainly entitled to think the rules are flawed. Telling other people they have to agree is where I think you are off. I can't speak for ben, but lots of people here use the rules just as they are written without running into problems. In play, plenty of folks find these rules worked just fine. Others (i believe jibba is one and i may be another) felt there were some built imbalances (stop me jibba if I am wrong) but that these worked from a design standpoint because things were balanced over a campaign (and you also had xp progression on top of that).
As for name calling, there is plenty of that to go around here. I am not a fan of it from either side, but the personal attacks have been coming from both sides and on both forums. I do think the discussion would be more productive if we could just stick to talking about ideas rather than targeting the people stating them.
Quote from: MGuy;550224You can disagree, is there a problem with me asking YOU why YOU think fighters are competitive. My argument has facts to support it and lacks the Oberoni Fallacy ever present in most of the proponents that think the fighter is even with casters. The fact that Franks dragon example has yet to be toppled by anyone on this board is evidence enough.
There are facts on both sides. This is an old argument. On this thread and others people have supplied more than enough data for either side. At the end of the day, lots of people just disagree over what the facts mean in terms of balance and fun.
Quote from: B.T.;550226This is Benoist's MO: claim the rules aren't broken, complain that rules aren't broken in play, dismiss anecdotal and empirical evidence demonstrating the rules are broken, and finally admit the rules may be broken but a good DM will change them anyway.
You should check that brain of yours. It's basically fucked beyond repair.
"How do you hunt a bear?"
"You track it down into its cave and attack it with spears."
"Where is a bear's cave?"
"It's in the earth."
"Is there a cave?"
Quote from: One Horse Town;550230"How do you hunt a bear?"
"You track it down into its cave and attack it with spears."
"Where is a bear's cave?"
"It's in the earth."
"Is there a cave?"
Yeah but Ibn Fadlan wasn't a Fighter. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;550231Yeah but Ibn Fadlan wasn't a Fighter. :D
He soon will be!
Quote from: MGuy;550223The instant people like Ben come along and start forgiving the rules because they can ignore them people start ignoring what's wrong and fixing the issues becomes just that much harder. Its even worse when people like Frank come along who not only can tell you what the problems are but can come up with solutions (he made his own game system) and people like Ben instead call him names instead of taking him seriously.
I'm not "forgiving the rules". I'm using them for what they are: tools to help the game run along in the service of actual human beings playing the actual game, not an arbiter, not a judge, not the be-all end-all of all game play at an actual game table.
I don't want the rules to provide me with every corner cases and every possible outcome. I don't want the fighter to be just as complex in the corpus of the rules as the MU, and every single class to play the same, feel the same, with the exact same word count within the pages of the PH. Fuck that.
There's something great that comes out of the AD&D game being set up the way it is: different classes provide different game plays to different people. Different people are searching for different things in the game and thereby, different levels of granularity in the rules to describe what their character archetypes do in the game. If you want the rules to spell out what you can and can't do, to have precise lists of abilities and how and when to use them, you play a MU. If actually like to play characters without any hard bound set of do's and can't-do's (or -gasp!- like to play these
as well), then play a fighter.
This was the revelation of my wife playing at Red Box Vancouver. Before that game, she went generally for hybrid character classes like the monk or the bard. She had played MU and liked it enough. When she rolled her stats 3d6 in order (OMG not balanced!) for the B/X game run by Planet Algol, she got a high Strength and in the end, went for the fighter. And lo and behold! She loved it. Why? Because there wasn't a whole shitload of feats and options and maneuvers to care about. You just *do* stuff. You know you hit hard, you got lots of hit points, and an armor that allows you to go in contact and beat the hell out of the bad guys. That's good enough for her. She loves to describe what her character does, instead of looking down at her character sheet. The fighter is a class made for her.
It's you people who are fucking nuts when you start raging about how the fighter is "broken" for everybody everywhere ever and if we're not agreeing to that then we play the game wrong and we suck the DM's dick who lets us win and shit.
Fuck you guys.
FUCK. YOU.
And by shielding this dishonest piece of shit of Frank Trollman, you are complicit in that total crap that attempts to change the game into some kind of low-tech piece of crap Aspie video game. And I'm the one who started it? Give me a fucking break. :hand:
Quote from: Drohem;550225How does that Kool-Aid taste? ;) :D
I no rite? Un-fucking-believable. :banghead:
Quote from: Benoist;550236It's you people who are fucking nuts when you start raging about how the fighter is "broken" for everybody everywhere ever and if we're not agreeing to that then we play the game wrong and we suck the DM's dick who lets us win and shit.
Strawman.
I'm glad you put broken in quotes - because in 30+ pages, I think you're the first to use it. You might have some concerns about something completely different here.
First off, I get the sense that you don't play any recent versions of the game. Nobody is trying to convert you to their version of the game. People are letting you know that in their experience, the Fighter isn't fun FOR THEM to play past a certain point. This is usually because the Fighter is unable to contribute against level-appropriate foes at some point in every edition.
3.5 may have been the worst, since this point is basically 5th level.
Quote from: Benoist;550236Fuck you guys.
FUCK. YOU.
Because you're putting words in our mouths? That's hardly fair. But sure, I understand that's easier than addressing the points people have made.
Firstly, people have pointed out that in all editions of the game, there is a point where 'hit it with the sword' stops being a viable tactic. It's just before 'shoot it with an arrow' stops being a viable tactic. SOME of this can be overcome with magical gear, but ultimately, relying on items that can be taken away is unfulfilling for some people - myself included. If I'm playing a fighter, I want my character to BE A BADASS, not be outclassed by his equipment (which, in 3.5, is useable by EVERY OTHER CLASS, so would actually serve the party better if I gave it to the cleric).
Quote from: Benoist;550236And by shielding this dishonest piece of shit of Frank Trollman, you are complicit in that total crap that attempts to change the game into some kind of low-tech piece of crap Aspie video game. And I'm the one who started it? Give me a fucking break. :hand:
This is shit. I'm not a disciple of Frank, but I think he has plenty of good ideas. Maybe I'm on my way there. In general, I think 3.5 has a high power-level where characters are overthrowing gods - and this happens in other editions as well. If your characters are setting up demi-planes, you're playing a high-powered game. It doesn't have to be video-gamey to be high-powered. If the rules are honest and they don't expect you to wrestle gods, that's not a problem.
And this isn't just a problem with the game rules - this is something that plenty of people recognize in the Fiction set in the D&D verse. The Dragonlance novels have Raistlin ascending to god-hood, not Caramon. They were pretty explicit that he wasn't in Raistlin's league after mid-levels.
If you LIKE being outclassed by your companions because you're all on the same side, that's fine, but I like a game where everyone can contribute meaningful CLASS ABILITIES and doesn't have to rely on 'mother-may-I' with the DM to decide if you have any meaningful options.
Further, while I feel that I can move beyond the rules IF NECESSARY, and I don't need every corner case covered, I'm paying for a rulebook - I want it to provide some god damn rules to cover the things I expect to see in 90%+ of games sometime in levels 1-10. I fully expect people to try to track the bad guys without a Ranger sometime in 10 levels. I don't care for 1st edition - too sparse, too arbitrary, and way too many percentile rolls for stupid things. I liked 2nd edition better, but 3rd edition was far and away the best for numerous reasons (in my opinion).
The Fighter is indicative of the biggest problem with 3.5 - though there are other problems as well. If D&D Next addressed this one problem, I'd have high hopes.
But right now, they seem to think that the Fighter fighting orcs at 12th level is an appropriate challenge.. That scares me. Even in 1st edition, by high levels you were moving on to 'scary monsters' from the 9 Hells.
But if you're still playing first edition, I don't expect you to give a flying fuck about the next edition. And yet, here you are. Can't figure that one out.
Wait, my translator is coming on the line...
Yes, that's, "Waah, waah, waah, i play with people who hate me."
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;550201Are you going to feel butthurt if I have to cast fly on you?
Hey! Quit stealing my idea. Besides Frank told me it's a nonstarter. :D
I guess I'll just have to make due by beefing up Ben's army and summon up a few friends. Maybe if really needed gate in some game changers but that's not really cost effective being that price is high and rate of return isn't usually worth the effort. :)
Quote from: CRKrueger;550231Yeah but Ibn Fadlan wasn't a Fighter. :D
"Grow stronger!" :D
Quote from: MGuy;550224You can disagree, is there a problem with me asking YOU why YOU think fighters are competitive. My argument has facts to support it and lacks the Oberoni Fallacy ever present in most of the proponents that think the fighter is even with casters. The fact that Franks dragon example has yet to be toppled by anyone on this board is evidence enough.
"YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!"
"Then make your choice."
"I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?"
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;550245"You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work."
"IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!"
"Then make your choice."
"I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be?"
Dude, Vizzini kicks ass! One of my all time favorite movie characters. :)
QuoteThere's something great that comes out of the AD&D game being set up the way it is: different classes provide different game plays to different people. Different people are searching for different things in the game and thereby, different levels of granularity in the rules to describe what their character archetypes do in the game. If you want the rules to spell out what you can and can't do, to have precise lists of abilities and how and when to use them, you play a MU. If actually like to play characters without any hard bound set of do's and can't-do's (or -gasp!- like to play these as well), then play a fighter.
This was the revelation of my wife playing at Red Box Vancouver. Before that game, she went generally for hybrid character classes like the monk or the bard. She had played MU and liked it enough. When she rolled her stats 3d6 in order (OMG not balanced!) for the B/X game run by Planet Algol, she got a high Strength and in the end, went for the fighter. And lo and behold! She loved it. Why? Because there wasn't a whole shitload of feats and options and maneuvers to care about. You just *do* stuff. You know you hit hard, you got lots of hit points, and an armor that allows you to go in contact and beat the hell out of the bad guys. That's good enough for her. She loves to describe what her character does, instead of looking down at her character sheet. The fighter is a class made for her.
It's you people who are fucking nuts when you start raging about how the fighter is "broken" for everybody everywhere ever and if we're not agreeing to that then we play the game wrong and we suck the DM's dick who lets us win and shit.
That's not my argument at all. I just want the fighter to explicitly state that he can do things without entirely relying on DM fiat
in the same way that the fighter gets multiple attacks or a keep with guardsmen.
Quote from: Drohem;550246Dude, Vizzini kicks ass! One of my all time favorite movie characters. :)
"You have made the second worst mistake possible, never enter a duel of wits against a Scicilian with death on the line! Everyone knows that you fool!"
Quote from: MGuy;550224You can disagree, is there a problem with me asking YOU why YOU think fighters are competitive. My argument has facts to support it and lacks the Oberoni Fallacy ever present in most of the proponents that think the fighter is even with casters. The fact that Franks dragon example has yet to be toppled by anyone on this board is evidence enough.
Is there even a need to topple it? I've been in D&D groups fighting dragons at very early levels, it's not just a high level monster. It's one monster with one particular set of challenges that requires certain tactics to overcome. It's also one that happens to scale, unlike most. Otherwise, there are volumes of monsters written for all sorts of power levels that require a great variety of tactics to overcome. Frank's dragon argument hasn't been toppled because it's a non-argument. Yeah, the dragon flies and has area effect attacks. So what. My rogue had to survive an entire dungeon of undead that completely negated his back-stabbing abilities, yet I don't see anyone supporting either removing undead from the game or giving rogues class abilities that work against undead or oozes, etc. To be honest, this little paragraph is giving the argument more weight than it deserves. I can say I've been very very happy to have high level fighters on my side as a wizard trying to fight any monster with even a moderate amount of magic resistance. I've played so many fighters in early editions of D&D I can't even remember them all, and not once did I ever wish I could do more. I don't understand you people any more than I understand the people who somehow can't seem to trust the DMs running their games, referring to their rulings as "mother may I". If the games have been that bad, why have ya'all not moved on to another hobby? Shit, if it were that bad for me I'd have stopped playing long ago. There's a whole world of things to do with our time, yet ya'all seem to have invested so much in a hobby you apparently don't even like. Whatever, it's your life, just please don't ruin it for those of us who do like it. Thanks.
Quote from: B.T.;550250That's not my argument at all. I just want the fighter to explicitly state that he can do things without entirely relying on DM fiat in the same way that the fighter gets multiple attacks or a keep with guardsmen.
Your problem is solved.
A. Videogames
B. 4e where everyone is the same and has perfect little powers that only can be used at perfectly defined times, just like a video/board/card game so have at it. I prefer what I can and can't do to be far less defined.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550238Quote from: Benoist;550236It's you people who are fucking nuts when you start raging about how the fighter is "broken" for everybody everywhere ever and if we're not agreeing to that then we play the game wrong and we suck the DM's dick who lets us win and shit.
Strawman.
My bad. Frank Trollman said...
Exhibit A.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549507First off, to get this thread a little bit back towards the OP: if you posit an AD&D-like high level environment where Magic Resistance is very high and ACs aren't a big problem for the swordsmen, then a rule that allowed a magic user to cast their spell into a melee weapon of another character such that the character's attack roll's success or failure was used instead of rolling Magic Resistance, then there would be more synergy between the magic user and the fighting man and the melee PCs would be less replaceable by groups of hobgoblin mercenaries.
However, and this is important: that wouldn't actually make the Fighter's ability to take up space actually matter at high level. Suggestions like this one:
...Are a complete non-starter. Yes, you can make it so that Wizards lose their spells constantly. And yes, you can make it so that Wizards pop like zits when level-appropriate enemies look at them funny. And this still doesn't make Fighters actually matter! At low level, it totally does. But at high level, it does not and cannot. Because at high level, the encounter is this:
(http://thisisthesports.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/fire-breathing-dragon.jpg)
It's an 80 foot long flying lizard with scales as thick as your arm that is incinerating whole city blocks on strafing runs from the clouds. There is no front line, and it does not matter how good a Fighting Man supposedly is at holding it. It is flying around at more than 45 miles an hour and never gets closer than 70 feet to the ground. However deadly and sticky the fighter's sword reach is make absolutely no difference because the high level battlefield is simply too epic for a stalwart swordsman to even register on peoples' give-a-fuck meter.
-Frank
He said not that fighters are "broken", he said that they were useless. Totally useless at high levels. Period. The end.
Exhibit B.
Quote from: Frank Trollman on the Gaming DenTo see how incredibly entrenched the idea that Fighters don't need nice things, go ahead and check out actual neckbeards in their natural environment. They have been relying on DM Pity so long that they don't even realize that they don't have abilities.
I mean, what the fuck do these assholes need legwork abilities, when they can already attempt to track an ancient paranoid flying genius with no known associates over miles of mountainous wilderness and expect to succeed because their DM will take pity on them?
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=270502#270502
Quote from: Frank Trollman on the Gaming DenQuoteDon't those RPGsite guys realize that it's empowering and interesting to understand what your character can and can't do well? For example, let us say that I'm playing Shadowrun and have just beaten up the bad guys only to discover there's an armed explosive that only has 10 seconds left on its action movie LED timer. Now, obviously, there's no Nobel Prize for realizing that "Hit the deck!", "Disarm the bomb!", "Put on your shades and walk away like a boss," are all potential strategies for handling this situation. But having explicit information like "I have Demo 4" or "I am a troll with big clumsy sausage fingers... and a huge soak pool" is what keeps it from being more interesting than shrugging at the GM and flipping a coin because your answer doesn't matter anyway.
Actually, they don't. It's the opposite of most AD&D and OD&D holdouts because instead of fapping to DM control, they are fapping to player empowerment. That basically the player should be able to do anything they want, and the DM should always coddle them.
So in that instance, they would prefer to have no numbers on their sheet at all, because then they can choose to Disarm the Bomb or Put On Shades and Walk Like a Boss and have that always work. By not having any numbers or specific abilities, they have what is in essence perfect numbers and all the abilities. Because if the DM dares to slap down whatever idea they have... well, I'll let them explain it themselves:
Quote from: SacrosanctThat's a DM problem, not a game problem. I'm getting tired of people blaming the game for shit DMs. The DM you are describing sounds exactly like Frank (not on your sheet, you can't even attempt), and quite frankly, if I were at a gaming table with Frank and he pulled that BS I'd tell him to shove it and leave.
Got that? If the DM tells you you can't do something on the grounds that your character does not have the ability to perform that action, you just tell the DM to shove it and leave. You essentially hold the game hostage with player veto and have all the abilities all the time until someone calls you on your bullshit and then you just throw a temper tantrum and end the game.
The argument is seriously: not having abilities doesn't keep you from doing things as if you had abilities as long as you're willing to insult everyone at the table and end the game if things don't go your way.
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=270544#270544
Exhibit C.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;550087For the people who are new here: Benoist doesn't feel the need to make coherent arguments. For fuck's sake, his actual position on Fighter power is this:- Fighters don't need abilities because:
- The DM will allow them to accomplish tasks as if they have abilities they don't have, and:
- The other characters will use their abilities to buff the Fighter, even when they could accomplish more by summoning or buffing themselves, because:
- The Fighter player will throw a temper tantrum if the other players show him up with their actual abilities or the DM slaps his plans down "just" because the character has no actual ability to carry them out.
Seriously. Fighter players will throw temper tantrums if you don't have the rest of the players pretend that the Fighter is the bestest and Fighter players will throw temper tantrums if they aren't allowed to succeed at epic tasks without any epic abilities. And then, apparently because the Fighter player is a whiny cry baby who will torpedo the game if the Cleric dares to actually use his actual abilities to get the spotlight on himself, the Fighter is "balanced".
Exhibit D.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549872Wow. The level of player entitlement in this post is intense. As a fighter, you're going to track the dragon to its lair "in great hills or mountainous regions". You're going to do that with your tracking abilities? Or maybe you're going to cast some divinations and track it down that way? Oh right, you don't have those abilities because you're a Fighter! Well, maybe you can go to town and do some legwork with the research and social skills... that you also do not have.
Then, having used any of a number of information gathering abilities that your character conspicuously lacks, you're going to secretly sneak a
small army to its lair. Its lair which I now remind you the dragon has had literally centuries to conceal and secure. But sure, once you get them to the dragon's home turf and miraculously turn all the dragon's defenses against it, your plan is to have a single tiny man fly overland much slower than the dragon can in order to lure it back to its home (and not, for example, intercept the guy and rip him in half). Then, having outrun a faster pursuer through the air over many miles, the rest of your tiny men leap from ambush, don't succumb to the dragon's fear aura, and shoot it to ribbons.
That is your answer? What makes you think you can accomplish any of that? Is your DM so accommodating that they'll just let you use the abilities of a Ranger, a Cleric, and a Thief despite you not having any of those talents on your character sheet? Are you seriously just going to hold the game hostage with your character's lack of legwork and logistical abilities, demanding that the DM relent and have an exposition NPC give you directions every time you need to get somewhere?
So if we don't agree with Frank, we are basically enabled by the DM to let us win, blackmail the game table and/or suck the DM's dick to that effect.
The question now is: are you just blocking OCD on the word "broken", are you just oblivious to what you are actually supporting that Frank said, or are you just a plain fucking liar?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550238This is shit. I'm not a disciple of Frank, but I think he has plenty of good ideas.
He's a Rainman bent on reading rules and fapping on them.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550238And this isn't just a problem with the game rules - this is something that plenty of people recognize in the Fiction set in the D&D verse. The Dragonlance novels have Raistlin ascending to god-hood, not Caramon. They were pretty explicit that he wasn't in Raistlin's league after mid-levels.
This is a role playing game we are talking about. Not fucking story time. I don't give a FUCK about Dragonlance fiction, or any type of fiction for that matter.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550238If you LIKE being outclassed by your companions because you're all on the same side, that's fine, but I like a game where everyone can contribute meaningful CLASS ABILITIES and doesn't have to rely on 'mother-may-I' with the DM to decide if you have any meaningful options.
Because obviously people only contribute by looking at their CLASS ABILITIES on the character sheet. What are you, ten years-old? What the fuck happened to your imagination, man?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550238But if you're still playing first edition, I don't expect you to give a flying fuck about the next edition. And yet, here you are. Can't figure that one out.
Actually you are wrong, and making a bad shortcut here. I've played every single edition of the game. Right now I am in a D&D Next playtest with Rob Conley, our DM. I played Drohem's 3.5 ToEE game and loved it. I love D&D. It's just heartbreaking to see it become this shit OCD game because a bunch of guys like you don't know how to lift their nose off their character sheet to actually play the game with the people in front of you. It really is.
I sure as hell want to see the next iteration of the game be an actual D&D game, where you play the worlds of your imagination. Might not be the game I'll play primarily, but if I can play it too, that'd be great.
I don't know in whatever world you're living that people who like AD&D can't possibly play any other versions of the game ever (and/or any other role playing games of that matter), but that ain't my world. I want the actual role playing tradition to survive, and not this hollow
Magic: the Gathering deck building bullshit you guys are trying to sell us. The rules are not the game. The game is not the rules. There's a world of fun to have out there playing role playing games, and you sure as hell ain't gonna get there by listening to Frank Trollman.
Quote from: Benoist;550255My bad. Frank Trollman said...
Exhibit A.
He said not that fighters are "broken", he said that they were useless. Totally useless at high levels. Period. The end.
Exhibit B.
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=270502#270502
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=270544#270544
Exhibit C.
Exhibit D.
So if we don't agree with Frank, we are basically enabled by the DM to let us win, blackmail the game table and/or suck the DM's dick to that effect.
The question now is: are you just blocking OCD on the word "broken", are you just oblivious to what you are actually supporting that Frank said, or are you just a plain fucking liar?
He's a Rainman bent on reading rules and fapping on them.
This is a role playing game we are talking about. Not fucking story time. I don't give a FUCK about Dragonlance fiction, or any type of fiction for that matter.
Because obviously people only contribute by looking at their CLASS ABILITIES on the character sheet. What are you, ten years-old? What the fuck happened to your imagination, man?
Actually you are wrong, and making a bad shortcut here. I've played every single edition of the game. Right now I am in a D&D Next playtest with Rob Conley, our DM. I played Drohem's 3.5 ToEE game and loved it. I love D&D. It's just heartbreaking to see it become this shit OCD game because a bunch of guys like you don't know how to lift their nose off their character sheet to actually play the game with the people in front of you. It really is.
I sure as hell want to see the next iteration of the game be an actual D&D game, where you play the worlds of your imagination. Might not be the game I'll play primarily, but if I can play it too, that'd be great.
I don't know in whatever world you're living that people who like AD&D can't possibly play any other versions of the game ever (and/or any other role playing games of that matter), but that ain't my world. I further posit to you that I want the actual role playing tradition to survive, and not this fake magic the gathering deck building pseudo-bullshit you guys are trying to sell us. The rules are not the game. The game is not the rules. There's a world of fun to have out there playing role playing games, and you sure as hell ain't gonna get there by listening to Frank Trollman.
At least this flavor of look-aid tastes like it should.
Quote from: Benoist;550255My bad. Frank Trollman said...
Exhibit A.
He said not that fighters are "broken", he said that they were useless. Totally useless at high levels. Period. The end.
Exhibit B.
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=270502#270502
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=270544#270544
Exhibit C.
Exhibit D.
So if we don't agree with Frank, we are basically enabled by the DM to let us win, blackmail the game table and/or suck the DM's dick to that effect.
The question now is: are you just blocking OCD on the word "broken", are you just oblivious to what you are actually supporting that Frank said, or are you just a plain fucking liar?
He's a Rainman bent on reading rules and fapping on them.
This is a role playing game we are talking about. Not fucking story time. I don't give a FUCK about Dragonlance fiction, or any type of fiction for that matter.
Because obviously people only contribute by looking at their CLASS ABILITIES on the character sheet. What are you, ten years-old? What the fuck happened to your imagination, man?
Actually you are wrong, and making a bad shortcut here. I've played every single edition of the game. Right now I am in a D&D Next playtest with Rob Conley, our DM. I played Drohem's 3.5 ToEE game and loved it. I love D&D. It's just heartbreaking to see it become this shit OCD game because a bunch of guys like you don't know how to lift their nose off their character sheet to actually play the game with the people in front of you. It really is.
I sure as hell want to see the next iteration of the game be an actual D&D game, where you play the worlds of your imagination. Might not be the game I'll play primarily, but if I can play it too, that'd be great.
I don't know in whatever world you're living that people who like AD&D can't possibly play any other versions of the game ever (and/or any other role playing games of that matter), but that ain't my world. I further posit to you that I want the actual role playing tradition to survive, and not this fake magic the gathering deck building pseudo-bullshit you guys are trying to sell us. The rules are not the game. The game is not the rules. There's a world of fun to have out there playing role playing games, and you sure as hell ain't gonna get there by listening to Frank Trollman.
At least this flavor of Kool-Aid tastes like actual Kool-Aid. I never agree with everything Ben says and in fact disagree with his view quite often. But he's spot on here.Full Stop. No Pass Go.
Quote from: B.T.;550250That's not my argument at all. I just want the fighter to explicitly state that he can do things without entirely relying on DM fiat in the same way that the fighter gets multiple attacks or a keep with guardsmen.
Quote from: Marleycat;550254Your problem is solved.
A. Videogames
B. 4e where everyone is the same and has perfect little powers that only can be used at perfectly defined times, just like a video/board/card game so have at it. I prefer what I can and can't do to be far less defined.
I was thinking the same thing. Well, maybe just the video game part. I bet 4e players have to make stuff up, too.
Seriously, why does a Fighter need explicit permission to do stuff, when there's already explicit permission for
everyone to do stuff? If the existence of the Strength ability means you can perform feats of strength, why would you need a list of Fighter abilities like "bend bars", "push boulders", or "throw tables and chairs"? Are we not aware that these things are possible? What if someone writes a long list of abilities but forgets one, or didn't imagine it was possible, like "crush gourd in bare hands"? Does that mean it's impossible, because it's not written down?
Quote from: talysman;550265I was thinking the same thing. Well, maybe just the video game part. I bet 4e players have to make stuff up, too.
Seriously, why does a Fighter need explicit permission to do stuff, when there's already explicit permission for everyone to do stuff? If the existence of the Strength ability means you can perform feats of strength, why would you need a list of Fighter abilities like "bend bars", "push boulders", or "throw tables and chairs"? Are we not aware that these things are possible? What if someone writes a long list of abilities but forgets one, or didn't imagine it was possible, like "crush gourd in bare hands"? Does that mean it's impossible, because it's not written down?
I would say to give players and maybe some DM's a solid framework to base their decisions off. I like that. I want that but just as solid proven guidelines not defacto rules some anal retentive ass can use to play "My Little Pony" and screw everyone else at the table over.
For example a wizard can try and tip a table over or throw it but first of all a fighter will likely be far better at it and second a wizard would be far better served to taunt the bastard into a stupid move to give the fighter the perfect opening to kill the dumbass in one stroke. Advantage/Disadvantage anyone? Anyone? They already said for 5e there will be spells,abilities, and feats to do this. All that means is a bit of codification or framework of the obvious for those that need such.
Wanting to have fighters to have the ability to track is lolvideogames. :rolleyes:
I'll just post again that we have two sides coming from not only different points of view but from different games. There is no "D&D", there are something like 8 published versions of D&D.
If you're arguing from a version of D&D without a skill system, then the idea that it has to be on your sheet to work is incompatible with that type of game.
If you're arguing from a version of D&D that had a "complete" skill system, then the idea that you can do it (and have anything other then a snowball's chance of success) if you don't possess the skill is incompatible with that type of game.
You guys may as well be arguing Barbarians of Lemuria vs. Rolemaster - it makes as much sense.
All you're really doing is arguing a minimalist rules view vs. a completist rules view using "D&D" as a battlefield.
Quote from: talysman;550265I was thinking the same thing. Well, maybe just the video game part. I bet 4e players have to make stuff up, too.
Seriously, why does a Fighter need explicit permission to do stuff, when there's already explicit permission for everyone to do stuff? If the existence of the Strength ability means you can perform feats of strength, why would you need a list of Fighter abilities like "bend bars", "push boulders", or "throw tables and chairs"?
(Shrug) it used to. And really, that's one of the downfalls of 3e and later. And I say that as a big fan of 3e.
You see, the fighter used to have this hidden class ability called exceptional strength. It gave him explicitly codified abilities to interact with what at the time was the predominant environment of the game, the dungeon. It was clunky and ugly, but to me, it was a big gun in the arsenal of things the fighter could do out of combat. That 3e relegated the fighter to jump, climb, swim, and 2 points to split between them, was a step backwards.
If we weren't so fixated on the encounter as the sole battleground of the game and would get back to interacting with the game environment, and giving the fighting man a proper role in it. Sure, pushing boulders and throwing chairs are things that anyone can try. But it's these sort of physical things the fighter should be good at.
Benoist,
I'm surprised at you. If you've played every version of the game, why are you so focused on what did or didn't work in 1st edition? Since I haven't played that version of the game in approximately 20 years, that's not my first go-to for examples. And really, Mearls and the other designers seem to have less experience with 1st edition than I do.
In 1st edition, the Fighter did not get 'track' as an ability. The Ranger did. It would be absolutely reasonable for the Fighter to get tracking. It's also reasonable to let the Fighter get 'Find Traps'. Of course he shouldn't have been as good as a specialist, but that's not what they did. They made it an exclusive ability to those classes.
We don't have to be a slave to the character sheet, but the rules should support the story.
If you're playing a grizzled veteran of a 100 battles, the rules should support that vision. In 3.5, they don't.
First off, a Fighter in 3.5 has no bonus to resistance from Fear. Combined with a weak will save, a fighter is very likely to run from level appropriate threats. Since you're familiar with 3.5, let me posit a CR 11 Black Dragon (adult). The creature is Large, with a Frightful Presence DC of 20. The Fighter at 11th level has a +3 Will save (base). Assuming a +1 from Will (pretty big assumption) and a +3 from a save increasing item (note - the item provides a bonus EQUAL to his actual 'level based abilities) we have a total save of +7. The Fighter needs to roll a 13 or better to avoid pissing his pants and running away in fear.
The cleric, and the wizard, on the other hand, are in a much better position. While the grizzled veteran runs and hides, the wizard enjoys a base save of +7. Given the same +1 for Will and a +3 item, the Wizard is at a +11. The wizard is willing to stand toe-to-toe with the pants-shittingly terrifying dragon that is bigger and stronger than he is at least 20% more often than the 'grizzled veteran'. The cleric enjoys a +7 Base, a +9 Will mod, and the same +3 item, for a total of +19. The cleric only fails his save on a Natural 1.
I want what you want - I want a character that supports my vision of play. I want my character to matter and contribute. When I'm running away from level appropriate foes 65% of the time, the RULES IMPEDE MY ABILITY TO PLAY MY CHOSEN ROLE.
Further, the Wizard can use charm monster, which has a duration of 1 day/level. So, it basically works for 10 days. The wizard can get a Frost Giant (CR 9). With a total Will Save of +6, the Frost Giant is easy pickings (DC of 14 + Int mod - so let's say 20).
That means that, while the Frost Giant might run from the dragon, too, his chance of staying isn't significantly worse than mine. And if we both stay, let's look at our relative contributions without using buffs (and note - it'd be just as effective to buff the Frost Giant as the Fighter, if not more so).
The Giant has two attacks, +18/+13 for 3d6+13 (x3). The Dragon has an AC of 27. You can trust me if you like, but the frost giant does an average of ~21 hit points of damage/round assuming no critical hits.
Since Charm Monster is a 4th level spell, let's use a 9th level Fighter for this example (same CR as the Frost Giant). The BAB is +9/+4. Let's assume we have a +5 Strength normally, augmented by a +6 item for a total modifier of +8. We have a +2 weapon that deals an extra +1d6 elemental damage. We decided for a shield, so let's say bastard sword - +19 to attack before weapon focus and greater weapon focus - +21/+16. Damage is 1d10+1d6+10 (18-20x2). Before figuring in critical hits, we're looking at average damage of around 23 damage.
Now, this is a lot of work, considering you're planning to dismiss this as 'intellectual wankery without a basis in REAL play', but I think it's illustrative of the problem. It's not that the Fighter isn't able to contribute as much as the Wizard. It's that the Fighter is able to contribute ONLY ABOUT AS WELL AS THE WIZARD'S PET.
And this didn't cost the Wizard any spell slots today! At 9th level, he may have used the spell slot a week ago! So, while the Fighter is contributing about as well as a single spell slot from several days ago, the wizard still has every other spell at his disposal...
It's true the dragon has Spell Resistance (18). The 9th level wizard needs a 9 or better if casting a spell that can be resisted (but not all of them can be). And that assumes the wizard didn't use his bonus feats to get Spell Penetration and/or Greater Spell Penetration.
So, this is why I have a problem. It's not that the Fighter has no purpose - that's an exaggeration. It's that I want to play a 'grizzled veteran' that contributes to the party. And I'm not being outclassed by the Wizard - I'm being outclassed by a single spell the wizard used more than a week ago! The rules DON'T SUPPORT the FLAVOR of the Fighter.
If I want to play a 'clever warrior' that uses terrain to his advantage, I'm further screwed because, even as a human, I only have enough skill points for Climb, Jump and Swim, all of which are subject to Armor Check Penalties. So even with my Strength enhancing item and full ranks, I'm only about as good a climber as the Rogue, and I'm the worst swimmer except for the cleric.
And yet, some people claim that the 3rd edition fighter is overpowered.
My hope is that the game designers look at situations like this that can happen - and similar things have happened when I've been both a player and a DM - and make sure the rules make things like this not happen.
Some ways to start making it better - first, fighters ought to have more skill points (6 per level, like Ranger). They should have more skills on their skill list (like Diplomacy) [or, you know, not have skills divided between class and non-class]. Feats should scale more. A +1 at 1st level with weapon focus is fine, but it should be +1/3 levels, like Divine Favor (a spell that the cleric gets making him superior).
I'm glad you like Fighters in every edition of the game. I WANT to like Fighters in every edition. I enjoy playing them for a while, but eventually, when the Fighter CAN be replaced by a charmed/dominated/summoned monster, he no longer has an IMPORTANT role. That's not fun for me.
Now, if that's fun for you, cool. But don't try to tell me that I should try to convince open-minded people about problems that I've experienced AS I PERCEIVE THEM and try to shape their opinion. Because that's the entire reason I'm here. And that's why I'm spending this much time wasting my breath on an internet argument.
I just think there might be a few people here who are reasonable enough and open-minded enough that they can be convinced. But that won't happen if nobody tries to express the weakness that they have experienced with the Fighter, using the RULES AS WRITTEN.
So, yeah. There you go.
Quote from: CRKrueger;550269I'll just post again that we have two sides coming from not only different points of view but from different games. There is no "D&D", there are something like 8 published versions of D&D.
If you're arguing from a version of D&D without a skill system, then the idea that it has to be on your sheet to work is incompatible with that type of game.
If you're arguing from a version of D&D that had a "complete" skill system, then the idea that you can do it (and have anything other then a snowball's chance of success) if you don't possess the skill is incompatible with that type of game.
You guys may as well be arguing Barbarians of Lemuria vs. Rolemaster - it makes as much sense.
All you're really doing is arguing a minimalist rules view vs. a completist rules view using "D&D" as a battlefield.
You're wise too bad your wisdom is only shared with unappreciative gamers like us.:)
Right, there you go: it's your perception that that there is a weakness with the fighter class as written. Clearly, others don't share that subjective perception. I have seen no objective evidence here by anyone to sway me otherwise.
Quote from: B.T.;550267Wanting to have fighters to have the ability to track is lolvideogames. :rolleyes:
You sir ARE the very definition of a troublemaker. That's fine because that's what makes the world turn and rpg's relevant. Keep it real BT.;)
Quote from: Drohem;550280Right, there you go: it's your perception that that there is a weakness with the fighter class as written. Clearly, others don't share that subjective perception. I have seen no objective evidence here by anyone to sway me otherwise.
So you're discounting the objective observation that a 9th level fighter contributes exactly as much to the fight as a single 4th-level spell slot usable more than a week ago?
Are you denying that a wizard has an option to 'bring to the fight' a new 'fighter equivalent' starting at around 7th level?
Are you suggesting that the Fighter has options to effectively deal with large numbers of opponents, like a wizard using
fear can do?
It is my observation that the Fighter's contribution is effectively meaningless beginning around these levels of play, because each of the druid, wizard and cleric, can cover the Fighter's role (melee fighting) as well or better than a Fighter can. This is an objective observation supported by evidence.
My subjective interpretation of that observation is that it sucks as a player. Further, it destroys the idea of a Fighter as a competent veteran capable of contributing in a meaningful fashion - which is the 'role' I want for my 'role-play'.
I can ignore what's written on my character sheet and find ways to contribute, but that doesn't change the fact that an allied Frost Giant can literally do everything that a Fighter can do, and most of it actually better (especially if given equipment like mine).
It's nice that I'm playing with friends when I'm a fighter, because if the wizard were a Vulcan, he'd probably kill me and sell my equipment to outfit his Frost Giant - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550274Benoist,
I'm surprised at you. If you've played every version of the game, why are you so focused on what did or didn't work in 1st edition? Since I haven't played that version of the game in approximately 20 years, that's not my first go-to for examples. And really, Mearls and the other designers seem to have less experience with 1st edition than I do.
In 1st edition, the Fighter did not get 'track' as an ability. The Ranger did. It would be absolutely reasonable for the Fighter to get tracking. It's also reasonable to let the Fighter get 'Find Traps'. Of course he shouldn't have been as good as a specialist, but that's not what they did. They made it an exclusive ability to those classes.
We don't have to be a slave to the character sheet, but the rules should support the story.
If you're playing a grizzled veteran of a 100 battles, the rules should support that vision. In 3.5, they don't.
First off, a Fighter in 3.5 has no bonus to resistance from Fear. Combined with a weak will save, a fighter is very likely to run from level appropriate threats. Since you're familiar with 3.5, let me posit a CR 11 Black Dragon (adult). The creature is Large, with a Frightful Presence DC of 20. The Fighter at 11th level has a +3 Will save (base). Assuming a +1 from Will (pretty big assumption) and a +3 from a save increasing item (note - the item provides a bonus EQUAL to his actual 'level based abilities) we have a total save of +7. The Fighter needs to roll a 13 or better to avoid pissing his pants and running away in fear.
The cleric, and the wizard, on the other hand, are in a much better position. While the grizzled veteran runs and hides, the wizard enjoys a base save of +7. Given the same +1 for Will and a +3 item, the Wizard is at a +11. The wizard is willing to stand toe-to-toe with the pants-shittingly terrifying dragon that is bigger and stronger than he is at least 20% more often than the 'grizzled veteran'. The cleric enjoys a +7 Base, a +9 Will mod, and the same +3 item, for a total of +19. The cleric only fails his save on a Natural 1.
I want what you want - I want a character that supports my vision of play. I want my character to matter and contribute. When I'm running away from level appropriate foes 65% of the time, the RULES IMPEDE MY ABILITY TO PLAY MY CHOSEN ROLE.
Further, the Wizard can use charm monster, which has a duration of 1 day/level. So, it basically works for 10 days. The wizard can get a Frost Giant (CR 9). With a total Will Save of +6, the Frost Giant is easy pickings (DC of 14 + Int mod - so let's say 20).
That means that, while the Frost Giant might run from the dragon, too, his chance of staying isn't significantly worse than mine. And if we both stay, let's look at our relative contributions without using buffs (and note - it'd be just as effective to buff the Frost Giant as the Fighter, if not more so).
The Giant has two attacks, +18/+13 for 3d6+13 (x3). The Dragon has an AC of 27. You can trust me if you like, but the frost giant does an average of ~21 hit points of damage/round assuming no critical hits.
Since Charm Monster is a 4th level spell, let's use a 9th level Fighter for this example (same CR as the Frost Giant). The BAB is +9/+4. Let's assume we have a +5 Strength normally, augmented by a +6 item for a total modifier of +8. We have a +2 weapon that deals an extra +1d6 elemental damage. We decided for a shield, so let's say bastard sword - +19 to attack before weapon focus and greater weapon focus - +21/+16. Damage is 1d10+1d6+10 (18-20x2). Before figuring in critical hits, we're looking at average damage of around 23 damage.
Now, this is a lot of work, considering you're planning to dismiss this as 'intellectual wankery without a basis in REAL play', but I think it's illustrative of the problem. It's not that the Fighter isn't able to contribute as much as the Wizard. It's that the Fighter is able to contribute ONLY ABOUT AS WELL AS THE WIZARD'S PET.
And this didn't cost the Wizard any spell slots today! At 9th level, he may have used the spell slot a week ago! So, while the Fighter is contributing about as well as a single spell slot from several days ago, the wizard still has every other spell at his disposal...
It's true the dragon has Spell Resistance (18). The 9th level wizard needs a 9 or better if casting a spell that can be resisted (but not all of them can be). And that assumes the wizard didn't use his bonus feats to get Spell Penetration and/or Greater Spell Penetration.
So, this is why I have a problem. It's not that the Fighter has no purpose - that's an exaggeration. It's that I want to play a 'grizzled veteran' that contributes to the party. And I'm not being outclassed by the Wizard - I'm being outclassed by a single spell the wizard used more than a week ago! The rules DON'T SUPPORT the FLAVOR of the Fighter.
If I want to play a 'clever warrior' that uses terrain to his advantage, I'm further screwed because, even as a human, I only have enough skill points for Climb, Jump and Swim, all of which are subject to Armor Check Penalties. So even with my Strength enhancing item and full ranks, I'm only about as good a climber as the Rogue, and I'm the worst swimmer except for the cleric.
And yet, some people claim that the 3rd edition fighter is overpowered.
My hope is that the game designers look at situations like this that can happen - and similar things have happened when I've been both a player and a DM - and make sure the rules make things like this not happen.
Some ways to start making it better - first, fighters ought to have more skill points (6 per level, like Ranger). They should have more skills on their skill list (like Diplomacy) [or, you know, not have skills divided between class and non-class]. Feats should scale more. A +1 at 1st level with weapon focus is fine, but it should be +1/3 levels, like Divine Favor (a spell that the cleric gets making him superior).
I'm glad you like Fighters in every edition of the game. I WANT to like Fighters in every edition. I enjoy playing them for a while, but eventually, when the Fighter CAN be replaced by a charmed/dominated/summoned monster, he no longer has an IMPORTANT role. That's not fun for me.
Now, if that's fun for you, cool. But don't try to tell me that I should try to convince open-minded people about problems that I've experienced AS I PERCEIVE THEM and try to shape their opinion. Because that's the entire reason I'm here. And that's why I'm spending this much time wasting my breath on an internet argument.
I just think there might be a few people here who are reasonable enough and open-minded enough that they can be convinced. But that won't happen if nobody tries to express the weakness that they have experienced with the Fighter, using the RULES AS WRITTEN.
So, yeah. There you go.
You are talking 3x. I prefer 2/3e but fact is 3x is crazy broken if you don't use your banhammer like any decent DM running a system without perfect rules or maybe a modular game like 2e? Or better yet just play FantasyCraft. If you need a bit more basic or classic Dnd experience Pathfinder and Trailblazer fit the bill 3x wise.
Depends on what edition you're playing, I suppose. 3e is such a convoluted mess that the game is not fixable beyond the level 6-8 range without reworking the entire system. If you wanted to deal with 2e--and I don't know how bad the balance problems are in that system, though I expect they're much less worse than 3e--you could probably bump up the fighter's damage die and maybe tack on an extra attack and he'd be good to go.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550274First off, a Fighter in 3.5 has no bonus to resistance from Fear. Combined with a weak will save, a fighter is very likely to run from level appropriate threats. Since you're familiar with 3.5, let me posit a CR 11 Black Dragon (adult). The creature is Large, with a Frightful Presence DC of 20. The Fighter at 11th level has a +3 Will save (base). Assuming a +1 from Will (pretty big assumption) and a +3 from a save increasing item (note - the item provides a bonus EQUAL to his actual 'level based abilities) we have a total save of +7. The Fighter needs to roll a 13 or better to avoid pissing his pants and running away in fear.
The general point is sound - fighters shouldn't be exceptionally vulnerable to fear effects - but in this specific case, no, he won't run in fear, he'll just be shaken, which isn't good but he can still fight and act.
Also I would think, on a common-sense basis, that yes, if you had an allied frost giant, he'd be able to stand side by side with the fighter and do the same kind of things a fighter can do (except fit into houses). He's a fucking frost giant!
Quote from: Marleycat;550287You are talking 3x. I prefer 2/3e but fact is 3x is crazy broken if you don't use your banhammer. Or better yet just play FantasyCraft. If you need a bit more basic or classic Dnd experience Pathfinder and Trailblazer fit the bill 3x wise.
I am using 3.5 for my examples, but I'm not using anything outside of the core rules.
Since my primary concern is helping shape opinions that will influence D&D Next, discussing a very successful version of D&D that most current players are familiar with seems best - as that's where they'll draw most of their lessons, I would think.
If people think the Fighter is OVERPOWERED in 3.5, I have a bigger problem than I can comprehend.
I'm sure that it's because I lost my imagination at some point...
I do think a lot of problems with 3+ happen because many GM's run games as slaves to the rules rather then arbiters of them. However, I also think there are some very significant problems with the rules of 3e(including PF) that end up requiring houserules in order to get the game to a state approaching sanity, and not d20 Exalted.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550291I am using 3.5 for my examples, but I'm not using anything outside of the core rules.
Since my primary concern is helping shape opinions that will influence D&D Next, discussing a very successful version of D&D that most current players are familiar with seems best - as that's where they'll draw most of their lessons, I would think.
If people think the Fighter is OVERPOWERED in 3.5, I have a bigger problem than I can comprehend.
I'm sure that it's because I lost my imagination at some point...
My point is I am your audience for 5e. I am a big 3x fan. I currently play Pathfinder and working on running FC. But the deal is they did all this stuff in 2e excepting the ascending AC, unified D20 mechanic and erasure of THACO. So is your problem, system or playstyle?
Quote from: Imp;550290The general point is sound - fighters shouldn't be exceptionally vulnerable to fear effects - but in this specific case, no, he won't run in fear, he'll just be shaken, which isn't good but he can still fight and act.
Also I would think, on a common-sense basis, that yes, if you had an allied frost giant, he'd be able to stand side by side with the fighter and do the same kind of things a fighter can do (except fit into houses). He's a fucking frost giant!
Imp,
Thank you, good catch. I forgot that the Frightful Presence fear effect causes Shaken for creatures with more than 4 HD, though there are other creatures and spells that can cause a creature to panic, including the 4th level Wizard spell
Fear.
While it makes sense that an allied Frost Giant can stand toe-to-toe with a Fighter, my point is that having a Frost Giant isn't even a resource investment for the Wizard.
At 9th level, with the ability to Charm a Frost Giant for 9 days, there isn't much reason that he couldn't have five or six of them. And it wouldn't even be hard. Of course, they only see him as a trusted friend, but this is what I'd tell them:
"You know that fen right at the base your mountain home? I've seen a black dragon hanging around there - a big one too. If someone doesn't deal with him, eventually he'll get big enough to pose a real threat to you and your people. And you know what, dragons like that have the ability to cast spells - even make people do things they wouldn't normally do. You know what that means? He'll probably lure some unsuspecting young giantess into his lair with magical compulsion and you know what happens next - half-dragon frost giants all over the place. You know, I was planning on taking him out next week. How about you join me? You know, you'll be a hero to your people?"
Depending on your DM, that's not even a Charisma check to convince the giant... Considering you're a trusted friend, it's almost a gimme.
Once the Wizard can fill the role of the Fighter with one or more charmed monsters, the Fighter doesn't really have a protected role.
And while the Fighter can 'swing a sword all day', so can the Frost Giants. And in this example, the Wizard STILL has all his spells before going into the fight with the dragon.
And we can play 'pick a monster from the Monster Manual' all day that the Fighter has no hope of doing anything to, without either the help of magical companions or powerful magical items.
According to the Challenge Rating Rules, a Fighter is supposed to be equivalent to a Rogue is supposed to be equivalent to a Cleric is supposed to be equivalent to a Wizard of the same level.
You know what happens when you pit a 15th level Fighter and a 15th level Rogue against a Dread Wraith? It isn't pretty. And the sad thing is, the 'non-magical characters' can't even run away...
Quote from: B.T.;550289Depends on what edition you're playing, I suppose. 3e is such a convoluted mess that the game is not fixable beyond the level 6-8 range without reworking the entire system. If you wanted to deal with 2e--and I don't know how bad the balance problems are in that system, though I expect they're much less worse than 3e--you could probably bump up the fighter's damage die and maybe tack on an extra attack and he'd be good to go.
2e is quite nice given most of the old school's issue with the game isn't the rules given it's fully back compatible with 1e at least to UA. And easily compatible right to the base corebook 1e. The boxed stuff are a different animal.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550291I'm sure that it's because I lost my imagination at some point...
Apparently you did, because all you can do at this point is talk math in a complete vacuum to then complain that the game as a whole makes you feel useless as a fighter.
The solution to your conundrum is simple: play more. Ditch that fucking OCD game if you can't play it without fixating on the numbers. Go back to AD&D or B/X. Get some non-gaming friends over and play together. I guarantee you, that'll do you some good.
Quote from: Marleycat;550295My point is I am your audience for 5e. I am a big 3x fan. I currently play Pathfinder and working on running FC. But the deal is they did all this stuff in 2e excepting the ascending AC, unified D20 mechanic and erasure of THACO. So is your problem system or playstyle?
My problem - the one that I'm trying to address now - is that even though the Fighter (specifically, though this is true of other non-caster classes to some degree) is supposed to be 'equivalent' to other classes, he is not.
In order to compete he needs at the very least: more skill points, scaling feats (which should result in an increase to damage), better saves and/or more resistances.
I don't think a Fighter has to be immune to Dragon Fire, but he probably should be immune (or near immune) to Fear.
And playing 'dominate the Fighter with his poor will save' has to end. It's not even a joke. I've had a player dominate the fighter just so the bad guys couldn't do it in the middle of combat - he still let the player be himself (those were his orders) but that's seriously what he thought he needed to do to keep the Fighter from becoming a liability in the game - and I can't say he was wrong.
But more importantly, it's CRUCIAL that if people believe the Fighter is OVERPOWERED compared to other characters, that we address that. I don't want 'magical anime-Fighters', but I also don't want Fighters that are more a nuisance for their team than they are a help.
And of course - a DM can change the rules to address some of these issues. But we're consumers paying money for a product - at the very least the designers should CONSIDER the issue, and maybe, just MAYBE, try to fix it before it becomes obvious to everyone willing to compare the relative contributions of classes with an open mind.
Quote from: Benoist;550301Apparently you did, because all you can do at this point is talk math in a complete vacuum to then complain that the game as a whole makes you feel useless as a fighter.
The solution to your conundrum is simple: play more. Ditch that fucking OCD game if you can't play it without fixating on the numbers. Go back to AD&D or B/X. Get some non-gaming friends over and play together. I guarantee you, that'll do you some good.
I'm lucky I found you. Your ability to analyze my life and personality from fewer than two dozen posts is amazing. You've let me know that I don't know how to role-play, and that I lack imagination. These are hard truths that I know I would never have come to accept without you to guide the way.
I'm not talking Math for the sake of the math - I'm using it to provide objective empirical evidence of a possible flaw.
Benoist,
You've said that if a cleric player specifically buffed himself out to out-perform the Fighter in melee combat, you'd kick that cleric player to the curb, even if he were 'playing in character'. You value the 'real people' who play the game.
Imagine you were in a group (say, at a tournament or a Con - not your normal group) and you played the Fighter and the Wizard recruited a half dozen Frost Giants?
Wouldn't you feel that they were deliberately shitting in your Cheerios or lawn or whichever inappropriate place people shit for you?
As a 'real person' who plays the game, I don't get mad at the other players - they're trying to use their characters EFFECTIVELY and are well within the rules - even without supplement or rules bloat. I get mad at the designers - they should have realized that this was the NATURAL result of making those options possible WITHOUT REGARD to role protection for the Fighter. Everyone else gets role protection - you don't see Wizards casting healing spells, and you don't see clerics disarming traps (well, not optimally). But everyone gets to wade into melee combat as effectively as a Fighter.
I acknowledge that this is a given, and express the hope that in the next iteration of the rules this will be addressed.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550286So you're discounting the objective observation that a 9th level fighter contributes exactly as much to the fight as a single 4th-level spell slot usable more than a week ago?
Are you denying that a wizard has an option to 'bring to the fight' a new 'fighter equivalent' starting at around 7th level?
Are you suggesting that the Fighter has options to effectively deal with large numbers of opponents, like a wizard using fear can do?
Eh? You're drinking the Kool-Aid too? ;)
Yes, I reject your observations as being objective.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550302My problem - the one that I'm trying to address now - is that even though the Fighter (specifically, though this is true of other non-caster classes to some degree) is supposed to be 'equivalent' to other classes, he is not.
In order to compete he needs at the very least: more skill points, scaling feats (which should result in an increase to damage), better saves and/or more resistances.
I don't think a Fighter has to be immune to Dragon Fire, but he probably should be immune (or near immune) to Fear.
And playing 'dominate the Fighter with his poor will save' has to end. It's not even a joke. I've had a player dominate the fighter just so the bad guys couldn't do it in the middle of combat - he still let the player be himself (those were his orders) but that's seriously what he thought he needed to do to keep the Fighter from becoming a liability in the game - and I can't say he was wrong.
But more importantly, it's CRUCIAL that if people believe the Fighter is OVERPOWERED compared to other characters, that we address that. I don't want 'magical anime-Fighters', but I also don't want Fighters that are more a nuisance for their team than they are a help.
And of course - a DM can change the rules to address some of these issues. But we're consumers paying money for a product - at the very least the designers should CONSIDER the issue, and maybe, just MAYBE, try to fix it before it becomes obvious to everyone willing to compare the relative contributions of classes with an open mind.
Seriously? That's all you're asking? Come play 2e or FC with me. No joke.. I guess if you like hard mode I have Moldavay Dnd? Seriously you have to stop with arguing spherical cows and come play the game. Would you trust a normal woman to adjudicate the game correctly? Normal in the game sense that is.:D
What I expect from a fighter is to get better at fighting. I expect to hit more often, to get more attacks, to be harder to kill, to have better saves, and to gain more proficiencies.
Everything else is contextual and comes from the specific campaign. Maybe he carries an artifact weapon, and maybe a +1 sword is a big deal, and maybe just having a nice suit of plate mail and some silver-tipped arrows is an accomplishment. I'll adjust my tactics accordingly, not piss and moan about how unfair the game-world is or how the referee is fucking with 'my concept.'
And I certainly don't worry about the guy running the magic-user spoiling my fun. See, for as long as I played, my strategy for approaching exploration is let the fighters do as much of the work as possible, with the ability to deal damage round after round after round after round and save the magic-user's spells for the big fight and the retreat. The fewer spells we use early, and the more we can rely on the fighters, then the further we can explore and the greater the rewards. Even then it's a bit of a crapshoot, since a magic-user can suddenly discover that he can't get a spell off from being attacked by a flock of stirges, or can't get past a monster's magic resistance, or stupidly charmed giants too fucking big to fit into the caverns we're exploring to find the entrance to the lich's tomb.
My personal experience from playing blue box, 1e, red box, and 3e D&D is that most of the so-called problems about fighters came from trying to make spellcasters as reliable and dependable as the guy with the sword. More spells per level, easy access to new spells, little or no disruption, faster casting, easing restrictions on armor, improved bypassing of magic resistance, easy crafting of spells, wands, &c - all of these removed the inherent challenges of playing magic-users. Magic-users in pre-2e D&D traded access to great power for vulnerability and resource limits. Fighters, on the other hand, were a less limited resource and far less vulnerable, in exchange for a lower but consistent deliverable level of power.
Short-sighted designers, egged on by stupid players, broke spellcasters, then claimed that fighters were useless. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;550320My personal experience from playing blue box, 1e, red box, and 3e D&D is that most of the so-called problems about fighters came from trying to make spellcasters as reliable and dependable as the guy with the sword. More spells per level, easy access to new spells, little or no disruption, faster casting, easing restrictions on armor, improved bypassing of magic resistance, easy crafting of spells, wands, &c - all of these removed the inherent challenges of playing magic-users. Magic-users in pre-2e D&D traded access to great power for vulnerability and resource limits. Fighters, on the other hand, were a less limited resource and far less vulnerable, in exchange for a lower but consistent deliverable level of power.
Right, they took the lid off a lot of spells. For example,
charm monster, which deadDMwalking is running away with in his example there. Why haven't I had that problem? Because I always capped charms at one monster (unless it was the mass charm spell.) But why did I do that? Well, because in AD&D, the charm person cap is 1 HD per caster level, and there are also caps for charm monster – you can't charm more than one frost giant at once, IIRC. That cap is not there in 3.5e. (I forget about 3rd edition.)
I never minded fighting alongside a charmed giant or minotaur or whatever. It meant I would be less dead!
Quote from: fectin;550020You folks sure are... invested in hating on Frank.
Certainly, and they are not making Classical D&D look good in the process.
QuoteSo what does that have to do with your larger point? Everything.
You say "I'm of the school that many challenges must be solved by either or both teamwork and/or interacting with the game world". That is exactly the strongest argument for a consistent ruleset. If part of the ranger's role is tracking, and everyone else can track too, the ranger is actually failing to add anything. That's not failing as in "Oh noez! A suboptimal action!" it's actually removing the unique advantage which his class brings to the party. Protecting roles is what encourages and incentivizes teamwork.
I only agree partially.
There are games with no niche protection (like RQ) where teamwork is not compromised by the lack of classes.
Said this, a consistent ruleset is necessary.
QuoteAllies are even more clear cut: if the fighter can suddenly track just by wanting it, there's no incentive to go find Deadeye Steve, who can follow a trail over solid stone (unless there's already a party ranger, in which case why would you even want an NPC hogging the spotlight?).
Excellent example :)
Quote from: Benoist;550301Apparently you did, because all you can do at this point is talk math in a complete vacuum to then complain that the game as a whole makes you feel useless as a fighter.
He's not talking of math in a vacuum. He's talking about something that will probably happen because the rules not only allow it, they actually encourage it. You can pretend that it doesn't exist, but it is there.
Your proposed solution (play more) is not going to make the problem go away, is going to show it even in more contrast, because the more you play, the more this kind of stuff will happen, because that is what D&D is: a game that produces a world with extremely wonky physics.
deadDMwalking is simply dominating the conversatio, he's producing all kind of actual arguments, and the rebuttals he's getting are more or less like "nyah nyah that is not the way things happen, I cannot hear you." How in the fuck crunching some numbers is not a valid proof? Do you realize that arguing that makes your position look like it doesn't matter which rules you use, because you are going to shit all over them any way?
What amazes me more of these discussions is how badly they make D&D look IN ANY EDITION. The more you argue these points of the game the more worthless it looks. Seriously, some of these points have been a reason for arguments for more than 30 fucking years, and they cannot still get it right: hitpoints, classes, niche protection, the power of wizards, the wonkyness of levels, the fact that there wasn't a functional skill system for more than 25 years...
These kind of stupid discussions never happen when you play BRP, or any other sensible system. In BRP there is no stupid argument about if your warrior / shaman / thief / whatever can or cannot follow a track. You have a default skill, and either you increase it by training and experience, or you don't and then you have only the default %.
And here we are, still debating why only thieves can move stealthily, and why everyone seems to be better at fighting than the fighter. :D
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550291I am using 3.5 for my examples,
This much is obvious. But I'm not noticing anyone arguing directly against you. They are either arguing around other editions or more general principles.
Heck, I'm not even arguing in terms of balance myself, but flavor. I don't want my fighters to fly unless I'm playing Exalted. I'm pretty satisfied with current fantasy gaming alternatives.
As for your specific example, Charm monster may be overpowered, but as I remember it, it didn't necessarily make a creature fight for you... that was dominate monster, which was 9th level. "An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing." That actually sounds like it might be an interesting roleplaying challenge. Just how are you going to convince that frost giant to take on that big bad? Nonetheless, you example is closer to a real problem than Frank's dragon assault scenario.
Quote from: Marleycat;550287You are talking 3x. I prefer 2/3e but fact is 3x is crazy broken if you don't use your banhammer like any decent DM running a system without perfect rules or maybe a modular game like 2e? Or better yet just play FantasyCraft. If you need a bit more basic or classic Dnd experience Pathfinder and Trailblazer fit the bill 3x wise.
Word. We miss the fighter in our Patfinder game when he's not there; there's no way my character can match the fighter in round-to-round damage output. In my Fantasy Craft game, they would have a much easier time if they had a real soldier.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;550334Just how are you going to convince that frost giant to take on that big bad? Nonetheless, you example is closer to a real problem than Frank's dragon assault scenario.
My response from up-thread:
Quote from: DeadDMWalking"You know that fen right at the base your mountain home? I've seen a black dragon hanging around there - a big one too. If someone doesn't deal with him, eventually he'll get big enough to pose a real threat to you and your people. And you know what, dragons like that have the ability to cast spells - even make people do things they wouldn't normally do. You know what that means? He'll probably lure some unsuspecting young giantess into his lair with magical compulsion and you know what happens next - half-dragon frost giants all over the place. You know, I was planning on taking him out next week. How about you join me? You know, you'll be a hero to your people."
Quote from: Imperator;550332deadDMwalking is simply dominating the conversatio, he's producing all kind of actual arguments, and the rebuttals he's getting are more or less like "nyah nyah that is not the way things happen, I cannot hear you."
Yes, he has clearly demonstrated that 3.x is broken played RAW and that among the many other things, fighters in 3.x do not play well at higher levels in a campaign played RAW, especially when played with players who play it 3.x style instead of just like they played TSR D&D.
QuoteHow in the fuck crunching some numbers is not a valid proof?
Because the numbers are not players at a game table. Yes, many players will end up having the problems crunching the numbers shows, however, from actually talking to people who played 3.x a lot, it quickly becomes obvious that not all players and not all groups saw the problems the number crunching indicates in actual play. The proof for me in whether a game is good or bad is not in how the numbers crunch, but in how the game plays at my table with my friends. Nothing else really matters to me but how the game actually plays at my table.
While I strongly prefer TSR D&D (specifically 0e and BECMI if I have a choice), I've played both 3.x and 4e. 3.x worked fine for me while 4e with bored me to tears, despite its supposedly much better math. And I play fighters when I play as I want something simple and fun to play when I get to play. I don't want a complex or subtle class when I play as I get all the complexity I could want when I GM. That's one of the (many) things that ruined 4e for me, there was no simple class (like the fighter had been in all previous editions of D&D) to play. More perfect numbers don't impress me if the resulting game bores me to tears and/or does not support my style of play.
QuoteWhat amazes me more of these discussions is how badly they make D&D look IN ANY EDITION. The more you argue these points of the game the more worthless it looks. Seriously, some of these points have been a reason for arguments for more than 30 fucking years, and they cannot still get it right: hitpoints, classes, niche protection, the power of wizards, the wonkyness of levels, the fact that there wasn't a functional skill system for more than 25 years...
Most of those things worked just fine for myself and many thousands of other players in the various TSR editions of D&D. Yes, a lot of people don't like the way they worked because they personally want a game designed differently -- that is, they don't like hit points, Vancian magic, abstract combat, classes and levels, the lack of a skill system (because it is a class-based game), xp for treasure, etc. However, I and many other people happen to LIKE those things and want D&D to continue to use them. People who do not like them have many other fantasy RPGs they can play. They don't need to turn D&D into a completely different game (that actual D&D fans will not recognize) to get them.
QuoteThese kind of stupid discussions never happen when you play BRP, or any other sensible system. In BRP there is no stupid argument about if your warrior / shaman / thief / whatever can or cannot follow a track. You have a default skill, and either you increase it by training and experience, or you don't and then you have only the default %.
Then play BRP if it does what you like. You don't see people who like TSR D&D (or WOTC D&D) trying to force the next edition of BRP to work like D&D.
Quote from: RandallS;550336Yes, he has clearly demonstrated that 3.x is broken played RAW and that among the many other things, fighters in 3.x do not play well at higher levels in a campaign played RAW, especially when played with players who play it 3.x style instead of just like they played TSR D&D.
I really don't think that anyone is arguing that high level 3.x plays particularly well?
The skill system utterly shafts 3.x Fighters, but that's not true in earlier editions. Why the decided to implement a truck load of really fucking basic skills and then give a fighter 2 of them is really beyond me. honestly, who the fuck dreamt up that 'Jump' should be a skill?
The save system utterly shafts 3.x Fighters, taking away one of their traditional strengths.
The feat system is pretty broken in 3.x, and as the class that realised most upon feats that yet again shafts the Fighter. Again not true before 3.x.
The first thing I want 5th to do is return the Fighter to where he was before 3.x - then we can start looking at if the class needs anything beyond that.
Quote from: jadrax;550340I really don't think that anyone is arguing that high level 3.x plays particularly well?
I am a bit confused by this as well. Most of the peope here seem to be talking about 1&2e not 3e. My feeling is 3E did have somepotential balance issues. But in my experience these could be managed by the GM. With 2E, i never really had any of the issues i experienced with third edition. That said i think third edition is a much better game than 4E. Balance is important, but not the only thing that matters. And a game that has some balance issues can still be fun (with 3E if you knew how to work the system you could do some very interesting things).
So definitely an interesting discussions. Shame people can't hold off the personal attacks.
As I have stated I agree the fighter is underpowered at high levels just like I think the wizard is underpowered at low levels however I don't think its a big deal.
I do think that High level fighters should get
Resistance to Fear/Intimidation - the points made on this topic I felt were very compelling
Leadership type skills for bodies of troops
And I think the game would benefit from an abstrated wargame module where the fighter would get benefits in tactical terms which would. I think that would open up an area of play that even back in the day never got used much and give fighters an area to shine in.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550343So definitely an interesting discussions. Shame people can't hold off the personal attacks.
As I have stated I agree the fighter is underpowered at high levels just like I think the wizard is underpowered at low levels however I don't think its a big deal.
I do think that High level fighters should get
Resistance to Fear/Intimidation - the points made on this topic I felt were very compelling
Leadership type skills for bodies of troops
And I think the game would benefit from an abstrated wargame module where the fighter would get benefits in tactical terms which would. I think that would open up an area of play that even back in the day never got used much and give fighters an area to shine in.
This is pretty much where i am (though i do think people are overblowing the power disparity in 1e 2E). If the issue for people is that the measures taken by these editions were not enough for them to make the fighter keep up at higher levels, i think 5e could easily accomodate both sides by relying on many of the same class features but refining some of the numbers. Just make sure that a fighter's followers are numerous enough and powerful enough as he advances to keep him on par with spellcasters. Make sure his damage output increases, give him some extra hp, etc. He doesn't have to have superhero attacks to keep up mechanically. The numbers behind his attacks and special abillities just need to work.
Sacrosanct, gotta ask: Have you ever actually played AD&D?
A lot of the people in the "Fighters are fine" camp have never, by their own admission, played at high level. I don't know why they think they have anything to add to a discussion of what the Fighter does or does not need for high level play, but at least they seem to know what their limitations are.
A lot of other people have played to some level or another that they think sounds pretty high and yet have never played a high level adventure. They've added numbers to their character sheet, but the actual adventures of their personal experience have all been some variety or another of "always fighting orcs (with bigger numbers)." I understand why they think it's OK for the Fighter to have only low level problem solving with bigger numbers attached - all they've played is low level problems with or without bigger numbers attached!
But then there's you: Sacrosanct, every single thing you say is wrong. Like, factually wrong. From your multiple-post inaccurate description of how siege weapons work to your stubborn insistence that specialty Priests couldn't use weapon specialization according to the rules in the Complete Priest's Handbook even after you had been corrected on this point to your bizarre assertion that major creation doesn't exist before 3rd edition - it's just all wrong.
It's one thing for someone who has never played in an adventure where the required activities were beyond the means of a normal human with iron spikes, a hammer, and a callous disregard for the architecture to try to over generalize to claim that such a character is prepared sufficiently for any adventure in the future. He's wrong, but at least I understand where he's coming from. But Sancrosanct: you're wrong about first level character options and basic equipment. That implies heavily that you aren't even passably familiar with the games you're talking about.
I have an idea: how about you do yourself a favor and simply don't post anymore on this or any other subject until you at the very least get your hands on some reference material. This is the internet, and posting can wait. You can go home, read a book, compose your thoughts in Word, and return with a well-sourced argument or something. You don't have to repeatedly embarrass yourself by posting simple incorrect statements again and again.
-Frank
Quote from: RandallS;550336Yes, he has clearly demonstrated that 3.x is broken played RAW and that among the many other things, fighters in 3.x do not play well at higher levels in a campaign played RAW, especially when played with players who play it 3.x style instead of just like they played TSR D&D.
And he has also shown that this problem plagues every other edition prior to 3.x, but in 3.x the problem gets bigger.
QuoteBecause the numbers are not players at a game table.
No, but they affect what the players can or cannot do.
If you play a fighter and you see consistently how you are the less effective guy in combat, apart from your role as meatshield, you may or not be pissed about it (it depends on the player), but you cannot deny that the problem is bound to happen.
Making the simplistic attribution that if someone complains is retarded or playing it wrong or not playing is exactly the same thing as ignoring players around the table.
QuoteHowever, I and many other people happen to LIKE those things and want D&D to continue to use them. People who do not like them have many other fantasy RPGs they can play. They don't need to turn D&D into a completely different game (that actual D&D fans will not recognize) to get them.
No one is critizicing you or anyone (well, at least I am not doing it) for liking that. But those are real problems for a sizable part of D&D gamers, because those discussions pop again and again since 1974, and no edition can solve them. It is like hitpoints breaking immersion for many people: you cannot just handwave it saying "for me it works well," even if you just don't give a shit about verisimilitude or whatnot.
The example of deadDMwalking is brutal, and he clearly shows how a warrior can do less than any other party member in an actual situation that can possibly happen. We are not talking about stretches of probability like "if the guy crits 6 times in a row he will kill the lich in a blow!" We're talking about something that is not even convoluted like "I'm going to use this spell to get me something far better than any fighting PC."
And please, for fuck's sake, fuck off with the sad excuse of the army of hirelings. The army of hirelings is worhtless the moment you face an opponent like a dragon because they're all a bunch of fucking mooks that are bound to shit their pants and die the first round the dragon attacks. For all the good is going to do you you could carry with you an army of fucking gerbils. Hirelings are really great when you face similar opponents, where they can give you a decisive support while you plow through the mook army but against a dragon-like opponent you could as well go alone. And again, deadDmwalking demonstrates that.
Now you can say that it depends a lot on the situation and all that, and it's true, but thing is, the dragon has all the decks stacked in his favor, starting on the terrain, and if the dragon behaves like a fucikng dragon does, which means flying and using its breath, the hirelings are toast before they can make a difference and most of the fighter attacks and capabilities are useless. And it's OK, it's how the game works and you are not a terrible person for liking it, but at least don't try and pretend that the problem ain't there or that we should not pay attention to the fucking rules because the rules are not the game.
Sad news: THE RULES ARE THE GAME, because the next time I'm playing a 10th level fighter and I jump from a castle wall instead of looking for another escape route because I'm pretty confident that I won't die (fuck, I won't even be a little impaired) I'd like to see the mental contortions you have to make to explain how a guy loaded with armor and gear can jump from a castle wall, land face-first on the ground and get up and run like nothing happened because, well, fuck you, that is why.
Of course the rules are not the only component of what goes on in a given session, but the rules define everything that happens, your choices and options, because they define the PC's world. And D&D is a place in which you, as a young and not very experienced warrior (2nd, 3rd level) are not threatened by a guy with a crossbow that demands your surrender, because you know that even if the guy hits you YOU WILL NOT DIE.
QuoteThen play BRP if it does what you like. You don't see people who like TSR D&D (or WOTC D&D) trying to force the next edition of BRP to work like D&D.
Playing BRP is not incompatible with coming to a messageboard and discuss a game that I have been playing for 26 years and I know pretty well, thank you very much. And as long as this is a place for discussing RPGs, I think my opinion is as valuable as anyone else's provided I have experience or knowledge of the game at hand (which I have).
When the day comes that this place becomes a place for slobbering over Gygax dead penis, I will probbaly stop posting here, but as long as you can discuss D&D, I will keep going. And pointing out the idiotic things you can find in D&D rules is discussing the game too, same as pointing, how ridiculous CoC's sanity rules can get sometimes, how tedious RQ encumbrance rules are for many players, and so on.
Quote from: Sigmund;550253My rogue had to survive an entire dungeon of undead that completely negated his back-stabbing abilities, yet I don't see anyone supporting either removing undead from the game or giving rogues class abilities that work against undead or oozes, etc.
Umm....Dr. Evil, that too has happened.;)
In 2008 WOTC decided that abilities that wouldn't work against certain types of enemies would result in an an unfun experience for the player of a character for such abilities and so undead could be sneak attacked, put to sleep, and oozes could be knocked prone. 4E was indeed an answer to this non-problem.
The mental gymnastics displayed in order to turn the Wizard into Pun-Pun the Fighter are dizzying to watch, and certainly entertaining. :)
Quote from: FrankTrollman;550345Sacrosanct, gotta ask: Have you ever actually played AD&D?
I've been playing AD&D consistently since 1981. I've skipped the past 10 pages or so because it went right to this page, but I'll need to respond because you've gone on a rampage of inaccuracies. Big surprise.
QuoteA lot of the people in the "Fighters are fine" camp have never, by their own admission, played at high level. I don't know why they think they have anything to add to a discussion of what the Fighter does or does not need for high level play, but at least they seem to know what their limitations are.
A lot of other people have played to some level or another that they think sounds pretty high and yet have never played a high level adventure. They've added numbers to their character sheet, but the actual adventures of their personal experience have all been some variety or another of "always fighting orcs (with bigger numbers)." I understand why they think it's OK for the Fighter to have only low level problem solving with bigger numbers attached - all they've played is low level problems with or without bigger numbers attached!
I've physically played characters up to 16th or so level. But the overwhelming amount of time spent gaming was between level 1 and 10. See, that's something you can't get in your tiny brain. In AD&D, level 10
was high level.
QuoteBut then there's you: Sacrosanct, every single thing you say is wrong. Like, factually wrong. From your multiple-post inaccurate description of how siege weapons work
really? Where? I had a scenario of a fighter with a girdle of frost giant strength. So it's reasonable that he'd be able to use a ballista by himself. And even the rules say the To Hit is based on the highest level of the crewchief, which happens to be the fighter in this case, and that a fighter would be the best class to use since the fighter has the best To Hit tables.
Quoteto your stubborn insistence that specialty Priests couldn't use weapon specialization according to the rules in the Complete Priest's Handbook even after you had been corrected on this point
quote me. Where is that? I said that only fighters get weapon spec, and when you brought up the CPH, it was pointed out to you that splat books weren't counted unless you also counted splat books for the CFH. I was using core books. I expect you to quote me where I said that priests couldn't even AFTER being pointed to that book.
I'll wait.
Quoteto your bizarre assertion that major creation doesn't exist before 3rd edition - it's just all wrong.
Here's a shocker. Wait for it. Quote me on that. I did "ask" if it existed prior to 3e, and it did, but wasn't even a MU spell like was claimed. I also said it was durational, so the whole example was flawed because the MU cannot, in fact, make gold out of nothing. Not practically anyway. Unless you can explain to me where a MU is going to find someone to convert 2 tons of gold into platinum, and if they do, it's reasonable someone with that kind of money would have the resources to hunt down the MU and kill him once the gold disappeared in a few minutes.
QuoteBut Sancrosanct: you're wrong about first level character options and basic equipment.
Again, where did I say anything about this?
QuoteThat implies heavily that you aren't even passably familiar with the games you're talking about.
No, what this shows is that you don't have 1st grade reading skills. Otherwise I expect you to quote me of all these things you claimed I said.
Go ahead.
QuoteI have an idea: how about you do yourself a favor and simply don't post anymore on this or any other subject until you at the very least get your hands on some reference material.
-Frank
Oh, the irony. Your an idiot of epic...no wait...HIGH LEVEL proportions.
I'm going to do this just once, because these sorts of circular arguments are part of the reason why I stopped running 3rd ed: not because of the game, but because of the mentality it fosters and the 'rules are the game' theoretical wank it spawns infinitely on message boards everywhere.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550274If you're playing a grizzled veteran of a 100 battles, the rules should support that vision. In 3.5, they don't.
First off, a Fighter in 3.5 has no bonus to resistance from Fear. Combined with a weak will save, a fighter is very likely to run from level appropriate threats. Since you're familiar with 3.5, let me posit a CR 11 Black Dragon (adult). The creature is Large, with a Frightful Presence DC of 20. The Fighter at 11th level has a +3 Will save (base). Assuming a +1 from Will (pretty big assumption) and a +3 from a save increasing item (note - the item provides a bonus EQUAL to his actual 'level based abilities) we have a total save of +7. The Fighter needs to roll a 13 or better to avoid pissing his pants and running away in fear.
The cleric, and the wizard, on the other hand, are in a much better position. While the grizzled veteran runs and hides, the wizard enjoys a base save of +7. Given the same +1 for Will and a +3 item, the Wizard is at a +11. The wizard is willing to stand toe-to-toe with the pants-shittingly terrifying dragon that is bigger and stronger than he is at least 20% more often than the 'grizzled veteran'. The cleric enjoys a +7 Base, a +9 Will mod, and the same +3 item, for a total of +19. The cleric only fails his save on a Natural 1.
I want what you want - I want a character that supports my vision of play. I want my character to matter and contribute. When I'm running away from level appropriate foes 65% of the time, the RULES IMPEDE MY ABILITY TO PLAY MY CHOSEN ROLE.
Further, the Wizard can use charm monster, which has a duration of 1 day/level. So, it basically works for 10 days. The wizard can get a Frost Giant (CR 9). With a total Will Save of +6, the Frost Giant is easy pickings (DC of 14 + Int mod - so let's say 20).
That means that, while the Frost Giant might run from the dragon, too, his chance of staying isn't significantly worse than mine. And if we both stay, let's look at our relative contributions without using buffs (and note - it'd be just as effective to buff the Frost Giant as the Fighter, if not more so).
The Giant has two attacks, +18/+13 for 3d6+13 (x3). The Dragon has an AC of 27. You can trust me if you like, but the frost giant does an average of ~21 hit points of damage/round assuming no critical hits.
Since Charm Monster is a 4th level spell, let's use a 9th level Fighter for this example (same CR as the Frost Giant). The BAB is +9/+4. Let's assume we have a +5 Strength normally, augmented by a +6 item for a total modifier of +8. We have a +2 weapon that deals an extra +1d6 elemental damage. We decided for a shield, so let's say bastard sword - +19 to attack before weapon focus and greater weapon focus - +21/+16. Damage is 1d10+1d6+10 (18-20x2). Before figuring in critical hits, we're looking at average damage of around 23 damage.
Now, this is a lot of work, considering you're planning to dismiss this as 'intellectual wankery without a basis in REAL play', but I think it's illustrative of the problem. It's not that the Fighter isn't able to contribute as much as the Wizard. It's that the Fighter is able to contribute ONLY ABOUT AS WELL AS THE WIZARD'S PET.
And this didn't cost the Wizard any spell slots today! At 9th level, he may have used the spell slot a week ago! So, while the Fighter is contributing about as well as a single spell slot from several days ago, the wizard still has every other spell at his disposal...
It's true the dragon has Spell Resistance (18). The 9th level wizard needs a 9 or better if casting a spell that can be resisted (but not all of them can be). And that assumes the wizard didn't use his bonus feats to get Spell Penetration and/or Greater Spell Penetration.
So, this is why I have a problem. It's not that the Fighter has no purpose - that's an exaggeration. It's that I want to play a 'grizzled veteran' that contributes to the party. And I'm not being outclassed by the Wizard - I'm being outclassed by a single spell the wizard used more than a week ago! The rules DON'T SUPPORT the FLAVOR of the Fighter.
If I want to play a 'clever warrior' that uses terrain to his advantage, I'm further screwed because, even as a human, I only have enough skill points for Climb, Jump and Swim, all of which are subject to Armor Check Penalties. So even with my Strength enhancing item and full ranks, I'm only about as good a climber as the Rogue, and I'm the worst swimmer except for the cleric.
And yet, some people claim that the 3rd edition fighter is overpowered.
My hope is that the game designers look at situations like this that can happen - and similar things have happened when I've been both a player and a DM - and make sure the rules make things like this not happen.
Some ways to start making it better - first, fighters ought to have more skill points (6 per level, like Ranger). They should have more skills on their skill list (like Diplomacy) [or, you know, not have skills divided between class and non-class]. Feats should scale more. A +1 at 1st level with weapon focus is fine, but it should be +1/3 levels, like Divine Favor (a spell that the cleric gets making him superior).
Well right there your case is already busted. We've got an 11th level fighter with 11 HD and his group facing an CR 11 Adult Black Dragon with 11 HD as well. Frightful Presence does not work. You should have strictly less HD than the Black Dragon to be subjected to that effect.
/case
But what the hell. Let's play the game a little bit longer, shall we?
IF Frightful Presence was working in the first place, you then make the assumption that the fighter actually fails his roll, which might not happen at all. Probability =/= certitude. That argument goes both ways. If it's certainly not a given that the fighter succeeds his saving throw, it's also not a given he's going to fail. Dice have a way to surprise the shit out of the group that way. That's part of that "actual play" thing you guys keep ignoring. It's pretty cool, trust me.
But nevermind. I still have a problem with your example because we know nothing of the situation in which the actual encounter occurs. Does the group know about the Dragon and finds its lair after preparing to meet the encounter? We don't know. Did they travel through the Wilderness with a Storm Giant in tow, teleport to the place (scrying before hand and knowing what they are up against), or go through an entire dungeon to get there (where of course the Frost Giant is totally cool going through doors and shit)? We don't know.
Maybe we have the group facing the dragon head on then, automatically assuming that everything will work out fine (metagaming much? How do they know the CR of the encounter?), without preparing first to meet the challenge? Dude, if that's the case, the fighter and the whole group
deserve to meet an untimely death. The rules in that case don't impede your ability to play your role, since you are playing a moron fighter who doesn't know when to prepare for a fight, and totally deserve your fate.
But let's assume our fighter is actually a grizzled veteran who knows you shouldn't get into a fight with an adult dragon without preparing first for it, alright? There are many, many ways in which you can avoid fear effects. First of all, let's assume there's a Cleric who can
remove fear in your group. That's a first level spell. So right there, if the Cleric is doing his job instead of waving his awesome uber-fighting skillz in your face, you don't have much problem, do you? How about eating a little bit before facing the dragon?
Heroes' Feast sounds good.
Greater Heroism too, by the way.
Really concerned with your fighter about that pesky Will Save? How about selling your soul to Graz'zt and becoming Abyss-Bound, which immunes you to fear effects? How about getting the Fearless feat? How about getting a
Brash weapon enhancement (for a +1 cost) on your chosen sword, for that matter? Banner of the Storm Eye? Horn of Plenty to really dine like a king and have that Heroes' Feast any time you want? I know we're not really at the level of
Mind Blank effects yet (depends on the DM though, doesn't it?), but there's enough to work with to get that problem with fear effects solved for good if that's what you want.
Hey. Nobody said the fighter couldn't use some magic items, potions and the like as well. And in a world where magic is ubiquitous at high level, our grizzled veteran would be stupid not to take advantage of those. Now, it's cool if as a player you want your fighter to be a badass without ever using a magic item, but that's not really the world he's living in, is it? So your solution I'm guessing would be either to make fighters badasses at high level without the magic items, on top of which the magic items that exist in the world will make him EVEN MORE of a badass, or find some way to artificially gimp the fighter into not using magic items at all at high level. Suddenly, his magic sword stops working because he's badass enough, OR there are no magic swords in the world at all. Or you play Iron Heroes where it's all fighters all the time without the items. Which is very cool mind you (love that game), but not exactly the D&D world I usually like to play with myself.
I think you're a bit overstating your case though, particularly when your one encounter with a Black Dragon became "I'm running from all level appropriate foes 65% of the time!" like all the foes have Frightful Presence and are Black Dragons in your game suddenly - man! That's one boring campaign, ain't it?
And that Frost Giant man... he just happened to show up in the campaign at the right moment for the wizard to
Charm it and prepare for the assault of the Dragon's lair. Awesome timing. He's not scaring your friends and allies at all when you go back to the Keep. That doesn't create any problem at all. The wizard just camps outside of town Hagrid style and waits for you guys to come back to get to that Black Dragon and kick the shit out of it. He walks through doors and openings in the dungeon totally fine too. You faced no enemies during the last few days having the idea of using, oh, I don't know...
dispell magic on the Frost Giant once in the meantime. It's cool how your campaign just fits the premise of your scenario "just so", you know. I mean, Frank says I'm basically being cuddled to win by the DM or I blackmail him into making me win, but to have all those circumstances align "just so" for the Wizard to keep using his Frost Giant pet for days on end... dude, I'd be worried they have an affair, if I were you, and you know, if they're in bed together, no matter what you do... you're screwed. The wizard will always be better because he gives favors to the DM at this point.
If I was you playing in such a campaign, I'd start wondering if I should either give myself favors to the DM like I do so my fighter can win, or I would just change games altogether because... you ain't gonna compete with that just on your good looks.
Alright. Sarcasm aside, at this point I think I made my rebuttal pretty clear: these sorts of arguments are textbook spherical cows, to me. The fighter is just that right level for the effect to take place (actually he wasn't, which busted the case outright, but nevermind). The save fails just so. The equipment is nowhere to be seen. The fighter player never got anything to prevent him from failing a Will save he is so afraid to fail in every single encounter which magically all have Black Dragons with Frightful Presence in them, all of a sudden. We don't know what the campaign was like up to that point, or what the PCs did before facing the dragon. The Frost Giant popped up in the game just at the right moment, and since then just got through door frames by squeezing all the way through the dungeon, for all we know. And so on, so forth, ad nauseam, et bis repetita.
Actually play the game, and 99% of this shit is immaterial. It's just worrying about rules in a vacuum, completely divorced from actual play, and that only leads to these kinds of ridiculous discussions which have poisoned the 3rd ed conversation for years and years, now.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to wash my brain with a serious helping of DCC RPG here...
Quote from: Imperator;550352And please, for fuck's sake, fuck off with the sad excuse of the army of hirelings. The army of hirelings is worhtless the moment you face an opponent like a dragon because they're all a bunch of fucking mooks that are bound to shit their pants and die the first round the dragon attacks. For all the good is going to do you you could carry with you an army of fucking gerbils. Hirelings are really great when you face similar opponents, where they can give you a decisive support while you plow through the mook army but against a dragon-like opponent you could as well go alone. And again, deadDmwalking demonstrates that.
I've ran high level AD&D campaigns. You give high level fighters the kind of gear they need. Flying mounts. Kick-ass magical weapons.
It works very fucking well. How the hell else would you do it and what's the problem?
I've also ran high level 3.x.
Never saw anyone, but anyone run a straight fighter. The Fighter/Samurai/Kensai in the party was a whirlwind of death!
Yeah, caster's were overpowered in 3.x. People who play the game, work with it and/or around it.
Not my cuppa, as I run 0e-1e nowadays. But so many of these arguments seem to bear very little relation to actual play.
Quote from: jasmith;550382I've also ran high level 3.x. Never saw anyone, but anyone run a straight fighter. The Fighter/Samurai/Kensai in the party was a whirlwind of death!
Yeah, caster's were overpowered in 3.x. People who play the game, work with it and/or around it.
Not my cuppa, as I run 0e-1e nowadays. But so many of these arguments seem to bear very little relation to actual play.
This is important. In the 3E games I ran, it became clear to me that the multiclass builds were how most people compensated for power disparities. I was not personally a fan of optimization builds but learned them to accomodate a group of mine that was into them. Once you master the system in that way, you really can make a kick ass fighter that can do pretty much anything you can think of. It is a totally different game than AD&D or 4E in that respect. System mastery was a big part of making the thing run the way you wanted (or the alternate approach was for the GM to take a hand in keeping things balanced out and fair).
Quote from: Benoist;550381I'm going to do this once, because these sorts of circular arguments are part of the reason why I stopped running 3rd ed: not because of the game, but because of the mentality it fosters and the 'rules are the game' theoretical wank it spawns infinitely on message boards everywhere.
Well right there your case is already busted. We've got an 11th level fighter with 11 HD and his group facing an CR 11 Adult Black Dragon with 11 HD as well. Frightful Presence does not work. You should have strictly less HD than the Black Dragon to be subjected to that effect.
/case
<....snip>, et bis repetita.
Actually play the game, and 99% of this shit is immaterial. It's just worrying about rules in a vacuum, completely divorced from actual play, and that only leads to these kinds of ridiculous discussions which have poisoned the 3rd ed conversation for years and years, now.
To be fair when I included a host of ways that a 9th level MU could generate gold in play to enable him to hire an army Sacro shot me down because I had to stick to rules because the roleplay stuff was irrelevant. :)
Like I said I do like the idea of a high level fighter gaining resistance to fear I also like the idea that they might be able to gauge an opponent and work out if thier approximate level and combat skill.
I think there is definitely room for a few mundane 'feats' to make the Fighter class more like the guys I have been watching on Game of Thrones or Abercrombie style hard bastards.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550383This is important. In the 3E games I ran, it became clear to me that the multiclass builds were how most people compensated for power disparities. I was not personally a fan of optimization builds but learned them to accomodate a group of mine that was into them. Once you master the system in that way, you really can make a kick ass fighter that can do pretty much anything you can think of. It is a totally different game than AD&D or 4E in that respect. System mastery was a big part of making the thing run the way you wanted (or the alternate approach was for the GM to take a hand in keeping things balanced out and fair).
Multi-classing and optimisation is why i hate 3e
Quote from: jibbajibba;550385Multi-classing and optimisation is why i hate 3e
Oh yes. Lots of people hate that part of it. Personally I was never a big fan of it myself. It is just that I saw it in action as a GM and became pretty good at it in order to keep up with a group that liked that stuff. My only point is when used the way the system is intended (and I think optimization was baked into 3E as part of the system) then the martial characters do not fall behind. You can run a straight spellcaster pretty easily. But the crazy builds for fighters and stuff keep up with them pretty good (and achieve some surprising results). Again it isn't my cup of tea either. But I do think you have to judge balance in 3E from that point of view because that is how so many people were playing the game.
Quote from: jasmith;550382I've ran high level AD&D campaigns. You give high level fighters the kind of gear they need. Flying mounts. Kick-ass magical weapons.
.
That creates an issue that was encountered in Everquest and other early MMOs. The Naked caster.
When guys died they respawned and had to run back to their bodies to get their kit. fine and fair enough surely....
Except it became obvious that sans kit the warrior class was crap. They had to have magic armour and a magic sword and blah blah or they were just fodder. The casters however were pretty fucking effective with no kit and just access to their spells and powers.
So I want to play a high level fighter who is a hard guy that can do hard stuff I don;t want to the guy who is hte sum of his kit and in effect you coudl give the same kit to someone else to drive and ther eis no difference. The Iron Man of D&D if you will.
So if I am only tough because I have Plate +5 a pet gryphon, girdle of giant Strength , gauntlets of Ogre Power, hammer of thunderbolts etc etc then really what is the character adding to the mix?
I would much rather be a gristled guy in a ragged cloak with a beaten old suit of chain mail that can still beat the snot out of a Giant.
Quote from: Imperator;550352And please, for fuck's sake, fuck off with the sad excuse of the army of hirelings. The army of hirelings is worhtless the moment you face an opponent like a dragon because they're all a bunch of fucking mooks that are bound to shit their pants and die the first round the dragon attacks. For all the good is going to do you you could carry with you an army of fucking gerbils. Hirelings are really great when you face similar opponents, where they can give you a decisive support while you plow through the mook army but against a dragon-like opponent you could as well go alone. And again, deadDmwalking demonstrates that.
Now you can say that it depends a lot on the situation and all that, and it's true, but thing is, the dragon has all the decks stacked in his favor, starting on the terrain, and if the dragon behaves like a fucikng dragon does, which means flying and using its breath, the hirelings are toast before they can make a difference and most of the fighter attacks and capabilities are useless. And it's OK, it's how the game works and you are not a terrible person for liking it, but at least don't try and pretend that the problem ain't there or that we should not pay attention to the fucking rules because the rules are not the game. .
It should be noted that a dragon can only use it's breath a couple times. When you're dealing with hundreds if not thousands of troops, there is no way it could remotely take them all out. It should also be noted that not all troops are 0 level or 1st level. Right off the bat with the initial followers, there is a captain of 5th-7th level. And it stands to reason that in the hired army, there will also be several higher level leaders there.
I know there was a huge increase in the power of dragons starting with 2e and especially into 3e and beyond, but please stop with the assumption that an AD&D dragon would lay waste to an army. That isn't even remotely accurate. Dragons in 1e were meant to be fought, even by characters as low as level 3 or so.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550386Oh yes. Lots of people hate that part of it. Personally I was never a big fan of it myself.
I can optimize as well as the next guy, and I'm not really oblivious to the fact that some people like that aspect of role playing games quite a bit, on one hand, and that we sort of all do at varying degrees on the other hand (let's face it - it's cool to have that magic item that does this neat stuff for your character, or to have the MU combine his spells to create a creative effect), but at some point the 3rd ed "buildz" mini-game became really tedious for me too.
I think that part that still really rubs me the wrong way is the counter-intuitive way in which you got to think about feat selections and the like in advance so that at high level your character pans out "just so". It completely defeats the organic development of player characters, undermines elements like prestige classes which ideally should be tools to link your character to the game world as the campaign unfolds, not sub-kits you select five levels prior to then get the right feats and spell to fulfill its requirements. From a design POV, the prestige classes with their system of requirements fail to meet the original intent for which they were meant to be used, and it participates to the "buildz" mentality bullshit we're talking about here. Game Design Fail. Big time.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550386Oh yes. Lots of people hate that part of it. Personally I was never a big fan of it myself. It is just that I saw it in action as a GM and became pretty good at it in order to keep up with a group that liked that stuff. My only point is when used the way the system is intended (and I think optimization was baked into 3E as part of the system) then the martial characters do not fall behind. You can run a straight spellcaster pretty easily. But the crazy builds for fighters and stuff keep up with them pretty good (and achieve some surprising results). Again it isn't my cup of tea either. But I do think you have to judge balance in 3E from that point of view because that is how so many people were playing the game.
reminds me too much of those shitty classes that used to turn up in Beholder, Draon, white Dwarf and other magazines in the early 80s for Archers, Black Priests, and then ended up official with the Cavalier, Barbarian, Acrobat and the other one in UA.
A barbarian is a figther from the wilderness, a cavalier is a figther with manners etc etc ... that was why I like early 2e becuase those new optimised mechanics classes were eliminated and subsumed into Kits. Should have done the same with paladins, rangers and druids as well of course.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550389It should be noted that a dragon can only use it's breath a couple times. When you're dealing with hundreds if not thousands of troops, there is no way it could remotely take them all out. It should also be noted that not all troops are 0 level or 1st level. Right off the bat with the initial followers, there is a captain of 5th-7th level. And it stands to reason that in the hired army, there will also be several higher level leaders there.
I know there was a huge increase in the power of dragons starting with 2e and especially into 3e and beyond, but please stop with the assumption that an AD&D dragon would lay waste to an army. That isn't even remotely accurate. Dragons in 1e were meant to be fought, even by characters as low as level 3 or so.
they still all run away with out a saving throw though so its kind of moot :)
And no you don't get other leaders you roll on a table for a leader and a set of men. The captain might stick with you when the 80 heavy infantry run away screaming along with most of the extra guys you hired that are lower than 3rd level but that is why the dragon will eat him first :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;550391reminds me too much of those shitty classes that used to turn up in Beholder, Draon, white Dwarf and other magazines in the early 80s for Archers, Black Priests, and then ended up official with the Cavalier, Barbarian, Acrobat and the other one in UA.
.
Ah, the archer. By level 10 you end up with a +67 to hit and damage with a bow ;)
Quote from: jibbajibba;550391reminds me too much of those shitty classes that used to turn up in Beholder, Draon, white Dwarf and other magazines in the early 80s for Archers, Black Priests, and then ended up official with the Cavalier, Barbarian, Acrobat and the other one in UA.
A barbarian is a figther from the wilderness, a cavalier is a figther with manners etc etc ... that was why I like early 2e becuase those new optimised mechanics classes were eliminated and subsumed into Kits. Should have done the same with paladins, rangers and druids as well of course.
In AD&D I was okay with stuff like paladins and rangers because stats were supposed to be rolled and that was your bonus for getting high results. I know this doesn't appeal to everyone. But for me, getting to play a paladin once in a while because you rolled well was kind of fun (and over time, it washed out as everyone had good and bad rolls).
Quote from: Benoist;550390I can optimize as well as the next guy, and I'm not really oblivious to the fact that some people like that aspect of role playing games quite a bit, on one hand, and that we sort of all do at varying degrees on the other hand (let's face it - it's cool to have that magic item that does this neat stuff for your character, or to have the MU combine his spells to create a creative effect), but at some point the 3rd ed "buildz" mini-game became really tedious for me too.
I think that part that still really rubs me the wrong way is the counter-intuitive way in which you got to think about feat selections and the like in advance so that at high level your character pans out "just so". It completely defeats the organic development of player characters, undermines elements like prestige classes which ideally should be tools to link your character to the game world as the campaign unfolds, not sub-kits you select five levels prior to then get the right feats and spell to fulfill its requirements. From a design POV, the prestige classes with their system of requirements fail to meet the original intent for which they were meant to be used, and it participates to the "buildz" mentality bullshit we're talking about here. Game Design Fail. Big time.
I felt much the same way. The two things that bugged me most about 3E was the balance issues/builds and the approach to adventures (where by the end it was clear they were encouraging you to build adventures around a string of encounters----that just never worked for me). I also found the later 3E products to just be terrible. I have mentioned Castle Ravenloft before and will mention it again. The Castle Ravenloft book showed me I was on a completely different page in terms of flavor and adventure design from WOTC.
The funny thing is, I was itching for 4E because I thought 3E needed some fixes. They just went so far in the other direction, I was longing for the misery of my 3E campaigns again.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550393Ah, the archer. By level 10 you end up with a +67 to hit and damage with a bow ;)
That's him. Oh and he can shoot about 10 arrows per round as well ;)
Quote from: jibbajibba;550387When guys died they respawned and had to run back to their bodies to get their kit. fine and fair enough surely....
Except it became obvious that sans kit the warrior class was crap. They had to have magic armour and a magic sword and blah blah or they were just fodder. The casters however were pretty fucking effective with no kit and just access to their spells and powers.
In AD&D, magic-users can't do much without their spell books. Without them, they cannot memorize spells -- making them even more useless (at any level) than a fighter without his magic items. So if the party has lost its magic items, the MUs are going to be much worse off than the fighters.
I know that in 3.x the designers (for some reason I've never understood), removed almost every limitations on spell-casters they could, but in earlier editions they did a lot to keep fighters fun to play. Another thing high level TSR edition fighter had going for them was great saving throws -- and because saving throws were the same rather the spell was cast by a 1st level spell-caster or a 20th level spell-caster (or a 100th level spell-caster for that matter), they could often charge a high level spell caster and pound him to death with their favorite weapon, counting on their save to get them through the caster's initial spell and the fact that any hit on a caster disrupted any spell the caster might be preparing for future rounds (once engaged in melee). This would not always work, but it would more often than not in most games I've played in.
So yes, I will admit that the 3.x fighter sucks big time at high levels because the 3.x rules took away every disadvantage spell-casters had to try to work around in TSR editions. This isn't the fault of D&D, but of the 3.x designers. If you house-rule the TSR limitations on spell-casters back into the game and change the 3.x saving throws so they do not get worse as casters gain levels so they work more like TSR edition saves, high level fighters are far more capable.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550394In AD&D I was okay with stuff like paladins and rangers because stats were supposed to be rolled and that was your bonus for getting high results. I know this doesn't appeal to everyone. But for me, getting to play a paladin once in a while because you rolled well was kind of fun (and over time, it washed out as everyone had good and bad rolls).
I talked about +ve feedback before where players with good rolls get rewarded with better abilities and they they get to play better character classes and get more powers.
So now not only do you get +4 HP per level but you also get to name a favoured opponent, tracking, move silently in woodlands, magic spells and free two weapon style specialisation etc etc .....
So not keen. I would actually go the other way. If you get bad rolls then you get to roll an additional background advantage, but then I don't believe in hopeless characters (so you play what you roll) and frown on meaningless character suicide which I regards much like abortion as a contraceptive option.
Quote from: RandallS;550397In AD&D, magic-users can't do much without their spell books. Without them, they cannot memorize spells -- making them even more useless (at any level) than a fighter without his magic items. So if the party has lost its magic items, the MUs are going to be much worse off than the fighters. .
This is evidenced by: (and I'm sure brings cringes to many a player)
(http://www.deigames.com/A40413.jpg)
Quote from: jibbajibba;550387I would much rather be a gristled guy in a ragged cloak with a beaten old suit of chain mail that can still beat the snot out of a Giant.
I give you the AD&D/BX fighter of equal level/HD with normal gear. Done.
Quote from: RandallS;550397In AD&D, magic-users can't do much without their spell books. Without them, they cannot memorize spells -- making them even more useless (at any level) than a fighter without his magic items. So if the party has lost its magic items, the MUs are going to be much worse off than the fighters.
I know that in 3.x the designers (for some reason I've never understood), removed almost every limitations on spell-casters they could, but in earlier editions they did a lot to keep fighters fun to play. Another thing high level TSR edition fighter had going for them was great saving throws -- and because saving throws were the same rather the spell was cast by a 1st level spell-caster or a 20th level spell-caster (or a 100th level spell-caster for that matter), they could often charge a high level spell caster and pound him to death with their favorite weapon, counting on their save to get them through the caster's initial spell and the fact that any hit on a caster disrupted any spell the caster might be preparing for future rounds (once engaged in melee). This would not always work, but it would more often than not in most games I've played in.
So yes, I will admit that the 3.x fighter sucks big time at high levels because the 3.x rules took away every disadvantage spell-casters had to try to work around in TSR editions. This isn't the fault of D&D, but of the 3.x designers. If you house-rule the TSR limitations on spell-casters back into the game and change the 3.x saving throws so they do not get worse as casters gain levels so they work more like TSR edition saves, high level fighters are far more capable.
My concern was more about role play than power play here. I really don't want to play a fighter who is just the guy that drives the magic items.
I agree totally that a naked magic user is limited, when he comes to relearn his spells but he doesn;t forget them becuase you took away his spell book. Liek I said a 15th level MU has 30 memorised spells so he can do an awful lot while he ie trying to get his books back. In fact lets be honest he has a contingency set up for just that situation. The naked fighter at 15th level has 100 HP AC 10 and can do 1-2 + str bonus subdual damage with his fists.
Quote from: fectin;550020You folks sure are... invested in hating on Frank.
Oh, piffle. He's talking out of his ass (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=549857#post549857), and he's getting called on it. That's life [strike]in Thunderdome[/strike] at theRPGsite.
Quote from: fectin;550020In 3E (not that 3E is especially virtuous, it just makes a very good foil to 4E), you can use that to burn though a wooden door, because there are rules for how fire interacts with objects. What's more (and this is the key part), it interacts the same way every time. It's realistic, in that you can guess what amount of fire would be needed to light a door-fire, and and your character can too (regardless of whether those are different heats). It's verisimilitudinous, because it's consistent across different doors (the oak door in the kobold caves is the same as the oak door in the lich castle). It's empowering, both on success and failure, because either way your character's outcomes are determined by their preparation, foresight, and abilities. It's a better game, because without the deterministic input-output, your results are random and you may as well be playing snakes-and-ladders. Finally, it makes for much, much better stories, if only because sometimes the door doesn't burn, and you have to deal with that.
:enworld:
Quote from: fectin;550020Allies are even more clear cut: if the fighter can suddenly track just by wanting it, there's no incentive to go find Deadeye Steve, who can follow a trail over solid stone (unless there's already a party ranger, in which case why would you even want an NPC hogging the spotlight?).
Hiring a tracker = a npc hogging the spotlight?!
That's pathetic.
Quote from: fectin;550020I know this is a bit expansive for a first post, but so it goes.
A belated but no less sincere welcome to the adult swim.
I think your ideas are laughably bad, but you express them well, and that's always a plus. :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;550402My concern was more about role play than power play here. I really don't want to play a fighter who is just the guy that drives the magic items.
I agree totally that a naked magic user is limited, when he comes to relearn his spells but he doesn;t forget them becuase you took away his spell book. Liek I said a 15th level MU has 30 memorised spells so he can do an awful lot while he ie trying to get his books back. In fact lets be honest he has a contingency set up for just that situation. The naked fighter at 15th level has 100 HP AC 10 and can do 1-2 + str bonus subdual damage with his fists.
If we are talking "actually naked" then the magic user can only cast the spells prepared that have ONLY verbal and somatic components.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;550400I give you the AD&D/BX fighter of equal level/HD with normal gear. Done.
But the giant will kill him. :( sad but true.
15th level figther with no magic pre UA
AC 5
2 attacks per round 1-8/1-8
HP c. 100
Giant will kill him in 4 rounds
If he can hit the giant at all if it needs magic weaposn to hit then he is screwed
Quote from: Exploderwizard;550405If we are talking "actually naked" then the magic user can only cast the spells prepared that have ONLY verbal and somatic components.
True :)
Unless he has contingencies in place or some of the rary metamagic spells memorised
But power words are pretty good :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;550406But the giant will kill him. :( sad but true.
15th level figther with no magic pre UA
AC 5
2 attacks per round 1-8/1-8
HP c. 100
Giant will kill him in 4 rounds
If he can hit the giant at all if it needs magic weaposn to hit then he is screwed
:confused:
AC 5 ?? What 15th level fighter can't afford plate? Try AC 2 (plate & shield)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;550408:confused:
AC 5 ?? What 15th level fighter can't afford plate? Try AC 2 (plate & shield)
Also, a long sword would do 1d12, not 1d8 vs a giant.
Oh, and don't all monsters use 1d8 for HD instead of the fighters 1d10? And no Con bonuses?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;550405If we are talking "actually naked" then the magic user can only cast the spells prepared that have ONLY verbal and somatic components.
Not if you want to get technical and take the Eshew Materials feat (always liked that one).:)
If we're talking pre 3x I suppose the way to go would be Contingency or Rary's.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;550408:confused:
AC 5 ?? What 15th level fighter can't afford plate? Try AC 2 (plate & shield)
the naked figther i was refering to previously :) sorry I was confusing the 2 threads.
Like I siad I want to be the ragged figther in a chain so I get AC5 :)
Sorry mixing posts.
The point is things like high level fighters being harder to hit and having higher AC are in the game becuase Monks wear no armour and have better AC becuase they can fight, but the fighter who is good at fighting is actually no better at this than a 0 level farmer.
Again there is a case to be made for mundane feats to make figthers better at stuff they should be good at.
Quote from: Marleycat;550410Not if you want to get technical and take the Eshew Materials feat (always liked that one).:)
Bah! No one is talking about 3e ;)
Quote from: jibbajibba;550407Unless he has contingencies in place or some of the rary metamagic spells memorised
But power words are pretty good :)
This assumes that the caster had those spells to begin with. He'd have to find/research them in the campaign and (at least in 0e with Greyhawk or AD&D 1e) successfully learn to cast the spell. Even with an INT of 18 there's a 5% chance in 0e/15% chance in 1e that a magic-user just can't master a given spell.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550409Also, a long sword would do 1d12, not 1d8 vs a giant.
Oh, and don't all monsters use 1d8 for HD instead of the fighters 1d10? And no Con bonuses?
giant will still kil lhim in 4 rounds though and you are right my 15th level fighter rolled
16, 16, 13,14,12,9 - pretty fing good for a basic D&D guy
so he has 16 Str, 16 Dex 14 Con, 12 int, 13 Chr and 9 wis
So in fact he has AC 4 (- 1 for dex) and does 1d12 +1 damage to the giant
The Giant has AC 0 so the figther needs to roll what shall we say 13 to hit and will hit 40% of the time for an average damage of (1d12 +1) 7.5 with 2 attacks per round he deals c. 6 damage a round.
The Giant as I said will muller him.
all academic of course the point is as I will be told if I want to fight a giant "I shouldn't try and do it without +3 plate /+3 sheild and a +4 Defender. This isn't David and Goliath, or Jack the Giant Killer, or Odyseus vs the Cyclops this is D&D if you don't like it go and play fucnking Runequest or Magic the Gathering you retarted autistic shit head :)"
Quote from: Benoist;550381I'm going to do this once, because these sorts of circular arguments are part of the reason why I stopped running 3rd ed: not because of the game, but because of the mentality it fosters and the 'rules are the game' theoretical wank it spawns infinitely on message boards everywhere.
I don't know why I'm doing this given this lovely constructive start, but what the hell...
Quote from: Benoist;550381Well right there your case is already busted. We've got an 11th level fighter with 11 HD and his group facing an CR 11 Adult Black Dragon with 11 HD as well. Frightful Presence does not work. You should have strictly less HD than the Black Dragon to be subjected to that effect.
This is not the case. Leaving aside issues with the CR system, had you in fact bothered to check the SRD page about Dragons (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm) you would find that a CR 11 Adult Black Dragon has a minimum of 19 HD, strictly more than any possible level 11 party.
Quote from: Benoist;550381you then make the assumption that the fighter actually fails his roll, which might not happen at all. Probability =/= certitude. That argument goes both ways. If it's certainly not a given that the fighter succeeds his saving throw, it's also not a given he's going to fail. Dice have a way to surprise the shit out of the group that way. That's part of that "actual play" thing you guys keep ignoring. It's pretty cool, trust me.
No, he doesn't. Had you in fact read deadDMwalking's post, you would find that what he in fact did was calculate the odds that a Fighter, Wizard, and Cleric with expected stats would pass the save without any class-independent assistance, and found that the Fighter would fail more than 50% of the time. As Will saves are the representation of your character's strength of will, it follows that having a lower Will save makes you less able to be brave compared to someone with a higher Will save, because you break under more Fear effects before being able to make the conscious decision to stand or flee.
Quote from: Benoist;550381But nevermind. I still have a problem with your example because we know nothing of the situation in which the actual encounter occurs. Does the group know about the Dragon and finds its lair after preparing to meet the encounter? We don't know. Did they travel through the Wilderness with a Storm Giant in tow, teleport to the place (scrying before hand and knowing what they are up against), or go through an entire dungeon to get there (where of course the Frost Giant is totally cool going through doors and shit)? We don't know.
None of this is relevant. No matter what the situation is, the black dragon's Fear aura is in full effect, and any bonuses in the rules that are available to the Fighter that mitigate it are also available to the Cleric and Wizard and Frost Giant. If the dragon is at the end of a dungeon, it is a dungeon that the dragon had at least one entryway into, and as an adult black dragon is a few HD away from crossing from Large to Huge, it is reasonable to conclude that any route the dragon can fit through, the Frost Giant can also fit through. If that route is "teleport", then that's the way the party would logically use as well. I genuinely cannot see any way of reading your insistence on getting hung up on such details as intellectually honest.
Quote from: Benoist;550381Maybe we have the group facing the dragon head on then, automatically assuming that everything will work out fine (metagaming much? How do they know the CR of the encounter?)
They don't literally know the number unless it's OotS or Goblins. However, they presumably have researched in character and know roughly how dangerous an Adult Black Dragon is and how powerful they are relative to the danger that poses, which (assuming the CR system works) amounts to the same thing as OOC knowing it is CR 11 without the metagaming.
Quote from: Benoist;550381without preparing first to meet the challenge? Dude, if that's the case, the fighter and the whole group deserve to meet an untimely death. The rules in that case don't impede your ability to play your role, since you are playing a moron fighter who doesn't know when to prepare for a fight, and totally deserve your fate.
One should not be expected to prepare specially for level-appropriate fights. Be generally prepared yes, but an 11th level party faced with an adult black dragon should not automatically feel it's the thing that they need to change their daily routine to prepare to fight, because they're assumed to be badass enough to handle that sort of thing.
Quote from: Benoist;550381But let's assume our fighter is actually a grizzled veteran who knows you shouldn't get into a fight with an adult dragon without preparing first for it, alright? There are many, many ways in which you can avoid fear effects. First of all, let's assume there's a Cleric who can remove fear in your group. That's a first level spell. So right there, if the Cleric is doing his job instead of waving his awesome uber-fighting skillz in your face, you don't have much problem, do you?
Why is the cleric required to cast this
remove fear on a Fighter, rather than on a Frost Giant, or on another Cleric? There is nothing about
being a Fighter that allows you to have Remove Fear cast upon you. The same goes for Heroes' Feast and Greater Heroism.
Quote from: Benoist;550381Really concerned with your fighter about that pesky Will Save? How about selling your soul to Graz'zt and becoming Abyss-Bound, which immunes you to fear effects?
A little extreme when the threat is one pesky dragon! Also, what prevents the Cleric, Wizard, or Frost Giant doing this?
Quote from: Benoist;550381How about getting the Fearless feat?
You mean that regional feat that requires you to be using Forgotten Realms, i.e. non-core material and that you can only take at 1st level no matter how much you might want it later, and to which your DM is well within his rights to say "that's too hardcore, trololol no"?
Quote from: Benoist;550381How about getting a Brash weapon enhancement (for a +1 cost) on your chosen sword, for that matter?
Citation needed, because the D&D wiki doesn't know what this is. Also, there's no reason a wizard can't have a Brash staff, or a cleric a Brash mace.
Quote from: Benoist;550381Banner of the Storm Eye?
Only exists in Eberron. And again, what part of the Fighter allows it to work?
Quote from: Benoist;550381Horn of Plenty to really dine like a king and have that Heroes' Feast any time you want?
For the millionth time, what is the Fighter bringing to the party that could not be brought by any other class, or by the Wizard's pet, if he can only remain in place thanks to a magic item that affects anyone who uses it?
Quote from: Benoist;550381Hey. Nobody said the fighter couldn't use some magic items, potions and the like as well. And in a world where magic is ubiquitous at high level, our grizzled veteran would be stupid not to take advantage of those.
He would indeed, and the fighter postulated by deadDMwalking indeed included a +3 save improving magic item in his total +7 to Will saves that left him fleeing from 65% of encounters with an adult black dragon - any adult black dragon - before they began.
Quote from: Benoist;550381I think you're a bit overstating your case though, particularly when your one encounter with a Black Dragon became "I'm running from all level appropriate foes 65% of the time!" like all the foes have Frightful Presence and are Black Dragons in your game suddenly - man! That's one boring campaign, ain't it?
In one breath you say that an argument is invalid because the person did not give 100% of the details; in the next, you decry the same argument
because they pinned down any details. You cannot have your cake and eat it.
Quote from: Benoist;550381And that Frost Giant man... he's not scaring your friends and allies at all when you go back to the Keep. That doesn't create any problem at all. The wizard just camps outside of town Hagrid style and waits for you guys to come back to get to that Black Dragon and kick the shit out of it. He walks through doors and openings in the dungeon totally fine too.
Well, no, he doesn't, because your friends and allies know how Charm Person works and, in the case of most campaigns, trust eachother to not stab eachother in the back until it's time to split the loot.
As for doors and openings in the dungeon - assuming the party have not found the dragon's entrance that a dragon strictly larger than a giant can fit through, in the worst case scenario: Reduce Person. Permanency.
Quote from: Benoist;550381You faced no enemies during the last few days having the idea of using. oh, I don't know, dispell magic on the Frost Giant once in the meantime.
Let's say for the sake of argument he
did. Against a level 11 caster, assuming no special bonuses have been taken on either side, the dispel check is DC 22 - i.e. the number 11 plus the wizard's caster level of 11. Let us assume the person casting Dispel Magic has at least caster level 10, as this gives the highest possible bonus of +10 to his dispel check. Thus, it is equivalent to having a DC 12 with a +0 to your check, and thus it can be demonstrated that 45% of the time, a Dispel Magic will end the Charm effect on the frost giant.
It will do nothing to stop the Wizard spending one of today's spell slots to simply recast Charm Person in the same round that it is dispelled.
Quote from: Benoist;550381It's cool how your campaign just fits the premise of your scenario "just so", you know. I mean, Frank says I'm basically being cuddled to win by the DM or I blackmail him into making me win, but to have all those circumstances align "just so" for the Wizard to keep using his Frost Giant pet for days on end...
The above circumstances really aren't even a stretch, as just laid out.
Quote from: Benoist;550381Alright. Sarcasm aside, at this point I think I made my rebuttal pretty clear: these sorts of arguments are textbook spherical cows, to me. The fighter is just that right level for the effect to take place (actually he wasn't, which busted the case outright, but nevermind). The save fails just so. The equipment is nowhere to be seen. The fighter player never got anything to prevent him from failing a Will save he is so afraid to fail in every single encounter which magically all have Black Dragons with Frightful Presence in them, all of a sudden. We don't know what the campaign was like up to that point, or what the PCs did before facing the dragon. The Frost Giant just got through door frames by squeezing all the way through the dungeon, for all we know. And so on, so forth, ad nauseam, et bis repetita.
All this, and you fail to notice that not one part of the Fighter's ability to contribute actually came from the Fighter himself, which is the killer.
Quote from: Benoist;550381Actually play the game, and 99% of this shit is immaterial. It's just worrying about rules in a vacuum, completely divorced from actual play, and that only leads to these kinds of ridiculous discussions which have poisoned the 3rd ed conversation for years and years, now.
I would think twice before dismissing as immaterial the idea that the rules of 3.5 do not allow class balance as written. (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=37418)
Quote from: jibbajibba;550398I talked about +ve feedback before where players with good rolls get rewarded with better abilities and they they get to play better character classes and get more powers.
So now not only do you get +4 HP per level but you also get to name a favoured opponent, tracking, move silently in woodlands, magic spells and free two weapon style specialisation etc etc .....
So not keen. I would actually go the other way. If you get bad rolls then you get to roll an additional background advantage, but then I don't believe in hopeless characters (so you play what you roll) and frown on meaningless character suicide which I regards much like abortion as a contraceptive option.
This is entirely a matter of preference. I realize some don't like it. For me luck of the draw is kind of fun.
Quote from: Marleycat;550410Eshew
Bless you.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550411the naked figther i was refering to previously :) sorry I was confusing the 2 threads.
Like I siad I want to be the ragged figther in a chain so I get AC5 :)
Sorry mixing posts.
The point is things like high level fighters being harder to hit and having higher AC are in the game becuase Monks wear no armour and have better AC becuase they can fight, but the fighter who is good at fighting is actually no better at this than a 0 level farmer.
Again there is a case to be made for mundane feats to make figthers better at stuff they should be good at.
Heh. This is why my Basic D&D hack features class based AC with armor adding to that:
FTR/DWF/HLFLG AC 6
CLERIC/ELF AC 7
THIEF AC 8
MU AC 9
Light armor +1
Med. armor +2
Heavy Armor +3
Very Hvy Armor (full plate) +4
Shield +1
Lg shield +2 (carries speed/init penalty)
So a fighter knows how to protect himself better than a scrawny mage even in just a linen shirt and armor still provides additional protection for anyone wearing it.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550409Also, a long sword would do 1d12, not 1d8 vs a giant.
Oh, and don't all monsters use 1d8 for HD instead of the fighters 1d10? And no Con bonuses?
But you see guys, you are giving in to the same type of vacuum-filled examples we've had with 3rd ed in this thread. We have no idea what the adventure looks like, how the campaign unfolded up to that point, what the 15th level fighter got as equipment thus far, what the particular circumstances of the fight, the terrain, the features, the resources available are like around the combat taking place. It's as useless a situation to debate as the fighter against the black dragon was before.
Quote from: RandallS;550413This assumes that the caster had those spells to begin with. He'd have to find/research them in the campaign and (at least in 0e with Greyhawk or AD&D 1e) successfully learn to cast the spell. Even with an INT of 18 there's a 5% chance in 0e/15% chance in 1e that a magic-user just can't master a given spell.
Agreed and when played that way MUs are far more challenging which is why very very groups played MUS that way.
You take your 15th wiz to a common game and it comes to the batlte and they call should fireball the giant and you say yeah I don't have fire ball for 3rd level I only found Sepia Snake Sigil, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Tongues, Dispel Magic, Explosive Runes and Water Breathing and see what their reaction is :)
Trust me I have been there ;)
Quote from: jibbajibba;550420Agreed and when played that way MUs are far more challenging which is why very very groups played MUS that way.
You take your 15th wiz to a common game and it comes to the batlte and they call should fireball the giant and you say yeah I don't have fire ball for 3rd level I only found Sepia Snake Sigil, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Tongues, Dispel Magic, Explosive Runes and Water Breathing and see what their reaction is :)
Trust me I have been there ;)
Screw 'them' as they are not playing the wizard. If they wanted a Fireball at their fingertips, then they should've created the wizard.
Quote from: Benoist;550419But you see guys, you are giving in to the same type of vacuum-filled examples we've had with 3rd ed in this thread. We have no idea what the adventure looks like, how the campaign unfolded up to that point, what the 15th level fighter got as equipment thus far, what the particular circumstances of the fight, the terrain, the features, the resources available are like around the combat taking place. It's as useless a situation to debate as the fighter against the black dragon was before.
It's theoretical arena-land. Sort of like Yugioh.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550415giant will still kil lhim in 4 rounds though and you are right my 15th level fighter rolled
16, 16, 13,14,12,9 - pretty fing good for a basic D&D guy
so he has 16 Str, 16 Dex 14 Con, 12 int, 13 Chr and 9 wis
So in fact he has AC 4 (- 1 for dex) and does 1d12 +1 damage to the giant
The Giant has AC 0 so the figther needs to roll what shall we say 13 to hit and will hit 40% of the time for an average damage of (1d12 +1) 7.5 with 2 attacks per round he deals c. 6 damage a round.
"
I don't have the table in front of me, but I'm willing to bet that the fighter doesn't need anywhere near a 14 to hit a giant. More like a 5 or 6.
Also factor in that the fighter probably has weapon specialization (+1/+2) if not double specialization (+3/+3). And if I had those stats, I'd have the 16 in Con, not Dex, so that's +2 hp up to level 9, so an additional 18 hp. Assume 5.5 hp up to level 9 + con bonus + level 10-15 bonus, and you're looking at roughly 85 hp. Compare that to the roughly 65 hp of the giant since it rolls 1d8 per HD.
so the Fighter has 2 attacks, each doing 1d12+4, and hits probably 80% of the time, so that's almost 17 damage each round ((6.5+4)*2*.8)
so....the fighter kills the giant in 4 rounds.
Quote from: Benoist;550419But you see guys, you are giving in to the same type of vacuum-filled examples we've had with 3rd ed in this thread. We have no idea what the adventure looks like, how the campaign unfolded up to that point, what the 15th level fighter got as equipment thus far, what the particular circumstances of the fight, the terrain, the features, the resources available are like around the combat taking place. It's as useless a situation to debate as the fighter against the black dragon was before.
that was the point though.
I am just saying that I want to play a certain sort of figther that relies on their abilities rather than magical items because I don;t want the magic items to overwhelm the character.
Imagine Qhorin Halfhand from SoFaI :) or Aragorn (or was he only 3rd level I forget :) ) but much tougher as this guy is 15th level he is like Conan or whatever a uberhard mega experienced fighter.
So actually putting all those things into the character and trying to do that I would be unable to kill a say Frost Giant for instance.
I have to buy into the magic arms race. I am time to a narrow range of tropes.
2e improved it a bit.
Quote from: omegonthesane;550416I don't know why I'm doing this given this lovely constructive start, but what the hell...
Yeah, I don't know why you're doing this either. I just did it once for the kick. Now you can go on masturbating in the theoretical vacuum all you want. None of that OCD shit matters in the end. I'll give you that I underestimated the HD of the Black Dragon - honest mistake on my part. But the rest? Well. Whatever. I'm not going to debate the issue rules books in hand for 30 pages, thank you very much. My point was clear enough. If you want to keep on wanking on that kind of BS, then go back to the Den and have a field day or three.
The cognitive dissonance here is staggering. And I'm sure that I can predict that the response to this will be some varying degrees of "It doesn't matter", "I've never experienced this", or "If the fighter has -magic- equipment he can keep up" but I'll go ahead and lay this out anyway. I KNOW that Benoist is going to fall back on his "No vacuums!" excuse even though when given an example of actual play he'll deny it anyway.
Let's talk conceptually for a moment since it apparently is taboo to actually analyze the actual rules and use them because players and DMs will make sure that the rules don't matter. And since apparently showcasing actual times in play where a Fighter was outdone by everyone else in the room (including the opposition) is also taboo we'll have to go with thinking about the concept. So lets skip over what the rules actually say and my own personal experiences, and talk purely about the classes (fighter and wizard) and what I, as a potential player) can "conceptually" do with them.
Let's start with the wizard. The wizard can, inn everyone's mind, do anything and everything except apparently pick up a sharp blade and fight well with it (because people "here" don't seem to remember that Gandalf could do it and don't watch anime). So basically there is no upper limit to what people can believe that a wizard can do (thus the meme "a wizard did it").
Now the Fighter. As people have presented in this thread they expect the Fighter to ever be able to seeing a sword, get punched in the face really hard, and Use every weapon and armor in the game. The upper limit apparently for a fighter on this board is anything that is not swinging a sword really well.
Now there are arguments festering around that a wizard without the basic equipment (IE a spellbook) is worse than a fighter (without magic weapons and armor) but that is not a fair comparison. Firstly a spellbook is BASIC equipment you have at level one and you start out with like having a weapon at all and having armor. Magic armor, on the other hand is not something that is as basic. What's worse is even if you accept that a Fighter is guaranteed magic items (just like everyone else is) and we expect the fighter to have the equipment at higher levels then I must point out (again) that the equipment will have abilities that overshadow the fighter's abilities. Once you load down the fighter with a golf bag of swords, flying dragon mount, shining force armor, and super strength belt then you have a person who gains more abilities from his trinkets than the class actually gives.
TL:DR: The best a Fighter will ever be expected to be able to do with his own abilities is swing a sword and get hit in the face. The only thing a wizard "can't" do apparently is swing a sword while having the consolation prize of being able to warp reality.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550424I don't have the table in front of me, but I'm willing to bet that the fighter doesn't need anywhere near a 14 to hit a giant. More like a 5 or 6.
Also factor in that the fighter probably has weapon specialization (+1/+2) if not double specialization (+3/+3). And if I had those stats, I'd have the 16 in Con, not Dex, so that's +2 hp up to level 9, so an additional 18 hp. Assume 5.5 hp up to level 9 + con bonus + level 10-15 bonus, and you're looking at roughly 85 hp. Compare that to the roughly 65 hp of the giant since it rolls 1d8 per HD.
so the Fighter has 2 attacks, each doing 1d12+4, and hits probably 80% of the time, so that's almost 17 damage each round ((6.5+4)*2*.8)
so....the fighter kills the giant in 4 rounds.
From memory of the AD&D fighters to hit table a figther of 15th level requires 13 to hit AC0 . The mathematical drop is 1 point every 2 levels starting from 20 at L1 . I think somethign like that.
I game my guy 100 HP as he was lucky he has no speicalisation as this is pre UA AD&D which I thought we were talking about.
so you are playing a difference instance of the game than I am where you have a much better chance to hit deal more damage and have rearranged my stats :)
so in that game yeah you might beat the giant :)
Shit I will make him a 4e 15th level fighter with Shoot firebolts from my arse magical martial power and whirlwind attack and I will kill the fucker before he even shows up :)
You still haven't explained my the Monk has this grat natural armour class and I can't dodge a bus though .
Quote from: MGuy;550428Let's start with the wizard. The wizard can, inn everyone's mind, do anything and everything except apparently pick up a sharp blade and fight well with it (because people "here" don't seem to remember that Gandalf could do it and don't watch anime).
The D&D MU is most assuredly not modeled after Gandalf in anything but name and appearance only. We all know Gandalf was super powerful, but in D&D land, he's a 5th level MU.
QuoteNow there are arguments festering around that a wizard without the basic equipment (IE a spellbook) is worse than a fighter (without magic weapons and armor) but that is not a fair comparison. Firstly a spellbook is BASIC equipment you have at level one and you start out with like having a weapon at all and having armor. Magic armor, on the other hand is not something that is as basic. .
Fair point, but also remember that the starting spell book is typically very small. Certainly not big enough to have a lot of the "good" spells in it by the time the MU reaches that level to learn them.
Seriously, Benoist needs his own thread because his backwards thinking is the worst example of why things can't get fixed. His arguments either don't make any sense or rely on denial. And I mean denial of everything: Numbers, practical theory, real life personal examples, the fact that people play the game, or just plain not reading people's entire post and dismissing their arguments as a whole. Its like responding to him is a nonstarter because even if you take what he said seriously and respond to it in a mature, sensible way filled with all those pesky "facts" and "experiences" he dismisses your argument ANYWAY. While other posters are a tad bit more sensible with the denialism Benoist has to be the poster child of neckbearding. Its the perfect example of someone who does not actually play "DnD" and has a hate on for actual rules.
Sure he uses terms to try and curve ball it such as "Reading beyond the rules" and "playing the game and not the rules" but no matter what euphemism he uses he himself, people who understand him, and people like me who think that is fucking bullshit, all know that he basically means ignore the rules for gameplay. And even after acknowledging that you can (and that I HAVE) done this before and understand the motions he can't wrap his head around the idea that despite everyone's ability to ignore the rules does not make the ACTUAL RULES not troublesome.
Quote from: MGuy;550428The cognitive dissonance here is staggering. And I'm sure that I can predict that the response...
Quote from: MGuy;550431Seriously, Benoist needs his own thread because his backwards thinking is the worst example of why things can't get fixed.
My response to this will be agreement. The cognitive dissonance is indeed staggering.
Jeff, I have to hand it to you. This thread is aptly named. Going on 50 pages of bullshit. Bravo, well played sir!.:D
Quote from: jibbajibba;550429From memory of the AD&D fighters to hit table a figther of 15th level requires 13 to hit AC0 . The mathematical drop is 1 point every 2 levels starting from 20 at L1 . I think somethign like that.
You're thinking of a thief. The fighter's THAC0 is 5. The 15 HD giant is 7
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~kel/KDD/THAC0.shtml
QuoteYou still haven't explained my the Monk has this grat natural armour class and I can't dodge a bus though .
Balance reasons would be my guess since the monk can't wear armor.
Quote from: MGuy;550428TL:DR: The best a Fighter will ever be expected to be able to do with his own abilities is swing a sword and get hit in the face. The only thing a wizard "can't" do apparently is swing a sword while having the consolation prize of being able to warp reality.
So what? Please post actual play experiences, explicating why this is a problem.
As the people I play with don't think with their character sheets, it's not a problem in the games I run, at all.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;550418Bless you.
Heh. This is why my Basic D&D hack features class based AC with armor adding to that:
FTR/DWF/HLFLG AC 6
CLERIC/ELF AC 7
THIEF AC 8
MU AC 9
Light armor +1
Med. armor +2
Heavy Armor +3
Very Hvy Armor (full plate) +4
Shield +1
Lg shield +2 (carries speed/init penalty)
So a fighter knows how to protect himself better than a scrawny mage even in just a linen shirt and armor still provides additional protection for anyone wearing it.
Good Idea. My heartbreaker allows all classes to buy Defense adjsutment as they level. Its cheap for fighters moderate for rogues and gawdawful expensive for wizards.
We agreed on an idea :) It should level up though
Quote from: jasmith;550436So what? Please post actual play experiences, explicating why this is a problem.
As the people I play with don't think with their character sheets, it's not a problem in the games I run, at all.
That is what Ben has been trying to say for over 40 pages. Theorywank means nothing and seeing that all these situations in a vacuum just do not happen in an actual honest to goodness real game. Quit arguing about hypotheticals and give actual examples.
Quote from: jasmith;550436So what? Please post actual play experiences, explicating why this is a problem.
As the people I play with don't think with their character sheets, it's not a problem in the games I run, at all.
Ok I will post experiences, but I have to address one thing first. This whole "think with their character sheets" thing. What does that actually mean to you? Because it sounds like you're suggesting that using the rules is somehow "bad". But instead of jumping to conclusions I'm going to ask what do you mean by this.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550435You're thinking of a thief. The fighter's THAC0 is 5. The 15 HD giant is 7
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~kel/KDD/THAC0.shtml
no that is 2e thaco reduces for fighters by 1 point per level It is possibel though tha the table drops by 2 points per 2 levels on the AD&D table. To be honest I haven;t looked at it for 20 years but I did have it memorised and don;t have it here.
EDIT : Found it online and you are correct :) It drops 2 per 2 levels. so its actually 6 to hit AC0 so we can revise his average damge to (0.75 X 2 x 7.5) = 11.25
QuoteBalance reasons would be my guess since the monk can't wear armor.
But that is a dissassociative 4e evil rule. :) I can't learn to defend myself becaue I can wear armour but you can becuase you aren;t allowed to...eh?
Its supposed to represent how cool David Caradine was in KungFu in fact and just does it in a hamfisted way.
I'm having trouble following all edition war stuff going on here, so I'm likely to check out - but wanted to wrap up prior comments.
Generally speaking, I'm fine with bashing on 3.X and 4E, but the overzealous defense of AD&D1 makes me identify more with the others. (In particular, stuff like suggesting that someone who plays an active frontline cleric is a selfish asshole, or the implication that high level fighters routinely operate with armies.) I played AD&D1 for years a long time ago, and I had fun with it, but I also encountered all the issues mentioned.
I'm taking more of an interest at the moment because I'm planning to run some dungeon fantasy for my son and nephews.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550394In AD&D I was okay with stuff like paladins and rangers because stats were supposed to be rolled and that was your bonus for getting high results. I know this doesn't appeal to everyone. But for me, getting to play a paladin once in a while because you rolled well was kind of fun (and over time, it washed out as everyone had good and bad rolls).
I tend to like random generation - it was something I liked in HarnMaster, for example. However, I don't like the feedback loop where rolling well gives you access to even more bonuses, so your character that survives longer and gets more XP. In my experience, this took a very long time to balance out.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550411The point is things like high level fighters being harder to hit and having higher AC are in the game becuase Monks wear no armour and have better AC becuase they can fight, but the fighter who is good at fighting is actually no better at this than a 0 level farmer.
Again there is a case to be made for mundane feats to make figthers better at stuff they should be good at.
Well, I question whether they should be handled as "feats" (which has a lot of connotations). However, I agree that it makes a lot of sense for a high level fighter to get better at all of defense, survival, to-hit chance, and damage (at least).
Quote from: jibbajibba;550441no that is 2e thaco reduces for fighters by 1 point per level It is possibel though tha the table drops by 2 points per 2 levels on the AD&D table. To be honest I haven;t looked at it for 20 years but I did have it memorised and don;t have it here.
It's still a 6. No where near a 13
http://dhost.info/uatu/dungeoncraft/tables1e.html
QuoteBut that is a dissassociative 4e evil rule. :) I can't learn to defend myself becaue I can wear armour but you can becuase you aren;t allowed to...eh?
Its supposed to represent how cool David Caradine was in KungFu in fact and just does it in a hamfisted way.
I'm guessing that's exactly why. The monk was suppose to be superhuman fast (like the movies) at higher levels, so the reasoning is that he would be harder to hit. Since DEX affects AC, and DEX is agility, speed and reflexes, that makes perfect sense that a person with superhuman speed and reflexes would have a better AC
Quote from: MGuy;550431Seriously, Benoist needs his own thread because his backwards thinking is the worst example of why things can't get fixed. His arguments either don't make any sense or rely on denial. And I mean denial of everything: Numbers, practical theory, real life personal examples, the fact that people play the game, or just plain not reading people's entire post and dismissing their arguments as a whole. Its like responding to him is a nonstarter because even if you take what he said seriously and respond to it in a mature, sensible way filled with all those pesky "facts" and "experiences" he dismisses your argument ANYWAY. While other posters are a tad bit more sensible with the denialism Benoist has to be the poster child of neckbearding. Its the perfect example of someone who does not actually play "DnD" and has a hate on for actual rules.
Sure he uses terms to try and curve ball it such as "Reading beyond the rules" and "playing the game and not the rules" but no matter what euphemism he uses he himself, people who understand him, and people like me who think that is fucking bullshit, all know that he basically means ignore the rules for gameplay. And even after acknowledging that you can (and that I HAVE) done this before and understand the motions he can't wrap his head around the idea that despite everyone's ability to ignore the rules does not make the ACTUAL RULES not troublesome.
I guess what I don't understand is why you are so bothered if Benoist is happy to play AD&D and doesn't share your conclusionsabout its flaws. Also he isn't the only poster here. Plenty of other posters here have responded to you with counter points rooted in the rules.
In terms of actual gameplay, what would you like to see? Do you want fighters to be more than warriors (have powers that are pretty much magical) or do you simply want the mundane fiter but for him to be better at physical combat at higher levels. If we are talking about next, i certainly think there are things they can do to ensure the fighter keeps up with or surpasses the wizard in terms of damage and hitting. Lots of people here will probably applaud stuff like that baked into the class. If you want 4E style powers, that is fine, but chances are you are simply on a different page than most posters here. People on this site predominantly view the fighter as mundane and are not looking for wizard level compleity with them. You might prefer more abilities, i have no issue with that being your preference, but what I want is as solid mundane fighter, easy to use with strong baseline atrack, damage, etc. I don't want resource management or wild powers. Just isn't what I am looking for.
for completeness - I edited the above
EDIT : Found it online and you are correct :) It drops 2 per 2 levels. so its actually 6 to hit AC0 so we can revise his average damge to (0.75 X 2 x 7.5) = 11.25 /round
:)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550444It's still a 6. No where near a 13
http://dhost.info/uatu/dungeoncraft/tables1e.html
I'm guessing that's exactly why. The monk was suppose to be superhuman fast (like the movies) at higher levels, so the reasoning is that he would be harder to hit. Since DEX affects AC, and DEX is agility, speed and reflexes, that makes perfect sense that a person with superhuman speed and reflexes would have a better AC
See above I conceed the figther bit I blame this teleconference scambling my tjhought processes :)
See why can't a 15th level fighter be superfast like the movies ?
Thsi is really the root of one of my issues.
the OSR Mafia are happy that Rangers and Paladins and Monks and assasins get magic like feats but they don't like fighters getting +1 AC per 2 levels because the original game was perfect . :)
but my call is over and home awaits I may continue this later.
Quote from: jhkim;550442I'm having trouble following all edition war stuff going on here, so I'm likely to check out - but wanted to wrap up prior comments.
Generally speaking, I'm fine with bashing on 3.X and 4E, but the overzealous defense of AD&D1 makes me identify more with the others. (In particular, stuff like suggesting that someone who plays an active frontline cleric is a selfish asshole, or the implication that high level fighters routinely operate with armies.) I played AD&D1 for years a long time ago, and I had fun with it, but I also encountered all the issues mentioned.
That is just because of the forum you are posting in. Try going to the wotc board or rpgnet and you will find overzealou defense of 4E as well. i don't think people need to take this so personally. If trollman thinks 2E is brokoen, no skin off my back. If he loves 4e, that doesn't bother me. When folks tell me i have to agree with their analysis of an edition is where i tend to lose interest.
QuoteI tend to like random generation - it was something I liked in HarnMaster, for example. However, I don't like the feedback loop where rolling well gives you access to even more bonuses, so your character that survives longer and gets more XP. In my experience, this took a very long time to balance out.
Again, it is preference. I realize i am in a minority but i like the feedback loop. I am okay with some players "losing" from to time and others "winning". But i can see how not everyone would like that.
Quote from: MGuy;550440Ok I will post experiences, but I have to address one thing first. This whole "think with their character sheets" thing. What does that actually mean to you? Because it sounds like you're suggesting that using the rules is somehow "bad". But instead of jumping to conclusions I'm going to ask what do you mean by this.
It means in the games I run, a player can attempt to do anything, within the scope of the games' "reality." He/she is not limited solely to what is detailed on the character sheet, or the given mechanics.
It means that instead of walking into the goblin lair and attacking, the fighter can:
Set an ambush.
Draw them out.
Negotiate.
Raise an army.
Pick off outliers.
Trick someone else into attacking.
Trick the goblins into attacking someone else.
Kidnap the chieftain's wife as a bargaining chip.
Or come up with any other weird plan, the player's imagination can conceive.
It also means that in actual combat, the Fighter can attempt any number of actions:
He can disarm.
Shield Bash.
Pick up a goblin and use it as a flail.
Tip over the boiling cauldron of halfling soup, scalding an approaching troupe of attackers.
Challenge the chieftain to single combat, possibly winning himself a group of goblin "hirelings."
Or, do anything else his ingenium, suggests.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550438It should level up though
Naw. I don't want scaling defenses. Thats what hit points are for. :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;550448but my call is over and home awaits I may continue this later.
Eh, don't worry about it. It's not like a 15th level fighter with no magic items goes against a 15 HD giant every day.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550409Also, a long sword would do 1d12, not 1d8 vs a giant.
Oh, and don't all monsters use 1d8 for HD instead of the fighters 1d10? And no Con bonuses?
And jj once again demonstrates he has no idea what's in the rules he's dismissing.
I have tried to explain this in the past. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21952) It didn't work.
Quote from: B.T.;550458I have tried to explain this in the past. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21952) It didn't work.
That is because in previous arguements along this vein you kept bringing out theoretical problems that just don't seem to show in Actual Play, so you lost the arguements. Since this attempt was more of the same, of course it didn't work.
The lion share of my experiences are in 3rd ed. I've played 2ed but Ii have a bad opinion on it because of the over reliance on DM wankery in order to do almost anything so to prevent my negative taste for that edition from poisoning my recounting I'll stick with 3rd ed. I also will avoid talking about other systems so that I can refer to something most people seem to be familiar with. Lastly I'm going to only refer to the games where the most fun was had to show that even though fun was had the imbalance was clear.
Quite a few years back I ran a game in high school, primarily on lunch hours and over the weekends. This is when I first started playing, before I got absorbed within the internet culture so I had no guiding hand as to "how" to play DnD and I was the only one who spent the time learning the system so it could be run. This is a few games away from the first time I played so I'd been playing for effectively a year and a half. In this game we had a Bard, Barbarian, and cleric to start. A couple of levels in the players were falling on hard times (primarily around level 4) and things were difficult for the group. The Cleric was spending ost of his spells keeping the barbarian alive and the bard was spending his rounds playing songs. The only one having the real fun after a while was the barbarian. So, I added a druid to the group. I made him basically an extra man. Unfortunately even though I played him primarily as a combat piece in the simplest way I could (turn him into an animal attack into melee) the Barbarian saw this and started asking me to turn into an animal. The bard was wholly unsatisfied with not being able to do anything in battle and asked to change classes while the cleric started to realize just how powerful he was when he WASN'T the heal bot. So I took the druid out (melded him into the Barbarian) gave the Barbarian a trinket that not only enable him to wildshape but allowed him to keep his rage. Later on I just turned him into a werebear. The Bard decided to be a rogue instead. I essentially gave him the ability to become a shadow dancer to keep up with everyone else's awesome. The rest of the game as smooth sailing.
So let's recap: Cleric was being held back by the party. Druid came in and with the simple ability to turn into a creature and out shined the barbarian (who could do more damage anyway). I fixed the issue by handing out upgrades to the barbarian and rogue. Didn't have to touch the cleric at all.
Now I'll reference something much more recent and one of the best campaigns I ever played. I had a campaign (undead apocalypse) that started with a kender who had a special class from the races of ansalon supplement that allowed him to deal with undead (he chose it without knowing I was planning an undead thing), an orc Barbarian who turned into a human fighter who turned into a human fighter/rogue (different characters. The switching was unrelated to this discussion), a druid who turned into a factotum (druid chose to die changed characters, again unrelated). There were other characters involved but these were the primary players.
The game was too long (and awesome) to recount every event for this discussion but the relevant parts are: The Fighter cross classed to rogue, then cross classed into invisible blade, then occult slayer. Each of his cross classes were made for in story reasons and I warped the rules to facilitate the changes (ignored prereqs, let certain things stack etc). I even gave him an intelligent sword as a sidekick. The Factotum worked in the background through most of the game didn't do much. Every thing he did was in the background and he (as a player) is dedicated to the story to the point that he was going to kill his character off (for story purposes) had the kender not accidentally saved it. Despite him having some magical ability I allowed him to accumulate Inspiration Points until the latter parts of the game such that he could stand in the spotlight throughout entire dungeons with the rest of the party.
Conclusion: Out of everybody in the party the person I had to give the most candy to was the only nonmagical fighter in the group.
Now I'll go over some times when I actually played.
Once I played a gnome barbarian named Bastion Mountain Hopper. He was a joke character that ended up being very popular such that a female friend of mine played his "daughter" in a later campaign. He was a cross class character I was intentionally playing sub optimally because I knew the DM didn't like number crunches. However this didn't stop the DM from pissing in my cheerios every now and again for various unrelated things. Now, about mid level I was having my gnome leap as high as his extremely high (at this point) jump check would allow. Now by the rules there was a jump ceiling and the DM was a bit edgy about letting me break that ceiling despite me killing, stealing, and murdering my way to grabbing stackable bonuses to allow me to jump obscenely high. Essentially I, as a dumb melee character, was breaking his willing suspension of disbelief because I was turning the mere act of leaping high into something that seemed magical or, in his words, too anime. Now while other people in the game had better abilities it really disturbed HIM that I was able to leap beyond the bounds of what characters should be able to just by pumping up my strength a bunch (he didn't even blink at the amount of damage I was doing with the strength bonus). I, instead of arguing, just conceded and started having the psychic warrior in the group throw me as a projectile weapon. The campaign ended not long after because of magic shenanigans but I had a good time while it lasted.
The main take away here though is that there is quite a lot of resistance present in the minds of some players about allowing mundane characters to do anything that smacks of magic without much magical help.
Another time I played a summoner (pathfinder). Now while I had magic and a summon, and more things I could summon I decided to hold back. I had already had a bad run in with a DM before for summoning "too much" and outshining two fighters in the group over several sessions in a small 3.5 group I had played in a year before. So with Pathfinder I took up the summoner class (Cause I love summoning stuff) but downplayed how much better at fighting my actual summon was than the group fighter. Instead I spent much of the lower levels using my absurdly high diplomacy and bluff check to make it so that I used enemies or NPCs to fight for me. The DM, at the time, didn't want to bother with all the extra work handling surprise allies would've had to make him do so I volunteered to not only stat up each and every NPC I had (using templates and various books to get sample characters out) but I used my own, personal in game money to outfit them and directed them all in combat. Apparently despite the indirect method I took I had (collectively) a higher kill count than the fighter. I was then personally asked to downplay using the NPCs I'd rightfully persuaded to join my side. So I sent them away and started playing the Dungeon crawling game everyone else was. The only way I, at that point, could keep from outshining half of the rest of the group (A Fighter/Barbarian, Rogue, and Magus. The only other real caster was the Druid) was by not doing anything at all other than playing the face at talks and being a combat set piece. Why did I have to do this? Because my summon had a better attack routine than the Fighter/Barbarian + reach. It had a better perception than the rogue, and the magus just had attack buffs and spells that still didn't put his damage output above my initial summon's and that is without going into how I can buff my summon and myself at the same time or my ability to simply summon more stuff. I should also note that my summon had not a magical item on him and that I didn't need to do anything special to make him more badass than half the group.
Conclusion: The only way some classes can shine is if better classes intentionally hold themselves back to keep them from noticing.
Final Conclusion: With this and many other experiences in various systems, games, and with various people the disparity between what a fighter can do and what a caster can do should be obvious. It is not an insurmountable problem but we have to AT LEAST acknowledge that the problem exists and WHY it exists before we can start fixing it.
Quote from: MGuy;550464Final Conclusion: With this and many other experiences in various systems, games, and with various people the disparity between what a fighter can do and what a caster can do should be obvious. It is not an insurmountable problem but we have to AT LEAST acknowledge that the problem exists and WHY it exists before we can start fixing it.
I don't dispute that you had these experiences with the game. But surely you understand that not everyone had the same experiences as you, and that some who had them, may not have been as troubled or characterized what you saw as imbalance or not fun. This is the core problem in a lot of these discussions. Lots of people have different fun/balance expectations and definitions. I for example am fine with the magic user being weak in the beginning of the game in 2E and growing in power over the course of the campaign, to the point where I do think they have more "goodies" than the fighter. But you have to bear in mind all the stuff like XP progression, limits on spells, resource management, casting times, etc. In practice it isn't always as great as it looks on paper.
I will agree with you that in my experience a straight spellcaster is more powered than a straight fighter in 3E. But I am also not sure that is a major problem. Most people don't play high level games and some people are fine with the wizard starting weak then eclipsing the fighter. There are also builds to consider in 3E. Good use of martial builds will allow the fighter to keep up in my experience.
What is bothering me about this discussion, isn't that there are people out there who find some editions of D&D imbalanced or in need of improvement, but that they feel their anecdotal experiences must be universal or that everyone has to agree with their observations about numbers. Yes, numbers are concrete, but the point at which something is considered imbalanced is quite subjective (especially in a game like D&D).
I think I could probably address more of your concerns though if you answer the questions I posted earlier, which are a genuine good-faith effort to understand where you are coming from (as this thread is getting pretty muddy with different arguments).
How to fix 3e? Go back to 1e, then redesign what you thought in 3e was good. :D
Quote from: jasmith;550450It means in the games I run, a player can attempt to do anything, within the scope of the games' "reality." He/she is not limited solely to what is detailed on the character sheet, or the given mechanics.
It means that instead of walking into the goblin lair and attacking, the fighter can:
Set an ambush.
Draw them out.
Negotiate.
Raise an army.
Pick off outliers.
Trick someone else into attacking.
Trick the goblins into attacking someone else.
Kidnap the chieftain's wife as a bargaining chip.
Or come up with any other weird plan, the player's imagination can conceive.
It also means that in actual combat, the Fighter can attempt any number of actions:
He can disarm.
Shield Bash.
Pick up a goblin and use it as a flail.
Tip over the boiling cauldron of halfling soup, scalding an approaching troupe of attackers.
Challenge the chieftain to single combat, possibly winning himself a group of goblin "hirelings."
Or, do anything else his ingenium, suggests.
That is fantastic that the fighter can do those things. The thing about your examples is that anybody of any class can do the things you mentioned aren't on the fighter's character sheet specifically.
Setting an ambush? Any class. And what's worse a number of classes actually can easily do it better via their abilities or skill lists.
Drawing out an enemy? Any class. And what's worse a number of classes actually can easily do it better via their abilities or skill lists.
Negotiate? Any class. And what's worse a number of classes actually can easily do it better via their abilities or skill lists.
Raise an Army? Any class. And what's worse a number of classes can port in better help than your average joe. (Read: Summoning)
Tricking people? Any class. And what's worse a number of classes do this better via abilities or skill sets.
Kidnapping? Any class. And what's worse a number of classes do this better via abilities or skill sets.
Now I don't know about 2ed that much but Disarm, Shield Bash, Picking up a foe, challenging foes to single combat, all things everyone can do.
But you know what the fighter can't attempt to do? Fly. They can get someone to allow them to fly, or maybe if the DM is willing, find an item that allows them to do so. But the fact of the matter is, those two things are things anyone can do while the wizard, druid, and cleric (at least in 3rd) can do it themselves without any need of finding some external source to do so. A fighter can get a mount and fly that way sure. But a mount isn't as guaranteed as selecting "fly" or "wildshape" when you level up. And that's really the point. The fighter is a bad class BECAUSE nothing that makes it special (swinging a sword and getting punched in the face) is really something that is interesting when you get past the level where face punching orcs are your bread and butter obstacle. As soon as some sort of ghost or apparition attacks you you are screwed without magical support. If you believe that magic items are the spot fix to this and therefore makes the fighter acceptable then why are Magic Items an option and not something that the class specifically guarantees you? If the Fighter was like "batman" and got "gadgets" as its mundane power source such that the fighter could at least be a member of the justice league then I the disparity between fighters and wizards would be so obvious or grating.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550465I don't dispute that you had these experiences with the game. But surely you understand that not everyone had the same experiences as you, and that some who had them, may not have been as troubled or characterized what you saw as imbalance or not fun. This is the core problem in a lot of these discussions. Lots of people have different fun/balance expectations and definitions. I for example am fine with the magic user being weak in the beginning of the game in 2E and growing in power over the course of the campaign, to the point where I do think they have more "goodies" than the fighter. But you have to bear in mind all the stuff like XP progression, limits on spells, resource management, casting times, etc. In practice it isn't always as great as it looks on paper.
I will agree with you that in my experience a straight spellcaster is more powered than a straight fighter in 3E. But I am also not sure that is a major problem. Most people don't play high level games and some people are fine with the wizard starting weak then eclipsing the fighter. There are also builds to consider in 3E. Good use of martial builds will allow the fighter to keep up in my experience.
What is bothering me about this discussion, isn't that there are people out there who find some editions of D&D imbalanced or in need of improvement, but that they feel their anecdotal experiences must be universal or that everyone has to agree with their observations about numbers. Yes, numbers are concrete, but the point at which something is considered imbalanced is quite subjective (especially in a game like D&D).
I think I could probably address more of your concerns though if you answer the questions I posted earlier, which are a genuine good-faith effort to understand where you are coming from (as this thread is getting pretty muddy with different arguments).
I have no problem with people having fun with the disparity. As I've shown in my examples fun can indeed be had even with the disparities present. I Specifically selected stories that I had the MOST fun in as examples specifically to avoid seeming like I was coming down on the game too hard and to avoid people mistaking my acknowledgement of the issues as condemnation of the game.
You are also not wrong in saying that "fun" is subjective. But imbalance can be evidenced and has via theory craft + number crunching in this thread. You can easily show "objectively" how the fighter falls behind. However objectivity seems to be looked down upon on this board. So since the defenders of fighters refuse to look at objective evidence of the fighter's failings it is practically impossible to even begin a discussion that would work towards fixing it and that is why flat out denial of the issue is objectively bad.
Quote from: MGuy;550470You can easily show "objectively" how the fighter falls behind.
It's not objective when the reasoning is completely divorced from actual play, campaign specific circumstances, DM and players around the game table and on. It's a thought exercise that will be irrelevant to gamers actually playing the game in 99% of situations, and "fixing" these "issues" by adding more and more caveats, more and more rules into the game's system doesn't solve the problem at all - it creates more of them, changes the game into a shit
Magic: the Gathering deck-building exercise, etc etc. For every problem you solve, you're creating ten new ones, when the solution all along was to acknowledge that the real flesh and blood people at the game table are in fact in charge of the game, not the rules, and that you could have solved these issues by just keeping on gaming and using all the peripheral elements of the campaign to make the game work for you and your buddies, instead of blocking on the math of the game.
THAT is the point, ultimately.
Quote from: MGuy;550470However objectivity seems to be looked down upon on this board.
It's the delusion that divorcing the rules completely from game play enables some sort of objectivity that is True -always, the end-, regardless of the circumstances of play, the skills of the participants in the game, the adventure's, characters', campaign's specifics, setup, development and on and on, that is being rejected.
Quote from: MGuy;550464The lion share of my experiences are in 3rd ed. I've played 2ed but Ii have a bad opinion on it because of the over reliance on DM wankery in order to do almost anything so to prevent my negative taste for that edition from poisoning my recounting I'll stick with 3rd ed. .
I have a very similar experience with RIFTS, but I blame DM wankery and not that RIFTS is a horrible game.
Quote from: MGuy;550470I
You are also not wrong in saying that "fun" is subjective. But imbalance can be evidenced and has via theory craft + number crunching in this thread. You can easily show "objectively" how the fighter falls behind. However objectivity seems to be looked down upon on this board. So since the defenders of fighters refuse to look at objective evidence of the fighter's failings it is practically impossible to even begin a discussion that would work towards fixing it and that is why flat out denial of the issue is objectively bad.
with all due respect, i dont think that has been demonstrated by any of your posts. Maybe someone else presented a flawless argument proving that the only possible view of edition x is that it is imbalanced. I do think the fighter falls behind in a game like 3e (not nearly so much in 2e or 1e) but I also think this is my own subjective opinion based on my expectations at the table. It isn't my position that others have to agree with my analysis. Depending on the moster involved, the scenario, etc, i can certainly see how in some campaigns people simply wont run into balance issues (or wizards will actually be regarded as weaker because they blow their big spells).
In your opinion what does a fighter lack to make up for the balance issue you see? Damage? Flying? Etc. Again, a lot of people here have expressed a desire to see the fighter have better maintained damage output in Next. I do think they should get the underlying math right (though vancian wizards and fighters are so different, and every monster so unique, you wont be able to balance them in every and all conditions). But i dont want flying fighters. I want fighters that hit hard, can take hits and perform basic maneuvers better than non fighters.
Quote from: Benoist;550472It's not objective when the reasoning is completely divorced from actual play, campaign specific circumstances, DM and players around the game table and on. It's a thought exercise that will be irrelevant to gamers actually playing the game in 99% of situations, and "fixing" these "issues" by adding more and more caveats, more and more rules into the game's system doesn't solve the problem at all - it creates more of them, changes the game into a shit Magic: the Gathering deck-building exercise, etc etc. For every problem you solve, you're creating ten new ones, when the solution all along was to acknowledge that the real flesh and blood people at the game table are in fact in charge of the game, not the rules, and that you could have solved these issues by just keeping on gaming and using all the peripheral elements of the campaign to make the game work for you and your buddies, instead of blocking on the math of the game.
THAT is the point, ultimately.
It's the delusion that divorcing the rules completely from game play enables some sort of objectivity that is True -always, the end-, regardless of the circumstances of play, the skills of the participants in the game, the adventure's, characters', campaign's specifics, setup, development and on and on, that is being rejected.
Benoist you're missing the point very hard. In order to be "objective" you have to divorce the situation from situation specific events. You have to work in what is most likely going to occur and not bank your argument on what edge case scenarios might occur. A Fighter at high level will very likely have to fight a dragon attacking a small town out in the open. If a fighter wanders into a dungeon to fight the dragon (a super intelligent ancient creature) most likely it would make sense that the dragon would have set up its place such that the he, the resident, has the advantage. Going through campaign specifics, the development of the characters, and who the players are and how they play IS SUBJECTIVITY. To be objective you have to find a standard to go by then crunch the numbers. That's where your thinking is going wrong.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550465I don't dispute that you had these experiences with the game. But surely you understand that not everyone had the same experiences as you, and that some who had them, may not have been as troubled or characterized what you saw as imbalance or not fun. This is the core problem in a lot of these discussions. Lots of people have different fun/balance expectations and definitions. I for example am fine with the magic user being weak in the beginning of the game in 2E and growing in power over the course of the campaign, to the point where I do think they have more "goodies" than the fighter. But you have to bear in mind all the stuff like XP progression, limits on spells, resource management, casting times, etc. In practice it isn't always as great as it looks on paper.
I will agree with you that in my experience a straight spellcaster is more powered than a straight fighter in 3E. But I am also not sure that is a major problem. Most people don't play high level games and some people are fine with the wizard starting weak then eclipsing the fighter. There are also builds to consider in 3E. Good use of martial builds will allow the fighter to keep up in my experience.
What is bothering me about this discussion, isn't that there are people out there who find some editions of D&D imbalanced or in need of improvement, but that they feel their anecdotal experiences must be universal or that everyone has to agree with their observations about numbers. Yes, numbers are concrete, but the point at which something is considered imbalanced is quite subjective (especially in a game like D&D).
Damn it, Brenden, quite being so reasonable! :)
Quote from: MGuy;550478Benoist you're missing the point very hard. In order to be "objective" you have to divorce the situation from situation specific events. You have to work in what is most likely going to occur and not bank your argument on what edge case scenarios might occur. A Fighter at high level will very likely have to fight a dragon attacking a small town out in the open. If a fighter wanders into a dungeon to fight the dragon (a super intelligent ancient creature) most likely it would make sense that the dragon would have set up its place such that the he, the resident, has the advantage. Going through campaign specifics, the development of the characters, and who the players are and how they play IS SUBJECTIVITY. To be objective you have to find a standard to go by then crunch the numbers. That's where your thinking is going wrong.
LOL! Really, dude? You're hanging your 'objectivity' on the very selective case where the fighter doesn't have the ability to fly? Or where he is 'likely' to fight dragons?
You are banking your objectivity on edge case! There are bucket-loads of 'ifs' to get to your selective 'cases.'
Quote from: MGuy;550478Benoist you're missing the point very hard. In order to be "objective" you have to divorce the situation from situation specific events.
Actually, that's not possible when talking about a role playing game, because we are talking about a social past time involving real people around a game table using a system with literally millions, if not billions of different parts interacting, or not, with each other on the whim of these real people in the way they build their characters, set up the dungeon, the equipment to be found, the village back at the keep, the NPCs present, the relative psychologies of all these characters in the game world, the campaign objectives, whether there is a rock between the orcs and the PCs or not, et cetera.
The best you can do is what you've be striving at for most of this thread: building very narrow examples completely divorced from the circumstances of game play, and the other million of interactive parts that affect the outcome of any given situation in a role playing game, most of which, again, are in control of the actual real people sitting around the game table and playing the game, in the way they prep the game, play the game, know the game, and on and on.
RPGs are intrisincally NOT mathematical systems run in a vacuum. Hence, trying to discuss any particular issue by completely isolating a subsystem not only from all related subsystems in the greater system, but from the actual act of playing the game and the multiple social dimensions this supposes, is a doomed enterprise and a waste of time, as far as role playing game design is concerned, because it turns the game into shit that's no fun to play but for the most OCD gamers amongst us.
THIS is specifically what is being rejected here.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550475with all due respect, i dont think that has been demonstrated by any of your posts. Maybe someone else presented a flawless argument proving that the only possible view of edition x is that it is imbalanced. I do think the fighter falls behind in a game like 3e (not nearly so much in 2e or 1e) but I also think this is my own subjective opinion based on my expectations at the table. It isn't my position that others have to agree with my analysis. Depending on the moster involved, the scenario, etc, i can certainly see how in some campaigns people simply wont run into balance issues (or wizards will actually be regarded as weaker because they blow their big spells).
In your opinion what does a fighter lack to make up for the balance issue you see? Damage? Flying? Etc. Again, a lot of people here have expressed a desire to see the fighter have better maintained damage output in Next. I do think they should get the underlying math right (though vancian wizards and fighters are so different, and every monster so unique, you wont be able to balance them in every and all conditions). But i dont want flying fighters. I want fighters that hit hard, can take hits and perform basic maneuvers better than non fighters.
I'm fairly sure I've asked this question before but I'll ask it again just in case. Is there nothing wrong in your mind with playing a game where you have one guy who, at his best, can swing a sword and be punched in the face while you have another guy who can, without being present at the site of danger, save the world while kicking back in their own personally made hidden extra dimensional mansion while porting in interplanar hookers? Do you not see the huge leap in power there? I, as a 8th level wizard can summon a creature that completely puts the fighter to shame and keep it through whatever dungeon we have. If I were a druid I'd get a pet that starts out on par with a fighter and can stay that way throughout the game. I can even give it magic weapons and armor and I'd still have my own ability to morph into something that fights better than a fighter. You can be ok with that. You can want to play a simple character who can only swing a sword and get punched in the face and I wouldn't blink. But that should be an OPTION not the rule.
Now to answer the question as to why I'm bitching about fighters and pointing out their lack of power I'd have to direct you to the name of this thread. I'm speaking on it because that is the subject matter.
As for what kind of game I want? I'm in the process of making it now. I want a high fantasy game. Something on the power level of Avatar: LAB/LoK. The game I'm crafting assumes that "magic" is a natural force that can be and is harnessed to some degree by everything. In my game the "fighter" class doesn't exist because the name carries the kind of baggage that keeps it from being able to do interesting things. Hopefully, by the time I'm finished with it, the only difference between being a Champion (paladin esque) and a Druid is "how" you use your "magic". At the high end of the game a Champion might be able to erect a shield large enough to protect an entire building from the meteor sized fireball the Arcanist is throwing down on him, while the Soldier leaps the 100+ feet in the air by virtue of his own awesomeness only to yanked back down by the rogue who grabbed him through his own shadow. I want a game where there can be a nation of just Martial Artists that don't have to seek magical aid in their ongoing war with Wizards because their chi can block any attempts to teleport in and their constant aerobic exercises/ rituals keep them from summoning demons on their front lawn.
Quote from: MGuy;550478Benoist you're missing the point very hard. In order to be "objective" you have to divorce the situation from situation specific events. You have to work in what is most likely going to occur and not bank your argument on what edge case scenarios might occur. A Fighter at high level will very likely have to fight a dragon attacking a small town out in the open. If a fighter wanders into a dungeon to fight the dragon (a super intelligent ancient creature) most likely it would make sense that the dragon would have set up its place such that the he, the resident, has the advantage. Going through campaign specifics, the development of the characters, and who the players are and how they play IS SUBJECTIVITY. To be objective you have to find a standard to go by then crunch the numbers. That's where your thinking is going wrong.
To be objective you need to understand context though. That means any discussion of how powerful a 15th level wizard is versus a 15th level fighter needs to go through all the possible ground level scenarios. If you only look at encounters with dragons for example, you wont see how the system balances over ten different types of encounters. If you only look at a single encounter where the wizard is at full, you wont see how it plays out over a full day of encountes where the wizard starts out strong and gets more depleted. Just pulling out the context these things will inhabit and comparing them in the abstrat will yield misleading results (which is the last thing you want if objectivity is your goal). A flat comparison of the numbers is also fine, but it has to be compliemented with actual test drives.
Quote from: Benoist;550481Actually, that's not possible when talking about a role playing game, because we are talking about a social past time involving real people around a game table using a system with literally millions of different parts interacting or not with each other on the whim of these real people in the way they build their characters, set up the dungeon, the equipment to be found, the village back at the keep, the NPCs present, the relative psychologies of all these characters in the game world, the campaign objectives, whether there is a rock between the orcs and the PCs or not, et cetera.
The best you can do is what you've be striving at for most of this thread: building very narrow examples completely divorced from the circumstances of game play, and the other million of interactive parts that affect the outcome of any given situation in a role playing game, most of which, again, are in control of the actual real people sitting around the game table and playing the game, in the way the prep the game, play the game, know the game, and on and on.
RPGs are intrisincally NOT mathematical systems run in vacuum. Hence, trying to discuss any particular issue by completely isolating a subsystem not only from all related subsystems in the greater system, but from the actual act of playing the game and the multiple social dimensions this supposes, is a doomed enterprise and a waste of time, as far as role playing game design is concerned.
You are right, and RPGs AREN'T in a vacuum. I completely agree with you there. But if you want Objective analysis of the system being discussed you have to put things on an even, and standardized playing field. If you choose to not at least do that then a reasonable discussion can't be had because any subject examples of what happens in games can be dismisses as "subjective". Since you are not willing to accept actual play experiences, numbers, or even thinking conceptually (IE sword swing v Reality warping) then you are specifically inhibiting actual discussion of an actual issue because you are specifically refusing to heed any evidence that can conceivably be presented to prove that there is an issue. And since you and people like you are actively denying that there is a problem with statements like the this very thread's title people who are in charge of making the next DnD can't pinpoint the real issues that are inherent in my most favorite past time. If I didn't love the game so much I wouldn't even spend time even speaking about the subject but after the failure that was 4E its threads and ideas like this that are going to make Next a failure as well. I WANT the real issues to be dragged out in the light of day and fixed by people who's job it is to do it.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550484To be objective you need to understand context though. That means any discussion of how powerful a 15th level wizard is versus a 15th level fighter needs to go through all the possible ground level scenarios. If you only look at encounters with dragons for example, you wont see how the system balances over ten different types of encounters. If you only look at a single encounter where the wizard is at full, you wont see how it plays out over a full day of encountes where the wizard starts out strong and gets more depleted. Just pulling out the context these things will inhabit and comparing them in the abstrat will yield misleading results (which is the last thing you want if objectivity is your goal). A flat comparison of the numbers is also fine, but it has to be compliemented with actual test drives.
I understand this as well but someone already approached this issue. His name is Frank. He actually wrote out a SAME GAME TEST that allows you to run characters through a number of imagined but common scenarios they are likely to face at a given level. I sincerely suggest giving it a look see if your search-fu is strong enough.
Quote from: MGuy;550485You are right, and RPGs AREN'T in a vacuum. I completely agree with you there. But if you want Objective analysis of the system being discussed you have to put things on an even, and standardized playing field.
It's not Objective because it does not involve all the Objective variables of any given "problem" in an actual game play situation. When you start isolating a case by saying that this spell or that potion is not available, that you make complete abstraction of the terrain and features in the game, the way people interact at the game table and each play their characters differently, with different likes and dislikes, wants and needs, you are failing at actually portraying a situation with any valuable analysis attached to it. It's setting up a very narrow situation just to confirm your bias. Which is, by definition, not Objective.
Quote from: MGuy;550482I'm fairly sure I've asked this question before but I'll ask it again just in case. Is there nothing wrong in your mind with playing a game where you have one guy who, at his best, can swing a sword and be punched in the face while you have another guy who can, without being present at the site of danger, save the world while kicking back in their own personally made hidden extra dimensional mansion while porting in interplanar hookers? Do you not see the huge leap in power there? I, as a 8th level wizard can summon a creature that completely puts the fighter to shame and keep it through whatever dungeon we have. If I were a druid I'd get a pet that starts out on par with a fighter and can stay that way throughout the game. I can even give it magic weapons and armor and I'd still have my own ability to morph into something that fights better than a fighter. You can be ok with that. You can want to play a simple character who can only swing a sword and get punched in the face and I wouldn't blink. But that should be an OPTION not the rule.
This is a very loaded question. So my answer doesn't include many of your assumptions here. But yes, I think it is very possible to have fun in a game where one character can bend reality and the other cannot. So long as the numbers work out. If the fighter can only swing a sword, but his sword is very effective at delivering killing blows, that is fine. If the guy who bends reality has limits or faces real risks in doing so, that is another potential balancer. The simplist solution (to preserve flavor) is make spells take longer. This is why casting times are critical. Personally i think they could be inceased in many instances, but right there you have a solid way to balance the two kinds of classes.
QuoteNow to answer the question as to why I'm bitching about fighters and pointing out their lack of power I'd have to direct you to the name of this thread. I'm speaking on it because that is the subject matter.
As for what kind of game I want? I'm in the process of making it now. I want a high fantasy game. Something on the power level of Avatar: LAB/LoK. The game I'm crafting assumes that "magic" is a natural force that can be and is harnessed to some degree by everything. In my game the "fighter" class doesn't exist because the name carries the kind of baggage that keeps it from being able to do interesting things. Hopefully, by the time I'm finished with it, the only difference between being a Champion (paladin esque) and a Druid is "how" you use your "magic". At the high end of the game a Champion might be able to erect a shield large enough to protect an entire building from the meteor sized fireball the Arcanist is throwing down on him, while the Soldier leaps the 100+ feet in the air by virtue of his own awesomeness only to yanked back down by the rogue who grabbed him through his own shadow. I want a game where there can be a nation of just Martial Artists that don't have to seek magical aid in their ongoing war with Wizards because their chi can block any attempts to teleport in and their constant aerobic exercises/ rituals keep them from summoning demons on their front lawn.
This is totally fine. Just understand it isn't what lots of people want from D&D. I am myself making a game of all wizards, where fighters and theives are not real options. So every character wields super powerful magic. But with D&D i need that fighter and thief rooted in the real world, with the wizards and clerics able to break natural laws. For me that is what is fun. Personally 2e gets this about right for me. Especially with the nwp rules and kits added in.
QuoteThat is fantastic that the fighter can do those things. The thing about your examples is that anybody of any class can do the things you mentioned aren't on the fighter's character sheet specifically.
This. Why is this so important to you? Especially when it isn't relevant to the actual class. If you want codified abilities you would be better off playing a wizard or a boardgame. RPG's are about playing a character interacting in a world not playing a character sheet.
Quote from: Drohem;550480LOL! Really, dude? You're hanging your 'objectivity' on the very selective case where the fighter doesn't have the ability to fly? Or where he is 'likely' to fight dragons?
You are banking your objectivity on edge case! There are bucket-loads of 'ifs' to get to your selective 'cases.'
The game is called "Dungeons and DRAGONS". I believe I can reasonably expect a fighter to fight a dragon. What's more is a fighter doesn't inherently get the ability to fly so why should think that he would be able to? When I played 2E and as far as I know treasure drops are random in 2E and though you can buy a flying thing in 3rd so can every other class so the ability to get 'something" that allows you to fly is not unique to the fighter and thus is not something that I should consider when judging the fighter's power level.
Quote from: Marleycat;550490This. Why is this so important to you? Especially when it isn't relevant to the actual class. If you want codified abilities you would be better off playing a wizard or a boardgame. RPG's are about playing a character interacting in a world not playing a character sheet.
It matters because any argument about the "Fighter's balance with other classes" has to be based off of what the fighter specifically gets. If anyone else can get it, it is not something that gives a measure of the Fighter's power level.
Quote from: MGuy;550470You are also not wrong in saying that "fun" is subjective. But imbalance can be evidenced and has via theory craft + number crunching in this thread. You can easily show "objectively" how the fighter falls behind. However objectivity seems to be looked down upon on this board. So since the defenders of fighters refuse to look at objective evidence of the fighter's failings it is practically impossible to even begin a discussion that would work towards fixing it and that is why flat out denial of the issue is objectively bad.
Perhaps so, but I don't WANT the type of numerical balance at each level in the game that some players want. For example, I like the idea that TSR D&D used that wizards start out the game very weak compared to fighters and at the end game (if they ever make it there) were more powerful than fighters. I like the idea of balance across the campaign much more than I do balanced at each level. This was an intentional design point (like many other things some people do not like about TSR D&D) and one I consider essential to my enjoyment of D&D. Just as I consider DM rulings better than codified rules. Yes, I realize that some call this "mother may I" and hate it -- I could care less, the more codified the D&D rules, the less likely
I am going to enjoy the game. Many other people (including I suspect most of the people saying fighters are worthless at high levels in this thread) would HATE the games I run. So what? I simply don't play in or run games in styles/editions I can't stand. I expect others to do likewise instead of trying to get me to run my games the way they like. The rules may very well be broke for you (and others) and you may be able to prove it with "the numbers", but that does not mean it is broke for all other players.
So yes, I will agree that the numbers are very broken -- especially in 3.x -- and that fighters played RAW in 3.x may suck at higher levels in comparison to spell casters if this type of balance really matters to you. It doesn't matter to me, however, so I don't see the fighter as all that broke, especially in the TSR editions -- which are the ones I enjoy playing. I consider the WOTC editions quite broke for the type of play experience I want.
I also could care less about how broke the RAW is if I can fix it to run the way I want it too. I realize that NO published system is likely to work out of the box for my homebrew campaign settings. As I believe when rules and setting conflict the rules must always be the one to bend to match the needs of the setting, it really cannot be any other way.
Quote from: MGuy;550487I understand this as well but someone already approached this issue. His name is Frank. He actually wrote out a SAME GAME TEST that allows you to run characters through a number of imagined but common scenarios they are likely to face at a given level. I sincerely suggest giving it a look see if your search-fu is strong enough.
I may just give it a look. That doesn't mean i will necessarily agree with his conclusions, his solutions or his assesment of what is problematic in the game which edition does it concern? If 3e, as I said, i agree fighters fall behind (though i probably disagree over just how much of a problem it is, especially given builds and the role of magic items for martial characters in most d&d games).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550489This is a very loaded question. So my answer doesn't include many of your assumptions here. But yes, I think it is very possible to have fun in a game where one character can bend reality and the other cannot. So long as the numbers work out. If the fighter can only swing a sword, but his sword is very effective at delivering killing blows, that is fine. If the guy who bends reality has limits or faces real risks in doing so, that is another potential balancer. The simplist solution (to preserve flavor) is make spells take longer. This is why casting times are critical. Personally i think they could be inceased in many instances, but right there you have a solid way to balance the two kinds of classes.
This is totally fine. Just understand it isn't what lots of people want from D&D. I am myself making a game of all wizards, where fighters and theives are not real options. So every character wields super powerful magic. But with D&D i need that fighter and thief rooted in the real world, with the wizards and clerics able to break natural laws. For me that is what is fun. Personally 2e gets this about right for me. Especially with the nwp rules and kits added in.
The problem with your "its balanced" theory in that fighters swing swords to kill so that's good, is that this is an RPG and not a videogame. THe fighter being able to kill things is fantastic. If the numbers are worked out such that he can competently work in the fighting minigame that is good. But that kind of thinking isn't what I'm talking about conceptually. Think about it. Think hard. Every class can fight. Every class is expected to fight. So being good at fighting in a particular way, while good and necessary,does not put the fighter on equal footing with other classes even if we are talking about an edition that does that. See I didn't like 4e because it took away rules for the world out of combat. And since I'm sure most players here are "real Role Players and not Roll Players" then the fighter getting big numbers to fight good isn't going to satisfy. So what then? You want the fighter to do things unique to the fighter. Hell A barbarian has rage and survival skills, can swing an axe good, and get punched in the face. Conceptually even the Barbarian has a better loadout than the fighter when handing out abilities. The fighters doesn't even have that and the thought process that he doesn't need anything else is poisonous to the game because the fighter should work outside of combat but doesn't even work (currently) inside of it as well as other classes.
Quote from: MGuy;550492It matters because any argument about the "Fighter's balance with other classes" has to be based off of what the fighter specifically gets. If anyone else can get it, it is not something that gives a measure of the Fighter's power level.
I agree in part, but I also think because fighters fight with weapons and there is an expectation they will be using magic weapons you cant just discount them. You might not like that they rely on such things, but if the designers build fighters with magical items in mind, and the numebrs work once they have magic items, i dont think that is bad design or imbalanced design (though it may be design you dont like).
With all this said about Fighters I'd like to also mention that I think Wizards can do "too much". No one here seems concerned about that but I just wanna drop that bombshell.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550496I agree in part, but I also think because fighters fight with weapons and there is an expectation they will be using magic weapons you cant just discount them. You might not like that they rely on such things, but if the designers build fighters with magical items in mind, and the numebrs work once they have magic items, i dont think that is bad design or imbalanced design (though it may be design you dont like).
I said it before, if this is to be the case, and Magic Items is to be the spot fix for fighters I believe they should Batman or Ironman it up where their gadgets become their main power source. I like Batman. He's popular despite being almost powerless in comparison to other heroes. But Batman has a lot of noncombat abilities that make him Just work. And when facing super powers he has gadgets that make put him on better footing. I don't like the solution but a fighter should get these things inherently if it is to be the thing that keeps him in balance with the opposition.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550415all academic of course the point is as I will be told if I want to fight a giant "I shouldn't try and do it without +3 plate /+3 sheild and a +4 Defender. This isn't David and Goliath, or Jack the Giant Killer, or Odyseus vs the Cyclops this is D&D if you don't like it go and play fucnking Runequest or Magic the Gathering you retarted autistic shit head :)"
Well, if not, you're ignoring substantial class features of the fighter - the ability to use all magical weapons and armor. That's about like ignoring level 3 and above spells for magic users.
Quote from: MGuy;550495The problem with your "its balanced" theory in that fighters swing swords to kill so that's good, is that this is an RPG and not a videogame. THe fighter being able to kill things is fantastic. If the numbers are worked out such that he can competently work in the fighting minigame that is good. But that kind of thinking isn't what I'm talking about conceptually. Think about it. Think hard. Every class can fight. Every class is expected to fight. So being good at fighting in a particular way, while good and necessary,does not put the fighter on equal footing with other classes even if we are talking about an edition that does that. See I didn't like 4e because it took away rules for the world out of combat. And since I'm sure most players here are "real Role Players and not Roll Players" then the fighter getting big numbers to fight good isn't going to satisfy. So what then? You want the fighter to do things unique to the fighter. Hell A barbarian has rage and survival skills, can swing an axe good, and get punched in the face. Conceptually even the Barbarian has a better loadout than the fighter when handing out abilities. The fighters doesn't even have that and the thought process that he doesn't need anything else is poisonous to the game because the fighter should work outside of combat but doesn't even work (currently) inside of it as well as other classes.
I am thinking "really hard" and still find myself disagreeing with you. If my fighter can do 70 points of damage with a sword swing and other classes are only doing 40 points of damage, then I am happy as pie with that arrangement. I am not saying 70-40 is where the numbers need to be, but O dont need special abilities to enjoy my fighter. Weapon specialization, damage, good HP, etc are what I look for in fighters.
I dont expect every class to be good at fighting.
I get that you dont linke this approach. This is fine. You probably should play games that take another approach. But why get so worked up if one game takes this approach? That is why there are lots of different rpgs out there. Its not poisoness, it is just focused on a particular set of preferences.
Quote from: MGuy;550467That is fantastic that the fighter can do those things. The thing about your examples is that anybody of any class can do the things you mentioned aren't on the fighter's character sheet specifically.
Setting an ambush? Any class. And what's worse a number of classes actually can easily do it better via their abilities or skill lists.
Drawing out an enemy? Any class. And what's worse a number of classes actually can easily do it better via their abilities or skill lists.
Negotiate? Any class. And what's worse a number of classes actually can easily do it better via their abilities or skill lists.
Raise an Army? Any class. And what's worse a number of classes can port in better help than your average joe. (Read: Summoning)
Tricking people? Any class. And what's worse a number of classes do this better via abilities or skill sets.
Kidnapping? Any class. And what's worse a number of classes do this better via abilities or skill sets.
Now I don't know about 2ed that much but Disarm, Shield Bash, Picking up a foe, challenging foes to single combat, all things everyone can do.
Doesn't matter. What matters is what "you" (any specific player) choose to do. How you choose to do it! And that makes all the difference, in the world. In an actual game.
(And several of your comments, above, are stretched or only apply to WotC editions. Games of any edition, where players are allowed to actually conceive and execute a plan, go a bit differently.)
Quote from: MGuy;550467But you know what the fighter can't attempt to do? Fly. They can get someone to allow them to fly, or maybe if the DM is willing, find an item that allows them to do so. But the fact of the matter is, those two things are things anyone can do while the wizard, druid, and cleric (at least in 3rd) can do it themselves without any need of finding some external source to do so. A fighter can get a mount and fly that way sure. But a mount isn't as guaranteed as selecting "fly" or "wildshape" when you level up. And that's really the point. The fighter is a bad class BECAUSE nothing that makes it special (swinging a sword and getting punched in the face) is really something that is interesting when you get past the level where face punching orcs are your bread and butter obstacle. As soon as some sort of ghost or apparition attacks you you are screwed without magical support. If you believe that magic items are the spot fix to this and therefore makes the fighter acceptable then why are Magic Items an option and not something that the class specifically guarantees you? If the Fighter was like "batman" and got "gadgets" as its mundane power source such that the fighter could at least be a member of the justice league then I the disparity between fighters and wizards would be so obvious or grating.
The Fighter is certainly on the vanilla side.
And can be the most entertaining PC to run or DM. With the right player running it.
You don't like the Fighter. It's too simple, or not magical enough.
For you. So, you want a fighter that can fly, or have whatever other magical powers, or items baked into the class.
Surely there's a game out there that does all that, for you?
Quote from: RandallS;550493Perhaps so, but I don't WANT the type of numerical balance at each level in the game that some players want. For example, I like the idea that TSR D&D used that wizards start out the game very weak compared to fighters and at the end game (if they ever make it there) were more powerful than fighters. I like the idea of balance across the campaign much more than I do balanced at each level. This was an intentional design point (like many other things some people do not like about TSR D&D) and one I consider essential to my enjoyment of D&D. Just as I consider DM rulings better than codified rules. Yes, I realize that some call this "mother may I" and hate it -- I could care less, the more codified the D&D rules, the less likely I am going to enjoy the game. Many other people (including I suspect most of the people saying fighters are worthless at high levels in this thread) would HATE the games I run. So what? I simply don't play in or run games in styles/editions I can't stand. I expect others to do likewise instead of trying to get me to run my games the way they like. The rules may very well be broke for you (and others) and you may be able to prove it with "the numbers", but that does not mean it is broke for all other players.
So yes, I will agree that the numbers are very broken -- especially in 3.x -- and that fighters played RAW in 3.x may suck at higher levels in comparison to spell casters if this type of balance really matters to you. It doesn't matter to me, however, so I don't see the fighter as all that broke, especially in the TSR editions -- which are the ones I enjoy playing. I consider the WOTC editions quite broke for the type of play experience I want.
I also could care less about how broke the RAW is if I can fix it to run the way I want it too. I realize that NO published system is likely to work out of the box for my homebrew campaign settings. As I believe when rules and setting conflict the rules must always be the one to bend to match the needs of the setting, it really cannot be any other way.
I don't know what other way I can say this but here it goes again. Yes, you CAN ignore the rules. I understand this. I've done it before, and as long as I play DnD i'll likely do it again when I run. This does not make it so that the rules themselves not problematic. I applaud you for finding a way to warp the rules such that you are comfortable with them, I am not looking down on that style of play. If you can change the rules such that they do what you think they should do then more power to you. I've done the same. However the problem is still there and with a new edition of DnD coming down the tube I believe that issues within the RAW should be looked at and analyzed. Ignoring them will make 4e repeat itself. The game is evolving. Ideas are evolving with it. If we don't observe the mistakes we make we on't be able to advance. The first step to solving a problem is acknowledging that one exists.
Quote from: MGuy;550499I said it before, if this is to be the case, and Magic Items is to be the spot fix for fighters I believe they should Batman or Ironman it up where their gadgets become their main power source. I like Batman. He's popular despite being almost powerless in comparison to other heroes. But Batman has a lot of noncombat abilities that make him Just work. And when facing super powers he has gadgets that make put him on better footing. I don't like the solution but a fighter should get these things inherently if it is to be the thing that keeps him in balance with the opposition.
Okay that is fair. But can you at least understand that not everyone wants this solution or feels that having balance built with fighters obtaining magic items as an assumption is a problem? Your solution works for you, but it wont work for everyone. Rpgs are not one size fits all.
For me i dont really need the fighter to have lots of non combat abilities. Give him good damage, hp, and the ability to wield weapons (includingnmagical ones) well and I am happy. The thief is someone I think should shine out of combat. I also think there is room int he game for more skilly fighters, but the execution there is important.
Quote from: MGuy;550492It matters because any argument about the "Fighter's balance with other classes" has to be based off of what the fighter specifically gets. If anyone else can get it, it is not something that gives a measure of the Fighter's power level.
That depends on edition if it's 3x the answer is multiclassing but if it's 0/1/2e you're forgetting about...
1. Best Armour
2. Best hitpoints
3. Best Saves
4. Best THACO/BAB
5. 2nd best skillpoints (in editions that use them)
6. Fun Domain Management perks (in editions that use them)
Quote from: jasmith;550502Doesn't matter. What matters is what "you" (any specific player) choose to do. How you choose to do it! And that makes all the difference, in the world. In an actual game.
(And several of your comments, above, are stretched or only apply to WotC editions. Games of any edition, where players are allowed to actually conceive and execute a plan, go a bit differently.)
The Fighter is certainly on the vanilla side.
And can be the most entertaining PC to run or DM. With the right player running it.
You don't like the Fighter. It's too simple, or not magical enough. For you.
So, you want a fighter that can fly, or have whatever other magical powers, or items you want, baked into the class.
Surely there's a game out there that does all that, for you?
And here we reach the crux of the problem. The conversation is about how the fighter and wizard are balanced. My argument is that they are not. So in order to analyze whether the balance is there or not I'm looking at what the fighter can do v what the wizard can do. If you mention something for the fighter to do that the wizard/druid/cleric can also do then that says nothing about the power level of the fighter. Yes, you can indeed want a fighter that deliberately cannot keep up with these classes, that's fine. However the power disparity is there, its obvious, the fact that some people want (and indeed enjoy) that disparity is not something I'm tackling. I have seen players that want all kinds of things. Some people want no rules, some people want to stick by the rules, some people only stick to the rules when it helps them, there is no arguing tastes. I'm arguing facts.
Quote from: MGuy;550506And here we reach the crux of the problem. The conversation is about how the fighter and wizard are balanced. My argument is that they are not. So in order to analyze whether the balance is there or not I'm looking at what the fighter can do v what the wizard can do. If you mention something for the fighter to do that the wizard/druid/cleric can also do then that says nothing about the power level of the fighter. Yes, you can indeed want a fighter that deliberately cannot keep up with these classes, that's fine. However the power disparity is there, its obvious, the fact that some people want (and indeed enjoy) that disparity is not something I'm tackling. I have seen players that want all kinds of things. Some people want no rules, some people want to stick by the rules, some people only stick to the rules when it helps them, there is no arguing tastes. I'm arguing facts.
Why are you trying to compare apples to oranges? These arguements never make any sense anyway given whatever examples you give are in some fairyland vacuum that pits character classes against each other like some bad videogame PVP deathmatch.
Quote from: Marleycat;550505That depends on edition if it's 3x the answer is multiclassing but if it's 0/1/2e you're forgetting about...
1. Best Armour
2. Best hitpoints
3. Best Saves
4. Best THACO/BAB
5. 2nd best skillpoints (in editions that use them)
6. Fun Domain Management perks (in editions that use them)
I'm not 100% up on my 2e and I don't know ANYTHING about 0 and 1. But I'm fairly sure that Paladins can wear armor as good as the fighter in 2e and that they have better (or the same saves) but I may be misremembering things. Not knowing all the specifics of 2e and its various kits and supplements for the fighter I'm not going to argue with you about it since I don't have the books in hand and I haven't talked to my go-to 2e guy in about a year.When I played 2e I was once a wizard who spent my time casting illusions so most of the time I didn't have much to worry about because I attempted to avoid fighting at all the entire time until the DM got tired of me skating by encounters and invented rules that basically castrated my caster. The second time I was a cleric that was relegated to Heal Bot duty. Fact is I don't know enough about 2e to argue about what the fighter can do in combat and I don't care to because my experiences with 2e have been wholely negative. So to keep that from creeping into my arguments I've only been talking from the little bit I know about 2e and what I'm sure the fighter gets. In either case I've already posited that being "goo at combat" is something all classes get.
Quote from: Marleycat;550507Why are you trying to compare apples to oranges?
See thread title.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550449That is just because of the forum you are posting in. Try going to the wotc board or rpgnet and you will find overzealou defense of 4E as well. i don't think people need to take this so personally. If trollman thinks 2E is brokoen, no skin off my back. If he loves 4e, that doesn't bother me. When folks tell me i have to agree with their analysis of an edition is where i tend to lose interest.
In my opinion, the whole point of having such these discussions is that I do care about people's analyses of editions. If I truly don't care what someone think, then I won't read their posts.
I think that you should agree with my analysis of an edition. "Analysis" doesn't mean whether I like it, but rather my understanding of how it works. If fighters actually worked differently in your games than in my games, that's something that can be understood by more communication. So were fighters the same in my game as yours, but you liked it that way? Or were they actually different in how they played out? I still can't tell that yet.
What makes me suspicious is conflating together different things. For example, someone might like how their experience of AD&D1 play was less rules-bound, but then they defend every wart of the rules - psionics, grappling, etc. These aren't logically connected. I might like less rules-bound play, but still dislike other qualities of AD&D1.
Quote from: MGuy;550509See thread title.
Yeah the OP is telling you it's bullshit to compare the two given they work in different spheres of influence.
Quote from: MGuy;550503The game is evolving. Ideas are evolving with it.
You just hit one of my pet peeves.
RPGs do not evolve. They are designed. WOTC D&D (and later TSR D&D) was designed by committee with at least two often contradictory goals: to be a fun game to play and to be a game that can reach the income goals the parent company has set. Evolution is not involved. The change between editions are NOT made by evolution but rather by decisions of designers and (unfortunately) bean counters. The rules in 4e are different from those in 0e, but no evolution was involved -- just designers making decisions based on what they think the game should be (given that it needs to meet sales goals).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550504Okay that is fair. But can you at least understand that not everyone wants this solution or feels that having balance built with fighters obtaining magic items as an assumption is a problem? Your solution works for you, but it wont work for everyone. Rpgs are not one size fits all.
For me i dont really need the fighter to have lots of non combat abilities. Give him good damage, hp, and the ability to wield weapons (includingnmagical ones) well and I am happy. The thief is someone I think should shine out of combat. I also think there is room int he game for more skilly fighters, but the execution there is important.
Its not my solution. I posted my solution. I think they should be given abilities that keep them on par with the casters. Magic items is YOUR solution that YOU gave. You're the one who said that Magic items are the thing that keep them up. And I've already addressed the idea that IF you want a fighter that JUST fights, that is ok. I'm cool with that. I've have friends ho only want to wield the biggest sword in the game and smash stuff. That's fine. I have friends who rather nod off doing exposition time and spend each and every social encounter in the game going to the bar and getting drunk and only ever work as a battlepiece whenever the battle music starts. That's cool. I'm not arguing tastes. I'm not saying anyone is playing wrong. The thread is about whether the Fighter is balanced with the Wizard. Fact is, its not. Now that you've gotten to a place where you can sort of see that I'm not going to engage in an argument about whether or not you should or shouldn't like that. Its your choice. My preference is that the fight only fighter should be an option not the rule.
You guys are arguing about what the magic user POTENTIALLY can do. He can POTENTIALLY charm a giant. If he was lucky enough to learn charm monster. Yet, the poor fighter has to have a rusty old sword, even though his chances of POTENTIALLY owning a +3 sword are far greater than the wizard learning charm monster. Or Fly. Or any other spell. Oh, but I forgot, all magic users have an 18 intelligence and all fighters have a 9 strength, dex, and con, right?
Quote from: Marleycat;550512Yeah the OP is telling you it's bullshit to compare the two given they work in different spheres of influence.
But they don't. When sitting down with an RPG group you can be either one or the other. They both go on adventures. They both engage in social matters. They both fight dragons. There may be a game somewhere in which the fighter adventures the wizard studies and the wrong does diplomacy all over town, but in most groups people do these things as a team. That places them both quite definitively in the same Sphere of "Doin' Stuff".
Quote from: MGuy;550517But they don't. When sitting down with an RPG group you can be either one or the other. They both go on adventures. They both engage in social matters. They both fight dragons. There may be a game somewhere in which the fighter adventures the wizard studies and the wrong does diplomacy all over town, but in most groups people do these things as a team. That places them both quite definitively in the same Sphere of "Doin' Stuff".
What I mean is that each archtype is better at certain things and worse at others. But you did actually touch on a point that gets completely ignored in these discussions yet is what ACTUALLY happens in a game. All the character classes are a TEAM. They are meant to help each other not be in some vacuum in competition with each other.
Quote from: RandallS;550513You just hit one of my pet peeves. RPGs do not evolve. They are designed. WOTC D&D (and later TSR D&D) was designed by committee with at least two often contradictory goals: to be a fun game to play and to be a game that can reach the income goals the parent company has set. Evolution is not involved. The change between editions are NOT made by evolution but rather by decisions of designers and (unfortunately) bean counters. The rules in 4e are different from those in 0e, but no evolution was involved -- just designers making decisions based on what they think the game should be (given that it needs to meet sales goals).
Well fine. If you don't like the word evolve I'm not going to argue over it.
Fun and payout are not contradictory goals (See: World of Warcraft).Thac0 got changed to D20's roll high method because people realized that rolling over was measurably better than rolling under. 4E came out the way it did because WoW is so popular and the thought was that if they encased all abilities in the combat zone (like WoW does) that they can keep the power disparity between Fighters and Wizards from becoming an issue. It worked by essentially making it so no one could do anything outside of combat. 5e is coming up. Problems need to be identified. What works and what doesn't worked should be analyzed. Thinking that fun somehow clashes with profit is an oddway to think about things because often times the more fun a game is the more a company can expect to rake in off of it.
Quote from: Marleycat;550505That depends on edition if it's 3x the answer is multiclassing but if it's 0/1/2e you're forgetting about...
1. Best Armour
2. Best hitpoints
3. Best Saves
4. Best THACO/BAB
5. 2nd best skillpoints (in editions that use them)
6. Fun Domain Management perks (in editions that use them)
Those things are not entirely true
A cleric has a good an AC as a Fighter and they can cast buff spells to improve their AC right from 1e they have bless and protection from evil at 1st level
Best hitpoints is marginal as they get a d10 as compared to a d8 for clerics and here is the biter clerics can heal. Paladins get d10s and rangers whilst getting d8s get an additional one at 1st level and overall get 11 d8 compared to a fighters 9d10 and both rangers and paladins get the benefit of exceptional con bonus
Best saves no not really a 1st level fighter in AD&D has
Paralysation : 14 Petrification: 15 Rod; 16 Breath: 17 Spell: 17
A cleric 1st level cleric has
Par: 10 Petrif: 13 Rod: 14 Breath: 16 Spell: 15
and is more likely get Wis benefits vers some atacks. Its not til 5th level or so that fighters surpass clerics on saves
Rangers and Paladins get fighter saves and paladins get +2 to all saves so they have hte best saves I would say
Best thaco to hit tables - yes and more so if you forbid rangers and paladins from double specialisation but .... who does :) UA barbarians and Cavaliers are actually superior due to benefits though
2nd best skill points in 2e Fighters start with less NWP slots than clerics and MUs and they are less liekly to get bonus ones from Intelligence
Domain mgmnt ? not in 0/1/2
.
Quote from: jhkim;550511In my opinion, the whole point of having such these discussions is that I do care about people's analyses of editions. If I truly don't care what someone think, then I won't read their posts.
I think that you should agree with my analysis of an edition. "Analysis" doesn't mean whether I like it, but rather my understanding of how it works. If fighters actually worked differently in your games than in my games, that's something that can be understood by more communication. So were fighters the same in my game as yours, but you liked it that way? Or were they actually different in how they played out? I still can't tell that yet.
What makes me suspicious is conflating together different things. For example, someone might like how their experience of AD&D1 play was less rules-bound, but then they defend every wart of the rules - psionics, grappling, etc. These aren't logically connected. I might like less rules-bound play, but still dislike other qualities of AD&D1.
Trying to persuade someone to accept your analysis is fine. What i am griping about is people demanding others accept their analysis (which i have never seen you do). Polite disagreement, that can be very productive. Calling people names because they reached a different concusion than you over whether this feat or that spell is balanced, is abit much for mel
I see your points. I am not one to defend all the warts. I can only speak for myself. My experience is as follows:
3e is imbalanced when it comes to fighters and wizards. It becomes a problem at higher levels, but wasn't huge early on in my experience. However, and this is important, martial classes can shine in 3e through builds. If you embrace multiclassing 3e style, which i dont, it does get around a lot of the issues. It is also very possible to manage the balance issue from the gm side. Still how imbalanced this will be still depends on the the kinds of adventures and encounters you tend to have (i was in some groups where it really was never an issue).
2e is balanced in a way that suits me. Over time wizards to get more powerful than fighters, but not to the degree that occured in 3e, and they also have a staggered xp progression, so it takes them longer to advance. In 2e, casting times, low hp, casting risks, all help balance out the wizard a lot more. It isn't perfect, could maybe be improved, but you do have to be careful because sometimes tweaking things to make them balanced in the abstract kills the flavor in my experience. Personally never really had many issues with fighters in 2e. I did mostly run ravenloft however, which is low magic and altters spells. Plus some spells caused you to make powers checks.
If I were making my own version of D&D, i think one thing fighters need is more of a damage boost as they level. So I would bake that into the class (maybe a flat damage bonus based on level or something ike that). I would probably pay a bit more attention to spells and casting times with wizards. Give them a few big instant big blasty spells, but have many of the others take, 2,3,4 rounds,
I dont know if this helps or not.
Quote from: Marleycat;550518What I mean is that each archtype is better at certain things and worse at others. But you did actually touch on a point that gets completely ignored in these discussions yet is what ACTUALLY happens in a game. All the character classes are a TEAM. They are meant to help each other not be in some vacuum in competition with each other.
Indeed, and each member of the TEAM should be able to contribute to the TEAM about equally. So what do you regulate the fighter to do? Fight? Everyone on the TEAM can fight. Most of the abilities on someone's character sheet have someway that they can effect, and eventually win, a fight. So why should the Fighter's only claim to fame be fighting when a Morphed Druid, Buffed Cleric, Spell slinging Wizard all do that just as well or better?
Quote from: MGuy;550523Indeed, and each member of the TEAM should be able to contribute to the TEAM about equally. So what do you regulate the fighter to do? Fight? Everyone on the TEAM can fight. Most of the abilities on someone's character sheet have someway that they can effect, and eventually win, a fight. So why should the Fighter's only claim to fame be fighting when a Morphed Druid, Buffed Cleric, Spell slinging Wizard all do that just as well or better?
Context please.
Quote from: MGuy;550523Indeed, and each member of the TEAM should be able to contribute to the TEAM about equally. So what do you regulate the fighter to do? Fight? Everyone on the TEAM can fight. Most of the abilities on someone's character sheet have someway that they can effect, and eventually win, a fight. So why should the Fighter's only claim to fame be fighting when a Morphed Druid, Buffed Cleric, Spell slinging Wizard all do that just as well or better?
When people say fight in regards to the fighter, they mean melee. When I say it, i mean they should be the best consistent damage dealers and hitters in the fight. I dont want the cleric or thief to be as good as the fighter in a fight. The mage i want to be able to some spectacular stuff but have him take longer thna the fighter and be limited by resources. Morhed druids and buffed clerics were one of the major reasons I ended up disliking 3e in the end.
Quote from: Benoist;550419But you see guys, you are giving in to the same type of vacuum-filled examples we've had with 3rd ed in this thread. We have no idea what the adventure looks like, how the campaign unfolded up to that point, what the 15th level fighter got as equipment thus far, what the particular circumstances of the fight, the terrain, the features, the resources available are like around the combat taking place. It's as useless a situation to debate as the fighter against the black dragon was before.
Giving in?
I'd say that's the M.O. Play doesn't matter. Only hypotheticals matter. If one class could hypothetically do something, and you can imagine a case where another class can't do the same thing, why, that's horrible! It's broken!
What I find most amusing was that, several pages back, I proposed that Frank would change the scenario to "you're a fighter thrashing around in zero-G, with no solid surface in sight. There's a dragon flying towards you! Also, you are naked and unarmed!" I was only being sarcastic, but we're practically half-way there.
Some people aren't getting something very basic: the Fighter is conceived as a mundane option, with no powers other than natural ability. If you aren't willing to accept the reliance on natural ability, using external resources in a clever fashion, you wind up with a "naked" Fighter, figuratively or literally. You are deliberately crippling your Fighter, and then complaining about how crippled the Fighter is. And you have no one to blame but yourself.
Sure, you could add magical powers to the Fighter... but then, where's your mundane option? And why didn't you play a Wizard reskinned as a Fighter, if that's what you wanted in the first place?
It's clear that I am approaching the issue from a different direction that some others here. I get the feeling that there's a strong feeling here that 'if the rules are a problem - change them'. That spell isn't a problem - I've removed it from my game. Having one character actually create a liability isn't a problem - some people like that kind of game. Why try to solve issues with game balance anyway, it's impossible!
If I bought a refrigerator, I'd expect that it works when I plug it in. If the refrigerator part works okay but the freezer doesn't work at all I'd expect the manufacturer or retailer to fix it or replace it.
I certainly wouldn't tell my wife, "look it's no big deal. We don't use the freezer, anyway. Most people only use the refrigerator anyways, and how often do you really need something that cold?"
I certainly wouldn't tell my wife, "well, it's broken, but I can probably fix it. Let me get my tools."
It's not unreasonable to expect the manufacturer to fix the problem if it's a design defect.
This is a thread that was created to discuss a suggestion for helping maintain Fighter relevance. Regardless of your personal experience, it's dishonest to deny that some quantifiable number of people have experienced an issue with fighter relevance in their games. I assert that it HAS affected fun at the table. For myself, even though I like the Fighter (as I have said numerous times), I can no longer bring myself to take more than 4 levels in the class. I physically CANNOT do it. I've tried and tried, but Fighter 5 (in 3.5) is a barrier I can no longer cross. I've been there, done that, and found that being relegated to insignificance was a problem.
As a Fighter, I expect to have some useful skills. I don't know why Fighters can't be effective Diplomats. In 1st edition, a Fighter automatically received a Keep and Followers. Now, you can't even talk to the King because you don't know how to speak politely. You don't get Knowledge Nobility and Royalty, so even though you spent your entire youth following the tournament careers of your favorite knights, you can't recognize their shield insignias because that's not a class skill for you. A highly skilled fighting man with a reputation for honesty is a TROPE in diplomacy - the retired general as ambassador has been done so many time and yet, in D&D, it is not supported by the rules.
As a Fighter, I expect to be somewhat mobile with or without magic. That means I should be able to run, swim, climb, ride a horse and train animals for warfare. And yet, even if these are class skills, the Fighter has 2 per level... A not particularly bright fighter may only have 1.
If you want to be a diplomancer or mobile, you need to take Rogue and/or Ranger.
Quote from: Benoist;550419But you see guys, you are giving in to the same type of vacuum-filled examples we've had with 3rd ed in this thread. We have no idea what the adventure looks like, how the campaign unfolded up to that point, what the 15th level fighter got as equipment thus far, what the particular circumstances of the fight, the terrain, the features, the resources available are like around the combat taking place. It's as useless a situation to debate as the fighter against the black dragon was before.
So what do you want? A 400 page expository of everything that happened in the campaign up to that point? How would you know what I was trying to tell you? How would you find my point in all that mess of detail. I'm providing a summary of an experience that HIGHLIGHTED the deficiency of the Fighter (in my experience). And I provided game rule information to back up the observation of WHY it worked out that way. We can argue back and forth whether a human fighter or a frost giant is BETTER - but that wasn't my point. My point was that the fighter was at best ROUGHLY EQUAL to a creature that joined the team due to magical manipulation several days ago.
But if you're interested, here's some more information.
The Tribe of Frost Giants was known to the party from a previous adventure. When they decided that they needed to defeat the black dragon that was poisoning the water upstream of the town (and thus causing large numbers of villagers to get sick) they decided that they would recruit the Frost Giants to their cause. The cleric stayed in town and created water to ensure that the villagers didn't need to drink the tainted water. The Fighter stayed with him in case trouble came up (or to keep him out of trouble, depending on your point of view). The Wizard and the Rogue used Teleport to go to the tribe of Frost Giants (who had a starting attitude of unfriendly).
The rogue came along because he was actually a capable Diplomancer. At 11th level, he had a +14 from ranks, a +2 from Charisma, and he borrowed the Cleric's Cloak of Charisma for another +4 (total +18). They brought a small bribe to give the rogue the time to improve the frost giant's attitude (they waited until they found one by himself). The rogue needed a 7 or better to raise the attitude from Unfriendly to Friendly. If the rogue succeeded, the rogue and the wizard would wait and try to 'convert' another frost giant. If they failed, the wizard cast
Charm Monster. Over the course of the week they raised the opinion of all of the frost giants to Friendly or Helpful. Then they recruited four of them (all charmed) to come with them to help defeat the dragon.
Once the party was reunited, the group slogged up the marshy river. They had several encounters along the way, mostly associated with a tribe of kobolds that worshipped the black dragon (it was new to the area). Since this was at the beginning of the mire, the terrain was generally unfavorable to medium creatures, but the DM ruled that the mud wasn't deep enough to impact the giants significantly. They proved their worth and made the encounters very easy - though the Fighter, specifically, nearly drowned several times because of his Armor Check Penalty. When the party became aware of that danger, the cleric started preparing
water breathing to make sure he didn't drown. Most of the trip involved making fun of the Fighter for sinking to the bottom of deep pools, even though he stopped wearing his armor after the second time.
The party had some other encounters that involved wyverns from the nearby hills. The large giants were able to find some large rocks and scare the wyverns off. The fight never got to melee.
At this point, the party was feeling pretty cocky. They decided that they'd try to find the dragon and overwhelm him with superior force. They had heard that the dragon was 'huge', but the villager that had seen it before also described it as 'being as big as that horse, but with wings'. So, they didn't think it would be that tough. At this point, I was feeling pretty bad for the dragon, so I didn't give the party any help locating his lair. The cleric used
Find the Path, which we had some fun with because it was the 'shortest route'.
The entrance to the dragon's lair was below the water level, but there was a small dungeon in 'dry' land. The fighter put on his armor, let the cleric cast
water breathing on him so he could determine how far the cave was underwater. The party wanted to send a giant, but he insisted. They tied a rope to him, figuring that if he got in trouble, the giants could pull him back.
There were a couple of traps that the kobolds had installed that the fighter ended up tripping, but it didn't hurt him too much. He came back and reported that the tunnel wasn't very long, and there was no risk of drowning. Because the dragon was large, all of the tunnels were big enough for the dragon.
The dragon eventually got cornered (the wizard had put a
web spell over the escape route, and it was leery of getting trapped in the short time it had to think about it). The dragon did get to use the breath weapon, 12d4 damage, but it didn't seriously hurt anyone. The cleric and wizard had both protected themselves with
resist elements, the rogue trusted that he would evade (he did) and the fighter took the full damage, but because there were 'five' melee characters, they figured there would be a chance to heal him if things got serious.
They didn't.
The Frost Giants beat the dragon on initiative, but the dragon beat the fighter. The wizard decided that he should cast
haste on one of the frost giants so it would get an extra attack.
The fight went two rounds. The fighter didn't even get into melee range because he couldn't move into the room because there was no space between the giants and the dragon.
After the mission, the Fighter's Player decided to retire his character. He ended up making some kind of 'shadow-cleric' from the Complete Divine, I think. It was a rogue/cleric hybrid, basically.
I tend to use examples from what I know, but I can think of plenty of other experiences where I was a player that I realized that the Fighter couldn't compete. It wasn't until I spent some time on the Gaming Den that I found people who could articulate what I felt - and more - WHY I felt that way.
I don't think we need to replace the Fighter with the Shadow Lord, but we need to make sure he can keep up with 'giants' that are obstensibly his 'equal' (because they have the same CR).
The campaign didn't go much further, by the way. At that point, I couldn't really keep the players challenged, so we ended up starting a new low-magic gritty campaign...
QUOTE=Sacrosanct;550424]so the Fighter has 2 attacks, each doing 1d12+4, and hits probably 80% of the time, so that's almost 17 damage each round ((6.5+4)*2*.8)
so....the fighter kills the giant in 4 rounds.[/QUOTE]
So - that's not a thought experiment? Personally, I think they're valuable, at least if they're set up in a plausible fashion.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550446I guess what I don't understand is why you are so bothered if Benoist is happy to play AD&D and doesn't share your conclusionsabout its flaws. Also he isn't the only poster here. Plenty of other posters here have responded to you with counter points rooted in the rules.
In terms of actual gameplay, what would you like to see? Do you want fighters to be more than warriors (have powers that are pretty much magical) or do you simply want the mundane fiter but for him to be better at physical combat at higher levels. If we are talking about next, i certainly think there are things they can do to ensure the fighter keeps up with or surpasses the wizard in terms of damage and hitting. Lots of people here will probably applaud stuff like that baked into the class. If you want 4E style powers, that is fine, but chances are you are simply on a different page than most posters here. People on this site predominantly view the fighter as mundane and are not looking for wizard level compleity with them. You might prefer more abilities, i have no issue with that being your preference, but what I want is as solid mundane fighter, easy to use with strong baseline atrack, damage, etc. I don't want resource management or wild powers. Just isn't what I am looking for.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550465I don't dispute that you had these experiences with the game. But surely you understand that not everyone had the same experiences as you, and that some who had them, may not have been as troubled or characterized what you saw as imbalance or not fun. This is the core problem in a lot of these discussions.
Yeah, I admit that not everyone has had the same experiences. It's become clear to me that these issues can be 'hidden' by a competent DM usually. This often means having some players 'reduce the effectiveness of their characters', and that's not always a good thing. I've played with quite a few people in different parts of the country, and I have a couple of good friends that can't be described in any other fashion than 'power-gamer'. They have fun when they find a way to 'break the system'. The 'role-player' suffers when he can't even be the 'grizzeld dwarven warrior' he wants to be because the two-weapon-fighting-
blinking-drow is getting sneak attack ALL the time. And the worst example was a player who had been playing from the very beginning - he was still proud of one of his 1st ed character that had the 'teeth of Dal-i-nar' or some other artifact...
So, while not EVERYONE may have had these problems, I think that anyone that plays with the rules as written and doesn't 'give' the Fighter 'special treats' probably has.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550465Lots of people have different fun/balance expectations and definitions. I for example am fine with the magic user being weak in the beginning of the game in 2E and growing in power over the course of the campaign, to the point where I do think they have more "goodies" than the fighter.
I used to think this was alright, too, but I've changed my mind. We used to always start play from 1st level and go from there. But now, being grown up, having kids and other responsibilities, we usually start at a little above 1st. Usually around 3rd or 4th. I have a new campaign starting on Sunday from 1st, but again - I say usually. In any case, being 'weak' at low-levels but being 'strong' at high levels only applies if you go through all those levels - but even then, if it impacts fun for the players it's a problem. When Fighter players realize they are superfluous - that the wizard doesn't need them anymore to have fun all by himself, that's where I start to run into a problem.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550465I will agree with you that in my experience a straight spellcaster is more powered than a straight fighter in 3E. But I am also not sure that is a major problem. Most people don't play high level games and some people are fine with the wizard starting weak then eclipsing the fighter. There are also builds to consider in 3E. Good use of martial builds will allow the fighter to keep up in my experience.
Or you know, the rules could make a CR 9 Fighter actually capable of going toe-to-toe with a CR 9 Wizard. The rules are explicit that they're SUPPOSED to be equal. Other editions of D&D can get a pass on this one as far as I'm concerned - they don't care that 1st level newbies are hanging out with 20th level characters. But if the power disparity is that high, I don't think the game can be fun.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550465What is bothering me about this discussion, isn't that there are people out there who find some editions of D&D imbalanced or in need of improvement, but that they feel their anecdotal experiences must be universal or that everyone has to agree with their observations about numbers.
That's not my desire at all. I want people to RECOGNIZE that I'm describing actual experiences based on actual games using the rules as written - even without supplement bloat which makes the problems that much more obvious.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550465Yes, numbers are concrete, but the point at which something is considered imbalanced is quite subjective (especially in a game like D&D).
But that's not even the point. Balance would be great. I'd love to see the Fighter/Wizard bout actually be something of near-equals. But that's not what I'm going on about. I'm saying that the RULES should SUPPORT the existing image of the FIGHTER.
If you play with the rules in any edition, the fighter might hit more often, might hit a little harder, and might be a little tougher. He can't track (even if it's not as well as the ranger), he can't find traps (even if it's not as well as the rogue/thief). Basically people in this thread have argued that there's all these things he CAN do, but I'm pointing out that either they're creating rules where they don't exist (which is fine as long as they admit it) [ie, the rules actually say the CAN'T do that] OR they're saying that there are creative things they could do that ANY class can do JUST AS WELL, and in addition to those 'anybody can do' those classes still have 'real class abilities' and possibly 'niche protection'.
Effectively, they've taken everything a 'good fighter' should be able to do, then pulled thoes pieces out to build other classes and decided that because 'this other class does that' the Fighter can't do it anymore.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550465I think I could probably address more of your concerns though if you answer the questions I posted earlier, which are a genuine good-faith effort to understand where you are coming from (as this thread is getting pretty muddy with different arguments).
I've read every post (except the ones that have been posted while I work on this lengthy response) but it'd be helpful if you repeat them.
Quote from: talysman;550527Sure, you could add magical powers to the Fighter... but then, where's your mundane option? And why didn't you play a Wizard reskinned as a Fighter, if that's what you wanted in the first place?
Or a fighter/MU for that matter. *nod*
Quote from: Benoist;550472It's not objective when the reasoning is completely divorced from actual play, campaign specific circumstances, DM and players around the game table and on. It's a thought exercise that will be irrelevant to gamers actually playing the game in 99% of situations
Everything you have ever said, but most especially this is wrong.
Dead wrong. Stupid Wrong. Stop wanking. Stop wanking to your wankfest hatred of the rules. Stop wanking to your wanktastic wanking of circumstances that don't exist and you refuse to explain. Stop wanking to how everyone else must and only can experience the things that you have personally experienced. Stop wanking.
See that number there? The one in your post? The one that says "99%"?
That's you claiming to speak for 99% of all the people who have played games. Guess what, you aren't 99%. This is not subjective. It is objectively true that you are not 99%. You are .00001%. Stop wanking.
The problem here is not that other people are playing the rules and not the game. The problem is that other people play the game. Many people who play the game, in fact, the vast majority of them, have had this problem. They have this problem during actual play, around the game table, under campaign specific circumstances. Stop wanking.
The reason people talk about this problem, is because they've seen this problem.
Frank has played D&D, he's seen this problem. Mguy has played D&D, he's seen this problem. fectin has played D&D, he's seen this problem. I've played D&D, I've seen this problem. The hundreds of people who post about it on the internet have played D&D, they have seen this problem. undoubtedly a large number of people who have played D&D but never posted on the internet have seen this problem. Stop wanking.
When you say that it is irrelevant to 99% of people playing the game, you are wrong. You are either a lying liar, or you are an idiot. Those are the only two options.
This thread was made by someone to discuss ways to fix a problem that exists between Fighters and Wizards that he saw. Since that post, many posters have posted about how they too have seen this problem. About how this problem is relevant to them.
You have consistently and maliciously attacked anyone who has every encountered the problem as having no imagination, as being a wanker, as having never played D&D, as not understanding actual play.
You are wrong. All these people play D&D in actual play, around a table, under campaign specific circumstances.
They are not telling you that you must have encountered this problem too. They have never once said that. But you have consistently and maliciously attacked them, insisting over and over that they could not possibly have had such experiences.
You are a whiny vindictive bully who insists on attacking others for the crime of having different experiences.
The problem is not that other people do not understand actual play. The problem is that you claim to speak for everyone when you clearly do not.
Stop pumping furiously with your hand on your dick while frothing at the mouth long enough to realize that you do not speak for everyone. The evidence shows that this problem is extremely relevant to a large number of people.
Stop wanking.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550522Trying to persuade someone to accept your analysis is fine. What i am griping about is people demanding others accept their analysis (which i have never seen you do). Polite disagreement, that can be very productive. Calling people names because they reached a different concusion than you over whether this feat or that spell is balanced, is abit much for mel
Wow, you must really hate Benoist then, insisting that other people accept his "analysis" and calling people names, like say, theorywanker, for reaching a different conclusion, is all he's ever done.
I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare fighters to rangers and paladins only in the context of "stats" (saving throws, AC from armor, HP, etc) because it neglects to take into account the drawbacks, such as requiring much higher attributes (making the class much rarer), along with alignment restrictions (paladin) and wealth restrictions (ranger).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550528If I bought a refrigerator, I'd expect that it works when I plug it in. If the refrigerator part works okay but the freezer doesn't work at all I'd expect the manufacturer or retailer to fix it or replace it.
I certainly wouldn't tell my wife, "look it's no big deal. We don't use the freezer, anyway. Most people only use the refrigerator anyways, and how often do you really need something that cold?"
I certainly wouldn't tell my wife, "well, it's broken, but I can probably fix it. Let me get my tools."
It's not unreasonable to expect the manufacturer to fix the problem if it's a design defect.
LOL That's awesome. Comparing the use of a role playing game to the use of a freezer. I used to say that guys like you wanted toaster-oven manuals out of printed role playing games but having you making an actual freezer analogy is terrific. I will bookmark that one and reference it in later arguments. Thank you. :D
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550528If I bought a refrigerator, I'd expect that it works when I plug it in. If the refrigerator part works okay but the freezer doesn't work at all I'd expect the manufacturer or retailer to fix it or replace it.
Buying an RPG is not like buying a Fridge, it's like buying a box of paints.
Quote from: Marleycat;550525Context please.
Again, this is going to be 3E I'll let someone else who knows 2e better decide whether or not the numbers there are accurate.
In 3e a Druid can morph into animals. Without dumpster diving you can turn into animals from the monster manual that (depending on your level) are stronger, use combat maneuvers better than, or straight up do as much or more damage than the fighter. To make this worse they can cast while transformed and can gain the benefits of magic items.
Clerics can wear all the armor a fighter can, have casting and turning. They also only fall a bit behind on the attack bonus. They lack all the weapon specialization feats that only fighters can get. At early levels if you gear your cleric for battle there'll be little to distinguish between them both. At higher levels Clerics just straight up out do them. They have better and longer lasting buffs, summons, and death spells.
Wizards at low level have it tougher I'll admit. They can toss on some mage armor but are still closer to death at base than fighters are so front line mages are most likely out of the question until higher levels where they are polymorphing into multiheaded hydras. Lacking that Wizards still end fights immediately with spells like sleep or avoid fights completely with silent image. At higher levels they can lay down battlefield effects that either immediately destroy or render competition useless. The also get more effects that straight up allow them to not have to fight at all.
A fighter can hit things and get punched in the face. With supplements he can hit things harder or use combat maneuver shenanigans.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;5505222e is balanced in a way that suits me. Over time wizards to get more powerful than fighters, but not to the degree that occured in 3e, and they also have a staggered xp progression, so it takes them longer to advance. In 2e, casting times, low hp, casting risks, all help balance out the wizard a lot more. It isn't perfect, could maybe be improved, but you do have to be careful because sometimes tweaking things to make them balanced in the abstract kills the flavor in my experience. Personally never really had many issues with fighters in 2e. I did mostly run ravenloft however, which is low magic and altters spells. Plus some spells caused you to make powers checks.
If I were making my own version of D&D, i think one thing fighters need is more of a damage boost as they level. So I would bake that into the class (maybe a flat damage bonus based on level or something ike that). I would probably pay a bit more attention to spells and casting times with wizards. Give them a few big instant big blasty spells, but have many of the others take, 2,3,4 rounds,
I dont know if this helps or not.
I am a 2e man down to the shiny buckles on my DM gifted boots of speed but :
You are way out on XP :
A 9th level fighter in 2e needs 250K xp
A 9th level wizard needs 135K : 250 K gives you a 10th level wizard
Casting times are not a big deal if you use weapons speed as a 4th level spell has casting time 4 which is 1 faster than a longsword so casting a 4th level spell is generally faster than hitting with a sword and fighters get no speed bonus unless you specialise in styles in CFH which is out of scope for these Vaccumed comparisons :)
Now I still love 2e so meh...:)
I think to improve figthers I would not dish out more damage per se although simple house rule doubling +s from str/sepcial etc on criticals can have an impact.
I would -
Improve base AC with level
Build in growing immunity to fear
Build in advanced weapon options not as 'magical buffs' but as real martial improvements some of this you get in CFH
Build a stat improvement mechanism into the 2e engine so you can grow your core physical stats as you level up.
Allow finesse fighters to use dex to imporve damage not Strength , in some circumstances
Allow very high level fighters 10 + to hit things usually hit only by magical weapons like a Barbarian.
Increase the change of critical hits and give Very high level fighters a 'point of weakness' against monsters again through crits and maybe fighter crits do more, maybe like a thief backstab a high level figthers crits do 3x or 4x not double.
At the same time I would either introduce Spell points or reassess the spell slot tables to rebalance wizards such that they get more access to low level spells at low level and less access to high level spells at high levels.
As I posted upthread a 9th level MU gets a dozen spells a 15th level one gets 30 that means they are going from 3 spells every 2 levels up to 9th to 3 spells a level from 9 - 15 effectively double the number of slots per level which is a bit like a figthers thaco goign from 1 per level to 2 per level at 9th ...
I would be happy to see a 1st level MU get 4 1st level slots but a 15th level one to get something closer to 8/5/3/2/2/1/1 than 5/5/5/5/5/2/1.
Quote from: MGuy;550523Indeed, and each member of the TEAM should be able to contribute to the TEAM about equally. So what do you regulate the fighter to do? Fight? Everyone on the TEAM can fight. Most of the abilities on someone's character sheet have someway that they can effect, and eventually win, a fight. So why should the Fighter's only claim to fame be fighting when a Morphed Druid, Buffed Cleric, Spell slinging Wizard all do that just as well or better?
Because they can't. A druid can become, at best, a black bear. So, he'll have an attack routine of 1-6/1-6/1-8, 27 hit points, an ac of 6 and he'll hit ac 0 on a 15. A druid gets this power at level 7. A 7th level fighter, however, has 3/2 attacks at 1-8, 38 hit points, an ac of as low as 2, and hits ac 0 on a 14. That's without magic or stat bonuses. The druid could have 18's across the board and his stats won't change. The magic user could POTENTIALLY cast polymorph self and become, say a troll (the spell description says as large as a hippo, so a troll seems about right. He could also become a hill giant, but the troll has more attacks.) He'll have an attack routine of 5-8/5-8/2-12, 17 hit points, an ac of 4, and hits ac 0 on a 13. The cleric Will do 2-7 damage, have 31 hit points, an ac of 2 (same as the fighter), and hit ac 0 on a 16. He could, theoretically have precast bless, prayer, or protection from evil. My money is on the fighter in all three cases. It only gets worse at higher levels. Mimicing the fighter is great - when there's no fighter. But the fighter will always be better at, well, being a fighter.
QuoteIf I bought a refrigerator, I'd expect that it works when I plug it in. If the refrigerator part works okay but the freezer doesn't work at all I'd expect the manufacturer or retailer to fix it or replace it.
I certainly wouldn't tell my wife, "look it's no big deal. We don't use the freezer, anyway. Most people only use the refrigerator anyways, and how often do you really need something that cold?"
I certainly wouldn't tell my wife, "well, it's broken, but I can probably fix it. Let me get my tools."
It's not unreasonable to expect the manufacturer to fix the problem if it's a design defect.
Awesome, so we are comparing appliances to roleplaying games, one has an objective function that achieves its intended purpose and one has a subjective function that achieves its intended can you guess which one could objectively be called a design defect if it doesn't achieve its intended purpose 100% of the time?
Quote from: jadrax;550534Buying an RPG is not like buying a Fridge, it's like buying a box of paints.
Yes. And honestly, I can't understand that mindset.
Here is an absolute truth. Things that no one can deny:
1. Every gaming group, and every gamer, has slightly different things that they like and dislike, and things that they prefer from a mechanical standpoint about every game.
Knowing that, we can assume that no single game will be perfect for everyone. No single game will have every rule "work" like that gamer wants it to.
Can we all agree so far?
So why, in God's green earth, do people insist on calling a game "bad" if it doesn't cater to your every whim? That's impossible from a large market design point.
It's like putting 100 people into a room and expecting them to universally agree on the perfect song.
The rulebooks are tools. That was the intent from the get go. So much so that it's been repeated by the "original crew" of D&D multitudes of times. It's a framework that allows each individual group to tailor the game to meet their expectations. And yet we have people who insist that that sort of philosophy is broken.
I'm at the point where I'm about to say "fuck them." You're wanting the impossible, and bitching when you don't get it.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550528It's not unreasonable to expect the manufacturer to fix the problem if it's a design defect.
I absolutely agree. I hate spending money on machines that are broken. The problem here is lots of customers dispute what is broken. This isn't as black and white as "i push the button and it doesn't turn on" there is a lot of subjective assesment. That has been the central issue with producing 5e. One person's bug is another's feature.
QuoteSo, while not EVERYONE may have had these problems, I think that anyone that plays with the rules as written and doesn't 'give' the Fighter 'special treats' probably has.
Depending on the edition I may agree.
QuoteI used to think this was alright, too, but I've changed my mind. We used to always start play from 1st level and go from there. But now, being grown up, having kids and other responsibilities, we usually start at a little above 1st. Usually around 3rd or 4th. I have a new campaign starting on Sunday from 1st, but again - I say usually. In any case, being 'weak' at low-levels but being 'strong' at high levels only applies if you go through all those levels - but even then, if it impacts fun for the players it's a problem. When Fighter players realize they are superfluous - that the wizard doesn't need them anymore to have fun all by himself, that's where I start to run into a problem.
But this is just preference. Just because you have changed yours over time, it doesn't mean others need to change with you (or that the game should be built around your preferences). I agree for lots of people this wont be fun. For me weak at low levels and strong at high levels works great.
In 3e i did encounter what you are describing and wanted them to fix it (4e just went way too far for me). For 2e i didn't have as much of an issue. But i am fine with them trying to balance out the fighter more in next. I just think how they do it will be critical. Fundamentally i want a simple fighter, good at dealing damage, not a superhero or reskinned wizard.
Quote from: Kaelik;550530Everything you have ever said, but most especially this is wrong.
(...)
Stop wanking.
Hit a nerve, didn't I?
Don't worry dude, I love you too. Welcome to the RPG Site, by the way. :)
I think it's telling that in TSR era D&D, you have groups of people who have said that MUs are the weakest class, fighters are the weakest class, thieves as the weakest class, and clerics so boring that no one wants to play.
That tells me that they were all fairly well balanced ;)
That, and the fact that if they were so broken as some people claim, there would have been major changes some point along the time line from 1974 to 1999. However, I posit that many of these issues weren't as big as people make them out to be, and that's why so many people were able to do just fine for 25 years.
In my opinion, it wasn't until WotC took over, stripped the fighter of several perks, and boosted the caster classes that it became a balance problem. The problem on forums is that too many people think D&D started with WotC and therefore like to say that balance problems were horrible until 4e came along and fixed it all.
It makes baby Orcus cry
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550531I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare fighters to rangers and paladins only in the context of "stats" (saving throws, AC from armor, HP, etc) because it neglects to take into account the drawbacks, such as requiring much higher attributes (making the class much rarer), along with alignment restrictions (paladin) and wealth restrictions (ranger).
Aren't stats decided before you play? How is that a drawback? How is alignment a comparable restriction? If I play a Paladin or a Ranger knowing about these restrictions I'm most likely going to play them because those restrictions don't hinder me from what I want to do. If the restrictions don't hinder me in any feasible fashion then how do they balance things out?
Quote from: JRR;550537Because they can't. A druid can become, at best, a black bear. So, he'll have an attack routine of 1-6/1-6/1-8, 27 hit points, an ac of 6 and he'll hit ac 0 on a 15. A druid gets this power at level 7. A 7th level fighter, however, has two attacks at 1-8, 38 hit points, an ac of as low as 2, and hits ac 0 on a 14. That's without magic or stat bonuses. The druid could have 18's across the board and his stats won't change. The magic user could POTENTIALLY cast polymorph self and become, say a troll (the spell description says as large as a hippo, so a troll seems about right. He could also become a hill giant, but the troll has more attacks.) He'll have an attack routine of 5-8/5-8/2-12, 17 hit points, an ac of 4, and hits ac 0 on a 13. The cleric Will do 2-7 damage, have 31 hit points, an ac of 2 (same as the fighter), and hit ac 0 on a 16. He could, theoretically have precast bless, prayer, or protection from evil. My money is on the fighter in all three cases. It only gets worse at higher levels. Mimicing the fighter is great - when there's no fighter. But the fighter will always be better at, well, being a fighter.
I'm not familiar with 2E. I specifically said I'm speaking from what I know. I can't argue for or against what you said because I'm not familiar enough with 2e and its various kits to do the numbers though I belive other people can.
Jibba, i am not goingnto defend the mid level wizard spell progression (i still think that makes no sense). But from 1-6 fighter has the edge. Then from 15-20 the fighter regains it. I think giving the fighter the edge the whole way through would have been better.
Quote from: MGuy;550545Aren't stats decided before you play? How is that a drawback? How is alignment a comparable restriction? If I play a Paladin or a Ranger knowing about these restrictions I'm most likely going to play them because those restrictions don't hinder me from what I want to do. If the restrictions don't hinder me in any feasible fashion then how do they balance things out?
Seriously? You're asking how alignment is a restriction (not to mention a big one: limited ownership of treasure)?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550540Yes. And honestly, I can't understand that mindset.
Here is an absolute truth. Things that no one can deny:
1. Every gaming group, and every gamer, has slightly different things that they like and dislike, and things that they prefer from a mechanical standpoint about every game.
Knowing that, we can assume that no single game will be perfect for everyone. No single game will have every rule "work" like that gamer wants it to.
Can we all agree so far?
So why, in God's green earth, do people insist on calling a game "bad" if it doesn't cater to your every whim? That's impossible from a large market design point.
It's like putting 100 people into a room and expecting them to universally agree on the perfect song.
The rulebooks are tools. That was the intent from the get go. So much so that it's been repeated by the "original crew" of D&D multitudes of times. It's a framework that allows each individual group to tailor the game to meet their expectations. And yet we have people who insist that that sort of philosophy is broken.
I'm at the point where I'm about to say "fuck them." You're wanting the impossible, and bitching when you don't get it.
Focus, FOCUS. The question is whether or not the fighter is or isn't balanced with the Wizard. What is / isn't fun, "perfect" games, and any other strawman that doesn't butt heads with this question are irrelevant.
Quote from: MGuy;550549Focus, FOCUS. The question is whether or not the fighter is or isn't balanced with the Wizard. What is / isn't fun, "perfect" games, and any other strawman that doesn't butt heads with this question are irrelevant.
Then maybe you want tell your buddy deadDMwalking that, instead of comparing rpgs to appliances. What the fuck all does that have to do with balance?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550547Jibba, i am not goingnto defend the mid level wizard spell progression (i still think that makes no sense). But from 1-6 fighter has the edge. Then from 15-20 the fighter regains it. I think giving the fighter the edge the whole way through would have been better.
See isn't he Xp progressiong in itself a bit kooky the point at which the Wiz is gaining the most power that 8-15 stretch is when his XP limits are actually lower :)
i think we have a similar view of stuff that it woudl be nice for a fighter to be able to do though.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550548Seriously? You're asking how alignment is a restriction (not to mention a big one: limited ownership of treasure)?
Yes... My 3rd favorite class (Behind Summoner (Pathfinder) and Rogue/Thief is a Paladin. I've never once felt restricted by being a goody two shoes. As for wealth restriction, I have no idea how much that impacts you in 2E. However, I'd imagine that if I decided to play the class even with the restriction I would do so with a plan in mind such that the wealth restriction wouldn't hinder what I wanted to do.
Quote from: MGuy;550546I'm not familiar with 2E. I specifically said I'm speaking from what I know. I can't argue for or against what you said because I'm not familiar enough with 2e and its various kits to do the numbers though I belive other people can.
3x is a funny one. You have to be very selective in what you let in the game. (Excepting the Druid, what a fuckup if there ever was one). The Cleric was on purpose to get people to play them or so they say. I do think 5e's tack of making the cleric optional could be a game changer and really removes one of the worst issues of 3x out of the gate.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550551Then maybe you want tell your buddy deadDMwalking that, instead of comparing rpgs to appliances. What the fuck all does that have to do with balance?
I'm not Dead. His claims aren't mine but either way that's tearing away from the actual issue. I'm not going to give the fridge line any attention because focusing on it is a distraction.
Quote from: MGuy;550553Yes... My 3rd favorite class (Behind Summoner (Pathfinder) and Rogue/Thief is a Paladin. I've never once felt restricted by being a goody two shoes. As for wealth restriction, I have no idea how much that impacts you in 2E. However, I'd imagine that if I decided to play the class even with the restriction I would do so with a plan in mind such that the wealth restriction wouldn't hinder what I wanted to do.
Congratulations. You're different that most gamers, because for most gamers, having to be lawful-good and the things that go along with it are a pretty big restriction (assuming you rolled well enough to get a 17 CHA to begin with). And being able to acquire wealth and treasure (being one of the biggest reasons to play the game in 1e) is a big bonus for fighters over paladins and rangers. You have to remember that the end game (name level and realm management) was a pretty big part of AD&D's design.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550552See isn't he Xp progressiong in itself a bit kooky the point at which the Wiz is gaining the most power that 8-15 stretch is when his XP limits are actually lower :)
i think we have a similar view of stuff that it woudl be nice for a fighter to be able to do though.
Sure. I never said 2e was perfect. Though it seems like such a deliberate change that there probably was a reason.
However your proposed solutions are simply not what I want. For me tightening the casting times, improving damage, etc is all i really need. I do like fighters but think they could stand for an adjustment. I wouldn't want to add more moving parts to the game though (but then i hated skills and powers in 2E).
Quote from: Marleycat;5505543x is a funny one. You have to be very selective in what you let in the game. (Excepting the Druid, what a fuckup if there ever was one). The Cleric was on purpose to get people to play them or so they say. I do think 5e's tack of making the cleric optional could be a game changer and really removes one of the worst issues of 3x out of the gate.
The thing is, I don't mind morphing Druids. I think that its a fun and dynamic ability very thematic of the class. My problems with 3.x are multifold. There is a long list of things I don't like about 3x/Pathfinder. Its why I started trying to make my own system. However I do not like the Rules Lite or 4e routes. I don't like games that basically necessitates the GM to adjudicate what the players can do. I don't like systems that have few rules and a lot of "fluff". I realize that more rules makes the game more complicated but I, as a GM and a player, enjoy player empowerment. The best, most "fair" way to do that is for the game to straight up tell you that your player CAN do "X". On the other hand I don't like 4E's approach that refuses to let your abilities or the monsters interact with the world. I think that 3E has the best setup but unfortunately lets things get out of hand: Fighter is too narrowly focused and easily replaced while the high end Magic stuff is too over the top for my tastes. I personally want the game to find a comfortable middle ground. Something with a power level as shown in Avatar or maybe One Piece (for anime fans).
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550548Seriously? You're asking how alignment is a restriction (not to mention a big one: limited ownership of treasure)?
No on these points he is right. Alignment and lack of treasure are no big deal.
A Paladin can own a suit of magical armour, 1 sheild, 4 magic weapons 4 other magic items. In my games that would be more magic than the party has ever fucking seen : )
Reteaining wealth is no big deal so long as you get the XP for finding it and can pay for the ludicrous training costs.
However he misses a trick. Because they need alternate stats to be high in a game with random rolled stats the stats of rangers and paladins are worse. Especially true of paladins. If you need to spend your 17 on Charisma that means you can't put it into CON/STR/DEX so what that means is that Single class figthers are usually stronger than Rangers or Paladins and odd effec from an associative perspective but .... Rangers always have good Hit points because they need min 14 Con so usually they have 15 or 16 and so at 1st level they have 2d8 +4 hp which is bound to be okay.
If you roll stats in order with no reassignment then of course the stat element is no longer relevant.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550557Congratulations. You're different that most gamers, because for most gamers, having to be lawful-good and the things that go along with it are a pretty big restriction (assuming you rolled well enough to get a 17 CHA to begin with). And being able to acquire wealth and treasure (being one of the biggest reasons to play the game in 1e) is a big bonus for fighters over paladins and rangers. You have to remember that the end game (name level and realm management) was a pretty big part of AD&D's design.
I am... flattered(?) that you see my way of playing as different but alignment is really wonky to begin with and if I decide to play a Paladin then I'm pretty much deciding I want to be that way. I actually enjoy the "restriction" because it fosters interesting role playing opportunities. And I'm not sure what the wealth does to you at higher levels so I have nothing to say about that.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550561No on these points he is right. Alignment and lack of treasure are no big deal..
For you maybe. But believe me, they were big deals for most people. So much so that the Gamers 2 even makes a long running joke about it. Not to mention the multitudes of letters to Dragon bitching about the Awful-good aligned paladin.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550541But this is just preference. Just because you have changed yours over time, it doesn't mean others need to change with you (or that the game should be built around your preferences). I agree for lots of people this wont be fun. For me weak at low levels and strong at high levels works great.
I'm not demanding that anyone change their preference. I'm challenging everyone to consider their preference, and see if the rules SUPPORT that preference.
The part that I find alarming is that we have the same stated preferences. I am trying to point out that the rules don't support that preference, which I consider a deficiency.
Others have already 'addressed' that problem by creating new or different rules.
The refrigerator/freezer metaphor (which, if you posted something above to the effect of 'hah - RPGs aren't like APPLIANCES' means you are a dumbass) applies to stated benefits. 3rd edition claims to do high level play and Epic play. It might work on the 'low setting' (equivalent to a refrigerator) but it does not work on the 'high setting' (equivalent to a freezer). The fact that they claim it does is why I have an objection.
The fact that I can fix the problems for myself and my group doesn't absolve the manufacturer for addressing them. Again, this is not because it is my opinion - it's because they try to claim one thing is equivalent to another, and it is not.
Let me make this explicit -
The designers of D&D 3.5 say that in a 'battle arena' - a featureless plain 400' in diameter with a sky reaching up to 400' above, if you put any two creatures with the same Challenge Rating, they should have roughly equal chances of annihilating one another. In the event that one has a clear advantage (ie, a creature that flies and has a ranged attack versus a creature that is land-locked), we have to look at other creatures they were able to win against. Thus, a creature like a Giant Scorpion that lost to the Harpy might still be okay, because it beat another creature that the Harpy lost to. This is why Challenge Rating exists.
The designers say that a Fighter has a Challenge Rating equal to his Fighter Level and that he is explicity supposed to be as good as a Wizard of the same level, or a Ranger/Rogue of the same level.
The designers who make this claim are CLEARLY WRONG.
Yes, the PCs should fight as a team. I'm all for that. But the CR system says that if you pit them against each other, they should have roughly equal chances of winning.
Since CR did not exist before 3rd edition, this observation does not apply to 1st or 2nd edition where the rules were fine with 'fighters' being less significant than wizards. Preference. What have you.
But they can't claim the two are equal when they are clearly not competitive with each other.
I didn't invent the CR system, and I'm not the one who tried to assert their comparability. I'm just making an observation of the system's failure, which should be obvious to anyone willing to test it.
Quote from: MGuy;550491The game is called "Dungeons and DRAGONS". I believe I can reasonably expect a fighter to fight a dragon. What's more is a fighter doesn't inherently get the ability to fly so why should think that he would be able to? When I played 2E and as far as I know treasure drops are random in 2E and though you can buy a flying thing in 3rd so can every other class so the ability to get 'something" that allows you to fly is not unique to the fighter and thus is not something that I should consider when judging the fighter's power level.
Nice dodge. :)
You know, I can play a whole campaign of D&D and reasonable expect my fighter to never see a dragon. ;)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550564For you maybe. But believe me, they were big deals for most people. So much so that the Gamers 2 even makes a long running joke about it. Not to mention the multitudes of letters to Dragon bitching about the Awful-good aligned paladin.
I certainly don't disagree. A lot of people do not like the paladin because they don't like the boyscout thing. But I tend to take my roleplaying very seriously. I set personal restrictions on how I act no matter what class I play based on what my character idea is and how I think my character should act. Its not surprising then, that I can stand the comparatively minor restriction.
Quote from: Drohem;550566Nice dodge. :)
You know, I can play a whole campaign of D&D and reasonable expect my fighter to never see a dragon. ;)
You know I can reasonably play a campaign and fight nothing BUT dragons? I even made a good run at playing a game where "I" didn't fight anything (until the DM decided that Diplomacy and Bluff were overpowered). My point is is that its a reasonable assumption that a fighter will fight dragons. The fact that they don't "have" to is moot. The chance of them fighting one is not a niche case and is something suitably epic for high level play.
Quote from: MGuy;550567I certainly don't disagree. A lot of people do not like the paladin because they don't like the boyscout thing. But I tend to take my roleplaying very seriously. I set personal restrictions on how I act no matter what class I play based on what my character idea is and how I think my character should act. Its not surprising then, that I can stand the comparatively minor restriction.
For the record, one of my favorite characters of all time was Justicar Sacrosanct, a paladin of Ilmatr in 2.5 (yes, I used S&P splatbooks).
Because of the S&P, I was able to build him:
* no armor
* d12 for hp
* early cleric spells
* weapon spec (2 handed sword)
* no wealth
That allowed me to pay a role where because he worshipped the god of suffering, he put himself in harms way protecting his companions. The no armor tied in with suffering more (because he got hit more), but the higher hp meant he could also suffer more damage. Being specialized in the 2 handed sword fit well with inflicting a lot of "cleansing" punishment to his enemies ;) Those mechanical changes fit really well with the whole ethos of being a paladin for the god of suffering. It was the 90s, so there was a bit of emo goth going on I suppose, but he was a great character to play from a role-playing standpoint.
Quote from: Drohem;550566Nice dodge. :)
You know, I can play a whole campaign of D&D and reasonable expect my fighter to never see a dragon. ;)
but again the dragon itself isn't the issue the point is that a high level figther will meet a high level monster that probably has a range of powers of which flight is pretty common and fear isn't far behind. Djin, effeerts air elementals can fly and demons, devils and undead can often fly either naturally or with magic or can turn ethereal and cause fear etc etc
Of course they also might have magic resistance but that doesn;t affedt them being attaacked by charmed frost giants or wizards who have buffed themselves, remember good old Tenser.
the Dragon just stands as an example of a tough high level monster.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550565I'm not demanding that anyone change their preference. I'm challenging everyone to consider their preference, and see if the rules SUPPORT that preference.
That is fine. But when peope hear what you have to say and remain unpersuaded, i just dont see the problem
QuoteThe part that I find alarming is that we have the same stated preferences. I am trying to point out that the rules don't support that preference, which I consider a deficiency.
.
No need to be alarmed, it is just D&D :)
We may share some preferences, but we seem to disagree on whether balance over the campaign is fun (ie wizard starts out weak but surpasses the fighter). Like I said, i am okay with the wizard gaining the edge at higher levels.
Quote from: Drohem;550566Nice dodge. :)
You know, I can play a whole campaign of D&D and reasonable expect my fighter to never see a dragon. ;)
I've only put one dragon in a game of D&D since 1979- and so far that's just a name on a map with a touch of back story.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550571For the record, one of my favorite characters of all time was Justicar Sacrosanct, a paladin of Ilmatr in 2.5 (yes, I used S&P splatbooks).
Because of the S&P, I was able to build him:
* no armor
* d12 for hp
* early cleric spells
* weapon spec (2 handed sword)
* no wealth
That allowed me to pay a role where because he worshipped the god of suffering, he put himself in harms way protecting his companions. The no armor tied in with suffering more (because he got hit more), but the higher hp meant he could also suffer more damage. Being specialized in the 2 handed sword fit well with inflicting a lot of "cleansing" punishment to his enemies ;) Those mechanical changes fit really well with the whole ethos of being a paladin for the god of suffering. It was the 90s, so there was a bit of emo goth going on I suppose, but he was a great character to play from a role-playing standpoint.
exactly so the restrictions were no big deal because they helped create a character you wanted to play which is exactly what good restrictions do
Quote from: MGuy;550549Focus, FOCUS. The question is whether or not the fighter is or isn't balanced with the Wizard. What is / isn't fun, "perfect" games, and any other strawman that doesn't butt heads with this question are irrelevant.
You're wrong.
The question is whether or not fighter/wizard balance is bullshit, and whether changing the rules a little to encourage more teamwork between the two would keep people from complaining about that bullshit. It's right in the title of the thread, and in the first post. The OP assumes that, for many people, that bullshit doesn't matter. Your contention, and that of Frank and a couple others, is that no, that bullshit is SERIOUS for everyone.
Quote from: MGuy;550569You know I can reasonably play a campaign and fight nothing BUT dragons?
Well, that would be as silly as assuming that fighters are useless at high level of play. ;) :)
Quote from: talysman;550577You're wrong.
The question is whether or not fighter/wizard balance is bullshit, and whether changing the rules a little to encourage more teamwork between the two would keep people from complaining about that bullshit. It's right in the title of the thread, and in the first post. The OP assumes that, for many people, that bullshit doesn't matter. Your contention, and that of Frank and a couple others, is that no, that bullshit is SERIOUS for everyone.
Um, he states its bullshit because its a non issue. I contend that it is an issue. The OP suggests that because of "bullshit" you can do makes it not a problem. I'm saying that changing the rules doesn't make the fact that the rules make them unbalanced go away. Hiding the issue doesn't make it a non issue. It just means that you can ignore the rules.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550576exactly so the restrictions were no big deal because they helped create a character you wanted to play which is exactly what good restrictions do
For
that character. They were a huge restriction and deal breaker for when I wanted to play a character who ran his own kingdom and didn't want to be all goody two shoes. And for most people, they were huge restrictions. Why do you think WotC decided to get rid of half of them in 3e? Because too many people complained.
I'd say when you have that many people complaining, it's a relevant thing to point out when you're talking about comparing it to other classes.
The point is, is that it's disingenuous to compare only the benefits of each class without also factoring in the limitations.
Quote from: Drohem;550581Well, that would be as silly as assuming that fighters are useless at high level of play. ;) :)
It would be and yet you insist that the opposite is true. Luckily the game has other classes I can choose from.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550565I'm not demanding that anyone change their preference. I'm challenging everyone to consider their preference, and see if the rules SUPPORT that preference.
The part that I find alarming is that we have the same stated preferences. I am trying to point out that the rules don't support that preference, which I consider a deficiency.
Others have already 'addressed' that problem by creating new or different rules.
The refrigerator/freezer metaphor (which, if you posted something above to the effect of 'hah - RPGs aren't like APPLIANCES' means you are a dumbass) applies to stated benefits. 3rd edition claims to do high level play and Epic play. It might work on the 'low setting' (equivalent to a refrigerator) but it does not work on the 'high setting' (equivalent to a freezer). The fact that they claim it does is why I have an objection.
The fact that I can fix the problems for myself and my group doesn't absolve the manufacturer for addressing them. Again, this is not because it is my opinion - it's because they try to claim one thing is equivalent to another, and it is not.
Let me make this explicit -
The designers of D&D 3.5 say that in a 'battle arena' - a featureless plain 400' in diameter with a sky reaching up to 400' above, if you put any two creatures with the same Challenge Rating, they should have roughly equal chances of annihilating one another. In the event that one has a clear advantage (ie, a creature that flies and has a ranged attack versus a creature that is land-locked), we have to look at other creatures they were able to win against. Thus, a creature like a Giant Scorpion that lost to the Harpy might still be okay, because it beat another creature that the Harpy lost to. This is why Challenge Rating exists.
The designers say that a Fighter has a Challenge Rating equal to his Fighter Level and that he is explicity supposed to be as good as a Wizard of the same level, or a Ranger/Rogue of the same level.
The designers who make this claim are CLEARLY WRONG.
Yes, the PCs should fight as a team. I'm all for that. But the CR system says that if you pit them against each other, they should have roughly equal chances of winning.
Since CR did not exist before 3rd edition, this observation does not apply to 1st or 2nd edition where the rules were fine with 'fighters' being less significant than wizards. Preference. What have you.
But they can't claim the two are equal when they are clearly not competitive with each other.
I didn't invent the CR system, and I'm not the one who tried to assert their comparability. I'm just making an observation of the system's failure, which should be obvious to anyone willing to test it.
From the SRD:
'Challenge Rating: This shows the average level of a party of adventurers for which one creature would make an encounter of moderate difficulty.'
I am not sure you can actually show that any of the things you claim the games claims to do are actually claims that game claims. If you could quote or cite passages that talk about all this equality I would be happy to see them.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550573but again the dragon itself isn't the issue the point is that a high level figther will meet a high level monster that probably has a range of powers of which flight is pretty common and fear isn't far behind. Djin, effeerts air elementals can fly and demons, devils and undead can often fly either naturally or with magic or can turn ethereal and cause fear etc etc
Of course they also might have magic resistance but that doesn;t affedt them being attaacked by charmed frost giants or wizards who have buffed themselves, remember good old Tenser.
the Dragon just stands as an example of a tough high level monster.
Cool. :)
However, that still doesn't convince me that fighters are useless at high level of play.
Quote from: jadrax;550585From the SRD:
'Challenge Rating: This shows the average level of a party of adventurers for which one creature would make an encounter of moderate difficulty.'
I am not sure you can actually show that any of the things you claim the games claims to do are actually claims that game claims. If you could quote or cite passages that talk about all this equality I would be happy to see them.
Be interesting to see what the CR would be of an individual Wizard or Fighter NPC of a given level.
I do think one of the points of levels though to to provide a rough 'level' of comparison. 5th level guys are roughly even etc etc
Quote from: MGuy;550584It would be and yet you insist that the opposite is true. Luckily the game has other classes I can choose from.
LOL! I haven't 'insisted' any such thing, and you know. I have only insisted that I remain unconvinced by your arguments in this thread.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;550403Oh, piffle. He's talking out of his ass (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=549857#post549857), and he's getting called on it. That's life [strike]in Thunderdome[/strike] at theRPGsite.
Oh? I thought this was supposed to be one of the courteous/welcoming forums. My bad.
I'll make sure to call someone autistic this post, to blend in better. Maybe I'll even say a few swears!
Quote from: Black Vulmea;550403Hiring a tracker = a npc hogging the spotlight?!
That's pathetic.
You would instead assert that it's acceptable, or even
admirable to turn to the person next to you and say, "You are too incompetent to handle the thing you signed on to handle. We trust this random imaginary person more than you"? At last, I have an inkling of why you might see autism everywhere you look. If that's really par for your course, you may want to look into playing with folks who are less... douchey.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;550403A belated but no less sincere welcome to the adult swim.
I think your ideas are laughably bad, but you express them well, and that's always a plus. :)
All else aside, sincere thanks for the gracious welcome, and for the unexpected compliment.
Quote from: Benoist;550381Well right there your case is already busted. We've got an 11th level fighter with 11 HD and his group facing an CR 11 Adult Black Dragon with 11 HD as well. Frightful Presence does not work. You should have strictly less HD than the Black Dragon to be subjected to that effect.
CR 11 is 22HD. *Sad Trombone*
On the other hand, this does nicely illuminate your underlying point: if you completely ignore the rules, you're much less affected when those rules are steaming piles of pigshit. Of course, you're hardly playing D&D at that point. Come to think of it, you're not really playing a game at all; you're more fantasizing freely about the muscley adventures of your invincible fighting man (is that the root of your onanistic obsession? Inquiring minds would rather not know).
Quote from: Benoist;550381But what the hell. Let's [strike]play the game[/strike] indulge my fantasies a little bit longer, shall we?
IF Frightful Presence was working in the first place, you then make the assumption that the fighter actually fails his roll, which might not happen at all. Probability =/= certitude. That argument goes both ways. If it's certainly not a given that the fighter succeeds his saving throw, it's also not a given he's going to fail. Dice have a way to surprise the shit out of the group that way. That's part of that "actual play" thing you guys keep ignoring. It's pretty cool, trust me.
Your rebuttal is "Maybe the fighter if the fighter rolls well enough he won't suck this time. It would be a pleasant surprise"? Really? That's a more damning condemnation than anything he came up with.
Quote from: Benoist;550381But nevermind. I still have a problem with your example because we know nothing of the situation in which the actual encounter occurs. Does the group know about the Dragon and finds its lair after preparing to meet the encounter? We don't know. Did they travel through the Wilderness with a Storm Giant in tow, teleport to the place (scrying before hand and knowing what they are up against), or go through an entire dungeon to get there (where of course the Frost Giant is totally cool going through doors and shit)? We don't know.
I so rarely see ignoratio elenchi played to the hilt; rarer still is the man who wears it as a badge of pride. And an appeal to
improbability to boot? Marvelous!
Excelsior, monsignore!Quote from: Benoist;550381Maybe we have the group facing the dragon head on then, automatically assuming that everything will work out fine (metagaming much? How do they know the CR of the encounter?), without preparing first to meet the challenge? Dude, if that's the case, the fighter and the whole group deserve to meet an untimely death. The rules in that case don't impede your ability to play your role, since you are playing a moron fighter who doesn't know when to prepare for a fight, and totally deserve your fate.
Sound and fury, signifying nothing. But chin up and keep trying! Eventually, the sheer aplomb with which you deliver your red herrings must surely pay off. If nothing else, it makes for a splendid show; I can't even recall the last time I saw someone so committed to wallowing in filth, and never with such gusto!
Quote from: Benoist;550381But let's assume our fighter is actually a grizzled veteran who knows you shouldn't get into a fight with an adult dragon without preparing first for it, alright? There are many, many ways in which you can avoid fear effects. First of all, let's assume there's a Cleric who can remove fear in your group. That's a first level spell. So right there, if the Cleric is doing his job instead of waving his awesome uber-fighting skillz in your face, you don't have much problem, do you? How about eating a little bit before facing the dragon? Heroes' Feast sounds good. Greater Heroism too, by the way.
Petitio principe? What a disappointing turn. You were doing so well with obvious fallacies, why move to subtler ones?
Quote from: Benoist;550381Really concerned with your fighter about that pesky Will Save? How about selling your soul to Graz'zt and becoming Abyss-Bound, which immunes you to fear effects? How about getting the Fearless feat? How about getting a Brash weapon enhancement (for a +1 cost) on your chosen sword, for that matter? Banner of the Storm Eye? Horn of Plenty to really dine like a king and have that Heroes' Feast any time you want? I know we're not really at the level of Mind Blank effects yet (depends on the DM though, doesn't it?), but there's enough to work with to get that problem with fear effects solved for good if that's what you want.
Ah, back to red herrings and ignoratio elenchi. That's more like it.
Quote from: Benoist;550381Hey. Nobody said the fighter couldn't use some magic items, potions and the like as well. And in a world where magic is ubiquitous at high level, our grizzled veteran would be stupid not to take advantage of those. Now, it's cool if as a player you want your fighter to be a badass without ever using a magic item, but that's not really the world he's living in, is it? So your solution I'm guessing would be either to make fighters badasses at high level without the magic items, on top of which the magic items that exist in the world will make him EVEN MORE of a badass, or find some way to artificially gimp the fighter into not using magic items at all at high level. Suddenly, his magic sword stops working because he's badass enough, OR there are no magic swords in the world at all. Or you play Iron Heroes where it's all fighters all the time without the items. Which is very cool mind you (love that game), but not exactly the D&D world I usually like to play with myself.
I must admit, I'm puzzled here. Were you going for strawmen or ad hominem? I guess it's good enough to keep your fallacious combo unbroken, but it's much weaker than either alone.
Quote from: Benoist;550381I think you're a bit overstating your case though, particularly when your one encounter with a Black Dragon became "I'm running from all level appropriate foes 65% of the time!" like all the foes have Frightful Presence and are Black Dragons in your game suddenly - man! That's one boring campaign, ain't it?
Three
different ignoratios on the same topic? Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
I can't read any more. Your mastery of Face to Foot style is supreme.
Quote from: Drohem;550587Cool. :)
However, that still doesn't convince me that fighters are useless at high level of play.
but nothing is going to so , meh ;)
Quote from: Drohem;550590LOL! I haven't 'insisted' any such thing, and you know. I have only insisted that I remain unconvinced by your arguments in this thread.
QuoteHowever, that still doesn't convince me that fighters are useless at high level of play.
How interesting. You're saying that you're not insisting that fighters are useless at high level while at the same time you remain unconvinced that they are. What are you not sure?
Quote from: FrankTrollman;550101This is quite frankly horse shit. The original discussion was about high level challenges, not Dragons specifically. People keep bringing up low- and mid-level dragons from older editions only to obfuscate the discussion. Whether the opposition is specifically a Dragon or not is completely immaterial.
As long as you have levels and you keep gaining levels and gaining levels keeps making you more powerful, the expected opposition is eventually going to be very powerful. Powerful enough that the players are going to need actual powerful abilities to beat them. Maybe it happens at level 13, maybe it happens at level 53, but it will eventually happen. Sooner or later, if you keep gaining levels you will stop being challenged by whatever your basic enemies were and be challenged instead by immortals. You might gain some expertise, mastery, or companions in between.
Picking semantic arguments about whether such-and-such an age category of such-and-such a color of dragon happens to be one such paradigm shifting encounter in your edition of choice is meaningless fuckery. The reality is that eventually there is going to be something that crosses that line. If you go high enough in level, your opponent is eventually going to be this guy:
(http://pds20.egloos.com/pds/201102/17/59/d0029159_4d5cab326a0e7.jpg)
So you can fap all you want to how being "pretty good with a 10 foot pole" is enough to adventure at whatever level in your favorite edition or not-D&D game system, but eventually it won't be.
-Frank
Oh yeah once you are done fooling about with dragons, titans and other assorted trash you can go after the BIG game.
Lets face it, once you are hunting the major badasses of AD&D the fighter might as well be a scroll caddy. Fighters were fun back in the orc tunnels and all but who the hell wants to play one at 15th level right?
OK lets go after the REAL opponents. Fighters, stay behind your mages and watch how its done:
Oh look the big bads have mind flayers serving them, show them what you've got!
-Fizzle-
Who cares if they have 90% MR, against you it becomes a mere 70% and theres only 4 of them, go kick some ass!
It isn't gonna get any easier. These are the REAL bad guys. All but 2 of them actually have name tags. ;)
Demogorgon MR 95%
Jubilex MR 65%
Orcus MR 85%
Type VI Demon MR 75%
Yeenoghu MR 80%
Asmodeus MR 90%
Baelzebul MR 85%
Dispater MR 80%
Geryon MR 75%
Pit Fiend MR 65%
Hell even the servants of these guys have decent MR.
It seems like the magic user needs the fighter at higher levels after all just as the fighter needs the magic user. Funny how that works out eh?
Quote from: jadrax;550585From the SRD:
'Challenge Rating: This shows the average level of a party of adventurers for which one creature would make an encounter of moderate difficulty.'
I am not sure you can actually show that any of the things you claim the games claims to do are actually claims that game claims. If you could quote or cite passages that talk about all this equality I would be happy to see them.
This, this, this. I was actually pretty sympathetic to a lot of what deadDMwalking was saying until his "arena" comment. That's theory of the kind that the Grogtards here are decrying. However, the problems in D&D3.x between Fighters and others classes? The Neckbeards here are full of it - those problems are real, and occur in ordinary play. When exactly they occur does still depend on the circumstances of the campaign, but the sheer number of people who can relate stories of similar problems has convinced me (particularly since I've experienced them personally) that the Neckbeards are simply full of shit. Sure, you can't analyse in a vacuum. Sure, earlier editions (all of which I've played, except 0e) really didn't suffer from these problems the same way. That doesn't change the fact that 3.x certainly does.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;550595Oh yeah once you are done fooling about with dragons, titans and other assorted trash you can go after the BIG game.
Lets face it, once you are hunting the major badasses of AD&D the fighter might as well be a scroll caddy. Fighters were fun back in the orc tunnels and all but who the hell wants to play one at 15th level right?
OK lets go after the REAL opponents. Fighters, stay behind your mages and watch how its done:
Oh look the big bads have mind flayers serving them, show them what you've got!
-Fizzle-
Who cares if they have 90% MR, against you it becomes a mere 70% and theres only 4 of them, go kick some ass!
It isn't gonna get any easier. These are the REAL bad guys. All but 2 of them actually have name tags. ;)
Demogorgon MR 95%
Jubilex MR 65%
Orcus MR 85%
Type VI Demon MR 75%
Yeenoghu MR 80%
Asmodeus MR 90%
Baelzebul MR 85%
Dispater MR 80%
Geryon MR 75%
Pit Fiend MR 65%
Hell even the servants of these guys have decent MR.
It seems like the magic user needs the fighter at higher levels after all just as the fighter needs the magic user. Funny how that works out eh?
But only a rookie would cast a spell at something with MR. You send in your charmed, buffed frost giants or you create a wall of iron horizonally above their heads. Direct magic attacks are over rated.
The real question is why are these fuckers all so tough... because they have magic
Quote from: jibbajibba;550598But only a rookie would cast a spell at something with MR. You send in your charmed, buffed frost giants
Because they are readily available before you enter hell and have stayed alive all the way to Orcus's lair???
Quoteor you create a wall of iron horizonally above their heads.
Which immediately disappears once it hits them due to being magical in nature.
Quote from: MGuy;550594How interesting. You're saying that you're not insisting that fighters are useless at high level while at the same time you remain unconvinced that they are. What are you not sure?
Right! Because it's either one or the other extreme, huh?
Quote from: jibbajibba;550589Be interesting to see what the CR would be of an individual Wizard or Fighter NPC of a given level.
From what I recall, NPC Level = CR. Which pretty much shows that in 3.x 'Moderate' difficulty is what I would call 'very easy' difficulty.
QuoteI do think one of the points of levels though to to provide a rough 'level' of comparison. 5th level guys are roughly even etc etc
Very, very rough maybe. It's a game with Random Abilities, Random Magic Items and a heavy focus of System Mastery. It was actually designed with Trap Choices deliberately so Characters are not equal. There were even designers posting on the internet about how this inequality was a 'good' thing.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550592but nothing is going to so , meh ;)
Bingo! :D
Quote from: MGuy;550560I personally want the game to find a comfortable middle ground. Something with a power level as shown in Avatar or maybe One Piece (for anime fans).
I don't know the reference are you talking about the movie Avatar? Just for context so I know what baseline you're wanting.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550598But only a rookie would cast a spell at something with MR. You send in your charmed, buffed frost giants or you create a wall of iron horizonally above their heads. Direct magic attacks are over rated.
The real question is why are these fuckers all so tough... because they have magic
Lo! the legion of charmed powerful monsters. This is the Chewbacca defense of casters. A frost giant has a 60% per week of throwing off a charm and the spell can only affect one at a time.
They are all so tough because they are the REAL enemies of the campaign.
Now that's actually pretty cool. An actual play example to work with (assuming you didn't make it up wholecloth when I called you out on your theoretical example, of course, but for the sake of the conversation I'll assume it actually happened for real).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550528The Tribe of Frost Giants was known to the party from a previous adventure. When they decided that they needed to defeat the black dragon that was poisoning the water upstream of the town (and thus causing large numbers of villagers to get sick) they decided that they would recruit the Frost Giants to their cause. The cleric stayed in town and created water to ensure that the villagers didn't need to drink the tainted water. The Fighter stayed with him in case trouble came up (or to keep him out of trouble, depending on your point of view). The Wizard and the Rogue used Teleport to go to the tribe of Frost Giants (who had a starting attitude of unfriendly).
OK. So far I'm following. Cool set up and cool idea on the PCs' parts, by the way. I'm counting 4 Player Characters in the group. That is going to be relevant later on.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550528The rogue came along because he was actually a capable Diplomancer. At 11th level, he had a +14 from ranks, a +2 from Charisma, and he borrowed the Cleric's Cloak of Charisma for another +4 (total +18). They brought a small bribe to give the rogue the time to improve the frost giant's attitude (they waited until they found one by himself). The rogue needed a 7 or better to raise the attitude from Unfriendly to Friendly. If the rogue succeeded, the rogue and the wizard would wait and try to 'convert' another frost giant. If they failed, the wizard cast Charm Monster. Over the course of the week they raised the opinion of all of the frost giants to Friendly or Helpful. Then they recruited four of them (all charmed) to come with them to help defeat the dragon.
The Diplomacy rules are bullshit, aren't they? Now if we're talking about something that doesn't make any fucking sense in 3.5, this is it. Got to love those edge-defined skills with theoretical effects like that. Anyway.
I'm going to assume that the Frost Giants that got charmed were charmed away from the tribe, taken away to "talk" and then cast the spell and such. Because casting a spell like this is not really a cool thing to do. That's an offensive spell, as a matter of fact, and would be treated as an agression by the Giants at my table (there would have been a sorcerer/adept amongst the tribe who would have been able to recognize these effects for what they were, probably a skald too, and maybe the cleric could have known about these things too).
Note that a charmed creature is basically a creature that will help you and consider itself your friend and ally. It's not an automaton, and not strictly under the control of the Wizard as such. They still have their own autonomy, needs and wants. Did this ever show up in the actual role playing of the situation and trek afterwards?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550528Once the party was reunited, the group slogged up the marshy river. They had several encounters along the way, mostly associated with a tribe of kobolds that worshipped the black dragon (it was new to the area). Since this was at the beginning of the mire, the terrain was generally unfavorable to medium creatures, but the DM ruled that the mud wasn't deep enough to impact the giants significantly. They proved their worth and made the encounters very easy - though the Fighter, specifically, nearly drowned several times because of his Armor Check Penalty. When the party became aware of that danger, the cleric started preparing water breathing to make sure he didn't drown. Most of the trip involved making fun of the Fighter for sinking to the bottom of deep pools, even though he stopped wearing his armor after the second time.
OK. Would I be right to say that the discrepency between the Giants and the fighter appeared around that moment, i.e. during the trek, way before the encounter with the Dragon? At that moment the DM himself should have seen the problem coming (well actually, if he's worth his salt he should have seen it coming from the very start and talked it over with the players, to begin with, as soon as the group reunited).
Here's what I would have done, to be completely honest with you: from the very start, when the Rogue and Wizard went to the village to talk to the Frost Giants and ended up talking them and charming them into assistance, I would have talked about who controls what creature in terms of PCs. As DM, I would have given control of the charmed giants to the group, so that they'd feel like they could do something with them on their own terms rather than wait for me to tell them what the giants do all the time.
We've got four Storm Giants, and four PCs. Do you see where this is going? You guessed it: I would have proposed to each PC to take control of a Storm Giant each and role play them as well as secondary characters, like they'd do with henchmen in specific circumstances like combat. When the PCs would talk to them, the control of them as NPCs would come back to me, and we'd proceed like this so that the Storm Giants don't end up phasing the group out, but that the players' feel in control of the tactical situation with a new type of game play that brings its own share of fun for them.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550528The party had some other encounters that involved wyverns from the nearby hills. The large giants were able to find some large rocks and scare the wyverns off. The fight never got to melee.
This fighter doesn't have any bow, any spears, or any range weapon of any kind while traveling in the wilderness...
at all? What the hell kind of grizzled veteran is this? :eek:
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550528At this point, the party was feeling pretty cocky. They decided that they'd try to find the dragon and overwhelm him with superior force. They had heard that the dragon was 'huge', but the villager that had seen it before also described it as 'being as big as that horse, but with wings'. So, they didn't think it would be that tough. At this point, I was feeling pretty bad for the dragon, so I didn't give the party any help locating his lair. The cleric used Find the Path, which we had some fun with because it was the 'shortest route'.
Yeah I agree.
Find the Path can be hilarious and lead to all sorts of troubles and conundrums for the PCs. The problems that show up in game from the uses of this spell usually involve a lack of prep and forethought about various in-game contingencies on the DM's part.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550528The entrance to the dragon's lair was below the water level, but there was a small dungeon in 'dry' land. The fighter put on his armor, let the cleric cast water breathing on him so he could determine how far the cave was underwater. The party wanted to send a giant, but he insisted. They tied a rope to him, figuring that if he got in trouble, the giants could pull him back.
Could be very dangerous, but I can totally see how the fighter player would want to do some shit at this point.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550528There were a couple of traps that the kobolds had installed that the fighter ended up tripping, but it didn't hurt him too much. He came back and reported that the tunnel wasn't very long, and there was no risk of drowning. Because the dragon was large, all of the tunnels were big enough for the dragon.
Wow really,
all of the tunnels were large enough for the Dragon? There couldn't possibly have been a lair of kobolds nested in side passages that could have been out of reach from the giants and could have put the fighter to the test?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550528The dragon eventually got cornered (the wizard had put a web spell over the escape route, and it was leery of getting trapped in the short time it had to think about it). The dragon did get to use the breath weapon, 12d4 damage, but it didn't seriously hurt anyone. The cleric and wizard had both protected themselves with resist elements, the rogue trusted that he would evade (he did) and the fighter took the full damage, but because there were 'five' melee characters, they figured there would be a chance to heal him if things got serious.
They didn't.
The Frost Giants beat the dragon on initiative, but the dragon beat the fighter. The wizard decided that he should cast haste on one of the frost giants so it would get an extra attack.
The fight went two rounds. The fighter didn't even get into melee range because he couldn't move into the room because there was no space between the giants and the dragon.
Yeah I can see how that's frustrating. So here we have a combination of bad luck on the dice (the fighter took full damage and the Frost Giants got initiative over the Dragon while he didn't) with a bad set up for the situation and a lack of management on the good guys' sides that basically made the wizard player into a more important player than anybody else.
By the book, the Frost Giants being independent creatures/NPCs, they would have been under your DM control, not the wizard's. Now I think that having NPCs fight NPCs is basically boring in a game. So I would have reverted the Frost Giants control in tactical situations to the group as a whole. Most likely, I would have given control of one Giant NPC to each member of the group.
Then, I would have set up the Black Dragon encounter to not be just fighting the monster in an open field, but would have probably used the hook of the kobolds to build an entire lair around the Black Dragon's abode, maybe spiraling around the lair itself with thin caves and twists and turns and balconies and all that stuff, so that the battle field would not have been one dimensional as it seems to have been.
Who knows, maybe the Black Dragon could have been the top of the iceberg, acting as a leader to a whole bunch of factions of humanoids living around its lair which, without a leader, would find themselves warring against each other in the depths of the dungeon, with nefarious plans of their own? That the Storm Giants helped in killing the Dragon would have been one thing, and they could have been used afterwards to secure a retreat on the surface for the PCs. Maybe something could have happened when they were down there? Imagine them coming back and finding the giants dead... who could have done this? Why?
Anyway. That's the sort of thing I think about when running the game.
I do think there is something fundamentally flawed about the Diplomacy rules in 3.5 as written. They are too far removed from actual play, as far as I'm concerned, with rigid effects enshrined by the letter of the rules which will lead to completely ridiculous situations when a PC merely starts to rely on them to engage in actual parley and diplomacy with creatures in the campaign. That's a part I think that the rules could do without, or with a serious rework, for that matter.
Now, with that said, I think that a combination of skilled DMing, collaborative efforts on the parts of the participants in the game (taking control of the giants and managing their group together), and a Black Dragon encounter that would have used more than wide tunnels and the Dragon as the be-all end-all of the adventure, it could have a lot more fun to play.
Live and learn, I suppose.
But blaming all of it on the class disparity between fighters and wizards? Nah, I don't think that's apt or particularly accurate, given the context of the actual encounter, adventure, and campaign.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550528The campaign didn't go much further, by the way. At that point, I couldn't really keep the players challenged, so we ended up starting a new low-magic gritty campaign...
Yeah, it's really too bad. It could have gone in very interesting directions. I would have loved to run a game like this.
Quote from: Marleycat;550605I don't know the reference are you talking about the movie Avatar? Just for context so I know what baseline you're wanting.
Avatar the Last Airbender. Not the movie but the show. The show with the element bending people.
Quote from: Kaelik;550530Frank has played D&D, he's seen this problem.
Frank posits an
AD&D example, then use something else entirely to knock it down, which makes Frank a troll.
Quote from: Kaelik;550530Mguy has played D&D, he's seen this problem.
MGuy says he played nothing before 2e and precious little of that, so he's really in no position to speak on anything other than 3e and perhaps 4e.
Quote from: Kaelik;550530fectin has played D&D, he's seen this problem.
I only recall the one post of fectin's, so I can't comment on what he does or doesn't see as a problem, but he also posits that 3e's rule-for-everything means that every oak door should burn the same and that hiring a npc guide 'steals spotlight time' from the players' characters, and that's just silly to me.
Quote from: Kaelik;550530I've played D&D, I've seen this problem. The hundreds of people who post about it on the internet have played D&D, they have seen this problem. undoubtedly a large number of people who have played D&D but never posted on the internet have seen this problem.
Here's a problem I've seen. There are a lot of people who post on the intreweb who are really bad at
D&D. They claim stuff is broken because they don't understand it, not because the rules don't work. They repeat others' mistakes as fact. They make false claims, or conflate rules from different editions. They say that rules never existed, and continue to make this claim even after the rules are quoted to them, with page references.
You and all the other newbs rushing to defend Frank's bullshit want to say that high-level 3e play makes fighters significantly compared to wizards? You won't get much of an argument from me. The problems with spellcasters were obvious to me as soon as I picked up the core rules for 3e. In case you missed it the first time, here it is again.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;550320My personal experience from playing blue box, 1e, red box, and 3e D&D is that most of the so-called problems about fighters came from trying to make spellcasters as reliable and dependable as the guy with the sword. More spells per level, easy access to new spells, little or no disruption, faster casting, easing restrictions on armor, improved bypassing of magic resistance, easy crafting of spells, wands, &c - all of these removed the inherent challenges of playing magic-users. Magic-users in pre-2e D&D traded access to great power for vulnerability and resource limits. Fighters, on the other hand, were a less limited resource and far less vulnerable, in exchange for a lower but consistent deliverable level of power.
Short-sighted designers, egged on by stupid players, broke spellcasters, then claimed that fighters were useless. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
In the rush to make everyone as effective as the 1e fighter in combat, the tradeoffs for other classes were ground down to nothing. Address that, and you solve your 'fighter problem.'
Quote from: Bobloblah;550597Sure, earlier editions (all of which I've played, except 0e) really didn't suffer from these problems the same way. That doesn't change the fact that 3.x certainly does.
Yeah, anyone saying 3.x is balanced is frankly out of their mind.
People are saying that it dosen't actually matter and there is a difference between being less powerful than another character and being absolutely fucking useless.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;550609Frank posits an AD&D example, then use something else entirely to knock it down, which makes Frank a troll.
MGuy says he played nothing before 2e and precious little of that, so he's really in no position to speak on anything other than 3e and perhaps 4e.
I only recall the one post of fectin's, so I can't comment on what he does or doesn't see as a problem, but he also posits that 3e's rule-for-everything means that every oak door should burn the same and that hiring a npc guide 'steals spotlight time' from the players' characters, and that's just silly to me.
Here's a problem I've seen. There are a lot of people who post on the intreweb who are really bad at D&D. They claim stuff is broken because they don't understand it, not because the rules don't work. They repeat others' mistakes as fact. They make false claims, or conflate rules from different editions. They say that rules never existed, and continue to make this claim even after the rules are quoted to them, with page references.
You and all the other newbs rushing to defend Frank's bullshit want to say that high-level 3e play makes fighters significantly compared to wizards? You won't get much of an argument from me. The problems with spellcasters were obvious to me as soon as I picked up the core rules for 3e. In case you missed it the first time, here it is again.
In the rush to make everyone as effective as the 1e fighter in combat, the tradeoffs for other classes were ground down to nothing. Address that, and you solve your 'fighter problem.'
So your contention is that I'm playing DnD the wrong was based on... what exactly? Because I'm not as old as you? Because I don't like your edition of DnD? Is your actual position simply "things used to be better"?
Quote from: MGuy;550612So your contention is that I'm playing DnD the wrong was based on... what exactly? Because I'm not as old as you? Because I don't like our edition of DnD? Is our actual position simply "things used to be better"?
You missed the part where the actual original contention of Frank (post #18, first sentence) posited an AD&D paradigm, not 3rd ed, though of course afterwards he tried to shift the goalposts saying he was "obviously" talking about a 3.5 great wyrm. Riiiight.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550528Why try to solve issues with game balance anyway, it's impossible!
IMHO, it's impossible to solve them by rules alone unless the game world and adventures are all carefully tailored to the rules and all the players agree to play exactly in the style the rules favor. I don't want to play in the game designer's world with the designer's adventures. I want to play in MY world with MY adventures in the play style I and my group want. I have zero interest in purchasing a game (let alone playing it) that forces me to do otherwise in the name of balance -- or in the name of anything else.
QuoteIf I bought a refrigerator, I'd expect that it works when I plug it in. If the refrigerator part works okay but the freezer doesn't work at all I'd expect the manufacturer or retailer to fix it or replace it.
You see tabletop RPGs as a refrigerator. I see them as the huge boxes of Lego bricks I had as a child in the 1960s. This was well before they were mainly sold as model kits to produce a specific model. They were a large pile of parts that I could build whatever I could imagine out of. The end result may not have looked as spiffy as today's Lego kits designed to build a specific thing, but the lack of "specific thing to build" was what I wanted.
Likewise I buy RPG rules to serve as a toolkit to build my own specific game in my own world. I see ALL RPG rules as merely guidelines I can use or ignore as needed. That's what 0e was and that's all I want out of any tabletop RPG rules.
We are seeing RPGs from two very different point-of-view. You want a complete game that already meets your needs for balance, rules completeness, etc. I, on the other hand, want a large box of parts with some guidelines and vague ideas for various ways I might want to put them together. The more a game is like what you want, the less likely is it to be very useful to me. The converse is also true, of course, the more a game is like what I want, the less likely it is to be useful to you.
Balance (built into the rules) simply isn't as important to me as it is to you because I know that I as GM have to be responsible for providing the amount of balance needed for the style of play of my players since I'm the one designing the campaign world and the adventures. The more balance is built into the rules the harder it is to run campaigns that are not close to the setting and adventure style the game designer(s) favored.
Quote from: RandallS;550614You see tabletop RPGs as a refrigerator. I see them as the huge boxes of Lego bricks I had as a child in the 1960s. This was well before they were mainly sold as model kits to produce a specific model. .
I would say that even when they did become a specific model, it's an apt analogy to rpgs. You had this thing that you could play as pictured and designed right ouf the box, but you weren't limited to that picture. Throw on a couple extra guns, build some more wings, put on wheels, etc.
I.e., it was a strong framework that told you the intent, but allowed you to customize if you wanted to.
Quote from: MGuy;550535In 3e a Druid can morph into animals. Without dumpster diving you can turn into animals from the monster manual that (depending on your level) are stronger, use combat maneuvers better than, or straight up do as much or more damage than the fighter. To make this worse they can cast while transformed and can gain the benefits of magic items.
In 1e, druids can only transform to animals about as large as a black bear - no cave bears like in 3e - and they could neither cast nor use their magic items.
Quote from: MGuy;550535Clerics can wear all the armor a fighter can, have casting and turning. They also only fall a bit behind on the attack bonus. They lack all the weapon specialization feats that only fighters can get. At early levels if you gear your cleric for battle there'll be little to distinguish between them both. At higher levels Clerics just straight up out do them. They have better and longer lasting buffs, summons, and death spells.
1e clerics can't spontaneously convert spells to healing, so spell selection is much more important than in later editions - you can't load up on 'buffs' and that swap them for cures, so your access to offensive and defensive magic is much more limited. At name level (9th in both cases), a 1e cleric hits AC -3 on a 19 and a fighter hits it on a 15, and that's a big gap to make up even with magic. There are also significant differences in weapons available - clerics' missle weapon options suck, frex.
In any case, clerics are supposed to be decent fighters as well as spellcasters - if you wanted to make an argument for a particular class being overpowered in 1e
AD&D, it would be the cleric.
Quote from: MGuy;550535Wizards at low level have it tougher I'll admit. They can toss on some mage armor but are still closer to death at base than fighters are so front line mages are most likely out of the question until higher levels where they are polymorphing into multiheaded hydras. Lacking that Wizards still end fights immediately with spells like sleep or avoid fights completely with silent image. At higher levels they can lay down battlefield effects that either immediately destroy or render competition useless. The also get more effects that straight up allow them to not have to fight at all.
And in 1e there were no metamagic feats and no Con saves to avoid disrupting concentration. A flock of stirges, or giant wasps, or squirrels leaping out of the trees, could render a magic-user nearly impotent, since most of his area effects couldn't get them all, and only one of them needed to hit in a round to render casting ineffective in that round, with the spell expended for the day.
Quote from: MGuy;550535A fighter can hit things and get punched in the face.
And he can do it over and over again when other classes looking for the exit sign.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;550606Lo! the legion of charmed powerful monsters. This is the Chewbacca defense of casters. A frost giant has a 60% per week of throwing off a charm and the spell can only affect one at a time.
They are all so tough because they are the REAL enemies of the campaign.
But the point is that the figther is really only there because the casters need someone to buff :) could be the figther could be the summoned monster could be lots of stuff .
Remember though MR drops by 5% per level of the caster above 11. so at the very top end we don't need the figther again :) and typically you aren't fighting orcus at 9th :)
Quote from: Benoist;550613You missed the part where the actual original contention of Frank (post #18, first sentence) posited an AD&D paradigm, not 3rd ed, though of course afterwards he tried to shift the goalposts saying he was "obviously" talking about a 3.5 great wyrm. Riiiight.
Benoist, I've directed a number of posts specifically at you, and you choose to respond to a post I made specifically toward someone else. I don't even have words for that.
Quote from: MGuy;550618Benoist, I've directed a number of posts specifically at you, and you choose to respond to a post I made specifically toward someone else. I don't even have words for that.
"Thank you"?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;550616In 1e -Stuff-.
I do not know what happened in 1E or what 1E was like.I can only speak of what I know about 3e and a bit about 2e and 4e. I do not know that your numbers are accurate.
In Thanks for the Show
Ignoratio!
The shades of night were falling fast,
as through the message board he passed,
a fool with vigor and with vim,
and motto which sustained him:
Ignoratio!
His chin was bare; his beard beneath,
bedraggled as if cheerful wreath,
once full of merry Christmas cheer,
had festered, forgotten, for untold years,
Ignoratio!
In happier games he saw the light,
of well-wrought rules, balanced and tight,
but grumbling grognards urged him on,
and from his lips escaped a groan:
Ignoratio!
"Don't roll fighter," Frank Trollman said.
"A Great Wyrm lingers overhead!
A wizard's needed to fight in the sky!"
Still loud that quarrelsome voice replied:
Ignoratio!
"I'll mount the church-tower; hide inside!
And when that lizard happens by,
jump on him, whilst my army, from below,
fills him with arrows!" (It just goes to show,
Ignoratio!)
A plan, at least, to fell the lizard
(though no plan's needed with a wizard),
Alas fell beastie sees him on the stair,
burns the risers, and traps him there!
Ignoratio!
Oh, curse that evil, agéd genius' guile!
Oh curse the Troll Man's mocking smile!
"It's his fault! Rainman! Somehow I'll prove..
(That's it! I know! I'll use...
Ignoratio!")
The dragon calmly turns about;
the archer army, frightened, routs;
with just one bite, the captain's gone,
leaving grognard all alone.
Ignoratio!
All night long, the city burns.
All night long, the neckbeard yearns
for a warm, mother-like DM,
who'll hide how much he coddles him,
Ignoratio!
But now cold snow is falling fast,
and grognard wishes he had classed
as something with a cold resistance.
Mais non! He's fighter at his own insistence.
Ignoratio!
But now there comes an end at last,
BENOIST is frozen fast!
(His head's still firmly... well, you know)
But hear him yet! He faintly gasps:
Ignoratio!
Quote from: Benoist;550613You missed the part where the actual original contention of Frank (post #18, first sentence) posited an AD&D paradigm, not 3rd ed, though of course afterwards he tried to shift the goalposts saying he was "obviously" talking about a 3.5 great wyrm. Riiiight.
I didn't miss it. He responded to you until he felt like giving up. I'm not picking up his baton. Even so, if we were talking about 2e, or really any edition, of DnD I'm pretty sure Dragons can fly and use their fire breath in an area. If those are true then Frank's position on the matter still stands. Your ONLY defense is that things could be slanted such that the Fighter is given the victory because the DM decides that he wants the Fighter to win. If the Fighter can't reach the dragon how is he going to protect the Town that the Dragon is destroying? And I say if he can't reach him because there is no guarantee that the fighter can fly since its not a fighter ability and magic item distribution in 2E is random.
Quote from: MGuy;550620I do not know what happened in 1E or what 1E was like.I can only speak of what I know about 3e and a bit about 2e and 4e. I do not know that your numbers are accurate.
I think his point was that kaelik or fectin (can't remember which) used you (no experience in 1e) and Frank (just outright makes shit up) as proof that there were these big issues in 1e fighter balance, when in fact that couldn't be proof because you've never played it.
I don't think anyone is saying that there weren't issues in 3e, but this goes back to my earlier observation that way too many people seem to think that pre-4e is composed of only 3e.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;550609Frank posits an AD&D example, then use something else entirely to knock it down, which makes Frank a troll.
No, Frank posited a high level AD&D like environment for a specific example. Which does not mean exactly like AD&D right down to no one actually knowing the rules or using them and people just making shit up as it goes. And it does not mean that he thinks it's the only game relevant to the problem.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;550609MGuy says he played nothing before 2e and precious little of that, so he's really in no position to speak on anything other than 3e and perhaps 4e.
So? This appears to be a thread in the "RPGs" sub forum, not in the "No Items, 0e only, Final Destination" sub-forum. The original poster made no explicit mention of 0e only. So why is MGuy's actual experience with an actual problem when actually playing D&D suddenly cease to be relevant to the issue of solving the problem.
It's not like people didn't go out of the way to tell him that his examples of this problem couldn't actually possibly be real even in 3e. I mean, not that Benoist actually knew any of the rules while he made that post, not that all of his points weren't stupid. Clearly he didn't know the rules and was stupidly wrong, but he did in fact go through all the trouble to tell MGuy that he is wrong, and the Fighter is not in fact a problem in 3e D&D.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;550609I only recall the one post of fectin's, so I can't comment on what he does or doesn't see as a problem, but he also posits that 3e's rule-for-everything means that every oak door should burn the same and that hiring a npc guide 'steals spotlight time' from the players' characters, and that's just silly to me.
Ignoring for the moment NPC issues, yes, he does think that being able to make decisions with some idea of the likely efficacy of your actions is a good thing. So do I. What's weird to me is people telling me that actually knowing the same things their characters know is bad for the game, and that being better able to make decisions from the characters point of view is a bad thing.
What does any of that have to do with the obvious fact that he is representative of a large group of people who have seen this problem?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;550609Here's a problem I've seen. There are a lot of people who post on the intreweb who are really bad at D&D. They claim stuff is broken because they don't understand it, not because the rules don't work. They repeat others' mistakes as fact. They make false claims, or conflate rules from different editions. They say that rules never existed, and continue to make this claim even after the rules are quoted to them, with page references.
Here's a problem I've seen. Everyone in this forum does the same fucking thing. You are not the few enlightened chosen ones who descended from on high with perfect knowledge of all things D&D. Benoist went out of his way to claim that 3e D&D does not suffer from a fighter problem in a specific instance without even bothering to look at the actual rules for a Dragon in 3e.
Claiming the rules are not broken because of failure to understand, or repeating other's mistakes, or making false claims, like the fact that 99% of all gamers never experience a problem that clearly more than 1% of gamers have experienced, is not any more privileged and protected than saying they are.
But you and this forum have gone out of your way to coddle and support a bully who has attacked people based on his own failure to realize that other people have had different experiences than him.
In fact, though many people often make mistakes and fail to understand the rules, the solution to that is to actually talk about the rules and the actual implications of them, not to belligerently assault others as "theorywankers" whenever they bring up actual rules, or discuss situations that are likely to occur in a great many games of D&D.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;550609You and all the other newbs rushing to defend Frank's bullshit want to say that high-level 3e play makes fighters significantly compared to wizards? You won't get much of an argument from me. The problems with spellcasters were obvious to me as soon as I picked up the core rules for 3e. In case you missed it the first time, here it is again.
You should probably get your facts straight. Do I look like I am rushing to defend Frank? Trust me, I hate MGuy, but he and Frank shared equal esteem in my post, because for the purpose of my post, addressing the bully who calls everyone a wanker and claims to speak for everyone, they are both equally representative of the same thing, people who play D&D and have encountered a generalized problem. IE a counter example to his claim to speak to everyone.
If the problems with spellcasters in 3e were obvious to you from picking up the book, that just makes you one more person who is an explicit counter example to the claim that such problems are irrelevant to gamers. If it discourages you from using an entire edition of the game, that sounds pretty fucking relevant.
Now I get songs from the fans. Awesome.
Quote from: MGuy;550623I didn't miss it. He responded to you until he felt like giving up. I'm not picking up his baton. Even so, if we were talking about 2e, or really any edition, of DnD I'm pretty sure Dragons can fly and use their fire breath in an area.
The distinction is very important because dragons in 1e are
way less powerful than 2e and beyond. So when Frank starts with a 1e dragon (where the most powerful one only has 88hp) and then shifts his argument to a 3e one (which probably has 300 hp) and does a ton more damage, it's a big deal.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550617But the point is that the figther is really only there because the casters need someone to buff :) could be the figther could be the summoned monster could be lots of stuff .
Remember though MR drops by 5% per level of the caster above 11. so at the very top end we don't need the figther again :) and typically you aren't fighting orcus at 9th :)
Oh I know, I noted a 15th level party which would drop the MR rating by 20% across the board.
I don't have much cause to play AD&D much beyond the 15th level range.
Quote from: MGuy;550623I didn't miss it. He responded to you until he felt like giving up. I'm not picking up his baton. Even so, if we were talking about 2e, or really any edition, of DnD I'm pretty sure Dragons can fly and use their fire breath in an area. If those are true then Frank's position on the matter still stands. Your ONLY defense is that things could be slanted such that the Fighter is given the victory because the DM decides that he wants the Fighter to win. If the Fighter can't reach the dragon how is he going to protect the Town that the Dragon is destroying? And I say if he can't reach him because there is no guarantee that the fighter can fly since its not a fighter ability and magic item distribution in 2E is random.
Is that playing 3rd ed for so long, or is it fapping on Frank's bullshit, that broke your imagination that bad? You really can't think of any situation where in a game called
Dungeons & Dragons this might not be as huge an advantage as you think it is? There isn't any possible way for player characters to actually use actual strategy and tactics to create the actual battlefield conditions to mitigate these advantages and win the day? At all? Have you played a role playing game before?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550624I think his point was that kaelik or fectin (can't remember which) used you (no experience in 1e) and Frank (just outright makes shit up) as proof that there were these big issues in 1e fighter balance, when in fact that couldn't be proof because you've never played it.
You really think the problem is that Black Vulmea is incapable of reading?
That's pretty harsh man.
Quote from: fectin;550591Oh? I thought this was supposed to be one of the courteous/welcoming forums. My bad.
Courteous? Welcoming?
THIS IS SPARTA!Imagine all of your posts being put under a kleig light - if there's a weakness in your argument, you will be pummeled with it mercilessly. That said, I like to think we're harsh but fair. Again, welcome to the adult swim.Quote from: fectin;550591I'll make sure to call someone autistic this post, to blend in better. Maybe I'll even say a few swears!
I don't joke about 'aspies,' so I think you're confusing me with someone else.
Motherfucker.
Quote from: fectin;550591You would instead assert that it's acceptable, or even admirable to turn to the person next to you and say, "You are too incompetent to handle the thing you signed on to handle. We trust this random imaginary person more than you"?
I would say that getting the right imaginary person for the job on our side is preferable to worrying about which person at the table is running that imaginary person.
Seriously, you want to be the best at something in the game-world, you earn it. Special snowflakes will be mocked until they cry.
Quote from: fectin;550591At last, I have an inkling of why you might see autism everywhere you look.
Again, wrong guy. Please make a note of it.
Quote from: fectin;550591All else aside, sincere thanks for the gracious welcome, and for the unexpected compliment.
You're welcome. Give as good as you get, and you'll fit right in.
Motherfucker.
:)
Quote from: Kaelik;550625But you and this forum have gone out of your way to coddle and support a bully who has attacked people based on his own failure to realize that other people have had different experiences than him.
Yeah, well 'Coddling and Supporting' is obviously this forum's mantra...
Quote from: Benoist;550629Is that playing 3rd ed for so long, or is it fapping on Frank's bullshit, that broke your imagination that bad? You really can't think of any situation where in a game called Dungeons & Dragons this might not be as huge an advantage as you think it is? There isn't any possible way for player characters to actually use actual strategy and tactics to create the actual battlefield conditions to mitigate these advantages and win the day? At all? Have you played a role playing game before?
The fact that, at this point, you're still asking me if I played the game and that somehow 3e has ruined my imagination is sad at this point. Tell me this Benoist: 2E rules. Dragon is attacking a small town on the outskirts of the kingdom. Lone fighter just so happens to be there. How does he stop the dragon, strafe burning the town, from destroying it?
Just in case you miss the set up. Small town, like backwater small. Lone Fighter. He has all the things he needs to fight. His sword, his horse, his armor. Dragon is flying and using the range of his area breath attack to burn shit. How does fighter resolve this situation with tactics and gusto?
Quote from: MGuy;550633The fact that, at this point, you're still asking me if I played the game and that somehow 3e has ruined my imagination is sad at this point. Tell me this Benoist: 2E rules. Dragon is attacking a small town on the outskirts of the kingdom. Lone fighter just so happens to be there. How does he stop the dragon, strafe burning the town, from destroying it?
Just in case you miss the set up. Small town, like backwater small. Lone Fighter. He has all the things he needs to fight. His sword, his horse, his armor. Dragon is flying and using the range of his area breath attack to burn shit. How does fighter resolve this situation with tactics and gusto?
God DAMN it! Why couldn't you have set him up like this a page earlier?!
Quote from: MGuy;550633The fact that, at this point, you're still asking me if I played the game and that somehow 3e has ruined my imagination is sad at this point. Tell me this Benoist: 2E rules. Dragon is attacking a small town on the outskirts of the kingdom. Lone fighter just so happens to be there. How does he stop the dragon, strafe burning the town, from destroying it?
Just in case you miss the set up. Small town, like backwater small. Lone Fighter. He has all the things he needs to fight. His sword, his horse, his armor. Dragon is flying and using the range of his area breath attack to burn shit. How does fighter resolve this situation with tactics and gusto?
Man you do like your theoretical situations, don't you?
I would need to be in situation and to actually play in the campaign to see all the relevant aspects to my conduct. What level am I? What alignment am I? What is the terrain surrounding the village like? Can I see a map? Who are the NPCs in the village? How much time do I have? Do I even particularly "care" about this town and/or its inhabitants at all?
You see, the problem with this type of set up is that you immediately start to carefully frame it to lead to the outcome you desire.
Of course the fighter is all alone.
Of course he's 8th level, not 9th.
Of course it's a backwater town, with nothing of interest and no background to it whatsoever. It's confirmation bias at work. This is not what I, or the others, keep talking about here.
You sound like Gleichman when you come up with "tests" like this.
Quote from: MGuy;550633The fact that, at this point, you're still asking me if I played the game and that somehow 3e has ruined my imagination is sad at this point. Tell me this Benoist: 2E rules. Dragon is attacking a small town on the outskirts of the kingdom. Lone fighter just so happens to be there. How does he stop the dragon, strafe burning the town, from destroying it?
Just in case you miss the set up. Small town, like backwater small. Lone Fighter. He has all the things he needs to fight. His sword, his horse, his armor. Dragon is flying and using the range of his area breath attack to burn shit. How does fighter resolve this situation with tactics and gusto?
Context please what level is the fighter? Does he have magic items? If so, which ones? What kind of Dragon? How old? Would he have reason or a way to have researched this dragon? What kind of fighter is this? Since it is 2e are kits allowed? Does she/he have any kit? Etc, etc, etc....
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550528I don't know why Fighters can't be effective Diplomats. In 1st edition, a Fighter automatically received a Keep and Followers. Now, you can't even talk to the King because you don't know how to speak politely. You don't get Knowledge Nobility and Royalty, so even though you spent your entire youth following the tournament careers of your favorite knights, you can't recognize their shield insignias because that's not a class skill for you. A highly skilled fighting man with a reputation for honesty is a TROPE in diplomacy - the retired general as ambassador has been done so many time and yet, in D&D, it is not supported by the rules.
Part of the problem is that in AD&D, every character class was derived from a small number of literary and historical sources, and the class was constructed around that. The druid's a mashup of Morgon from the Riddle-Master of Hed and Roman priests of Diana; the cleric's based on the medieval Knights Templar; the paladin's based on Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, which is itself a humorous take on the
Song of Roland.
The fighter is just - a guy who knows how to, er, get medieval on things. And while there's a fair bit of European medieval history in AD&D, there's also a lot of borrowing from pre-Tolkien fantasy that bore no resemblance to either Tolkien or Game of Thrones.
So I don't think it's terribly reasonable to expect a fighter by
default to get those kinds of diplomacy skills, as the Fighter class should just as easily represent Simon Scarrow's Cornelius Macro, David Gemmell's Druss the Legend, or Eddison's Goldry Bluszco.
In 3.x, my understanding is that you're supposed to multiclass for these kinds of things. For this specific example you'd probably multiclass to a couple of levels of Aristocrat or Expert, or some kind of Prestige Class. (I mentioned AD&D to start with, but the 3E class designs share most of the AD&D assumptions).
Quote from: fectin;550634God DAMN it! Why couldn't you have set him up like this a page earlier?!
YEAH. God DAMN it! Because it's totally NOT a biased set up.
Wait...
(http://www.lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg)
Quote from: MGuy;550612So your contention is that I'm playing DnD the wrong [way] was based on... what exactly? Because I'm not as old as you? Because I don't like your edition of DnD? Is your actual position simply "things used to be better"?
I wasn't suggesting that you are "playing DnD the wrong" way, but I can see how it might come across that way.
I was thinking more about those "hundreds of people" posting on the intrewebs, and the number of times I've seen really spurious and inaccurate complaints made, stuff that's demonstrably wrong; the most amazing posters who, even after they've been quoted the actual rule or example from a module, continue to insist that such-and-such rule doesn't exist, or misrepresent the example.
In any case, I wasn't lumping you into that group, though again, I can see how you could read it that way.
With respect to a larger point, I'm not aruging
for any particular edition over another; I'm trying to point out where I see outright mistakes, as with Frank's dragon example upthread, or what to me is a relevant breakpoint specific to the question of fighter versus wizard balance.
I know 1e better than any other rulebook for
D&D, so it's easier for me to contrast it with examples from other editions. I'm not, however, saying that everyone should be playing 1e, or that if you're playing another edition that you're doing it wrong, or that other editions are 'not
D&D.'
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550615I would say that even when they did become a specific model, it's an apt analogy to rpgs. You had this thing that you could play as pictured and designed right ouf the box, but you weren't limited to that picture. Throw on a couple extra guns, build some more wings, put on wheels, etc.
You have a good point there.
I've only played with a couple of the smaller modern Lego kits (given to me as joke gifts) so I can't say other than I found them somewhat disappointing compared to the "blank slates" I had as a child.
Quote from: RandallS;550642You have a good point there.
I've only played with a couple of the smaller modern Lego kits (given to me as joke gifts) so I can't say other than I found them somewhat disappointing compared to the "blank slates" I had as a child.
I walked into a lego store the other expecting to see the kinds of legos from when I was a kidl bow was I dissapointed.
Quote from: Marleycat;550637Context please what level is the fighter? Does he have magic items? If so, which ones? What kind of Dragon? How old? Would he have reason or a way to have researched this dragon? What kind of fighter is this? Since it is 2e are kits allowed? Does she/he have any kit? Etc, etc, etc....
It's kind of cute how you guys pretend your questions are anything other than you being disingenuous. He has specifically said that he doesn't know 2e that well. He is asking you about 2e. Obviously if he wanted to really know the likely results and he had the books, he would look it up himself. He doesn't have the book.
He is asking you to take a "high level fighter" and show how he would deal with a "high level dragon" attacking a small town that just happens to not be able to handle this dragon. He doesn't know what dragon age would be appropriate and what fighter level would be appropriate, he's asking you. Answer the fucking question.
Quote from: MGuy;550620I do not know what happened in 1E or what 1E was like.I can only speak of what I know about 3e and a bit about 2e and 4e.
Which is why I took the time to explain some of the differences, so you might better understand some of the arguments being made.
Quote from: MGuy;550620I do not know that your numbers are accurate.
:rotfl:
You're welcome to look them up if you like. I'll wait.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550643I walked into a lego store the other expecting to see the kinds of legos from when I was a kidl bow was I dissapointed.
You can still buy the generic brick sets. We have several. Furthermore, kids tend to take apart the kits over time and use them for their own builds.
Jesus.
Quote from: Kaelik;550644It's kind of cute how you guys pretend your questions are anything other than you being disingenuous. He has specifically said that he doesn't know 2e that well. He is asking you about 2e. Obviously if he wanted to really know the likely results and he had the books, he would look it up himself. He doesn't have the book.
He is asking you to take a "high level fighter" and show how he would deal with a "high level dragon" attacking a small town that just happens to not be able to handle this dragon. He doesn't know what dragon age would be appropriate and what fighter level would be appropriate, he's asking you. Answer the fucking question.
No, it's cool. Apparently, a high-level AD&D fighter's ability to take on a dragon is entirely contingent on
whether there are any NPCs around.
I assume that means run to an NPC wizard, and hide behind him. It's a remarkably good strategy.
Quote from: Kaelik;550625*snipped*
Kaelik, I don't want you to think I missed or ignored your post, but I'm on my out the door and probably won't get back to this until tomorrow, and to be honest I may lost interest in replying by then, so in the meantime, assume I think your head is up your ass, and if I feel like clarifying that later, I will.
There is a problem with discounting Frank's position. The problem is that Frank's fundamental paradigm--that you're playing the game when you play the rules--is the default paradigm of all gamers across the world regardless of the medium concerned. Only in tabletop RPGs are you truly encouraged to go past the rules in terms of playing the game, and Frank is correct that this is not at all reliable due to vast inconsistency of results.
Like it or not, Frank and those like him are the majority and therefore have the stroke to make things go their way in terms of product development for any of the publishers that want to be more than a part-time operation (like Wizards of the Coast). They have far more persuasive argumentation to the shot-callers' perceptions because they have math, statistics, and other things that can be recreated in a boardroom without making the shot-callers (as it were) "sing along" (i.e. actual play).
I suggest disengaging. This is a conflict that cannot be resolved either by compromise or by conquest. What we have here is a severing of population along fundamental beliefs about what tabletop RPGs are, and how you play them, and that cannot be fixed by rational argumentation.
Quote from: Aos;550647You can still buy the generic brick sets. We have several. Furthermore, kids tend to take apart the kits over time and use them for their own builds.
Yeah, plus there is all sorts of cool stuff now. You haven't lived until you have made the Bat-Tie-Defender take out Captain Jack Joker and his mecha-pirate hoards....
Erm... or so my nephew tells me, yeah definitely my nephew...
Quote from: Aos;550647You can still buy the generic brick sets. We have several. Furthermore, kids tend to take apart the kits over time and use them for their own builds.
Jesus.
I do they still contain lots of small piece bricks (as i recall 2s, 3s, 5s, etc). The ones at the store I went to looked pretty limited in terms of what you could do with them. I was actually looking for a "classic" style box so I could use it for an RPG scenario.
Quote from: MGuy;550535Wizards at low level have it tougher I'll admit. They can toss on some mage armor but are still closer to death at base than fighters are so front line mages are most likely out of the question until higher levels where they are polymorphing into multiheaded hydras.
In 1e, polymorph self gave you the form of the creature but not its powers. Polymorth others did give powers but few allies wanted to risk the system shock (or die) roll that polymorph imposed. Shape Change avoided most of these problems, but it was a 9th level spell. In TSR D&D in general (especially before the 2e supplement bloat), there were far fewer spells available to learn and many of the more powerful ones had nasty side-effects: the system shock rule for polymorph spells, the chance of arriving too high or too low (risking instant death) with teleport, etc.
QuoteLacking that Wizards still end fights immediately with spells like sleep or avoid fights completely with silent image. At higher levels they can lay down battlefield effects that either immediately destroy or render competition useless. The also get more effects that straight up allow them to not have to fight at all.
These abilities don't just end the combat for the wizard, they usually allow the entire party to avoid the danger of the fight, allowing them to get the treasure (lots of XP) with little risk. Sounds like a win for the entire party to me. When they run out of these spells (and in 1e they tend to quickly as spells are easy to lose, no concentration or the like), the non-wizards have to carry the day. Again the party wins no matter who carries the day in a particular fight as everyone who participates in any way (even just guarding the door or the horses) gets and equal share of the XP.
As fights in 1e were very fast to play out (often taken only 5 or 10 minutes total), the fact that your character did not have much to do in one fight did not leave one bored as not being too involved in 3.x or 4e fights tended to.
QuoteA fighter can hit things and get punched in the face. With supplements he can hit things harder or use combat maneuver shenanigans.
Yes, but he can do that round after round after round, long after the casters have run out of spells.
This never "feels" right when I say it but here we go. Kaelik is right. I don't know 2e. I do not it well enough to give you specifics but I can tell you that I am confident that the fighter cannot deal with situation based on the way he has been portrayed. Benoist is confident that somehow a fighter ho has spent all his abilities in being able to do decent damage in melee can do anything to stop a strafing, flying dragon. So Benoist, please do stop dancing around the question and do answer the question in whatever way you feel is honest. It doesn't matter why you're defending the town. The fact is in this scenario you are. How do you use tactics, the fighter's abilities, and gusto to solve this situation?
If you need rules, here they are. You only have equipment that give you the bonus to hit necessary to operate, no special abilities from magic items. No army to back you up. No high level NPCs around to hold you hands. You have your abilities, your tactics, your gusto that is it.
Quote from: Kaelik;550644. He doesn't know what dragon age would be appropriate and what fighter level would be appropriate, he's asking you. Answer the fucking question.
my guess is that approach isn't going to get you many answers. There are lots of 2e players and Gms here who I am sure would be happy to answer. The reason people don't answer hypotheticals like this is they are usually just traps. In this case, I think it is a bad measure of balance in the game. For me, this is a situation where i want the the wizard to be the best choice (regardless of edition) because its a ranged fight and a magical creature (blasting stuff from a distance is what wizards do). For a fighter to take on such a foe, having a special magic weapon for the job would be in order. Bt this is only one of countless types of fights that could occur. I am a lot more concerned about how these classes play out over time across different kinds of battles.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;550651Like it or not, Frank and those like him are the majority and therefore have the stroke to make things go their way in terms of product development for any of the publishers that want to be more than a part-time operation (like Wizards of the Coast).
I must admit, I am really unconvinced by this. When every book dosen't have 'The GM Can and Should ignore these rules' as pretty much its first statement of intent, I might think things have changed.
Most game publishers seem far more concerned about developing their IP than making tight rule sets. Frank really seems to be a voice in the wilderness railing against this, rather than being the voice of the accepted norm.
Quote from: MGuy;550655You only have equipment that give you the bonus to hit necessary to operate, no special abilities from magic items.
This is wrong. You should instead say, "You have the items appropriate to whatever level of fighter you are."
It will still turn out the same, but you don't have to listen to complaints about how fighters are going to have items.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550653I do they still contain lots of small piece bricks (as i recall 2s, 3s, 5s, etc). The ones at the store I went to looked pretty limited in terms of what you could do with them. I was actually looking for a "classic" style box so I could use it for an RPG scenario.
Yeah, they've got those. Try walmart, but you may need to get several kits to get the pieces you want. One thing you may want to look at is the Lord of the Rings sets, they've got lots of dungeon ready pieces. All the bigger sets have a shit ton of little stuff too. However, if you really want to get the most bang for your buck try ebay and buy a lot of stuff someone is unloading. Just as an aside, if you are anything like me, the kits you are thinking of from your child hood
may have been several kits that accrued over time as opposed to one huge kit. Memory can get weird, especially in regards to childhood.
P.S. when did we get the word filter fucking add links? They make me feel dirty and not in a good way.
Quote from: jadrax;550657I must admit, I am really unconvinced by this. When every book dosen't have 'The GM Can and Should ignore these rules' as pretty much its first statement of intent, I might think things have changed.
Most game publishers seem far more concerned about developing their IP than making tight rule sets. Frank really seems to be a voice in the wilderness railing against this, rather than being the voice of the accepted norm.
Legacy boilerplate, more often ignored than honored. The driver is Organized Play, CharOp and Tournament Gaming- not home-play.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550656my guess is that approach isn't going to get you many answers. There are lots of 2e players and Gms here who I am sure would be happy to answer. The reason people don't answer hypotheticals like this is they are usually just traps. In this case, I think it is a bad measure of balance in the game. For me, this is a situation where i want the the wizard to be the best choice (regardless of edition) because its a ranged fight and a magical creature (blasting stuff from a distance is what wizards do). For a fighter to take on such a foe, having a special magic weapon for the job would be in order. Bt this is only one of countless types of fights that could occur. I am a lot more concerned about how these classes play out over time across different kinds of battles.
I don't particularly have a problem with measuring the success of classes across a variety of challenges. In fact, I prefer it. But I do have a problem with people disingenuously inquiring about what type of Dragon and level of Fighter to someone who has admitted ignorance of the ruleset.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550656my guess is that approach isn't going to get you many answers. There are lots of 2e players and Gms here who I am sure would be happy to answer. The reason people don't answer hypotheticals like this is they are usually just traps. In this case, I think it is a bad measure of balance in the game. For me, this is a situation where i want the the wizard to be the best choice (regardless of edition) because its a ranged fight and a magical creature (blasting stuff from a distance is what wizards do). For a fighter to take on such a foe, having a special magic weapon for the job would be in order. Bt this is only one of countless types of fights that could occur. I am a lot more concerned about how these classes play out over time across different kinds of battles.
Its not a trap. Its the situation as was laid down by Frank that Benoist is BITCHING about. Dragon, flying, destroying town. He posits that its bullshit to say that the fighter in 2e is useless in this situation. He posits that tactics and gusto can solve the situation. I say "Show me" Since I can show him how a fighter can fail.
Quote from: MGuy;550655This never "feels" right when I say it but here we go. Kaelik is right. I don't know 2e. I do not it well enough to give you specifics but I can tell you that I am confident that the fighter cannot deal with situation based on the way he has been portrayed. Benoist is confident that somehow a fighter ho has spent all his abilities in being able to do decent damage in melee can do anything to stop a strafing, flying dragon. So Benoist, please do stop dancing around the question and do answer the question in whatever way you feel is honest. It doesn't matter why you're defending the town. The fact is in this scenario you are. How do you use tactics, the fighter's abilities, and gusto to solve this situation?
If you need rules, here they are. You only have equipment that give you the bonus to hit necessary to operate, no special abilities from magic items. No army to back you up. No high level NPCs around to hold you hands. You have your abilities, your tactics, your gusto that is it.
There's your problem. You can't use tactics if you have no environment or other situational details, because that's what tactics are about: using what you have.
You keep going back to the worst theoretical situations imaginable for the Fighter and comparing them to the best theoretical situations imaginable for the Wizard. And then you wonder why the two situations don't seem balanced...
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;550660Legacy boilerplate, more often ignored than honored. The driver is Organized Play, CharOp and Tournament Gaming- not home-play.
The only thing I'm interested in is "home" play. I don't do Organized Play, have zero interest in CharOp, and have played in ONE Tournament Game since I started playing D&D in 1975 (and found it as inane as I expected it to be, the very idea of tournament role-playing always stuck me as silly RPGs are not competitive games and trying to make them so doesn't work well).
Quote from: Kaelik;550658This is wrong. You should instead say, "You have the items appropriate to whatever level of fighter you are."
It will still turn out the same, but you don't have to listen to complaints about how fighters are going to have items.
If the fighter needs a specific item, that isn't even guaranteed to them, to solve this situation then Benoist will just further prove my point. From what I understand of 2e a Wizard doesn't necessarily need any specific randomly rolled treasure to do something about the dragon. If a Fighter is to be expected to operate on the same level at "fighting" then he should be able to "fight" his way through this problem especially since fighting is a decent option to get through this.
Quote from: MGuy;550662Its not a trap. Its the situation as was laid down by Frank that Benoist is BITCHING about. Dragon, flying, destroying town. He posits that its bullshit to say that the fighter in 2e is useless in this situation. He posits that tactics and gusto can solve the situation. I say "Show me" Since I can show him how a fighter can fail.
And even when frank proposed it, it seemed like a bad measure of the game and a trap to win an internet debate to me. I am not saying specific scenario camt be compared but this is one that pretty much favors a wizard in most editions of D&D (just like a trap tripping scenario would favor a thief). It will only be a fighter scenario if he has a magic sword, lance or arrows suited to the task.
You can't tell what a high-level AD&D fighter is going to be able to do solo against a dragon, because you don't know what resources he's going to have. Magic-item-shop 3e play expects you to be able to construct a magic items kit and that usually winds up being flat bonuses. In AD&D, a high-level fighter is going to have been on a lot of adventures (a lot more than his 3e counterpart) and even under the stingiest DMs collected a lot of different items which give him a pretty wide variety of tricks to deploy, and who knows what they will be. There are no level-appropriate items. Does this make high-level AD&D characters into magic item deployment units, yeah, sometimes. But you can't say how these things will necessarily play out. 11th-level anybody's going to have a lot of shit to throw.
Otherwise, the fighter's default is "shoot a bunch of arrows into the dragon ASAP."
Quote from: talysman;550663There's your problem. You can't use tactics if you have no environment or other situational details, because that's what tactics are about: using what you have.
You keep going back to the worst theoretical situations imaginable for the Fighter and comparing them to the best theoretical situations imaginable for the Wizard. And then you wonder why the two situations don't seem balanced...
Invent the situation. He can use whatever reasonable terrain details he needs in order to prove his point. He needs big rocks? Don't care, Fighter still losses. Siege Weapons? Doesn't matter Fighter still loses. A keep for some reason in the middle of a back water town? Doesn't Matter fighter still can't do anything. At the end of the day the "mundane" fighter needs magic to operate at high level. You cannot avoid it.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;550660The driver is Organized Play, CharOp and Tournament Gaming- not home-play.
Does that actually happen in a big way outside of WotC?
I mean, I don't work in the industry, but I have talked to people who do work for what I would term mid-tier companies (i.e. ones with actual employees and offices and departments) and it is not something that has ever come up as a huge sales factor.
Quote from: MGuy;550665If the fighter needs a specific item, that isn't even guaranteed to them, to solve this situation then Benoist will just further prove my point. From what I understand of 2e a Wizard doesn't necessarily need any specific randomly rolled treasure to do something about the dragon. If a Fighter is to be expected to operate on the same level at "fighting" then he should be able to "fight" his way through this problem especially since fighting is a decent option to get through this.
The wizard needs the right spells, those are his tools. Te fighter needs the right weapon, those are his tools. If you dont allow for the fact that fighters having magic weapons is a built in expectation of the game then i dont think you are fairly debating the rules. I get that you dont likethe game balanced that way, but that was a pretty big assumption of the designers from early on. A fighter is very good at weilding magic weapons.
If the wizard is too powerful, the DM will just send assassins to murder him in his sleep to teach the player a thing or two about how D&D works. :rolleyes:
Quote from: jadrax;550670Does that actually happen in a big way outside of WotC?
I mean, I don't work in the industry, but I have talked to people who do work for what I would term mid-tier companies (i.e. ones with actual employees and offices and departments) and it is not something that has ever come up as a huge sales factor.
I have to say in my gaming, organized play isn't something i see much of or have much interest in. I do imagine the expectations would be very different there.
Quote from: B.T.;550672If the wizard is too powerful, the DM will just send assassins to murder him in his sleep to teach the player a thing or two about how D&D works. :rolleyes:
If you're playing properly said wiz should be sexually assaulted both pre and postmortem.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550671The wizard needs the right spells, those are his tools. Te fighter needs the right weapon, those are his tools. If you dont allow for the fact that fighters having magic weapons is a built in expectation of the game then i dont think you are fairly debating the rules. I get that you dont likethe game balanced that way, but that was a pretty big assumption of the designers from early on. A fighter is very good at weilding magic weapons.
This is the point at which the fighter stops being fun for me - when you realize that his equipment, rather than his class abilities, contributes more to his effectiveness.
When the fighter's equipment is the 'star' of the combat, that's not fun for me.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550678This is the point at which the fighter stops being fun for me - when you realize that his equipment, rather than his class abilities, contributes more to his effectiveness.
When the fighter's equipment is the 'star' of the combat, that's not fun for me.
I could totally see this if we were talking about a monk or something, but isn't a fighter's kit, ranging from armor to available weapons and more, super important at every level?
Quote from: MGuy;550668Invent the situation. He can use whatever reasonable terrain details he needs in order to prove his point. He needs big rocks? Don't care, Fighter still losses. Siege Weapons? Doesn't matter Fighter still loses. A keep for some reason in the middle of a back water town? Doesn't Matter fighter still can't do anything. At the end of the day the "mundane" fighter needs magic to operate at high level. You cannot avoid it.
Oh, ok. In that case, there's a river and a 100-foot waterfall overlooking the village, which is beside a lake. Fighter is in a cave behind the waterfall, 80 feet above the lake, shooting arrows at the dragon. Dragon's breath (assuming a red dragon) can't pass through the water, and it can only breath three times a day anyways, so Fighter keeps shooting arrows, aiming at the wings of the dragon. Dragon either dies in mid-flight or falls when its wings are damaged; the fall will probably kill it. Done.
Now, turnabout is fair play, so here's a scenario for you: 11th level Wizard, no magic items or allies (same as Fighter.) You have the eight original 1st level spells (Detect Magic, Hold Portal, Read Magic, Read Languages, Protection From Evil, Light, Charm Person, Sleep.) Plus, since it took 300,000 xp to get to 11th level, I'll give you 300,000 gp to retro-actively spend on spell research, to get any spells of 5th level or below; remember, a 100% chance to get a 5th level spell costs 160,000 gp; halve the cost for each level below 5th. Same dragon, same set-up: pick any reasonable terrain details and describe your tactics.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550678This is the point at which the fighter stops being fun for me - when you realize that his equipment, rather than his class abilities, contributes more to his effectiveness.
When the fighter's equipment is the 'star' of the combat, that's not fun for me.
I can kind of see that, but its what the class is. Its like not liking 'Deckers' in cyberpunk because they need a deck. I can totally understand the issue, but it is also very unlikely the game is ever going to change it.
If you want your Fighter to be intrinsically able to fly, you are no longer wanting to actually play a Fighter.
As an aside, how does 4th - the alleged paragon of balance - deal with allowing Fighters to solo Flying creatures with breath weapons?
Wow, what a catastrofuck this thread is.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550678This is the point at which the fighter stops being fun for me - when you realize that his equipment, rather than his class abilities, contributes more to his effectiveness.
When the fighter's equipment is the 'star' of the combat, that's not fun for me.
Congratulations, here's a soiled loincloth?*
On the other hand, I rather enjoy finding cool loot. I wouldn't particularly want to play a D&D** where all the magic items have been nerfed to drek because everyone is supposed to just use awesome class features all the time.
On the fighter vs. wizard dragon battle I rather think that the fighter is going to be boned, but I don't really have a problem with that. As long as the wizard is likewise boned, they're balanced :)
Alternatively, it would be fine if the fighter is boned this time around, and next encounter they're up against magic-immune monsters where the fighter is the only one able to do much. Spotlight balance in other words.
*this was one of the more common treasure items in the Shattered Lands Dark Sun computer game.
**i.e. 4th edition
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550678This is the point at which the fighter stops being fun for me - when you realize that his equipment, rather than his class abilities, contributes more to his effectiveness.
When the fighter's equipment is the 'star' of the combat, that's not fun for me.
That is fair. for me I am kind of the opposite.
Most of my energy these days goes into balancing my own systems, so I am not ot worried about balance in D&D. But one thing i like to see is magic items be fun and interesting. For me this works best when the fighter has room to grow and the designers anticipate that stacking onto the fighter.
Man, it's fun to see those two going at it setting their trap like they're totally cunning and shit. Totally not obvious. But you see, we are still arguing in total hypotheticals and that's basically my point: that your hypotheticals are shit because they do not take actual play, the adventure and campaign around the situations, the features of these situations unfolding in the game themselves, and the players involved, and whoever's running the game, the prep that went into the game, etc, into account at all.
That's my point, basically. And all you can do from there... is try to dare me to indulge into one of your hypotheticals, and what's more, to build one myself so you can take it apart from there? But that would be just as good as me saying what you were doing a few pages back was totally fine to begin with. I'm not going to do that.
Quote from: jadrax;550687As an aside, how does 4th - the alleged paragon of balance - deal with allowing Fighters to solo Flying creatures with breath weapons?
Oh thats easy. In combat a dragon can't actually "fly". It can "hop" through the air based on its movement.
It can fly in "overland" mode but if it tries to chew gum at the same time it crashes. :rotfl:
Also, fuck Benoist for being an idiot. Here's an ability I'd like to see fighters have:
QuoteDiscipline the Troops: Having seen more than a little combat, fighters know a thing or two about fighting. They can pass a bit of this knowledge along to those in their employ. By spending a week training (at least eight hours every day), a fighter can turn peasants into a small fighting force.
The fighter can train a number of troops equal to his level. At the end of the week's training, the peasants immediately become fighters with levels equal to one-third of the fighter's level.
A twentieth-level fighter could thus spend a month training eighty peasants, making them sixth-level fighters. That's a small army right there.
Quote from: B.T.;550696Also, fuck Benoist for being an idiot.
*shrug* Better than being a racist.
Quote from: B.T.;550696Also, fuck Benoist for being an idiot. Here's an ability I'd like to see fighters have:
A twentieth-level fighter could thus spend a month training eighty peasants, making them sixth-level fighters. That's a small army right there.
OK so why didn't that 20th level fighter go to asskicking camp when he was 1st level instead of risking his ass against orcs and kobolds?
Quote from: jadrax;550670Does that actually happen in a big way outside of WotC?
I mean, I don't work in the industry, but I have talked to people who do work for what I would term mid-tier companies (i.e. ones with actual employees and offices and departments) and it is not something that has ever come up as a huge sales factor.
It happens at WOTC. That is enough, given that WOTC--for all intents and purposes--is the industry.
Tournament gaming--especially Organized Play--is the fore-father of what MMOs today call "Raiding". This is Players vs. Environment, where the goal is to achieve 100% content exhaustion in the shortest time possible. (a.k.a. "a full clear") The adventure scenario is static and repeatable, so motivated players repeat scenarios to farm gear from the NPCs. (Yes, this happens; it doesn't matter how often it happens- that it happens at all is damning.)
Why would WOTC focus on this, and not home-play? Because focusing upon the convention scene allows WOTC to do something with D&D that otherwise cannot be done: measure, with some accuracy and precision, what the users actually prefer about the game (something that cannot be done using home-play feedback) instead of what we say we want or prefer. As we're talking about the company whose flagship product is
Magic: The Gathering, which got its tournament scene on ESPN more than once, and we are talking about a publicly-traded corporation (even if it is currently a wholly-owned subsidiary of an even larger such corporation). We're talking about a organization with a legal obligation to maximize shareholder value, and that means figuring out ways to make D&D make metric fuckloads of cash- and ever-greater ones over time.
There's no way to measure product performance for a TRPG outside of the Organized Play/Tournament Gaming environment. That's why folks who do not like the trend of the last 12 years--i.e. a lot of us--find ourselves very much ignored by WOTC (and also by Paizo, as they're also exploiting this same trend; Adventure Paths are also an outgrowth of this phenomenon). I say that we
stop bothering with WOTC and Paizo entirely, in favor of focusing upon the one-man/part-time micro-publishers catering to the Old School Renaissance crowd.
This is why I suggest disengaging from Frank and his faction. We're not in a position to win because the facts and the trends are on his side, and I doubt that anything productive came come from continued argumentation. Let him and his go their way. We can go ours. All of us get the D&D we want, so all of us win.
Wow...the Gaming Den's entire gibbering, rambling, autistic circle jerk is here to bellow about procedural bullshit that only soulless, dead-eyed bureaucrats actually care about.
I have to admit...I used to lurk on that board and found some of the analyses interesting, before I realized that it was an insular 'sperg orgy of OCD theorywanking that had little to no basis on ACTUAL gaming, and that they had absolutely nothing of value to say about anything. Sure...the denners are really good at making themselves SOUND smart with their incessant pixel-bitching and rules fellating, until the inevitable point where rational people read their bullshit and come to the realization that the smart ones are the people actually PLAYING the game and then getting on with the rest of their week, and not the ones locking themselves in their stench chamber of a room and obsessively combing through rulebooks like a hobo digging through an overfilled industrial dumpster for empty soda cans.
The problem with the den's absolutist viewpoint is that it completely ignores all of the people who have fuck loads of fun playing AD&D, WotC D&D, Basic D&D and even WoD, Exalted, Shadowrun, Savage Worlds, etc. and just plain don't give a wet shit about theorycrafting. They can bluster all they like about how the game IS the rules...but it is not...nor has it ever been. The game is the players and the GM...and the rules are just a superfluous detail, there for when you need them...tossed aside when you don't. That's what RPG's have to offer that videogames do not, and that's how we like it.
If Frank Trollman ever witnessed a table full of people giddily playing a high level AD&D campaign and having a great time, I suspect he would suffer some sort of psychotic breakdown.
"What are you DOING??? Stop! Put those dice down this instant! Stop pretending to have fun! Wipe those feigned smiles off of your lying faces! This game is imbalanced and it has bad rules and you can't have fun playing a game that has bad rules and none of you exist because this can't be happening! See! There's no skill on his character sheet for hydra wrestling and he just wrestled a hydra and that's how I can tell that this is all a made up dream and none of you are real because he just wrestled a hydra and he doesn't have the skill to wrestle hydras and so none of this is real because wrestling hydras because this isn't real...blurbble....malfunction! Malfunction!"
I mean my god...what a miserable existence.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550678This is the point at which the fighter stops being fun for me - when you realize that his equipment, rather than his class abilities, contributes more to his effectiveness.
When the fighter's equipment is the 'star' of the combat, that's not fun for me.
That was a major deal breaker for me back in the day, and one of the reasons I left D&D far behind me because that (always looking towards getting better gear) was one of it's primary gaming traits. I don't think it has ever changed, and I doubt it ever will.
Quote from: MGuy;550655If you need rules, here they are. You only have equipment that give you the bonus to hit necessary to operate, no special abilities from magic items. No army to back you up. No high level NPCs around to hold you hands. You have your abilities, your tactics, your gusto that is it.
How did I manage to get high enough level to take on a dragon? Would you ask Albert Pujols to swing a tree limb or a two by four? After all, that's all he needs to hit a baseball. Bats are for pussies. But I'll bite. While the dragon is sacking the town, I use that opportunity to slay the thief who has apparently stolen my gear.
Quote from: MGuy;550665If the fighter needs a specific item, that isn't even guaranteed to them, to solve this situation then Benoist will just further prove my point. From what I understand of 2e a Wizard doesn't necessarily need any specific randomly rolled treasure to do something about the dragon. If a Fighter is to be expected to operate on the same level at "fighting" then he should be able to "fight" his way through this problem especially since fighting is a decent option to get through this.
If the fighter doesn't get toys, then neither does the wizard. Therefore the wizard will have to kill the dragon with read magic, as that's the only spell he can cast without his spellbook. In that case, neither the fighter or the wizard will win, but the fighter will last longer.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;550699It happens at WOTC. That is enough, given that WOTC--for all intents and purposes--is the industry.
But the thing is, if this were true, it is a bit fucking bizarre that WotC are putting out a playtest and a design document every day harping on about 'Rulings not Rules'.
And honestly, it is not like 'Frank and his Faction' are WotC's biggest fans before 5th came along anyway.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550678This is the point at which the fighter stops being fun for me - when you realize that his equipment, rather than his class abilities, contributes more to his effectiveness.
When the fighter's equipment is the 'star' of the combat, that's not fun for me.
Again, the fighter is less useless without his equipment than the wizard is without his.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;550699This is why I suggest disengaging from Frank and his faction. We're not in a position to win because the facts and the trends are on his side, and I doubt that anything productive came come from continued argumentation. Let him and his go their way. We can go ours. All of us get the D&D we want, so all of us win.
The gaming den will never, ever, ever get the D&D they want. They've already been running on this hamster wheel for years now to no avail.
If they ever did manage to produce a completed D&D-esque game tot heir own specifications, the end result would be a wretched, lifeless, obsessively procedural abortion of a game that no one possessing even vaguely human personality traits could possibly enjoy. People think 4E is tabletop WoW? Just wait until you see the steaming turd that they produce...it will literally be a pen and paper videogame.
At that point, I suspect that most members of the gaming den will give up tabletop games for their PC's and consoles, while the few holdouts try to dupe people into playing their game, but ultimately fail because trying to speak in ascii code is not an appealing way to describe a character class.
Quote from: talysman;550683Oh, ok. In that case, there's a river and a 100-foot waterfall overlooking the village, which is beside a lake. Fighter is in a cave behind the waterfall, 80 feet above the lake, shooting arrows at the dragon. Dragon's breath (assuming a red dragon) can't pass through the water, and it can only breath three times a day anyways, so Fighter keeps shooting arrows, aiming at the wings of the dragon. Dragon either dies in mid-flight or falls when its wings are damaged; the fall will probably kill it. Done.
Well despite this being Benoist's question I'll indulge you. So the situation as you set it is: Fighter sees town attack. There just so happens to be a 100ft tall (at least) cliff with waterfall and a lake near the town. Now during the attack he spends his time climbing 0ft up, then starts pelting the dragon from there. This is assuming the DM allows arrows to fly with 100% accuracy through a waterfall and allows the fighter to spot, from behind this water, a dragon in flight with enough accuracy to make a called shots specifically to its wings. Now you're saying a Dragon can only use its breath weapon 3 times a day?
Ok. Now I'm going to make a few huge assumptions. First I assume that the cave the fighter found was easy enough for him to get to and that he just so happened to be in there at the start of the attack so he doesn't have to spend time during the attack scaling the cliff to get into place. Let's also pretend that the dragon's strafe run takes it close enough to the waterfall in order to be in pelting range. I will also assume that the fighter set up so that his bow skill is good enough to matter (because apparently he needs to have focused on it this entire time in order for it to matter at high level). Now I don't know the specifics as to exactly what feats the fighter needed to take to get here but whatever. So that's the situation. I'm going to assume that damage reduction, the dragon's ability to dodge, etc aren't major issues for this.
I'm still willing to wager with this example situation you described that you are unlikely to be able to stop the town from getting destroyed. Now I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that there is some miss chance for the fighter considering the unfavorable conditions so the fighter most likely won't be hitting all the time. I'm going to also make a smaller assumption that the Dragon might be able to survive quite a few rounds of the, most likely, inaccurate pelting. However, I don't know. So could you please provide the numbers for me if you would be so kind?
As for your return question, it has me at a disadvantage. Truth is I don't know. I do not know 2e well enough to know the numbers well enough to say exactly what spells I would even prepare on a normal day.
Quote from: JRR;550706If the fighter doesn't get toys, then neither does the wizard. Therefore the wizard will have to kill the dragon with read magic, as that's the only spell he can cast without his spellbook. In that case, neither the fighter or the wizard will win, but the fighter will last longer.
The fighter gets his toys. Level appropriate gear that doesn't outshine his class features. A mount, a weapon of his choice and armor, all magicked up to get the numbers he's famous for. It doesn't seem like a huge leap to assume the wizard at least gets his spell book and the spells that represent his specialty.
Is not like a wizard's arsenal is random either. A wizard is going to research his spells just as a fighter is going to choose the feats that are apparently perfect for ranged combat despite people casting him as a melee dude.
Maybe we should agree to argue about a game none of us know anything about, just to be fair.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;550688Wow, what a catastrofuck this thread is.
Congratulations, here's a soiled loincloth?*
On the other hand, I rather enjoy finding cool loot. I wouldn't particularly want to play a D&D** where all the magic items have been nerfed to drek because everyone is supposed to just use awesome class features all the time.
On the fighter vs. wizard dragon battle I rather think that the fighter is going to be boned, but I don't really have a problem with that. As long as the wizard is likewise boned, they're balanced :)
Alternatively, it would be fine if the fighter is boned this time around, and next encounter they're up against magic-immune monsters where the fighter is the only one able to do much. Spotlight balance in other words.
*this was one of the more common treasure items in the Shattered Lands Dark Sun computer game.
**i.e. 4th edition
I find your shitting on 4th edition Ironic since it basically made everyone into fighters. No one has any real cool class abilities because none of them interact with the noncombat game. That means everyone gets to focus on being awesome at fighting stuff just like the fighter!
Quote from: Aos;550714Maybe we should agree to argue about a game none of us know anything about, just to be fair.
Sure hasn't stopped people from arguing about 3e without knowing anything about it. And apparently arguing about a game I do know about doesn't get much traction here.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;550695Oh thats easy. In combat a dragon can't actually "fly". It can "hop" through the air based on its movement.
It can fly in "overland" mode but if it tries to chew gum at the same time it crashes. :rotfl:
Exactly. 4e made everyone fighters so in order to make sure everyone gets to be that monsters do not interact with the world outside of combat and are meant to fight you in a dungeon with no way of kiting the players.
Quote from: MGuy;550716Sure hasn't stopped people from arguing about 3e without knowing anything about it. And apparently arguing about a game I do know about doesn't get much traction here.
3e isn't D&D; what more does one need to know?
Just for the hell of it, here is an actual encounter (err, series of encounters) with a Dragon from early in my current Wilderlands campaign -- back in 2009 when I was running it under OD&D rules (before it converted to Microlite74).
I believe I had 6 or 7 players in the game at the time, all first and second level characters as I recall. Note: the dragon wasn't intended to be actually encountered, he was just a side bit of color, but the players choose otherwise. Fortunately for them, the dragon was very young and (as reaction rolls indicated during play, not too bright and pretty gullible). The following is from a post on my blog: OD&D Wilderness Campaign: Hired by a Dragon at a "Generous" 15% of Treasure Found (http://blog.retroroleplaying.com/2010/02/od-wilderness-campaign-hired-by-dragon.html).
QuoteJust before my OD&D group took our holiday break last year, they had managed to get on the wrong side of a (fortunately not too bright) young red dragon. They had stopped in a village for the night and learned that one of the village maidens had just been put out as a sacrifice to a red dragon that afternoon. The characters decided that this could not be allowed and slipped out of the village to try to free the girl before the dragon ate her.
Unfortunately, they arrived just as the dragon did. The dragon was fairly young and (as its reaction rolls to what the party did indicated) not too bright. The dragon assumed the PCs were there to serve him the sacrifice and ordered them to feed her to him. The players hesitated and the dragon got upset, threatening to burn "their" village to the ground if they did not feed him the girl now. One of the players had an idea and told the dragon that he had arrived too soon as they had not had a chance to cook the girl so that she would be not only more tasty but so that he could not catch any diseases from her. I rolled a great reaction roll. The dragon thought this was a wonderful idea and demanded that they cook the girl for him immediately. This reaction roll basically told me that this fire-breathing dragon was not very bright and I played him as pretty dumb from then on. They took the girl away "to cook her" -- after telling the dragon that she had to be slow-cooked for extra taste -- and fled. The session ended some game hours later with the dragon finally deciding that he had probably been had and starting to search for them.
The first session after the holiday break had the party and the very thankful sacrifice fleeing in the general direction of the City-State (which had been the PC's goal since the start of the campaign). Near the end of this session, just after a battle with an orc patrol, they sighted the dragon and hid in a cave.
Last session started with the dragon trying to figure out how to get into the cave as its opening was too small for him to fit through. After wasting one fire breath, he decided he should talk. The party convinced him that they had simply taken his sacrifice to this cave to properly cook her. While this discussion was going on, Geenglo (the party's magic-user) was studying his spell book to learn a phantasmal force spell. He used this to cast an illusion of the girl, cooked well done, on the body of an orc. They disguised the real sacrifice in a hooded robe then presented the orc version of the "sacrifice" to the dragon. The latter ate it in a couple of bites. Then he just sat there.
When the party tried to leave, he would not let them. He asked if they were adventurers as well as cooks. After some delay, they said they were cooks out looking for adventure. The dragons eyes lit up. "Very well," he said. "I need treasure to get any respect from other dragons. So I will hire you to help me get a huge pile of treasure and to cook my sacrifices. I'll give you 15% of any treasure you find me." The dragon would not take no for an answer, so the party is now the dragon's official treasure finders and sacrifice cooks. They are going along with this for now -- as they have no choice. Of course, they are already plotting to try to subdue the dragon the first chance they get and sell him in the City-State. The dragon is young and really dumb, so they might even be able to pull it off. Future sessions will tell.
While this encounter does nothing to answer the fighter power vs wizard power question, it does show how an unexpected encounter with a dragon can go in actual play, with the Dragon's reaction to what is going on being determined by the random reaction roll rules in 0e (a 2d6 roll: 2-5 negative reaction, 6-8 neutral/uncertain, 9-12 positive reaction with the roll modified by things like bribes, alignment, charisma, etc.). Sorry that this doesn't help with any of the dragon issues raised in this thread, but it does show how a random dragon encounter can go with a set of rules that does not assume that all encounters automatically result in combat. Monster reaction rolls made encounters far more interesting as combat wasn't automatically unless the PCs choose to attack everything that moved for some reason.
Not to mention, actual play is so much more interesting (to me, at least) than all these theoretical situations.
Quote from: Aos;5507183e isn't D&D; what more does one need to know?
Wow...
Quote from: MGuy;550720Wow...
Well it is a bit closer to WOW than 4E. It has crafting. :rotfl:
Quote from: MGuy;550720Wow...
Yeah, that's how I feel about it too. It's pretty self evident that the crew at Wizards/Hasbro felt this way as well, which is why they made 4e so that D&D could be D&D again.
Quote from: Aos;550724Yeah, that's how I feel about it too. It's pretty self evident that the crew at Wizards/Hasbro felt this way as well, which is why they made 4e so that D&D could be D&D again.
So to be clear, your official position is that D&D is composed of all the editions that have ever existed, even the abortion that is 4e, except 3e?
That's... kind of funny, seeing as 3e is the best sold and most played edition to date.
Quote from: Kaelik;550644It's kind of cute how you guys pretend your questions are anything other than you being disingenuous. He has specifically said that he doesn't know 2e that well. He is asking you about 2e. Obviously if he wanted to really know the likely results and he had the books, he would look it up himself. He doesn't have the book.
He is asking you to take a "high level fighter" and show how he would deal with a "high level dragon" attacking a small town that just happens to not be able to handle this dragon. He doesn't know what dragon age would be appropriate and what fighter level would be appropriate, he's asking you. Answer the fucking question.
Use whatever edition you want but don't expect an answer if you can't supply simple and relevant information :pertinent to the question. Capeche?
Quote from: Kaelik;550725That's... kind of funny, seeing as 3e is the best sold and most played edition to date.
Lol, have another drink, on me.
Quote from: Marleycat;550726Use whatever edition you want but don't expect an answer if you can't supply simple and relevant information :pertinent to the question. Capeche?
Well that's even more disingenuous. He did use the edition he is familiar with. And once it was well established that the problem exists in 3e, you guys immediately retreated to "Well it's not a problem in 2e!"
Great, so MGuy asked you to explain how it's not a problem in 2e, and you asked a bunch of questions that he could not possibly know the answer to because he doesn't know 2e.
He has provided all the simple and relevant information pertinent to the question. In 3e an 11th level fighter gets his ass kicked by a CR 11 Dragon with basically no chance to do anything about it. People made the assertion that this problem doesn't exist in 2e.
Great, explain how this problem doesn't exist in 2e. I could personally pull out my 2e books and give him a Fighter level, a sample build, equipment, and a Dragon age category that represents a reasonable challenge, and present strategies for dealing with the issue. But I don't really feel like it, and have no incentive to because I'm not arguing that 2e Fighters don't have a problem.
If you* are going to claim that the problem doesn't exist in a system he doesn't know as a response to his complaints about a system he does know, it is incumbent on you to explain how the fighter deals with the situation, which includes figuring out the dragon and fighter level yourself.
*You have adopted the claims and response of your good friends by mocking him with your inquiries.
Should I tell them or wait a few more pages?
Quote from: RandallS;550719While this encounter does nothing to answer the fighter power vs wizard power question, it does show how an unexpected encounter with a dragon can go in actual play, with the Dragon's reaction to what is going on being determined by the random reaction roll rules in 0e (a 2d6 roll: 2-5 negative reaction, 6-8 neutral/uncertain, 9-12 positive reaction with the roll modified by things like bribes, alignment, charisma, etc.). Sorry that this doesn't help with any of the dragon issues raised in this thread, but it does show how a random dragon encounter can go with a set of rules that does not assume that all encounters automatically result in combat. Monster reaction rolls made encounters far more interesting as combat wasn't automatically unless the PCs choose to attack everything that moved for some reason.
Not to mention, actual play is so much more interesting (to me, at least) than all these theoretical situations.
Several years ago I had a bard (blademaster kit I think) who ran up against a dragon at about level 9 or so. Who won?
I used the dragon's pride against it by complimenting it and promising to spread it's great name as legend, and since I was a bard, I was pretty dang skilled at telling stories (although we role-played the scenario rather than make any sort of check).
I got out of there injury free, so I guess you could say I won
Quote from: MGuy;550665If the fighter needs a specific item, that isn't even guaranteed to them, to solve this situation then Benoist will just further prove my point. From what I understand of 2e a Wizard doesn't necessarily need any specific randomly rolled treasure to do something about the dragon. If a Fighter is to be expected to operate on the same level at "fighting" then he should be able to "fight" his way through this problem especially since fighting is a decent option to get through this.
Wrong again context please. What edition, what spells does she have, what items, what feats if applicable. What kind of wizard? What setting? Does she have all her spells available, half, more, less? What magic system is being used vancian, spellpoints, channelling etc, etc, etc.
Quote from: Kaelik;550729Great, explain how this problem doesn't exist in 2e. I could personally pull out my 2e books and give him a Fighter level, a sample build, equipment, and a Dragon age category that represents a reasonable challenge, and present strategies for dealing with the issue. But I don't really feel like it, and have no incentive to because I'm not arguing that 2e Fighters don't have a problem.
A single 11th level character (of just about any class) fighting an average adult red dragon with no advance warning/perpetration is unlikely to end well for the character in any edition of D&D (probably not even 4th, but I'm not familiar enough with it to say). The character might get lucky (probably by having just the magic items/spells needed to win or rolling a lot iof criticals if the game uses them while the dragon misses), but otherwise the odds aren't too good -- at least in games I would run. I'm not really sure why anyone would expect the character do win very often in such a situation.
Quote from: Kaelik;550729Well that's even more disingenuous. He did use the edition he is familiar with. And once it was well established that the problem exists in 3e, you guys immediately retreated to "Well it's not a problem in 2e!"
Great, so MGuy asked you to explain how it's not a problem in 2e, and you asked a bunch of questions that he could not possibly know the answer to because he doesn't know 2e.
He has provided all the simple and relevant information pertinent to the question. In 3e an 11th level fighter gets his ass kicked by a CR 11 Dragon with basically no chance to do anything about it. People made the assertion that this problem doesn't exist in 2e.
Great, explain how this problem doesn't exist in 2e. I could personally pull out my 2e books and give him a Fighter level, a sample build, equipment, and a Dragon age category that represents a reasonable challenge, and present strategies for dealing with the issue. But I don't really feel like it, and have no incentive to because I'm not arguing that 2e Fighters don't have a problem.
If you* are going to claim that the problem doesn't exist in a system he doesn't know as a response to his complaints about a system he does know, it is incumbent on you to explain how the fighter deals with the situation, which includes figuring out the dragon and fighter level yourself.
*You have adopted the claims and response of your good friends by mocking him with your inquiries.
I never said anything on the issue you have the wrong girl. What I said is 3x is a special case because the banhammwr is central to any question asked about the system.
Quote from: MGuy;550712Well despite this being Benoist's question I'll indulge you. So the situation as you set it is: Fighter sees town attack. There just so happens to be a 100ft tall (at least) cliff with waterfall and a lake near the town. Now during the attack he spends his time climbing 0ft up, then starts pelting the dragon from there. This is assuming the DM allows arrows to fly with 100% accuracy through a waterfall and allows the fighter to spot, from behind this water, a dragon in flight with enough accuracy to make a called shots specifically to its wings. Now you're saying a Dragon can only use its breath weapon 3 times a day?
Ok. Now I'm going to make a few huge assumptions. First I assume that the cave the fighter found was easy enough for him to get to and that he just so happened to be in there at the start of the attack so he doesn't have to spend time during the attack scaling the cliff to get into place. Let's also pretend that the dragon's strafe run takes it close enough to the waterfall in order to be in pelting range. I will also assume that the fighter set up so that his bow skill is good enough to matter (because apparently he needs to have focused on it this entire time in order for it to matter at high level). Now I don't know the specifics as to exactly what feats the fighter needed to take to get here but whatever. So that's the situation. I'm going to assume that damage reduction, the dragon's ability to dodge, etc aren't major issues for this.
I'm doing 0e. I don't have any 2e books, and although 1e isn't going to match 0e exactly, 1e has weapon specialization options that would actually improve the Fighter's chances, so we'll just go with the much simpler 0e. Plus, if you question it, you can use the freely-available S&W Whitebox to check numbers. That means no feats (none in 1e, either.) No skill in 0e, either (Fighter can use any weapon, period,) 1e would merely require the Fighter to declare longbow (frex) as a weapon at some point.
11th level Fighter attack roll needed to hit dragon's AC 2 is 10 or more. Max range for longbow is 210 yards outdoors; 0e has NO penalty for long range, but adds a +1 or +2 bonus for medium or short range. If the dragon wants to breathe fire, it's going to have to get to medium range.
We'll let the waterfall change damage from dragon breath to half, no damage on successful save, to match the ability of the Fighter to see the dragon through the waterfall. Dodge doesn't matter, because dragons have a clumsy flight class and take a while to change direction. If you want, you can apply an arbitrary -2 to hit with the longbow because water, although transparent, might distort the image of the dragon.
Aimed shots aren't specifically listed in 0e, but we have a hit location table in vol III that gives a 20% chance of hitting the wings and 20% chance of hitting the head (which could also be relevant.) Other hits are to the body or the tail.
Here's the 0e critical hit table (it's not in S&W):
Speed Dive Withdraw Crash -
Hit Probability of Reduced and from Dead In
Location: Critical Hit = One-Half Land Battle Air
Rider* 25% 100%
Head 20% 10% 30% 40% 20%
Wing 20% 50% 20% 30%
Body 10% 30% 30% 30% 10%Ignore "Rider", since there isn't one.
Quote from: MGuy;550712I'm still willing to wager with this example situation you described that you are unlikely to be able to stop the town from getting destroyed. Now I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that there is some miss chance for the fighter considering the unfavorable conditions so the fighter most likely won't be hitting all the time. I'm going to also make a smaller assumption that the Dragon might be able to survive quite a few rounds of the, most likely, inaccurate pelting. However, I don't know. So could you please provide the numbers for me if you would be so kind?
Fighter is 1o+3 hit dice. Damage is 1d6. If you want to go Greyhawk (closer to 1e/2e,) use 9d8+4 for hit dice; there's no difference in damage.
The oldest, largest Red Dragon is 11 HD. Use the same die type as the Fighter (d6 for original, d8 for Greyhawk.)
Quote from: MGuy;550712As for your return question, it has me at a disadvantage. Truth is I don't know. I do not know 2e well enough to know the numbers well enough to say exactly what spells I would even prepare on a normal day.
So, you're saying that the Fighter is useless compared to the Wizard in all editions, despite the fact that you have no data for the Wizard in any edition except 3e?
Quote from: talysman;550736We'll let the waterfall change damage from dragon breath to half, no damage on successful save, to match the ability of the Fighter to see the dragon through the waterfall. Dodge doesn't matter, because dragons have a clumsy flight class and take a while to change direction. If you want, you can apply an arbitrary -2 to hit with the longbow because water, although transparent, might distort the image of the dragon.
I'm going to suggest you try actually standing in a cave behind a waterfall for a while before you get too enamoured of this scenario. Spherical cows, indeed.
By the way, how does your fighter deal with the fact that the water and humidity from the waterfall has just rendered his bowstrings useless? Just curious.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550678This is the point at which the fighter stops being fun for me - when you realize that his equipment, rather than his class abilities, contributes more to his effectiveness.
When the fighter's equipment is the 'star' of the combat, that's not fun for me.
That's just silly fighters aren't monk or maybe sorcerers or psions. Equipment defines them just like any other class beyond the aforementioned above.
Quote from: Kaelik;550725So to be clear, your official position is that D&D is composed of all the editions that have ever existed, even the abortion that is 4e, except 3e?
That's... kind of funny, seeing as 3e is the best sold and most played edition to date.
1e is the only real D&D, all others are varying degrees of not-D&D, 3e being the furthest out on the spectrum of not-D&D and 4e being the closest to 1e overall. I mean you can call your little game whatever you want, but honestly calling it D&D just makes you look crazy.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;550721Well it is a bit closer to WOW than 4E. It has crafting. :rotfl:
And a physics engine.
Quote from: daniel_ream;550738By the way, how does your fighter deal with the fact that the water and humidity from the waterfall has just rendered his bowstrings useless? Just curious.
Magic, obviously.
Quote from: RandallS;550734A single 11th level character (of just about any class) fighting an average adult red dragon with no advance warning/perpetration is unlikely to end well for the character in any edition of D&D (probably not even 4th, but I'm not familiar enough with it to say). The character might get lucky (probably by having just the magic items/spells needed to win or rolling a lot iof criticals if the game uses them while the dragon misses), but otherwise the odds aren't too good -- at least in games I would run. I'm not really sure why anyone would expect the character do win very often in such a situation.
In 3e an 11th level character is supposed to go 50% against CR 11 enemies. I would certainly put pretty good odds, better than 50% on a level 11 Wizard, Cleric, or Druid in 3.5 against an Adult Black Dragon (which was the example given). For a Red, a Young Adult is CR 13, and the odds are even better for a level 13 of the same classes.
Pretty much no shot for a Fighter or Rogue though.
Quote from: Marleycat;550735I never said anything on the issue you have the wrong girl. What I said is 3x is a special case because the banhammwr is central to any question asked about the system.
Perhaps if you read the part that I starred specifically about your responsibility instead of ignoring it?
Quote from: Aos;5507401e is the only real D&D, all others are varying degrees of not-D&D, 3e being the furthest out on the spectrum of not-D&D and 4e being the closest to 1e overall. I mean you can call your little game whatever you want, but honestly calling it D&D just makes you look crazy.
Someone probably should explain to you how trademarks and names work. A short version goes like this:
When something is called "Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition" and sold by the owner of the trademark "Dungeons and Dragons" it's pretty much crazy to call people crazy for calling it Dungeons and Dragons.
Quote from: talysman;550736So, you're saying that the Fighter is useless compared to the Wizard in all editions, despite the fact that you have no data for the Wizard in any edition except 3e?
No. I'm saying that the fighter is weaker than the wizard in all editions without knowing the specifics because the very concept of what a fighter can do v what a wizard can do is laughable when held up together at the same time.
I said this earlier, and you may have missed it, but even IF the fighter was good at combat that doesn't mean much because all classes are expected to be so (at least in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th). So the fighter NEEDS something else to claim his fame. Something that's unique to it. Maybe a fighter has access to "Ki" or "chi" or some other martial power. Maybe he can use his sword to cut through solid rock.
Quote from: Aos;5507401e is the only real D&D, all others are varying degrees of not-D&D, 3e being the furthest out on the spectrum of not-D&D and 4e being the closest to 1e overall. I mean you can call your little game whatever you want, but honestly calling it D&D just makes you look crazy.
Just wow. This is just... I don't.. I honestly don't have words for how profoundly stupid this idea is. This is just so blatantly ignorant I almost feel offended.
Quote from: daniel_ream;550738I'm going to suggest you try actually standing in a cave behind a waterfall for a while before you get too enamoured of this scenario. Spherical cows, indeed.
By the way, how does your fighter deal with the fact that the water and humidity from the waterfall has just rendered his bowstrings useless? Just curious.
Quote from: Aos;550742Magic, obviously.
Or wax!
Quote from: MGuy;550744No. I'm saying that the fighter is weaker than the wizard in all editions without knowing the specifics because the very concept of what a fighter can do v what a wizard can do is laughable when held up together at the same time.
I said this earlier, and you may have missed it, but even IF the fighter was good at combat that doesn't mean much because all classes are expected to be so (at least in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th). So the fighter NEEDS something else to claim his fame. Something that's unique to it. Maybe a fighter has access to "Ki" or "chi" or some other martial power. Maybe he can use his sword to cut through solid rock.
But the thread started with the assumption that disparities between the Fighter and the Wizard don't matter, which Frank, you, and your buddies have objected to. You are saying that a Fighter is useless, a Fighter can't fight a dragon one-on-one, etc. No one on the "other" side has made any claim of universal competence for Fighters. Instead, we have repeated that the game for *us* is about clever use of resources to defeat enemies, acquire treasure, and solve problems. That's not enough for you, but frankly, that's your problem, not ours.
A Fighter doesn't NEED any special powers. YOU need special powers, because that's what you want out of a game. We don't want that. We don't care. We think the game is more about team work and role-playing. Which is why your "theory" only matters to you.
Quote from: MGuy;550744I said this earlier, and you may have missed it, but even IF the fighter was good at combat that doesn't mean much because all classes are expected to be so (at least in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th). So the fighter NEEDS something else to claim his fame. Something that's unique to it. Maybe a fighter has access to "Ki" or "chi" or some other martial power. Maybe he can use his sword to cut through solid rock.
Ah, I see the flawed assumption. You're expecting every other class to be good in combat like a fighter.
No. The fighter is best at combat. He should be significantly better than every other class in that field. I think what happened is enough people bitched about their character not doing as much damage as a fighter, so they raised the damage output of every other class, and now people bitch that the fighter isn't good enough. Well no shit. You neutered him.
Anyway, now that I'm home, I fired up the ol' core rules CD ROM and whipped out some NPCs. Keep in mind this is 2e, and the original comparison was about a 1e dragon. 2e dragons are MUCH tougher than 1e.
These are randomly generated NPCs, all at 15th level, and what you might expect:
Juvenille red
HD: 15
HP: 67
AC: -3
THAC0: 5
AT: 3
Dmg: 1d10/1d10/3d10
Breath: 8d10+4 (once every 3 rnds)
Dwarf fighter 15
HP: 73
AC: -8 (full plate +5, shield +3)
THAC0: 5
Battle axe+3 (wpn spec +3/+3) THAC0: -2 AT: 5/2, Dmg: 1d8+15
Girdle of frost giant str (+4, +9)
comp long bow +3 (THAC0: 2, AT: 2/1, Dmg: 1d6+12)
Elf MU 15
HP: 29
AC: 2 (bracers)
THAC0: 16
Spells: 5/5/5/5/5/2/1
1st level: Comp lang, detect magic, erase, shocking grasp
2nd: forget, hypnotic pattern, know align, wizard lock
3rd: bone club, explosive ruins, secret page
4th: enchanted weapon, illusionary wall, shout
5th: avoidance, cloudkill, hold monster, magic staff, shadow magic
6th: blackmantle, ensnarement
7th: control undead
I think it appears obvious that the MU is going to be toast first, and by a large margin, even if he saves for 1/2 damage, or even no damage at all (assume ring of fire protection). The dragon is almost always going to hit, and average damage will kill the MU in round 1 or 2. Contrast that to the fighter, who the dragon won't hit that often, but the fighter will hit the dragon almost every time, and even 1/2 the time if the dragon just flies around out of reach (bow).
Remember, this was with no preparation. A spontaneous dragon fight out in the open. If you allow preparation (like the mage choosing spells), than the fighter will also be prepared (like hunting it down or luring it so it can't fly)
Quote from: MGuy;550747Just wow. This is just... I don't.. I honestly don't have words for how profoundly stupid this idea is. This is just so blatantly ignorant I almost feel offended.
3e supporters spend a lot of their time offended, so I'm not surprised. I mean look at Pathfinder; it's an actual physical manifestation of offended 3tard asspain, bloated and swollen like a giant, throbbing gaming hemorrhoid or something.
Quote from: Declan MacManus;550709The gaming den will never, ever, ever get the D&D they want. They've already been running on this hamster wheel for years now to no avail.
Declan I'm only going to say this one thing to you. I can already tell you have a hate on for reasonable debate so there's no reason to entertain you.
However, I need to clear one thing up. There is no "den's" version of DnD. I don't like Frank. I like Kaelik even less (I'm a lot closer hating him). Between just the three of us you wouldn't get a single view of what DnD should be. But the thing is Frank gets shit done and often times knows exactly what the fuck he's talking about. Despite me not liking and disagreeing with "some" of the shit he says; most of the time he has a fucking point. Same thing with Kaelik. So despite me not liking Frank and my continued hate of Kaelik I'm at least grown up enough to listen to what they have to say even if I don't like it. And I can do so without dismissing any and all arguments that they ever have ever based on my previous dislike of what they had to say in the past. The fact that you default to insulting people who like to acknowledge the rules is just sickening as a whole. I know autistic people, I have autistic friends, and I am personally offended that you would use that as an insult for people who know how the rules work.
Quote from: talysman;550748Or wax!
But the thread started with the assumption that disparities between the Fighter and the Wizard don't matter, which Frank, you, and your buddies have objected to. You are saying that a Fighter is useless, a Fighter can't fight a dragon one-on-one, etc. No one on the "other" side has made any claim of universal competence for Fighters. Instead, we have repeated that the game for *us* is about clever use of resources to defeat enemies, acquire treasure, and solve problems. That's not enough for you, but frankly, that's your problem, not ours.
A Fighter doesn't NEED any special powers. YOU need special powers, because that's what you want out of a game. We don't want that. We don't care. We think the game is more about team work and role-playing. Which is why your "theory" only matters to you.
I acknowledged what the other side has said. Some of your side is saying that the fighter is wholly competent. Some people are saying it doesn't matter because of "X" where "X" is something anyone can do.
Now you say a fighter doesn't need" special powers but everyone who has defended the fighter assumes he has "MAGIC" equipment. And for me to suggest that he should be find without it caused disagreement. SO I said I would be fine then if the magic equipment weren't something random that it was just part of the fighter's features.
How many fighters in 2E go through the game eschewing any and all magic items since they don't need "powers"?
Mcguy its noble that you oppose the insults and all (i have said many time I could do without them) but take a look at some of franks posts and some others by people on your side: everyone has been slinging here. If you walk into a forum and antagonize people, then on top of that belittle them for not agreeing with you, people might say nasty things.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550749Ah, I see the flawed assumption. You're expecting every other class to be good in combat like a fighter.
No. The fighter is best at combat. He should be significantly better than every other class in that field. I think what happened is enough people bitched about their character not doing as much damage as a fighter, so they raised the damage output of every other class, and now people bitch that the fighter isn't good enough. Well no shit. You neutered him.
Anyway, now that I'm home, I fired up the ol' core rules CD ROM and whipped out some NPCs. Keep in mind this is 2e, and the original comparison was about a 1e dragon. 2e dragons are MUCH tougher than 1e.
These are randomly generated NPCs, all at 15th level, and what you might expect:
Juvenille red
HD: 15
HP: 67
AC: -3
THAC0: 5
AT: 3
Dmg: 1d10/1d10/3d10
Breath: 8d10+4 (once every 3 rnds)
Dwarf fighter 15
HP: 73
AC: -8 (full plate +5, shield +3)
THAC0: 5
Battle axe+3 (wpn spec +3/+3) THAC0: -2 AT: 5/2, Dmg: 1d8+15
Girdle of frost giant str (+4, +9)
comp long bow +3 (THAC0: 2, AT: 2/1, Dmg: 1d6+12)
Elf MU 15
HP: 29
AC: 2 (bracers)
THAC0: 16
Spells: 5/5/5/5/5/2/1
1st level: Comp lang, detect magic, erase, shocking grasp
2nd: forget, hypnotic pattern, know align, wizard lock
3rd: bone club, explosive ruins, secret page
4th: enchanted weapon, illusionary wall, shout
5th: avoidance, cloudkill, hold monster, magic staff, shadow magic
6th: blackmantle, ensnarement
7th: control undead
I think it appears obvious that the MU is going to be toast first, and by a large margin, even if he saves for 1/2 damage, or even no damage at all (assume ring of fire protection). The dragon is almost always going to hit, and average damage will kill the MU in round 1 or 2. Contrast that to the fighter, who the dragon won't hit that often, but the fighter will hit the dragon almost every time, and even 1/2 the time if the dragon just flies around out of reach (bow).
Remember, this was with no preparation. A spontaneous dragon fight out in the open. If you allow preparation (like the mage choosing spells), than the fighter will also be prepared (like hunting it down or luring it so it can't fly)
The dragon in the scenario is attacking the town, not the hero. The question is how does the fighter protect the village? The fighter being personally strong enough to be punched in the face doesn't matter a whole lot if the dragon isn't first paying attention to it.
Now I don't know what a number of these spells do but it seems flat out weird that the wizard randomly has control undead on his list but not animate undead. Other spells seem like they might be useful though, such as avoidance, illusory wall, hold monster, cloud kill, shadow magic, black mantle, and ensnarement. Why doesn't the wizard use some of these to protect himself and confound the dragon? Why is the wizard taking up the fighter's fighting style of getting punched in the face?
Quote from: MGuy;550755The dragon in the scenario is attacking the town, not the hero. The question is how does the fighter protect the village?
How does the wizard protect the town?
QuoteNow I don't know what a number of these spells do but it seems flat out weird that the wizard randomly has control undead on his list but not animate undead.
Because maybe that's the best 7th level spell he could find and/or learn? Getting spells isn't automatic in TSR D&D. He just learned how to cast 7th level spells, so it stands to reason he doesn't have a whole lot of them in his repertoire.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550754Mcguy its noble that you oppose the insults and all (i have said many time I could do without them) but take a look at some of franks posts and some others by people on your side: everyone has been slinging here. If you walk into a forum and antagonize people, then on top of that belittle them for not agreeing with you, people might say nasty things.
I'm opposed to useless insults all the way around. As I said, I don't particularly like Frank or Kaelik but its insulting on many levels to have someone insulting people for being able to read and for having reading comprehension. That is madness. Its just worse that he's calling people autistic for that as if having autism is something to belittle people over.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550756How does the wizard protect the town?
Because maybe that's the best 7th level spell he could find and/or learn? Getting spells isn't automatic in TSR D&D. He just learned how to cast 7th level spells, so it stands to reason he doesn't have a whole lot of them in his repertoire.
I'll grant you the randomness of the 7th level spell. But that doesn't answer my much more pertinent question as to what his other abilities do, and why he doesn't use them in the scenario.
Quote from: RandallS;550719Just for the hell of it, here is an actual encounter (err, series of encounters) with a Dragon from early in my current Wilderlands campaign -- back in 2009 when I was running it under OD&D rules (before it converted to Microlite74).
I believe I had 6 or 7 players in the game at the time, all first and second level characters as I recall. Note: the dragon wasn't intended to be actually encountered, he was just a side bit of color, but the players choose otherwise. Fortunately for them, the dragon was very young and (as reaction rolls indicated during play, not too bright and pretty gullible). The following is from a post on my blog: OD&D Wilderness Campaign: Hired by a Dragon at a "Generous" 15% of Treasure Found (http://blog.retroroleplaying.com/2010/02/od-wilderness-campaign-hired-by-dragon.html).
While this encounter does nothing to answer the fighter power vs wizard power question, it does show how an unexpected encounter with a dragon can go in actual play, with the Dragon's reaction to what is going on being determined by the random reaction roll rules in 0e (a 2d6 roll: 2-5 negative reaction, 6-8 neutral/uncertain, 9-12 positive reaction with the roll modified by things like bribes, alignment, charisma, etc.). Sorry that this doesn't help with any of the dragon issues raised in this thread, but it does show how a random dragon encounter can go with a set of rules that does not assume that all encounters automatically result in combat. Monster reaction rolls made encounters far more interesting as combat wasn't automatically unless the PCs choose to attack everything that moved for some reason.
Not to mention, actual play is so much more interesting (to me, at least) than all these theoretical situations.
That sir is exactly why hypotheticals are disingenuous shit.
Quote from: Marleycat;550760That sir is exactly why hypotheticals are disingenuous shit.
Apparently play experience is too because I believe the Fighter/Wizard issue was claimed before 3e's conception.
Quote from: MGuy;550758I'm opposed to useless insults all the way around. As I said, I don't particularly like Frank or Kaelik but its insulting on many levels to have someone insulting people for being able to read and for having reading comprehension. That is madness. Its just worse that he's calling people autistic for that as if having autism is something to belittle people over.
I agree. But its also insulting to make fun of peoples' intelligence simply because they reached a different conclusion than you about a game and its mechanics. There are people with low IQs in this world just like there are autistic people. Your friends shouldn't get passes when they are essentially engaged in the same behavior you are decrying.
Sorry to interrupt Brendan, but since I've found you here, just a head's up that Drohem's game is up and running.
Quote from: talysman;550748Or wax!
Unfortunately that's really not likely to help much in the environment specified. Frankly the bow itself isn't going to be much use in that environment as it absorbs water, swells, and loses resilience.
A magic bow? Sure, I'll buy that. You're still not going to be able to see through the waterfall to aim, and the notion that you can fire any arrow through a waterfall accurately and with any power is just silly.
Assuming some light drizzle of water you can see and shoot accurately through, that isn't going to slow down a cone of fire in the slightest - plus the fighter can add getting flash parboiled to death to his list of woes.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550762I agree. But its also insulting to make fun of peoples' intelligence simply because they reached a different conclusion than you about a game and its mechanics. There are people with low IQs in this world just like there are autistic people. Your friends shouldn't get passes when they are essentially engaged in the same behavior you are decrying.
If you are being stupid I have no qualms with someone calling you out on it. Especially if you first took the steps to explain how someone was wrong. If someone insists on not listening to reason than you are being stupid and calling someone stupid for doing so is not the same as calling someone mentally handicapped. It would be like equating my reference to cognitive dissonance to calling someone retarded.
Quote from: MGuy;550759I'll grant you the randomness of the 7th level spell. But that doesn't answer my much more pertinent question as to what his other abilities do, and why he doesn't use them in the scenario.
I would have to look up their precise effects and compare to the dragon (which i am nit going to do because I have more important things to research) but off the top of my head I think those spells are going to be a bit weak in this scenario. Maybe a bunch of posters from either side could play out the battle with sacrosancts stats to see what hapoens. Though for the sake of 'objectivity' i suggest modifying it to a head to head against the party and dragon.
Quote from: CRKrueger;550730Should I tell them or wait a few more pages?
Please don't. It's awesome.
Quote from: MGuy;550759I'll grant you the randomness of the 7th level spell. But that doesn't answer my much more pertinent question as to what his other abilities do, and why he doesn't use them in the scenario.
I'm asking you. How does the MU save that town? If you're complaining that the fighter can't do anything but launch arrows until the dragon gets within melee (if ever), than what can the MU do to save the town that is better? At least the fighter can do damage, and most likely will get the dragon's attention if he's doing 30 points of damage each round with his arrows.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550769I'm asking you. How does the MU save that town? If you're complaining that the fighter can't do anything but launch arrows until the dragon gets within melee (if ever), than what can the MU do to save the town that is better? At least the fighter can do damage, and most likely will get the dragon's attention if he's doing 30 points of damage each round with his arrows.
I do not know because I do not know what the listed abilities can do.
Quote from: Declan MacManus;550702Wow...the Gaming Den's entire gibbering, rambling, autistic circle jerk is here to bellow about procedural bullshit that only soulless, dead-eyed bureaucrats actually care about.
I have to admit...I used to lurk on that board and found some of the analyses interesting, before I realized that it was an insular 'sperg orgy of OCD theorywanking that had little to no basis on ACTUAL gaming, and that they had absolutely nothing of value to say about anything. Sure...the denners are really good at making themselves SOUND smart with their incessant pixel-bitching and rules fellating, until the inevitable point where rational people read their bullshit and come to the realization that the smart ones are the people actually PLAYING the game and then getting on with the rest of their week, and not the ones locking themselves in their stench chamber of a room and obsessively combing through rulebooks like a hobo digging through an overfilled industrial dumpster for empty soda cans.
The problem with the den's absolutist viewpoint is that it completely ignores all of the people who have fuck loads of fun playing AD&D, WotC D&D, Basic D&D and even WoD, Exalted, Shadowrun, Savage Worlds, etc. and just plain don't give a wet shit about theorycrafting. They can bluster all they like about how the game IS the rules...but it is not...nor has it ever been. The game is the players and the GM...and the rules are just a superfluous detail, there for when you need them...tossed aside when you don't. That's what RPG's have to offer that videogames do not, and that's how we like it.
If Frank Trollman ever witnessed a table full of people giddily playing a high level AD&D campaign and having a great time, I suspect he would suffer some sort of psychotic breakdown.
"What are you DOING??? Stop! Put those dice down this instant! Stop pretending to have fun! Wipe those feigned smiles off of your lying faces! This game is imbalanced and it has bad rules and you can't have fun playing a game that has bad rules and none of you exist because this can't be happening! See! There's no skill on his character sheet for hydra wrestling and he just wrestled a hydra and that's how I can tell that this is all a made up dream and none of you are real because he just wrestled a hydra and he doesn't have the skill to wrestle hydras and so none of this is real because wrestling hydras because this isn't real...blurbble....malfunction! Malfunction!"
I mean my god...what a miserable existence.
You may want to rethink any defense which works just as well for FATAL as for your RPG of choice. You can't seriously believe that "people once had fun playing it" is the only measure of a game's goodness?
Quote from: MGuy;550766If you are being stupid I have no qualms with someone calling you out on it. Especially if you first took the steps to explain how someone was wrong. If someone insists on not listening to reason than you are being stupid and calling someone stupid for doing so is not the same as calling someone mentally handicapped. It would be like equating my reference to cognitive dissonance to calling someone retarded.
Or they are not stupid but just disagree with your conclusion and your argument. Declaring yourself the winner and the opposition too dumb to get it, is weak sauce. They could even be wrong doesn't make them stupid.
Quote from: Kaelik;550743Someone probably should explain to you how trademarks and names work. A short version goes like this:
When something is called "Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition" and sold by the owner of the trademark "Dungeons and Dragons" it's pretty much crazy to call people crazy for calling it Dungeons and Dragons.
An appeal to authority is all you've got here? Really? And I call you crazy, so you call me crazy? Hardly a novel approach.
Given your lack of originality and your kneejerk retreat into the smothering anus of authority, I'd have to say 3e is the perfect "game" for you.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550762I agree. But its also insulting to make fun of peoples' intelligence simply because they reached a different conclusion than you about a game and its mechanics. There are people with low IQs in this world just like there are autistic people. Your friends shouldn't get passes when they are essentially engaged in the same behavior you are decrying.
You might want to rethink your criticism of his "friends" ignoring for the moment that he has explicitly stated his hatred of me, I have not insulted anyone, and fectin has been down right civil, certainly more so than anyone else in this forum, depending on your interpretation of songs.
Quote from: Aos;550773An appeal to authority is all you've got here? Really? And I call you crazy, so you call me crazy? Hardly a novel approach.
Given your lack of originality and your kneejerk retreat into the smothering anus of authority, I'd have to say 3e is the perfect "game" for you.
It is not an appeal to authority to state that things are in fact what they are.
It is not an appeal to authority to claim that my name is Kaelik. It is definitionally true.
Likewise, D&D has an actual meaning, and the actual meaning is not whatever you want it to be, it is the name of a specific brand. It would be crazy to call someone crazy for believing tissues made by the Kleenex company are really Kleenex because you once had a Kleenex that was different.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550772They could even be wrong doesn't make them stupid.
Take this hippy shit back to Rpg.net, Brenden, this is a mature discussion for mature adults who can behave maturely, like me.
Quote from: Kaelik;550774You might want to rethink your criticism of his "friends" ignoring for the moment that he has explicitly stated his hatred of me, I have not insulted anyone, and fectin has been down right civil, certainly more so than anyone else in this forum, depending on your interpretation of songs.
that was different.
Writing an entire song as an insult to a poster isn't my idea of civil.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550776Writing an entire song as an insult to a poster isn't my idea of civil.
You included part of your post in the quote.
It does fall within my idea of civil to shame people who are abusive bullies. If you don't shame them, they won't stop being abusive bullies.
Quote from: Aos;550775Take this hippy shit back to Rpg.net, Brenden, this is a mature discussion for mature adults who can behave maturely, like me.
Yes because "you're stupid" is the height of mature discussion.
Oh, some other pertinent information that shoots down some folks' arguments earlier:
Dragon Fear: Dragons can inspire panic or fear. The mere sight of a young adult or older dragon causes creatures with fewer than 1 Hit Die (as well as all noncarnivorous, nonaggressive creatures with fewer Hit Dice than the dragon) to automatically flee in panic for 4d6 rounds.
Trained war mounts, organized military units, and single creatures with 1 Hit Die or more, but with fewer Hit Dice than the dragon are not panicked, but they may be stricken with fear if they are within the dragon's fear aura. The aura surrounds attacking or charging dragons in the specified radius and in a path along the ground directly beneath a flying dragon whose altitude is 250 feet or less. Creatures not automatically panicked are entitled to saving throws vs. petrification. Creatures failing their saving throws are stricken with fear and fight with a -2 penalty to their attack and damage rolls. The aura increases in size and power based on the age category of the dragon; creatures subjected to the aura receive a saving throw bonus or a penalty as specified on the Dragon Table. All creatures with Hit Dice equal to or greater than those of the dragon are immune to the fear effect.
So there goes your theory that a fighter's followers all run in fear.
Also:
Diving dragons can strike with their claws with a +2 bonus to attack rolls. Dragons diving on land-bound opponents can also strike with both wings, but then must land immediately after attacking.
So there goes your theory that dragons are just gonna strafe all day long too. In fact, their tactics are:
If the creature appears small and insignificant, such as an unarmored man, the dragon will land to attack with its claws and bite, not wanting to obliterate the creature with its breath weapon, as any treasure might be consumed by the flames. However, if a red dragon encounters a group of armored men, it will use its breath weapon, special abilities, and spells (if it is old enough to have them) before landing.
Quote from: Kaelik;550777You included part of your post in the quote.
It does fall within my idea of civil to shame people who are abusive bullies. If you don't shame them, they won't stop being abusive bullies.
I guess we just disagree on this
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550778Yes because "you're stupid" is the height of mature discussion.
I think he's trolling on purpose. Look at his sig
Quote from: Kaelik;550774Y
It is not an appeal to authority to state that things are in fact what they are.
It is not an appeal to authority to claim that my name is Kaelik. It is definitionally true.
Likewise, D&D has an actual meaning, and the actual meaning is not whatever you want it to be, it is the name of a specific brand. It would be crazy to call someone crazy for believing tissues made by the Kleenex company are really Kleenex because you once had a Kleenex that was different.
I see; you're trolling me. I should have picked up on it before when you said that crazy shit about 3e being the most sold/played edition.
Quote from: MGuy;550761Apparently play experience is too because I believe the Fighter/Wizard issue was claimed before 3e's conception.
For you maybe but I have no issue with a wizard being more powerful than a fighter at extremely high levels. When I started playing Dnd I wouldn't play a wizard if you paid me. It was a far too complex and subtle class for me to play it to its potential. That's why I played Fighters even though I knew they were weaker. The trade off of reliability and simplicity was a fair trade to me.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550749These are randomly generated NPCs, all at 15th level, and what you might expect:
Can you say how you randomly generated those NPCs? Those look quite different from PCs of my AD&D1 experience. In particular, the fighter has a Battle Axe +3, Full Plate +5, Shield +3, Girdle of Frost Giant Strength, Composite Long Bow +3 (and apparently the bow is made for Frost-Giant strength?). The 15th level magic user, on the other hand, has only one magic item: Bracers of Defense. In my games, a PC magic user would have more magic items and a different spell selection.
Are these roughly representative of 15th level PCs, in your experience?
If so, that at least is a good clue on the difference of our experiences.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550781I think he's trolling on purpose. Look at his sig
Oh so now I'm the troll? Up is down, black is white, 3e is D&D.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550781I think he's trolling on purpose. Look at his sig
I was trying to think how to ask that. Is he not a native?
Quote from: Marleycat;550784For you maybe but I have no issue with a wizard being more powerful than a fighter at extremely high levels. When I started playing Dnd I wouldn't play a wizard if you paid me. It was a far too complex and subtle class for me to play it to its potential. That's why I played Fighters even though I knew they were weaker. The trade off of reliability and simplicity was a fair trade to me.
That should be an option. Not the rule. I don't mind people wanting simpler play. But power disparity shouldn't be enforced.
I have observed lately that all threads anywhere about anything that have disagreement in them eventually decay into the component atom of arguing about how people argue, not the actual original argument itself.
With that said, I'll leave this here:
QuoteBecause there are many legendary and authored systems of magic, many
questions about the system of magic used in D & D are continually raised. Magic
in CHAINMAIL was fairly brief, and because it was limited to the concept of table
top miniatures battles, there was no problem in devising and handling this new
and very potent factor in the game. The same cannot be said of D & D. While
miniatures battles on the table top were conceived as a part of the overall game
system, the major factor was always envisioned as the underworld adventure, while
the wilderness trek assumed a secondary role, various other aspects took a third
place, and only then were miniatures battles considered. So a somewhat different
concept of magic had to be devised to employ with the D & D campaign in order to
make it all work.
The four cardinal types of magic are those systems which require long conjuration
with much paraphernalia as an adjunct (as used by Shakespeare in MACBETH
or as typically written about by Robert E. Howard in his "Conan" yarns),
the relatively short spoken spell (as in Finnish mythology or as found in the superb
fantasy of Jack Vance), ultra-powerful (if not always correct) magic (typical of
deCamp & Pratt in their classic "Harold Shea" stories), and the generally weak
and relatively ineffectual magic (as found in J.R.R. Tolkien's work). Now the use
of magic in the game was one of the most appealing aspects, and given the game
system it was fairly obvious that its employment could not be on the complicated
and time consuming plane, any more than it could be made as a rather weak and
ineffectual adjunct to swordplay if magic-users were to become a class of playercharacter.
The basic assumption, then, was that D & D magic worked on a "Vancian"
system and if used correctly would be a highly powerful and effective force. There
are also four basic parts to magic: The verbal or uttered spell, the somatic or
physical movement required for the conjuration, the psychic or mental attitude
necessary to cast the spell, and the material adjuncts by which the spell, can be
completed (to cite an obvious example, water to raise a water elemental). It was
assumed that the D & D spell would be primarily verbal, although in some instances
the spell would require some somatic component also (a fire ball being an
outstanding example). The psychic per se would play little part in the basic magic
system, but a corollary, mnemonics, would. The least part of magic would be the
material aids required, and most of those considered stored or aided magic, so as
to enable its more immediate employment, rather than serving to prolong spell
casting time or encumber the player using these aids. Before exploring the whys
and wherefores of these decisions, a further word regarding magical results must
be said.
Spells do various things, and just what they do is an important consideration,
for some order of effect in regard to the game would have to be determined. Magic
purports to have these sorts of effects: 1) the alteration of existing substance (including
its transposition or dissolution); 2) the creation of new substance; 3) the
changing of normal functions of mind and/or body; 4) the addition of new functions
to mind and/or body; 5) summon and/or command existing entities; and 6)
create new entities. In considering these functions, comparatively weak and strong
spells could be devised from any one of the six. Knowing the parameters within
which the work was to be done then enabled the creation of the system.
Because the magic-using D & D player would have to be able to operate competitively
with fellow players who relied on other forms of attack during the course
of adventures, the already mentioned "Vancian" system was used as a basis, and
spells of various sorts were carefully selected. Note, however, that they were selected
within the framework of D & D competition primarily, and some relatively
powerful spells were apportioned to lower levels of magic use. Charm Person and
Sleep at 1st level are outstanding examples. The effect of some spells was set to
reflect the level of the magic-user employing them. Many of the spells were
developed for specific use in dungeon expeditions or during wilderness adventures.
A few — mostly drawn from CHAINMAIL — were included with the
table top battle in mind. All such spells were assumed to be of such a nature so
that no less than three of the four basic components of magic were required in
their use. All spells were assumed to have a verbal component. Each and every
spell (not found on a scroll or otherwise contained in, or on, some magical device)
would be absolutely mnemonic, magic-users would have to memorize the spells
they wished to have available, and when a particular spell was recalled and its
other parts enacted, then the memory would be gone and the spell no longer
available until it was re-memorized (thus the magic-users' spell books!). Most
spells were also envisioned as containing a slight somatic and/or material component,
whether in the preparation of a small packet of magical or ordinary compounds
to be used when the spell was spoken or as various gestures to be made
when the enchantment was uttered.
Magic-use was thereby to be powerful enough to enable its followers to compete
with any other type of player-character, and yet the use of magic would not be
so great as to make those using it overshadow all others.
This was the conception, but in practice it did not work out as planned.
Primarily at fault is the game itself which does not carefully explain the reasoning
behind the magic system. Also, the various magic items for employment by magicusers
tend to make them too powerful in relation to other classes (although the
GREYHAWK supplement took steps to correct this somewhat). The problem is
further compounded by the original misconceptions of how magic worked in D &
D — misconceptions held by many players. The principal error here is that the one
1st level spell allowable to a 1st level magic-user could be used endlessly (or
perhaps at frequent intervals) without the magic-user having to spend time and effort
re-memorizing and preparing again after the single usage. Many players also
originally thought scrolls containing spells could be reused as often as desired.
Finally, many dungeonmasters geared their campaigns to the level of TV giveaway
shows, with gold pouring into players' purses like water and magical rewards
strapped to the backs of lowly rats. This latter allowed their players to progress far
too rapidly and go far beyond the bounds of D & D's competition scope — magicusers,
fighters, clerics and all.
To further compound the difficulties, many dungeon-masters and players,
upon learning of the more restrictive intent of the rules, balked. They enjoyed the
comic book characters, incredible spells, and stratospheric levels of their way of
playing. Well and good. D & D is, if nothing else, a free-form game system, and it
was designed with great variation between campaigns to be allowed for — nay, encouraged!
Of course, there are some variations which are so far removed from the
original framework as to be totally irreconcilable with D & D; these have become
games of other sorts and not a concern of this article. On the other hand there are
many campaigns which were scrapped and begun afresh after their dungeonmasters
consulted us or after they read other articles pertaining to the play of D &
D as conceived by its authors — just as there will probably be some dungeonmasters
ready to try again after reading this far. It is for all of these referees and
their players, as well as those who have played the game pretty much as was
desired but were never quite positive that you were actually doing so, that the
foregoing was written.
The logic behind it all was drawn from game balance as much as from
anything else. Fighters have their strength, weapons, and armor to aid them in
their competition. Magic-users must rely upon their spells, as they have virtually
no weaponry or armor to protect them. Clerics combine some of the advantages of the other two classes. The new class, thieves, have the basic advantage of stealthful
actions with some additions in order for them to successfully operate on a plane
with other character types. If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D & D
quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly, or
the referee is forced to change the game into a new framework which will accommodate
what he has created by way of player-characters. It is the opinion of
this writer that the most desirable game is one in which the various character types
are able to compete with each other as relative equals, for that will maintain
freshness in the campaign (providing that advancement is slow and there is always
some new goal to strive for).
This brings up the subject of new spells. The basic system allows for the
players to create new spells for themselves at the option of the referee. It is certain
that new spells will be added to the game system as the need arises, particularly
with regard to new classes or sub-classes of characters or simply to fill in some
needed gap. The creation of an endless number of more powerful spells is not
desirable in the existing game system, and there is no intention of publishing 10th
or higher level spells. As was said in a previous article, if character level
progression is geared to the game system, it should take years for any magic-user
to attain a level where the use of 9th level spells is possible!
As a last word regarding this subject, this D & D magic system explanation
also serves another purpose. There should now be no doubt in dungeonmasters'
minds with regard to the effect of a silence spell on a magic-user, or what will happen
to the poor wizard caught in a mess of webs. They will know that a magic
mouth is basically useless as a spell caster — with the exception of those spells
which are based only on the verbal component of the spell. When an enterprising
player tries a wizard lock on somebody's or something's mouth he will not be
prone to stretch the guidelines and allow it. Magic is great. Magic is powerful. But
it should be kept great and powerful in relation to its game environment. That
means all the magic-users who have been coasting along with special dispensations
from the dungeonmaster may soon have to get out there and root with the
rest of the players or lie down and die.
Quote from: jhkim;550785Can you say how you randomly generated those NPCs? Those look quite different from PCs of my AD&D1 experience. In particular, the fighter has a Battle Axe +3, Full Plate +5, Shield +3, Girdle of Frost Giant Strength, Composite Long Bow +3 (and apparently the bow is made for Frost-Giant strength?). The 15th level magic user, on the other hand, has only one magic item: Bracers of Defense. In my games, a PC magic user would have more magic items and a different spell selection.
Are these roughly representative of 15th level PCs, in your experience?
If so, that at least is a good clue on the difference of our experiences.
They had a bunch of other magic items, but not that were really relevant (like potions of healing, bags of holding, etc). Well, the MU did have a staff of withering, but I didn't think a MU would attempt to go melee on a dragon that he would never hit unless he rolled a natural 20.
They were completely random. I plugged in the class and level, and it spit out the characters in the NPC generator. As far as if they are representative of 15th level characters? Don't know. We retired our characters around level 12-13, and most of our game play was between level 3-8.
And for spell selection, if those were the best spells you had, that's what you memorized. Not every MU had spellbooks full of evocation magic + teleport + polymorf.
Great job, cunts. You got half the fucking Gaming Den to show up.
Quote from: talysman;550577You're wrong.
The question is whether or not fighter/wizard balance is bullshit, and whether changing the rules a little to encourage more teamwork between the two would keep people from complaining about that bullshit. It's right in the title of the thread, and in the first post. The OP assumes that, for many people, that bullshit doesn't matter. Your contention, and that of Frank and a couple others, is that no, that bullshit is SERIOUS for everyone.
Quote from: MGuy;550582Um, he states its bullshit because its a non issue. I contend that it is an issue. The OP suggests that because of "bullshit" you can do makes it not a problem. I'm saying that changing the rules doesn't make the fact that the rules make them unbalanced go away. Hiding the issue doesn't make it a non issue. It just means that you can ignore the rules.
Actually, Talysman has got it right.
Quote from: B.T.;550793Great job, cunts. You got half the fucking Gaming Den to show up.
You're welcome, man. Maybe we can get the other half tomorrow; they probably think 3e is D&D too, but I'm sure they're decent fellows otherwise.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;550595Oh yeah once you are done fooling about with dragons, titans and other assorted trash you can go after the BIG game.
Lets face it, once you are hunting the major badasses of AD&D the fighter might as well be a scroll caddy. Fighters were fun back in the orc tunnels and all but who the hell wants to play one at 15th level right?
OK lets go after the REAL opponents. Fighters, stay behind your mages and watch how its done:
Oh look the big bads have mind flayers serving them, show them what you've got!
-Fizzle-
Who cares if they have 90% MR, against you it becomes a mere 70% and theres only 4 of them, go kick some ass!
It isn't gonna get any easier. These are the REAL bad guys. All but 2 of them actually have name tags. ;)
Demogorgon MR 95%
Jubilex MR 65%
Orcus MR 85%
Type VI Demon MR 75%
Yeenoghu MR 80%
Asmodeus MR 90%
Baelzebul MR 85%
Dispater MR 80%
Geryon MR 75%
Pit Fiend MR 65%
Hell even the servants of these guys have decent MR.
It seems like the magic user needs the fighter at higher levels after all just as the fighter needs the magic user. Funny how that works out eh?
Oh, but it doesn't stop there since there is Spell Resistance in 3.x/Pathfinder. Yup, looks like the Fughter is still needed at high levels.
Quote from: fectin;550771You may want to rethink any defense which works just as well for FATAL as for your RPG of choice. You can't seriously believe that "people once had fun playing it" is the only measure of a game's goodness?
I think that FATAL has become the gaming communities own version of godwin-ing.
Here's the thing, rainman...if you are looking at anything other than the amount of fun that you have actually playing to measure the value of a GAME...then you are a sad, empty and lonely individual and you need to seriously realign your personal priorities before you die of renal failure alone and buried under a mountain of RPG books and empty hot pocket crisping sleeves.
Fun is the only metric that truly matters in a game to rational individuals who aren't wheezing, feckless, zyprexa inhaling aspie basement hermits. If someone says they have fun playign a 15th level AD&D Fighter, then who are you to claim different?
Or are they stupid for thinking that's fun?
"Har! You actually LIKE playing a fighter? Retard! Maybe if you spent your free time obsessively poring over D&D sourcebooks, you wouldn't be such a retard!"
Quote from: jeff37923;550796Oh, but it doesn't stop there since there is Spell Resistance in 3.x/Pathfinder. Yup, looks like the Fughter is still needed at high levels.
Spell resistance in 3e is easily overcome. There's literally a spell that you cast as a swift action that lowers your enemy's SR by 10 points. Aside from that, there are a handful of spells that ignore SR altogether.
Quote from: Declan MacManus;550797I think that FATAL has become the gaming communities own version of godwin-ing.
Here's the thing, rainman...if you are looking at anything other than the amount of fun that you have actually playing to measure the value of a GAME...then you are a sad, empty and lonely individual and you need to seriously realign your personal priorities before you die of renal failure alone and buried under a mountain of RPG books and empty hot pocket crisping sleeves.
Fun is the only metric that truly matters in a game to rational individuals who aren't wheezing, feckless, zyprexa inhaling aspie basement hermits. If someone says they have fun playign a 15th level AD&D Fighter, then who are you to claim different?
Or are they stupid for thinking that's fun?
"Har! You actually LIKE playing a fighter? Retard! Maybe if you spent your free time obsessively poring over D&D sourcebooks, you wouldn't be such a retard!"
A certain level of balance enhances my enjoyment of the game.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550776Writing an entire song as an insult to a poster isn't my idea of civil.
My first post was going through a small number of pages and collecting a rather sordid set of insults, largely revolving around "fuck you" and autism, and talking with someone I knew from elsewhere, who in 40-odd pages had demonstrated an otherwise
unique grasp of civility, along with the (again, then-apparently unique) ability to read and respond to opposing points of view. To my pleasant surprise, I later discovered that at least one additional poster here possessed that same ability; he informed me that gratuitous insults were just par for the course here. I can't speak as to it's truth, but up to then he was one of the very few posters with the attention span to respond without frothing at the mouth, so I took him at his word.
As for the poem itself, it's a takeoff of Longfellow's
Exclesior!, and based on the truly breathtaking array of fallacies it's object packed into a single post. The second stanza is, I admit, a bit harsh, but it's actually quite difficult to find a rhyme for "beneath", and I only scribbled it out quickly. There's parts where it doesn't even scan right. At the very least, I'd like to think my insults are both higher quality and more insightful than (for mild example):
Quote from: Benoist;550148I'm more interested in talking about actual role playing games and in-game situations, instead of raging Rainman-style on the rules because they don't give me cookie-cutter, move-per-move abilities that would make me feel worthwhile at a role playing game table.
"I want my perks on my character sheet... whaa..."
(http://humormood.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/cry-baby.jpg)
Go back and read the first few pages, and see where the ad hominum originates. It's surprisingly clear cut.
Or, alternately, we could have skip discussions of who once wronged who, and what is the real causus belli, and have an on-topic discussion about martial/caster balance. By which I unfortunately mean that you can have that discussion; I have to get up early for work.
Quote from: B.T.;550798Spell resistance in 3e is easily overcome. There's literally a spell that you cast as a swift action that lowers your enemy's SR by 10 points. Aside from that, there are a handful of spells that ignore SR altogether.
Thems be sounding suspiciously like rules you be talking about there. We don't like it when you bring up them things.
Quote from: fectin;550799Go back and read the first few pages, and see where the ad hominum originates. It's surprisingly clear cut.
My favorite is how often he uses the word wanking and it's variations.
Quote from: B.T.;550798A certain level of balance enhances my enjoyment of the game.
Bully for you...I happen to think that shit is for squares.
Quote from: Declan MacManus;550797I think that FATAL has become the gaming communities own version of godwin-ing.
Here's the thing, rainman...if you are looking at anything other than the amount of fun that you have actually playing to measure the value of a GAME...then you are a sad, empty and lonely individual and you need to seriously realign your personal priorities before you die of renal failure alone and buried under a mountain of RPG books and empty hot pocket crisping sleeves.
Fun is the only metric that truly matters in a game to rational individuals who aren't wheezing, feckless, zyprexa inhaling aspie basement hermits. If someone says they have fun playign a 15th level AD&D Fighter, then who are you to claim different?
Or are they stupid for thinking that's fun?
"Har! You actually LIKE playing a fighter? Retard! Maybe if you spent your free time obsessively poring over D&D sourcebooks, you wouldn't be such a retard!"
Fuck yes. QFMFT.
Quote from: Declan MacManus;550797I think that FATAL has become the gaming communities own version of godwin-ing.
Here's the thing, rainman...if you are looking at anything other than the amount of fun that you have actually playing to measure the value of a GAME...then you are a sad, empty and lonely individual and you need to seriously realign your personal priorities before you die of renal failure alone and buried under a mountain of RPG books and empty hot pocket crisping sleeves.
Fun is the only metric that truly matters in a game to rational individuals who aren't wheezing, feckless, zyprexa inhaling aspie basement hermits. If someone says they have fun playign a 15th level AD&D Fighter, then who are you to claim different?
Or are they stupid for thinking that's fun?
"Har! You actually LIKE playing a fighter? Retard! Maybe if you spent your free time obsessively poring over D&D sourcebooks, you wouldn't be such a retard!"
Of course it's like Nazis! That's the whole point! It's a common touchstone for badness! If I say, "your arguement also supports 4E," then we may have to talk about how bad 4E is (it's
so bad, I hear), where with FATAL we can just agree that it's bad and move on (I really hope so anyway) to the actual discussion.
Or, at least normal people can. You sure are kicking the shit out of that autistic strawman over there. Wouldn't you rather talk to a real person?
Quote from: Kaelik;550801Thems be sounding suspiciously like rules you be talking about there. We don't like it when you bring up them things.
Couple of quick examples.
Black tentacles (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blackTentacles.htm): An excellent area-of-effect crowd control spell. Slows everything down (including the gameplay, what with the grapple rules) and has a high likelihood of grappling smaller creatures.
Solid fog (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/solidFog.htm): Movement slowed to five feet no matter what as long as you're in the fog.
Wall of force (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfForce.htm): Troll-tier spell.
Transmute rock to mud (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transmuteRockToMud.htm): Combine this spell with its inverse for a nasty trap.
Acid fog (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/acidFog.htm): Ensnares creatures and does damage every round, no save, no SR.
Force cage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/forcecage.htm): One of the few awesome evocation spells, it allows you to trap a creature without a save. It also ignores spell resistance.
Reverse gravity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reverseGravity.htm): Another troll spell.
Prismatic wall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prismaticWall.htm): Yet another spell whose existence is based around trolling. Spell resistance applies, but you make a check for each layer of the wall. Prismatic sphere (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prismaticSphere.htm) is even better.
Moment of prescience (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/momentOfPrescience.htm): You can use this to easily overcome SR, gaining a substantial boost to the check.
Of course, the wizard can just summon some critters to kill things, so whatever.
Quote from: B.T.;550798Spell resistance in 3e is easily overcome. There's literally a spell that you cast as a swift action that lowers your enemy's SR by 10 points. Aside from that, there are a handful of spells that ignore SR altogether.
A certain level of balance enhances my enjoyment of the game.
No guarantee that the spell is available (or works if the opponent saves) and have you actually taken a look at the spells that ignore Spell Resistance? Most have saving throws.
@B.T.
I am in fact, quite familiar with the rules for 3e. I can even tell you about True Casting, the level 1 spell that gives you a +10 on your next check if cast the next round, or the swift action Assay Spell Resistance at level 4.
I just wanted to point out how unlike everyone else you were, when you indicated that the rules exist and will have an effect on how people play the game because they will conform their conduct to the rules.
Quote from: jeff37923;550810No guarantee that the spell is available (or works if the opponent saves) and have you actually taken a look at the spells that ignore Spell Resistance? Most have saving throws.
Actually, yes, there is a guarantee that the spell is available. And yes, some spells don't work if the opponent saves, But that's fine, because depending on your competence and variety, the opponent doesn't usually save. And a lot of the good crowd control spells don't offer SR or a save.
Quote from: Declan MacManus;550805Bully for you...I happen to think that shit is for squares.
I prefer spotlight balance as opposed to 4e's version of balance which is achieved by making everything CombatTV, all combat, all the time.
Quote from: jeff37923;550810No guarantee that the spell is available (or works if the opponent saves) and have you actually taken a look at the spells that ignore Spell Resistance? Most have saving throws.
The post above you gives some examples. And yes, this is 3e, so it's generally assumed that the wizard has access to a boatload of spells (and a magic shop if he needs them). One of the many flaws in the system, unfortunately; in the conversion from 2e, some things were lost in translation.
Quote from: Kaelik;550812I am in fact, quite familiar with the rules for 3e. I can even tell you about True Casting, the level 1 spell that gives you a +10 on your next check if cast the next round, or the swift action Assay Spell Resistance at level 4.
I just wanted to point out how unlike everyone else you were, when you indicated that the rules exist and will have an effect on how people play the game because they will conform their conduct to the rules.
I know. I figured that Benoist
et al. would not believe me in such matters, so I might as well do the [citation needed] thing in advance.
Quote from: jhkimCan you say how you randomly generated those NPCs? Those look quite different from PCs of my AD&D1 experience. In particular, the fighter has a Battle Axe +3, Full Plate +5, Shield +3, Girdle of Frost Giant Strength, Composite Long Bow +3 (and apparently the bow is made for Frost-Giant strength?). The 15th level magic user, on the other hand, has only one magic item: Bracers of Defense. In my games, a PC magic user would have more magic items and a different spell selection.
Are these roughly representative of 15th level PCs, in your experience?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550790They were completely random. I plugged in the class and level, and it spit out the characters in the NPC generator. As far as if they are representative of 15th level characters? Don't know. We retired our characters around level 12-13, and most of our game play was between level 3-8.
And for spell selection, if those were the best spells you had, that's what you memorized. Not every MU had spellbooks full of evocation magic + teleport + polymorf.
From "spit out" - this implies it was an online NPC generator? Can you give the URL? I'd be curious to give it a try.
I agree that the fighter you listed is way better than the magic user you listed. It's just that those character are quite different than my experience. I didn't do a whole lot of adventures beyond 12th level - but I can remember at least a few adventures (although not all the details). Not every magic user had specific spells like teleport and polymorph. However, we generally had a fair selection - mostly from captured enemy spellbooks and shared spells with allies. Our plans typically were based on spells or other magic, even at much lower level than 15th.
For example, once we were trying to kill a guy in a well-defended castle with hundreds of troops and even a large number of magic-users casting detect magic. (I found the detect magic thing odd, but that was the DM's call.) All of us glowed under detect magic, until we considered the druid in animal form. Since that wasn't a spell, the DM agreed that the animal didn't detect magic. So he could change into a bird and fly around the castle to scout. At that point, though, we realized we had it in. The druid's clothes and items disappeared when he changed to animal shape - so the rest of the party got into the portable hole we had, the druid picked it up and then changed to a bird. We thus slipped through the perimeter and unpacked ourselves in an attic in the castle. From there, we arrayed out a bunch of spells and item effects to commando-strike the keep. We tried to include the fighters by setting up a bridge for them (I forgot what spell) to cross from the attic to the keep - but that was blocked by an enemy spellcaster. It ended up being resolved mostly by our big-ticket damage spells, after which we retreated again using magic.
Not every encounter was like that, but this wasn't atypical.
Quote from: fectin;550808Or, at least normal people can. You sure are kicking the shit out of that autistic strawman over there. Wouldn't you rather talk to a real person?
Okay fine.
I assert that I have not run into the balance issues people claim to have in my own D&D games, either those that I am running or those that I play in.
I care about what goes on at my table...I do not care about goes on around other peoples' tables.
These arguments have the wafting reek of someone trying to get me to care about something that I find trivial.
Hearing your side of the argument is like listening to my sister's shitty children tell me about their favorite videogame...endlessly. Yet both they and you will not shut up about it.
I can't in good conscience wish harm upon my sister's children, but you I wish to see sodomized with a shovel...on the off chance that you might be tempted to talk about something other than rules...though I suspect you might just spout off state and municipal statutes regarding anal penetration.
Quote from: Declan MacManus;550816Okay fine.
I assert that I have not run into the balance issues people claim to have in my own D&D games, either those that I am running or those that I play in.
I care about what goes on at my table...I do not care about goes on around other peoples' tables.
These arguments have the wafting reek of someone trying to get me to care about something that I find trivial.
Hearing your side of the argument is like listening to my sister's shitty children tell me about their favorite videogame...endlessly. Yet both they and you will not shut up about it.
I can't in good conscience wish harm upon my sister's children, but you I wish to see sodomized with a shovel...on the off chance that you might be tempted to talk about something other than rules...though I suspect you might just spout off state and municipal statutes regarding anal penetration.
If you're so bored by the discussion, you're free to leave the thread.
Quote from: Marleycat;550813I prefer spotlight balance as opposed to 4e's version of balance which is achieved by making everything CombatTV, all combat, all the time.
Not the sort of squares that I was referring to, ticklespanks.
Quote from: B.T.;550817If you're so bored by the discussion, you're free to leave the thread.
What discussion?
Quote from: Declan MacManus;550816Hearing your side of the argument is like listening to my sister's shitty children tell me about their favorite videogame...endlessly. Yet both they and you will not shut up about it.
Indeed, it was so rude of us to hack into your computer, take remote control, and then force you to read 80 pages of a thread titled "Fighter vs Wizard Balance Bullshit."
If we would just let you take control of your computer, you could not read this thread, and not have to listen to us talk about how we deal with Fighter vs Wizard Balance Bullshit.
Quote from: Kaelik;550820It's a 1949 Buick Roadmaster. Straight 8. Fireball 8. Only 8,985 production models. Dad lets me drive slow on the driveway. But not on Monday, definitely not on Monday.
You sure showed me.
Took the time to actually read back; it looks like Declan is a troll after all. Maybe not; it's hard to tell, but I can't find the last time he contributed anything except hostility to a discussion here.
Oh well, watch out for stobor, I guess.
Quote from: B.T.;550809Couple of quick examples.
This will be fun.
Quote from: B.T.;550809Black tentacles (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blackTentacles.htm): An excellent area-of-effect crowd control spell. Slows everything down (including the gameplay, what with the grapple rules) and has a high likelihood of grappling smaller creatures.
Still have to make that Grapple check.
Quote from: B.T.;550809Solid fog (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/solidFog.htm): Movement slowed to five feet no matter what as long as you're in the fog.
A hindrance only.
Quote from: B.T.;550809Wall of force (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wallOfForce.htm): Troll-tier spell.
Another hindrance.
Quote from: B.T.;550809Transmute rock to mud (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transmuteRockToMud.htm): Combine this spell with its inverse for a nasty trap.
Reflex saves and still just a hindrance.
Quote from: B.T.;550809Acid fog (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/acidFog.htm): Ensnares creatures and does damage every round, no save, no SR.
It does not ensnare creatures, they can still move about and thus escape its effects. Otherwise, this one is not that shabby.
Quote from: B.T.;550809Force cage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/forcecage.htm): One of the few awesome evocation spells, it allows you to trap a creature without a save. It also ignores spell resistance.
Better make sure your target is less than 20' wide (although it can still shoot through the gaps in the bars) or 10' wide (for complete entrapment).
Quote from: B.T.;550809Reverse gravity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/reverseGravity.htm): Another troll spell.
Reflex save if there is something to grip.
Quote from: B.T.;550809Prismatic wall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prismaticWall.htm): Yet another spell whose existence is based around trolling. Spell resistance applies, but you make a check for each layer of the wall. Prismatic sphere (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/prismaticSphere.htm) is even better.
Saves for each layer of color that you pass through.
Quote from: B.T.;550809Moment of prescience (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/momentOfPrescience.htm): You can use this to easily overcome SR, gaining a substantial boost to the check.
Read the descriptor closely, it does not effect Spell Resistance.
Quote from: B.T.;550809Of course, the wizard can just summon some critters to kill things, so whatever.
But those spells you mention would do some good in a game as long as you can figure out a way to use them with your tactics. These spells are not slam-dunks or buttons on a console you can just mash. Used wisely, they are great, but they have to be combined with the right tactics.
And every single one of these spells use spell slots, which of course are usable once, and not used for other, more useful spells, unless the DM is dumb enough to let you have weeks on end of down time with item creation feats (feats which by the way, have to be spent on those, and not spell focus, spell penetration et al...) to create a fuckload of wands and scrolls and potions... but these are just pesky "actual play" considerations. These shouldn't matter at all when you've got that nice theoretical claim to shape. People won't notice or care. Right?
The point, jeff, is that wizards have a lot of ways to defeat creatures with spell resistance that ignore spell resistance. (Trapping a monster in stone-turned-mud-turned-stone is a win in my book.) Saying that the monster gets a saving throw is a non-starter for two reasons. First, we're not talking about saving throws; we're talking about spell resistance (the main issue being that spell resistance doesn't mean dick in 3e). Second of all, with scaling spell DCs, saving throws are no longer as strong a defense in 3e as they were in 2e.
There are also a lot of spell combos that are possible. Cloudkill plus solid fog means that creatures are trapped in a cloud of noxious vapors where they must save each round or take 1d4 Constitution damage--and while that's going on, he has plenty of chances to throw out spells, and odds are on his side for overcoming spell resistance at some point.
Quote from: Benoist;550831And every single one of these spells use spell slots, which of course are usable once, and not used for other, more useful spells, unless the DM is dumb enough to let you have weeks on end of down time with item creation feats to create a fuckload of wands and scrolls and potions... but these are just pesky "actual play" considerations. These shouldn't matter at all when you've got that nice theoretical claim to shape. People won't notice or care. Right?
Um... have you ever played 3e? Those are really good spells that you want to cast. Yes, obviously casting X comes at the cost of not casting Y, but that's why he pointing at those spells and not claiming that they will also cast all the other spells.
It's not ignoring actual play to point at some of the best spells in the game.
Hell, I don't play Wizards that much, but here are two sheets (from actual play):
Level 13 (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=92614)
Level 20 (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=79693)
Now, despite having lots of other spells that are also kickass, the level 13 has both Black Tentacles and Wall of Force. It also has some other cool SR: No spells, such as Wall of Stone, Web, Glitterdust, Bands of Steel, Icestorm, and Control Winds.
The level 20 one has Cloudkill, Black Tentacles, Wall of Force, and is built with a Metaed Fire Orb, which is also SR: No.
Actually yes, I have played in a number of third ed campaigns, with some of my DMs here on these boards, and ran four myself, two of which have reached high (15+) level. How about you?
Quote from: Benoist;550837Actually yes, I have played in a number of third ed campaigns, and ran four myself, two of which have reached high (15+) level. How about you?
And you also said that if the wizard ever tried something clever, you'd send your Blue Assassins or Homosex (or whatever the hell they were called) after him. Don't make me dig up the post.
Quote from: B.T.;550838And you also said that if the wizard ever tried something clever, you'd send your Blue Assassins or Homosex (or whatever the hell they were called) after him. Don't make me dig up the post.
You can go ahead. We have all the time in the world.
Quote from: jadrax;550707But the thing is, if this were true, it is a bit fucking bizarre that WotC are putting out a playtest and a design document every day harping on about 'Rulings not Rules'.
And honestly, it is not like 'Frank and his Faction' are WotC's biggest fans before 5th came along anyway.
I've seen this dance done before. Mearls and Friends can and will say what they want; the facts are that they are beholden to Hasbro's oversight, so they will ultimately produce a D&D product that produces observable results one can easily quantify and process into something that their masters will grok.
That can't be had catering to us. We're not the target market, and they damn well know it; language implying so is marketing bullshit meant to glad-hand us until they can go to press with something that will save their jobs and WOTC's position in the Hasbro organization. No, instead they'll go after as much of Paizo's base as they can hoodwink while keeping the 4rons on board.
Expect the final product to be
more friendly to the convention-focused Organized Play/Tournament Gaming community, while being as concessionary to home-play as they can get away with. We are not even a serious option, so we will not be seriously entertained.
Quote from: Benoist;550839You can go ahead. We have all the time in the world.
It was less difficult than I anticipated. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=505428&postcount=55)
Quote from: Benoist;505428QuoteAnd if your opponent isn't an enemy spellcaster and is a balor or a high-level fighter? GAME OVER, MAN. Even at mid-levels, the wizard can put up a contingency to teleport him to safety at a sign of defeat (or even danger), transform himself into a hydra with a dozen heads, turn the fighter into his permanent thrall, or troll the world with solid fog.
Yeah, because the bad guys can't figure that out, can't intercept spells, teleport (a 5th level spell, competing against other 5th level spells for the slot, which you have to spend XP on to have as a scroll etc etc) is one hundred percent safe all the time, there is no way the contingency could not be affected by disjunctions and the like, etc etc etc.
And "GAME OVER MAN"? Yes. For ONE Encounter. Congratulations. You teleport back to your hideout only to discover that the Assassins of the Blue Tongue already investigated your tactics, detected your teleport, and teleport themselves in your back as you appear in your lair to backstab you in ten different planes of existence all at once inflicing 80d6 of damage to you.
I mean come on, man.
So if you're an assassin of the blue tongue, do you like have to drink a Slurpee right before you do a job? What if you get brain freeze? That would suck.
Thanks, BT. Now people can check out the actual thread by clicking the quote's little arrow to get the entire context of our exchange. Very useful.
ISTR that the usual response to this is that if the GM has to spend this much time thinking up ways the world would react to the wizard using fairly straightforward choices, then the wizard is still dominating the game. Not in exactly the same context, but still.
The context was exactly the same as this: you arguing there were no balance problems while people who actually know the mechanics of 3e saying otherwise. What's irritating is that you equate thinking the fighter is underpowered to being or having a bad player/DM, having entitlement issues, wanting super powers for the fighter, etc.
I just want a fighter who can contribute meaningfully in and out of combat. I want rules to support this. I don't think they need to be like Frank wants them to be.
Just pointing out that you could fill the known universe with the excluded middle in this thread(as BT just pointed out).
There's no doubt that analysis of a game's mechanics has value, and an analysis of spellcasters in 3e shows them to be grossly more powerful then they were in 1e, mainly due to the removal of every 1e restriction that may have existed on any spell they had, or on the act of spellcasting itself.
However, that analysis has to be done by setting up parameters, and that's usually when the wheels come off the wagon, because unlike a MMOG, there are hundreds of variables that could be taken into account playing in a campaign and not a tournament. Now I know that there are people who play 3e out there like a competitive sports team and won't let other players use builds that aren't optimal (just like MMOG raiding guilds), but the newer players should understand that idea is alien to most 1e-era gamers. That's not what they think of when they think of "D&D". As I said before, there is no D&D, there are ~8 published versions and it really doesn't help when people are arguing each using a different version as a base.
However, that doesn't excuse or explain the vitriol. For the new GD guys here, welcome, and understand you really walked into a long-term feud between Frank and Ben(and that I'm pretty sure Frank started, but I don't try to keep track of those things). Those guys have been exchanging insults regularly for over a year now.
Declan goes off like that every time he posts about anything, but he especially hates 3e.
Aos sees a trainwreck of a thread like this where people are arguing past each other with walls of text and calling eachother names, and he jumps in to increase the chaos. He's become an artist at it, really. :D
Also realize that using 3e (or 4e) as a base of argument for what "D&D" is or is not is going to be met with resistance here, because a lot of people here see the MMOG-fication of D&D starting under WotC's ownership of the brand and their focus on MtG-style exception based rules that reward rules mastery being really an antithesis of what they would consider a fun roleplaying game.
For the record, I think 3e/3.5/PF are all completely useless to me as RAW. The rules need a strong gamemaster and a lot of TSR-era restrictions put back in as houserules in order to play anything I would consider sane and not some crazy weaboo Exalted satire. The base core of the rules work (I never really had a problem with 3e positional-based tactics until I saw how they could be turned into idiocy with 4e) however trying to make the total ruleset (particularly with casters, feats, and prestige classes) work was not worth, well anything. So I played Scarred Lands with custom classes and Conan D20 and had a great time. :D
Quote from: jasmith;550436As the people I play with don't think with their character sheets, it's not a problem in the games I run, at all.
If that people doesn't play with the rules, the rules will end up playing them.
Quote from: jasmith;550450It means that instead of walking into the goblin lair and attacking, the fighter can:
Set an ambush.
Draw them out.
Negotiate.
Raise an army.
Pick off outliers.
Trick someone else into attacking.
Trick the goblins into attacking someone else.
Kidnap the chieftain's wife as a bargaining chip.
As any other PC can do. So why is the fighter essential, again?
Quote from: Benoist;550481Actually, that's not possible when talking about a role playing game
So what you are saying is that discussions about RPGs is imposible. So all the vitriol and criticism of, say, 4e is totally unfounded, ain't it? :D
I do not believe that. you can argue about if a rule is well designed or not without having to write a fucking campaign log along with a psych profile of every player involved. The 1s rule of Vampire was broken, it provided stupid results, and you do not need to explain a whole campaign to discuss that.
QuoteRPGs are intrisincally NOT mathematical systems run in a vacuum.
They are, specially the moment the rules provide results that are inconsistent, not verisimile, or plain absurd.
Quote from: fectin;550621In Thanks for the Show
Ignoratio!
The shades of night were falling fast,
as through the message board he passed,
a fool with vigor and with vim,
and motto which sustained him:
Ignoratio!
His chin was bare; his beard beneath,
bedraggled as if cheerful wreath,
once full of merry Christmas cheer,
had festered, forgotten, for untold years,
Ignoratio!
In happier games he saw the light,
of well-wrought rules, balanced and tight,
but grumbling grognards urged him on,
and from his lips escaped a groan:
Ignoratio!
"Don't roll fighter," Frank Trollman said.
"A Great Wyrm lingers overhead!
A wizard's needed to fight in the sky!"
Still loud that quarrelsome voice replied:
Ignoratio!
"I'll mount the church-tower; hide inside!
And when that lizard happens by,
jump on him, whilst my army, from below,
fills him with arrows!" (It just goes to show,
Ignoratio!)
A plan, at least, to fell the lizard
(though no plan's needed with a wizard),
Alas fell beastie sees him on the stair,
burns the risers, and traps him there!
Ignoratio!
Oh, curse that evil, agéd genius' guile!
Oh curse the Troll Man's mocking smile!
"It's his fault! Rainman! Somehow I'll prove..
(That's it! I know! I'll use...
Ignoratio!")
The dragon calmly turns about;
the archer army, frightened, routs;
with just one bite, the captain's gone,
leaving grognard all alone.
Ignoratio!
All night long, the city burns.
All night long, the neckbeard yearns
for a warm, mother-like DM,
who'll hide how much he coddles him,
Ignoratio!
But now cold snow is falling fast,
and grognard wishes he had classed
as something with a cold resistance.
Mais non! He's fighter at his own insistence.
Ignoratio!
But now there comes an end at last,
BENOIST is frozen fast!
(His head's still firmly... well, you know)
But hear him yet! He faintly gasps:
Ignoratio!
Awesome :D
Quote from: B.T.;550835The point, jeff, is that wizards have a lot of ways to defeat creatures with spell resistance that ignore spell resistance. (Trapping a monster in stone-turned-mud-turned-stone is a win in my book.) Saying that the monster gets a saving throw is a non-starter for two reasons. First, we're not talking about saving throws; we're talking about spell resistance (the main issue being that spell resistance doesn't mean dick in 3e). Second of all, with scaling spell DCs, saving throws are no longer as strong a defense in 3e as they were in 2e.
No, I think the point here is that you have not tried this in Actual Play. That
Transmute Stone to Mud trick is tougher to pull off than you think.
Quote from: B.T.;550835There are also a lot of spell combos that are possible. Cloudkill plus solid fog means that creatures are trapped in a cloud of noxious vapors where they must save each round or take 1d4 Constitution damage--and while that's going on, he has plenty of chances to throw out spells, and odds are on his side for overcoming spell resistance at some point.
Cute, but you can still make a Fortitude save and what happens when your
Cloudkill runs into your
Solid Fog? The
Solid Fog descriptor reads like it would become a wall for your
Cloudkill, pushing the noxious vapors back on the caster. The two fogs from both spells do not combine.
Quote from: Kaelik;550836Now, despite having lots of other spells that are also kickass, the level 13 has both Black Tentacles and Wall of Force. It also has some other cool SR: No spells, such as Wall of Stone, Web, Glitterdust, Bands of Steel, Icestorm, and Control Winds.
One of the most inaccurate guidelines given in the 3E core rulebooks is the "four encounters per day" guideline. It holds fairly true at low levels, but it badly breaks the game once you reach high levels.
Why? Because the wizard does, in fact, have spells that can nuke an entire encounter. In point of fact, they've always had these spells. In fact, they used to get these spells a lot sooner. (In OD&D, for example,
sleep will instantly end virtually any low level encounter and
charm person is permanent.)
And it doesn't matter. Why? Because pre-4E D&D isn't designed around the tactical encounter; it's designed around the strategic expedition. The wizard nuking an encounter doesn't render the fighter useless.
"What if the wizard nukes
every encounter?" Then your wizard sucks at making effective strategic decisions and the group is going to pay the price for it unless you can convince him to cut that shit out. Expending the equivalent of nuclear bombs on a Third World village with 15 people living in it is an idiotic waste of resources. Playing like that will either cripple you ability to achieve your goals or get you killed.
OTOH, this thread also seems to be including a healthy dose of the "spells that make fighters better actually suck for the fighter" thing going on. Which doesn't match any experience I've ever had at an actual gaming table.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;550840I've seen this dance done before. Mearls and Friends can and will say what they want; the facts are that they are beholden to Hasbro's oversight, so they will ultimately produce a D&D product that produces observable results one can easily quantify and process into something that their masters will grok.
That can't be had catering to us. We're not the target market, and they damn well know it; language implying so is marketing bullshit meant to glad-hand us until they can go to press with something that will save their jobs and WOTC's position in the Hasbro organization. No, instead they'll go after as much of Paizo's base as they can hoodwink while keeping the 4rons on board.
Expect the final product to be more friendly to the convention-focused Organized Play/Tournament Gaming community, while being as concessionary to home-play as they can get away with. We are not even a serious option, so we will not be seriously entertained.
Well if you turn out to be right I will happily buy you a pint, but it dosen't really sound likely to me.
Quote from: Aos;550842So if you're an assassin of the blue tongue, do you like have to drink a Slurpee right before you do a job? What if you get brain freeze? That would suck.
I am thinking they are probably non human, some sort of disguised Lizardmen. (Because lizard men totally have blue tongues).
Or maybe the Tongue is an some form of small psionic blue ooze implanted into the pallet at the point of initiation, made from the mold from the great gith astral graveyard that orbits the black monastery in the demi-plane of lies. Which yeah, would be kinda like a Slurpee.
Quote from: daniel_ream;550738I'm going to suggest you try actually standing in a cave behind a waterfall for a while before you get too enamoured of this scenario. Spherical cows, indeed.
By the way, how does your fighter deal with the fact that the water and humidity from the waterfall has just rendered his bowstrings useless? Just curious.
I'd love to see them fire arrows through a waterfall that can stop dragon fire.
And I love the fact that said waterfall has crystal clear water and the only penalty to hit the dragon is the same as if he was standing behind a low wall
:)
Quote from: jhkim;550815From "spit out" - this implies it was an online NPC generator? Can you give the URL? I'd be curious to give it a try.
.
It's not an online generator. It was the AD&D 2e Core Rules CD ROM that you could buy in the mid 90s. Excellent resource for 2e players, as it had all those generators, map makers that you could link to created encounters, dice rollers, and about 10 of the most popular 2e books (core + Tome of Magic, S&P, etc)
*edit* I reran the MU, and got these spells:
1st: dancing lights, enlarge, grease, ray of fatigue
2nd: darkness, deafness, web, levitate
3rd: blink, phantom steed, servent of corrosion
4th: illusionary wall, leomunds secure shelter, locate creature, wall of fire
5th: avoidance, conjure fire elemental, demi-shadow monsters, hold monster,major creation
6th: contingency, tenser's transformation
7th: teleport without error
He also went up to 32 HP, and had a staff of power and AC 0 from magical protections, along with wands of parlyzation, magic missile, and locate object
Are we done here? :(
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550879It's not an online generator. It was the AD&D 2e Core Rules CD ROM that you could buy in the mid 90s. Excellent resource for 2e players, as it had all those generators, map makers that you could link to created encounters, dice rollers, and about 10 of the most popular 2e books (core + Tome of Magic, S&P, etc)
*edit* I reran the MU, and got these spells:
1st: dancing lights, enlarge, grease, ray of fatigue
2nd: darkness, deafness, web, levitate
3rd: blink, phantom steed, servent of corrosion
4th: illusionary wall, leomunds secure shelter, locate creature, wall of fire
5th: avoidance, conjure fire elemental, demi-shadow monsters, hold monster,major creation
6th: contingency, tenser's transformation
7th: teleport without error
He also went up to 32 HP, and had a staff of power and AC 0 from magical protections, along with wands of parlyzation, magic missile, and locate object
Now that looks like a typical 2e adventuring wizard with a spell list of appropriate level with typical level appropriate gear.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550879It's not an online generator. It was the AD&D 2e Core Rules CD ROM that you could buy in the mid 90s. Excellent resource for 2e players, as it had all those generators, map makers that you could link to created encounters, dice rollers, and about 10 of the most popular 2e books (core + Tome of Magic, S&P, etc)
*edit* I reran the MU, and got these spells:
1st: dancing lights, enlarge, grease, ray of fatigue
2nd: darkness, deafness, web, levitate
3rd: blink, phantom steed, servent of corrosion
4th: illusionary wall, leomunds secure shelter, locate creature, wall of fire
5th: avoidance, conjure fire elemental, demi-shadow monsters, hold monster,major creation
6th: contingency, tenser's transformation
7th: teleport without error
He also went up to 32 HP, and had a staff of power and AC 0 from magical protections, along with wands of parlyzation, magic missile, and locate object
Glad I never got that shitty software. If it generates a spellbook without read magic it has hit an endless fail loop. :rotfl:
Quote from: Exploderwizard;550889Glad I never got that shitty software. If it generates a spellbook without read magic it has hit an endless fail loop. :rotfl:
No, those are memorized spells. There are more in the spellbook. I think that character had 4 spells books, with most level 1-3 spells, a bunch of level 4-5 spells, a few level 6 spells, and I think 2 level 7 spells.
Quote from: Marleycat;550885Now that looks like a typical 2e adventuring wizard with a spell list of appropriate level with typical level appropriate gear.
Much more formidable, sure. But I still don't know how she protects a village from an equal HD red dragon any better than the fighter. It pretty much comes down to hoping that the dragon fails it's saving throw, which isn't likely.
So really, we've had 80+ pages of bullshit arguments because things are really dependent on which edition you're playing with :)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;550889Glad I never got that shitty software. If it generates a spellbook without read magic it has hit an endless fail loop. :rotfl:
Ironic that he got Tenser's transformation though in light of the thread.
Remember Tenser was Gygax's own character that built up a raft of spells (which if I recall from the Rouge's Gallery suppliment for 1e the Tenser given there couldn't actually cast :) ) who was famous for buffing himself and wading into melee combat rather than providing artillery support or buffing the figther as a good controller ought to .....
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550890No, those are memorized spells. There are more in the spellbook. I think that character had 4 spells books, with most level 1-3 spells, a bunch of level 4-5 spells, a few level 6 spells, and I think 2 level 7 spells.
Rodger. Carry on. :)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550891Much more formidable, sure. But I still don't know how she protects a village from an equal HD red dragon any better than the fighter. It pretty much comes down to hoping that the dragon fails it's saving throw, which isn't likely.
So really, we've had 80+ pages of bullshit arguments because things are really dependent on which edition you're playing with :)
Well just looking at eh list he has a better chance than a figther ...
He can try a hold monster, he can summon an element and and shdow monsters to keep it busy while he runs away on his phantom steed and of course with locate creature he can actaully track it to its lair without relying on it leaving a trail of burn cows which seemed to be the only way the fighter was going to manage it.
And of course he has Contingency and teleport without error which means he can not be kiled by a sneaky breath weapon attack.
I reckon he has a chance
Can we generate a figther of liek level with the same software ? Sorry if that was already done and I missed it
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550891Much more formidable, sure. But I still don't know how she protects a village from an equal HD red dragon any better than the fighter. It pretty much comes down to hoping that the dragon fails it's saving throw, which isn't likely.
So really, we've had 80+ pages of bullshit arguments because things are really dependent on which edition you're playing with :)
I don't either but I really don't give a damn about theoretical situations that I have never seen happen in any game I've played or run Dnd or not. My comment was intended to mean that she looks like a typical wizard a player would build, not especially powerful but not gimped. It's looks fairly organic to me.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550892Ironic that he got Tenser's transformation though in light of the thread.
Remember Tenser was Gygax's own character that built up a raft of spells (which if I recall from the Rouge's Gallery suppliment for 1e the Tenser given there couldn't actually cast :) ) who was famous for buffing himself and wading into melee combat rather than providing artillery support or buffing the figther as a good controller ought to .....
If by Gygax you mean, Ernie Gygax, you are correct. If you meant Gary Gygax, no cigar.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550896Can we generate a figther of liek level with the same software ? Sorry if that was already done and I missed it
That was a couple pages back. Even if the dragon stays out of range, the fighter was doing so much damage with his bow that the dragon would be dead in 3-4 rounds. And if it landed (like what was described in the dragon's personal tactics), game over much sooner. No need to track it down ;)
Looks like demi-shadow monsters to distract it, teleport to get above it, and major creation for a midas meteor works fine.
That's offhand, because it's been a decade since I last touched DnD, and I don't recall how likely the dragon is to save against Hold Monster at -3.
Quote from: fectin;550822Oh well, watch out for stobor, I guess.
So, does your knife have a name?
Quote from: fectin;550900Looks like demi-shadow monsters to distract it, teleport to get above it, and major creation for a midas meteor works fine.
That's offhand, because it's been a decade since I last touched DnD, and I don't recall how likely the dragon is to save against Hold Monster at -3.
That's assuming the MU doesn't get hit any of those times, ruining the spell, as well as assuming the dragon isn't moving so when you teleport above it you don't fall to your death, not to mention how is the MU casting a spell while falling onto a dragon?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550902That's assuming the MU doesn't get hit any of those times, ruining the spell, as well as assuming the dragon isn't moving so when you teleport above it you don't fall to your death, not to mention how is the MU casting a spell while falling onto a dragon?
isn;t that was levitation is for ?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550899That was a couple pages back. Even if the dragon stays out of range, the fighter was doing so much damage with his bow that the dragon would be dead in 3-4 rounds. And if it landed (like what was described in the dragon's personal tactics), game over much sooner. No need to track it down ;)
I don't think Frank and his coterie from the gaming den have been arguing all that much about editions prior to D&D3.x
In fact, I find a lot of this argument from older edition warriors to be a bit strange, perhaps even a bit disingenuous. Many of the same people saying, "There's no problem!" are willing to admit that many TSR era spellcaster limitations have been removed, the Cleric was significantly buffed, and the Druid was a serious mistake in design. Not that this is any sort of exhaustive list. But mention these problems and there's an endless mantra of, "No there isn't! I'm playing 2E, and it's fine!"
Well, so what? We're primarily talking about 3E. It has problems. Rules problems. Some of these were made
worse by 3.5E that was supposed to fix said problems, not to mention new problems that were created. Many of those problems become noticeable in campaign play.
Of course, a good DM can presumably fix all this. So what? I could presumably re-write the game myself, too (I'm actually in the very slow process of doing just that). That doesn't mean there isn't a problem with the game. And saying that there can never
be a problem, because: DM or because: Campaign is just obtuse. As Imperator pointed out, I guess that means you all love 4E.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550902That's assuming the MU doesn't get hit any of those times, ruining the spell, as well as assuming the dragon isn't moving so when you teleport above it you don't fall to your death, not to mention how is the MU casting a spell while falling onto a dragon?
You might want to take a risk with Hold Monster and Levitation instead of the Teleport routine. Be very risky but possible.
QuoteWell, so what? We're primarily talking about 3E. It has problems. Rules problems. Some of these were made worse by 3.5E that was supposed to fix said problems, not to mention new problems that were created. Many of those problems become noticeable in campaign play.
The thing is a good majority of the people playing 3x style games went to Pathfinder which while not solving the issue did mitigate most of them at least to survivable levels. For example I am a 3x player but to get that fix I would much rather use Fantasy Craft or Pathfinder that Wotc's stuff, I am far from alone.
Also the majority of this site doesn't play 3/4e so it just isn't an issue to them at all.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550899That was a couple pages back. Even if the dragon stays out of range, the fighter was doing so much damage with his bow that the dragon would be dead in 3-4 rounds. And if it landed (like what was described in the dragon's personal tactics), game over much sooner. No need to track it down ;)
You got a post number be interest to check it out but can't be arsed to trawl through a dozen pages :)
Quote from: Marleycat;550905The thing is a good majority of the people playing 3x style games went to Pathfinder which while not solving the issue did mitigate most of them at least to survivable levels. For example I am a 3x player but to get that fix I would much rather use Fantasy Craft or Pathfinder that Wotc's stuff, I am far from alone.
Not sure I agree with this, either. I've played Pathfinder, and it was at that point I decided to coalesce my house-rules into my own personal version. In some ways, I think Pathfinder made Magic Users and Sorcerers more of a problem.
EDIT: Just to respond to the last part, I think a lot of people switched to Pathfinder because a) it's in print, and b) it's largely compatible with hundreds of dollars wrth of 3.x books they already have (or the sum total ever published, should they feel so inclined).
Quote from: jibbajibba;550903isn;t that was levitation is for ?
So you cast levitation before teleport?
Keep in mind that a dragon will kill the MU in 1-2 rounds, not even counting the breath weapon. It certainly isn't just going to stand there screwing with a demi-shadow monster while an arch-mage is getting prepped to wax it. Frank went on about how genius they are, so it stands to reason it would target the biggest threat first: the PC.
Quote from: Bobloblah;550904I don't think Frank and his coterie from the gaming den have been arguing all that much about editions prior to D&D3.x
.
Frank started his scenario with 1e, and then moved to 3e later. The issues isn't that old school players don't admit that there are issues in 3e, it's that 4vengers act like the only edition prior to 4e is 3e, and make blanket statements like "the fighter is useless" or "4e fixed all these problems" when that wasn't true for the majority of the game's publication history. And when you point this out, they shift to "but in 3e it was."
Quote from: jibbajibba;550906You got a post number be interest to check it out but can't be arsed to trawl through a dozen pages :)
I'll repost:
Juvenille red
HD: 15
HP: 67
AC: -3
THAC0: 5
AT: 3
Dmg: 1d10/1d10/3d10
Breath: 8d10+4 (once every 3 rnds)
Dwarf fighter 15
HP: 73
AC: -8 (full plate +5, shield +3)
THAC0: 5
Battle axe+3 (wpn spec +3/+3) THAC0: -2 AT: 5/2, Dmg: 1d8+15
Girdle of frost giant str (+4, +9)
comp long bow +3 (THAC0: 2, AT: 2/1, Dmg: 1d6+12)
I'm not 'from the den' in the sense that I have a total of 81 posts there - while the vast majority of my posts are in a single thread here, I feel like I'm getting close to exceeding that post-count here.
Of course, I'm here because this is a conversation that I care about. Since I agree with the vast majority of posters here that the Fighter can be a valuable member of the team largely by being tough, skilled with weapons, and having skills that provide him some 'non-complex' functionality outside of combat, I thought it would be easy to convince people that additional 'non-magical' abilities that you can put on your character sheet that are 'exclusive to fighters' would be easy.
Instead, I've found that the posters here seem to fall into one of the following categories:
1) The fighter is weaker than the wizard in high level play, but that's the way I like it. Sometimes he still is important as a body-guard, since sometimes magic isn't enough to win all by itself. Sometimes, the wizard COULD win all by himself, but it could be a waste of resources, so letting the fighter cut them up is more effective and allows for a 'longer adventuring day'.
2) The fighter isn't weaker compared to any other class, because he can create imaginary abilities best on situational tactics, which, while these are explicitly open to everyone, the fighter will have a better chance of success because some of these imaginary abilities play to his advantage (mostly having a better attack roll with something that could be construed as a weapon).
3) The fighter isn't weaker than the wizard in any edition except 3rd, and nobody cares about that, anyway.
4) I refuse to say if the fighter or wizard is weaker because the question is irrelevant since they're on the same team anyway.
These might be strawmen, but I think they're rather close to what I'm hearing.
If you fit into Category 1, I see where you're coming from. It used to be my taste, but tastes 'change'. I'd say evolve, but I don't want to make anyone upset. But if you're in the first category, that only works as long as the Fighter player is having fun. Since the game is foremost a game, the moment a player CAN'T have fun because he feels he's unable to contribute to the action in a MEANINGFUL fashion, that becomes a problem. So, if you're in the first category, just be aware that there may come a point where it BECOMES a problem, even if it hasn't yet.
If you fit into Category 2, I see where you're coming from. Coming up with a clever solution is rewarding. If you have a DM that gives you a chance to do these creative things, this can work. If you have a bad DM, an inexperienced DM, or the DM gets too adversarial, this may not work well. If you like the game and don't have a good DM, you could stop playing, but if you like the game and like your friends, you might want to stick this one out. So, if you're in Category 2, be aware that rules only help DMs that need help - if you're a good DM and you're able to weave exciting stories and keep all your players engaged, that's great. You're a very select bunch, and you should be proud. But rules aren't there to constrain you - they're there to provide guidelines, and having rules that provide player abilities helps both inexperienced players and DMs, so they CAN be a good thing.
If you fit into Category 3, I don't care where you're coming from. I've played 1st and 2nd edition, and 3rd is far and away my favorite, despite the flaws.
If you fit into Category 4, this works out pretty much like #1. This is fine as long as everyone is having fun, but if the player of the Fighter isn't having fun, it's a problem. And it's disingenious to say 'he chose the Fighter, he should have known what he was getting into'. If the pages and pages of this thread proves anything, it's that some people won't see a problem unless they experience for themselves - so the Fighter didn't necessarily know he was signing on to a subservient role... Especially since it appears reasonable for that player to have ignored the experience of other players, the anecdotal evidence of other games and campaigns, the mathematical analysis of why his contribution became less significant over time...
So, apparently I was wrong.
Even if people want a non-magical fighter that is good at contributing to the team, it's not obvious that it would be good for the rules to support what people want.
Quote from: Bobloblah;550904In fact, I find a lot of this argument from older edition warriors to be a bit strange, perhaps even a bit disingenuous. Many of the same people saying, "There's no problem!" are willing to admit that many TSR era spellcaster limitations have been removed, the Cleric was significantly buffed, and the Druid was a serious mistake in design. Not that this is any sort of exhaustive list. But mention these problems and there's an endless mantra of, "No there isn't! I'm playing 2E, and it's fine!"
A buddy of mine out-clevered himself with a 3E druid. He had a half-orc druid with a 20 strength and a whole list of creatures he could shapechange into that were
weaker than he was. :)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550911Frank started his scenario with 1e, and then moved to 3e later. The issues isn't that old school players don't admit that there are issues in 3e, it's that 4vengers act like the only edition prior to 4e is 3e, and make blanket statements like "the fighter is useless" or "4e fixed all these problems" when that wasn't true for the majority of the game's publication history. And when you point this out, they shift to "but in 3e it was."
Yarp.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550911Frank started his scenario with 1e, and then moved to 3e later. The issues isn't that old school players don't admit that there are issues in 3e, it's that 4vengers act like the only edition prior to 4e is 3e, and make blanket statements like "the fighter is useless" or "4e fixed all these problems" when that wasn't true for the majority of the game's publication history. And when you point this out, they shift to "but in 3e it was."
I went back and read Frank's post, because that wasn't what I remembered. He certainly did reference AD&D to start, but then lays out a scenario that is pretty obviously uses 3.x stats for a dragon, so that's what I inferred his meaning to be. I think it's fair to say (not just from this post, either) that Frank doesn't really know what he's talking about when it comes to earlier editions.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550911Frank started his scenario with 1e, and then moved to 3e later. The issues isn't that old school players don't admit that there are issues in 3e, it's that 4vengers act like the only edition prior to 4e is 3e, and make blanket statements like "the fighter is useless" or "4e fixed all these problems" when that wasn't true for the majority of the game's publication history. And when you point this out, they shift to "but in 3e it was."
Indeed. "Previous editions" seems to be a bizarre longhand for 3.5ed when it comes to 4ed fans.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550911Frank started his scenario with 1e, and then moved to 3e later. The issues isn't that old school players don't admit that there are issues in 3e, it's that 4vengers act like the only edition prior to 4e is 3e, and make blanket statements like "the fighter is useless" or "4e fixed all these problems" when that wasn't true for the majority of the game's publication history. And when you point this out, they shift to "but in 3e it was."
Yeah, I have definitely been admitting 3E had problems and am even of the mind that there is a certain edge to being a wizard at high level in 2E (though there is a trade off of starting out quite weak). I don't think many here have taken the extreme positions we are given credit for (a couple of posters have probably dug in their heels here or there but for the most part I feel folks are willing to be pretty reasonable). Where a lot of this breaks down is both groups seem to have a different notion of what constitutes balance. Personally I am fine with this. Different people will arrive at differing conclusions there.
I don't get the need to say "D&D must always be constructed this way to be a good game". Frankly the type of game some of the folks on Frank's side seem like they would not be fun for me. With game design I don't think there is a single best way to do it. There isn't a "frank's way is the best way".
My own design goals are actually somewhere in the middle. When I make my own games I do worry about balance. But I also worry about flavor,simplicity and realism on top of that. For me it is about harmonizing all these elements.
Quote from: Daztur;550918Indeed. "Previous editions" seems to be a bizarre longhand for 3.5ed when it comes to 4ed fans.
Well, its not like you can call that shit D&D with a straight face.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550919My own design goals are actually somewhere in the middle. When I make my own games I do worry about balance. But I also worry about flavor,simplicity and realism on top of that. For me it is about harmonizing all these elements.
Same here. I've been slogging away at adapting (simplifying?) the 3E ruleset to provide an experience closer to AD&D 1E and 2E. Why not just play those editions? Because there are many areas that I truly feel were improvements on earlier editions.
Quote from: Daztur;550918Indeed. "Previous editions" seems to be a bizarre longhand for 3.5ed when it comes to 4ed fans.
Quote from: Aos;550920Well, its not like you can call that shit D&D with a straight face.
Where are the 4vengers in this thread? This primarily appears to be a divide between 3.x and earlier...
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550914Of course, I'm here because this is a conversation that I care about. Since I agree with the vast majority of posters here that the Fighter can be a valuable member of the team largely by being tough, skilled with weapons, and having skills that provide him some 'non-complex' functionality outside of combat, I thought it would be easy to convince people that additional 'non-magical' abilities that you can put on your character sheet that are 'exclusive to fighters' would be easy.
.
that is because there are actually three or four different debates going on. Some people are talking about what a fighter should be. others are talking about how broken or not broken AD&D is. Others are talking about how AD&D should be fixed, or whether it needs to. And others are debating whether a fighter should be a simple martial character or a superhero.
Let me be the first to say, I agree with you that in NEXT, the fighter should be effective in combat and have some things he can do outside of combat (this is why when I play 2E I use kits and NWPs, and why I like many of the skills in 3E---though I think they were handled somewhat poorly). Adding exclusive abilities to the fighter is fine by me depending on their shape. I am not thrilled with the daily power approach to fighters, and I don't want anything that disrupts their simplicity, believability or forces resource management.
- I would be totally on board for some kind of increasing power attack ability that gets better as the fighter rises in level. Something where he eventually can do additional damage without taking a penalty to his attack roll. And fine making this the exclusive domain of the fighter.
- Fine giving the fighter sole access to multiple attacks.
- Fine giving the fighter smooth things that are very effective like specialization.
- Fine giving the somekind of ability that lowers his critical threshold or allows him to do double damage on select foes.
- I agree going forward they need to get the numbers right.
Anything like that I am fine with. I do no want 4E powers, I do not want resource management and I do not want flying fighters.
At the same time, a fighters role should be primarily a combat one. Yes give him interesting thigns outside combat but he shouldn't be a skill monkey like the thief. I don't want D&D siloed like that where all characters are equally effective in all areas of the game (to use their current three pillar approach: exploration, combat and RP).
But this is a different discussion than "Is 2E or 1E broken and should it be fixed". For what they do, those editions work just fine for me. I quite like the balance over the campaign approach and I always found 2E especially easy to balance. With 3E I ran into some issues and eventually found (toward the very end) that it just wasn't giving me what I wanted from D&D).
I'm going to paraphrase an article that I agree with 100% re: the problems with fighter vs caster
In TSR era D&D, part of the game was realm management at high levels. Being able to automatically attract a small army was a benefit to being a fighter. So was being the only class that could specialize (until a splat book came out, but most people agree that most of the Complete Guides in 2e were wonky).
In WotC editions, realm management was thrown out, and anyone could specialize as long as they got the feat. So you took away 2 core "special" things that made the fighter an attractive class to play.
In TSR era D&D, several restrictions and limitations affected the casters. Spell components, pre-memorizing spells that you couldn't swap out for heals on the fly, getting interrupted, not always learning a new spell, not always finding a new spell, etc.
In WotC, almost all of these went away. Clerics would swap out spells for heals, all casters could continue to finish as spell even if they were attacked via the concentration feat, etc.
In TSR era D&D, scrolls and magic item creation was rare. Very rare.
In WoTC era, scribing scrolls was so common and easy, the MU never ran out of a spell to cast.
So when people make blanket statements that the fighter is useless, you're right I get a bit defensive because it's often based on inaccurate assumptions that OD&D-2e were like 3e.
Well, I've played all of those (except 0e). And I agree. The problem really emerges in 3.x, for the reasons you just listed, and a few others.
Just wanted to say that, compared to 3rd edition, I do want to see the power-level of casters scaled down.
Increasing the power of fighters and then increasing the power of wizards to compensate would be moving in the WRONG direction - toward a 'supers' game, which is not what I want.
The fighter needs a few effective 'boosts' without making him strictly magical. There are plenty of ways to do this without making him magical. Quite a few of them can be done with exceptional weapon abilities.
What doesn't work is if someone says, "Well, the Fighter is 'just swinging a sword', and that's what my cleric is doing. I should be able to do [insert Fighter special option]."
Because 'improved criticals', or 'attacks that hit so hard they temporarily stun the target' are seen as pretty mundane abilities, in too many cases there are people arguing that 'everyone should be able to do that'. And if you do it with every Fighter Ability, what you're left with is a Fighter that can Fight, and a bunch of characters that can Fight just as well and do a whole bunch of other stuff.
From my POV, the main problem I experience with the 3rd ed fighter is that his schticks are very rigidly defined via feats, and that his whole "resource management" in the rules is based on bonus feats, which encourages you sooner or later to invest in feat chains to get some oomph, which make you pay feat taxes and acquire nigh useless shit just so you can get this cool stuff, but later, which means you program your character's development in advance, regardless of campaign specific circumstances, pick this instead of that PrC or secondary class "just so" and so on. ALL of this is fun to play with in a "system mastery mini-game" sense, for a campaign or two, but it gets old REALLY fast.
And that's how WOTC managed to make the fighter less interesting to me than he is in AD&D.
The fighter should be the class that is most skilled at fighting. That's all he does. He doesn't have to shift his training away into other areas like spell study, religious prayer, woodsmanship, etc.
Yes, everyone can shoot a basketball to try to make a free throw. But can everyone make 9 out of 10? Same with combat maneuvers, like improved criticals, higher % to hit, more damage per attack, blocking or disarming, etc. The fighter should be the best at those things.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;550928Just wanted to say that, compared to 3rd edition, I do want to see the power-level of casters scaled down.
Increasing the power of fighters and then increasing the power of wizards to compensate would be moving in the WRONG direction - toward a 'supers' game, which is not what I want.
The fighter needs a few effective 'boosts' without making him strictly magical. There are plenty of ways to do this without making him magical. Quite a few of them can be done with exceptional weapon abilities.
What doesn't work is if someone says, "Well, the Fighter is 'just swinging a sword', and that's what my cleric is doing. I should be able to do [insert Fighter special option]."
Because 'improved criticals', or 'attacks that hit so hard they temporarily stun the target' are seen as pretty mundane abilities, in too many cases there are people arguing that 'everyone should be able to do that'. And if you do it with every Fighter Ability, what you're left with is a Fighter that can Fight, and a bunch of characters that can Fight just as well and do a whole bunch of other stuff.
This is why feats were such a problem in 3e. To be fair fighters got a bucket load, but other characters could take them (just like other characters could take skills). Thats fine in a skill based game but D&D is class based. One of the things Ad&D got right was making thief skills the domain of the thief (giving other classes minimum access to climb and such but they couldn't really improve). So everyone could climb, just not as well as the thief. Same with a lot of the fighter abilities. So I am fine taking out feats and just giving fighters featlike abilities only they have access to.
Have to agree with benoist that feat trees got a bit tiresome after a while.
Casting a spell in 3.x D&D was not a guaranteed success and could be interrupted; the caster had to make a Concentration check in order to successfully cast the spell.
Quote from: Drohem;550932Casting a spell in 3.x D&D was not a guaranteed success and could be interrupted; the caster had to make a Concentration check in order to successfully cast the spell.
Which soon became an almost always success as MUs put points into that skill.
Contrast that to TSR era when you didn't even get a chance. Got bumped? Too bad. Spell lost.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550935Which soon became an almost always success as MUs put points into that skill.
Contrast that to TSR era when you didn't even get a chance. Got bumped? Too bad. Spell lost.
Sure, when you whore out the CON stat + Combat Casting feat your success is going to be good, but it's still not a 100% slam dunk; especially if the damage taken while casting is high.
All this talk about the uber-wizard of 3.x D&D seems to glide over this detail.
Quote from: Bobloblah;550908EDIT: Just to respond to the last part, I think a lot of people switched to Pathfinder because a) it's in print, and b) it's largely compatible with hundreds of dollars worth of 3.x books they already have (or the sum total ever published, should they feel so inclined).
I admit, these are the two main reasons for me. Plus, they fixed grappling. Even with its flaws, 3.x/
Pathfinder works well enough for me to maintain my investment in them as a game system.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550912I'll repost:
Juvenille red
HD: 15
HP: 67
AC: -3
THAC0: 5
AT: 3
Dmg: 1d10/1d10/3d10
Breath: 8d10+4 (once every 3 rnds)
Dwarf fighter 15
HP: 73
AC: -8 (full plate +5, shield +3)
THAC0: 5
Battle axe+3 (wpn spec +3/+3) THAC0: -2 AT: 5/2, Dmg: 1d8+15
Girdle of frost giant str (+4, +9)
comp long bow +3 (THAC0: 2, AT: 2/1, Dmg: 1d6+12)
Okay I can see that that fighter would win :)
Of course with those items I could get my daughter to fight the dragon and she would win as well.
We are bit reliant on the girdle don't you think?
Haven't seen a character so Monty Hall since I was about 12 .
I thought we were using 10th level and AD&D not 2e.
Fair enough though.
Quote from: Drohem;550936Sure, when you whore out the CON stat + Combat Casting feat your success is going to be good, but it's still not a 100% slam dunk; especially if the damage taken while casting is high.
All this talk about the uber-wizard of 3.x D&D seems to glide over this detail.
It is because you are failing to understand the differences in casting time and action cost.
For someone to attack a Wizard during his casting, they must use a readied action, which limits them to only a standard action. Everyone who is not a spellcaster is greatly reduced in damage by using a standard action.
The problem is further exasperated by the fact that usually the Wizard can merely five foot step out of the range of any melee enemy, further limiting it to basically archers only.
Quote from: Benoist;550929From my POV, the main problem I experience with the 3rd ed fighter is that his schticks are very rigidly defined via feats, and that his whole "resource management" in the rules is based on bonus feats, which encourages you sooner or later to invest in feat chains to get some oomph, which make you pay feat taxes and acquire nigh useless shit just so you can get this cool stuff, but later, which means you program your character's development in advance, regardless of campaign specific circumstances, pick this instead of that PrC or secondary class "just so" and so on. ALL of this is fun to play with in a "system mastery mini-game" sense, for a campaign or two, but it gets old REALLY fast.
And that's how WOTC managed to make the fighter less interesting to me than he is in AD&D.
So what do you think of how
Pathfinder handles fighters?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550931Have to agree with benoist that feat trees got a bit tiresome after a while.
Absolutely. It seems at every step, the designers were out to castrate the fighter.
Let's say you decided it would be cool to fight with two-weapons (a feat). Now, to be really effective, you had to take Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon-Fighting, and Greater-Two-Weapon Fighting.
So, you had to take 3 Feats that actually do the same thing. In fact, Improved wasn't as good (another attack, but at -5 compared to your primary)...
The fact that the Fighter gets more Feats than everyone else is ruined by the fact that he has to keep 'upping' the power on the same feat.
Compared to a spell, like fireball, with an effect based on Casterlevel (1d6/level up to 10d6, starting at 5d6) a 10th level Wizard get's a good kick out of Fireball. But most Feats provide a modest benefit (approriate for a 1st or 2nd level spell, maybe) but never get better...
Most Feats could be largely improved by allowing the benefit to scale a little more. Instead of Weapon Specialization providing a +2 bonus to damage, it could have probably allowed the Fighter to add his BAB (or half his BAB) to damage, and it'd work just fine.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550938Haven't seen a character so Monty Hall since I was about 12 .
Really? You think having a +3 weapon and girdle by 15th level is Monty Hall?
I'll preface this by admitting I only read up to about 55. This thread is too damn long. That said, some little bits caught my interest here and there.
Quote from: fectin;550020You folks sure are... invested in hating on Frank.
He does talk quite a lot of shit, like blaming the fighter design for a poorly designed hypothetical dragon, assuming a dragon's int score would make it impossible to plan against (when in reality the int score doesn't prevent you from keeping secrets from it), assuming a firebreathing monster terrorizing the countryside out in the open wouldn't be pretty easy to track, that wizards should be just as good at something anyone can attempt (when typically "anyone can attempt" translates into skill or ability use, and the wizard doesn't have all good skills or all good abilities) and so on.
QuoteI think you're conflating two things here. The worst, most fundamental problem with 4E is that there aren't consistent rules (which sounds odd because 4E has huge, heaping PILES of rules, but bear with me). In combat, you have abilities that (e.g.) produce a burst of flame, doing damage and some minor effect. Out of combat, that does nothing. If you use it on a door, you have no idea what will happen from one table to the next, and only a tenuous idea what will happen from one door to the next.
In 3E (not that 3E is especially virtuous, it just makes a very good foil to 4E), you can use that to burn though a wooden door, because there are rules for how fire interacts with objects. What's more (and this is the key part), it interacts the same way every time. It's realistic, in that you can guess what amount of fire would be needed to light a door-fire, and and your character can too (regardless of whether those are different heats). It's verisimilitudinous, because it's consistent across different doors (the oak door in the kobold caves is the same as the oak door in the lich castle). It's empowering, both on success and failure, because either way your character's outcomes are determined by their preparation, foresight, and abilities. It's a better game, because without the deterministic input-output, your results are random and you may as well be playing snakes-and-ladders. Finally, it makes for much, much better stories, if only because sometimes the door doesn't burn, and you have to deal with that.
While I agree that the consistency of 4e is a misconception, and like rules for (say) breaking or attacking objects in my games, I think you're also missing a bit of what people are going for here.
Some rules are easily extensible to situations they don't explicitly cover (ability checks, saves, etc) and some are more specific in their applicability. Many prefer these broad rules, with rulings that become consistent fine-tuning specifics like the difficulty of a given task. In other words, they provide a consistent procedure, but the results can be fine-tuned and tinkered with by the GM with minimal effort. They're also pretty good rules for plugging holes like 4e has and making sure you don't need a rule for everything.
People also like for really specific rules (torch durations and the like) and little details to be the in-genre stuff, and in a lot of ways those specifics determine something about the genre of the game. There's a difference between a game where a high level fighter explicitly gets allies and can kludge their neat tricks using the core mechanics (ability checks and all) and one where they explicitly get neat tricks and can kludge gathering allies (with cha checks that they'll tend not to be as good at).
QuoteSo what does that have to do with your larger point? Everything.
You say "I'm of the school that many challenges must be solved by either or both teamwork and/or interacting with the game world". That is exactly the strongest argument for a consistent ruleset. If part of the ranger's role is tracking, and everyone else can track too, the ranger is actually failing to add anything. That's not failing as in "Oh noez! A suboptimal action!" it's actually removing the unique advantage which his class brings to the party. Protecting roles is what encourages and incentivizes teamwork.
Part of the problem here is the manner in which classes expanded with editions. With just the four core, assigning tracking to the rogue or fighter would be no big deal. But as it stands, martial classes expanded from fighter and carved potential bits off that niche. Meanwhile, wizards stayed generalists, and druids and clerics got to be more like generalists because they couldn't use all their spells all the time.
The simplest solution in all this would be to either increase the number of caster classes and force some specialization, or to decrease the number of martial classes and allow more breadth in the concept of each one.
Quote from: MGuy;550049Sure if you magic item him up such that his magic items have better and more useful abilities than the fighter has he may "seem" good but that's just an illusion because for all the benefits he gets from his magic equipment they dwarf his actual original abilities.
Actually, magic item tables and loot are part of the game. So excising those things needlessly strips the fighter of power. Complaining of the disparity after the fact and on that basis is not complaining about the design of the game. It's complaining about how you ran the game.
Now, preference-wise I totally agree with you that the fighter shouldn't need doodads to fight well, but it's not a valid criticism of the game that fighters don't get nice things after you take the nice things they get.
Before we go on a tangent about wizard items, they weren't really a part of your original point. They're dumb because they bypass the wizard's one weakness, but that's not an issue with the design of the fighter. It's an issue with the design of the wizard's treasure (in much the same way that many of the problems with Frank's dragon were problems with Frank's dragon).
QuoteTo make this clearer I want to bring up something Frank dropped earlier. At higher levels Dragons can hit the entire battlefield at once. A fighter cannot protect from that. He can't protect ANYBODY from that. So any defense that supposes that the fighter can, in fact, be useful by protecting the wizard is kicked squarely in the nuts. A fighter (without something that gives him magic) can't even effectively fight the dragon. A fighter without the use of Supplements, that may or may not be available, doesn't even have a lot of choices as to "how" to fight anything and without supplements such as the "complete" series which without those he's stuck with "I attack".
As others upthread mentioned, dragons tend not to hit the entire battlefield, they have to come within range of arrows to use their breath weapon, they are not faster than a horse, and they can't use their breath weapon every round. If any of these is not true, it's an issue with the dragon and not the fighter.
Additionally there are easy tactical answers to many of these problems. Spreading your guys out will reduce the damage of an area effect. Fighting in a tight space like a dungeon will limit the effectiveness of both range and flight (though admittedly it will also make the area of effect more dangerous). A dragon in the sky can be spotted from far away, as can the fires of burning cities, so you can either hide from it or follow it pretty easily. Finding its lair might be a bit harder, since an intelligent foe doesn't shit where he sleeps so to speak. And of course the dragon's int score negates none of its actual physical limitations.
And since you brought in gear, a fighter doesn't actually need a wizard to fly. If he's been getting standard treasure, then by the time he's fighting dragons, there are wondrous items and potions available to him for that.
Lastly, fighter as defender is a 4e meme or a marching order meme. It doesn't apply to pre-4 or open spaces. If there's something to bitch about in the fighter it's mainly just the failure of damage scaling (or the excessive damage scaling of non-fighter classes). Either letting a fighter's arrows hit harder, or limiting the damage scaling of sneak attack and blasting (and limiting hp of monsters to reflect that) would be more than enough without codified powers. At least in this example.
QuoteNow lets step away from dragons and go with something more melee focused like a Giant. A Wizard, without a bunch of "special" gear stands a good chance at taking out a given giant of equal level. This is ESPECIALLY true if we assume there is a DND campaign surrounding it and other factors such as finding, preparing for, and ambushing the giant are options for the wizard. A Fighter, without magic or supplements, does not have the same chance even if he sneaks up on it first because without the boon of someone else buffing him, magic (from weapons or items) or something else that is explicitly not his own ability set, he cannot stand toe to toe with something that is thematically what he's supposed to fight. You can then copy and paste this for most of the monsters in the core monster manual that just "get" special abilities that ruin the fighters day. The sad fact is that the fighter can barely take on anything in the book of opposition (aka monster manual) so its not just that the wizard can out do him in melee combat with creative use of their spells but that he can't even keep up with level appropriate monsters without an external power source.
So... casters can cast while grappled by enormous beasts and giants? I know nobody actually uses the grappling rules in 3x, but remember the dungeon environment can limit range, area of effect, flight, and the wizard's other best advantages such that the giant can easily just pick up the wizard in one hand and prevent most spellcasting immediately. Also, assuming that the wizard will prep appropriate spells before every encounter while also assuming that the fighter can't just nab a potion of flight (or have the wizard cast the spell, since this is a coop game) is unfair in this analogy.
Quote from: B.T.;550118The fighter is a hardened warrior who can track dragons and lead armies. Problem is that the wizard and cleric and thief are all those things, too. Thus, whatever the fighter does, they can do just as well unless the DM arbitrarily decides otherwise. The fighter wants to rally a bunch of soldiers to slay the dragon? The cleric can, too. The fighter eants to track the jabberwock's trail? The wizard can, too. With that style of game, the fighter doesn't get anything unique to him.
See above. Simply having better numbers, if done right (a bigger if than people give it credit for), can be more than enough.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;550383This is important. In the 3E games I ran, it became clear to me that the multiclass builds were how most people compensated for power disparities. I was not personally a fan of optimization builds but learned them to accomodate a group of mine that was into them. Once you master the system in that way, you really can make a kick ass fighter that can do pretty much anything you can think of. It is a totally different game than AD&D or 4E in that respect. System mastery was a big part of making the thing run the way you wanted (or the alternate approach was for the GM to take a hand in keeping things balanced out and fair).
This isn't necessarily good design on 3e's part. But the builds themselves often used mundane damage boosting and abilities for extra attacks, and that by itself should show those things as easy solutions without powers glut. For a potential 5e.
In my case I had a character who could full attack on a charge, auto sneak-attack this full attack, and fight with two dwarven waraxes. He tended to kill anything level appropriate pretty quickly. Ranged variants for extra attacks / extra damage on all attacks were a bit harder but possible.
_________________________
I'd argue that simply getting the math right on the fighter's attack and damage progression, and not being stupid in the design of wizards and dragons, should be enough. Meanwhile, mundane abilities tied to attributes and 5e-style skills should be more than enough to handle most specific doo-dads a fighter could want (like tracking), with only the specific "core" bits being called out as class abilities.
I'd also prefer either much broader martial classes or much narrower casters, but that seems less likely.
Quote from: Drohem;550936Sure, when you whore out the CON stat + Combat Casting feat your success is going to be good, but it's still not a 100% slam dunk; especially if the damage taken while casting is high.
All this talk about the uber-wizard of 3.x D&D seems to glide over this detail.
Yeah. The Wizard always succeeds his concentration checks. All the targets of his spells are always optimally chosen, at his disposal, and always fail their saving throws. He's got a unlimited supply of spell slots, always has the right spell combo prepared and never spent them in an encounter prior, has combat casting plus spell penetration plus spell focus plus all the item creation feats all the time at all levels in all builds, he always can cast all his defensive spells in advance, blah blah blah, whatever.
Quote from: Kaelik;550939It is because you are failing to understand the differences in casting time and action cost.
LOL! Sure, dude, whatever you say. You're 3.x D&D spellcaster is INVINCIBLE! ;)
Quote from: Drohem;550947LOL! Sure, dude, whatever you say. You're 3.x D&D spellcaster is INVINCIBLE! ;)
Please edit "D&D" out of your post.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;549872You're going to do that with your tracking abilities? Or maybe you're going to cast some divinations and track it down that way? Oh right, you don't have those abilities because you're a Fighter! Well, maybe you can go to town and do some legwork with the research and social skills... that you also do not have.
Track is a feat. Anyone can take it. Also: Fighters get Intimidate. Admittedly, the image of the fighter interrogating the entire village by going around and pummeling the villagers he's trying to save is somewhat silly, it is well within the confines 'social ability', that the fighter actually has.
QuoteThen, having used any of a number of information gathering abilities that your character conspicuously lacks, you're going to secretly sneak a
small army to its lair. Its lair which I now remind you the dragon has had literally centuries to conceal and secure.
Well, of course you are wrong that the fighter can neither track (a 80 foot flying, fire breathing monster...) nor gather information by social skills, though admittedly not the 'anyone can do it' gather information SKILL.
But by the rules you just pointed out: Dragons can have all the time in the world to disguise their lairs since they lack any actual ability or skill to do so.
QuoteBut sure, once you get them to the dragon's home turf and miraculously turn all the dragon's defenses against it, your plan is to have a single tiny man fly overland much slower than the dragon can in order to lure it back to its home (and not, for example, intercept the guy and rip him in half). Then, having outrun a faster pursuer through the air over many miles, the rest of your tiny men leap from ambush, don't succumb to the dragon's fear aura, and shoot it to ribbons.
You make a lot of assumptions about distances and flight speed that could be overturned, and frankly are sorta pointless... a magic tea party dragon that is always given enough lead time to catch up with flying fighter dude? Sure.
That's not actually my point. The point is overcoming the dragons fear aura, AC and HP with 'tiny men' is a simple math problem. You like math problems, right?
If 1000 tiny men are waiting in ambush, 75% of them will flee from the fear aura (the actual percentage, as long as it is less than 100% is irrelevant, it just means you bring more men). That gives us 250 remaining men. Of them only 5% will actually hit due to absolutely abysmal abilities (just to be extra special fair to the dragon. I mean, you wouldn't actually want to bring people who were capable in this example, would you). That gives us a pathetic 12 hits, rounding down. Now, you've undoubtedly equipped them with heavy crossbows (knowing they'll only get one shot at this! Fear aura, you know!)... so that is 12d10 dmg, which as well all know rounds to about 65 hp, not counting any stray confirmed crits or an exceptionally good batch of dice.
Not enough? Fine, we bring 5000 tiny men, all equally as pathetic (these are bottom of the barrel, no BaB, no ability score 1hp-die-to-a-stiff-wind children here...) and do (again disbarring any confirmed crits) 295 hp damage.
At some point the rest of the mundane fighters involved with this stick out their tongue and curse at them in french, since that was a fuck lot of mundane damage.
How do you intend to get 5000 children with heavy crossbows into place around the Dragon's Lair for this little ambush you ask? Well its funny you should, since you have centuries to work out the logistics (the same amount of time you gave the dragon to 'conceal' it's lair. Frankly, you don't even need the flying guy, you just wait until it leaves and shoot it then.
QuoteThat is your answer? What makes you think you can accomplish any of that? Is your DM so accommodating that they'll just let you use the abilities of a Ranger, a Cleric, and a Thief despite you not having any of those talents on your character sheet?
Track. Its a feat anyone can take at first level. Intimidate, its a social skill fighters get. Only you suggest it takes divination to see where that 80 foot fire breathing flying lizard 'snuck' off too, with its massive stealth bonus.
I'm sorry, but when you start giving free abilities to the Dragon (special 'lair camouflage skills), and whitewashing away the abilities fighters DO have access too? I couldn't resist.
Quote from: Benoist;550946Yeah. The Wizard always succeeds his concentration checks. All the targets of his spells are always optimally chosen, at his disposal, and always fail their saving throws. He's got a illimited supply of spell slots, always has the right spell combo prepared and never spent them in an encounter prior, has combat casting plus spell penetration plus spell focus plus all the item creation feats all the time at all levels in all builds, he always can cast all his defensive spells in advance, blah blah blah, whatever.
The bit about the charm spell is a good point given it lasts long enough that you can prep your spells again while it's still running. Effectively you can benefit from it after negating the costs. Sometimes the effects of context depend on the rules as much as the other way around.
Anyway, if you want to fuck with concentration without losing power in the action economy, light the place on fire. Continuing damage works well here.
Quote from: jibbajibba;550938Okay I can see that that fighter would win :)
Of course with those items I could get my daughter to fight the dragon and she would win as well.
We are bit reliant on the girdle don't you think?
Haven't seen a character so Monty Hall since I was about 12 .
I thought we were using 10th level and AD&D not 2e.
Fair enough though.
The scenario was 15th level, so it's entirely reasonable a character by that level would have such a girdle.
And I don't have 1e software, only 2e, so that's what I used. 1e dragons weren't nearly as powerful as 2e ones.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550925I'm going to paraphrase an article that I agree with 100% re: the problems with fighter vs caster
In TSR era D&D, part of the game was realm management at high levels. Being able to automatically attract a small army was a benefit to being a fighter. So was being the only class that could specialize (until a splat book came out, but most people agree that most of the Complete Guides in 2e were wonky).
In WotC editions, realm management was thrown out, and anyone could specialize as long as they got the feat. So you took away 2 core "special" things that made the fighter an attractive class to play.
In TSR era D&D, several restrictions and limitations affected the casters. Spell components, pre-memorizing spells that you couldn't swap out for heals on the fly, getting interrupted, not always learning a new spell, not always finding a new spell, etc.
In WotC, almost all of these went away. Clerics would swap out spells for heals, all casters could continue to finish as spell even if they were attacked via the concentration feat, etc.
In TSR era D&D, scrolls and magic item creation was rare. Very rare.
In WoTC era, scribing scrolls was so common and easy, the MU never ran out of a spell to cast.
So when people make blanket statements that the fighter is useless, you're right I get a bit defensive because it's often based on inaccurate assumptions that OD&D-2e were like 3e.
I find the Realm management thing quit an odd talisman.
Old school guys really grip ti it and we know How Ben loves his 80 0 level followers :)
I always found that the realm managment bit never came up in play becuase the games were co-operative group games.
Effectively realm management is akin to hacking in a Cyberpunk game. Its a mini game that is fun for the involved player but as no on else can participate gets dull very fast as a group activity.
When we were about 12 we decied to try high level play each of 8 or 9 players took a 1,000,000 Xp to build a character, levels, magic etc etc ... then each constructed their thing, the assasin guld, the thieve's guild the castle on the hill , the Monestry over on the cliff down by the sea the hIgh church etc ... We built a town round it and then of course set to trying to kill each other to take over :)
Great fun but .... the fighters followers really were pants for any actual play because they were so flimsy. Most of them died to a rival fighter who was dishing out level attacks per turn and mowed through them like wheat, the rest died when the Assassins poisoned the water supply for the entire city.
Anyway i find it suprising that players who like the fairly flexible lightweight combat of 0e and 1e and the whole essence of the group dynamic and want to get involved in a tactical minitures subgame that really only the fighter can participate in meaningfully.
just an observation.
Quote from: Drohem;550947LOL! Sure, dude, whatever you say. You're 3.x D&D spellcaster is INVINCIBLE! ;)
Stop being the idiotic troll you are. I never said he was invincible. I said that because of the changes in casting time versus action costs of attacks, Wizards can only be interrupted by a readied action. Since readied actions are standard actions, not full attacks, the damage is greatly decreased relative to the monsters normal damage, and the Wizard is more likely to make the check.
And further, most often the Wizard can 5ft step out of reach of a melee enemy, limiting such readied action interrupts to ranged attacks.
I appreciate that you don't know the rules, but you should at least be able to manage to read a post that doesn't feature the word invincible and specifically refers to archers and Wizards still being able to interrupt.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550951The scenario was 15th level, so it's entirely reasonable a character by that level would have such a girdle.
And I don't have 1e software, only 2e, so that's what I used. 1e dragons weren't nearly as powerful as 2e ones.
Agreed, although my red would have cast invisibility and mirror image before he got within 400 yards of that pesky armoured dwarf and his girdle powered bow of death. ;)
That fighter totally underlines why I hate magic item driven games though. He really is like the guy driving the Iron Man suit.
Same equipment with a 7th level fighter could beat that dragon specially one with a ring of fire resistance.
Quote from: jeff37923;550940So what do you think of how Pathfinder handles fighters?
I remember liking what I saw. Wait. Let me check...
Yeah just looked. It's a step in the right direction in the context of 3.x. Feat retraining shouldn't be codified by level in the rules though. This should be a campaign option available at all levels of play, with specific tasks and quests, visits to the Temple of War to change the focus of your training, etc. It should be a part of the campaign and character development in the game world, not this dissociated "you can retrain a feat every four levels".
Quote from: Spike;550949If 1000 tiny men are waiting in ambush, 75% of them will flee from the fear aura (the actual percentage, as long as it is less than 100% is irrelevant, it just means you bring more men). .
Funny enough, something I totally forgot until I read it, was that in 2e, organized military get a saving throw. And even if they fail, it's only a -2 penalty to hit.
They do not flee.
So after going back a few pages and reading back up to this point a few things strike me as off.
1) I find it odd that Benoist is criticizing any version of DnD at all. His catch all solution to any problems ever is that the DM can fix it so there isn't a problem. If this is indeed the case then it doesn't matter what system he uses since any problems with the rules that can ever arise can be fixed by the DM changing the rules.
2) There is a lot of admission that 3e has issues. But its issues are not insurmountable. I find it odd that the same people who tote the "I'm fine with fighters only being able to hit things and nothing else", "Fine with fighters loaded with magic items that keep him relevant", "Fine with the fighter being weaker since this is a team game" are not only acknowledging that the fighter falls behind in 3e but admit that it disturbs them so even though they have explicitly stated that they want their fighters weak and simple. Why is it a problem only when it gets to 3e? A lot of the arguments that are being used to justify the fighter in 2e are the same arguments that can be used to say 4e is a great game (perhaps the greatest) but I haven't seen anyone say anything positive about 4e, except I think someone said it was the closest to 1e.
If people want the fighter to be mundane because that's where he belongs why do we necessitate that it has items to make him useful?
Why grab the +2 equipment if the expectation is that their is a caster on the team to buff him instead?
Is there no one who wants to play a game where you could choose to have all fighters, all rogues, all clerics, or all wizards and reasonably expect to be able to get through the whole game without having to seek outside help?
Quote from: MGuy;550958So after going back a few pages and reading back up to this point a few things strike me as off.
1) I find it odd that Benoist is criticizing any version of DnD at all. His catch all solution to any problems ever is that the DM can fix it so there isn't a problem. If this is indeed the case then it doesn't matter what system he uses since any problems with the rules that can ever arise can be fixed by the DM changing the rules.
2) There is a lot of admission that 3e has issues. But its issues are not insurmountable. I find it odd that the same people who tote the "I'm fine with fighters only being able to hit things and nothing else", "Fine with fighters loaded with magic items that keep him relevant", "Fine with the fighter being weaker since this is a team game" are not only acknowledging that the fighter falls behind in 3e but admit that it disturbs them so even though they have explicitly stated that they want their fighters weak and simple. Why is it a problem only when it gets to 3e? A lot of the arguments that are being used to justify the fighter in 2e are the same arguments that can be used to say 4e is a great game (perhaps the greatest) but I haven't seen anyone say anything positive about 4e, except I think someone said it was the closest to 1e.
If people want the fighter to be mundane because that's where he belongs why do we necessitate that it has items to make him useful?
Why grab the +2 equipment if the expectation is that their is a caster on the team to buff him instead?
Is there no one who wants to play a game where you could choose to have all fighters, all rogues, all clerics, or all wizards and reasonably expect to be able to get through the whole game without having to seek outside help?
you got us. The jig is up guys. We've secretly agreed with you the whole time and are just being difficult. That is the only logical explanation for these inconsistencies ;)
I actually have a serious response to this. But just dont have time for this thread today. If my workload subsides I will try to address your pointa. In the meantime others can probably address these concerns.
Quote from: MGuy;5509582) There is a lot of admission that 3e has issues. But its issues are not insurmountable. I find it odd that the same people who tote the "I'm fine with fighters only being able to hit things and nothing else", "Fine with fighters loaded with magic items that keep him relevant", "Fine with the fighter being weaker since this is a team game" are not only acknowledging that the fighter falls behind in 3e but admit that it disturbs them so even though they have explicitly stated that they want their fighters weak and simple. Why is it a problem only when it gets to 3e? A lot of the arguments that are being used to justify the fighter in 2e are the same arguments that can be used to say 4e is a great game (perhaps the greatest) but I haven't seen anyone say anything positive about 4e, except I think someone said it was the closest to 1e.
As I said above, just being able to hit hard and frequently *can* be enough, as evidenced by more cherry-picked builds in 3e, as evidenced by the smaller disparity in 3, and so on.
Additionally, what people want to be handled by specific class abilities (as opposed to simple skill/ability checks) is a fuzzy line. A fighter doesn't have to have a fighter-specific breaking doors ability if this is already handled by the strength rules. And I think people prefer this kind of procedure for the fighter in general.
It's only a problem when it gets to 3e because the vanilla fighter scales poorly on a few fronts, and because skills replace ability scores as the go-to mechanic and the fighter gets weak skills.
QuoteIf people want the fighter to be mundane because that's where he belongs why do we necessitate that it has items to make him useful?
As a rule I think people want the fighter to work better naked. But you can't analyze the existing systems by stripping the fighter of things the rules (treasure tables not class rules, but still rules) give him and then complaining that it doesn't work any more. Again, this is complaining that the rules are for a different genre than you want, or complaining about the results of running the rules in a non-standard fashion.
QuoteIs there no one who wants to play a game where you could choose to have all fighters, all rogues, all clerics, or all wizards and reasonably expect to be able to get through the whole game without having to seek outside help?
I can't see playing a game where you never have to seek outside help even with mixed classes. But the bat-wizard, the door-breaking potential of strength checks, healing potions, etc. were all always there to give you options if you were short a player. People bitch about niche-protection, but those alternatives are there for a reason.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550956Funny enough, something I totally forgot until I read it, was that in 2e, organized military get a saving throw. And even if they fail, it's only a -2 penalty to hit.
They do not flee.
Likewise in 1e, where the section on less-than-1HD characters fleeing from Dragons is explicitly predicated on the notion they do not have military training, which your men-at-arms actually have, by definition.
Beej: I'm not complaining that if you strip him naked that he doesn't work anymore. I'm saying you cannot rely on armor or weapons that give you special abilities to measure how good the class is because anyone in any class can get those same things. Special abilities given to you by random treasure distribution is not guaranteed or fighter specific. I even said earlier I don't care if you batman him up because at least he's guaranteed those magic item abilities. I specifically did not include the armor and weapons necessary to give him the +1s and 2 he needs to keep his numbers up. However if the fighter has to defer to random treasure to be interesting then the treasure is more interesting than his class.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550879It's not an online generator. It was the AD&D 2e Core Rules CD ROM that you could buy in the mid 90s. Excellent resource for 2e players, as it had all those generators, map makers that you could link to created encounters, dice rollers, and about 10 of the most popular 2e books (core + Tome of Magic, S&P, etc)
Sadly, the Core Rules CD is STILL the best set of tools ever made by TSR/Wizbro
Quote from: MGuy;550963I'm saying you cannot rely on armor or weapons that give you special abilities to measure how good the class is because anyone in any class can get those same things.
Except that the fighter is one of the best classes to use those armor and weapons.
Quote from: jeff37923;550966Except that the fighter is one of the best classes to use those armor and weapons.
Cleric.
Quote from: MGuy;550963Beej: I'm not complaining that if you strip him naked that he doesn't work anymore. I'm saying you cannot rely on armor or weapons that give you special abilities to measure how good the class is because anyone in any class can get those same things. Special abilities given to you by random treasure distribution is not guaranteed or fighter specific. I even said earlier I don't care if you batman him up because at least he's guaranteed those magic item abilities. I specifically did not include the armor and weapons necessary to give him the +1s and 2 he needs to keep his numbers up. However if the fighter has to defer to random treasure to be interesting then the treasure is more interesting than his class.
Except that weapon and armor proficiencies are class specific. And prior to 3e, spell research costs ate a good bit of the wizard's share of the treasure. Giving the weapons and armor to the wizard is suboptimal. Like buffing the cleric instead of buffing the fighter (who has better base stats, and could reach a higher power than the cleric could) or casting invisibility on the caster instead of the rogue (who could sneak attack) or just using divination (if scouting was your aim).
For non-weapon and non-armor treasure, those aren't the *only* source of interesting abilities for the fighter. Prior to 3, those abilities were just codified differently. They were part of the fighter's superior strength and other stats, which were expected to be extended to whatever use they suited. If you want to trip a guy, it's an attack, and the fighter attacks well. You didn't need a specific trip ability for this. That's the other part of what I'm saying.
Now, the details weren't codified in the rules, but this is the kind of thing the rules were used for.
Quote from: MGuy;550967Cleric.
Edged weapons, except for corner cases.
Quote from: jeff37923;550966Except that the fighter is one of the best classes to use those armor and weapons.
Not to mention many classes can't use them. It's like taking away all the magic items from a Magic User, including spell books.
The game was designed with the assumption that you got treasure as you leveled up. It seems....odd to me that someone would want to try to make a comparison by taking away that element.
First, the disclaimer that belongs to my previous post: I make no claims to the accuracy of my numbers. I'm pretty sure I messed up the average damage a tiny bit, but it doesn't really affect the thrust of my argument.
I don't want to just pick on Frank's ludicrious defense, if only in part because I tend to agree in general that Fighters tend to be limited. Of course, being able to go 'magic item shopping' is rather glibly dismissed in his arguments. I feel this is extra-relevant because most templates of epic, high level fighters outside of RPGs tend to give fighters all sorts of neat toys. Roland wasn't just a bad-ass, he was a bad-ass with Durandal and a Magic Horn, after all.
Now, I've seen a general trend in arguments regarding fighters that I'd like to clear up.
I've played mid to high level fighters in both AD&D and 3E games. Realistically, you aren't spitting out an average of 6 points an attack, or anywhere close to that in any game I've ever played. I've had 8th level fighters dishing out 80~ points of damage against tough opponents on a regular (if not exactly reliable) basis. I had a 12th fighter do 140 hp in one round and one attack in 2nd AD&D (with Options. I remember because it was a mirror of opposition fight...).
These are not chump numbers. They also did require melee range, which is not a small matter, its true, but its also not impossible to overcome with nifty toys. So: Yes, fighters CAN one shot critters at level ten, as long as we allow 'one-shot' to include all their attacks in a single round, which I do.
On the topic of Buff Clerics, my last D&D character (Forgotten Realms 3.5E D&D) was a 16th level cleric/Techsmith of Gond. Buffing, wether myself or the other players, was a rare thing simply due to casting times. Rare indeed was the pre-fight prep time long enough for me to go around laying down a full suite of buff spells, and as a general rule that's a 'one fight' spell. I had a lot more fun with aura spells (particularly with spell sharing to my Gondsman!) and movement. Yes: Wiping out platoons of goblins per round made the fighter small in the pants, but then again, going toe to toe with the giant they were supporting was out of the question for the cleric.... aura or no aura. To each his own.
Having played a cleric, I have to laugh at the concept of the "buff cleric being a better fighter", because it seems to assume all that casting is FREE. Are there ways to make it easier? Sure, I guess. But then I have to wonder at the guy who thinks casting a quickened bull's strength for a +2 hit/dmg bonus (as I recall off the top of my head) really makes up for the fighter's presumably higher strength and greater BaB (and additional combat feats)? Yes, yes, Bull's Strength is a bad example compared to Divine yadda-yadda.
Because while the cleric is standing there playing catchup to the fighter with his buff spells, teh fighter is actually... you know.. fighting. That's REAL IN-GAME experience.
Summoning Hordes of Critters does work, after a fashion. Same issues: Slow ass casting time, somewhat short duration. Yes, also things that can be overcome, to some extent (a quickened, extra duration summoning gets me a critter that is several levels below the current opposition. but right away, and for a long time. Yay!). I found it easier almost to go with more permanent critters (golems, Effigies... that sort of thing. Gond, remember!), though they hurt more when they died, or 'magic item' critters, which were simpler and, if well chosen, more useful.
Quote from: Kaelik;550953Stop being the idiotic troll you are. I never said he was invincible. I said that because of the changes in casting time versus action costs of attacks, Wizards can only be interrupted by a readied action. Since readied actions are standard actions, not full attacks, the damage is greatly decreased relative to the monsters normal damage, and the Wizard is more likely to make the check.
And further, most often the Wizard can 5ft step out of reach of a melee enemy, limiting such readied action interrupts to ranged attacks.
I appreciate that you don't know the rules, but you should at least be able to manage to read a post that doesn't feature the word invincible and specifically refers to archers and Wizards still being able to interrupt.
Please quote the 3.5 SRD where it says: "Wizards can only be interrupted by a readied action."
I'll wait....
IIRC, you can also take a 5ft step as part of a Readied Action if you haven't already moved. So if the Wizard 5ft steps and casts, the Fighter can 5ft step and interrupt.
Of course in 3e, hitting the Wizard may not do anything besides damage because unlike AD&D, Wizards have Concentration.
BTW, trying to undo 3e problems means you have to actually undo the 3e problems, not add stuff to counterbalance.
Remove all the MMOG powerups the 3e Wizard got, and re-introduce system shock, memorization time, and all the other rule-based limits on Wizards, and THEN look to see how he compares with the Fighter.
Quote from: Kaelik;550953Stop being the idiotic troll you are. I never said he was invincible. I said that because of the changes in casting time versus action costs of attacks, Wizards can only be interrupted by a readied action. Since readied actions are standard actions, not full attacks, the damage is greatly decreased relative to the monsters normal damage, and the Wizard is more likely to make the check.
And further, most often the Wizard can 5ft step out of reach of a melee enemy, limiting such readied action interrupts to ranged attacks.
I appreciate that you don't know the rules, but you should at least be able to manage to read a post that doesn't feature the word invincible and specifically refers to archers and Wizards still being able to interrupt.
Quote from: Drohem;550981Please quote the 3.5 SRD where it says: "Wizards can only be interrupted by a readied action."
I'll wait....
Right, because you can't. Here, I'll quote the rule you can't seen to grasp fully:
"
Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell." If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Concentration check result)."
This is found under the Special Initiative Actions section of the Combat chapter, specifically under 'Ready.'
See, it says you *can* disrupt a spellcaster with a readied action, not that a spellcaster can *only* be disrupted by a readied action.
Perhaps it is you who should know the rules before talking out of your ass. ;)
Quote"Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell." If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Concentration check result)."
This is found under the Special Initiative Actions section of the Combat chapter, specifically under 'Ready.'
See, it says you *can* disrupt a spellcaster with a readied action, not that a spellcaster can *only* be disrupted by a readied action.
Perhaps it is you who should know the rules before talking out of your ass. ;)
Ahh, the old "geek the mage" move. Personally I prefer a middle ground like Pathfinder were Concentration is still there because it fits with GISH concepts and the Battle Mage concept too well to outright remove like in pre 3x. All you have to do is make the actual checks harder similar to Pathfinder and even a bit harder really. Your GISH and Battle Mages would be the one's getting either bonuses or outright negating the checks say like a Magus at very high level.
Quote from: Drohem;550997Perhaps it is you who should know the rules before talking out of your ass.
Well, that's a step I'm certainly not prepared to take.
Quote from: Aos;551002Well, that's a step I'm certainly not prepared to take.
Nothing I say applies to you as you are a force unto yourself. ;) :D
Quote from: Marleycat;551001Ahh, the old "geek the mage" move. Personally I prefer a middle ground like Pathfinder were Concentration is still there because it fits with GISH concepts and the Battle Mage concept too well to outright remove like in pre 3x. All you have to do is make the actual checks harder similar to Pathfinder and even a bit harder really. Your GISH and Battle Mages would be the one's getting either bonuses or outright negating the checks say like a Magus at very high level.
Shh... House Rules are fiery poison to the rules-wankers. ;)
Quote from: Drohem;551008Shh... House Rules are fiery poison to the rules-wankers. ;)
Well I thought the whole point of Dnd IS houserules or "rulings not rules" or whatever works for your game that makes it fun for EVERYBODY. Even the poor sod that likes fighters for some bizarre reason that escapes me.:D
Quote from: MGuy;550958So after going back a few pages and reading back up to this point a few things strike me as off.
1) I find it odd that Benoist is criticizing any version of DnD at all. His catch all solution to any problems ever is that the DM can fix it so there isn't a problem. If this is indeed the case then it doesn't matter what system he uses since any problems with the rules that can ever arise can be fixed by the DM changing the rules.
That's because you are terminally biased since I kicked you in the nuts earlier. Basically, your partial reading of my posts is that "there aren't problems because the DM can fix it", whereas what I am actually saying is that the game's system is a tool, a guideline, that is part of the larger picture of game play involving real people and adjudication at the game table.
I think it's very easy to just blame the system for whatever shortcomings you have as a player or DM. This does not mean that game systems are perfect or can be perfect (they never are, and they can't ever be), but that you are in charge of the way the game plays at your game table, not the rules.
This post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=550607#post550607) (assuming the actual play situation wasn't made up after the fact) is actually pretty telling to me: in that adventure, I can identify some shit going on because of the rules, like for instance the way the Diplomacy skill works in 3.5 which is a completely abstract mess that can lead to completely ridiculous situations in actual play. But the fact that the fighter felt powerless when four Storm Giants followed the group could have been addressed by skillful DMing and a healthy group dynamic on the parts of the participants of the game.
The fact that charmed creatures are *not* under the control of the Wizard but still NPCs under the control of the DM would have led me to give the Storm Giants' control to the whole of the group. The fact that there were four giants and four players would just have made things easier to organize with the group: each player would have controled a giant in tactical situations in addition to their normal characters, and we would have gone from there. Now it could have been really cool for the fighter player, with the giant picking him up and throwing him at the Dragon LOL that could have been awesome.
If, further, the encounter area and general set up of the Dragon encounter would not have been so welcoming of the Storm Giants intervention with all its tunnels being large enough for them and the Dragon, no side passages and other threats and servitors of the Dragon the giants couldn't have reasonably reached, etc, we would not have reached the point where the giants just obliterated the Dragon, and game over, the fighter player, disgusted, quitting on his character and so on.
The adventure could have proceeded from there into the bowels of the earth under the Black Dragon's lair. The Storm Giants would have been a hindrance from there, and either released, or left on the surface to secure the PCs' exit later on. Both outcomes could have led to very interesting developments in the campaign. It's just too bad that the rules were immediately blamed for the fiasco and that everyone quit on the game from there.
The morality I want to stress here is that, though rules systems can't be perfect, or 'balanced', ever, they can be great tools to bring the awesome in your campaign. The most important thing is that, in the end, you are in charge of the way you want your game to unfold. Not the rules. When you get that there is a world surrounding the situations you guys keep ranting about, suddenly it becomes a matter of skillful application of the rules' premise and mastery of the game itself to create an environment that is challenging and enjoyable by the players. This responsibility is yours, and you can be a great DM.
If, however, your reflex is instantly to blame the rules for whatever shortcomings you witness in the game, you will not progress. You will remain a mediocre DM, and the rules, modified by the designers to fit your own shortcomings, will just become more and more stiffling, more and more limitating, all of that for the sake of 'fairness'.
That was the thought process that basically gave us 4e.
And you guys, though you like to rant about 4e, rant about it
because it didn't go in the direction you wanted, with the actual consistent rules outcomes you desired, not because the underlying logic that gave us 4e was flawed thinking in the first place. You are
still supporting the idea that the rules are the game, the game the rules, and that the game designers should design D&D in a vacuum divorced from all game play considerations. This can only result in various OCD variants of the 3rd edition rules, just like 4e was.
Your whole premise to "fix" the game's rules is wrong and will only lead to more grief and more rules bullshit and more crappy gaming, when instead you could study your failings to learn and run great games from there. Live and learn. Be a great player. A great DM. You can get there if you want, but for that you got to stop blaming the rules for whatever went wrong in your game. That's my point, ultimately.
Quote from: Marleycat;551010Even the poor sod that likes fighters for some bizarre reason that escapes me.:D
That poor sod is the same one who screams, "You must not like jocks then!" every time this discussion seems to come up.
Quote from: jeff37923;551013That poor sod is the same one who screams, "You must not like jocks then!" every time this discussion seems to come up.
It's a joke! I know plenty of people that love fighters and jocks they aren't. They just aren't my bag. I prefer in this order...
1. GISH concepts (the Magus and Rune Knight out of Pathfinder and Fantasy Craft are just flat out fun stuff)
2. Pure Wizards (of some kind of specialty)
3. Sorcerers (especially if something similar to Rokogun) Pathfinder does these well with the bloodline powers and abilities, very evocative and make sense from a game perspective
4. Bards
5. Classic Universal base Dnd Wizards
I prefer not to multiclass if at all possible.
A high-level fighter should be better at killing than storm giants.
Bards are like Dwarves, good for nothing but killing.
Quote from: Aos;551019Bards are like Dwarves, good for nothing but killing.
Sirrah, I believe you meant to say "gnomes".
Quote from: Aos;551019Bards are like Dwarves, good for nothing but killing.
Still like them though.:)
Dwarves, Halflings, and Gnomes? They all can go into the cooking pot if you ask me.:)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551020Sirrah, I believe you meant to say "gnomes".
You say tomato...
Actually, there aren't a whole lot of races that I can't stand. But there are a couple:
Drow: because everyone and their grandma's dog played one in the 90s (and some still do) because they want to be a special Drizzt snowflake
Warforged: Robots have no place in D&D. If I wanted robots, I'd play a sci-fi game (and I sometimes do)
Tieflings: The new drow. Sorry, demons were meant to be fought, not a common PC race.
Drow are ok but Tieflings? Bleah. I can't buy a whole race of Demon/Humans being allowed to breathe the same air as normals in the open and organized like anybody else.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551029Actually, there aren't a whole lot of races that I can't stand. But there are a couple:
Drow: because everyone and their grandma's dog played one in the 90s (and some still do) because they want to be a special Drizzt snowflake
Warforged: Robots have no place in D&D. If I wanted robots, I'd play a sci-fi game (and I sometimes do)
Tieflings: The new drow. Sorry, demons were meant to be fought, not a common PC race.
I use a range of different races (http://themetalearth.blogspot.com/2010/09/player-species.html), I haven't come up with rules for them yet, but robots are definitely an option, but my D&D is more S&S/science fantasy than straight fantasy.
Quote from: Spike;550978Having played a cleric, I have to laugh at the concept of the "buff cleric being a better fighter", because it seems to assume all that casting is FREE. Are there ways to make it easier? Sure, I guess. But then I have to wonder at the guy who thinks casting a quickened bull's strength for a +2 hit/dmg bonus (as I recall off the top of my head) really makes up for the fighter's presumably higher strength and greater BaB (and additional combat feats)? Yes, yes, Bull's Strength is a bad example compared to Divine yadda-yadda.
Because while the cleric is standing there playing catchup to the fighter with his buff spells, teh fighter is actually... you know.. fighting. That's REAL IN-GAME experience.
See, now this is the thing that you vaunted "It's about game experience" people keep doing.
You didn't just say, "Here is my experience." You also said "I laugh at the concept of a Cleric that can fight better than a fighter." You didn't just present your experience, you presented it as a refutation of mine.
But after I finish using my play experience to demonstrate that you are completely wrong, and it does in fact happen, BedrockBrendan will turn around and defend you because it's wrong of me to force other people to accept my analysis. But he's wrong, you were asserting that it is laughable to imagine such a cleric existing, but yet clearly he shows up in a lot of games.
Now on to the actual example.
A level 1 Cleric with the War and Planning domain could have Weapon Focus and Proficiency with any given Martial weapon, Extended Spell, Persistent Spell, and Extra Turning twice. He can Persist at least one spell, maybe a second. A single spell could be Divine Favor, which gives him +1 to attack and damage. Therefore, all day he could be +1 damage over the fighter without casting spells, have the same attack bonus, and still have 3 or so other spells left over. The Fighter has some extra feats, but he can't pay them for the anything actually worth being a Fighter.
This problem gets progressively worse. I have a level 13 Cleric who's attack routine is +28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+23/+23/+23/+23/+18/+18/+18/+18
for 3d6+25 damage each. That's all day every day, while simultaneously being immune to every element, having better saves, True Seeing, some other defenses, and having spells left over.
There is some number inflation relative to your edition of choice, but trust me, that's absurd, and makes Fighters cry tears of sadness.
This is a real thing that actually exists, and so when you laugh at me for saying that the Cleric can be better than the fighter, I wonder why you think your ignorance is funny.
Quote from: Drohem;550997Right, because you can't. Here, I'll quote the rule you can't seen to grasp fully:
"Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell." If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Concentration check result)."
This is found under the Special Initiative Actions section of the Combat chapter, specifically under 'Ready.'
See, it says you *can* disrupt a spellcaster with a readied action, not that a spellcaster can *only* be disrupted by a readied action.
Perhaps it is you who should know the rules before talking out of your ass. ;)
Here is the problem for you. In order to understand what I am talking about, you need to be able to read all the rules, and be able to use and apply logical rules.
I did not say that only readied actions can interrupt the fighter because the rules specifically state that only readied actions can do so. I stated it because it is the logical conclusion drawn from understanding the rules.
See, the way you "interrupt" a Wizard who is casting a spell is that you do enough damage that he fails his concentration check.
But see, you can only do damage when you make an attack (exception, Wizards can do continuing damage, but fighters, and the vast majority of monsters cannot).
Now, The Wizard exists, and begins casting a spell, what happens? One of three things:
1) He finishes the spell before you get a turn, and you failed to interrupt. Seriously, look at the spells, combat spells have a casting time of one standard action. That means they finish before you get to take your turn.
2) He provokes an attack of opportunity. For reasons that are pretty complex, this basically never happens, but taking a 5ft step back from someone is a pretty big part of why. Defensive Casting is another thing which negates this after a certain level.
3) The person has prepared a readied action.
So you see, outside of attacks of opportunity, which are easily negated, readied actions are the only method of attempting to interrupt a Wizard.
But see, you have to actually know all the rules to understand these things.
Quote from: CRKrueger;550991IIRC, you can also take a 5ft step as part of a Readied Action if you haven't already moved. So if the Wizard 5ft steps and casts, the Fighter can 5ft step and interrupt.
You do not recall correctly.
Quote from: Benoist;550962Likewise in 1e, where the section on less-than-1HD characters fleeing from Dragons is explicitly predicated on the notion they do not have military training, which your men-at-arms actually have, by definition.
No wrong there mate actual text
1. All creatures under 1hit dice, as well as all non-carniverous creatures of any sort which are not trained for warfare or basically not fearless or agressive will flee in panic. Such rout will be made at the fastest speed possible, and it will continue for 4-24 turns.
This means that all 0 level guys run as well as all sorts of heard creatures unless those heard creatures have been trained like war dogs or war elephants.
It goes on to explain how all creatures with less than 3hd but more than less than 1 need to save or flee or panic.
Now that is 1e MM. As its 1e I will concede there might be a contradictory rule tucked away in the dmg somewhere but this rule is very clear.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551029Warforged: Robots have no place in D&D. If I wanted robots, I'd play a sci-fi game (and I sometimes do)
Eberon is kind of a sci-fi setting, in that magic is so commonplace it is just science. Which you know, is kind of cool as a change of pace. As long as Warforged stay there and don't pop up in the Realms or Greyhawk.
Quote from: Kaelik;551040This problem gets progressively worse. I have a level 13 Cleric who's attack routine is +28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+23/+23/+23/+23/+18/+18/+18/+18
for 3d6+25 damage each. That's all day every day, while simultaneously being immune to every element, having better saves, True Seeing, some other defenses, and having spells left over..
No offense, but a game where you can have stats like that? It's about as appealing to me as sticking my hand in shit. And no, that's not really hyperbole. Just the thought of having to make that many attacks and doing that much damage all the time makes me literally shudder. At what point does it become too much?
QuoteThis problem gets progressively worse. I have a level 13 Cleric who's attack routine is +28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+23/+23/+23/+23/+18/+18/+18/+18
for 3d6+25 damage each. That's all day every day, while simultaneously being immune to every element, having better saves, True Seeing, some other defenses, and having spells left over.
Let me guess: Spell Compendium?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551048No offense, but a game where you can have stats like that? It's about as appealing to me as sticking my hand in shit. And no, that's not really hyperbole. Just the thought of having to make that many attacks and doing that much damage all the time makes me literally shudder. At what point does it become too much?
I think his point is that it
is too much. Though they like the Tomes over on TGD, so maybe his point is that fighters should be able to attack like that. Personally, I think the number of attacks a character makes should top out around 3-4.
Quote from: B.T.;551049Let me guess: Spell Compendium?
I think his point is that it is too much. Though they like the Tomes over on TGD, so maybe his point is that fighters should be able to attack like that. Personally, I think the number of attacks a character makes should top out around 3-4.
I think it should top out at 2, maybe 3. When you've got 10 attacks, and you're rolling tons of dice each time, one dude is spending forever just to resolve his action.
fuck that noise.
With a 10' pole
Quote from: B.T.;551049Let me guess: Spell Compendium?
I think his point is that it is too much. Though they like the Tomes over on TGD, so maybe his point is that fighters should be able to attack like that. Personally, I think the number of attacks a character makes should top out around 3-4.
Never heard of the Spell Compendium but if it allows shite like that I wouldn't allow at my table. End of story. Full stop.
As for interative attacks I am in total agreement but I would use the Trailblazer -2 mod instead. If I had my way I would say only fighters would even get muti-attacks (not Rangers, Paladins, Cavaliers ect.). And capped like you say max 4 even if I prefer it to be less.
Quote from: Kaelik;551040Here is the problem for you. In order to understand what I am talking about, you need to be able to read all the rules, and be able to use and apply logical rules.
I did not say that only readied actions can interrupt the fighter because the rules specifically state that only readied actions can do so. I stated it because it is the logical conclusion drawn from understanding the rules.
See, the way you "interrupt" a Wizard who is casting a spell is that you do enough damage that he fails his concentration check.
But see, you can only do damage when you make an attack (exception, Wizards can do continuing damage, but fighters, and the vast majority of monsters cannot).
Now, The Wizard exists, and begins casting a spell, what happens? One of three things:
1) He finishes the spell before you get a turn, and you failed to interrupt. Seriously, look at the spells, combat spells have a casting time of one standard action. That means they finish before you get to take your turn.
2) He provokes an attack of opportunity. For reasons that are pretty complex, this basically never happens, but taking a 5ft step back from someone is a pretty big part of why. Defensive Casting is another thing which negates this after a certain level.
3) The person has prepared a readied action.
So you see, outside of attacks of opportunity, which are easily negated, readied actions are the only method of attempting to interrupt a Wizard.
But see, you have to actually know all the rules to understand these things.
You do not recall correctly.
LOL! I see, you don't apply the rules as written but you apply your subjective definition of 'logic.' Gotcha!
Quote from: jibbajibba;551043No wrong there mate actual text
1. All creatures under 1hit dice, as well as all non-carniverous creatures of any sort which are not trained for warfare or basically not fearless or agressive will flee in panic. Such rout will be made at the fastest speed possible, and it will continue for 4-24 turns.
This means that all 0 level guys run as well as all sorts of heard creatures unless those heard creatures have been trained like war dogs or war elephants.
Not my reading. The way the rule is worded in 2nd ed seems to clarify the meaning here, to me, and I think that's what is intended from the start, despite the missing comas.
That's what's great about this game: I'm the DM. I can make calls like this.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551048No offense, but a game where you can have stats like that? It's about as appealing to me as sticking my hand in shit. And no, that's not really hyperbole. Just the thought of having to make that many attacks and doing that much damage all the time makes me literally shudder. At what point does it become too much?
Meh, depends on what you are in the mood for. I usually prefer simpler systems that don't require me to roll that much because it is a tad annoying to roll that much, but sometimes high level play revolves around not allowing the enemy to ever full attack you.
It really is too much for a standard game, but yet, quite achievable. I certainly count that as a problem in 3e.
Quote from: B.T.;551049Let me guess: Spell Compendium?
I think his point is that it is too much. Though they like the Tomes over on TGD, so maybe his point is that fighters should be able to attack like that. Personally, I think the number of attacks a character makes should top out around 3-4.
I think that even if you were balancing for the point where someone does that much damage, it should never involve 16 attacks. That just happens to be a RAW way of doing it with a Cleric in 3e. Obviously, you shouldn't always balance for that point either.
But as to the sources, SpC probably provides very little of the power. Most of it comes from MMIV, Complete Divine, and Champions of Ruin.
Quote from: Drohem;551056LOL! I see, you don't apply the rules as written but you apply your subjective definition of 'logic.' Gotcha!
You are still being an idiot. I am using the rules as written. But unlike you, I can see the logical consequences of the rules.
Please describe any instance at all ever where a level 14 Wizard With a Con of 14 is interrupted from casting flesh to stone without a readied action occurring.
Literally any instance that is within the rules. Go ahead.
Quote from: Drohem;551056LOL! I see, you don't apply the rules as written but you apply your subjective definition of 'logic.' Gotcha!
You are still being an idiot. I am using the rules as written. But unlike you, I can see the logical consequences of the rules.
Please describe any instance at all ever where a level 14 Wizard With a Con of 14 is interrupted from casting flesh to stone without a readied action occurring.
Literally any instance that is within the rules. Go ahead.
Quote from: Kaelik;551040You do not recall correctly.
Yes, he does.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm#ready
Quote from: SRDYou can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.
2nd Ed is worded differently and could be read either way I think.
QuoteDragon Fear: Dragons can inspire panic or fear. The mere sight of a young adult or older dragon causes creatures with fewer than 1 Hit Die (as well as all noncarnivorous, nonaggressive creatures with fewer Hit Dice than the dragon) to automatically flee in panic for 4d6 rounds.
Trained war mounts, organized military units, and single creatures with 1 Hit Die or more, but with fewer Hit Dice than the dragon are not panicked, but they may be stricken with fear if they are within the dragon's fear aura. The aura surrounds attacking or charging dragons in the specified radius and in a path along the ground directly beneath a flying dragon whose altitude is 250 feet or less. Creatures not automatically panicked are entitled to saving throws vs. petrification. Creatures failing their saving throws are stricken with fear and fight with a -2 penalty to their attack and damage rolls. The aura increases in size and power based on the age category of the dragon; creatures subjected to the aura receive a saving throw bonus or a penalty as specified on the Dragon Table. All creatures with Hit Dice equal to or greater than those of the dragon are immune to the fear effect.
Gem dragons are not as inherently fearsome as other dragons, so saving throws against their fear auras receive bonuses; the bonuses appear in parenthesis in the Dragon Table.
Welcome to therpgsite, Soulbro!
Quote from: soulbro;551067Yes, he does.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm#ready
That would be relevant if it were possible to start your turn next to a Wizard who is your enemy. But since you do not begin your turn adjacent, you can never have not moved last round, and still have a readied action.
Quote from: Kaelik;551063You are still being an idiot. I am using the rules as written. But unlike you, I can see the logical consequences of the rules.
Please describe any instance at all ever where a level 14 Wizard With a Con of 14 is interrupted from casting flesh to stone without a readied action occurring.
Literally any instance that is within the rules. Go ahead.
LOL! Why would I engage this since I've already proved you wrong on the issue?
It's cool, dude, you're the type of person who just can't admit they're wrong when it thrown in their face. I understand. You call me an idiot, and I'm calling you an idiot now so we're good. :)
Just don't say stupid things again, I won't throw it in your face again. ;)
To me, it's clear the less than 1 HD automatic panic is meant for peaceful creatures and commoners. Normal, mundane critters, in other words. I would consider men-at-arms to be trained and be able to resist being routed, in this case granting a saving throw as less than 3 HD creatures, as noted in the Dragon's description.
I can see how you can read the passage both ways, but after discussing it for a little while with my wife, I think that's the best way to interpret it. YMMV.
Quote from: soulbro;551067Yes, he does.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm#ready
Welcome to the RPG Site, mate. :)
This whole topic reminds me of the good old days of the Mage the Ascension flamewars. If this site just had a popcorn emoticon I'd be set.:D
Welcome to RPGSite, soulbro!
Quote from: Drohem;551072LOL! Why would I engage this since I've already proved you wrong on the issue?
It's cool, dude, you're the type of person who just can't admit they're wrong when it thrown in their face. I understand. You call me an idiot, and I'm calling you an idiot now so we're good. :)
Just don't say stupid things again, I won't throw it in your face again. ;)
You did not prove me wrong. You refused to read what I actually said. Successfully proving a strawman wrong is not something to brag about.
I did not say, "The rules specifically state that you can only interrupt with a readied action." I said that "For someone to attack a Wizard during his casting, they must use a readied action, which limits them to only a standard action."
So to prove me wrong, you would need to present a counterexample where someone attacks a Wizard during his casting without using a readied action. You have not done that.
Quote from: Kaelik;551071That would be relevant if it were possible to start your turn next to a Wizard who is your enemy. But since you do not begin your turn adjacent, you can never have not moved last round, and still have a readied action.
Sorry, I might agree that fighters suck, but this sort of argument doesn't fly.
Quote from: Drohem;551072LOL! Why would I engage this since I've already proved you wrong on the issue?
It's cool, dude, you're the type of person who just can't admit they're wrong when it thrown in their face. I understand. You call me an idiot, and I'm calling you an idiot now so we're good. :)
Just don't say stupid things again, I won't throw it in your face again. ;)
You know, I was going to respond to your assertion earlier, but I figured someone else would. I think anyone who's played much 3E understood what was meant; perhaps you haven't played much 3E? In reality, particularly at higher level, a Readied Action is pretty much the only way to disrupt a spellcaster. Is it the only way? No. Is it the only practical way? Yup. So you can go off on an equally autistic tangent over exact wording, or you can acknowledge that what was said was essentially correct.
Thanks, guys -- been lurking for a while. Loving the shitstorm brewing here. ;)
Quote from: Kaelik;551071That would be relevant if it were possible to start your turn next to a Wizard who is your enemy. But since you do not begin your turn adjacent, you can never have not moved last round, and still have a readied action.
You're right that it's rare, but CRK did include the "if you haven't already moved" caveat, so he did indeed recall correctly.
IOW, someone was wrong on the internet (http://xkcd.com/386/), and I couldn't help myself. I'm not proud of it.
Anyway, rare as it is, it can happen. Maybe the wizard delivered a touch spell, for instance. I'm not saying it's a good idea; I'm just sayin'.
Quote from: Benoist;551073I can see how you can read the passage both ways, but after discussing it for a little while with my wife, I think that's the best way to interpret it. YMMV.
Yes, I was actually posting in response to jibbajibba's post on 1ed. Your post about 2nd ed happened while I was looking it up. I think your interpretation is perfectly reasonable.
Quote from: soulbro;551082Anyway, rare as it is, it can happen. Maybe the wizard delivered a touch spell, for instance. I'm not saying it's a good idea; I'm just sayin'.
You just get the other Fighter to use an Encounter Power that drags the Wizard next to you.
(If everyone else is mixing editions I don't see why I can't)
Quote from: jadrax;551083Yes, I was actually posting in response to jibbajibba's post on 1ed. Your post about 2nd ed happened while I was looking it up. I think your interpretation is perfectly reasonable.
It's hard to argue any other interpretation than jibba's for 1E. A lot of this is why it's kinda important to specify edition when having a nerdrage slapfest over the rules.
Oh, and once again, it's completely disingenuous to talk about how it's not a problem because your houserule fixes something when others are trying to discuss whether or not a rule is problematic. Who cares what your houserules are when talking about RAW? We can get to your lovefest with the game when someone wants to know how to address the problem.
Quote from: jadrax;551085You just get the other Fighter to use an Encounter Power that drags the Wizard next to you.
(If everyone else is mixing editions I don't see why I can't)
Hehe. I was actually thinking that someone could've bull rushed the wizard such that he ended up adjacent to the fighter. So, yeah!
This is really quite the train wreck. Glancing through I seem to be piled in with the people defending 3e wizard interupts. My position is they should be interupted on any succesful attacks, because interupting a wizard is one of the big balancers for melee fighters and it makes sense to me logically. My only point all alon has been some people are going to be fine with 3e style concentration checks for wizards and telling them they are wrong for liking it, or that it is objectively bad design is just silly. I never said people couldn't be wrong about hard mechanical facts (casting times for specific spells, damage for specific attacks, chances of a bab hitting a particular AC, etc). So saying someone is wrong about basic facts: great. Calling someone an idiot or wrong because they disagree with your analysis of facts (i.e. The fighter is imbalanced, i don't get enough buffs, kingdom management isn't fun) is pretty pointless.
That said, i am genuinely not interested enough to look up who is more correct about the feasibility of interupting a 14 con wizard in 3e (been about three or four years since my last real 3E game...would much rather spend today designing the Golden Fawn Wine Shop than looking up stuff in the third edition PHB). This conversation has been on a heavy downward spiral for several pages now.
Quote from: Benoist;551057Not my reading. The way the rule is worded in 2nd ed seems to clarify the meaning here, to me, and I think that's what is intended from the start, despite the missing comas.
That's what's great about this game: I'm the DM. I can make calls like this.
I agree you can change the rule but its meaning here and especially when it states all less than 3hd must make a save or flee is clear.
I also agree that the 2e version is weaker and much clearer.
Absolutely your table your rules.
Five-foot steps should not exist. They exist primarily for the purpose of allowing wizards to circumvent the rules that keep their spells from being interrupted. Also, casting defensively sucks.
Quote from: B.T.;551098Five-foot steps should not exist. They exist primarily for the purpose of allowing wizards to circumvent the rules that keep their spells from being interrupted. Also, casting defensively sucks.
Agreed.
Found the full 1st edition version (well according to the internet, my books are MIA) - looks like if your under 1HD you flee, *But* only if the dragon is Flying Overhead or Charging, it's not automatic on sight like 2nd.
QuoteDragons also develop the power to panic enemies as they mature. At adult age and older they radiate a powerful aura which causes a fear reaction, when a dragon flies overhead or charges, as follows1. All creatures under 1 hit die, as well as non-carnivorous creatures of any sort which are not trained for warfare or basically not fearless or aggressive will flee in panic. Such rout will be made at fastest speed possible, and it will continue for 4-24 turns.2. Creatures with fewer than 3 hit dice must save versus magic or be paralyzed with fear (50%)or panic as above (50%).3. Creatures with 3 or more hit dice will fight at a penalty of -1 on their hit dice unless they also save versus magic.4. Creatures with 6 or more hit dice automatically disregard the aura affect.5. The aura of adult, old, and very old dragons is not as that of ancient dragons, so saving throws applicable to their auras are at +5, +3, and +1 respectively. Thus, a 2nd level fighter, normally having to score 16 (75%) or better to save against magic (the dragon-s aura in this case), would gain a bonus of 5 on his saving throw versus an adult dragon-s aura; so any score of 11 or more would save him from panic
Quote from: B.T.;551098Five-foot steps should not exist. They exist primarily for the purpose of allowing wizards to circumvent the rules that keep their spells from being interrupted. Also, casting defensively sucks.
I think five foot steps came from a good place but were utterly abused. On the surface I like the idea losing mobility to avoid stuff like attacks of opportunity. But the five foot step became a bit like checking for traps every five feet. Five foot steps are great for fighters trying to close in or disengage. But they shouldn't apply, imo, to wizards seeking to avoid an interupt.
Quote from: Bobloblah;551081You know, I was going to respond to your assertion earlier, but I figured someone else would. I think anyone who's played much 3E understood what was meant; perhaps you haven't played much 3E? In reality, particularly at higher level, a Readied Action is pretty much the only way to disrupt a spellcaster. Is it the only way? No. Is it the only practical way? Yup. So you can go off on an equally autistic tangent over exact wording, or you can acknowledge that what was said was essentially correct.
Well, I've played plenty of 3.0 D&D and 3.5 D&D, but that's beside the point. :)
Here, I'll show exactly what he said:
Quote from: Kaelik;550953Stop being the idiotic troll you are. I never said he was invincible. I said that because of the changes in casting time versus action costs of attacks, Wizards can only be interrupted by a readied action. Since readied actions are standard actions, not full attacks, the damage is greatly decreased relative to the monsters normal damage, and the Wizard is more likely to make the check.
See, it's pretty clear here that he said, 'Wizards can only be interrupted by a readied action.'
As you admitted, it's not the only way. So, please drop the retarded absolutism.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;551105I think five foot steps came from a good place but were utterly abused. On the surface I like the idea losing mobility to avoid stuff like attacks of opportunity. But the five foot step became a bit like checking for traps every five feet. Five foot steps are great for fighters trying to close in or disengage. But they shouldn't apply, imo, to wizards seeking to avoid an interupt.
That sounds very reasonable I may have to use that as a houserule. Because I think concentration checks are quite enough. I would just rule it that way because in the act of casting defensively you are doing too many other things to be able to purposely step back to disengage like that.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;551105I think five foot steps came from a good place but were utterly abused. On the surface I like the idea losing mobility to avoid stuff like attacks of opportunity. But the five foot step became a bit like checking for traps every five feet. Five foot steps are great for fighters trying to close in or disengage. But they shouldn't apply, imo, to wizards seeking to avoid an interupt.
Given the whole Attack of Opportunity system, I just don't think the designers actually realised how a free 5 foot step could often completely negate it. Certainly none of the games I was in ever caught on to that for a least a year or two.
Quote from: Benoist;551073To me, it's clear the less than 1 HD automatic panic is meant for peaceful creatures and commoners. Normal, mundane critters, in other words. I would consider men-at-arms to be trained and be able to resist being routed, in this case granting a saving throw as less than 3 HD creatures, as noted in the Dragon's description.
FWIW that's not how I play it – men-at-arms are regular soldiers and do run when they see dragons. Get a contingent of elite soldiers though, they're all level 1 fighters, and have a (pretty bad) chance to save. You're also not considering cumulative morale effects from a common-sense angle: if 80% of the soldiers turn and run, do the remaining 20% stand their ground?
Quote from: Drohem;551107Well, I've played plenty of 3.0 D&D and 3.5 D&D, but that's beside the point. :)
Here, I'll show exactly what he said:
See, it's pretty clear here that he said, 'Wizards can only be interrupted by a readied action.'
As you admitted, it's not the only way. So, please drop the retarded absolutism.
What retarded absolutism? Yours? I thought it was awfully clear from his post what was meant, because I've played 3.x. Lots. How much you have, or haven't, isn't besides the point because it speaks directly to the fact that you didn't seem to understand the non-retarded absolutist interpretation of what was said. Again, can you interrupt a caster in another way? Sure. But for nearly all intents and purposes, it's Readied Action or bust. That's not retarded absolutist - that's acknowledging the reality of the interaction of the rules.
Quote from: soulbro;551082You're right that it's rare, but CRK did include the "if you haven't already moved" caveat, so he did indeed recall correctly.
Thanks.
I'm not sure how it's determined that you can "never" start a turn adjacent to an enemy, probably the Mage's innate awesomeness, but if you did, the mage couldn't just step off and fire.
Quote from: Kaelik;551071That would be relevant if it were possible to start your turn next to a Wizard who is your enemy. But since you do not begin your turn adjacent, you can never have not moved last round, and still have a readied action.
I would ready
Readying an Action
You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action.
Distracting Spellcasters
You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell." If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Concentration check result). a charge
Movement During a Charge
You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.....
If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed). You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn.But that's just me being silly
Now back to
(http://www.popcorn-song.com/img/popcorn.gif)
Quote from: MGuy;550753Now you say a fighter doesn't need" special powers but everyone who has defended the fighter assumes he has "MAGIC" equipment. And for me to suggest that he should be find without it caused disagreement. SO I said I would be fine then if the magic equipment weren't something random that it was just part of the fighter's features.
How many fighters in 2E go through the game eschewing any and all magic items since they don't need "powers"?
See, your argument here is revealing more about your personality than about anything related to some version of D&D. To get right to the heart of the matter: when I said "Fighters don't NEED special powers" (followed by "YOU need special powers",) I'm referring to the fact that D&D, at least for the vast majority of pre-3e players, is not about what powers you get, it's about what you can do with any and all resources around you. It's not about what your class can do, although some people turned it into that, creating the concept of "niche protection" and then eventually redesigning the game to suit the idea of "it's all about powers".
That's fine if you want that, but when you come to a group of people who mostly play a different way and whine about how powerless the Fighter is or how over-powered the Wizard is, I have to say again: You broke it, you bought it. Stop complaining to *me* about how *your* game sucks, and just fix it for yourself.
This, incidentally, is why you and Frank keep stumbling over the "anyone can raise an army/hide behind rocks/track a dragon" issue. We bring that up, because for us, the game is about stuff anyone could potentially do, given whatever resources are available. We don't worry about magic spells because (1) they're a resource, and run out much more easily than other resources, and (2) in actual play, wizards turn out to be their own worst enemy, since the more spells they have at their disposal, the more likely it is that they will screw up.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;550891So really, we've had 80+ pages of bullshit arguments because things are really dependent on which edition you're playing with :)
Yep. Which is why it's been my contention from early on that the argument is really about taking responsibility for your own play and not worrying about hypotheticals. The Wizard burns brightly, for a short time; the Fighter burns dimly, but practically forever. If a person plays a Fighter and gets envious of the Wizard, that person should pick a different class, or get a better attitude.
If a person cannot accept the possibility that a Wizard may, at some point, outshine the Fighter, then that person should pick a system where that isn't possible.
And if a person simply cannot abide the idea that someone, somewhere, is outshining the Fighter for one brief moment, that person should just GET BENT. Because it's nobody's business.
For the record, I'm talking to people who don't play 0e or 1e or 2e and yet have ideas about how other people should play their characters, like good ol' Jibbajabba:
Quote from: jibbajibba;550892Ironic that he got Tenser's transformation though in light of the thread.
Remember Tenser was Gygax's own character that built up a raft of spells (which if I recall from the Rouge's Gallery suppliment for 1e the Tenser given there couldn't actually cast :) ) who was famous for buffing himself and wading into melee combat rather than providing artillery support or buffing the figther as a good controller ought to .....
"
As a good controller ought to".
That speaks volumes about the problem with this conversation, doesn't it?
Tenser isn't a controller, because that's a 4e-ism that doesn't exist in TSR D&D. And for some reason, people who play TSR D&D (usually) don't think in terms of what a character class "ought" to do, but in terms of what they *want* to do. Only a dumb-ass would complain that "Tenser isn't buffing me the way he should" in TSR D&D. The wizard-player can do whatever they want; it's much more fun that way, because then they will make MISTAKES.
Quote from: Bobloblah;550904I don't think Frank and his coterie from the gaming den have been arguing all that much about editions prior to D&D3.x
In fact, I find a lot of this argument from older edition warriors to be a bit strange, perhaps even a bit disingenuous. Many of the same people saying, "There's no problem!" are willing to admit that many TSR era spellcaster limitations have been removed, the Cleric was significantly buffed, and the Druid was a serious mistake in design. Not that this is any sort of exhaustive list. But mention these problems and there's an endless mantra of, "No there isn't! I'm playing 2E, and it's fine!"
It's not disingenuous, because the argument is not about which edition introduced extreme imbalance between classes or how much imbalance individual people are OK with. The argument arose because someone said "I'm OK with imbalance" and some people said "you CANNOT be OK with imbalance! It's objectively wrong! You can't allow this, and here's PROOF!" And the latter group is getting more frustrated with the argument because other people won't accept their proof, because
personal preferences are not open to veto by outsiders. All a "mathematical proof" or hypothetical edge-case proves is (1) someone can do math, maybe; and (2) if someone dislikes X and the analysis proves X applies to a set of rules, then they won't like those rules. They're trying to prove, mathematically, that we should like what they like.
Now, if the issue were "did the Magic-User become ridiculously overpowered?" I'd be happy to weigh in on that subject in another thread. I started with a house-ruled 0e, moved on to 1e, took a detour through other games before returning to D&D. And I specifically prefer 0e now, because I see flaws in 1e, including, but not limited to: clerics getting spells at 1st level, bonus spells, clerics getting spells that cause damage, M-Us getting ranged damage before 5th level, watering down of the spell research requirement. Other editions added things I liked even less.
I've seen some forum invasions in my time, but from Gaming Den? Really?
Man that's a lot of words just to say 3e isn't D&D.
Quote from: One Horse Town;551167I've seen some forum invasions in my time, but from Gaming Den? Really?
I'm pretty happy with what these "invasions" do for our pace, as long as it's all RPG related.
Quote from: soulbro;551082You're right that it's rare, but CRK did include the "if you haven't already moved" caveat, so he did indeed recall correctly.
You are correct, he did accurately state the specific rule.
Quote from: soulbro;551082Maybe the wizard delivered a touch spell, for instance. I'm not saying it's a good idea; I'm just sayin'.
Assuming we are talking level 6+where Defensive Casting is strictly superior, delivering a touch spell would not risk interrupting the spell, since you would first cast the spell, then initiate the touch attack, and if struck, that would only end the touch attack, not interrupt the spell.
Quote from: CRKrueger;551155Thanks.
I'm not sure how it's determined that you can "never" start a turn adjacent to an enemy, probably the Mage's innate awesomeness, but if you did, the mage couldn't just step off and fire.
Well, unless the Wizard literally doesn't know you exist until you are already adjacent to him, you can't do it. It's a simple matter of turn resolution.
X_Y
X is Wizard, Y is fighter. If Y is any distance away when the Wizard spots him and they begin combat, then it goes:
Fighter first (just because it doesn't matter for the purpose of this).
Fighter moves adjacent to Wizard, then readys an action.
Wizard 5ft steps back, and the Fighter cannot 5ft step with him, because he has moved this round, Wizard casts Flesh to Stone, and it fails.
Fighter 5ft steps and full attacks, or (to keep with readied actions) he moves or 5ft steps, and then readys an action.
Wizard goes and 5ft steps, Fighter cannot follow, because he moved this turn.
Ect.
Alternatively, if he charges in the first round, then in the second round the Wizard 5ft steps back.
On the Fighters turn, he moves or 5ft steps adjacent to the Wizard, then readys an action.
On Wizard's turn, he 5ft steps backward, and once again the Fighter cannot follow, because he moved this round.
You have to literally begin directly adjacent to the Wizard when you begin your turn, and that will only happen if you have some kind of really good surprise.
Of course, if you have really good surprise, more than likely, the Wizard just dies in the attack, thus defeating the purpose of readying an action.
Quote from: Sommerjon;551163I would ready
Readying an Action
You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action.
Distracting Spellcasters
You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell." If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Concentration check result).
a charge
Movement During a Charge
You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.....
If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed). You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn.
But that's just me being silly
There are two problems with that.
1) It is not true when you ready an action that you are able to take only a standard action. Since you can't use a full round action during your readied action. You cannot charge.
2) If the Wizard is 5ft away, you cannot charge 10ft, which is a requirement for charging. You must charge directly at the Wizard, but you will only move 5ft that way. So you fail to charge if you attempt to ready a charge.
Quote from: Kaelik;551173Assuming we are talking level 6+where Defensive Casting is strictly superior, delivering a touch spell would not risk interrupting the spell, since you would first cast the spell, then initiate the touch attack, and if struck, that would only end the touch attack, not interrupt the spell.
And afterward, either way, the fighter would begin his next turn adjacent to the wizard, which was my point. :)
Quote from: One Horse Town;551167I've seen some forum invasions in my time, but from Gaming Den? Really?
It does liven the place up because it's great popcorn reading. :)
@Talysman, I was thinking the same thing about the term controller as for the rest I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
@Aos, I get what you're saying but 3x is fully Dnd just not your style of it. Now if you say the same about 4e you might be on to something.:D
Quote from: Marleycat;551195@Aos, I get what you're saying but 3x is fully Dnd.
I understand that English is your second language, so I'm going to let this nonsense pass.
Marleycat, I'm surprised you'd deign to feed the troll.
Regarding magical equipment - I don't mind using equipment as a fighter. I enjoy having swords and armor.
What I don't like is the point where the armor and weapons have to be so SUPERIOR to my character's natural abilities that they provide the full functionality.
For example, an 8th level fighter with an 18 strength (starting) can raise that to 20, which provides a +5 bonus to damage. Weapon Specialization provides another +2 bonus. A feat like Power Attack might provide another bonus, if your chance of hitting is good enough that you're willing to take a penalty to hit for extra damage. But consider that a +7 damage before you figure in magical items.
The 'Belt of Giant Strength' that you're wearing by this point is providing you a +3 bonus to attack and damage. The weapon that you're using is probably equivalent to a +1 to attack, but at least +2d6 to damage. So the magical bonus to damage is 2d6+4.
The fact the magic items contribute MORE than your class abilities is where it becomes a problem. If you want to use the 'sword passed down by your father' - you're shit out of luck. You can't afford to give up the magical item for story reasons because at that point, the magic items are the only thing keeping you in the game.
And again - in some editions of the game, other classes can use that equipment just as effectively.
@Kaelick, what kind of insane interpretation is that? You can make a move and standard action each round as vanilla baseline if the fighter is within 30 feet she isn't getting any 5 foot step until she makes a concentration check to keep her spell and if she's hit it won't be easy. After that do all the 5 foot steps you want if the fighter has initiative. The whole thing is bullshit start to finish. You have some whack interpretation without taking the environment in account just silly. This kind of pendantry is why I play Pathfinder and Fantasy Craft or use Trailblazer mods.
@Aos, I bow to your superior intellect or sarcasm, whichever is most appropriate.;)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;551205Marleycat, I'm surprised you'd deign to feed the troll.
Regarding magical equipment - I don't mind using equipment as a fighter. I enjoy having swords and armor.
What I don't like is the point where the armor and weapons have to be so SUPERIOR to my character's natural abilities that they provide the full functionality.
For example, an 8th level fighter with an 18 strength (starting) can raise that to 20, which provides a +5 bonus to damage. Weapon Specialization provides another +2 bonus. A feat like Power Attack might provide another bonus, if your chance of hitting is good enough that you're willing to take a penalty to hit for extra damage. But consider that a +7 damage before you figure in magical items.
The 'Belt of Giant Strength' that you're wearing by this point is providing you a +3 bonus to attack and damage. The weapon that you're using is probably equivalent to a +1 to attack, but at least +2d6 to damage. So the magical bonus to damage is 2d6+4.
The fact the magic items contribute MORE than your class abilities is where it becomes a problem. If you want to use the 'sword passed down by your father' - you're shit out of luck. You can't afford to give up the magical item for story reasons because at that point, the magic items are the only thing keeping you in the game.
And again - in some editions of the game, other classes can use that equipment just as effectively.
I understand but don't agree with you. To me a Dnd fighter is mostly his equipment in 3e because they took her good saves, all her skills and let everyone be a weapon specialist and so on and so forth .....
One of the few things I agree with Frank on is the fact that the concept of Dnd fighter is too general and that the 3x fighter is hopeless without multiclassing or better yet dropping the pretense and just forcing all vanilla fighters into a Bo9S path at no later than 10th level, preferably sooner. Pathfinder improves it but not enough. Fantasy Craft nails it though.:)
There are ways to do this ...
1. The Bo9S solution.
2. The FC solution (making the martial classes more powerful in many different ways while limiting MU's in small but important ways.
3. Going back to pre 3e and giving the fighter her fucking toys back and putting all the classic limits on magic users again.
4. Etc., etc.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;551205Marleycat, I'm surprised you'd deign to feed the troll.
Regarding magical equipment - I don't mind using equipment as a fighter. I enjoy having swords and armor.
What I don't like is the point where the armor and weapons have to be so SUPERIOR to my character's natural abilities that they provide the full functionality.
For example, an 8th level fighter with an 18 strength (starting) can raise that to 20, which provides a +5 bonus to damage. Weapon Specialization provides another +2 bonus. A feat like Power Attack might provide another bonus, if your chance of hitting is good enough that you're willing to take a penalty to hit for extra damage. But consider that a +7 damage before you figure in magical items.
The 'Belt of Giant Strength' that you're wearing by this point is providing you a +3 bonus to attack and damage. The weapon that you're using is probably equivalent to a +1 to attack, but at least +2d6 to damage. So the magical bonus to damage is 2d6+4.
The fact the magic items contribute MORE than your class abilities is where it becomes a problem. If you want to use the 'sword passed down by your father' - you're shit out of luck. You can't afford to give up the magical item for story reasons because at that point, the magic items are the only thing keeping you in the game.
And again - in some editions of the game, other classes can use that equipment just as effectively.
I don't actually like even AD&D weapon specialization, since it means the fighter is tied into one particular weapon and (unless they went the boring longsword specialization route) probably won't want to use whatever magical weapon they find. But in 3E, these have become among the worst feats in the game, which is a bit sad. Try redoing your numbers with say, Power Attack+Leap Attack+Shock Trooper (triple power attack and assign the to-hit penalty to AC) and you'll find the fighters feats are a much better contribution to damage compared to the magic weapon. Beyond that, though: extra attacks from high BAB, or from feats such as Cleave or Two Weapon Fighting, are multiplying the effect of the weapon. Also, the fighters basic proficiency in all weapons is what lets them use most things they find as well; the cleric will have to burn a feat to use a magic longsword or longbow, for instance (the wizard could do that too, but it would essentially be a waste).
If you do want 'the sword of your father' in 3E there is an Ancestral Weapon feat in Exalted Deeds that lets you upgrade a weapon as you go up level...if the GM is kind and perhaps lets you start with a masterwork weapon, you can buy upgrades yourself at the local magic item megamart. Otherwise, its pretty reasonable that someone will want to ditch their father's sword when they find Excalibur.
Double post.
This is why you do what FC did and allow pure fighters be classic Dnd specialists in all weapons and leave double/triple specialization to short feat trees no more than 3 to a chain and each level giving a stance or maneuver with some weapons granting access to wholly different weapons feat chain WITHOUT taking a single feat in said chain.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;551215I don't actually like even AD&D weapon specialization, since it means the fighter is tied into one particular weapon and (unless they went the boring longsword specialization route) probably won't want to use whatever magical weapon they find.
I absolutely agree. But when you're playing a Fighter, you often find yourself feat whoring yourself for every +1 you can get. Which of course, also encourages the 'magi-mart'. 'Shoot, I found this +4 vorpal scythe of wounding, but I have weapon specialization in longsword, so I'll just trade it in for an additional elemental property on my existing weapon.'
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;551215But in 3E, these have become among the worst feats in the game, which is a bit sad. Try redoing your numbers with say, Power Attack+Leap Attack+Shock Trooper (triple power attack and assign the to-hit penalty to AC) and you'll find the fighters feats are a much better contribution to damage compared to the magic weapon.
Trust me when I say I have nearly every book released for 3rd edition unless it is setting specific, but I'm not familiar with these off the top of my head. But it sounds like it's really just compounding the problem. In 3.5, the Fighter's best option in every case is to full attack. If you make your build so your best option is to charge every round, that's what you do every round. A good game system will make it so charging is good, full attacking is good, using combat maneuvers (trip, disarm, grapple, etc) will be good - depending on circumstance. The fighter feats, even through they're supposed to make you more broadly useful - once you pick one, you pretty much focus on that theme to the exclusion of all other themes - because the rules reward doing your optimal attack over and over again...
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;551215Also, the fighters basic proficiency in all weapons is what lets them use most things they find as well; the cleric will have to burn a feat to use a magic longsword or longbow, for instance (the wizard could do that too, but it would essentially be a waste).
In a lot of games I play, I end up playing the cleric. I don't mind, and despite the obvious power bump the cleric enjoys, a lot of people I've gamed with don't care much for it (usually because they've had experience where the cleric's only option was to heal other party members). When I play a cleric, it is extremely rare for me to not have some martial weapon proficiencies.
[Note - this is an example from 3rd edition]
For example, an elf gains automatic proficiency with both the longsword and longbow, as well as some other weapons. A cleric with the war domain (a popular choice) begins with weapon proficiency and weapon focus with the deity's favored weapon - even an exotic one. Likewise, if you're not actually interested in the 'cleric part' of the cleric, you can take a level of fighter (or better, ranger) and then take cleric levels from there. While you give up a level of spell-casting, the extra hit points, skill points, and martial weapon proficiencies are likely a fair trade - and then when you consider your buffs, you're a better fighter than a fighter...
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;551215Otherwise, its pretty reasonable that someone will want to ditch their father's sword when they find Excalibur.
This one I don't agree with - at least not fully. I don't know how familiar you are with the King Arthur mythos, but depending on the source, Arthur had both the Sword in the Stone and later was gifted with Excalibur by the Lady of the Lake. If there are two separate swords, giving up the one you proved your divine right to rule by is a pretty difficult choice, even if Excalibur is 'more powerful'. The 'son wanting to follow in the footsteps of his father' is a popular trope. Record of Lodoss War (an anime series that people that like D&D and don't like anime will like) features Parn who uses his father's equipment throughout the series - upgrading is never featured because it would detract from the story.
If there are story reasons to upgrade, I'm all for it, but the fact is, the fighter is in an arms race that he can only win by using the best sword he can get at any time. This would be an example where a class feature would make sense. For example, instead of the Feat
Weapon Focus the fighter could get this as a class ability at 1st level.
Weapon Focus A fighter's experience with all types of weapons helps him to make the most of any weapon in his hands.
Benefit Any weapon a fighter wields is treated as a magical weapon (for example to overcome DR/magic). A fighter gains a +1 to attack and damage rolls. This bonus increases by +1 at 5th level and every five levels thereafter (to +5 at 20th level).
Such an ability wouldn't preclude 'adding magical abilities to your ancestral weapon' - especially since you can get more benefit out of a +1 weapon with other enhancements compared to other characters. And this would be a class ability in the sense that it's just a normal weapon when you put it in the hands of a wizard or a cleric.
It would certainly NOT be game breaking in terms of power scaling, and it would be nice that fighters (even low-level ones) actually have a chance to hit incorporeal creatures without magical help...
I'm pretty much of the opinion that if you can't be SURE it looks like magic, it probably has a mundane explanation. So, Fighter w/ automatic 'magic' sword wouldn't make the fighter 'magical' in my mind. And such an ability CERTAINLY doesn't make the fighter more complex or require any resource management.
Those are the types of abilities that I think Fighters CAN and SHOULD get.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;551219Weapon Focus
A fighter's experience with all types of weapons helps him to make the most of any weapon in his hands.
Benefit Any weapon a fighter wields is treated as a magical weapon (for example to overcome DR/magic). A fighter gains a +1 to attack and damage rolls. This bonus increases by +1 at 5th level and every five levels thereafter (to +5 at 20th level).
Or you could just make the attack bonus progression work right, and get rid of DR/magic altogether.
Quote from: beejazz;551222Or you could just make the attack bonus progression work right, and get rid of DR/magic altogether.
That'd be one option, yes. But that ties into the number of attacks question. Some people think having 3 attacks maximum per round is about the maximum level of sanity. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but let's say that you were using a system that kept 20 levels (like D&D 3.5) and a new attack every time your lowest attack -5 = 1 (ie, +6/+1, +11/+6/+1, etc).
Thus, if we posit that the Fighter should get an additional +1 at 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th, we'd end up with a +6 BAB at 5th level (+6/1), a +11 BAB at 9th level (+11/+6/+1), a +16 BAB at 12th level (+16/+11/+6/+1), a +21 BAB at 16th level (+21/+16/+11/+6/+1) and a +26 at 20th level (+26/+21/+16/+11/+6/+1).
That works out to 6 attacks at 20th level (if I didn't make any mistakes there) which is certainly a lot of rolling.
The main advantage of giving a bonus that doesn't tie directly to BAB is that it doesn't increase the number of attacks beyond what people would consider reasonable to roll.
The secondary advantage is that this would provide a bonus to damage as well - which is important.
But the 'prescriptive' adjustment I offered above isn't really intended as something that we should debate whether or not it should be attached to the class or not. The fact is, 3.5 is no longer supported, and a new edition is coming out soon. If you're playing 3rd edition and you want to let Fighter's in your game get that as an extra class ability at 1st level, that's fine with me, but I intended that as an
example of the type of thing that I think they could do with D&D Next that would make me happy, and I would anticipate only minimally annoy other people (though if there's one thing I've learned about gamers is that even a 'minimal annoyance' will get a very lengthy response).
As far as it goes, it doesn't 'look' magical. What's the difference between hitting for 8 points of damage and 10 points of damage? If you can't tell by looking, then is there any magic?
I tend to consider my responses pretty carefully, so I'll also point out that by being a 'magic bonus' it wouldn't stack with other 'magic bonuses'. If you find a +3 sword, and your Weapon Focus (or what ever you actually call it) gives you a +3 bonus with whatever weapon you wield, you don't suffer a disadvantage for using a magical weapon - but you're not getting a bonus either. If the attack and/or damage bonus isn't typed, it will stack with the weapon, which, if taken far enough, can get out of hand.
Another example of the type of ability I imagine would work for a Fighter without 'appearing magical'.
Powerful CriticalA fighter of level (n) deals more damage with a critical hit.
Benefit Increase the critical multiplier of your weapon by one (ie, x2 becomes x3, x3 becomes x4).
Again, a fighter, as a skilled combatant, can probably make those criticals REALLY count (obviously other martial characters can do some real damage with criticals, too - like a rogue adding in sneak attack) but it would be another way for the Fighter to get a 'non-magical' boost to damage based on his skill as a FIGHTER - something a hill giant or other 'strong melee character that lacks the martial training and discipline of a D&D FIGHTER' wouldn't get - something that helps differentiate them from the other characters in the game, help support their existing role and give them a 'subtle' bump in relative power. While a Fighter character would notice the extra damage in the course of a campaign, it's not 'lightning bolts out of his eyes' or anything - and as far as balance? Well, sometimes a critical hit at x3 already does more than enough to kill the enemy - so the extra damage from the x4 might actually be wasted - but because the Fighter character doesn't usually know how many hit points his enemy has, it still FEELS useful - even if it was a waste.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;551219Trust me when I say I have nearly every book released for 3rd edition unless it is setting specific, but I'm not familiar with these off the top of my head. But it sounds like it's really just compounding the problem. In 3.5, the Fighter's best option in every case is to full attack. If you make your build so your best option is to charge every round, that's what you do every round. A good game system will make it so charging is good, full attacking is good, using combat maneuvers (trip, disarm, grapple, etc) will be good - depending on circumstance. The fighter feats, even through they're supposed to make you more broadly useful - once you pick one, you pretty much focus on that theme to the exclusion of all other themes - because the rules reward doing your optimal attack over and over again...
I don't really disagree with that. I could probably manage to build a fighter with a number of tactical options in 3E, but I'd grant it would require much more effort and not be super-optimized. I quite like 2nd edition D&D by the way because using the rules in Complete Fighter your fighter can parry, disarm, trip, grab, attempt called shots with a variety of effects, and pin an enemy's weapon, sap them, and attempt acrobatic manuevers, among various other things. OK, these are actually attemptable by any class, but the fighter is typically better at them. In general, I'd prefer a more versatile combat system that anyone can access rather than a lot of fighter specific powers.
Quote[Note - this is an example from 3rd edition]
For example, an elf gains automatic proficiency with both the longsword and longbow, as well as some other weapons. A cleric with the war domain (a popular choice) begins with weapon proficiency and weapon focus with the deity's favored weapon - even an exotic one. Likewise, if you're not actually interested in the 'cleric part' of the cleric, you can take a level of fighter (or better, ranger) and then take cleric levels from there. While you give up a level of spell-casting, the extra hit points, skill points, and martial weapon proficiencies are likely a fair trade - and then when you consider your buffs, you're a better fighter than a fighter...
You can certainly get free extra WPs with a cleric, but I would point out that you don't necessarily get the *right* extra WPs for whatever things you find. I didn't think you could get exotic weapons with War - or at least, I don't know of any standard deities that grant one.
As beejazz says, if you're going to give fighters free ability to hit creatures that can't be hit with magical weapons, you may as well just ditch DR to begin with, although there are precedents for it in prior editions i.e. the Unearthed Arcana (1E) barbarian could do that.
A discussion of DR is pretty far off-topic, but I mostly agree.
DR/magic is usually high enough that a low-level party without magic weapons will get annihilated, but a party with magic weapons doesn't even NOTICE the DR.
Most of the DR/magic creatures could probably just get DR/- (as long as the number is lower) and work out better.
But things like ghosts, for example, can only be hit with a magical weapon. Since the fighter is supposed to fight things, it'd be good if he stood a CHANCE of hitting, even if he didn't have the right weapon.
While a rogue can't get sneak attack against undead, his conventional weapons will work (at reduced functionality compared to a 'living target'). A Fighter whose job is to be prepared to fight anything would be well served by such an ability - even though it probably won't matter much, because at a pretty early level, the fighter will find a magical weapon, anyways.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;551230The main advantage of giving a bonus that doesn't tie directly to BAB is that it doesn't increase the number of attacks beyond what people would consider reasonable to roll.
The secondary advantage is that this would provide a bonus to damage as well - which is important.
I wasn't really speaking based on the context of 3.5 specifically, so the manner in which iterative attacks are handled (and whether they should be included) is kind of a separate issue.
I'm in full agreement on fighters needing a bit of scaling damage.
QuoteI tend to consider my responses pretty carefully, so I'll also point out that by being a 'magic bonus' it wouldn't stack with other 'magic bonuses'. If you find a +3 sword, and your Weapon Focus (or what ever you actually call it) gives you a +3 bonus with whatever weapon you wield, you don't suffer a disadvantage for using a magical weapon - but you're not getting a bonus either. If the attack and/or damage bonus isn't typed, it will stack with the weapon, which, if taken far enough, can get out of hand.
Bonus types weren't utilized as well as they should have been in practice, but the not stacking with magic bit would be a minor annoyance such as you describe. Minor nitpick I know. As a rule I prefer magic kit to not revolve around numerical patches anyway.
Otherwise I agree with the gist of what you're saying. Simple statistical superiority on a few fronts really should be enough in a lot of ways.
Quote from: Marleycat;551075This whole topic reminds me of the good old days of the Mage the Ascension flamewars. If this site just had a popcorn emoticon I'd be set.:D
Welcome to RPGSite, soulbro!
Wow, that takes me back.
Interesting discussion so far, for some value of 'interesting'. I've been able to pick up many of the same contentious issues from when I stopped playing 3.X D&D years ago.
So many of these issues simply do not exist in my system of choice. Earthdawn has no spell interruption (except at high levels) and no "spells per day"", but enough countermagic & metaphysics to back the spell system that
it causes no problems. Warriors and other "fighter" Adepts are varied enough (especially in ED3), and are all good enough at physical combat magic, that so many of the issues brought up here just don't come up in actual play.
Mind you, this is because Earthdawn was a design reaction to AD&D 2e from the start, and so took into account things learned from that era (ED has no "teleport" style spells, for one prime example... the metaphysics of the world require other tricks).
As I'm actually converting content between the OSR systems and ED3 recently, this has really jumped out at me. Unfortunately, ED3 also suffers from "everyone knows how to do it from playing D&D" syndrome (no Morale rules included but it does have robust Fear mechanics via spells/powers/etc, no Reaction check.. yet it does include an NPC Attitude scale from Friendly -> Enemy)... so it has "half of the system" in many cases. But at this point, I think ED3 does oD&D much better than 3.X/Pathfinder.....
There's a story locally that I quite liked about how some low-level guys ended up fighting a gargoyle, found out they didn't have any weapons that hurt it, but one of them had found a magic belt, and they managed to garrote the gargoyle with it.
In other cases, a ghost may end up being an excuse for some roleplaying, rather than a combat. Or if you need a +6 weapon to whack Asmodeus, that's a quest for the party to go find one. I think DR boning your fighter is the system working as intended, same as wizards not being able to do much against magic-resistant creatures (at least in older editions - I know there are various spells to bypass it in 3E).
Quote from: Telarus;551268Wow, that takes me back.
Interesting discussion so far, for some value of 'interesting'. I've been able to pick up many of the same contentious issues from when I stopped playing 3.X D&D years ago.
So many of these issues simply do not exist in my system of choice. Earthdawn has no spell interruption (except at high levels) and no "spells per day"", but enough countermagic & metaphysics to back the spell system that it causes no problems. Warriors and other "fighter" Adepts are varied enough (especially in ED3), and are all good enough at physical combat magic, that so many of the issues brought up here just don't come up in actual play.io
Mind you, this is because Earthdawn was a design reaction to AD&D 2e from the start, and so took into account things learned from that era (ED has no "teleport" style spells, for one prime example... the metaphysics of the world require other tricks).
As I'm actually converting content between the OSR systems and ED3 recently, this has really jumped out at me. Unfortunately, ED3 also suffers from "everyone knows how to do it from playing D&D" syndrome (no Morale rules included but it does have robust Fear mechanics via spells/powers/etc, no Reaction check.. yet it does include an NPC Attitude scale from Friendly -> Enemy)... so it has "half of the system" in many cases. But at this point, I think ED3 does oD&D much better than 3.X/Pathfinder.....
I do have to honest here when I first joined TBP in 2004 it was in the run up to MtAw and the flamewars were epic. The 3/4e shit doesn't compare. Anyway I caught a 7 day ban in 2004 and proceeded to find Shadownessence and did the Mod/Admin thing until I was permabanned in 2006-7 and decided to show up here, understand me...I prefer White Wolf and Mage especially Mage the Awakening far more than Dnd but at least ED owns up to the LF/QM issue and solves it in a fun way.
Thing is I love ED but never understood the step system until some good people here explained to me.
Quote from: Kaelik;551040Now on to the actual example.
A level 1 Cleric with the War and Planning domain could have Weapon Focus and Proficiency with any given Martial weapon, Extended Spell, Persistent Spell, and Extra Turning twice. He can Persist at least one spell, maybe a second. A single spell could be Divine Favor, which gives him +1 to attack and damage. Therefore, all day he could be +1 damage over the fighter without casting spells, have the same attack bonus, and still have 3 or so other spells left over. The Fighter has some extra feats, but he can't pay them for the anything actually worth being a Fighter.
This problem gets progressively worse. I have a level 13 Cleric who's attack routine is +28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+23/+23/+23/+23/+18/+18/+18/+18
for 3d6+25 damage each. That's all day every day, while simultaneously being immune to every element, having better saves, True Seeing, some other defenses, and having spells left over.
There is some number inflation relative to your edition of choice, but trust me, that's absurd, and makes Fighters cry tears of sadness.
This is a real thing that actually exists, and so when you laugh at me for saying that the Cleric can be better than the fighter, I wonder why you think your ignorance is funny.
I'd like you to go through that whole thing and prove to me that it works. Please let me know which version that you are using, either 3.0 or 3.5 D&D and what spells (including what book they come from).
Now, I have seen the horrible twinked bullshit that is Pun-Pun, so I do not doubt it is possible. However, like the Diplomancer, rules wankery and special snowflake builds often fail due to a lack of common sense during Actual Play.
So, if you do not mind, please prove your claim.
Quote from: talysman;551166See, your argument here is revealing more about your personality than about anything related to some version of D&D. To get right to the heart of the matter: when I said "Fighters don't NEED special powers" (followed by "YOU need special powers",) I'm referring to the fact that D&D, at least for the vast majority of pre-3e players, is not about what powers you get, it's about what you can do with any and all resources around you. It's not about what your class can do, although some people turned it into that, creating the concept of "niche protection" and then eventually redesigning the game to suit the idea of "it's all about powers".
This, incidentally, is why you and Frank keep stumbling over the "anyone can raise an army/hide behind rocks/track a dragon" issue. We bring that up, because for us, the game is about stuff anyone could potentially do, given whatever resources are available. We don't worry about magic spells because (1) they're a resource, and run out much more easily than other resources, and (2) in actual play, wizards turn out to be their own worst enemy, since the more spells they have at their disposal, the more likely it is that they will screw up.
Yep. Which is why it's been my contention from early on that the argument is really about taking responsibility for your own play and not worrying about hypotheticals. The Wizard burns brightly, for a short time; the Fighter burns dimly, but practically forever. If a person plays a Fighter and gets envious of the Wizard, that person should pick a different class, or get a better attitude.
If a person cannot accept the possibility that a Wizard may, at some point, outshine the Fighter, then that person should pick a system where that isn't possible.
And if a person simply cannot abide the idea that someone, somewhere, is outshining the Fighter for one brief moment, that person should just GET BENT. Because it's nobody's business.
For the record, I'm talking to people who don't play 0e or 1e or 2e and yet have ideas about how other people should play their characters, like good ol' Jibbajabba:
"As a good controller ought to".
That speaks volumes about the problem with this conversation, doesn't it?
Tenser isn't a controller, because that's a 4e-ism that doesn't exist in TSR D&D. And for some reason, people who play TSR D&D (usually) don't think in terms of what a character class "ought" to do, but in terms of what they *want* to do. Only a dumb-ass would complain that "Tenser isn't buffing me the way he should" in TSR D&D. The wizard-player can do whatever they want; it's much more fun that way, because then they will make MISTAKES.
It's not disingenuous, because the argument is not about which edition introduced extreme imbalance between classes or how much imbalance individual people are OK with. The argument arose because someone said "I'm OK with imbalance" and some people said "you CANNOT be OK with imbalance! It's objectively wrong! You can't allow this, and here's PROOF!" And the latter group is getting more frustrated with the argument because other people won't accept their proof, because personal preferences are not open to veto by outsiders. All a "mathematical proof" or hypothetical edge-case proves is (1) someone can do math, maybe; and (2) if someone dislikes X and the analysis proves X applies to a set of rules, then they won't like those rules. They're trying to prove, mathematically, that we should like what they like.
Now, if the issue were "did the Magic-User become ridiculously overpowered?" I'd be happy to weigh in on that subject in another thread. I started with a house-ruled 0e, moved on to 1e, took a detour through other games before returning to D&D. And I specifically prefer 0e now, because I see flaws in 1e, including, but not limited to: clerics getting spells at 1st level, bonus spells, clerics getting spells that cause damage, M-Us getting ranged damage before 5th level, watering down of the spell research requirement. Other editions added things I liked even less.
hehehe....
I agree with your sentiments. MY comments about Tenser were supposed to Mock 4e roles which I abhor but at the same time demonstrate for the OSR guys that the idea tha the caster buffs the fighter and that is how the game was laid out in perpetuity is clearly not true. If the Wizard or more realistically the Cleric can buff himself to be a better fighter than the fighter then far from BEING A SHIT ROLEPLAYER he is in fact following a noble tradition that goes back to the begining of the game.
By the way I don't think all players make mistakes, so giving someone a vast array of options and powers and assuming that a lack of player ability to manage such options is an effective limiter is a falsehood. I think there are some very very smart players out there. The guys that organise 60 man MMO raids may not be my ideal play companions or even really role players as far as I am concerned but they run the game like a well organised military unit.
Now I think Figthers and Wizards are imbalanced but I don't really care. If I really care for a particualr game its not hard to tweak about a bit to make them more balanced but generally ... meh.
However, that doesn't mean that I am going to be oblivious to the lack of balance and claim it doesn't exist. If people were prepared to say that fighters are weaker than MUs after 9th but that that is okay then I would be fine with it. I find the denial of the disparity most interesting.
This is especially true of 3e where the disparity is widest and most glaring and where it is 'fixed' through mulitclassing which makes everyone a super hero and removes all concept of the mundane figther as a class which of course leads to 4e, martial powers and wuxia.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;551205Marleycat, I'm surprised you'd deign to feed the troll.
Regarding magical equipment - I don't mind using equipment as a fighter. I enjoy having swords and armor.
What I don't like is the point where the armor and weapons have to be so SUPERIOR to my character's natural abilities that they provide the full functionality.
For example, an 8th level fighter with an 18 strength (starting) can raise that to 20, which provides a +5 bonus to damage. Weapon Specialization provides another +2 bonus. A feat like Power Attack might provide another bonus, if your chance of hitting is good enough that you're willing to take a penalty to hit for extra damage. But consider that a +7 damage before you figure in magical items.
The 'Belt of Giant Strength' that you're wearing by this point is providing you a +3 bonus to attack and damage. The weapon that you're using is probably equivalent to a +1 to attack, but at least +2d6 to damage. So the magical bonus to damage is 2d6+4.
The fact the magic items contribute MORE than your class abilities is where it becomes a problem. If you want to use the 'sword passed down by your father' - you're shit out of luck. You can't afford to give up the magical item for story reasons because at that point, the magic items are the only thing keeping you in the game.
And again - in some editions of the game, other classes can use that equipment just as effectively.
I agree with that.
Want to make my high level D&D fighters more Captain America than Iron Man.
And one of my big peeves is when the sword of your father dilema. Where the figther names the ancient +2 blade he draws from the stone at 5th level but tosses it at 7th becuase he just found a Frost Brand.
Quote from: jibbajibba;551317I agree with that.
Want to make my high level D&D fighters more Captain America than Iron Man.
And one of my big peeves is when the sword of your father dilema. Where the figther names the ancient +2 blade he draws from the stone at 5th level but tosses it at 7th becuase he just found a Frost Brand.
@DeadDMwalking, I like feeding trolls it entertains me.
Ok Jibba, not sure I buy your explanation but you're a 3x player like myself so I'll)let it go this time. :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;551317I agree with that.
Want to make my high level D&D fighters more Captain America than Iron Man.
And one of my big peeves is when the sword of your father dilema. Where the figther names the ancient +2 blade he draws from the stone at 5th level but tosses it at 7th becuase he just found a Frost Brand.
He could always dual wield them :)
Quote from: Marleycat;551206@Kaelick, what kind of insane interpretation is that? You can make a move and standard action each round as vanilla baseline if the fighter is within 30 feet she isn't getting any 5 foot step until she makes a concentration check to keep her spell and if she's hit it won't be easy. After that do all the 5 foot steps you want if the fighter has initiative. The whole thing is bullshit start to finish. You have some whack interpretation without taking the environment in account just silly. This kind of pendantry is why I play Pathfinder and Fantasy Craft or use Trailblazer mods.
I'm sorry, I fail to understand what you are saying here. Could you explain that again differently, and/or more slowly step by step?
Quote from: Marleycat;551206@Kaelick, what kind of insane interpretation is that? You can make a move and standard action each round as vanilla baseline if the fighter is within 30 feet she isn't getting any 5 foot step until she makes a concentration check to keep her spell and if she's hit it won't be easy. After that do all the 5 foot steps you want if the fighter has initiative. The whole thing is bullshit start to finish. You have some whack interpretation without taking the environment in account just silly. This kind of pendantry is why I play Pathfinder and Fantasy Craft or use Trailblazer mods.
I'm sorry, I fail to understand what you are saying here. Could you explain that again differently, and/or more slowly step by step?
Quote from: jeff37923;551308I'd like you to go through that whole thing and prove to me that it works. Please let me know which version that you are using, either 3.0 or 3.5 D&D and what spells (including what book they come from).
Now, I have seen the horrible twinked bullshit that is Pun-Pun, so I do not doubt it is possible. However, like the Diplomancer, rules wankery and special snowflake builds often fail due to a lack of common sense during Actual Play.
So, if you do not mind, please prove your claim.
Well for starters is by "common sense during actual play" you mean either The DM gets mad and bans all the good things the Cleric can do, or everyone punches the guy who wants to play a Cleric in the mouth for the temerity to not be spending all his spell slots babying them, then yes, it's possible for the DM to ban anything. But I'm not going to say that fighters are actually terrible in play because the DM might ban them taking any feats, and arbitrarily halve their HP and BAB.
I strongly suspect that what you consider "Common sense during actual play" is going to be the kind of thing I leave a group over, because I do not enjoy gaming with people who institute it. If on the other hand you mean something like "Sometimes people forget that buffs have durations and/or can be dispelled" then this build takes those sorts of things into consideration, since, as said, I play it in a game, though an extremely high powered one.
That said, the build is very simply a Divine Metamagic Persist Cleric. Sometimes, depending on a lot of factors, you might be a Cleric who turns undead and dip a level into Dread Necromancer for rebuking, and this doubles the usefulness of every extra turning or turning increasing item at the cost of a slightly slower spell progression.
Depending on starting level and some other stuff you usually prioritize Wisdom first, and then Con/Str/Cha or Con/Cha. You take as your domains Spell and whatever else you want, sometimes planning to make getting there faster, sometimes Elf, sometimes War to get Proficiency and Weapon Focus, sometimes just a cool Planar Domain with some spells you like. As your feats, you get Persist spell, Divine Metamagic Persist, and whatever other stuff you want, usually a lot of Extra Turnings fit in there, at some point mathematically Easy metamagic Persist or Practiced Metamagic persist has a greater effect than Extra Turning, you also might want a few good bow feats, like Rapid Shot, but not Manyshot or Precise Shot, because your attack bonus is going to high enough anyway, and you can avoid firing at covered individuals often enough for it not to be worth it. Zen Archery is pretty much mandatory, using your Wis instead of Dex for to hit is a huge swing that allows you to have higher Cha/Con/Wis by ignoring dex.
For Equipment, the most important items are:
1) Your bow or bows. Depending on level and money, these vary, but generally speaking, your only real goal is to get one or two +1 Splitting bows. Because the build revolves around stacking a lot of damage effects onto each attack, more attacks is strictly better. And it's not like you want a +2 or higher bow ever, because you are a Cleric, and you get Greater Magic Weapon.
2) Items that give more turning attempts. There are a lot of different things like this. These, like your extra turning feats, allow you to Persist more spells.
3) Bead of Karma and Ring of Arcane (Persistence?) Something. Don't remember the name right now, but basically, the Bead of Karma will give you +4 to the CL of all your buff spells, which will sometimes help the duration, often increase the numerical benefits, and always make them much harder to dispel. The ring gives another +4 to CL only for the purpose of resisting dispels. So at level 13, your buffs are CL 22 for the purpose of being dispelled, and a level 13 caster using Greater Dispel Magic has to roll a 19 or 20 to remove a buff, and Dispel Magic doesn't work at all.
The spells... well, there are a lot of them. There are probably ones that would add to attack and damage that I don't even use, there are so many, but there is one that helps more than any other, and that is Draconic Polymorph. It's a Personal Range Polymorph with a shorter duration that turns you into a creature with more Str than the average for it's kind. So you use this to turn into an Arrow Demon, who A) have pretty high Str already, and that can all be part of your Longbow Composite with more added on from this spell and others, B) have an Ex ability to effectively dual wield longbows. So, pretty much straight up doubling your damage.
Other spells that help, GMW/Righteous Might/Divine Power/Divine Favor/Whatever the one that gives you a haste effect and a morale bonus to attack and damage/Heroism or Greater Heroism/ect/ect/ect. Too many to count. Also, Heroics is a spell that gives you a fighter feat, so if you really want one, you can have it.
I'll feed you as long as it entertains me. But it's not entertaining or even fun to discuss things with someone that can't read. How about you explain your thesis step by step without the bullshit. I have all day.
Remember that you can move and have a standard action in the same round. Meaning you can move and attack on YOUR imitative not the wizard's.
Why am I even willing to listen to your theorywank? I must be bored.
Quote from: Marleycat;551347I'll feed you as long as it entertains me. But it's not entertaining or even fun to discuss things with someone that can't read. How about you explain your thesis step by step without the bullshit. I have all day.
Remember that you can move and have a standard action in the same round. Meaning you can move and attack on YOUR imitative not the wizard's.
Why am I even willing to listen to your theorywank? I must be bored.
EDIT: You must be confused. I am not contesting that a fighter can attack the Wizard at all. Of course he can, and he should. He can and should attack the Wizard on his own initiative. But, that doesn't interrupt spells. If you attack a Wizard on your own initiative only, you will never interrupt a spell ever.
But I do like how every time you people are obviously wrong about how the game is played, you call it theorywank. It's not theory wank, this is what actually happens in game if you try to interrupt a Wizard. This isn't something I discovered through complex analysis of the rules in my spare time, it's something I discovered when I played a Wizard and was never interrupted by a non archer/Wizard.
/EDIT
I can read. You are typing nonsense, I was asking nicely in the hope you would actually rephrase your nonsense so I could figure out what you meant, but I see that instead when someone nicely asks you to explain yourself you respond by being an asshole, so I will never make the mistake of being nice to you again.
I did explain my thesis.
Assumptions:
1) I assume that the vast majority of times that such a thing will come up, the Wizard and the Fighter will start the first "round" of combat whatever that ends up being, not adjacent to each other.
2) I assume the Wizard will not want to end his turn adjacent to the fighter, because he is concerned about being interrupted.
Now, at the beginning of the first round, the fighter and Wizard are not adjacent, see assumption 1.
To simplify things, I will have the fighter only ready actions to attack the Wizard if he casts a spell, even though it would almost certainly be more productive to actually attack the Wizard, because this is about interrupting spells, and attacking the Wizard on the Fighter's own turn will not ever interrupt a spell.
Therefore, on the first round, the Fighter moves adjacent to the Wizard, and readies an action to attack him if he casts a spell.
It is now the Wizards turn. First, he takes a 5ft step back. Then he begins casting a spell. He is outside the Fighters reach. If the fighter was capable of taking a 5ft step as part of his readied action, he could attack the Wizard, however, the rules clearly state that this is only allowed if he has not yet moved this round. When you check if the fighter moved this round... he did. So he can't 5ft step, and the Wizard is out of his reach, so he can't attack.
Repeat forever, because each time the Wizard will deliberately avoid ending his turn adjacent to the fighter, and the fighter will have to move to end adjacent to him.
Quote from: Marleycat;551323@DeadDMwalking, I like feeding trolls it entertains me.
Ok Jibba, not sure I buy your explanation but you're a 3x player like myself so I'll)let it go this time. :)
I fear I am not a 3x player which I hated from the get go because it put optimisation and player skill at the forefront.
My choices stopped at 2e (pre skills and powers which is a good idea really really really badly implemented).
I outlined this a while back but I feel
0e - 1e = Player skill dominates. What your PC can do is determined by the players skill at the game. So you get what I have come to term the 10foot pole method of play.
2e = Character focus. The growing mechanical bloat of 1e with new classes bringing new mechanical abilites to the fore was stopped and mechanical bloat was replaced with hey nonny roleplaying bloat. Kits replace class bloat and the early ones focus on roleplay elements which later give way to more mechanical bloat.
3e - 3.5 = player skill comes back but shifted onto the page so now players are expected to optimise to get the best from their characters this leads to mechanical bloat and by extension a narrowing of what characters can actually do because of the need to codify what some of them can do thus leading to the need to protect those skills. Reasches its zenith with the multi-classing rules
4e = logial development of 3.5. Once all players are magical becuase mundane characters need to multiclass to keep up so now everyone is magical then why not bite the bullet and make all characters magical from the get go. Once again player skill dictates the game but what characters can do is hard coded so now you are mastering the system and strictly limited by it.
For me as a 'method actor' type roleplayer I want rules and ideas and a version of the rules that supports characterful play so I stick with 2e.
I know this was Off topic but its lunchtime :)
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;551269In other cases, a ghost may end up being an excuse for some roleplaying, rather than a combat. Or if you need a +6 weapon to whack Asmodeus, that's a quest for the party to go find one. I think DR boning your fighter is the system working as intended, same as wizards not being able to do much against magic-resistant creatures (at least in older editions - I know there are various spells to bypass it in 3E).
I'm cool with ghosts being the domain of the cleric, and a few other class-specific monsters like that. As a rule, I prefer cold iron, silver, etc. to magic bonuses, and DR/slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning over even that. You want to encourage a fighter to use multiple weapon types, that's the way to do it. And a fighter should be better able to do this not just thanks to his proficiencies, but because of his carrying capacity.
Quote from: Kaelik;551344That said, the build is very simply a Divine Metamagic Persist Cleric. Sometimes, depending on a lot of factors, you might be a Cleric who turns undead and dip a level into Dread Necromancer for rebuking, and this doubles the usefulness of every extra turning or turning increasing item at the cost of a slightly slower spell progression.
Depending on starting level and some other stuff you usually prioritize Wisdom first, and then Con/Str/Cha or Con/Cha. You take as your domains Spell and whatever else you want, sometimes planning to make getting there faster, sometimes Elf, sometimes War to get Proficiency and Weapon Focus, sometimes just a cool Planar Domain with some spells you like. As your feats, you get Persist spell, Divine Metamagic Persist, and whatever other stuff you want, usually a lot of Extra Turnings fit in there, at some point mathematically Easy metamagic Persist or Practiced Metamagic persist has a greater effect than Extra Turning, you also might want a few good bow feats, like Rapid Shot, but not Manyshot or Precise Shot, because your attack bonus is going to high enough anyway, and you can avoid firing at covered individuals often enough for it not to be worth it. Zen Archery is pretty much mandatory, using your Wis instead of Dex for to hit is a huge swing that allows you to have higher Cha/Con/Wis by ignoring dex.
For Equipment, the most important items are:
1) Your bow or bows. Depending on level and money, these vary, but generally speaking, your only real goal is to get one or two +1 Splitting bows. Because the build revolves around stacking a lot of damage effects onto each attack, more attacks is strictly better. And it's not like you want a +2 or higher bow ever, because you are a Cleric, and you get Greater Magic Weapon.
2) Items that give more turning attempts. There are a lot of different things like this. These, like your extra turning feats, allow you to Persist more spells.
3) Bead of Karma and Ring of Arcane (Persistence?) Something. Don't remember the name right now, but basically, the Bead of Karma will give you +4 to the CL of all your buff spells, which will sometimes help the duration, often increase the numerical benefits, and always make them much harder to dispel. The ring gives another +4 to CL only for the purpose of resisting dispels. So at level 13, your buffs are CL 22 for the purpose of being dispelled, and a level 13 caster using Greater Dispel Magic has to roll a 19 or 20 to remove a buff, and Dispel Magic doesn't work at all.
The spells... well, there are a lot of them. There are probably ones that would add to attack and damage that I don't even use, there are so many, but there is one that helps more than any other, and that is Draconic Polymorph. It's a Personal Range Polymorph with a shorter duration that turns you into a creature with more Str than the average for it's kind. So you use this to turn into an Arrow Demon, who A) have pretty high Str already, and that can all be part of your Longbow Composite with more added on from this spell and others, B) have an Ex ability to effectively dual wield longbows. So, pretty much straight up doubling your damage.
Other spells that help, GMW/Righteous Might/Divine Power/Divine Favor/Whatever the one that gives you a haste effect and a morale bonus to attack and damage/Heroism or Greater Heroism/ect/ect/ect. Too many to count. Also, Heroics is a spell that gives you a fighter feat, so if you really want one, you can have it.
So if the build is very simple, then why are you having trouble explaining in detail how your cleric build can get:
Quote from: Kaelik;551344a level 13 Cleric who's attack routine is +28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+23/+23/+23/+23/+18/+18/+18/+18
for 3d6+25 damage each. That's all day every day, while simultaneously being immune to every element, having better saves, True Seeing, some other defenses, and having spells left over
I think your claim still needs to be proven.
Splitting doubles your attacks, if I recall correctly. Rapid shot gives you another attack (two attacks with splitting). Haste likewise. With full BAB from divine power, he has (3 + 1 + 1) * 2 attacks, so a base of ten attacks. If the arrow demon does what he says it does, he gets another 4-6 attacks on top of that.
It's bullshit, but entirely legal bullshit.
Quote from: B.T.;551378Splitting doubles your attacks, if I recall correctly. Rapid shot gives you another attack (two attacks with splitting). Haste likewise. With full BAB from divine power, he has (3 + 1 + 1) * 2 attacks, so a base of ten attacks. If the arrow demon does what he says it does, he gets another 4-6 attacks on top of that.
It's bullshit, but entirely legal bullshit.
And its exactly this kind of deckbuilding bullshit that makes WOTC D&D so unappealing to run.
It turns play into some retarded assburger arms race and players end up so self absorbed in their personal little Mtg bubbles that the game world becomes scrolling scenery and anything non-crunch heavy is 'LOL Flavortext'.
Quote from: Kaelik;551344Well for starters is by "common sense during actual play" you mean either The DM gets mad and bans all the good things the Cleric can do, or everyone punches the guy who wants to play a Cleric in the mouth for the temerity to not be spending all his spell slots babying them, then yes, it's possible for the DM to ban anything. But I'm not going to say that fighters are actually terrible in play because the DM might ban them taking any feats, and arbitrarily halve their HP and BAB.
I strongly suspect that what you consider "Common sense during actual play" is going to be the kind of thing I leave a group over, because I do not enjoy gaming with people who institute it. If on the other hand you mean something like "Sometimes people forget that buffs have durations and/or can be dispelled" then this build takes those sorts of things into consideration, since, as said, I play it in a game, though an extremely high powered one.
I'd really love to see that character sheet. Have a scan at home?
As for "common sense", how about your character being actually, you know... "a character" with an actual personality, traits, ambitions, desires, needs and wants, friends and associates, a game world around him affecting his decisions and development thereby? Does any of that stuff have any impact on your "build"? Ever?
Or, still "common sense", how about the fact that there are other people playing around you at the game table, that the purpose of the game is to have fun together, not you in your little corner, and that building your character to then only to shrug at the fighter player making a sad face and breaking the game makes you a selfish prick of a human being?
I don't know. Sounds like "common sense" to me, as it pertains to, you know... one of those "Role Playing Games" thingies. You might have heard about them. They're pretty cool to play. You should definitly try when you're done with your deck building bullshit.
Quote from: Kaelik;551344Well for starters is by "common sense during actual play" you mean either The DM gets mad and bans all the good things the Cleric can do, or everyone punches the guy who wants to play a Cleric in the mouth for the temerity to not be spending all his spell slots babying them, then yes, it's possible for the DM to ban anything. But I'm not going to say that fighters are actually terrible in play because the DM might ban them taking any feats, and arbitrarily halve their HP and BAB.
I strongly suspect that what you consider "Common sense during actual play" is going to be the kind of thing I leave a group over, because I do not enjoy gaming with people who institute it. If on the other hand you mean something like "Sometimes people forget that buffs have durations and/or can be dispelled" then this build takes those sorts of things into consideration, since, as said, I play it in a game, though an extremely high powered one.
When I say "Common sense during actual play", I'm talking about character optimization builds which look great on a forum (where they all seem to spring from), but require rare special magic items and/or feat trees and/or successful spellcasting to pull off because to get that uber is complicated and difficult to pull off during Actual Play. The twink can't find the right magic item, their buff spell gets interrupted, they cannot be assed to role-play so their Diplomancer becomes an Aspergersmancer.
The example cleric looks like a math exercise without the proof to demonstrate that it works, or that the math in this case is correct. Once that is proven correct, then all the rest can talked about.
That post of a munchkin cleric has reminded me to put a huge fucking sticky note near my computer:
"Playtest the hell out of skill progression--no munchkin options to remain"
And Frank Trollman keeps on completely deforming what we've actually been talking about on this thread, back on that Gaming Den thread... (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=270825#270825)
Quote from: FrankTrollmanQuote from: MVLet me specify, NOT the neckbeards, I don't know what those people are really wanting, and It hard for me to read thru page after page of people who I'm not sure are talking about the same game as us "AT ALL".
The neckbeards have a relatively simply platform:
- No High Level Adventures! If something can't be done by a human with a lever, they don't want it to be something that can be done.
- Always Succeed! Conversely, if something could even theoretically be accomplished by a man with a lever in the right place at the right time, they want to succeed at doing that. If they announce that they are going to "the mountains" to "find Osama Bin Laden's cave", they expect to succeed. Hell, their actual example was that they would tell the DM to shove it and walk away from the table if the DM expressed incredulity over basically exactly that action.
- No Rules! This actually flows from the first two points. They view rules of any kind with suspicion, because any ability that had any rules text at all could only allow them to succeed at tasks beyond normal people with sticks or disallow them from succeeding at tasks that are theoretically within the realm of normal people with sticks.
Now, you might notice that that is basically the 4rry argument for why skill challenge rules don't need to work. And well, yes it is. There is a lot more overlap between the OSR and the 4e crowds than either would like to admit. That is also why both groups are fringes of the hobby compared to the 3e players.
QuoteThe basic hero story is man with magic sword, kills dragon, marries princess, gets kingdom.
That can honestly, be framed as a fairly low level concept.
It's not just that it can be framed as a low level concept, it is a low level concept. The dragons may or may not have a lot of hit points or something, but when you tell it as a story, individual hit points won't be recorded. If you want to check whether you're having a high level adventure or not, explain the adventure without numbers to a non-gamer friend who has no idea what a gnoll or a baatezu is. Then tell them the story of you going through The Sunless Citadel, or some other iconic low-level adventure. If they can't tell the difference, it's a low level adventure.
The Tomb of Horrors is not a high level adventure. Robilar completed it by bribing a tribe of Orcs to follow him and then sent random Orcs one at a time to poke things until all the deadly traps had been isolated. You could pull that shit off as a zero level character if you had a pile of money and spoke Orcish. A high level adventure would be one that you couldn't complete just by poking at things with a ten foot pole.
Which reminds me: "Owns Big Army" is one of the shittiest "high level" abilities that it is possible to imagine. Sure, it does a few things that a peasant with ingenuity and a ten foot pole cannot (it can let you be in two places at once and get kingdoms to take you seriously in negotiations). But the vast majority of tasks you can do with an army are just things you could do yourself with a rope and some time. In short: almost everything you do with "Owns Big Army" are simply low level tasks in shorter time frames. You can send soldiers to check all the warehouses on the docks, but you could jolly well check them yourself as a first level character, it would just take longer.
-Frank
Posting this in the interest of the users here, to let them know just how much Frank is either (A) fucked in the head to the point of completely misinterpreting whatever feedback he gets that doesn't fit his own conclusions, or (B) a douchebag who can't argue any of this shit without resorting to bold-faced lies. Added bonus: Frank understands FUCK ALL about D&D. But we knew that already, didn't we?
Remember that next time he shows up, folks. You are either talking to a illiterate, delusional douchebag, or a lying, dishonest piece of shit.
That is all.
Quote(B) a douchebag who can't argue any of this shit without resorting to bold-faced lies.
Frank is a disingenuous cunt who surrounds himself with fellating sycophants to stroke off his e-persona. That doesn't preclude him from being right at times, but it does make debate with him pointless. His ideas about high-level fighters have never existed in any iteration of D&D ever, so I don't know the point of arguing with him about it in the first place.
When Frank (and the other guys at the Den) talk math, they are 100% correct, the problem is all the other stuff they say with 100% certainty as if it were math, but it is not.
For instance, that a warrior could never start a combat round next to a wizard.
Take for example the contention that a 0-level guy with lots of money could hire an army of orcs to run through Tomb of Horrors. Yes, theoretically, that is true, however...
How does a zero-level guy get that much money without anyone taking it from him?
Why does an orc tribe listen to a 0-level person?
Too much depends on the individual campaign to say that with any certainty whatsoever.
These simple statements(which are highly unlikely to occur based on most campaigns at the table)casually tossed off and treated as fact are all over the math-based arguments.
Now the Arrow-Demon Machine-gun Cleric I have no doubt can be built, but the fix is obvious. Change the rules so the Arrow-Demon Machine-gun Cleric cannot be built FIRST. Then take a look at how a Bow specialist fighter will compete.
Completely unravel 3e, and rebuild. Don't suggest Fighters get Weaboo-Fightan-Powerz to compensate with an obviously ridiculous magic system. Otherwise you just get ridiculous casters and ridiculous fighters.
Jeez, Ben, feeling a little hostile today?
Quote from: CRKrueger;551451Completely unravel 3e, and rebuild. Don't suggest Fighters get Weaboo-Fightan-Powerz to compensate with an obviously ridiculous magic system. Otherwise you just get ridiculous casters and ridiculous fighters.
Or you could just play Dungeons and Dragons instead.
Quote from: jeff37923;551393When I say "Common sense during actual play", I'm talking about character optimization builds which look great on a forum (where they all seem to spring from), but require rare special magic items and/or feat trees and/or successful spellcasting to pull off because to get that uber is complicated and difficult to pull off during Actual Play. The twink can't find the right magic item, their buff spell gets interrupted, they cannot be assed to role-play so their Diplomancer becomes an Aspergersmancer.
And as I already explained, those sorts of things are covered by the fact that they are not a problem with this build, and in fact, most of my builds, since I play them in games. But I think fundamentally you are confused about how some things work. Your list of faults is:
1) Requires rare special magic items.
2) Requires (rare special?) feat trees.
3) Successful spellcasting.
But of course, a character does in fact get feats, and if they qualify for the feat trees, then they get them. There is no chance of someone failing to be able to take feats, and there are no rare or special feats.
Successful spellcasting is a given, if you mean "able to cast spells" because of course, a Cleric knows all the spells on their list, and possesses the ability to cast them. If on the other hand, as you later stated, you mean something like "events in the game will prevent you from casting the spells" that is quite unlikely with this, since the whole point is you cast all the spells in the morning when you wake up, and they all last at least 24 hours, sometimes longer.
As to items, I've never seen anyone rely on rare or special magic items in their builds, just the regular items that people can buy under the regular rules. As I said for my build, the only relevant items are the CL boosters, which are quite common relative to their worth, items that increase turning attempts, which are easily purchasable, and the splitting bow(s) which take a long time to obtain, because they are quite expensive, but you are a Cleric with access to lots of Divination, so by the time you can afford them, you'll certainly have found some somewhere. None of those are particularly special or rare, and I have not yet encountered any difficulty obtaining the things my character wants under the rules.
Quote from: jeff37923;551393The example cleric looks like a math exercise without the proof to demonstrate that it works, or that the math in this case is correct. Once that is proven correct, then all the rest can talked about.
Well see below, I can demonstrate the AB from memory of specific effects, and the number of attacks, but damage is more complex, and will have to wait.
Quote from: jeff37923;551373So if the build is very simple, then why are you having trouble explaining in detail how your cleric build can get:
I'm not sure what you mean hear, do you want specific math accounting to exactly that bonus. I probably could give you that, but I really don't see why given everything I did say that you don't believe in said attack routine.
Quote from: jeff37923;551373I think your claim still needs to be proven.
Well since I don't have the character sheet or my books at work, hope you'll settle in the short term for the attack numbers.
Arrow Demon allows you to dual wield longbows. From your longbows, you get two splitting ones. Therefore, for each normal attack you would have if you had a regular longbow, you have 4.
A regular longbow user under the effects of Divine Power and Haste (or any haste like effect, such as say Recitation? Might be another name) at level 13 would have, just from BAB:
+13/+13/+8/+3
So when you double that, because you are getting two longbows, and then double that, because each longbow splits, you get 16 attacks.
As to the numbers, I can't do that offhand without a spell list, but just offhand to calculate the highest attack, since all others are just -5 or -10 from that:
+13 from BAB, +5-9 from Wisdom modifier, +4 from a CL 17 GMW, -2 for size category, -2 for dual wielding the bows, +3 from Divine Favor, +4 from Recitation, that alone gives you a range of 25-29 for the first attack.
Can't give you a good accounting of damage without my sources though, because a lot more effects add to damage, and I'd need to know the Strength of an Arrow Demon.
Quote from: Benoist;551388I'd really love to see that character sheet. Have a scan at home?
Not really no. I don't own a scanner.
Quote from: Benoist;551388As for "common sense", how about your character being actually, you know... "a character" with an actual personality, traits, ambitions, desires, needs and wants, friends and associates, a game world around him affecting his decisions and development thereby? Does any of that stuff have any impact on your "build"? Ever?
Yes. He wouldn't be a Cleric Archer is he wasn't already a Cleric committed to a specific god, and like all characters, he has a variety of goals, almost all of which are made easier by being able to murder anyone who opposes them.
If by "effect" make him weaker for no appreciable advancement towards his goals, then no.
Quote from: Benoist;551388Or, still "common sense", how about the fact that there are other people playing around you at the game table, that the purpose of the game is to have fun together, not you in your little corner, and that building your character to then only to shrug at the fighter player making a sad face and breaking the game makes you a selfish prick of a human being?
Wow, you sure love to assume weird things. Why do you think there is some other player who is crying in a corner over this? There isn't even a fighter in the party. I usually don't play with people who get mad at me for making an effective character, so this never comes up. I make a character that is good at what he does, and other people also make characters that are good at what they do.
Quote from: Benoist;551388They're pretty cool to play. You should definitly try when you're done with your deck building bullshit.
Again, this is cute and all, but you live in denial. I do play such games, and have no problem enjoying them. You seem to believe that having made a character is some kind of deck building sin that should not be done, but that is silly. You must have a character before you can play an RPG. I happen to have this character, who plays in a game. It doesn't make any sense to complain that my character exists.
Quote from: Kaelik;551173There are two problems with that.
1) It is not true when you ready an action that you are able to take only a standard action. Since you can't use a full round action during your readied action. You cannot charge.
Here let me break this down for you.
If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed). You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn.You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it.Now your whole contention is hinged upon "or a free action" So I guess we can argue this bit of RAW if you want.
Quote from: Kaelik;5511732) If the Wizard is 5ft away, you cannot charge 10ft, which is a requirement for charging. You must charge directly at the Wizard, but you will only move 5ft that way. So you fail to charge if you attempt to ready a charge.
Never said the fighter had to be that close.
I really get what you are trying to say. Hell even the great EGG knew there was issues with the fighter.
Quote from: GygaxQuote from: Raven CrowkingExcepting, of course, that if you were a cavalier, you couldn't gain double specialization (or even specialization). One requirement is that you are a single-class fighter or ranger.
And, Shadeydm, you can gain double specialization at 1st level.
However, there is only one new method of rolling ability scores in the UA; it is not 9d6 for every ability score. It is intended to ensure that you can make the minimum requirements for any class, though, so close enough.
In UA, you see an attempt to balance the fighter against the Magic-User, Cleric, and other spellcasters. The new classes are designed to be on par with those classes. It is an attempt to create a balance that, if balance was truly the holy mantra that some would have it be, should make us applaud the intent if not the execution.
Ah, at last!
Someone that understands the thrust of the UA work and doesn't muddy the water by getting into edition wars crap
As I have covered on another thread here on these boards what I did not have a chance to get into a revised edition of OAD&D but did have the opportunity to demonstrate in the Yggsburgh campaign setting for the C&C game is the following;
Monster HD number would have remained basically the same, although intelligent monster leader types would have more HD than the run of the mill members of their sort, thus using the attack matrix their chance to successfully attack would remain the same save for exceptional members of their kind that would increase.
Monster HD type would vary by the size and robustness of the creature: Small and relatively puny ones would have d4, those slightly more powerful would have d6, then d8, next d10, and finally d12 for the big and very robust monsters such as ogres, giants, and of course dragons. Furthermore, normal robust adults of large humanoid sort would have their d12 HPs determined by rolling d6 and adding 6 (for 7-12 HPs per HD), while elderly, injured, and immature specimins would only half the normal potential--so a d6 for the d12, This same system applies to the lesser HDs as well--d10, d8, d6, and d4.
Finally the large and powerful or otherwise particularly deadly monsters would have in addition to any strength bonus added to their damage inflicted, a size or attack form bonus equal to the number of HD they possessed (or half that number of the wealer sort getting onlt hald HD potential). Thus for example an oger would be attacking with a +4 additional damage, a hill giant +8 for size and ferocity, plus theior Str bonus, of course.
Now I suppose some whill call that monster munchkinism...
Cheerio,
Gary
P.S. Of course my ideas regarding gaming, and virtually everything else for that matter, change over time because of experience and relection, additional knowledge and understanding. I do believe that is called growth and maturity.
To think there is nothing wrong is to do the opposite of what Gary says "change over time because of experience and relection, additional knowledge and understanding."
Personally I feel they should have broken down the caster classes. There should have been at least 4 divine and 4 arcane classes from the beginning. If that would have happened most of the
friction between class warfare would have gone away.
There needs to be a happy medium between 'Mother may I' and 'Raw is all'. If WotC can find that (not that I delude myself into thinking they can) But it wont happen. Too many have already drawn the line in the sand, sides have been chosen, the colors raised, the insults thrown, and all of that. D&D is a mess. There will never be 'one edition to rule them all' People with their favorite edition already know they have that.
Quote from: Aos;551453Or you could just play Dungeons and Dragons instead.
That's the correct answer.
Quote from: CRKrueger;551451For instance, that a warrior could never start a combat round next to a wizard.
Well, the actual statement is that a Fighter could never begin his initiative next to a Wizard who is attempting to prevent it without surprise.
The advantage to absolute statements with the word never is that you only need to present a single counter example to prove it wrong.
But for some reason you seem loathe to do so.
The only suggested example is, "If the Wizard attempts to use a touch spell against the fighter instead of trying to avoid him." Which is... well, rather silly, since it comes down to "If the Wizard lets him, then the Fighter can start next to him." Which is of course, rather likely that if both people seek to have the same thing happen, it probably will.
Quote from: Sommerjon;551456Here let me break this down for you.
If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed). You can’t use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn.
You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it.
Now your whole contention is hinged upon "or a free action" So I guess we can argue this bit of RAW if you want.
????
No, my contention does not hinge on free action. My contention is that on your turn you have a move action and a standard action.
If you ready an action, you may ready a standard action. But since you have a move action on your turn, you may not ready a charge, since you may not charge as a standard action.
Your turn is not the readied action, it is the entire turn.
Quote from: Sommerjon;551456Here let me break this down for you.
If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed). You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn.
You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it.
Now your whole contention is hinged upon "or a free action" So I guess we can argue this bit of RAW if you want.
????
No, my contention does not hinge on free action. My contention is that on your turn you have a move action and a standard action.
If you ready an action, you may ready a standard action. But since you have a move action on your turn, you may not ready a charge, since you may not charge as a standard action.
Your turn is not the readied action, it is the entire turn.
This thread is not marginalizing the hobby enough. We need to dig deeper into more obscure minutiae by starting a thread about the use of semicolons across the various editions :)
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;551464This thread is not marginalizing the hobby enough. We need to dig deeper into more obscure minutiae by starting a thread about the use of semicolons across the various editions :)
I love the semi-colon; it's my favorite punctuation mark.
Quote from: Kaelik;551460Well, the actual statement is that a Fighter could never begin his initiative next to a Wizard who is attempting to prevent it without surprise.
The advantage to absolute statements with the word never is that you only need to present a single counter example to prove it wrong.
But for some reason you seem loathe to do so.
The only suggested example is, "If the Wizard attempts to use a touch spell against the fighter instead of trying to avoid him." Which is... well, rather silly, since it comes down to "If the Wizard lets him, then the Fighter can start next to him." Which is of course, rather likely that if both people seek to have the same thing happen, it probably will.
At that's the problem with setting up laboratory examples to perfectly prove your point. Now there will be some cases where a lone wizard faces a lone fighter, with the encounter starting at range. There will also be cases where a party of characters meets a party of other beings (you know, 99.
9%) of all D&D encounters :D) at various ranges, with various other spells in effect, with other combatants who may or may not be effecting the movement or position of either party. We know there's none of those, right?
Pointing out the absurdity of the Arrow Demon build = good.
Tossing out non-math based comments to add to the math and treating those as 100% certainties when in fact there are too many variables particular to a specific campaign or situation to claim that in fact does happen with certainty = not good.
Going to the mattresses when one of those non-math-based statements is shown to be relative instead of absolute = asinine.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;551464This thread is not marginalizing the hobby enough. We need to dig deeper into more obscure minutiae by starting a thread about the use of semicolons across the various editions :)
Quite. It also seems to be full of people that have been urged or compelled to come here by Mr. Trollman.
That
could be judged as site disruption.
I don't believe so, myself - as long as the rainmen don't stink up all the threads they touch.
Quote from: CRKrueger;551466At that's the problem with setting up laboratory examples to perfectly prove your point. Now there will be some cases where a lone wizard faces a lone fighter, with the encounter starting at range. There will also be cases where a party of characters meets a party of other beings (you know, 99.9%) of all D&D encounters :D) at various ranges, with various other spells in effect, with other combatants who may or may not be effecting the movement or position of either party. We know there's none of those, right?
I'm really confused.
A) If these situations exist, why can't you name even a single one of them?
B) Of course most of the time encounters involve parties meeting are "various" ranges. But absent some pretty extreme circumstances, all of those varieties are not adjacent. And as I specified, if you begin adjacent through some extremely clever ambush or extremely odd circumstance, it is usually more viable to immediately kill the Wizard, instead of readying an action to interrupt.
Before going off about relative vs absolute, it would do you some good to read and understand the qualifications I have already stated.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;551464This thread is not marginalizing the hobby enough. We need to dig deeper into more obscure minutiae by starting a thread about the use of semicolons across the various editions :)
Quote from: Aos;551465I love the semi-colon; it's my favorite punctuation mark.
If you don't love the ampersand, you don't love D&D.
Quote from: One Horse Town;551467Quite. It also seems to be full of people that have been urged or compelled to come here by Mr. Trollman.
That could be judged as site disruption.
I don't believe so, myself - as long as the rainmen don't stink up all the threads they touch.
Maybe it's just the lawyer in me, but I don't see any evidence of Frank Trollman urging or compelling anyone to come here.
He provided a link to a thread to demonstrate a point. Completely aside from the validity of that point or the probative value of the link, an invitation to read this thread as part of his argument is in no way urging people, much less compelling them, to post here.
I read this thread myself, and felt no desire whatsoever to post until somewhere on PG 50 or so when Benoist's bullying got on my nerves, and led to me posting.
Kaelik's description of a 13th level cleric makes me hate 3e. I would never want to play a game of D&D where that was possible.
Talk about rewarding the player who memorized/gets the most books.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551474Kaelik's description of a 13th level cleric makes me hate 3e. I would never want to play a game of D&D where that was possible.
Talk about rewarding the player who memorized/gets the most books.
Any time you use the word "build" when talking about characters in an RPG, there's something wrong.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551474Kaelik's description of a 13th level cleric makes me hate 3e. I would never want to play a game of D&D where that was possible.
You're in luck, that doesn't happen when you play
actual D&D.
Quote from: Kaelik;551460????
No, my contention does not hinge on free action. My contention is that on your turn you have a move action and a standard action.
If you ready an action, you may ready a standard action. But since you have a move action on your turn, you may not ready a charge, since you may not charge as a standard action.
Your turn is not the readied action, it is the entire turn.
Here.
Charge
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. However, it carries tight restrictions on how you can move.
Movement During a Charge
You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here's what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. (Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.)
If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.
You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.
If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed). You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn.
Attacking on a Charge
After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a -2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.
A charging character gets a +2 bonus on the Strength check made to bull rush an opponent.
Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.
Lances and Charge Attacks
A lance deals double damage if employed by a mounted character in a charge.
Weapons Readied against a Charge
Spears, tridents, and certain other piercing weapons deal double damage when readied (set) and used against a charging character.I underlined and colored the important bit for you.
Quote from: Kaelik;551071That would be relevant if it were possible to start your turn next to a Wizard who is your enemy. But since you do not begin your turn adjacent, you can never have not moved last round, and still have a readied action.
Quote from: Kaelik;551470And as I specified, if you begin adjacent...
So it is possible. Thank you. :hatsoff:
Now about the power disparity between the Wizard/Cleric and Fighter in 3e...do you have a suggestion as to the fix that doesn't involve raising the Fighter to the Wizard and Cleric's ridiculous levels and starts with returning sanity to those classes first?
Quote from: Kaelik;551473Maybe it's just the lawyer in me, but I don't see any evidence of Frank Trollman urging or compelling anyone to come here.
He provided a link to a thread to demonstrate a point. Completely aside from the validity of that point or the probative value of the link, an invitation to read this thread as part of his argument is in no way urging people, much less compelling them, to post here.
I read this thread myself, and felt no desire whatsoever to post until somewhere on PG 50 or so when Benoist's bullying got on my nerves, and led to me posting.
This is allegedly a free speech forum. They just like to threaten bans to keep the proles in line. As long as you don't irritate Pundit, you can largely ignore what the other mods say.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551474Kaelik's description of a 13th level cleric makes me hate 3e. I would never want to play a game of D&D where that was possible.
Talk about rewarding the player who memorized/gets the most books.
It does point out some of the major flaws of D&D.
Too many personnel not all on the same page allowing things to slip through to production.
Stacking modifiers.
Poorly thought out game design.
Quote from: Sommerjon;551478If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed). You can’t use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn.
...
I underlined and colored the important bit for you.
Please learn to read. I keep telling you that when you ready an action to charge, you are able to take both a standard action and a move action. Since you are able to take both of those actions on the turn where you are readying an action, you cannot ready a charge.
You must meet the prerequisite of being restricted to taking only a standard action or a move action, and when you ready an action, you are not restricted in that way.
Quote from: CRKrueger;551480So it is possible. Thank you. :hatsoff:
You are really intent on being purposefully stupid to the end of time, aren't you?
Quote from: CRKrueger;551480Now about the power disparity between the Wizard/Cleric and Fighter in 3e...do you have a suggestion as to the fix that doesn't involve raising the Fighter to the Wizard and Cleric's ridiculous levels and starts with returning sanity to those classes first?
I do not believe that having a "Fighter" is good design. I do not believe that it is advantageous to the game to have a character who's purpose is to be better than other people whenever combat occurs, but less useful outside combat.
I advocate ditching the name fighter all together.
As for the balancing of the [Blood Warrior/Shadow Lord/Ancient Master/Ninja/whatever] vs the [Wizard/Warlock/Storm Lord/Snowsoul/Time Mage/ect] I believe that any such balance attempts need to begin at step one by figuring out what the characters in the game are expected to be doing.
I fundamentally disagree with pretty much everyone on this forum about what characters in the game should be doing.
I would prefer the game to be about kickass dragons that fly around at high speeds burning towns with ease, Demons who teleport anywhere in the world and murder people super hard in a lot of unique ways, and Undead Armies that sweep across the world devouring it wholesale led by an evil Necromancer of intense power.
And I would prefer for each and every PC class to be capable of effectively dealing with all of those threats when they are level appropriate, and doing so primarily by reference to a variety of listed abilities that explain the range of options that each PC has, and can be used creatively in their interactions with the world.
Quote from: CRKrueger;551480So it is possible. Thank you. :hatsoff:
You are really intent on being purposefully stupid to the end of time, aren't you?
Quote from: CRKrueger;551480Now about the power disparity between the Wizard/Cleric and Fighter in 3e...do you have a suggestion as to the fix that doesn't involve raising the Fighter to the Wizard and Cleric's ridiculous levels and starts with returning sanity to those classes first?
I do not believe that having a "Fighter" is good design. I do not believe that it is advantageous to the game to have a character who's purpose is to be better than other people whenever combat occurs, but less useful outside combat.
I advocate ditching the name fighter all together.
As for the balancing of the [Blood Warrior/Shadow Lord/Ancient Master/Ninja/whatever] vs the [Wizard/Warlock/Storm Lord/Snowsoul/Time Mage/ect] I believe that any such balance attempts need to begin at step one by figuring out what the characters in the game are expected to be doing.
I fundamentally disagree with pretty much everyone on this forum about what characters in the game should be doing.
I would prefer the game to be about kickass dragons that fly around at high speeds burning towns with ease, Demons who teleport anywhere in the world and murder people super hard in a lot of unique ways, and Undead Armies that sweep across the world devouring it wholesale led by an evil Necromancer of intense power.
And I would prefer for each and every PC class to be capable of effectively dealing with all of those threats when they are level appropriate, and doing so primarily by reference to a variety of listed abilities that explain the range of options that each PC has, and can be used creatively in their interactions with the world.
Gotta admire the mental gymnastics displayed by the rainmen.
Very entertaining.
Quote from: Kaelik;551344That said, the build is very simply a Divine Metamagic Persist Cleric. Sometimes, depending on a lot of factors, you might be a Cleric who turns undead and dip a level into Dread Necromancer for rebuking, and this doubles the usefulness of every extra turning or turning increasing item at the cost of a slightly slower spell progression.
Depending on starting level and some other stuff you usually prioritize Wisdom first, and then Con/Str/Cha or Con/Cha. You take as your domains Spell and whatever else you want, sometimes planning to make getting there faster, sometimes Elf, sometimes War to get Proficiency and Weapon Focus, sometimes just a cool Planar Domain with some spells you like. As your feats, you get Persist spell, Divine Metamagic Persist, and whatever other stuff you want, usually a lot of Extra Turnings fit in there, at some point mathematically Easy metamagic Persist or Practiced Metamagic persist has a greater effect than Extra Turning, you also might want a few good bow feats, like Rapid Shot, but not Manyshot or Precise Shot, because your attack bonus is going to high enough anyway, and you can avoid firing at covered individuals often enough for it not to be worth it. Zen Archery is pretty much mandatory, using your Wis instead of Dex for to hit is a huge swing that allows you to have higher Cha/Con/Wis by ignoring dex.
For Equipment, the most important items are:
1) Your bow or bows. Depending on level and money, these vary, but generally speaking, your only real goal is to get one or two +1 Splitting bows. Because the build revolves around stacking a lot of damage effects onto each attack, more attacks is strictly better. And it's not like you want a +2 or higher bow ever, because you are a Cleric, and you get Greater Magic Weapon.
2) Items that give more turning attempts. There are a lot of different things like this. These, like your extra turning feats, allow you to Persist more spells.
3) Bead of Karma and Ring of Arcane (Persistence?) Something. Don't remember the name right now, but basically, the Bead of Karma will give you +4 to the CL of all your buff spells, which will sometimes help the duration, often increase the numerical benefits, and always make them much harder to dispel. The ring gives another +4 to CL only for the purpose of resisting dispels. So at level 13, your buffs are CL 22 for the purpose of being dispelled, and a level 13 caster using Greater Dispel Magic has to roll a 19 or 20 to remove a buff, and Dispel Magic doesn't work at all.
The spells... well, there are a lot of them. There are probably ones that would add to attack and damage that I don't even use, there are so many, but there is one that helps more than any other, and that is Draconic Polymorph. It's a Personal Range Polymorph with a shorter duration that turns you into a creature with more Str than the average for it's kind. So you use this to turn into an Arrow Demon, who A) have pretty high Str already, and that can all be part of your Longbow Composite with more added on from this spell and others, B) have an Ex ability to effectively dual wield longbows. So, pretty much straight up doubling your damage.
Other spells that help, GMW/Righteous Might/Divine Power/Divine Favor/Whatever the one that gives you a haste effect and a morale bonus to attack and damage/Heroism or Greater Heroism/ect/ect/ect. Too many to count. Also, Heroics is a spell that gives you a fighter feat, so if you really want one, you can have it.
The fucking cleric gets slaughtered by his god and sent to hell for spending all his time in demon form, end of ruling. You can cry about it if you like, but unless he's an evil cleric to begin with (and thus has a harder time surviving in most campaign worlds) such an apotheosis would be met with extraordinary fury by most other gods.
The only way 3e begins to work is if you ground all the character choices in the campaign world and have them obey campaign logic. You cannot let clerics freely mix and match domains and you absolutely cannot let them shop in the Monster Manuals for monsters to turn into/ summon. They have to be tied to what gods exist in the campaign world and what monsters they have encountered. In this way, you can implement the crucial "are you fucking kidding me?" test that, for example, a cleric that regularly turns into the form of a demon flagrantly violates.
Also you get rid of Divine Metamagic and the magic item shops obviously.
Quote from: Kaelik;551484I do not believe that having a "Fighter" is good design. I do not believe that it is advantageous to the game to have a character who's purpose is to be better than other people whenever combat occurs, but less useful outside combat.
I advocate ditching the name fighter all together.
OK so you hate D&D no big deal. Move on to other games with better design and stay the fuck away from D&D then.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;551493OK so you hate D&D no big deal. Move on to other games with better design and stay the fuck away from D&D then.
He's playing 3e, so he's already got that sewn up.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;551464We need to dig deeper into more obscure minutiae by starting a thread about the use of semicolons across the various editions :)
Semi-colons are old school; new schoolers insist on using periods and starting new sentences so they can fulfill their powergaming fantasy with more capital letters per paragraph.
Quote from: Kaelik;551454I'm not sure what you mean hear, do you want specific math accounting to exactly that bonus. I probably could give you that, but I really don't see why given everything I did say that you don't believe in said attack routine.
Nope, I can wait until you get home from work and get your books and whatnot so that you can give me a detailed description of how you achieved this twink build. Make sure you include which version of D&D and what books you are using for this.
Thing is, I don't think you can. I will give you until Monday to come up with the numbers and detailed explanation that you claim justifies this character optimization math.
Quote from: Kaelik;551484You are really intent on being purposefully stupid to the end of time, aren't you?
Here the words get evaluated, not just the numbers. Don't declare something impossible to prove your point when it obviously isn't and it's all good. If your point is strong enough it will stand without hyperbole or sarcastic exaggeration.
Quote from: Kaelik;551484I would prefer the game to be about kickass dragons that fly around at high speeds burning towns with ease, Demons who teleport anywhere in the world and murder people super hard in a lot of unique ways, and Undead Armies that sweep across the world devouring it wholesale led by an evil Necromancer of intense power.
And I would prefer for each and every PC class to be capable of effectively dealing with all of those threats when they are level appropriate, and doing so primarily by reference to a variety of listed abilities that explain the range of options that each PC has, and can be used creatively in their interactions with the world.
So you want a melee character to be able to catch/engage/defeat a flying dragon, telporting demon, and army of undead...how exactly? By himself? You do realize you are elevating into the realm of Wuxia or Superheroes, right?
The funny thing about arguments about spell disruption in 3x is that 3x could have been a much better edition for disruption. There are AoOs. The designers were just dumb enough to make AoOs barely matter with a five foot step.
Remove 5 foot step. Interruption is easy. /topic.
(yes I know you'd probably have to fiddle with the numbers a bit too, but again that should be trivial)
Quote from: Imp;551492The fucking cleric gets slaughtered by his god and sent to hell for spending all his time in demon form, end of ruling. You can cry about it if you like, but unless he's an evil cleric to begin with (and thus has a harder time surviving in most campaign worlds) such an apotheosis would be met with extraordinary fury by most other gods.
??? That's quite an odd statement. Actually, he worships Boccob, the True Neutral god of Magic, Knowledge, and few other things. Not sure why you would think that Boccob objects to the polymorph spell. He seems to like Wizards that use it all the time, and he goes out of his way to grant his Cleric the ability to cast this normally Wizard spell by way of his Domain.
Apparently you need to read up on how gods work in actual campaigns. They aren't all Lawful Good you know.
Also not sure why you think Clerics of evil gods have a harder time surviving in most campaigns. There are plenty of evil gods I would not want to kill the Clerics of.
Quote from: Imp;551492You cannot let clerics freely mix and match domains and you absolutely cannot let them shop in the Monster Manuals for monsters to turn into/ summon. They have to be tied to what gods exist in the campaign world and what monsters they have encountered.
I'm not sure what you mean by not letting them freely mix and match domains. They are given two domains, obviously they cannot be Sun and Sun, so when Boccob gives you two domains, you take Spell, because he's Boccob, and some other Domain that Boccob would also like, whatever that is. And of course, Cause Clerics exist explicitly in the rules as a part of the world. (In Greyhawk, not in FR, and I don't actually know about Eberron, so I couldn't speak to that.)
As for monsters, again, there is a spell which expressly turns you into a monster, of course you turn into a monster or summon monsters with the spells that do that. And of course you do it only with Monsters that you know about, such as by making knowledge checks, or doing research, not just physically encountering. (Though as point of fact, I picked up one of my Splitting Bows off an advanced Arrow Demon that I hunted down when using Commune to find a splitting bow.)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;551493OK so you hate D&D no big deal. Move on to other games with better design and stay the fuck away from D&D then.
No, I advocate making D&D a better game by fixing one of the problems I see with it. While it is by no means a perfect system, for certain kinds of play, I have found D&D to be the best game I for some types of play.
Quote from: jeff37923;551498Nope, I can wait until you get home from work and get your books and whatnot so that you can give me a detailed description of how you achieved this twink build. Make sure you include which version of D&D and what books you are using for this.
Thing is, I don't think you can. I will give you until Monday to come up with the numbers and detailed explanation that you claim justifies this character optimization math.
I still don't understand what you are asking. I have given a pretty damn detailed description of my character.
He has levels in Cleric, and some PrCs, but the PrCs don't much change his nature as a Cleric of Boccob. I have described precisely how he Persists spells, and given you a large number of the spells he Persists. I have told you specifically what items are most beneficial to him.
I can go into more detail about a variety of things, but it appears based on your steadfast refusal to believe a word I say that doing so would be quite wasteful of my time.
Quote from: CRKrueger;551510If your point is strong enough it will stand without hyperbole.
Here's the thing. If you are actually a rational human being instead of robot, you accept that hyperbole is a useful tool in conversation, and that sometimes it is useful to approximate things that are 99% certain to 100% certain in pursuit of simplicity.
But I notice you didn't criticize your good friend who I was arguing with for not being literally exactly correct when he said,
"LOL! Sure, dude, whatever you say. You're 3.x D&D spellcaster is INVINCIBLE! "
Perhaps it's just that you are a biased troll who demands exact literal accuracy and the absence of hyperbole from people who advocate positions you don't like, but significantly reduce your standards of argument for all the assholes who agree with you.
Quote from: CRKrueger;551510So you want a melee character to be able to catch/engage/defeat a flying dragon, telporting demon, and army of undead...how exactly? By himself? You do realize you are elevating into the realm of Wuxia or Superheroes, right?
Actually, I didn't specify any requirements for melee. Some people might be able to melee the dragon, and they might have supernatural power sources, as you might have picked up from my example list of characters, I think most if not all characters should have some legitimate source of supernatural powers that allows them to be a real high level PC. Hence replacing the Fighter with a host or Warrioresque classes with supernatural powers sources.
I would imagine a Blood Warrior though, despite his supernatural powers, would probably rely on archery against a Dragon.
Quote from: Kaelik;551515No, I advocate making D&D a better game by fixing one of the problems I see with it. While it is by no means a perfect system, for certain kinds of play, I have found D&D to be the best game I for some types of play.
Making D&D NOT D&D anymore doesn't make D&D a better game, it just creates yet another game.
Quote from: Imp;551492The fucking cleric gets slaughtered by his god and sent to hell for spending all his time in demon form, end of ruling. You can cry about it if you like, but unless he's an evil cleric to begin with (and thus has a harder time surviving in most campaign worlds) such an apotheosis would be met with extraordinary fury by most other gods.
What kind of DM punishes his player through character death like a passive-aggressive bitch?
Answer: A bad one.
Quote from: Kaelik;551484You must meet the prerequisite of being restricted to taking only a standard action or a move action, and when you ready an action, you are not restricted in that way.
If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge...We are able to charge as a readied action, because readying an action is a standard action that limits you to a standard action or a move action or a free action.
That meets the prerequisite for using charge as a standard action.
Quote from: Sommerjon;551524If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge...
We are able to charge as a readied action, because readying an action is a standard action that limits you to a standard action or a move action or a free action.
That meets the prerequisite for using charge as a standard action.
The sentence includes on your turn. Readied actions are taken out of turn. Why the hell does it matter when you can ready an arrow instead of a charge? Why the hell does it matter when you can just ditch 5 foot steps?
There are easy solutions for getting interruption up and running again.
Quote from: Sommerjon;551524If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge...
We are able to charge as a readied action, because readying an action is a standard action that limits you to a standard action or a move action or a free action.
That meets the prerequisite for using charge as a standard action.
No it does not meet the prerequisite, because readying an action does not make you incapable of taking a move action on your turn.
On your turn you may:
Move 30ft as a move action. Then ready an action.
If you could ready a charge action with that readied action, then the straight line rule of a charge would no longer exist, because people would just move 30ft, and then use their standard action to ready an action to charge with the triggering condition (immediately) and then people could charge around corners.
This is precisely why the rules prevent you from charging with a standard action, and limit it to only when
on your turn you are limited to a only a standard action or move action.
I'm starting to agree with Aos, much to my chagrin. Any game that allows you to play your characters like they just stepped out of a video game with the turbo controller and Konami code activated isn't D&D, regardless of what's on the cover.
Fuck that noise.
The fact that there are rules for readied actions beyond "declare your action at some point during the turn" is a load of shit anyway. I have a feeling the writers didn't really know what they were writing.
Quote from: Sommerjon;551524If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge...
We are able to charge as a readied action,
because readying an action is a standard action
that
limits you to a standard action
or a move action
or a free action.
That meets the prerequisite for using charge
as a standard action.
No disrespect intended, but I think this post reads better as free verse.
Quote from: B.T.;551533The fact that there are rules for readied actions beyond "declare your action at some point during the turn" is a load of shit anyway. I have a feeling the writers didn't really know what they were writing.
Kind of like that feeling I have towards your posts right now, then?
Quote from: Benoist;551429And Frank Trollman keeps on completely deforming what we've actually been talking about on this thread, back on that Gaming Den thread... (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=270825#270825)
Posting this in the interest of the users here, to let them know just how much Frank is either (A) fucked in the head to the point of completely misinterpreting whatever feedback he gets that doesn't fit his own conclusions, or (B) a douchebag who can't argue any of this shit without resorting to bold-faced lies. Added bonus: Frank understands FUCK ALL about D&D. But we knew that already, didn't we?
Remember that next time he shows up, folks. You are either talking to a illiterate, delusional douchebag, or a lying, dishonest piece of shit.
That is all.
What are the issues with it?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551530I'm starting to agree with Aos, much to my chagrin. Any game that allows you to play your characters like they just stepped out of a video game with the turbo controller and Konami code activated isn't D&D, regardless of what's on the cover.
Fuck that noise.
Now we totally agree which is why player mastery in 3x is so key and why i hate the system
Quote from: Benoist;551536Kind of like that feeling I have towards your posts right now, then?
Raaargh I am a cranky grognard who doesn't like rules
If we all work together I'm pretty sure we can move this thread back to 2004 where it belongs.
Quote from: Benoist;551429And Frank Trollman keeps on completely deforming what we've actually been talking about on this thread, back on that Gaming Den thread... (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=270825#270825)
I liked the reply to that post.
Quote from: ishyThe thread was moving too fast for me to read it all (the one you linked to on the other forum that is), but this feels like bullshit to me Frank.
Their points weren't, No High Level or Always Succeed.
They said they'd walk away from the table if you wouldn't allow the fighter to track at all, instead of saying that he'd fail because it was too difficult for an untrained fighter. They specifically mentioned getting an NPC guide to direct them to the lair instead.
It's much more convenient to Frank's 'argument' to make up stuff, of course, but even his Gaming Den peers aren't buying it.
Quote from: B.T.;551543Raaargh I am a cranky grognard who doesn't like rules
That's true. I don't like rules like you do. I don't like them to the point of fapping on their intricacies endlessly on gaming forums, never ever talking about actual gaming because it wouldn't even exist in my socially bankrupt existence, turning into a douche to anyone who dares mention that horrible "actual play" thing that would dispel most of my rainman delusions. You got me. I plead guilty.
Quote from: Sommerjon;551482It does point out some of the major flaws of D&D.
Too many personnel not all on the same page allowing things to slip through to production.
Stacking modifiers.
Poorly thought out game design.
Mechanical bloat.
The idea that each new class needs new mechanical skills to differentiate it. Started way back with assassins, druids, rangers et al hit its peak in 1e with UA.
Hit its peak in 2e with skills and powers although the germ of killing it once and for all is in that concept.
Then you get 3x and 4....
Quote from: Kaelik;551529No it does not meet the prerequisite, because readying an action does not make you incapable of taking a move action on your turn.
On your turn you may:
Move 30ft as a move action. Then ready an action.
If you could ready a charge action with that readied action, then the straight line rule of a charge would no longer exist, because people would just move 30ft, and then use their standard action to ready an action to charge with the triggering condition (immediately) and then people could charge around corners.
This is precisely why the rules prevent you from charging with a standard action, and limit it to only when on your turn you are limited to a only a standard action or move action.
Sure it does. There is no order in which a player has to do things.
On a player's turn he states "I ready an action" he is now limited to a standard or move or free action. That meets the prerequisite for a charge as a standard action.
No where does it say anything about "at the start of your turn..." in the Special Attack: Charge
Quote from: B.T.;551543Raaargh I am a cranky grognard who doesn't like rules
I know it's aimed at Ben, but the boot fits. I plead guilty as charged (though my "grognard" status is argüable). Last Wednesday we ran the D&D Next playtest (late to the party, I know) and whenever the DM had to make a ruling, one of the guys would bring up "just a suggestion, but here's how 3.5e handles this" and sll I can say is that I'm proud I didn't punch him in the mouth every time he yapped about how "3.5e rules for grappling were so intuitive" (I shit you not) or whatever.
Don't get me wrong, I think 3.5e as a game is just fine (it's just not my favorite D&D). What rankles me is the annoying culture of rules-lawyering that thrived under 3.5e; every edition has annoying subsets of fans, but from 3.5e onwards, catering to them became the driving force behind D&D design decisions.
That's what I couldn't figure out either.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;551518Making D&D NOT D&D anymore doesn't make D&D a better game, it just creates yet another game.
By this i guess you mean not 1e......
So what do you want 5 to look like?
All of the optimisation figs listed out are legal, explainable through play and part of what might be the most popular version of dnd to whit 3e.
Me i hate 3e because its like this but it is like this and it id dnd.
Surely changing this version of dnd to be more like the 1e version you prefer is a good thing?
Quote from: jibbajibba;551539What are the issues with it?
That's what I couldn't glean either, though I did detect some rage.
Quote from: Sommerjon;551552Sure it does. There is no order in which a player has to do things.
On a player's turn he states "I ready an action" he is now limited to a standard or move or free action. That meets the prerequisite for a charge as a standard action.
No where does it say anything about "at the start of your turn..." in the Special Attack: Charge
Well by that logic after you have taken a move action you are limited to only a move or standard action.
So do you think that someone is allowed to take a move action, and then immediately follow that with a standard action charge?
It is not at the start of your turn, it is on your turn, if at any point at all on your turn you have the option to take two options, then you may not.
The start of your turn is on your turn. The rule states, "You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn."
If you are not restricted at the start of your turn, then it is definitionally true that you were not restricted on your turn.
Quote from: Benoist;551547That's true. I don't like rules like you do. I don't like them to the point of fapping on their intricacies endlessly on gaming forums, never ever talking about actual gaming because it wouldn't even exist in my socially bankrupt existence, turning into a douche to anyone who dares mention that horrible "actual play" thing that would dispel most of my rainman delusions. You got me. I plead guilty.
You're dumb because you think that I'm on Frank's side.
Also, would the rest of you nerds stop arguing about the ready/charge rules? Good God, I'm bored to tears.
Quote from: Sommerjon;551552Sure it does. There is no order in which a player has to do things.
On a player's turn he states "I ready an action" he is now limited to a standard or move or free action. That meets the prerequisite for a charge as a standard action.
No where does it say anything about "at the start of your turn..." in the Special Attack: Charge
The thing with this debate is that its all mini combat like you get in 4e.
So who cares.
:-)
Quote from: B.T.;551559You're dumb because you think that I'm on Frank's side.
You could register on the Rainmen's Den, but I'm not sure your Stormfront gaming group would appreciate Frank's take on politics, true.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Benoist;551562You could register on the Rainmen's Den, but I'm not sure your Stormfront gaming group would appreciate Frank's take on politics, true.
Ben stop mocking people with autism/aspergers or i wii report you to a mod*
Call Frank a cunt or a wanker or whatever but stop taking swipes at people with mental illness.
Thanks.
PS. I am fucking serious about this and not messing about
*appart from the mod bit obviously but it is highly offensive
I am deeply offended on behalf of autistics everywhere.
Quote from: B.T.;551520What kind of DM punishes his player through character death like a passive-aggressive bitch?
Answer: A bad one.
Oh come on, I didn't detail my comprehensive action plan. In actual play? I would warn the guy. "Wait, you're a cleric of (a non-fucking-evil deity) and you're planning to spend all your time in demon form? You have a feeling your god is going to be extremely unhappy with you." Give him some crisis-of-faith type shit. Then, then, have the god come down for smiting. You don't just turn into a demon all the time and not suffer some consequences.
Also, you don't know what passive-aggressiveness is. Passive-aggressiveness is where you, for example, start giving every other player at the table interesting things to do, but for the demon cleric, you invent a sister for him that is deathly ill and he has to go to the north and south poles to find a cure for her and by the way the north and south poles are anti-magic zones and so is she. Having a god come down and smite someone, on the other hand, is just aggressive. It isn't physically aggressive, but it's aggressive. Don't be a stupid person.
And no, neutral clerics don't get to get in bed with capital E evil just because they're in the middle of the alignment chart. I don't know or give a shit about Greyhawk, but I'm assuming Boccob is some sort of amoral magic god type? Then no, he wouldn't smite you. He would sell you out to further his aims (clearly your cleric has thrown in with the demons) and either let the good gods engineer your demise or let the actual demons take you, though. He doesn't need that shit.
That's more sensible, but what if he's an evil cleric? The real problem is the splitting bow and the buffs. Simple solution: one buff at a time, no splitting bows.
Quote from: jibbajibba;551566Ben stop mocking people with autism/aspergers or i wii report you to a mod*
Call Frank a cunt or a wanker or whatever but stop taking swipes at people with mental illness.
Thanks.
PS. I am fucking serious about this and not messing about
*appart from the mod bit obviously but it is highly offensive
Actually, I'm not taking swipes at people who are affected by real mental illnesses, I'm taking swipes at people who act like they are affected by mental illnesses but have a choice in the process. There's a nuance, and an important one at that.
One of my uncles is an autist. A real-life rainman. Something of a poet, a good man too. It's not because I love the man and see him for the great human being he is that I will turn the other way and pretend people affected by a severe form of autism are functional like you and I.
So when I call a denner a rainman, in my mind it's no skin off the back of real life rainmen who have no choice in who they are and how they go about life. These dudes here have a choice. They choose to behave like mentally retarded people. Which why I call them rainmen.
Quote from: Benoist;551581Actually, I'm not taking swipes at people who are affected by real mental illnesses, I'm taking swipes at people who act like they are affected by mental illnesses but have a choice in the process. There's a nuance, and an important one at that.
One of my uncles is an autist. A real-life rainman. Something of a poet, a good man too. It's not because I love the man and see him for the great human being he is that I will turn the other way and pretend people affected by a severe form of autism are functional like you and I.
So when I call a denner a rainman, in my mind it's no skin off the back of real life rainmen who have no choice in who they are and how they go about life. These dudes here have a choice. They choose to behave like mentally retarded people. Which why I call them rainmen.
You say no offence and then mentally retarded..... Offensive moi?
That's me done for a while I am committed to drohem's red steel game but I need a break from the rest. Bye.
Quote from: Benoist;551429Posting this in the interest of the users here, to let them know just how much Frank is either (A) fucked in the head to the point of completely misinterpreting whatever feedback he gets that doesn't fit his own conclusions, or (B) a douchebag who can't argue any of this shit without resorting to bold-faced lies. Added bonus: Frank understands FUCK ALL about D&D. But we knew that already, didn't we?
Remember that next time he shows up, folks. You are either talking to a illiterate, delusional douchebag, or a lying, dishonest piece of shit.
You know, a lot of us got this when he tried to claim that D&D was inherently racist based upon a miniature.
Quote from: jeff37923;551588You know, a lot of us got this when he tried to claim that D&D was inherently racist based upon a miniature.
Yes, no doubt. Or when he said the middle-ages really were all about mafia gangs raping and pillaging around.
Quote from: jibbajibba;551585You say no offence and then mentally retarded..... Offensive moi?
That's me done for a while I am committed to drohem's red steel game but I need a break from the rest. Bye.
OK. I am genuinely sorry it got on your nerves. I'm not apologizing for calling them out as Rainmen, though.
Quote from: Kaelik;551515I still don't understand what you are asking. I have given a pretty damn detailed description of my character.
He has levels in Cleric, and some PrCs, but the PrCs don't much change his nature as a Cleric of Boccob. I have described precisely how he Persists spells, and given you a large number of the spells he Persists. I have told you specifically what items are most beneficial to him.
I can go into more detail about a variety of things, but it appears based on your steadfast refusal to believe a word I say that doing so would be quite wasteful of my time.
So, you are telling me that you cannot give me a detailed description of how you created your machine-gun cleric. Thank you for pulling something out of your ass that you cannot demonstrate. You may fuck off back to the Gaming Den now.
deleted: out of time, context, the whole shebang.
Quote from: Kaelik;551515I still don't understand what you are asking. I have given a pretty damn detailed description of my character.
He means give him the actual, complete statblock of the character, you fuckwad.
Quote from: Benoist;551589Yes, no doubt. Or when he said the middle-ages really were all about mafia gangs raping and pillaging around.
Actually it was biker gangs.
Quote from: CRKrueger;551596Actually it was biker gangs.
Riiiight biker gangs. That's the one. :D
At Agincourt, I got some fucking killer meth from some of Henry's Angels .
Quote from: Benoist;551595He means give him the actual, complete statblock of the character, you fuckwad.
AND which version of D&D he is using AND which books he got his twinkings out of AND what exact twinkings those were because his "basic" description has changed already a few times.
Quote from: Aos;551602At Agincourt, I got some fucking killer meth from some of Henry's Angels .
Columbus didn't really wreck the
Santa Maria - he traded it for some primo Colombian dust.
Quote from: The Butcher;551554Last Wednesday we ran the D&D Next playtest (late to the party, I know) and whenever the DM had to make a ruling, one of the guys would bring up "just a suggestion, but here's how 3.5e handles this" and sll I can say is that I'm proud I didn't punch him in the mouth every time he yapped about how "3.5e rules for grappling were so intuitive" (I shit you not) or whatever.
See if your going to tell us stories, don't tell utterly unbelievable ones like a) anyone can find the 3.5 rules for grappling intuitive and b) anyone could possibly hold back from punching such a abomination in the head.
Quote from: jibbajibba;551585You say no offence and then mentally retarded..... Offensive moi?
Look, I have worked with people with mental difficulties my whole adult life.
Retard is an insult. The correct usage of retard is its use as an insult. No one wants to reclaim it as a word for people with mental difficulties.
When you try and stop people using it as an insult, you look like you want to reclaim it as a term for people with mental difficulties. And *that* is offensive.
The demands for Kaelik to show his character strike me as a tad disingenuous. I strongly suspect that the people who are clamoring most loudly intend only to inconvenience Kaelik (as a meta-troll to get him to waste his time) or hope to quibble over minutiae (as if a stray +1 proves him a liar). I likewise suspect that the line of argumentation once Kaelik provides sufficient evidence will be
a) the DM is bad for allowing the character (as if this means the rules don't allow it),
b) the character isn't part of a "real" game (therefore disproving its mechanical legality in a puff of grognardery),
c) the character is abusing the system (which doesn't address the mechanics of the game),
d) Kaelik is a bad roleplayer, or
e) some other stupid variation of the Rule 0 fallacy.
I can't wait for jeff to demand where the cleric found a bow of splitting. :rolleyes:
Quote from: B.T.;551643The demands for Kaelik to show his character strike me as a tad disingenuous. I strongly suspect that the people who are clamoring most loudly intend only to inconvenience Kaelik (as a meta-troll to get him to waste his time) or hope to quibble over minutiae (as if a stray +1 proves him a liar). I likewise suspect that the line of argumentation once Kaelik provides sufficient evidence will be
a) the DM is bad for allowing the character (as if this means the rules don't allow it),
b) the character isn't part of a "real" game (therefore disproving its mechanical legality in a puff of grognardery),
c) the character is abusing the system (which doesn't address the mechanics of the game),
d) Kaelik is a bad roleplayer, or
e) some other stupid variation of the Rule 0 fallacy.
I can't wait for jeff to demand where the cleric found a bow of splitting. :rolleyes:
I've already given the shitbird a chance to prove his math and he chickened out.
If I want to just pick his crap apart without giving him a chance to defend himself, I'll start with the question: "Why would Boccob allow one of his clerics to twink out on bow combat when the cleric is worshipping a god of magic?"
Things are not as busy today, huh?
I'm glad I was able to catch up.
First off, I'm sure there's nobody here who's really cares how Kaelik built his cleric. If you're interested in making his build, you can find out exactly how on the Giant in the Playground forums: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-246480.html
I didn't read it all - I don't care to read it all, but it looks like it's a pretty clear exploit. As in - it is legal and doesn't require 'creative interpretations of the rules'.
While it's boring, trying to claim you can 'ready a partial charge' is wrong. Claiming that it is possible shows a clear misunderstanding of the rules, but I know why you came to that conclusion. I'm not going to hijack this thread with a lengthy discussion of it - if you're interested you can start a new thread - but the partial charge is designed for creatures like zombies who don't get a full round action. Likewise, if you're staggered (0 hit points) you could use a partial charge. To claim that you can forgo your move and then ready a partial charge is stupid.
Also, while wizards in 3.5 technically can be interrupted, it virtually never happens - especially not with melee characters. That isn't to say it 'doesn't happen' - it does. But it doesn't happen often enough to matter.
Some examples: if you are a fighter and you are adjacent to a wizard and you have not moved, you can either make a full attack or you can ready to disrupt his spell casting. If you ready to disrupt, you're not dealing any damage in the hope that the character starts to cast a spell. If the wizard chooses NOT to cast a spell because of your readied action, you do no damage at all. Remember, the wizard can use a 'withdraw' action to move away without provoking an attack of opportunity. Yes, he gives up a chance to use a spell THIS ROUND, but now the Fighter HAS to move to threaten the Wizard. If he move and attacks (or, since the wizard could use a double-move with a withdraw) if he charges, he'll end adjacent to the wizard, but he will not be able to 'follow' the wizard when the wizard takes a 5-foot step.
For people that argue that a 'spherical cow' isn't useful for the discussion, asserting that 'it's easy to interrupt 3.5 wizards' when it is clearly not seems...hypocritical.
I suppose discussion of 'how to curb wizard power' was really unavoidable in this thread. I agree - you can't discuss making a Fighter more powerful in a vacuum - if you just increase his power without reducing the power of the Wizard, you're not really making anything better.
The Fighter can use some 'non-magic buffs', in my opinion. Kaelik wants the character to have a power source, but I think the Fighter can be a viable concept without 'magic'. He still needs some things to do outside of a fight (though to my mind, these things can be things everyone can do).
Making it easier to 'disrupt' the wizard makes sense to me. Reducing the 'automatic scaling' of damage might help. And while it might seem like a 'buff' the way DCs are calculated in 3.5 is wonky. A 1st level spell cast by a 15th level wizard should be just as difficult to resist as his 8th level spells. Why? Because a major reason he has to use high level spells is the higher DCs.
Compare holder monster to hold person. You'd think if your target was a 'person', you'd choose to use that spell. But because it's 3 levels lower, it has a DC 3 lower as well. The DC of all of a wizard's spells should be 10 + 1/2 level + ability mod - end of story. But the saving throws of characters need to scale about evenly - approximately +10 at 20th level to remain 'in the ball park'.
Quote from: jeff37923;551646If I want to just pick his crap apart without giving him a chance to defend himself, I'll start with the question: "Why would Boccob allow one of his clerics to twink out on bow combat when the cleric is worshipping a god of magic?"
That sounds like 'I'm such a bad DM that I have to have the game world deities enforce my rules on my players'.
I did that, too.
When I was 8.
Maybe, just maybe, the gods don't really give a flying fuck what happens in the mortal realm. Maybe Boccob is too busy preventing Vecna from stealing all the magical secrets so nobody else will have spells? Maybe having a cleric who turns into a badass so he can do serve the god's interests in the mortal realms is sufficient?
I think it's ludicrous when a DM starts having the gods lay the smack down on their players because they don't know how to come to a mutually satisfactory agreement on how the game should be played.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;551652Maybe, just maybe, the gods don't really give a flying fuck what happens in the mortal realm.
Then why have the domain portfolios associated with specific gods? So munchkins can twink out or so that you have an internally consistant game world that helps immersion? The only one of the above that sounds like an 8 year old's concern is the munchkin and his twinking.
Quote from: jeff37923;551646If I want to just pick his crap apart without giving him a chance to defend himself, I'll start with the question: "Why would Boccob allow one of his clerics to twink out on bow combat when the cleric is worshipping a god of magic?"
As I suspected: the rules aren't broken because the DM can fuck the player over.
That's the thing with grognards like you and Benoist. You invent reasons to dick with players instead of just manning up and telling them, "No, you can't play that, it's too powerful." You're a bunch of petty, cowardly twats.
Quote from: Imp;551573And no, neutral clerics don't get to get in bed with capital E evil just because they're in the middle of the alignment chart. I don't know or give a shit about Greyhawk, but I'm assuming Boccob is some sort of amoral magic god type? Then no, he wouldn't smite you. He would sell you out to further his aims (clearly your cleric has thrown in with the demons) and either let the good gods engineer your demise or let the actual demons take you, though. He doesn't need that shit.
I think you are confused. Polymorph in no way implies allegiance. First off, yes True Neutral Gods are totally fine with their Clerics being evil. The acceptable alignments for a Cleric of Boccob are:
Neutral Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, and
Neutral Evil.
But even if he didn't have Clerics who were straight up evil themselves, Polymorphing into a Demon is not throwing in with demons, and there is no reason to believe that good gods or demons would be more out to get my character than if he didn't polymorph.
Likewise, polymorphing into a Hydra does not involve throwing in with Hydras, Polymorphing into a Bird does not involve throwing in with the birds, and polymorphing into a Golem does not involve throwing in with the constructs.
Quote from: jeff37923;551591So, you are telling me that you cannot give me a detailed description of how you created your machine-gun cleric. Thank you for pulling something out of your ass that you cannot demonstrate. You may fuck off back to the Gaming Den now.
Quote from: jeff37923;551603AND which version of D&D he is using AND which books he got his twinkings out of AND what exact twinkings those were because his "basic" description has changed already a few times.
See, this is what I am talking about. You are being unreasonable. First off, apparently if I had given you his entire stat block and scanned his character sheet that still wouldn't have been enough information for you, because it wouldn't include which books everything comes from. And even though there is no good reason whatsoever for me to have known that you wanted to know every book involved, if I hadn't given that information, you would have thrown a fit, and when I ask for what information you want, you throw a fit.
When I do give you a statblock and books, you are then going to throw a fit about how I didn't give you a play by play of every single moment of his Life leading up to this point and specifically how he acquired each and every item.
Because you are not actually interested in the build at all, you are interested in hassling me for information until I decide you aren't worth my time so you can claim that everything I said is a lie, and the character must be illegal based on all the no idea what the fuck you are talking about you have, since you don't even know what edition I am talking about, even though everyone else does.
You are now demanding that I tell you information that I already gave. It's not my fault you can't read, everyone else seemed to understand that it is a 3.5 Cleric, half of them specifically pointed to my example as a reason they hate 3e, so I don't know why you can't figure out what edition it is.
But sure, go ahead and show me how my basic description has changed at all.
Spoiler
Race: Aasimar
Stats at level 1:32 PB/////current level 13 w/out items///////w/items///////
Str 8/////////10////////////10
Dex 6////////8/////////////8
Con 16///////18///////////20
Int 8/////////15///////////15
Wis 20//////30////////////32
Cha 16//////23////////////25
He aged two age categories in between level 1 and level 13, and his party member used Planar Binding (PHB) to Bind Efferti (MM) to grant wishes which increased all his stats by +5. He put all his points into Wisdom because he's a Cleric.
Classes:
Cloistered Cleric 5(UA)/Divine Oracle 4(CD)/Cloistered Cleric 1/Contemplative 3(CD)
Feats:
1: Persist Spell (CA)
Flaw: Pathetic (Dex): Divine Metamagic (Persist) (CD)
Flaw: Noncombatant: Zen Archery (CW)
Domain Bonus: (Extended Spell(CA))
3: Skill Focus (Knowledge (Religion)) (PHB)
6: Extra Turning (CD)
9: Easy Metamagic (Persist) (Dragon #325)
Domain Bonus: Extra Turning
12: Extra Turning
Domains:
Spell (one of two) (SpC)
Planning (one of two) (SpC)
Knowledge (From Cloistered Cleric) (PHB)
Oracle (from Divine Oracle) (CD and SpC)
Undeath (from Contemplative) (SpC)
Abilities besides spells:
Trap Sense +1 (Divine Oracle)
Prescient Sense (Basically Evasion, Divine Oracle)
Divination Enhancement (roll twice on divination spells, Divine Oracle)
Uncanny Dodge (Divine Oracle)
Divine Health (Disease immunity, Contemplative)
Slippery Mind (Contemplative)
Divine Wholeness (12 HP healing, mostly useless, Contemplative)
Turn Undead (26 before items, 36 after, 6 persisted spells)
Items:
+1 Large Splitting Composite Rimefrost Bow (Composited at +14) (X2) (Splitting is Champions of Ruin, Rimefrost is Frostburn, the rest is PHB/DMG)
Bead of Karma (DMG)
Ring of Enduring Arcana (CpM)
Anklet of Translocation (MiC)
Reliquary Holy Symbol +2 Wisdom and Con (MiC/DMG)
Nightsticks X2 (LM)
Cloak of Charisma +2 (DMG)
Spells Persisted at start of day:
Draconic Polymorph (Draconomicon) (Via Greater Anyspell) (SpC) (Polymorph into Arrow Demon with +8 Str and +2 Con)
Righteous Might (PHB) (Increase Size, +4 Str, +2 Con, DR 9/good)
Divine Power (PHB) (+6 Str, Makes BAB equal to Character Level)
Recitation (SpC) (+3 Luck bonus to attack, damage, and saves, also applies to allies)
Righteous Wrath of the Faithful (SpC) (+3 morale bonus on attack and damage and extra attack, works on allies)
Mass Lesser Vigor (SpC) (Gives fast healing 1, allies)
Spells not Persisted, but that last all day:
Mantle of Icy Soul
Greater Magic Weapon (PHB) (usually on everyone's weapon, at the very least on his own two)
Magic Vestment (PHB) (usually for everyone, at least for himself)
Superior Resistance
Energy Immunity (Usually just Fire, sometimes more)
Stats after spells:
Str 39
Dex 19
Con 35
Int 15
Wis 32
Cha 25
AC is 10+8 from magic chain shirt, +4 from dex, -1 from size, +7 Natural =28
Saves are:
Fort: +6 base, +12 stat, +6 Superior Resistance, +3 Recitation = +27
Ref: +4 base, +4 stat, as above = +17
Will: +11 base, +11 stat, as above = +31
Attack Routine: +13/+13/+8/+3 from BAB + Righteous Wrath Extra attack. X2 for Dual Wielding X2 for Splitting.
Highest AB: +13 from BAB -2 from dual wield, -1 from size, +4 from weapon, +3 from recitation, +3 from Righteous Wrath, +11 from Wisdom = +31. Must have been remembering his level 11 or 12 attack routine for the +28, because at level 13 it's:
+31/+31/+31/+31/+31/+31/+31/+31/+26/+26/+26/+26/+21/+21/+21/+21
Damage is 3d6 from Huge longbow, +14 from Str, +3 from recitation, +3 from Righteous Wrath, +4 from Weapon, +1 cold damage (Rimefrost), =3d6+25
Quote from: jeff37923;551646I've already given the shitbird a chance to prove his math and he chickened out.
No, you were told to wait like a good little boy, and while we were waiting, to clarify what exactly you wanted. The fact that you a tantrum at being asked to tell me what it was you want is your own problem.
Quote from: jeff37923;551646If I want to just pick his crap apart without giving him a chance to defend himself, I'll start with the question: "Why would Boccob allow one of his clerics to twink out on bow combat when the cleric is worshipping a god of magic?"
Then you would be an idiot, because Boccob has nothing against people buffing themselves up to be good at Archery through magic, which is why he gives his Clerics spells like Divine Power, Righteous Might, Recitation, and Righteous Wrath of the Faithful.
Seriously, you people have the dumbest, least roleplay ideas of the gods I've ever seen. It's like you think they are some kind of weird robotic force, instead of a character with motivations and goals.
Quote from: Kaelik;551658Seriously, you people have the dumbest, least roleplay ideas of the gods I've ever seen. It's like you think they are some kind of weird robotic force, instead of a character with motivations and goals.
Respectfully, try to keep your insults poster specific. Like if you want to call me a disingenuous trolling jackass for example, that's fine, but using terms like 'you people' just muddies the waters as there are several posters on the other side of this argument that don't and wouldn't do anything like this.
The 'readied charge' thing is really getting side tracked by technicalities, but I don't think that disallowing a readied charge is explicitly disallowed; it depends on the legalistic interpretation of what 'your turn' means. I'd suggest that since readying changes your initiative count, it is 'their turn' as much as the previous point where they readied was.
Otherwise a slowed or disabled fighter can ready a charge when they normally couldn't.:confused:
That interpretation would also be in line with 3.0, where it absolutely is legal to perform a 'partial charge' with a readied action
(http://www.simplyrecipes.com/photos/popcorn.jpg)
This is going to be good.
Quote from: Aos;551660Respectfully, try to keep your insults poster specific. Like if you want to call me a disingenuous trolling jackass for example, that's fine, but using terms like 'you people' just muddies the waters as there are several posters on the other side of this argument that don't and wouldn't do anything like this.
In this case, I assumed that you people would be understood as "the two people I am quoting in this post."
Quote from: Kaelik;551664In this case, I assumed that you people would be understood as "the two people I am quoting in this post."
Fair enough.
I'm also rather dim.
Quote from: Kaelik;551658Because you are not actually interested in the build at all, you are interested in hassling me for information until I decide you aren't worth my time so you can claim that everything I said is a lie, and the character must be illegal based on all the no idea what the fuck you are talking about you have, since you don't even know what edition I am talking about, even though everyone else does.
I'm going to say it first: Kaelik, you are a liar. This character has not been played from level 1, and has not acquired all these items and prestige classes through actual play. You just used a theoretical example out of some CharOp forum, this or that or the other, and pretend like it's been built from scratch in an actual campaign.
You lie.
Quote from: B.T.;551643The demands for Kaelik to show his character strike me as a tad disingenuous. I strongly suspect that the people who are clamoring most loudly intend only to inconvenience Kaelik (as a meta-troll to get him to waste his time) or hope to quibble over minutiae (as if a stray +1 proves him a liar). I likewise suspect that the line of argumentation once Kaelik provides sufficient evidence will be
a) the DM is bad for allowing the character (as if this means the rules don't allow it),
b) the character isn't part of a "real" game (therefore disproving its mechanical legality in a puff of grognardery),
c) the character is abusing the system (which doesn't address the mechanics of the game),
d) Kaelik is a bad roleplayer, or
e) some other stupid variation of the Rule 0 fallacy.
I can't wait for jeff to demand where the cleric found a bow of splitting. :rolleyes:
The typical valid response to builds like this include:
a)You have to cast like a hundred spells before combat. If you start after combat starts, the fight will be over before you become that monster.
----(typical rebuttal involves long durations and prepping in advance)
b)You have to invest a lot in a build, and miss out on utility elsewhere.
----(unlikely for a cleric build; they get to know all their spells)
c)It's not in the core books (like the arrow demon).
----(doesn't change some of the fundamental weirdness of piling damage on bonus attacks, polymorph replacing stats instead of modifying them, stuff like that)
I mean, having not read ahead, you're probably right. But the conversation could go not stupid places from here.
Late addition: You called it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;551556By this i guess you mean not 1e......
So what do you want 5 to look like?
All of the optimisation figs listed out are legal, explainable through play and part of what might be the most popular version of dnd to whit 3e.
Me i hate 3e because its like this but it is like this and it id dnd.
Surely changing this version of dnd to be more like the 1e version you prefer is a good thing?
The poster I was responding to was talking about removing the fighter class from the game. Benyond any edition quibbles, this taking the D&D out of D&D.
Quote from: Benoist;551677I'm going to say it first: Kaelik, you are a liar. This character has not been played from level 1, and has not acquired all these items and prestige classes through actual play. You just used a theoretical example out of some CharOp forum, this or that or the other, and pretend like it's been built from scratch in an actual campaign.
You lie.
I don't think he's lying. I think it's more plausible, based upon what he's said so far, that he presented his DM with "this is the character build I want to have", and his DM said "sure! Instant treasure and XP for you, just the way you want!"
And these people have the audacity to accuse older versions of "Mother May I" :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551685I don't think he's lying. I think it's more plausible, based upon what he's said so far, that he presented his DM with "this is the character build I want to have", and his DM said "sure! Instant treasure and XP for you, just the way you want!"
If his imaginary DM was provided with a wish list from level 1 with all the items and PrCs and feats and bullshit listed with the idea that "this is my character. Make it happen to level 13", it's not exactly what I call a standard D&D campaign or game play. It's really just as dumb as 4e players giving wish lists of magic items to their DM. It's completely boneheaded and against everything like an organic character development.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551685And these people have the audacity to accuse older versions of "Mother May I" :rolleyes:
But you don't understand! The DM must always say "yes", otherwise he's a big meanie and a bad DM! BT said so.
Quote from: jadrax;551639Look, I have worked with people with mental difficulties my whole adult life.
Retard is an insult. The correct usage of retard is its use as an insult. No one wants to reclaim it as a word for people with mental difficulties.
When you try and stop people using it as an insult, you look like you want to reclaim it as a term for people with mental difficulties. And *that* is offensive.
Actually the correct use of the word is as a verb.
Retard:
1.
to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede.
verb (used without object)
2.
to be delayed.
Some of the chemicals that I add to paint while working on minis contain a retarder to slow the drying process. :)
"Legal" is whatever the DM says is "legal" at his game table.
It's not a fucking Magic: the Gathering tournament here. Nobody gives a fuck what WotC thinks is "legal" or not.
Quote from: Benoist;551677I'm going to say it first: Kaelik, you are a liar. This character has not been played from level 1, and has not acquired all these items and prestige classes through actual play. You just used a theoretical example out of some CharOp forum, this or that or the other, and pretend like it's been built from scratch in an actual campaign.
You lie.
You should probably actually learn to read before picking fights on a forum.
First, I challenge you to find a single place I ever claimed that I played the character from level 1. You won't because level 1 is stupid, I don't play in games that don't start at least at level 3.
Secondly, you should learn how those prestige classes work before you challenge that I didn't acquire them in actual play. Divine Oracle doesn't require fuck for your character to do in game, so if you are a Cleric who likes casting divination spells, you can just be a Divine Oracle, and Contemplative requires having direct contact with a direct servant of your deity, which is of course, going to happen naturally if you are doing anything at all in support of your deity.
And you are correct that I didn't acquire all of those items in game. I started with the Reliquary.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551685I don't think he's lying. I think it's more plausible, based upon what he's said so far, that he presented his DM with "this is the character build I want to have", and his DM said "sure! Instant treasure and XP for you, just the way you want!"
Or, in the alternative, I clear anything I am ever going to play with my DM in advance, because that's just polite, and he doesn't hand me whatever I want, but because my character successfully killed things, he obtained XP, and because he's a goddam Divine Oracle who can cast Divination, Commune, and Scry, and has class features that make him better at that than a normal character he found any item he wanted to find because that's what you can fucking do.
Notice how that's actually the exact opposite of expecting a Fighter to track a Dragon that doesn't want to be tracked through his complete lack of abilities.
Quote from: Benoist;551677I'm going to say it first: Kaelik, you are a liar. This character has not been played from level 1, and has not acquired all these items and prestige classes through actual play. You just used a theoretical example out of some CharOp forum, this or that or the other, and pretend like it's been built from scratch in an actual campaign.
You lie.
Big surprise.
Since you've been hanging out at his DMs house, you would obviously know, right?
Kaelik called it:
Quote from: KaelikWhen I do give you a statblock and books, you are then going to throw a fit about how I didn't give you a play by play of every single moment of his Life leading up to this point and specifically how he acquired each and every item.
So, first off, it doesn't really MATTER if the character was created as a 1st level character or not. In some versions of D&D it's okay to start at a higher level and explain how you got to be the way you are with a detailed backstory. Typically, in these cases, the DM gives you a certain amount of treasure that is considered appropriate for your level, and you explain how you ended up with the equipment you have. You might have captured a dragon's hoard and bought some items, or you might make up some stories about previous adventures that helps expand the gameworld.
Of course, even if he DID start at 1st level (if it matters to you), in 3.5, with the player's ability to actually craft magical items, finding a way to get any item you want isn't that difficult. At worst, he needs to find someone capable of making the item and willing to do so. Considering that he is a 13th level character and has had access to
planeshift for four levels, he would have had a chance not just to find such a person in the world his character was born in - he'd have the chance to possibly seek out someone in all the infinite planes of existence. Even if the odds of such a person existing - in an infinite plane, those odds approach certainty. I'm sure there's someone in Acheron capable of handling this for him.
I don't think as a player you have to tell the DM what you want in the form of a 'wish list' and expect to be given it. From the beginning, player desire is supposed to be a major component in driving adventure. If you want to build a keep, you're going to choose adventures that advance that goal. In 1st edition, I've gone on adventures to recover a particular magical item that I thought would be exciting to get. Not ALL treasure is random. If an evil warlord is described as having a powerful weapon, in addition to dealing with his evil, acquiring his weapon is another 'incentive' to go on that adventure.
But arguing that this build is real or fake (and I have no doubt that it is real) - it is clearly possible with rules included in supplements. If it's possible, if there are enough players, the odds of someone becoming one from level 1 is both possible and likely - as long as the player knows what steps they need to take to achieve that 'build'. That does mean that the player has to use player knowledge to use the rules effectively - so if people don't like the idea that 3rd edition rewards player knowledge - here's a poster child for it.
People have used the term 'twinkery'. I agree with it. On the high end, spell casters have nearly infinite options (including traveling to another plane to increase their options even more). Fighters don't have anything to compete.
Reducing some of the options of a wizard and especially the cleric is important. But even with that, some additional 'mundane' abilities for the Fighter could be added without anyone recognizing the increased efficacy without a mathematical analysis (so you can let the people on the den enjoy it - or at least you'll have more ammunition when you tell them that 'a fighter has this ability - it's even in the rules and written on his character sheet').
Both your posts are awesome. Thank you. :)
So is this all done at standard temperature and pressure?
Quote from: B.T.;551657As I suspected: the rules aren't broken because the DM can fuck the player over.
That's the thing with grognards like you and Benoist. You invent reasons to dick with players instead of just manning up and telling them, "No, you can't play that, it's too powerful." You're a bunch of petty, cowardly twats.
I'm laughing as I type this because you do not know a fucking thing about Benoist or myself.
Thing is, when I run a game and some sorry munchkin comes up to me begging to use a book that is not Core or a Feat/Spell/Magic Item/Race/Monster/whatthefuckever that is not Core, I ask to borrow the book or the entry and look it over - then let them know by the next game session. I have had to do this because there is d20 shit out there that is broken as fuck - most of it put out by WotC in their later 3.5 years to satisfy munchkin twinkers who confuse tactics with abilities.
I have no problem telling Players "NO".
You, my favorite racist punching bag, are just pissed off because every fucking slam-dunk trick you come up with either only happens on forums or already has built-in limiting shit and I keep pointing out its impotence.
Quote from: B.T.;551643The demands for Kaelik to show his character strike me as a tad disingenuous. I strongly suspect that the people who are clamoring most loudly intend only to inconvenience Kaelik (as a meta-troll to get him to waste his time) or hope to quibble over minutiae (as if a stray +1 proves him a liar). I likewise suspect that the line of argumentation once Kaelik provides sufficient evidence will be
a) the DM is bad for allowing the character (as if this means the rules don't allow it),
b) the character isn't part of a "real" game (therefore disproving its mechanical legality in a puff of grognardery),
c) the character is abusing the system (which doesn't address the mechanics of the game),
d) Kaelik is a bad roleplayer, or
e) some other stupid variation of the Rule 0 fallacy.
I can't wait for jeff to demand where the cleric found a bow of splitting. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Benoist;551677I'm going to say it first: Kaelik, you are a liar. This character has not been played from level 1, and has not acquired all these items and prestige classes through actual play. You just used a theoretical example out of some CharOp forum, this or that or the other, and pretend like it's been built from scratch in an actual campaign.
You lie.
Fucking called it.
What's really damn irritating is that the DM is clearly okay with this level of powergaming--the DM has explicitly allowed nigh-infinite wealth obtained through the use of
planar binding--and yet the moronic grognards on this forum whine that this isn't a
real character.
Quote from: Kaelik;551692Or, in the alternative, I clear anything I am ever going to play with my DM in advance, because that's just polite, and he doesn't hand me whatever I want, but because my character successfully killed things, he obtained XP, and because he's a goddam Divine Oracle who can cast Divination, Commune, and Scry, and has class features that make him better at that than a normal character he found any item he wanted to find because that's what you can fucking do..
Ultra rare items just to be found you say?
Sounds like the DM pretty much catered to what you wanted. The thick irony of people like you always bitching about mother may I when you do the exact same thing. Or worse, you ASSUME the DM will cave to your desires. Most DMs I know, if you came up to them with a build that was so game breaking, would probably respond with "Sure, you know where a splitting bow is, but here's this huge ass challenge you have to go through first to get it. And if it's a super powerful item (which seems the case as you explain), you'd have to fight through some levels of hell to find the demon who owns one." Let alone TWO bows of splitting.
Yikes.
Oh, and when you say, "I clear anything I want before hand" that sounds like a huge case of entitlement. It's the DM's game; they are the one spending 5x the time and energy equipment making the game work. And that character you describe? That's so monty haul munchkinism game breaking pile of steaming puke I don't know any DM that would allow it.
Quote from: Kaelik;551658I think you are confused. Polymorph in no way implies allegiance. First off, yes True Neutral Gods are totally fine with their Clerics being evil. The acceptable alignments for a Cleric of Boccob are:
Neutral Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, and Neutral Evil.
But even if he didn't have Clerics who were straight up evil themselves, Polymorphing into a Demon is not throwing in with demons, and there is no reason to believe that good gods or demons would be more out to get my character than if he didn't polymorph.
Likewise, polymorphing into a Hydra does not involve throwing in with Hydras, Polymorphing into a Bird does not involve throwing in with the birds, and polymorphing into a Golem does not involve throwing in with the constructs.
I'm sorry, are any of those evil incarnate? No? Because the thing about evil incarnate is, it has a way of getting into shit it doesn't technically have any business getting into. That's the thing, "demon" isn't a keyword, words mean things. You can say the label on the box says "I am not consorting with demons," but the fact is, what your precious little cleric is doing is using magic to access demonic powers that make him stronger than he has any right to be and if that isn't the one canonical giant flashing "fuck with me, gods" sign in all of fantasy I don't know what is. Don't really care what the spell description says at this point, if you're spending all your time in demon form, some shit that didn't get on the label is going to start happening. If you wanted to spend all your time as a yellow duckie, well, duckies don't have the intrinsic quality of wanting to invade and destroy everything they touch, so knock yourself out.
QuoteDivine Oracle doesn't require fuck for your character to do in game, so if you are a Cleric who likes casting divination spells, you can just be a Divine Oracle, and Contemplative requires having direct contact with a direct servant of your deity, which is of course, going to happen naturally if you are doing anything at all in support of your deity.
GM's fault for not integrating prestige classes in his world, I suppose.
Ultimately, I don't blame him. You have to control for that stuff and that's a lot of work, going through prestige classes and deciding if and how they fit in your campaign.
Quote from: Kaelik;551658See, this is what I am talking about. You are being unreasonable. First off, apparently if I had given you his entire stat block and scanned his character sheet that still wouldn't have been enough information for you, because it wouldn't include which books everything comes from. And even though there is no good reason whatsoever for me to have known that you wanted to know every book involved, if I hadn't given that information, you would have thrown a fit, and when I ask for what information you want, you throw a fit.
When I do give you a statblock and books, you are then going to throw a fit about how I didn't give you a play by play of every single moment of his Life leading up to this point and specifically how he acquired each and every item.
I'll just stop at the part where to make this build work you had to have someone else cast
Planar Binding and
Bind Efreeti in order to have
Wishes (plural) cast on your character at some point before 13th level.
Quote from: Kaelik;551658Because you are not actually interested in the build at all
Usually I'm more interested in the Player actually playing their character and helping to bring the fun to my game table. Character builds are usually used by people who have self-esteem problems and just want to be that most special of snowflakes at the game table.
Not to mention that your character isn't a build, it is a clusterfuck of cherry-picking through books and magazines to create that fucked up mess. Go play Magic and build decks, because that is what you obviously want to do instead of role-playing.
Quote from: Kaelik;551658No, you were told to wait like a good little boy, and while we were waiting, to clarify what exactly you wanted. The fact that you a tantrum at being asked to tell me what it was you want is your own problem.
Seeing as how you actually answered the question finally after I called you on it, I will give you partial credit.
I think Benoist is right though. You are a liar because there is no sane DM who would let you munchkin like that and twink out that character.
Quote from: Kaelik;551658Then you would be an idiot, because Boccob has nothing against people buffing themselves up to be good at Archery through magic, which is why he gives his Clerics spells like Divine Power, Righteous Might, Recitation, and Righteous Wrath of the Faithful.
Seriously, you people have the dumbest, least roleplay ideas of the gods I've ever seen. It's like you think they are some kind of weird robotic force, instead of a character with motivations and goals.
I think you need to read up on the descriptor of Boccob, because you sure as shit are not familiar with it in any kind of immersive sense of being part of a universe. Here, why don't you start with the wikipedia entry and tell me where Boccob is the god of archery or even favors the bow as a weapon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boccob)
Quote from: Benoist;551429And Frank Trollman keeps on completely deforming what we've actually been talking about on this thread, back on that Gaming Den thread... (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=270825#270825)
Posting this in the interest of the users here, to let them know just how much Frank is either (A) fucked in the head to the point of completely misinterpreting whatever feedback he gets that doesn't fit his own conclusions, or (B) a douchebag who can't argue any of this shit without resorting to bold-faced lies. Added bonus: Frank understands FUCK ALL about D&D. But we knew that already, didn't we?
Remember that next time he shows up, folks. You are either talking to a illiterate, delusional douchebag, or a lying, dishonest piece of shit.
That is all.
What a chicken shit douchebag at least the other Game Den dudes come here to discuss things face to face and face the music like men.
This fucking forum. Here's the deal: Kaelik and the guys over at TGD like really high-powered games. They love games full of munchkin bullshit I would never allow in any of my games. If Kaelik were in my group, then that character would be banned straightaway. However, if his DM lets him play ultra-optimized weird builds, then who are you to judge him and say it's not a "real" character?
Yes, in the majority of games, that sort of character will never see the light of day. Kaelik's point is that it is
possible to make a character that powerful. That's what this all started out around so many pages back.
Quote from: Kaelik;551040I have a level 13 Cleric who's attack routine is +28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+28/+23/+23/+23/+23/+18/+18/+18/+18
for 3d6+25 damage each. That's all day every day, while simultaneously being immune to every element, having better saves, True Seeing, some other defenses, and having spells left over.
There is some number inflation relative to your edition of choice, but trust me, that's absurd, and makes Fighters cry tears of sadness.
This is a real thing that actually exists, and so when you laugh at me for saying that the Cleric can be better than the fighter, I wonder why you think your ignorance is funny.
Quote from: jeff37923;551308I'd like you to go through that whole thing and prove to me that it works. Please let me know which version that you are using, either 3.0 or 3.5 D&D and what spells (including what book they come from).
Quote from: jeff37923;551373I think your claim still needs to be proven.
Quote from: Benoist;551388I'd really love to see that character sheet. Have a scan at home?
Quote from: jeff37923;551393The example cleric looks like a math exercise without the proof to demonstrate that it works, or that the math in this case is correct.
Quote from: jeff37923;551498Nope, I can wait until you get home from work and get your books and whatnot so that you can give me a detailed description of how you achieved this twink build. Make sure you include which version of D&D and what books you are using for this.
Thing is, I don't think you can. I will give you until Monday to come up with the numbers and detailed explanation that you claim justifies this character optimization math.
Quote from: jeff37923;551591So, you are telling me that you cannot give me a detailed description of how you created your machine-gun cleric. Thank you for pulling something out of your ass that you cannot demonstrate. You may fuck off back to the Gaming Den now.
Quote from: Benoist;551595He means give him the actual, complete statblock of the character, you fuckwad.
Quote from: Benoist;551677I'm going to say it first: Kaelik, you are a liar. This character has not been played from level 1, and has not acquired all these items and prestige classes through actual play. You just used a theoretical example out of some CharOp forum, this or that or the other, and pretend like it's been built from scratch in an actual campaign.
You lie.
Kaelik has done that. Now we're back to square handwave. If you want to see the sort of games that Kaelik
et al. like to play, head on over to TGD and look at Races of War. Just that one book. The barbarian is seriously throwing down +10d6 damage per attack and has a personal anti-magic aura active on him at high levels. Just because you guys don't like that kind of shit doesn't invalidate Kaelik's character. We've seriously gone through several goalposts of this 100+ page back-and-forth.
1. Explain how your character can do X.
2. I don't believe you, cite your sources.
3. If you want me to believe you, you have to show me a statblock.
4. Well, that's not a character from a
real game.
5. Even if it is from a real game, you didn't play this character from level one, so it doesn't count.
How much of this song and dance are we going to have to go through?
Forcing BT to defend the Gaming Den has made this thread worth it; someone start a thread where he ends up speaking in defense of feminism please.
Quote from: B.T.;551710Kaelik has done that. Now we're back to square handwave.
How much of this song and dance are we going to have to go through?
How many times are theoretical nonsense crap posts going to be made?
Before you answer that one, since it looks like this CharOp nightmare was done using 3.5, I think you should go and reread the section of rules on stacking bonuses and which bonuses do and do not stack.
Fuuuuuck... I go off and live life for 1/2 a week and come back to find I missed 90+ pages of this shit? And cross-forum drama, too? Is there like a running synopsis anywhere? Shit, if chatting about games is gonna feel any more like work, I'm just gonna stick to playing them. Damn.
Quote from: jeff37923;551712How many times are theoretical nonsense crap posts going to be made?
Before you answer that one, since it looks like this CharOp nightmare was done using 3.5, I think you should go and reread the section of rules on stacking bonuses and which bonuses do and do not stack.
I assure you that Kaelik is entirely aware of those rules. Just off the top of my head, here are some of his bonuses:
+13 base attack bonus (
divine power).
+3 morale (
righteous wrath of the faithful).
+11 from his Wisdom score (Zen Archery feat).
+4 enhancement (
greater magic weapon).
Right there, that's +31. There are some other bonuses and penalties figured into the mix, but, yes, that sort of attack bonus is attainable.
@ BT, All Kraelik has proven is that his DM must be the dumbest person on earth, and yes all sorts of twinkery is possible in theory and that Wotc will print any piece of crap to make a buck off the gullible. With the added bonus of watching you twist your dick in knots trying to defend such wankery. Zen Archery indeed especially for a cleric of book knowledge how stupid do you have to be to swallow that load of crap? Among other things full of complete nonesense in that build and that so called suppliment going by the name "Complete Divine" complete shit you mean.
The denners and BT are now left arguing a 4e-like position where of course you get the "build" you want whenever you want because WotC said so, of course the DM must agree to all your wishes otherwise he sucks and he's bad, of course the character was started at level 10 or 13 for all we know but this simple fact has fuck all to do with the way the characters broke the game, IF the game happened at all for real in the first place...
Man, you guys painted yourself into a corner on this one, this is brilliant.
Check mate, bitches.
Quote from: Benoist;551718The denners and BT are now left arguing a 4e-like position where of course you get the "build" you want whenever you want because WotC said so, of course the DM must agree to all your wishes otherwise he sucks and he's bad, of course the character was started at level 10 or 13 for all we know but this simple fact has fuck all to do with the way the characters broke the game, IF the game happened at all for real in the first place...
Man, you guys painted yourself into a corner on this one, this is brilliant.
Check mate, bitches.
QuoteThis fucking forum. Here's the deal: Kaelik and the guys over at TGD like really high-powered games. They love games full of munchkin bullshit I would never allow in any of my games. If Kaelik were in my group, then that character would be banned straightaway. However, if his DM lets him play ultra-optimized weird builds, then who are you to judge him and say it's not a "real" character?
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Aos;551711Forcing BT to defend the Gaming Den has made this thread worth it; someone start a thread where he ends up speaking in defense of feminism please.
Next one will be getting BT to defend the Civil Rights Act. Hold on tight, it's going to be awesome.
I don't want o feel left out, so I'm going to declare victory.
Face it, nerds, I won the thread.
Quote from: B.T.;551710This fucking forum. Here's the deal: Kaelik and the guys over at TGD like really high-powered games. They love games full of munchkin bullshit I would never allow in any of my games. If Kaelik were in my group, then that character would be banned straightaway. However, if his DM lets him play ultra-optimized weird builds, then who are you to judge him and say it's not a "real" character?
The denners don't make characters.
They build magic decks.
Quote from: B.T.;551543Raaargh I am a cranky grognard who doesn't like rules
I don't like rules when they lead to ludicrous munchkin asshattery of the sort that the gaming den is constantly fellating. That's why I can't stand 3.x...it was a rules mastery arms race, and you practically had to be a high functioning autistic to actually run a game of it.
I'll take percentage thief skills over that bullshit any day.
Quote from: Kaelik;551692You should probably actually learn to read before picking fights on a forum.
First, I challenge you to find a single place I ever claimed that I played the character from level 1. You won't because level 1 is stupid, I don't play in games that don't start at least at level 3.
You don't play in games, period.
I know this to be true, because doing so would involve interacting with other people face-to-face, and your version of D&D doesn't really involve other people. Your version of D&D is played alone in a musty cellar, with only a stack of splatbooks and a bottle of luvox to keep you company.
Guys like you are the reason I've instituted the following houserule at my table:
First player to physically punch a rules lawyer in his actual face, gets bonus xp.
Quote from: B.T.;551710How much of this song and dance are we going to have to go through?
BT, Benoist isn't looking for a conversation about the topic. He's looking to prevent real discussion on the issue. That's been true since he started insulting people for knowing the rules. Having a discussion at all with him, Aos, or Declan is pointless.
I don't think jeff even believes that there are people who actually make characters with the end game in mind and if he does I do not believe he's ever been at a table that doesn't prevent people from going through with it. Jeff obviously doesn't like players with a lot of "power" and really I don't entirely disagree. I'm not a fan of someone building a character from start to finish, with the story having no effect on their development. I don't like that you basically have to in order to have an effective character. However, my not liking that is something separate, and the discussion here isn't about what I, or Kaelik for that matter, don't like about various editions of DnD. Its about whether there is a power disparity between a fighter/wizard and whether or not its a problem. I could go on and on about what Id on't like about what I don't like about 2e, 3e, and 4e but for right now those issues are not what's on the table.
Other people here seem to be going through some range of denial [The fighter SHOULD be mundane but MUST have his magic toys] or complacent [The fighter doesn't need to be as interesting/useful as everyone else as long as he can hit and be hit], [its a team game so there is no competition]. Which is all fine and dandy but ignores the point that there is an issue with the rules, people have encountered it, and it should be fixed.
I think a good portion of the resistance to what I've been trying to say is that people are taking my words as an attack on DnD as a whole, or an attack on their edition evidenced by sentiments such as: Leave my DnD alone, necessitating items doesn't mean that the game is bad, etc. Though all of these only serve to distract me because I play in 3e where the division between fighter/wizard is larger and well documented but haven't stopped playing the game, and in fact only want DnD to get better.
Then there are arguments like:
"The fighter should be mundane so people have a mundane guy to play!" and "The fighter doesn't need superpowers" While at the same time calling foul when I respond "Ok, show me how he operates without his not mundane equipment" and I even pointed out that the reason he shouldn't get this gear is that in the case that the gear ends up being more important than his abilities. What the gear does shouldn't overshadow what the class gives you. If the gear gives the fighter abilities that aren't mundane then the fighter is not mundane. It would seem to follow that if you want a fighter that specifically get his powers from equipment instead of his mundane-ness then the class should just give you that equipment automatically (IE as batman or ironman).
"3e isn't DnD." This is just so ridiculous I can't even bring myself to ask how someone could come to this conclusion. It smacks of ignorance and it is sort of sad that I share the hobby with people who abhor being able to read and having reading comprehension so intensely.
"Its good for the fighter to be weaker than the wizard in the end game and stronger in the beginning"'. I can't really understand why it would be good for a game to encourage power disparity. Its not an idea I can ever see as a good thing. It would seem like the game would be better for everybody if the classes were fairly even with each other and people had the option of being weaker if they wanted.
"The fighter doesn't need to do anything but fight well. Everything else can be handled through roleplay, strategy, guts." This is confusing because 4E is basically handcrafted with just that idea. They did exactly that except they put every class down such that they all can only function inside of combat and the rest is done with roleplay. If its true that people only care about rules as far as combat goes why is it that the same people don't lay 4th ed?
"That's your play experience, not mine. Thus there is no problem because play experiences are so different between groups such that the "problem" probably doesn't exist." This is the easiest, yet hardest to argue against. Its easy because I can posit common situations that, devoid of subjective influences and individual play style, can show the issue. However it's at the same time hard because play style and various factors do come into play when playing the game regularly that will obscure various issues and thus people are not willing to accept theories because theory doesn't = experience. This is true, but this is woefully unhelpful when trying to identify and deal with issues in the rules.
"Don't play the rules play the game!", "I wouldn't allow that in the game and neither would anyone else so it isn't a real issue!", "You can easily adjust the rules to make that not a problem", etc etc. And this is also woefully unhelpful because if you ignore, change, don't acknowledge the rules then you can play any rpg no matter what the rules because these are always options. This also does not mean that there are not issues with the rules, it actually means you know there is a problem with the rules and you are merely ignoring it. Now I should say that this is not necessarily bad all the time because there are campaign specific things that may be going on that the rules don't cover and thus you need to edit some rules in order to facilitate the difference but if you're doing it just so the class can function at all then there has to be an issue.
Quote from: B.T.;551657As I suspected: the rules aren't broken because the DM can fuck the player over.
That's the thing with grognards like you and Benoist. You invent reasons to dick with players instead of just manning up and telling them, "No, you can't play that, it's too powerful." You're a bunch of petty, cowardly twats.
That's what I do you fucking racist shit. They are just giving in game reasons on how to stop the stupidity without the banhammer, you got it or do you need it neon?
Quote from: MGuy;551731I don't think jeff even believes that there are people who actually make characters with the end game in mind and if he does I do not believe he's ever been at a table that doesn't prevent people from going through with it. Jeff obviously doesn't like players with a lot of "power" and really I don't entirely disagree.
Actually, I don't mind if someone has an idea for their character from start to finish and achieves that through playing their character. I do mind a character that is solely an intellectual exercise divorced from Actual Play.
I have gamed with guys who believe that Rules Mastery could beat tactics. Every time these Rules Mastery guys would end up on the floor getting bumrushed into their character's afterlife. It has been the same in every game I have played or run so far.
Quote from: MGuy;551731BT, Benoist isn't looking for a conversation about the topic. He's looking to prevent real discussion on the issue. That's been true since he started insulting people for knowing the rules. Having a discussion at all with him, Aos, or Declan is pointless.
You're just mad because I wouldn't get along with your Aspie TGD gamer demo on this thread. Well tough on you guys. I feel for you, I really do. Your schtick is bringing tears to my eyes, because I know you've not had some good old gaming fun for quite some time, since you keep on bitching endlessly about corner cases and gonzo details like this.
There's a world outside of that splatbook wanking of yours where DMs actually care about their campaign development, actually invite players to play into the same game and shared world of their imaginations, not each separated by their weird-ass optimization fantasies, but all together contributing into a game that is greater than the sum of its parts, rules included.
You guys don't really realize that, or not anymore, otherwise you wouldn't be endlessly whining about the validity of your theoretical delusions. It's all about how you got pissed one day at that DM who rained on your rules-lawyering parade, at this or that splatbook that included a rule that made you cry, and how you finally gave up on actual gaming to listen to the sirens of the Rainmen's Den, and the holy words of the prophet Frank Trollman. I feel for you. I really do.
So, I'm really sorry if I rub you the wrong way, but your gaming is really fucked up, if existent at all at this point. I just thought I would let you know. Peace and love. XOXOXO.
Quote from: MGuy;551731BT, Benoist isn't looking for a conversation about the topic. He's looking to prevent real discussion on the issue. That's been true since he started insulting people for knowing the rules. Having a discussion at all with him, Aos, or Declan is pointless.
What I find irritating is his intellectual dishonesty and outright lying. Sadly, I have a feeling that anyone playing a class intelligently gets banned from his table. Cleric casting spells instead of being a healbot? YOU'RE A BAD PLAYER. Wizard polymorphing into a hydra? UGH NOT AT MY TABLE. Fighter using Power Attack? FUCKING THEORETICAL MATH SHIT.
Quote from: Marleycat;551733That's what I do you fucking racist shit.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: B.T.;551739What I find irritating is his intellectual dishonesty and outright lying. Sadly, I have a feeling that anyone playing a class intelligently gets banned from his table. Cleric casting spells instead of being a healbot? YOU'RE A BAD PLAYER. Wizard polymorphing into a hydra? UGH NOT AT MY TABLE. Fighter using Power Attack? FUCKING THEORETICAL MATH SHIT.
You are not playing intelligently, you are indulging in intellectual masturbation.
Quote from: jeff37923;551741You are not playing intelligently, you are indulging in intellectual masturbation.
Who? Me? Don't think so. Kaelik's the one who came in with the super-powered build. All I said was that such as build was legal.
You ARE a racist and a shit of a human being, BT.
Quote from: MGuy;551731"3e isn't DnD." This is just so ridiculous I can't even bring myself to ask how someone could come to this conclusion. It smacks of ignorance and it is sort of sad that I share the hobby with people who abhor being able to read and having reading comprehension so intensely.
Sigh.
It's been pointed out explicitly in the thread by a couple of posters, but I'll just come out and say it, again.
I'm joking. Look at the crazy shit I posted. How could anyone say that shit and mean it? This is what's sad- that our hobby is so fucked up and full of so many fucked up people, that anyone could actually take the shit I was saying at face value for even a second.
Look at my avatar for god's sake- I went out of my way to be obvious.
Since I obviously upset you, I'll offer you something in return, some useless advice:
the next time someone tells you your game isn't D&D don't go into long bullshit idiot diatribes about reading comprehension (this is the lamest insult in the annals of the internet) just tell them to fuck off. It is what they deserve- but if you try to defend yourself against such idiocy getting trolled is what you deserve, and once you fall back on the "you can't read" defense, which virtually everyone in this thread has used, you have effectively soiled yourself in public.
In short
I don't have any problem with any iteration of D&D or any other RPG or the people who play them. I don't care who calls what D&D. I'm on record here saying that very thing about a million million times.
I'm a horrible manchild who loves to sew chaos, and I will likely never ever change, but even so, I'm sorry I rustled your jimmies. However, if you look, and you won't have to look very far, you'll see I am the butt of my own own jokes far more often than not.
The problem you're encountering here is, in part, that you came to the forum from another forum and stayed in one thread. The remaining part is due to the fact that I am a fucking prick.
Cheers.
Quote from: B.T.;551739What I find irritating is his intellectual dishonesty and outright lying. Sadly, I have a feeling that anyone playing a class intelligently gets banned from his table. Cleric casting spells instead of being a healbot? YOU'RE A BAD PLAYER. Wizard polymorphing into a hydra? UGH NOT AT MY TABLE. Fighter using Power Attack? FUCKING THEORETICAL MATH SHIT.
I fine him annoying because his kind of arrogant dismissal of other people's arguments are backed by... nothing. There's no engaging him. He's already made up his mind about everything. Not only has he decided by himself, despite evidence to the contrary, that I've haven't actually played the game but he refuses to do anything other than insult people for no reason.
LOL Those tears of impotent rage. They are delicious!
(http://static.tvfanatic.com/images/gallery/scott-tenorman-picture.jpg)
Aos. 2 sentences isn't a long diatribe. I'm sorry 2 sentences is a lengthy read for you. I'm also sorry that you are having trouble reading my join date.
Quote from: MGuy;551751Aos. 2 sentences isn't a long diatribe. I'm sorry 2 sentences is a lengthy read for you. I'm also sorry that you are having trouble reading my join date.
My apology was sincere, but if that's all you took away from it, that's obviously your choice.
Quote from: Benoist;551744You ARE a racist and a shit of a human being, BT.
In what way is that relevant to this discussion?
Quote from: MGuy;551749I fine him annoying because his kind of arrogant dismissal of other people's arguments are backed by... nothing. There's no engaging him. He's already made up his mind about everything. Not only has he decided by himself, despite evidence to the contrary, that I've haven't actually played the game but he refuses to do anything other than insult people for no reason.
The thing is there's nothing real to engage with. Seriously what is he suppose to argue? That it's possible and legal by Wotc definition? Who cares because it has nothing to do with an actual game it's all theory with nothing real and devoid of human interaction.
Quote from: B.T.;551757In what way is that relevant to this discussion?
Nothing really but it's the truth.:)
Quote from: B.T.;551757In what way is that relevant to this discussion?
Oh you know, just reminding people what a pitiful scumbag you really are.
Call it "context", I guess. ;)
Quote from: Marleycat;551758The thing is there's nothing real to engage with. Seriously what is he suppose to argue? That it's possible and legal by Wotc definition? Who cares because it has nothing to do with an actual game it's all theory with nothing real and devoid of human interaction.
A few things. 1) The cleric thing is not the only thing he can engage with. Kaelik isn't the only one laying down an argument. 2) He can do plenty to engage with it. (Espeically since the build was practically called for by people ho didn't believe it could be done). He could explain why being able to build that is bad. Why its bad to be able to build something like that. He can explain why he thinks its bad but doesn't believe it can/should be fixed. THere are many angles he can come at it from but simply saying that Cleric Archer Build = Bad isn't saying much. I can just simply say "Benoist is an idiot" and leave it at that but I at least have the common courtesy to back that up via facts by pointing at his antics in this very thread.
At this point it's just hilarious to see you guys pretend like you have no fucking clue what is going on, or what it is we are actually talking about, like you are coming from some distant planet where all gaming is nerd-raging on splats and builds or something. :D
Quote from: MGuy;551763A few things. 1) The cleric thing is not the only thing he can engage with. Kaelik isn't the only one laying down an argument. 2) He can do plenty to engage with it. (Espeically since the build was practically called for by people ho didn't believe it could be done). He could explain why being able to build that is bad. Why its bad to be able to build something like that. He can explain why he thinks its bad but doesn't believe it can/should be fixed. THere are many angles he can come at it from but simply saying that Cleric Archer Build = Bad isn't saying much. I can just simply say "Benoist is an idiot" and leave it at that but I at least have the common courtesy to back that up via facts by pointing at his antics in this very thread.
Ask those questions yourself if you're that interested in them. I don't think you'd get genuine answers but you could ask. For me Ben is just cutting through the shit and calling a spade a spade.
So I guess make up sex is out of the question then?
Quote from: Aos;551767So I guess make up sex is out of the question then?
With you? Always. :)
Note: Stormbringer actually went to the Gaming Den and confronted Frank on that previously mentioned thread (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=270908#270908) to call him out on his total bullshit. He's brave, because he's going to face a shitstorm of denial in response.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I2twWyLgJM8/TcfRQE-o5NI/AAAAAAAAD_A/hw-hzFyLV4Y/s1600/hats-off.jpg)
Quote from: MGuy;551749I fine him annoying because his kind of arrogant dismissal of other people's arguments are backed by... nothing. There's no engaging him. He's already made up his mind about everything. Not only has he decided by himself, despite evidence to the contrary, that I've haven't actually played the game but he refuses to do anything other than insult people for no reason.
Wait, did you get the quote tags backwards or something? If not, this is really straining my Irony-meter.
Stormbringer is more reasonable than jeff, Benoist, or Frank, so his mission is doomed to failure. Also, Frank lies and bullshits a lot.
Quote from: B.T.;551773Also, Frank lies and bullshits a lot.
Awww. Are you trying to suck up now?
Quote from: Benoist;551770Note: Stormbringer actually went to the Gaming Den and confronted Frank on that previously mentioned thread (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=270908#270908) to call him out on his total bullshit. He's brave, because he's going to face a shitstorm of denial in response.
Nah, they are teddy bears over there. They just need to be reminded occasionally that there were two and a half decades of D&D leading up to their 3.x Holy Writ that didn't have screaming matches over character builds. Screaming matches that only really cropped up with the advent of supplement mega-bloat a couple of years into the 3.x years.
Naturally, the rise of the internet in the very late 90s was a contributing factor, don't get me wrong. But the early internet adopters are likely the same folks that sat around the FLGS bitching about this stuff before, they just had a much, much bigger audience now in the world's largest FLGS. And they didn't get kicked out as often, either. :)
I don't think these people are a greater percentage of the hobby, just a more visible one, thanks to the multiplying effects of the internet. An effect they seem to fall for not only at WotC, but over at TGD, too.
Quote from: StormBringer;551776Nah, they are teddy bears over there. They just need to be reminded occasionally that there were two and a half decades of D&D leading up to their 3.x Holy Writ that didn't have screaming matches over character builds. Screaming matches that only really cropped up with the advent of supplement mega-bloat a couple of years into the 3.x years.
But it was bad because fighters couldn't teleport and wrestle dragons.
Quote from: B.T.;551777But it was bad because fighters couldn't teleport and wrestle dragons.
I have no idea how to even grasp the concept that if a Fighter can't take on a Dragon single-handedly, it's a useless class.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;551687Some of the chemicals that I add to paint while working on minis contain a retarder to slow the drying process. :)
I can't believe you are so insulting to paint! Have you no empathy for paint!
Quote from: StormBringer;551776Nah, they are teddy bears over there. They just need to be reminded occasionally that there were two and a half decades of D&D leading up to their 3.x Holy Writ that didn't have screaming matches over character builds. Screaming matches that only really cropped up with the advent of supplement mega-bloat a couple of years into the 3.x years.
Naturally, the rise of the internet in the very late 90s was a contributing factor, don't get me wrong. But the early internet adopters are likely the same folks that sat around the FLGS bitching about this stuff before, they just had a much, much bigger audience now in the world's largest FLGS. And they didn't get kicked out as often, either. :)
I don't think these people are a greater percentage of the hobby, just a more visible one, thanks to the multiplying effects of the internet. An effect they seem to fall for not only at WotC, but over at TGD, too.
Just an aside, I haven't said anything over there about your convo with Frank because its about the 70s. I wasn't even born then so, not only do I not know about what the specifics complaints about DnD were at that time was, but what happened then is irrelevant to me. I'm not even that familiar with what was being said about 3e on the internet when it first came out. So I do not have anything to add to that conversation.
I can say I have my own experiences and that I played 2e. Didn't like it. Now you may think its because of the fighter thing but I played as a cleric and didn't even play for more than a few sessions.
This thread has demonstrated yet again that my restrictions on player behavior for my campaigns is one of the the best ways to avoid broken D&D games (any edition): "Rules lawyers, munchkins, and RAW worshipers are not welcome at this table. They will be permanently ejected from play after ONE warning. No exceptions will be made even for close friends of the GM."
I will also say that I do not think any set of RPG rules (that includes a referee) is broken just because rules lawyers and munchkins can abuse the rules and create chaos from them. Making a set of rules that rules lawyers and munchkins could not abuse would create a game that was so locked down that normal players would be extremely limited in what they can do and the average GM would likely need to have his mind enhanced by a supercomputer to successful run it. It is far easier and results in a far less complex and limiting set of rules for GMs who want to run sane games to simply ban rules lawyers and munchkins from the game.
I am still amused that despite the large overlap in people's positions, there appears to be an effort to obscure that fact.
1) A build like Kaelik's is possible in 3.5 D&D. It is probably not even the most excessive build 'twink' you could find. Even if you ban those options at each step (which is not entirely unreasonable - polymorph has been a major issue for DMs at many tables) the basic idea is still sound - a Fighter who is good at fighting is outdone by a cleric. Even without 'twinkery' it isn't hard for a cleric who has access to magical spells to quickly exceed the martial contribution of a fighter. It's disingenuous to claim that 'this build is bad because Boccob doesn't care about bows' - clearly he cares about magic and the bow is just a tool to show off the transformative effects of the magic. Even if Kaelik just used this cleric to transform into, say, a hydra (as opposed to a demon), which has no alignment issues for his or any deity would work to make him better than a Fighter (even an optimized Fighter) of the same level. Even without the polymorph, Kaelik has shown that you can use persistent spells that raise your attack and damage bonuses above that of a Fighter of equal level (unless you also cast those spells on the Fighter). It's nice that the cleric CAN buff the Fighter, but if you think the fighter should be best at fighting you should recognize that it only happens if the other classes spend their own resources on lifting the Fighter up. In some groups, even 'team games', supporting a weak character isn't something the other players want to do. They want the player to make an effective character. If you'd like to see what I mean, play a bard. Or better yet, tell the rest of the group that you'll play an NPC class (like a Warrior or an Aristocrat). While these classes have been specifically called out as 'weaker than PC choices', with a significant magical investment from others, they can contribute to the party nearly as well as a Fighter.
2) Since this is a thread nominally about disparity in power between Fighters and spellcasters (and whether that's a problem), it is worth considering the 'theoretical space' that each takes up. By definition, magic can do the impossible. Because the rules (regardless of edition) allow a spellcaster to research new spells, it follows that anything is possible through magic. If you can conceive it, and the effects are similar to something between levels 0 and 9 in terms of power, it's probably possible. If its more powerful than 9th level, it might not get into the game or ever be practical, but it could exist. Wizards and Clerics benefit from this idea that 'anything impossible can be magic'. The Fighter suffers from the idea that 'since anything cool COULD be magic, let's just make that the only way to achieve cool effects'. The fighter in 3.5 gains the ability to hit more accurately than most classes (+20 BAB), but that doesn't compare very favorably to the other classes. By 20th level the Fighter has a +5 over the cleric and rogue, but at 4th level, it's just a +1. Since there are a HOST of spells that bridge that +1 gap, it should be pretty clear that the gap becomes non-existent.
3) I thought that this thread would be best to show how the wizard could bridge that gap - even though he has a weak selection of armor, weapons, hit points and attack bonus. To make the task easier, however, compare the cleric 'without twinkery' to the Fighter. By 9th level, using core rules only, I can build a better 'martial character' with a cleric then you can with a Fighter. It's not because I have a better knowledge of the rules than you do - it's because you're starting with a deficient material. The Fighter (as written) can never hope to contribute at the approximate level of his companions from mid-levels on.
4) Equipment that actually provides abilities (since the class does not) gives the illusion that the Fighter is contributing 'approximately equally'. But since equipment can be reassigned, you'll quickly notice that if his equipment were assigned to someone else - anyone else - they can do the job he was doing as well or better than he can. Hyperbole? I don't think so.
5) You may also argue that these problems are less noticeable and significant in editions other than 3rd. I don't disagree - but that doesn't mean they weren't there in some form. Likewise, you may claim that these problems don't exist in low-level games. I don't disagree with that, either. Up until about 4th level the Fighter is alright (although it sucks that he has no skills that are useful outside of combat). But there are plenty of people that enjoy mid- or high-level games. If you like the Fighter, and I do, you should recognize that it stops being an option at high levels. It is possible to mitigate this further by playing something that is not a Fighter - such as by taking a prestige class or multi-classing - but if you think a straight Fighter can contribute in any form of meaningful fashion from about 13th level (D&D 3.5) you are simply and demonstrably wrong - not just by 'masturbation analysis' - but also by in play demonstrations across multiple groups on multiple occasions with different DMs. Again, some DMs find was to 'bring up' the Fighter by giving 'gifts' which further obscure the deficiency - but unless someone has 'pity' on the Fighter, the Fighter can't contribute meaningfully at high level. This is not to say he 'can't contribute at all' - that'd be stupid. Meaningfully means there isn't anything he can do that the rest of the party can't handle themselves with the expenditure of a renewable resource. Don't believe me? Since you don't want actual game experience or 'intellectual wankery' I don't know how I can convince you. So I ask that when the Fighter contributes, ask yourself, 'could one or more of my other players done the same thing?' If the answer is yes, then the Fighter's contribution is limited - it's like if I ask you to hand me the remote control while watching TV. It might be easier for you if you can reach it without getting up, but it's not a 'meaningful contribution' because I can do it myself - unless I'm in full traction or something.
I think many of us have acknowledged problems with 3.5, in particular broken builds. It is one of the reasons I don't play that edition. But we have also pointed out the typical methods for dealing with the issue. You can embrace builds and system mastery as part of the game (in which case I have seen some awesome martial builds---straight fighters are generally a bad idea in such games) or you empower the GM to enforce the spirit of the rules not just the letter. I have done both and run succesful campaigns doing so. I do not doubt that the crazy cleric build mentioned is likely possible (i haven't an am not going to waste time checking the poster's facts) because I have seen some insane character builds in 3.5. The GM has the option of embracing that as a product of system mastery or saying, "no, while this is possible it is clearly a loophole". 3.5 is rough in that way. It allows a lot of options and choices and many people find that rewarding. The downside is it has some sharp angles and wild combos that bust a game. But if everyone knows the system, and employs multiclass builds, they can usually be on par. Having run a campaign for a team of optimizers this is my experience at least.
So agree with you there. I don't agree that the problem is at all that substantial in 2e (for the reasons I have given already). You just don't get those kind of crazy bab iterations in 2e that you get in 3e. Admittetly there are some kits and optional stuff from supps that need to be watched for. The Gm is important as a balancer (or at the very least things like treasure acquisition need to rely on random tables). Some people dont like that wizards get powerful at higher levels. Some do. Personally I like that and I think it is still pretty well balanced either way.
In terms of fighters doing cool stuff, that is just preference. You can balance out a fighter by keeping them totally mundane and swinging a sword, but making sure their numbers allow them to keep up. I think most people here seem to agree fighters should be best at fighting. If that is your design goal, nothing wrong with giving them a big edge on number of attacks, damage, and BaB. That can break down if the edge is too small. But as long as it is big enough, it works out (after all balance in combat is largely just a matter of how many opponents you can hit and how much damage you can do/take).for me, in D&D it is very important that the classes feel distinct. Mechanically rogues, fightes, wizards and clerics all feel pretty different to me in AD&D. In 3e I thought they got a bit more blurry. By 4e they felt too similar mechanically.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;551822I
2) Since this is a thread nominally about disparity in power between Fighters and spellcasters (and whether that's a problem), it is worth considering the 'theoretical space' that each takes up. By definition, magic can do the impossible. Because the rules (regardless of edition) allow a spellcaster to research new spells, it follows that anything is possible through magic. If you can conceive it, and the effects are similar to something between levels 0 and 9 in terms of power, it's probably possible. If its more powerful than 9th level, it might not get into the game or ever be practical, but it could exist. Wizards and Clerics benefit from this idea that 'anything impossible can be magic'. The Fighter suffers from the idea that 'since anything cool COULD be magic, let's just make that the only way to achieve cool effects'.
It is perfectly possible conceptually for mundane effects to have one set of 'natural' limitations, and magic to have another set of 'supernatural' limitations which are different. In this vein, D&D already includes components, spell 'memorization' / limited number of spells, magic resistance, and so on, as well as codes of conducts and so on for priests.
There are also of course class limitations outside the magic system itself (inability to use a sword or wear armour, more xp to level in older editions, worse saving throws).
It is possible to imagine a magic system where wizards have unlimited power , as you're suggesting. It is not inevitable, necessary or desirable to attempt to design such a system, however.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;551826It is perfectly possible conceptually for mundane effects to have one set of 'natural' limitations, and magic to have another set of 'supernatural' limitations which are different. In this vein, D&D already includes components, spell 'memorization' / limited number of spells, magic resistance, and so on, as well as codes of conducts and so on for priests.
There are also of course class limitations outside the magic system itself (inability to use a sword or wear armour, more xp to level in older editions, worse saving throws).
It is possible to imagine a magic system where wizards have unlimited power , as you're suggesting. It is not inevitable, necessary or desirable to attempt to design such a system, however.
This is a good point. I recently made a game that was S&S the way I wanted it. I like wizards to be very powerful, but not in combat. So i used long casting times to make wizards weak in a fight, but great in noncombat situations. Give a wizard a few hours and he can summon a demon (at enormous risk) but throw him into a battle and he is lucky if he pulls off a single spell (minor effects are easy enough but blasty spells take time). Fighters in the game are totally mundane but very effective. This isn't the only way to do it, but stuff like natural limitations on spells can be used as a balancer.
Yeah, I really don't get why certain posters are determined to lie about the more reasonable positions held by some folks. It's like dealing with political extremists...but with something far more trivial. Guess some folks just don't want certain ideas discussed.
Quote from: MGuy;551731"You can easily adjust the rules to make that not a problem"
Except that even minor adjustments can make the core fighter concept work better. You don't actually need codified powers or anything like them for this. You just make the attack bonuses for the fighter scale better, scale down the item side of things, give AoOs their teeth back (by ditching the five foot step and so on), give scaling damage with level instead of iterative attacks, and don't give casters ludicrous spells (seriously: why does charm last for days?).
Then you just let the fighter try shit like tripping/disarming using his higher BaB, and so on.
"Small bugfixes" isn't very dramatic a suggestion, so I know it's not going to get the attention it deserves, but that's what "fixing" the 3x iteration of the fighter boils down to.
Quote, etc etc. And this is also woefully unhelpful because if you ignore, change, don't acknowledge the rules then you can play any rpg no matter what the rules because these are always options. This also does not mean that there are not issues with the rules, it actually means you know there is a problem with the rules and you are merely ignoring it. Now I should say that this is not necessarily bad all the time because there are campaign specific things that may be going on that the rules don't cover and thus you need to edit some rules in order to facilitate the difference but if you're doing it just so the class can function at all then there has to be an issue.
This part depends on the context of the conversation. It is in fact very useful in discussions of:
*How to houserule a home game.
*Potential next editions.
*Whether the
core concept of the fighter (as opposed to the very specific version that is 3.5's fighter next to 3.5's wizards vs 3.5's dragons) is viable.
Hey. Would you look at that? This conversation is actually about one of those three things. Whoda thunk it?
Quote from: beejazz;551831Except that even minor adjustments can make the core fighter concept work better. You don't actually need codified powers or anything like them for this. You just make the attack bonuses for the fighter scale better, scale down the item side of things, give AoOs their teeth back (by ditching the five foot step and so on), give scaling damage with level instead of iterative attacks, and don't give casters ludicrous spells (seriously: why does charm last for days?).
Then you just let the fighter try shit like tripping/disarming using his higher BaB, and so on.
"Small bugfixes" isn't very dramatic a suggestion, so I know it's not going to get the attention it deserves, but that's what "fixing" the 3x iteration of the fighter boils down to.
You and I apparently have different ideas about what a 'small fix' means. Scaling down spell power means reviewing and possibly modifying every spell (in just the PHB that's over 1/3 of the book). Changing the 5'-step is a major change to the tactical combat situation in 3.5. Scaling back items? I don't even know where to begin on that one. I LIKE low-magic-item, but that just favors the people who can cast spells directly...
I know I've said it before - magic items are the only thing that even make the Fighter
look competitive. The fact that you can take them from the fighter and give them to another character and retain the benefit is a major indicator of the problem.
The Fighter lacks any class abilities, so the class relies on the 'creativity of the player', combined with the willingness of the DM to agree with the solution the player provided. Since this is based on the quality of the player
and not the class a good player will be able to do the same things with a rogue or thief, or with a wizard or cleric. And if the player is using one of those classes, he also has 'actual class abilities' that might offer a solution as well.
I want the Fighter to be a simple class to play, but it needs to provide some things to keep it competitive. Right now, it doesn't.
ALSOWhile changing the rules is a possible solution, it is also the most complex when dealing with 'real people'. Some people will think that these changes are good and fair, others will apparently think they're 'broken'. The game designers have an obligation to try to get it right from the beginning so that players and DMs aren't universally applying inconsistent solutions that may or may not address the problems.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;551856While changing the rules is a possible solution, it is also the most complex when dealing with 'real people'. Some people will think that these changes are good and fair, others will apparently think they're 'broken'.
I could care less about what players in general think of my rules changes when I GM. Those who do not like them do not have to play at my table.
QuoteThe game designers have an obligation to try to get it right from the beginning...
First, "right" with respect to RPG rules is very subjective.
Second, I don't expect the game designers to be able to design rules I can use as written unless they are designing rules specifically for my campaign, my players, and our playstyle. What is right for my campaign, my players, and our style of play is probable wrong for your campaign, your players and you all's style of play. Expecting the RAW to handle both nearly perfectly is silly, IMHO.
I agree that the game designers have an obligation to produce the best rules they can, but the GM has the obligation to modify the rules to meet the needs of his campaign setting, his players, and their style of play. I do not expect the game designers to produce rules that are rules lawyer, munchkin, and twink proof.
Quote...so that players and DMs aren't universally applying inconsistent solutions that may or may not address the problems.
I could care less if the rules decisions I make are consistent with the rules decisions the designers would make or other GMs would make. As I am not participating in or supporting organized or tournament play, I can't see why it would even matter. So what if the rulings, rule interpretations, and house rules for my campaign are radically different from those of other campaigns I'm not running?
Quote from: MGuy;551791Just an aside, I haven't said anything over there about your convo with Frank because its about the 70s. I wasn't even born then so, not only do I not know about what the specifics complaints about DnD were at that time was, but what happened then is irrelevant to me. I'm not even that familiar with what was being said about 3e on the internet when it first came out. So I do not have anything to add to that conversation.
I understand you may have nothing to add but I hope you're at least listening carefully to what's being said, because it pertains directly to the question at hand.
3e is the edition that broke spellcasters by drastically reducing their most significant vulnerabilities. Understanding how that came about is kinda relevant.
And I'm probably going to regret asking this, but what was it about your 2e play experiences that you didn't like?
Quote from: MGuy;551791Just an aside, I haven't said anything over there about your convo with Frank because its about the 70s. I wasn't even born then so, not only do I not know about what the specifics complaints about DnD were at that time was, but what happened then is irrelevant to me. I'm not even that familiar with what was being said about 3e on the internet when it first came out. So I do not have anything to add to that conversation.
I can say I have my own experiences and that I played 2e. Didn't like it. Now you may think its because of the fighter thing but I played as a cleric and didn't even play for more than a few sessions.
That's cool. I have no answer for your preferences, other than there were certainly 'problems' with every edition of every RPG ever, and D&D is absolutely not immune. But there are ways to fix things without resorting to massive rules bloat (dozens of classes, hundreds of skills, thousands of feats and thousands upon thousands of spells). And I, among others, will be happy to point out a few things from the earlier editions that might have changed things for the better (weapon vs AC, training times and costs, race and level restrictions, etc). That doesn't mean you or anyone is required to re-assess everything you ever did in the hobby.
Just take a look with fresh eyes and see if maybe all those problems people complain about now only cropped up recently. As in, these things really weren't problems before, and then think about why that might be.
Quote from: beejazz;551831*Whether the core concept of the fighter (as opposed to the very specific version that is 3.5's fighter next to 3.5's wizards vs 3.5's dragons) is viable.
Well I'm not going to repeat myself about the "change the rules" solution. However this deserves mentioning. I actually already brought up whether the conceptual space for fighters matched up with spell casters and dragons. The fighter (in 2e and 3e) is a concept of guy swings a sword. People get very very offended if he can do more than that. No one gets offended by the wizard warping reality no matter how he does it. People get worried if the guy playing the game on their team can actually warp reality so much that their character becomes unnecessary or loses their uniqueness (Fighter) such that they will expect the DM to effectively neuter the caster but no one is REALLY offended by what high end magic can do. Evil wizards, lost magic based cultures and creatures, ancient curses, no one will complain at all about these things doing whatever. However the minute your barbarian/fighter/ranger starts leaping 100+ feat in the air to fight a 3 headed psychic snake (from an actual game I actually played) people's panties start to twist.
Now people "say" that they want a mundane fighter. That's not a bad thing to want but its unworkable given that everything he fights (other than other fighters) is not mundane. So people give him not mundane stuff to make up for his mundane-ness without batting an eyelash. Finally even people on this board are saying "well give him bonuses to keep up" and the fact that people are recognizing that fighters need a little help only shows that what I've been saying for most of this conversation is indeed true. The fighter needs a leg up.
Now that is not to say that "magic" shouldn't be put on a leash. Its just that no one expects magic to be limited. And when your concept is of "swing a sword" is put next to "do anything" people start to notice that "swing a sword" gets kind of old. People want to swing a "magic" sword and have"magic" armor because that is the expectation of a fighter at higher levels. So I guess you could say that conceptually people expect a fighter to only be able to swing a sword AND they expect a fighter to be given trinkets that allow him to feel special. Now that may not be my solution of choice but I say if you're going to go with that solution make it a hard coded part of the rules.
Other people want to instead limit what magic can do. I do not disagree with this sentiment as I want to do the same. But this solution still highlights that a power disparity exists.
So you want Yu Gi Oh!, the Role Playing Game, in fact.
Why don't you play something like Exalted or Feng Shui or ... ? And leave people who actually like D&D alone?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551705Ultra rare items just to be found you say?
Sounds like the DM pretty much catered to what you wanted. The thick irony of people like you always bitching about mother may I when you do the exact same thing. Or worse, you ASSUME the DM will cave to your desires. Most DMs I know, if you came up to them with a build that was so game breaking, would probably respond with "Sure, you know where a splitting bow is, but here's this huge ass challenge you have to go through first to get it. And if it's a super powerful item (which seems the case as you explain), you'd have to fight through some levels of hell to find the demon who owns one." Let alone TWO bows of splitting.
1) Did you see me bitching about Mother May I anywhere in this thread? No, you are just doing that thing where you can't tell people apart because thinking is hard? Carry on then.
2) Maybe you should stop ASSUMEing because you are doing a really bad job at it. Did I say at any point that I expect the DM to cave to my desires? No, oh, then fuck you. I am playing this character in a game that is, frankly, more high powered than my usual taste, and I made this character because the DM told me to make an extremely powerful character. Now, as point of fact, he actually did make me face challenges to get the item, I already explained that. I had to loot one of my bows of the corpse of an Arrow Demon that I had to fight first. I got someone to make the other one, but I had to collect enough money to pay the guy, and that involved more than one challenge.
But again, your ignorance of the rules, you should cure that before you start talking. The Splitting Bow is not particularly powerful. It's powerful in general, certainly, but any item is. The Splitting Bow is not as powerful in the hands of your average fighter however. It becomes more powerful in the hands of of a Divine Oracle who hunts it down, because obviously I am hunting down items that are useful to me.
So no, it's not a super powerful item.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551705Oh, and when you say, "I clear anything I want before hand" that sounds like a huge case of entitlement. It's the DM's game; they are the one spending 5x the time and energy equipment making the game work. And that character you describe? That's so monty haul munchkinism game breaking pile of steaming puke I don't know any DM that would allow it.
Once again, you are dumb as fuck. How is asking the DM if he's okay with my character entitlement? I had two options, show up with a character and a plan and not tell them DM, or tell the DM my plan, and show him my character, and ask him if he would allow it. I did the latter, and that is literally the exact opposite of entitlement.
And as to the monty haul of the character, again, ignorance is not a thing to be proud of. He's not monty haul in 3.5, because 3.5 has rules for the rate at which items are obtained, and he's a little under where he should be. The fact that you don't know the rules for 3.5 does not make things that are actually under treasured suddenly over treasured.
But it is good to know that you personally don't know any DM that would allow it. You know what else would be good to know? That you are not personally the sum and total of the universe. I do happen to know a DM that would allow it. This actually shouldn't be surprising because generally speaking people end of knowing DMs who DM games they like to play in, so the fact that you have specific preferences means that you are unlikely to know any DMs who DM games far outside those preferences.
Quote from: Imp;551706I'm sorry, are any of those evil incarnate? No? Because the thing about evil incarnate is, it has a way of getting into shit it doesn't technically have any business getting into. That's the thing, "demon" isn't a keyword, words mean things. You can say the label on the box says "I am not consorting with demons," but the fact is, what your precious little cleric is doing is using magic to access demonic powers that make him stronger than he has any right to be and if that isn't the one canonical giant flashing "fuck with me, gods" sign in all of fantasy I don't know what is. Don't really care what the spell description says at this point, if you're spending all your time in demon form, some shit that didn't get on the label is going to start happening. If you wanted to spend all your time as a yellow duckie, well, duckies don't have the intrinsic quality of wanting to invade and destroy everything they touch, so knock yourself out.
?? Yes, Neutral Evil is Evil Incarnate. A Neutral Evil cleric of Boccob at level 11 gives of a Moderate Aura of evil when someone uses Detect Evil. A Dretch gives off a Moderate Aura. Boccob is totally fine with his Clerics being as evil as Demons.
Once again, if my Cleric used magic to access Hydratic powers, or Birdian powers, or Giantian powers, that would not be a big deal to anyone. Likewise, Boccob, who is not the Christian god, so stop being confused, does not care if you use Magic to take the form of a Demon. He has evil Clerics in his employ, he does not fucking care. He hates Solars exactly as much as he hates Demons, which is not at all.
My Cleric does not have the intrinsic quality of wanting to invade and destroy everything they touch either, and the omniscient Boccob knows this. Nor, Frankly, would Boccob care if I did destroy everything I touched, as long as I only touched things that are adverse to his interests.
I mean, I get it, you actually don't understand D&Ds gods at all because you are too busy projecting your own baseless conceptions about how Neutral Gods with Evil Clerics in their employ hate Demons and love Angels, because you are stupid.
But try to keep your stupid to yourself on this point, because you are looking like an idiot, and it's embarrassing your forumites.
Quote from: Imp;551706GM's fault for not integrating prestige classes in his world, I suppose.
I think you are confused. The Prestige classes are integrated into the world. But them being integrated into the world does not in any way limit my ability to become a Divine Oracle. You don't need training from a Divine Oracle to become a Divine Oracle, and there is no group of assassins who show up to murder anyone who has Divine Oracle powers.
Quote from: jeff37923;551707I'll just stop at the part where to make this build work you had to have someone else cast Planar Binding and Bind Efreeti in order to have Wishes (plural) cast on your character at some point before 13th level.
Okay, first off, Bind Efferti is not even a spell. Secondly, again, you should read the rules, that's just something that 11th level Wizards can do. And Third, you don't need that at all to do this, I just happened to. If he didn't have that, he would have a lower will save, and +28 attack bonus, and fewer spells (though of course, still enough to cast all the spells I listed, and have lots more for casting as utility throughout the day).
I mean, I understand that you don't know the rules, but you should probably do the minimal amount of work needed to find out if the stat boost are necessary or not.
Quote from: jeff37923;551707Seeing as how you actually answered the question finally after I called you on it, I will give you partial credit.
No, I answered the question when I got home and had access to my character sheet you lying shithead. Like I told you that you'd have to wait for in the first fucking place before you threw your temper tantrum about how I should have known you wanted to know every book that I used even though that's not part of a statblock or on my character sheet and you never told me it and damn it why didn't I just read your mind.
Quote from: jeff37923;551707I think Benoist is right though. You are a liar because there is no sane DM who would let you munchkin like that and twink out that character.
Once again, as I had to tell both Benoist and Sacrosanct, you are not the sum total of the universe. There are lots of people who like to play the game differently than you. And it makes sense that we play with each other while never playing with you, because people who whine about other peoples characters being "munchkin and twink" annoy me just as much when I DM as this would annoy you when you DM.
Quote from: jeff37923;551707I think you need to read up on the descriptor of Boccob, because you sure as shit are not familiar with it in any kind of immersive sense of being part of a universe. Here, why don't you start with the wikipedia entry and tell me where Boccob is the god of archery or even favors the bow as a weapon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boccob)
And I suppose you could point to me where is says that Boccob personally murders every single Cleric of his who doesn't use his favored weapon. Seriously, some deities have favored weapons that Clerics are not even proficient in, do you think they throw a fit when their clerics don't use them?
Quote from: jeff37923;551712Before you answer that one, since it looks like this CharOp nightmare was done using 3.5, I think you should go and reread the section of rules on stacking bonuses and which bonuses do and do not stack.
I think before you start making allegations, you should read any rules at all and get back to me.
Why the fuck did I go through all the trouble of giving you all that information if you won't even fucking read it?
I gave you the fucking bonus types and the spell names, all of those things stack. Point to a single thing that doesn't stack.
Quote from: Marleycat;551716Zen Archery indeed especially for a cleric of book knowledge how stupid do you have to be to swallow that load of crap?
???
Are you a bot? Because I would think any human who has actually played D&D would know that the God of Magic doesn't throw a fit when his Clerics hit people in the face with a Mace, and so he also doesn't throw a fit when they shoot a bow.
Quote from: jeff37923;551735Actually, I don't mind if someone has an idea for their character from start to finish and achieves that through playing their character. I do mind a character that is solely an intellectual exercise divorced from Actual Play.
You forgot to add "Unless they play in a game and I don't like the way they play, then I whine for 40 minutes about how it's impossible and call them a liar with no factual basis because I refuse to admit that people play differently than I do."
Quote from: MGuy;551867Now people "say" that they want a mundane fighter. That's not a bad thing to want but its unworkable given that everything he fights (other than other fighters) is not mundane. So people give him not mundane stuff to make up for his mundane-ness without batting an eyelash. Finally even people on this board are saying "well give him bonuses to keep up" and the fact that people are recognizing that fighters need a little help only shows that what I've been saying for most of this conversation is indeed true. The fighter needs a leg up.
.
What i am saying is the fighters bonuses to attack, damage and hp should be substantial and consistent enough to make him effective in combat. But i am fine with wizards being able to occassionally eclipse that provided they have limitations. But i dont accept your idea that fighters need non mundane abillities (1000 foot jumps) to remain viable. To me that is the domain of magical classes. I dont want to play superheroes. I want wizards and clerics to use magic but thieves and fighters to use steel and skill.
In terms of previous edition pretty much everyone agrees 3E has balance issues, but its also pretty easy to work around it or embrace the whole system mastery thing (its an unfair game in many ways, but that is part of the fun).
But for 2E and 1E i think most of us are in agreement that the classes are generally well balanced. For me that includes balance over the campaign where wizards start weak but get strong. However even then the disparity isn't close to 3E.
If you want more fantastic fighters thats great. It is a reasonable expectation. But it isn't for me. I don't see the point in trying tp force others to accept that they should want that or that the game should be built toward that style (how the game ought to be designed stems from their design goals and the needs/preferences of customers).
Quote from: Kaelik;5518711) Did you see me bitching about Mother May I anywhere in this thread? No, you are just doing that thing where you can't tell people apart because thinking is hard? Carry on then.
When I say "you people", I'm talking about WotC players, who as a group very often like to bitch about TSR era D&D using "mother may I" hyperbole. But I'll expand on that in a moment.
Quote2) Maybe you should stop ASSUMEing because you are doing a really bad job at it. Did I say at any point that I expect the DM to cave to my desires? No, oh, then fuck you.
When you present an end-game munchkin character, that's dependent on the DM giving you a lot things to allow that to happen. If people like you don't get what you want, out comes the aforementioned "mother may I" and "it's in the rules so I can" bitching. I.e., you feel entitled that a twink build you found should be allowed regardless of how any other player at the table feels. When your build is dependent on getting 2ea bows, you are expecting the DM to allow you to get those at some point.
QuoteNow, as point of fact, he actually did make me face challenges to get the item, I already explained that. I had to loot one of my bows of the corpse of an Arrow Demon that I had to fight first. I got someone to make the other one, but I had to collect enough money to pay the guy, and that involved more than one challenge.
Way to miss the point. The point was that the DM was catering to you just by having 2 of those bows available in the game world to begin with. Again with the assumption that if it's in a game book, ANY game book, then the DM has to allow it.
QuoteBut again, your ignorance of the rules, you should cure that before you start talking. The Splitting Bow is not particularly powerful. It's powerful in general, certainly, but any item is. The Splitting Bow is not as powerful in the hands of your average fighter however. It becomes more powerful in the hands of of a Divine Oracle who hunts it down, because obviously I am hunting down items that are useful to me.
So no, it's not a super powerful item.
Any fucking weapon that doubles your attacks is pretty fucking powerful.
But this illustrates another clear divide between old school and new school players.
Old school players hardly ever decided to play a character class based on on end game options. They choose a character based on archetype, and let the actual adventures they go through mold their end game experience.
It seems new school (I'll call them the WoW kids) almost always look at what end game build they can play, and then decide to play a character to get to that build. The thousands of threads on the interwebs going over end game builds are proof of this. Want more? Go onto a gaming forum and ask what type of class you should play and all the responses will be builds up to level 20.
Often times these builds are reliant upon certain things (like your two bows), and if the DM doesn't cater to these things, the WoW kids get all bitchy about mother may I. That's entitlement. And the irony is that these same people who quickly trot out "mother may I" as some sort of blight against TSR era D&D are the same ones who give wish lists to their DM and expect those wish lists to be fulfilled.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;551861I understand you may have nothing to add but I hope you're at least listening carefully to what's being said, because it pertains directly to the question at hand.
3e is the edition that broke spellcasters by drastically reducing their most significant vulnerabilities. Understanding how that came about is kinda relevant.
And I'm probably going to regret asking this, but what was it about your 2e play experiences that you didn't like?
I am following the conversation. I understand what people are saying about 3e. I have never once denied anybody's contention that casters in 3e are much more powerful in 3e than 2e. I figured that much out when I played it. However what really steamed my buns about 2e is the reliance on the word of the DM.The lengthy list of house rules that the DM I'd played with had were only dwarfed by my inability to understand some of the decisions. I found myself with little power to question anything that was going on or even make a good guess at what my character knew/didn't know he could do because all of that was pretty much up to the DM. I had no standard to go by and how to rely more on my ability to manipulate my DM into agreeing with me than my actual knowledge of the physics engine the world worked on. Plus I could never manipulate the DM enough to get us off the railroad. What's worse is that a lot of the house rules seemed invented to specifically stop me from yanking myself off the rails.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;551875What i am saying is the fighters bonuses to attack, damage and hp should be substantial and consistent enough to make him effective in combat. But i am fine with wizards being able to occassionally eclipse that provided they have limitations. But i dont accept your idea that fighters need non mundane abillities (1000 foot jumps) to remain viable. To me that is the domain of magical classes. I dont want to play superheroes. I want wizards and clerics to use magic but thieves and fighters to use steel and skill.
In terms of previous edition pretty much everyone agrees 3E has balance issues, but its also pretty easy to work around it or embrace the whole system mastery thing (its an unfair game in many ways, but that is part of the fun).
But for 2E and 1E i think most of us are in agreement that the classes are generally well balanced. For me that includes balance over the campaign where wizards start weak but get strong. However even then the disparity isn't close to 3E.
If you want more fantastic fighters thats great. It is a reasonable expectation. But it isn't for me. I don't see the point in trying tp force others to accept that they should want that or that the game should be built toward that style (how the game ought to be designed stems from their design goals and the needs/preferences of customers).
If people want mundane fighters (in 2e) then why do people cry foul when I say take the magic away?Magic item of strength gives super strength. Magic weapons make the weapons not mundane, same thing for the armor and every other piece of equipment. how often do people play 2e games where they refuse to have magic equipment?
Quote from: Kaelik;551871Okay, first off, Bind Efferti is not even a spell. Secondly, again, you should read the rules, that's just something that 11th level Wizards can do. And Third, you don't need that at all to do this, I just happened to. If he didn't have that, he would have a lower will save, and +28 attack bonus, and fewer spells (though of course, still enough to cast all the spells I listed, and have lots more for casting as utility throughout the day).
I mean, I understand that you don't know the rules, but you should probably do the minimal amount of work needed to find out if the stat boost are necessary or not.
Aww, did I touch a nerve there Monty Haul?
Quote from: Kaelik;551871No, I answered the question when I got home and had access to my character sheet you lying shithead. Like I told you that you'd have to wait for in the first fucking place before you threw your temper tantrum about how I should have known you wanted to know every book that I used even though that's not part of a statblock or on my character sheet and you never told me it and damn it why didn't I just read your mind.
After having to be called a chicken for not showing the build.
Quote from: Kaelik;551871Once again, as I had to tell both Benoist and Sacrosanct, you are not the sum total of the universe. There are lots of people who like to play the game differently than you. And it makes sense that we play with each other while never playing with you, because people who whine about other peoples characters being "munchkin and twink" annoy me just as much when I DM as this would annoy you when you DM.
Tearing up a munchkin's character sheet and handing him a new blank one is not annoying, it is liberating to watch the munchkin ego crumble as I rip apart their surrogate penis of a character sheet.
Quote from: Kaelik;551871And I suppose you could point to me where is says that Boccob personally murders every single Cleric of his who doesn't use his favored weapon. Seriously, some deities have favored weapons that Clerics are not even proficient in, do you think they throw a fit when their clerics don't use them?
Your mental gymnastics to justify your twinking are fucking amazing here.
Quote from: Kaelik;551871I think before you start making allegations, you should read any rules at all and get back to me.
Why the fuck did I go through all the trouble of giving you all that information if you won't even fucking read it?
I gave you the fucking bonus types and the spell names, all of those things stack. Point to a single thing that doesn't stack.
You did not give me the names of all the books you used in a readable form and you still need to check your math.
Quote from: Kaelik;551871You forgot to add "Unless they play in a game and I don't like the way they play, then I whine for 40 minutes about how it's impossible and call them a liar with no factual basis because I refuse to admit that people play differently than I do."
Why add something that isn't true?
Liar.
Quote from: MGuy;551881Plus I could never manipulate the DM enough to get us off the railroad. What's worse is that a lot of the house rules seemed invented to specifically stop me from yanking myself off the rails.
I'm not sure I follow you here - could you give me an example of what you mean?
Quote from: MGuy;551882If people want mundane fighters (in 2e) then why do people cry foul when I say take the magic away?Magic item of strength gives super strength. Magic weapons make the weapons not mundane, same thing for the armor and every other piece of equipment. how often do people play 2e games where they refuse to have magic equipment?
Because it is all about the logic of how magic works in such settings. They don't want the fighter to be the source of magic he wields. Now if he has a magic sword that is different because he is still a mundane guy whose own abilities are augmented by an outside magical source. It is the same reason we dont complain about the wizard casting bull strength on the fighter. This may seem like a minor detail to you, but to me this makes all the difference of my buy-in to the setting. That is the kind of fantasy we want to run for D&D. Now you may have a different opinion, and as I said before, that is fine. Some people like the idea that the fighter is his own source of magic power. For me that is too superhero or anime. But if that aesthetic appeals to you by all means push for an edition with fighters who have innate magical abilities. The only place I disagree with you is you seem to be insisting I should want that as well. Well I don't and I won't. It is just my preference.
Quote from: MGuy;551881. I figured that much out when I played it. However what really steamed my buns about 2e is the reliance on the word of the DM.The lengthy list of house rules that the DM I'd played with had were only dwarfed by my inability to understand some of the decisions. I found myself with little power to question anything that was going on or even make a good guess at what my character knew/didn't know he could do because all of that was pretty much up to the DM. I had no standard to go by and how to rely more on my ability to manipulate my DM into agreeing with me than my actual knowledge of the physics engine the world worked on. Plus I could never manipulate the DM enough to get us off the railroad. What's worse is that a lot of the house rules seemed invented to specifically stop me from yanking myself off the rails.
This sounds like two different issues. One you had a bad GM who bought into the whole story-railroad approach of 2e modules and supplement.s this was a real problem and prevalent in the 90s. But the core mechanics of 2e aren't to blame. The mechanics can be used for traditional, non-railroaded adventures of all sorts.
The other issue sounds like you want a more robust and detailed system than 2e offered (especially for mundane fighters). I usually ran 2e by the book and i included stuff like maneuvers from the complete fighter. Personlly I felt the fighters as written could do plenty. Plus I used NWPs, so everyone knew what they could do (and we used kits so you had the kit abilities on top of that). I found it fun as a player and as a GM. In my group in highschool we had four regular GMs. One ran darksun, spelljammer and planescape. One ran a homebrew. One ran ravenloft (me) and one ran both forgotten realms and dragonlance. Plus there were a bunch of other gms I knew at the time running all kinds of 2E games (birthright, etc). with all those gms and all those players I never really encountered what you are describing beyond the occassionally fuss over rules you see in any system. I am not denying your experience at all. But mine was the polar opposite.
Quote???
Are you a bot? Because I would think any human who has actually played D&D would know that the God of Magic doesn't throw a fit when his Clerics hit people in the face with a Mace, and so he also doesn't throw a fit when they shoot a bow.
From what I see you have a character build that basically cherry picked all the most inane crap across several books some of which most DM's with a sack ban outright no pass go. Complete Divine I am looking at you. You then proceed to pick a god that has nothing, absolutely nothing to with archery or face to face combat and then have the terminity to say binding spells and running around as a demon is just peachy keen and try to convince people that a weapon that doubles your attacks isn't overpowered or basically silly in first place and you have two of them, what a load of crap. Clearer?
I don't know what you're playing but sure isn't a roleplaying game as defined by Websters.
I hadn't realized that Jeff37923 is a troll. My bad.
I'm still surprised people are hung up on the specifics of a particular character. Without the 'Arrow Demon' portion of the build, he could still have a single bow that doubles his attacks. Even without the 'Splitting' property of the bow - a bow that probably wouldnt' exist in my games - the 'Arrow Demon' portion of the build doubles his attacks with NORMAL bows. Either way he'd be 'owning' a Fighter - the fact that he has both just takes it to the most extreme level.
If you take away the items and polymorph you still have spells that last all day that make the Cleric a more capable combatant than the Fighter. At least, if you recognize that most Feats don't add much to a Fighter's power - they're usually at best equivalent to a level 2 spell - usually less.
Some examples:
Toughness - Gain +3 Hit Points
Compare to: Aid - +1 on attack rolls AND 1d8+3 (or more) temporary hit points).
Weapon Focus - +1 to hit with a single weapon
Compare to: magic weapon - +1 to attack and damage with a specific weapon. Or divine favor - +1 to attack and damage with EVERY weapon
Spells are better than Feats. The higher the level of the game, the more obvious this becomes.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;551885I'm not sure I follow you here - could you give me an example of what you mean?
I have more examples than I can count on a single hand of railroady DMs. But from what I can remember of the 2E campaign there were a plenty of moves I thought were useless but were made anyway. My spells, when used, were more unreliable than I the ought they should have been (augury never worked not one time). Half the time I never knew what I was rolling against because for a lot of the adventuring part of the game the DM would just have us make rolls. You want to find the river to keep from being dehydrated? Make a roll. Want to fake like you're drowning in order to cause a distraction? Make a roll. What am I rolling against? What mods am I using? That's for the DM and his storied house rules to know. I always seemed to fail whenever I wanted to do something the DM didn't want to happen/wasn't expecting.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;551895This sounds like two different issues. One you had a bad GM who bought into the whole story-railroad approach of 2e modules and supplement.s this was a real problem and prevalent in the 90s. But the core mechanics of 2e aren't to blame. The mechanics can be used for traditional, non-railroaded adventures of all sorts.
The other issue sounds like you want a more robust and detailed system than 2e offered (especially for mundane fighters). I usually ran 2e by the book and i included stuff like maneuvers from the complete fighter. Personlly I felt the fighters as written could do plenty. Plus I used NWPs, so everyone knew what they could do (and we used kits so you had the kit abilities on top of that). I found it fun as a player and as a GM. In my group in highschool we had four regular GMs. One ran darksun, spelljammer and planescape. One ran a homebrew. One ran ravenloft (me) and one ran both forgotten realms and dragonlance. Plus there were a bunch of other gms I knew at the time running all kinds of 2E games (birthright, etc). with all those gms and all those players I never really encountered what you are describing beyond the occassionally fuss over rules you see in any system. I am not denying your experience at all. But mine was the polar opposite.
I never said the core mechanics of 2e were to blame for anything. I didn't like the feel of the game and the rules are too lite for me to feel comfortable. However I'm not here to start an edition debate. I play the edition I want and am making my own ruleset so that I can get rules that hopefully produce the game experience I want. For now I want to focus on fighter v wizard. mundane v magic.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551879When you present an end-game munchkin character, that's dependent on the DM giving you a lot things to allow that to happen.
Any "end game" (PS this isn't end game, it's level 13) character depends on the DM giving them not death in the mean time. But that's all they depend on.
The character gets his own things. The DM doesn't have to give you thing that your character can get for himself from the world.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551879If people like you don't get what you want, out comes the aforementioned "mother may I" and "it's in the rules so I can" bitching.
You know what won't happen, Aos won't come along and tell you to stop using "people like you" even though you are apparently using "people like you" to describe people who are different than me.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551879I.e., you feel entitled that a twink build you found should be allowed regardless of how any other player at the table feels.
Once again stop saying such stupidly wrong things with no factual basis at all.
I do not feel entitled to play a such a build, I have personally gamed in many game in which I have had my requests to play character X turned down. I have repeatedly told you fucking liars who insist on lying about me that I do not make anyone else at the table feel bad by the way I play. I understand you personally would feel bad if you played at the same table with me, which is precisely why I don't play at tables with you.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551879When your build is dependent on getting 2ea bows, you are expecting the DM to allow you to get those at some point.
First of all, no it's not dependent on getting those bows. Obviously I was a strong and valuable character even before I got those bows, and if you halved the number of attacks, I would still be twice as good as fighter.
Secondly, I am expecting the DM to allow me to get those bows when he specifically told me how magic items work in his setting, and the way they work is according to the rules which allow anyone with the appropriate CL and feats to craft them.
The thing you keep forgetting is that you are not my DM, so just because you would not use the rules that do exist for item crafting does not mean that I am expecting anything from my DM other than what he already told me before I made my character.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551879Way to miss the point. The point was that the DM was catering to you just by having 2 of those bows available in the game world to begin with. Again with the assumption that if it's in a game book, ANY game book, then the DM has to allow it.
The point is that the DM was not catering to me by having those two bows exist, he was maintaining setting consistency with the ideas he had already set out governing the setting. The fact that my character had the ability to find these bows in the setting is not the DM catering to me, it is my character having spell that let him find things he wants.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551879Any fucking weapon that doubles your attacks is pretty fucking powerful.
Actually, each single arrow is relatively not very powerful in 3.5, so a Sword that doubled your attacks would be extremely powerful, but a bow that doubles your attacks is not that powerful. Which is why even though this item exists, most Fighters don't use it, preferring instead to focus on other Bows that do more to help them. This works specifically for this build because most fighters cannot get +25 to damage on each shot, and are instead happy with something like +10, and even that requires a bow that is not Splitting.
Quote from: jeff37923;551884Aww, did I touch a nerve there Monty Haul?
Why do you think "touch a nerve" addresses the substance of an argument ever? Did no one ever teach you how to actually talk to human beings?
Quote from: jeff37923;551884After having to be called a chicken for not showing the build.
You are too chicken to respond to this post. Now when you respond, I will point out that you only did so after I called you chicken.
That I answered after you called me chicken does not mean I answered because you called me chicken. I'd use Latin, but it would confused you.
I specifically said "I cannot respond until I get home and have my books and character sheet." The fact that you called me chicken before I got home and had my character sheet does not mean that I didn't do it before you called me chicken because I was afraid. It means I was at fucking work, and didn't have my character sheet.
Quote from: jeff37923;551884Your mental gymnastics to justify your twinking are fucking amazing here.
So to be clear, using a bow is twinking? I'll be sure to let people know the next time someone claims their fighter can shoot at the Dragon.
Quote from: jeff37923;551884You did not give me the names of all the books you used in a readable form and you still need to check your math.
1) No, I don't need to check my math. My math is correct. If you think you see a problem with my math, you should point it out. But since your actual problem is that you don't see a problem but you want to keep hassling me, you instead are going to whine about how I should check "my math" without saying anything specific.
2) I gave you all the books using the official acronyms that WotC published on their website. Just because you are too stupid to be able to look up the full names of the books you don't own, and therefore couldn't use to check my sources anyway, doesn't mean that I didn't give them in a readable format.
Hey, remember when I said no matter what information I gave you, you would demand more information because you aren't honestly interested at all, and are merely a troll?
Better tell me now, do you want the ISDN numbers of each book too? How about page numbers? Line numbers?
Quote from: Marleycat;551896From what I see you have a character build that basically cherry picked all the most inane crap across several books some of which most DM's with a sack ban outright no pass go. Complete Divine I am looking at you.
I am aware that you personally have a problem with people using... books. But see, here's the thing.
Now, if he is even remotely intellectually honest (spoiler alert:he's not) Stormbringer is going to point out that you do not have a sufficient sample size to claim that most DMs ban Complete Divine outright.
Because actually, most DMs don't. I base this on the fact that I've never personally ran into a single DM who did, and that of the 7 DMs I've had of 3.5 games, all seven of them personally owned and used Complete Divine. (Also the apparent wealth of people on the internet who don't find a problem with it.)
Quote from: Marleycat;551896You then proceed to pick a god that has nothing, absolutely nothing to with archery or face to face combat
Yep, that's what most people do, because most gods have absolutely nothing to do with archery or face to face combat. And yet, all their Clerics are proficient with Maces, even the ones who don't have anything to do with face to face combat. Do you get mad when Clerics of Heironeous use Maces that they are proficient with instead of Longswords they aren't?
Quote from: Marleycat;551896and then have the terminity to say binding spells and running around as a demon is just peachy keen
I also have the temerity to say that casting Create Magic Tattoo and running around as a Hydra is peachy keen too, and yet, you guys haven't managed to distinguish those things from the ones you do complain about yet.
Quote from: Marleycat;551896and try to convince people that a weapon that doubles your attacks isn't overpowered
Nope, it's not. That's why Fighters who use Archery don't use it. Because the opportunity cost is too high and they'd rather use a better bow.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;551898I hadn't realized that Jeff37923 is a troll. My bad.
No, you're cool. I just get this way with fucking idiots like Kaelik
Quote from: MGuy;551899I have more examples than I can count on a single hand of railroady DMs. But from what I can remember of the 2E campaign there were a plenty of moves I thought were useless but were made anyway. My spells, when used, were more unreliable than I the ought they should have been (augury never worked not one time). Half the time I never knew what I was rolling against because for a lot of the adventuring part of the game the DM would just have us make rolls. You want to find the river to keep from being dehydrated? Make a roll. Want to fake like you're drowning in order to cause a distraction? Make a roll. What am I rolling against? What mods am I using? That's for the DM and his storied house rules to know. I always seemed to fail whenever I wanted to do something the DM didn't want to happen/wasn't expecting.
That sounds like a lousy GM to me.
Kaelik. I think you will find people will respond more if you take one or two posts and focus on those rather than the text wall with a bunch of them.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;551909Kaelik. I think you will find people will respond more if you take one or two posts and focus on those rather than the text wall with a bunch of them.
Well that was only three posts. But I think no matter what I did, I would find that people here would respond with personal attacks because I don't play the game the way they like.
Quote from: MGuy;551901I never said the core mechanics of 2e were to blame for anything. I didn't like the feel of the game and the rules are too lite for me to feel comfortable. However I'm not here to start an edition debate. I play the edition I want and am making my own ruleset so that I can get rules that hopefully produce the game experience I want. For now I want to focus on fighter v wizard. mundane v magic.
Okay I must have misunderstood your meaning. Sorry about that. In that case, why was the point about 2E and railroads raised (I may have missed something in the discussion).
As for the rest, you should absolutley play the game you want to. I think the preferences you listed so far are perfectly fine and you should have no trouble finding a game that suits you. I think for now you and I will have to largely agree on fighter v wizard in 3E (though I think it is important to keep in mind what I said about managing the issue and the role of system mastery) and agree to disagree about fighter v wizard in 1E/2E (where I think you find more of a balance issue than I do).
On the subject of mundane versus magic, I pretty much said what I had to say. If you like more magical fighters that is cool. I am sure there are a good chunk of D&D fans who agree with you. Personally I prefer the mundane fighter for the reasons I supplied. We are unlikely to convince one another. Its preference. Trying to convince someone they should like their fighters more mundane or more magical is like trying to convince someone they should like greek pizza instead of italian (or vegetable lasagne instead of meat lasagne).
Quote from: Kaelik;551910Well that was only three posts. But I think no matter what I did, I would find that people here would respond with personal attacks because I don't play the game the way they like.
Ignore those posters and concentrate on those interested in a dialogue. It is what you have to do around here. Truthfully there is hardly anyone on this site who hasn't trolled someone else on this site. Somehow, though, with the exception of a few long running feuds (mostly involving Ben and BT) we do manage to get on with one another.
Even I can post like a reasonable person every now and again. Not that there's any reason that you should listen to me. At.All.
Quote from: Kaelik;551904Why do you think "touch a nerve" addresses the substance of an argument ever? Did no one ever teach you how to actually talk to human beings?
Yes, and I never said that I believed that you were a human being.
Quote from: Kaelik;551904You are too chicken to respond to this post.
Quote from: Kaelik;551904So to be clear, using a bow is twinking? I'll be sure to let people know the next time someone claims their fighter can shoot at the Dragon.
No, you disingenuous dumbass. Using a bow for a cleric of magic and book learning when you want to create a full auto arrow build is twinking.
Quote from: Kaelik;5519041) No, I don't need to check my math. My math is correct. If you think you see a problem with my math, you should point it out. But since your actual problem is that you don't see a problem but you want to keep hassling me, you instead are going to whine about how I should check "my math" without saying anything specific.
Yeah, that was just me trolling. It works every time with types who use their character sheets as surrogate penises.
Quote from: Kaelik;5519042) I gave you all the books using the official acronyms that WotC published on their website. Just because you are too stupid to be able to look up the full names of the books you don't own, and therefore couldn't use to check my sources anyway, doesn't mean that I didn't give them in a readable format.
Not stupid, just lazy. You are the one with the burden of proof here, not me.
Quote from: Kaelik;551904Hey, remember when I said no matter what information I gave you, you would demand more information because you aren't honestly interested at all, and are merely a troll?
Welcome to the Adult Swim. If you find the water too deep, you can go back to The Gaming Den. Have Frank entertain you with his crackpot theories on how D&D is racist based upon a miniature.
Quote from: Kaelik;551904Better tell me now, do you want the ISDN numbers of each book too? How about page numbers? Line numbers?
Sure, if you aren't too chicken to do so. Chicken.
Quote from: Kaelik;551910Well that was only three posts. But I think no matter what I did, I would find that people here would respond with personal attacks because I don't play the game the way they like.
Three posts divided into twelve chunks :)
This is a rough and tumble forum. I have made a point of avoiding personal attacks. I think some of the other posters have as well. I always say you should play the game the way you like. If 1E, 2E lr 3E dont work for you either alter them or find a game that is more suited to your taste. There is nothing wrong with you having a different opinion about d&d than me. The only thing that bugs me is people telling me I should like the game they like (or demanding I agree with their line of reasoning when I simpy just disagree).
Quote from: Kaelik;551910Well that was only three posts. But I think no matter what I did, I would find that people here would respond with personal attacks because I don't play the game the way they like.
You're mistaking this place for RPGnet.
Quote from: Kaelik;551910Well that was only three posts. But I think no matter what I did, I would find that people here would respond with personal attacks because I don't play the game the way they like.
Holy fuck my irony meter has gone off the charts. Where have I personally attacked you with insults? No, it's pretty clear by your posts above that you're the one throwing personal insults (calling me a fucking liar).
But here's a newsflash. People aren't on your case because you are playing a munchkin style that we don't like. It's that you're playing a munchkin style, looking for every loophole to exploit, as a basis to say that one class is so much better than another, when that's only true if everyone else was also playing a munchkin style. And I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say most gaming tables would never allow such exploitation in their game.
Why do you even have a DM? If you're entire basis of argument is reliant on rules exploits (something most DMs would shut down), why have a DM at all if you get everything you want to begin with? Why not just sit in a circle jerk of who can make the best build and just skip the DM?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551920If you're entire basis of argument is reliant on rules exploits (something most DMs would shut down)
Do you know what a loophole is? An exploit? There are no loopholes or exploits in that character. It is certainly too powerful for most games, but that is a different thing than loopholes or exploits.
What pray tell is my argument by the way? Do you know? I have a feeling you don't. I have a feeling that you have no idea what my argument is at all, and you have just foolishly assumed you knew I was arguing for something I wasn't arguing for.
Quote from: Kaelik;551924Do you know what a loophole is? An exploit? There are no loopholes or exploits in that character. It is certainly too powerful for most games, but that is a different thing than loopholes or exploits.
What pray tell is my argument by the way? Do you know? I have a feeling you don't. I have a feeling that you have no idea what my argument is at all, and you have just foolishly assumed you knew I was arguing for something I wasn't arguing for.
Your argument seems to be just how ridiculously powerful a cleric is at fighting over a fighter.
And I know exactly what a loophole and exploit is. Maybe instead of calling people liars and idiots, you might want to read up on a dictionary first.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551927Your argument seems to be just how ridiculously powerful a cleric is at fighting over a fighter.
Incorrect.
I would like to make a blanket thread wide accusation of poor reading comprehension.
Maybe we could all just put " lrn 2 reed, lol1111!!!!" in our sigs. Feel free to copy past and do so, that is if you've somehow managed to keep oxygen in your brain long enough to read and understand this post, which I assume you have not.
My secret fear is that my participation in this thread will forever ruin 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly' for me.
Quote from: Kaelik;551928Incorrect.
Yeah, I know. You and the rest of The Gaming Den rejects just came over here to defend Frank Trollman's honor. That was the real arguement, wasn't it?
Quote from: Aos;551929I would like to make a blanket thread wide accusation of poor reading comprehension.
Maybe we could all just put " lrn 2 reed, lol1111!!!!" in our sigs. Feel free to copy past and do so, that is if you've somehow managed to keep oxygen in your brain long enough to read and understand this post, which I assume you have not.
Works of me.
This thread's over anyway. These buffoons defeated themselves pages and pages ago. They have demonstrated the utter ridiculousness of their approach to a role playing game, and are still wondering why it breaks under the weight of their bullshit. The kicker is that their "fix" is not to become better players or DMs, to improve in their actual campaign and characters management, but to DOUBLE DOWN on the rules bullshit to change the game into a total nightmare. These guys are terminally stupid. Just let them play their deck-building games of shit and rage about how the rules are br0ke back at the Den.
Quote from: jeff37923;551932Yeah, I know. You and the rest of The Gaming Den rejects just came over here to defend Frank Trollman's honor. That was the real arguement, wasn't it?
Also incorrect.
I argue with Frank quite often, and I don't give a shit about his honor.
Quote from: Kaelik;551928Incorrect.
Post #900 (your post) disagrees with you, because that was exactly the point you were trying to make.
Well, it's now clear you have the same level of integrity as Frank. That's nice to know. Why some people insist on accusing other people of saying things they didn't, or deny saying things they did when it's so easy to go back and look is beyond me.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551938Post #900 (your post) disagrees with you, because that was exactly the point you were trying to make.
Well, it's now clear you have the same level of integrity as Frank. That's nice to know. Why some people insist on accusing other people of saying things they didn't, or deny saying things they did when it's so easy to go back and look is beyond me.
I don't think it's always intentional. Shit gets going; people get excited; contradict themselves in the heat of the moment and forget what they were arguing in the first place as the discussion becomes more about who than what.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551938Post #900 (your post) disagrees with you, because that was exactly the point you were trying to make.
Well, it's now clear you have the same level of integrity as Frank. That's nice to know. Why some people insist on accusing other people of saying things they didn't, or deny saying things they did when it's so easy to go back and look is beyond me.
Actually, if you read post 900 without those confirmation bias glasses you would see that my argument has always been that such Clerics can exist, and do exist in many games. Not that it is universally true.
But because what I was actually saying is true, you had to alter it in your head so you could argue.
Quote from: Kaelik;551941Actually, if you read post 900 without those confirmation bias glasses you would see that my argument has always been that such Clerics can exist, and do exist in many games. Not that it is universally true.
But because what I was actually saying is true, you had to alter it in your head so you could argue.
Heh, nice spin attempt, but no. I said your point was to point out how a cleric is ridiculously more powerful than a fighter. You said it wasn't, so I pointed you to a post of yours that says exactly that.
Like I said, no integrity. Especially since you're still trying to deny it when it's right there in black and white. My bias has nothing to do with it. Post 900 is exactly you showing how a cleric is way more powerful than a fighter.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551945Heh, nice spin attempt, but no. I said your point was to point out how a cleric is ridiculously more powerful than a fighter. You said it wasn't, so I pointed you to a post of yours that says exactly that.
Like I said, no integrity. Especially since you're still trying to deny it when it's right there in black and white. My bias has nothing to do with it. Post 900 is exactly you showing how a cleric is way more powerful than a fighter.
No, Post 900 is me showing how a cleric
can be more powerful than a fighter. Not is. Your statement of what I am arguing was absolute, were as my argument is not.
Quote from: Kaelik;551946No, Post 900 is me showing how a cleric can be more powerful than a fighter. Not is. Your statement of what I am arguing was absolute, were as my argument is not.
Hhahaaha. You're a funny dude. Who loves to backpedal I guess.
By they way, have you looked up what an exploit is yet, or are you still trying to say that that cleric build isn't one?
Quote from: Kaelik;551924Do you know what a loophole is? An exploit? There are no loopholes or exploits in that character. It is certainly too powerful for most games, but that is a different thing than loopholes or exploits.
Balance fixes are helpful to a point. Compared to 3e, I hope 5e makes fighters more powerful and clerics and mages less powerful. Going back to the AD&D baseline would be a good start. But, if you've decided you get to play 20 questions with your god daily so you can use planar travel to go play Home Shopping Network Of The Infinite Universes, and your GM goes along with it, there are no balance fixes a game can offer that would fix that dynamic. You could fuck up chess.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551949Hhahaaha. You're a funny dude. Who loves to backpedal I guess.
I'm not backpedalling, any one smarter than an idiot can read my post and see that I was not making an absolute statement about Clerics always being more powerful, and it's an important distinction, because if I had been arguing that, all your whiny shit about how "It's that you're playing a munchkin style, looking for every loophole to exploit, as a basis to say that one class is so much better than another"
would be correct. But of course, I wasn't saying that one class is much better than the other, I was saying it is possible for a Cleric to exist and be played in a game who is better than any fighter.
Quote from: Imp;551951Balance fixes are helpful to a point. Compared to 3e, I hope 5e makes fighters more powerful and clerics and mages less powerful. Going back to the AD&D baseline would be a good start. But, if you've decided you get to play 20 questions with your god daily so you can use planar travel to go play Home Shopping Network Of The Infinite Universes, and your GM goes along with it, there are no balance fixes a game can offer that would fix that dynamic. You could fuck up chess.
Well actually, if that's the problem, one of the balance fixes could be to not specifically give a class the ability to play 20 questions with his god daily and planar travel and explicitly state in the rules that all magic weapons that can exist can be made by any Cleric with a feat.
Quote from: Imp;551951Balance fixes are helpful to a point. Compared to 3e, I hope 5e makes fighters more powerful and clerics and mages less powerful. Going back to the AD&D baseline would be a good start. But, if you've decided you get to play 20 questions with your god daily so you can use planar travel to go play Home Shopping Network Of The Infinite Universes, and your GM goes along with it, there are no balance fixes a game can offer that would fix that dynamic. You could fuck up chess.
Well actually, if that's the problem, one of the balance fixes could be to not specifically give a class the ability to play 20 questions with his god daily and planar travel and explicitly state in the rules that all items that can exist can be made by any Cleric with a single feat.
Quote from: Benoist;551935This thread's over anyway. These buffoons defeated themselves pages and pages ago.
That sounds like you think people are playing a game and there are 'winners and losers' in this thread.
I'm new here, but the topic interested me so I thought it would be worth discussing. Even though a difference of opinion exists, it doesn't mean people can discuss those differences so both sides better understand where the others come from and what common ground might exist.
Several people who seem to argue that the Fighter doesn't need anything in this thread have also admitted that he DOES need something
OR COULD use something to help him fulfill his role as a combat bad-ass.
Those same people seem to be afriad that if they admit the Fighter could use ANY TYPE OF BOOST that we're instantly in 'wuxia-land' or something. If there's no 'common ground' then the Fighter will either be useless or wuxia in future editions. There's an excluded middle-ground that's where the sweet-spot is.
I'm not hating on any edition and I'm not hating on any individual... I'm actually enjoying myself in a perverse way. And maybe, just maybe, if someone is crazy enough to read through all the pages of this 'discussion' they'll come away with some things they didn't think about coming in. Faint hope of that, but it might happen.
Quote from: MGuy;551882If people want mundane fighters (in 2e) then why do people cry foul when I say take the magic away?Magic item of strength gives super strength. Magic weapons make the weapons not mundane, same thing for the armor and every other piece of equipment. how often do people play 2e games where they refuse to have magic equipment?
Maybe because you are stripping class abilities away from the fighter? May as well say the wizard can't use wands or scrolls.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;551958That sounds like you think people are playing a game and there are 'winners and losers' in this thread.
I'm new here, but the topic interested me so I thought it would be worth discussing. Even though a difference of opinion exists, it doesn't mean people can discuss those differences so both sides better understand where the others come from and what common ground might exist.
Several people who seem to argue that the Fighter doesn't need anything in this thread have also admitted that he DOES need something OR COULD use something to help him fulfill his role as a combat bad-ass.
Those same people seem to be afriad that if they admit the Fighter could use ANY TYPE OF BOOST that we're instantly in 'wuxia-land' or something. If there's no 'common ground' then the Fighter will either be useless or wuxia in future editions. There's an excluded middle-ground that's where the sweet-spot is.
I'm not hating on any edition and I'm not hating on any individual... I'm actually enjoying myself in a perverse way. And maybe, just maybe, if someone is crazy enough to read through all the pages of this 'discussion' they'll come away with some things they didn't think about coming in. Faint hope of that, but it might happen.
I think you are missing the nuance of it. Its possible to accept to positions here. i am fine with the fighter being a bit weaker than the mage over time so the fighter starts strong but the wizard finishes strong. To me that is balanced. At the same time I am fine with the game being ba.anced in another way so the wizard and fighter are on more equal footing at each given step. i don't believe the fighter requires or should have wuxia powers if you go down that road (in fact special powers both for aesthetic and mechanical reasons are things I don't want fighters to have).
In terms of Next. By all means make sure the numbers balance out so the figher consistently does very well in combat, but allow for the wizard to to have moments where he outshines the fighter because magic should be spectacular. Does a fighter have to be equal to the mage or vice versa against specific types of threats? No. I am fine with there being monsters that are easily handled by one but not the other. That kind of variety makes the game more enjoyable for me.
At the same time, while I have said there are some minor power disparities in 2E, i think you are overblowing it. In 3E I agree there is more disparity but the game can be approached two ways that makes this problem go away (i have stated those two ways countless times so wont repeat). So I think the game can work just fine, and does for many, many people, with the fighter as is. At the end of the day, I don't find myself dissapointed in how the fighter performs in my prefered edition.
I think it is a little misleading the way you are framing our opinions here.
Yeah, it occurs to me, if the baseline assumption of the game is that the fighter is going to have magic equipment, but you decide that you do not want that in your game and limit it or whatever then you are....wait for it...HOUSERULING. And as someone who loves to houserule, I have to tell you that if you take something away you have to replace it or take some other stuff away in order to return the game to its native state of balance (whatever that state might have been at the outset).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;551958I'm not hating on any edition and I'm not hating on any individual... I'm actually enjoying myself in a perverse way. And maybe, just maybe, if someone is crazy enough to read through all the pages of this 'discussion' they'll come away with some things they didn't think about coming in. Faint hope of that, but it might happen.
this is a fair statement. I like having my views challenged from time to time, and I do try to keep an open mind. But as you work to persuade people here you should also consider some of them may have a point as well and that you could benefit from seeing things from their point of view.
QuoteYep, that's what most people do, because most gods have absolutely nothing to do with archery or face to face combat. And yet, all their Clerics are proficient with Maces, even the ones who don't have anything to do with face to face combat. Do you get mad when Clerics of Heironeous use Maces that they are proficient with instead of Longswords they aren't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marleycat (http://www.therpgsite.com/images/aria/buttons/viewpost.gif) (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=551896#post551896)
and then have the terminity to say binding spells and running around as a demon is just peachy keen
I also have the temerity to say that casting Create Magic Tattoo and running around as a Hydra is peachy keen too, and yet, you guys haven't managed to distinguish those things from the ones you do complain about yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marleycat (http://www.therpgsite.com/images/aria/buttons/viewpost.gif) (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=551896#post551896)
and try to convince people that a weapon that doubles your attacks isn't overpowered
Nope, it's not. That's why Fighters who use Archery don't use it. Because the opportunity cost is too high and they'd rather use a better bow.
No I just it's stupid that you think the game is all about builds and DPR and totally ignore the actual point of the game. And go ahead and be a Hydra, stupid is as stupid does, and if you have a DM that is that much of a dumbass more power to you because I don't actually have to play at your table. Now If I did there would be issues if I didn't just walk out in the first place.
Again with the if the oportunity cost (optimization isn't just right) it's not worth it wankery. It's a cooperative game with others at the table not WoW.
I am not trolling you by the way, why would I waste my time on someone I don't actually care about? I'm just responding to you as you respond to me like in an actual forum.
Quote from: MGuy;551899*snipped*
As Brendan already noted earlier, it sounds like you're conflating two separate things: railroading and
ad hoc rulings.
As far as railroading goes, there's a special layer of Hell reserved for referees who railroad their players, filled with molten sulfur and perpetual blindfold wedgies (the kind where your underwear is pulled so high it goes over your head and covers your eyes).
As far as
ad hoc rulings go, it's the referee's role to interpret the rules as they apply to the actions the players want their characters to take and come up with target numbers when needed. This is a feature of roleplaying games, not a bug, in that it encourages the players to approach the game-world as an actual world, rather than a series of buttons to mash on a controller.
Quote from: Marleycat;551967No I just it's stupid that you think the game is all about builds and DPR and totally ignore the actual point of the game.
And I think it is stupid that you can't realize that having a character that can shoot arrows well does not mean that I totally ignore the actual point of the game.
You have no reason to believe that other than your hatred at the fact that I had a powerful character, and that's weird.
Reading that TGD thread...well, if that's the alternative, I'll take Benoist's style of play any day.
Quote from: Kaelik;551975And I think it is stupid that you can't realize that having a character that can shoot arrows well does not mean that I totally ignore the actual point of the game.
You have no reason to believe that other than your hatred at the fact that I had a powerful character, and that's weird.
It's not a character it's a collection of weebo powahzs that has no relation to something that would be in an actual game. That does peeve me off because it pollutes Dnd with "ooh look at me and how much I can wreak a game" itis.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;551938Why some people insist on accusing other people of saying things they didn't, or deny saying things they did when it's so easy to go back and look is beyond me.
That's just the TGD way; you pretty much need to have a hotkey for "I never said anything like that" to engage in any sort of discussion there, and even cut-and-paste quotes of stuff said won't result in any acknowledgement of error.
Quote from: Marleycat;551979It's not a character it's a collection of weebo powahzs that has no relation to something that would be in an actual game. That does peeve me off because it pollutes Dnd with "ooh look at me and how much I can wreak a game" itis.
It's a Cleric who casts spells. What the fuck else would it be. It obviously has a relation to something that would be in an actual game, because it is in an actual game. The fact that it has no relation to what would be in your game is irrelevant, because not everyone has to play in your games.
Your complaints are completely unfounded and grounded in the false assumption that everyone has to play like you do.
The fact that other people have powerful characters who also roleplay and engage in gaming in campaign settings you don't personally like does not mean they are ignoring the point of the game.
Quote from: Kaelik;551984It's a Cleric who casts spells. What the fuck else would it be. It obviously has a relation to something that would be in an actual game, because it is in an actual game. The fact that it has no relation to what would be in your game is irrelevant, because not everyone has to play in your games.
Your complaints are completely unfounded and grounded in the false assumption that everyone has to play like you do.
Reverse that you have it right. Also post up the character fully and explain fully how you got to the finish in a real game (which you did not obviously). Hence my stance that it's nothing more than a collection of powers and a exercise in intellectual wankery.
Quote from: B.T.;551977Reading that TGD thread...well, if that's the alternative, I'll take Benoist's style of play any day.
Now you really are sucking up... :D
Quote from: Kaelik;551984It's a Cleric who casts spells. What the fuck else would it be.
An attempt to out-fighter the fighter by being an immersion breaking munchkin build of a perpetual arrow shooting machine.
Quote from: Marleycat;551985post up the character fully and explain fully how you got to the finish in a real game (which you did not obviously).
I'm sorry what? I'm pretty sure I explained that I don't have a scanner, so if you want any other mechanical information, I can type that up, but I'm genuinely confused what other information on his character sheet would be relevant to this conversation.
And again, ignoring the weirdness of your statement (what finish? He didn't finish anything.) You now want to know what? Every single thing we did in our campaign? That's ridiculous. Unlike his character sheet, that's not even written down, I'm supposed to type up every thing that happened over the last 5 months in a campaign for what purpose exactly?
Quote from: jeff37923;551988An attempt to out-fighter the fighter by being an immersion breaking munchkin build of a perpetual arrow shooting machine.
I'm pretty sure I explained already that there is no fighter in the party. So I'm not sure how he could possibly be an attempt to out fight a non existent entity.
And how the fuck does he break immersion? He's a guy who casts buff spells and shoots arrows in order defeat challenges that get in the way of him and his friends. How is that different from any other D&D character?
Quote from: Kaelik;551998And how the fuck does he break immersion? He's a guy who casts buff spells and shoots arrows in order defeat challenges that get in the way of him and his friends. How is that different from any other D&D character?
Cleric of Boccob, specialty twinked for shooting arrows.
Your mental gymnastic are winning you the Gold Medal.
My god, how did we get to a discussion of whether you can 'roll-play' and still 'role-play'? The two are not mutually exclusive.
If you are a character in a game-world, and you have goals, you will try to advance your goals. It doesn't matter what those initial goals are - you could be trying to master the 'flying dragon' fighting style because your master died before he could teach it to anyone living - you could be trying to avenge your parents killed by a hobgoblin warlord - you could be trying to build a university that stores and teaches the sum of all knowledge in the multiverse. Whatever your character goals are, becoming more 'powerful' usually is a step in advancing that goal. What form 'power' takes can vary. Trying to gather magical items and treasure and gaining XP and thus gaining levels are all
expected forms of advancement in the D&D-verse. If you have a goal and you either don't take steps to accomplish it or you actively work against your goals, you are a moron.
The power-level of the game is something that should be agreed upon by all participants (players and DM), but once the general power-level is decided on, all that matters is if people are having fun. Not everyone wants to play a high-powered game; not everyone wants to play a low-powered game. Nobody that usually posts from the Den (a place that I have observed has a higher than average number of people that prefer high-powered games) seems to be trying to tell anyone who usually posts at the RPG Site that one style of play is better than another. How could they, when it is clearly a matter of personal preference - a preference that can change with a particular individual from campaign to campaign.
What I find offensive is that I've been called a liar for describing my observations. I'm not asking anyone to agree with my observations (since they weren't there). I'm not asking anyone to agree with my prescriptions to address those observations (because they are a matter of taste as well). I'm trying to engage whether other people may have had similar observations. I seem to be getting two very conflicting answers (yes, I want to give the fighter some boosts but there's no problem and never has been). Worse, I feel like there's a movement to argue everything for the sake of disagreeing. If I say 'the sky is blue', I fully expect to hear, 'how do I know if the sky in your world is blue, you might be from Mars'. Then, once I've explained that I live on Earth, someone will point out that 'actually, while it might have been blue most of the day, the sky was kinda orange around sunset. Thus, your observation is clearly a lie'. If I point out that I was specifically talking about the time between noon and 2pm (when the observation occurred) someone will no doubt point out that the likelihood of not having a single cloud in the sky is so remote that it'd be more correct to say the sky was 'white and blue'. I wish I was exaggerating.
So, this isn't about winning or losing. This is not about sides. This is about discussing a game that we obviously all care about, or we wouldn't be here.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;551965this is a fair statement. I like having my views challenged from time to time, and I do try to keep an open mind. But as you work to persuade people here you should also consider some of them may have a point as well and that you could benefit from seeing things from their point of view.
I definitely have found some points to challenge my initial belief, and help clarify my thinking. Unfortunately, some of the regulars of this site seem more interested in attacking observations or denying the existence of things that actually do exist to tell me why they think the way they do. If someone says 'there is no problem' and then someone shows them that the problem does indeed exist, an explanation for how they resolved the issue or how they kept it from becoming an issue would be a reasonable expectation.
In that vein, let me try to crystalize my posts up to this point in a single comprehensive post.
The Fighter ProblemBy and large, it seems that people here agree that the Fighter should be a capable combatant - possibly more so than any other character. He should be able to use any weapon, use effective armor, hit hard and be able to survive being hit. He should be able to 'keep swinging his sword' all day, every day, long after classes like the wizard run out of resources - the fighter can rely on his martial ability - he may not shine as brightly as a wizard or a cleric, but he burns longer.
[If you disagree with any portion of the above, I'd be interested to know what, specifically, you disagree with, and more importantly, why.]
1) The Fighter's ability to contribute relies much more heavily on magical items than other classes
It's definitely an assumption that classes will get magical gear. However, what type and how effective it is varies from campaign to campaign. In some games, characters can make magic items - in other games you take what you can find, and if that's a
throwing rock +10 that's what you use. In other games, especially those that aim to be more historical magic items of any kind are rare - there's only one
Excalibur and you might get it at high level.
While a Fighter can benefit from magical gear, his reliance on magical gear is actually higher than other classes. Why? Because classes that rely on spells can 'emulate' magical gear to some degree using spells. A wizard that can cast
magic weapon has a +1 sword if he wants it - but the Fighter has to rely on finding it. It is possible that the wizard will cast the spell for the benefit of the Fighter, but there is NOTHING that requires this to be true. There will be times that it happens that way, but nothing that requires it.
Further, challenges in the game presuppose that a fighter will have access to magical gear at the 'baseline' for the edition rules. In 1st edition you could see this quite clearly - plenty of creatures required a +1 or a +3 weapon, or even a +5 weapon - you could not fight these creatures if you didn't have the right equipment. This was true regardless of the character's level. A 20th level fighter stripped of magical equipment, even with a 'normal sword' and 'normal armor' can't fight opponents he's expected to fight. A wizard with a non-magical robe and his non-magical spell components still can. Why? Because the innate class abilities of the Wizard are what he relies on in the fight - the Fighter relies on something external to himself.
Finally, magical gear is often 'interchangeable'. While there are restrictions regarding which classes can use which equipment, the basic point still remains... A cleric wielding a
+5 mace is probably as effective as a Fighter wielding a
+1 mace (if not moreso). So, if both of them are wielding a
+1 mace and you find a
+5 mace, who gets to have it? Some people will answer this 'the fighter, obviously', but even if the fighter gets it, I posit that this is not 'obvious'. In many games, magical items bring up the 'weaker' person, rather than increase the power of the 'strongest'. In most groups I play with, when we find an item that boosts AC that anyone can use, we tend to give it to the person with the LOWEST AC - if people can't hit the highest AC anyway, it doesn't do them much good - if the Fighter is hitting with the +1 and the cleric isn't, some number of people more than 0 will give it to the cleric, allowing his contribution to equate to the Fighter's, more or less.
Since the quantity, quality, and division of magical gear varies between games, they cannot be relied on to ensure the Fighter is able to contribute.
2) Everyone can 'fight' and 'get hit in the face'
And that's okay, as long as the Fighter is the best at it, right? But that's not always true. In some number of cases (more than 0), the Fighter's ability to fight is demonstrably less than that of another non-fighter character. Since this is demonstrably true (at least in the theoretical - also true if you were to sit in on games I've run and/or played) this is an area of potential concern. If you don't want the Fighter to be best at Fighting, then this point has no bearing, but I really get the sense that most people think that it is true.
If you accept that there are some characters that excel in the Fighter's defined area of expertise, it suggests either increasing the power of the Fighter, reducing the combat ability of other characters, or both. Personally, I'm in favor of increasing the power of the Fighter without going into wuxia.
3) The Fighter is defined by his combat abilities and lacks abilities that are effective outside of combat
It's great that a player can 'creatively solve problems' without regard to class or class abilities. A Fighter player can have a good idea, just like the Wizard's player can have a good idea. This is not saying that the player can't contribute - this is about the CHARACTER's contribution. If all of a Fighter's abilities revolve around hitting something with a sword (or a bow), where does he get the ability to command troops? What ensures that he's better at commanding a legion of bowmen than a cleric? Surely the Fighter's advanced tactical knowledge should provide some benefit there?
But it doesn't - not unless the DM decides to make an exception. And the cleric can argue that he should gain the same benefit - after all, he has the authority of his god behind him. If they're adherents to his faith, shouldn't he be able to 'inspire them' in a similar way?
To ensure that the Fighter gets a BENEFIT for being a Fighter outside of combat, we can't just leave it to DMs to make an on-the-fly or house ruling - we should expect some protection of these 'reasonable benefits' in the rules as written.
4) But even if it's a problem, a good DM will fix it.
Agreed. But not every DM is good. Just like every edition of D&D has flaws, every DM has room to improve. That's not to say that you can't play with the rules or that DM, but they can get in the way of the fun. Since a good DM can 'fix a bad game' but a bad DM can't, it's better if the rules as written are 'good'. Then a good DM can make them better, and a bad DM can stick to them to keep them from getting in the way of the fun.
Clearly, a one-size-fits-all solution isn't ideal - how could a solution fix the problem in a low-magic/low-powered game and also address the issue in a game with polymorphing cleric Arrow-Demons? But clearly a possible first step is considering that the disparity at least COULD exist. If the disparity is widespread enough or impacts games, then solutions can be attempted to find a 'baseline' that suits the largest number of players and DMs. Then good DMs can 'fiddle' with it to better suit their specific campaigns.
And that's my take on the whole issue.
Quote from: jeff37923;552001Cleric of Boccob, specialty twinked for shooting arrows.
I really have no idea why you think it is weird for a Cleric of Boccob to shoot arrows.
What do you think Boccob wants his Clerics to do when someone tries to kill them? Explain the error of their ways? He's a god of Magic, if you use Magic to shoot arrows better I fail to see why he would complain.
DeadDMwalking. That is a very long post. I appreciate you posting your thoughts, but I do not want to do the point by point response here. You make some interesting observations, but to me it looks like your priority is making the sure the fighter is always X throughout the game (X here can be anything from best at fighting to cool in combat). I can accept that circumstances in the game will sometimes result in a cleric with a mace +5 being on equal footing with the fighter or the fighter and the cleric having to debate who gets that plus five mace. Sometimes your character isn't as good as other peoples' characters because of what occurs ingame (this is true of most classes, but to a lesser extent the cleric and mage because they have built in resources....their basic advantage). I see your points, but for me most of what you bring up isn't really an issue. As long as on average fighters are good at fighting that is what counts.
As I said before its okay for the fighter to be outshined in some cases.
I do think 3E didn't do the fighter justice, so you will get no complaint from me there. But as I said before that can still be fixed if you either embrace the focus of 3e or manage it as a GM. But I never quite experienced the challenges you are describing in 2E. Now if you find the fighter in various editions not adequate, i wont tell you your opinion is wrong. But I do not share your opinion.
Quote from: Kaelik;551952Well actually, if that's the problem, one of the balance fixes could be to not specifically give a class the ability to play 20 questions with his god daily and planar travel and explicitly state in the rules that all magic weapons that can exist can be made by any Cleric with a feat.
I dunno, maybe your whole group are devotees of The Secret or something, but I don't think you're required to look at a spell description and conclude that your god is interested in helping you shop. Or that interplanar travel basically works like a Eurail pass with hundreds of convenient destinations and they all have ATMs.
But I've decided what really appalls me about the Home Shopping Network of Infinite Universes scenario is the sheer lack of imagination involved. You have endless worlds at your fingertips (and this is why I don't run alternate Prime Material planes) and all you can think of doing is scoring better kit. That is like if I had access to a network of stargates and I immediately set out to find sweet deals on external hard drives. If you could do that – reliably and safely – you'd have an entirely different campaign, right there! But derp de doo gotta stick on the adventure path.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;552002Clearly, a one-size-fits-all solution isn't ideal - how could a solution fix the problem in a low-magic/low-powered game and also address the issue in a game with polymorphing cleric Arrow-Demons? But clearly a possible first step is considering that the disparity at least COULD exist. If the disparity is widespread enough or impacts games, then solutions can be attempted to find a 'baseline' that suits the largest number of players and DMs. Then good DMs can 'fiddle' with it to better suit their specific campaigns.
And that's my take on the whole issue.
I think the designers are very aware that some people feel the disparity is there. 4E was largely about narrowing that gap. And it pretty clear to me that they still need the 4e people to make this a success so I think as the playtestdoc gets revised we will see attempts to make sure it has balance. The problem is they can't please everyone. They have to stake the ground that gets the most possible people. It looks like they are basically doing what I am saying here and trying to get those base numbers right so the fighter is good at fighting. Do you have any specific concerns about the playtest doc?
Based on what I saw at the gaming den from the link, I suspect that wing of the gaming community is simply too small to be catered to in the next edition. They need old school players, 3e/pathfinder players and 4e fans to make this work. What you guys seem to be talking about is interesting but it just doesn't seem to be as on the radar. I dont know how much your personal prefeences line up with that site though.
Quote from: Imp;552009But I've decided what really appalls me about the Home Shopping Network of Infinite Universes scenario is the sheer lack of imagination involved. You have endless worlds at your fingertips (and this is why I don't run alternate Prime Material planes) and all you can think of doing is scoring better kit. That is like if I had access to a network of stargates and I immediately set out to find sweet deals on external hard drives. If you could do that – reliably and safely – you'd have an entirely different campaign, right there! But derp de doo gotta stick on the adventure path.
You know, this strikes me as a little strange, because SG-1s primary mission was to seek out technology that they could use and/or adapt to better defend Earth from the Goa'uld. And you know what they did every time they got some intel that a particular world might have an 'item of power' they were interested in? They went there.
But clearly, you are writing more into how the game is being played than Kaelik is providing. He explained that he was able to use Character Agency to do these things. That's actually a pretty good explanation.
Since he hasn't said one way or the other, let's speculate about the first Arrow Demon he fought?
If he fought it and observed it's capability in combat, doesn't that explain some of what he's doing 'in-character'? People say he's 'deck-building' whatever that means, but he could have done all the persist/extra turning buffs first, then decided to go into the whole 'archer demon' thing later. One does not preclude the other.
If he researched extraplanar creatures and learned about this one's combat style, and then decided to emulate it and eventually pit himself against one, that's also using player agency to achieve that effect.
While it's clearly high-powered, it's only 'broken' if the rest of the game isn't built to withstand that. I'm sure his DM is making monsters that don't 'roll-over' even with a party of like-built characters.
Crazy, right? That someone would have fun with a wildly overpowered version of D&D? It's clear that nobody would ever want to play a game like that (which is why they've never released supplements like Epic Player's Handbook or anything).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;551856You and I apparently have different ideas about what a 'small fix' means. Scaling down spell power means reviewing and possibly modifying every spell (in just the PHB that's over 1/3 of the book). Changing the 5'-step is a major change to the tactical combat situation in 3.5. Scaling back items? I don't even know where to begin on that one. I LIKE low-magic-item, but that just favors the people who can cast spells directly...
The individual fixes are small. I made no claim that they weren't myriad. But again, look at the context of the discussion. In a new edition, you aren't collaging past editions. You're working from the ground up. And when talking about the fighter in concept, it's valid to say that the spell *effects* aren't the problem as much as their tendency to outclass those of the fighter in range, duration, etc.
The point is that hitting things can and should be a viable high level method of dealing with certain problems, especially if ranged attacks and breaking the environment aren't barred as options.
QuoteI know I've said it before - magic items are the only thing that even make the Fighter look competitive. The fact that you can take them from the fighter and give them to another character and retain the benefit is a major indicator of the problem.
I was talking about putting the math scaling under the fighter class instead of the weapons and armor. Wondrous items work fine for any class. But if (for example) weapons were limited to non-accuracy, non-damage, non-bonus-attack enhancements, those weapons and armor would not be proportionally useful in someone else's hands. Hell, if you just cut back the accuracy, damage, and bonus attacks from weapons while scaling up the fighter's ability to get those things, those weapons will still be less useful in non-fighter hands.
QuoteThe Fighter lacks any class abilities, so the class relies on the 'creativity of the player', combined with the willingness of the DM to agree with the solution the player provided. Since this is based on the quality of the player and not the class a good player will be able to do the same things with a rogue or thief, or with a wizard or cleric. And if the player is using one of those classes, he also has 'actual class abilities' that might offer a solution as well.
Right, except when improvised solutions rely on attack bonus or strength score, making the fighter capable of more and non-fighters capable of less in those situations.
Would you look at that? Fucking numbers man. Fighter doesn't need a "break doors" power. He's just strong enough to do it.
Yeah, I'd probably go with leveling strength bonuses here, and specific iterations don't have that. But the core point stands. Just scaling stats properly allows a broad range of options without the need for the kind of cataloging and class abilities you're calling for here.
QuoteALSO
While changing the rules is a possible solution, it is also the most complex when dealing with 'real people'. Some people will think that these changes are good and fair, others will apparently think they're 'broken'. The game designers have an obligation to try to get it right from the beginning so that players and DMs aren't universally applying inconsistent solutions that may or may not address the problems.
Which is why these conversations come up more prior to and just after a new edition. Because people want the game to be written right.
Quote from: MGuy;551867Well I'm not going to repeat myself about the "change the rules" solution. However this deserves mentioning. I actually already brought up whether the conceptual space for fighters matched up with spell casters and dragons. The fighter (in 2e and 3e) is a concept of guy swings a sword. People get very very offended if he can do more than that. No one gets offended by the wizard warping reality no matter how he does it. People get worried if the guy playing the game on their team can actually warp reality so much that their character becomes unnecessary or loses their uniqueness (Fighter) such that they will expect the DM to effectively neuter the caster but no one is REALLY offended by what high end magic can do. Evil wizards, lost magic based cultures and creatures, ancient curses, no one will complain at all about these things doing whatever. However the minute your barbarian/fighter/ranger starts leaping 100+ feat in the air to fight a 3 headed psychic snake (from an actual game I actually played) people's panties start to twist.
Now people "say" that they want a mundane fighter. That's not a bad thing to want but its unworkable given that everything he fights (other than other fighters) is not mundane. So people give him not mundane stuff to make up for his mundane-ness without batting an eyelash. Finally even people on this board are saying "well give him bonuses to keep up" and the fact that people are recognizing that fighters need a little help only shows that what I've been saying for most of this conversation is indeed true. The fighter needs a leg up.
Now that is not to say that "magic" shouldn't be put on a leash. Its just that no one expects magic to be limited. And when your concept is of "swing a sword" is put next to "do anything" people start to notice that "swing a sword" gets kind of old. People want to swing a "magic" sword and have"magic" armor because that is the expectation of a fighter at higher levels. So I guess you could say that conceptually people expect a fighter to only be able to swing a sword AND they expect a fighter to be given trinkets that allow him to feel special. Now that may not be my solution of choice but I say if you're going to go with that solution make it a hard coded part of the rules.
Other people want to instead limit what magic can do. I do not disagree with this sentiment as I want to do the same. But this solution still highlights that a power disparity exists.
What is it with you people? Fucking arrows! You don't have to jump to fight a flying guy. Especially if the flying guy's offenses are limited to a range shorter than that of arrows (which they should be).
As for mages "doing anything," you tend to see a lot less of that in fiction. Even in something like Bleach, where the effects are really wild, you see much shorter "spell lists" on any given character than you do at high level in D&D. And there's a high degree of redundancy in the actual effects. Or you see something like Avatar or FMA, where a tight core concept is applied to a broad range of tasks. In those examples it would be physical transformations and such. But in D&D the idea of a dedicated necromancer or illusionist is right at home. I don't think it would kill D&D to have a tighter specialization system any more than I think it would kill it to let fighters shine in ranged combat and give them mount rules that aren't shit.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;552002I seem to be getting two very conflicting answers (yes, I want to give the fighter some boosts but there's no problem and never has been).
1) The core concept of the fighter is viable.
2) The specific shortcomings of 3x are not fully relevant to 1).
3) The solution to 3x is not a flying fighter.
4) The solution to 3x is not to take flight from the wizard.
4) The solution to 3x is not more cataloged class abilities.
Not contradictory.
QuoteI definitely have found some points to challenge my initial belief, and help clarify my thinking. Unfortunately, some of the regulars of this site seem more interested in attacking observations or denying the existence of things that actually do exist to tell me why they think the way they do. If someone says 'there is no problem' and then someone shows them that the problem does indeed exist, an explanation for how they resolved the issue or how they kept it from becoming an issue would be a reasonable expectation.
Have you considered just letting it drop, and moving back to the core of what you're after? Rhetorical, or course, as I see you do below. But if you're going back to the start, you may as well not even bother with the tangent and where it went.
You've pretty much got your answer there. People here use rules selectively, and select on the basis of what they perceive as abuse, whether you agree with them on what constitutes abuse or not. A machinegun cleric pretty much wouldn't get the okay from them. Which may seem to contradict 4) above, except when machine gun clerics aren't iconic the way simple things like flying wizards are. Also, no one has said this, but using the weapons in the book to decide RP decisions rub up against some metagame issues some would rather not deal with. I can get more into that if you want, but it's a pretty far tangent from the main point here.
QuoteIn that vein, let me try to crystalize my posts up to this point in a single comprehensive post.
The Fighter Problem
By and large, it seems that people here agree that the Fighter should be a capable combatant - possibly more so than any other character. He should be able to use any weapon, use effective armor, hit hard and be able to survive being hit. He should be able to 'keep swinging his sword' all day, every day, long after classes like the wizard run out of resources - the fighter can rely on his martial ability - he may not shine as brightly as a wizard or a cleric, but he burns longer.
[If you disagree with any portion of the above, I'd be interested to know what, specifically, you disagree with, and more importantly, why.]
Pretty close to the core of the position here.
Quote1) The Fighter's ability to contribute relies much more heavily on magical items than other classes
It's definitely an assumption that classes will get magical gear. However, what type and how effective it is varies from campaign to campaign. In some games, characters can make magic items - in other games you take what you can find, and if that's a throwing rock +10 that's what you use. In other games, especially those that aim to be more historical magic items of any kind are rare - there's only one Excalibur and you might get it at high level.
While a Fighter can benefit from magical gear, his reliance on magical gear is actually higher than other classes. Why? Because classes that rely on spells can 'emulate' magical gear to some degree using spells. A wizard that can cast magic weapon has a +1 sword if he wants it - but the Fighter has to rely on finding it. It is possible that the wizard will cast the spell for the benefit of the Fighter, but there is NOTHING that requires this to be true. There will be times that it happens that way, but nothing that requires it.
1) is mostly a numerical issue IMO. Fighters' damage, number of attacks, and accuracy shouldn't rely on magic as much as they do in 3x. That can prevent the use of items to bridge the gap in roles easily.
Additionally, buffs are an issue in 3x almost across the board. Not super familiar with how prior editions handled it, but just keeping the fighters' starting numbers higher could easily incentivize buffing the fighter (who can attain a higher max). Likewise, downing the numerical efficacy of buffs could prevent the gap-bridging issues that magic weapons have.
QuoteFurther, challenges in the game presuppose that a fighter will have access to magical gear at the 'baseline' for the edition rules. In 1st edition you could see this quite clearly - plenty of creatures required a +1 or a +3 weapon, or even a +5 weapon - you could not fight these creatures if you didn't have the right equipment. This was true regardless of the character's level. A 20th level fighter stripped of magical equipment, even with a 'normal sword' and 'normal armor' can't fight opponents he's expected to fight. A wizard with a non-magical robe and his non-magical spell components still can. Why? Because the innate class abilities of the Wizard are what he relies on in the fight - the Fighter relies on something external to himself.
On a case by case basis, enemies that can only be fought by magic are fine. Ghosts that need to get exorcised and such. Some magic immunity floating around (or more specific defenses like mindlessness) can similarly single enemies out for the fighter.
Otherwise, the assumption of magic gear in monster design is bad.
But not the fighter's problem. Certainly not a problem for the "core concept."
It's a problem with the specific gear and monsters.
QuoteFinally, magical gear is often 'interchangeable'. While there are restrictions regarding which classes can use which equipment, the basic point still remains... A cleric wielding a +5 mace is probably as effective as a Fighter wielding a +1 mace (if not moreso). So, if both of them are wielding a +1 mace and you find a +5 mace, who gets to have it? Some people will answer this 'the fighter, obviously', but even if the fighter gets it, I posit that this is not 'obvious'. In many games, magical items bring up the 'weaker' person, rather than increase the power of the 'strongest'. In most groups I play with, when we find an item that boosts AC that anyone can use, we tend to give it to the person with the LOWEST AC - if people can't hit the highest AC anyway, it doesn't do them much good - if the Fighter is hitting with the +1 and the cleric isn't, some number of people more than 0 will give it to the cleric, allowing his contribution to equate to the Fighter's, more or less.
Since the quantity, quality, and division of magical gear varies between games, they cannot be relied on to ensure the Fighter is able to contribute.
The assumption is that while gear goes to the person most able to use it, treasure is divided equally. Someone who gets good gear takes it out of his cut of the treasure.
Magic items are bought or sold, whatever purists will tell you in response to the perceived abuse and metagaming of your cleric. So assuming split treasure, and that permanent magic items (like weapons and armor) are more useful to the fighter while expendable magic items (scrolls and wands) are more useful to the wizard, the fighter will accumulate permanent items while the wizard will expend the ones he gets. It doesn't work out like this in 3x any more than crafting actually ends up costing anyone xp (because it's a pain in the ass and people use rules selectively). But if done correctly things could actually end up working like this. Similar logic applies to spell research as a treasure sink. Can't speak to how well this has worked in play, but from the sounds of things here it does.
Quote2) Everyone can 'fight' and 'get hit in the face'
And that's okay, as long as the Fighter is the best at it, right? But that's not always true. In some number of cases (more than 0), the Fighter's ability to fight is demonstrably less than that of another non-fighter character. Since this is demonstrably true (at least in the theoretical - also true if you were to sit in on games I've run and/or played) this is an area of potential concern. If you don't want the Fighter to be best at Fighting, then this point has no bearing, but I really get the sense that most people think that it is true.
If you accept that there are some characters that excel in the Fighter's defined area of expertise, it suggests either increasing the power of the Fighter, reducing the combat ability of other characters, or both. Personally, I'm in favor of increasing the power of the Fighter without going into wuxia.
As others here have said, their preferred solution is limits on the caster. Including but not limited to functional spell interruption.
Quote3) The Fighter is defined by his combat abilities and lacks abilities that are effective outside of combat
It's great that a player can 'creatively solve problems' without regard to class or class abilities. A Fighter player can have a good idea, just like the Wizard's player can have a good idea. This is not saying that the player can't contribute - this is about the CHARACTER's contribution. If all of a Fighter's abilities revolve around hitting something with a sword (or a bow), where does he get the ability to command troops? What ensures that he's better at commanding a legion of bowmen than a cleric? Surely the Fighter's advanced tactical knowledge should provide some benefit there?
But it doesn't - not unless the DM decides to make an exception. And the cleric can argue that he should gain the same benefit - after all, he has the authority of his god behind him. If they're adherents to his faith, shouldn't he be able to 'inspire them' in a similar way?
To ensure that the Fighter gets a BENEFIT for being a Fighter outside of combat, we can't just leave it to DMs to make an on-the-fly or house ruling - we should expect some protection of these 'reasonable benefits' in the rules as written.
The game was initially made for the dungeon. The fighter's ability to break shit (including out of combat) with his strength was pretty much enough. The idea of out of combat role protection is kind of post-rogue. I skimmed the TGD thread, and I agree with whoever said that teleporting to Mexico is not the fighter's problem.
I also said upthread that the fighter's followers were probably codified (partly) because the fighter might have low cha, but was perceived as a leader. It's better than codifying maneuvers and letting the fighter fall behind socially. Not my ideal solution, but I'm sure you can see the logic.
Quote4) But even if it's a problem, a good DM will fix it.
Agreed. But not every DM is good. Just like every edition of D&D has flaws, every DM has room to improve. That's not to say that you can't play with the rules or that DM, but they can get in the way of the fun. Since a good DM can 'fix a bad game' but a bad DM can't, it's better if the rules as written are 'good'. Then a good DM can make them better, and a bad DM can stick to them to keep them from getting in the way of the fun.
As said above, most of the "context" inquisitions are more about the fact that if a problem is perceived by a group, the group will act on it until they're satisfied. In most cases, by selective use of the rules (an incredibly easy variety of houserule generally). It's not so much a good or bad DM thing as a not being a dick thing.
Going to post some lol-tier quotes. Remember, this is D&D they're talking about--D&D, where the fighter's big thing in past editions was multiple attacks per round.
QuoteIf Fighters are to be a thing, they need to Prestige Class into Demigods and get actual magical demigodly abilities. Need. Not want.
-Frank
QuoteCombat encounters can indeed be solved by having a character be sneaky or fast enough on the draw that they are able to land the first punch, and good enough at punching that they can juggle or KO an opponent before they are able to get off their own super abilities. But there are a lot of obstacles that can't be punched at all. And I don't just mean that there are obstacles like "hundreds of feet of stone" that you'll never be able to convince any DM are punchable problems in any sort of mundane idiom - but that there are problems like "you don't know something important" and "there is empty space and/or actual dimensions between you and the goal" that are not even punchable by Superman.
A sword technique can be arbitrarily effective at cutting off heads and it can be arbitrarily effective at clearing rooms full of mooks. It is trivial to make a sword technique that is as good as cone of cold or finger of death. But it's never going to be as good as dimension door, plane shift, or legend lore. Because those spells solve problems that cannot conceptually be dealt with by a sword swing. No matter how awesome or deadly that sword swing is, it simply isn't going to elicit information or take you where you need to go.
-Frank
QuoteI'm not talking about Iron Heart getting +100 damage as a standard action as a 9th level power 1/combat (because that's crap), I'm talking about powers that really compare with 6th-7th level Cleric, Wizard, and Druid spells. Clone. Statue. Insanity. True Seeing. Solid Fog. Not written like the spells, just, gain full hit points if killed, perfect defensive fighting, an enraging challenge, +50 sense motive and spot, or a big threatened area that slows all movement and stops spells and missiles.
Quote"I hit it with my axe" needs to solve every single problem in the world by level 17, because gate and wish do exactly that.
QuoteLook, I do agree with the fact that we do need to have simple characters with a low storytelling and tactical burden so that Little Trevor and the DM's girlfriend can play. But we have those characters for the same reason why we have training wheels. People who voluntarily choose such a sippy cup class when they can perform better otherwise should be viewed either piteously or contemptuously.
QuoteQuoteAnd yes, it's perfectly valid to design a new edition of D&D to support the idea of a Fighter better, like when Lolth had 66 hit points, AC -3, lived in a small teleport-resistant cave while being functionally immune to magic, and you had to chop up an extremely long conga-line of giants to get there. Hell, when the lords of Evil are gathering their power in a temple complex with 10' high ceilings and portals to their home bases. When the solution to almost all of your problems really is to throw the Fighter at them.
Rolling back all the stupid powerups the Wizard's gotten in the last 30 years would be a good start. Like, it used to be genuinely challenging to cast high level spells at all, and regathering them all could take a week if you ever went nova. In 3e there's literally a 2nd level spell that resets all your spells. (4e isn't D&D, etc).
No, it wouldn't, and I hate you for suggesting it. Increasing the interval between five minute work-days does absolutely nothing to change the fact that you are encouraging five minute work days. And making things easier to sword does nothing to change the fact that wizards have ultimate cosmic power like high-level spells and fighters keep swording, always and forever. And making scary things immune to magic so the fighter and wizard can alternate being cockblocked is not a valid way forward.
Yes, hitpoint bloat is a problem. Yes, fighters used to be able to cut things to pieces in combat, and now they can't. But the fundamental issues of wizard v fighter have been there forever and all of the "solutions" from older editions are terri-fucking-bad.
How can you be this miserable all the time? Seriously, go play fucking Exalted if you want the fighter to teleport and grapple dragons. The rest of us just want to roll dice and hang out with friends.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;552014Crazy, right? That someone would have fun with a wildly overpowered version of D&D? It's clear that nobody would ever want to play a game like that (which is why they've never released supplements like Epic Player's Handbook or anything).
There's no problem with someone playing a wildly overpowered version of D&D, just like there's no problem with someone playing a more realistic low-powered version of D&D. However, since those two versions are basically incompatible then doesn't it make sense for D&D Core to stay in the middle and either have expansions that allow you to play that way while still using D&D or have the players simply realize that their style of play would be better served with Exalted on the one hand or by WFRP1 or Harnmaster on the other?
Quote from: Imp;552009I dunno, maybe your whole group are devotees of The Secret or something, but I don't think you're required to look at a spell description and conclude that your god is interested in helping you shop.
Uh what? It's a spell which exists for the stated purpose of allowing a Cleric to ask his god questions. Once he asks his god questions, he gets answers. The god does not have to care about the subject of the questions. The god cares enough to answer the questions because a 9th level Cleric of the god cares enough to ask him. That's what the spell does. If you think that the spell shouldn't do that, you should change the spell.
Quote from: Imp;552009Or that interplanar travel basically works like a Eurail pass with hundreds of convenient destinations and they all have ATMs.
Once again, Planeshift allows you to go where you want +/- several miles. teleport allows you to go where you want. When you cast both of them, you get to where you want. Or you just cast Greater Planeshift which takes you exactly where you want to go.
If you have a problem with Planar Travel being that easy, you should probably change those spells.
Quote from: Imp;552009You have endless worlds at your fingertips (and this is why I don't run alternate Prime Material planes) and all you can think of doing is scoring better kit.
I get it, you are a huge cockass who continues to make bold false assumptions about my play based on no evidence at all. You've made that abundantly clear. You can stop repeating it now.
Why do you think that all I can think of doing is obtaining gear? On what basis do you make the determination that I have never used the Planes for anything else other than pulling it out of your ass? I have used the planes for many other things on many different characters and especially as a DM, the fact that my character also happens to use Planeshift to obtain gear sometimes in no way implies that he never uses it for any other purpose.
Quote from: CRKrueger;552019There's no problem with someone playing a wildly overpowered version of D&D, just like there's no problem with someone playing a more realistic low-powered version of D&D. However, since those two versions are basically incompatible then doesn't it make sense for D&D Core to stay in the middle and either have expansions that allow you to play that way while still using D&D or have the players simply realize that their style of play would be better served with Exalted on the one hand or by WFRP1 or Harnmaster on the other?
That's crazy talk!
Anyone would think you're saying there's an excluded middle!
I see TGD crowd saying "compared to the Fighter, Wizards and Clerics are ridiculously overpowered in 3e" which they are.
However, the response seems to be in all cases "amp melee characters to the same ridiculously overpowered levels".
Well, people who have played and experienced earlier versions of D&D where the Wizards and Clerics actually had sane restrictions on their power see a different option. Unfortunately, that idea has been consistently ignored in this thread (as in not reponded to once).
I ignore 3e at this point, not because the fighter is the only one not to get weaboo powerz, but because weaboo powerz are there to begin with.
You want to make WotC see that the balance of classes in 3/3.5 was a goddamn joke - I'm right there with ya.
You want to make WotC fix that by making all melee classes a goddamn joke in reponse - well, go fuck yourself. :D There's a better way to do it.
Quote from: One Horse Town;552021That's crazy talk!
Anyone would think you're saying there's an excluded middle!
Yeah, the excluded middle here is D&D. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;552022I see TGD crowd saying "compared to the Fighter, Wizards and Clerics are ridiculously overpowered in 3e" which they are.
However, the response seems to be in all cases "amp melee characters to the same ridiculously overpowered levels".
Well, people who have played and experienced earlier versions of D&D where the Wizards and Clerics actually had sane restrictions on their power see a different option. Unfortunately, that idea has been consistently ignored in this thread (as in not reponded to once).
I'm Black Vulmea, and I approve of this message.
Quote from: Kaelik;552003I really have no idea why you think it is weird for a Cleric of Boccob to shoot arrows.
And this is why you fail.
Rescue teams will be here soon to start digging for survivors trapped under these text walls.
Quote from: CRKrueger;552022I see TGD crowd saying "compared to the Fighter, Wizards and Clerics are ridiculously overpowered in 3e" which they are.
However, the response seems to be in all cases "amp melee characters to the same ridiculously overpowered levels".
Well, people who have played and experienced earlier versions of D&D where the Wizards and Clerics actually had sane restrictions on their power see a different option. Unfortunately, that idea has been consistently ignored in this thread (as in not reponded to once).
Well, they aren't really complaining about imbalance, are they?
They're complaining that one of the classes doesn't give them powers.
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE POWERS.
In that other thread I started today, I proposed a game or mod that took all powers and skills away from the classes and defined the classes as "what you *can't* do." Everyone has one thing they suck at. Everything else? Anyone can try it, or earn the power through role-play. No other limits.
Fectin, who was in this thread for a while defending Frank and complaining about overpowered wizards, surfaced in my thread to tell me that he couldn't see the benefit of playing that type of class.
I think that's a great summary of the problem.
Quote from: jeff37923;552025And this is why you fail.
Well, not the only reason. Let's put this into a bit of context. He's been saying that there's nothing really wrong about his build. He's made comments that it's not exploitative, or finding loopholes, or whatever.
His 13th level cleric can kill a red dragon great wyrm in less than 3 rounds.
This great wyrm has an AC of 41 and 650 hit points. According to the BAB of his cleric, he's hitting about 1/2 of the time, doing an average of 284 hp of damage per round.
So there you have it. A 13th level character killing a great wyrm red dragon in under 3 rounds, and what's the big deal?
That complete failure to grasp context and perspective is why this thread will never end.
Quote from: B.T.;552017Going to post some lol-tier quotes. Remember, this is D&D they're talking about--D&D, where the fighter's big thing in past editions was multiple attacks per round.
We do not need a TGD.txt.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;552031Well, not the only reason. Let's put this into a bit of context. He's been saying that there's nothing really wrong about his build. He's made comments that it's not exploitative, or finding loopholes, or whatever.
His 13th level cleric can kill a red dragon great wyrm in less than 3 rounds.
This great wyrm has an AC of 41 and 650 hit points. According to the BAB of his cleric, he's hitting about 1/2 of the time, doing an average of 284 hp of damage per round.
So there you have it. A 13th level character killing a great wyrm red dragon in under 3 rounds, and what's the big deal?
That complete failure to grasp context and perspective is why this thread will never end.
Only if the Great Wyrm were an idiot, which he is not.
First of all, he has AC 41 before any buff spells at all, and he hits half the time assuming no Range penalties, which isn't necessarily going to be the case. And it is before applying the triple standard treasure of a CR 26, which he would obviously be using. Greater Mage Armor and Shield alone increases his AC to 51, making it so that I only hit on a 20, which would auto hit anyways.
The Dragon on the other hand, casts as a level 19 Sorcerer. So perhaps his first action might be to cast one of the hundred wall spells that break line of effect, and would prevent me from attacking him, and then use flyby attack to attack from the other side of the wall, forcing me to ready actions, greatly decreasing damage per round.
Or he might cast Planeshift, and then cast Gate, and Gate me in, and order me to stand still for 19 rounds while he beats me to death.
Or he might have his dominate creatures attack me instead of him.
Or he might be under the effects of Astral Projection, making it so that when I kill him he is still perfectly safe back in his Lair.
Or he might use Power Word Kill, since I have less than 100HP, and I would die with no save. Or Power Word Stun.
Or he might Energy Drain, and give me 2d4 negative levels, significantly reducing my ability to hit him.
Or he might use Etherealness and make me incapable of hurting him.
Or he might use Time Stop and do any number of things during his free rounds.
Or he might have Cloned himself, rendering my victory lukewarm
Or he might have his Undead Army created with Create Greater Undead and controlled by Control Undead attack me while he waits for me to lose.
Or he might be moving inside a Telekinetic Sphere, and therefore be completely invulnerable against my attacks.
Or he might cast Irresistible Dance, and no save force me to dance for his amusement and then eat me.
Or he might send any one of those three rounds initiating a grapple with his massively higher Grapple bonus, and then beating my head against a rock while laughing.
Or he might cast Maze, and no save trap me while he buffs up directly adjacent to my exit location waiting to murder me.
Or he might hide while casting Control Weather and making the Weather so windy that missile attacks all fail.
Or he might cast Mage's Disjunction and instantly remove all my buffs with no check and thus reduce me to worse than a Fighter, and certainly no match to him.
Or he might cast Greater Dispel Magic and due to his higher Caster level than even all my methods to boost my check, just dispel 65% of my buffs right then.
No, I'm pretty sure the Great Wyrm Red Dragon can manage to not die somehow in the 3 rounds.
Quote from: beejazz;552034We do not need a TGD.txt.
Your mother didn't need me to drop a hot load between her legs, either, and look where we are today.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;551909Kaelik. I think you will find people will respond more if you take one or two posts and focus on those rather than the text wall with a bunch of them.
Apparently, over on TGD, that is a 'rage seizure'.
Quote from: StormBringer;552074Apparently, over on TGD, that is a 'rage seizure'.
Man, is Frank okay? Because he's kind of having seizures every time he posts, by that standard.
Quote from: CRKrueger;552022I see TGD crowd saying "compared to the Fighter, Wizards and Clerics are ridiculously overpowered in 3e" which they are.
However, the response seems to be in all cases "amp melee characters to the same ridiculously overpowered levels".
Well, people who have played and experienced earlier versions of D&D where the Wizards and Clerics actually had sane restrictions on their power see a different option. Unfortunately, that idea has been consistently ignored in this thread (as in not reponded to once).
I ignore 3e at this point, not because the fighter is the only one not to get weaboo powerz, but because weaboo powerz are there to begin with.
You want to make WotC see that the balance of classes in 3/3.5 was a goddamn joke - I'm right there with ya.
You want to make WotC fix that by making all melee classes a goddamn joke in reponse - well, go fuck yourself. :D There's a better way to do it.
I'm not part of the 'Gaming Den Crowd' - or at least, not a regular. I've posted a few times, particularly in threads that have caught my attention, but that's not substantively different than what I've done here (just the pace of this thread has made it more difficult to follow others from their inception). But by and large, many of the regulars want to see the Fighter a power unto himself.
This is why I state unequivocally that I agree with Frank's observations 100% (except that calling everyone here a neckbeard was a little unfair). I do not fully agree with his prescriptions.
I want to see spell casters scaled back to some degree. But they cannot be scaled back to a place that the Fighter becomes relevant without also boosting the fighter - at least not without ruining the game. The idea of shifting to another plane of existence is IMPORTANT for the game - and if Fighter's aren't going to have anything like that, they're always going to need a spell-caster around to handle problems that they can't solve. But they also need to be better at handling problems that could be solved by a sword in the face (or a bow). I agree, you don't need to have a flying fighter to engage a dragon. But if you're playing a dragon-slaying game, how sad is it that the iconic Fighter doesn't even rate a spot on the team? That's the crux of the problem.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;552081But if you're playing a dragon-slaying game, how sad is it that the iconic Fighter doesn't even rate a spot on the team? That's the crux of the problem.
This really doesn't bother me that much (though again I think you are very much overstating him not rating a spot). This is a case where the fighter needs the right equipment for his job. For any non-spellcaster to take on a dragon you need magic items. This is where stuff like dragonlances, magic swords and fire resistant armor play a role. I would much rather go this direction than give the fighter reality bending powers like the wizard has.
One thing I do thini many D&D monsters lack is mundane weaknesses. Some settings got into this a bit. Kind of like how smaug had that one chink in his armor. Introducing these sorts of things so players who take the time to learn about their prey will have an easier time disposing of them in a mundane fashion.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;552081But if you're playing a dragon-slaying game, how sad is it that the iconic Fighter doesn't even rate a spot on the team? That's the crux of the problem.
I guess I just don't play with the right people as fighters have always been one of the most played classes in my games -- in games played since 1975. Note that I run 0e, 1e, B/X, and BECMI/RC (and clones/variants). No one would think of going after a dragon without fighters on the team -- at least if they have any choice.
No, the fighter can't do everything without other classes but neither can those other classes (not even the magic-user in these editions). I don't understand the need to have all classes able to do everything needed when their are all these other classes out there. Just like in the real world, it often takes a team people who specialize in different things to have a good chance of success at a hard/complex task. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Even in the (few) 3e games I've played or (more often) observed, fighters were a very popular class (although not as popular as in the editions I normally play) and seemed quite useful in combat. Of course, I've never played with people who go into for heavy charop or who are really into the rules mastery -- and most 3e games were core rules with only a few GM selected supplements or parts of supplements allowed. The campaigns had players who were more interested in immersion and the setting/adventure than they were in the rules. "Non-gamists" I guess.
Quote from: Kaelik;552069Only if the Great Wyrm were an idiot, which he is not.
.
Again, you're missing the point. Your
13th level character can very well kill a great red wyrm dragon in under 3 rounds
as the character is currently set up without any other modification or planning. You can come up with a bunch of scenarios all you want where the dragons wins and I could counter with more where the dragon loses, but that's not the point. The very
concept that a 13th level character could even have a chance of killing said dragon is seven ways from Sunday fucked up.
And you still don't see the problem. Color me surprised. You want to play as munchkined up as you physically can, reveling in exploitation wankery? Knock yourself out. But don't for one second think that you won't get mockery wherever you go outside of your echo chamber of fellow wankers.
This thread makes me remember why I stopped trying to "fix" 3e.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;552093Again, you're missing the point. Your 13th level character can very well kill a great red wyrm dragon in under 3 rounds as the character is currently set up without any other modification or planning.
No he cannot. He cannot kill a Greater Wyrm Red Dragon at all. In any amount of rounds.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;552093You can come up with a bunch of scenarios all you want where the dragons wins and I could counter with more where the dragon loses, but that's not the point.
No, you actually can't come with a single scenario where the Dragon loses. That's the point. The Dragon wins no matter what. No matter what he chooses for his 7 feats and 7 Epic feats, no matter what he chooses for his 42 spells known, no matter what he does with his greater than 140,000gp in equipment, he will always win.
Because a Greater Wyrm Red Dragon who actually attempts to not lose to my character will beat him.
For god sakes, if he casts a First level and 3rd level spell he can only be hit on a 20.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;552093The very concept that a 13th level character could even have a chance of killing said dragon is seven ways from Sunday fucked up.
No, he doesn't have a chance at all. That is precisely the point.
An example CR 20 character is a level 20 Sorcerer. I bet I could beat a level 20 Sorcerer if he didn't cast any spells. However, the Dragon is a spellcaster who casts 9th level spells just like the Sorcerer, and for him meet his CR, he must cast those spells.
This thread has convinced me to stick with Fantasy Craft. It least such wankery is pretty much impossible and it's still 3x albeit a sane version of it. Kraelick like most the Denner's you're completely missing the point of Dnd. It's not some mathematical dickwaving contest it's about people.
What's the CR of a greater wyrm red dragon again?
That is, an encounter suitible for exhuasting about 20% of the resources of a 4 person party.
Quote from: One Horse Town;552101What's the CR of a greater wyrm red dragon again?
That is, an encounter suitible for exhuasting about 20% of the resources of a 4 person party.
It is CR 26.
Quote from: Doom;551980That's just the TGD way; you pretty much need to have a hotkey for "I never said anything like that" to engage in any sort of discussion there, and even cut-and-paste quotes of stuff said won't result in any acknowledgement of error.
I wanted to respond to your post over there, but I don't think I will do it over there now, I am going back to lurking.
QuoteI didn't think it was even theoretically possible to play AD&D raw.
Hasn't someone somewhere sat down and compiled a list of the rules contradictions/inanities that pretty much force you to houserule about a second before rolling initiative?
I know somewhere there's an example of exactly what a RAW combat would look like, but the training rules alone mean you're not making it to 2nd level without houserules, most like.
It is possible, and it is far simpler than 3.x. It is orders upon orders of magnitude simpler than 3.x with those weaboo twink builds we are shown in this thread alone. Even normal, non-optimized builds take several hours to wind down a combat. I would estimate that using all the combat rules in AD&D might extend combat out to, perhaps, half an hour or a bit more against a fairly standard mix of opponents. Mid-level or higher, a bit more than that, even. Nothing like the two or three hour combats in 3.x and 4e.
As far as contradictions, I won't say there aren't
any. I haven't combed through to find out, honestly. I will say there are some tricky bits, like unarmed combat, that make things more complicated than perhaps is strictly necessary. But I would say that two highly intelligent wargame enthusiasts like Uncle Gary and Uncle Dave would be able to avoid pretty much any pitfall. Later additions to the rules? Perhaps those introduced some issues I am not entirely aware of, but going by straight AD&D core books (DMG, PH, MM), I am pretty sure there aren't any critical problems or fatal contradictions.
On the other hand, RAW was only really intended for 'convention play' to begin with. The rules were designed to be tweaked for individual groups, and the books all but insisted on it.
Quote from: Kaelik;552099An example CR 20 character is a level 20 Sorcerer. I bet I could beat a level 20 Sorcerer if he didn't cast any spells. However, the Dragon is a spellcaster who casts 9th level spells just like the Sorcerer, and for him meet his CR, he must cast those spells.
But a Fighter with magic equipment is an affront to everything decent in the world.
Quote from: StormBringer;552110Even normal, non-optimized builds take several hours to wind down a combat. Nothing like the two or three hour combats in 3.x.
You must be doing it wrong. I've never had a combat last more than 30 minutes ever, even hit and run chase and pursue ones.
Quote from: StormBringer;552111But a Fighter with magic equipment is an affront to everything decent in the world.
I never said that. In fact, I specifically told MGuy his magic item limitation is wrong. In 3e, I expect a Fighter to have approximately WBL when I check to see it's balance point.
l34rn 2 d1ff3r3nt14t3!
Between posters that is.
Quote from: Kaelik;552112You must be doing it wrong. I've never had a combat last more than 30 minutes ever, even hit and run chase and pursue ones.
The vast majority of the internet disagrees with you.
QuoteI never said that. In fact, I specifically told MGuy his magic item limitation is wrong. In 3e, I expect a Fighter to have approximately WBL when I check to see it's balance point.
l34rn 2 d1ff3r3nt14t3!
Between posters that is.
Perhaps. Just so we are on the same page, you are agreeing that a Fighter should be kitted out with magic equipment in a normal game, that this is not unusual, and comparing Fighters to whatever other class should take that into consideration?
What Kaelik is saying is that it's bullshit for the fighter to need magic items to function while the wizard gets away with his spellbook.
Quote from: StormBringer;552117The vast majority of the internet disagrees with you.
They also disagree with you. They don't think that it takes 3 to 4 hours. They might personally have taken longer than 30 minutes, but I have never seen anyone claim 3 to 4 hours before you.
Quote from: StormBringer;552117Perhaps. Just so we are on the same page, you are agreeing that a Fighter should be kitted out with magic equipment in a normal game, that this is not unusual, and comparing Fighters to whatever other class should take that into consideration?
I agree that a Fighter should be kitted out with magic equipment that is appropriate for the game, and that when comparing Fighter to other classes, you should take that into account.
I do take that into account when considering 3e balance, and would base any determinations of balance on WBL.
When it comes to 2e balance, I don't make a lot of comments because I have never read any 2e rules laying out the appropriate item gaining for such characters. My own experience was such that I do not think any 2 DMs were using the same rules, if they do exist, based on how the campaign went.
If you felt like going back infinity pages for useless information, I said to MGuy that for his hypothetical he should state that the Fighter has whatever items would be appropriate for his level. But as I said, I have no idea what that is for 2e.
Quote from: B.T.;552118What Kaelik is saying is that it's bullshit for the fighter to need magic items to function while the wizard gets away with his spellbook.
I have never said this, nor do I say it now.
If the game is designed such that no one is expected to have items, the Fighter should be able to keep up without items, but if, as in 3e, there is an expected wealth gain, then it is fine if the fighter needs that wealth to keep up, because the wizard should also need that wealth to keep up. If the Wizard doesn't need those items to keep up, then he's the problem.
Quote from: Kaelik;552120They also disagree with you. They don't think that it takes 3 to 4 hours. They might personally have taken longer than 30 minutes, but I have never seen anyone claim 3 to 4 hours before you.
I'm just going to let this one sit and simmer for a while.
I will add this bit of basil leaf while it cooks, though: this is usually in regards to mid-level combat (two or two and a half hours) or high-level combat (three hours or more). Earlier than 5th level or so, its almost always an hour or less.
Quote from: B.T.;552095This thread makes me remember why I stopped trying to "fix" 3e.
Because 3E doesn't need to be fixed and that there will be munchkins in every edition of D&D. It is a problem with the Player and DM, not the game.
Quote from: jeff37923;552124Because 3E doesn't need to be fixed and that there will be munchkins in every edition of D&D. It is a problem with the Player and DM, not the game.
That is a valid point I mean just look at the thought process and mindset behind his build and subsequent posts. The problem isn't that it can be done but that he thinks it's normal and baseline for 3x Dnd and quite possibly all rpg's.
Quote from: Marleycat;552129he thinks it's normal and baseline for 3x Dnd and quite possibly all rpg's.
This is of course false, like most every time someone on this forum claims to speak for me.
Quote from: Kaelik;552130This is of course false, like most every time someone on this forum claims to speak for me.
I can only go on what I see and since you can't seem to dispute my opinion it is what it is. There is no wrong way to play rpg's but I now understand why Aos says 3x isn't Dnd and it's because of the mindset you perpetuate. Mind you I don't agree with his conclusion but I understand it.
Being a 3x DM means using a banhammer hard so your build or mindset would last seconds in my game but that has nothing to do with the actual system.
Quote from: Marleycat;552132I can only go on what I see and since you can't seem to dispute my opinion it is what it is.
You are mistaken, when I state that it is false, that is inf fact disputing your position. Now as to the burden, you would probably have to present evidence arguing that it is before you insist I quote myself showing that it is not.
Not that it would be hard, since I can think of at least four times I've made clear that it is not the norm for 3.5.
Post 1164 and 1140 to start.
Quote from: Marleycat;552129That is a valid point I mean just look at the thought process and mindset behind his build and subsequent posts. The problem isn't that it can be done but that he thinks it's normal and baseline for 3x Dnd and quite possibly all rpg's.
Off the top of my head I have seen this mindset in D&D (all editions),
Traveller (all editions),
Villains & Vigilantes,
Cyberpunk 2020, Cybergeneration, Star Wars (all editions of both systems),
Twilight: 2000, Gamma World (all editions), and
Mekton (all editions).
It boils down to people gaming the system instead of playing the game. That is not a game system problem, but a personal issue of self esteem IMHO. If their character is not a super special snowflake in some way, shape, or form, then the game is not satisfying for them.
Back to the OP, you can play your character in a way that makes the experience special without having to load up on munchkin twinkery. It is a social game, you are suppossed to be having fun instead of trying to use the character sheet to demonstrate how big your penis is (or boobs are, for women, I think. Correct me if I am wrong, ladies.). I have found that playing the game is a better option, because then you are interacting with the group and not in competition with it. Hence my stance on teamwork and tactics.
I am going to combine this with another Kotaku article and post a blog entry, but here is the exact problem:
The Problem with the Never-Satisfied Gamer (http://kotaku.com/5920572/the-trouble-with-the-never+satisfied-gamer)
Naturally, the topic is in regards to console gamers, but there are many facets table-top gamers and computer gamers share.
The money-shot:
QuoteFils-Aime: One of the things that, on one hand, I love and, on the other hand, that troubles me tremendously about not only our fanbase but about the gaming community at large is that, whenever you share information, the perspective is, 'Thank you, but I want more.' 'Thank you, but give me more.' I mean, it is insatiable.
"And so for years this community has been asking, 'Where's Pikmin?' 'Where's Pikmin?' 'Where's Pikmin?' We give them Pikmin. And then they say, 'What else?'
"For years, this community have said, 'Damnit Reggie, when you launch, you better launch with a Mario game.' So we launch with a Mario game, and they say, 'So what's more?'
"I have heard people say, 'You know, you've got these fantastic franchises, beyond what you're doing in Smash Bros., isn't there a way to leverage all these franchises?' So we create Nintendo Land and they say, 'Ho-hum, give me more.' So it's an interesting challenge."
I think this article speaks volumes about the RPG community without meaning to.
Quote from: jeff37923;552134Off the top of my head I have seen this mindset in D&D (all editions), Traveller (all editions), Villains & Vigilantes, Cyberpunk 2020, Cybergeneration, Star Wars (all editions of both systems), Twilight: 2000, Gamma World (all editions), and Mekton (all editions).
It boils down to people gaming the system instead of playing the game. That is not a game system problem, but a personal issue of self esteem IMHO. If their character is not a super special snowflake in some way, shape, or form, then the game is not satisfying for them.
Back to the OP, you can play your character in a way that makes the experience special without having to load up on munchkin twinkery. It is a social game, you are suppossed to be having fun instead of trying to use the character sheet to demonstrate how big your penis is (or boobs are, for women, I think. Correct me if I am wrong, ladies.). I have found that playing the game is a better option, because then you are interacting with the group and in competition with it. Hence my stance on teamwork and tactics.
That's my issue it's not that it can't be overcome Kraelick it's the bigger issue of being a selfish prick. Jeff you're spot on about boobs but you already know that fuckwad.:D
You know, people keep comparing non-TSR D&D to deck-building in Magic: the Gathering. But maybe it's more like Katamari Damacy. You keep sticking shit on your characters until they are big enough to be a star.
Stormie, I don't think it's true of the overall fanbase but speaking Dnd only, I definitely think there's a complete mindset shift from pre 3x to 3/4e. I do think it's generational for the most part. YMMV
A good part of TGD cannot even speak about TSR Dnd from a position of knowledge or authority for many of them 3/4e is the ONLY Dnd.
Quote from: JRR;551961Maybe because you are stripping class abilities away from the fighter? May as well say the wizard can't use wands or scrolls.
Magic Items are not class abilities. If they were, and the fighter specifically got Magic Items to help him not be so mundane that's a solution I can fully accept. Its not the solution I'd go with, but its something better than the nothing he actually gets from his class. And yes, you can equate that to using wands or scrolls. The difference is that the things given by wands and scrolls are just ore abilities that the wizard can already use. A Wizard can already cast a spell. The Scroll/wand only allows him to do more of that.
Quote from: jeff37923;552134Off the top of my head I have seen this mindset in D&D (all editions), Traveller (all editions), Villains & Vigilantes, Cyberpunk 2020, Cybergeneration, Star Wars (all editions of both systems), Twilight: 2000, Gamma World (all editions), and Mekton (all editions).
It boils down to people gaming the system instead of playing the game. That is not a game system problem, but a personal issue of self esteem IMHO. If their character is not a super special snowflake in some way, shape, or form, then the game is not satisfying for them.
Back to the OP, you can play your character in a way that makes the experience special without having to load up on munchkin twinkery. It is a social game, you are suppossed to be having fun instead of trying to use the character sheet to demonstrate how big your penis is (or boobs are, for women, I think. Correct me if I am wrong, ladies.). I have found that playing the game is a better option, because then you are interacting with the group and not in competition with it. Hence my stance on teamwork and tactics.
I'm fairly sure, and I'm not going to drag myself back through this thread, that someone ASKED him to show how a cleric could be better than a fighter, and thus he posted the build. What's more is if you don't like the fact that that the build exists then you have a problem with the rules. That's understandable, but why is it bad that he make a character like that in a game where the DM specifically asked for it? Why are you criticizing the fact that he can make it? You acknowledge that such a thing is bad but thing that a rules overhaul to prevent it would be too much.
Quote from: StormBringer;552117The vast majority of the internet disagrees with you.
Perhaps. Just so we are on the same page, you are agreeing that a Fighter should be kitted out with magic equipment in a normal game, that this is not unusual, and comparing Fighters to whatever other class should take that into consideration?
I must point out that my "no magic special abilities" point came because people specifically said they wanted a fighter that was mundane, and that the fighter is fine without superpowers. Magic items make the fighter not mundane and give him superpowers. You can't have him be mundane and without superpowers while at the same time expecting him to not be mundane and get superpowers.
Quote from: MGuy;552147What's more is if you don't like the fact that that the build exists then you have a problem with the rules. That's understandable, but why is it bad that he make a character like that in a game where the DM specifically asked for it? Why are you criticizing the fact that he can make it? You acknowledge that such a thing is bad but thing that a rules overhaul to prevent it would be too much.
Except that I do not have a problem with the rules. This is not a rules problem. This is a Player and DM problem. As you quoted above, I have seen this is almost every tabletop RPG I have played so how could it be a rules problem? Are all tabletop RPGs inherently broken to you?
I am not criticizing the fact that such a twink build can be made for a munchkin to feel like he has an adequitly sized penis. I am criticizing the Player for choosing to do so and the the DM for choosing to let him.
Quote from: jeff37923;552152Except that I do not have a problem with the rules. This is not a rules problem. This is a Player and DM problem. As you quoted above, I have seen this is almost every tabletop RPG I have played so how could it be a rules problem? Are all tabletop RPGs inherently broken to you?
I am not criticizing the fact that such a twink build can be made for a munchkin to feel like he has an adequitly sized penis. I am criticizing the Player for choosing to do so and the the DM for choosing to let him.
And what I'm asking is how is that bad? If you are ok with the rules saying this and the DM+ the player wanted to do it, and no one in their game was mad, why are you saying it is bad? The rules allow it, the DM wanted it, and the player wanted it. All people in the transaction are/were satisfied. Why are you shitting on it?
Quote from: jeff37923;552152I am not criticizing the fact that such a twink build can be made for a munchkin to feel like he has an adequitly sized penis. I am criticizing the Player for choosing to do so and the the DM for choosing to let him.
Quote from: B.T.;551643The demands for Kaelik to show his character strike me as a tad disingenuous. I strongly suspect that the people who are clamoring most loudly intend only to inconvenience Kaelik (as a meta-troll to get him to waste his time) or hope to quibble over minutiae (as if a stray +1 proves him a liar). I likewise suspect that the line of argumentation once Kaelik provides sufficient evidence will be
a) the DM is bad for allowing the character (as if this means the rules don't allow it),
b) the character isn't part of a "real" game (therefore disproving its mechanical legality in a puff of grognardery),
c) the character is abusing the system (which doesn't address the mechanics of the game),
d) Kaelik is a bad roleplayer, or
e) some other stupid variation of the Rule 0 fallacy.
I can't wait for jeff to demand where the cleric found a bow of splitting. :rolleyes:
My powers are growing.
Quote from: MGuy;552146Magic Items are not class abilities.
Wrong. Only fighters can use certain items. That makes it a class ability.
Quote from: B.T.;552154My powers are growing.
Actually A through E all apply to the responses to Kaelik's Cleric. This is definitely a sin that you've had this conversation enough times that you know all the responses.
Quote from: JRR;552156Wrong. Only fighters can use certain items. That makes it a class ability.
Actually, MGuy is speaking from the perspective of 3e, and in 3e there are basically no items that only the Fighter can use. He has of course stated that if the Fighter does get items as a class ability, then it is a class ability, and that would include if there were a class of items that said (Fighter only) like in Diablo, where only certain classes can use certain items.
Quote from: MGuy;552153And what I'm asking is how is that bad? If you are ok with the rules saying this and the DM+ the player wanted to do it, and no one in their game was mad, why are you saying it is bad? The rules allow it, the DM wanted it, and the player wanted it. All people in the transaction are/were satisfied. Why are you shitting on it?
It's bad because ...
1. I have to waste valuable game and prep time looking over that crap to make sure it's fair for the game that's actually being run. Unless you prefer the general banhammer without reason?
2. More important is the mindset this comes from "it's competitive or I win dumb bitch" fuck that, seriously.
Quote from: JRR;552156Wrong. Only fighters can use certain items. That makes it a class ability.
No... That makes those items Class Specific not a Class Ability. If it were a Class Ability I could look on the list of Class Features and see that "Magic Sword" on the list of things that fall under my Class Abilities. Again, if I'm remembering 2e correctly, treasure is random so the fighter may very well never get a fighter specific item.
Edit: And I'm disagreeing with Kaelik here because I don't remember there being Magic Sword on the list of fighter Class Abilities so Class Specific Items don't register as a Class Ability to me.
Quote from: MGuy;552153And what I'm asking is how is that bad? If you are ok with the rules saying this and the DM+ the player wanted to do it, and no one in their game was mad, why are you saying it is bad? The rules allow it, the DM wanted it, and the player wanted it. All people in the transaction are/were satisfied. Why are you shitting on it?
First of all, I see no proof that this was a result of Actual Play and not the result of intellectual masturbation over character optimization.
Why is it bad? Because it demotes Actual Play into a secondary role and promotes Character Optimization into the primary role. The group can either Play Together in Actual Play or Play Against Each other with Character Optimization which always becomes a CCG deck-building arms race.
You can look at the OP as an example. Either the Fighter and the Wizard can work together to defeat the challenges they face or they can try to outdo each other and fail.
Thing is, most gamers go through the Monty Haul/Munchkin phase and get over it because it becomes boring. The challenges are too easy and the rewards are too great to make the fun of the experience last, so you drop the twinking and play it as it was intended. The possibility of failure becomes part of the fun and the enjoyment of the game returns. Of course, this means Actual Play and not just theorywanking on some forum.
Quote from: B.T.;552154My powers are growing.
You're so cute. :D
Quote from: Marleycat;552161It's bad because ...
1. I have to waste valuable game and prep time looking over that crap to make sure it's fair for the game that's actually being run. Unless you prefer the general banhammer without reason?
2. More important is the mindset this comes from "it's competitive or I win dumb bitch" fuck that, seriously.
1: I don't understand your number one. I always have my players show me their character sheets before we play. Also I have them write character histories so I can understand what their character wants to do and what has happened to them.
2: I thought you believed it was a team game. If he's on the same team as other, equally powered, heroes why would I be concerned about him?
Quote from: Kaelik;552159Actually, MGuy is speaking from the perspective of 3e, and in 3e there are basically no items that only the Fighter can use. He has of course stated that if the Fighter does get items as a class ability, then it is a class ability, and that would include if there were a class of items that said (Fighter only) like in Diablo, where only certain classes can use certain items.
Another reason to take seriously Aos's claim about 3x. I houserule that ridiculousness at the start. The thing is a DM with a brain runs the game RAI not RAW. That goes for any game system and that is the crux of your issues. You believe rpg's are competitive not cooperative.
Quote from: Marleycat;552168You believe rpg's are competitive not cooperative.
Still haven't learned your lessen yet?
Protip: If you think I believe something. You are wrong.
Quote from: jeff37923;552163First of all, I see no proof that this was a result of Actual Play and not the result of intellectual masturbation over character optimization.
Why is it bad? Because it demotes Actual Play into a secondary role and promotes Character Optimization into the primary role. The group can either Play Together in Actual Play or Play Against Each other with Character Optimization which always becomes a CCG deck-building arms race.
You can look at the OP as an example. Either the Fighter and the Wizard can work together to defeat the challenges they face or they can try to outdo each other and fail.
Thing is, most gamers go through the Monty Haul/Munchkin phase and get over it because it becomes boring. The challenges are too easy and the rewards are too great to make the fun of the experience last, so you drop the twinking and play it as it was intended. The possibility of failure becomes part of the fun and the enjoyment of the game returns. Of course, this means Actual Play and not just theorywanking on some forum.
Wait... You need proof to believe that someone could ever have made this in game? You want him to go back and give you a play by play through from level 1? What would that do for this conversation? If you don't like that he CAN do it why not change the rules such that it can't happen? You basically do that when you ban it. And according to your reaction its not just a minor, setting based, adjustment. You seem to want to ban any and all similar characters. That would take you going and changing the rules fundamentally. I know because when I decided I wanted to "fix" DnD by toning down the spells I found that I had to do just that.
If you don't like the playstyle, that's understandable but I know that some people like that kind of fun. Why do I care if someone else plays things a different way? I don't care that there are people that like 2e or White Wolf, or GURPS. I mean why would I? People enjoying whatever genre, styles of play, etc. Why is it "wrong" for people to play the game in a different fashion?
I mean I don't personally like when character optimization comes before roleplaying and I have a big thing for "consistency" at my tables but I know there are people out there who don't, but who am I to tell them they are doing it wrong if they are having fun?
You have to understand I houserule Fighters stronger and enforce 2e limits on all magic using classes, ALL of them.
Quote from: Kaelik;552159then it is a class ability, and that would include if there were a class of items that said (Fighter only) like in Diablo, where only certain classes can use certain items.
...or instead of Diablo, the first 25 or so years of D&D.
Quote from: Marleycat;552168Another reason to take seriously Aos's claim about 3x. I houserule that ridiculousness at the start. The thing is a DM with a brain runs the game RAI not RAW. That goes for any game system and that is the crux of your issues. You believe rpg's are competitive not cooperative.
I kow that is the crux of my issues. I have stated that I have problems with the game and that those problems need to be fixed. The thing I'm contending against is the idea that these issues don't exist and thus the game shouldn't be tampered with. That doesn't make any sense if you openly state you ham handedly ban any and all optimization.
Quote from: MGuy;552162No... That makes those items Class Specific not a Class Ability. If it were a Class Ability I could look on the list of Class Features and see that "Magic Sword" on the list of things that fall under my Class Abilities. Again, if I'm remembering 2e correctly, treasure is random so the fighter may very well never get a fighter specific item.
Edit: And I'm disagreeing with Kaelik here because I don't remember there being Magic Sword on the list of fighter Class Abilities so Class Specific Items don't register as a Class Ability to me.
Or you could look here: Originally posted by 1E phb -
QuoteAlthough fighters do not have magic spells to use, their armor and weapons can compensate. Fighters can employ many magical items, including potions; protection scrolls; many rings; a few wands; one rod; many other magical items; and all forms of armor, shields and weapons.
Quote from: MGuy;552173Wait... You need proof to believe that someone could ever have made this in game? You want him to go back and give you a play by play through from level 1? What would that do for this conversation? If you don't like that he CAN do it why not change the rules such that it can't happen? You basically do that when you ban it. And according to your reaction its not just a minor, setting based, adjustment. You seem to want to ban any and all similar characters. That would take you going and changing the rules fundamentally. I know because when I decided I wanted to "fix" DnD by toning down the spells I found that I had to do just that.
No, because I'm getting bored talking to a wall here. You are suffering from Gross Conceptual Error and I'll just leave it to you to figure that one out.
Quote from: MGuy;552173If you don't like the playstyle, that's understandable but I know that some people like that kind of fun. Why do I care if someone else plays things a different way? I don't care that there are people that like 2e or White Wolf, or GURPS. I mean why would I? People enjoying whatever genre, styles of play, etc. Why is it "wrong" for people to play the game in a different fashion?
I've already told you.
Quote from: MGuy;552173I mean I don't personally like when character optimization comes before roleplaying and I have a big thing for "consistency" at my tables but I know there are people out there who don't, but who am I to tell them they are doing it wrong if they are having fun?
Wait, so on a fundamental level you do agree with me?
There may yet be hope for you.
Quote from: Kaelik;552171Still haven't learned your lessen yet?
Protip: If you think I believe something. You are wrong.
No, again you should reverse it, I houserule stuff to RAI, absolutes like you seem to believe in prove you completely wrong. Go ahead and explain your ambiguity.
Quote from: jeff37923;552180Wait, so on a fundamental level you do agree with me?
There may yet be hope for you.
That's what irks me about you and Benoist. Aside from your obvious trolling, you seem to believe that we're arguing such a character should be allowed. As I've said numerous times, I wouldn't allow a character like that at my table. My argument is that the rules allow that sort of bullshit and they should be written better so that they don't. Even the splitting bow alone is ridiculous and should not have been published.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;552081I'm not part of the 'Gaming Den Crowd' - or at least, not a regular. I've posted a few times, particularly in threads that have caught my attention, but that's not substantively different than what I've done here (just the pace of this thread has made it more difficult to follow others from their inception). But by and large, many of the regulars want to see the Fighter a power unto himself.
This is why I state unequivocally that I agree with Frank's observations 100% (except that calling everyone here a neckbeard was a little unfair). I do not fully agree with his prescriptions.
I want to see spell casters scaled back to some degree. But they cannot be scaled back to a place that the Fighter becomes relevant without also boosting the fighter - at least not without ruining the game. The idea of shifting to another plane of existence is IMPORTANT for the game - and if Fighter's aren't going to have anything like that, they're always going to need a spell-caster around to handle problems that they can't solve. But they also need to be better at handling problems that could be solved by a sword in the face (or a bow). I agree, you don't need to have a flying fighter to engage a dragon. But if you're playing a dragon-slaying game, how sad is it that the iconic Fighter doesn't even rate a spot on the team? That's the crux of the problem.
"Rating a spot on the team" is total MMOG-think and speak, and again one of those exaggerations stated as 100% fact. Even if the fighter was completely useless against a flying dragon in 3e (which, in earlier editions, he most certainly is NOT), your statement assumes every encounter against a dragon will be with the dragon flying. Every.Single.One. Simply not true.
You say they can't scale back the game enough where it can still be fun, yet simply replacing the spell and class limitations from 1/2e would go a huge way towards balancing the classes as a lot of the oft-touted examples would no longer be valid.
I have no problem with boosting the fighter, however, the 3e power levels are so fucked up that you have to bring the game back into the realm of sanity first, and then take a look at the fighter.
Quote from: MGuy;552177I kow that is the crux of my issues. I have stated that I have problems with the game and that those problems need to be fixed. The thing I'm contending against is the idea that these issues don't exist and thus the game shouldn't be tampered with. That doesn't make any sense if you openly state you ham handedly ban any and all optimization.
You, I have no issue with because you understand the actual issue being talked about. Also houseruling is my bread and butter. I generally run Mage. I usually play Dnd.:D
Optimization is fine but it needs to make sense and fit into the actual setting being run and then only if it fits into the current campaign being run.
Quote from: jeff37923;552180I've already told you.
Wait, so on a fundamental level you do agree with me?
There may yet be hope for you.
These two things.
1) No... You didn't. You told me why you personally don't like that style of play. You've mentioned it over and over again. I understand you don't like it, believe me I do (that comes up next). However I do not know why I or you for that matter should care about what other people's make believe is like. How is your, or my, or anybody's imagination land "better" or "worse" than anyone else's? At the end of the day, beyond the rules, or the setting, you play the game to have fun. Whether that fun come from building super man or struggling through every challenge with nothing but a toothpick and hope. The capacity for people to have fun with this or that is immeasurable so why in all the 9 hells should I give a damn that in some game at some time Kaelik made a completely legal character that his DM not only ok'd but asked for, and it rocked? I don't care. Its nice that he did it, I wouldn't ask him or anyone at my own table to do it but all the same I cannot be forced to care that such a thing transpired and I want to know why YOUR panties are in a twist about the fact that HE did it.
2) We may have the same opinion on how the game should be run (I doubt it but I've had weirder things happen to me). However, just because I have an ideal power level I'd like the game to go at doesn't mean that the rules allow for something different. The rules also suggests that players can grind monsters to level. I don't like that, and I never run my games like that but its there in the rules. I thus think the rules should be changed in the rulebook explicitly to something different. I think that's a flaw in the rules. I think its a flaw that needs to be fixed. And I think its a flaw despite the fact I NEVER run the game that way.
Quote from: B.T.;552182That's what irks me about you and Benoist. Aside from your obvious trolling, you seem to believe that we're arguing such a character should be allowed. As I've said numerous times, I wouldn't allow a character like that at my table. My argument is that the rules allow that sort of bullshit and they should be written better so that they don't. Even the splitting bow alone is ridiculous and should not have been published.
Are you sucking up again?
Quote from: Marleycat;552161It's bad because ...
1. I have to waste valuable game and prep time looking over that crap to make sure it's fair for the game that's actually being run. Unless you prefer the general banhammer without reason?
2. More important is the mindset this comes from "it's competitive or I win dumb bitch" fuck that, seriously.
Which then is presented as the baseline the design of the future editions of this or that game must catter to "otherwise it's broken! See? My Cleric proves it!" That stops being a private game table matter right there, and I push back, since this is the opposite of what I want to see the game become.
Quote from: B.T.;552182That's what irks me about you and Benoist. Aside from your obvious trolling, you seem to believe that we're arguing such a character should be allowed. As I've said numerous times, I wouldn't allow a character like that at my table. My argument is that the rules allow that sort of bullshit and they should be written better so that they don't. Even the splitting bow alone is ridiculous and should not have been published.
Quote from: MGuy;5521862) We may have the same opinion on how the game should be run (I doubt it but I've had weirder things happen to me). However, just because I have an ideal power level I'd like the game to go at doesn't mean that the rules allow for something different. The rules also suggests that players can grind monsters to level. I don't like that, and I never run my games like that but its there in the rules. I thus think the rules should be changed in the rulebook explicitly to something different. I think that's a flaw in the rules. I think its a flaw that needs to be fixed. And I think its a flaw despite the fact I NEVER run the game that way.
OK, so if we are in agreement then why in the fuck are you two argueing against my position on munchlin twinked out Monty Haul bullshit?
Quote from: Kaelik;552171Still haven't learned your lessen yet?
Protip: If you think I believe something. You are wrong.
Really? You're just trolling me at this point.
Quote from: MGuy;552173If you don't like the playstyle, that's understandable but I know that some people like that kind of fun. Why do I care if someone else plays things a different way? I don't care that there are people that like 2e or White Wolf, or GURPS. I mean why would I? People enjoying whatever genre, styles of play, etc. Why is it "wrong" for people to play the game in a different fashion?
I mean I don't personally like when character optimization comes before roleplaying and I have a big thing for "consistency" at my tables but I know there are people out there who don't, but who am I to tell them they are doing it wrong if they are having fun?
Sure, if they're having fun they're having fun. That part's fine. But, you can't have fun like that and give a shit about balance, you've thrown it out the window. May as well go with it and play your pseudonatural golem with rocket launchers on his shoulders that does 10d6 sonic damage plus DC 72 stun 5 times a day. Just fuckin' go for it.
Quote from: Benoist;552188Which then is presented as the baseline the design of the future editions of this or that game must catter to "otherwise it's broken! See? My Cleric proves it!" That stops being a private game table matter right there, and I push back, since this is the opposite of what I want to see the game become.
This thread among other things I have already said has done more in helping me understand and agree with your mindset and understand why you're saying what you do about certain things Dnd.
Quote from: jeff37923;552190OK, so if we are in agreement then why in the fuck are you two argueing against my position on munchlin twinked out Monty Haul bullshit?
Kaelik was asked to show a character (I believe). He showed it. Now he's been stuck arguing with the various points people keep bringing up against it.That it couldn't happen during regular play, that he doesn't care about role playing because he had a character like this, that his DM is bad for allowing it, all of which don't make any sense at all. Yes, I'm against this particular kind of character but I'm not mad at him for making it. Hell I don't really care that it exists. I have general problems with the rules which is why I think its important to Identify these problems, figure out why we don't like them, figure out what we want instead, then build a game that supports the play style we want at the power level we want. If you become satisfied with just house ruling and shout at anybody and everybody who points out these flaws as "not doing it right" that prevents actual, working solutions from being discussed and included in the next ruleset.
Quote from: Imp;552193Sure, if they're having fun they're having fun. That part's fine. But, you can't have fun like that and give a shit about balance, you've thrown it out the window. May as well go with it and play your pseudonatural golem with rocket launchers on his shoulders that does 10d6 sonic damage plus DC 72 stun 5 times a day. Just fuckin' go for it.
If you make a game that promotes/enforces the playstyle you want you don't have to spend as much time making house rules. This is what having a good ruleset is all about. If your ruleset is good you'd only have to worry about adjudicating edge case scenarios and campaign/setting specific details instead of having to ban whole swathes of materials.
Quote from: talysman;552139You know, people keep comparing non-TSR D&D to deck-building in Magic: the Gathering. But maybe it's more like Katamari Damacy. You keep sticking shit on your characters until they are big enough to be a star.
+1 a million times over.
Quote from: Marleycat;552141Stormie, I don't think it's true of the overall fanbase but speaking Dnd only, I definitely think there's a complete mindset shift from pre 3x to 3/4e. I do think it's generational for the most part. YMMV
I probably should have been clearer initially, I was referring primarily to D&D players. Although I am sure there is a similar cohort for other games, they are far less vocal.
QuoteA good part of TGD cannot even speak about TSR Dnd from a position of knowledge or authority for many of them 3/4e is the ONLY Dnd.
Hell, Frank
knows better, but he acts like everything before 3.x was written in crayon by functional illiterates.
Quote from: MGuy;552198Kaelik was asked to show a character (I believe). He showed it. Now he's been stuck arguing with the various points people keep bringing up against it.That it couldn't happen during regular play, that he doesn't care about role playing because he had a character like this, that his DM is bad for allowing it, all of which don't make any sense at all. Yes, I'm against this particular kind of character but I'm not mad at him for making it. Hell I don't really care that it exists. I have general problems with the rules which is why I think its important to Identify these problems, figure out why we don't like them, figure out what we want instead, then build a game that supports the play style we want at the power level we want. If you become satisfied with just house ruling and shout at anybody and everybody who points out these flaws as "not doing it right" that prevents actual, working solutions from being discussed and included in the next ruleset.
The next ruleset was made based on discussing this, it was called 4E and we all know how that worked out, don't we?
Fuck discussion, this is a Player and DM problem. No more, no less. Crafting rules to fix people ends up creating shitty rules.
Quote from: jeff37923;552201The next ruleset was made based on discussing this, it was called 4E and we all know how that worked out, don't we?
Fuck discussion, this is a Player and DM problem. No more, no less. Crafting rules to fix people ends up creating shitty rules.
Exactly. And Benoist is right, fuck me but he is. Mguy is more middle ground so I can deal with that given I am also. :)
Quote from: CRKrueger;552175...or instead of Diablo, the first 25 or so years of D&D.
It's more than a little odd that this contingent insists AD&D was a total pile of shit for 25 (very successful) years, and yet seems to not know a whole lot about it.
Quote from: jeff37923;552201The next ruleset was made based on discussing this, it was called 4E and we all know how that worked out, don't we?
4e took such design to an extreme. Closing your eyes and ears to problems that crop up in gameplay is not the solution. Having played in a (3e) game where the (first-time player) druid accidentally out-fought the fighter, I'd like to see a tad bit more attention paid to the rules than in 3e.
Quote from: jeff37923;552201The next ruleset was made based on discussing this, it was called 4E and we all know how that worked out, don't we?
Fuck discussion, this is a Player and DM problem. No more, no less. Crafting rules to fix people ends up creating shitty rules.
This is just more evidence of an issue. Most people don't know what solutions work best for them because any intelligent discussion on what the issues are and how to fix them get bogged down. 4E made the mistake of thinking that as long as everybody was like the fighter and doing things outside of combat was subject only to the whim of your DM everything would be ok. It was not.
I probably have a lot of opinions about how the game should work with you. The thing is that I also think that we can civilly discuss the issues that exist with the system and that fundamental changes to the system can and should be made to the game.
So explain them already. Without proving Jeff's assertions wrong or being against them. Understand this thread and assertions made within are convincing me my initial thoughts aren't offbase and that Ben and Jeff may be more correct than I first thought. The thing is you guys don't understand the subtext and actual topic thet Jeff is.talking about.
Quote from: Marleycat;552181Quote from: KaelikStill haven't learned your lessen yet?
Protip: If you think I believe something. You are wrong.
No, again you should reverse it, I houserule stuff to RAI, absolutes like you seem to believe in prove you completely wrong. Go ahead and explain your ambiguity.
Um... Now I know you are speaking a different language.
You asserted that I believe D&D is competitive not cooperative. This is false. I have no fucking idea why you think that has anything to do with RAI, or being absolute, or ambiguity.
Quote from: StormBringer;552203It's more than a little odd that this contingent insists AD&D was a total pile of shit for 25 (very successful) years, and yet seems to not know a whole lot about it.
Okay, you people, and by you people I apparently mean every single poster in this forum, because at this point it has been every one of you, seem to have this problem where you won't actually bother to go through the very little work that is required to actually understand what I am saying. It's really annoying.
Hey Stormbringer, did you remember to tell Marleycat that his sample size isn't big enough to make a statement that most DMs ban Complete Divine? Or are you still just a biased dickhead that only insists on large sample sizes for people you don't like?
I don't suppose you could bother to point to any instance in which I contended that AD&D was a total pile of shit for 25 years before you start putting words in my mouth? No, going to be a lying shit and imply I have said things I haven't said. Oh, well, I'd say that I'm surprised, but it would be lying.
Quote from: B.T.;5522044e took such design to an extreme. Closing your eyes and ears to problems that crop up in gameplay is not the solution.
We fundamentally disagree here, because I see it as a people problem and you see it as a rules problem.
Quote from: B.T.;552204Having played in a (3e) game where the (first-time player) druid accidentally out-fought the fighter, I'd like to see a tad bit more attention paid to the rules than in 3e.
Oh, for fuck's sake! I've run a solo game where I had to apologize to my girlfriend because the first time she played, her level 1 Ranger in 3E got killed by a kobold in one vs. one combat. One instance of a single game does not make the rules broken.
Quote from: MGuy;552205This is just more evidence of an issue. Most people don't know what solutions work best for them because any intelligent discussion on what the issues are and how to fix them get bogged down. 4E made the mistake of thinking that as long as everybody was like the fighter and doing things outside of combat was subject only to the whim of your DM everything would be ok. It was not.
I firmly believe that the issue is with people and not rules because I have seen this issue in almost all tabletop RPGs that I have run or played.
Quote from: MGuy;552205I probably have a lot of opinions about how the game should work with you. The thing is that I also think that we can civilly discuss the issues that exist with the system and that fundamental changes to the system can and should be made to the game.
We can discuss them in a civil manner, but I had mistakenly grouped you in with the Gaming Den sycophants.
Mea Culpa.Except you are wrong in that changing the system will change the people. I have not seen that ever.
Quote from: Kaelik;552210Um... Now I know you are speaking a different language.
You asserted that I believe D&D is competitive not cooperative. This is false. I have no fucking idea why you think that has anything to do with RAI, or being absolute, or ambiguity.
Okay, you people, and by you people I apparently mean every single poster in this forum, because at this point it has been every one of you, seem to have this problem where you won't actually bother to go through the very little work that is required to actually understand what I am saying. It's really annoying.
Hey Stormbringer, did you remember to tell Marleycat that his sample size isn't big enough to make a statement that most DMs ban Complete Divine? Or are you still just a biased dickhead that only insists on large sample sizes for people you don't like?
I don't suppose you could bother to point to any instance in which I contended that AD&D was a total pile of shit for 25 years before you start putting words in my mouth? No, going to be a lying shit and imply I have said things I haven't said. Oh, well, I'd say that I'm surprised, but it would be lying.
The truth hurts doesn't it? Don't hate the game just the player. You say you do but I don't believe it one bit.:)
Quote from: Marleycat;552212The truth hurts doesn't it? Don't hate the game just the player. You say you do but I don't believe it one bit.:)
Right, I know that you think you can psychically mind read me through the internet and know things that are the exact opposite of the "public face" I've been faking for years. I've gotten used to that kind of insanity from you and jeff.
What I don't understand is what the fuck any of that has to do with RAI/absolutism/ambiguity. What the fuck were you talking about?
BTW I'm a she for future reference. ;)
Quote from: MGuy;552198If you become satisfied with just house ruling and shout at anybody and everybody who points out these flaws as "not doing it right" that prevents actual, working solutions from being discussed and included in the next ruleset.
I agree that some people are not helping with their ranting. However, that doesn't stop them being right ;)
It seems to me that all that Cleric build does is show the underlying pointlessness of your approach. The designers that created 3rd edition were trying to do exactly what you say, and they ended up making arguably the most broken and unbalanced edition of D&D ever. On the contrary, the evidence of the last 40 years or so is that 'legislation' – trying to write more and more rules to cover loopholes and abuse – doesn't work, and is a much less effective and elegant solution than solution empowering the DM to make rulings and create their own house rules. Or to put that another way, you're tilting at windmills.
Quote from: StormBringer;552203It's more than a little odd that this contingent insists AD&D was a total pile of shit for 25 (very successful) years, and yet seems to not know a whole lot about it.
Give them a break they admitted it pretty much up front. At least in my opinion.
Quote from: Kaelik;552213Right, I know that you think you can psychically mind read me through the internet and know things that are the exact opposite of the "public face" I've been faking for years. I've gotten used to that kind of insanity from you and jeff.
What I don't understand is what the fuck any of that has to do with RAI/absolutism/ambiguity. What the fuck were you talking about?
CONTEXT and MINDSET silly man, not rules. RPG'S are about people not rules. That's why guys like Frank and yourself just don't get it. Even if you have a valid point. Understand I am the excluded middle you ignore and run your game, get it yet?
Quote from: Marleycat;552219CONTEXT and MINDSET silly, not rules.
And what the CONTEXT and MINDSET makes this "No, again you should reverse it, I houserule stuff to RAI, absolutes like you seem to believe in prove you completely wrong. Go ahead and explain your ambiguity."
an appropriate response to me telling you that I do not believe that D&D is competitive?
What does competition vs cooperativity have to do with RAI, absolutes, or ambiguity? What does you accusing me of lying have to do with RAI, absolutes, or ambiguity?
This thread is now the third longest on the main page. :eek:
Quote from: Glazer;552216I agree that some people are not helping with their ranting. However, that doesn't stop them being right ;)
It seems to me that all that Cleric build does is show the underlying pointlessness of your approach. The designers that created 3rd edition were trying to do exactly what you say, and they ended up making arguably the most broken and unbalanced edition of D&D ever. On the contrary, the evidence of the last 40 years or so is that 'legislation' – trying to write more and more rules to cover loopholes and abuse – doesn't work, and is a much less effective and elegant solution than solution empowering the DM to make rulings and create their own house rules. Or to put that another way, you're tilting at windmills.
"What did 3E designers think they were doing?" seems to me like it would be a much more sensible (and productive) topic than this one. IMHO the unbalancing is more a consequence of its universal system (stat modifier inflation, to make a single modifier apply), faster levelling, removal of limitations to try to make the system more flexible (e.g. race/class), and entire new experimental subsystems (feats). So design aims going in the opposite direction to making it a 'more balanced' system.
The profusion of rules is something I often find annoying, but not usually unbalancing. But anyway, back to the flame war.
Absolutes? In an RPG game? Primacy of RAW v. RAI? Reading D&D's text like the grand unifying theory of physics is even more futile than reading it as our common law legal corpus. Seriously, these more potent disciplines not only realize their limitations in application to other disciplines, they further admit to the validity and necessity of active debate and interpretation.
Unless you're speaking AD&D ex cathedra, with us as your devotees, you can kindly shove your theorizing with "absolutes" up your ass. It's abstractions. It's a toy with abstractions so I can play more readily.
It can't cover everything because, y'know, imagined worlds tend to almost be as big as real ones. So it's gonna need people to make sense of it on the spot, hence players & GMs. And that "making sense of" is not gonna involve the character sheet each and every time because logistically it can't. Thus situations and their interpreters are going to matter. Not a hard concept to grasp.
Quote from: Kaelik;552221And what the CONTEXT and MINDSET makes this "No, again you should reverse it, I houserule stuff to RAI, absolutes like you seem to believe in prove you completely wrong. Go ahead and explain your ambiguity."
an appropriate response to me telling you that I do not believe that D&D is competitive?
What does competition vs cooperativity have to do with RAI, absolutes, or ambiguity? What does you accusing me of lying have to do with RAI, absolutes, or ambiguity?
Ok, I have to ask this no matter if it offends. Are a native English speaker?
Quote from: Marleycat;552209So explain them already. Without proving Jeff's assertions wrong or being against them. Understand this thread and assertions made within are convincing me my initial thoughts aren't offbase and that Ben and Jeff may be more correct than I first thought. The thing is you guys don't understand the subtext and actual topic thet Jeff is.talking about.
I understand what Jeff has been saying. Benoist has been rather unhelpful this entire conversation so I can't begin to imagine what you're talking about there. I've been saying repeatedly exactly why I disagree with both either way. Jeff thinks its a problem with people. That cannot be the case because there is no "right" way to want to play the game. You play a game to have fun. It doesn't really matter how you have that fun. One person's form of make believe is not inherently better than someone else's. If you don't like the way people play then you just don't play with them. If you don't like the fact that someone can build Kaeliks Cleric you can change the rules to disallow it (Rule issue), play a different game, or just play with different people.
The disparity between classes is there. I'd wager most people are uncomfortable with the gap hence the reliance on magic items to keep the mundane guy up with the casters. A lot of house rules revolve around either castrating castors or buffing the fighter. The prevalence of these kinds of rulings shows that the disparity, and people's aversion to it, are not isolated incidences. Since we know this to be true it is important to figure out WHY we don't want it and what is the best way to deal with it.
Quote from: MGuy;552239I understand what Jeff has been saying. Benoist has been rather unhelpful this entire conversation so I can't begin to imagine what you're talking about there. I've been saying repeatedly exactly why I disagree with both either way. Jeff thinks its a problem with people. That cannot be the case because there is no "right" way to want to play the game. You play a game to have fun. It doesn't really matter how you have that fun. One person's form of make believe is not inherently better than someone else's. If you don't like the way people play then you just don't play with them. If you don't like the fact that someone can build Kaeliks Cleric you can change the rules to disallow it (Rule issue), play a different game, or just play with different people.
The disparity between classes is there. I'd wager most people are uncomfortable with the gap hence the reliance on magic items to keep the mundane guy up with the casters. A lot of house rules revolve around either castrating castors or buffing the fighter. The prevalence of these kinds of rulings shows that the disparity, and people's aversion to it, are not isolated incidences. Since we know this to be true it is important to figure out WHY we don't want it and what is the best way to deal with it.
Every campaign is going to be different due to the different campaign worlds, rules interpretations and house rules, random rolls (whether in character generation or in actual play), balances of combat and non-combat, frequency of encounters and different player skills, and so on.
As such, "never saw a problem with fighter/wizard balance, get lost" is an entirely reasonable position.
Kaelik's example character is no more relevant to the question of whether fighters or wizards are overpowered in general, than is any single responses of someone going 'nope, never had a problem at my table in X years'. It indicates only that in that campaign clerics overpower fighters. Peoples responses to his build give you a general indication of how and why other campaigns would differ.
As such, it isn't really possible to get any agreement on whether a discrepancy exists or how significant it is; let alone any agreement on how to fix it. Hence why Pathfinder exists and is popular, for instance; any of the fixes proposed to 'balance' a class in one set of circumstances will 'unbalance' it in a difference set of circumstances.
Quote from: Marleycat;552238Ok, I have to ask this no matter if it offends. Are a native English speaker?
Oh, you are just another troll. Disappointing.
Jesus every time I turn around this thread has grown by 10 pages. And at this point, I don't think I'm going to go reread them all because I'm pretty sure a lot of is:
Poster A: bleh blah bleh bitty bah.
Poster A: If you think I said bleh blah bleh bitty bah, then you don't know anything about me and you're a liar
:huhsign:
How can you argue against something like that, let alone convince someone that they actually said what they said?
You can't.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;551650While it's boring, trying to claim you can 'ready a partial charge' is wrong. Claiming that it is possible shows a clear misunderstanding of the rules, but I know why you came to that conclusion. I'm not going to hijack this thread with a lengthy discussion of it - if you're interested you can start a new thread - but the partial charge is designed for creatures like zombies who don't get a full round action. Likewise, if you're staggered (0 hit points) you could use a partial charge. To claim that you can forgo your move and then ready a partial charge is stupid.
A Clear misunderstanding? No. I read the rules.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;552293How can you argue against something like that, let alone convince someone that they actually said what they said?
Well, for a start, you could stop trying to claim people said something they didn't say.
Can you point to any place I said that D&D is competitive? No because it doesn't exist. So then maybe the solution is not for Marleycat to argue that I do believe something I didn't say, but instead to argue with what I actually said, if there is an argument to be had.
Quote from: Sommerjon;552297A Clear misunderstanding? No. I read the rules.
Reading the rules is a prerequisite to misunderstanding them.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;552293Jesus every time I turn around this thread has grown by 10 pages. And at this point, I don't think I'm going to go reread them all because I'm pretty sure a lot of is:
Poster A: bleh blah bleh bitty bah.
Poster A: If you think I said bleh blah bleh bitty bah, then you don't know anything about me and you're a liar
:huhsign:
How can you argue against something like that, let alone convince someone that they actually said what they said?
You can't.
Stop dodging the real issue:
Everyone knows you're not going to read it because you don't know how to read.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;552250Every campaign is going to be different due to the different campaign worlds, rules interpretations and house rules, random rolls (whether in character generation or in actual play), balances of combat and non-combat, frequency of encounters and different player skills, and so on.
As such, "never saw a problem with fighter/wizard balance, get lost" is an entirely reasonable position.
Kaelik's example character is no more relevant to the question of whether fighters or wizards are overpowered in general, than is any single responses of someone going 'nope, never had a problem at my table in X years'. It indicates only that in that campaign clerics overpower fighters. Peoples responses to his build give you a general indication of how and why other campaigns would differ.
As such, it isn't really possible to get any agreement on whether a discrepancy exists or how significant it is; let alone any agreement on how to fix it. Hence why Pathfinder exists and is popular, for instance; any of the fixes proposed to 'balance' a class in one set of circumstances will 'unbalance' it in a difference set of circumstances.
2 Things about this post show that you haven't been following what I've been saying because I've commented on both of these types of responses for pages now.
1) The fact that people are mad about his build at all, and that they can't believe someone actually went through with it in a game shows that they don't like the fact that people CAN build something like his cleric. If you don't want people to be able to build it, and people consistently make house rules banning it, that shows that people are unsatisfied with the rules in general. If you don't like this build, which is understandable, that's fine. However it is not a mark against Kaelik or his DM for having ever played it. If you clearly wouldn't allow for this or similar builds in your game or you are mad that Kaelik can build it you demonstrably have an issue with the rules. Other responses such as blaming Kaelik for making it, blaming people like Kaelik for realizing that they can make it, or simply refusing to believe anyone would allow such a build at their table all ignores or obscures the fact that you obviously, at your core, don't like the fact that the rules allow you to make it. If he had cheated, made some odd interpretation of the rules (a' la pun pun), or used poor wording to create the thing I'd also see your point but none of that is the case. You can straight up make this thing without stretching your imagination. That makes the character legal in every aspect and not allowing it is a clear infringement on the rules.
2: Let's say that for a second I can wrap my head around you never encountering the problem. Let's say I do so and give you the benefit of the doubt that you haven't been in games where someone didn't play a fighter/monk/rogue that never fell behind in anyway. I'm going to assume that the reason for this also wasn't because someone fixed up the magic items such that they got superpowers to compete with the casters on the team. I'm going to also assume that the special "circumstances" that occur at your table is not the DM accidentally/intentionally not playing the opposition with a brain. I'm going to also assume that the "circumstances" are also not the only thing you're hinging your argument over. Let's say all this and more is true at your tables. Let's say its true at everyone you've ever been to ever whether you played or DMed and you just somehow missed the issue. How does that invalidate the very significant portion of people who HAVE had the problem, have identified it as an issue, and wish it to be changed? I know that you are not one of them that don't believe it exists because you too have an issue with the build that Kaelik made, so you MUST know on some level that the disparity exists because you would, like jeff, refuse to allow it to go on at your table. So I have to ask why it would be beneficial to allow such a thing to stay in the rules instead of just straight up redoing the rules so it can't come up.
Quote from: Kaelik;552300Reading the rules is a prerequisite to misunderstanding them.
And you just happen to know the '
correct' way to understand them? Please show this understanding.
Quote from: Marleycat;552197This thread among other things I have already said has done more in helping me understand and agree with your mindset and understand why you're saying what you do about certain things Dnd.
Reading this made me very, very happy indeed. At least this thread has helped in some fashion. :hatsoff:
Quote from: Sommerjon;552306And you just happen to know the 'correct' way to understand them? Please show this understanding.
Yes, your contention that your turn is when you take action triggered by the ready action and not when you use your standard action to ready is directly contradictory to the explanation of readied action:
"The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your
turn is over but before your next one has begun."
There, clearly your turn is the part where you have a standard and move action, and the place you think is a turn is in fact not your turn, as it is specifically called out as between turns.
Quote from: MGuy;552148I must point out that my "no magic special abilities" point came because people specifically said they wanted a fighter that was mundane, and that the fighter is fine without superpowers. Magic items make the fighter not mundane and give him superpowers. You can't have him be mundane and without superpowers while at the same time expecting him to not be mundane and get superpowers.
Quote from: MGuy;552162Quote from: JRR;552156Wrong. Only fighters can use certain items. That makes it a class ability.
No... That makes those items Class Specific not a Class Ability. If it were a Class Ability I could look on the list of Class Features and see that "Magic Sword" on the list of things that fall under my Class Abilities.
Could you at least *try* to be consistent? I'd expect anyone involved in a hundred-page argument to eventually say something that seems to contradict one of their earlier statements, but dammit your second post was only 4 or 5 posts after the previous one. A fighter with magic weapons has special abilities, but they aren't class abilities, because they aren't listed under the class description? (Even though they are; someone's quoted 1e on this, but I will add that in the 3 LBBs, the very first thing in the description for "Fighting-Man" is "All magical weaponry is usable by fighters". By your definition, that's a class ability.)
And then there's the fact that your statement about mundane fighters with magic weapons not being mundane contradicts your much earlier position that, if anyone can use a power, it's not a Fighter power. You'll probably argue next that a Fighter power is not the same as a power that a Fighter
has, and that you are against Fighters with powers who have no Fighter powers.
For the record, no one said they wanted a completely mundane Fighter. Lots of people said they wanted a Fighter who is
intrinsically mundane, relying on using the environment and other external resources, including magic equipment.
Quote from: Kaelik;552171Protip: If you think I believe something. You are wrong.
You're a scientist! You don't believe in ANYTHING!
Quote from: Kaelik;552275Oh, you are just another troll. Disappointing.
I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt given I didn't want to believe anybody could be so stupid but you give me no choice.
Quote from: MGuy;552239I understand what Jeff has been saying. Benoist has been rather unhelpful this entire conversation so I can't begin to imagine what you're talking about there. I've been saying repeatedly exactly why I disagree with both either way. Jeff thinks its a problem with people. That cannot be the case because there is no "right" way to want to play the game. You play a game to have fun. It doesn't really matter how you have that fun. One person's form of make believe is not inherently better than someone else's. If you don't like the way people play then you just don't play with them. If you don't like the fact that someone can build Kaeliks Cleric you can change the rules to disallow it (Rule issue), play a different game, or just play with different people.
The disparity between classes is there. I'd wager most people are uncomfortable with the gap hence the reliance on magic items to keep the mundane guy up with the casters. A lot of house rules revolve around either castrating castors or buffing the fighter. The prevalence of these kinds of rulings shows that the disparity, and people's aversion to it, are not isolated incidences. Since we know this to be true it is important to figure out WHY we don't want it and what is the best way to deal with it.
Fair point I don't agree with you but that doesn't mean that you may be right in certain areas or by certain perspectives it's not mine is all.:)
Quote from: Marleycat;552317I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt given I didn't want to believe anybody could be so stupid but you give me no choice.
What does competition vs cooperativity have to do with RAI, absolutes, or ambiguity? What does you accusing me of lying have to do with RAI, absolutes, or ambiguity?
Why did you tell me to
"Go ahead and explain your ambiguity."
when I was not talking about ambiguity at all?
Explain what ambiguity?
Quote from: Kaelik;552321What does competition vs cooperativity have to do with RAI, absolutes, or ambiguity? What does you accusing me of lying have to do with RAI, absolutes, or ambiguity?
Why did you tell me to
"Go ahead and explain your ambiguity."
when I was not talking about ambiguity at all?
Explain what ambiguity?
It's the heart of the actual issue between new and old school modes of play. You say well the rules say I can because of how it's written via my interpretation without taking any other factors in account. Vs. Yes the rules may be interpreted that way but is it fun for all DM included, not just you or a single player? RAW worship and support as core not optional deflects it from the actual issue. The game is about people not rules hence the ambiguity which is only mitigated using the RAI solution and empowering the DM to be a full participant in the game vs. Miss Magic Shop for Kraelick
Quote from: Kaelik;552210Hey Stormbringer, did you remember to tell Marleycat that his sample size isn't big enough to make a statement that most DMs ban Complete Divine? Or are you still just a biased dickhead that only insists on large sample sizes for people you don't like?
It's mostly for people that double down when they are caught making a wild exaggeration they treat like the truth. You know, when someone says "the vast majority of the internet" agrees with their position. I understand that Marleycat is making a statement regarding most DMs she is aware of, and extending that by making an assumption that the greater population of DMs out there would reasonably hold the same position. She isn't claiming to speak the mind of "the vast majority of the internet".
QuoteI don't suppose you could bother to point to any instance in which I contended that AD&D was a total pile of shit for 25 years before you start putting words in my mouth? No, going to be a lying shit and imply I have said things I haven't said. Oh, well, I'd say that I'm surprised, but it would be lying.
I don't really care to scour the forums at the moment, but I will put this on my 'to-do' list for later today. The modus operandi for TGD seems to be this mock outrage at being insulted, while volleying wild generalizations about everyone and everything else.
We can save some time, however. Do you think AD&D was a successful game for 25 years, and that it was due to the rules succeeding at what they intended to do? Or do you agree that AD&D was terrible, and the only reason it was successful is because the players didn't know any better?
Quote from: Marleycat;552330It's the heart of the actual issue between new a old school modes of play. You say well the rules say I can because of how it's written via my interpretation without taking any other factors in account. Vs. Yes the rules may be interpreted that way but is it fun for all DM included, not just you or a single player? RAW worship and support as core not optional deflects it from the actual issue. The game is about people not rules hence the ambiguity which is only mitigated using the RAI solution and empowering the DM to be a full participant in the game vs. Miss Magic Shop for Kraelick
So if you are going to claim that I believe a bunch of things that I don't believe with no basis, you should at least go through all the work of explaining what you are lying about, like in this post.
Saying "Explain your ambiguity" when all I said is that I don't believe RPGs are competitive makes no sense, because no one can figure out what you are talking about.
Now that I understand you are just lying because it's more convenient for you to lie in order to... Okay, well I actually can't understand what you think you are accomplishing by lying, but whatever... Now I can just do the standard boiler plate:
No, I don't stab my DM or other players in the face. No I don't worship RAW and expect or demand allowance of any material, even, and especially not core material, no I don't disenfranchise the DM, I'm not even sure how I would do that, ect.
And move on to the next time you feel the need to lie about me in order to accomplish your goal of... trolling people with bad English and intentionally misspelling my name because apparently that makes you feel powerful or something.
Quote from: StormBringer;552336We can save some time, however. Do you think AD&D was a successful game for 25 years, and that it was due to the rules succeeding at what they intended to do? Or do you agree that AD&D was terrible, and the only reason it was successful is because the players didn't know any better?
Do you beat your wife? Or are you Hitler?
I'll get back to you when you ask an honest question.
Quote from: Kaelik;552337So if you are going to claim that I believe a bunch of things that I don't believe with no basis, you should at least go through all the work of explaining what you are lying about, like in this post.
Saying "Explain your ambiguity" when all I said is that I don't believe RPGs are competitive makes no sense, because no one can figure out what you are talking about.
Now that I understand you are just lying because it's more convenient for you to lie in order to... Okay, well I actually can't understand what you think you are accomplishing by lying, but whatever... Now I can just do the standard boiler plate:
No, I don't stab my DM or other players in the face. No I don't worship RAW and expect or demand allowance of any material, even, and especially not core material, no I don't disenfranchise the DM, I'm not even sure how I would do that, ect.
And move on to the next time you feel the need to lie about me in order to accomplish your goal of... trolling people with bad English and intentionally misspelling my name because apparently that makes you feel powerful or something.
Do you beat your wife? Or are you Hitler?
I'll get back to you when you ask an honest question.
So we're back to "English is my second language" gotcha.
Quit being disingenuous and just answer the questions honestly.
@Stormbringer, it's not completely about my personal knowledge of DM's I know and my obviously stupid assumption that we're not alone but more an observation that there is a clear split between RAI/RAW players and DM's and that it follows rather obvious markers, said markers being the actual topic Jeff opines in the original post.
Quote from: Marleycat;552341Quit being disingenuous and just answer the questions honestly.
I did. No. No. That's the problem with false dilemmas, they are false.
It is disingenuous to present a false dilemma, it is not disingenuous to refuse to answer one.
Quote from: Marleycat;552340So we're back to "English is my second language" gotcha.
The last time you tried to explain that you mistyped it and it sounded like you were trying to accuse me of not knowing English.
But your admission is much more clear this time, so I'll give you a break.
Quote from: Kaelik;552337Do you beat your wife? Or are you Hitler?
No on one; yes on two.
Quote from: Aos;552344No on one; yes on two.
So you're an undead zombie? No wonder I can smell you, yuck! :D
@Kraelick, you really should get into dodgeball since you like dodging so much.;)
Quote from: Marleycat;552346@Kraelick, you really should get into dodgeball since you like dodging so much.
You are a funny man Mr. English second language. But you can clearly see the answer to each question in my post, I'm really not sure how answering my the questions constitutes dodging. Maybe you are confusing dodging with some other word in your native tongue?
Quote from: MGuy;552177I kow that is the crux of my issues. I have stated that I have problems with the game and that those problems need to be fixed.
Then fix them and release your new, improved version (the OGL allows you to do this with 3.x). If this truly is the main problem others have with 3.x your fixed game should soon attract most of the 3.x/Pathfinder crowd. And if 60-70% of the current 3.x player base adopts your game with its magical wuxia fighters, that would be hard to deny evidence that this is what the game needed.
QuoteThe thing I'm contending against is the idea that these issues don't exist and thus the game shouldn't be tampered with.
Others are allowed their opinion too. As yet, I have seen little evidence that these are real issues in most games not played with charop-mad munchkins or rules-lawyers.
QuoteThat doesn't make any sense if you openly state you ham handedly ban any and all optimization.
You're right, if you don't allow excessive charop and/or rules lawyers at your table and the GM limits the books that can be used to built characters, 3.x these problems are not nearly as apparent. Oh, and why is this "ham-handed"? It solves most of the serious problems and has worked wellfor many groups?
Quote from: Kaelik;552337Do you beat your wife? Or are you Hitler?
I'll get back to you when you ask an honest question.
Ok. I understand that making a positive statement would put a crimp in your trolling games, so try this one:
Did you, or did you not claim that the AD&D rules were a major problem for the "vast majority of the internet (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=270973#270973)"?
Hint: You did.
I suppose that now you are going to just claim that you were only clarifying Frank's statement, and continue the tired refrain that I am lying.
This is really important now, because you only have the barest shreds of the appearance of integrity on the line: Do you think AD&D was successful (and popular) for 25 years because the rules were actually well written, or because (apparently the 'common wisdom' at TGD) people were not smart enough to realize how terrible the actual rules were? Perhaps you have a different explanation you would like to propose. I don't want to have you go off for days about an excluded middle, so if neither of those substantially fits your opinion, please state what your opinion entails.
Spoiler
Prediction: More whining, dodging and prevaricating.
Quote from: Kaelik;552343The last time you tried to explain that you mistyped it and it sounded like you were trying to accuse me of not knowing English.
But your admission is much more clear this time, so I'll give you a break.
Damn, now I may have to like you, this sucks. :D
Quote from: StormBringer;552349Ok. I understand that making a positive statement would put a crimp in your trolling games, so try this one:
Did you, or did you not claim that the AD&D rules were a major problem for the "vast majority of the internet (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=270973#270973)"?
Hint: You did.
Hint: I did not. Here is a direct quote, "then when
he points out it was a problem for every human being he's ever met and the vast majority of all people on the internet your response is" (emphasis added).
Now, pray tell, who is the "he" in that sentence who "points out" things you don't like? Was it me?
If not, why do you think I believe it, when literally the same sentence also includes your response? Why would you think that me paraphrasing Frank and quoting you in the same sentence would result in me adopting Frank's statement as true and not yours?
Quote from: StormBringer;552349I suppose that now you are going to just claim that you were only clarifying Frank's statement, and continue the tired refrain that I am lying.
And next the math teacher is going to claim that 2+2 does not equal five because 2+2=4, 4=/=5, and the principle of non contradiction.
Clearly my ability to predict this counter argument means it must be false.
If you don't want to be accused of lying, don't lie. I clearly never said that. It is obvious from the quote itself that I am talking about Frank's quote, and I don't care about the truth value at all, and am only criticizing you for your biased demands for sample sizes.
Quote from: StormBringer;552349This is really important now, because you only have the barest shreds of the appearance of integrity on the line: Do you think AD&D was successful (and popular) for 25 years because the rules were actually well written, or because (apparently the 'common wisdom' at TGD) people were not smart enough to realize how terrible the actual rules were? Perhaps you have a different explanation you would like to propose. I don't want to have you go off for days about an excluded middle, so if neither of those substantially fits your opinion, please state what your opinion entails.
Ignoring for the moment that you were actually told to fuck off and stop lying about what people said in that thread because no one in that thread ever said that people were not smart enough to realize the rules were terrible, yes, you are excluding a huge fucking middle, also several things that are not in fact a middle, hence why I used false dilemma instead of excluded middle.
Here are some examples of statements (but by no means an exhaustive list of them) that might be true, and would make the answer to both your questions false. Just to be clear, because apparently you are too stupid to figure this sort of thing out on your own (or you just like lying about it afterward?) I am not, at this point, in drafting this list, advocating the truth of any of these statements at this time. Look past the list, when I tell you that I am advocating a specific statement for the next thing I am actually asserting the truth of.
It could be true that AD&D was not successful.
It could be true that there was nothing better at the time, and the AD&D rules were terrible, but better than anything else, like how almost any profession today is better than being a serf, but lots of people were serfs because they didn't have a better option.
It could be true that AD&D rules were poorly written, but the spirit of the rules captured the times well, and people gave it a lot more credit for coming up with a good idea than for good implementation (Maybe the Wii? I don't know modern consoles that well but I heard the Wii did well and was also really finicky and gimmicky).
It could be true that AD&D rules were extremely poorly written, and they had as their intended purpose thing X, which sucks. But because they poorly failed at accomplishing the sucky thing, they accidentally accomplished a good thing.
I'm sure I could go into more if I tried, but I think 4 is a good baseline to demonstrate how your question is a false dilemma, and the answer could be any number of things.
Now here is where it gets tricky, what you actually asked is "Do you
believe X or Y."
So there is a whole new thing that could be the case. Here is where I am asserting the truth value of the following statements:
1) I do believe that AD&D was successful. While I have complaints about definitions of success and relative success, on balance, from the information I do know, I believe that AD&D (/D&D before 3e because I can't accurately differentiate which parts should be called which) was financially successful, and the other kind of success, which is vague I know, but can be sort of summarized as "making a game that entertained a lot of people."
2) I do not believe it was successful because people were stupid. In general, people in the past were not stupider than people in the present, they were just subject to shitty circumstances that made them seem that way, IE same people raised today would not be racist/sexist in the old percentages.
3) I do not believe it was successful because of the aforementioned shitty circumstances. See 5)
4) I do not believe it was successful because the rules were well written. See 5)
5) I do not believe that I know what the rules were intended to do, so I could not possibly tell you whether they succeed at whatever it was.
Which is why of course I have never at any point in this thread or the one on TGD asserted that AD&D or old editions of D&D were unsuccessful or bad. Because I only know about 2e, and I don't remember the minutia well enough to remember if the rules were particularly good or bad.
Which is why every time you start trying to assert that I said mean things about your favorite edition of D&D, you will be wrong.
Quote from: Marleycat;552350Damn, now I may have to like you, this sucks. :D
You should not feel yourself obligated....
Quote from: Kaelik;552370Hint: I did not. Here is a direct quote, "then when he points out it was a problem for every human being he's ever met and the vast majority of all people on the internet your response is" (emphasis added).
Now, pray tell, who is the "he" in that sentence who "points out" things you don't like? Was it me?
If not, why do you think I believe it, when literally the same sentence also includes your response? Why would you think that me paraphrasing Frank and quoting you in the same sentence would result in me adopting Frank's statement as true and not yours?
I am going to have to register with the government as a genuine psychic.
Ok, so where did Frank say that the "vast majority of the internet" agrees with him? And by repeating it, are you saying you disagree with that statement?
QuoteAnd next the math teacher is going to claim that 2+2 does not equal five because 2+2=4, 4=/=5, and the principle of non contradiction.
Clearly my ability to predict this counter argument means it must be false.
If you don't want to be accused of lying, don't lie. I clearly never said that. It is obvious from the quote itself that I am talking about Frank's quote, and I don't care about the truth value at all, and am only criticizing you for your biased demands for sample sizes.
Sure, so you are just re-stating what Frank said. Where did Frank say the "vast majority of the internet" agrees with him?
QuoteIgnoring for the moment that you were actually told to fuck off and stop lying about what people said in that thread because no one in that thread ever said that people were not smart enough to realize the rules were terrible, yes, you are excluding a huge fucking middle, also several things that are not in fact a middle, hence why I used false dilemma instead of excluded middle.
Guess what, Sparky? You don't get to tell me what I can and cannot do. And continually repeating that I was lying doesn't make it so.
Oh, whoops (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=270919#270919):
Quote from: Midnight VThe argument of "shit worked all these years before. Should have the addendum: Because most people didn't know what the fuck was actually going on.
Or alternately: Because no one bothered to look to closely.
Finally: Nerds had less options by far before 1985 or so.
I guess all that screaming about how I was lying was just a cover so people didn't notice you have been lying.
QuoteSo there is a whole new thing that could be the case. Here is where I am asserting the truth value of the following statements:
1) I do believe that AD&D was successful. While I have complaints about definitions of success and relative success, on balance, from the information I do know, I believe that AD&D (/D&D before 3e because I can't accurately differentiate which parts should be called which) was financially successful, and the other kind of success, which is vague I know, but can be sort of summarized as "making a game that entertained a lot of people."
2) I do not believe it was successful because people were stupid. In general, people in the past were not stupider than people in the present, they were just subject to shitty circumstances that made them seem that way, IE same people raised today would not be racist/sexist in the old percentages.
3) I do not believe it was successful because of the aforementioned shitty circumstances. See 5)
4) I do not believe it was successful because the rules were well written. See 5)
5) I do not believe that I know what the rules were intended to do, so I could not possibly tell you whether they succeed at whatever it was.
Ummm... Number 5 there? Pretty much undermines the entire rest of your argument about why AD&D was successful and/or popular. Especially Number 4. You cannot positively assert that AD&D had poorly written rules when you admit you didn't know what the rules really were.
QuoteWhich is why of course I have never at any point in this thread of the one on TGD asserted that AD&D or old editions of D&D were unsuccessful, or bad. Because I only know about 2e, and I don't remember the minutia well enough to remember if the rules were particularly good or bad.
Seriously, though? Seriously? You just fucking said the rules were not well written (ie, they were bad):
QuoteI do not believe it was successful because the rules were well written.
I am sure you have some kind of weasely excuse waiting in the wings, but the fact remains that for all your screaming about 'lying', you were just using that as a cover so people might just ignore your own prevarications.
QuoteWhich is why every time you start trying to assert that I said mean things about your favorite edition of D&D, you will be wrong.
Except for that part where I'm clearly not. I know it stings quite a bit to be hoisted by the pitards of your own quotes, but grow a pair and own up to it.
Quote from: talysman;552314For the record, no one said they wanted a completely mundane Fighter. Lots of people said they wanted a Fighter who is intrinsically mundane, relying on using the environment and other external resources, including magic equipment.
Yeah, not wanting a fighter with the class ability Pokesword isn't the same as expecting high-level fighters to carry nothing but a rusty nail and a wool blanket as arms and armor.
That said, I can understand why some gamers might want a character who can, say, lay waste to an entire army using nothing but the jawbone of an ass or swim across an icy sea for five days and nights then battle nine sea monsters with a dagger. The problem seems to be the expectation that if a given edition of
D&D doesn't allow you to do that, then the fighter is broken.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;552395Yeah, not wanting a fighter with the class ability Pokesword isn't the same as expecting high-level fighters to carry nothing but a rusty nail and a wool blanket as arms and armor.
That said, I can understand why some gamers might want a character who can, say, lay waste to an entire army using nothing but the jawbone of an ass or swim across an icy sea for five days and nights then battle nine sea monsters with a dagger. The problem seems to be the expectation that if a given edition of D&D doesn't allow you to do that, then the fighter is broken.
I have been recently informed that line of thinking is
stupid. Masses of
poorly written rules is the problem. If that same mass of rules was magically almost
perfect, there would be no problems. The Fighter is clearly broken because the rules are not almost perfect.
Quote from: StormBringer;552383Ok, so where did Frank say that the "vast majority of the internet" agrees with him? And by repeating it, are you saying you disagree with that statement?
Don't care. If I paraphrased him incorrectly he is free to correct me on that point. Again, who was the "he" in the following statement, "when he points out it was a problem for every human being he's ever met and the vast majority of all people on the internet your response is"?
And was that he me? And if it was not me, then why do you think that I was asserting it was true?
By repeating it, I was establishing the context of your response to his assertion. Your response wouldn't make very much sense without the original assertion you were responding to now would it?
Quote from: StormBringer;552383Guess what, Sparky? You don't get to tell me what I can and cannot do.
Guess what Sparky? I didn't. You apparently need some serious practice understanding what people are saying. When someone says "in that thread you were told" it does not mean that they told you. It could mean, as does in this case, that other people who are not them told you.
Quote from: StormBringer;552383Oh, whoops (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=270919#270919):
Congratulations, you have refuted an accusation I did not make. You are stellar at this completely ignoring everything I said and arguing with people who are not me thing.
Quote from: StormBringer;552383Ummm... Number 5 there? Pretty much undermines the entire rest of your argument about why AD&D was successful and/or popular. Especially Number 4. You cannot positively assert that AD&D had poorly written rules when you admit you didn't know what the rules really were.
Well then it's probably a good thing I didn't assert that AD&D has poorly written rules isn't it?
Let's try this again.
Do you believe I am eating a turkey sandwich right now? No, because you do not have enough information to form an opinion. Does that mean you believe I am not eating a turkey sandwich? No, you do not have enough information.
Do I believe the rules for AD&D are well written? No, I do not have enough information. Does that mean that I believe the rules for AD&D are poorly written? Of course not you dumb fuck, I don't know.
I have never at any point contended that the rules for AD&D are poorly written.
I mean fuck, when I said "this is where is gets tricky" I was fucking joking, I did not actually expect you to confuse my lack of belief in X based on lack of knowledge with a positive assertion of not X.
Quote from: StormBringer;552383Seriously, though? Seriously? You just fucking said the rules were not well written (ie, they were bad):
No, I just fucking said that I do not believe the rules are well written. Remember, you asked what I believe. I also do not believe that the rules to to the boardgame Hard Frontier are well written. Because I know fuck all about them.
Quote from: StormBringer;552383I am sure you have some kind of weasely excuse waiting in the wings
I'm sure that you believe calling reality weasely allows you to win the pissing contest you think you are involved in about the quality of AD&D, but the jokes on you, I still am not arguing that AD&D is bad.
Quote from: jeff37923;552380You should not feel yourself obligated....
I can like him despite the issue of being full of shit about Dnd as commonly defined. I actually have other interests beyond rpg's. :)
Quote from: StormBringer;552402I have been recently informed that line of thinking is stupid. Masses of poorly written rules is the problem. If that same mass of rules was magically almost perfect, there would be no problems. The Fighter is clearly broken because the rules are not almost perfect.
You need to have a floating banner with 'This is what they actually believe' running under this statement. Because otherwise is just looks like your making up unbelievable shit for comedy value.
Quote from: Kaelik;552403Congratulations, you have refuted an accusation I did not make. You are stellar at this completely ignoring everything I said and arguing with people who are not me thing.
You are either functionally illiterate, or you really, really don't realize that your posts are persistant.
Quote from: Kaelik;552370Ignoring for the moment that you were actually told to fuck off and stop lying about what people said in that thread because no one in that thread ever said that people were not smart enough to realize the rules were terrible...
Yes, someone did. Again, your ignorance of what happened (the same ignorance you proudly profess about AD&D) does not lend weight to your arguments. It makes you look like a moron.
Quote from: jadrax;552409You need to have a floating banner with 'This is what they actually believe' running under this statement. Because otherwise is just looks like your making up unbelievable shit for comedy value.
It's amazing how believable it can be with the removal or slight change or adjectives that exist for the sole purpose of making it sound unbelievable.
So for example:
"I have been recently informed that line of thinking is stupid. Too many poorly written abilities is the problem. If those same abilities were well written, there would be fewer problems. The Fighter is clearly broken because the rules are poorly written."
But sure, saying rules instead of abilities, which is what Frank actually said, and saying magically get better instead of be written better (you know, because the rules are written by people who could write something else that is better) and replacing well written with perfect, because Stormbringer wants to imply the infeasability of something Frank believes is feasible, and it's way easier to use words they didn't use to convey that point than it is to actually argue it.
That's another way you can phrase what Frank is saying. If your goal is to deceive people.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;552395Yeah, not wanting a fighter with the class ability Pokesword isn't the same as expecting high-level fighters to carry nothing but a rusty nail and a wool blanket as arms and armor.
That said, I can understand why some gamers might want a character who can, say, lay waste to an entire army using nothing but the jawbone of an ass or swim across an icy sea for five days and nights then battle nine sea monsters with a dagger. The problem seems to be the expectation that if a given edition of D&D doesn't allow you to do that, then the fighter is broken.
Actually people have said that the fighter doesn't need superpowers. I have been saying that yes a fighter does need it. If you accept that he HAS to get super powers (even if you want it through items). I don't care that people DO get super powers. I'm a fan of fighters getting super powers. Class specific items (which is something before my time) are random and thus aren't guaranteed. And if you think its bad DMing to not hand these out then what's wrong with it being in the rules that they HAVE to get them. I'm basically saying that mundane people should be like "batman/ironman" and get their special superpowered items but have it guaranteed. No one has once stated, in all the arguments against me heard a reason why this shouldn't be. If you disagree please tell me why it can't be that way or why that's bad.
The thing is I don't believe there should be enforced power disparities, no matter which edition we're playing. Can someone please tell me why it is that getting "magic sword" on your list of class abilities is worse than having it be an expectation.
Quote from: StormBringer;552412You are either functionally illiterate, or you really, really don't realize that your posts are persistant.
Yes, someone did.
Actually, I rely on their persistence and the ability of people who are not you to read the entire sentence.
"
you were actually told to fuck off and stop lying about what people said in that thread because no one in that thread ever said that people were not smart enough to realize the rules were terrible"
Here is the same sentence with a different part bolded. See, in English, sometimes when people make a statement at the beginning of the sentence, it modifies other parts of the sentence.
So that statement asserts that you were told no one said that in the thread in that thread. It does not assert that it is itself true.
But I am very happy to see that you admit fault on the point about what I said about AD&D rules, and look forward to you apologizing for repeatedly accusing me of saying that the rules to AD&D were poorly written despite being wrong.
PS, the part about accusing, that modifies the rest of the sentence, so just because the words "the rules to AD&D were poorly written" show up in the sentence does not mean that I am asserting them as true.
Quote from: StormBringer;552412Again, your ignorance of what happened (the same ignorance you proudly profess about AD&D) does not lend weight to your arguments. It makes you look like a moron.
Actually, my ignorance of what happened would only make me look like a moron if I had been asserting things about what actually happened. Instead, like in AD&D, my ignorance of a specific thing I am not making assertions about is completely irrelevant to my argument and does not reflect on me.
Quote from: jadrax;552409You need to have a floating banner with 'This is what they actually believe' running under this statement. Because otherwise is just looks like your making up unbelievable shit for comedy value.
I probably should at least provide links, right?
This is what (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=271118#271118) they actually believe (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=271119#271119).
Quote from: Kaelik;552419Actually, I rely on their persistence and the ability of people who are not you to read the entire sentence.
"you were actually told to fuck off and stop lying about what people said in that thread because no one in that thread ever said that people were not smart enough to realize the rules were terrible"
Here is the same sentence with a different part bolded. See, in English, sometimes when people make a statement at the beginning of the sentence, it modifies other parts of the sentence.
So that statement asserts that you were told no one said that in the thread in that thread. It does not assert that it is itself true.
Except, I don't really care about that part. The important part is where you again lie about something and are caught red-handed. In this case, you claim that
no one said something, and I showed you where they did.
I mean, you have demonstrated some things where I could be arguably
incorrect, perhaps, but I have pointed out where you flat out
lie. And then double down when you are caught.
For example, have you found the quote where Frank claims the "vast majority of the internet" agrees with him?
Quote from: StormBringer;552424The important part is where you again lie about something and are caught red-handed.
Then you should probably find one of those.
Quote from: StormBringer;552424In this case, you claim that no one said something, and I showed you where they did.
No, I claim that someone else told you that no one said something. That was why I went up and bolded that part where the sentence is a statement about what someone else told you.
Quote from: StormBringer;552424For example, have you found the quote where Frank claims the "vast majority of the internet" agrees with him?
For example, have you found that part where I specifically state that I was paraphrasing not quoting him? Hint, when someone doesn't put something in quotes, but does put something else in quotes, it probably means the part not in quotes is not a direct quote.
But hey, how's that apology for being completely wrong and totally baseless when accusing me of saying that AD&D was poorly written coming along? You must thinks it's really important if you are going to spend this much time coming up with it.
I now call out another elephant in the room: The tabletop RPG medium is the only popular gaming entertainment medium where playing the rules is not the whole of the game. In boardgames, it is. In card games, it is. In wargames, it is. In videogames of all sorts, it cannot be anything but that. The common man expects an experience where engaging with the rules is the whole of game play.
Another elephant, revisited from earlier: Corporate ownership of tabletop RPG properties suffer from a lack of an easily-obtained objective measurement of product performance in the marketplace. They need this measurement because they have legal obligations to their shareholders to maximize profits, and that means finding ways--and improving the efficiency of existing ways--to take the tabletop RPG hobby and monetize it.
Home-based gameplay, as a baseline level of assumption, is demonstrably inferior to assuming convention-based gameplay because the latter allows the corporation to impose a degree of standardization that facilitates the very monetization that they desire. Standardization of gameplay favors standardization on gameplay-as-rules-engagement. That's easy to design for, easy to monetize, and thus easy to pursue by corporate owners. Therefore, corporate development of TRPGs cannot go anywhere but the path that WOTC (and Paizo) follows with D&D- and future iterations will go nowhere else but further down this path. The home-based users are Legacy Users, and not to be taken seriously.
This is where Frank & Company come from: the emergent new norm of the hobby. They whine, bitch, and moan in ways we find irritating or worse and yet despite our opinions of them they remain highly influential when and where it counts: with the design team. Frank speaks for the crowd that the corporate owners of D&D see as not only the most profitable segment of D&D gamers, but also the most relevant towards their business plan because they play the game primarily (if not exclusively) by engaging the rules focused by participation in some form of Organized (i.e. convention-based) Play.
We are not being served by WOTC or Paizo. Nor will we anytime soon; we are too few, too fractious, and too unwilling to let our wallets do our thinking for us. The businesses that can sustain themselves from what we do spend are micro-sized outfits, one-man-bands or part-timers selling by way of online distribution (and, where applicable, publishing) in manners that let them use the proceeds to pay a utility bill or two per month. Engaging in this dispute is a waste of time; we are better served acknowledging that the gaming Frank & Company does is not what we do, and then letting them go their own way- preferably, far away.
Live and let live will not get the 2000 posts I require from this thread.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;552433they remain highly influential when and where it counts: with the design team.
Allow me to make the following assertion:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;552433they play the game primarily (if not exclusively) . . . by participation in some form of Organized (i.e. convention-based) Play.
As a more moderate assertion, I would also assert that this is completely wrong.
Quote from: Kaelik;552442Allow me to make the following assertion:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Your faction got catered to for 12 years and counting. The entire output of D&D3.x, Pathfinder and D&D4 (nevermind D&D5's development) consists of stuff that addresses your faction's preferences and priorities. That the design team has no clue as to what they're doing is a separate problem.
QuoteAs a more moderate assertion, I would also assert that this is completely wrong.
Your faction dominates RPGA and Pathfinder Society gameplay.
Yes, "faction", because this isn't about you specifically. It's about the subset of D&D gamers that you, Frank, and the rest of the Gaming Den represent.
Quote from: MGuy;552418Actually people have said that the fighter doesn't need superpowers. I have been saying that yes a fighter does need it. If you accept that he HAS to get super powers (even if you want it through items). I don't care that people DO get super powers. I'm a fan of fighters getting super powers. Class specific items (which is something before my time) are random and thus aren't guaranteed. And if you think its bad DMing to not hand these out then what's wrong with it being in the rules that they HAVE to get them. I'm basically saying that mundane people should be like "batman/ironman" and get their special superpowered items but have it guaranteed. No one has once stated, in all the arguments against me heard a reason why this shouldn't be. If you disagree please tell me why it can't be that way or why that's bad.
.
That is the whole point of the magic item angle, they are not guaranteed, sometimes you get a great item and sometimes you dont. You are not assured the best character in the game. You could make a good fighter or end up with a great fighter depending on what you roll for stats and what items yiu up with. The reason for having this arrangement is believability and aesthetics. I dont want items built into the fighter like a cyborg or have mechanics that force campaign events (i.e. By level five a fighter gets a sword +3 of flame resistance or something like that). Nor do I want a game where my fighter has innate supernatural abilties that bend reality. These are just not what I am looking for in play.
Now while magic items can result in characters with different levels of focus and power, i find on the whole it is a wash. Some of your characters end up getting exaclty the stuff you want, some don't. That is a risk I am happy to take. i do not need a guarantee that all my fighters in all my campiagn will have x, y and z by the end. Just as I dont need a guarentee that my wizard finds or starts out with all the magic spells he is looking for (in 2e this is an important point of balance).
Quote from: MGuy;552418Can someone please tell me why it is that getting "magic sword" on your list of class abilities is worse than having it be an expectation.
Because if my dwarf fighter had an 'Ancestral Axe' Pokeweapon class ability, I wouldn't get to play Gimli of Arabia (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=289653#post289653).
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;552444Your faction got catered to for 12 years and counting. The entire output of D&D3.x, Pathfinder and D&D4 (nevermind D&D5's development) consists of stuff that addresses your faction's preferences and priorities. That the design team has no clue as to what they're doing is a separate problem.
Once again, you would have to know what our preferences and priorities are for you to be able to accurately assert that.
Nothing about 4e (or technically pathfinder, in the sense that all of it's differences from 3e are away from our preferences and priorities) was aimed at our preferences or priorities. This is one of those times where you should take our word on what our preferences are instead of just assuming you know.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;552444Your faction dominates RPGA and Pathfinder Society gameplay.
Yes, "faction", because this isn't about you specifically. It's about the subset of D&D gamers that you, Frank, and the rest of the Gaming Den represent.
No our faction doesn't attend those things. Faction isn't as broad as you think. For a faction, we would have to be part of a cohesive group with said people, and we are not.
I personally prefer Coconut flavored ice cream. That does not mean that "People who don't prefer coconut flavored ice cream" are a faction within the ice cream community. Merely being different from you does not make everyone else part of the same faction. We at the Gaming Den have a variety of preference similarities that might make us a faction within the RPG gaming community. But we do not have any significant similarities with people who attend RPGA events, or play Pathfinder, or play 4e, or wanted the things 4e sought to provide.
Quote from: Aos;552440Live and let live will not get the 2000 posts I require from this thread.
Only 652 to go, have a little faith already. ;)
Edit: Kaelik beat me to the punch ala TGD.
Quote from: Kaelik;552450No our faction doesn't attend those things. Faction isn't as broad as you think. For a faction, we would have to be part of a cohesive group with said people, and we are not.
Kaelik, the Tea Party of RPG groups.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;552454Kaelik, the Tea Party of RPG groups.
That's pretty insulting to the Tea Party.
Quote from: Kaelik;552450Once again, you would have to know what our preferences and priorities are for you to be able to accurately assert that.]
I've lurked at the Den for over a year. I do know your guys well enough to say so.
QuoteNothing about 4e (or technically pathfinder, in the sense that all of it's differences from 3e are away from our preferences and priorities) was aimed at our preferences or priorities. This is one of those times where you should take our word on what our preferences are instead of just assuming you know.
I've read your words, compared them against your deeds, and then both against WOTC/Paizo output. The results are that yes, you are catered to, you are catered to incompetently (which is why you're still complaining), and I concluded as I said above. That you are blind to this is not surprising.
QuoteNo our faction doesn't attend those things. Faction isn't as broad as you think. For a faction, we would have to be part of a cohesive group with said people, and we are not.
Now we're into my area of expertise. You have an incompetent comprehension of your faction; you are unaware of its full extent because you do not actively engage with the whole of its operations. The right hand need not know what the left does for it to be considered part of a greater whole; as it is with conspiracy, so it is with socio-political organization in general.
Your faction consists of the Den, WOTC's CharOp community, the gamers at the various *chans, and sympathizers across the online TRPG community; you guys in particular act as the thinktank (in conjunction with CharOp), and your works--analysis, recommendations, critiques, etc.--filter out to the rest of the faction via those other outlets and sympathizers (who link to your threads and bring your builds to the game tables). Why they exploit your work is irrelevant; they support your objectives, so they count and that means that you and they are in the same faction- just as was the case with John Locke vis-a-vis the Whig Party.
QuoteI personally prefer Coconut flavored ice cream. That does not mean that "People who don't prefer coconut flavored ice cream" are a faction within the ice cream community. Merely being different from you does not make everyone else part of the same faction. We at the Gaming Den have a variety of preference similarities that might make us a faction within the RPG gaming community. But we do not have any significant similarities with people who attend RPGA events, or play Pathfinder, or play 4e, or wanted the things 4e sought to provide.
You folk at the Den push the thinking towards a certain paradigm of play; the work your produce gets used by others who also support those goals, and they don't have to tell you squat to make that happen. Again, Right and Left need not know of each other to count; you are in a recognizable faction, like it or not, and you get treated as such by outsiders. Such is life.
Quote from: MGuy;5523042 Things about this post show that you haven't been following what I've been saying because I've commented on both of these types of responses for pages now.
1) The fact that people are mad about his build at all, and that they can't believe someone actually went through with it in a game shows that they don't like the fact that people CAN build something like his cleric. If you don't want people to be able to build it, and people consistently make house rules banning it, that shows that people are unsatisfied with the rules in general. If you don't like this build, which is understandable, that's fine. However it is not a mark against Kaelik or his DM for having ever played it. If you clearly wouldn't allow for this or similar builds in your game or you are mad that Kaelik can build it you demonstrably have an issue with the rules. Other responses such as blaming Kaelik for making it, blaming people like Kaelik for realizing that they can make it, or simply refusing to believe anyone would allow such a build at their table all ignores or obscures the fact that you obviously, at your core, don't like the fact that the rules allow you to make it. If he had cheated, made some odd interpretation of the rules (a' la pun pun), or used poor wording to create the thing I'd also see your point but none of that is the case. You can straight up make this thing without stretching your imagination. That makes the character legal in every aspect and not allowing it is a clear infringement on the rules.
Feel free to expand on the bolded statement. Also, what the fuck?
I personally don't have a problem with Kaelik playing what he likes; I don't agree that not allowing it would be 'house ruling' the game, or that his character tells us anything about D&D at a typical table.
Quote from: jeff37923;552456That's pretty insulting to the Tea Party.
I wasn't aware you could insult the Tea Party. I mean Christ, just look at them, isn't that enough?
There you go Aos.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;552457I've read your words, compared them against your deeds, and then both against WOTC/Paizo output. The results are that yes, you are catered to, you are catered to incompetently (which is why you're still complaining), and I concluded as I said above. That you are blind to this is not surprising.
I see, this is going to be yet another "I know what you think better than you, and if you disagree, well, see 1."
I guess this will be short, because I'm pretty tired of this already from literally every single person on this forum doing it already.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;552457Now we're into my area of expertise. You have an incompetent comprehension of your faction; you are unaware of its full extent because you do not actively engage with the whole of its operations. The right hand need not know what the left does for it to be considered part of a greater whole; as it is with conspiracy, so it is with socio-political organization in general.
Actually, now you are into my area of expertise, first off, faction is not identical to conspiracy, that's why they have different definitions, and one of those differences is that faction requires a cohesive group.
It is not merely that I do not engage with all their operations, it is that I fundamentally disagree with people on Char Op/tg.chan ect about what the appropriate preferences for a game are.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;552457you guys in particular act as the thinktank (in conjunction with CharOp), and your works--analysis, recommendations, critiques, etc.--filter out to the rest of the faction via those other outlets and sympathizers (who link to your threads and bring your builds to the game tables). Why they exploit your work is irrelevant; they support your objectives, so they count and that means that you and they are in the same faction- just as was the case with John Locke vis-a-vis the Whig Party.
Once again, this falls into two categories:
1) No, not really, the vast majority of our analysis, recommendations, critiques do not get propagated or referenced. For example, that Cleric Archer, that's not a particularly relevant part of our analysis. The mere fact of strong characters and how to develop this is irrelevant to our larger purposes, and yet, things like that are what get propagated. It would be like saying the US is part of the same faction as Nazi Germany because we stole their scientists after the war. They are getting the part that has nothing to do with advancing our goals and preferences, and they are using it to advance their own preferences and goals.
2) A faction is a narrower word than a party or a socio-political organization. A faction does in fact require people to recognize a commonality of goals, which does in fact require knowledge of what the other person is doing.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;552457You folk at the Den push the thinking towards a certain paradigm of play; the work your produce gets used by others who also support those goals, and they don't have to tell you squat to make that happen. Again, Right and Left need not know of each other to count; you are in a recognizable faction, like it or not, and you get treated as such by outsiders. Such is life.
No, once again, we push towards one paradigm of play, and then other people (who are probably also ignored by WotC but whatever) take some stuff off the edges, ignoring the parts in the middle that are essential to our paradigm, and use it to advance their own separate paradigm. You just can't see that theirs is so different because both theirs and our are so different from yours.
Quote from: Kaelik;552403No, I just fucking said that I do not believe the rules are well written. Remember, you asked what I believe. I also do not believe that the rules to to the boardgame Hard Frontier are well written. Because I know fuck all about them.
No, dipshit, I asked your opinion. Marleycat asked what you believe. Not that is particularly matters, because when your argument is entirely semantic, you have clearly lost.
And, you are a mealy-mouthed fuckstain:
Quote from: Kaelik;552415It's amazing how believable it can be with the removal or slight change or adjectives that exist for the sole purpose of making it sound unbelievable.
So for example:
"I have been recently informed that line of thinking is stupid. Too many poorly written abilities is the problem. If those same abilities were well written, there would be fewer problems. The Fighter is clearly broken because the rules are poorly written."
But sure, saying rules instead of abilities, which is what Frank actually said, and saying magically get better instead of be written better (you know, because the rules are written by people who could write something else that is better) and replacing well written with perfect, because Stormbringer wants to imply the infeasability of something Frank believes is feasible, and it's way easier to use words they didn't use to convey that point than it is to actually argue it.
That's another way you can phrase what Frank is saying. If your goal is to deceive people.
Quote from: Kaelik;552429No, I claim that someone else told you that no one said something. That was why I went up and bolded that part where the sentence is a statement about what someone else told you.
For example, have you found that part where I specifically state that I was paraphrasing not quoting him? Hint, when someone doesn't put something in quotes, but does put something else in quotes, it probably means the part not in quotes is not a direct quote.
But hey, how's that apology for being completely wrong and totally baseless when accusing me of saying that AD&D was poorly written coming along? You must thinks it's really important if you are going to spend this much time coming up with it.
Your time here will be blissfully short, but endlessly embarrassing for you. You act like anyone here cares about your sandy vagina whining about being 'lied' about, as though you came here with either integrity or good intentions.
Guess what?
You are the problem with 3.x. You specifically, and people like you. Whiny little goatfuckers that rules-lawyer everything, then get all mock offended when people point out that there is not a single thread of honesty in anything you say.
When Black Vulmea says "Welcome to the adult swim", pretend the emphasis is on 'adult'. You stepped right in the middle of a huge shitpile of your own making because you thought your antics would fly around here. Now you want to deny the stench or that you are covered in your own shit. Here's a nickel's worth of free advice: next time you feel all squirrelly, re-consider and stick to your echo chamber. The real world is scary, and it doesn't cater to your stupid bullshit.
Quote from: Kaelik;552466I guess this will be short, because I'm pretty tired of this already from literally every single person on this forum doing it already.
Well, there is the old adage that when everyone thinks you are an asshole, maybe 'everyone else' isn't
really the problem.
Quote from: StormBringer;552467No, dipshit, I asked your opinion. Marleycat asked what you believe.
My, those hands of yours look mighty red.
Quote from: StormBringer;552336Do you think AD&D was a successful game for 25 years, and that it was due to the rules succeeding at what they intended to do? Or do you agree that AD&D was terrible, and the only reason it was successful is because the players didn't know any better?
Quote from: StormBringer;552467Not that is particularly matters, because when your argument is entirely semantic, you have clearly lost.
Actually, when my argument is that you are claiming I didn't say things that I didn't say, what I did in fact say is pretty relevant.
And the difference between not believing AD&D is well written, and believing it is poorly written is not merely semantic, it is the entire fucking point.
But I look forward to you continuing to refuse to admit that you were incorrect in your accusation even though everyone can see that you were.
Quote from: StormBringer;552467And, you are a mealy-mouthed fuckstain:
Your time here will be blissfully short, but endlessly embarrassing for you. You act like anyone here cares about your sandy vagina whining about being 'lied' about, as though you came here with either integrity or good intentions.
Guess what? You are the problem with 3.x. You specifically, and people like you. Whiny little goatfuckers that rules-lawyer everything, then get all mock offended when people point out that there is not a single thread of honesty in anything you say.
When Black Vulmea says "Welcome to the adult swim", pretend the emphasis is on 'adult'. You stepped right in the middle of a huge shitpile of your own making because you thought your antics would fly around here. Now you want to deny the stench or that you are covered in your own shit. Here's a nickel's worth of free advice: next time you feel all squirrelly, re-consider and stick to your echo chamber. The real world is scary, and it doesn't cater to your stupid bullshit.
Hey, that was cute. I'm really impressed that you managed to post all of that while limiting yourself to personal attacks. I mean, most people would slip up and accidentally address a substantive argument somewhere in there by mistake, but you really stuck it out and never did so even once.
Quote from: Kaelik;552477Hey, that was cute. I'm really impressed that you managed to post all of that while limiting yourself to personal attacks. I mean, most people would slip up and accidentally address a substantive argument somewhere in there by mistake, but you really stuck it out and never did so even once.
You think too much of yourself. You haven't offered a substantive argument. All you have is semantics, mealy-mouthed arguments, and more dodging than a session of GURPS (I know you are unfamiliar with them, but that was a reference to a 'role-playing game').
Do you really think you deserve anything more than contempt at this point? I am sure your parents are very proud that their little dumpling can use the internet all by himself and all, but did you really think your drivel has any merit? I've only engaged you for this long to make good and sure you had plenty of opportunity to hang yourself. And it worked; you have shit yourself quite spectacularly, and the results are here in perpetuity.
You are dismissed.
AD&D had the balance between classes almost perfect, and it was fucked up by later editions. Just to get things back on topic. :)
Quote from: MGuy;552304That makes the character legal in every aspect and not allowing it is a clear infringement on the rules. [Emphasis mine-RSS]
Right. Last I checked the GM has the final say on what characters are and are not allowed in the game. I know the GM does in those games I run or play in. The GM also has final say in what supplemental rules books (or parts of rule books or magazine articles or the like) are allowed at his table.
Personally, if WOTC wants me (as GM) to allow everything they print in play, they are going to need to pay me a hefty annual salary with truly fantastic benefits to run games they way they want. Otherwise, my table rules outrank their rules every fucking time.
If players show up and complain that not allowing their twink builds or whatever books we do not allow "is a clear infringement on the rules", they will be laughed at by myself and the other players and shown the door if they continue to complain -- again barring WOTC paying me handsomely as described in the previous paragraph.
Quote from: StormBringer;552484AD&D had the balance between classes almost perfect, and it was fucked up by later editions. Just to get things back on topic. :)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I'm laughing at you because you spent 20 pages arguing with someone who was supporting your point because you refused to read what I said.
Right, so can we all fucking ignore the utter idiocy of 3.x balance and get back to the actual original conversation?
Quote from: jeff37923;549463The Wizard vs Fighter balance arguement has been going on for awhile. It does not bother me that casters can wield more power than fighters, especially at high levels. However there is a way to balance things without taking away the essence and tradition of the character classes.
Take a page from anime, particularly the anime series Slayers. The big dumb Fighter character had the Sword of Light, which was great against single foes. The Sorceress had a powerful spell called Dragon Slave, which was an area effect spell of massive damage. As the series progressed, there came times when the Sorceress had to cast her spell in such a way that they empowered the sword and thuis the Fighter in order to defeat opponents in combat.
It would require DMs to adjucate and allow creative spell use, but it also balances the combat field so that nobody would feel particularly left out.
I'm sure this is not a perfect answer, but it is a possible answer. What are your opinions?
Quote from: MGuy;5523042
1) The fact that people are mad about his build at all, and that they can't believe someone actually went through with it in a game shows that they don't like the fact that people CAN build something like his cleric. If you don't want people to be able to build it, and people consistently make house rules banning it, that shows that people are unsatisfied with the rules in general. If you don't like this build, which is understandable, that's fine. However it is not a mark against Kaelik or his DM for having ever played it. If you clearly wouldn't allow for this or similar builds in your game or you are mad that Kaelik can build it you demonstrably have an issue with the rules. Other responses such as blaming Kaelik for making it, blaming people like Kaelik for realizing that they can make it, or simply refusing to believe anyone would allow such a build at their table all ignores or obscures the fact that you obviously, at your core, don't like the fact that the rules allow you to make it. If he had cheated, made some odd interpretation of the rules (a' la pun pun), or used poor wording to create the thing I'd also see your point but none of that is the case. You can straight up make this thing without stretching your imagination. That makes the character legal in every aspect and not allowing it is a clear infringement on the rules.
.
I tend to disagree with this last part. There are things the rules are clearly intended to do and then there are obvious unintended combos that the designers didn't expect. The attack iteration he listed is so exceptional that i think it is pretty clearly not something the designers intended when they made the rules. It is a loophole in the game and one job of the Gm is to dissallow mechanics that are clearly broken. This is one such case. So I wouldn't call that an infringement of the rules. I would say that is a good judgment call to prohibit the combo. That is the thing with any game like 3e that has so many moving parts and rules bloat, there are going to be peices that fit together in incredible ways like that. Unlike a lot of other editions 3e was designed to reward system mastery but I personally dont think that level of reward was intentional.
While I have an interest is seeing this thread advance discussion and understanding, I was greatly amused at the long aside between StormBringer and Kaelik.
Understand that I have been registered on the Gaming Den for less than a month - I am not a regular there, and if anything, I disagree with Kaelik because he wants every class to have a power - no Fighters - they should be Shadowlords.
Kaelik owned you, Stormbringer. He was 100% correct when he asserted that you were putting words into his mouth that he did not actually say. I pointed out to my gaming group during character creation how silly your 'false dilemma' was, and I wondered what the response would be. When he asked if you beat your wife or were Hitler, I laughed out loud.
If this is supposed to be a productive conversation, there should be no winners and losers. But I can't help but observing: you lost.
I'm sure that as a regular poster here at the RPGSite, you have friends who respect you and your opinions. I also have no doubt that they'll think that you put Kaelik in his place. But those who have eyes will see. I don't know you personally, and I have little doubt that I'd enjoy your presence if we were to game together - but you made yourself look like a dumb ass.
I don't think I've seen anything more ridiculous in years. To see someone fail that hard in a written correspondence was well worth the price of admission.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;552503Kaelik owned you, Stormbringer. He was 100% correct when he asserted that you were putting words into his mouth that he did not actually say. I pointed out to my gaming group during character creation how silly your 'false dilemma' was, and I wondered what the response would be. When he asked if you beat your wife or were Hitler, I laughed out loud.
That's nice, sweet cheeks.
Pretty sure the only people who have been "owned" in this thread are the audience.
Quote from: Imp;552511Pretty sure the only people who have been "owned" in this thread are the audience.
And don't you forget it!
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;552497I tend to disagree with this last part. There are things the rules are clearly intended to do and then there are obvious unintended combos that the designers didn't expect. The attack iteration he listed is so exceptional that i think it is pretty clearly not something the designers intended when they made the rules. It is a loophole in the game and one job of the Gm is to dissallow mechanics that are clearly broken. This is one such case. So I wouldn't call that an infringement of the rules. I would say that is a good judgment call to prohibit the combo. That is the thing with any game like 3e that has so many moving parts and rules bloat, there are going to be peices that fit together in incredible ways like that. Unlike a lot of other editions 3e was designed to reward system mastery but I personally dont think that level of reward was intentional.
I've said this exhaustively. I don't know how I'v been unclear with this.
1) You don't like Kaelik's Cleric so you don't allow it despite the fact the rules, without making any leaps or twists, allows for it.
2) If 1 is true then you are doing 2 things:
2a: Admitting you don't like the what the rules say.
2b: Changing the rules such that this can't be achieved.
Now, as I've also said before, this kind of build isn't something I like to see, but it is important to note that this is a rules issue. The rules allow it, and if your theory about rewarding is true, the rules thus encourage it. I think you and I would agree that such a build shouldn't be possible and similar use of the rules shouldn't reward it. So the best thing to do get an idea of what kind of game people want to play and make rules that reward that style of play.
Yes you can change/ignore the rules but that doesn't mean that the rules get better because you do. Ideally you should only have to adjust the rules for campaign/setting specific things or really edge case scenarios. The making of this character is doable. It's legal. And by the rules he can make it. To not allow him to do so is actively changing the rules. And most likely you're doing so for balance reasons.
Quote from: MGuy;552535I've said this exhaustively. I don't know how I'v been unclear with this.
1) You don't like Kaelik's Cleric so you don't allow it despite the fact the rules, without making any leaps or twists, allows for it.
2) If 1 is true then you are doing 2 things:
2a: Admitting you don't like the what the rules say.
2b: Changing the rules such that this can't be achieved.
You have been very clear. I just disagree.
There is another possibility here you are ignoring. The desigers knew the game would have loopholes just by the sheer number of growing options andthere was a built in expectation that the GM would eliminate such loopholes by using his judgment. This doesn't mean the rules are bad, it means the game was designed knowing you might end up with a crazy combo you can technical do but that is obviously going well beyond the intent of the mechanic. The reason for taking this approach is it does allow you to create a more varied and textured game in a lot of ways. Keep in mind i am just talking about extreme cases, not simple cases of disparity. The sheer volume of attacks and damage of his cleric clearly exceeds what the designers intent was (that is why those bonuses look so silly).
QuoteNow, as I've also said before, this kind of build isn't something I like to see, but it is important to note that this is a rules issue. The rules allow it, and if your theory about rewarding is true, the rules thus encourage it. I think you and I would agree that such a build shouldn't be possible and similar use of the rules shouldn't reward it. So the best thing to do get an idea of what kind of game people want to play and make rules that reward that style of play.
I think 3E has crazy builds that break the game even without the one he proposed. But the one he proposed, even by crazy 3E standrds, is clearly not intended by the rules but just an accident of things aligning in a certain way. So i dont fault the rules for his cleric (i do fault the rules for builds that are clearly within the intended scop of the game
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;552540You have been very clear. I just disagree.
There is another possibility here you are ignoring. The desigers knew the game would have loopholes just by the sheer number of growing options andthere was a built in expectation that the GM would eliminate such loopholes by using his judgment. This doesn't mean the rules are bad, it means the game was designed knowing you might end up with a crazy combo you can technical do but that is obviously going well beyond the intent of the mechanic. The reason for taking this approach is it does allow you to create a more varied and textured game in a lot of ways. Keep in mind i am just talking about extreme cases, not simple cases of disparity. The sheer volume of attacks and damage of his cleric clearly exceeds what the designers intent was (that is why those bonuses look so silly).
I think 3E has crazy builds that break the game even without the one he proposed. But the one he proposed, even by crazy 3E standrds, is clearly not intended by the rules but just an accident of things aligning in a certain way. So i dont fault the rules for his cleric (i do fault the rules for builds that are clearly within the intended scop of the game
What is the scope of the game?
Quote from: MGuy;552535Yes you can change/ignore the rules but that doesn't mean that the rules get better because you do. Ideally you should only have to adjust the rules for campaign/setting specific things or really edge case scenarios. The making of this character is doable. It's legal. And by the rules he can make it. To not allow him to do so is actively changing the rules. And most likely you're doing so for balance reasons.
it also doesn't mean the rules are bad if they are designed with the understanding that the GM is there to put the breaks on any bizarre combos that bust the system. As i have said, i do have issues with 3E, so i am not defending it. I am simply defending the idea that games can be built knowing loopholes in them exist, retaining them for a perceived benefit (variety, importance of choice, etc) and giving the GM authority to eliminate problems that arise as a result and not be called bad design. Whether something is good or bad design depends entirely on your design goals and your target audience.
Personally i dont want a game with his cleric in it. That is why I left 3E. I just get that most people who play 3E understand his character is an edge case, an obvious loophole that any reasonable GM will forbid. 3E is a game that rewards choice and has tons and tons of options. That is its strength. The downside is you have more loopholes within the system. I dont think it is bad design, just that it caters to a style of play that is okay with having winners and losers (and even thrives on it).
Quote from: MGuy;552535So the best thing to do get an idea of what kind of game people want to play and make rules that reward that style of play.
Everyone wants to play different sorts of games.
With 3.5 as written one campaign might be about tempest fighters wrestling in mud and tracking down brigands at level 15, and another can be about tristalt characters punching gods in the face at 8th level.
A proposed fix that 'balances' both playstyles inevitably makes one side unhappy, if not both. There is no fix; it is inevitable that the argument then becomes about which playstyle is 'correct'.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;552546Everyone wants to play different sorts of games.
With 3.5 as written one campaign might be about tempest fighters wrestling in mud and tracking down brigands at level 15, and another can be about tristalt characters punching gods in the face at 8th level.
A proposed fix that 'balances' both playstyles inevitably makes one side unhappy, if not both. There is no fix; it is inevitable that the argument then becomes about which playstyle is 'correct'.
Couldn't you do that with a balanced rule set? Mud wrestling is something you can do at first level. Punching gods is something you do at 20th. For you I ask how does power disparity help your idea?
Quote from: MGuy;552548Couldn't you do that with a balanced rule set? Mud wrestling is something you can do at first level. Punching gods is something you do at 20th. For you I ask how does power disparity help your idea?
It's pretty straightforward.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;552546Everyone wants to play different sorts of games.
There is nothing more complicated to it than this.
Quote from: MGuy;552543What is the scope of the game?
That is the GM's call. I mean this a pretty vague area of the system otherwise it would be something they could give a concrete number to and say "dont go here" but it has long been an importantpart of the GMs role. Obviously if you need everything spelled out in the rules and can't abide a modicum of GM management, then most versions of D&D are not going to be for you. You are absolutely in your right to have preferences. I just dont think you and I want the same game based on what I am seeing here (which is fine). For me it is okay for the rules to be written knowing loopholes will come up and the Gm is there to prevent players from making use of them. That I am fine with. What I had more difficulty with was how 3E emphasized builds and optimization. If it was simply a matter of that cleric showing up from time to time and being struck down by the GM, i would have had no issues. But in any given session you can have power disparities between characters on anmuch smaller scale that still created issues. But again, that still doesn't mean it was badly designed. It just wasn't the kind of design I wanted. It definitely struck gold with a huge number of fans.
Quote from: MGuy;552548Couldn't you do that with a balanced rule set? Mud wrestling is something you can do at first level. Punching gods is something you do at 20th. For you I ask how does power disparity help your idea?
I dont think you could because 3e is designed to make your character creation choices matter (as in you could be more or less powerful depending on them). It isn't my style of game but there are plenty of people who prefer that. If you remove the disparity, the remove a key component of the fun for many people.
Balance is only one measure of good design and for some design goals it wont even be a priority. In fact balance could hinder other design goals in many cases (and arguably too much balance would cramp 3e's style).
Quote from: MGuy;552548Couldn't you do that with a balanced rule set? Mud wrestling is something you can do at first level. Punching gods is something you do at 20th. For you I ask how does power disparity help your idea?
To a point, but the obvious problem here is that it only works with eventual mandatory retirement (or rebuilding to a new concept) for the lower-order characters, and gives a particular sort of campaign style with a built in high level of inflation (leading to its own set of math problems).
Someone who likes a gritty playstyle may still want characters to get more options and growth (more levels) just not at as high a rate.
Stop with the walls of text I refuse to respond to that stuff point by point. Short story is Brendan is right there is both an excluded middle, and interpretation you're willfully ignoring.
What I would like to see is the comeback of the pre 3x fighter, like being the only class with weapon specialization and all other martial classes be subclasses again. Further I want the old limits on magic users or if that's not acceptable I want to see wizards with BX/1/2e limits on total known spells or better yet making only specialists allowed. Seperate but related I want hardcaps for abilities and bonuses with magic able only to give temporary bonuses above that. Items, wishes or whatever, regardless.
Quote from: jadrax;552409You need to have a floating banner with 'This is what they actually believe' running under this statement. Because otherwise is just looks like your making up unbelievable shit for comedy value.
Doubling down gets more amusing.
4th level Magic-User spell completely obliterates Fighter in any edition ever.
I could not make this shit up (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=271152#271152).
Quote from: StormBringer;552617Doubling down gets more amusing.
4th level Magic-User spell completely obliterates Fighter in any edition ever.
I could not make this shit up (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=271152#271152).
Stop The Insanity! Susan is upset and wants her hair back. Stupid is as stupid does, seriously. Only 620 posts to go, hold the line Aos. :D
Quote from: Kaelik;552489HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I'm laughing at you because you spent 20 pages arguing with someone who was supporting your point because you refused to read what I said.
Michael Bolton says it so much better than I :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0frA_0MjW8
Quote from: Sacrosanct;552730[link]
Please avoid blind links, guys. I know it's fairly obvious from the URL but still.
Quote from: Benoist;552731Please avoid blind links, guys. I know it's fairly obvious from the URL but still.
Sorry, I fixed it
Quote from: Sacrosanct;552734Sorry, I fixed it
Cool thanks.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;552433Another elephant, revisited from earlier: Corporate ownership of tabletop RPG properties suffer from a lack of an easily-obtained objective measurement of product performance in the marketplace. They need this measurement because they have legal obligations to their shareholders to maximize profits
While I think you're broadly correct here, I want to point out that the problem you've identified only exists if the shareholders are broadly distributed and no one person or faction[1] holds a majority share of the voting stock.
Even in a publicly owned corporation, if a small number of people own a controlling interest in the company, then the company's agenda is whatever those people say it is, including producing RPGs of a certain quality without concern for measuring and maximizing profits.
What I fear is the subtext to the whole of your post: that it is actually impossible, even for the
ur-RPG Dungeons & Dragons, to be profitable enough to keep a company afloat at all given the current market.
[1] That one's for you, Kaelik.
Quote from: daniel_ream;552851What I fear is the subtext to the whole of your post: that it is actually impossible, even for the ur-RPG Dungeons & Dragons, to be profitable enough to keep a company afloat at all given the current market.
"...profitable enough to keep a company
the size of WotC afloat at all..."
Certainly, Hasbro isn't making the rent from D&D receipts. WotC might be able to stay in the black with D&D, but it would definitely need M:tG to help. Or vice versa; they are both clearly off from their respective heydays.
I think if the Blumes hadn't fucked TSR back in the day, it was probably on a growth curve that would have kept it nicely in business to this day. The reports I have read seem to indicate the company was pretty healthy until they took over.
Quote from: StormBringer;552875"...profitable enough to keep a company the size of WotC afloat at all..."
Certainly, Hasbro isn't making the rent from D&D receipts. WotC might be able to stay in the black with D&D, but it would definitely need M:tG to help. Or vice versa; they are both clearly off from their respective heydays.
I think if the Blumes hadn't fucked TSR back in the day, it was probably on a growth curve that would have kept it nicely in business to this day. The reports I have read seem to indicate the company was pretty healthy until they took over.
I think MtG is making more cash than ever. And Magic online is like money for nothing ... now that is a revenue stream.....
Quote from: StormBringer;552875"...profitable enough to keep a company the size of WotC afloat at all..."
Certainly, Hasbro isn't making the rent from D&D receipts. WotC might be able to stay in the black with D&D, but it would definitely need M:tG to help. Or vice versa; they are both clearly off from their respective heydays.
I think if the Blumes hadn't fucked TSR back in the day, it was probably on a growth curve that would have kept it nicely in business to this day. The reports I have read seem to indicate the company was pretty healthy until they took over.
D&D is so far in the black compared to prior editions it's not even funny, guy.
DDI itself is worth roughly $400k
per month. This, itself, equates to around
five million dollars in a year. This is ignoring all forms of book sales.
It's nearly nothing compared to the real moneymaker, MtG, but it's more than any other TTRPG makes by at least an order of magnitude, full stop. And, Christ, MtG is making, what around $200
million per year.
Stating that WotC 'needs' either to support the other is laughably ignorant; MtG is making money hand over fist in insane amounts and D&D is doing insanely well, so much so that an
order of magnitude less revenue than D&D pulls is dream territory for any other TTRPG. But, hey, you don't like them so they
must be doing poorly! Logic!
Quote from: Darwinism;552881D&D is so far in the black compared to prior editions it's not even funny, guy.
DDI itself is worth roughly $400k per month. This, itself, equates to around five million dollars in a year. This is ignoring all forms of book sales.
It's nearly nothing compared to the real moneymaker, MtG, but it's more than any other TTRPG makes by at least an order of magnitude, full stop. And, Christ, MtG is making, what around $200 million per year.
Stating that WotC 'needs' either to support the other is laughably ignorant; MtG is making money hand over fist in insane amounts and D&D is doing insanely well, so much so that an order of magnitude less revenue than D&D pulls is dream territory for any other TTRPG. But, hey, you don't like them so they must be doing poorly! Logic!
Yeah, we know. 4e was a
brilliant success.
(http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/picture/Rizzor/beatingadeadhorse.gif)
Quote from: StormBringer;552875The reports I have read seem to indicate the company was pretty healthy until they took over.
Bah, their investing of all of the profits in Rug Making Kits was misunderstood genius... or you know, not.
Quote from: Darwinism;552881DDI itself is worth roughly $400k per month. This, itself, equates to around five million dollars in a year. This is ignoring all forms of book sales.
Is that gross or net, and what is your source?
Quote from: jadrax;552887Bah, their investing of all of the profits in Rug Making Kits was misunderstood genius... or you know, not.
Yeah... that was the Blumes. '86, maybe, after the damage had been done and they got the clusterfuck in full swing before being ousted and selling their stock to Lorraine Williams.
Quote from: daniel_ream;552889Is that gross or net, and what is your source?
The only source he uses regarding 4e: his ass.
Beware; text wall.
Quote from: B.T.;552017How can you be this miserable all the time? Seriously, go play fucking Exalted if you want the fighter to teleport and grapple dragons. The rest of us just want to roll dice and hang out with friends.
If you don't care about this topic because you "just want to roll dice and hang out with friends," why have you been posting in this topic for half a week and hundreds of posts? Why bother continuing?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;551974As Brendan already noted earlier, it sounds like you're conflating two separate things: railroading and ad hoc rulings.
As far as railroading goes, there's a special layer of Hell reserved for referees who railroad their players, filled with molten sulfur and perpetual blindfold wedgies (the kind where your underwear is pulled so high it goes over your head and covers your eyes).
As far as ad hoc rulings go, it's the referee's role to interpret the rules as they apply to the actions the players want their characters to take and come up with target numbers when needed. This is a feature of roleplaying games, not a bug, in that it encourages the players to approach the game-world as an actual world, rather than a series of buttons to mash on a controller.
First, sorry for accusing you of calling people autistic a while back. I assumed when you discussed what 'we' said that you were owning the rhetoric, vice simply engaging in a bit of royal prerogative (though interestingly, that's exactly what it means when the Queen does it too).
Second, thanks for actually adding something to this pile of dyslexia. I'm glad to see we're on the same page with respect to railroaders (though, I'm also reminded of a friend who justifiably remarked a while back that "players don't mind a little train ride every now and again, so long as the scenery is nice and the destination is Awsometown").
However, on the second part, even the 'series of buttons' (distasteful though it may be) is preferable to non-sequiter engine that he described. If I ask you (as in you, personally), "can you fake a convincing seizure?" You probably don't know for sure. However, you can probably tell me either "yeah, I think I can manage that," or "no, theater's not my forte". That's because you have a reasonable idea of your capabilities, and can make reasonable predictions about the world around you. This is the very essence of roleplaying, of being able to put yourself in your character's place and decide things as he would. Self awareness and predicting outcomes is what uniquely distinguishes humans from animals; how can you claim that a system which fails to allow these is good for roleplay?
Quote from: talysman;552027In that other thread I started today, I proposed a game or mod that took all powers and skills away from the classes and defined the classes as "what you *can't* do." Everyone has one thing they suck at. Everything else? Anyone can try it, or earn the power through role-play. No other limits.
Fectin, who was in this thread for a while defending Frank and complaining about overpowered wizards, surfaced in my thread to tell me that he couldn't see the benefit of playing that type of class.
I think that's a great summary of the problem.
What I actually said was
Quote from: fectin;552345Personally, I'm not sure I like the rationale of "mechanical weaknesses force roleplay," because (at least to me) it smacks too much of "you need rules to roleplay your character." If you tied it to a specific custom setting though, it might work well. The other major danger I see is that it looks like it would turn into a monty haul game too easily, due to needing certain loot/blessings/whatnot before playing certain characters. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it gets old fast and also goes off the rails easily.
...which is completely different from how you reported my words. You're right about one thing though: your post
is a great summary of the problem.
Quote from: Darwinism;552881DDI itself is worth roughly $400k per month. This, itself, equates to around five million dollars in a year. This is ignoring all forms of book sales.
And that amounts to the latte slush fund for a middle tier computer game company.
QuoteIt's nearly nothing compared to the real moneymaker, MtG, but it's more than any other TTRPG makes by at least an order of magnitude, full stop. And, Christ, MtG is making, what around $200 million per year.
Really? Because Hasbro (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=HAS&annual)
as a whole is making just about $400mil in profits (and that is down $12mil from last year). Do you honestly think they would routinely ignore a division that is making 50% of those profits for them?
Quote from: Benoist;552885Yeah, we know. 4e was a brilliant success.
(http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/picture/Rizzor/beatingadeadhorse.gif)
Despite this board hating it so vehemently! It does amuse me so.
What, in your ever amusing opinion, is a board that feels otherwise?
Quote from: StormBringer;552900And that amounts to the latte slush fund for a middle tier computer game company.
...and? I fail to see your point. Apples aren't oranges, the world is shocked?
Quote from: StormBringer;552900Really? Because Hasbro (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=HAS&annual) as a whole is making just about $400mil in profits (and that is down $12mil from last year). Do you honestly think they would routinely ignore a division that is making 50% of those profits for them?
QuoteHasbro CEO Brian Goldner told analysts in the company's conference call this week that Magic: The Gathering is "...the largest game brand in the U.S." (apparently excluding videogames from the comparison). And for the first time, a Hasbro exec has characterized the size of the brand, implying that it's $200 million or more. In praising the Wizards of the Coast management team Goldner noted that the team had taken Magic, "which totaled less than $100 million in revenues in 2008 and was on the decline, to where it is today,... more than double the size it was just three years ago."
Quote from: Doom;552912What, in your ever amusing opinion, is a board that feels otherwise?
Any board not emotionally invested in the purported failure of a game?
Seriously how can you see $5 million in nearly pure profit as anything but a huge success in the tabletop industry?
Quote from: Darwinism;552909Despite this board hating it so vehemently! It does amuse me so.
Some things never change good old Darwinism is back. I think at first I hated 4e but over the years it's become indifference.
Quote from: Marleycat;552918Some things never change good old Darwinism is back. I think at first I hated 4e but over the years it's become indifference.
That's good! Hating a
game is pretty psychotic! I'm glad you've gotten over it.
Quote from: Darwinism;552914...and? I fail to see your point.
No fucking way!
QuoteHasbro CEO Brian Goldner told analysts in the company's conference call this week that Magic: The Gathering is "...the largest game brand in the U.S." (apparently excluding videogames from the comparison). And for the first time, a Hasbro exec has characterized the size of the brand, implying that it's $200 million or more. In praising the Wizards of the Coast management team Goldner noted that the team had taken Magic, "which totaled less than $100 million in revenues in 2008 and was on the decline, to where it is today,... more than double the size it was just three years ago."
"Size of the brand" means total revenues. Total revenues for Hasbro (had you bothered to check the link) are over $4bil. After they pay all the bills, they have less than $400mil. So they get to take home about 10% By the same metric M:tG probably brings in just less than $20mil, then, which is about a quarter of Hasbro's miscellaneous operating expenses. Even if they somehow managed to keep every penny of it, it would still be about what Hasbro spends on R&D.
And without Hasbro's marketing account to draw from, they would probably be pulling half of that or less.
Quote from: StormBringer;552932No fucking way!
"Size of the brand" means total revenues. Total revenues for Hasbro (had you bothered to check the link) are over $4bil. After they pay all the bills, they have less than $400mil. So they get to take home about 10% By the same metric M:tG probably brings in just less than $20mil, then, which is about a quarter of Hasbro's miscellaneous operating expenses. Even if they somehow managed to keep every penny of it, it would still be about what Hasbro spends on R&D.
And without Hasbro's marketing account to draw from, they would probably be pulling half of that or less.
And it's still wildly successful and a huge moneymaker? I don't even see what your point is here, the fact that a subsidiary doesn't make as much as the parent? Wow! I never would have guessed! You, sir, are an economic guru!
Quote from: Darwinism;552934And it's still wildly successful and a huge moneymaker? I don't even see what your point is here, the fact that a subsidiary doesn't make as much as the parent? Wow! I never would have guessed! You, sir, are an economic guru!
Keep digging.
Quote from: Marleycat;552918Some things never change good old Darwinism is back.
It's that time of the month. ;)
Quote from: Benoist;552951It's that time of the month. ;)
Maybe for you.:D
Does Darwinism periodically haunt this board too? How unfortunate.
Quote from: fectin;553010Does Darwinism periodically haunt this board too? How unfortunate.
He does. He's not very talented though. Entertaining for a bunch of posts, but then it gets boring fast.
Quote from: fectin;553010Does Darwinism periodically haunt this board too? How unfortunate.
I think he pops in mostly after he catches a ban at TBP or EnWorld.
Man no love for The Three Amigos.
Quote from: CRKrueger;553021Man no love for The Three Amigos.
*jumps bandwagon*
I'm staying with Tuco for now but I will say that TTA has some pretty good lines.
"I'LL FILL YOU SO FULL OF LEAD, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO USE YOUR DICK AS A PENCIL!"
"WHAT DO YOU MEAN?"
"... I'M NOT SURE."
When I was in 8th grade, my two buddies and I were outside throwing dirt clods at the side of the school. They had just aerated the field, so we thought there was nothing better to do with all the dirt clods everywhere. When the PE teacher came out and yelled at us, he asked our names.
My buddy Bill, without missing beat, did the little hand slap dance and said, "We are the three Amigos!"
Quote from: Marleycat;553019I think he pops in mostly after he catches a ban at TBP or EnWorld.
Wasn't that the whole point of this place?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;553047When I was in 8th grade, my two buddies and I were outside throwing dirt clods at the side of the school. They had just aerated the field, so we thought there was nothing better to do with all the dirt clods everywhere. When the PE teacher came out and yelled at us, he asked our names.
My buddy Bill, without missing beat, did the little hand slap dance and said, "We are the three Amigos!"
:D
When did he get out of the hospital? :D
Quote from: Fifth Element;553096Wasn't that the whole point of this place?
TheRPGSite is other fora's Sartreban implementation.
Quote from: Fifth Element;553096Wasn't that the whole point of this place?
Yes and no. Yes this place is about free speech but that doesn't give you leave to be an obvious troll, an amateur one at that.;)
Back on topic a bit, according to TGD:
QuoteOne of the biggest challenges in making high level abilities is that stuff like "redirect river" (an action used to great effect by Hercules) is way too specific to put on a character sheet. There may not be a river (either not close enough, or if you're on a cloud island, at all), and the things river redirection does is generally not going to be something you care about. Indeed, I would think that even if you had the ability to redirect a river that you'd only end up doing that less than once per campaign. So what you're going to want is a more general "modify terrain through over-the-top Paul Bunyan exploits" ability. An ability that the player is supposed to fill in explanations for as appropriate - maybe smashing a chasm into the ground one time and pushing a river into the city another. The key is that the high level Fighter has to be like He Man or Wonderwoman or something - be able to actually do things about problems like "the city is on fire" through drastic, high level actions.
So, Hercules was able to re-direct the path of a river and clean the Augean Stables because he was
really good at killing and stuff taking. It wasn't because Hercules was a
demi-god or any stupid shit like that. No, it was because Hercules was a
high level Fighter. Once Demetrius the 3rd level Fighter gets another 17 levels under his belt, he will be carving up the landscape with the best of them.
The rules don't seem very precise there, sounds like they want Magic Tea Party to me.
Quote from: StormBringer;553278Back on topic a bit, according to TGD:
So, Hercules was able to re-direct the path of a river and clean the Augean Stables because he was really good at killing and stuff taking. It wasn't because Hercules was a demi-god or any stupid shit like that. No, it was because Hercules was a high level Fighter. Once Demetrius the 3rd level Fighter gets another 17 levels under his belt, he will be carving up the landscape with the best of them.
It's the same song. Just make them magical and everything is solved. I just don't understand why being the absolute best at killing things with pointy sticks isn't good enough?
Quote from: Doom;553281The rules don't seem very precise there, sounds like they want Magic Tea Party to me.
I'll let you catch the shit-storm of bringing that up with them. :)
CRKreuger explained to them the problem wasn't Fighters are under-powered, it's that casters are wildly overpowered in 3.x. They almost constantly piss and moan about how many bat-shit insane spells and powers Clerics and Magic-Users have; the clear solution is 'take those away'.
Not sure how much good it would do, though. They insist
Charm Monster always outshines the Fighter in any edition ever. When you start with that baseline, it's kind of hard to get back to 'rational'. I suppose
Magic Missile completely outshines the archery Ranger at all times, too. You know, when your game is so out of whack that the rules must be adhered to under any circumstances.
Quote from: Marleycat;553283It's the same song. Just make them magical and everything is solved. I just don't understand why being the absolute best at killing things with pointy sticks isn't good enough?
Because Hercules.
I mean, didn't you even read the part I quoted? :)
Quote from: StormBringer;553285I'll let you catch the shit-storm of bringing that up with them. :)
CRKreuger explained to them the problem wasn't Fighters are under-powered, it's that casters are wildly overpowered in 3.x. They almost constantly piss and moan about how many bat-shit insane spells and powers Clerics and Magic-Users have; the clear solution is 'take those away'.
Not sure how much good it would do, though. They insist Charm Monster always outshines the Fighter in any edition ever. When you start with that baseline, it's kind of hard to get back to 'rational'. I suppose Magic Missile completely outshines the archery Ranger at all times, too. You know, when your game is so out of whack that the rules must be adhered to under any circumstances.
True if Magic missile never misses, is and at will power and scales with level for sure.
You are missing a trick though most of the gaming den guys like MGuy and Kaelik want far more high powered wuxia style games so for them scaling up the fighter is their prefered choice because the multi-classed Cleric/archer/demon is the optimal character.
They don;t want to gimp those builds they want to bring everyone up to that level.
That is a consistent theme and they have never denied it. You might not like it, I might hate it, but that just comes down to a play choice not a rules decision.
Quote from: jibbajibba;553291True if Magic missile never misses, is and at will power and scales with level for sure.
You are missing a trick though most of the gaming den guys like MGuy and Kaelik want far more high powered wuxia style games so for them scaling up the fighter is their prefered choice because the multi-classed Cleric/archer/demon is the optimal character.
They don;t want to gimp those builds they want to bring everyone up to that level.
That is a consistent theme and they have never denied it. You might not like it, I might hate it, but that just comes down to a play choice not a rules decision.
Yeah, of course. And they can actually do that if they wanted. But they don't particularly want to do that, they want someone to publish the rules for them. Which is double frustrating, because there is quite a bit of talent floating around that place, but they can't abide something that isn't 'official' or whatever.
Want more powerful Fighters?
Make Fighters more fucking powerful.
Quote from: StormBringer;553287Because Hercules.
I mean, didn't you even read the part I quoted? :)
I read it but Hercules is a
Demigod and a fighter. That demigod thing is very important. Yes Marley can read.:D
Quote from: StormBringer;553292Yeah, of course. And they can actually do that if they wanted. But they don't particularly want to do that, they want someone to publish the rules for them. Which is double frustrating, because there is quite a bit of talent floating around that place, but they can't abide something that isn't 'official' or whatever.
Want more powerful Fighters? Make Fighters more fucking powerful.
To be fair I understand their desire for official ruels as well. Their MO works on identifying an exploit and then taking it to its logical conclusion.
ITs not dissimilar to a 1e character abusing dual classing by starting as a figther then at 2nd level switching to a wizard. Then they can play a wizard with 15 HP who can use a sword and a bow and gets a better THACO.
If they created the rules themselves then that isn't possible. You can't create a set of rules and then exploit a gap in those rules its 'cheating'. Likewise if you create rules that I look to exploit you will issue an errata closing down the gap.
So creating their own rules to make figthers more powerful isn;t want they want to do, and I can understand that.
We spent 2 years playing a CCG I created (well Printable card game I guess is a better name). One of my players woudl find the exploit and build a deck round it. I woudl then close the exploit. He got so annoyed he eventually stopped playing because he wasn't interested in a robust card game that was fun to play, he was interested in winning and he knew that the best way to beat CCGs is to find the exploitable loophole and create a broken deck.
The GD guys are doing the same thing but with D&D characters again that is fine if you are at a table where everyone does it, in fact it becomes expected.
Quote from: StormBringer;553292Yeah, of course. And they can actually do that if they wanted. But they don't particularly want to do that, they want someone to publish the rules for them. Which is double frustrating, because there is quite a bit of talent floating around that place, but they can't abide something that isn't 'official' or whatever.
Want more powerful Fighters? Make Fighters more fucking powerful.
There you go again. That thread where this one was linked? It is about how we, people on TGD design fighters, not about 5e. We have other threads about 5e and how bad it is. That was a thread where we argue amongst ourselves about how best to make fighters.
And because I disagree with everyone, and Lago disagrees with everyone, and Frank disagrees with everyone, we all make our own rules, and then we argue about who's are better.
The most played game by Denners is (well dominions 3, but the most played RPG game) is Tome D&D, which is you know... not official and something that is mostly Frank and K's modifications to 3.5, with everyone else grafting their own work onto it.
We are not asking anyone to publish rules for us to play more powerful fighters. We are asking the people who do publish rules to do a good job (they don't) and separately we are arguing amongst each other over what the best rules that we have created or would create are.
Quote from: jibbajibba;553310The GD guys are doing the same thing but with D&D characters again that is fine if you are at a table where everyone does it, in fact it becomes expected.
Sure, that's fine. But they expect
everyone everywhere is doing that. And they can't seem to get over the cognitive dissonance that not everyone does that.
They complain about Fighters being useless and screech that casters always 'win'. Suggest making casters less powerful, and they yell about RAW. Suggest making Fighters more powerful, and they scream about turning Fighters into Wizards.
There is a time and a place for the rules, but if the rules aren't working for you, fix it. That is what draws most of us to RPGs instead of board games or the like, correct?
Quote from: jibbajibba;553310To be fair I understand their desire for official ruels as well. Their MO works on identifying an exploit and then taking it to its logical conclusion.
ITs not dissimilar to a 1e character abusing dual classing by starting as a figther then at 2nd level switching to a wizard. Then they can play a wizard with 15 HP who can use a sword and a bow and gets a better THACO.
If they created the rules themselves then that isn't possible. You can't create a set of rules and then exploit a gap in those rules its 'cheating'. Likewise if you create rules that I look to exploit you will issue an errata closing down the gap.
So creating their own rules to make figthers more powerful isn;t want they want to do, and I can understand that.
Do you want to play a fucking roleplaying game or play gotcha tag with stupid rules?
Thats the question these nimrods need to answer.
Quote from: Kaelik;553316There you go again. That thread where this one was linked? It is about how we, people on TGD design fighters, not about 5e. We have other threads about 5e and how bad it is. That was a thread where we argue amongst ourselves about how best to make fighters.
For having so much sand in your vagina over 'reading comprehension', you completely fucking
suck at it.
a) Point out where I said anything about 5e on that thread or on this one.
b) That thread, where this one was linked? The exact same fucking thread from before, where the major sport is bitching about how underpowered Fighters are.
No ideas on how to actually make a Fighter better, just an endless fucking litany of all the ways spell casters are always orders of magnitude better. Starting with just having a few extra gold coins on hand, and segueing to a 4th level spell.
That thread starts out with a post (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=269304#269304) about how much Fighters suck compared to pretty much everyone else.
QuoteBut then it hit me. 3e combat feats are Fighter spells, like an all-day buff you can't change out. Have been since we got Specialisation and more as Weapon Proficiency options. The only difference in 3e is that the slots are all 1st level, maybe a few 2nd and 3rd level ones in later books.
So when a Wizard has 32+ spells up to 9th level, the Fighter has 18 spells mostly at 1st level. That's not good. Fighters should have higher level "feat" slots, that they can put higher level "feats" into. Like fast healing 2, or DR 5/- while in heavy armour, or scare everyone up to 6 HD in line of sight as a swift action, or burrow 10' in substances with a hardness no higher than your Str mod.
Just have them all usable at-will or always-on (give or take), conceivably "extraordinary" rather than "supernatural", and not normally changeable. They'd only need about a bard progression and 2 slots per level max to keep up.
I know, right. Tome of Awesome, Bo9S Maneuvers, 4e Powers. They all tried that and I didn't like it much. But Bo9S added all sorts of supernatural stuff (I'm OK with Iron Heart and Stone Dragon) with crazy activation complexity for no reason and just flat out calling it sword magic. 4e uses the same mechanics as their actual magic, where spells do the same things and also called "powers". Tome? I don't like 2-round fights, particularly not against demon lords, but yeah, kinda already does all this and a bag of crisps.
Better fluff, people, it helps. Alternate mechanics and all.
The responses? lolno feats always suck and wizards always win! So don't act like this is some measured brainstorming session on how to make Fighters "better".
You are getting dumber by the day.
Quote from: jibbajibba;553310To be fair I understand their desire for official ruels as well. Their MO works on identifying an exploit and then taking it to its logical conclusion.
That's true to exactly the same extent as saying that you would prefer yahtzee to D&D (roll dice and yell about it? RPGsite's dreams come true!). Besides, not long ago, the folks in this thread were explaining that there was no way to discuss how a fighter dealt with a dragon without knowing what exploitable terrain features might be nearby.
Quote from: jibbajibba;553310We spent 2 years playing a CCG I created (well Printable card game I guess is a better name). One of my players woudl find the exploit and build a deck round it. I woudl then close the exploit. He got so annoyed he eventually stopped playing because he wasn't interested in a robust card game that was fun to play, he was interested in winning and he knew that the best way to beat CCGs is to find the exploitable loophole and create a broken deck.
You made up a game, taught your friend, changed the rules every time he beat you, and now he won't play that game anymore?
I, for one, am shocked.
Quote from: StormBringer;553324a) Point out where I said anything about 5e on that thread or on this one.
Point out where I said you said anything about 5e.
The point is that the things we advocate in that thread are not something we suggest some official organization do, they are us arguing about what we are going to do.
This is a critical distinction because it completely negates your point. When you claim that "they want someone to publish the rules for them" you are wrong. We do not want WotC to publish the rules for us, and we do not want anyone else to do it either. Now, the fact that we were not advocating that 5e adopt our arguments into their rules is not sufficient to prove you wrong when you say "they want someone to publish the rules for them" but it is necessary, so when I say it and you throw a hissy fit, you look stupid.
Quote from: StormBringer;553324b) That thread, where this one was linked? The exact same fucking thread from before, where the major sport is bitching about how underpowered Fighters are.
No ideas on how to actually make a Fighter better, just an endless fucking litany of all the ways spell casters are always orders of magnitude better. Starting with just having a few extra gold coins on hand, and segueing to a 4th level spell.
Actually, if you actually read the thread, lots of people went over all their theories on how to make the fighter better, here is some asshole with a terrible fix, just like the original posters:
Spoiler
een reading this and a million other threads just like it... not to mention the *"New Tome" thread on the front page for years now. That beings said the collective "fuck vanilla action hero" thing is an annoyance, and "Martial Magic" is an anoyance to **assholes however there are enough assholes that we actually can't get away with ignoring them... "yet" and they teach those asshole ways to anyone who'll listen as best they can so ymmv for the long term.
Still, let me entertain the idea that we generally dismiss here because... well why the fuck should we bother, I think is the prevailing thought, I know its been mine, but fuck I'm bored so let me chunk this dart.
For Tussocks sake, "lets just nerf all the spells":
First, why? ( cause thats fucking stupid Midnight_v!) Cause while there are many interesting things that can be done to make the fighter/Soilder/Hero/VAH better... Unlimited Magic says "fuck all" to anything they can do period. That is really just a shit idea.
Full Caster in many ways is playing "God Mod Sue" and why should ANYONE get to do that? Monsters included.
Second, how the fuck would we do that. Honestly, I'm not sure any of the ways of doing so would be very effective or good but I do remember in a party with a Dm in the transition from 2nd to 3rd who never let Illusion "work" because looking at the illusions gave a chance to roll to disbelieve... At the time the Illusionist was like then the dm was all like and we went on without the illusionist (I should have left then but still...)
So here's a quick starter rule or 2 to really make the magic situation more tenable in D&D. Magic is not abso-fucking-lutely magic realtering powers. Some of it is but most of it is not, most of its Vodoo fucking magic, that can't get you unless you believe.
Rule 1: All Magic Spells that has Saving throw: Fuck you, is now Saving Throw: "I don't believe this shit a.k.a." "Will"
That fucks force cage and all those other fuck you spells right out.
Blasphemy for instance, cannot exist. Further, this makes some wonky interactions here and there like summoned critters not being able to affect people make the save, but permanent undead still ruin your weekend get away's and thats fine, Necromancers are badass muthafuckers.
Collary to rule 1: Any Spell that says "Made your save?: Look baby just let me stick the tip in" gains the same thing. You can ignore secondary effects of spells as well, make the will save.
Rule2: Spells that are measured in more than rounds become, 1 minute + Concentration + 1 round . So yeah you can fly buuuutt.. that thing where you stand in the air and rain death down? Nope. Fuck you.
This keeps wizards doing traditional things like riding broomsticks and having flying carpets and the suck, just like mundanes. NOT Completely but quite a bit.
Rule 3: There isn't one but there are going to be problems with this approach, but honestly there's problems with the way it "FUCKING IS" when appling things to D&D always are but you see whats meant to happen there dumbshit, get to figuring things out.
Then a bunch of people told him his shitty idea is shit, because that's necessary to make progress. (Also a bunch of people told he he was ranting like a crazy person, because that is fun.)
Then I present my perfect pinnacle of RPGing idea of perfection, which I don't spell out that far because everyone already knows my position on the fighter on TGD.
Spoiler
No it fucking can't.
The very first thing you need to do, before anything else, and sure as fuck before you touch the Wizard is you need to rename the class to not be fighter and then let him do cool things within his new theme when not directly in combat.
If you touch the Wizard before you do that, you make stupid fucking 4e (but probably a better combat simulator) where no one can fucking do anything out of combat.
Stop fucking doing that. Stop fucking advocating that. Stop making Fighters, and start making Shadow Lords or some shit who have other shit they can do.
Those posts are two of many people who all presented ideas on how to make a better fighter. That is something that happens all the time on TGD. The fact that you can't recognize those, and instead whine about how "they want someone to publish the rules for them" when I'm telling people how to make their own fantasy heartbreakers is fucking hilarious.
Quote from: StormBringer;553324That thread starts out with a post (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=269304#269304) about how much Fighters suck compared to pretty much everyone else.
The responses? lolno feats always suck and wizards always win! So don't act like this is some measured brainstorming session on how to make Fighters "better".
Yes, when someone posted a shitty idea about how to fix fighters, we told him his idea was shitty. Then someone else posted an idea, and it was also shitty, so we told him that. And then I posted by perfect idea, and people told me it was shitty, and I argued them into submission so that now everyone agrees with me except deaddm who wants A=~A and so will always be disappointed, and Tussock, because he's and idiot.
Criticizing us for criticizing shitty ideas is kind of funny, but not actually relevant to your claim that we want "someone to publish the rules for [us]."
I do not understand how this thread can still be generating posts. I tried reading the last few pages but my brain just turned to much and shut down.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;553374I do not understand how this thread can still be generating posts. I tried reading the last few pages but my brain just turned to much and shut down.
Only 566 posts to go Aos.:)
I don't know how you found the last few pages confounding. In the last 2 or 3 pages Stormbringer apparently decided to shift the conversation to what people at TGD are doing.Kaelik countered by saying that not only does Stormbringer not realize that we are of differing opinions at TGD about what fighters should be but the thread he linked to shows exactly that. Also he pointed out that by saying or suggesting that there is a particular game denners want that he is showing he can't follow the very threads he's peeking in on. That's about it. Nothing really complicated.
The part about redirecting rivers I would like to say something about. Theres' two things there. The part about hercules and the redirecting the river.
First no matter how you interpret Hercules being a high level fighter it still counts. If you read it as hercules is a demi god + a fighter and thus blame his amazing feats on his demigodness and not his fighterness congratulations! You just discovered that being a fighter doesn't add anything meaningful to a high level character. If you read it as hercules gets his bad ass ness from being a high level fighter congratulations! You just got a taste of what being a high level fighter should be like.
Second, redirecting the river is an interesting thing. It has to be at least part MTP because there are no hardcore rules on how flowing rivers or digging holes work. However there CAN be straight up abilities that reshape terrain such that you can conceivably change the direction of the river. Now regularly you can change the direction of a river just by having a bunch of people dig it out and that also would be MTP since digging stuff is MTP. The thing about being a high level character like hercules is that you should be able to conceivably do it by themselves in a timely fashion. The reason that should be is because logically a giant or a dragon can conceivably do it quickly and if your'e fighting thse things you should have some modicum of awesome yourself. It would require less MTP if there were a few rules surrounding digging ditches, how water flows, etc but the point still stands that the fighter should be able to do something conceivably that awesome since he's fighting inter-dimensional baby eater demons, cloud giants, etc who can do things about that awesome.
Now note I'm not saying all high level threats can dig incredible holes quickly (though most can). Also note that Hercules was pretty much just really strong and otherwise used his wits to solve problems so having super powers didn't reduce his creativity. And lastly note the fact that his mission when he redirected the river wasn't to redirect the river but to clean the stables.
Quote from: MGuy;553387I don't know how you found the last few pages confounding.
It wasn't confusing, it was mind numbing that people can still be debating these details (largely repeating what they said in different ways or with the volume up) :)
Quote from: fectin;553356That's true to exactly the same extent as saying that you would prefer yahtzee to D&D (roll dice and yell about it? RPGsite's dreams come true!). Besides, not long ago, the folks in this thread were explaining that there was no way to discuss how a fighter dealt with a dragon without knowing what exploitable terrain features might be nearby.
You made up a game, taught your friend, changed the rules every time he beat you, and now he won't play that game anymore?
I, for one, am shocked.
Mate you are raging at the wrong guy.
First off i agree with the conclusion that fighters are weak at high levels, i agree that the inability of a lot of people here to read and understand the simple examples given and how that would affect play.
I totally accept the gd position i just thing it leads to a play style i don't like, but i wouldn't criticize anyone for that.
I disagree with all the arguments levied by the osr mafia against the gd approach to game analysis.
The only place we differ is in the final outcome. I want my games to be low fantasy and my mundane characters to be mundane, far more game of thrones that final fantasy.
As for my card game the whole point of playing it was to test the rule structure and apply it to scrutiny. The whole point was to reval exploits then close them, and all rule changes were made by concensus if the whole table felt that a thing needed tweaking.
So shhhhh.......
Quote from: jibbajibba;553391I want my games to be low fantasy and my mundane characters to be mundane, far more game of thrones that final fantasy.
I agree. I posted this in my design diary, but it's relevant here:
But this is my personal design philosophy: Mundane characters need to largely stay mundane. Mystical characters stay mystical. I.e., no superpowers for fighters, so-to-speak. Here's how I define mundane vs mystical:
Mundane: if you know how to do something, and have the physical tools/ability to so and the scenario presents itself, you can attempt it. No dailies, no per encounters, none of that stuff.
Mystical: Since the power is drawn from a magical source, that source can be limited in any way that fits the game theme. A character might have the knowledge and skill to conjure up a ball of fire, but unlike a mundane skill, doesn't have the magical energies available to do so all day long.
There are two primary fighter types in the game: Juggernaut and Soldier. Again, I'm open to suggestions, but here's how I envision them having mundane skill trees while still having plenty of options and relevance:
Juggernaut: the tank. He has two primary skill trees: damage and damage absorption. Skills like Juggernaut's hammer, sweeping attack, backswing, rage, and battering ram all impact the juggernaut's ability to cause damage. It might be damage bonuses, extra attacks, etc. Whereas the other side of the tree has skills like Brick wall, Immovability, Damage Sponge, and Meat Shield all either increase resistance checks, damage absorption, or hit points.
Soldier: the battle leader (Patton, Alexander the Great, Leonidas, Joan of Arc, etc). He's the guy who is skilled in tactics, all weapons&armor, and leadership. Skills like Focused Strike and Coup de Grace make him deadly with weapons. Armor proficiency makes him better at utilizing armor than most. Skills like Defender and Sacrifice allow him to take hits that would otherwise strike an ally. Skills like Rally Cry, Inspire, and Heroic Motivation all increase the combat abilities of allies around him.
So that's where I'm at as far as trying to keep these skills mundane in nature while at the same time seem interesting to play.
QuoteAs for my card game the whole point of playing it was to test the rule structure and apply it to scrutiny. The whole point was to reval exploits then close them, and all rule changes were made by concensus if the whole table felt that a thing needed tweaking.
So shhhhh.......
Yeah, that's kind of the point of playtesting. Swing and a miss on his at bat.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;553395I agree. I posted this in my design diary, but it's relevant here:
But this is my personal design philosophy: Mundane characters need to largely stay mundane. Mystical characters stay mystical. I.e., no superpowers for fighters, so-to-speak. Here's how I define mundane vs mystical:
Mundane: if you know how to do something, and have the physical tools/ability to so and the scenario presents itself, you can attempt it. No dailies, no per encounters, none of that stuff.
Mystical: Since the power is drawn from a magical source, that source can be limited in any way that fits the game theme. A character might have the knowledge and skill to conjure up a ball of fire, but unlike a mundane skill, doesn't have the magical energies available to do so all day long.
There are two primary fighter types in the game: Juggernaut and Soldier. Again, I'm open to suggestions, but here's how I envision them having mundane skill trees while still having plenty of options and relevance:
Juggernaut: the tank. He has two primary skill trees: damage and damage absorption. Skills like Juggernaut's hammer, sweeping attack, backswing, rage, and battering ram all impact the juggernaut's ability to cause damage. It might be damage bonuses, extra attacks, etc. Whereas the other side of the tree has skills like Brick wall, Immovability, Damage Sponge, and Meat Shield all either increase resistance checks, damage absorption, or hit points.
Soldier: the battle leader (Patton, Alexander the Great, Leonidas, Joan of Arc, etc). He's the guy who is skilled in tactics, all weapons&armor, and leadership. Skills like Focused Strike and Coup de Grace make him deadly with weapons. Armor proficiency makes him better at utilizing armor than most. Skills like Defender and Sacrifice allow him to take hits that would otherwise strike an ally. Skills like Rally Cry, Inspire, and Heroic Motivation all increase the combat abilities of allies around him.
So that's where I'm at as far as trying to keep these skills mundane in nature while at the same time seem interesting to play.
Yeah, that's kind of the point of playtesting. Swing and a miss on his at bat.
I am all about the character. So a system for me lots and lots of fighter types but it doesn't need lots of mechanics for each fighter type.
I want the rules to be a physics engine in which the characters sit. So for me 2e with kits was ideal because the early kits at least simply made use of the existing rules engines and tweaked it with additional proficiencies or reaction bonuses etc, this enabled 100s of different fighters without hundreds of rules.
Now it wasn't perfect by any means, hp and healing piss me off and the lack of a place for a finesse dex fighter annoyed me as does the reliance on magic and the lack of ac improvement by level... But the base concept was just what i was after
Quote from: jibbajibba;553391Mate you are raging at the wrong guy.
First off i agree with the conclusion that fighters are weak at high levels, i agree that the inability of a lot of people here to read and understand the simple examples given and how that would affect play.
I totally accept the gd position i just thing it leads to a play style i don't like, but i wouldn't criticize anyone for that.
I disagree with all the arguments levied by the osr mafia against the gd approach to game analysis.
That may all be true (and I'm plenty willing to believe that it is), but you undermined it pretty hard with the post I was objecting to. The Gaming den is pretty far from presenting a united front on anything (with perhaps the sole exception of disliking 4E), so saying that their MO is
anything is suspect at best. "Exploit" is likewise a funny term; while its plain English meaning is basically just "use," in games it refers to taking advantage of some mistake or oversight. When you call game features which you are interacting with according to their normal function an exploit, you are ignoring the actual contextual meaning of the word. In Catan, for example, you could call building settlements next to 6s and 8s an "exploit," but people would laugh at you.
To be clear: bucket resurrections are an exploit, using divination to find something is not.
And yes, you should carry things to their logical conclusion. Usually that means "NPCs can do it too," but sometimes it also means "I have a dangerous job, and should put on protective gear before I go to work."
Quote from: jibbajibba;553391The only place we differ is in the final outcome. I want my games to be low fantasy and my mundane characters to be mundane, far more game of thrones that final fantasy.
That's fine; you'll find plenty of people over there who share your preferences (I don't, because I like finding creative uses for things, and the more things, the more opportunities to do so). What you won't find is people who think it's okay for the wizard to play Exalted while the fighter plays Game of Thrones. You'll also find a lot of folks who think that once you have class balance, you can model the low magic -> gonzo scale by using levels. That's not exactly a novel point; D&D has had that idea since at least the early eighties.
Quote from: fectin;553411That may all be true (and I'm plenty willing to believe that it is), but you undermined it pretty hard with the post I was objecting to. The Gaming den is pretty far from presenting a united front on anything (with perhaps the sole exception of disliking 4E), so saying that their MO is anything is suspect at best. "Exploit" is likewise a funny term; while its plain English meaning is basically just "use," in games it refers to taking advantage of some mistake or oversight. When you call game features which you are interacting with according to their normal function an exploit, you are ignoring the actual contextual meaning of the word. In Catan, for example, you could call building settlements next to 6s and 8s an "exploit," but people would laugh at you.
To be clear: bucket resurrections are an exploit, using divination to find something is not.
And yes, you should carry things to their logical conclusion. Usually that means "NPCs can do it too," but sometimes it also means "I have a dangerous job, and should put on protective gear before I go to work."
That's fine; you'll find plenty of people over there who share your preferences (I don't, because I like finding creative uses for things, and the more things, the more opportunities to do so). What you won't find is people who think it's okay for the wizard to play Exalted while the fighter plays Game of Thrones. You'll also find a lot of folks who think that once you have class balance, you can model the low magic -> gonzo scale by using levels. That's not exactly a novel point; D&D has had that idea since at least the early eighties.
See my position comes down to i don't care if the wizard can replicate the fighter by a charm monster. I don't care that the wizard at 15th level can replace the fighter with a charmed giant, a golem or an improved unseen servant he can dress in armour and buff to the hills.
I want to roleplay sometimes i end up roleplaying someone who isn't very good. I am the guy that never discards a set of stat rolls, okay i got a 6 and 3 7s..... Hmm okay iwill play a sickly human midget fighter and put my 14 in wisdom and my 13 in intelligence and run him like tyrion lannister. I don't need him to be good at anything at all. Yes you could play the same character as a thief or a wizard and his class makes no difference, but its the character that matters.
Now this doesn't mean i fit into the 1E school of any pc can do anything so fighters are not gimped, i am actually a big fan of skills and think they are vastly underrated in dnd.
But its more than that i do not like the professional adventure style of play you get in 1e where you can solve all problems with a 10foot pole and a bag of flour, because I think it ignores character. I might want to play a lazy cowardly fighter or a priest that has lost faith with his diety.
So i think I represent a certain school of DnD that reached its zenith in 2e where characters and story where it doesn't matter if you can't contribute meaningfully to the combat so long as you contribute to the story. Its all about the journey not the destination.
Ps. Re exploit... do ypu think that the designers that put in polymorph, splitting bow and arrow demons did so to enable a character to combine all of them together to get 16 attacks a round no combining the different elements is the exploit you are exploiting the quantity of expansions you are exploiting the plethora of mechanical rules. I have no issue with that at all, nice spot, but i don't imagine that the outcome was an intent of the designers.
There are plenty in all versions but the number of rules and monsters and spells and classes and combinations in 3e exponentially increase the number of exploits. That is just math.
I want to [strike]get some use out of my classics degree[/strike] point out that using Herakles as an example of anything is a bit off. Herakles is unique among Greek heroes[1] for his accomplishments and might; no other classical Greek hero ever comes even close to the feats and Labours of Herakles. It's why the Olympian Twelve eventually made him a god, after all.
It's a bit like trying to use the pre-Crisis Superman as an example of what a Marvel superhero should be capable of.
[1] Note that hero implies demigod; part of the definition of a classical Greek hero is "is a demigod".
Quote from: Kaelik;553373Point out where I said you said anything about 5e.
Quote from: Kaelik;553316There you go again. That thread where this one was linked? It is about how we, people on TGD design fighters, not about 5e. We have other threads about 5e and how bad it is. That was a thread where we argue amongst ourselves about how best to make fighters.
So, you just threw that out there for shits and giggles? You have game related Tourette's? You thought 5e was somehow relevant, even though it didn't relate to the issue at hand or anything I had posted?
QuoteThe point is that the things we advocate in that thread are not something we suggest some official organization do, they are us arguing about what we are going to do.
No, it's just a bitch-fest.
QuoteThis is a critical distinction because it completely negates your point. When you claim that "they want someone to publish the rules for them" you are wrong. We do not want WotC to publish the rules for us, and we do not want anyone else to do it either. Now, the fact that we were not advocating that 5e adopt our arguments into their rules is not sufficient to prove you wrong when you say "they want someone to publish the rules for them" but it is necessary, so when I say it and you throw a hissy fit, you look stupid.
This has nothing to do with 5e, the topic is clearly 3.x. You aren't even reading the threads.
QuoteActually, if you actually read the thread, lots of people went over all their theories on how to make the fighter better, here is some asshole with a terrible fix, just like the original posters:
Hmmm... It looks like this is the first time this has been brought up.
Oh, no it isn't.
QuoteFirst, why? ( cause thats fucking stupid Midnight_v!) Cause while there are many interesting things that can be done to make the fighter/Soilder/Hero/VAH better... Unlimited Magic says "fuck all" to anything they can do period. That is really just a shit idea.
Full Caster in many ways is playing "God Mod Sue" and why should ANYONE get to do that? Monsters included.
Magic is not abso-fucking-lutely magic realtering powers. Some of it is but most of it is not, most of its Vodoo fucking magic, that can't get you unless you believe.
Rule 1: All Magic Spells that has Saving throw: Fuck you, is now Saving Throw:
Rule2: Spells that are measured in more than rounds become, 1 minute + Concentration + 1 round .
Rule 3: There isn't one but there are going to be problems with this approach, but honestly there's problems with the way it "FUCKING IS" when appling things to D&D always are but you see whats meant to happen there dumbshit, get to figuring things out.
Oh, look, the consensus seems to be saying that magic is too fucking powerful.
I think I know how to fix it.
QuoteThen a bunch of people told him his shitty idea is shit, because that's necessary to make progress. (Also a bunch of people told he he was ranting like a crazy person, because that is fun.)
No, a bunch of people told him that his idea wasn't going to be considered because it didn't address the
actual problem of casters being too powerful. Finding ways to make the Fighter more powerful is stupid, even though a high level Fighter should be doing Hercules stuff, so any attempts to make the Fighter more powerful are instantly shitty because casters are still too powerful. But limiting casters is an affront to the universe, despite how much it is constantly bitched about.
And then Frank dragged the shit that wasn't getting traction over here into the thread.
QuoteThose posts are two of many people who all presented ideas on how to make a better fighter. That is something that happens all the time on TGD. The fact that you can't recognize those, and instead whine about how "they want someone to publish the rules for them" when I'm telling people how to make their own fantasy heartbreakers is fucking hilarious.
And every single one of those ideas is shot down immediately because
wizards. If they wanted to fix things, they would be fixed.
They don't want to fix things. If they don't want to fix it themselves, but constantly bitch about how things should be fixed,
they want someone else to do it. They want an 'official' fix, because the entirety of the complain centers on how 'official' material is horribly broken when it is combined in horribly broken ways. They want the 'official' material to be not horribly broken. Frank said it himself, the huge volume of rules wouldn't be a problem if they were well written. He wants the rules to be well written. The
existing rules, not some imaginary set of rules in his head. By and large, most folks over there seem to agree with that. Therefore, the prevailing opinion is that the official rules from WotC should be well written, but they aren't. Hence, they want WotC to fix it. With the undercurrent that it should be fixed in the manner they suggest.
QED.
QuoteYes, when someone posted a shitty idea about how to fix fighters, we told him his idea was shitty. Then someone else posted an idea, and it was also shitty, so we told him that. And then I posted by perfect idea, and people told me it was shitty, and I argued them into submission so that now everyone agrees with me except deaddm who wants A=~A and so will always be disappointed, and Tussock, because he's and idiot.
Ummm... no, I see the problem again. Same as before, it's
you.
QuoteCriticizing us for criticizing shitty ideas is kind of funny, but not actually relevant to your claim that we want "someone to publish the rules for [us]
Again, the irony of you complaining about reading comprehension is hilarious. I am not criticizing you or anyone for criticizing anyone else. What I am doing is pointing out that if you are so absolutely certain that the ideas are absolutely without merit, then you must have most of the 'correct' answer already. You just don't want to implement it yourselves because then other people would use it and find flaws with it, or that your solution isn't really any better than the current rules because it is just as clunky and prone to horribly broken applications. This is the other reason you clearly want someone else to publish; they can take the fall instead of TGD when it turns out that your vaunted wisdom with the rules makes the exact same mistakes.
When all you really have to do is
reduce the power for casters.
Quote from: daniel_ream;553429I want to [strike]get some use out of my classics degree[/strike] point out that using Herakles as an example of anything is a bit off. Herakles is unique among Greek heroes[1] for his accomplishments and might; no other classical Greek hero ever comes even close to the feats and Labours of Herakles. It's why the Olympian Twelve eventually made him a god, after all.
It's a bit like trying to use the pre-Crisis Superman as an example of what a Marvel superhero should be capable of.
[1] Note that hero implies demigod; part of the definition of a classical Greek hero is "is a demigod".
That is exactly what I was getting at. Herakles wasn't able to divert a river because he had killed thousands of goblins, a thousand orcs, several hundred giants, a couple dozen dragons and a demon or two. It wasn't something Demetrius the Athenian city guard was going to accomplish
ever.
So, the argument seems to be: we want the demi-god powers of Herakles as class features, but none of that Wizardy spells bullshit.
Here let me help get this thread nearer to Aos's demand of 2000 posts. If you want to make fighters better try putting some reasonable limits on magic users. And ADEU ain't it.
Quote from: Marleycat;553551Here let me help get this thread nearer to Aos's demand of 2000 posts. If you want to make fighters better try putting some reasonable limits on magic users. And ADEU ain't it.
Heresy!
Quote from: StormBringer;553521So, you just threw that out there for shits and giggles? You have game related Tourette's? You thought 5e was somehow relevant, even though it didn't relate to the issue at hand or anything I had posted?
Except I explained how it was relevant, you just ignored it because you are continuing to do the thing where you lie about what I said like it somehow matters.
You claimed we want someone else to publish the rules for us. Since we don't WotC to publish the rules for us, since we aren't attempting to push our ideas into 5e, who do you think we want to publish the rules for us?
Hint: The answer is us. We are talking about our rules.
Quote from: StormBringer;553521No, it's just a bitch-fest.
...
I am not criticizing you or anyone for criticizing anyone else.
Hmm... Seems like you are.
Quote from: StormBringer;553521This has nothing to do with 5e, the topic is clearly 3.x. You aren't even reading the threads.
No, the topic is clearly a hypothetical fantasy heartbreaker, like it always fucking is. It's clear that whenever anyone says "but 3e" we make fun of them for not understanding that of course we mean that we are talking about some other game that isn't 3e.
Quote from: StormBringer;553521No, a bunch of people told him that his idea wasn't going to be considered because it didn't address the actual problem of casters being too powerful. Finding ways to make the Fighter more powerful is stupid, even though a high level Fighter should be doing Hercules stuff, so any attempts to make the Fighter more powerful are instantly shitty because casters are still too powerful. But limiting casters is an affront to the universe, despite how much it is constantly bitched about.
Did you actually read it? His idea was three rules each of which was a nerf to fucking magic. Literally all it was was nerfing magic. People told him it was shit because we don't want to nerf magic (Except the shitty parts, like Gate).
We get it, the casters are too powerful for you. We do not want to play the same game as you. You don't get to declare that we are not talking about fixing the game because we are suggesting fixes that you do not like. It makes you sound crazy.
Quote from: StormBringer;553521And every single one of those ideas is shot down immediately because wizards. If they wanted to fix things, they would be fixed. They don't want to fix things. If they don't want to fix it themselves, but constantly bitch about how things should be fixed, they want someone else to do it. They want an 'official' fix, because the entirety of the complain centers on how 'official' material is horribly broken when it is combined in horribly broken ways. They want the 'official' material to be not horribly broken. Frank said it himself, the huge volume of rules wouldn't be a problem if they were well written. He wants the rules to be well written. The existing rules, not some imaginary set of rules in his head. By and large, most folks over there seem to agree with that. Therefore, the prevailing opinion is that the official rules from WotC should be well written, but they aren't. Hence, they want WotC to fix it. With the undercurrent that it should be fixed in the manner they suggest.
...
What I am doing is pointing out that if you are so absolutely certain that the ideas are absolutely without merit, then you must have most of the 'correct' answer already. You just don't want to implement it yourselves because then other people would use it and find flaws with it, or that your solution isn't really any better than the current rules because it is just as clunky and prone to horribly broken applications. This is the other reason you clearly want someone else to publish; they can take the fall instead of TGD when it turns out that your vaunted wisdom with the rules makes the exact same mistakes.
Cool (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=34248) Story (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28828) Brah. (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28547) More (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=33294) Words (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=35813) because (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=51121) I needed (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50239&start=0) to finish linking.
Quote from: StormBringer;553521When all you really have to do is reduce the power for casters.
Hey retarded monkey fuck. We don't want to play the game you do. That should have been obvious from how many times we've told you that we don't want to play the same game as you.
We don't want to play a shitty game where all the PCs are shit. That's why we don't play any of the hundred games that already exist like that. We want to play a different game.
Surprise, the solution of not liking things you don't like doesn't help us play the things we like.
Quote from: Kaelik;553562Did you actually read it? His idea was three rules each of which was a nerf to fucking magic. Literally all it was was nerfing magic. People told him it was shit because we don't want to nerf magic (Except the shitty parts, like Gate).
Because that is the fucking answer you goddamn moron.
You constantly bitch that magic is too powerful, but you don't want to make magic less powerful.
You don't want to fucking fix anything.QuoteWe get it, the casters are too powerful for you. We do not want to play the same game as you. You don't get to declare that we are not talking about fixing the game because we are suggesting fixes that you do not like. It makes you sound crazy.
No, you fucking moron, casters are too powerful
for you.
That is all you fucking bitch about constantly. There is no discussion over there about anything without comparing it to casters.
Casters in AD&D work just fine for me. They have reasonable limits, and the only people that complain they are too powerful are complete fucking morons that have never played AD&D and don't know anything about AD&D.
Probably unrelated and all, but did you ever get a chance to skim over the AD&D books?
QuoteHey retarded monkey fuck. We don't want to play the game you do. That should have been obvious from how many times we've told you that we don't want to play the same game as you.
Yes,
you fucking do. You want to play the game where the Fighter matters.
That game is called AD&D.
And before you launch into your wholly uninformed rant about how Magic Users were just as bad in AD&D,
you don't fucking know anything about AD&D.
QuoteWe don't want to play a shitty game where all the PCs are shit. That's why we don't play any of the hundred games that already exist like that. We want to play a different game.
Then make the goddamn Fighter more goddamn powerful.
You stupid goddamn goatfucking douchebag.
QuoteSurprise, the solution of not liking things you don't like doesn't help us play the things we like.
It's because you fuck goats.
Fighter isn't powerful enough compared to casters.
Solution 1: Make Fighter more powerful.
(Apparently, it is impossible in this reality for that ever to happen, because wizards.)
Solution 2: Make Wizards less powerful
(This is also impossible, because wizards and only 3.x)
But don't act like there is no fucking solution and this is akin to Fermat's Last Fucking Theorum. Here is why this is never going to be a fruitful conversation specifically with goatfuckers like you and generally with most of TGD:
Use Solution 1: We don't want to.
Use Solution 2: We don't want to.
Use this other solution:
We Don't Want To.
That is why you can shut your goatfucking dipshit piehole about 'fixing' anything. Because you don't want to fix anything. You want to endlessly bitch about the simplest of fucking problems. Preferably until someone else tries to fix it, so you can bitch about that, too.
(Too much big font, I got rid of it.)
Quote from: StormBringer;553565You constantly bitch that magic is too powerful, but you don't want to make magic less powerful.
No, I don't. Try a fucking gain.
Quote from: StormBringer;553565No, you fucking moron, casters are too powerful for you.
That is all you fucking bitch about constantly.
Also wrong. Try again.
Quote from: StormBringer;553565Yes, you fucking do. You want to play the game where the Fighter matters.
No I don't. My express position that I have laid out at least twice in this thread, once two posts ago, is that the Fighter should not exist. Clearly I do not want the fighter to matter.
Quote from: StormBringer;553565And before you launch into your wholly uninformed rant about how Magic Users were just as bad in AD&D
Pretty sure we went over this. And remember how you were completely wrong, and I never at any point said anything about Magic Users being anything in AD&D?
Also not sure why you said "just as bad" since they are not bad in 3e.
Quote from: StormBringer;553565Then make the goddamn Fighter more goddamn powerful.
Cool (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=34248) Story (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28828) Brah. (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28547) More (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=33294) Words (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=35813) because (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=51121) I needed (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50239&start=0) to finish linking.
Quote from: StormBringer;553565But don't act like there is no fucking solution and this is akin to Fermat's Last Fucking Theorum. Here is why this is never going to be a fruitful conversation specifically with goatfuckers like you and generally with most of TGD:
Hey remember when I said "here is the solution"? Yeah, I guess since that completely undermines your whiny bitching you are just going to keep ignoring it and bitching about how we refuse to do the thing we've done.
Quote from: Kaelik;553574No I don't. My express position that I have laid out at least twice in this thread, once two posts ago, is that the Fighter should not exist. Clearly I do not want the fighter to matter.
I was hoping to ignore this part, because I thought you were kidding.
Where is my "go back to TGD" emotion? Kaelik why don't you guys just make this hypothetical fantasy heartbreaker? Because you either can't or Stormbringer called it.
I just don't have the mental fortitude to read and comment on this entire thread, but I do have a few things to say. Here are some things 5e should probably have:
(1.) Wizards should embrace "Vancian" magic and receive spell levels from 1-9 (or zero to nine; cantrips are cool).
(2.) No "at-will" abilities for Wizards.
(3.) Some magic should follow where 1e went, and have potentially dangerous side effects and/or consequences. :pundit:
(4.) Summoning magic should take the form of rituals that take time to cast. They should require bargaining with or magically binding the entity in question.
(5.) Fighters should potentially have a few talents of their own, such as: increased ability to inflict a critical hit, weapon specialization, and possibly domain management at higher levels. I'd consider making them more adept with magical weapons and armor than other classes, and possibly even allow them to parry spells if they use a magical shield or weapon to do so. Give them an understanding of siege artillery, and even possibly "style analysis", so that they'll perceive the "fighting styles" of their opponents.
(6.) Wizardly magic does need to be hit somewhat with the nerf bat at higher levels, but not so much that the game becomes unrecognizable.
(7.) Give Fighters something to do outside of combat, and make sure the skill system (and the crafting system) supports this. Skills that Fighters might use?
* Taunt
* Command (for troops)
* Seduction (for saucy wenches)
* Weaponsmithing
* Bowyer/Fletcher
* Armorer
* First Aid
* Heraldry
* Siege Artillery
* Intimidation
* Resist Fear/Morale
* Riding
* Style Analysis (for studying combat techniques)
* Resist Intoxication
* Local Knowledge
There's more, but you get the gist of it... :cool:
Sounds very similar to my preferred fixes. I have many other possible ones that give the same results just in different directions. Like making all spells above 6th, rituals, at-will 0/1/2 level spells at certain levels and triggers, hard limits on total spells known with bonus spells for high intelligence etc.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;553586I just don't have the mental fortitude to read and comment on this entire thread, but I do have a few things to say. Here are some things 5e should probably have:
I dunno about 5e, but... :)
Quote(1.) Wizards should embrace "Vancian" magic and receive spell levels from 1-9 (or zero to nine; cantrips are cool).
Agreed.
Quote(2.) No "at-will" abilities for Wizards.
I actually wouldn't mind something like this, but I think combat spells or anything that does damage should be right out.
Quote(3.) Some magic should follow where 1e went, and have potentially dangerous side effects and/or consequences. :pundit:
That is how we keep our spell casters in line around here.
Quote(4.) Summoning magic should take the form of rituals that take time to cast. They should require bargaining with or magically binding the entity in question.
Abso-fucking-lutely. Demons gating in other demons? Inherent magic makes that immediate. Spell caster gating/summoning? Hours to days, depending on the target.
Quote(5.) Fighters should potentially have a few talents of their own, such as: increased ability to inflict a critical hit, weapon specialization, and possibly domain management at higher levels. I'd consider making them more adept with magical weapons and armor than other classes, and possibly even allow them to parry spells if they use a magical shield or weapon to do so. Give them an understanding of siege artillery, and even possibly "style analysis", so that they'll perceive the "fighting styles" of their opponents.
And it shouldn't be a trap as to which ones to pick. The 'critical hit' Fighter should be as fun to play as the 'extra hit points' Fighter.
Quote(6.) Wizardly magic does need to be hit somewhat with the nerf bat at higher levels, but not so much that the game becomes unrecognizable.
Wish is not a
spell. Alter reality is not a
spell. Those are things you make dark pacts to obtain. Or you journey to hell and back (literally!) to get them.
Quote(7.) Give Fighters something to do outside of combat, and make sure the skill system (and the crafting system) supports this. Skills that Fighters might use?
* Taunt
* Command (for troops)
* Seduction (for saucy wenches)
* Weaponsmithing
* Bowyer/Fletcher
* Armorer
* First Aid
* Heraldry
* Siege Artillery
* Intimidation
* Resist Fear/Morale
* Riding
* Style Analysis (for studying combat techniques)
* Resist Intoxication
* Local Knowledge
All good choices.
Quote from: Marleycat;553584Where is my "go back to TGD" emotion? Kaelik why don't you guys just make this hypothetical fantasy heartbreaker? Because you either can't or Stormbringer called it.
To be fair, they do have the Tomes.
To be fair...er, they are met with middling enthusiasm (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189210).
(Executive summary: Some things are ok, overall way too overpowered)I blame it on D&D turning in on itself and becoming its own genre, instead of a tool to enact 'external' genres. Ouroboros, indeed.
Quote from: StormBringer;553591To be fair, they do have the Tomes.
To be fair...er, they are met with middling enthusiasm (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189210).
(Executive summary: Some things are ok, overall way too overpowered)
I blame it on D&D turning in on itself and becoming its own genre, instead of a tool to enact 'external' genres. Ouroboros, indeed.
Nice MtAw reference. I knew I liked you for some reason. :)
Quote from: Marleycat;553593I knew I liked you for some reason. :)
Most people get over that fairly quickly. :)
Quote from: Marleycat;553551Here let me help get this thread nearer to Aos's demand of 2000 posts. If you want to make fighters better try putting some reasonable limits on magic users. And ADEU ain't it.
I actually said this already.
And something I must must get out there. I do NOT want to play the same game Storm wants to play. I want to play a game where everyone matters and everyone can do cool interesting things. The 1e/2e game and the idea that fighters shouldn't intrinsically be able to do interesting things while almost everything else does, is something I whole sale reject.
Quote from: MGuy;553597I actually said this already.
And something I must must get out there. I do NOT want to play the same game Storm wants to play. I want to play a game where everyone matters and everyone can do cool interesting things. The 1e/2e game and the idea that fighters shouldn't intrinsically be able to do interesting things while almost everything else does, is something I whole sale reject.
The Fighter does cool, interesting things. It's called 'face stabbing'. Put that sword in the Thief's hands and see how it goes. Or the Magic-User's. Run through B1 without a Fighter and let me know how that turns out for you.
For times when there are no faces that need stabbing, that is where the 'role playing' part of 'role playing games' factors in. If you want codified rules for that, more power to you, and your table. But let's not pretend that is what everyone wants, or the lack of those is what defines 'suck'.
I don;t quite get this....
Kaelik has clearly stated that he has no problems with casters in 3e and he doesn't want to gimp them to be as weak as fighters in 3e he wants fighters to be replaced with a martial class that has powers, a bladsinger, a wuxia paladin, a master archer, whatever that exotic martial class might be.
He is really really clear about this so why don't you guys listen to that statement why are all your recommendations for him to fix his game ways of gimping wizards?
It makes no sense.
It is obvious that both sided of the discussion want to play different games, so you need to put that discussion to one side.
Now the advantage here is that both games, the wuxia Final Fantasy game that Kaelik, and one assumes by extension the GD Posse, is after and the grittier game that the OSR Mafia are after use the same base mechanics.
It is actually possible to publish a game the core of which is the middle ground between the two with one set of extended rules recreate OSR and one set of extended rules to provide Wuxia play. This is kind of where the background stuff WotC was hinting at in early 5e released was aimed.
So the OSR version
i) Remove/modify HD healing mechanic
ii) Remove caster at will powers
iii) Implement spell component rules
iv) Allow interruption of casting as per 1e
v) make wizards find and or research new spells and include % to learn a new spell
Now this isn't revolutionary these are rules (bar healing) from 1e that the majority of players ignored so having them as optional rules makes absolute sense.
For Wuxia games you need more because these games thrive on more rules becames that is how the combinations arise. So you issue a book that covers this stuff.
i) Feats, lots of combat feats , like whirlwind attack, cleave etc
ii) Magic item expectations by level - and allow the warrior class to imbue their equipment with martial magic as they level as a class power, this could be bonuses to hit and damage but also a list of martial effects coined from old school magic items, wounding, speed, sharpness and all that good stuff
iii) Multiclassing - encourage it with simple 3e like rules
iv) Prestige martial classes
You might need to add a few flavourful elements for casters depending how they fall out of the 5e basic system but at will powers multi-classing, prestigue classes and removing spell acquisition limits ought to cover it.
Now both parties have a game they like and WotC can sell to both groups. The core game woudl appear a compromise to both parties but that is what extreamists always say :) and the general player base is far from as fanatical.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;553586I just don't have the mental fortitude to read and comment on this entire thread, but I do have a few things to say. Here are some things 5e should probably have:
(1.) Wizards should embrace "Vancian" magic and receive spell levels from 1-9 (or zero to nine; cantrips are cool).
(2.) No "at-will" abilities for Wizards.
(3.) Some magic should follow where 1e went, and have potentially dangerous side effects and/or consequences. :pundit:
(4.) Summoning magic should take the form of rituals that take time to cast. They should require bargaining with or magically binding the entity in question.
(5.) Fighters should potentially have a few talents of their own, such as: increased ability to inflict a critical hit, weapon specialization, and possibly domain management at higher levels. I'd consider making them more adept with magical weapons and armor than other classes, and possibly even allow them to parry spells if they use a magical shield or weapon to do so. Give them an understanding of siege artillery, and even possibly "style analysis", so that they'll perceive the "fighting styles" of their opponents.
(6.) Wizardly magic does need to be hit somewhat with the nerf bat at higher levels, but not so much that the game becomes unrecognizable.
(7.) Give Fighters something to do outside of combat, and make sure the skill system (and the crafting system) supports this. Skills that Fighters might use?
* Taunt
* Command (for troops)
* Seduction (for saucy wenches)
* Weaponsmithing
* Bowyer/Fletcher
* Armorer
* First Aid
* Heraldry
* Siege Artillery
* Intimidation
* Resist Fear/Morale
* Riding
* Style Analysis (for studying combat techniques)
* Resist Intoxication
* Local Knowledge
There's more, but you get the gist of it... :cool:
A very OSR approach which suits the OSR side of the argument though I suspect the parrying of spells might make a few guys wince. I included all your figther combat stuff (apart from being better with magic weapons and parry spells which is a bit too Wuxia for me :) ) upthread to little comment.
All of it is suggested in the thread above, which I do not blame you for not wading through.:)
The one this that has come up and is worth noting is your list of skills fighters might use out of combat.
All of those skills should be open to other classes. Or are you suggesting that a Dwarven herbalist Cleric can't have Resist poison? or a Human Noble Wizard can't ride, or a cheeky half-elven bard can't do sedution?
Now my approach would be a 2e one had a set of skill that were 'warrior skills' and other lists that were background specific or other class specific, skills from your list are cheap but skills from other lists are expensive, but you do still end up with the issue that these are not figther only skills these are just skills that fighters might be better at that some other classes /characters.
So in summary your idea woudl narrow the wizard figther disparity but they woudl do it in an OSR way to make all classes weaker. This is not the desire of the GD Posse who want everyone to be as tough as an optimised 3e caster build. 5e Needs to try and appeal to both ends of the spectrum, which I think it can do relatively easily though targeted expansions and a simple rule set that can easily be modded without a cascade across the whole system.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;553586I just don't have the mental fortitude to read and comment on this entire thread, but I do have a few things to say. Here are some things 5e should probably have:
(1.) Wizards should embrace "Vancian" magic and receive spell levels from 1-9 (or zero to nine; cantrips are cool).
(2.) No "at-will" abilities for Wizards.
(3.) Some magic should follow where 1e went, and have potentially dangerous side effects and/or consequences. :pundit:
(4.) Summoning magic should take the form of rituals that take time to cast. They should require bargaining with or magically binding the entity in question.
(5.) Fighters should potentially have a few talents of their own, such as: increased ability to inflict a critical hit, weapon specialization, and possibly domain management at higher levels. I'd consider making them more adept with magical weapons and armor than other classes, and possibly even allow them to parry spells if they use a magical shield or weapon to do so. Give them an understanding of siege artillery, and even possibly "style analysis", so that they'll perceive the "fighting styles" of their opponents.
(6.) Wizardly magic does need to be hit somewhat with the nerf bat at higher levels, but not so much that the game becomes unrecognizable.
(7.) Give Fighters something to do outside of combat, and make sure the skill system (and the crafting system) supports this. Skills that Fighters might use?
* Taunt
* Command (for troops)
* Seduction (for saucy wenches)
* Weaponsmithing
* Bowyer/Fletcher
* Armorer
* First Aid
* Heraldry
* Siege Artillery
* Intimidation
* Resist Fear/Morale
* Riding
* Style Analysis (for studying combat techniques)
* Resist Intoxication
* Local Knowledge
There's more, but you get the gist of it... :cool:
A very OSR approach which suits the OSR side of the argument though I suspect the parrying of spells might make a few guys wince. I included all your figther combat stuff (apart from being better with magic weapons and parry spells which is a bit too Wuxia for me :) ) upthread to little comment.
All of it is suggested in the thread above, which I do not blame you for not wading through.:)
The one this that has come up and is worth noting is your list of skills fighters might use out of combat.
All of those skills should be open to other classes. Or are you suggesting that a Dwarven herbalist Cleric can't have Resist poison? or a Human Noble Wizard can't ride, or a cheeky half-elven bard can't do sedution?
Now my approach would be a 2e one had a set of skill that were 'warrior skills' and other lists that were background specific or other class specific, skills from your list are cheap but skills from other lists are expensive, but you do still end up with the issue that these are not figther only skills these are just skills that fighters might be better at that some other classes /characters.
So in summary your idea woudl narrow the wizard figther disparity but they would do it in an OSR way to make all casters weaker. This is not the desire of the GD Posse who want everyone to be as tough as an optimised 3e caster build. 5e Needs to try and appeal to both ends of the spectrum, which I think it can do relatively easily though targeted expansions and a simple rule set that can easily be modded without a cascade across the whole system.
The issue I have is this topic isn't a discussion about Wuxia D&D, or how to make it so. It initially is about Fighter v. Caster utility and the notion of balance between them. (And espousing that Fighters are not only weaker but useless across all editions of AD&D is mind blowing, to me at least.) Several of us here believe the argument to be fruitless upon its face because the premise is not accepted. These arguments only matter within their theoretical CharOp Arena Fighting bubble. And since many of us don't play our RPGs like a slower version of Street Fighter we are appalled that this is such a pressing issue.
Quit the whining campaign that confuses WotC PR/Marketing wankers into making my game into a lame arena battler. I can have an opinion about that -- and feel it is far more important than debates about snapshots of fully-prepped wizards v. stripped-naked fighters stupidly taking on death-from-above in an open plain. Numbers/powers are naked without context, and rpg numbers/powers are especially denuded of meaning without context. Nothing productive will come from such discussions.
Further, what previous interest I did have in figuring out Wuxia Weaboo powers for the fighter (in the polite interest of giving more options), has seriously diminished because I don't see it improving the game in toto. It's just going to perpetuate the cycle of power inflation -- or even worse pursue True Balance, where everyone is so special they can do everything, and in the end no one does anything of note. Neither of these directions is something I want. And I have no desire to brainstorm solutions towards them.
Once we can mutually recognize that removing restrictions willy nilly is often short-sighted (an historical move that has shown its flaws) and contextless scenario speculation is fruitless (as this and many other topics beleaguered by walls of text have also shown) we might actually get somewhere useful. I doubt it, though. So, for Aos, this post's for you: one more post closer to 2000; you're welcome as semicolons represent.
Quote from: jibbajibba;553613A very OSR approach which suits the OSR side of the argument though I suspect the parrying of spells might make a few guys wince.
It probably would make them wince. :) However, that's why I mentioned only allowing them to parry spells while wielding
magical weapons, and not normal weapons. I'm just throwing this out as a general idea, but maybe the Fighter's combat prowess could interact strangely with the magic imbued within a weapon. Thus, spell parrying or even spell volleying could occur under the right circumstances. I should mention that I'd
never feel comfortable allowing Fighters to do this while wielding
non-magical shields or weapons. That's outside of my comfort zone.
Quote from: jibbajibbaI included all your figther combat stuff (apart from being better with magic weapons and parry spells which is a bit too Wuxia for me :) ) upthread to little comment.
All of it is suggested in the thread above, which I do not blame you for not wading through.:)
The one this that has come up and is worth noting is your list of skills fighters might use out of combat.
All of those skills should be open to other classes. Or are you suggesting that a Dwarven herbalist Cleric can't have Resist poison? or a Human Noble Wizard can't ride, or a cheeky half-elven bard can't do sedution?
Now my approach would be a 2e one had a set of skill that were 'warrior skills' and other lists that were background specific or other class specific, skills from your list are cheap but skills from other lists are expensive, but you do still end up with the issue that these are not figther only skills these are just skills that fighters might be better at that some other classes /characters.
So in summary your idea woudl narrow the wizard figther disparity but they woudl do it in an OSR way to make all classes weaker. This is not the desire of the GD Posse who want everyone to be as tough as an optimised 3e caster build. 5e Needs to try and appeal to both ends of the spectrum, which I think it can do relatively easily though targeted expansions and a simple rule set that can easily be modded without a cascade across the whole system.
You're right that other classes should have access to these skills, though I would have certain classes perform better at some skills than others. When I think about this, I think I'm more interested in some kind of 1e/3e hybrid, though I'm still open to new ideas..
Quote from: jibbajibba;553611It is obvious that both sided of the discussion want to play different games, so you need to put that discussion to one side.
Agreed here. I just strongly object to anything that looks like a push to get Wuxia-like powers for standard fighter-type classes in published standard D&D. I have no objection to them in a clearly optional book (e.g. book of Nine Swords), but will not sit back quietly if this type of play is being pushed toward standard -- or if proponents of such play are telling the world that the game itself is "broken" and Wuxia fighters are the only acceptable solution (as this is effectively pushing for Wuxia Fighters to be standard).
Quote from: Opaopajr;553634The issue I have is this topic isn't a discussion about Wuxia D&D, or how to make it so. It initially is about Fighter v. Caster utility and the notion of balance between them. (And espousing that Fighters are not only weaker but useless across all editions of AD&D is mind blowing, to me at least.) Several of us here believe the argument to be fruitless upon its face because the premise is not accepted. These arguments only matter within their theoretical CharOp Arena Fighting bubble. And since many of us don't play our RPGs like a slower version of Street Fighter we are appalled that this is such a pressing issue..
But that question and indeed the answer to it are totally dependent on what flavour of D&D you want to play.
If you want Wuxia D&D then the solution is to give Figthers more stuff, if you want OSR D&D then the solution is to nerf casters.
The decision about what game you play totally informs how you go about resolving the percieved imbalance.
As for it not exisiting in earlier editions, they have been specifically targetting 3x but you would have to conceed that in earlier editions the fighter becomes reliant on magical kit to
keep up. Now you might say 'that is fine because you get magic kit its part of the game,' but you would have to conceed that the magic kit you get is at best random or at worst gifted by GM Fiat.
In 1e D&D the chance of getting a Girdle of giant Strength for example is about 300 to 1 for a random magic item. And it can be used by a Thief, Cleric or Fighter. So saying that a 15th level figther will typically have one is not entirely true.
Quote from: StormBringer;553285I'll let you catch the shit-storm of bringing that up with them. :)
CRKreuger explained to them the problem wasn't Fighters are under-powered, it's that casters are wildly overpowered in 3.x. They almost constantly piss and moan about how many bat-shit insane spells and powers Clerics and Magic-Users have; the clear solution is 'take those away'.
Not sure how much good it would do, though. They insist Charm Monster always outshines the Fighter in any edition ever. When you start with that baseline, it's kind of hard to get back to 'rational'. I suppose Magic Missile completely outshines the archery Ranger at all times, too. You know, when your game is so out of whack that the rules must be adhered to under any circumstances.
Well, here's the really odd thing. Fighters are unambiguously the weakest PC class.....
in 3.5. :pundit: Oddly enough, that's
not the case in
AD&D. Something got lost in the translation for Fighters between 1e and 3e. In AD&D, Fighters were much more effective. And they had something to look forward to, in the form of domain management, even if not everyone embraced this aspect of the game. Additionally, magic suddenly had little risk in 3e, and this strongly widened the gap between primary casters and non-casters. This certainly didn't muck things up for every campaign, but it could become a real problem with the wrong group. This is not an insurmountable problem, but we might need to look back to 1e for some solutions to fixing things...
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;553642Additionally, magic suddenly had little risk in 3e, and this strongly widened the gap between primary casters and non-casters. This certainly didn't muck things up for every campaign, but it could become a real problem with the wrong group. This is not an insurmountable problem, but we might need to look back to 1e for some solutions to fixing things...
This is the crux of it for me, and pretty much all the people I play/have played with. 3.x removed nearly all the limitations that casters had in earlier editions. While there may have been slight imbalances at higher levels before 3.x, that edition canked the difference up to 11; oh, and I'm not talking about naked in an arena, or some theoretical dragon-attack scenario. I'm talking about regular, campaign-based play with no 15 minute adventuring day idiocy.
Moreover, I have almost no interest in 3.x mechanical splats, and when I'm the DM it's Core Books (i.e. PHB, or perhaps a main setting book) or nothing, so spare me the song and dance about allowing too much splat being my problem. The issue is in the base rules of 3.x, and becomes almost impossible to ignore by 12th level, but can start being an issue at the table before that. That's not exactly some unattainable destination under 3.x advancement rules.
Quote from: jibbajibba;553640But that question and indeed the answer to it are totally dependent on what flavour of D&D you want to play.
If you want Wuxia D&D then the solution is to give Figthers more stuff, if you want OSR D&D then the solution is to nerf casters.
The decision about what game you play totally informs how you go about resolving the percieved imbalance.
As for it not exisiting in earlier editions, they have been specifically targetting 3x but you would have to conceed that in earlier editions the fighter becomes reliant on magical kit to keep up. Now you might say 'that is fine because you get magic kit its part of the game,' but you would have to conceed that the magic kit you get is at best random or at worst gifted by GM Fiat.
In 1e D&D the chance of getting a Girdle of giant Strength for example is about 300 to 1 for a random magic item. And it can be used by a Thief, Cleric or Fighter. So saying that a 15th level figther will typically have one is not entirely true.
Jibba, because I'm moving today I don't have time to wall of text a response to most of the stuff said here, and I'll probably be offline for a while after this. But I want to just say that it actually makes me glad that after going through this many pages SOMEBODY was actually listening.
Quote from: Marleycat;553584Where is my "go back to TGD" emotion? Kaelik why don't you guys just make this hypothetical fantasy heartbreaker? Because you either can't or Stormbringer called it.
See that thing where every time he whines about how we can't create this game, then I post seven links like this:
"Cool (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=34248) Story (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28828) Brah. (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28547) More (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=33294) Words (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=35813) because (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=51121) I needed (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50239&start=0) to finish linking."
Maybe click on those links? We did make that game. And then of course, Stormbringer will tell you that other people outside TGD don't like it.
So?
I never said they did. I said we created the game we wanted. Now, like all games, it is not perfect, so we argue a lot about ways to make it better, but to say we refuse to make a game because we can't, or that we are afraid of being criticized for doing it is really fucking stupid.
Quote from: Kaelik;553662See that thing where every time he whines about how we can't create this game, then I post seven links like this:
"Cool (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=34248) Story (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28828) Brah. (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28547) More (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=33294) Words (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=35813) because (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=51121) I needed (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50239&start=0) to finish linking."
Maybe click on those links? We did make that game. And then of course, Stormbringer will tell you that other people outside TGD don't like it.
So?
I never said they did. I said we created the game we wanted. Now, like all games, it is not perfect, so we argue a lot about ways to make it better, but to say we refuse to make a game because we can't, or that we are afraid of being criticized for doing it is really fucking stupid.
So make it better and shut up, please. Because the game you want I DO NOT WANT as core. As an option fine but not core because the issues and problems you bitch constantly about I have never experienced, not once, ever come up in an actual live game, with actual people at an actual table because both the GM and people I play with aren't juvenile pricks and work together to have fun. And that means everybody. Is that clear enough? And it isn't like I was born in 1990 the things you are arguing about are pure theorectics which are interesting as a thought experiment but have little to nothing to do with the average game.
Quote from: Marleycat;553665So make it better and shut up, please.
In what possible way does us talking about our game need to stop happening?
Quote from: Marleycat;553665Because the game you want I DO NOT WANT as core. As an option fine but not core
That's great, because no one is trying to make it.
Quote from: Marleycat;553665because both the GM and people I play with aren't juvenile pricks and work together to have fun.
Ignoring till later this post that I wasn't arguing much of anything in this thread, You don't need anyone to be a juvenile prick for the Wizard to Cast Animate Dead or Charm Monster and make a better fighter.
(In 3e, by the way, in case this becomes another edition war about how I'm mean for making fun of something I'm not talking about.)
Quote from: Marleycat;553665the things you are arguing about are pure theorectics which are interesting as a thought experiment but have little to nothing to do with the average game.
Well, I actually haven't been arguing about much. I think the only things I've argued about are:
1) That Benoist is a whiny bully. (Though he's gotten better.)
2) That a 3e Cleric that outfights a fighter is in fact possible. (With no statement about how likely it is to occur.)
But I would go so far as to suggest that it is not purely theoretical that Charm Monster or Animate Dead might be used by someone at some point, resulting in better Fighters than the Fighter. That sort of thing is something people enjoy doing because it's a valid direction to take with a character that is well supported in fiction and in the rules.
Quote from: Kaelik;5536721) That Benoist is a whiny bully. (Though he's gotten better.)
Go fuck yourself.
Quote from: Benoist;553676Go fuck yourself.
well its not whiny :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;553677well its not whiny :)
Just dismissive. Which is all that guy ever deserved. :)
Quote from: Benoist;553676Go fuck yourself.
Believe me, if I could, I totally would.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;553586I just don't have the mental fortitude to read and comment on this entire thread, but I do have a few things to say. Here are some things 5e should probably have:
(1.) Wizards should embrace "Vancian" magic and receive spell levels from 1-9 (or zero to nine; cantrips are cool).
(2.) No "at-will" abilities for Wizards.
(3.) Some magic should follow where 1e went, and have potentially dangerous side effects and/or consequences. :pundit:
(4.) Summoning magic should take the form of rituals that take time to cast. They should require bargaining with or magically binding the entity in question.
(5.) Fighters should potentially have a few talents of their own, such as: increased ability to inflict a critical hit, weapon specialization, and possibly domain management at higher levels. I'd consider making them more adept with magical weapons and armor than other classes, and possibly even allow them to parry spells if they use a magical shield or weapon to do so. Give them an understanding of siege artillery, and even possibly "style analysis", so that they'll perceive the "fighting styles" of their opponents.
(6.) Wizardly magic does need to be hit somewhat with the nerf bat at higher levels, but not so much that the game becomes unrecognizable.
(7.) Give Fighters something to do outside of combat, and make sure the skill system (and the crafting system) supports this. Skills that Fighters might use?
* Taunt
* Command (for troops)
* Seduction (for saucy wenches)
* Weaponsmithing
* Bowyer/Fletcher
* Armorer
* First Aid
* Heraldry
* Siege Artillery
* Intimidation
* Resist Fear/Morale
* Riding
* Style Analysis (for studying combat techniques)
* Resist Intoxication
* Local Knowledge
There's more, but you get the gist of it... :cool:
Now see that's a very cool post. No Wuxia nonsense, no dissociated bullshit... As a compromise between "the fighter's fine" and "give the fighter more explicit stuff to do," that works for me. Magic is another subject entirely, which has been talked about to death on this topic, but basically going back to a First Ed standard would be a good thing too, in my mind. I always liked the idea of Rituals, and that could be a good way to reorganize the magic system and satisfy a great many people in the process.
Good post, really.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;553586* Seduction (for saucy wenches)
Careful, you're going to have Ettin and his crew initiate an internet smear campaign on you with that sort of post. And a petition just may be created and sent to your boss about how you're a supporter or rape.
Quote from: Benoist;553682Now see that's a very cool post. No Wuxia nonsense, no dissociated bullshit... As a compromise between "the fighter's fine" and "give the fighter more explicit stuff to do," that works for me. Magic is another subject entirely, which has been talked about to death on this topic, but basically going back to a First Ed standard would be a good thing too, in my mind. I always liked the idea of Rituals, and that could be a good way to reorganize the magic system and satisfy a great many people in the process.
Good post, really.
It's fine if you want a more OSR game, as I noted already.
I do think that ritual magic helps the wizard at lower levels to participate more as a wizard. I don't like the anyone can do rituals approach though.
Tripping an ooze because you have a 'trip' skill is disasociated. I don't think being able to leap 100 feet in the air or run up walls or chop through a chunk of granite with your 5 foot long sword is disasociated, wuxia sure, but its not the same thing.
And again its all about play style and one group can't dictate play style.
QuoteIn what possible way does us talking about our game need to stop happening?
It doesn't but don't expect to solve anything unless you do something beyond talking.
QuoteThat's great, because no one is trying to make it.
If not, why constantly bitch about it then?
QuoteIgnoring till later this post that I wasn't arguing much of anything in this thread, You don't need anyone to be a juvenile prick for the Wizard to Cast Animate Dead or Charm Monster and make a better fighter.
(In 3e, by the way, in case this becomes another edition war about how I'm mean for making fun of something I'm not talking about.)
So we are back the fighter sucks because of a spell that may or may not work or even be in the game or the wizard have or prepared or whatever. Fix the fighter quit deflecting.
Quote1) That Benoist is a whiny bully. (Though he's gotten better.)
2) That a 3e Cleric that outfights a fighter is in fact possible. (With no statement about how likely it is to occur.)
But I would go so far as to suggest that it is not purely theoretical that Charm Monster or Animate Dead might be used by someone at some point, resulting in better Fighters than the Fighter. That sort of thing is something people enjoy doing because it's a valid direction to take with a character that is well supported in fiction and in the rules.
What does Benoist being a bully (he isn't) have to do with you bitching about theorectical situations? Yeah the cleric is possible in an imaginary bubble I could care less about, but then she isn't doing her actual job/function and everybody loses in the end.
Quote from: Marleycat;553694It doesn't but don't expect to solve anything unless you do something beyond talking.If not, why constantly bitch about it then?So we are back the fighter sucks because of a spell that may or may not work or even be in the game or the wizard have or prepared or whatever. Fix the fighter quit deflecting.What does Benoist have to do with anythng? Yeah the cleric is possible but then she isn't doing her actual job/function and everybody loses in the end.
You are seeing this too narrowly.
You are trying to apply what you expect the cleric to do at your table as a global rule. What is more you are defining a narrow band of 'cleric' that really limits what that role can do.
It might be entirely possible to play a game in which everyone is a cleric chosen by their deity to take on a mighty quest. I have played in exactly that sort of game more than once.
It is totally acceptable to say 'I don't like that style of play.' it is not acceptable to say 'what you are doing is badwrongfun because its different than what I do.'
So if the GD Posse want to play high concept high power games with a wuxia/Final Fantasy style then of course they can and if they reveal that the fighter as written is unable to contribute to that sort of game then they are toally correct to rasie the issue and suggest solutions. These are not thought experiments, they have arrisen through actually playing 3x with people who are into CharOp, which is a totally valid apporach to the game, if not my particular cup of tea.
You don't have to play that way but you have to allow them to do so.
Quote from: jibbajibba;553640As for it not exisiting in earlier editions, they have been specifically targetting 3x but you would have to conceed that in earlier editions the fighter becomes reliant on magical kit to keep up. Now you might say 'that is fine because you get magic kit its part of the game,' but you would have to conceed that the magic kit you get is at best random or at worst gifted by GM Fiat.
.
This is true but wizards are also reliant on the spells they happen to acquire, and they don't have complete control over that either.
QuoteThese are not thought experiments, they have arrisen through actually playing 3x with people who are into CharOp, which is a totally valid apporach to the game, if not my particular cup of tea.
You don't have to play that way but you have to allow them to do so.
Limits, Jibba, limits. You can even do it in 3x. Remember 3x is my preferred edition (2e is right there) so I am not looking at this too narrowly. You just can't let magic users have no limits and expect sanity.
Charop isn't relevant to what I am speaking about. Math only focuses on a very small part of the game which in the end can be completely ignored if need be. What can't be ignored is the people at the table.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;553699This is true but wizards are also reliant on the spells they happen to acquire, and they don't have complete control over that either.
Again agreed, as I noted in how to make 5e more like OSR. Make the Wizard acquire spells through play.
I use this technique always but very few groups did so it should be an optional rule.
Its certainly not a rule in 3x
What is more it blocks that CharOp Wuxia playstyle so I can see that some groups don't want to use it if that is what they are after.
You need to stop thinking 'the fix for this is to nerf casters' . That is not what the GD Posse are after. They are happy with the power of casters they just want fighters to be as good.
All about the desired play outcome.
Quote from: jibbajibba;553698So if the GD Posse want to play high concept high power games with a wuxia/Final Fantasy style then of course they can and if they reveal that the fighter as written is unable to contribute to that sort of game then they are toally correct to rasie the issue and suggest solutions. These are not thought experiments, they have arrisen through actually playing 3x with people who are into CharOp, which is a totally valid apporach to the game, if not my particular cup of tea.
You don't have to play that way but you have to allow them to do so.
I am totally fine with this. If they want to run that kind of game, they should advocate for a game that provides that style of play. All I am objecting to is insistence that people should share their conclusions about magical fighters. etc.
I agree in certain campaigns, especially in 3E, the way fighters are handled will be a problem (and I have even said I don't particularly care for 3E's handling of balance in general). But to me it looks like they are doing more than simply offering solutions for their style of play, they are saying the problem is objectively bad for the game and has to be fixed. For them this may be true. For me it isn't. There are lots of people who like 1E, 2E, and 3E as they are and would see the things they criticize as features, not bugs. With NEXT I hope to see them bring back some of the AD&D sensibilities as well as some innovations. But I am not looking for a radically new game (just like I wasn't when they made 4E).
There are also people like me, who are pretty satisfied with previous editions and would like to updates and errata to fix some holes without the massive overhauls being proposed. So I am fine with them offering solutions for their playstyle, and advocating for those solutions to be included in next.
Quote from: Marleycat;553701Limits, Jibba, limits. You can even do it 3x. Remember 3x is my preferred edition (2e is right there) so I am not looking at this too narrowly. You just can't let magic users have no limits and expect sanity.
But you are effectively saying the role of a cleric is to heal the party, buff the fighters and act as secondary melee troops. You are saying everything else I do with a cleric is bad because I am not doing my
actual job/function and everybody loses in the end.If the rules let me make a cleric that is really good at bow combat and polymorphs into a multiple armed demon that is really good in combat why can't I do that ?
Of course you can add limits. You can restrict multiclassing, limit magic items, impose strict ruels on spell components and all sorts of stuff, but that is not what these guys want and the rules do not insist on it.
They want Wuxia so give them rules (optional) to do it and give the OSR Mafia rules (optional) to run their games how they want and make the core flexible enough to cope with the 2 extremes. Not rocket science.
Quote from: jibbajibba;553702Again agreed, as I noted in how to make 5e more like OSR. Make the Wizard acquire spells through play.
I use this technique always but very few groups did so it should be an optional rule.
Its certainly not a rule in 3x
What is more it blocks that CharOp Wuxia playstyle so I can see that some groups don't want to use it if that is what they are after.
You need to stop thinking 'the fix for this is to nerf casters' . That is not what the GD Posse are after. They are happy with the power of casters they just want fighters to be as good.
All about the desired play outcome.
It looks like out approaches are similar. I just pointed this out because (in 2E at least) this is quite important to how the game plays.
I have already said to do it as an option what gets me is that they act like 4vengers and reek of Onetruewayism. Pretty much Brendan said it better already.
I mean why can't you make 5e like 2e and greybox all sorts of stuff? It worked fine before why not now?
Quote from: Marleycat;553708I have already said to do it as an option what gets me is that they act like 4vengers and reek of Onetruewayism. Pretty much Brendan said it better already.
I mean why can't you make 5e like 2e and greybox all sorts of stuff? It worked fine before why not now?
I think they will need to greybox quite a few things to get everyone on board. From a design standpoint it isn't dificult. I think their biggest issue (if they go that direction) will be page count and layout (greybox everywhere and it might look confusing to people not used to it).
After reading this excellent, sobering thread, (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23244) I am 'this close' from just saying "fuck it" to then grab my AD&D books, go back to my games and just the hell with WotC and 5e.
Life's too short etc etc.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;553704I am totally fine with this. If they want to run that kind of game, they should advocate for a game that provides that style of play. All I am objecting to is insistence that people should share their conclusions about magical fighters. etc.
I agree in certain campaigns, especially in 3E, the way fighters are handled will be a problem (and I have even said I don't particularly care for 3E's handling of balance in general). But to me it looks like they are doing more than simply offering solutions for their style of play, they are saying the problem is objectively bad for the game and has to be fixed. For them this may be true. For me it isn't. There are lots of people who like 1E, 2E, and 3E as they are and would see the things they criticize as features, not bugs. With NEXT I hope to see them bring back some of the AD&D sensibilities as well as some innovations. But I am not looking for a radically new game (just like I wasn't when they made 4E).
There are also people like me, who are pretty satisfied with previous editions and would like to updates and errata to fix some holes without the massive overhauls being proposed. So I am fine with them offering solutions for their playstyle, and advocating for those solutions to be included in next.
Now there I would agree with you. I suspect our play positions are not far apart. However the fix for their extreme position of 'you can't play this game cos its brokne unless you fix this and this' is not to say 'no its not broken you can fuck off and you are all big wankers'.
Look at their arguments rationally and see if they apply. My thoughts are yes in 3x, less in 2e and less in 1e if you include the RAW for casters. More importantly I don't think it matters in games where roleplaying is the focus. In GoT Tyrion Lannister is the 'best' character and yet he has shit stats, no powers, no magic, and is useless at combat. I would rather play him over a Targaryn with trained dragons who is immume to all fire damage and can fire lasers from their eyes any day.
Is it true that a high level D&D 1e wizard can build a golem who could replace the fighter in the party, wear their kit and be more effective, eat less and not require a share of the loot? Yes it is. Does that render the fighter mechanically replaceable sure. But I think it woudl be pretty cool to roleplay the gristled old fighter that the party have just elected to replace with a magically kitted golem.
Their hyperbole may be extreme but you have to admit their application has merit.
Quote from: Marleycat;553708I have already said to do it as an option what gets me is that they act like 4vengers and reek of Onetruewayism. Pretty much Brendan said it better already.
I mean why can't you make 5e like 2e and greybox all sorts of stuff? It worked fine before why not now?
Asa I said its hte best aproach. But if you are going to have HD healing system, for example, it needs to be in the core. The option to remove it then needs to be included.
Greyboxed stuff should be modifications and adjustments and not entirely new rules. Optional entirely new rules should probably be in supplemental books.
Quote from: Benoist;553710After reading this excellent, sobering thread, (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23244) I am 'this close' from just saying "fuck it" to then grab my AD&D books, go back to my games and just the hell with WotC and 5e.
Life's too short etc etc.
Melan always brings sanity to the conversation and backs up my assertion that it really isn't the rules it the people.
Quote from: Marleycat;553708I have already said to do it as an option what gets me is that they act like 4vengers and reek of Onetruewayism. Pretty much Brendan said it better already.
I mean why can't you make 5e like 2e and greybox all sorts of stuff? It worked fine before why not now?
People might argue that your 'clerics have to follow a set role' is more Onetruewayism and I think I have seen more of that from the OSR Mafia than the GD Posse. They are more 'OH my GOD I have explained this too you a million times are you too stupid to understand!'-ism. :)
Quote from: Marleycat;553714Melan always brings sanity to the conversation and backs up my assertion that it really isn't the rules it the people.
Yes, we are in complete agreement (from the start).
Quote from: jibbajibba;553712Asa I said its hte best aproach. But if you are going to have HD healing system, for example, it needs to be in the core. The option to remove it then needs to be included.
Greyboxed stuff should be modifications and adjustments and not entirely new rules. Optional entirely new rules should probably be in supplemental books.
I agree. Simple core--->options greyboxed--->entirely new rules in suppliments.
Quote from: jibbajibba;553711Now there I would agree with you. I suspect our play positions are not far apart. However the fix for their extreme position of 'you can't play this game cos its brokne unless you fix this and this' is not to say 'no its not broken you can fuck off and you are all big wankers'.
Look at their arguments rationally and see if they apply. My thoughts are yes in 3x, less in 2e and less in 1e if you include the RAW for casters. More importantly I don't think it matters in games where roleplaying is the focus. In GoT Tyrion Lannister is the 'best' character and yet he has shit stats, no powers, no magic, and is useless at combat. I would rather play him over a Targaryn with trained dragons who is immume to all fire damage and can fire lasers from their eyes any day.
Is it true that a high level D&D 1e wizard can build a golem who could replace the fighter in the party, wear their kit and be more effective, eat less and not require a share of the loot? Yes it is. Does that render the fighter mechanically replaceable sure. But I think it woudl be pretty cool to roleplay the gristled old fighter that the party have just elected to replace with a magically kitted golem.
Their hyperbole may be extreme but you have to admit their application has merit.
I am fine saying using their measure these things are broken, but i dont think their measure is universal. For me the way to approach design is "if you want x, do y", not "y is always good/bad".
In the case of wizards and fighters being broken I think their case is quite weak in 2E. In 3E you can make that case for certain styles of play but not all. I have been in campaigns where fighters as written were problematic and campaigns where they worked great. This is why I am so hesitant to accept their arguments. They have merit, but only under certain expectations and styles of play.
So yes, 3E has some issues. 2E is pretty balanced in my opinion (in fact i was surprised how balanced it was when i went back to it last year). Like any system, it is imperfect. Bt that doesn't mean it needs a wild restructuring. In fact the problems are so rarely encountered in my games, i think fixing it would do more damage than good.
Quote from: jibbajibba;553715People might argue that your 'clerics have to follow a set role' is more Onetruewayism and I think I have seen more of that from the OSR Mafia than the GD Posse.
Bingo. I think a lot of the old school adherents in this thread are completely blind to their own Onetruewayism.
Quote from: Bobloblah;553722Bingo. I think a lot of the old school adherents in this thread are completely blind to their own Onetruewayism.
Sorry to actually fucking
like D&D, chum.
Quote from: jibbajibba;553715People might argue that your 'clerics have to follow a set role' is more Onetruewayism and I think I have seen more of that from the OSR Mafia than the GD Posse. They are more 'OH my GOD I have explained this too you a million times are you too stupid to understand!'-ism. :)
You could look at it that way but you wouldn't be playing Dnd in the classic sense. Also lets just agree to disagree on this because my opinion on clerics that just do whatever they damn well feel is much like paladins doing the same. They are no longer either and the player should just play something like a Cavelier (Pathfinder style) or an Oracle or Evoker (Pathfinder/4e respectively) to get the fighter with a code or a character of faith without being tied to a specific god and alignment.
Quote from: Benoist;553725Sorry to actually fucking like D&D, chum.
Ben, this is exactly what I'm talking about. As if only the way
you happen to play (and interpret, and run, and read Gygax, etc.) is actually D&D. For a hobby that happens between people at the table, that's just a joke. In spite of your many posts denouncing Onetruewayism, you are one of the worst offenders on this site.
Quote from: Bobloblah;553730Ben, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
I know that's exactly what you are talking about, and I am truly sorry, but I will NOT apologize for actually loving to play D&D, loving fighters and clerics and magic users as they are, to then bend over backwards to people who have every right to not like the game but want to screw with it to change it into something I don't like.
Fuck you.
I don't have to agree just because you have an opinion or a different taste than I. Fuck that politically correct bullshit.
Quote from: Marleycat;553694If not, why constantly bitch about it then?
1) Where do you see me constantly bitching about it? What is it by the way?
2) Assuming "it" is that the fighter is generally a crap idea and class, I "bitch" about it on TGD, and not here, because on TGD, I'm trying to make fantasy heartbreakers better. Mine and others.
Quote from: Marleycat;553694So we are back the fighter sucks because of a spell that may or may not work or even be in the game or the wizard have or prepared or whatever.
No, we are, for the first time, to the place where we say:
If a Fire Giant Skeleton is as good as a Fighter, then playing a Cleric with a Fire Giant Skeleton is superior to playing a Fighter. Because X + Y > Y.
Again, under the rules of 3.5 Animate Dead always works, and all (non good) Clerics can cast it. (Some people argue that good Clerics can also use it, I'm not too concerned with that.)
Quote from: Marleycat;553694Fix the fighter quit deflecting.
"Cool (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=34248) Story (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28828) Brah. (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28547) More (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=33294) Words (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=35813) because (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=51121) I needed (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50239&start=0) to finish linking."
Quote from: Marleycat;553694What does Benoist being a bully (he isn't) have to do with you bitching about theorectical situations?
Where am I bitching about theoretical situations? Please be specific, because this again falls under the thing where you think I am saying something I am not. I made the bold assertion that a Cleric can fight better than a Fighter, not that it is always the case, not that this is particularly a problem, none of these things, please confine your claims about what I have bitched about to things I have actually said.
Quote from: Marleycat;553694Yeah the cleric is possible in an imaginary bubble I could care less about, but then she isn't doing her actual job/function and everybody loses in the end.
Clerics don't have an "actual job/function" and no one loses.
Once again, you have failed to understand this. First off, that Cleric gives up none of his "Actual function" He can still cast Final Rebuke. He can still cast Invisibility Purge and True Seeing. He can still cast Heal.
Secondly, the Cleric doesn't have an actual function, because there is not rule making you only have one Cleric.
If you have a party of 4 people, and one plays a Wizard, and one a Rogue, and one a Cleric. The fourth person can choose Cleric instead of fighter. If they want to fight in melee, they can choose Druid, if they want to shoot bows, they can be a Cleric, and in either case they can choose to not be a fighter. And unless being such a class is completely incompatible with their character concept, they can just do that, and be better in combat, and be better out of combat as well. So they will do that.
And in no way does anyone suffer, no one in the party, and not the player, from having the person who would have played an Archer fighter play an Archer Cleric instead.
Quote from: Marleycat;553708I have already said to do it as an option what gets me is that they act like 4vengers and reek of Onetruewayism. Pretty much Brendan said it better already.
So, to be clear, when we say that we play one way and you play a different way, and we should each play different games because our preferences are different, that's Onetruewayism.
But when you say the Cleric is failing to perform his function, and Stormbringer says that we need to nerf the wizards because it's not okay for us to like 3e Wizards where they are, that's not Onetruewayism?
Quote from: Marleycat;553708I mean why can't you make 5e like 2e and greybox all sorts of stuff? It worked fine before why not now?
Go ahead? Who exactly is contending they can't? (I mean, besides Mearls.)
Quote from: Benoist;553731I know that's exactly what you are talking about, and I am truly sorry, but I will NOT apologize for actually loving to play D&D, loving fighters and clerics and magic users as they are, and bending over backwards to people who have every right to not like the game but want to screw with it to change it into something I don't like.
Fuck you.
I don't have to agree just because you have an opinion or a different taste than I. Fuck that politically correct bullshit.
Nice. Stay classy.
Doesn't appear you were asked to apologize for liking AD&D the way you play it. Doesn't mean everyone else played it just like you did. Also, as I'm sure you noticed, there have been several editions since the "fighters and clerics and magic users" you love were the norm. The only place they're "as they are" is in your own head (and of others playing that edition), and the old rulebooks you (and others) still own.
For someone who decries Onetruewayism from 4vengers, ranting about how what others are doing isn't D&D is little more than hypocrisy.
...and who said anything about you having to agree with me or anyone else? Agreeing with isn't the same as not going on your foul-mouthed little tirade about how oppressed you are. Give me a break.
Quote from: Bobloblah;553739Nice. Stay classy.
You started it with your "onetrueway" PC bullshit. You don't like it? Don't try to push that bullshit agenda where I'm the bad guy because I happen to like AD&D and don't like the idea of the game being bent out of shape to become something I will barely recognize as the game I love.
So let me repeat, with love: Fuck. You.
Quote from: Bobloblah;553739Doesn't appear you were asked to apologize for liking AD&D the way you play it.
Trying to run my actual tastes and opinions into the ground with that bullshit about onetrueway sure sounds like it. It's either trying to coopt the idea that having an actual preference you don't like when playing D&D is bad and shouldn't exist unless I bend my knee to suck your cock and say "I see where you come from... that's nice... please change the game however you like..." OR it's trying to vote me off the island by plebiscite. Either way, you're using that shit as a bludgeon, and you get a reaction from me, because I have a god damn right to like the game or edition I like, and not like other games and editions.
So let me repeat, with love: Fuck. You.
Quote from: Bobloblah;553739Doesn't mean everyone else played it just like you did.
I never said that, and as a matter of fact, pointed out the reverse in a number of threads.
So let me repeat, with love: Fuck. You.
Quote from: Bobloblah;553739Also, as I'm sure you noticed, there have been several editions since the "fighters and clerics and magic users" you love were the norm.
Aaand? Somehow that invalidates me having opinions, likes and dislikes, stops me from liking OAD&D, wanting to see the game return to those roots instead of changing it into yet another shitcake edition? Well... no. I don't think so.
So let me repeat, with love: Fuck. You.
Quote from: Bobloblah;553739The only place they're "as they are" is in your own head (and of others playing that edition), and the old rulebooks you (and others) still own.
Now that's very true. Does that stop me from wishing the new game would actually emulate this tradition instead of going for yet-another-spin-on-shitcake-edition-1213232? No. I don't think so.
So let me repeat, with love: Fuck. You.
Quote from: Bobloblah;553739For someone who decries Onetruewayism from 4vengers, ranting about how what others are doing isn't D&D is little more than hypocrisy.
That's because you are understanding my arguments to that effect in a way that is not actually consistent with the actual message. Actual D&D for me is something rather precise, and if you don't agree with it, well, we can debate it, but that sure as hell isn't going to change my mind just because you happen to have a different take than I do.
In any case, this doesn't stop you from playing what you see as actual D&D, doesn't stop you from enjoying whatever you enjoy, and I sure as hell won't tell you to stop gaming with the games you like on my account. Ever.
Now does that stop me from having my own take on the game, my own likes and dislikes, and ranting all I want about the stuff I don't think are consistent with the way I see D&D? Fuck no, it doesn't, and it will not.
"Onetrueway" is a bullshit meme used to bludgeon people who actually like other things than you do into shutting the hell up. That's politically correct bullshit of the highest order. You're not sitting at my game table. You don't have to give a shit what I say about D&D. You certainly don't have, and SHOULD NOT, stop playing the games you like on my account. But don't you tell me to shut up just because you don't agree with me. And that's what that garbage about "onetrueway! onetrueway!" does on gaming forums.
Fuck that noise. Fuck that political correctness.
So let me repeat, with love: Fuck. You.
Quote from: Bobloblah;553739...and who said anything about you having to agree with me or anyone else? Agreeing with isn't the same as not going on your foul-mouthed little tirade about how oppressed you are. Give me a break.
Well right back at ya, sweetheart. It's not because I have my likes and dislikes and gaming preferences and editions I like and do not like that you've got to go on a crusade PC-style with your "onetrueway" bullshit, you know? You can just walk by, post about the stuff you like yourself, move on and shit, or you can say, "well see, I actually enjoy this this and this and that's it". And we'd be done. But nooooo... you have to go with the "Ben is a bad guy because he likes this one thing at his game table and not all these others. Bad Ben! Baaad. Shut up troooolllololol."
So let me repeat, once again, with love: Fuck. You.
Oh the irony....
Quote from: Benoist;553742Now does that stop me from having my own take on the game, my own likes and dislikes, and ranting all I want about the stuff I don't think are consistent with the way I see D&D? Fuck no, it doesn't, and it will not.
It's only onetruewayism when someone else does it.
I think, essentially, you're saying that when you say "D&D" you mean "D&D as I enjoy it" and you expect other people to realize that you don't mean it's the only way to play. And that's fair enough, except of course you have a history of
not giving other people the same courtesy you're demanding of them.
That's the bullshit part.
Fucking Monkey Shit!
There are sane non assholes with reading comprehension on this forum!
Quote from: Benoist;553742You started it with your "onetrueway" PC bullshit. You don't like it? Don't try to push that bullshit agenda where I'm the bad guy because I happen to like AD&D and don't like the idea of the game being bent out of shape to become something I will barely recognize as the game I love.
Yeah, it's always someone else that started it with you, isn't it? Grow up. I was using the term that had already been used by multiple posters before me to keep with the flow of the conversation.
Quote from: Benoist;553742Trying to run my actual tastes and opinions into the ground with that bullshit about onetrueway sure sounds like it. It's either trying to coopt the idea that having an actual preference you don't like when playing D&D is bad and shouldn't exist unless I bend my knee to suck your cock and say "I see where you come from... that's nice... please change the game however you like..." OR it's trying to vote me off the island by plebiscite. Either way, you're using that shit as a bludgeon, and you get a reaction from me, because I have a god damn right to like the game or edition I like, and not like other games and editions.
While your persecution fantasy is fascinating, I've never tried to attack your tastes or opinions; you just made that up. My tastes in (A)D&D are much closer to yours than the tGD crowd. I am pointing out that saying someone who isn't doing it like you isn't playing D&D is asinine, particularly coming from you. Oh, and, once again, noone asked you to "get off the island" or give up the edition you like.
Quote from: Benoist;553742I never said that, and as a matter of fact, pointed out the reverse in a number of threads.
Sure, you never said that. Until someone suggests running the game more like the worst of 3.x or 4E, then the vitriol comes out. Then you imply they're not playing D&D. Or they're a liar. Or have a bad DM. Or are doing it wrong.
Quote from: Benoist;553742Aaand? Somehow that invalidates me having opinions, likes and dislikes, stops me from liking OAD&D, wanting to see the game return to those roots instead of changing it into yet another shitcake edition? Well... no. I don't think so.
Now that's very true. Does that stop me from wishing the new game would actually emulate this tradition instead of going for yet-another-spin-on-shitcake-edition-1213232? No. I don't think so.
This is relevant how? I haven't said it invalidates anything. I'm merely pointing out that not everyone agrees with that, in no small part because there have been a number of other editions since then. Saying that OAD&D is D&D, and newer editions aren't, is pretty much what people calling "onetruewayism" are referring to. It's not about your preferences. I couldn't care less about what your preferences are (might have a mild curiosity about
why they are). It's about denigrating others' preferences, and then them for having those preferences. It's about treating one version as being above criticism and without flaw.
Quote from: Benoist;553742That's because you are understanding my arguments to that effect in a way that is not actually consistent with the actual message. Actual D&D for something rather precise, and if you don't agree with it, well, we can debate it, but that sure as hell isn't going to change my mind just because you happen to have a different take than I do.
Right. Any possible miscommunication is obviously others' inability to apprehend your brilliance. I've seen you use this quite a bit, too. Regardless, saying a batch of rules that every game group interpreted differently are for something precise, as if they're holy writ from Gygax, is absurd. If anything, D&D's success has everything to do with the fact that every group could and did make something different out of the game.
Quote from: Benoist;553742In any case, this doesn't stop you from playing what you see as actual D&D, doesn't stop you from enjoying whatever you enjoy, and I sure as hell won't tell you to stop gaming with the games you like on my account. Ever.
That's good, since I haven't told you that either. Nor has anyone else that I've noticed recently, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
Quote from: Benoist;553742Now does that stop me from having my own take on the game, my own likes and dislikes, and ranting all I want about the stuff I don't think are consistent with the way I see D&D? Fuck no, it doesn't, and it will not.
Again, no one has said otherwise
Quote from: Benoist;553742"Onetrueway" is a bullshit meme used to bludgeon people who actually like other things than you do into shutting the hell up. That's politically correct bullshit of the highest order. You're not sitting at my game table. You don't have to give a shit what I say about D&D. You certainly don't have, and SHOULD NOT, stop playing the games you like on my account. But don't you tell me to shut up just because you don't agree with me. And that's what that garbage about "onetrueway! onetrueway!" does on gaming forums.
Not really. It mostly appears that you have no real understanding of what others mean when they use the term, particularly since no one is telling you to shut up.
Quote from: Benoist;553742political correctness
Oh, and I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what this term means, either.
Quote from: Benoist;553742Well right back at ya, sweetheart. It's not because I have my likes and dislikes and gaming preferences and editions I like and do not like that you've got to go on a crusade PC-style with your "onetrueway" bullshit, you know? You can just walk by, post about the stuff you like yourself, move on and shit, or you can say, "well see, I actually enjoy this this and this and that's it". And we'd be done. But nooooo... you have to go with the "Ben is a bad guy because he likes this one thing at his game table and not all these others. Bad Ben! Baaad. Shut up troooolllololol."
Sure. So can you. You don't actually do that, of course. You spend lots of your time here mocking people you disagree with, or spewing bile about people wanting something different. I'd say that makes you not much different than those you rail against.
For what it's worth, I never said you're a bad guy, or that there was anything wrong with your preferences. I can't be sure if you really don't grasp that, or if you're just being intentionally obtuse.
Quote from: jibbajibba;553715People might argue that your 'clerics have to follow a set role' is more Onetruewayism and I think I have seen more of that from the OSR Mafia than the GD Posse.
If you start from the position of the character as a gamepiece or set of powers, of course you don't care about your character's role in the gameworld.
There is no "D&D" it does not exist.
There is 0D&D, BD&D (Holmes, Moldvay and Mentzer), AD&D1, AD&D2, 3e, 3.5e, PF, 4e, 5e.
There is no "D&D" it does not exist.
Quote from: CRKrueger;553772If you start from the position of the character as a gamepiece or set of powers, of course you don't care about your character's role in the gameworld.
I have difficulty seeing how your character
isn't, effectively, your gamepiece, as it's the intermediary between you and the game world; maybe you have a specific definition of gamepiece in mind when you say that?
As for a character's role in the world, is the AD&D 1E Cleric the only possible role for that "type" of class?
Quote from: Bobloblah;553769I am pointing out that saying someone who isn't doing it like you isn't playing D&D is asinine.
That's the crux of the problem IMO. It's not asinine when you put yourself in my shoes and try to understand what I define as D&D. And yes, you bet your ass it's a miscommunication problem. When I say that this or that is not D&D, it's means it's not D&D as I define it, from my point of view, which is a game of exploration with "dungeons" and "dragons", which is a game that is based on a milieu to explore, with "dungeons" (locales to explore, in and outdoors) and "dragons" (various forms of threats and challenges), etc etc. I've explained it many times.
Now you might not agree with the way I define "D&D", and you have every right to disagree, which however does NOT make any such disagreement equally right from my POV just by virtue of existing. If the only argument that's opposed to whatever I say is "onetrueway!" you bet your ass I'm going to tell you to fuck off. And I certainly don't like being bullied into shutting up because disagreeing with the lot of you makes me, to you, sound like I'm shitting on your game.
Play however you like! Just don't make me call it "D&D" if I don't think it is.
Some way in which you choose to play D&D might not be "D&D" to me, just like playing RuneQuest or Vampire of whatever the fuck else isn't "D&D". And I really don't give a shit how this or that edition of the game after OAD&D tried to redefine it, as they are trying to do right now with Next's design. That's it. Period. The end.
Quote from: CRKrueger;553772If you start from the position of the character as a gamepiece or set of powers, of course you don't care about your character's role in the gameworld.
Except for the part where the people being accused of Onetruewayism are the people who think that Clerics of Kord or Ares should beat people up, and the people accusing those people of Onetruewayism are the ones saying that Clerics of Kord and Ares better stand in the back and cast Restoration like a good little boy, or else their god will get mad at them for fighting.
It's pretty obvious that AD&D people (or at least the ones who throw hissy fits about characters) see Cleric as a specific game function that must be fulfilled, and not as a character who does what makes the most sense for that character.
Quote from: Kaelik;553779It's pretty obvious that AD&D people (or at least the ones who throw hissy fits about characters) see Cleric as a specific game function that must be fulfilled, and not as a character who does what makes the most sense for that character.
There wasn't much available, mechanically speaking, in editions before AD&D2E that allowed you to customize a character around (what I would call) a concept in the way you're suggesting.
EDIT: I'd argue that that change was the first major split in the D&D player-base.
Quote from: Bobloblah;553776I have difficulty seeing how your character isn't, effectively, your gamepiece, as it's the intermediary between you and the game world; maybe you have a specific definition of gamepiece in mind when you say that?
Gamepiece similar to chesspiece, you don't think of whether a Rook is Buckingham Palace or the Tower of London, it's existence is nothing outside it's power set - ie the way you can move. 3.0 as the first post-MMOG D&D was the first to really incorporate this view of a player character as nothing more then a frame for powers. The character has no "is", only what it "does". Does every 3e or 4e player view the game this way, of course not, but the CharOp crowd clearly does. A build is judged solely on mechanical advantage and rules legality, whether or not that build actually fit in with the setting isn't even a consideration.
Quote from: Bobloblah;553776As for a character's role in the world, is the AD&D 1E Cleric the only possible role for that "type" of class?
In AD&D1, pretty much. The AD&D1 Cleric cannot buff himself up to be better then an AD&D1 fighter. He can fight, but the Fighter is better, he can fry people with spells but the Magic-User is better, but he can Heal better then anyone. Now he has plate armor, and shield and magical weapons and can wear some strength gear and can kick ass fighting. So it's perfectly acceptable for a Cleric of Ares to whup some ass. However, as a Cleric of a God of War, he job is to win wars. Sometimes that means realizing that it's is better to support the actual warriors then attempt to outdo them (which in AD&D1 you CANNOT do unless you have vastly superior levels or items.)
If you're using houserules where a AD&D1 cleric had different spells based on God, then you could have some Clerics for which healing wasn't a main feature of the class. But for the bog-standard Cleric, they are a Primary Healer, Secondary Fighter, Secondary Caster.
The 3e Cleric can very easily buff himself up to be better then a 3e Fighter. So, if a cleric worships a Berserker God and turns himself into a Berserker via spells, go for it. The error 3e made was making a lot of those spells self only. Because if the Cleric's natural fighting ability is X and the Fighter's natural fighting ability is 2X and the Cleric's spells can double your fighting ability, well then it makes sense to cast those spells on the Fighter, because he would get a better use out of them, thus allowing the party to win easier. However, 3e made it more efficient for the Cleric to cast those spells on himself.
Quote from: Bobloblah;553781There wasn't much available, mechanically speaking, in editions before AD&D2E that allowed you to customize a character around (what I would call) a concept in the way you're suggesting.
EDIT: I'd argue that that change was the first major split in the D&D player-base.
While I can agree for OD&D, 2e has plenty of that, and it was specifically decried way the fuck earlier in this thread by the legions of grognardia, where Benoist specifically stated that if a bad stupid 2e Cleric of Kord traded some but not all of his spheres for a fighters to hit table, weapon specialization, and some other shit, that he would personally kick that player out of his group for not playing his character right because Clerics are supposed to sit in the corner and healbot.
Quote from: Bobloblah;553769Quote from: Benoist;553742political correctness
Oh, and I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what this term means, either.
"Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent."
Though "onetrueway" is not in itself a PC expression, you bet your ass it denotes political correctness, because it promotes exactly this idea that one shouldn't offend anyone, that you ought to sing kumbaya and put stickers of "I'm with D&D, all editions" on your car to be able to say a god damn thing about what you like and dislike on a gaming forum.
It is trying to bludgeon dissent into the ground, that if you're not actually liking any other way than your way, no matter the actual value of that way in and of itself, you must be silenced by all the good thinking people who, themselves, think and post "correctly."
Fuck that noise, man. That's a total non-argument.
Yeah, stop trying to shut down the conversation when Bennie is trying to do it all by himself!
Quote from: CRKrueger;553783Gamepiece similar to chesspiece, you don't think of whether a Rook is Buckingham Palace or the Tower of London, it's existence is nothing outside it's power set - ie the way you can move. 3.0 as the first post-MMOG D&D was the first to really incorporate this view of a player character as nothing more then a frame for powers. The character has no "is", only what it "does". Does every 3e or 4e player view the game this way, of course not, but the CharOp crowd clearly does. A build is judged solely on mechanical advantage and rules legality, whether or not that build actually fit in with the setting isn't even a consideration.
In AD&D1, pretty much. The AD&D1 Cleric cannot buff himself up to be better then an AD&D1 fighter. He can fight, but the Fighter is better, he can fry people with spells but the Magic-User is better, but he can Heal better then anyone.
If you're using houserules where a AD&D1 cleric had different spells based on God, then you could have some Clerics for which healing wasn't a main feature of the class. But for the bog-standard Cleric, they are a Primary Healer, Secondary Fighter, Secondary Caster.
The 3e Cleric can very easily buff himself up to be better then a 3e Fighter. So, if a cleric worships a Berserker God and turns himself into a Berserker via spells, go for it. The error 3e made was making a lot of those spells self only. Because if the Cleric's natural fighting ability is X and the Fighter's natural fighting ability is 2X and the Cleric's spells can double your fighting ability, well then it makes sense to cast those spells on the Fighter, because he would get a better use out of them, thus allowing the party to win easier. However, 3e made it more efficient for the Cleric to cast those spells on himself.
Ah, yes. I agree with pretty much everything you're saying. My personal sweet-spot for the Cleric/Priest was probably the 2E Priest's Handbook; it meant a character was truly -of-a-specific-god, which I liked. Wasn't without it's own problems, though, not least of which was the potential loss of a character in the previous edition's Clerical role.
Quote from: KenHR;553787Yeah, stop trying to shut down the conversation when Bennie is trying to do it all by himself!
You owe me a new keyboard - I just snarfed on mine.
Quote from: Benoist;553785"Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent."
Though "onetrueway" is not in itself a PC expression, you bet your ass it denotes political correctness, because it promotes exactly this idea that one shouldn't offend anyone, that you ought to sing kumbaya and put stickers of "I'm with D&D, all editions" on your car to be able to say a god damn thing about what you like and dislike on a gaming forum.
It is trying to bludgeon dissent into the ground, that if you're not actually liking any other way than your way, no matter the actual value of that way in and of itself, you must be silenced by all the good thinking people who, themselves, think and post "correctly."
Fuck that noise, man. That's a total non-argument.
You are completely incorrect. Social and institutional offense is different from personal offense. PC does not require or encourage opposing personal speech that gives offense.
Fuck it. I really have no time to waste on this shit exchange.
Quote from: Benoist;553791Fuck it. I really have no time to waste on this shit exchange.
And yet...
Everybody else? "One True Way" is just one of Benoist's berserk buttons. Yes, he engages in it all the time himself and he's hypocritical as all hell, but the vitriol and bile gets much, much worse if you actually point it out to him. It's like a red flag in front of a bull.
Quote from: Benoist;553791Fuck it. I really have no time to waste on this shit exchange.
153 pages of intermittent bitching would tend to disagree with you.
Hey, I get sucked in sometimes too. ;)
Quote from: Benoist;553778Now you might not agree with the way I define "D&D", and you have every right to disagree, which however does NOT make any such disagreement equally right from my POV just by virtue of existing. If the only argument that's opposed to whatever I say is "onetrueway!" you bet your ass I'm going to tell you to fuck off. And I certainly don't like being bullied into shutting up because disagreeing with the lot of you makes me, to you, sound like I'm shitting on your game.
And this is true of every poster that you have ever called a 4venger or whatever.
What you're lacking is perspective. You're telling people that they need to realize you're only sharing your point of view, and yet you refuse to realize the same about other people. Someone says something positive about 4E and you go apeshit, even though they were just relating their perspective on what they enjoy about D&D. That's the bullshit part, as I've said before.
Quote from: KenHR;553787Yeah, stop trying to shut down the conversation when Bennie is trying to do it all by himself!
What conversation is that? There is no conversation just alot of yelling and nonsense and builds that never occur for 99% of players in an actual game. Or about things that should be a non-issue for most players and DM's not treating rpg's as some competitive sport or the olympics.
On the otherhand 473 posts to go Aos.:D
Quote from: daniel_ream;553793It's like a red flag in front of a bull.
It's like
waving a flag in front of a bull. Bulls are colour blind. You cunt! Or something. I'm really not sure how to get properly worked up about inconsequential things, even after having read (much of) this thread.
Quote from: Fifth Element;553808I'm really not sure how to get properly worked up about inconsequential things, even after having read (much of) this thread.
Then failed already, you have.
Quote from: Kaelik;5537321) Where do you see me constantly bitching about it? What is it by the way?
The broken rules in 3.x that make the Fighter useless. So much so, you want to abandon the entire class and make everyone a sort of spellcaster. Welcome to 4e.
Quote2) Assuming "it" is that the fighter is generally a crap idea and class, I "bitch" about it on TGD, and not here, because on TGD, I'm trying to make fantasy heartbreakers better. Mine and others.
No, you bitch about it here because you can't possibly imagine that no one else sees DA TROOF you are preaching. You have already decided on a solution, and anyone that doesn't support that is a mortal enemy.
QuoteNo, we are, for the first time, to the place where we say:
If a Fire Giant Skeleton is as good as a Fighter, then playing a Cleric with a Fire Giant Skeleton is superior to playing a Fighter. Because X + Y > Y.
Again, under the rules of 3.5 Animate Dead always works, and all (non good) Clerics can cast it. (Some people argue that good Clerics can also use it, I'm not too concerned with that.)
Sure, but under the
game of 3.5, Animate Dead is allowed to have restrictions. Nothing larger than a human, for example. See how easy that is? I just fixed the problem you expressed. You don't have to like that solution. We can certainly discuss variations or other solutions. For example, you actually need a Fire Giant Skeleton handy to animate it. But if your only response is "But the
rules allow you to always animate giants/dragons/
", it's going to be a pretty short conversation, because you are immediately dismissing a valid and proven solution to the problem.
Quote"Cool (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=34248) Story (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28828) Brah. (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28547) More (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=33294) Words (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=35813) because (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=51121) I needed (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50239&start=0) to finish linking."
I mentioned the Tomes earlier. Also how they are entirely for very high-powered games, and are generally get a lukewarm reception from gamers. So flogging these as some kind of end result is futile, because they only really appeal to TGD folks, and the Tome of Gears (if I recall) is incomplete.
QuoteWhere am I bitching about theoretical situations? Please be specific, because this again falls under the thing where you think I am saying something I am not. I made the bold assertion that a Cleric can fight better than a Fighter, not that it is always the case, not that this is particularly a problem, none of these things, please confine your claims about what I have bitched about to things I have actually said.
Asserting that the Cleric can fight better than the Fighter is theoretical, by definition. Let me repeat that: the Cleric can fight better than the Fighter. That is a theory. The converse theory is that the Fighter can fight better than the Cleric. There is evidence for both. Most of it, however, isn't self evident. You point to the first theory and support it with broken rules combinations and/or strict adherence to the rules as written, then extrapolate this premise to all levels and then propose that the Fighter class itself should be removed altogether.
QuoteClerics don't have an "actual job/function" and no one loses.
Once again, you have failed to understand this. First off, that Cleric gives up none of his "Actual function" He can still cast Final Rebuke. He can still cast Invisibility Purge and True Seeing. He can still cast Heal.
Secondly, the Cleric doesn't have an actual function, because there is not rule making you only have one Cleric.
If you have a party of 4 people, and one plays a Wizard, and one a Rogue, and one a Cleric. The fourth person can choose Cleric instead of fighter. If they want to fight in melee, they can choose Druid, if they want to shoot bows, they can be a Cleric, and in either case they can choose to not be a fighter. And unless being such a class is completely incompatible with their character concept, they can just do that, and be better in combat, and be better out of combat as well. So they will do that.
And in no way does anyone suffer, no one in the party, and not the player, from having the person who would have played an Archer fighter play an Archer Cleric instead.
This is where strict adherence to the rules fails. Of course the Cleric has a "job". Ultimately, they should be proselytising for their deity. That can get a bit dull if your players aren't philosophically inclined, so most groups don't engage in that. Beyond that, they are the second line Fighter and utility spell caster, with a few offensive capabilities thrown in.
Now, here is the really, really important part: if you don't want Clerics that are better than the Fighter, fix it. If you only want to demand other people accept your premises or solutions, you are wrong. You stamp your feet and throw a fit because theRPGsite isn't totally supportive of your argument. Tough shit. You claim you are working to correct this 'issue', then again stamp your feet because it isn't universally accepted as the 'correct' fix.
You continually link to the Tomes. Frank and K's Tomes aren't the answer for everyone. Hell, they aren't even the answer for you, otherwise you would just point to those and go back to playing. You know Frank isn't going to adopt your suggestions because they are as poorly received over there as they have been here. Pointing to the Tomes, then, only undermines your argument because you don't even use them. Not as written, certainly, because they have Fighter classes, which you have condemned in no uncertain terms.
QuoteSo, to be clear, when we say that we play one way and you play a different way, and we should each play different games because our preferences are different, that's Onetruewayism.
No, not even close. Frank is staunchly 'one true way', because everyone must play that way, or they are stupid. What people here are telling you is that if the very basis of D&D is not to your liking, you would probably be better served playing something else. Your solutions are so radically different than what D&D offers, you will end up with so many re-writes it will be a different game anyway. You appear to prefer something like a classless skill system. There are plenty of those. RuneQuest (or Basic Role Playing, if you don't like Glorantha) being the most notable. If you prefer, you can get a text only developer's version of OpenQuest (http://d101games.co.uk/books/openquest/) for free, and make your own game from there. But D&D isn't well suited to a classless system, and the idea itself isn't going to get much traction from veterans of the game.
QuoteBut when you say the Cleric is failing to perform his function, and Stormbringer says that we need to nerf the wizards because it's not okay for us to like 3e Wizards where they are, that's not Onetruewayism?
I said no such thing. What power levels you have for Wizard's is your business, not mine. But if you want to make the argument that Fighters are completely useless because Wizards, then you primarily have the two choices I delineated before. There are other choices, of course, but those also bear consequences.
Quote from: Kaelik;553767Fucking Monkey Shit!
There are sane non assholes with reading comprehension on this forum!
Sadly, I have a strong feeling this means "people who agree with me". If that is what you thought you would find here in abundance, you are going to be sorely disappointed.
Quote from: Kaelik;553779Except for the part where the people being accused of Onetruewayism are the people who think that Clerics of Kord or Ares should beat people up, and the people accusing those people of Onetruewayism are the ones saying that Clerics of Kord and Ares better stand in the back and cast Restoration like a good little boy, or else their god will get mad at them for fighting.
It's pretty obvious that AD&D people (or at least the ones who throw hissy fits about characters) see Cleric as a specific game function that must be fulfilled, and not as a character who does what makes the most sense for that character.
What makes the most sense is for a Cleric of Ares to go in and beat the hell out of people, while a Cleric of Demeter is healing the hell out of people.
Quote from: Marleycat;553807There is no conversation just alot of yelling and nonsense and builds that never occur for 99% of players in an actual game.
I summon Stormbringer, the master of sample sizes, to inform you that you do not have a sufficiently large (and frankly, random) sample size to make the claim that the build of "Cleric who casts Animate Dead" never occurs for 99% of players in actual games
.
Quote from: Kaelik;553814I summon Stormbringer, the master of sample sizes, to inform you that you do not have a sufficiently large (and frankly, random) sample size to make the claim that the build of "Cleric who casts Animate Dead" never occurs for 99% of players in actual games.
Look, dude, you claimed that Frank had the vast majority of the internet in agreement with him. You then tried to weasel out of it by claiming Frank said that and you were just paraphrasing, which never happened. Own up to it instead of whining all the time, and you might garner a bit of respect.
Quote from: Kaelik;553814I summon Stormbringer, the master of sample sizes, to inform you that you do not have a sufficiently large (and frankly, random) sample size to make the claim that the build of "Cleric who casts Animate Dead" never occurs for 99% of players in actual games.
Your point being? Animate Dead is not going to replace a PC unless your allowing truly stupid shenagenians. Either way I don't see your point at all unless it's "since you claimed this I can claim that".
By the way I'm just here to get this thread to 2000 posts the subject has already been argued out and solutions provided. Take them or leave them it matters little to me.:)
Quote from: Fifth Element;553806And this is true of every poster that you have ever called a 4venger or whatever.
What you're lacking is perspective. You're telling people that they need to realize you're only sharing your point of view, and yet you refuse to realize the same about other people. Someone says something positive about 4E and you go apeshit, even though they were just relating their perspective on what they enjoy about D&D. That's the bullshit part, as I've said before.
Actually no, here we've had some serious 4vengers and some still pop up here to be snarky even though WotC pulled their fangs.
Part of the problem is that everyone uses the term "D&D" when there is no such thing. If people want to discuss Vampire, usually people don't say Vampire, they say VtM or VtR because those are two very different games. Yet people say D&D when AD&D1 is much more different from 3e or 4e then any WoD game is from another WoD game. People on the Gurps boards say Gurps 3 or Gurps 4 as if the difference is titanic, yet the differences are infinitesimal next to the difference between 1 and 3/4 (or even 3 and 4).
Quote from: CRKrueger;553823Actually no, here we've had some serious 4vengers and some still pop up here to be snarky even though WotC pulled their fangs.
Part of the problem is that everyone uses the term "D&D" when there is no such thing. If people want to discuss Vampire, usually people don't say Vampire, they say VtM or VtR because those are two very different games. Yet people say D&D when AD&D1 is much more different from 3e or 4e then any WoD game is from another WoD game. People on the Gurps boards say Gurps 3 or Gurps 4 as if the difference is titanic, yet the differences are infinitesimal next to the difference between 1 and 3/4 (or even 3 and 4).
Excellent point. I do try to say "AD&D" to make the difference clear, and "AD&D 1st edition" if there is further clarity needed. I do use "D&D" when talking about over all themes, like class/level, spells, or hit points. I don't always succeed.
Quote from: CRKrueger;553823Actually no, here we've had some serious 4vengers and some still pop up here to be snarky even though WotC pulled their fangs.
Part of the problem is that everyone uses the term "D&D" when there is no such thing. If people want to discuss Vampire, usually people don't say Vampire, they say VtM or VtR because those are two very different games. Yet people say D&D when AD&D1 is much more different from 3e or 4e then any WoD game is from another WoD game. People on the Gurps boards say Gurps 3 or Gurps 4 as if the difference is titanic, yet the differences are infinitesimal next to the difference between 1 and 3/4 (or even 3 and 4).
Excellent point when I talk about Mage I usually specify MtAs or MtAw if it's anything beyond a broad general point. Dnd would be better served if it's fans did the same. For example for me Dnd makes me think 1/2e and sometimes 3e in specific cases.
Quote from: CRKrueger;553823Actually no, here we've had some serious 4vengers and some still pop up here to be snarky even though WotC pulled their fangs.
I did consider adding (almost) before "every" in my post, but figured that would cause more problems than it would solve.
Quote from: Marleycat;553820Your point being? Animate Dead is not going to replace a PC unless your allowing truly stupid shenagenians.
If by "stupid shenagenians" you mean, "casting the spell at any point in time and using it reasonably at all" then yes.
I agree, the Cleric would have to actually cast the spell before it would be as strong as a fighter.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813The broken rules in 3.x that make the Fighter useless.
Not bitching about those here. Frankly, I have no problem with the rules that make the fighter useless, the only change I would make to the fighter is writing NPC next to his name.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813So much so, you want to abandon the entire class and make everyone a sort of spellcaster. Welcome to 4e.
See, when I play 3e in a group of Cleric/Beguiler/Druid/Wizard, we are not playing 4e. Because it turns out, the defining characteristic of 4e's shittiness is not that everyone "casts spells" it's that all of those spells are shitty. Hence why I prefer to work of a 3.5 base where there are at least 3 (and as many as 8 when you include a bunch of supplements) classes that are actually interesting and capable in the game, and then just make more classes that don't suck to fill in the missing conceptual space.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813No, you bitch about it here because you can't possibly imagine that no one else sees DA TROOF you are preaching. You have already decided on a solution, and anyone that doesn't support that is a mortal enemy.
Not bitching about anything here. I have never once on this thread talked about how the rules need to be changed, except when I directly quoted myself from a thread on TGD, which is of course, were I suggest changes to the people that will benefit from them.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813Sure, but under the game of 3.5, Animate Dead is allowed to have restrictions. Nothing larger than a human, for example.
Under the "game" of 3.5, you can also just bring a shotgun, and murder your players. But like banning animate dead from working on large or larger creatures, that would be unproductive towards accomplishing the goal that most people have.
Most people want Necromancers to be able to ride a Dragon zombie while having an elite cadre of Giant Skeletons guarding their lair. So any changes you implement that make that story impossible defeat the ability of the game to tell the stories you want to tell, and make the game worse.
Since I, and my players, and my DMs, and most people on TGD want specifically that story to exist, we don't want that arbitrary and shitty limit. We want to play a different game, where Wizards can do that shit, and everyone else in the party can still be meaningful at the same time.
Hence why you did not fix my problem. Because my problem is not that someone made a Skeleton Giant, my problem is that the fighter is weaker than a Skeleton Giant.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813See how easy that is? I just fixed the problem you expressed.
Nope, you fixed a problem you saw with a situation, I didn't express that problem.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813For example, you actually need a Fire Giant Skeleton handy to animate it.
Yes, good thing Clerics can cast Commune and Divination if they want huh. So can Wizards for that matter, and Contact Other Plane.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813But if your only response is "But the rules allow you to always animate giants/dragons/", it's going to be a pretty short conversation, because you are immediately dismissing a valid and proven solution to the problem.
No, my response is that the rules allow the Cleric to Animate Dead, and that's a good thing. The bad thing that needs fixing is that a Fighter does not serve any purpose that a Skeleton Fire Giant doesn't serve as well. That's the problem.
Adding a new problem (Don't let anyone make powerful minions) is just the 4e non solution of making everyone suck for "balance."
Quote from: StormBringer;553813I mentioned the Tomes earlier. Also how they are entirely for very high-powered games, and are generally get a lukewarm reception from gamers. So flogging these as some kind of end result is futile, because they only really appeal to TGD folks, and the Tome of Gears (if I recall) is incomplete.
There can always be more supplemental material, but as it stands, I finished Tome of Gear items, they just aren't good enough that I don't want to make a better system. Still better than the item system in 2e/3e/4e, but that's not saying much.
However, once again, the fact that other people who are not me have a lukewarm reception of Tomes is not relevant to demands that we stop talking about making a game better, and go make a game that conforms to our preferences. We did it already. Great, other people don't share our preferences, so fucking what, we never claimed they did. And yes, they are for high powered games. Because once again, we want high powered games. So we made a game that gives us what we want. And now, we spend a bunch of time fighting about how to make that already awesome game better.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813You point to the first theory and support it with broken rules combinations and/or strict adherence to the rules as written, then extrapolate this premise to all levels and then propose that the Fighter class itself should be removed altogether.
I don't extrapolate anything to all levels. I merely made the statement that such a Cleric is possible. Then a bunch of people said it was impossible for a variety of stupid reasons.
As for removing the fighter, that has nothing to do with the fighter being less powerful. Give +100 AB to the fighter at level 1, now he's not weaker than anyone for many levels. Trivially stupid.
I think the fighter needs to be removed because conceptually the fighter brings absolutely nothing I want to the game that other classes don't bring. It does however encourage people to play a variety of boring characters that don't belong in the high powered game I do want to play. So for any game for me or for someone with generally similar preferences to me, such as people on TGD, I suggest ways to improve the game by removing the fighter.
I of course, don't suggest those on this forum, because you people want something completely different.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813This is where strict adherence to the rules fails. Of course the Cleric has a "job". Ultimately, they should be proselytising for their deity. That can get a bit dull if your players aren't philosophically inclined, so most groups don't engage in that. Beyond that, they are the second line Fighter and utility spell caster, with a few offensive capabilities thrown in.
No. Those are things they can do. (Preaching is a job, even though not all gods want that, but the other stuff, second line fighter/utility caster/offensive spells, that's just stuff they can do).
That is not their job. If someone wants to play a Cleric of Kord who is a frontline fighter and nothing else, that's perfectly fine. Because utility caster is not a job that Clerics have to do. If someone wants to play a Cleric of Wee Jas who Animates a bunch of skeleton minions, and does all the front line fighting for the party that way, while casting offensive spells and never second line fighting himself, that's also something he can do.
Cleric is not a job that a party member has to do, if you play in a party of Wizard/Cleric/Cleric/Cleric, that's fine, and not one or any of those clerics has to be a utility caster.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813Now, here is the really, really important part: if you don't want Clerics that are better than the Fighter, fix it.
And this leads me to the really important part for the billionth time. I don't have a problem with Clerics fighting better than a fighter. It's not a problem for me.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813If you only want to demand other people accept your premises or solutions, you are wrong.
Which is why I have not once at any point demanded even once in this thread that you people accept my premises or solutions (Except the true premise that as it currently stands in 3e, you can make fighters feel like crap with Clerics, but truthfully, I haven't been demanding you accept that either).
Quote from: StormBringer;553813You stamp your feet and throw a fit because theRPGsite isn't totally supportive of your argument.
Nope, I still don't do that. I still don't care if you are supportive of my argument about fighters, because I never even presented that argument to this thread, except as a point of fact that it exists, and I talk about it on TGD.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813You continually link to the Tomes. Frank and K's Tomes aren't the answer for everyone.
Never said they were. Only said they were the answer for people with the same preferences I have. You know, when you kept whining about how we should fix it, and I kept pointing out we had. Don't care if it's the fix you want. Because it's the fix I want.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813Hell, they aren't even the answer for you, otherwise you would just point to those and go back to playing.
Hey dumb fuck, playing and enjoying a game does not mean that you can never talk about it on the internet. I am not playing StarCraft II right now. That doesn't mean I hate it and refuse to play it. It means I have a variety of things I like to do, including play StarCraft II, Tome games, and talk on the internet.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813You know Frank isn't going to adopt your suggestions because they are as poorly received over there as they have been here.
You obviously haven't been paying attention, because Frank agrees that no class should be called Fighter. The Tome Fighter is only called that because it's a nod towards compatibility with 3.5 that makes the game slightly worse by it's inclusion.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813Pointing to the Tomes, then, only undermines your argument because you don't even use them.
Yes, I do, that's the point. I also use all my rules on top of the Tomes. Which you would have seen if you looked at all the links.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813Not as written, certainly, because they have Fighter classes, which you have condemned in no uncertain terms.
I have condemned many things. But I know the difference between "the best there is" and "perfect" so I use the Tomes, and just discourage people from playing the stupid boring classes.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813What people here are telling you is that if the very basis of D&D is not to your liking, you would probably be better served playing something else. Your solutions are so radically different than what D&D offers, you will end up with so many re-writes it will be a different game anyway.
Aside from that fact that is not what they are saying, if they were saying that, I would point out that they are wrong. 3.5 D&D, limited to only full casters, is already the closest thing to what I want that exists anywhere.
While I arguably could design a game from scratch that would be better, I don't have that much free time on my hands, so for me it seems easier to modify the already very close game, and play it during my free time, instead of waiting a few years till I produce the game that is even better, then try to convince people to play that.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813You appear to prefer something like a classless skill system.
You appear to be incapable of determining what I prefer. I do not prefer classless systems. Objecting to one class conceptually (or even two or three) does not mean I want a classless system.
Quote from: StormBringer;553813Sadly, I have a strong feeling this means "people who agree with me". If that is what you thought you would find here in abundance, you are going to be sorely disappointed.
Nope, as far as I can tell Bobloblah disagrees with me about a number of things. But so far he has been able to see that I am not contending that everyone on this forum must play a game I like, so he's pretty sane and reasonable so far.
QuoteIf by "stupid shenagenians" you mean, "casting the spell at any point in time and using it reasonably at all" then yes.
I agree, the Cleric would have to actually cast the spell before it would be as strong as a fighter.
Would you think using that spell would be evil with a capital E and wouldn't you think the reprecussions of doing so for most clerics be likely more trouble than it's worth? If not, you aren't playing in any baseline Dnd game. But that's your business if you are having issues because you've removed limits and/or logic out of your game. It's not a style I would play but good luck with it.
Jesus. Don't you lot have homes to go to?
Quote from: One Horse Town;553848Jesus. Don't you lot have homes to go to?
Dan, someone on the Internet is wrong, this is no time for humor.
Quote from: One Horse Town;553848Jesus. Don't you lot have homes to go to?
I'm at work.:D
Quote from: Kaelik;553732No, we are, for the first time, to the place where we say:
If a Fire Giant Skeleton is as good as a Fighter, then playing a Cleric with a Fire Giant Skeleton is superior to playing a Fighter. Because X + Y > Y.
Again, under the rules of 3.5 Animate Dead always works, and all (non good) Clerics can cast it. (Some people argue that good Clerics can also use it, I'm not too concerned with that.)
In my opinion, this analysis is not accurate.
The giant skeleton might have the same (or higher) contribution to damage that the fighter, but the fighter could still be the best option for defense.
In other words:
Party A is a cleric with 100 hit points and a epic flesh golem with a zillion hit points.
Party B is a fighter with 200 hit points.
Apply a super-maximized unblockable fireball doing 101 damage to both parties.
Now do your analysis again on which party is better.
Same deal with hirelings in older editions. The L10 fighter who can hire a L10 wizard, is a better character than the L10 wizard who can hire a L10 fighter; 35 damage to the PC wizard party means 'fade to black', 35 damage to the PC fighter party results in the fighter having reduced operating expenses.
As an aside, I think people lose track of how much more lethal older edition D&D was than 3.5. Being nigh indestructible isn't worth much, where no one ever dies.
Quote from: Marleycat;553850I'm at work.:D
I roll to disbelieve.
Is 13 good enough for a 6th level Pedant?
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;553853In my opinion, this analysis is not accurate.
The giant skeleton might have the same (or higher) contribution to damage that the fighter, but the fighter could still be the best option for defense.
3.5 Clerics are generally defensively superior to fighters, so that isn't really the case.
Quote from: Marleycat;553846Would you think using that spell would be evil with a capital E and wouldn't you think the reprecussions of doing so for most clerics be likely more trouble than it's worth? If not, you aren't playing in any baseline Dnd game..
No, casting Animate Dead does not have repercussions that are more trouble than it's worth for most Clerics. That's the thing. I get that you guys have some weird houserules were all Clerics have to be Clerics of Pelor, but that's not in the rules. For most Clerics, casting Animate Dead doesn't do anything other than give you a beatstick or 5. For some Clerics, it is more trouble than it's worth, which is why those few Clerics don't do that.
But I'm genuinely curious, because you guys fap to this Capital E evil thing all the time, what do you think the disadvantages to being a Wizard who worships Vecna or a Cleric of Vecna even are? Because... there actually aren't any in 3e Greyhawk.
Quote from: One Horse Town;553854I roll to disbelieve.
Is 13 good enough for a 6th level Pedant?
Since I really am at work uninfortunately no.:D
(Life's good sometimes).
QuoteBut I'm genuinely curious, because you guys fap to this Capital E evil thing all the time, what do you think the disadvantages to being a Wizard who worships Vecna or a Cleric of Vecna even are? Because... there actually aren't any in 3e Greyhawk.
This a serious question?
Quote from: Marleycat;553859This a serious question?
Yes, really. And while you are at it, you can explain why you think Clerics of Boccob and Fharlanghn are going to be murdered by their gods for casting Animate Dead.
Quote from: One Horse Town;553848Jesus. Don't you lot have homes to go to?
I know I'm finding it just about impossible to keep up as this thing flies by 10 pages every time I try to maintain bodily functions, like sleep.
I wanted to comment that it is easier to add to a core system than subtract, just like it's easier to build up a different tower of blocks with the same foundation than subtract your way to it like Jenga. Thus petitioning that fighter v. caster is a problem that requires a Wuxia solution actively hurts AD&D because it sets the new core baseline with a pre-constructed whole, requiring reduction down to its foundation to achieve OSR. What is more sensible is to grey box (make optional) those higher powered ideas, but stick with the older OSR core as foundation.
This has nothing to do with not listening to another viewpoint. It has everything to do with stating the other viewpoint is wrong on a design sense. Making the game more complicated by default, requiring players new and old to play Jenga to bring it down to OSR style of play, walks away from 25 years of history supporting ease of startup play. Ease of startup play is crucial to maintain popular evergreen longevity for this game, instead of for niche hobbyists (see: popular consciousness of Risk v. Advanced Squad Leader, even though I prefer ASL).
Catering to a style of play that hasn't found its Holy Grail of System Programming v. an established one that already went with the flow using the ever-so-flexible empowered GM judgment is just
bad business for AD&D's evergreen longevity. If you hated old AD&D that you need to twink it into some new D&D, fine. But at least leave an easily approachable baseline for the following generations. KISS design stands the test of time for a reason.
Quote from: Kaelik;5538553.5 Clerics are generally defensively superior to fighters, so that isn't really the case.
Should have clarified; I quoted you, but I'm not really picking at you specifically; more the sort of general assumptions in the argument, since its coming up over and over.
Quote from: Kaelik;553837Yes, good thing Clerics can cast Commune and Divination if they want huh. So can Wizards for that matter, and Contact Other Plane.
And this is why you are only here to troll. Not a one of those spells will instantly summon a Fire Giant Skeleton to your character's location. Your character can certainly waste the combat time to pop over to the giant skeleton location, animate it, then pop back. It's just dumb. Those spell slots would have been better used for direct combat use. But that doesn't matter, because you are just tossing out borderline non-sequiturs.
And if you are saying the character did this weeks in advance and is just walking around with a giant skeleton behind them for two months, well, that is just as dumb.
QuoteNot bitching about anything here. I have never once on this thread talked about how the rules need to be changed, except when I directly quoted myself from a thread on TGD, which is of course, were I suggest changes to the people that will benefit from them.
Except, they ignore your ideas and think they dumb also, so no one is actually benefiting.
Or, did you mean they
would benefit from them if they only saw DA TROOF?
QuoteMost people want Necromancers to be able to ride a Dragon zombie while having an elite cadre of Giant Skeletons guarding their lair. So any changes you implement that make that story impossible defeat the ability of the game to tell the stories you want to tell, and make the game worse.
Most people don't play or care about Necromancers.
QuoteSince I, and my players, and my DMs, and most people on TGD want specifically that story to exist, we don't want that arbitrary and shitty limit. We want to play a different game, where Wizards can do that shit, and everyone else in the party can still be meaningful at the same time.
You don't want
any limit. That is the problem you aren't seeing. Go write a book.
QuoteHence why you did not fix my problem. Because my problem is not that someone made a Skeleton Giant, my problem is that the fighter is weaker than a Skeleton Giant.
No, my response is that the rules allow the Cleric to Animate Dead, and that's a good thing. The bad thing that needs fixing is that a Fighter does not serve any purpose that a Skeleton Fire Giant doesn't serve as well. That's the problem.
I thought you didn't even want the Fighter to exist. Why do you care if the Fighter is weaker?
QuoteI think the fighter needs to be removed because conceptually the fighter brings absolutely nothing I want to the game that other classes don't bring. It does however encourage people to play a variety of boring characters that don't belong in the high powered game I do want to play. So for any game for me or for someone with generally similar preferences to me, such as people on TGD, I suggest ways to improve the game by removing the fighter.
So which is it? Fighter needs fixing or removal? Or does it just depend on what you need to argue at the moment?
QuoteAnd this leads me to the really important part for the billionth time. I don't have a problem with Clerics fighting better than a fighter. It's not a problem for me.
Now you don't care either way.
Because you aren't here for any kind of discussion. At least TCO is upfront about being here just to troll. And I probably used a bit too many quotes to show that, but I didn't want there to be any confusion about it.
So, thanks, but we don't need a monorail here.
Quote from: Kaelik;553861Yes, really. And while you are at it, you can explain why you think Clerics of Boccob and Fharlanghn are going to be murdered by their gods for casting Animate Dead.
Quite simply the game is more than the rules not just the rules. You have a cleric good/evil/nuetral whatever. He is going around animating dead things that right there is going to cause problems with general society. Also mucking around with spells of that nature could mean using components of less than savory origin which probably causes the cleric to do less than savory things to acquire them plus other things like having to only associate with openly evil or allowing open evil to flourish in your presence which will ostrasize you at some point.
Think about the wizard that served Sauron in the Tolkien trilogy awesome power but because he mucks around with unsavory magics and actions literally ostersized from the world. This is without more direct dengeneration that usually occurs mental/physical or whatever or without alignment in play for any non evil cleric.
Just because it is NOT expressly written in a chart that says you do A roll this dice doesn't mean it's not there and just implied. The game is not in a vacuum part of a good game is the living setting the players are making choices in.
Quote from: Marleycat;553873Quite simply the game is more than the rules not just the rules. You have a cleric good/evil/nuetral whatever. He is going around animating dead things that right there is going to cause problems with general society. Also mucking around with spells of that nature could mean using components of less than savory origin which probably causes the cleric to do less than savory things to acquire them plus other things like having to only associate with openly evil or allowing open evil to flourish in your presence which will ostrasize you at some point. Think about the wizard that served Sauron in the Tolkien trilogy awesome power but because he mucks around with unsavory magics and actions literally ostersized from the world. This is without more direct dengeneration that usually occurs mental/physical or whatever or without alignment in play for any non evil cleric.Just because it is NOT expressly written in a chart that says you do A roll this dice doesn't mean it's not there and just implied. The game is not in a vacuum part of a good game is the living setting the players are making choices in.
The response you'll get will be some version of lorelol.
QuoteNot bitching about anything here. I have never once on this thread talked about how the rules need to be changed, except when I directly quoted myself from a thread on TGD, which is of course, were I suggest changes to the people that will benefit from them.
QuoteI think the fighter needs to be removed because conceptually the fighter brings absolutely nothing I want to the game that other classes don't bring. It does however encourage people to play a variety of boring characters that don't belong in the high powered game I do want to play. So for any game for me or for someone with generally similar preferences to me, such as people on TGD, I suggest ways to improve the game by removing the fighter.
A to B, but who cares, you're just here to wave your virtual dick around, apparently being unable to do so in any other context besides RPGs
Quote from: CRKrueger;553874The response you'll get will be some version of lorelol.
I know but he asked. Apparently he just thinks the game is just a set of rules and knobs to push and twist. Which really is sad.
Quote from: Opaopajr;553863I wanted to comment that it is easier to add to a core system than subtract, just like it's easier to build up a different tower of blocks with the same foundation than subtract your way to it like Jenga. Thus petitioning that fighter v. caster is a problem that requires a Wuxia solution actively hurts AD&D because it sets the new core baseline with a pre-constructed whole, requiring reduction down to its foundation to achieve OSR. What is more sensible is to grey box (make optional) those higher powered ideas, but stick with the older OSR core as foundation.
I will even posit that it doesn't necessarily have to be an older version. I think the baseline 3.x rules are not really the problem, it's the supplement bloat. I don't even blame the original designers or the 3rd party folks; there is no realistic way of determining if a given new feat or spell will break things in some spectacular fashion.
QuoteThis has nothing to do with not listening to another viewpoint. It has everything to do with stating the other viewpoint is wrong on a design sense. Making the game more complicated by default, requiring players new and old to play Jenga to bring it down to OSR style of play, walks away from 25 years of history supporting ease of startup play. Ease of startup play is crucial to maintain popular evergreen longevity for this game, instead of for niche hobbyists (see: popular consciousness of Risk v. Advanced Squad Leader, even though I prefer ASL).
Catering to a style of play that hasn't found its Holy Grail of System Programming v. an established one that already went with the flow using the ever-so-flexible empowered GM judgment is just bad business for AD&D's evergreen longevity. If you hated old AD&D that you need to twink it into some new D&D, fine. But at least leave an easily approachable baseline for the following generations. KISS design stands the test of time for a reason.
Exactly.
Quote from: Marleycat;553873Quite simply the game is more than the rules not just the rules. You have a cleric good/evil/nuetral whatever. He is going around animating dead things that right there is going to cause problems with general society.
It might, if the general society has a problem with that, but again, on what evidence do you establish that the general society of Greyhawk has a problem with that?
Greyhawk is explicitly a land of isolationist realms, indifferent nations, evil nations, and good nations. Not, All Pelor all the Time! Like you seem to believe.
Maybe it's time for you to admit that the only limitations to Clerics of Vecna are ones that you add to the setting, but aren't actually in the setting in any way prior to your houserules.
Quote from: Marleycat;553873Also mucking around with spells of that nature could mean using components of less than savory origin which probably causes the cleric to do less than savory things to acquire them
It requires Obsidian. Obtaining Obsidian isn't less than savory, since the Council of Eight built their fortress out of it.
Quote from: Marleycat;553873plus other things like having to only associate with openly evil or allowing open evil to flourish in your presence which will ostrasize you at some point.
Why? Why would you only be able to associate with openly evil people? Certainly no one complains about the roleplay conventions of being a Cleric of Pelor who can't associate with openly neutral people. Evil people can associate with neutral people just fine. Neutral Clerics of Boccob can associate with anyone.
And Vecna is the god of Secrets for god's sake, why do you think his clerics aren't going to hide their nature sometimes?
Quote from: Marleycat;553873Think about the wizard that served Sauron in the Tolkien trilogy awesome power but because he mucks around with unsavory magics and actions literally ostersized from the world. This is without more direct dengeneration that usually occurs mental/physical or whatever or without alignment in play for any non evil cleric.
Think about how LotR is not D&D. No part of the Greyhawk setting, no part of the actual rules, and no part of the game requires that. If you personally want to add something to the game that is not present in it, then you certainly can, but why would you believe that other people would add the same thing to the game that isn't in it?
Quote from: Marleycat;553873Just because it is NOT expressly written in a chart that says you do A roll this dice doesn't mean it's not there and just implied. The game is not in a vacuum part of a good game is the living setting the players are making choices in.
No, it's not expressly written in a chart. In fact, it's expressly written in the Greyhawk setting that you are wrong.
The setting explicitly says that evil nations and indifferent nations exist. It explicitly states that Pelor is weird for being anti undead, because most gods are totally fine with undead. It expressly states a bunch of things like that.
If it were implied, that would be one thing, but it's not. You have made up and applied a bunch of things that are not part of Greyhawk, and are expressly counter to the actual description of the Greyhawk setting and argued that other people are bad for not applying them.
I'm sorry, I'm too busy playing a good game that lives in the setting players are making choices in. The setting that expressly states that there are no negative consequences to being a neutral or evil cleric.
Quote from: Imp;553875A to B, but who cares, you're just here to wave your virtual dick around, apparently being unable to do so in any other context besides RPGs
Well how about A came before B, so using B to prove that A was wrong makes no sense.
Further, even B, you might read the last sentence which explicitly states that I'm not talking about my solutions as being implemented by anyone here, and I only bring them up at all because I keep being given quiz questions by the troll squad which I must answer for them to believe other things I say (I'm joking obviously, they will never believe anything I say, because they still believe that I am telling them how to run their games).
Quote from: StormBringer;553872And this is why you are only here to troll. Not a one of those spells will instantly summon a Fire Giant Skeleton to your character's location. Your character can certainly waste the combat time to pop over to the giant skeleton location, animate it, then pop back. It's just dumb. Those spell slots would have been better used for direct combat use. But that doesn't matter, because you are just tossing out borderline non-sequiturs.
That was cute.
Quote from: StormBringer;553872And if you are saying the character did this weeks in advance and is just walking around with a giant skeleton behind them for two months, well, that is just as dumb.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying you should do with a spell that has an instantaneous duration for the minions it creates. You should create your minions on one day, and then have them fight for you every day after that.
Despite the fact that you claim that is silly, you don't seem to have any reason to think so.
Quote from: StormBringer;553872Except, they ignore your ideas and think they dumb also, so no one is actually benefiting.
Again, you are stupid and need to learn to read before you talk. They don't ignore my ideas, and many of them have come to agree with me, including Frank.
Quote from: StormBringer;553872Most people don't play or care about Necromancers.
Most people want Necromancers to be able to exist, regardless of whether they personally play them. Your sample size is not sufficient to make contentions about whether most people play Necromancers, but in fact, certainly enough do that they went and wrote a bunch of rules about it.
Quote from: StormBringer;553872I thought you didn't even want the Fighter to exist. Why do you care if the Fighter is weaker?
Because the Fighter is ostensibly a PC class, and PC classes should not be strictly superior to other PC classes.
Quote from: StormBringer;553872So which is it? Fighter needs fixing or removal? Or does it just depend on what you need to argue at the moment?
How does saying "A problem eixsts when the fighter is strictly weaker than a Cleric with Animate Dead" mean that he needs to be fixed? It means he needs to be removed.
Kaelik, could you please not respond to everyone in a single post?
Quote from: Kaelik;553899Well how about A came before B, so using B to prove that A was wrong makes no sense.
Now that is irony coming from the guy who makes every argument about using only 3.5e and then acts like it proves wrong what anyone says about earlier editions.
It seems to be a TGD meme...1+1=2 therefore ELEPHANTS!
Quote from: CRKrueger;553916Now that is irony coming from the guy who makes every argument about using only 3.5e and then acts like it proves wrong what anyone says about earlier editions.
That's particularly ironic as comment on the person who has expressly stated several times that he has never been criticizing any previous edition of D&D.
Alannis Morisette has a lot to answer for.
Quote from: CRKrueger;553916It seems to be a TGD meme...1+1=2 therefore ELEPHANTS!
Now, now, you know math and TGD (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=52710&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)don't mix.
Quote from: Doom;553920Now, now, you know math and TGD (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=52710&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)don't mix.
This thread shows that you don't read people's posts Doom. I think Frank actually summed everything up the best. I'm frankly surprised that the conversation went on for 3 more pages after his post.
Quote from: MGuy;553925This thread shows that you don't read people's posts Doom. I think Frank actually summed everything up the best. I'm frankly surprised that the conversation went on for 3 more pages after his post.
It's doom, he's just butthurt. I'm just glad he hangs out here instead of there.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pleased with the outcome of the thread so far. OK, More or less exactly as usual we have 157 pages of ass with no one budging their positions by a Planck length, but at least the damage seems to be contained in this thread, instead of derailing everything everywhere like in tgdmb or rpgnet's D&D ghetto.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;553927I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pleased with the outcome of the thread so far. OK, More or less exactly as usual we have 157 pages of ass with no one budging their positions by a Planck length, but at least the damage seems to be contained in this thread, instead of derailing everything everywhere like in tgdmb or rpgnet's D&D ghetto.
So what you are saying is that when TGD shows up, they keep it in the relevant thread, but when people show up on TGD, then spread to unrelated threads and try to shit on the whole forum?
The Gaming Den, A Courteous Invasion.
Quote from: Kaelik;553928So what you are saying is that when TGD shows up, they keep it in the relevant thread, but when people show up on TGD, then spread to unrelated threads and try to shit on the whole forum?
The Gaming Den, A Courteous Invasion.
This is the worst forum ever. It's making me agree with Kaelik way too much.
Edit: This thread alone has made me decide to take "fighter" off of the list of classes in the game I'm making. It turns out that Kaelik was right and that it carries WAY too much baggage to keep.
Quote from: MGuy;553929Edit: This thread alone has made me decide to take "fighter" off of the list of classes in the game I'm making. It turns out that Kaelik was right and that it carries WAY too much baggage to keep.
Just go with "Fightan Powerz McWeaboo"
Quote from: MGuy;553929This is the worst forum ever. It's making me agree with Kaelik way too much.
Edit: This thread alone has made me decide to take "fighter" off of the list of classes in the game I'm making. It turns out that Kaelik was right and that it carries WAY too much baggage to keep.
In defense of the site there's quite a bit of good discussions and what not here - particularly if you go back a ways, you can find data on a huge range of RPGs and quite good discussions on playstyle preferences and so on. But don't let me stop you if this site isn't your thing.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;553937In defense of the site there's quite a bit of good discussions and what not here - particularly if you go back a ways, you can find data on a huge range of RPGs and quite good discussions on playstyle preferences and so on. But don't let me stop you if this site isn't your thing.
It was a joke (at least the first sentence). I've been to worst places.
What are we discussing again? Other than 3x fighters need fixing by fixing I mean go back to 1/2e style and 3x wizards would be so much better with 1/2e style limits. That the gist?
Quote from: Marleycat;553956What are we discussing again? Other than 3x fighters need fixing and 3x wizards would be so much better with 1/2e style limits. That the gist?
That 3.x Fighters DO NOT need fixing if 3.x Wizards had the AD&D limits.
Quote from: Fifth Element;553096Wasn't that the whole point of this place?
There are at least six of us here that date from before this was the custom. Maybe five.
Quote from: Rum Cove;553958That 3.x Fighters DO NOT need fixing if 3.x Wizards had the AD&D limits.
That would work decently. Shouldn't that hard to do.
1. No concentration or something like Pathfinder or harder like 20 + 2x spell level instead of 15 like Pathfinder.
2. No 5 foot step
3. No free spells per level and/or give the free spells and 1/2e hard caps on total spells known and %roll to learn each spell.
4. Etc.
Quote from: Marleycat;553965That would work decently. Shouldn't that hard to do.
1. No concentration or something like Pathfinder or harder like 20 + 2x spell level instead of 15 like Pathfinder.
2. No 5 foot step
3. No free spells per level and/or give the free spells and 1/2e hard caps on total spells known and %roll to learn each spell.
4. Etc.
Or play AD&D.
Quote from: Rum Cove;553966Or play AD&D.
Best answer all thread.
Quote from: Rum Cove;553966Or play AD&D.
Personally I go with Fantasy Craft because I like 3x and it makes this topic a non-issue. But for something more classic I would go with ACKS or DCC. But that's me. YMMV
But you completely missed my point. I was saying play AD&D but with snark. I was just describing it for our guest Denner's in their language.
Quote from: Marleycat;553972Personally I go with Fantasy Craft because I like 3x and it makes this topic a non-issue. But for something more classic I would go with ACKS or DCC. But that's me. YMMV
And I'd wager that you even have FUN doing so.
Quote from: Rum Cove;553966Or play AD&D.
There could be a legitimate reason to attempt to houserule interruption limits but not play AD&D.
3e presents a wealth of monsters that you might want to use, and if you dislike the AD&D save/MR system (Technically, I'm thinking of 2e, so correct me if it's different in AD&D) and you don't want to redo all the monsters to correct that, it might be easier and simpler to add interruption to 3e than to remove or rebalance saves/MR from AD&D.
Quote from: Marleycat;553972But you completely missed my point. I was saying play AD&D but with snark. I was just describing it for our guest Denner's in their language.
That's cute and all, except no Denners have been advocating for adding interruption. We don't think it was a good thing, so we wouldn't want to add it to 3e.
Quote from: Rum Cove;553974And I'd wager that you even have FUN doing so.
You think I'd suggest games that weren't fun and fit a person's playstyle without having to create a whole new game or butcher a perfectly good one in the process?
Quote from: MGuy;553929Edit: This thread alone has made me decide to take "fighter" off of the list of classes in the game I'm making. It turns out that Kaelik was right and that it carries WAY too much baggage to keep.
At least you didn't have to spend 5 pages whining about it first.
In 3.5, I played a Dwarf Fighter from 1st level all the way up to 19th level (legitimately, he was the fourth character after three previous deaths in the same campaign) and he is probably one of my most favorite characters to play in three decades of gaming.
So, you'll have to excuse me if the whole complaint about Fighters being "weaker" or "boring" or any other negative criticism that is tossed around in forums is lost on me.
As far as I know, you can't fix a broken player.
Quote from: Kaelik;553977There could be a legitimate reason to attempt to houserule interruption limits but not play AD&D.
3e presents a wealth of monsters that you might want to use, and if you dislike the AD&D save/MR system (Technically, I'm thinking of 2e, so correct me if it's different in AD&D) and you don't want to redo all the monsters to correct that, it might be easier and simpler to add interruption to 3e than to remove or rebalance saves/MR from AD&D.
That's cute and all, except no Denners have been advocating for adding interruption. We don't think it was a good thing, so we wouldn't want to add it to 3e.
I know, you want Wuxia Dnd or whatever we're done as far as I am concerned. You shine on you crazy diamond. You're from Mars I'm from Venus, yadda, yadda. :)
Quote from: Rum Cove;553980In 3.5, I played a Dwarf Fighter from 1st level all the way up to 19th level (legitimately, he was the fourth character after three previous deaths in the same campaign) and he is probably one of my most favorite characters to play in three decades of gaming.
So, you'll have to excuse me if the whole complaint about Fighters being "weaker" or "boring" or any other negative criticism that is tossed around in forums is lost on me.
As far as I know, you can't fix a broken player.
Well said, some my favorite characters were fighters even if I prefer playing magic users and F/MU's I relish the simplicity of just being the "beatstick" or as Patrick Swayze said it in Roadhouse "The Cooler".
Quote from: Rum Cove;553980As far as I know, you can't fix a broken player.
But team grognard never criticizes other people for playing D&D wrong.
Bad TGD people are so mean, saying that they personally are bored by fighters, and then the good soldiers of RPGsite just try to explain that everyone has their own preferences and styles, and also that anyone who has a different one than them is a broken player who plays D&D wrong.
Quote from: Kaelik;553983But team grognard never criticizes other people for playing D&D wrong.
Bad TGD people are so mean, saying that they personally are bored by fighters, and then the good soldiers of RPGsite just try to explain that everyone has their own preferences and styles, and also that anyone who has a different one than them is a broken player who plays D&D wrong.
No, the problem is you insist the fighter is objectively broken and useless and try and fix it all with these whacked solutions while maintaining they are the only logical answer. This has nothing to do with playing Dnd wrong given that's not possible despite what Ben says but he has a right to his opinion even if I don't agree with him on specific issues.
Quote from: Marleycat;553982Well said, some my favorite characters were fighters even if I prefer playing magic users and F/MU's I relish the simplicity of just being the "beatstick" or as Patrick Swayze said it in Roadhouse "The Cooler".
Extra points for referencing Roadhouse.
It was on TV the other night and ever since I've been scared of being visited by the Ghost of Patrick Swayze's Hair.
Quote from: Marleycat;553984No, the problem is you insist the fighter is objectively broken and useless
I have never insisted that. Carry on claiming I asserted things I didn't, because clearly you have nothing to say about what I've actually said.
Quote from: Kaelik;553983But team grognard never criticizes other people for playing D&D wrong.
Bad TGD people are so mean, saying that they personally are bored by fighters, and then the good soldiers of RPGsite just try to explain that everyone has their own preferences and styles, and also that anyone who has a different one than them is a broken player who plays D&D wrong.
There were actually sentences above and below (in the signature) the sentence that you quoted.
The top part was to explain how it is still possible to play a RAW 3.5 Fighter and HAVE FUN. I notice the thing that is usually lacking from all Character Optimizations is the character's personalty.
Hold on a second, I'm going to dig back through this massive thread. Be right back . . .
Quote from: Kaelik;553986I have never insisted that. Carry on claiming I asserted things I didn't, because clearly you have nothing to say about what I've actually said.
You're right. You would rather skip the whole deal and go a step further and erase the fighter and replace her with "Super Ninja Swordmaster/Monk/Warmaster" Deluxe. Sorry for not being exact. Shine on you crazy diamond.:)
Quote from: Rum Cove;553985Extra points for referencing Roadhouse.
It was on TV the other night and ever since I've been scared of being visited by the Ghost of Patrick Swayze's Hair.
Sad day when he died. A sexy heterosexual man that could dance as well as fight. Much like I envision and play Dnd fighters. I don't need a list of abilities to say what I can or can't do. Just like him.
Quote from: Marleycat;553992You're right. You would rather skip the whole deal and go a step further and erase the fighter and replace her with "Super Ninja Swordmaster/Monk/Warmaster" Deluxe. Sorry for not being exact. Shine on you crazy diamond.:)
As long as you admit that I am not asserting the Fighter is objectively broken and useless, I don't care if you make fun of my preferences.
Quote from: Rum Cove;553988The top part was to explain how it is still possible to play a RAW 3.5 Fighter and HAVE FUN. I notice the thing that is usually lacking from all Character Optimizations is the character's personalty.
Hold on a second, I'm going to dig back through this massive thread. Be right back . . .
Okay, I was scared I'd be lost in this thread and never found again.
It must be another thread somewhere on this forum, but the character write-up was more than just a build and I wanted to acknowledge the poster.
Ignore me, carry on.
Quote from: Kaelik;553996As long as you admit that I am not asserting the Fighter is objectively broken and useless, I don't care if you make fun of my preferences.
Could you do me the favor and (preferably in as few sentences as possible) explain what is your stance?
Quote from: Marleycat;553992You're right. You would rather skip the whole deal and go a step further and erase the fighter and replace her with "Super Ninja Swordmaster/Monk/Warmaster" Deluxe. Sorry for not being exact. Shine on you crazy diamond.:)
There was a good idea up thread about replacing the Fighter with a Demigod class.
Is it me, or are there A LOT of different disputes going on? If we're talking about Fighters vs. Wizards, and using fiction as a basis, the Wizard should always win - because he's a WIZARD. There is no balance.
If we are talking about RPGs, it's important to note the "G" is for "Games" and not "Math problems". Games are about having fun.
If a player is not having fun, then they can try to solve what is causing them to not have fun or stop playing.
Am I caught up yet?
Also, since when did RPG sites become gangs?
Should I be waiting for Pundit to send me the leather jacket and switch blade with the RPGsite colors?
Quote from: Rum Cove;553997Okay, I was scared I'd be lost in this thread and never found again.
It must be another thread somewhere on this forum, but the character write-up was more than just a build and I wanted to acknowledge the poster.
Ignore me, carry on.
It has been a rather long thread. But I must state that it has been said again and again that "fun" is never something anyone said can't be had. I'm sure people can have fun with just about any set of rules.
Quote from: MGuy;554003It has been a rather long thread. But I must state that it has been said again and again that "fun" is never something anyone said can't be had. I'm sure people can have fun with just about any set of rules.
Sure enough, anyone with a child and a cardboard box can attest to that.
So what is your angle then?
Quote from: Rum Cove;554001There was a good idea up thread about replacing the Fighter with a Demigod class.
Is it me, or are there A LOT of different disputes going on? If we're talking about Fighters vs. Wizards, and using fiction as a basis, the Wizard should always win - because he's a WIZARD. There is no balance.
If we are talking about RPGs, it's important to note the "G" is for "Games" and not "Math problems". Games are about having fun.
If a player is not having fun, then they can try to solve what is causing them to not have fun or stop playing.
Am I caught up yet?
Yes and no. You hit the problem, this thread contains multiple arguments and crux is one side is using 3x the other pre 3x.
Quote from: Rum Cove;553999Could you do me the favor and (preferably in as few sentences as possible) explain what is your stance?
My stance(s) are the following:
1) I don't know anything about pre-2e D&D.
2) I played a fair amount of 2e D&D, and it was not bad. I couldn't possibly speak to balance or anything about it. There were some things I don't like about it:
a) I never played a two campaigns in which the amount and quality of items we obtained were even close to similar, so sometimes stuff would be actually impossible for level 8 characters to fight, because it required +1 or +2 weapons to hit, and sometimes our level 4 characters would be beating up the same thing.
b) I really didn't like the way the MR/saves worked at high level, such that if you had no MR/no save stuff, your Wizard could totally kill anything at high level because those were the defenses that mattered. If you didn't then you might as well sit in the corner the whole fight.
3) As regards 3e, I consider it also a good game, but I like it better than 2e. I like the way the RNG works better in 3e, and I like that it sort of solved those two problems above. The item system still isn't good, but it's something, frankly, I'm pretty picky about items in D&D like games apparently, because I'm not even happy with what I've written up for them.
As regards balance in 3e, with lots of splat books, depending on which ones, things get kind of crazy, but in Core, the fighter always feels like a bitch. Straight Core, the barbarian is probably just stronger, and the Druid can outfight him with Wildshape + Animal Companion. Clerics and Wizards have access to Animate Dead/Charm/ect, that can all get big fighters that fight as well as the fighter, and it's annoying to have to try to make one guy feel good when everyone else has a minion that's nearly as good as him.
My personal preferences for games lean towards playing high utility games, where the Wizard/Cleric is very well built and the monsters (the smart ones, which are also the biggest threats) are played brutally effeciently.
I also, while I like the spellcasting system and believe that different resource management systems can exist in the same game, prefer in general for my own characters to use a system that provides at will usage of a small number of creative powers.
So basically, the Fighter to me holds no interest in a game balanced towards my preferences, because the Fighter cannot generally deal with sort of world where Wall of Force is a common thing without either being too powerful, and therefore needs to be countered constantly, or too weak, and therefore boring.
I also think that everyone should have out of combat stuff to do, and the Fighter, as a class name, encourages people to make classes that don't have out of combat abilities.
So to the extent that people agree that people should primarily be using abilities to solve problems, and they believe everyone should have out of combat abilities, I tell them to not name any classes "Fighter." The above two preferences are usually the case for everyone on TGD.
Quote from: Kaelik;553996As long as you admit that I am not asserting the Fighter is objectively broken and useless, I don't care if you make fun of my preferences.
Dude I disagree with your view but I have fun discussing stuff with you despite how I post. It's interesting to see a Denner's POV without Frank's hysteria.
Quote from: Kaelik;554007My stance(s) are the following:
Thank you.
Quote from: Kaelik;5540071) I don't know anything about pre-2e D&D.
That's important, because you might not understand the development of the game. For example, how the Fighter was slowly stripped of everything that made it unique to the Wizard getting adjustments until it became the perceived powerhouse it is today. Something as simple as "why can't the Wizard wear armor?" has caused a lot of problems.
Quote from: Kaelik;554007I never played a two campaigns in which the amount and quality of items we obtained were even close to similar, so sometimes stuff would be actually impossible for level 8 characters to fight, because it required +1 or +2 weapons to hit, and sometimes our level 4 characters would be beating up the same thing.
How did you feel about 4e's solution - that any (normal) weapon could harm a ghost or werewolf?
Quote from: Kaelik;554007So basically, the Fighter to me holds no interest in a game balanced towards my preferences, because the Fighter cannot generally deal with sort of world where Wall of Force is a common thing without either being too powerful, and therefore needs to be countered constantly, or too weak, and therefore boring.
To me, when things like Wall of Force become a problem, the Fighter should have magic items to help him. If not, he should have his team mates. Those are two separate branches for discussion though.
Quote from: Kaelik;554007I also think that everyone should have out of combat stuff to do, and the Fighter, as a class name, encourages people to make classes that don't have out of combat abilities.
Again, I think this is a (let's called it) a development legacy issue. When skills were introduced, by rights the Fighter should have done fairly well - en par with every other class. They should be weapon experts, war history buffs and maybe even the best at heraldry (knowing the key players on the other teams and all).
What do you think they should have for out of combat abilities?
Quote from: Rum Cove;554004Sure enough, anyone with a child and a cardboard box can attest to that.
So what is your angle then?
Having fun can happen any time, anywhere, no matter what you're doing. There are some pretty f'ed up things people do for fun but things being fun does not mean that there aren't issues with them. My assertion (as I have stated it several times) is that issues exist (the fighter/wizard issue in particular), and it is readily apparent based on the evidence shown by people constantly changing the rules to deal with it. It doesn't really matter whether you're scaling things up (Tomes) or down (to fighter level) the fact of the matter is that people know the issue exists and want to fix it whether they want to go to the high middle or low end of the scale.
Quote from: MGuy;554017My assertion (as I have stated it several times) is that issues exist (the fighter/wizard issue in particular), and it is readily apparent based on the evidence shown by people constantly changing the rules to deal with it. It doesn't really matter whether you're scaling things up (Tomes) or down (to fighter level) the fact of the matter is that people know the issue exists and want to fix it whether they want to go to the high middle or low end of the scale.
Fair enough. Which is probably why 3.5 was abandoned for 4e.
For myself, the issue wasn't as pronounced until the 3.x era.
When thinking of a Fighter concept, what comes to mind for you? What kind of character are you intending on making?
Quote from: Rum Cove;554015How did you feel about 4e's solution - that any (normal) weapon could harm a ghost or werewolf?
It's a solution to a small subsection of the problem.
If a monster has an AC of 45 and an AB of +30, and you either:
1) Have an AC of 35 and an AB of +30 if you have no items
2) Have an AC of 40 and an AB of +35 if you have +5 stuff
Then the monster is a very different beast.
It also comes in outside of pure numbers with things like Wall of Force, if the fighter relies on having Capes of the Monteback to get back them, then you need a set time when Capes of the Monteback come online for fighters.
As regards the actual hitting on monsters, I liked the 3.5 (but not really 3e) system just fine. DR was a penalty that you really wanted to avoid, and some monsters being no hit without magic was fine, as long as a) they were rare, b) they were appropriately leveled, c) They only needed +1.
The 4e item system is certainly no better than the 3e one, and probably worse.
Quote from: Rum Cove;554015To me, when things like Wall of Force become a problem, the Fighter should have magic items to help him. If not, he should have his team mates. Those are two separate branches for discussion though.
I haven't yet liked an item system for any edition to trust it much with that, and I personally would be offended if I had to rely on items in that way.
As for friends, I have a different, very much not AD&D style for classes. If you have a party of 4 people, they should all be able to play whatever class they want. If they all want to play Druids, then they should be equally as good as 4 Druids as a mixed party. And if Fighter is a valid class choice, well then 4 Fighters should also be able to deal with it.
Quote from: Rum Cove;554015Again, I think this is a (let's called it) a development legacy issue. When skills were introduced, by rights the Fighter should have done fairly well - en par with every other class. They should be weapon experts, war history buffs and maybe even the best at heraldry (knowing the key players on the other teams and all).
What do you think they should have for out of combat abilities?
Well that's the thing. For high level play, there basically can't be any Out of combat utility that you give to the fighter that meets three criteria:
1) Is as meaningful as everyone else's.
2) Conceptually fits on the Fighter.
3) Isn't "Wuxia" or "Anime" or whatever else people complain about.
For me, I have been doing things like making classes that have an obvious non mundane power source, which allows you to give powers that conceptually fit the class, and don't upset people with Wuxia, because you have a magic source, and can be as good as the other classes.
So for example, the Shadow Lord gets the ability to attack people's shadows instead of them, and the ability to look into shadows and see out of other shadows, and he can travel through them. Still more boring than I'd like, which is why I'm still working on it, but yeah.
Do that 100 times over for Blood Warriors and Ancient Masters, and every other thematic power source you can think of.
Quote from: Rum Cove;554020Fair enough. Which is probably why 3.5 was abandoned for 4e.
I have not seen any evidence that this is the case.
My response to . . .
Quote from: Kaelik;554023It also comes in outside of pure numbers with things like Wall of Force, if the fighter relies on having Capes of the Monteback to get back them, then you need a set time when Capes of the Monteback come online for fighters.
. . . and . . .
Quote from: Kaelik;554023If they all want to play Druids, then they should be equally as good as 4 Druids as a mixed party. And if Fighter is a valid class choice, well then 4 Fighters should also be able to deal with it.
. . . is the same. I agree with both. The problem, to me, in both cases, is bad adventure design. The DM should be aware of the party's capabilities and design accordingly.
If a sandbox approach is taken by the DM, the players should be aware that they don't need to interact and overcome everything.
Bear in mind, you're talking to someone who once told his DM that his character would dig under a Wall of Force using his shovel. When I was told "it would take days!", the whole party in unison said, "we've got rations."
Quote from: Kaelik;554023Isn't "Wuxia" or "Anime" or whatever else people complain about.
At some point, it has to be accepted that the game is one of Fantasy and the Fighter will no longer be "mundane" but a figure of legend. I honestly stand behind the concept of switching to Demigod status, if the idea of relying on magic items and magical aid from the party is to unappealing.
How else can this be done?
Quote from: Rum Cove;554021When thinking of a Fighter concept, what comes to mind for you? What kind of character are you intending on making?
Before this thread I asserted that the word "fighter" can mean anything the setting needs it to. In Mortal Kombat fighters can throw fire, turn into animals, and steal people's souls. In Street Fighter they can blow fire, teleport, etc.
Because f this thread it seems though that it is true what Kaelik and Frank say. Apparently people do not like fighters who can be as amazing as the things they fight.
So a more appropriate question for me to answer is what I think of when I think warrior. What I intend to make when I make a warrior. The answer to that depends on what my character's concept is. I'd like a game that can support a number of warrior concepts. I've been a short power house who solved problems by leaping really high and being quick with my tongue. I've been a ballsy holy warrior who was uncompromising and direct. I've been a skilled battle tactician who used gadgets and misdirection to survive. I've only been a fighter in two of these concepts and it was just for the small level dip for 2 extra feats.
Quote from: CRKrueger;553772If you start from the position of the character as a gamepiece or set of powers, of course you don't care about your character's role in the gameworld.
I totally agree with this and I see it as the thing that most closely links the 2 extremes.
In 3x extreme play the character is a collection of mega-powers through which the player interacts with the world. In OD&D , 1e the character is a set of stats through which the player interacts with the world.
What I refer to as "10 foot pole" play is very close to extreme 3x play.
All adventurers play the same. What a fighter does x, the role of a cleric is y, you don't need character based powers because if you can describe how your fighter tracks the dragon or how they disarm the trap then that is fine. Of course the fact that you always do that and every character can do those things doesn't register as incongruous because its "game mastery" not "system mastery", but both are weak roleplaying.
Now not focusing on roleplying is a totally valid play style, not my taste but totally valid. Gygax himself thought that late 1e had moved too far towards the 'role' part and had lost sight of the 'game' part. However, the similarity between the two ends of the spectrum is quite obvious to a hey-nonny thespie roleplayer like me :)
Quote from: Marleycat;553820Your point being? Animate Dead is not going to replace a PC unless your allowing truly stupid shenagenians. Either way I don't see your point at all unless it's "since you claimed this I can claim that".
By the way I'm just here to get this thread to 2000 posts the subject has already been argued out and solutions provided. Take them or leave them it matters little to me.:)
The point Marley is that a fighters contribution to the mechaincal side of the game can be replicated by an animated creature, a golem, a charmed monster whatever. That is true you can not deny it.
You give me a list of things a fighter can do in the rules of 1e or 3e or even 2e if you ignore weapons specialisation which is just a buff. I can relicate those easily with any number of alternatives.
Now obviously you can't replace the player. A thing driven by the DM or another player is just a thing, with a great DM and great players that thing might have a life of its own but it won't replace the player who bithces and moans and chucks in jokes and things of things the other players don;t and occassionally makes the tea.
But don't confuse the two.
Quote from: StormBringer;553872And this is why you are only here to troll. Not a one of those spells will instantly summon a Fire Giant Skeleton to your character's location. Your character can certainly waste the combat time to pop over to the giant skeleton location, animate it, then pop back. It's just dumb. <...snip....>
So which is it? Fighter needs fixing or removal? Or does it just depend on what you need to argue at the moment?
Now you don't care either way.
Because you aren't here for any kind of discussion. At least TCO is upfront about being here just to troll. And I probably used a bit too many quotes to show that, but I didn't want there to be any confusion about it.
So, thanks, but we don't need a monorail here.
Cheeky:)
You are deliberately acting obtuse which is not a useful position for discourse.
The position is obvious
In their 3x games Fighters don't contribute to play.
By keeping the figther class, or probably all mundane classes, you encourage people to play them which creates a disparity in the group.
If you offer sub-optimal choices some people will select sub-optimal choices. The effect of this is to put pressure on the DM to provide sub-optimal challenges which the rest of the party find dull.
The solution is to ensure all choices are optimal. My removing the figther and replacing him with a Dragon Master martial class who perfomrs the fighters functions but also has dragon like powers, can control dragons and at high levels polymorph into a dragon you remove the issue.
You may not liek the play style but that doesn't mean you need to accuse them of all sorts of stuff they didn't say or act liek you can't understand what they are saying.
Its not rocket science.
Quote from: jibbajibba;554056The point Marley is that a fighters contribution to the mechaincal side of the game can be replicated by an animated creature, a golem, a charmed monster whatever. That is true you can not deny it.
You give me a list of things a fighter can do in the rules of 1e or 3e or even 2e if you ignore weapons specialisation which is just a buff. I can relicate those easily with any number of alternatives.
Now obviously you can't replace the player. A thing driven by the DM or another player is just a thing, with a great DM and great players that thing might have a life of its own but it won't replace the player who bithces and moans and chucks in jokes and things of things the other players don;t and occassionally makes the tea.
But don't confuse the two.
Ludicrous. The same can be said about MU because the core rules assumes a campaign where magic items exist without the party's MU creating them all. Seriously, just stop. Do you want to talk honestly about this without dismissing the fighter's benefits, or do you want to dismiss things conveniently to make a point?
We can do nonsensical speculative scenarios until we're blue in the face; but the biggest problem I see is the MUer is assumed to get any additional spells readily, have the components, have the time to memorize
always just the right ones, and the leisure space to cast them uninterrupted. Meanwhile the fighter is oft assumed to be naked, and no-no-no can't use any of those freebie latent magical gear around the world, that's cheating. The MUer? Of course he can learn new spells off the found magic items.
Uh, what? Can we say inconsistent?
The fighter is not useless in TSR AD&D. I'll use 2e for familiarity and ready access to books. Fighter gets general knowledge of all weapons, displayed by having the lowest penalty for lack of a weapon proficiency. They also get greatest overall THAC0 progression and additional attacks per round, along with one of the most solid save progressions. They further get the, apparently dismissible, weapon specialization whose buff also adds the negligible extra attack per round, point blank shot, and pre-initiative readied missile shot.
They also have access to all magical and non-magical weapons, armor, and shields. Further they can use "many potions, protection scrolls, [and] most rings." Y'know, found magic that already exists in the world, sorta like how the MU normally needs to find and learn his spells (unless they're already sitting pretty on their adventurer trust fund researching for months on end).
And at named level the fighter attracts a frightening array of help, a large compliment of men-at-arms ( 0-lvls w/
military training, so they don't flee from dragons helplessly) with a 5th+ lvl leader,
and an elite bodyguard unit. That's above and beyond regular henchmen and hirelings available. (And if you and your GM really want to play that style soon PO:S&P offered it as a buyable perk earlier than 9th.) It's true the priest also gets soldiers, a fanatical group of 20-200, at 8th lvl. But he also gets the weird "After the initial followers assemble, no new followers trickle in to fill the ranks of those who have fallen in service." The fighter doesn't get this line of restriction in PHB. Make of that what you will; GM judgment applies here.
The fighter adds party security by projecting power to let other classes shine in their own spheres. Meteor Swarm, if you ever find and learn that spell, sounds all well and good, but you gotta survive a continual onslaught of encounters in dungeon and wilderness travel. Even if you're a crazy powerful MU in a keep, fighters help you manage your resources because they
don't use up spell slots to dish out the power of death. Power's greatest asset is authority, as in conservation of resources through fear and/or obedience. Sure the MU can nuke, but it's the fighter that helps the MU save those threats for when it's really necessary.
(And about that raised dead or charmed monster pet, good luck functioning in an actual campaign with that. Most humanoid fighters are far easier to clear through town security than some MU stumbling through the wilderness with a massive fire skeleton or frost giant. Good luck getting rations, gear, gossip, etc. Most campaigns are not WoW with people running around with extra dimensional or humongous battle pets and the NPCs being blithely tolerant.)
FUUUUUCK, now you bastards got me doing walls of text! ARRGGH!
Quote from: MGuy;553929Edit: This thread alone has made me decide to take "fighter" off of the list of classes in the game I'm making. It turns out that Kaelik was right and that it carries WAY too much baggage to keep.
Great. Everything solved. You get the game you want and then you can stop bitching about D&D. We all win.
Quote from: Opaopajr;554076FUUUUUCK, now you bastards got me doing walls of text! ARRGGH!
hehehehe :)
Quote from: Opaopajr;554075Ludicrous. The same can be said about MU because the core rules assumes a campaign where magic items exist without the party's MU creating them all. Seriously, just stop. Do you want to talk honestly about this without dismissing the fighter's benefits, or do you want to dismiss things conveniently to make a point?
We can do nonsensical speculative scenarios until we're blue in the face; but the biggest problem I see is the MUer is assumed to get any additional spells readily, have the components, have the time to memorize always just the right ones, and the leisure space to cast them uninterrupted. Meanwhile the fighter is oft assumed to be naked, and no-no-no can't use any of those freebie latent magical gear around the world, that's cheating. The MUer? Of course he can learn new spells off the found magic items.
Uh, what? Can we say inconsistent?
The fighter is not useless in TSR AD&D. I'll use 2e for familiarity and ready access to books. Fighter gets general knowledge of all weapons, displayed by having the lowest penalty for lack of a weapon proficiency. They also get greatest overall THAC0 progression and additional attacks per round, along with one of the most solid save progressions. They further get the, apparently dismissible, weapon specialization whose buff also adds the negligible extra attack per round, point blank shot, and pre-initiative readied missile shot.
They also have access to all magical and non-magical weapons, armor, and shields. Further they can use "many potions, protection scrolls, [and] most rings." Y'know, found magic that already exists in the world, sorta like how the MU normally needs to find and learn his spells (unless they're already sitting pretty on their adventurer trust fund researching for months on end).
And at named level the fighter attracts a frightening array of help, a large compliment of men-at-arms ( 0-lvls w/ military training, so they don't flee from dragons helplessly) with a 5th+ lvl leader, and an elite bodyguard unit. That's above and beyond regular henchmen and hirelings available. (And if you and your GM really want to play that style soon PO:S&P offered it as a buyable perk earlier than 9th.) It's true the priest also gets soldiers, a fanatical group of 20-200, at 8th lvl. But he also gets the weird "After the initial followers assemble, no new followers trickle in to fill the ranks of those who have fallen in service." The fighter doesn't get this line of restriction in PHB. Make of that what you will; GM judgment applies here.
The fighter adds party security by projecting power to let other classes shine in their own spheres. Meteor Swarm, if you ever find and learn that spell, sounds all well and good, but you gotta survive a continual onslaught of encounters in dungeon and wilderness travel. Even if you're a crazy powerful MU in a keep, fighters help you manage your resources because they don't use up spell slots to dish out the power of death. Power's greatest asset is authority, as in conservation of resources through fear and/or obedience. Sure the MU can nuke, but it's the fighter that helps the MU save those threats for when it's really necessary.
(And about that raised dead or charmed monster pet, good luck functioning in an actual campaign with that. Most humanoid fighters are far easier to clear through town security than some MU stumbling through the wilderness with a massive fire skeleton or frost giant. Good luck getting rations, gear, gossip, etc. Most campaigns are not WoW with people running around with extra dimensional or humongous battle pets and the NPCs being blithely tolerant.)
We have been through this before. Upthread.
Everything you say about campaign styles and actual play is exactly right but ... isn't in the rules. I can run a campaign where Giants and Humans operate side by side I can run a campaign here golem magical servants are common place that stuff depends on style of play and the DM.
At high level I can even cast a spell on my frost giant thrall to make him look just like a normal bloke, or invisible or actually just make him smaller :)
The list of magic items that a fighter can use is large but very few items are only available to fighters far more are only available to wizards. A girdle of giant strength , great gift for that cleric of thor, thanks , etc etc ...
Yes spells need to be prepared and ready and all that I concur but the fact remains that spells give options and lots of spells give lots of options. I pointed out up post tha the rate at which MUS gain spells actually increases with level. A dozen spells by the time they are 9th but 30 by the time they are 15th. If you have clever players that plan they will have scrolls and contingencies and all sorts of get outs because with the range of options they can do that.
Fighters do have access to a lot of weapons but it rarely comes up because they normally have a key weapon they use all the time. if I have a +3 longsword then the fact that I only get -2 to hit with tridents so if I find a +4 trident I will only be slightly wosrse than I would be if i used the sword I already have is a bit moot. And since a charmed monster or a golem or whatever will have natural attacks or use a weapons its proficient with I can't see how it matters.
We talked about men at arms and we know in 1e they run away from dragons we also know that in 1e a cleric will get a bigger army than a figther. In 2e those guys won't run from dragons but when are you going to use them? The party travels into dungeons of Hist to search for a lost artefact and kick some Devils, you going to bring 80 0 level figthers ? really ? We agreed that if the game called for battles and used the Battlesystem that those guys would be useful, but they can easily be replaced with mercenries you hire. If we a have armies of a few thousand men the fact that the figther gets 80 free 0 level guys ... well doesn't mean much. In 1e its even worse as if they meet another 9th level fighter with the same equipment as we claim a standard 9th level figther has he will kill all your army in 10 minutes .... all of them..... A wizard can do it with 1 fireballl....
Now if you skipped the thread you are probably not aware of my position.
I have no issue with the imbalance I am happy to play weak characters because for me its roleplaying that matters. I can suggest (and have done upthread) some ways to tweak the imbalance a bit.
Give the fighter some mundane combat skills,( including tripple or quad damage from crits so they keep up with rogues backstab, improved natural ac so they aren't so reliant on magical gear, immunity to fear, ability to gauge the quality of opponents etc ) and adjust the wizards power (through modifiying spell slots, introducing spell points, insisting on finding spells through play, etc) If you really want to make changes.
However, though I might think the disparity doesn't affect my ability to roleply or have fun doing so I do admit the disparity exists (I think more with Clerics than wizards personally as they have armour, weapons, and spells which don't have difficult components and which they can pray for and don't need to find through play, but I digress).
Suffice it to say its all about play style.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;554077Great. Everything solved. You get the game you want and then you can stop bitching about D&D. We all win.
Me playing a different game doesn't make the problems with DnD disappear. So luckily I can play a different game and still bitch about it.
Quote from: MGuy;554099Me playing a different game doesn't make the problems with DnD disappear. So luckily I can play a different game and still bitch about it.
But here you start to push the line too much :)
You can bitch about it not working for you and you can bitch about it having mechanical gaps.
However you can't bitch about it being an issue for players that tell you it's not an issue for them. Cos that is Onetruewayism .
Quote from: MGuy;554099Me playing a different game doesn't make the problems with DnD disappear. So luckily I can play a different game and still bitch about it.
D&D has problems? Huh. You learn something new every day. :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;554104However you can't bitch about it being an issue for players that tell you it's not an issue for them. Cos that is Onetruewayism .
But as far as I can tell, no one from TGD has done that here. Instead, many people here have talked about how it actually can't be true that people from TGD have had said issue.
Quote from: jibbajibba;554060In their 3x games Fighters don't contribute to play.
Emphasis mine
I really do get what their point is, but I think you might be missing the thrust of it. From here, we are supposed to accept the rest of the argument that Fighters are simply useless period. Casters will always be better than Fighters, and any attempt to make Fighters better is pointless because Wizards, but any attempts to reign in Wizards is pointless because there is actually nothing wrong with Wizards, except that Fighters should not exist as a mundane class. We are then supposed to congratulate the unalloyed genius of getting rid of Fighters and giving everyone super-powers, while simultaneously ignoring a nuclear meltdown over the suggestion that perhaps there are some simpler solutions.
Nope. I was willing to live and let live before, but now? Fuck them.
Quote from: StormBringer;554119Emphasis mine
I really do get what their point is, but I think you might be missing the thrust of it. From here, we are supposed to accept the rest of the argument that Fighters are simply useless period.
No, you lying shithead. No one is arguing that. You don't get to assign a convenient position to us to make arguing with us easier, because you are a combative dick.
There is no rest of the argument. You don't get to make one up.
Quote from: Kaelik;554120No, you lying shithead. No one is arguing that. You don't get to assign a convenient position to us to make arguing with us easier, because you are a combative dick.
Awwww... poor widdle snowflake. Maybe you can swing over to tBP for that emotionally safe environment where your embarrassingly unsupported assumptions don't have to be challenged without a mod stepping in with hugs and vibes for you.
Quote from: Kaelik;554118But as far as I can tell, no one from TGD has done that here. Instead, many people here have talked about how it actually can't be true that people from TGD have had said issue.
No, sweetcheeks, those people are just still baffled how such a goddamn stupid 'problem' with a dead simple solution continues to be held up as the major game system design problems of the day. By people who claim they are experts with nearly all versions of said game system.
Christ, the change to variable weapon damage and adding the thief class had less wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Quote from: StormBringer;554123I am a four time convicted murderer.
That's nice, but no one cares.
Quote from: Kaelik;554125That's nice, but no one cares.
Are you sure you want to leave the slander sitting around where anyone can see it?
Quote from: StormBringer;554129Are you sure you want to leave the slander sitting around where anyone can see it?
If by slander you mean libel, I'm confident that your actual damages will be zero and I can establish lack of malice.
Further, I believe I could also establish that my statement is not libel at all, because it is clear what assertion I am actually making, IE, that you are a liar, and of course, truth is a defense.
Quote from: StormBringer;554123No, sweetcheeks, those people are just still baffled how such a goddamn stupid 'problem' with a dead simple solution continues to be held up as the major game system design problems of the day.
Again, I don't suppose you could actually present any evidence at all that this is the case?
Quote from: StormBringer;554129Are you sure you want to leave the slander sitting around where anyone can see it?
I object to that accusation!
If it's in print, it's libel.
/JJJ
EDIT: Also one generally has to show damage to a reputation. I'm not sure that's possible in Stormy's case.
Quote from: jibbajibba;554056The point Marley is that a fighters contribution to the mechaincal side of the game can be replicated by an animated creature, a golem, a charmed monster whatever. That is true you can not deny it.
You give me a list of things a fighter can do in the rules of 1e or 3e or even 2e if you ignore weapons specialisation which is just a buff. I can relicate those easily with any number of alternatives.
Now obviously you can't replace the player. A thing driven by the DM or another player is just a thing, with a great DM and great players that thing might have a life of its own but it won't replace the player who bithces and moans and chucks in jokes and things of things the other players don;t and occassionally makes the tea.
But don't confuse the two.
Come on Jibba be serious here I know you like arguing for arguing sake but it's hardly relevant that the mechanical side of the fighter can be replicated. In an actual game it would cause serious issues for the character doing such things and possibly out of game reprecussions also. And no you don't get to convienently ignore weapon specialization especially when it had serious wieght (before UA) and was Fighter ONLY.
But the above really isn't my issue with this whole thing. What bothers me is that this whole argument predicates no human element, no players, no DM with a modicum of intelligence and sanity, nothing but numbers and a videogame mentality.
Quote from: daniel_ream;554131I object to that accusation!
If it's in print, it's libel.
Well, I wasn't going to take it to court or anything... :)
QuoteEDIT: Also one generally has to show damage to a reputation. I'm not sure that's possible in Stormy's case.
Watch it, you're next on the list.
Quote from: Kaelik;554130If by slander you mean libel, I'm confident that your actual damages will be zero and I can establish lack of malice.
Further, I believe I could also establish that my statement is not libel at all, because it is clear what assertion I am actually making, IE, that you are a liar, and of course, truth is a defense.
Uh huh. Time to get back on the meds.
QuoteAgain, I don't suppose you could actually present any evidence at all that this is the case?
(http://onscreencars.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/the-homer.jpg)
Quote from: Marleycat;554132But the above really isn't my issue with this whole thing. What bothers me is that this whole argument predicates no human element, no players, no DM with a modicum of intelligence and sanity, nothing but numbers and a videogame mentality.
Once again, no it doesn't. It predicates specific humans. Players and DMs with intelligence and sanity and different preferences than you.
As a player, if I can choose between playing a fighter and a cleric who also has a fighter for free, I choose the latter, because I do not want to play an arbitrarily weaker character.
As a DM, I would rather outlaw fighters than play a game where most of the players can interact with non combat challenges, and the fighter cannot. As a DM, I would rather have no one play a fighter, because want to use the Monsters from the Monster Manuals without having to play them really stupid on purpose to make the one person playing an NPC class not feel bad.
This not about divorcing the human element. It is about making it so that the actual human beings playing the game can all enjoy the game. If one persons enjoyment has to come at the expense of other people enjoying the game less, than that is a problem, and it is explicitly a problem for the human element.
Quote from: Kaelik;554137This not about divorcing the human element. It is about making it so that the actual human beings playing the game can all enjoy the game. If one persons enjoyment has to come at the expense of other people enjoying the game less, than that is a problem, and it is explicitly a problem for the human element.
And this is where you keep fucking up. It's a problem for the human element
in your games.
Quote from: StormBringer;554138And this is where you keep fucking up. It's a problem for the human element in your games.
And this is where you keep fucking up, no one has at any point said "This is a problem in your game."
You just keep making it up over and over again for no reason.
The post you quoted specifically states "different preferences than you" and talks about my personal preferences no less than three times. Only the most stupid of idiots could possibly fail to see that I was talking about my games when I talked about myself as a player and a DM.
QuoteThis not about divorcing the human element. It is about making it so that the actual human beings playing the game can all enjoy the game. If one persons enjoyment has to come at the expense of other people enjoying the game less, than that is a problem, and it is explicitly a problem for the human element.
Sounds like an issue that
you have, not something everyone has. This is something you have to handle person to person and no amount of number jacking or saying the fighter is useless will fix it.
The mechanical side can be fixed any number of ways most are simple and involve going back to the roots of the game (any version before 3x) but involve working both to restore the Fighter to her original purpose and adding in all the limits Wizards had before 3x. Personally I don't prefer to exactly replicate 1/2e I prefer a middle ground that has some 3x elements in the solution.
Where you keep tripping up though is that the game is about people the core of the problem is the people at your table be it a DM that can't control the options or make a realistic decision about her setting or players with the mindset of gaming the system and "well if it's there in the rules it must be allowed".
Quote from: Kaelik;554146And this is where you keep fucking up, no one has at any point said "This is a problem in your game."
You just keep making it up over and over again for no reason.
Jesus, you are stupid. I am saying it, you lackwit. You endlessly drone on about these problems, when they are only problems for
you. But you still think it's an objective problem for everyone. Protip: It isn't. It's just you.
Quote from: Marleycat;554148Sounds like an issue that you have, not something everyone has. This is something you have to handle person to person and no amount of number jacking or saying the fighter is useless will fix it.
1) I don't say the fighter is useless. For the four hundredth time.
2) It is an issue that I have. Also a bunch of other people who are not you.
3) Fixing the problem "person to person" involves telling people to not play fighters. Fixing the problem "in the rules" happens by telling people that we are playing a Tome game, or that we are playing a game where Fighters are an NPC class. Those are the same thing. There is no difference, except that one is more efficient than the other.
Quote from: StormBringer;554150You endlessly drone on about these problems, when they are only problems for you.
And the other people who also have them, IE, fectin, MGuy, people who haven't posted on this thread, or exist elsewhere on the internet, or who don't post on the internet.
Quote from: StormBringer;554150But you still think it's an objective problem for everyone.
Once again, how hard is this for you to understand. Stop lying about what I think.
IT IS NOT AN OBJECTIVE PROBLEM FOR EVERYONE, AND I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED IT IS.
Now every time you post that, I'm just going to requote this.
Quote from: Marleycat;554132Come on Jibba be serious here I know you like arguing for arguing sake but it's hardly relevant that the mechanical side of the fighter can be replicated. In an actual game it would cause serious issues for the character doing such things and possibly out of game reprecussions also. And no you don't get to convienently ignore weapon specialization especially when it had serious wieght (before UA) and was Fighter ONLY.
But the above really isn't my issue with this whole thing. What bothers me is that this whole argument predicates no human element, no players, no DM with a modicum of intelligence and sanity, nothing but numbers and a videogame mentality.
As I said I agree with your bolded, well mostly.
However the mechanics are ignoreable. And yes specialisation is not as big a buff as giant strength so comparing a fighter to a frost giant it can be ignored.
And I am not arguing for the sake. I am trying to define the parameters of the discussion.
Currently we have a number of pissing matches about whether there is a power gap between Casters and fighters.
Its my position that there is a power gap and how can we sort that out.
We have OSR approach
i) Enforce the caster rules ridigly
ii) Gift fighters with magical equipment as its part of the game
iii) place everything in the campaign context and consider meta-game elements
We have the GD approach
i) Replace mundane figthers with exoitc derivitives
that approach itself leads to the GD discussion about what powers exotic figthers would need to compete, specifically in a 3e playspace but the discussion can also be applied to earlier editions where the gap is narrower and the overall powercap lower.
Now I think arguing that there is a gap is moot especially if your fixes for it are already in the things you can do to fix it in an OSR game. There isn't a gap becuase I do this / I do this so there isn't a gap ... its a daft discussion.
Now I do have a bias, of course, I am looking at a future edition I am concerned about what 5e can do and less concerned about what earlier editions did except in as much as they can inform the methods used in 5e ... thus the OSR points I list as fixes Ben or Stormy might regard as the base 1e game.
I also try to avoid calling everyone that disagrees with me a stupid cunting motherfucker that has never played D&D becuase that really doesn't help engender an environment where different ideas and opinions can be logically and openly discussed.
On and I avoid Onetruewayism. Objective analysis and realistic pragmatic solutions please.
Quote from: Kaelik;5541521) I don't say the fighter is useless. For the four hundredth time.
2) It is an issue that I have. Also a bunch of other people who are not you.
3) Fixing the problem "person to person" involves telling people to not play fighters. Fixing the problem "in the rules" happens by telling people that we are playing a Tome game, or that we are playing a game where Fighters are an NPC class. Those are the same thing. There is no difference, except that one is more efficient than the other.
1) You want to remove the fighter entirely so yeah you believe they are useless.
2) 3x players maybe and there are solutions that don't involve creating a whole new game or distorting Dnd into some parody of itself.
3) Exactly. You as DM say this is what goes (books, suppliments, and houserules because believe it or not Dnd is supposed to be houseruled nobody before the advent of 3x ran things by RAW and most still don't unless you are doing RPGA stuff. Which irrelevant to the majority of gamers. Remember there is a huge excluded middle that never visits gaming forums or the like, ever.
Quote from: Kaelik;5541521) I don't say the fighter is useless. For the four hundredth time.
You claimed it in this very thread.
Quote from: Kaelik;553899Because the Fighter is ostensibly a PC class, and PC classes should not be strictly superior to other PC classes.
How does saying "A problem eixsts when the fighter is strictly weaker than a Cleric with Animate Dead" mean that he needs to be fixed? It means he needs to be removed.
So, we are removing useful classes just for the hell of it, then? And it's another example of speaking in the absolute terms you keep denying.
Wait, let me guess: "I didn't use the word
useless, so you are wrong! Nyah Nyah!"
Quote from: jibbajibba;554158As I said I agree with your bolded, well mostly.
However the mechanics are ignoreable. And yes specialisation is not as big a buff as giant strength so comparing a fighter to a frost giant it can be ignored.
And I am not arguing for the sake. I am trying to define the parameters of the discussion.
Currently we have a number of pissing matches about whether there is a power gap between Casters and fighters.
Its my position that there is a power gap and how can we sort that out.
We have OSR approach
i) Enforce the caster rules ridigly
ii) Gift fighters with magical equipment as its part of the game
iii) place everything in the campaign context and consider meta-game elements
We have the GD approach
i) Replace mundane figthers with exoitc derivitives
that approach itself leads to the GD discussion about what powers exotic figthers would need to compete, specifically in a 3e playspace but the discussion can also be applied to earlier editions where the gap is narrower and the overall powercap lower.
Now I think arguing that there is a gap is moot especially if your fixes for it are already in the things you can do to fix it in an OSR game. There isn't a gap becuase I do this / I do this so there isn't a gap ... its a daft discussion.
Now I do have a bias, of course, I am looking at a future edition I am concerned about what 5e can do and less concerned about what earlier editions did except in as much as they can inform the methods used in 5e ... thus the OSR points I list as fixes Ben or Stormy might regard as the base 1e game.
I also try to avoid calling everyone that disagrees with me a stupid cunting motherfucker that has never played D&D becuase that really doesn't help engender an environment where different ideas and opinions can be logically and openly discussed.
On and I avoid Onetruewayism. Objective analysis and realistic pragmatic solutions please.
I actually agree or at least can work with your solutions. But I prefer Sacrificial Lamb's solution a bit better or a mix of my own with his. Mine involve spellpoints (but more limited than what TSR/WoTC has done) and BX/1/2e hard caps on total spells known and a percentage roll to learn any spell you find that never goes above 85% regardless of intelligence score. Magic is hard and mysterious and the sentient mind has a hard time grasping it. (Also it makes it impossible to cherry pick spell lists and at best a wizard may have 160 total spells not counting cantrips unless you bite the bullet and remove the Sorcerer as a class and make the spell list cap more in the 70-80 range like Fantasy Craft).
Quote from: Kaelik;554137As a DM, I would rather outlaw fighters than play a game where most of the players can interact with non combat challenges, and the fighter cannot.
When fighters are outlawed then only outlaws can play fighters. :p
You can pry my fighter's character sheet from my cold dead fingers!
Quote from: Exploderwizard;554167When fighters are outlawed then only outlaws can play fighters. :p
You can pry my fighter's character sheet from my cold dead fingers!
Or I could just tell you that I'm not going to DM on easy mode to accommodate your refusal to conform to my request that you play a stronger character, and if you have a problem with feeling like you don't matter, then that's your fault.
Or I can tell you that I'm not going to reduce the number of non combat challenges in my game just because you play a class that doesn't have any non combat abilities, and if you feel like you have nothing to contribute when there is no combat, that's your problem.
Or we could just not play in the same game.
Quote from: Marleycat;5541591) You want to remove the fighter entirely so yeah you believe they are useless.
I want to remove Gate entirely, I don't believe that it is useless, I believe it is the best spell in the game by a wide margin. Too wide.
I want to remove the fighters from my game because of my personal preferences, and I want people who are making their own games, who share most of my preferences, to remove it from their games because that will make the game they are creating conform more to my preferences.
Quote from: Marleycat;5541593) Exactly. You as DM say this is what goes (books, suppliments, and houserules because believe it or not Dnd is supposed to be houseruled nobody before the advent of 3x ran things by RAW and most still don't unless you are doing RPGA stuff. Which irrelevant to the majority of gamers. Remember there is a huge excluded middle that never visits gaming forums or the like, ever.
So they when am I being yelled at for talking about the discussions I have with my peers about what we can do to make our games better?
Quote from: StormBringer;554160So, we are removing useful classes just for the hell of it, then?
Because they violate my personal preferences.
You might recognize that as the reason I gave every single time I discussed removing the fighter.
Quote from: Kaelik;554172I want to remove Gate entirely, I don't believe that it is useless, I believe it is the best spell in the game by a wide margin. Too wide.
I want to remove the fighters from my game because of my personal preferences, and I want people who are making their own games, who share most of my preferences, to remove it from their games because that will make the game they are creating conform more to my preferences.
So they when am I being yelled at for talking about the discussions I have with my peers about what we can do to make our games better?
Go ahead and remove Gate from the game it won't alter the game into something not Dnd. Personally I would make it a ritual but I'm for making all spells above 6th as rituals. Now removing fighters? That alters the baseline of the game and makes it something else. It may not be a bad game but it isn't Dnd.
Who's yelling? Well most the time at least.:)
Quote from: Kaelik;554172Because they violate my personal preferences.
You might recognize that as the reason I gave every single time I discussed removing the fighter.
Quote from: Kaelik;553899How does saying "A problem eixsts when the fighter is strictly weaker than a Cleric with Animate Dead" mean that he needs to be fixed? It means he needs to be removed.
Since you like semantics:
strict·ly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strictly)
adverb
1. in a strict manner;
rigorously;
stringently:
strictly enforced.
2. precisely or candidly;
factually:
strictly speaking.
strictly (http://thesaurus.com/browse/strictly)
Main Entry: strictly
Part of Speech: adverb
Definition: rigidly
Synonyms: closely,
factually, rigorously,
stringently,
surelyMain Entry: exactly
Part of Speech: adverb
Definition:
accurately, particularly
Synonyms:
absolutely, altogether, bang*, carefully,
completely,
correctly,
definitely,
explicitly, expressly, faithfully,
faultlessly,
for a fact,
for certain,
for sure,
in every respect, indeed, just,
literally, methodically,
no mistake, on the dot, on the money, on the nail, on the nose,
positively, precisely, quite, right,
rigorously,
scrupulously, severely, sharp, specifically, square,
strictly , the ticket,
totally,
truly, truthfully,
unequivocally,
unerringly,
utterly, veraciously,
wholly Hence, "...the fighter is strictly weaker than a Cleric with Animate Dead." is not an expression of
personal preference. It is an expression of
objective fact.
As in, "Kaelik's participation here has been
strictly the definition of 'bad faith' discussion".
Quote from: Marleycat;554174Go ahead and remove Gate from the game it won't alter the game into something not Dnd. Personally I would make it a ritual but I'm for making all spells above 6th as rituals. Now removing fighters? That alters the baseline of the game and makes it something else. It may not be a bad but it isn't Dnd.
Here's the thing, Your preferences for D&D, and what you consider D&D, are not objective.
Making all spells above level 6 rituals would drastically change the character of D&D. In my perception, that would not make it D&D. The things that happen with 7-9th level spells are an essential part of my conception of D&D. The fighter is not. There are lots of people who hit people with a stick, there is no reason that one less way of doing it would make a D&D game not D&D.
My litmus test is certainly the many games I have played, most of which have not had anyone with the fighter, so they would play exactly the same with the fighter removed, but very different with a change to spells above 6th.
On the other hand, your perception of what is essentially D&D is probably based on a litmus test of your games, which might include more fighters that are somehow substantially different from Barbarians and Rangers and Rogues.
Quote from: StormBringer;554179Hence, "...the fighter is strictly weaker than a Cleric with Animate Dead." is not an expression of personal preference. It is an expression of objective fact.
So to be clear, you think it is appropriate to take a word, replace it with a synonym, and then declare the sentence to be equal?
Not to mention that strictly has a different meaning in math, which you know, is why I used it in a continuation of an argument where I had previously used the symbol ">" which is also, in math terms, described as "strictly greater than."
But sure, purposefully attempt to distort what I actually said, I wouldn't expect you to actually try to understand what I said.
Quote from: Marleycat;554174Go ahead and remove Gate from the game it won't alter the game into something not Dnd. Personally I would make it a ritual but I'm for making all spells above 6th as rituals. Now removing fighters? That alters the baseline of the game and makes it something else. It may not be a bad game but it isn't Dnd.
Who's yelling? Well most the time at least.:)
If you had a party with a paladin and a ranger and no fighter would it still be D&D?
If you played in an oriental campaign world where there were Kensai and Samurai (but not fighters) both of whom had powers that at high levels looked magical, would it still be D&D?
Note by the way he is happy to keep fighters as an NPC class just like he will have sages, alchemists and other classes I expect.
Quote from: Kaelik;554180Here's the thing, Your preferences for D&D, and what you consider D&D, are not objective.
Making all spells above level 6 rituals would drastically change the character of D&D. In my perception, that would not make it D&D. The things that happen with 7-9th level spells are an essential part of my conception of D&D. The fighter is not. There are lots of people who hit people with a stick, there is no reason that one less way of doing it would make a D&D game not D&D.
My litmus test is certainly the many games I have played, most of which have not had anyone with the fighter, so they would play exactly the same with the fighter removed, but very different with a change to spells above 6th.
On the other hand, your perception of what is essentially D&D is probably based on a litmus test of your games, which might include more fighters that are somehow substantially different from Barbarians and Rangers and Rogues.
Well of course you think all a fighter is "a person who hits people with a stick" you only think of 3x as Dnd and that just isn't true and in fact is objectively the worst version for fighters given they made them absolutely vanilla. The deeper issue though is you refuse to want a solution other than "let's dial everything up to 11! And make everybody have powerz". 4e didn't work hence the reason for 5e.
Quote from: Marleycat;554162I actually agree or at least can work with your solutions. But I prefer Sacrificial Lamb's solution a bit better or a mix of my own with his. Mine involve spellpoints (but more limited than what TSR/WoTC has done) and BX/1/2e hard caps on total spells known and a percentage roll to learn any spell you find that never goes above 85% regardless of intelligence score. Magic is hard and mysterious and the sentient mind has a hard time grasping it. (Also it makes it impossible to cherry pick spell lists and at best a wizard may have 160 total spells not counting cantrips unless you bite the bullet and remove the Sorcerer as a class and make the spell list cap more in the 70-80 range like Fantasy Craft).
Fine so your fixes for the possibility that figthers are weaker than casters is clear.
Now you note wizards how do you similarily control clerical power which to me is actually more extreme.
Quote from: Marleycat;554183Well of course you think all a fighter is "a person who hits people with a stick" you only think of 3x as Dnd and that just isn't true and in fact is objectively the worst version for fighters given they made them absolutely vanilla. The deeper issue though is you refuse to want a solution other than "let's dial everything up to 11! And make everybody have powerz". 4e didn't work hence the reason for 5e.
So in 1e what are the non-vanilla powers of the figther?
in 2e?
Quote from: jibbajibba;554182If you had a party with a paladin and a ranger and no fighter would it still be D&D?
If you played in an oriental campaign world where there were Kensai and Samurai (but not fighters) both of whom had powers that at high levels looked magical, would it still be D&D?
Note by the way he is happy to keep fighters as an NPC class just like he will have sages, alchemists and other classes I expect.
1. Yes because Fighter would still be a choice given in reality both the Paladin and Ranger are just subclasses of Fighter.
2. Sure because Oriental settings have a different baseline and different expectations, also the magic works differently don't forget the other half of the equation.:)
Except that Fighter as NPC is not the same as Sages as NPC's one is a viable choice in any version of Dnd not 3x the other has no reason to be in a dungeon/wilderness. Now a Wizard with a background in sage or alchemy completely different thing.
Quote from: jibbajibba;554182If you had a party with a paladin and a ranger and no fighter would it still be D&D?
Those are Fighters.
QuoteIf you played in an oriental campaign world where there were Kensai and Samurai (but not fighters) both of whom had powers that at high levels looked magical, would it still be D&D?
Those are still Fighters. And 4e did the 'magickal fightan powerz' thing. Now we have 5e on the horizon, so that should indicate how well
that went over.
QuoteNote by the way he is happy to keep fighters as an NPC class just like he will have sages, alchemists and other classes I expect.
What we are seeing advocated here is the removal of a class that does swording as a primary function. Anyone is certainly free to simply ignore Fighters, and the problem is solved. That doesn't involve advocating removal of the class from the rules, which is really what is being suggested. Why does the Fighter need to be 'removed' if it can simply be ignored.
Oh, because this is for a 'fantasy heartbreaker'. Awesome. Write your fantasy heartbreaker without Fighters, and see how it is received by the gaming community in general. That still doesn't explain why it is so important for everyone to agree that the Fighter should be removed from the game of D&D. You can do it, of course, but I think most people here would posit you are playing a very different version of D&D that many gamers wouldn't recognize. Something closer to Ars Magica (3rd edition, obviously) without grogs. Or companions in general. And orders of magnitude higher powered. With no mishaps. And Dragons.
And that is kind of where we are. "Grogs/companions are weaker than a Magus". Well, for very specific comparisons, sure. 'Strictly' weaker? Good luck getting your research done while you are out gallivanting about taking care of problems those companions are too shitty to deal with.
Quote from: Marleycat;554183The deeper issue though is you refuse to want a solution other than "let's dial everything up to 11! And make everybody have powerz".
The deeper issue you have is that you refuse to accept that I am allowed to want the things that I want. If I want to dial things up to 11, why the hell do you keep complaining about me wanting to do it?
You keep asserting that I'm bad for wanting things that I want.
Quote from: Marleycat;5541834e didn't work hence the reason for 5e.
4e didn't dial things up to 11. It dialed everything down to 4.3. I obviously don't care if the fighter has powers, so that's not why I hate 4e. I hate 4e because I want things at 11, not 4.3
Quote from: Kaelik;554172Or I could just tell you that I'm not going to DM on easy mode to accommodate your refusal to conform to my request that you play a stronger character, and if you have a problem with feeling like you don't matter, then that's your fault.
Or I can tell you that I'm not going to reduce the number of non combat challenges in my game just because you play a class that doesn't have any non combat abilities, and if you feel like you have nothing to contribute when there is no combat, that's your problem.
Or we could just not play in the same game.
If you cannot acknowledge contributions beyond the character sheet then we are already playing different games.
For quite a long time, the character sheet held little that had to do with contributing to the game. PLAYERS contributed by taking action.
If a character was useless, it was because the player was.
A fighter is not useless, nor is a first level cleric without a single spell, or a magic user who has expended his memorized spell, unless the person playing them chooses to be that way.
As time went on contributions came to be measured by character sheet menu options, which is a real shame. It has produced players who can no longer play D&D as a game of the imagination.
So yeah, you can take "can't contribute" and blow it out yer ass.
Quote from: Marleycat;5541871. Yes because Fighter would still be a choice given in reality both the Paladin and Ranger are just subclasses of Fighter.
2. Sure because Oriental settings have a different baseline and different expectations, also the magic works differently don't forget the other half of the equation.:)
Except that Fighter as NPC is not the same as Sages as NPC's one is a viable choice in any version of Dnd not 3x the other has no reason to be in a dungeon/wilderness. Now a Wizard with a background in sage or alchemy completely different thing.
i) Ah in which case you have not understood Kaelik/MGuys position they mean remove the basic figther they will allow subclasses of fighters like Rangers and paladins that have powers, although the level of those powers might need to be tweaks.
Paladins are already a martial class with magic as are rangers. Its the just basic bog standard fighter that is an issue.
The existance of those classes (ranger, barbarian, cavalier, paladin etc ) are actually one of the issues for all of them have the powers of the figther and a bundle of other benefits as well.
ii) But its still D&D right? So them removing the fighter from their 3e Wuxia games which
have a different baseline and different expectations, also the magic works differently is okay ?
I think their position , now I am readign into this woudls be that figthers are just like Sages, in that they are a limited class that have a certain roll, guards for the temple, mercenaries you hire as henchmen, maybe more like bearers than sages. They might contend that the fighter doesn't have the range of skils and abilities that enable them to complete as adventures in teh magically challenging world in which their games take place.
Quote from: Kaelik;554180So to be clear, you think it is appropriate to take a word, replace it with a synonym, and then declare the sentence to be equal?
I know we have been over this before, and I don't want to sound like a dick, because this could be the root of the problem, but...
You do speak English more or less natively, right?
Or, hell, any language, really. They all have 'synonyms'. Occasionally, a synonym might change the connotation to some degree, but it won't change the
meaning.
When I said that you like semantics, was the first thought in your head, "challenge accepted"?
Quote from: jibbajibba;554185So in 1e what are the non-vanilla powers of the figther?
in 2e?
1. Best hitpoints
2. Use any weapon and can specialize in one
3. Best armour
4. Best saves
5. Best BAB
6. Good skill selection if using NWP's
7. Arguably best end game domain management perks in the game
8. Able to use some the best magic items in the game some of which are Fighter only
Quote from: Kaelik;5541954e didn't dial things up to 11. It dialed everything down to 4.3. I obviously don't care if the fighter has powers, so that's not why I hate 4e. I hate 4e because I want things at 11, not 4.3
Nah, 4e gave everybody powers and made everybody wizards with magic weeboo! Just like you want. Hence why I mentioned it.
Quote from: StormBringer;554194Oh, because this is for a 'fantasy heartbreaker'. Awesome. Write your fantasy heartbreaker without Fighters, and see how it is received by the gaming community in general. That still doesn't explain why it is so important for everyone to agree that the Fighter should be removed from the game of D&D.
I NEVER SAID THAT EVERYONE HAS TO AGREE THAT THE FIGHTER SHOULD BE REMOVED.
Quote from: StormBringer;554194"Grogs/companions are weaker than a Magus". Well, for very specific comparisons, sure. 'Strictly' weaker? Good luck getting your research done while you are out gallivanting about taking care of problems those companions are too shitty to deal with.
Once again, you need to understand what strictly means.
What I actually said was Magus + Grog is strictly greater than Grog.
And of course, strictly means that you use this symbol > instead of this one
>.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;554196If you cannot acknowledge contributions beyond the character sheet then we are already playing different games.
For quite a long time, the character sheet held little that had to do with contributing to the game. PLAYERS contributed by taking action.
If a character was useless, it was because the player was.
A fighter is not useless, nor is a first level cleric without a single spell, or a magic user who has expended his memorized spell, unless the person playing them chooses to be that way.
As time went on contributions came to be measured by character sheet menu options, which is a real shame. It has produced players who can no longer play D&D as a game of the imagination.
So yeah, you can take "can't contribute" and blow it out yer ass.
So all that is true, and that would be my position I don't mind playing a weaker character if doing so is a fun roleplaying experience.
But the GD group might argue that you could contribute all that stuff playing a fighter that had dragon blood and could fly, and you would be able to contribute to the mechanical side of play as well.
I can see their position.
Likewise I have been heavily criticed on the forum for suggesting that playing a character who was not a professional adventurer who was a greasy fence, or a studious acdemic, who was too fat to climb a 50 foot rope or was unaware that you can use a 10 foot pole to test for traps every 5 feet, was somehow not Old School enough and that I was somehow ignorant and rubbish at playing D&D.....
All in the prefered game style really....
QuoteNow you note wizards how do you similarily control clerical power which to me is actually more extreme.
Clerics? Whoo boy do I have ideas for that abomination of a class. I would love it if they took away wizard like spell lists from them and put them on paths which act like domains giving them 4-5 effects on each path that always work. Turning to be linked to a background just like healing unless you happen to follow a God of Healing.
Or alternatively make them more like an Oracle out of Pathfinder or Mystic in Saga much less spells but able use them anytime like a 3x sorcerer.
Quote from: Marleycat;5541991. Best hitpoints
2. Use any weapon and can specialize in one
3. Best armour
4. Best saves
5. Best BAB
6. Good skill selection if using NWP's
7. Arguably best end game domain management perks in the game
8. Able to use some the best magic items in the game some of which are Fighter only
We did this before up post......
I demonstrated that
Rangers and Barbarians have better hit points.
All martial classes have the same BAB and can specialise as can 2e clerics of martial dieties.
Clerics can use the same armour, and have better saves upto 5th level, spells, buffs and close hit points; that fighters have the worse NWP progression, have end game domain management perks that only come into play if you want to play a solo mini game without the rest of the PCs, that there are only a handful of Magic items that are figther only and there are far more Wizard only.
But putting that to one side
Quote from: StormBringer;554194Those are Fighters.
Those are still Fighters. And 4e did the 'magickal fightan powerz' thing. Now we have 5e on the horizon, so that should indicate how well that went over.
What we are seeing advocated here is the removal of a class that does swording as a primary function. Anyone is certainly free to simply ignore Fighters, and the problem is solved. That doesn't involve advocating removal of the class from the rules, which is really what is being suggested. Why does the Fighter need to be 'removed' if it can simply be ignored.
Oh, because this is for a 'fantasy heartbreaker'. Awesome. Write your fantasy heartbreaker without Fighters, and see how it is received by the gaming community in general. That still doesn't explain why it is so important for everyone to agree that the Fighter should be removed from the game of D&D. You can do it, of course, but I think most people here would posit you are playing a very different version of D&D that many gamers wouldn't recognize. Something closer to Ars Magica (3rd edition, obviously) without grogs. Or companions in general. And orders of magnitude higher powered. With no mishaps. And Dragons.
And that is kind of where we are. "Grogs/companions are weaker than a Magus". Well, for very specific comparisons, sure. 'Strictly' weaker? Good luck getting your research done while you are out gallivanting about taking care of problems those companions are too shitty to deal with.
So okay Kaelik isn;t saying remove the martial class altogether he is sayign remove Fighters, keep Samurai, Paladins, Rangers, etc these are what the martial classes should look like though you might need to polish them a bit.
Its the bog standard fighter, the one who's class is FIGHTER with no magic powers that has to go.
Now again I am not agreeing I am tryign to clarify a position.
I do think that for a certain flavour of D&D the flavour these guys want a mundane figther probably is not required.
Quote from: jibbajibba;554210We did this before up post......
I demonstrated that
Rangers and Barbarians have better hit points.
All martial classes have the same BAB and can specialise as can 2e clerics of martial dieties.
Clerics can use the same armour, and have better saves upto 5th level, spells, buffs and close hit points; that fighters have the worse NWP progression, have end game domain management perks that only come into play if you want to play a solo mini game without the rest of the PCs, that there are only a handful of Magic items that are figther only and there are far more Wizard only.
But putting that to one side
Rangers and Barbarians are Fighters so cool. So all clerics are worshippers of Kord? Gotcha.
End game domain management is important and one reason why 3x has these issues.
I'll concede the exclusive magic item thing given it would make sense for wizards to have more given it is their thing!
Quote from: Marleycat;554212Rangers and Barbarians are Fighters so cool. So all clerics are worshippers of Kord? Gotcha.
End game domain management is important and one reason why 3x has these issues.
I'll concede the exclusive magic item thing given it would make sense for wizards to have more given it is their thing!
We need to calrify this Figther defintion. :)
For the purposes of this discussion FIGHTER means the base FIGHTER class it does not mean any of the subclasses which are in teh whole where the GD guys want to move the martical classes.
So UA Barbarians are not for this discussion figthers. Why? Well because they get loads of stuff figthers can't get. Better stats d12 HP, climbing, tracking , survival, magic reistance, ability to hit magicval creatures leveling damage bonus etc etc .
These are the things that the GD are suggestion would make figthers (the base fighter remember) playable.
So try that again remembering this important fact.
Worshipers of Kord/Athena/Ares/Odin/Morrigan/Shiva/Krom etc etc lots of gods of War knocking about; members of martial orders like Templars/Hospitalers/Tuetons .....
Quote from: jibbajibba;554214We need to calrify this Figther defintion. :)
For the purposes of this discussion FIGHTER means the base FIGHTER class it does not mean any of the subclasses which are in teh whole where the GD guys want to move the martical classes.
So UA Barbarians are not for this discussion figthers. Why? Well because they get loads of stuff figthers can't get. Better stats d12 HP, climbing, tracking , survival, magic reistance, ability to hit magicval creatures leveling damage bonus etc etc .
These are the things that the GD are suggestion would make figthers (the base fighter remember) playable.
So try that again remembering this important fact.
So we are talking 0e and early 1e only gotcha. No matter what you say Barbarians/Cavaliers/Paladins/Rangers are subclasses of Fighter. Just like an Illusionist is a subclass of Wizard regardless of the semantics.:)
Quote from: Marleycat;554216So we are talking 0e and early 1e only gotcha. No matter what you say Barbarians/Cavaliers/Paladins/Rangers are Fighers. Just like an Illusionist is a Wizard regardless of the semantics.:)
The Semantics are key here though.
The point here is that the
fighter has nothing to bring to the table. The Paladin has plenty, he can heal, cast Clerical spells, repels evil, has a magic pony, immune to fear/disease etc etc they want all fighters to be like that.
That is why sematics are important in this case. The fighter subclasses is what they want to move to not what they want to ban.
Create more of them. 1/2 Demonic shadow warriors, Antipaladins, Archers that shoot arrows like that dippy Elf in Hawk the Slayer, that is what they want so clumping those subclasses into the figther class they think is crap is really missing the thrust of the debate.
Quote from: jibbajibba;554220really missing the thrust of the debate.
That seems to be the primary skill in this forum.
Quote from: Kaelik;554224That seems to be the primary skill in this forum.
You're not really one of us, though, until you resort to bitter one liners.
Quote from: jibbajibba;554220The Semantics are key here though.
The point here is that the fighter has nothing to bring to the table. The Paladin has plenty, he can heal, cast Clerical spells, repels evil, has a magic pony, immune to fear/disease etc etc they want all fighters to be like that.
That is why sematics are important in this case. The fighter subclasses is what they want to move to not what they want to ban.
Create more of them. 1/2 Demonic shadow warriors, Antipaladins, Archers that shoot arrows like that dippy Elf in Hawk the Slayer, that is what they want so clumping those subclasses into the figther class they think is crap is really missing the thrust of the debate.
So go ahead and do so already. I won't stop you. Especially since they refuse to take the other half into the equation and refuse to take any other reasonable fixes or suggestions beyond "Magic Tea Party everybody is weeboo powered magic beings" and they don't want to give the Fighter back her toys from pre 3x or put limits on magic users. They don't want a middle ground so I can't help you.
Quote from: Kaelik;554224That seems to be the primary skill in this forum.
We're all Fighters. There's nowhere else for us to spend our limited skill points.
Quote from: daniel_ream;554240We're all Fighters. There's nowhere else for us to spend our limited skill points.
Daniel wins the thread!
Quote from: daniel_ream;554240We're all Fighters. There's nowhere else for us to spend our limited skill points.
Well played.
Fact is, this debate is nothing new. The Cleric class only exists because another player had a Vampire character that was getting out of hand and needed to be put down.
Quote from: Rum Cove;554243Well played.
Fact is, this debate is nothing new. The Cleric class only exists because another player had a Vampire character that was getting out of hand and needed to be put down.
Which is why it's such a hodgepodge. I really wish they would specialize it and get rid of the spell lists for it. Give them limited spells or innate divine effects instead with less armour and weapons and slide the universal armour/weapons into Paladin only.
In AD&D 1st ed[1], all of the classes have a very small set of literary and historical sources that they're intended to model. Clerics are Christian Knights Templar, Paladins are Poul Anderson's comic take on the Song of Roland, Wizards are from Vance, Rangers are Strider from LotR, Druids are from The Riddle-Master of Hed/Roman religious practice, the Cavalier from High Middle Ages chivalric tradition, the Barbarian equal parts Conan and Scandinavian vikings, the thief from Lieber's Grey Mouser, and so on. The fighter is basically just a generic man-at-arms, although there's a bit of the Chronicles of Amber in there.
When you try to stretch any of the AD&D 1st ed. classes beyond their original limited scope while still trying to keep their base assumptions intact, you run into problems. A priest of Apollo is not going to wear armour or wield a mace. Paladins of anything but a Christian god don't make much sense, and a cavalier from the 11th century is not going to act anything like the 14th century Cavalier that UA describes.
I think the fighter as a base class across all editions of *D&D[2] is kind of bland, and lacks anything like the strong flavour inspiration the other classes do. AD&D 2E[3] with its kits and Player's Option books was the only edition to really address this, I feel, by providing ways of tuning the generic Wizard, Priest, Rogue and Fighter classes into things with some more flavour and detail.
3E's Prestige Classes could have been used for this, but they seemed to get equated with "rare and powerful" rather than "tighter focus", and as 3.x through to Pathfinder development went on, the base classes accumulated more and more cruft until their original sources were lost under the accumulation. Treating 3E Prestige Classes more like AD&D 1st ed.'s subclasses would have been a better approach, I think.
Here's a question for Kaelik (and MGuy, and deadDMwalking et al): have you guys ever looked at wholesale d20 point buy systems, like Eclipse: The Codex Persona? I'd never allow a player to build their character pick-and-choose out of the book, but as a method for constructing specialized classes it seems like it would be worth a look.
[1] Do you see what I'm doing here? I'm explicitly referencing the flavour of *D&D I'm talking about. Y'all might want to try doing that some time, if it doesn't cut too much into your enjoyment of deliberately misreading other people's posts for the fucking lulz.
[2] Again, see what I did there?
[3] Once more for the cheap seats.
Quote from: daniel_ream;554260In AD&D 1st ed[1], all of the classes have a very small set of literary and historical sources that they're intended to model. Clerics are Christian Knights Templar, Paladins are Poul Anderson's comic take on the Song of Roland, Wizards are from Vance, Rangers are Strider from LotR, Druids are from The Riddle-Master of Hed/Roman religious practice, the Cavalier from High Middle Ages chivalric tradition, the Barbarian equal parts Conan and Scandinavian vikings, the thief from Lieber's Grey Mouser, and so on. The fighter is basically just a generic man-at-arms, although there's a bit of the Chronicles of Amber in there.
When you try to stretch any of the AD&D 1st ed. classes beyond their original limited scope while still trying to keep their base assumptions intact, you run into problems. A priest of Apollo is not going to wear armour or wield a mace. Paladins of anything but a Christian god don't make much sense, and a cavalier from the 11th century is not going to act anything like the 14th century Cavalier that UA describes.
I think the fighter as a base class across all editions of *D&D[2] is kind of bland, and lacks anything like the strong flavour inspiration the other classes do. AD&D 2E[3] with its kits and Player's Option books was the only edition to really address this, I feel, by providing ways of tuning the generic Wizard, Priest, Rogue and Fighter classes into things with some more flavour and detail.
3E's Prestige Classes could have been used for this, but they seemed to get equated with "rare and powerful" rather than "tighter focus", and as 3.x through to Pathfinder development went on, the base classes accumulated more and more cruft until their original sources were lost under the accumulation. Treating 3E Prestige Classes more like AD&D 1st ed.'s subclasses would have been a better approach, I think.
Here's a question for Kaelik (and MGuy, and deadDMwalking et al): have you guys ever looked at wholesale d20 point buy systems, like Eclipse: The Codex Persona? I'd never allow a player to build their character pick-and-choose out of the book, but as a method for constructing specialized classes it seems like it would be worth a look.
[1] Do you see what I'm doing here? I'm explicitly referencing the flavour of *D&D I'm talking about. Y'all might want to try doing that some time, if it doesn't cut too much into your enjoyment of deliberately misreading other people's posts for the fucking lulz.
[2] Again, see what I did there?
[3] Once more for the cheap seats.
I am all about 2e so I agree with the flavour stuff but I am a hey-nonny roleplayer that doesn;t mind power imbalance. The Priest makes a lot more sense than the cleric but with gods of war and so on the priest can easily outshine a fighter so , double edged sword that one.
The sources stuff is useful to a point but D&D hasn't been static for 30 years and other influences have been at play all the way through. So the origin myths have had to face a good few reboots to get to where we are now.
Oh and this is a great take on Skills and Powers (which was a good idea hiddeously implemented.) http://www.mindspring.com/~ernestm/classless/
Quote from: daniel_ream;554260In AD&D 1st ed[1], all of the classes have a very small set of literary and historical sources that they're intended to model. Clerics are Christian Knights Templar, Paladins are Poul Anderson's comic take on the Song of Roland, Wizards are from Vance, Rangers are Strider from LotR, Druids are from The Riddle-Master of Hed/Roman religious practice, the Cavalier from High Middle Ages chivalric tradition, the Barbarian equal parts Conan and Scandinavian vikings, the thief from Lieber's Grey Mouser, and so on. The fighter is basically just a generic man-at-arms, although there's a bit of the Chronicles of Amber in there.
When you try to stretch any of the AD&D 1st ed. classes beyond their original limited scope while still trying to keep their base assumptions intact, you run into problems. A priest of Apollo is not going to wear armour or wield a mace. Paladins of anything but a Christian god don't make much sense, and a cavalier from the 11th century is not going to act anything like the 14th century Cavalier that UA describes.
I think the fighter as a base class across all editions of *D&D[2] is kind of bland, and lacks anything like the strong flavour inspiration the other classes do. AD&D 2E[3] with its kits and Player's Option books was the only edition to really address this, I feel, by providing ways of tuning the generic Wizard, Priest, Rogue and Fighter classes into things with some more flavour and detail.
3E's Prestige Classes could have been used for this, but they seemed to get equated with "rare and powerful" rather than "tighter focus", and as 3.x through to Pathfinder development went on, the base classes accumulated more and more cruft until their original sources were lost under the accumulation. Treating 3E Prestige Classes more like AD&D 1st ed.'s subclasses would have been a better approach, I think.
Here's a question for Kaelik (and MGuy, and deadDMwalking et al): have you guys ever looked at wholesale d20 point buy systems, like Eclipse: The Codex Persona? I'd never allow a player to build their character pick-and-choose out of the book, but as a method for constructing specialized classes it seems like it would be worth a look.
[1] Do you see what I'm doing here? I'm explicitly referencing the flavour of *D&D I'm talking about. Y'all might want to try doing that some time, if it doesn't cut too much into your enjoyment of deliberately misreading other people's posts for the fucking lulz.
[2] Again, see what I did there?
[3] Once more for the cheap seats.
I'm glad you and jib are actually trying to understand where other people are coming from. And yes, I have looked at it. In the game I'm making I took the route where a player's class has a set of primary abilities that other classes can't copy and sub abilities that people can get (cause there's no cross classing in my system). Everything else: skills, spells, Feats, are available to everyone by deciding to take them.
Quote from: jibbajibba;554267The sources stuff is useful to a point but D&D hasn't been static for 30 years and other influences have been at play all the way through. So the origin myths have had to face a good few reboots to get to where we are now.
I think of this as "inverted spyglass problem". I first noticed it with the gamer community around VtM and early oWoD.
VtM (and the other first releases of the oWoD) did not explicitly call out their literary sources of inspiration except in passing; there was no equivalent of Appendix N. VtM's setting was a generally acceptable blend of a bunch of classic vampire literature, heavy on the Anne Rice.
Now, I was a big vampire lit reader before VtM ever came out, so I could spot exactly what they were drawing from and trivially pull from that when creating my own material. Many of the local gamers, though, had their first exposure to modern vampire lit in the game itself, and never bothered to go read anything the game was based on.
The result was that instead of being able to see the larger, fleshed out expositions of the game's themes and ideas as presented in the source material, all they had to work with was the abbreviated snippets scattered throughout the corebook. Like looking at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel through the wrong end of a spyglass, they saw little bits in isolation, but not any sense of the whole, or the larger parts of the whole than what you can see through the spyglass.
The result is creative material that tries to descend from the VtM setting, rather than extending the VtM setting by going back to the source material and extrapolating from there - a lot of material that's only there because "well, that's how it is in the corebook" instead of realizing that the corebook is just one particular interpretation of the source material in game form.[1]
To bring this back to *D&D, then, why does the Druid get shapeshifting/Wild Shape? In AD&D1, the Druid has shapeshifting because Morgon has it in The Riddle-Master of Hed trilogy. In AD&D2, 3, and Pathfinder, the Druid doesn't have shapeshifting because of the Riddle-Master of Hed, the Druid has shapeshifting because that's how the last edition did it. Ditto the cleric starting with armor and weapon proficiencies.
The classes through the editions aren't evolving as much as they are suffering from cargo cult development and I think that's an issue, because it makes it harder to define "what is a cleric". If I say "A cleric is a Knight Templar - not quite a holy knight, but more a militant shepherd of his flock, capable of supporting them with force of arms and the righteousness of God in equal measure", then people are going to get that. Ducky. We're off to the races. If I say "A cleric is a priest of his god who gets a bunch of supernatural powers depending on their god's sphere of influence" and somebody asks, "so why does a priest of Hestia get heavy armor training?" I don't have an answer for that.
TL;DR: D&D classes need to be either generic expressions of broad fantasy concepts, or implementations of a specific and well-defined trope. Trying to swim around in the middle leads to Arrow Devil clerics.
[1] The most facepalm-inducing example of this I can think of is Elizabeth Moon's
Deed of Paksennarion duology.
Quit trying to bring facts and logic to the discussion Daniel. Actually that makes alot of sense to me and shows why Dnd is such a mess. It's trying to swim in the middle but there are many other great games that have already chosen one or the other approach you describe. In other words it isn't the only game in town anymore and needs to put up or shut up.
Quote from: Marleycat;554148Sounds like an issue that you have, not something everyone has. This is something you have to handle person to person and no amount of number jacking or saying the fighter is useless will fix it.
There are several times I've wanted to jump back in, but I'm still not caught back up. But this time I couldn't hold back.
It's also an issue
I have. And it's an issue that
other people I've spoken to have. And it's an issue that I, and other people, want to see addressed. And one way to address the issue is to discuss it.
In a discussion, people that have had the issue might contribute their solutions. People that have not seen the issue might become aware of it.
People that claim that they don't see the issue because they've already solved it through DM hand-waving and/or rules changes are lying dicks - they've clearly seen the issue and addressed the issue to their satisfaction.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;554284There are several times I've wanted to jump back in, but I'm still not caught back up. But this time I couldn't hold back.
- This board software has an ignore list function; you should familiarize yourself with it instead of feeding the trollcat.
- What are your thoughts on the use of a point-buy system like Eclipse as a custom class construction system?
Quote from: daniel_ream;554278I think of this as "inverted spyglass problem". I first noticed it with the gamer community around VtM and early oWoD.
VtM (and the other first releases of the oWoD) did not explicitly call out their literary sources of inspiration except in passing; there was no equivalent of Appendix N. VtM's setting was a generally acceptable blend of a bunch of classic vampire literature, heavy on the Anne Rice.
Now, I was a big vampire lit reader before VtM ever came out, so I could spot exactly what they were drawing from and trivially pull from that when creating my own material. Many of the local gamers, though, had their first exposure to modern vampire lit in the game itself, and never bothered to go read anything the game was based on.
The result was that instead of being able to see the larger, fleshed out expositions of the game's themes and ideas as presented in the source material, all they had to work with was the abbreviated snippets scattered throughout the corebook. Like looking at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel through the wrong end of a spyglass, they saw little bits in isolation, but not any sense of the whole, or the larger parts of the whole than what you can see through the spyglass.
The result is creative material that tries to descend from the VtM setting, rather than extending the VtM setting by going back to the source material and extrapolating from there - a lot of material that's only there because "well, that's how it is in the corebook" instead of realizing that the corebook is just one particular interpretation of the source material in game form.[1]
To bring this back to *D&D, then, why does the Druid get shapeshifting/Wild Shape? In AD&D1, the Druid has shapeshifting because Morgon has it in The Riddle-Master of Hed trilogy. In AD&D2, 3, and Pathfinder, the Druid doesn't have shapeshifting because of the Riddle-Master of Hed, the Druid has shapeshifting because that's how the last edition did it. Ditto the cleric starting with armor and weapon proficiencies.
The classes through the editions aren't evolving as much as they are suffering from cargo cult development and I think that's an issue, because it makes it harder to define "what is a cleric". If I say "A cleric is a Knight Templar - not quite a holy knight, but more a militant shepherd of his flock, capable of supporting them with force of arms and the righteousness of God in equal measure", then people are going to get that. Ducky. We're off to the races. If I say "A cleric is a priest of his god who gets a bunch of supernatural powers depending on their god's sphere of influence" and somebody asks, "so why does a priest of Hestia get heavy armor training?" I don't have an answer for that.
TL;DR: D&D classes need to be either generic expressions of broad fantasy concepts, or implementations of a specific and well-defined trope. Trying to swim around in the middle leads to Arrow Devil clerics.
[1] The most facepalm-inducing example of this I can think of is Elizabeth Moon's Deed of Paksennarion duology.
Agreed D&D creates its own genre in effect, which is D&D, but I object when some people pull that as a reason why I can't play a musketeer or a wizard who only has divination magic.
Or, you know, D&D* can keep on being D&D* which is what it's best at. People who hold up Savage Worlds or that new Hackmaster or even WHFRP 1 or 2 (both of which I really, really like) or any other game and say THIS DOES D&D BETTER THAN D&D are morons. That's like me holding up a pot roast and claiming that it out-cheesecakes cheesecake. It's an idiotic assertion barely worth addressing except to point out it's idiocy. Both are food. Both are closely related to cows. That's essentially where any similarity ends. Logical fallacy, thy name is D&D comparison to other games.
...
*=this broadly includes OSRIC, L&L and S&W.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;554289Or, you know, D&D* can keep on being D&D* which is what it's best at. People who hold up Savage Worlds or that new Hackmaster or even WHFRP 1 or 2 (both of which I really, really like) or any other game and say THIS DOES D&D BETTER THAN D&D are morons. That's like me holding up a pot roast and claiming that it out-cheesecakes cheesecake. It's an idiotic assertion barely worth addressing except to point out it's idiocy. Both are food. Both are closely related to cows. That's essentially where any similarity ends. Logical fallacy, thy name is D&D comparison to other games.
...
*=this broadly includes OSRIC, L&L and S&W.
* so other games that are like D&D? Pathfinder C&C , the slew of OSR clones of various hues?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;554284There are several times I've wanted to jump back in, but I'm still not caught back up. But this time I couldn't hold back.
It's also an issue I have. And it's an issue that other people I've spoken to have. And it's an issue that I, and other people, want to see addressed. And one way to address the issue is to discuss it.
In a discussion, people that have had the issue might contribute their solutions. People that have not seen the issue might become aware of it.
People that claim that they don't see the issue because they've already solved it through DM hand-waving and/or rules changes are lying dicks - they've clearly seen the issue and addressed the issue to their satisfaction.
I have told you what I would do. You need to give Fighters their toys back via pre 3x and you need to put back ALL the limits on magic users pre 3x done. You can also look at a game like Fantasy Craft that basically rebuilt the 3x engine and pumped up all the martial classes while toning down the magic users through a combination of beefing up feats and giving your pure fighter the most feats and exclusive class skills that help them use those feats better than any other class.
Then you have your magic classes for Clerics they removed spell list from them outright put them on paths like 2e domains that give them 4-5 effects which some are spells, some are feats or the like. Turning is a background healing isn't a given. But their spells are auto success not stoppable.
Then you have your arcane magic users they are what you would consider a Sorcerer that has wizard qualities. Magic is skill based and spellpoints but they have only 40 points at 20th level there are a couple of feats or special abilities the mage class gives to boost that up. Their spell progression is about 2 levels behind 3x their total known spells are around 60 spells (not exact but in the ball park) the trade off being 0 level spells are at will (they are about 1st level in strength) also in certain circumstances 1/2 level spells are at will. And other features just like any other class. Typically classes features and feats are way more numerous than Dnd 3x. Casting times are longer and interruption is possible and so on.
Point is to solve this issue there are many ways to skin a cat but first and foremost it must be worked from BOTH sides of the equation not be making fighters all magical or not by nuetering the magic users or making everybody a wizard like Bo9S or 4e.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;554284There are several times I've wanted to jump back in, but I'm still not caught back up. But this time I couldn't hold back.
It's also an issue I have. And it's an issue that other people I've spoken to have. And it's an issue that I, and other people, want to see addressed. And one way to address the issue is to discuss it.
In a discussion, people that have had the issue might contribute their solutions. People that have not seen the issue might become aware of it.
People that claim that they don't see the issue because they've already solved it through DM hand-waving and/or rules changes are lying dicks - they've clearly seen the issue and addressed the issue to their satisfaction.
Surely there is room for some people to see that you have an issue but not consider an issue in the game themselves. I mean some folks think D&D's lack of realistic crunch is an issue (and if you want realistic crunch it is), but it is debatable whether it is an objective problem in the system that needs to be addressed. That is sort of my feeling about many of the things you describe. I think for what you are looking for, these are issues in the game and it makes sense for you to talk about fixing them. But for many of us here, these are not issues at all, and fixing them would make the game less enjoyable. I think there is room for both points of view here since this is ultimately about what you expect the game to do in play.
Quote from: Marleycat;554293I have told you what I would do. You need to give Fighters their toys back via pre 3x and you need to put back ALL the limits on magic users pre 3x done. You can also look at a game like Fantasy Craft that basically rebuilt the 3x engine and pumped up all the martial classes while toning down the magic users through a combination of beefing up feats and giving your pure fighter the most feats and exclusive class skills that help them use those feats better than any other class.
Then you have your magic classes for Clerics they removed spell list from them outright put them on paths like 2e domains that give them 4-5 effects which some are spells, some are feats or the like. Turning is a background healing isn't a given. But their spells are auto success not stoppable.
Then you have your arcane magic users they are what you would consider a Sorcerer that has wizard qualities. Magic is skill based and spellpoints but they have only 40 points at 20th level there are a couple of feats or special abilities the mage class gives to boost that up. Their spell progression is about 2 levels behind 3x their total known spells are around 60 spells (not exact but in the ball park) the trade off being 0 level spells are at will (they are about 1st level in strength) also in certain circumstances 1/2 level spells are at will. And other features just like any other class. Typically classes features and feats are way more numerous than Dnd 3x. Casting times are longer and interruption is possible and so on.
Point is to solve this issue there are many ways to skin a cat but first and foremost it must be worked from BOTH sides of the equation not be making fighters all magical or not by nuetering the magic users or making everybody a wizard like Bo9S or 4e.
I don;t think they have many useful pre 3e toys to be honest but the approach is sound to come to a middle ground you are comfortable with.
It might not be the game that Sacro & Ben want to play and its certainly not the game MGuy and Kaelik want to play but if you are happy with it and you think that you have closed the gap between casters and fighters enough for your table then fine.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;554296Surely there is room for some people to see that you have an issue but not consider an issue in the game themselves. I mean some folks think D&D's lack of realistic crunch is an issue (and if you want realistic crunch it is), but it is debatable whether it is an objective problem in the system that needs to be addressed. That is sort of my feeling about many of the things you describe. I think for what you are looking for, these are issues in the game and it makes sense for you to talk about fixing them. But for many of us here, these are not issues at all, and fixing them would make the game less enjoyable. I think there is room for both points of view here since this is ultimately about what you expect the game to do in play.
The issue is that you are the only person on this forum who believes that.
Literally the post right before yours is a response to the same post telling him that the only possible acceptable fix to this issue is the one true way of implementing all the 2e limits on casters.
The fact that you refuse to see that the vast majority of your forumites are the ones telling us we aren't allowed to see the problem, or discuss it and fix it in our own ways is baffling.
Can you really not see this, or do you choose to ignore it and chastise us for not accepting different points of view out of some mutant form of super hypocrisy?
Quote from: daniel_ream;554278D&D classes need to be either generic expressions of broad fantasy concepts, or implementations of a specific and well-defined trope. Trying to swim around in the middle leads to Arrow Devil clerics
That's my conclusion as well and it doesn't seem that 5e has a handle on that.
Quote from: Kaelik;554301The issue is that you are the only person on this forum who believes that.
Literally the post right before yours is a response to the same post telling him that the only possible acceptable fix to this issue is the one true way of implementing all the 2e limits on casters.
The fact that you refuse to see that the vast majority of your forumites are the ones telling us we aren't allowed to see the problem, or discuss it and fix it in our own ways is baffling.
Can you really not see this, or do you choose to ignore it and chastise us for not accepting different points of view out of some mutant form of super hypocrisy?
Dude what the hell do you want? Seriously you shift the goalposts with every post you make. You say stuff and then pretend you never said it three posts later it's ridiculous.
This a fact, 3x has issues because they removed EVERYTHING from the fighters that they already had in every previous iteration of Dnd while simultaneously removing EVERY limitation on magic users and buffing them up concurrently. What do you expect the result to be when this was done? Seriously.
Quote from: Rum Cove;554304That's my conclusion as well and it doesn't seem that 5e has a handle on that.
It seems this is a prime area for 5E's stated goal of core gameplay modified by extensions. Present the four core genericized base classes (and let's have a different magic system for the priest from the wizard), and sell a (something)[1] class construction kit along with some classes built with it - the illusionist, the ranger, the paladin, the templar, the sword saint, the sergeant, the devil summoner, etc.
Basically AD&D2's kits and player's option system, but cleaned up, simplified and streamlined, and opened up at the design level.
A sidebar like Wild Talents' "yes, you can abuse this system; here's how to turn off the Sun" would be a good addition, too.
[1] I want to say "Prestige" here, but that has connotations I think I don't want smuggled in with the name; you know what I'm driving at
Quote from: daniel_ream;554306It seems this is a prime area for 5E's stated goal of core gameplay modified by extensions. Present the four core genericized base classes (and let's have a different magic system for the priest from the wizard), and sell a (something)[1] class construction kit along with some classes built with it - the illusionist, the ranger, the paladin, the templar, the sword saint, the sergeant, the devil summoner, etc.
We're on the same page. I've been recommending that to WotC and anyone else that will listen.
Those that expect more than just bare bone classes should be a little patient and realize that they will be catered to eventually. However, it seems like the 5e designers are trying to appease everyone out of the gate, much to their detriment. I personally have already lost all interest in it.
Quote from: Kaelik;554301The issue is that you are the only person on this forum who believes that.
Literally the post right before yours is a response to the same post telling him that the only possible acceptable fix to this issue is the one true way of implementing all the 2e limits on casters.
The fact that you refuse to see that the vast majority of your forumites are the ones telling us we aren't allowed to see the problem, or discuss it and fix it in our own ways is baffling.
Can you really not see this, or do you choose to ignore it and chastise us for not accepting different points of view out of some mutant form of super hypocrisy?
On any forum you are going to have that. i am trying to engage you constructively here. We could spend all day arguing these points. You guys came here form another forum to debate this. That means you are going to meet with hostility (just like if I started a "2e is awesome thread" over at the gaming den.
All I can do is give my response to your positions. It isn't my job to make sure other posters that are on my side of the debate behave themselves. I am basically saying I agree these are probably issues for you, it makes sense for you to talk about fixing them, but I disagree with the black and white view you are taking.
Quote from: Kaelik;554301The issue is that you are the only person on this forum who believes that.
Literally the post right before yours is a response to the same post telling him that the only possible acceptable fix to this issue is the one true way of implementing all the 2e limits on casters.
The fact that you refuse to see that the vast majority of your forumites are the ones telling us we aren't allowed to see the problem, or discuss it and fix it in our own ways is baffling.
Can you really not see this, or do you choose to ignore it and chastise us for not accepting different points of view out of some mutant form of super hypocrisy?
don't think we were all saying that were we ?
Quote from: daniel_ream;554306It seems this is a prime area for 5E's stated goal of core gameplay modified by extensions. Present the four core genericized base classes (and let's have a different magic system for the priest from the wizard), and sell a (something)[1] class construction kit along with some classes built with it - the illusionist, the ranger, the paladin, the templar, the sword saint, the sergeant, the devil summoner, etc.
Basically AD&D2's kits and player's option system, but cleaned up, simplified and streamlined, and opened up at the design level.
A sidebar like Wild Talents' "yes, you can abuse this system; here's how to turn off the Sun" would be a good addition, too.
[1] I want to say "Prestige" here, but that has connotations I think I don't want smuggled in with the name; you know what I'm driving at
Totally agree and my heartbreaker works just like that except I have 3 base classes as I got rid of Clerics, although the "caster" class had 6 variant magic types one of which is divine.
But I doubt WotC release a class builder that is far too practical and curtails their ability to produce splatbooks of classes.
Check that link I posted to a great S&P implemation.
Quote from: Rum Cove;554307Those that expect more than just bare bone classes should be a little patient and realize that they will be catered to eventually.
I think that would probably be a marketing disaster. The "Enhanced" class module needs to be available at launch, or better yet included in the base set. Like the variable weapon damage rule from Red Box Basic.
This whole conversation is really making me want to yoink out my copy of Eclipse and go to town, now.
Quote from: jibbajibba;554298I don;t think they have many useful pre 3e toys to be honest but the approach is sound to come to a middle ground you are comfortable with.
It might not be the game that Sacro & Ben want to play and its certainly not the game MGuy and Kaelik want to play but if you are happy with it and you think that you have closed the gap between casters and fighters enough for your table then fine.
I know that Jibba but different strokes and I have laid out what I prefer if I am going to play a 3x style game and that game is Fantasy Craft. The thing is it isn't classic Dnd but that's ok with me. To me both that game many other retroclones do a better job of what I want out of Dnd than Dnd in some cases. Alot of that being the modern mechanics and better organization if nothing else. (Not Fantasy Craft, organization is not a strong point of that book).
Quote from: jibbajibba;554312But I doubt WotC release a class builder that is far too practical and curtails their ability to produce splatbooks of classes.
Oh, I don't think so, any more than a basic monster building system prevented people from selling monster books. Certainly game lines like Champions and M&M make bank off of selling writeups anyone could do with time investment.
QuoteCheck that link I posted to a great S&P implemation.
I don't think pure point buy is a good direction because once everything is reduced to individual point costs there's a tendency to just toss in whatever without regard to thematic consistency (cf. Arrow Devil cleric[1]). Aaron Allston referred to this as "Spot Defense": you run into a challenge that exposes a weakness in your character; next advance, you buy something to patch that hole, whether it fits the overall character or not.
I'm thinking of a true
class construction kit, where the GM builds the enhanced classes that fit his setting, and then presents the classes to the players as non-negotiable package deals.
[1] A side note note to Kaelik: I'm not criticizing the power level of the build so much as observing that there's no real sense of theme or consistency to the sum of the parts. This stems at least as much from 3.x's diluted sense of what a cleric is as anything else.
Quote from: daniel_ream;554318I'm thinking of a true class construction kit, where the GM builds the enhanced classes that fit his setting, and then presents the classes to the players as non-negotiable package deals.
BTW, if anyone is still reading along, Erin Smale created a way of doing this (http://breeyark.org/files/perfect_class.pdf) for B/X.
Quote from: Aos;554333BTW, if anyone is still reading along, Erin Smale created a way of doing this (http://breeyark.org/files/perfect_class.pdf) for B/X.
Thanks. There was a similar article in Dragon Magazine in the olden days. No, I don't recall the issue in particular right now.
Quote from: Marleycat;554305Dude what the hell do you want? Seriously you shift the goalposts with every post you make. You say stuff and then pretend you never said it three posts later it's ridiculous.
This a fact, 3x has issues because they removed EVERYTHING from the fighters that they already had in every previous iteration of Dnd while simultaneously removing EVERY limitation on magic users and buffing them up concurrently. What do you expect the result to be when this was done? Seriously.
Umm... Can you read?
So what? In what way whatsoever did that post having anything to do with my post? What does it matter what the result is? It has nothing to do with the possible solutions, which include things you don't do.
Quote from: Kaelik;554341Umm... Can you read?
So what? In what way whatsoever did that post having anything to do with my post? What does it matter what the result is? It has nothing to do with the possible solutions, which include things you don't do.
Like I said you change your mind every two seconds as far as I see so my advice is just build your game already. Should be pretty easy since you don't want any limits for magic users and want to make all fighters magical by definition. Go for it. I can't help you and no longer care to try because you and I define Dnd differently and that is not going to change.
Aos may be right no matter how tongue and cheek it really is about 3x not being Dnd. I don't believe that but he does have a point.
Quote from: Aos;554333Quote from: daniel_ream;554318BTW, if anyone is still reading along, Erin Smale created a way of doing this (http://breeyark.org/files/perfect_class.pdf) for B/X.
And 2e had something similar (but less "complex") in the DMG.
Quote from: RandallS;554354Quote from: Aos;554333And 2e had something similar (but less "complex") in the DMG.
It did have problems though but I loved the effort.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;554308but I disagree with the black and white view you are taking.
This is my point you blindly retarded hypocrite. I am not taking a black and white view. My view is as grey as grey can be. There is no black or white in my view at all.
On the other hand, Marleycat, Benoist, and Stormbringer are very black and white.
So every single time you say you disagree with my black and white view, you are establishing yourself as a crazy person. Because you are criticizing me for something I am not doing, while defending your friends despite them doing the thing you are criticizing me for doing.
Quote from: jibbajibba;554309don't think we were all saying that were we ?
It's hyberbole, but Marleycat literally just said that. Benoist and Stormbringer really say that, all the time. This forum is rife with assholes who take a black and white view, and I am trying to get Brendan to see that. You personally are not one as far as I can tell, but until Brendan realizes that Marleycat is black and white, and I am grey, he is insane, and he needs it shoved down his throat.
Quote from: daniel_ream;554318Oh, I don't think so, any more than a basic monster building system prevented people from selling monster books. Certainly game lines like Champions and M&M make bank off of selling writeups anyone could do with time investment.
I don't think pure point buy is a good direction because once everything is reduced to individual point costs there's a tendency to just toss in whatever without regard to thematic consistency (cf. Arrow Devil cleric[1]). Aaron Allston referred to this as "Spot Defense": you run into a challenge that exposes a weakness in your character; next advance, you buy something to patch that hole, whether it fits the overall character or not.
I'm thinking of a true class construction kit, where the GM builds the enhanced classes that fit his setting, and then presents the classes to the players as non-negotiable package deals.
[1] A side note note to Kaelik: I'm not criticizing the power level of the build so much as observing that there's no real sense of theme or consistency to the sum of the parts. This stems at least as much from 3.x's diluted sense of what a cleric is as anything else.
I agree with all of that. Again my Heartbreaker has broad classes then the DM uses an archetype builder to build world specific templates so Warrior - Sell Sword or Warrior - Knight, that are packages. Although as you level you have some limited options within the template.
I also agree with your view on the Archer Cleric. Its a power build rather than a role play build. No issue with that but its a certain playstyle.
Quote from: RandallS;554354Quote from: Aos;554333And 2e had something similar (but less "complex") in the DMG.
Its what S&P started to do but then got muddled in giving the tool set to the Players rather than keeping it for the DM.
Quote from: Kaelik;554358It's hyberbole, but Marleycat literally just said that. Benoist and Stormbringer really say that, all the time. This forum is rife with assholes who take a black and white view, and I am trying to get Brendan to see that. You personally are not one as far as I can tell, but until Brendan realizes that Marleycat is black and white, and I am grey, he is insane, and he needs it shoved down his throat.
See I don;t think that approach really engenders open communication and debate. Especially when Brendan is one of the more moderate posters.
Good on 3e analysis not so great on diplomacy :)
Quote from: Kaelik;554358This is my point you blindly retarded hypocrite. I am not taking a black and white view. My view is as grey as grey can be. There is no black or white in my view at all.
On the other hand, Marleycat, Benoist, and Stormbringer are very black and white.
So every single time you say you disagree with my black and white view, you are establishing yourself as a crazy person. Because you are criticizing me for something I am not doing, while defending your friends despite them doing the thing you are criticizing me for doing.
The person I was responding to wasn't you. I was replying to another poster. That poster has actually come across as pretty reasonable, but still I quibble with some of his insistence on the game being broken. You on the other hand have said on several occassions, if I read your posts correctly, that the game is objectively broken. Perhaps you mispoke, perhaps I misunderstood you. But you seem to be arguing that not only does the game fail to meet your preferences but that any objective observer can see it is poorly designed. I disagree with this assertion. you also seem to be pushing very hard for people to adopt your point of view on this subject.
It is entirely possible I have misunderstood. If so, please feel free to restate to your position and I will respond as best I can. But don't complain and about these posters hurling insults at you (and expect it to have any weight) when you insult one of the few posters that hasn't made any ad hom attacks against you.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;554367The person I was responding to wasn't you. I was replying to another poster. That poster has actually come across as pretty reasonable, but still I quibble with some of his insistence on the game being broken. You on the other hand have said on several occassions, if I read your posts correctly, that the game is objectively broken. Perhaps you mispoke, perhaps I misunderstood you. But you seem to be arguing that not only does the game fail to meet your preferences but that any objective observer can see it is poorly designed. I disagree with this assertion. you also seem to be pushing very hard for people to adopt your point of view on this subject.
It is entirely possible I have misunderstood. If so, please feel free to restate to your position and I will respond as best I can. But don't complain and about these posters hurling insults at you (and expect it to have any weight) when you insult one of the few posters that hasn't made any ad hom attacks against you.
You are wrong about everything ever.
1) The post I quoted where you said you disagree with the black and white view I am taking? That was a post where you directly quoted me, and you were talking to me.
2) So, do you know what this word means?: "not" It's a negation. It means that I am not saying the thing that is in that post.
Go back to post 1636 on page 164. It is not the first, or only time that I said it, but hey, try reading the giant fucking size 7 red bold italics underlined text.
Get back to me about how you are the dumbest human being ever.
Quote from: Kaelik;554358It's hyberbole, but Marleycat literally just said that. Benoist and Stormbringer really say that, all the time. This forum is rife with assholes who take a black and white view, and I am trying to get Brendan to see that. You personally are not one as far as I can tell, but until Brendan realizes that Marleycat is black and white, and I am grey, he is insane, and he needs it shoved down his throat.
i am not seeing where I am responsible for Marleycat, Benoist, or strombringer. These are all people I get along with just fine even though I disagree with them on some important issues. If you have a problem with them, take it up with those posters. My statements about there being room for both positions was a direct response to a point made by another.
Have these posters been black and white in their stance? Like I said earlier, it is rough and tumble here. People shout their opinions pretty loudly. but this is also their homebase and they reflect the general opinions of posters on the forum. You are coming in from the gaming den and stirring up debate. I am fine with you doing this but you should expect to meet some resistence from regulars. And I am not going to hold your hand through the process. yes, i am not blind to the fact that posters here can be stubborn. But I am also not blind to the fact that you came here to cause drama between the forums. So I am going to put more pressure on you than my fellow posters to be open minded and objective.
There is common ground to be had here. i am trying to offer it up. I think there is plenty of room in this hobby for guys like Benoist and guys like you. But if you are going to call me insane for not attacking my friends here, then you won't get any help from me.
Quote from: Kaelik;554370You are wrong about everything ever.
Get back to me about how you are the dumbest human being ever.
as I said, if you feel I have mischaracterized your position, rather than call me "the dumbest human being ever" simply restate your position for me. If you do not believe D&D is objectively broken then say so, and I will concur with you. If you believe their are multiple valid conlcusions about the fighter versus wizard argument then tell me you do and I will be right with you on the subject.
Quote from: Kaelik;554370You are wrong about everything ever.
1) The post I quoted where you said you disagree with the black and white view I am taking? That was a post where you directly quoted me, and you were talking to me.
.
My initial post was a response was to something deadmanwalking said and that is what i was referring to.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;554371i am not seeing where I am responsible for Marleycat, Benoist, or strombringer.
...
My statements about there being room for both positions was a direct response to a point made by another.
But you steadfastly refuse to make that point in response to their posts.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;554371Have these posters been black and white in their stance?
Yes you fucking liar. I told you to read the post directly above yours, where Marleycat specifically said:
"
You need to give Fighters their toys back via pre 3x and you need to put back ALL the limits on magic users pre 3x done.
...
first and foremost it
must be worked from BOTH sides of the equation not be making fighters all magical or not by nuetering the magic users or making everybody a wizard like Bo9S or 4e."
(emphasis mine)
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;554376as I said, if you feel I have mischaracterized your position, rather than call me "the dumbest human being ever" simply restate your position for me. If you do not believe D&D is objectively broken then say so, and I will concur with you. If you believe their are multiple valid conlcusions about the fighter versus wizard argument then tell me you do and I will be right with you on the subject.
I should not have to state something for the four hundredth time to accommodate an illiterate who will refuse to read it just like the last 400 times.
If you are unwilling to click on a page number in this thread, and reread something you ostensibly read before, then I am unwilling to have any further conversation with you.
Mostly it comes down to the fact that I cannot possibly believe you are as stupid as you are claiming you are, so I am forced to believe you are lying, and I'm tired of liars.
Quote from: jadrax;550632Yeah, well 'Coddling and Supporting' is obviously this forum's mantra...
Quote from: Kaelik;554380I should not have to state something for the four hundredth time to accommodate an illiterate who will refuse to read it just like the last 400 times.
If you are unwilling to click on a page number in this thread, and reread something you ostensibly read before, then I am unwilling to have any further conversation with you.
Mostly it comes down to the fact that I cannot possibly believe you are as stupid as you are claiming you are, so I am forced to believe you are lying, and I'm tired of liars.
I am neither of those things. I did see your giant red post and if that is how you feel then i agree with you. But i seem to recall you saying quite the opposite much earlier in this thread. If you didn't or mispoke, that i great, i was just looking for confirming from you that you do not believe the game is objectively broken and that whether the fighter/wizard are imbalanced is entirely a matter of expectations and subjective analysis. Since we both agree on these points, i guess there is no further need to argue.
Quote from: Kaelik;554380Yes you fucking liar. I told you to read the post directly above yours, where Marleycat specifically said:
.
Re-read that post before calling me a liar :)
In this thread illiterate lairs, lying illiterately to one another.
I'm pretty sure that someone will convince someone else of something very soon. Keep at it guys! we're all rooting for you.
That was kind of my point with the link earlier; even when you show them objectively, quantitatively, fundamentally wrong, you just get nowhere with that sort of folk.
Quote from: Aos;554387illiterate lairs
I see what you did there.
Quote from: The Butcher;554395I see what you did there.
You are disqualified from further participation in the thread.
QuoteClaiming the rules are not broken because of failure to understand, or repeating other's mistakes, or making false claims, like the fact that 99% of all gamers never experience a problem that clearly more than 1% of gamers have experienced, is not any more privileged and protected than saying they are.
This was said by Kaelik in support of Frank about rules being
broken in reply to Black Vulmea's contention they aren't and he pretends he never said this or other stuff while shifting the goalposts faster than a mongoose, so I think he is arguing in bad faith end of story.
I could find other stuff especially on TGD but I don't care enough for to make the effort.
Quote from: The Butcher;554395I see what you did there.
I think he was saying that this is where the beast "illiterate" makes his lair.
EDIT: Your post appears to have changed, or I am misremembering.
They shoot horses don't they?
Quote from: Doom;554390That was kind of my point with the link earlier; even when you show them objectively, quantitatively, fundamentally wrong, you just get nowhere with that sort of folk.
Again, the only thing you proved with that link is that you don't read people's post. Frank nailed you on page one. The fact that you were get people to indulge you thereafter is just successful trolling at work.
QuoteYes you fucking liar. I told you to read the post directly above yours, where Marleycat specifically said:
"You need to give Fighters their toys back via pre 3x and you need to put back ALL the limits on magic users pre 3x done.
...
first and foremost it must be worked from BOTH sides of the equation not be making fighters all magical or not by nuetering the magic users or making everybody a wizard like Bo9S or 4e."
(emphasis mine)
Of which you
willfully misread. What I mean exactly is that fighters need to be powered up, of which they were before 3x, now you may disagree that their "toys" aren't great and that's worth a discussion, but you cannot in good faith say that fighters before 3x were useless or even weak.
Secondly when I say work from both sides of the equation that means in conjunction of powering up the fighter you must limit the wizard like it was done before 3x. Now we can discuss the specific limits but I disagree with 4e's path but actually like Bo9s (that was an error on my part) if not the exact implementation I like the design space there. As for wizard limits I like different implementations of which I have already said once or twice.
Quote from: Marleycat;554397Quote from: MeClaiming the rules are not broken because of failure to understand, or repeating other's mistakes, or making false claims, like the fact that 99% of all gamers never experience a problem that clearly more than 1% of gamers have experienced, is not any more privileged and protected than saying they are.
This was said by Kaelik in support of Frank about rules being broken in reply to Black Vulmea's contention they aren't and he pretends he never said this or other stuff while shifting the goalposts faster than a mongoose, so I think he is arguing in bad faith end of story.
I could find other stuff especially on TGD but I don't care enough for to make the effort.
Yes that was what I said earlier. Which in no way contradicts anything I have said since, because that post is clearly me condemning the black and white views of some people on this forum. I mean, just read it. I said that the claims you were making are not any more privileged. Not that they are wrong, not that they are less privileged. Only that they are not any more privileged.
Quote from: Marleycat;554406Of which you willfully misread. What I mean exactly is that fighters need to be powered up, of which they were before 3x, now you may disagree that their "toys" aren't great and that's worth a discussion, but you cannot in good faith say that fighters before 3x were useless or even weak.
Funny that you would talk about me willfully misreading, and then proceed to willfully misread me.
I cannot, in good faith, say that fighters before 3e were useless or even weak. Not because it's not true, it might be, but because I personally do not have any reason to believe it.
Which is why I have never said that, and didn't say it in the last post, and never said or implied it at any point ever in this thread.Quote from: Marleycat;554406Secondly when I say work from both sides of the equation that means in conjunction of powering up the fighter you must limit the wizard like it was done before 3x. Now we can discuss the specific limits but I disagree with 4e's path but actually like Bo9s (that was an error on my part) if not the exact implementation I like the design space there. As for wizard limits I like different implementations of which I have already said once or twice.
I know what you mean when you say work from both sides.
I also know that you are wrong when you say "must."
We don't actually have to do that. You may personally want to, in order to satisfy your personal preferences, but we don't have to make the Wizard weaker. We could choose to just not allow the fighter. We could also choose to power up the fighter a lot, and leave the Wizard exactly where he is. Those are things we could choose to do, in order to satisfy our preferences, which are different from yours.
So when you say we
must work from both sides, you are wrong, and you are trying to impose your black and white view about how your preferences are good, and mine are bad, onto me.
Quote from: MGuy;554404Again, the only thing you proved with that link is that you don't read people's post. Frank nailed you on page one. The fact that you were get people to indulge you thereafter is just successful trolling at work.
As near as I can tell, you're looking at a different link, or referring to someone else. After all, in the link I posted, Frank posted multiple times, and I KNOW you're not saying Frank is wrong.
No prob, I'm sure that thread went over your head anyway.
@Kaelik, so clearly Exalted would be a good choice for you. Gotcha.
Has this thread actually gotten worse since Benoist had his hissy fit and left?
Quote from: Fifth Element;554425Has this thread actually gotten worse since Benoist had his hissy fit and left?
Conservation of Onetruewayism. Marley just got worse.
Do Fighters and Wizards have to be balanced at every level?
For example, is it not okay to have it like AD&D, in that Fighters start better than Wizards and this is reversed as levels increase?
Quote from: Rum Cove;554431Do Fighters and Wizards have to be balanced at every level?
For example, is it not okay to have it like AD&D, in that Fighters start better than Wizards and this is reversed as levels increase?
I would just like them to be closer honestly. I don't care about it being an exact science but I'd prefer that fighting type classes (I'm ditching fighters altogether now) be powered up a bit, casters be brought down just a bit and figure out how to balance that.
Quote from: Kaelik;554429Conservation of Onetruewayism. Marley just got worse.
You absolutely refuse to compremise, you flat out want to up the basic power level of the whole game which in 3x's case would just exacerbate its problems and you call me worse? Just how asinine can you be? You don't want Dnd you want Wuxia and you admit it and Exalted fits. This isn't about black and white it's about you want a playstyle that Dnd doesn't do well.
Quote from: MGuy;554032So a more appropriate question for me to answer is what I think of when I think warrior. What I intend to make when I make a warrior. The answer to that depends on what my character's concept is. I'd like a game that can support a number of warrior concepts. I've been a short power house who solved problems by leaping really high and being quick with my tongue. I've been a ballsy holy warrior who was uncompromising and direct. I've been a skilled battle tactician who used gadgets and misdirection to survive. I've only been a fighter in two of these concepts and it was just for the small level dip for 2 extra feats.
If that works for you, then why does it matter if a pure Fighter doesn't live up to your standards?
Quote from: Marleycat;554439You absolutely refuse to comphremise you flat out want to up the basic power level of the game which in 3x's case just exacerbate its problems and call me worse? Just how asinine can you be?
Is that what it really comes down to? That some players might want to play a Rat-Catcher and others feel that it needs to compete fairly with the Half-Dragons?
Quote from: MGuy;554436I would just like them to be closer honestly. I don't care about it being an exact science but I'd prefer that fighting type classes (I'm ditching fighters altogether now) be powered up a bit, casters be brought down just a bit and figure out how to balance that.
I think that could be done by doing something like Bo9s and removing 5ft steps and either removing the concentration skill or making it far more difficult. Also shortened duration for spells, and either redoing or eliminating select metamagic feats for a start.
Quote from: Rum Cove;554443Is that what it really comes down to? That some players might want to play a Rat-Catcher and others feel that it needs to compete fairly with the Half-Dragons?
I don't care about balance but tone is far more important and like it or not Dnd does have its own unique tone and feel. Even though it's a flexible game there are limits and things it's not well suited for is all.
Quote from: Marleycat;554445I think that could be done by doing something like Bo9s and removing 5ft steps and either removing the concentration skill or making it far more difficult. Also shortened duration for spells, and either redoing or eliminating select metamagic feats for a start.
Some good suggestions.
Quote from: Rum Cove;554431Do Fighters and Wizards have to be balanced at every level?
For example, is it not okay to have it like AD&D, in that Fighters start better than Wizards and this is reversed as levels increase?
It might be okay for other people, but it's not okay for me personally.
Anything that is premised on suck now rock later, or rock now suck later fails due to lack of character continuity, and my preference for everyone to be able to play whatever class they want and still be approximately as effective.
Are you going to allow people to play a game that starts at level 8? Great, the Only Wizards need apply.
Are you going to start a game at level 1, then have it die at level 3, and start over? Great, Fighters only.
Are you going to let a player lose a character to death or retirement and then replace him with a different character? Then what stops someone from playing a Fighter at low levels and then switching to Mage later?
Fundamentally, if you are fine with one class being better now and another later, then that's just imbalanced at all times, and while there is no reason you can't be okay with imbalance at all times, it's definitely not in my preferences.
Quote from: Marleycat;554439You absolutely refuse to compremise, you flat out want to up the basic power level of the whole game which in 3x's case would just exacerbate its problems and you call me worse?
I absolutely refuse to compromise my preferences for the preferences of people I do not game with. I absolutely refuse to play a game that I would not enjoy as much just so that you can feel better knowing that there are no people out in the world enjoying something you don't like.
And no, this doesn't make any problems worse, because I do not consider the things you consider problems to be problems.
Quote from: Marleycat;554439You don't want Dnd you want Wuxia and you admit it and Exalted fits. This isn't about black and white it's about you want a playstyle that Dnd doesn't do well.
Except that you are wrong. I know what I want, and it is not Exalted. Exalted does what I want very poorly. 3e D&D on the other hand, with only Wizards/Druids/Clerics/Beguilers actually does what I want very well.
My playstyle is well accommodated in 3e D&D, and even better in Tome. So once again, why are you throwing a hissy fit that I want to play a game that accommodates my playstyle?
Quote from: Kaelik;554452Fundamentally, if you are fine with one class being better now and another later, then that's just imbalanced at all times, and while there is no reason you can't be okay with imbalance at all times, it's definitely not in my preferences.
Are you willing to accept that others might have the opposite opinion? Would you not allow the odd class, like basic Fighter to appease them?
Quote from: Kaelik;554452I absolutely refuse to compromise my preferences for the preferences of people I do not game with.
Would you refuse to game with someone that intentionally plays a subpar character?
Quote from: Rum Cove;554441If that works for you, then why does it matter if a pure Fighter doesn't live up to your standards?
Because the fighter is next to the wizard/cleric/druid etc which are all more interesting. The only class feature it has is "Get a free feat". And have that be your class feature from level 1 to 20 while other people are getting holy mounts, bear companions, the ability to raise the dead, and call forth the power of their own personal god.
Quote from: MGuy;554456Because the fighter is next to the wizard/cleric/druid etc which are all more interesting. The only class feature it has is "Get a free feat". And have that be your class feature from level 1 to 20 while other people are getting holy mounts, bear companions, the ability to raise the dead, and call forth the power of their own personal god.
Can you accept that others enjoy the Fighter AS IS?
Quote from: StormBringer;554194Those are Fighters.
Those are still Fighters. And 4e did the 'magickal fightan powerz' thing. Now we have 5e on the horizon, so that should indicate how well that went over.
1) Agreed, they "are Fighters" from the original set(s) of rules (and in some versions you had to be a Fighter, or at least qualify first, before going to the other classes). PC level characters, i.e. "adventurers" are constantly held up above "normal fighting men" in every edition of D&D
ever made (as soon as they hit level 2 in some cases). That was, in fact, the whole point of 3.X's "NPC classes" (a stupid idea, in my opinion... I'd much rather have "professions" as kits of skills).
2) Earthdawn did "magical Warriors" just fine, without any of the things I see getting dug up to put the idea down. (& "magical everything else"). Non-Adepts don't have access to the tiered magic because of the game-world's metaphysics, so they use a "point-buy" structure (in parallel to Adept Disciplines and Circles).
3) You guys are funny. Anybody want to start a discussion on Religion or Drug Control Policy?
Quote from: Rum Cove;554454Are you willing to accept that others might have the opposite opinion? Would you not allow the odd class, like basic Fighter to appease them?
Would I be willing to accept that others might have the opposite opinion? i expressly stated they might in the exact sentence you are quoting.
Would I allow a class in my game to appease them? No, why would I? I would tell them that if they don't want to play the game I am playing, they should play a different game. Technically, I am fine with having the class exist, as long as it is labelled as NPC, so players are not tricked into taking it, thinking it is on par with other classes.
Quote from: Rum Cove;554454Would you refuse to game with someone that intentionally plays a subpar character?
I would strongly encourage them to not play a sub par character, I would talk through their characters motivations, and show why they would either strive to be better, or retire from adventuring so as not to negatively impact their ostensible friends, the other PCs.
If all that fails, I would absolutely refuse to game with them if they do not agree that it is their own damn fault when everyone else is better than them, and then, we could play the game, and they could play with the deliberately suppar character, and I would not, as DM have to accommodate their subparness because they have agreed to game knowing that I won't.
@Kaelik, so you have your solution either play Tome style or have tier 2-3 or whatever, only, alllowed. But you won't do that you would rather bitch about a nonissue for many people than use an unofficial source or a simple houserule. Your actual problem is your playstyle isn't the baseline. Gotcha.
Mine isn't either but I have a different solution that works for me without the drama you seem to thrive on. If it makes you happy go ahead just don't act affronted that some people disagree with you.
Quote from: Rum Cove;554457Can you accept that others enjoy the Fighter AS IS?
I can only assume you asked this question because you missed a lot of this thread. Yes, I can accept that somewhere in the world there are people who don't adjust the game to handle the power disparity. I submit that the vast majority of people who play do in fact recognize the power disparity and one way (powering up fighters) or the other (toning down casters) attempt to handle the issue. The fact of the matter is that the thread has drifted from whether or not the power disparity exists to whether or not that is fun/people are ok with that/Your mom. That's why the whole thing with Kaelik is a huge distraction because it seems as though people can't seem to handle the realization that the disparity exists and thus don't want to talk about it and instead want to debate which way of playing is better.
Quote from: MGuy;554464I can only assume you asked this question because you missed a lot of this thread. Yes, I can accept that somewhere in the world there are people who don't adjust the game to handle the power disparity. I submit that the vast majority of people who play do in fact recognize the power disparity and one way (powering up fighters) or the other (toning down casters) attempt to handle the issue. The fact of the matter is that the thread has drifted from whether or not the power disparity exists to whether or not that is fun/people are ok with that/Your mom. That's why the whole thing with Kaelik is a huge distraction because it seems as though people can't seem to handle the realization that the disparity exists and thus don't want to talk about it and instead want to debate which way of playing is better.
It's not that, unlike yourself he doesn't want a solution that works with the game itself by powering down magic and powering up martial characters he wants a different paradigm entirely. But the problem he doesn't understand is his issue really only exists in 3x.
Quote from: MGuy;554464I can only assume you asked this question because you missed a lot of this thread. Yes, I can accept that somewhere in the world there are people who don't adjust the game to handle the power disparity. I submit that the vast majority of people who play do in fact recognize the power disparity and one way (powering up fighters) or the other (toning down casters) attempt to handle the issue. The fact of the matter is that the thread has drifted from whether or not the power disparity exists to whether or not that is fun/people are ok with that/Your mom. That's why the whole thing with Kaelik is a huge distraction because it seems as though people can't seem to handle the realization that the disparity exists and thus don't want to talk about it and instead want to debate which way of playing is better.
Trying to get back to the original topic, then...
I wouldn't agree that the 'vast majority' of people have a problem with it. Some people, absolutely. Going back to where I commented that it was campaign dependent, I wouldn't consider (say for the arrow demon example) not owning complete divine to be "houseruling" the system for divine metamagic. Likewise, starting the campaign at level 1 means no aasimar (+1 LA) and so no outsider polymorphing shenanigans. In other words: the theoretical builds prove the system
can be broken, not that the system
is broken, generally speaking.
Another big chunk of the issue is magic item dependency. Much of the complaining (e.g. from jibbajibba) is less that the fighter can't do things, than they people are feeling degraded by needing magic swords or winged boots or whatever. But, I could just as easily use that argue that the wizard is shit, because its the only class where all of its class features are just buyable with enough gold.
Quote from: MGuy;554464That's why the whole thing with Kaelik is a huge distraction because it seems as though people can't seem to handle the realization that the disparity exists...
It only exists for shitty players.
This post is entirely emblematic. You and the others don't seem to realize that you don't have DA TROOF. The rest of us are not unenlightened plebians that are struggling to shield our eyes from the dazzling brilliance of your argument. You are not speaking an objective fact.
There is no actual disparity. It is entirely a result of bad players on both sides of the screen.
Quote...and thus don't want to talk about it and instead want to debate which way of playing is better.
See above. Being entirely convinced your position is the only correct one is very dangerous.
Quote from: Marleycat;554467It's not that, unlike yourself he doesn't want a solution that works with the game itself by powering down magic and powering up martial characters he wants a different paradigm entirely. But the problem he doesn't understand is his issue really only exists in 3x.
You can play 3x in the fashion that he wants. In fact if you play the Monsters as brutally as he describes then the game can really go to the places he wants. Its not a new paradigm because if TGD and charop threads on various sites show there are people who do play in this fashion. Though it may be unpopular and looked down upon that's the way some people do it. My opinion as to how things should be is closer to yours but it just doesn't bother me (nor is it a surprise to me) that people play in that fashion. I don't like it, I try and tone things down myself, and in the game I am creating I'll be hitting the middle. I don't like Kaelik but it isn't because of how he wants to play his game. Nor is it because of his insistence on playing that type of game. The fact that he likes it and that a number of people enjoy it is undeniable. Though none of this has to do with the fact that power disparity exists and people should realize it.
Quote from: StormBringer;554470It only exists for shitty players.
This post is entirely emblematic. You and the others don't seem to realize that you don't have DA TROOF. The rest of us are not unenlightened plebians that are struggling to shield our eyes from the dazzling brilliance of your argument. You are not speaking an objective fact.
There is no actual disparity. It is entirely a result of bad players on both sides of the screen.
See above. Being entirely convinced your position is the only correct one is very dangerous.
How many people* play the game without "fixes" aimed specifically at powering up fighters or toning down casters/spells?
Edit: * Do you think
Quote from: MGuy;554472You can play 3x in the fashion that he wants. In fact if you play the Monsters as brutally as he describes then the game can really go to the places he wants. Its not a new paradigm because if TGD and charop threads on various sites show there are people who do play in this fashion. Though it may be unpopular and looked down upon that's the way some people do it. My opinion as to how things should be is closer to yours but it just doesn't bother me (nor is it a surprise to me) that people play in that fashion. I don't like it, I try and tone things down myself, and in the game I am creating I'll be hitting the middle. I don't like Kaelik but it isn't because of how he wants to play his game. Nor is it because of his insistence on playing that type of game. The fact that he likes it and that a number of people enjoy it is undeniable. Though none of this has to do with the fact that power disparity exists and people should realize it.
As long as we are talking only 3x we're in rough agreement. But it can be solved it's just what direction do you prefer?
Quote from: MGuy;554473How many people* play the game without "fixes" aimed specifically at powering up fighters or toning down casters/spells?
Edit: * Do you think
That's impossible to determine. The degree to which this is a controversial subject indicates that alot of people do not seem to not be having a problem, however.
Quote from: MGuy;554473How many people* play the game without "fixes" aimed specifically at powering up fighters or toning down casters/spells?
Edit: * Do you think
I'm. fine with 3e as is everyone I know but we enforce some 2e limits on wizards. Like spell acquisition and no magic marts. But that's a setting and living world thing which is outside the RAW. But it really is an impossible question to factually answer.
This thread didn't really need to go beyond the first ten posts. Everything is pretty much there.
Quote from: Rum Cove;554484This thread didn't really need to go beyond the first ten posts. Everything is pretty much there.
Especially the illiteracy and lying.
Quote from: Aos;554491Especially the illiteracy and lying.
But I'm trying fulfill your demand of 2000 posts so shut the fuck up and dance my pretty, dance!
I already said upthread the argument was actually solved for anybody that cared basically all I'm doing is trolling the trolls which is quite appropriate yes?
Quote from: MGuy;554473How many people* play the game without "fixes" aimed specifically at powering up fighters or toning down casters/spells?
Edit: * Do you think
If we are talking AD&D, pretty much all of them. These fixes aren't necessary in AD&D.
Later editions? Well, let's run some numbers again.
WotC will obviously have the highest number of members on their forums. A reasonable estimate from ENWorld (http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-discussion/308250-how-many-people-subscribe-d-d-stuff.html) falls in the 100k to 300k range. I am comfortable with a half-split at 200k. Next up is RPG.net with 75k members. 275k between them, then. 5k for theRPGsite brings us up to 280k. We will discount Dragonsfoot, K&K Alehouse, and all the other OSR folks, of course. Totalling all the other blogs and general gaming forums may provide another 20k, bringing us up to 300k total for the whole internet. I am not going to count SA because a) I couldn't even begin to figure out how to do that, and b) it would probably be far more noise (overlap) than data because of their general behaviour regarding other boards. Estimates for the total number of worldwide players sits at a fairly tidy 20million. And we are also going to assume every single one of them plays 3.x or later.
So, if
every single online player had the problems you describe, that would be a whopping 1.5% of the gaming population. A number that is also sometimes referred to as 'jack shit'.
But let's say that each and every one of those 300k online gamers was in a non-overlapping group with six other (offline) players that experienced your exact problem. Now we are up to an impressive 1.8mil players. Also known as "less than 10%".
I will even be generous and double the number of people that have this crippling Fighter problem. Let's call it 20%. A significant number? Absolutely. Significant enough to cater to for design goals?
Not in a million fucking years.
Honestly, if the CharOp junkies and TGD types make up even 5% of the online population, I will eat my hat. And that is CharOp freaks that actually make those twink builds for play, not just as an exercise or demonstration. If that number is the absolute maximum of 5%, then we are looking at...
15,000.
15,000 (online) D&D gamers would play in the manner you prefer. The other 285,000 would neither need nor want these fixes. If we apply that percentage to the whole of estimated D&D gamers, we have 1mil gamers out of the 20mil worldwide. Average group size being a DM and six players, that means for every (just under) three groups, one single player will want to play a game that has all but disposed of Fighters while providing for ultra-mega-super-weaboo Spell Casters.
I think I speak for many people here when we express complete bafflement as to how the Fighter thing can be considered a wide-spread 'problem', let alone even remotely universal or 'objective'. With such a small, small number of players that would have the issues you describe* or desire the fixes you suggest, why should anyone accept your premise that the problem is with the rules, and not with the players?
*
And don't forget, we started with the premise that every single online-gamer plays a later version of D&D and has the exact problem you describe. Clearly, the actual numbers are going to be far, far less than '100%'.
Quote from: Kaelik;554380But you steadfastly refuse to make that point in response to their posts.
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/031/367/bawwww.jpg)
QuoteYes you fucking liar. I told you to read the post directly above yours, where Marleycat specifically said:
As it turns out, I have a great deal of respect for Brendan, so you can jam your accusation here right up your distended goatfucking arsehole. Also, Brendan is about the only person here who is willing to give you a chance, and you pissed them all away.
Pretty much in one post:
QuoteI should not have to state something for the four hundredth time to accommodate an illiterate who will refuse to read it just like the last 400 times.
If you are unwilling to click on a page number in this thread, and reread something you ostensibly read before, then I am unwilling to have any further conversation with you.
Mostly it comes down to the fact that I cannot possibly believe you are as stupid as you are claiming you are, so I am forced to believe you are lying, and I'm tired of liars.
To quote Captain Reynolds, "My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." Except, far, far less than the middle.
So in summary.
- There are some reasonable people in the discussion
- There are quite a few tossers in the discussion
- Some people think that spotting a power discrepancy between clsses is a sign of bad players
- Some people on both sides are one truewayists
- Kaelik does nothing to promote his sides views because he descends to ad hom attacks which invalidate the point he is trying to make and makes him look like a completre wanker
- The OSR Mafia by flatly denying that there is in an issue in 'their' D&D or at 'their table' and that only 1% of players ever experienced this are effectively telling the people on this thread that say they can see a disparity that they are idiots or lying or both
- 2e players are the most reasonable and have the best social skills of any edtion, but we knew that already :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;554532So in summary.
- There are some reasonable people in the discussion
- There are quite a few tossers in the discussion
- Some people think that spotting a power discrepancy between clsses is a sign of bad players
- Some people on both sides are one truewayists
- Kaelik does nothing to promote his sides views because he descends to ad hom attacks which invalidate the point he is trying to make and makes him look like a completre wanker
- The OSR Mafia by flatly denying that there is in an issue in 'their' D&D or at 'their table' and that only 1% of players ever experienced this are effectively telling the people on this thread that say they can see a disparity that they are idiots or lying or both
- 2e players are the most reasonable and have the best social skills of any edtion, but we knew that already :)
I like that word "tosser" it's nearly as good as "arsed" I think ' shall steal both. You English guys are fun.:D
Quote from: MGuy;554473How many people* play the game without "fixes" aimed specifically at powering up fighters or toning down casters/spells?
Edit: * Do you think
A whole fucking lot.
Really, the shit you see on forums are usually just the outlier opinions, the tip of the iceberg. Most people do not see their fighter deprotagonized by the rules, they just want to play a game and have fun while doing so.
Wow, this shit never ends.
Quote from: Marleycat;554534I like that word "tosser" it's nearly as good as "arsed" I think ' shall steal both. You English guys are fun.:D
You need to add -
bottle
guv'nor
bollocks
dog's bollocks
pants
for usage-
He hasn't got the bottle to up against the guv'nor.
That is a load of bollocks (implying lies or deciet).
It's the dog's bollocks (verg good).
That is a load of pants (bad).Notice liberal use of the word load
:D
Oh and this debate is best summed up by
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw
which I have posted before on other threads but I do so love it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;554575Oh and this debate is best summed up by
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw)
which I have posted before on other threads but I do so love it.
Mitchell and Webb are hilarious.
Stormbringer,
Based on your post #1757, I think it is clear you don't understand 'sampling'. If there are 20 million gamers, and you have 20k online, and 100% of them agree with anything, there is a very good chance that most of the 20 million gamers will also agree with them. Sure, there's some selection bias, but the effects of that are something you want to look at seperately.
As for what percent of gamers have noticed the power disparity - I don't know, but it appears that it is most of them. I will say it - if you think that the disparity COULD NOT EXIST, you are wrong.
As for what percent of gamers CARE about the disparity, that's obviously lower. Some people like Fighters being severely more limited than Wizards.
If a wizard can reliably add a 'Fighter Pack' to his adventuring kit, he'd be more powerful than a Fighter, unless the Fighter can also add a 'Wizard Pack' to his adventuring kit.
x + y > y
In all versions of the game, there are multiple ways that the Wizard can add a 'Fighter' or 'Fighter Equivalent' to his repetoire. It appears that the only way the Fighter can do the same is using the 'hireling rules'. I don't have all my books in front of me, but I believe that 'wizard' hirelings are significantly more expesive than 'Fighter' hirelings. In 3.x, you usually hire a wizard per spell, rather than per day. So, even if we allow the Fighter to gain the benefit of a Wizard, the Wizard with similar resources increases his power even more.
It is important to note that I say the disparity COULD exist. If the disparity doesn't exist in your games, it's probably because the Wizard hasn't tried to create it. That's great. That's sporting of the player. But without changing the rules, it gets harder and harder for the wizard to play his character without either creating or illustrating that disparity.
If someone ALWAYS COULD do something, that does not mean that they ALWAYS WILL. But the Wizard ALWAYS COULD make himself more powerful than the Fighter.
Again, I don't think that arguing that point is necessary, though it seems that a lot of people don't seem to see it. The thing is, denying that point keeps the discussion from progressing to the more important stages.
The more important discussion is:
1) If the Fighter is less powerful than the Wizard, does it matter?
Some people think that having less powerful Fighters is a GOOD thing. Some people think having less powerful Fighters is a BAD thing. This is based on a difference of opinion, not observation, so this is a rich ground for further discussion, but it is severely impeded by trying to pull the conversation back to 'does a disparity exist'. More importantly, this discussion is still possible EVEN IF YOU DON'T ACCEPT THE PREMISE that a disparity exists. You can start the conversation with 'Assuming a disparity did exist (and I don't think it does) having less powerful Fighters would be a [good/bad] thing, and here's why. This would be particularly interesting because if you think no disparity exists, but you think having a disparity would be a good thing, you'll be able to discuss ways to reduce the power level of the Fighter OR increase the power level of the Wizard.
2) If a power discrepancy exists, and it is determined to be a bad thing, how best to deal with that discrepancy.
This again, is a more interesting conversation than discussion of observations. Again, it doesn't require that you accept the premise - only that you use normal logic to make it that your statements are only meant to be construed as true if your premise is true.
Example:
Premise: All Germans are Angels sent down from heaven.
Statement: Hitler was a German.
Result: Hitler was an Angel sent down from heaven.
This is a false argument because the premise is false (and stupid) but the question of power discrepancy is clearly not as stupid - because even if you don't believe it to be true, some large number of people (possibly a significant portion of the gaming community, possibly more the self-selecting sample that enjoys discussing gaming online) believe it to be true, thus there is room for an interseting and possibly fruitful discussion.
As for the 2nd question, there are those that think that reducing the power of the Wizard is good. There are some that think that increasing the power of the Fighter is good. There are some that think both are good. There are also those that think the Fighter is unsalvageable as a concept - since everyone 'Fights' there's not enough conceptual space to just be good at that one thing - especially if there are rangers and paladins that are also 'good fighters' plus they have other benefits.
From my perspective, not only is this interesting from a 'Fantasy Heartbreaker' approach (that means a game that you make yourself to fulfill your personal desires from an RPG); this is important for the possible influence on D&D 5e.
For myself personally, I enjoyed 3.5 more than 1st or 2nd edition AD&D; but I recognize there are flaws. I did not think 4th edition addressed my concerns. If D&D Next does not address my concerns, I won't be surprised, and I'll continue working on my 'Fantasy Heartbreaker'. But it sure would be nice for me personally if D&D Next was everything I wanted and a buttered biscuit.
That won't happen if they don't recognize and/or address what I consider to be major failings in 3.5. The lack of options for a Fighter is very high on that list.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;554582Stormbringer,
Based on your post #1757, I think it is clear you don't understand 'sampling'. If there are 20 million gamers, and you have 20k online, and 100% of them agree with anything, there is a very good chance that most of the 20 million gamers will also agree with them. Sure, there's some selection bias, but the effects of that are something you want to look at seperately.
As for what percent of gamers have noticed the power disparity - I don't know, but it appears that it is most of them. I will say it - if you think that the disparity COULD NOT EXIST, you are wrong.
As for what percent of gamers CARE about the disparity, that's obviously lower. Some people like Fighters being severely more limited than Wizards.
If a wizard can reliably add a 'Fighter Pack' to his adventuring kit, he'd be more powerful than a Fighter, unless the Fighter can also add a 'Wizard Pack' to his adventuring kit.
x + y > y
In all versions of the game, there are multiple ways that the Wizard can add a 'Fighter' or 'Fighter Equivalent' to his repetoire. It appears that the only way the Fighter can do the same is using the 'hireling rules'. I don't have all my books in front of me, but I believe that 'wizard' hirelings are significantly more expesive than 'Fighter' hirelings. In 3.x, you usually hire a wizard per spell, rather than per day. So, even if we allow the Fighter to gain the benefit of a Wizard, the Wizard with similar resources increases his power even more.
It is important to note that I say the disparity COULD exist. If the disparity doesn't exist in your games, it's probably because the Wizard hasn't tried to create it. That's great. That's sporting of the player. But without changing the rules, it gets harder and harder for the wizard to play his character without either creating or illustrating that disparity.
If someone ALWAYS COULD do something, that does not mean that they ALWAYS WILL. But the Wizard ALWAYS COULD make himself more powerful than the Fighter.
Again, I don't think that arguing that point is necessary, though it seems that a lot of people don't seem to see it. The thing is, denying that point keeps the discussion from progressing to the more important stages.
The more important discussion is:
1) If the Fighter is less powerful than the Wizard, does it matter?
Some people think that having less powerful Fighters is a GOOD thing. Some people think having less powerful Fighters is a BAD thing. This is based on a difference of opinion, not observation, so this is a rich ground for further discussion, but it is severely impeded by trying to pull the conversation back to 'does a disparity exist'. More importantly, this discussion is still possible EVEN IF YOU DON'T ACCEPT THE PREMISE that a disparity exists. You can start the conversation with 'Assuming a disparity did exist (and I don't think it does) having less powerful Fighters would be a [good/bad] thing, and here's why. This would be particularly interesting because if you think no disparity exists, but you think having a disparity would be a good thing, you'll be able to discuss ways to reduce the power level of the Fighter OR increase the power level of the Wizard.
2) If a power discrepancy exists, and it is determined to be a bad thing, how best to deal with that discrepancy.
This again, is a more interesting conversation than discussion of observations. Again, it doesn't require that you accept the premise - only that you use normal logic to make it that your statements are only meant to be construed as true if your premise is true.
Example:
Premise: All Germans are Angels sent down from heaven.
Statement: Hitler was a German.
Result: Hitler was an Angel sent down from heaven.
This is a false argument because the premise is false (and stupid) but the question of power discrepancy is clearly not as stupid - because even if you don't believe it to be true, some large number of people (possibly a significant portion of the gaming community, possibly more the self-selecting sample that enjoys discussing gaming online) believe it to be true, thus there is room for an interseting and possibly fruitful discussion.
As for the 2nd question, there are those that think that reducing the power of the Wizard is good. There are some that think that increasing the power of the Fighter is good. There are some that think both are good. There are also those that think the Fighter is unsalvageable as a concept - since everyone 'Fights' there's not enough conceptual space to just be good at that one thing - especially if there are rangers and paladins that are also 'good fighters' plus they have other benefits.
From my perspective, not only is this interesting from a 'Fantasy Heartbreaker' approach (that means a game that you make yourself to fulfill your personal desires from an RPG); this is important for the possible influence on D&D 5e.
For myself personally, I enjoyed 3.5 more than 1st or 2nd edition AD&D; but I recognize there are flaws. I did not think 4th edition addressed my concerns. If D&D Next does not address my concerns, I won't be surprised, and I'll continue working on my 'Fantasy Heartbreaker'. But it sure would be nice for me personally if D&D Next was everything I wanted and a buttered biscuit.
That won't happen if they don't recognize and/or address what I consider to be major failings in 3.5. The lack of options for a Fighter is very high on that list.
Good post very resonable.
of course Very Reasonable doesn't always work here :)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;554582snipped for brevityQuoteSigh...about time Hitler made an appearance.
The term 'Fantasy Heartbreaker' is derogatory, by the way; its a Forgism deriding people for being stupid and making D&D clones, when they should instead be making indie games with shared narrative control and so on. The guy who coined the term (Ron Edwards) has a rant about how people who like traditional RPGs are brain damaged here (http://www.lumpley.com/marginalia.php?entry=158&comment=3777).
You may have missed my reply to the 'x+y>x' argument. A PC wizard +NPC fighter is not necessarily equivalent to an NPC wizard + a PC fighter... as a player you're better off with whichever character has better HPs and defenses. In other words, the fighter who hires a wizard is in a better position that a wizard who hires the fighter...irrespective of whether its more expensive.
Also, I'm curious as to how 4E failed you here, if you want to go into more details there, since it seems like it should be your thing ?
PS: off to bed.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;554582Based on your post #1757, I think it is clear you don't understand 'sampling'. If there are 20 million gamers, and you have 20k online, and 100% of them agree with anything, there is a very good chance that most of the 20 million gamers will also agree with them. Sure, there's some selection bias, but the effects of that are something you want to look at seperately.
That part I bolded? That is why you don't get to lecture people on statistics. I also wasn't talking about sampling in this instance, I was showing the highest possible case.
QuoteAs for what percent of gamers have noticed the power disparity - I don't know, but it appears that it is most of them.
This other part I bolded? That is why you should just be happy with your place at the kids' table.
QuoteI will say it - if you think that the disparity COULD NOT EXIST, you are wrong.
'Could' does not equal 'must'. Nor does it imply universality. Those are the blinders
you bring with you, as well as your cohort from TGD. You demand that everyone else accept your arguments as objectively true with virtually no solid evidence, but break down in a crying jag that everyone should be allowed their own style of play when challenged whilst simultaneously claiming everyone playing a different edition is stupid for doing so.
The rest of your post is just feeble stirrings based on your already faulty premises. Your wave of Edition Warriors is quite strong with
Ex Falso Quodlibet and cheap semantics, but very, very weak in breadth or depth of experience, cognition of simple game design topics, and the ability to string coherent statements together into a cohesive whole.
In short, you and the other two Stooges provided more than ample opportunity to demonstrate the worst contingent of 3.x players and their typical arguments and attitudes. Additionally, I did my part to boost the thread count towards 2000, which should make Aos happy.
Quote from: StormBringer;554470It only exists for shitty players.
This is bullshit. The only time I
haven't seen the disparity when playing 3.X was when the wizard player didn't know what he was doing. That is, there is no disparity so long as the wizard is a shitty player.
I don't really mind the disparity when I play, either as a caster or as a fighter-type. But to say the disparity objectively doesn't exist is bollocks. You may not find it in your games, but that don't mean it doesn't exist in other people's games, and to say it's only the result of being shitty players is beyond condescending.
Quote from: StormBringer;554470There is no actual disparity. It is entirely a result of bad players on both sides of the screen.
You are not speaking an objective fact, you dont have DA TROOF, etc, etc.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;554588The term 'Fantasy Heartbreaker' is derogatory, by the way; its a Forgism deriding people for being stupid and making D&D clones, when they should instead be making indie games with shared narrative control and so on.
Reclaim the term! I've written numerous fantasy heartbreakers over the years, and I'm proud of each and every one!
Quote from: deadDMwalking;5545821) If the Fighter is less powerful than the Wizard, does it matter?
I will give these a go. To me this is entirely dependant on preference and how the disparity occurs. If there are moments of disparity (say wizard can do 100 points of damage every once in a while, but the fiter consistently does 50) this moment of disparity is balanced out over time. If the disparity occurs over the campaign, fighter starts strong, wizard ends strong, not a problem for me. If the disparity is present at each moment of the game, i think that is an issue for me.
Whether it matters for the brand is another matter. I actually think most people don't want total parity as we had in 4e. Nor do I think folks want siloing. For the most part. I do think most people want the classes to be good at what their focus.
Quote2) If a power discrepancy exists, and it is determined to be a bad thing, how best to deal with that discrepancy
.
For me, keep wizards where they are. Give fighters beefier bab, more damage, better defenses and hp. If the numbers are plotted out against the wizard, you should be able to arrive at a state where the fighter keeps up mechanically.
I do not want fighters to have magic like powers or complicated butttons (and I think such things would be about as popuoar as healing surges and encounter powers. So put those in as optional modules for folks who want it, but keep the core fighter true to its roots.
QuoteThat won't happen if they don't recognize and/or address what I consider to be major failings in 3.5. The lack of options for a Fighter is very high on that list.
i think a lot of people have acknowledged for you lack of options for fighters is an issue (and we realize many people share them). But lots of folks don't want more options for fighters. I really believe turning the fighter into a mage or maneuver bot is going to backfire in the way healing surges and encounter powers backfired. It may strongly appeal to some people, but it will turn off many others. If we are really just talking about how next should approach it, i think my solution is best: keep the fighhters core numbers higher so he keeps up and isn't overshadowes. For people who want the fighter to do "cool things" add in some optional powers or abilties. I think it is fair for you to want these things, but you have to understand how strongly many gamers do not want them in the core fighter. They have to make a game both parties can enjoy so options are the way to go here.
Quote from: Fifth Element;554591This is bullshit. The only time I haven't seen the disparity when playing 3.X was when the wizard player didn't know what he was doing. That is, there is no disparity so long as the wizard is a shitty player.
I don't really mind the disparity when I play, either as a caster or as a fighter-type. But to say the disparity objectively doesn't exist is bollocks. You may not find it in your games, but that don't mean it doesn't exist in other people's games, and to say it's only the result of being shitty players is beyond condescending.
So, it's better to say that the disparity
doesn't exist only when the players are shitty instead. Noted.
QuoteYou are not speaking an objective fact, you dont have DA TROOF, etc, etc.
Fascinating, I would have guessed you might be better at detecting irony. But, you have your axe to grind with non-story gamers in general and me specifically, so all that stuff goes out the window.
(http://gallery.avlis.org/d/4989-7/multiclassing.jpg)
Quote from: StormBringer;554597So, it's better to say that the disparity doesn't exist only when the players are shitty instead. Noted.
That's what I've noted in my games. But it's clearly not what everyone experiences. I'd be a fool to think that my experiences are universal. I'd be a fool to think that, with the number of people who complain about the disparity, that it doesn't exist. I can either accept that some people find it a problem, or I can conclude that they're all morons. I choose the former.
Quote from: StormBringer;554597But, you have your axe to grind with non-story gamers in general and me specifically, so all that stuff goes out the window.
Wait, who do you think I am exactly? Seriously, you must be thinking of someone else. I play 3.X and 4E D&D almost exclusively, and will play any previous edition of D&D if that's what the group wants to do. Story games are fine and good, but not for me thanks. Check here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23224) for a recent example.
Try to make sure you're ad homineming the right person if you're going to ad hominem. I don't mind insults, so long as they're accurate.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;554598(http://gallery.avlis.org/d/4989-7/multiclassing.jpg)
+1
Here's a thought experiment to take things in a new direction (hopefully): consider the converse, the archetypical classes aren't allowed in a hypothetical 3.x campaign. No Fighters, Wizards, Clerics or Thieves. Would these same 'problems' crop up, and would they be better, worse or about the same?
Quote from: StormBringer;554602+1
Here's a thought experiment to take things in a new direction (hopefully): consider the converse, the archetypical classes aren't allowed in a hypothetical 3.x campaign. No Fighters, Wizards, Clerics or Thieves. Would these same 'problems' crop up, and would they be better, worse or about the same?
Druids would stay one of the best classes. Monks would stay one of the worst. The barbarian and the ranger are slightly better fighters than fighters.
You'd probably get closer to balance ditching the core PHB entirely and replacing the classes with the Complete (whatever) classes. Plus a small mountain of errata to prevent abuse of cheap metamagic and such.
Rewriting the fighter with bigger bonuses, scaling damage, more skill points, and feats on par with barbarian/paladin/ranger features might not even be that hard though, and you'd do less damage to the rest of the game than you would by removing casters.
Quote from: Fifth Element;554601That's what I've noted in my games. But it's clearly not what everyone experiences. I'd be a fool to think that my experiences are universal. I'd be a fool to think that, with the number of people who complain about the disparity, that it doesn't exist. I can either accept that some people find it a problem, or I can conclude that they're all morons. I choose the former.
Let me just make sure we are on the same page:
When I say this problem occurs only with shitty players, I am a condescending asshole.
When you say this problem doesn't occur only with shitty players, you are transmitting common knowledge.
Correct?
QuoteWait, who do you think I am exactly? Seriously, you must be thinking of someone else. I play 3.X and 4E D&D almost exclusively, and will play any previous edition of D&D if that's what the group wants to do. Story games are fine and good, but not for me thanks. Check here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23224) for a recent example.
Try to make sure you're ad homineming the right person if you're going to ad hominem. I don't mind insults, so long as they're accurate.
I suppose that is possible. My apologies if that is the case.
Quote from: beejazz;554604Druids would stay one of the best classes. Monks would stay one of the worst. The barbarian and the ranger are slightly better fighters than fighters.
You'd probably get closer to balance ditching the core PHB entirely and replacing the classes with the Complete (whatever) classes. Plus a small mountain of errata to prevent abuse of cheap metamagic and such.
Rewriting the fighter with bigger bonuses, scaling damage, more skill points, and feats on par with barbarian/paladin/ranger features might not even be that hard though, and you'd do less damage to the rest of the game than you would by removing casters.
Interesting. What about a class ability (Su) where the Fighter can deal, say, triple their maximum hit points in damage to an arc of enemies 120 degrees in front of them or something once a day (it's exhausting, it drains ki, whatever), then start adding instances as they level up? Say another daily use every three to five levels? Call it
Riding the Dragon, perhaps. One square away is triple damage, two squares is double damage, three squares is normal damage. To make it more reliable, there is no 'to hit' roll, just a Fort save, maybe.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;554588Quote from: deadDMwalking;554582snipped for brevityQuoteYou may have missed my reply to the 'x+y>x' argument. A PC wizard +NPC fighter is not necessarily equivalent to an NPC wizard + a PC fighter... as a player you're better off with whichever character has better HPs and defenses. In other words, the fighter who hires a wizard is in a better position that a wizard who hires the fighter...irrespective of whether its more expensive.
Also, I'm curious as to how 4E failed you here, if you want to go into more details there, since it seems like it should be your thing ?
PS: off to bed.
This is basically true. Except that there might be a limit in game.
By this I mean that any PC will always be better off hiring a bevy of retainers who are much more powerful than they are.
A 1st level party of hobits hires a 10th level ranger, just to help them out....
So if the world is 'dumb' then a 9th level figther can hire a 15th level wizard.
But if the wizard really is smarter and more powerful than the figther then how can he afford that.
Also if you hire people they are not automatons, unlike actual automatons liek Golems or charmed stuff, they can fuck off if they get scared or bored or they can kill you and take all your stuff if it turns out you aren't up to keeping it all yourself.
so yes mostly true depending on teh campaign world
Quote from: StormBringer;554606Let me just make sure we are on the same page:
When I say this problem occurs only with shitty players, I am a condescending asshole.
When you say this problem doesn't occur only with shitty players, you are transmitting common knowledge.
Correct?
Nope.
When you say that the only time this problem occurs is when all players involved are shitty, you are a condescending asshole.
When I say that, at my table, I generally notice the problem, I am relating personal experience. Especially when I then clarify that I'm not trying to generalize my experience, I am clearly not trying to claim fact.
The problem is not real at
every table. That does not mean that the problem is not real at
any table.
Quote from: StormBringer;554607Interesting. What about a class ability (Su) where the Fighter can deal, say, triple their maximum hit points in damage to an arc of enemies 120 degrees in front of them or something once a day (it's exhausting, it drains ki, whatever), then start adding instances as they level up? Say another daily use every three to five levels? Call it Riding the Dragon, perhaps. One square away is triple damage, two squares is double damage, three squares is normal damage. To make it more reliable, there is no 'to hit' roll, just a Fort save, maybe.
What? No. I'm talking more like better mounted combat, better guidelines on getting and using flying mounts, some good stuff for arrows. That sort of thing. Scaling damage doesn't mean adding a power. It just means scaling damage. Like sneak attack, minus the limiting conditions. So like sneak attack in actual play (since flanking lets you use it every round anyway).
You really don't need insane jumps, area effects, resource management, or anything particularly "wuxia" to beef up the fighter.
Hell, the multiplicative effects of iterative attacks on damage means you don't even have to scale it as much as you'd probably expect. But then if I went about rejiggering 3x I'd be using the rogue as a baseline (as opposed to a fighter or a wizard).
Quote from: beejazz;554604Rewriting the fighter with bigger bonuses, scaling damage, more skill points, and feats on par with barbarian/paladin/ranger features might not even be that hard though, and you'd do less damage to the rest of the game than you would by removing casters.
In one 3.5 campaign I ran I gave the fighter a +1 weapon damage bonus at 1st level, and a further +1 at each level that the class doesn't get a bonus feat. Even a relatively small change like that did a lot.
Quote from: StormBringer;554607Interesting. What about a class ability (Su) where the Fighter can deal, say, triple their maximum hit points in damage to an arc of enemies 120 degrees in front of them or something once a day (it's exhausting, it drains ki, whatever), then start adding instances as they level up? Say another daily use every three to five levels? Call it Riding the Dragon, perhaps. One square away is triple damage, two squares is double damage, three squares is normal damage. To make it more reliable, there is no 'to hit' roll, just a Fort save, maybe.
See I hate that as example of a mundane fighter power. (beign a 2e guy)
I would much rather have Figther Crits keeping up with thief backstab.
To me if an 11th level thief does x4 damage with a backstab then an 11th level figther should have x4 damage on a critical.
Also moving the chance of getting a crit up a smidge .... maybe from a natural 20 to 10 more than the number you need to hit or a natural 20.
So High level fighters will ciritcal hit a lot of a lot of damage.
I am a supporter of having the fighter do more crit damage than other classes.
Quote from: beejazz;554610What? No. I'm talking more like better mounted combat, better guidelines on getting and using flying mounts, some good stuff for arrows. That sort of thing. Scaling damage doesn't mean adding a power. It just means scaling damage. Like sneak attack, minus the limiting conditions. So like sneak attack in actual play (since flanking lets you use it every round anyway).
Ok, I see where you are going. So, some kind of +1d10 to damage that increases with level like BaB? Perhaps a similar defensive bonus as well? I have heard that one bandied about a fair bit.
QuoteYou really don't need insane jumps, area effects, resource management, or anything particularly "wuxia" to beef up the fighter.
Totally agree, I was just throwing one out there to test the waters, as it were.
QuoteHell, the multiplicative effects of iterative attacks on damage means you don't even have to scale it as much as you'd probably expect. But then if I went about rejiggering 3x I'd be using the rogue as a baseline (as opposed to a fighter or a wizard).
Especially if the BaB was increased. The Fighter would be getting more iterative attacks at a faster pace. I think the general complaint is that later attacks in the sequence aren't particularly reliable, though. So, at high levels against very tough opponents, the last attack(s) tend to miss rather regularly. 16th level, for instance, is +16/+11/+6/+1; the first two attacks have pretty good odds of being successful, the third is even-ish odds, and the last one is almost an insult. Depending on the opponent and the Fighter's equipment, clearly. A pile of Goblins? Probably don't need any of the bonuses. A Celestial Vampiric Ancient Wyrm Red Dragon? The last two attacks probably aren't even worth rolling.
But that is mostly what I gathered from forum posts. My experience with 3.x is pretty limited, but not missing altogether.
Quote from: jibbajibba;554614See I hate that as example of a mundane fighter power. (beign a 2e guy)
It wouldn't be my first solution either, unless someone wanted a Bo9S kind of thing. Perhaps a high-powered Oriental Adventures Kensai class.
QuoteI would much rather have Figther Crits keeping up with thief backstab.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;554615I am a supporter of having the fighter do more crit damage than other classes.
Since the maths are faster and easier to see, I can tell you this is almost entirely worthless in computer games. Especially D&D inspired computer/console games like Baldur's Gate. For increased crit range to really be useful, you would have to up the number of attacks to go with it. Unless you wanted to boost the crits by a proportionately larger number to compensate for not getting the chance to use it as often.
Quote from: jibbajibba;554614To me if an 11th level thief does x4 damage with a backstab then an 11th level figther should have x4 damage on a critical.
Makes perfect sense.
QuoteAlso moving the chance of getting a crit up a smidge .... maybe from a natural 20 to 10 more than the number you need to hit or a natural 20.
As before, I don't know if a 'smidge' is beneficial. If you want to compare it to backstabbing, then my earlier suggestion is probably too much. I might even drop the multiplier to one lower than a Thief of the same level.
QuoteSo High level fighters will ciritcal hit a lot of a lot of damage.
If we accept that Fighters should have high damage output and high defences, these are good places to start.
Quote from: StormBringer;554617Celestial Vampiric Ancient Wyrm Red Dragon
That is really all that needs to be said about WotC D&D right there.
Quote from: StormBringer;554617Ok, I see where you are going. So, some kind of +1d10 to damage that increases with level like BaB? Perhaps a similar defensive bonus as well? I have heard that one bandied about a fair bit.
AC bonuses scaling with level (and armor as DR) are also extremely common 3.x houserules yes. Partly because guidelines for these things were provided in Unearthed Arcana. I think the goal of divorcing a fighter's
statistical superiority from his gear is pretty common here as well.
QuoteEspecially if the BaB was increased. The Fighter would be getting more iterative attacks at a faster pace. I think the general complaint is that later attacks in the sequence aren't particularly reliable, though. So, at high levels against very tough opponents, the last attack(s) tend to miss rather regularly. 16th level, for instance, is +16/+11/+6/+1; the first two attacks have pretty good odds of being successful, the third is even-ish odds, and the last one is almost an insult. Depending on the opponent and the Fighter's equipment, clearly. A pile of Goblins? Probably don't need any of the bonuses. A Celestial Vampiric Ancient Wyrm Red Dragon? The last two attacks probably aren't even worth rolling.
But that is mostly what I gathered from forum posts. My experience with 3.x is pretty limited, but not missing altogether.
Iterative attacks are... not great on a couple of levels. If we were redoing things from scratch I'd either ditch them altogether, handle them differently (handling many attacks as a single area attack would work well with older editions' longer rounds), or rejigger the math a bit. Maybe tie extra attack features to class instead of BaB progression.
That's opening a whole other can of worms though.
Point is that putting the numbers in the class instead of the gear, scaling damage, extra skill points, etc. would probably make more people (including people who buy the power disparity argument) happier than the 4e solution. Not that that's saying much.
Quote from: CRKrueger;554629... WotC D&D
Why do people keep putting those funny letters in front of D&D?
Quote from: jibbajibba;554614See I hate that as example of a mundane fighter power. (beign a 2e guy)
I would much rather have Figther Crits keeping up with thief backstab.
To me if an 11th level thief does x4 damage with a backstab then an 11th level figther should have x4 damage on a critical.
Also moving the chance of getting a crit up a smidge .... maybe from a natural 20 to 10 more than the number you need to hit or a natural 20.
So High level fighters will ciritcal hit a lot of a lot of damage.
These I am cool with because they are all about bakingg in the math before hand but keeping the fighter simple. Better crits are great (and make sense for a fighter). Lower crit thresholds are also something I have been pushing for lately. personally, i think it would just be eaiser to lower a fighters crit range by one at three stages in his development (19-18-17). This also assumes you dont have a featlike improved critical available to everyone else.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;554635These I am cool with because they are all about bakingg in the math before hand but keeping the fighter simple. Better crits are great (and make sense for a fighter). Lower crit thresholds are also something I have been pushing for lately. personally, i think it would just be eaiser to lower a fighters crit range by one at three stages in his development (19-18-17). This also assumes you dont have a featlike improved critical available to everyone else.
See my problem there is 2 high level figthers shouldn't jsut toe to toe and hit each other for massive crits with each strike. If you end up with say 17-20 crits then you crits as often agaisnt and elder vampire dragon hybrid cyborg as you go against a gnoll.
I would also improve the base AC of all classes at the same rate as THACO and modify the THACOs a bit to boost rogues and penalise priests
So more like
Figther +1 /level
Theif 1/2levels
Priest +1/3 levels
Wizard +1/4
So an 11th level fighter has a base AC of 0, A thief would have an AC of 5, A priest an AC of 7 and a wizard an AC of 8.
But now we are going a bit beyond the, up til now, well defined scope of the thread.
Quote from: jibbajibba;554640See my problem there is 2 high level figthers shouldn't jsut toe to toe and hit each other for massive crits with each strike. If you end up with say 17-20 crits then you crits as often agaisnt and elder vampire dragon hybrid cyborg as you go against a gnoll.
I would also improve the base AC of all classes at the same rate as THACO and modify the THACOs a bit to boost rogues and penalise priests
So more like
Figther +1 /level
Theif 1/2levels
Priest +1/3 levels
Wizard +1/4
So an 11th level fighter has a base AC of 0, A thief would have an AC of 5, A priest an AC of 7 and a wizard an AC of 8.
But now we are going a bit beyond the, up til now, well defined scope of the thread.
I agree it makes a fighter very good at hitting things. So he will have a good shot at criting a dragon when he reaches certain levels, and the same shot against a gnoll. For me the simplicity of this approach just makes it preferable to greater by ten or something of that nature.
For AC i would probably prefer you just give that ability to the fighter. The point of it is to give the fighter clear and distinct advantages over other classes in martial combat.
Quote from: Fifth Element;554611In one 3.5 campaign I ran I gave the fighter a +1 weapon damage bonus at 1st level, and a further +1 at each level that the class doesn't get a bonus feat. Even a relatively small change like that did a lot.
This is a great example of the type of stuff I'm really looking for. This is a 'simple change' that play experience indicates had some benefit. Additional damage on a critical also seems a 'common' method of addressing some of the recognized Fighter 'deficiencies' among those that claim to see them.
There can certainly be some discussion about WHY it worked, but divorcing this bonus from magical equipment seems like a good thing to me.
Regarding ititerative attacks, there's a point where it just becomes too many dice to roll. +16/+11/+6/+1 is 4 attacks, but most of them don't matter most of the time. I'd like to see some ability where the Fighter's iterative attacks are 'better' then other characters. For example, mabye +16/+11/+11/+11 at 16th level - not more attacks than they currently get, but BETTER attacks.
But fundamentally, there really needs to be something that breaks up the full attack routine. If you make full attacks better, the Fighter's goal every round is to get into a position to full attack the following round. Abilities that allow the Fighter to make all his attacks WHILE MOVING, for instance, would open up the possibilities dramatically.
Further, the 3.x rules make it so if you do anything cool (disarm, trip, etc), and you don't have the appropriate 'improved' Feat, your action is not a good idea (if the opponent hits, you take damage and automatically fail). I think anyone should be able to attempt these special actions, and only if they FAIL should the AoO be provoked. Thus, if you attempt to disarm your opponent, if you win, no AoO. If you lose, he gets to stab you in the face. This would encourage Fighters that didn't have Combat Expertise/Improved Disarm to try to remove the 'artifact staff' from the wizard's hands instead of repeatedly full-attacking after full-attacking round after round after round, fight after fight, after fight.
The power disparity is one thing - the fact that Fighters usually end up with 'one good option' and have no choice but to use it over and over is what starts to grate. This is particularly true if you have several Feats that tie you to a single weapon choice.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;554641I agree it makes a fighter very good at hitting things. So he will have a good shot at criting a dragon when he reaches certain levels, and the same shot against a gnoll. For me the simplicity of this approach just makes it preferable to greater by ten or something of that nature.
For AC i would probably prefer you just give that ability to the fighter. The point of it is to give the fighter clear and distinct advantages over other classes in martial combat.
I can see that but I also want to improve the lot of thieves and as you see the disparity between the Mundane fighter and the Casters is now very large indeed by 11th (an 8 AC gap in a 2e game is massive) and the map thaco to AC adjust is elegant and balanced and I like Elegant and balanced :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;554645I can see that but I also want to improve the lot of thieves and as you see the disparity between the Mundane fighter and the Casters is now very large indeed by 11th (an 8 AC gap in a 2e game is massive) and the map thaco to AC adjust is elegant and balanced and I like Elegant and balanced :)
I suppose it is a matter of what you are after. I think i am hoping they undo a lot of the martial improvements to the thief from 3E (i really prefer them as non combat specialists).
I do agree keying to thaco would be a good idea in terms of elegance. I just really want the fighter to stand out in battle. So i want to make their advantages stark, rather than more muddled like in 3E. This could be an overeaction to third edition on my part though.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;554642I'd like to see some ability where the Fighter's iterative attacks are 'better' then other characters. For example, mabye +16/+11/+11/+11 at 16th level - not more attacks than they currently get, but BETTER attacks.
Iterative attacks are another one of the design decisions of 3.x that were probably a huge mistake.
You can see why it works as it does, its so you know how to grant additional attacks when multi-classing. But personally, having 4 attacks each with a different chance of hitting is a) annoying and b) fucking pointless past the first two.
You would be much better off just giving Martial Classes more attacks at their full BAB, but making that work in satisfactory way with Multi-classing could be problematic.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;554647I suppose it is a matter of what you are after. I think i am hoping they undo a lot of the martial improvements to the thief from 3E (i really prefer them as non combat specialists).
I do agree keying to thaco would be a good idea in terms of elegance. I just really want the fighter to stand out in battle. So I want to make their advantages stark, rather than more muddled like in 3E. This could be an overeaction to third edition on my part though.
Again my aim is also to cut down on reliance of magic items for defense.
Theives are the other mundane class I would keep them like that with a focus on skills over combat but I want a couple of cutthroats with longknives to be a threat to an unprepared wizard or priest as opposed to being really rather hopeless. I would also make Rogue and Cleric d8 hp and MUs d6 , just cos I hate d4s for esthetic reasons
In 2 e terms the figther still stands head and shoulders above the rogue and the others in a combat sense
11th Fighter : THACO : 10 BASE AC : 0 HP: 58 (9xd10 + 8) Att: 5/2 +3/+3
11th Rouge: THACO: 15 BASE AC : 5 HP: 45 (9xd8 +4) Att: 1 +0/+0
11th Priest : THACO : 17 BASE AC 7 HP: 45 (9xd8 +4) Att: 1 +0/+0
11th Wizard: THACO: 18 BASE AC 8 HP: 34 (9xd6 +2) Att 1 +0/+0
Quote from: deadDMwalkingBut fundamentally, there really needs to be something that breaks up the full attack routine. If you make full attacks better, the Fighter's goal every round is to get into a position to full attack the following round. Abilities that allow the Fighter to make all his attacks WHILE MOVING, for instance, would open up the possibilities dramatically.
Another alternative might be to make moving away from the fighter once he has closed into melee more difficult. AoOs were supposed to do that somewhat, but there were so many exceptions made to remove AoOs' teeth. Never mind that the main option to get more of them is keyed to Dex and a bit better for rogues. A streamlined AoO system with advantages geared towards the fighter would help both here and with spell interruption.
QuoteFurther, the 3.x rules make it so if you do anything cool (disarm, trip, etc), and you don't have the appropriate 'improved' Feat, your action is not a good idea (if the opponent hits, you take damage and automatically fail). I think anyone should be able to attempt these special actions, and only if they FAIL should the AoO be provoked. Thus, if you attempt to disarm your opponent, if you win, no AoO. If you lose, he gets to stab you in the face. This would encourage Fighters that didn't have Combat Expertise/Improved Disarm to try to remove the 'artifact staff' from the wizard's hands instead of repeatedly full-attacking after full-attacking round after round after round, fight after fight, after fight.
For my own game, I'm leaving trip/disarm/grapple open to anybody and drastically simplified. The fighter's place in all this is that his higher BAB is his advantage (rather than an optional, feature-based rules exception that makes these options shit for everybody who didn't spend a resource learning it).
QuoteThe power disparity is one thing - the fact that Fighters usually end up with 'one good option' and have no choice but to use it over and over is what starts to grate. This is particularly true if you have several Feats that tie you to a single weapon choice.
I think you're not the only one in this thread who would prefer a multiweapon fighter. Simply making archery a better option would go a long way for me.
Quote from: beejazz;554653Another alternative might be to make moving away from the fighter once he has closed into melee more difficult. AoOs were supposed to do that somewhat, but there were so many exceptions made to remove AoOs' teeth. Never mind that the main option to get more of them is keyed to Dex and a bit better for rogues. A streamlined AoO system with advantages geared towards the fighter would help both here and with spell interruption.
Kl
For my own game, I'm leaving trip/disarm/grapple open to anybody and drastically simplified. The fighter's place in all this is that his higher BAB is his advantage (rather than an optional, feature-based rules exception that makes these options shit for everybody who didn't spend a resource learning it).
I think you're not the only one in this thread who would prefer a multiweapon fighter. Simply making archery a better option would go a long way for me.
I don't mind single weapon fighters per se. Its with the genre, Druss used an Axe, Tarl Cabbot uses a short sword, Athos uses a rapier .....
Quote from: jibbajibba;554655I fon;t mind single weapon fighters per se. Its wite genre, Druss used an Axe, Tarl Cabbot uses a short sword, Athos uses a rapier .....
If we're talking issues of monsters with range and/or flight, the fighter at least needs a ranged weapon that is useful in addition to his melee. The 100ft jump bullshit assumes that
melee weapons only should be viable. Which is silly. For wuxia&D fine. But for D&D a bit weird.
Also I guess note that there's a difference between specializing and being crummy with all but one thing.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;554598(http://gallery.avlis.org/d/4989-7/multiclassing.jpg)
Multiclassing is a terrible option for spellcasters in general in 3x. It does work really well for fighters but requires some serious system mastery to make it really work. Brendan's idea of baking in certain things for the fighter via the math while keeping the fighter close to her core is far better and still keeps the fighter simple. Which many people like and demand.
Iterative attacks are another issue in 3x. First I believe only fighters should ever have them and at the worst Trailblazer's solution of -2 instead of -5 to each consecutive attack should be used.
Can one of the mods please sticky One Horse Town's rules for theRPGsite 'Fight Club?' The trolls* rolling into this thread have hit pretty much everyone down the line:
- Accuse the non-troll of trolling.
- Accuse the non-troll of illiteracy.
- Accuse the non-troll of being stupid, autistic, and, etc.
- Accuse the non-troll of not having ever played the game in question.
- Ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
* Naturally, your interpretation of who is a troll and who is not is wholly subjective. ;)
Quote from: Drohem;554672Can one of the mods please sticky One Horse Town's rules for theRPGsite 'Fight Club?' The trolls* rolling into this thread have hit pretty much everyone down the line:
- Accuse the non-troll of trolling.
- Accuse the non-troll of illiteracy.
- Accuse the non-troll of being stupid, autistic, and, etc.
- Accuse the non-troll of not having ever played the game in question.
- Ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
* Naturally, your interpretation of who is a troll and who is not is wholly subjective. ;)
I notice that Benoist hit 3 and 4 super fucking hard.
Quote from: Kaelik;554682I notice that Benoist hit 3 and 4 super fucking hard.
I'm a big fan of the list. I got to hit at least two of those once a day. I don't usually have to work hard for it, since you guys are so diligent in providing the necessary fodder for this kind of jest.
With neither a 3 or a 4 on the list, I got a chuckle.
Quote from: Kaelik;554682I notice that Benoist hit 3 and 4 super fucking hard.
Well, in your particular case and to my mind, you are the troll and you've hit all of the items on the list.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;554642This is a great example of the type of stuff I'm really looking for. This is a 'simple change' that play experience indicates had some benefit. Additional damage on a critical also seems a 'common' method of addressing some of the recognized Fighter 'deficiencies' among those that claim to see them.
There can certainly be some discussion about WHY it worked, but divorcing this bonus from magical equipment seems like a good thing to me.
Regarding ititerative attacks, there's a point where it just becomes too many dice to roll. +16/+11/+6/+1 is 4 attacks, but most of them don't matter most of the time. I'd like to see some ability where the Fighter's iterative attacks are 'better' then other characters. For example, mabye +16/+11/+11/+11 at 16th level - not more attacks than they currently get, but BETTER attacks.
But fundamentally, there really needs to be something that breaks up the full attack routine. If you make full attacks better, the Fighter's goal every round is to get into a position to full attack the following round. Abilities that allow the Fighter to make all his attacks WHILE MOVING, for instance, would open up the possibilities dramatically.
Further, the 3.x rules make it so if you do anything cool (disarm, trip, etc), and you don't have the appropriate 'improved' Feat, your action is not a good idea (if the opponent hits, you take damage and automatically fail). I think anyone should be able to attempt these special actions, and only if they FAIL should the AoO be provoked. Thus, if you attempt to disarm your opponent, if you win, no AoO. If you lose, he gets to stab you in the face. This would encourage Fighters that didn't have Combat Expertise/Improved Disarm to try to remove the 'artifact staff' from the wizard's hands instead of repeatedly full-attacking after full-attacking round after round after round, fight after fight, after fight.
The power disparity is one thing - the fact that Fighters usually end up with 'one good option' and have no choice but to use it over and over is what starts to grate. This is particularly true if you have several Feats that tie you to a single weapon choice.
I actually agree with some of your post here, actually. Now, a trip attempt isn't spoiled if you're hit with an AoO (and a trip weapon would negate it entirely), while a reach weapon avoids most of the AoO issues, as does winning initiative or even multiple attacks (unless they have Combat Reflexes, they can only spoil your first attack, and you can opt to attack first with the attack with the lowest bonus, if you wish).
But, I do miss alot of the flexibility of the 2E fighter in the 3E fighter - they do get a bit one trick pony-ish.
There are various ways around the movement / no full attacks thing. In 3.0 boots of haste were pretty standard issue for higher level characters (at least, high enough to care about multiple attacks). In early 3.5 I had a ranger I was quite fond of with
lion's charge as a spell-like ability using the Redheaded feat ('those born with red hair are believed to be touched by the fey'; Ravenloft campaign setting; can use a 1st level druid spell 1/day - worked until lion's charge was re-released with a higher level sadly :( ), and in 3.5 there's the pounce barbarian variant (available at level 1), Catfolk Pounce, and Bounding Assault as well as Hurling Charge, Two-Weapon Pounce, and there's probably some I've forgotten.
Iterative attacks would probably have worked better if enemy ACs didn't scale up as quickly (i.e. so that the fighter probably hits with second or third attacks, as well as very likely with the first). I think they didn't think of that when designing them, though, they probably just thought "OK, we don't want people having 3/2 attacks a round anymore...what about if we just make the second attack at a lower bonus ?".
Quote from: Drohem;554672Can one of the mods please sticky One Horse Town's rules for theRPGsite 'Fight Club?'
No, no. It's off-topic!
I
am awesome though.
I've never actually implemented it, but for a while I've been wondering what would happen if you made it so you didn't have to stay in one spot to unload all your iterative attacks. Like, you'd still be limited to the one move action, but you could attack anywhere along that move.
Quote from: One Horse Town;554814No, no. It's off-topic!
I am awesome though.
I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank the mods for all their hard work on this message board. They do their best every day and get nothing but crap for being human. I know I couldn't do it.[/tBP Sycophancy]
Quote from: KenHR;554819I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank the mods for all their hard work on this message board. They do their best every day and get nothing but crap for being human. I know I couldn't do it.[/tBP Sycophancy]
Kill him.
Quote from: Imp;554817I've never actually implemented it, but for a while I've been wondering what would happen if you made it so you didn't have to stay in one spot to unload all your iterative attacks. Like, you'd still be limited to the one move action, but you could attack anywhere along that move.
Currently 5e allows this kind of thing and I like it. I would have no problem with a system that allows for all your attacks and up to a standard move split up however you feel. It'd sure make fighters feared badasses if nothing else without having to do much else.
Quote from: Imp;554817I've never actually implemented it, but for a while I've been wondering what would happen if you made it so you didn't have to stay in one spot to unload all your iterative attacks. Like, you'd still be limited to the one move action, but you could attack anywhere along that move.
I'm about to try it. I'm looking forward to the experiment.
I can't keep up with the thread. Maybe I'm just becoming functionally retarded in my old age, but I don't read as fast as I used to. Everyone here is talking and screaming past each other. Here are a few of my insights:
(1.) If you're going to argue about D&D, then choose a single edition, and argue about that. :pundit:
(2.) If you're to argue about D&D, then tell us what range of levels you are referring to. A campaign focusing on levels 1 to 3 is drastically different from a campaign focusing on levels 6 to 9, and even that is different from levels 12 to 15.
(3.) Fighters in Basic D&D and AD&D can keep up with Magic-Users/Wizards and Clerics between levels 1 to 6, in regards to making a solid contribution in an adventuring party. After that, Fighters start to have some problems.....as 4th-level spells (and higher) are a game-changing experience, that have a transformative effect on the campaign.
(4.) It is a million times easier for a spell-caster in any edition of D&D to make money, than it is for a Fighter to do so. Magic changes economies, and there's no stopping that, unless you have a Wizard's Guild in place that keeps a very tight reign on that kind of thing.
(5.) Fighters in 3.x suck. Or to be more precise, they are the weakest and least-useful PC class in the game (in-combat and out)...and are comparable in utility to the Adept, Aristocrat, and Expert. I can still do great things and have fun with the 3.x Fighter, but he has no semi-unique abilities of his own, unless you count the weapon specialization feat (which I don't). :pundit:
Fighters in AD&D aren't terribly interesting, but at least in 1e, Fighters could look forward to something and potentially build a keep (though they'd have to really work for it). Heck, there were even little details that made Fighters a doable class, such as receiving multiple attacks (which non-Warriors didn't), and even a Strength spell was more effective for them, simply by virtue of being a Fighter.
Just for the record, I'm not an edition purist who believes that 1e is objectively the greatest game ever, and that Gygax's shit didn't stink just like the rest of us, but I do believe that we can glean some important insights from earlier editions....in order to make things even better.
But yes, primary spell-casters rule....in any edition. Once we get to 7th-level or so, the Clerics and Wizards/Magic-Users could easily be running the show if the player knows how to use them properly.
The good news is that most people don't know how to use them properly, so this stuff is mostly an Internet phenomenon. :cool:
Quote from: One Horse Town;554814No, no. It's off-topic!
I am awesome though.
Well, I didn't mean in this particular thread, but to sticky it to the general forum as a reference. :)
The only way the M/U in AD&D is more powerful than a Fighter is if the DM arranges for it to be that way by selectively altering the rules. Like, for instance, letting him pick his own spells.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;554839I'm about to try it. I'm looking forward to the experiment.
Favorite fighter cross-classed into rogue for extra damage and barbarian for lion's pounce, using fighter bonus feats for TWFing and something called neraph charge (foes flat footed when I charged).
Full attacks plus movement work beautifully, especially on a fighter with scaled damage.
Quote from: Kaldric;554872The only way the M/U in AD&D is more powerful than a Fighter is if the DM arranges for it to be that way by selectively altering the rules. Like, for instance, letting him pick his own spells.
No. We're talking about 1e, right? If the DM doesn't allow the player of the Magic-User to choose his own spells (from the basic list of M-U spells in the core rules), then he's probably just behaving like a ham-fisted tyrant. And a Magic-User with high Intelligence, and the ambition to engage in semi-regular spell research can usually acquire the spells he wants anyway. So a high-level M-U doesn't need the DM to selectively alter rules. That's pure fiction.
Let me repeat this.
A higher level Magic-User in AD&D is more powerful than a Fighter....
if the player of the Magic-User knows what he is doing. Most people acknowledge this, and it's why they tolerate the M-U being such utter weaksauce at 1st-level.
Most people don't know how to use a Wizard/Magic-User properly
in any edition of the game, so that's why the issue usually doesn't come up, unless it's in CharOp forums.
AD&D DMG, Page 39: Acquisition of Magic User Spells.
"While the intelligence of the player character will dictate how many and which spells can be and are known, this knowledge is not automatic. Each and every spell, except those which "master" was generous enough to bestow upon the character, must be found somewhere and recorded in the character's spell books."
In the first spellbook, the caster gets Read Magic. And then he gets to roll once on the Offensive, Defensive, and Miscellaneous charts of first level MU spells.
If he rolls a 10 on any of those columns, he gets to choose from that column. Otherwise, he's stuck with what he rolled.
Magic users also get 1 spell each time they gain an experience level. Nowhere does it say they get to choose it.
AD&D
specifically notes that choosing spells makes M/U's more powerful. It gives the option to let M/U's pick the spells they get at 1st level, one from each column -
only if the game is more difficult than normal. Thus - the designers were perfectly fucking aware that picking spells (even just 1 first level spell) made the M/U more powerful - which is why they went very much out of their way to
not allow it.QuoteIf the DM doesn't allow the player of the Magic-User to choose his own spells (from the basic list of M-U spells in the core rules), then he's probably just behaving like a ham-fisted tyrant.
Or he's following the rules, which prevent the game from being unbalanced.
You can't ignore the rules and then claim the game is unbalanced. AD&D, by the rules, does not allow the M/U to pick his spells. If you're fucking stupid enough to allow it, then yeah, the game flat tells you it's going to make the M/U overpowered.
And you shouldn't use spell research unless you're using the time-keeping guidelines that make 'time spent doing X' the pretty harsh cost it's meant to be. If you aren't using the timekeeping system, in which all that time spent researching is an actual penalty to the character - then you'd better be giving the fighter some very significant bennies to balance it out (i.e., if the spellcaster doesn't actually have to take the time penalty, everyone gets free items to match the spellcaster's new power). Or you're going to unbalance the game.
This leaves out the fact that you roll to see whether a caster can ever learn a particular spell, whenever he gains access to a new spell level. This is totally beside even finding the spell. The designers knew wizards were powerful, which is why there are so many harsh, harsh restrictions on that power.
Roll up random treasures, roll up random spell scrolls, roll to see which of those are arcane, roll to see what spells he can ever learn, check to see if any he's found in treasure match what he can learn, roll to see which scrolls just freaking lose their magic when he moves them, roll to see which he actually learns (only one shot - the writing disappears).
Do that for 12 levels. Then compare to the fighter. The wizard is not likely to be more powerful.
Why waste time with Dungeons? Let's just have nothing but Dragons!
Just as an aside: If you're going to try to claim the AD&D wizard is unbalanced, overpowered, because he's got this specific set of spells... I'll go the other way. I'll claim he's underpowered, because he's far more likely to end up like this.
Luxor the Unlucky:
11th level Wizard.
All Spells known:
1st level: Read Magic, Light, Affect Normal Fires, Write, Mending
2nd level: Wizard Lock, Magic Mouth
3rd level: Feign Death, Water Breathing
4th level: Extension I, Plant Growth
5th level: Extension II, Airy Water, Distance Distortion
He's almost completely useless. The game is broken, fighters are OP! Nerf fighters!
Actually, this guy does suck - he's playable, though. Because, although he never found any spell scrolls, always failed his research rolls, and got hosed on his level-spell acquisition, he probably found some wands, staves, etc. So he's playable, kind of.
Truth is, in AD&D, the fighter and the wizard are dependent for the great majority of their power on what they find in the game world. All the classes are. This puts balance squarely in the hands of the DM. Don't want a high-powered wizard? Don't put in high-powered spells. Make the player aware of this before he plays a wizard. Don't want high-powered fighters? Maybe reduce the big advantage fighters have on the magic item tables, hand out a few fewer intelligent vorpal swords.
Now you see some of the limits we are speaking of that 3x removed and helped cause alot of the imbalance between fighters and magic users specifically in 3x. I think a middle ground could be found though but it really is a discussion that belongs in the houserule realm. Which is in keeping of the dominant paradigm pre 3x.
An incomplete list of things that make 3E wizards much more powerful than TSR wizards, in descending order of importance. Whether 3E wizards are OP is matter of taste. It's obvious they're more powerful than TSR wizards.
1. Wizards in 3E pick the best spells.
2. Wizards in 3E get more spells.
3. Wizards in 3E can easily avoid spell interruption.
4. Wizards in 3E have feats which can power up spells unpredictably.
5. Wizards in 3E are almost never in danger from their own spells.
6. Wizards in 3E overcome saving throws easier as they level.
It all comes down to whining. People like Sac claimed that DM's who ran the game as it was intended were 'ham-fisted tyrants' - and there are enough people like him that all those very, very harsh limitations on Wizard power got removed for 3E. And now, they complain that Wizards are OP. You made your beds, lie in them.
Again:
Quote from: Kaldric;554889It all comes down to whining. People like Sac claimed that DM's who ran the game as it was intended were 'ham-fisted tyrants' - and there are enough people like him that all those very, very harsh limitations on Wizard power got removed for 3E. And now, they complain that Wizards are OP. You made your beds, lie in them.
Quote from: Kaldric;554889An incomplete list of things that make 3E wizards much more powerful than TSR wizards, in descending order of importance. Whether 3E wizards are OP is matter of taste. It's obvious they're more powerful than TSR wizards.
1. Wizards in 3E pick the best spells.
2. Wizards in 3E get more spells.
3. Wizards in 3E can easily avoid spell interruption.
4. Wizards in 3E have feats which can power up spells unpredictably.
5. Wizards in 3E are almost never in danger from their own spells.
6. Wizards in 3E overcome saving throws easier as they level.
It all comes down to whining. People like Sac claimed that DM's who ran the game as it was intended were 'ham-fisted tyrants' - and there are enough people like him that all those very, very harsh limitations on Wizard power got removed for 3E. And now, they complain that Wizards are OP. You made your beds, lie in them.
Actually I'm fine with pre 3x rules because my DM's never touched me in that "bad" place. I would say, you got what you wanted via 3x so do you want some cheese with that whine?
So disappointed, I really did start thinking you wanted actual discussion of the topic. But no, the temptation to troll unmasked you.
Quote from: Marleycat;554903So disappointed, I really did start thinking you wanted actual discussion of the topic. But no, the temptation to troll unmasked you.
Who are you talking to? You seem to be in agreement with Kaldric.
Quote from: Kaldric;554882AD&D DMG, Page 39: Acquisition of Magic User Spells.
"While the intelligence of the player character will dictate how many and which spells can be and are known, this knowledge is not automatic. Each and every spell, except those which "master" was generous enough to bestow upon the character, must be found somewhere and recorded in the character's spell books."
You know, I find it fucking comical that people who prattle on about how superior AD&D is, and embrace the "rulings not rules" mantra, actually make such a big fucking deal about the
rules. Make up your mind, people.
Quote from: KaldricIn the first spellbook, the caster gets Read Magic. And then he gets to roll once on the Offensive, Defensive, and Miscellaneous charts of first level MU spells.
If he rolls a 10 on any of those columns, he gets to choose from that column. Otherwise, he's stuck with what he rolled.
Magic users also get 1 spell each time they gain an experience level. Nowhere does it say they get to choose it.
Nowhere does it say that they
can't choose it after 1st-level either.
And guess what? All it takes is one high-level PC Magic-User with a shitload of spells to make that rule regarding 1st-level M-U's essentially useless anyway. Once that high-level magic-User PC dude exists, you can forget it. All bets are off, and spell selection is open season.
Nobody likes a ham-fisted tyrant. Don't be one when DMing AD&D.
Quote from: KaldricAD&D specifically notes that choosing spells makes M/U's more powerful. It gives the option to let M/U's pick the spells they get at 1st level, one from each column - only if the game is more difficult than normal. Thus - the designers were perfectly fucking aware that picking spells (even just 1 first level spell) made the M/U more powerful - which is why they went very much out of their way to not allow it.
When you paraphrase the text in that fashion, you mislead the reader. Don't do that. Here's what it
actually says:
"
Choice should be left to the player. Note that both
Nystul's Magic Aura and
Tenser's Floating Disc must be located by the character; they can never be known at the start.
If your campaign is particularly difficult, you may wish to allow choice automatically. You can furthermore allow an extra
defensive or
miscellaneous spell, so that the character begins with 5 spells."
Quote from: KaldricOr he's following the rules, which prevent the game from being unbalanced.
You can't ignore the rules and then claim the game is unbalanced. AD&D, by the rules, does not allow the M/U to pick his spells. If you're fucking stupid enough to allow it, then yeah, the game flat tells you it's going to make the M/U overpowered.
That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
Everyone has ignored the rules. Even Gary Fucking Gygax. There's a reason that AD&D has a reputation of being a different game at every table. And it's not because of superior balance. 1e is a great game, but definitely not because of "balance".
Quote from: KaldricAnd you shouldn't use spell research unless you're using the time-keeping guidelines that make 'time spent doing X' the pretty harsh cost it's meant to be. If you aren't using the timekeeping system, in which all that time spent researching is an actual penalty to the character - then you'd better be giving the fighter some very significant bennies to balance it out (i.e., if the spellcaster doesn't actually have to take the time penalty, everyone gets free items to match the spellcaster's new power). Or you're going to unbalance the game.
Researching spells doesn't take forever, dude. It takes weeks. The PC's do not go adventuring....24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The PC Fighter will probably spend as much time trying to trade with merchants, go wenching, acquire henchmen, and establish and manage his keep. So the timekeeping system is usually a non-issue, unless every expedition is a time-sensitive situation where you must "save the world". But who knows? Maybe you play Dragonlance. :rolleyes:
@ Kaelik, I give you props you managed to offend both Brendan and Sacrificial Lamb in a single thread. Two of the more level headed posters on this site, kudos dude.
The point is not "obey these rules, until it's inconvenient." The point is even the designers knew that, since magic breaks the normal rules of setting limitations, you have to have it on a very tight leash. Therefore the point about showing that 1e DMG is how the designers suggest to handle the problem.
They also talk in 2e DMG about running games with low to no magic and the potential ramifications on the classes (with one of the comments that you may want to not allow certain classes at all in such campaigns). Overall this speaks to how the game is more than rules in a system, but a breathing imaginary world being crafted in the hands of a GM (along with the responsibility of player trust that goes with such power). Note: the thrust of Kaldric's post illustrates how the original guidelines shifted discussion from rules to the GM & player relationship in crafting the setting.
This in turn relates to the initial thrust of the "grognard" argument that this issue derives from the degradation of the GM & Player relationship, letting inanimate rules be the judge instead of merely a system of logical guidance.
Quote from: Kaldric;554886Just as an aside: If you're going to try to claim the AD&D wizard is unbalanced, overpowered, because he's got this specific set of spells... I'll go the other way. I'll claim he's underpowered, because he's far more likely to end up like this.
Luxor the Unlucky:
11th level Wizard.
All Spells known:
1st level: Read Magic, Light, Affect Normal Fires, Write, Mending
2nd level: Wizard Lock, Magic Mouth
3rd level: Feign Death, Water Breathing
4th level: Extension I, Plant Growth
5th level: Extension II, Airy Water, Distance Distortion
He's almost completely useless. The game is broken, fighters are OP! Nerf fighters!
What is this disingenuous fappery? I have
never heard of such an anemic high-level character, either PC or NPC...in any official or non-official publication. Never. Are you attempting comedy? :pundit:
And you'll note that there is no such random spell generation table for Magic-Users of above 1st-level.
And that's because it's not intended for characters above 1st-level in the first place.The only randomness I have to deal with after 1st-level, is when I roll my
"chance to know each listed spell". That's it. After 1st-level, I'm not an apprentice any more, and I don't have to deal with any more of that bullshit. And if I do some spell research, then I can dance around some of that tragedy, provided I actually fail a roll.
Quote from: MarleycatNow you see some of the limits we are speaking of that 3x removed and helped cause alot of the imbalance between fighters and magic users specifically in 3x. I think a middle ground could be found though but it really is a discussion that belongs in the houserule realm. Which is in keeping of the dominant paradigm pre 3x.
Please don't listen to Kaldric. He doesn't know what he's talking about. 1e Fighters are technically stronger than 3e Fighters. The reasons for that are complicated, and need to be explained...but I just won't get into that right now.
Quote from: KaldricAn incomplete list of things that make 3E wizards much more powerful than TSR wizards, in descending order of importance. Whether 3E wizards are OP is matter of taste. It's obvious they're more powerful than TSR wizards.
At low levels, obviously....yes. At mid-to-high levels, not necessarily. Most people don't realize this, but that's not completely true. The spells in 1e lack many of the limitations that 3.5 has, because Gary didn't really understand "balance", though he certainly believed he did. 1e is rich and detailed, but balance is not its strength, nor does it need to be, because it's not all about arena combat.
Quote from: Kaldric1. Wizards in 3E pick the best spells.
You can usually pick the best spells in 1e too.
Quote from: Kaldric2. Wizards in 3E get more spells.
True.
Quote from: Kaldric3. Wizards in 3E can easily avoid spell interruption.
I always thought the spell disruption rules in 1e were stupid. Not that it matters, because mid to high level 1e Magic-Users have lots of ways to avoid spell disruption, via
invisibility,
polymorphing, disguise,
charmed servants, undead servants, etc.
If my 11th-level Magic-User doesn't want to get hit, then he probably won't get hit. Your problem is that you think of the high-level Magic-User as some kind of glass cannon. Don't feel bad though, because most people make the same mistake.
Quote from: Kaldric4. Wizards in 3E have feats which can power up spells unpredictably.
3e feats are pretty predictable.
Quote from: Kaldric5. Wizards in 3E are almost never in danger from their own spells.
True.Quote from: Kaldric6. Wizards in 3E overcome saving throws easier as they level.
Unless you've got some kind of mathematical breakdown of various challenges, and can properly translate them from one edition to another, then I wouldn't make a statement of that kind if I were you.
Quote from: KaldricIt all comes down to whining.
So you're whining now? I agree...:boohoo:
Quote from: KaldricPeople like Sac claimed that DM's who ran the game as it was intended were 'ham-fisted tyrants' - and there are enough people like him that all those very, very harsh limitations on Wizard power got removed for 3E. And now, they complain that Wizards are OP. You made your beds, lie in them.
You don't understand how to run the game as intended, so spare me your grognardian bullshit.
Here's the thing. I believe that 3e magic needs to be slightly reduced in power, made more flavorful, have more consequences, while allowing the Wizard to use his abilities with slightly more frequency.
I think that 1e magic is more interesting than 3e magic, and that 3e can and should take some vital lessons from 1e. However, both editions have flaws. I know that edition warriors will get riled up when I say that, but whatever. The trick is learning some lessons from what's been done before, and focusing on making something better. As far as what "better' is, I'll let the mob argue about what that is... :cool:
Quote from: Kaldric;554886Just as an aside: If you're going to try to claim the AD&D wizard is unbalanced, overpowered, because he's got this specific set of spells... I'll go the other way. I'll claim he's underpowered, because he's far more likely to end up like this.
Luxor the Unlucky:
11th level Wizard.
All Spells known:
1st level: Read Magic, Light, Affect Normal Fires, Write, Mending
2nd level: Wizard Lock, Magic Mouth
3rd level: Feign Death, Water Breathing
4th level: Extension I, Plant Growth
5th level: Extension II, Airy Water, Distance Distortion
Yeah this is really unlikely. Spell research aside, an 11th level AD&D wizard has to get around a
lot to get to 11th level, and he's going to find a number of spells he can use or die trying. Though:
QuoteNowhere does it say that they can't choose it after 1st-level either.
Oh, I never let them choose their free spell. But that's not much of an issue. There are scrolls and every now and then a spellbook to be found. I don't recall them being any rarer than magic swords, if not a tiny bit more common.
Quote from: Opaopajr;554918The point is not "obey these rules, until it's inconvenient." The point is even the designers knew that, since magic breaks the normal rules of setting limitations, you have to have it on a very tight leash. Therefore the point about showing that 1e DMG is how the designers suggest to handle the problem.
They also talk in 2e DMG about running games with low to no magic and the potential ramifications on the classes (with one of the comments that you may want to not allow certain classes at all in such campaigns). Overall this speaks to how the game is more than rules in a system, but a breathing imaginary world being crafted in the hands of a GM (along with the responsibility of player trust that goes with such power). Note: the thrust of Kaldric's post illustrates how the original guidelines shifted discussion from rules to the GM & player relationship in crafting the setting.
This in turn relates to the initial thrust of the "grognard" argument that this issue derives from the degradation of the GM & Player relationship, letting inanimate rules be the judge instead of merely a system of logical guidance.
Now I'm of two minds about this but before I comment I must state that
1) This has been a very long thread and between moving and work I've barely been able to peek on to see what's going on. I asked the question earlier about how many people do you think have issues with the disparity and I didn't get to and am not going to bother digging for the responses. I can say that based on the prevalence of essays, house rules, and arguments about the power levels in DnD coupled with my own experiences, and the experiences of friends from playing the game and in making my own I am fairly sure that most people have experienced it and felt need to change it. It seems as though now that it is in the open conversation has drifted towards solutions (for the most part) and that's a good thing.
2) I'm glad SacLamb has provided some alternate insights into previous editions of DnD.
3) I DM most of the time so most of my experiences come from me being in the hot seat.
Now with my two minds.
1) I hate 2e's promotion of tightfisted DM control. I do not like, even as someone who DMs most of the time, needing to dictate how much a player can do in the world. I'd prefer a strong ruleset. I realize that stronger rulesets can be intimidating and too many rules will be more trouble than its worth. I like that 3e allows the players to basically be able to gauge what they can and can't do. I like the amount of detail 3e provides.
2) I believe that the DM is indeed necessary. The game just isn't as fun to me without someone playing team protagonists and team antagonists. When I DM I enjoy watching players bring their characters to life and I enjoy building a world and playing NPCs that help make that happen.
I think that a solid ruleset makes my job as a DM easier and more streamlined. If things are balanced in the ruleset I have less impromptu ham fisted balancing to do myself. So not only is having balanced classes something that makes the game easier for the DM but having a consistent and somewhat detailed ruleset allows players to formulate working plots that don't revolve around convincing the DM that what they are about to do is "realistic" which was my major issue with 2e and its seeming encouragement that the DM keep people on the rails.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;554857I can't keep up with the thread. Maybe I'm just becoming functionally retarded in my old age, but I don't read as fast as I used to. Everyone here is talking and screaming past each other. Here are a few of my insights:
(1.) If you're going to argue about D&D, then choose a single edition, and argue about that. :pundit:
(2.) If you're to argue about D&D, then tell us what range of levels you are referring to. A campaign focusing on levels 1 to 3 is drastically different from a campaign focusing on levels 6 to 9, and even that is different from levels 12 to 15.
(3.) Fighters in Basic D&D and AD&D can keep up with Magic-Users/Wizards and Clerics between levels 1 to 6, in regards to making a solid contribution in an adventuring party. After that, Fighters start to have some problems.....as 4th-level spells (and higher) are a game-changing experience, that have a transformative effect on the campaign.
(4.) It is a million times easier for a spell-caster in any edition of D&D to make money, than it is for a Fighter to do so. Magic changes economies, and there's no stopping that, unless you have a Wizard's Guild in place that keeps a very tight reign on that kind of thing.
(5.) Fighters in 3.x suck. Or to be more precise, they are the weakest and least-useful PC class in the game (in-combat and out)...and are comparable in utility to the Adept, Aristocrat, and Expert. I can still do great things and have fun with the 3.x Fighter, but he has no semi-unique abilities of his own, unless you count the weapon specialization feat (which I don't). :pundit:
Fighters in AD&D aren't terribly interesting, but at least in 1e, Fighters could look forward to something and potentially build a keep (though they'd have to really work for it). Heck, there were even little details that made Fighters a doable class, such as receiving multiple attacks (which non-Warriors didn't), and even a Strength spell was more effective for them, simply by virtue of being a Fighter.
Just for the record, I'm not an edition purist who believes that 1e is objectively the greatest game ever, and that Gygax's shit didn't stink just like the rest of us, but I do believe that we can glean some important insights from earlier editions....in order to make things even better.
But yes, primary spell-casters rule....in any edition. Once we get to 7th-level or so, the Clerics and Wizards/Magic-Users could easily be running the show if the player knows how to use them properly.
The good news is that most people don't know how to use them properly, so this stuff is mostly an Internet phenomenon. :cool:
Even though he doesn;t like 2e we have to add SL to the list of sensible people who can be objective about the game.
Amen brother
Quote from: Kaldric;554886Just as an aside: If you're going to try to claim the AD&D wizard is unbalanced, overpowered, because he's got this specific set of spells... I'll go the other way. I'll claim he's underpowered, because he's far more likely to end up like this.
Luxor the Unlucky:
11th level Wizard.
All Spells known:
1st level: Read Magic, Light, Affect Normal Fires, Write, Mending
2nd level: Wizard Lock, Magic Mouth
3rd level: Feign Death, Water Breathing
4th level: Extension I, Plant Growth
5th level: Extension II, Airy Water, Distance Distortion
He's almost completely useless. The game is broken, fighters are OP! Nerf fighters!
Actually, this guy does suck - he's playable, though. Because, although he never found any spell scrolls, always failed his research rolls, and got hosed on his level-spell acquisition, he probably found some wands, staves, etc. So he's playable, kind of.
Truth is, in AD&D, the fighter and the wizard are dependent for the great majority of their power on what they find in the game world. All the classes are. This puts balance squarely in the hands of the DM. Don't want a high-powered wizard? Don't put in high-powered spells. Make the player aware of this before he plays a wizard. Don't want high-powered fighters? Maybe reduce the big advantage fighters have on the magic item tables, hand out a few fewer intelligent vorpal swords.
what about clerics?
Can't they pray for whatever spells like like use all the armour the fighter can, get comparable hit points, get special powers like turning undead and for the majority of their spells they only need their holy symbol as a component.
As for wizard spell acquisition. I am all in favour of doing it the hard way but .... scrolls are a common magic item, and every thing the party beat a wizard they usually get to search for their spell books so every spell your NPCs use the PCs can end up with .
Also do you randomly determin NPC spells ?
Quote from: jibbajibba;554939Even though he doesn;t like 2e we have to add SL to the list of sensible people who can be objective about the game.
Amen brother
Actually, I like both 1e and 2e very much. Great games. But I do acknowledge that these games have flaws, and so I'll sometimes bring them up. But that's ok. All games have flaws.
I can get riled up when certain grognards (probably unintentionally) misrepresent 1e, and engage in some bizarro revisionist history. That's why I occasionally get into these arguments, though I'm usually good about avoiding them.
Edit: I also don't like it when people bash older editions of D&D as being objectively crappy and antiquated. That equally irritates me.
Only 160 posts to go Aos, you asshole.;)
I've played 2e and 3.x extensively, and about an equally brief amount of time playing 1e and 4e (about a year each).
3e, 3.5 and Pathfinder have broken math on the back end in regards to the fighting mechanics, which affects every class that fights, but obviously the Fighter the most being that he does little else.
I've played high level fighters and wizards in 2e and 3e, and the 'balance' issue isn't very pronounced in 2e imo. There is a balance issue between the classes even in 2e that is probably insoluble for thematic reasons. It's a D&D trope that wizards start weak and get powerful, and that magic users in general can bend reality and fighters swing weapons and are mostly mundane and those are things you probably can't change and retain that D&D feel. That isn't to say you can't tweak the balance so that the power trajectory with the wizard isn't so steep, but this is sort of a sidetrack for me anyway as I don't feel the problem is necessarily a balance between classes issue.
The problem in 3e is that the fighter isn't good at killing monsters by fighting them. The balance between the fighter and the monsters is what the 3e devs broke, making the classes that substantially contribute to the party by reducing monster HP to 0 subpar. This is a problem with other primarily melee fighting classes as well. Giving little perks to the fighter isn't a great resolution. The monk has them and sucks hard despite it. The Ranger and Paladin can only shine because they can function above par in niche circumstances, but outside of those niches they are still pretty bad at fighting.
Fighters in 2e were better at killing monsters. They were in fact very good at doing that, so people who are satisfied with being able to significantly contribute to the party by reducing enemy HP to 0 are going to be more satisfied with the 2e experience.
The reasons for the 3e combat breakdown are kind of varied and complex but even looking at a few things you can see that AC scales higher in 3e than it did in 2e, while BAB tracks more or less with thac0, meaning that the 3e fighter is less accurate. Damage output between editions is comparable for a single swing, meanwhile monster HP is higher, often dramatically so. Monsters are reliably very mobile while the expectation is that you need iterative attacks to do significant damage.
Adding on a bunch of extra attacks with negligible chance of hitting wasn't a good mechanic, especially considering lots of the monsters are designed with tons of strength (high +damage and hit), and big burst damage attacks that allow them to move and strike. More or less the 3e monsters fight like 2e fighters, and 3e fighters are much more like 2e monsters with their nickel and dime damage.
You can see the disparity between the fighter and the Bo9S Warblade class. The latter, despite the weaboo fightan magic aspect actually plays at the table much closer to the 2e fighter than the actual fighter class in 3e does. The Warblade can reliably walk up to a monster and hit it like a truck, which isn't something the 3e fighter does using only core options and no system mastery. 'Building' a Warblade is also much more intuitive, but that's another topic.
The most optimized fighter (and barbarian, ranger, et cetera) builds in 3e all rely on finding ways to stack tons of bonus damage to a single standard action (allowing you to move and hit like a truck, ie fight like a 2e fighter). That excludes archer builds, but that's a different animal given the lesser need for mobility.
If fighters were actually good at killing monsters their balance issues against wizards would be less pronounced, or at least you'd have more players that enjoy just whacking away at monsters and feeling like a badass in combat satisfied. Before addressing balancing issues between classes you need to at least resolve the fighters not being good at fighting issue. That's got nothing to do with wizards per se.
My high level fighter in 2e can reliably reduce a single monster to near death without critting in the 1st round of combat. In the 2nd I'll be able to finish it off, and reduce another opponent to half HP. 3e fighters are simply not very deadly versus monsters, which is a completely different issue than their balance compared to wizards. Wizards in 3e are bad at killing enemies by HP damage at high levels as well, but they have other options, which is really what is at issue in almost all cases. I'm not so much for giving fighters 'other options' so much as I think that at any level shoving a greatsword up somethings' ass should kill it, which it obviously did in 2e but doesn't in 3e.
I didn't have a problem with not being able to do the stuff a wizard could do, because it was implicit that I'd never be able to do that stuff when I selected the class, and I didn't want to. Of course the fighter does what I wanted it to do, which was killing monsters with swords. On top of that of course in 2e my saves didn't suck, I had decent HP compared to monster damage, which is all a given, while it's not in 3e. There's also the whole 'bounded accuracy' that is implicit in 2e's 'skill' resolution, where your typical PC is going to be in the 99th percentile of human potential in their primary attribute and above average in several other categories. Determining how difficult something is based on ability checks using that metric makes the 2e character just natively more competent.
@Marleycat: ... you pretty much agreed with me. Why assume I'm trying to troll? Just pointing out that Sacrificial Lamb's specific assertion that AD&D magic users, systemically, are automatically more powerful than fighters after level 7 is by no means a warranted assumption, given the RAW and RAI of AD&D. Regardless of how he thinks the game is 'supposed' to be played, or was played by his circle of friends in the past, there's textual evidence that allowing the wizard to simply pick his spells was known by the designers to be imbalancing, and that's why there's so much verbiage dedicated to telling the DM to watch out, and not let that happen.
I love AD&D 1 and 2, and much prefer random spell acquisition for generalist mages - because it makes each one unique. Two magic users played by the same player will be quite, quite different, in BtB AD&D. That keeps the game fresh for me. I actually enjoy 3E, as long as I'm not DMing (too many years, too many statblocks), and not using a grid. But, I tend to play casters.
@Jibbajabba: Not in AD&D, really. Clerics in AD&D do get to pray for specific spells, and these spells are universally much less powerful than wizard spells of the equivalent level. And their spells stop at level 7. Why is that, you suppose? Because they can use a club in mediocre fashion, and wear armor? Because they get the privilege of healing the rest of the party? Seems kind of harsh. Personally, I think their spells are less powerful because they get to pick whatever one they want that day.
Also - the magic item distribution in AD&D is explicitly, in no uncertain terms, weighted towards giving fighters more permanent stuff than casters - to keep them in balance. It says so in the book.
Roll out random treasure - scrolls are pretty common, true. But - scrolls can be protection scrolls. They can be treasure maps. They can be cleric scrolls. And, a fun little thing, they have a not-small chance to have the writing vanish a short time after they're found, if they're not immediately read. And you have to use Read Magic to read them. What are the odds the wizard has that memorized? He can't prepare scrolls until much later than in 3E. He can't buy scrolls of that either, unless you're in the magic-mart style, at which point you can throw balance out the window. Also, of course, there's a not insignificant chance that the scroll is a spell that the wizard can never learn - because he didn't roll it when he gained his spell level. And, assuming all this goes right, he now has to roll to learn the spell. Assuming he's not maxed out spells known for that level.
Why is it so hard to get new m/u spells in AD&D? Why so many obstacles? Because the designers knew that arcane spells are very powerful - getting a single new one is equivalent to finding a daily use magic item that casts the spell, and eventually lets you create new single use items that cast that spell. It's kind of a big deal. They put in those obstacles to keep the wizard at the appropriate power level. They knew what they were doing. If you allow players to circumvent those obstacles with impunity, that's on you, not the system. That said, if that's how you want to play AD&D - play that way. But don't claim it's the system's fault when wizards start overpowering everyone else.
@Imp: It's a joke. Hence the funny name. It's an illustration of how weak a wizard can be under the rules, if he's just horribly unlucky. He's the opposite of the examples given by people who claim wizards are superpowered - the ones where the wizard has unfettered access to any spell he wants. Basically, he shows what a wizard in AD&D could, possibly, look like at 11th level. Yeah, it's unlikely. But it's much more likely than the wizard having all the best spells... unless the DM just gives him the ones he wants - which every line of the text regarding spell acquisition is screaming at him not to do.
@Opaopajr: Pretty much. You're extrapolating beyond what I was saying, but it's a warranted extrapolation.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;554906You know, I find it fucking comical that people who prattle on about how superior AD&D is, and embrace the "rulings not rules" mantra, actually make such a big fucking deal about the rules. Make up your mind, people.
Whatever, Douchey McFuckwad. I'm pointing to your specific assertion that in AD&D, casters suddenly change the game at 7th level. AD&D has flaws. That ain't fucking one of them, unless the DM is a retarded pushover.
QuoteNowhere does it say that they can't choose it after 1st-level either.
Yeah. It just goes out of its way, in several sections, to point out that allowing casters to choose their level-up spells is going to make them more powerful. In 2E, it doubles down - the only time a player has to make a 'learn spell' check when getting a new spell from gaining a new spell level is when the DM allowed him to pick it. Because, fucking duh, picking spells makes the character more powerful.
QuoteAnd guess what? All it takes is one high-level PC Magic-User with a shitload of spells to make that rule regarding 1st-level M-U's essentially useless anyway. Once that high-level magic-User PC dude exists, you can forget it. All bets are off, and spell selection is open season.
Oh, certainly true. If you're playing an open-table campaign with multiple adventuring parties, that's certainly possible. Isn't it weird how the DMG words that advice, though?
"Superior players will certainly co-operate; thus, spells will in all probability be exchanged between PC magic-users to some extent. No special sanctions need be taken to prevent such exchange - although this ooperation should never be suggested or otherwise encouraged, either."
It's almost like they know it's going to make casters more powerful than they'd otherwise be. This kind of jibes with the 'NPCs will never fucking trade you spells, and there are no magic marts, and good fucking luck finding a spellbook, enemy casters NEVER carry them on their persons'.
QuoteNobody likes a ham-fisted tyrant. Don't be one when DMing AD&D.
Go fuck yourself.
QuoteWhen you paraphrase the text in that fashion, you mislead the reader. Don't do that. Here's what it actually says:
"Choice should be left to the player. Note that both Nystul's Magic Aura and Tenser's Floating Disc must be located by the character; they can never be known at the start. If your campaign is particularly difficult, you may wish to allow choice automatically. You can furthermore allow an extra defensive or miscellaneous spell, so that the character begins with 5 spells."
... I hate to laugh at this. Go look at that page. Look at what the number 10 on the random spell acquisition charts is. It says "Choose".
That's when 'Choice should be left to the player'. Only when they roll a 10. The other 90% of the time, they get what they roll. You were just letting them choose all the time, weren't you? Read more closely.
QuoteThat's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Everyone has ignored the rules. Even Gary Fucking Gygax. There's a reason that AD&D has a reputation of being a different game at every table. And it's not because of superior balance. 1e is a great game, but definitely not because of "balance".
I don't give a tin shit if you ignore rules. I do it all the time. But, surprise, if you ignore the rules, you don't get to complain about the consequences that arise directly from your ignoring the fucking rules. You don't get to blame those consequences on the goddamn rules. Take some fucking responsibility.
QuoteResearching spells doesn't take forever, dude. It takes weeks. The PC's do not go adventuring....24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The PC Fighter will probably spend as much time trying to trade with merchants, go wenching, acquire henchmen, and establish and manage his keep. So the timekeeping system is usually a non-issue, unless every expedition is a time-sensitive situation where you must "save the world". But who knows? Maybe you play Dragonlance. :rolleyes:
As for the Dragonlance snipe: Go fuck yourself.
Well, if there's a 'higher level PC caster' with tons of spells around, I'm assuming there's multiple parties all playing in the same campaign, in a West Marches open table style. If you do the 1 campaign day equals one real world day of unplayed time, if you take your caster into downtime for 6 weeks, that means you don't play him for six... weeks. You play someone else. It's not like the single parties where you just skip over downtime. Time spent researching is meant to be a
cost. If you, the DM, decide 'fuck that cost, can't hurt the game any, we'll just skip over it', the consequences are your fault. The imbalance is one of the 'anomalies' mentioned in "Time in the Campaign".
Quote from: Marleycat;554909@ Kaelik, I give you props you managed to offend both Brendan and Sacrificial Lamb in a single thread. Two of the more level headed posters on this site, kudos dude.
I've never had my statements that people are obviously incapable of reading the words on a page and understanding them so tremendously validated in my life.
Learn to read.
Kaelik =/= Kaldric
Also, just because you thought he was me, you misread everything he typed that was all in complete agreement with you at every step as being trolling.
You have a problem. You need to figure out how to read what people are actually saying. Also learning to read their names would help.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;554927What is this disingenuous fappery? I have never heard of such an anemic high-level character, either PC or NPC...in any official or non-official publication. Never. Are you attempting comedy? :pundit:
As mentioned before, it's an inversion of the examples your kind give, in which the wizard has miraculously gained exactly the most powerful spells available. What disingenuous fappery.
QuoteAnd you'll note that there is no such random spell generation table for Magic-Users of above 1st-level. And that's because it's not intended for characters above 1st-level in the first place.
Why is there a 'number' column on the spell lists? Where each spell in a particular level is assigned a number? Why... exactly... is there a number assigned to each spell? Please contrive an explanation for that?
QuoteThe only randomness I have to deal with after 1st-level, is when I roll my "chance to know each listed spell". That's it. After 1st-level, I'm not an apprentice any more, and I don't have to deal with any more of that bullshit. And if I do some spell research, then I can dance around some of that tragedy, provided I actually fail a roll.
You're trying to position 'actually failing a roll' in researching as spell as something that happens rarely. The absolute maximum a research roll has is 50%. You will fail
at least that often. Given the system, you will fail far more. You can keep trying on an impossible check, and the DM isn't supposed to tell you. You're intentionally misrepresenting the efficacy of the research section, because you're a douche. Also. Here's a list of the rolls before an M/U learns a specific spell, for those interested. 1. Chance to learn spell. This is the roll made when the M/U gains a new spell level, he checks to see which of these new spells he can
ever learn. 2. Treasure rolls. This is a whole series of rolls to see if a scroll is in any particular treasure. 3. Type of scroll. This roll tells you if it's a protection scroll, map, cleric scroll, or magic-user scroll. 4. Fade roll. This roll tells you if the spell on the scroll fades before you can read it. You can avoid this by always having Read Magic prepared in a 1st level slot. 5. Learn Spell roll. Make this 5th roll, and you learn the spell. Sac is trying to persuade you that learning spells, in AD&D, is supposed to be easy. He's full of shit.
QuotePlease don't listen to Kaldric. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
You thought that 'Choice should be left up to the player' applied all three lists of 1st level spells given by the master. You don't know what you're talking about, self-evidently.
QuoteAt low levels, obviously....yes. At mid-to-high levels, not necessarily. Most people don't realize this, but that's not completely true. The spells in 1e lack many of the limitations that 3.5 has, because Gary didn't really understand "balance", though he certainly believed he did. 1e is rich and detailed, but balance is not its strength, nor does it need to be, because it's not all about arena combat.
Alright - list the spells in 1e that 'lack the limitations' of 3e. Restrict yourself to the core books. If you're willing to do so, I'll then go through and list the spells in the 1e core books that have limitations that were removed in 3e. We'll then compare the lists, and see which version had more limitations. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Could be wrong, if proven so, I'll admit it.
QuoteYou can usually pick the best spells in 1e too.
If you willfully or ignorantly ignore the plethora of rules and advice that prevent you from doing so. As you seem to have done.
QuoteI always thought the spell disruption rules in 1e were stupid. Not that it matters, because mid to high level 1e Magic-Users have lots of ways to avoid spell disruption, via invisibility, polymorphing, disguise, charmed servants, undead servants, etc.
Of course you thought they were stupid. You
want casters to be overpowered. And yes, Magic-Users have lots of ways to avoid spell disruption. Invisibility isn't one of them. Which kind of polymorph are you talking about? The one that kills you?
QuoteIf my 11th-level Magic-User doesn't want to get hit, then he probably won't get hit. Your problem is that you think of the high-level Magic-User as some kind of glass cannon. Don't feel bad though, because most people make the same mistake.
You say he won't get hit. Why not? He doesn't know any of the spells that prevent it, because he's randomly acquired spells, and there's a very limited selection of spells that prevent interruption. Unless your DM just rolled over for you, you can't avoid interruption. If you can show that there's a greater than average chance he'll get these spells, I'll agree. But I don't think you can.
Quote3e feats are pretty predictable.
From the corebooks, yah. From the supplemental... eh.
QuoteUnless you've got some kind of mathematical breakdown of various challenges, and can properly translate them from one edition to another, then I wouldn't make a statement of that kind if I were you.
It has nothing to do with CRs. In 1e, higher level spells don't, as a rule, have harder saves. Saves are a function of the hit dice of the target, not a function of the spell or caster level. Basically, as a magic-user goes up in level and fights tougher monsters in 1e, monsters save more often. In 3e, this is, for the most part and with many exceptions, more static.
QuoteSo you're whining now? I agree...:boohoo:
Your girlfriend should strap on a dildo and fuckstart your head.
QuoteYou don't understand how to run the game as intended, so spare me your grognardian bullshit.
Lick my balls, ass-gasket.
QuoteHere's the thing. I believe that 3e magic needs to be slightly reduced in power, made more flavorful, have more consequences, while allowing the Wizard to use his abilities with slightly more frequency.
I think the 3e magic needs to be severely reduced in power, (I hate the 'flavorful' adjective), have more consequences, while forcing the Wizard to use his abilities only in critical situations. We're not terribly far apart. I'm just in a mood, and felt like showing you that no, AD&D was NOT imbalanced when it comes to casters - it's people who didn't understand the admittedly badly written rules and advice who played it so.
QuoteI think that 1e magic is more interesting than 3e magic,
Mainly, I think, because it's more organic - it has an existence in the gamespace in ways that 3e magic doesn't.
Quoteand that 3e can and should take some vital lessons from 1e.
I agree. 3e did several things better. Caster/Noncaster balance? Much worse.
QuoteHowever, both editions have flaws.
If anyone used the AD&D unarmed combat/pummeling/overbearing/grappling rules? Sweet fucking Jesus, why? They suck so goddamn hard.
QuoteI know that edition warriors will get riled up when I say that, but whatever.
I'm sure they will. I'm not so much an edition warrior as a style warrior.
QuoteThe trick is learning some lessons from what's been done before, and focusing on making something better. As far as what "better' is, I'll let the mob argue about what that is... :cool:
I don't really give a shit what's better. I'll look at what's best for me, and my players, and use that. Everyone else can use what they damn well please, and more power to them. My singular quibble with you, Sac, is that you claimed AD&D Magic Users/Clerics became more powerful than Fighters at 7th level, when they got access to 4th level spells - and, by the rules as written and intended, I don't believe that's true.
Plus, I felt like cursing a lot. Whooo!
Quote from: Kaldric;554978grog grog grog
Why the hard-on for randomly rolled spells?
Having to roll for spells prevents magi from having any kind of theme to their abilities, leaves character advancement solely at the whim of dice rolls, and does literally nothing to prevent broken combinations. If I want to play, say, Jafar, and by 8th level I've got nothing but damaging spells going for me, and I didn't even get to choose to start with mind control magic, I would frankly rip up my character sheet, leave the table, and tell the players to call me when they're running a different game.
I can get behind randomly rolling between actually equal choices to encourage variety, but don't pretend it's a balancing measure to have a 1% chance of ripping the game in half instead of a 100% or a 0% chance.
@omegonthesane
QuoteWhy the hard-on for randomly rolled spells?
Well, personally, I like them for generalist mages. Not for specialist or theme mages.
QuoteHaving to roll for spells prevents magi from having any kind of theme
Yup. So... you don't use them for theme or specialist mages. Seems self-evident.
And, y'know, the point of randomly rolled (i.e., found as treasure) spells was that the DM had control of what entered his campaign. If he thought X was a game-disrupting spell... well, then it never showed up.
Quote from: Kaldric;554986@omegonthesane
Well, personally, I like them for generalist mages. Not for specialist or theme mages.
Trouble is, if Mr Generalist rolls nothing but Jafar spells, suddenly he's not a generalist, and the rules you are quoting don't allow him any way to escape that.
Quote from: Kaldric;554986Yup. So... you don't use theme for them or specialist mages.
Then how are they balancing mages in general, given that 1e has only a "MU" not a Wizard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warmage, Summoner, White Mage etc.?
Quote from: Kaldric;554986And, y'know, the point of randomly rolled (i.e., found as treasure) spells was that the DM had control of what entered his campaign. If he though X was a game-disrupting spell... well, then it never showed up.
The DM already has control of what enters his campaign without having to resort to measures that fuck over every person who might want to play a spellcaster without impeding people trying to break the game any more than people trying to play it.
If they have time to vet the spells that get rolled as treasure, they have time to vet the spells I would choose for myself, without having the game encouraging them to fuck me over.
Quote from: omegonthesane;554987Trouble is, if Mr Generalist rolls nothing but Jafar spells, suddenly he's not a generalist, and the rules you are quoting don't allow him any way to escape that.
I really don't give a fuck. The 'rules' I'm quoting are the ones that prevent the 'wizard are uber at 7th level' ass-hattery. The fun of 1st edition mages was that themes and specialization emerged in play. You get a bunch of mind-control shit? You're Jafar, bitch!
QuoteThen how are they balancing mages in general, given that 1e has only a "MU" not a Wizard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Warmage, Summoner, White Mage etc.?
They really don't. 1E has the MU. That's it. You want more? Make more. You're the DM, do what you want. I did.
QuoteThe DM already has control of what enters his campaign without having to resort to measures that fuck over every person who might want to play a spellcaster without impeding people trying to break the game any more than people trying to play it.
If they have time to vet the spells that get rolled as treasure, they have time to vet the spells I would choose for myself, without having the game encouraging them to fuck me over.
And here's the gist. If you and your DM disagree over caster power so much that you characterize him placing reasonable limitations as him 'fucking you over', maybe you shouldn't be playing together. Think about it.
Quote@Marleycat: ... you pretty much agreed with me. Why assume I'm trying to troll? Just pointing out that Sacrificial Lamb's specific assertion that AD&D magic users, systemically, are automatically more powerful than fighters after level 7 is by no means a warranted assumption, given the RAW and RAI of AD&D. Regardless of how he thinks the game is 'supposed' to be played, or was played by his circle of friends in the past, there's textual evidence that allowing the wizard to simply pick his spells was known by the designers to be imbalancing, and that's why there's so much verbiage dedicated to telling the DM to watch out, and not let that happen.
I love AD&D 1 and 2, and much prefer random spell acquisition for generalist mages - because it makes each one unique. Two magic users played by the same player will be quite, quite different, in BtB AD&D. That keeps the game fresh for me. I actually enjoy 3E, as long as I'm not DMing (too many years, too many statblocks), and not using a grid. But, I tend to play casters.
I mixed you and Kaelik up, sorry about that. Was doing other things while posting.
Ou
Quote from: Kaldric;554962@Marleycat: ... you pretty much agreed with me. Why assume I'm trying to troll? Just pointing out that Sacrificial Lamb's specific assertion that AD&D magic users, systemically, are automatically more powerful than fighters after level 7 is by no means a warranted assumption, given the RAW and RAI of AD&D. Regardless of how he thinks the game is 'supposed' to be played, or was played by his circle of friends in the past, there's textual evidence that allowing the wizard to simply pick his spells was known by the designers to be imbalancing, and that's why there's so much verbiage dedicated to telling the DM to watch out, and not let that happen.
I love AD&D 1 and 2, and much prefer random spell acquisition for generalist mages - because it makes each one unique. Two magic users played by the same player will be quite, quite different, in BtB AD&D. That keeps the game fresh for me. I actually enjoy 3E, as long as I'm not DMing (too many years, too many statblocks), and not using a grid. But, I tend to play casters.
@Jibbajabba: Not in AD&D, really. Clerics in AD&D do get to pray for specific spells, and these spells are universally much less powerful than wizard spells of the equivalent level. And their spells stop at level 7. Why is that, you suppose? Because they can use a club in mediocre fashion, and wear armor? Because they get the privilege of healing the rest of the party? Seems kind of harsh. Personally, I think their spells are less powerful because they get to pick whatever one they want that day.
Also - the magic item distribution in AD&D is explicitly, in no uncertain terms, weighted towards giving fighters more permanent stuff than casters - to keep them in balance. It says so in the book.
Roll out random treasure - scrolls are pretty common, true. But - scrolls can be protection scrolls. They can be treasure maps. They can be cleric scrolls. And, a fun little thing, they have a not-small chance to have the writing vanish a short time after they're found, if they're not immediately read. And you have to use Read Magic to read them. What are the odds the wizard has that memorized? He can't prepare scrolls until much later than in 3E. He can't buy scrolls of that either, unless you're in the magic-mart style, at which point you can throw balance out the window. Also, of course, there's a not insignificant chance that the scroll is a spell that the wizard can never learn - because he didn't roll it when he gained his spell level. And, assuming all this goes right, he now has to roll to learn the spell. Assuming he's not maxed out spells known for that level.
Why is it so hard to get new m/u spells in AD&D? Why so many obstacles? Because the designers knew that arcane spells are very powerful - getting a single new one is equivalent to finding a daily use magic item that casts the spell, and eventually lets you create new single use items that cast that spell. It's kind of a big deal. They put in those obstacles to keep the wizard at the appropriate power level. They knew what they were doing. If you allow players to circumvent those obstacles with impunity, that's on you, not the system. That said, if that's how you want to play AD&D - play that way. But don't claim it's the system's fault when wizards start overpowering everyone else.
@Imp: It's a joke. Hence the funny name. It's an illustration of how weak a wizard can be under the rules, if he's just horribly unlucky. He's the opposite of the examples given by people who claim wizards are superpowered - the ones where the wizard has unfettered access to any spell he wants. Basically, he shows what a wizard in AD&D could, possibly, look like at 11th level. Yeah, it's unlikely. But it's much more likely than the wizard having all the best spells... unless the DM just gives him the ones he wants - which every line of the text regarding spell acquisition is screaming at him not to do.
@Opaopajr: Pretty much. You're extrapolating beyond what I was saying, but it's a warranted extrapolation.
you are wrong about clerical spells and aspell over 4th is a game changer. I will log in later currently at trampolining and show you how wrong :)
I'm playing a mu in a 1e AD&D game. Here's the spell repertoire I've managed to put together in game:
6th level mu spells:
1st level - Read Magic, detect magic, sleep, mending, darkness, charm person
2nd level - Mirror image, stinking cloud, rope trick, web
3rd level - monster summoning I, dispel magic, invisibility 10' radius, phantasmal force
Hardly overpowered. I failed my roll to learn on magic missile, fireball, lightning bolt, and melf's minute meteors, just to name a few. This is how it works out in play. In my experience, optimized spell lists NEVER happen.
Quote from: JRR;555172I'm playing a mu in a 1e AD&D game. Here's the spell repertoire I've managed to put together in game:
6th level mu spells:
1st level - Read Magic, detect magic, sleep, mending, darkness, charm person
2nd level - Mirror image, stinking cloud, rope trick, web
3rd level - monster summoning I, dispel magic, invisibility 10' radius, phantasmal force
Hardly overpowered. I failed my roll to learn on magic missile, fireball, lightning bolt, and melf's minute meteors, just to name a few. This is how it works out in play. In my experience, optimized spell lists NEVER happen.
Agreed. It's a pretty good list you got, all things considered.
Quote from: JRR;555172I'm playing a mu in a 1e AD&D game. Here's the spell repertoire I've managed to put together in game:
6th level mu spells:
1st level - Read Magic, detect magic, sleep, mending, darkness, charm person
2nd level - Mirror image, stinking cloud, rope trick, web
3rd level - monster summoning I, dispel magic, invisibility 10' radius, phantasmal force
Hardly overpowered. I failed my roll to learn on magic missile, fireball, lightning bolt, and melf's minute meteors, just to name a few. This is how it works out in play. In my experience, optimized spell lists NEVER happen.
No idea what Phantasmal force does, but that spell list is actually hardcoredly optimized in 3e, which is kind of funny that it's apparently not good in 2e. (Technically, it needs a 3rd level spell that's good offensively, preferably will based.)
Quote from: Kaelik;555179No idea what Phantasmal force does, but that spell list is actually hardcoredly optimized in 3e, which is kind of funny that it's apparently not good in 2e. (Technically, it needs a 3rd level spell that's good offensively, preferably will based.)
Wizards in 1e and 2e have less control over their spell list. Some of these are still good spells but you can see how fast they would be depleted.
Quote from: Kaelik;555179No idea what Phantasmal force does, but that spell list is actually hardcoredly optimized in 3e, which is kind of funny that it's apparently not good in 2e. (Technically, it needs a 3rd level spell that's good offensively, preferably will based.)
I'm not complaining. It's a good spell list, but not overpowered, considering I get 4 1sts, 2 2nds, and 1 3rd level spell. I'm a cunt hair from 7th level, but I fail to see how one 4th level spell will suddenly promote me to badassery.
Quote from: JRR;555185I'm not complaining. It's a good spell list, but not overpowered, considering I get 4 1sts, 2 2nds, and 1 3rd level spell. I'm a cunt hair from 7th level, but I fail to see how one 4th level spell will suddenly promote me to badassery.
It only does when you do custom lists but a mitigating factor is that if you still have the spellbooks or whatever you can try and reroll each level (or is that a houserule we did?). AD&D is like that every table is different.
It also can be interpreted that you get to pick 1 spell each level (spell research you know).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;555183Wizards in 1e and 2e have less control over their spell list. Some of these are still good spells but you can see how fast they would be depleted.
I'm just talking about the fact that you would choose those spells in 3e, because the way spells work differently, that same list would be considered a list of really good spells that would make you a powerhouse. And that's the thing, I actually can't see how they would run out in 3e. (I don't remember 2e well enough to compare and see how they would.)
If I were making a "standard" Wizard in 3e, and picking my spells known to be generally optimized, I would have Sleep and Charm person at level 1 (And Color Spray, and other stuff, but that's besides the point), I would pick Web, Mirror Image, Rope Trick at level 2 (I would pick Glitterdust instead of Stinking Cloud, but only because Stinking Cloud is a level 3 spell) I would pick Stinking Cloud, Dispel Magic at level 3. I'd be perfectly happy with invis sphere, even if it wasn't my first choice.
Quote from: JRR;555172I'm playing a mu in a 1e AD&D game. Here's the spell repertoire I've managed to put together in game:
6th level mu spells:
1st level - Read Magic, detect magic, sleep, mending, darkness, charm person
2nd level - Mirror image, stinking cloud, rope trick, web
3rd level - monster summoning I, dispel magic, invisibility 10' radius, phantasmal force
Hardly overpowered. I failed my roll to learn on magic missile, fireball, lightning bolt, and melf's minute meteors, just to name a few. This is how it works out in play. In my experience, optimized spell lists NEVER happen.
Well, don't forget, you can do Spell Research at each new level and go back and relearn spells you missed out on the first time around on a given level.
Quote from: Kaldric;554967... I hate to laugh at this. Go look at that page. Look at what the number 10 on the random spell acquisition charts is. It says "Choose". That's when 'Choice should be left to the player'. Only when they roll a 10. The other 90% of the time, they get what they roll. You were just letting them choose all the time, weren't you? Read more closely.
I don't give a tin shit if you ignore rules. I do it all the time. But, surprise, if you ignore the rules, you don't get to complain about the consequences that arise directly from your ignoring the fucking rules. You don't get to blame those consequences on the goddamn rules. Take some fucking responsibility.
If 99% of the groups out there ignore huge chunks of rules in 1e (including yourself), then that indicates a failure of the author in communicating his ideas, so your prattling about rules becomes meaningless. I strongly believe that Gygax didn't fully understand what he created, when he designed 1e. But whatever; that's another argument.
Here's the thing. Even if you're right about the random table for
acquisition of Magic-User spells (and that's a big if), what you say
only applies to newly-created 1st-level Magic-Users. Here is the list.
Offensive Spells1.
Burning Hands2.
Charm Person3.
Enlarge4.
Friends5.
Light6.
Magic Missile7.
Push8.
Shocking Grasp9.
Sleep0. (choose)
Defensive Spells1.
Affect Normal Fires2.
Dancing Lights3.
Feather Fall4.
Hold Portal5.
Jump6.
Protection From Evil7.
Shield8.
Spider Climb9.
Ventriloquism0. (choose)
Misc. Spells1.
Comprehend Languages2.
Detect Magic3.
Erase4.
Find Familiar5.
Identify6.
Mending7.
Message8.
Unseen Sevant9.
Write0. (choose)
That is the complete list. You will notice that there are no spells above 1st-level in any of those lists. That's because it is intended for 1st-level characters. Everyone is allowed to choose a
theme (I'm not talking about personality) for his character, whether it's based upon weapons, equipment, or spells. You are saying that the M-U has virtually no control over his "theme", but everyone else does. That's bullshit. The list above refutes your claims. If you were (possibly) right, then that list would exist for
all spell levels. But it
doesn't, because it's intended for newly-created 1st-level "prestidigitators".
So don't argue with me, junior. Argue with Gary Gygax.
Stop giving people the wrong idea about 1e, as if it's some kind of retarded Darwinian slaughterfest, where you have virtually no control over your character, and everything is all random, all the time.
Yes, 1e is more random than 3e, but not in the retarded way you're trying to convince us of.
Quote from: Kaldric;554962@Jibbajabba: Not in AD&D, really. Clerics in AD&D do get to pray for specific spells, and these spells are universally much less powerful than wizard spells of the equivalent level. And their spells stop at level 7. Why is that, you suppose? Because they can use a club in mediocre fashion, and wear armor? Because they get the privilege of healing the rest of the party? Seems kind of harsh. Personally, I think their spells are less powerful because they get to pick whatever one they want that day.
Also - the magic item distribution in AD&D is explicitly, in no uncertain terms, weighted towards giving fighters more permanent stuff than casters - to keep them in balance. It says so in the book.
Roll out random treasure - scrolls are pretty common, true. But - scrolls can be protection scrolls. They can be treasure maps. They can be cleric scrolls. And, a fun little thing, they have a not-small chance to have the writing vanish a short time after they're found, if they're not immediately read. And you have to use Read Magic to read them. What are the odds the wizard has that memorized? He can't prepare scrolls until much later than in 3E. He can't buy scrolls of that either, unless you're in the magic-mart style, at which point you can throw balance out the window. Also, of course, there's a not insignificant chance that the scroll is a spell that the wizard can never learn - because he didn't roll it when he gained his spell level. And, assuming all this goes right, he now has to roll to learn the spell. Assuming he's not maxed out spells known for that level.
Why is it so hard to get new m/u spells in AD&D? Why so many obstacles? Because the designers knew that arcane spells are very powerful - getting a single new one is equivalent to finding a daily use magic item that casts the spell, and eventually lets you create new single use items that cast that spell. It's kind of a big deal. They put in those obstacles to keep the wizard at the appropriate power level. They knew what they were doing. If you allow players to circumvent those obstacles with impunity, that's on you, not the system. That said, if that's how you want to play AD&D - play that way. But don't claim it's the system's fault when wizards start overpowering everyone else.
.
So Cleric's in 1e
First off lest see how tough a cleric is compared to a figther
Assume 2 15s so a minimally 'decent characters'
11th level , just randomly picked
Fighter :
XP:750,001
HP: 66 (9 x5.5 +9 (con) +6 )
AC: whatever magic armour they get but same as a cleric so its a wash
Attacks ; 2/1 +0/+0
11 attacks vs less than 1 HD (I hate this rule)/round
THACO: 10
Benefits : assume a +3 weapon.
Men at arms rolled randomely largest (50%) chance is 120 light infantry. this is the most they can get as other units are 'heavier' but lower in number
Can build a stronghold and levy a tax of 7sp per inhabitant
Cleric
XP: 675,001
HP : 54 (9 x4.5 +9 (con) + 4)
AC : As above
Attacks: 1 +0/+0
THACO: 14
Benefits:
Turn undead: At 11th they can automatically destroy anything upto a Wight, turns anything upto a wrath automaticlaly and has a 25% chance of turning a Lich, and a 5% change of turning a minor demon well 10HD :)
Men at arms on average 110 mixed cavalry/infanty - top end is 200 +
Non Militant followers 2d10 x 10 average 105
All
fanatically loyal and serve without pay
Can build a stronghold which costs 50% of construction costs due to religious help and can levy a tax of 9sp per inhabitant
So lets get that sorted generally the fighter has +4 to hit on the cleric an extra attack and 12 extra hit points and a 6th level captain
The cleric Blitzs undead has c. 100 fanatical followers, more trained men at arms his fortification costs 50% build and he can collect 28% more tax from the same population (I really don't think the domain mini game is relevant but since the OSR Mafia keep bringing it up...) of and he needs 75,000 xp less than his mundane combat colleague
Now on top of that the Cleric also has Spells
Assuming 15 wisdom , just like we assumed 15 Str for the figther that gives him each day
1st : 7
2nd: 5
3rd: 4
4th: 3
5th: 2
6th: would get 1 but we are assuming just 15 Wis so he can't use it.
So 21 spells each day..... hmmm.... probably swings the balance meter towards the cleric methinks
Now lets compare the cleric to the MU.... spell wise
the 11th level MU with 15 int
1st: 4
2nd: 4
3rd: 4
4th : 2
5th : 2
So 20 spells a day ... just one less than the cleric asuming the cleric only has 15 Wis.
Now let us compare the quality of the Clerical spells.
Off the bat the Cleric has
Command arguable one of the most powerful spells ever and the fac that its 1st level and the cleric can cast it 7 times a day.. Remember Creatures with less than 6hd or 13 Int
DO NO GET A SAVE everyone else does . If I issue the command Die the subject falls into a catatonic state for 1 round. So in an actual fight between a cleric and a normal fighter upto 5th level and the fighter is done ;)
Now the rest of the first level cleric spells as per PHB not the myriad expansions are less impressive. but protection from 'alignment' is a killer against pesky touch attacks and a nice little Buff
Cure light is a staple of course.
Now the fact that at first level clerics can cast 3 of thise from the off is pretty sweet for a newbie btu we are taking about the top level so ...
so lets look for some staples. Now we won't worry MUs needing to search out their spells or the fact that with 15 int they will have 65% to learn each spell where as the cleric can pick any spell they like and the spell will work.
Instead we will compare a few classic spells from the MUs repertoire.
Fireball..... now the 1e fireball is as we all know ludicrous as it is a 3rd lvel spell that scales so cast at 11th level its a real powerhouse.
The Cleric doesn't get something that can dish similar damage until 5th with Flame Strike and that does a set 6d8 so the Wizard wins and add in Lightning Bolt as a 'second damage monster and the wizard with the artilery battle.
But a Cleric does get Hold person as a 2nd level spell (MUs as a 3rd) so they could have 5 and its a powerful spell (its not command of course but then that is insane :) ) they get Animate dead as a 3rd and MUs get that as a 5th and its very powerful.
Curse is of course a very tough spell indeed it can effectively close down a PC or NPC entirely for level turns which is close to 2 hours a veritable age.
the Gylph or warding is a very powerful spell and can be used to permanently drain levels that most feared of powers although its usage is far from simple :)
Now of course our 11th level Cleric can raise dead. Now personally i figure that's quite a tough spell.
A well played Insect Plague can replicate the effect of a cloudkill on a military unit if the cleric can use the terrain to their advantage.
Plane shift is similarly awesome.
So MU Spells are better for dealing direct damage and affecting groups but Cleric spells are devastating for single targets and their divination is more powerful than a similar level wizard. On top of that of course they get Healing and raise dead.....
Of course the 7th level spell Gate is madness and generally 7th level clerical spells are close in power to 8th level MU spells and some 9th Gate for example :)
Quote from: Kaelik;555179No idea what Phantasmal force does, but that spell list is actually hardcoredly optimized in 3e, which is kind of funny that it's apparently not good in 2e. (Technically, it needs a 3rd level spell that's good offensively, preferably will based.)
Yes that is quite ironic.
Phantasmal force is a very powerful illusion spell. It creates a visual illusion of anything you want that affects all creatures in the area unless they actively try to disbelive it. They take damage from it and everything.
Its one of those spells that in the right hands is devastating but played by a rookie can be a bit crap.
The kicker is there is no save unless the subjects have a reason to disbelieve it.
There is no sound or heat ot smell.
So making an ancient red dragon appear from nowhere and flame the opponents might well trigger a save but causing the gound under them to open up as the caster shouts something cryptic and then making them fall 80 feet and take 8d6 or 20d6 depending on how you read the damage rules :) is pretty much saving throw free.
Quote from: Kaldric;554978Alright - list the spells in 1e that 'lack the limitations' of 3e. Restrict yourself to the core books. If you're willing to do so, I'll then go through and list the spells in the 1e core books that have limitations that were removed in 3e. We'll then compare the lists, and see which version had more limitations. I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're so full of shit your eyes are brown. Could be wrong, if proven so, I'll admit it.
I don't have time to respond to this statement to the degree that I'd like, but I'll trot out a few examples.
* 1e Charm Person: (duration of weeks or months)
* 3.5 Charm Person: (duration of 1 hour/level of the caster)
Verdict: 1e spell is superior.
* 1e Strength: (duration of 1 hour/level of the caster)
* 3.5 Bull's Strength: (duration of 1 minute/level of the caster)
Verdict: 1e spell is superior.
* 1e Clairvoyance: (range: unlimited of on same plane)
* 3.5 Clairvoyance: (range: 400 ft. + 40 ft./caster level)
Verdict: 1e spell is superior.
* 1e Magic Jar: (potentially problematic, but can potentially achieve a form of limited immortality with this spell, if the body of spell caster is destroyed, life force in
magic jar is not harmed)
* 3.5 magic Jar: (potentially problematic, limited duration: 1 hour/caster level, no potential immortality, if spell ends while you are in magic jar, you return to your body, or die if your body is out of range or destroyed)
Verdict: 1e spell is superior.
* 1e Enlarge: (can be devastating if used creatively, and can be used on both creatures and objects; duration: 10 minutes/caster level))
* 3.5 Enlarge Person: (can only be used on humanoid creatures, and never in a directly offensive manner; duration: 1 minute/caster level)
Verdict: 1e spell is superior.
There are a zillion more examples, but I just don't have the patience to keep going.
Quote from: KaldricOf course you thought they were stupid. You want casters to be overpowered. And yes, Magic-Users have lots of ways to avoid spell disruption. Invisibility isn't one of them. Which kind of polymorph are you talking about? The one that kills you?
I don't like M-U's getting disrupted in their spellcasting from a light breeze, but I do want to tone down their overall power. And
polymorph self will not kill you if you cast it upon yourself. Maybe you're talking about
polymorph other, which can kill its target.
Quote from: KaldricI think the 3e magic needs to be severely reduced in power, (I hate the 'flavorful' adjective), have more consequences, while forcing the Wizard to use his abilities only in critical situations. We're not terribly far apart. I'm just in a mood, and felt like showing you that no, AD&D was NOT imbalanced when it comes to casters - it's people who didn't understand the admittedly badly written rules and advice who played it so.
Despite your flaws in logic, we're probably not that far apart in gaming tastes, so maybe this argument is an exercise in futility.
Quote from: KaldricMainly, I think, because it's more organic - it has an existence in the gamespace in ways that 3e magic doesn't. I agree. 3e did several things better. Caster/Noncaster balance? Much worse. If anyone used the AD&D unarmed combat/pummeling/overbearing/grappling rules? Sweet fucking Jesus, why? They suck so goddamn hard. I'm sure they will. I'm not so much an edition warrior as a style warrior. I don't really give a shit what's better. I'll look at what's best for me, and my players, and use that. Everyone else can use what they damn well please, and more power to them. My singular quibble with you, Sac, is that you claimed AD&D Magic Users/Clerics became more powerful than Fighters at 7th level, when they got access to 4th level spells - and, by the rules as written and intended, I don't believe that's true.
Plus, I felt like cursing a lot. Whooo!
We all like cursing. :cool:
@Jibbajabba: Looking at 4th level cleric spells now. Which of these is the game-changer?
Cure Serious Wounds
Pretty sure it's not this one. This takes 7 segments to cast, and has a range of touch. Any cleric that tries to cast this in melee combat, either as a reversed 'cause serious' or an emergency heal, is a loon. It's virtually guaranteed to be interrupted. Basically an out-of-combat hitpoint restorer.
Detect Lie
For 7 minutes a day, one person can tell if the truth is being spoken. It's obviously being cast (takes 42 seconds of dancing around to cast it). To get around it, you just speak carefully, without telling a direct lie. It takes a DM-determined amount of gold dust to cast it. Don't want it cast constantly? Say it takes 100gp of gold dust. It's an obvious spell, so anyone can see you casting its reverse, and the lies you tell will only 'seem' true. NPCs may or may not act on that belief, depending on DM discretion and outside circumstance. Using this to convince someone you'll pay them back? Works, as long as they're not later presented with evidence that makes them subsequently disbelieve. Trying to convince someone to kill themselves? Yeah, they might believe they should, for about a millisecond. Then their self-preservation kicks in, and they change their mind. It's not mind control, it's not even as good as charm person.
Divination
Strictly limited. You have to sacrifice an animal and a DM determined amount of wealth for high-level areas, and the only information you get is the relative strength of monsters in a specific known location, general value of the treasure, and whether or not a supernatural entity will be pissed that you loot the locale. It's a 'should we hit up this dungeon' spell, that allows you to evaluate the very general risk vs. reward of an expedition.
Exorcise
Extremely situational, and can take hours to cast.
Lower Water
Can be powerful, in certain situations. Hardly a game changer.
Neutralize Poison
Lets you make a poisonous creature temporarily non-poisonous. Reverse gives you a 7 segment long melee touch spell that's save vs. poison or die. Basically, anything you try this on is standing right in front of you, watching you cast a spell for 42 seconds, before you try to touch them. They're either going to walk away from you, or they're going to simply shove you. Assuming you actually manage to cast the spell in melee combat (unlikely vs an intelligent monster - they know what you're doing is bad and they'll try to stop you), a 7 HD monster saves vs poison on a 10 or better. Assuming it's actually vulnerable to poison at all. Once a day, you've got a small chance of killing one monster. And not an intelligent or powerful one. Not terribly game-changing. You'd be much better off just buying some poison.
Protection from Evil 10' Radius
Situationally useful, but hardly a game-changer.
Speak with Plants
The spell does not enable the cleric to animate non-ambulatory vegetation. If it doesn't normally move, the spell doesn't magically make it move. Vines that can move on their own can be commanded to entangle people - normal vines that can't move on their own don't become 'entangling roots'. Any info you get is rudimentary. Useful if you know you're fighting a druid, or you've determined there's a nasty plant guarding some treasure in dungeon room X.
Sticks to Snakes
Actually a pretty cool spell. Starts out making 7 snakes, 35% chance of each snake being poisonous. Can be cast before combat, lasts 14 minutes when you get it. Not too shabby - perhaps the most combat-useful spell of this level. You could possibly clear one easy-to-medium encounter with this spell, all by yourself, once a day. Could make a difficult encounter doable.
Tongues
Situationally useful. For 10 minutes, once a day, the cleric can speak the language of another creature. Assuming it has a language, and he can't just hire an interpreter.
Not really seeing how these are game changers. Nor am I seeing how they're not less powerful, in absolute terms, than M/U spells of the same level. Clerics get to pick from 10 spells at level 4. M/U's randomly get 1 out of 24. M/U spells at this level range from the quite powerful 'Polymorph Other' to the extremely situational 'Fire Trap'.
Quote from: jibbajibba;555205So Cleric's in 1e
First off lest see how tough a cleric is compared to a figther
Assume 2 15s so a minimally 'decent characters'
11th level , just randomly picked
Fighter :
XP:750,001
HP: 66 (9 x5.5 +9 (con) +6 )
AC: whatever magic armour they get but same as a cleric so its a wash
Attacks ; 2/1 +0/+0
11 attacks vs less than 1 HD (I hate this rule)/round
THACO: 10
Benefits : assume a +3 weapon.
Men at arms rolled randomely largest (50%) chance is 120 light infantry. this is the most they can get as other units are 'heavier' but lower in number
Can build a stronghold and levy a tax of 7sp per inhabitant
Cleric
XP: 675,001
HP : 54 (9 x4.5 +9 (con) + 4)
AC : As above
Attacks: 1 +0/+0
THACO: 14
Benefits:
Turn undead: At 11th they can automatically destroy anything upto a Wight, turns anything upto a wrath automaticlaly and has a 25% chance of turning a Lich, and a 5% change of turning a minor demon well 10HD :)
Men at arms on average 110 mixed cavalry/infanty - top end is 200 +
Non Militant followers 2d10 x 10 average 105
All fanatically loyal and serve without pay
Can build a stronghold which costs 50% of construction costs due to religious help and can levy a tax of 9sp per inhabitant
So lets get that sorted generally the fighter has +4 to hit on the cleric an extra attack and 12 extra hit points and a 6th level captain
The cleric Blitzs undead has c. 100 fanatical followers, more trained men at arms his fortification costs 50% build and he can collect 28% more tax from the same population (I really don't think the domain mini game is relevant but since the OSR Mafia keep bringing it up...) of and he needs 75,000 xp less than his mundane combat colleague
Now on top of that the Cleric also has Spells
Assuming 15 wisdom , just like we assumed 15 Str for the figther that gives him each day
1st : 7
2nd: 5
3rd: 4
4th: 3
5th: 2
6th: would get 1 but we are assuming just 15 Wis so he can't use it.
So 21 spells each day..... hmmm.... probably swings the balance meter towards the cleric methinks
Now lets compare the cleric to the MU.... spell wise
the 11th level MU with 15 int
1st: 4
2nd: 4
3rd: 4
4th : 2
5th : 2
So 20 spells a day ... just one less than the cleric asuming the cleric only has 15 Wis.
Now let us compare the quality of the Clerical spells.
Off the bat the Cleric has Command arguable one of the most powerful spells ever and the fac that its 1st level and the cleric can cast it 7 times a day.. Remember Creatures with less than 6hd or 13 Int DO NO GET A SAVE everyone else does . If I issue the command Die the subject falls into a catatonic state for 1 round. So in an actual fight between a cleric and a normal fighter upto 5th level and the fighter is done ;)
Now the rest of the first level cleric spells as per PHB not the myriad expansions are less impressive. but protection from 'alignment' is a killer against pesky touch attacks and a nice little Buff
Cure light is a staple of course.
Now the fact that at first level clerics can cast 3 of thise from the off is pretty sweet for a newbie btu we are taking about the top level so ...
so lets look for some staples. Now we won't worry MUs needing to search out their spells or the fact that with 15 int they will have 65% to learn each spell where as the cleric can pick any spell they like and the spell will work.
Instead we will compare a few classic spells from the MUs repertoire.
Fireball..... now the 1e fireball is as we all know ludicrous as it is a 3rd lvel spell that scales so cast at 11th level its a real powerhouse.
The Cleric doesn't get something that can dish similar damage until 5th with Flame Strike and that does a set 6d8 so the Wizard wins and add in Lightning Bolt as a 'second damage monster and the wizard with the artilery battle.
But a Cleric does get Hold person as a 2nd level spell (MUs as a 3rd) so they could have 5 and its a powerful spell (its not command of course but then that is insane :) ) they get Animate dead as a 3rd and MUs get that as a 5th and its very powerful.
Curse is of course a very tough spell indeed it can effectively close down a PC or NPC entirely for level turns which is close to 2 hours a veritable age.
the Gylph or warding is a very powerful spell and can be used to permanently drain levels that most feared of powers although its usage is far from simple :)
Now of course our 11th level Cleric can raise dead. Now personally i figure that's quite a tough spell.
A well played Insect Plague can replicate the effect of a cloudkill on a military unit if the cleric can use the terrain to their advantage.
Plane shift is similarly awesome.
So MU Spells are better for dealing direct damage and affecting groups but Cleric spells are devastating for single targets and their divination is more powerful than a similar level wizard. On top of that of course they get Healing and raise dead.....
Of course the 7th level spell Gate is madness and generally 7th level clerical spells are close in power to 8th level MU spells and some 9th Gate for example :)
Lest we forget, the Cleric can also
animate dead. He has the most fanatically loyal servitors in the game, living or dead.
Cleric > Fighter
Quote from: Kaldric;555217@Jibbajabba: Looking at 4th level cleric spells now. Which of these is the game-changer?
Cure Serious Wounds
Pretty sure it's not this one. This takes 7 segments to cast, and has a range of touch. Any cleric that tries to cast this in melee combat, either as a reversed 'cause serious' or an emergency heal, is a loon. It's virtually guaranteed to be interrupted. Basically an out-of-combat hitpoint restorer.
Detect Lie
For 7 minutes a day, one person can tell if the truth is being spoken. It's obviously being cast (takes 42 seconds of dancing around to cast it). To get around it, you just speak carefully, without telling a direct lie. It takes a DM-determined amount of gold dust to cast it. Don't want it cast constantly? Say it takes 100gp of gold dust. It's an obvious spell, so anyone can see you casting its reverse, and the lies you tell will only 'seem' true. NPCs may or may not act on that belief, depending on DM discretion and outside circumstance. Using this to convince someone you'll pay them back? Works, as long as they're not later presented with evidence that makes them subsequently disbelieve. Trying to convince someone to kill themselves? Yeah, they might believe they should, for about a millisecond. Then their self-preservation kicks in, and they change their mind. It's not mind control, it's not even as good as charm person.
Divination
Strictly limited. You have to sacrifice an animal and a DM determined amount of wealth for high-level areas, and the only information you get is the relative strength of monsters in a specific known location, general value of the treasure, and whether or not a supernatural entity will be pissed that you loot the locale. It's a 'should we hit up this dungeon' spell, that allows you to evaluate the very general risk vs. reward of an expedition.
Exorcise
Extremely situational, and can take hours to cast.
Lower Water
Can be powerful, in certain situations. Hardly a game changer.
Neutralize Poison
Lets you make a poisonous creature temporarily non-poisonous. Reverse gives you a 7 segment long melee touch spell that's save vs. poison or die. Basically, anything you try this on is standing right in front of you, watching you cast a spell for 42 seconds, before you try to touch them. They're either going to walk away from you, or they're going to simply shove you. Assuming you actually manage to cast the spell in melee combat (unlikely vs an intelligent monster - they know what you're doing is bad and they'll try to stop you), a 7 HD monster saves vs poison on a 10 or better. Assuming it's actually vulnerable to poison at all. Once a day, you've got a small chance of killing one monster. And not an intelligent or powerful one. Not terribly game-changing. You'd be much better off just buying some poison.
Protection from Evil 10' Radius
Situationally useful, but hardly a game-changer.
Speak with Plants
The spell does not enable the cleric to animate non-ambulatory vegetation. If it doesn't normally move, the spell doesn't magically make it move. Vines that can move on their own can be commanded to entangle people - normal vines that can't move on their own don't become 'entangling roots'. Any info you get is rudimentary. Useful if you know you're fighting a druid, or you've determined there's a nasty plant guarding some treasure in dungeon room X.
Sticks to Snakes
Actually a pretty cool spell. Starts out making 7 snakes, 35% chance of each snake being poisonous. Can be cast before combat, lasts 14 minutes when you get it. Not too shabby - perhaps the most combat-useful spell of this level. You could possibly clear one easy-to-medium encounter with this spell, all by yourself, once a day. Could make a difficult encounter doable.
Tongues
Situationally useful. For 10 minutes, once a day, the cleric can speak the language of another creature. Assuming it has a language, and he can't just hire an interpreter.
Not really seeing how these are game changers. Nor am I seeing how they're not less powerful, in absolute terms, than M/U spells of the same level. Clerics get to pick from 10 spells at level 4. M/U's randomly get 1 out of 24. M/U spells at this level range from the quite powerful 'Polymorph Other' to the extremely situational 'Fire Trap'.
No I agree with you on that. MU spells are game changes at 4th but not Cleric (see my detailed analysis of just how unbalanced the cleric is however :)
I admit to not playing 1e for 27 years and even then using some addtional books for cleric spells. for the last couple of years.
But see 3rd level Curse and Gylph of warding and of course the 1st level Command :)
Quote from: Kaldric;555217@Jibbajabba: Looking at 4th level cleric spells now. Which of these is the game-changer?
Cure Serious Wounds
Pretty sure it's not this one. This takes 7 segments to cast, and has a range of touch. Any cleric that tries to cast this in melee combat, either as a reversed 'cause serious' or an emergency heal, is a loon. It's virtually guaranteed to be interrupted. Basically an out-of-combat hitpoint restorer.
Detect Lie
For 7 minutes a day, one person can tell if the truth is being spoken. It's obviously being cast (takes 42 seconds of dancing around to cast it). To get around it, you just speak carefully, without telling a direct lie. It takes a DM-determined amount of gold dust to cast it. Don't want it cast constantly? Say it takes 100gp of gold dust. It's an obvious spell, so anyone can see you casting its reverse, and the lies you tell will only 'seem' true. NPCs may or may not act on that belief, depending on DM discretion and outside circumstance. Using this to convince someone you'll pay them back? Works, as long as they're not later presented with evidence that makes them subsequently disbelieve. Trying to convince someone to kill themselves? Yeah, they might believe they should, for about a millisecond. Then their self-preservation kicks in, and they change their mind. It's not mind control, it's not even as good as charm person.
Divination
Strictly limited. You have to sacrifice an animal and a DM determined amount of wealth for high-level areas, and the only information you get is the relative strength of monsters in a specific known location, general value of the treasure, and whether or not a supernatural entity will be pissed that you loot the locale. It's a 'should we hit up this dungeon' spell, that allows you to evaluate the very general risk vs. reward of an expedition.
Exorcise
Extremely situational, and can take hours to cast.
Lower Water
Can be powerful, in certain situations. Hardly a game changer.
Neutralize Poison
Lets you make a poisonous creature temporarily non-poisonous. Reverse gives you a 7 segment long melee touch spell that's save vs. poison or die. Basically, anything you try this on is standing right in front of you, watching you cast a spell for 42 seconds, before you try to touch them. They're either going to walk away from you, or they're going to simply shove you. Assuming you actually manage to cast the spell in melee combat (unlikely vs an intelligent monster - they know what you're doing is bad and they'll try to stop you), a 7 HD monster saves vs poison on a 10 or better. Assuming it's actually vulnerable to poison at all. Once a day, you've got a small chance of killing one monster. And not an intelligent or powerful one. Not terribly game-changing. You'd be much better off just buying some poison.
Protection from Evil 10' Radius
Situationally useful, but hardly a game-changer.
Speak with Plants
The spell does not enable the cleric to animate non-ambulatory vegetation. If it doesn't normally move, the spell doesn't magically make it move. Vines that can move on their own can be commanded to entangle people - normal vines that can't move on their own don't become 'entangling roots'. Any info you get is rudimentary. Useful if you know you're fighting a druid, or you've determined there's a nasty plant guarding some treasure in dungeon room X.
Sticks to Snakes
Actually a pretty cool spell. Starts out making 7 snakes, 35% chance of each snake being poisonous. Can be cast before combat, lasts 14 minutes when you get it. Not too shabby - perhaps the most combat-useful spell of this level. You could possibly clear one easy-to-medium encounter with this spell, all by yourself, once a day. Could make a difficult encounter doable.
Tongues
Situationally useful. For 10 minutes, once a day, the cleric can speak the language of another creature. Assuming it has a language, and he can't just hire an interpreter.
Not really seeing how these are game changers. Nor am I seeing how they're not less powerful, in absolute terms, than M/U spells of the same level. Clerics get to pick from 10 spells at level 4. M/U's randomly get 1 out of 24. M/U spells at this level range from the quite powerful 'Polymorph Other' to the extremely situational 'Fire Trap'.
...and now I'm just tired. I could eviscerate your argument, but what's the point? We would go back and forth, jerking each other off for another 30 pages, and accomplish absolutely nothing.
I am not going to comb through both books, sifting through hundreds of spells, in order to teach you the error of your ways, because you will not appreciate it.
And I did say that most spell-casters will not be more powerful,
because most people do not understand the proper strategy and tactics in employing the bloody rules. As you've demonstrated.
But whatever. :cool:
Quote from: jibbajibba;555208Phantasmal force is a very powerful illusion spell. It creates a visual illusion of anything you want that affects all creatures in the area unless they actively try to disbelive it. They take damage from it and everything.
Its one of those spells that in the right hands is devastating but played by a rookie can be a bit crap.
The kicker is there is no save unless the subjects have a reason to disbelieve it.
There is no sound or heat ot smell.
So making an ancient red dragon appear from nowhere and flame the opponents might well trigger a save but causing the gound under them to open up as the caster shouts something cryptic and then making them fall 80 feet and take 8d6 or 20d6 depending on how you read the damage rules :) is pretty much saving throw free.
Hmm...OK so in that case there'd be no saving throw against the Phantasmal Force spell itself, but is there normally a saving throw against falling into pit traps and the like, to grab out the side and so on?
(Edit: question for any AD&Der who wants to answer, not necessarily JJ).
For the 3E people:
Phantasmal Force is the same spell as
Silent Image in 3.5; its a 3rd level wizard spell in 1st edition but goes down to 1st level in 2nd edition, when they merged the wizard and illusionist classes.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;555237Hmm...OK so in that case there'd be no saving throw against the Phantasmal Force spell itself, but is there normally a saving throw against falling into pit traps and the like, to grab out the side and so on?
(Edit: question for any AD&Der who wants to answer, not necessarily JJ).
For the 3E people: Phantasmal Force is the same spell as Silent Image in 3.5; its a 3rd level wizard spell in 1st edition but goes down to 1st level in 2nd edition, when they merged the wizard and illusionist classes.
but even if you grab the side it comes away in your hand :)
Was just one example, though one of my favs I also like to replicate the effects of other spells. I do that to PCs all the time as I like to use their meta knowledge against them.
Quote* 1e Charm Person: (duration of weeks or months)
* 3.5 Charm Person: (duration of 1 hour/level of the caster)
Verdict: 1e spell is superior.
I made the claim for 3e, not 3.5. In 3.5 they tried to curtail the massive clusterfuck they'd perpetrated in 3e. Basically, blaming the removal of restrictions on spells for the problem, rather than the much more overpowering fact that people could simply pick the very best ones, now.
In 3E, you can make the charmed person do things he wouldn't normally do, by making an opposed charisma check. In 1E, "A charmed figure can refuse a request, if such refusal is in character and will not directly cause harm to the charmer." Basically, in 3E you can make the guy do things he wouldn't normally do, in 1E, you can't make him do
anything he wouldn't normally do on his own, except, basically, not attack you, and maybe help you out if it's something he might do anyway. He might still attack your friends. 3E's version, while it doesn't last as long, is not nearly as restricted. 1E's version has an extensive set of limitations on the spell in the DMG, that I think 3E doesn't have. In terms of raw power, what the spell actually
does, rather than how long it lasts, 3E's version is more powerful and has fewer restrictions.
Quote* 1e Strength: (duration of 1 hour/level of the caster)
* 3.5 Bull's Strength: (duration of 1 minute/level of the caster)
Verdict: 1e spell is superior.
1e, it's restricted to being cast by magic users only, a restriction the 3.5 spell doesn't have. In 1e, the spell takes 10 minutes to cast, in 3.5 it's instant. In 1e, you can't use this spell to increase your strength beyond the max for your race. Unless you cast it on a fighter-type, it will never give more than +1 to hit and +2 to damage (other classes don't get percentile str bonus). Cast it on a wizard, and it probably does nothing. Cast it on a fighter with 18 str already, it will, on average, give him a +1 to damage (each 1 on the die is a 10% bonus, so he'd be 18/50. Cast it on a fighter with 10 strength (no bonuses), and roll maximum for fighters (8). This 8 strength boost doesn't give him +4 to hit and damage, like it would if you could roll it in 3.5. It gives him +1 to hit and +3 to damage. In 3.5, the spell gives +2 to hit and +2 to damage to whoever you cast it on, regardless of their starting strength. It's simply more reliable, available, widely useful and powerful in 3.5. Yeah, it doesn't last as long - but you can cast it as needed, because it doesn't have the 10-minute casting time of 1E. A spell that gives a flat +2 to hit and damage to anyone it's cast on is straight numerically better than 1e Strength.
And of course if you use the 3E version, it lasts for hours - and probably still gives a better absolute bonus.
Verdict: 3E spell
Quote* 1e Clairvoyance: (range: unlimited of on same plane)
* 3.5 Clairvoyance: (range: 400 ft. + 40 ft./caster level)
Verdict: 1e spell is superior.
3e Clairvoyance doesn't have the range restriction. And both 3.5 and 3e put clairaudience and clairvoyance into one spell, you just get to pick which one to use whenever you use it. The 3.0 clairaudience/clairvoyance combination is just flat better than 1e's two separate spells.
Quote* 1e Magic Jar: (potentially problematic, but can potentially achieve a form of limited immortality with this spell, if the body of spell caster is destroyed, life force in magic jar is not harmed)
* 3.5 magic Jar: (potentially problematic, limited duration: 1 hour/caster level, no potential immortality, if spell ends while you are in magic jar, you return to your body, or die if your body is out of range or destroyed)
Verdict: 1e spell is superior.
In 3e, you can possess anyone whose will save you can overcome. In 1e, trying to possess someone who's got an intelligence score that's not at least 5 points less than yours means they get a new saving throw every combat round. Generally, 3E's more reliable. But it's a weird spell.
Quote* 1e Enlarge: (can be devastating if used creatively, and can be used on both creatures and objects; duration: 10 minutes/caster level))
* 3.5 Enlarge Person: (can only be used on humanoid creatures, and never in a directly offensive manner; duration: 1 minute/caster level)
Verdict: 1e spell is superior.
1e Enlarge: "All garments and equipment worn by a subiect of this spell should be considered to automatically drop off if held by straps or fasteners, otherwise to split away during growth, so it is not possible to "squeeze someone to death in their armor" by means of an enlarge.
It's not particularly devastating. I suppose if the DM wanted to rule it into being an attack spell, he could. That's on him, though. The advice is pretty solidly on the 'you can't hurt people with it' side, IMO.
And again, 3E has an Enlarge spell, works pretty much the same as 1E version.
QuoteI don't like M-U's getting disrupted in their spellcasting from a light breeze, but I do want to tone down their overall power. And polymorph self will not kill you if you cast it upon yourself. Maybe you're talking about polymorph other, which can kill its target.
... just not quite seeing how polymorphing yourself prevents spell disruption. Guy's got a bow, he's going to shoot you... you have Polymorph Self running - how does being able to change your shape prevent him from disrupting your spell?
QuoteWe all like cursing. :cool:
The overwhelming desire to curse people out is why I'm not posting on the WotC boards right now.
QuoteThe overwhelming desire to curse people out is why I'm not posting on the WotC boards right now.
So you pick here to post?!?:D
Oh, I've posted here in the past. But I've been posting on WotC's boards primarily since the 5E announcement - just have to be far more polite there, to people who think 5E should be designed with Forge theory and indie-bits, than I really want to be.
Need to come here and vent.
Quote from: Kaldric;555256Oh, I've posted here in the past. But I've been posting on WotC's boards primarily since the 5E announcement - just have to be far more polite there, to people who think 5E should be designed with Forge theory and indie-bits, than I really want to be.
Need to come here and vent.
This place is great at letting you speak straightforward without the political correctness dance some other sites require. What is the overall reaction to 5e on the Wotc boards? Is it like TBP? Worse or better?
Quote* 1e Charm Person: (duration of weeks or months)
* 3.5 Charm Person: (duration of 1 hour/level of the caster)
Verdict: 1e spell is superior.
Quote from: Kaldric;555244I made the claim for 3e, not 3.5. In 3.5 they tried to curtail the massive clusterfuck they'd perpetrated in 3e. Basically, blaming the removal of restrictions on spells for the problem, rather than the much more overpowering fact that people could simply pick the very best ones, now.
In 3E, you can make the charmed person do things he wouldn't normally do, by making an opposed charisma check. In 1E, "A charmed figure can refuse a request, if such refusal is in character and will not directly cause harm to the charmer." Basically, in 3E you can make the guy do things he wouldn't normally do, in 1E, you can't make him do anything he wouldn't normally do on his own, except, basically, not attack you, and maybe help you out if it's something he might do anyway. He might still attack your friends. 3E's version, while it doesn't last as long, is not nearly as restricted. 1E's version has an extensive set of limitations on the spell in the DMG, that I think 3E doesn't have. In terms of raw power, what the spell actually does, rather than how long it lasts, 3E's version is more powerful and has fewer restrictions.
I was curious about this, so I looked it up. Here are the two spells:
Quote from: 1eThe creature then will regard the druid who cast the spell as a trusted friend and ally to be heeded and protected. The spell does not enable the druid to control the charmed creature as if it were an automaton, but any word or action of the druid will be viewed in its most favorable way. Thus, a charmed creature would not obey a suicide command, but might believe the druid if assured that the only chance to save the druid's life is if the creature hold back an onrushing red dragon for "just a round or two." (...) If the druid harms, or attempts to harm, the charmed creature by some overt action... the charm will be broken automatically.
Quote from: 3eThe spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if he were an automaton, but he perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince him to do anything he wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries not allowed.) A charmed person never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but he might believe you if you assured him that the only chance to save your life is for him to hold back an onrushing red dragon for "just a few seconds". Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell
Note that the text of the restrictions and extent of the control is nearly identical. 1e says that you
can convince the creature to hold back a red dragon, while 3e says the same but adds that you have to win an opposed Charisma check.
I haven't been commenting because this has been such a mess of hostility, but my main impression is that many posters are viewing 1e through rosy glasses. I'll buy that 3e had plenty of flaws and that it was worse than 1e in many respects. However, 1e had plenty of its own flaws - and the overpowered 1st level Charm Person was one of them.
(Along similar lines, the recent examples of spells known doesn't match my experience. We would regularly find scrolls, capture enemy spell books, or encounter friendly magic users willing to trade. This didn't get exactly the spell we wanted, but we'd have more than two per level.)
There's an additional wrinkle in that in 3e there's no cap on how many people you can have charmed, while in 1e you're limited to your level in HD or something like that. (Don't recall the exact rule offhand but I mentioned it in this thread about a hundred pages and "you fucking retards" ago.)
Quote from: Marleycat;555186It only does when you do custom lists but a mitigating factor is that if you still have the spellbooks or whatever you can try and reroll each level (or is that a houserule we did?). AD&D is like that every table is different.
It also can be interpreted that you get to pick 1 spell each level (spell research you know).
Np. You only ever get to reroll if our intelligence changes.
Quote from: Imp;555264There's an additional wrinkle in that in 3e there's no cap on how many people you can have charmed, while in 1e you're limited to your level in HD or something like that. (Don't recall the exact rule offhand but I mentioned it in this thread about a hundred pages and "you fucking retards" ago.)
There is no mention of such a limit in my 1e Player's Handbook spell description or in my 1e DMG spell notes.
@jhkim:
QuoteNote that the text of the restrictions and extent of the control is nearly identical.
People often forget that there are a set of spell descriptions in the 1e DMG.
This gets added to 1e's restrictions.
QuoteCharm Person Or Mammal: If at the same time this spell is cast the subject is struck by any spell, missile or weapon which inflicts damage, the creature will make its saving throw at +1 per point of damage sustained.Naturally, this assumes damage is inflicted by members of the spell caster's party. Remember that a charmed creature's or person's priorities are changed as regards the spell-caster, but the charmed one's basic personality and alignment are not. The spell is not enslave person or mammal. A request that a charmee make itself defenseless or that he/she/it be required to give up a valued item or cast a valuable spell or use a charge on a valued item (especially against the charmee's former associates or allies) could allow an immediate saving throw to see if the charm is thrown off. In like manner, a charmed figure will not necessarily tell everything he/she/it knows or draw maps of entire areas. A charmed figure can refuse a request, if such refusal is in character and will not directly cause harm to the charmer. Also, a charm spell does not substantially alter the charmee's feelings toward the charmer's friends and allies. The charmed person or creature will not react well to the charmer's allies making suggestions like "Ask him this question . . ." The charmee is oriented toward friendship and acceptance of the charmer, but this does not mean that he/she/it will put up with verbal or physical abuse from the charmer's associates.
Quote from: JRR;555265Np. You only ever get to reroll if our intelligence changes.
I believe 1st edition is 'roll once and only once', and technically you roll to see which spells you can possibly know before you encounter them?; 2nd edition you roll '% to learn spell' when you encounter a spell, and can reroll each time you level up, until you hit the cap on # spells known based on Intelligence.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;555273I believe 1st edition is 'roll once and only once', and technically you roll to see which spells you can possibly know before you encounter them?;
Yes. But if your intelligence changes, you may recheck each spell.
I'm actually now using the three guideline options for 1st lvl Wizards (2e) for initial spells -- and boy are they fun. There's the player request option, where the player lists off desired spells and then rolls off to see if he learns them. There's the GM bequeaths option, where GM just gives a bundle of spells (Detect Magic, Read Magic + 4 more spells). And then there's the Player + GM option where the player mentions their focus of spells they'd like to roll off on (a 3d4 amount?), and the GM bequeaths DM + RM and whatever else.
Had a character who had awesome intelligence (so greater % to learn a spell), chose a pool of spells to roll off, and failed their DM + RM rolls. So the character has to wait until 2nd lvl to try again for DM+ RM. However they did get a nice sprinkling of other spells. Ends up with a really interesting mage; we both GM & player like the character.
The other selected GM & player option. They rolled for # of starting spells, I gave 2 of that slot, the rest he had to either OK by me and roll off, or accept my random rolling for starter spells. Again, it ended up with a neat spread. Suddenly professions bubble up as to why such a wizard might find employment for their "unfocused" spell lists. Affect Normal Fires is a great way to be hired in a village as part of the fire fighting patrol... :)
Quote from: JRR;555280Yes. But if your intelligence changes, you may recheck each spell.
Sorry I wasn't clear it's 2e 1 was talking about since that's the edition I'm most familiar with. Yes if your intelligence changes permanently up or down your cap may change and you may lose a level or more of spells but not the slots. And yes you can retool missed spells if the change is positive.
Quote from: Marleycat;555453Sorry I wasn't clear it's 2e 1 was talking about since that's the edition I'm most familiar with. Yes if your intelligence changes permanently up or down your cap may change and you may lose a level or more of spells but not the slots. And yes you can retool missed spells if the change is positive.
Hey it says "changes", it doesn't say the change has to be positive. Clearly my wizard can slam his head in a door until his Int goes down a point and so recheck all the spells he failed on. What, are you illiterate? :)
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;555470Hey it says "changes", it doesn't say the change has to be positive. Clearly my wizard can slam his head in a door until his Int goes down a point and so recheck all the spells he failed on. What, are you illiterate? :)
Let's just say I wouldn't allow it. I would only allow rerolls for missed spells if your INT goes above your original score like with Wish or Deck of Many Things. Only other way I would allow it is with leveling up. YMMV
Quote from: Marleycat;555484Let's just say I wouldn't allow it. I would only allow rerolls for missed spells if your INT goes above your original score like with Wish or Deck of Many Things. Only other way I would allow it is with leveling up. YMMV
Sorry, I was trying to poke fun at the RAW people, nevermind.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;555500Sorry, I was trying to poke fun at the RAW people, nevermind.
I thought you were joking but I decided to give a serious response just in case. No worries I run stuff RAI as opposed to RAW, it mitigates powergaming and rules lawyeruling out the gate.
Late reply is late.
Quote from: Kaldric;554989And here's the gist. If you and your DM disagree over caster power so much that you characterize him placing reasonable limitations as him 'fucking you over', maybe you shouldn't be playing together. Think about it.
You are not treating my case justly here. I am stating, openly, that having to randomly roll for my spells is not a reasonable limitation, in that it fails to in practice outright prevent me from breaking the game, while succeeding in preventing me from playing the spellcaster I actually want to play - even if the rolled 'caster ends up far more powerful than my concept.
You have argued that randomly rolled treasure allows the DM to simply not allow a spell he does not want dropped to drop. I feel it cannot take more time to vet a player's submitted wishlist of spells than it can to vet every spell in the game.
I actually don't mind a degree of random advancement - part of what I love about playing spellcasters in Stone Soup is seeing how spells I have randomly found can be added to my strategy - but all random, all the time, in a tabletop RPG where rolling takes time, is madness.
That's why I never do rolls for spells, you automatically get jack and shit as you level. Go find the spells or research them in game if you want them, it's totally up to you pal, no madness-inducing rolls required.
Omega: If you want to play the 'spellcaster you want to play', instead of an AD&D magic-user, do that. Play an illusionist, or a specialist wizard based on the illusionist created in collaboration with your DM, or perhaps based on one of 2e's specialist wizards. The 2e Spell Compendium has bunches of schemes for picking theme spells for variant wizards.
Letting players simply cherry-pick the best spells from the AD&D magic-user's list is overpowered. If you're going to let spellcasters do that to 'play the caster they want to play', then you need to let fighters pick the intelligent vorpal sword and armor of teleporting anti-magic that will let them 'play the fighter they want to play'.
Quote from: Kaldric;555659Omega: If you want to play the 'spellcaster you want to play', instead of an AD&D magic-user, do that. Play an illusionist, or a specialist wizard based on the illusionist created in collaboration with your DM, or perhaps based on one of 2e's specialist wizards. The 2e Spell Compendium has bunches of schemes for picking theme spells for variant wizards.
Letting players simply cherry-pick the best spells from the AD&D magic-user's list is overpowered. If you're going to let spellcasters do that to 'play the caster they want to play', then you need to let fighters pick the intelligent vorpal sword and armor of teleporting anti-magic that will let them 'play the fighter they want to play'.
Exactamundo.
Quote from: Kaldric;555659Letting players simply cherry-pick the best spells from the AD&D magic-user's list is overpowered. If you're going to let spellcasters do that to 'play the caster they want to play', then you need to let fighters pick the intelligent vorpal sword and armor of teleporting anti-magic that will let them 'play the fighter they want to play'.
Actually, I do allow this in a sense. If there is a particular spell or magic item that a Player wants, then I allow that Player to research it and go on a side quest to retrieve it. Sometimes the Player succeeds and gets the goodie, sometimes the Player fails and whatever is guarding the goodie defeats that character. That is the chance you take when you go after what you want for your character. TANSTAAFL and all that.
jeff: I do the same thing. First level fighter wants paired Intelligent Vorpal Swords of Dancing, Disintegration, and Devastation, he hires sages and spies, does his research, mounts an expedition, and trots off to get horribly slaughtered by the evil demi-god who owns them.
The acquisition of spells in AD&D for the MU is kind of a blurry area because the DMG p. 39 and PH p.10 (Intelligence, Chance to Know Spells) seem to say different things. In fact, they are talking about different aspects of spell acquisition and can be reconciled. I was tremendously confused by this, tried different manners of interpretation (like rolling the chance to know the spells all at the same time at the acquisition of a new level, which gave results that I found less than satisfactory because I reached the maximum number of knowable spells more often during the first run on the list than not) and discussed it many times to try and clarify how different people who actually know what they're doing rule it themselves.
This is how I do it now, based on a breakdown by foxroe on K&K:
Quote from: foxroeAt first level:
- You get Read Magic automatically
- You get three other spells, one from each column on the three tables on pg.39 of the DMG; these can either be chosen randomly or picked (DM's discretion); your DM may also require you to roll against your "Chance to Know Spell", and if you fail, you need to reroll or re-choose; Your DM may also decide to give you extra spells if he/she feels the campaign is difficult (again, see pg.39 of the DMG)
As you adventure:
- If you come across 1st level spells (scrolls, spellbooks, grimoires, etc.), and you decide to copy them into your spellbooks, you need to use Read Magic to interpret then and then you can roll against your Chance to Know Spell. Success indicates that you can copy it into your spellbook for future use. If you miss the roll, then you cannot ever learn that spell again unless your Intelligence increases OR you have, throughout your career, checked every single 1st level spell and have failed to learn enough spells to meet your Minimum Spells*, in which case, you can continue to reroll to learn any of the previous spells you have come across UNTIL that minimum is reached.
- When you reach a new level, you gain a new spell of your own choice (presumably due to your research efforts). However, like any spell you might find, you need to roll for knowledge of the spell. If you fail to learn the chosen spell, you can continue to check the list in your preferred order until you have obtained one new spell.
- FWIW, the Write spell allows you to copy a spell into your spellbook that you do not know (presumably in the hopes of learning it in the future, i.e. your Intelligence increases).
- As you advance to a level that allows you access to a new spell level, then you can use your "one free spell per character level" to learn a spell from the new list; HOWEVER, you still need to roll against your Chance to Know Spell (continuing to reroll until you successfully learn one new spell).
- As you go through this process, if you DO NOT reach your Minimum Spells by the time you reach the end of the list, you can start over (just as you may have done for 1st level spells)
- Also, as you go through this process, if you reach your Maximum Spells Known, then you can no longer learn new spells for that spell level, unless your Intelligence increases.
- If you research/create a new spell, you have to roll to see if you know the spell, and it counts against your Min/max Spells known.
(*This is really the only purpose of this stat -- a guarantee that your Magic-User won't completely suck;))
Quote from: Benoist;555671The acquisition of spells in AD&D for the MU is kind of a blurry area because the DMG p. 39 and PH p.10 (Intelligence, Chance to Know Spells) seem to say different things. In fact, they are talking about different aspects of spell acquisition and can be reconciled. I was tremendously confused by this, tried different manners of interpretation (like rolling the chance to know the spells all at the same time at the acquisition of a new level, which gave results that I found less than satisfactory because I reached the maximum number of knowable spells more often during the first run on the list than not) and discussed it many times to try and clarify how different people who actually know what they're doing rule it themselves.
This is how I do it now, based on a breakdown by foxroe on K&K:
One free spell per level? Freakin' hippy.
Quote from: CRKrueger;555672One free spell per level? Freakin' hippy.
:D
It's in the DMG, p. 39, right-hand column, under the heading "Spells Beyond Those At Start", first paragraph:
Quote from: DMG p. 39Naturally, magic-user player characters will do their utmost to acquire books of spells and scrolls in order to complete their own spell books. To those acquired, the magic-user will add 1 (and ONLY 1) spell when he or she actually gains an experience level (q.v.) . Therefore, most will be frantically attempting to purchase or cozen spells from non-player character magic-users, or even from other player character magic-users.
Quote from: Benoist;555676:D
It's in the DMG, p. 39, right-hand column, under the heading "Spells Beyond Those At Start", first paragraph:
Jim Ward must have edited that without Gary's knowledge...or Gary was high on painkillers after getting a wisdom tooth pulled. :D
Quote from: Kaldric;555670jeff: I do the same thing. First level fighter wants paired Intelligent Vorpal Swords of Dancing, Disintegration, and Devastation, he hires sages and spies, does his research, mounts an expedition, and trots off to get horribly slaughtered by the evil demi-god who owns them.
You want the goodies, you have to defeat in some manner the guardian of those goodies. TANSTAAFL.
Quote from: jeff37923;555685You want the goodies, you have to defeat in some manner the guardian of those goodies. TANSTAAFL.
Absolutely. And a good way to get access to decent spells.
Quote from: Benoist;555671The acquisition of spells in AD&D for the MU is kind of a blurry area because the DMG p. 39 and PH p.10 (Intelligence, Chance to Know Spells) seem to say different things. In fact, they are talking about different aspects of spell acquisition and can be reconciled. I was tremendously confused by this, tried different manners of interpretation (like rolling the chance to know the spells all at the same time at the acquisition of a new level, which gave results that I found less than satisfactory because I reached the maximum number of knowable spells more often during the first run on the list than not) and discussed it many times to try and clarify how different people who actually know what they're doing rule it themselves.
This is how I do it now, based on a breakdown by foxroe on K&K:
That's some serious old school hard mode interpretation there. I don't disagree with it but it sure isn't for me. I'm fine with letting a reroll every level.
Quote from: Benoist;555671The acquisition of spells in AD&D for the MU is kind of a blurry area because the DMG p. 39 and PH p.10 (Intelligence, Chance to Know Spells) seem to say different things. In fact, they are talking about different aspects of spell acquisition and can be reconciled. I was tremendously confused by this, tried different manners of interpretation (like rolling the chance to know the spells all at the same time at the acquisition of a new level, which gave results that I found less than satisfactory because I reached the maximum number of knowable spells more often during the first run on the list than not) and discussed it many times to try and clarify how different people who actually know what they're doing rule it themselves.
This is how I do it now, based on a breakdown by foxroe on K&K:
I do spell acquisition like this.
I won;t let a player go back to a spell they have failed to learn though. there are so many other spells in other books that they just have to keep on looking.
Oh and they don;t get to ever chose a spell but they can research.
Quote from: Marleycat;555702That's some serious old school hard mode interpretation there. I don't disagree with it but it sure isn't for me. I'm fine with letting a reroll every level.
Well that's an interpretation based on the rules available to play the AD&D First Ed game. Other interpretations of the corpus of rules are possible. You'll notice that this particular take involves either rolling spell selections or choosing it yourself (DM's choice). But even when you choose your spell, you still roll to see if you actually can know that spell, and if that fails, you choose another spell and roll again, etc. This automatic acquisition of 1 spell at the acquisition of a level being separate from other spells you might get a chance to know via actual adventuring, buying and exchanging spells with other spellcasters in the game, etc.
The Chance to Know Spell is an important factor of spell acquisition in practice. If you are not using it in actual play, then you are ipso facto making MUs a lot more powerful than they would be otherwise, and whining about the DM being a tyrant or whatnot isn't really a defense when the point is to balance the game itself and use the rules to that effect now, is it?
The notion that the MU gets all the spells he wants whenever he wants them automatically is not BTB AD&D.
Quote from: Benoist;555707Well that's an interpretation based on the rules available to play the AD&D First Ed game. You interpret the corpus of rules in other ways. You'll notice that this particular take involves either rolling spell selections or choosing it yourself (DM's choice). But even when you choose your spell, you still roll to see if you actually can know that spell, and if that fails, you choose another spell and roll again, etc. This automatic acquisition of 1 spell at the acquisition of a level being separate from other spells you might get a chance to know via actual adventuring, buying and exchanging spells with other spellcasters in the game, etc.
The Chance to Know Spell is an important factor of spell acquisition in practice. If you are not using it in actual play, then you are ipso facto making MUs a lot more powerful than they would be otherwise, and whining about the DM being a tyrant or whatnot isn't really a defense when the point is to balance the game itself now, is it?
The notion that the MU gets all the spells he wants whenever he wants them automatically is not BTB AD&D.
I completely agree with the interpretation and in fact do the same the only difference being we always allowed rerolls for missed spells when a level was gained. It wasn't as easy as you think to keep captured spell books or not use scrolls for whole levels or multiple levels when you missed.
Quote from: Kaldric;555659Omega: If you want to play the 'spellcaster you want to play', instead of an AD&D magic-user, do that. Play an illusionist, or a specialist wizard based on the illusionist created in collaboration with your DM, or perhaps based on one of 2e's specialist wizards. The 2e Spell Compendium has bunches of schemes for picking theme spells for variant wizards.
Letting players simply cherry-pick the best spells from the AD&D magic-user's list is overpowered. If you're going to let spellcasters do that to 'play the caster they want to play', then you need to let fighters pick the intelligent vorpal sword and armor of teleporting anti-magic that will let them 'play the fighter they want to play'.
If I roll the broken combinations, I fully expect them to be vetoed anyway, or to not get the option to research them from my enemies. If the DM has the time to cherry pick away all the broken spells from his loot pile, he has the time to cherry pick them away from my desired spell list. If this is sounding like an argument against how MUs were implemented in D&D, then so be it - if they're inseparable from the "roll for everything, I mean everything, that could advance you" model, then they are not something I can play when taking a game seriously.
I fully expect to have to explain, repeatedly and at length, why exactly rolling for your ability to advance is
not balanced, or a fun or good idea to force on players. So, to repeat again on principle: There should be something that stops me taking the broken spell combinations. That something should be the
utter absence of broken spell combinations, not DM fiat or me not rolling the 1% chance.
Not going to go back and find the quotes but I have no problem with the idea of having to invest my character's valuable time into cherry picking my spell or item list, so long as I have that ability at all. I believe Kaelik mentioned doing this sort of thing, repeatedly casting Divinations and having to quest at great character risk for those two splitting longbows for his arrow emitting monstrosity in 3.5.
Also, one step closer to 200 pages!
Quote from: Benoist;555707The notion that the MU gets all the spells he wants whenever he wants them automatically is not BTB AD&D.
I've probably missed something in this enormous sprawl of a thread. Has someone actually claimed that this is by-the-book AD&D?
Quote from: Kaldric;555659Letting players simply cherry-pick the best spells from the AD&D magic-user's list is overpowered. If you're going to let spellcasters do that to 'play the caster they want to play', then you need to let fighters pick the intelligent vorpal sword and armor of teleporting anti-magic that will let them 'play the fighter they want to play'.
While I agree that cherry-picking is an advantage, the comparison is vastly out of scale here. An intelligent vorpal sword is encoded in the rules as an incredibly rare find - much less than 1%. By contrast, the rules by default assume that spells for each level are of roughly the same rarity. For example, one rolls randomly for scroll spells. Further, given high intelligence, a magic user will learn most (70+%) of the spells that he encounters. If you're randomly rolling scrolls in treasure and including NPC spellcasters with spell books, chances are good that a PC will encounter and learn a given spell. Not 100%, but not rare enough that it's a dependable limitation that a magic user won't get key spells like fireball.
In any game - regardless of edition - the DM is of course free to make certain spells difficult or even completely unavailable. However, that's a house rule. The rules don't tell the DM to restrict particular spells or have a way to define spells as restricted.
Quote from: jhkim;555727I've probably missed something in this enormous sprawl of a thread. Has someone actually claimed that this is by-the-book AD&D?
While I agree that cherry-picking is an advantage, the comparison is vastly out of scale here. An intelligent vorpal sword is encoded in the rules as an incredibly rare find - much less than 1%. By contrast, the rules by default assume that spells for each level are of roughly the same rarity. For example, one rolls randomly for scroll spells. Further, given high intelligence, a magic user will learn most (70+%) of the spells that he encounters. If you're randomly rolling scrolls in treasure and including NPC spellcasters with spell books, chances are good that a PC will encounter and learn a given spell. Not 100%, but not rare enough that it's a dependable limitation that a magic user won't get key spells like fireball.
In any game - regardless of edition - the DM is of course free to make certain spells difficult or even completely unavailable. However, that's a house rule. The rules don't tell the DM to restrict particular spells or have a way to define spells as restricted.
of course they adopt extreme hyperbole this is Pundit's forum its basically a trope.
What the OSR want of course is to make 1e Wizard spell acquisition like Magic the Gathering where a wizard collects spell books and opens them to find random spells. Now I like that I think Magic the Gathering a great game.
Quote from: jhkim;555727I've probably missed something in this enormous sprawl of a thread. Has someone actually claimed that this is by-the-book AD&D?
Not sure, I won't go back several dozen pages to check this out, to be honest. I did know, however, quite a few tables of AD&D back in the day that didn't use these rules at all and sort of assumed you either learned spells found automatically, or that you could retry your Chance to Know a particular spell by finding other scrolls of the same spell over and over when clearly there are very strong caveats against it built into the rules themselves (checking the whole list without reaching your minimum number of spells per level, raising your INT score first, etc).
I'm just pointing out that not all spell selections for MUs are automatic, that picking the spells you want is one thing while actually Knowing Them after rolling to find that out is another, that you might have to roll to select that one spell you want as you reach another level (or choose, depending on the DM) and fail to Know it in the end, that you have to search for others in the actual course of play, find them during your adventures, swap them with other spellcasters, research them, consult sages, maybe even quest for them in some instances, etc.
For each of these particular instances, you indeed roll your Chances to Know said spell. Using Method I of generation for your ability scores, playing a MU and using the highest result for your Intelligence, you will most likely end up with an INT of 15-17, so either 65% or 75% chance to Know any given spell you want to learn. And considering the shitload of spells involved in the game, trust me, you ARE going to fail to Know spells like Charm Person, Sleep, Magic Missile, Feather Fall, Identify, ESP, Invisibility, Levitate, Mirror Image, Dispel Magic, Fireball, etc etc, sooner or later.
You are right that any one spell does not compare in terms of rarity to that of an intelligent Vorpal sword, but people do fail particular checks on Knowing this or that spell when they encounter them - it happens more often than one would think, and in this thread you will find examples of people who did fail specific rolls for fireball and the like. Now it's not dramatic, it actually makes the MU's game play variable with each character as selections vary. It's cool in practice, and contributes to balance out MUs in actual play.
Quote from: fectin;552895I'm glad to see we're on the same page with respect to railroaders (though, I'm also reminded of a friend who justifiably remarked a while back that "players don't mind a little train ride every now and again, so long as the scenery is nice and the destination is Awsometown").
Railroading never takes me to "Awesometown" because it's the antithesis of what I want from playing a roleplaying game.
Quote from: fectin;552895However, on the second part, even the 'series of buttons' (distasteful though it may be) is preferable to non-sequiter engine that he described.
My first reaction was that the referee sounded like a suppurating knob, but on reflection I don't know that I can consider MGuy an unbiased reporter. I would need to hear a lot more about that particular circumstance before I'd be willing to accept MGuy's interpretation.
Quote from: fectin;552895If I ask you (as in you, personally), "can you fake a convincing seizure?" You probably don't know for sure.
I'm a paramedic. You want
petit mal,
grand mal, or decorticate posturing?
Quote from: fectin;552895However, you can probably tell me either "yeah, I think I can manage that," or "no, theater's not my forte". That's because you have a reasonable idea of your capabilities, and can make reasonable predictions about the world around you. This is the very essence of roleplaying, of being able to put yourself in your character's place and decide things as he would. Self awareness and predicting outcomes is what uniquely distinguishes humans from animals; how can you claim that a system which fails to allow these is good for roleplay?
Because not all outcomes are predictable in the way some game-rules strive to make them. Because the referee is privy to information the players and their characters aren't.
This is why I'm withholding judgement on MGuy's referee. Yeah, the referee may've been a complete ass, or MGuy might've been reacting to something without having all the facts.
Quote from: jhkim;555727I've probably missed something in this enormous sprawl of a thread. Has someone actually claimed that this is by-the-book AD&D?
While I agree that cherry-picking is an advantage, the comparison is vastly out of scale here. An intelligent vorpal sword is encoded in the rules as an incredibly rare find - much less than 1%. By contrast, the rules by default assume that spells for each level are of roughly the same rarity. For example, one rolls randomly for scroll spells. Further, given high intelligence, a magic user will learn most (70+%) of the spells that he encounters. If you're randomly rolling scrolls in treasure and including NPC spellcasters with spell books, chances are good that a PC will encounter and learn a given spell. Not 100%, but not rare enough that it's a dependable limitation that a magic user won't get key spells like fireball.
In any game - regardless of edition - the DM is of course free to make certain spells difficult or even completely unavailable. However, that's a house rule. The rules don't tell the DM to restrict particular spells or have a way to define spells as restricted.
Just to say yeah, it's hyperbole, of course.
An intelligent vorpal sword is found in 1 out of 1492 magical treasures.
A scroll with teleport on it is found in 1 out of 212 magical treasures. It's almost 7 times as common. Of course, a 1st level fighter doesn't have to survive to 9th level and roll to learn to use the vorpal sword. In my experience, fewer than 1 in 7 magic users makes it to 9th level in AD&D. So, realistically, teleport should be less common than intelligent vorpal swords in regular AD&D play. Hehehe.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;555790Railroading never takes me to "Awesometown" because it's the antithesis of what I want from playing a roleplaying game.
That's a rabbit hole which may be too deep for this thread (one which I steered us into). I hope you won't mind if I drop it instead of arguing?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;555790I'm a paramedic. You want petit mal, grand mal, or decorticate posturing?
Because not all outcomes are predictable in the way some game-rules strive to make them. Because the referee is privy to information the players and their characters aren't.
Exactly! If you go for
decorticate posturing (is that the one that's the common tetanus outcome? IIRC there's some sort of curling inward and some sort of curling outward.) in a crowd, it's entirely possible that there's another paramedic around who will spot your fakery. However, you have a really good chance of fooling most people, and you definitely have an idea of how good your performance was. You're absolutely right that sometimes, something weird happens and also that you can't perfectly predict what will happen. But that's entirely separate from having an idea hoe likely you are to convince bystanders, and also from how much more likely you are to be convincing if you're (say) on the other side of a window from them.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;555790This is why I'm withholding judgement on MGuy's referee. Yeah, the referee may've been a complete ass, or MGuy might've been reacting to something without having all the facts.
Eh, his specific complaints were augery never working and "You want to find the river to keep from being dehydrated? Make a roll. Want to fake like you're drowning in order to cause a distraction? Make a roll. What am I rolling against? What mods am I using?"
That says to me that his problem wasn't that nothing he tried worked, but that he had no way to even guess if anything would work, and no idea how to make an outcome more or less likely. That's bad in a way which is completely separate (but is made much more intolerable by) being railroaded along.
I'm pretty sure that this thread is no longer wearing pants.
Quote from: fectin;555809That's a rabbit hole which may be too deep for this thread (one which I steered us into). I hope you won't mind if I drop it instead of arguing?
No problem, but if you start another thread on it, I'll be glad to chime in.
Quote from: fectin;555809. . . IIRC there's some sort of curling inward and some sort of curling outward . . .
Decorticate (flexion, flexing inward, toward the core) versus decerberate (extension, extending outward). Both are signs of brain injury. Decorticate's very bad; decerberate's worse.
Quote from: fectin;555809. . . [ I ]n a crowd, it's entirely possible that there's another paramedic around who will spot your fakery. However, you have a really good chance of fooling most people, and you definitely have an idea of how good your performance was. You're absolutely right that sometimes, something weird happens and also that you can't perfectly predict what will happen.
Such as the paramedic or trauma nurse or neurosurgery resident bystander.
Again, you only know how well you think you did; you don't know who you fooled, however, because that's information your character isn't privy to, at least at first.
Quote from: fectin;555809Eh, his specific complaints were augery never working and "You want to find the river to keep from being dehydrated? Make a roll. Want to fake like you're drowning in order to cause a distraction? Make a roll. What am I rolling against? What mods am I using?"
That says to me that his problem wasn't that nothing he tried worked, but that he had no way to even guess if anything would work, and no idea how to make an outcome more or less likely. That's bad in a way which is completely separate (but is made much more intolerable by) being railroaded along.
Like I said, my first impression was that the referee described is the sort who should be tied to a chair while his dice are melted in a fire in front of him.
But given what MGuy's had to say about gaming generally, I don't know enough to say that it's being reported fairly, so I'm reserving judgement. My impression is that MGuy might react badly to stuff that I would take in stride. I don't want that to be taken as impugning MGuy; I just know nothing about him other than what he's posted here.
I'm fairly sure that I would react differently to certain stimuli than you would. But Fectin successfully understood my point. While railroading in general gets on my nerves it isn't mark on the system. What IS a mark on a system is one that encourages a DM to ass pull most of the material. As I mentioned earlier in the thread I, as a DM, like a strong ruleset that aids in making consistent and fair decisions when making calls as to what the DC of something is. Its why I don't like playing rules lite systems as much and why I did not like2e which encouraged DMs like the one I had to make shit up from nothing. That's why in games like that I, as a player, spend more time gaming the DM in order to do what I want.
People make the mistake of thinking that if a DM is in charge there's no way to power game, and that's completely untrue. If the game has little rules adjudicating what exactly players can/can't do, then the game becomes focused on convincing the DM what makes sense and playing on his/her knowledge or lack there of. You can do this in heavier rulesets s well but I notice that rules lite games or games that are heavily house rules always encourage this type of play. My time with 2e was marred by it.
Quote from: MGuy;555938I'm fairly sure that I would react differently to certain stimuli than you would. But Fectin successfully understood my point. While railroading in general gets on my nerves it isn't mark on the system. What IS a mark on a system is one that encourages a DM to ass pull most of the material. As I mentioned earlier in the thread I, as a DM, like a strong ruleset that aids in making consistent and fair decisions when making calls as to what the DC of something is. Its why I don't like playing rules lite systems as much and why I did not like2e which encouraged DMs like the one I had to make shit up from nothing. That's why in games like that I, as a player, spend more time gaming the DM in order to do what I want.
People make the mistake of thinking that if a DM is in charge there's no way to power game, and that's completely untrue. If the game has little rules adjudicating what exactly players can/can't do, then the game becomes focused on convincing the DM what makes sense and playing on his/her knowledge or lack there of. You can do this in heavier rulesets s well but I notice that rules lite games or games that are heavily house rules always encourage this type of play. My time with 2e was marred by it.
This all comes back to not playing with assholes. Heavy rulesets do not make fair DMs. That is an illusion that game companies are hoping you will buy into so they can sell you a 500 page rulebook plus splats just to pretend to be an elf.
Worse than that, the more bogged down in rules minutae the game gets, the more the game becomes all about the rules, and the manipulation thereof. Followed to its logical conclusion you get the rules leading the game by the nose.
Yeah McGuy's just using the same old "You game the system or you game the GM" argument.
If you or your GM aren't cockknockers you can just play the game. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;555971Yeah McGuy's just using the same old "You game the system or you game the GM" argument.
If you or your GM aren't cockknockers you can just play the game. :D
Indeed. :)
Quote from: CRKrueger;555971If you or your GM aren't cockknockers you can just play the game. :D
The thing is though, if they are, they cannot get what you're saying.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;555962This all comes back to not playing with assholes. Heavy rulesets do not make fair DMs. That is an illusion that game companies are hoping you will buy into so they can sell you a 500 page rulebook plus splats just to pretend to be an elf.
Worse than that, the more bogged down in rules minutae the game gets, the more the game becomes all about the rules, and the manipulation thereof. Followed to its logical conclusion you get the rules leading the game by the nose.
I know by saying this I'm risking more misinterpretation but you missed my point. I'll try and present this in a more clear fashion.
1) Lack of rules necessitates that the DM make up more stuff. This is objectively true. So if an ability isn't clear as to what it can and can't do then it is up to the DM to decide what it can/can't do. If the DM decides it works in a way you don't like there are no rules to support any assertion that it work another way so disagreements as to how something works are more likely to arise. If the DM decides that it does something unbalancing then he is pressured to either stick with his ruling or change it (unfairly) for someone else down the road. If the DM decides to make something that should be easy more difficult than it should be it discourages people from trying unsure things. If the DM forgets or dismisses a ruling he made earlier the game becomes inconsistent and my sense of verisimilitude is broken.
2) More rules reduces the amount of eyeballing a DM has to do and produces more consistent results. Too many rules can indeed bog down play if they must be referenced exhaustively in order for gameplay to be done but I've not mentioned anything that suggests every niche situation be covered. I'd like clear and concise rules on what exactly printed abilities can do and have general and expected situations clearly laid out IE grabbing and throwing someone, how catching something out of the air works, and other situations that occur often.
3) Rulesets that are light on "what" abilities can and can't do
"encourage" railroady DMs and the act of "gaming the DM" because the DM has to ass pull more stuff. If the game is more predicated on the DM making stuff up then that's what players will concentrate on doing.
Further, I think something Frank wrote a while ago deserves special mention because I didn't even think about it until reading this:
Quote from: FrankThere are lots of ways to make a stunt system. The standard of course is the "no frills" approach, where it is up tot the player to decide that they want to use a stunt and up to the player to propose what their stunt should be, and up to Mister Cavern to decide what action checks need to be made and what bonuses accrue if it is successful. The advantage of this system is that I just described the entire flow chart of how it works in a game system that I know nothing about because I didn't even specify. Literally, you could cut and paste the center of this paragraph into a game you were writing and you would have a functional stunt system for it regardless of what that system was.
Of course, the no frills has problems. Many players are too shy to use it at all. Other players are so pushy that they just sort of inherently abuse it. Mister Cavern is being put on the spot to make up difficulties and bonuses off the top of his head, so you're quite likely to run into unbalancing maneuvers or clear unfairnesses, where the mechanical representation of, or example: throwing a table cloth on someone simply ends up so good that you'd be crazy to not fight Matador style, and the result is that either the players spend the rest of the campaign listening to Flamenco or Mister Cavern does a blatant 180 and refuses to let one player do something he allowed another player to do earlier in the campaign.
Which is from this thread: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=177120 for those who want context.
4) Assholes can exist whether or not there are a lot of rules or a little. What I'm saying is that lack of rules encourages rail roading a gaming the DM. Neither of these are inherently "bad" as guessing hat the GM is thinking isn't really all that looked down upon and some people enjoy being railroaded. These are, however, not the style of play I enjoy.
Quote from: jhkim;555262I haven't been commenting because this has been such a mess of hostility, but my main impression is that many posters are viewing 1e through rosy glasses. I'll buy that 3e had plenty of flaws and that it was worse than 1e in many respects. However, 1e had plenty of its own flaws - and the overpowered 1st level Charm Person was one of them.
(Along similar lines, the recent examples of spells known doesn't match my experience. We would regularly find scrolls, capture enemy spell books, or encounter friendly magic users willing to trade. This didn't get exactly the spell we wanted, but we'd have more than two per level.)
The misinformation in this thread in regards to what 1e is really like is quite ridiculous, so you were probably smart in avoiding the clusterfuck. And you know why? Because the grogs would piss themselves if it were acknowledged that 1e Magic-Users could potentially be as powerful or more powerful than 3.x Wizards.
Even if the random rules for
"Acquisition of Magic-User Spells" are used, that table is only applied at 1st-level. But of course, notable grogs will bring up the table for
"Chance to Know Each Listed Spell", which is a series of percentile rolls
that most players will probably make anyway. And even if those rolls are failed, the Magic-User can engage in spell research to create a spell that is very similar in effect to the spell that they failed to learn. And remember that we also haven't even brought up locating magical scrolls in random treasure piles yet either...
Deluded Soul, listening to Grogs: "But Lamb, wait! 1e Magic-Users have less control over their spell list than 3.x Wizards!" :eek:
Sacrificial Lamb: "It doesn't fucking matter. 1e Magic-Users have
enough control over their spell lists that they are almost guaranteed to eventually get spells at least
approximating what they want, even if they have to jump through more hoops to get it. The only thing all this cockblocking achieves is making the process more irritating and unfun." :hand:
In other words, if I
really want to get a
Charm Person spell (or a spell much like it),
then I will probably get it. If I acquire such a spell, I could easily command a small army of dozens of
charmed servitors, even if I'm a mere low-level Magic-User (levels 1-3).
You can't do that shit in D&D 3.x. :pundit:
And that's only one example of how much more powerful 1e Magic-users can be...
You know why most people
mistakenly believe that the 3.x Wizard is unambiguously more powerful than the 1e Magic-User? Because the 3.x Wizard
is more powerful.....
....in direct arena combat.
3.x Wizards can cast their spells more frequently, and often possess carefully constructed magical items tailored to their specific strengths (if the Wizard's player knows what he's doing). This is all great when the magic-flinger has only limited preparation for an upcoming arena-style combat.
But you know what the 1e Magic-User's advantage is?
His spells are better than 3.x spells. Yes, I know it sounds like the opposite of anything a grog would admit to, but it's true. 1e spells have much longer durations, are more open-ended, can be used more creatively, and possess fewer limitations.
For example, my M-U could make a ridiculous fortune casting spells such as
detect magic,
identify, and
continual light.
Or how about the fact that my 1e Magic-User can stay
invisible all day, fly...
for hours, and permanently
polymorph his enemies....all while protected by an army of
charmed servitors? And if you kill my servants, I can semi-revive them, via an
animate dead spell.
And that's the tiniest amount that the Magic-User can do. :cool:
Oh, hell...maybe I'll just do some spell research and create a 1e version of
alter self, so that it's incredibly difficult for people to pick me out in a line-up with my
charmed buddies. Or I could just use
polymorph self as an efficient disguise, just in case someone decides to specifically target me.
And speaking of spell research, I get the impression that spell research makes many grogs nervous, because of some belief that it provides too much "player empowerment". Maybe I'm mistaken on that one. I hope so, but I don't think spell research should be ignored since that is essentially part of what the Magic-User does, and should not be forgotten. :pundit:
But, whatever. This is all just fapping in the wind. People have been arguing about Gygax's works for decades, and even most of the so-called "experts" do not seem to get it. Which tells me that clarity was never a strength of Gary's writing. He created a richly-detailed gaming world, that was full of life....but he desperately needed the right editor to rein in the disorganization of his work. And if saying that makes me a "blasphemer",
then so be it.
Ultimately, no game is immune to criticism...not even 1e. And yes....for the record, I am still a fan of 1e, but the 1e fan base often tends to piss me off, where any D&D material published by Gygax must
never be questioned, or else....
it's war. That kind of fundamentalist one-true-wayist horseshit drove me away from 1e for eight years, because I could no longer open up a 1e DMG without thinking about a ridiculous flame war on an Internet message board. I've mostly gotten over that, but I still sometimes get irritated.
And now I'm just tired again, and sorely tempted to erase this entire post... :(
So near yet so far away from 2000 posts...:D
I'll do my part to get us over 2000!
Sacrificial Lamb: You're basically saying that 1E spells are individually more powerful than 3E spells. I disagree. Duration isn't the best indicator of a spell's power. A 1e charm person doesn't make the target your 'servitor'. A 3e version, on the other hand, does. The 3e version is much more powerful. Charming a ton of guys in 1e means you have a lot of friends. Not a lot of slaves. You've spent a lot of magical power to, essentially, become sort of popular. Woohoo?
You're also basically saying that 1e magic users are more powerful than 3e magic users because they can have whatever magic spells they feel like having, and if they don't get them, they can cow the DM into submission by calling him a 'cockblocker'. Which is pretty much all anyone needs to know about why you think the way you do.
From the text of 1E, spell-power is expected to be rare. The random treasure tables bear this out. A random magical treasure has a 1 in 212 chance of having a specific 5th spell in it. A random magical treasure has a 1 in 373 chance of having a vorpal sword in it. I'm guessing in your game, every single wizard had a Teleport spell. How many fighters had vorpal swords? Every other one? I'm guessing not.
That's the real fighter/wizard balance issue in 1E. MU's got given whatever they wanted because people like SacLamb called their DM's cockblockers if they didn't get handed all the spells on a platter, in defiance of the text of the game.
No, Sacrificial Lamb is pointing out that even if you didn't find that particular spell in a randomly rolled treasure table, the number of ways to get it if you want it is nearly limitless. If you know of any NPC that already has it, you can make a special trip out to see him and see if you can 'trade spells'. If he doesn't have any spells you want, you can see if you can do him a favor to get a couple of weeks in his spell library. If he still says no, you might hear about an evil wizard that needs killing that is also known to teleport. He suddenly jumps to the list of 'wrongs needing righting' and if you kill him and locate his library and/or spell book, you have a pretty good chance of finding and learning that spell. And if you can't find his spell book, you have a pretty good chance of having gone up a level. That means that you can try to learn teleport as the spell of your choice. And if that fails, if you have time and money, you can try to come up with a different but similar spell (ie, tree walk) or you could try to learn to apparate which is probably similar to teleport, but different enough to justify having more than one spell that covers a similar effect. Maybe it's based on Drawmij's Summon or something.
And if all that fails, there's still the chance of stumbling across it randomly.
But while choosing SOME spells is an option in 3.5, it's only 2 each time you gain a level. All the rest basically have to be learned in the same fashion as 1st or 2nd edition (it uses a Spellcraft check instead of a percentage roll - but otherwise similar).
And duration certainly works to make some spells more powerful. And charm person are nearly identical in description - the 3.5 version also doesn't make the creature a 'slave'. It makes them view you in a positive light - which the 1st and 2nd edition do as well. The 3rd edition one actually includes a more clearly defined 'limitation' - if something is outside of normal behavior for the creature, you need to succeed on an opposed Charisma check. In 1st and 2nd edition, basically if you can make a plausible justification for it, the creature is basically compelled to do something possibly foolish - the example used is 'holding off a dragon for a round or two'.
Then of course, one has to consider how one measures power. Is a particular spell in 1st edition more powerful if it is more likely to kill an enemy? That's one possible measure. Considering the lower hit point totals of 1st (especially) and 2nd edition monsters, there's an argument that many of the spells are 'more powerful'. If anything, the 3rd edition spells probably aren't 'more powerful', but having access to lots more spells than normal is trivially easy - ie, a wizard with a wand of fireballs has 50 extra castings of fireball available if needed - although the spell may not be more powerful PER SE, having easier access to multiple castings each day is CUMULATIVELY more powerful.
But I think there are people who have clearly shown that the 3rd edition Fighter is WEAKER than the 1st edition Fighter. The 3rd edition Wizard is at least similarly powerful to the 1st edition Magic User. If the 1st edition Fighter were relatively balanced against the 1st edition Magic User, that'd be a pretty clear indication that the 3rd edition Fighter is not balanced against the 3rd edition Wizard.
I'd still posit that at high levels, the Wizard really pulls ahead. I don't have the XP charts in front of me and I'm too lazy to look, but I think there's a point in 2nd edition where wizards start gaining levels every 25,000 XP or so, while the Fighter at that point is gaining 35,000??? I don't remember the numbers. I just remember that the last high-level 2nd edition campaign I was in, the Wizard started gaining levels a lot faster than my Fighter, and at that point, the Wizard was pretty much the star of the show. It was a Fire Mage specialist, I remember. Now, at the time it hardly bothered me - but that has as much to do with the group dynamic at the time. One of the players was playing a noticeably unhelpful bard who was the kind of Chaotic Neutral that people now call 'Chaotic Stupid' - the one where he would roll dice to decide how he'd act, and he was just as often working in a way contrary to the party's goals as cooperative. At least compared to his character, my Fighter was always contributing something.
Quote from: Kaldric;556186A 1e charm person doesn't make the target your 'servitor'. A 3e version, on the other hand, does.
Uh, what? The text is practically the same. In both cases though, "go fight that dragon" is something you can explicitly convince your victims to do.
@deadDMWalking: The advice in the DMG about players acquiring spells in the ways you describe is specifically intended to foster this environment: "...players will find that their magic-user characters are unable to acquire new spells - at worst - or must pay so dearly for them in money, magic items, and quests that the game is hardly worth the candle." (p 39). The express intent is that players find spells in treasure.
And, given how timekeeping in AD&D works, if you choose to spend all your time researching spells, you'll be essentially choosing to not play for weeks at a time - because the research rules were written with the assumption that if you choose to remove yourself from adventuring for weeks on end, that's supposed to be an actual period where you're not playing that character, not something that gets skipped over. It's supposed to be a very significant cost.
The 3rd edition charm person spell allows you to make an opposed charisma check to force the target do something he wouldn't normally do. Simply put, 3E charm lets you force the target to do things - 1E charm does not. 1E charm doesn't give you 'servitors' at all. The 1E charm target can refuse to do anything you say - all the spell explicitly forces him to do is avoid directly harming you.
@Fectin: AD&D has spell descriptions in the DMG, as well - the multiple extra restrictions on charm person are in there.
Here's a re-cap of the discussion jhkim and I had, where he claims 1e and 3e charm person are pretty much the same, and I show otherwise.
These are the restrictions.
QuoteOriginally Posted by 1e
The creature then will regard the druid who cast the spell as a trusted friend and ally to be heeded and protected. The spell does not enable the druid to control the charmed creature as if it were an automaton, but any word or action of the druid will be viewed in its most favorable way. Thus, a charmed creature would not obey a suicide command, but might believe the druid if assured that the only chance to save the druid's life is if the creature hold back an onrushing red dragon for "just a round or two." (...) If the druid harms, or attempts to harm, the charmed creature by some overt action... the charm will be broken automatically.
Quote:
QuoteOriginally Posted by 3e
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if he were an automaton, but he perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince him to do anything he wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries not allowed.) A charmed person never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but he might believe you if you assured him that the only chance to save your life is for him to hold back an onrushing red dragon for "just a few seconds". Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell
Jhkim noted the length of the descriptions are almost identical. But he forgot, as you did, that Charm Person has a lot more restrictions - they're just in the DMG.
QuoteCharm Person Or Mammal: If at the same time this spell is cast the subject is struck by any spell, missile or weapon which inflicts damage, the creature will make its saving throw at +1 per point of damage sustained.Naturally, this assumes damage is inflicted by members of the spell caster’s party. Remember that a charmed creature’s or person’s priorities are changed as regards the spell-caster, but the charmed one’s basic personality and alignment are not. The spell is not enslave person or mammal. A request that a charmee make itself defenseless or that he/she/it be required to give up a valued item or cast a valuable spell or use a charge on a valued item (especially against the charmee’s former associates or allies) could allow an immediate saving throw to see if the charm is thrown off. In like manner, a charmed figure will not necessarily tell everything he/she/it knows or draw maps of entire areas. A charmed figure can refuse a request, if such refusal is in character and will not directly cause harm to the charmer. Also, a charm spell does not substantially alter the charmee’s feelings toward the charmer’s friends and allies. The charmed person or creature will not react well to the charmer’s allies making suggestions like ”Ask him this question . . .” The charmee is oriented toward friendship and acceptance of the charmer, but this does not mean that he/she/it will put up with verbal or physical abuse from the charmer‘s associates.
It's worth noting that, in 1e, the charmee that might be convinced to 'hold off an onrushing red dragon' is not necessarily a
person at all. You could convince a bear to do it, perhaps - but a person is smarter than that. Unless his personality is such that he would hold off a red dragon for a new friend he just met? He's not going to hold it off for you.
The most important difference isn't this stuff. The important thing is that in 3E, you can make an opposed check and force the target to follow your commands. In 1E, you can't. The only advantage 1E has is that the spell lasts longer.
Hmmm... make someone generally friendly to me, or be able to command someone to do stuff? Which is a better spell?
Quote from: Kaldric;556186I'll do my part to get us over 2000!
Sacrificial Lamb: You're basically saying that 1E spells are individually more powerful than 3E spells. I disagree. Duration isn't the best indicator of a spell's power. A 1e charm person doesn't make the target your 'servitor'. A 3e version, on the other hand, does. The 3e version is much more powerful. Charming a ton of guys in 1e means you have a lot of friends. Not a lot of slaves. You've spent a lot of magical power to, essentially, become sort of popular. Woohoo?
Your post is disingenuous bullshit.
Friends is the spell you want to cast to become "sort of popular".
Charm Person is the the spell to cast if you want to compel most normal people to do what you want them to do most of the time. The 1e version of
Charm Person is
far more powerful than the 3.5 version. It really is no contest.
Quote from: KaldricYou're also basically saying that 1e magic users are more powerful than 3e magic users because they can have whatever magic spells they feel like having, and if they don't get them, they can cow the DM into submission by calling him a 'cockblocker'. Which is pretty much all anyone needs to know about why you think the way you do.
From the text of 1E, spell-power is expected to be rare. The random treasure tables bear this out. A random magical treasure has a 1 in 212 chance of having a specific 5th spell in it. A random magical treasure has a 1 in 373 chance of having a vorpal sword in it. I'm guessing in your game, every single wizard had a Teleport spell. How many fighters had vorpal swords? Every other one? I'm guessing not.
That's the real fighter/wizard balance issue in 1E. MU's got given whatever they wanted because people like SacLamb called their DM's cockblockers if they didn't get handed all the spells on a platter, in defiance of the text of the game.
No. There is no need for to "cow the DM into submission". A logical discussion is usually more effective. And every single Wizard does not possess a
Teleport spell, for two reasons:
(1.) Other 5th-level spells are (theoretically) equal in power, and are equally useful in different ways.
(2.) My theme or character concept might cause my Wizard to focus on completely different magical abilities.
So in conclusion....
....I'm right. You're wrong. The end. :pundit:
Actually no, Barry. You're being full of shit because you've got your mind made up about the issue and go from there on a rant against the "grogs" that raped your message boards experience years ago but are not posting on this board today. You are full of shit, and if you took a breather you would see it, which you almost did at the end of one of your posts, to then go back to it like you got to win it, whatever the cost.
You know that's the truth.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;556202Your post is disingenuous bullshit. Friends is the spell you want to cast to become "sort of popular". Charm Person is the the spell to cast if you want to compel most normal people to do what you want them to do most of the time. The 1e version of Charm Person is far more powerful than the 3.5 version. It really is no contest.
As I've shown, the DMG description of charm person shows that your conception of the spell is so full of shit it squeaks.
Friends, by the way, is a mass spell that basically charms those who fail their save, and the drawbacks are that it has a short duration, and that if they make their save, it pisses them off.
Charm does not create 'servitors'. Says so, over, and over, and over. If you ruled it that way, you're just kind of stupid. Charm person doesn't compel 'most normal people to do what you want them to do most of the time'. At. All.
Quote from: Benoist;556205Actually no, Barry. You're being full of shit because you've got your mind made up about the issue and go from there on a rant against the "grogs" that raped your message boards experience years ago but are not posting on this board today. You are full of shit, and if you took a breather you would see it, which you almost did at the end of one of your posts, to then go back to it like you got to win it, whatever the cost.
You know that's the truth.
I don't believe that I am full of shit, Ben....but I will drop the subject, and stop frothing at the mouth over it.....because none of us have anything further to gain by getting into an Internet deathmatch over the issue.
I'll admit that my crabbiness is influenced by flashbacks to the days of dragonsfoot's "edition wars", and maybe that's tainting my argument to a degree. But I do think my analysis about Magic-User power levels is correct. My analysis is this:
A mid to high-level 1e Magic-User is weaker in arena combat than a 3.5 Wizard, but
potentially more powerful overall
when carefully prepared. The key word here is..."potentially". And that is my analysis.
But I'll stop getting into a shit-flinging contest. For now, anyway. :cool:
Quote from: Kaldric;556200Jhkim noted the length of the descriptions are almost identical. But he forgot, as you did, that Charm Person has a lot more restrictions - they're just in the DMG.
It's not just the length of the descriptions that are identical - they use exactly the same language, down to the specific example of holding off an onrushing red dragon. The 1e DMG description doesn't contradict or revise that spell description - it's just adding in clarification of what was already . The subject is not a slave or a puppet, and thus
can potentially refuse commands. The same thing is true in both versions of the spell. The original spell description still applies.
Quote from: Kaldric;556200It's worth noting that, in 1e, the charmee that might be convinced to 'hold off an onrushing red dragon' is not necessarily a person at all. You could convince a bear to do it, perhaps - but a person is smarter than that. Unless his personality is such that he would hold off a red dragon for a new friend he just met? He's not going to hold it off for you.
The most important difference isn't this stuff. The important thing is that in 3E, you can make an opposed check and force the target to follow your commands. In 1E, you can't.
You can run things however you like in your game, but this is not what is stated in the spell description. The spell clearly states that the charmed creature would potentially hold off an onrushing red dragon. If it intended that no intelligent creature would ever do that example, then it would have mentioned that somewhere. (Personally, I don't see how it's any more in-character for a bear to charge an onrushing red dragon than it is for an intelligent creature like a giant to charge an onrushing red dragon.)
In both versions, the charmed creature is not a slave - and thus may or may not do particular requests. For example, the 3.5e DMG says this:
Charming another creature gives the charming character the ability to befriend and suggest courses of actions to his minion, but the servitude is not absolute or mindless. Charms of this type include the various charm spells. Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world. (under "Charm and Compulsion")
Both state that the creature will ignore strictly suicidal requests and won't lethally attack their true friends, but both state that some requests will be honored. The 1e version leaves it open to the GM about how to decide what the creature does, while the 3e version specifically suggests using an opposed Charisma check. That's the only difference.
OK Cool. I can just see you getting worked up over it with all the sycophants behind using this for their own particular ends on this thread and that annoys the fuck out of me, honestly, because you're my friend, and a good dude, and a damn fine poster when you don't let yourself go like that. I know, I'm a professional, healer, heal thyself and all that. But that doesn't make me wrong in this instance.
Speaking of which. Any new encounter tables to share, mate? :)
Quote from: Kaldric;556186From the text of 1E, spell-power is expected to be rare. The random treasure tables bear this out. A random magical treasure has a 1 in 212 chance of having a specific 5th spell in it. A random magical treasure has a 1 in 373 chance of having a vorpal sword in it. I'm guessing in your game, every single wizard had a Teleport spell. How many fighters had vorpal swords? Every other one? I'm guessing not.
It sounds like you're pulling those numbers out of your ass.
In 1e, 11% of magic items are magic swords, and a vorpal sword is 1% of magical swords. That's 1 in 909.
Now, mind you, the chance of a particular 5th level spell is also low. Scrolls are 15% of magic items, with on average 2-3 spells on a scroll. So that is a regular supply of random spells. If looking for
only teleport, though, there is roughly a 1 in 6 chance that a given spell will be 5th level; and only a 1 in 24 chance of it being that particular spell. That's around 1 in 480. However, there are options other than scrolls to get a spell: like the one free spell per level in 1e, copying from the spell books of allies or defeated enemies, or doing spell research.
Just finished reading the thread, it was quite amusing to me as a AD&D grognard. I was surprised that no one mentioned that tracking was a NWP/Proficiency in 2e and the WSG with the whole tracking as a fighter thing. Additionally, using your spells to make cash depends on the campaign world and assumptions, because Fool's Gold is a 1st level spell, I expect most NPCs to be wary of Wizards with metric tons of Gold. My highest legit (non-Monty hall) character was a 14th level Specialty Priest of Waukeen, and you can be sure he would have had some words with counterfitters.
Part of the big reason that the gap between Fighters (and warriors more generally) and Wizards grew in 3e is because of so many restrictions and limitations that WotC (they don't call it Fighters of the Coast, you know) removed. I think it was of 3e as a whole to remove as many restrictions as 'unfun' such as the race/class/level limits.
Changes from 2e to 3e for the classes:
Hit Points: Con Bonus to HP allowed over +2 (Benefit - Wizards)
Saving Throws: Now no longer static, but can be increased by Casting stat mod, and targetted at foes weak saves (Benefit - Wizards)
Base Attack Bonus: All classes except Fighter/Warrior's Improved (Cleric & Thief to 3/4 and Wizard to 1/2) (Benefit - Wizards)
Multiple Attacks: Opened to all Classes, but at -5 iteration, also penalizes movement (Benefit - Wizards, Penalty - Fighters)
Specialization: Its former benefit split over 2 feats vs 1 WP, and the extra 1/2 attack dropped (Penalty - Fighters)
Armor Changes: Dex limitations added, wizard use of armor with ASF added (Benefit - Wizards, Penalty - Fighters)
Skills: A draw mostly, though Jump & perception skills being added does lean against Fighter a little.
Ease of Item Creation: (Benefit-Wizards)
Concentration Skill & New Initiative system: (Benefit - Wizards)
Removal of Magic Item Restrictions: (Benefit - Wizards, Rogues)
Unified XP Table: (Net Benefit: Wizards)
Changes to Spell Mechanics (Reduced Memorization times, no Max per Spell Level, 2 spells/level, Introduction of more spells, etc): Benefit (Wizards)
(I'll be honest that I probably won't post a lot here, since not actively gaming, and my college schedule is pretty rough at the moment. I did enjoy the thread, so felt like I should toss in my coppers)
jhkim: Gotta watch for the details. I said this:
A random magical treasure has a 1 in 212 chance of having a specific 5th spell in it. A random magical treasure has a 1 in 373 chance of having a vorpal sword in it.
You said this:
In 1e, 11% of magic items are magic swords, and a vorpal sword is 1% of magical swords. That's 1 in 909.
--
11% of magical items in AD&D are not swords - because not every magical item that gets found is rolled on the 'magic items' table. Magical treasures are simply 20% likely to have a sword, armor or a shield, AND a miscellaneous weapon. Thus - at least 20% of random magical treasures have a sword in them. The actual number is a bit more, because even if you don't hit that 20%, there's a chance any random magic item is a sword. Same goes for scrolls - there's a 20% chance that the treasure consists of 6 scrolls. There's just a much, much smaller chance that a random scroll is going to be Teleport than there is that a random sword is going to be Vorpal. The reason the odds are twice as good you'll get Teleport is that you find more scrolls, and scrolls often have multiple spells. You find a lot of spells - but there ARE a lot of spells. The odds of getting juuuust the right ones, if your DM doesn't just give them to you, are actually quite low.
Quote from: MGuy;555938What IS a mark on a system is one that encourages a DM to ass pull most of the material. As I mentioned earlier in the thread I, as a DM, like a strong ruleset that aids in making consistent and fair decisions when making calls as to what the DC of something is. Its why I don't like playing rules lite systems as much and why I did not like2e which encouraged DMs like the one I had to make shit up from nothing. That's why in games like that I, as a player, spend more time gaming the DM in order to do what I want.
:boohoo:
Quote from: CRKrueger;555971Yeah McGuy's just using the same old "You game the system or you game the GM" argument.
Yup.
Welcome to theRPGsite, SkarnkaiLW!
Quote from: SkarnkaiLW;556248Part of the big reason that the gap between Fighters (and warriors more generally) and Wizards grew in 3e is because of so many restrictions and limitations that WotC (they don't call it Fighters of the Coast, you know) removed. I think it was of 3e as a whole to remove as many restrictions as 'unfun' such as the race/class/level limits.
It definitely removed many of the 'game' aspects.
QuoteChanges from 2e to 3e for the classes:
Hit Points: Con Bonus to HP allowed over +2 (Benefit - Wizards)
Saving Throws: Now no longer static, but can be increased by Casting stat mod, and targetted at foes weak saves (Benefit - Wizards)
Agreed
QuoteBase Attack Bonus: All classes except Fighter/Warrior's Improved (Cleric & Thief to 3/4 and Wizard to 1/2) (Benefit - Wizards)
Multiple Attacks: Opened to all Classes, but at -5 iteration, also penalizes movement (Benefit - Wizards, Penalty - Fighters)
I dunno if I would call those a benefit for the Wizard. If the Wizard has to pick up a weapon and wade into combat, something has gone horribly wrong. For multiple attacks, 'penalty' might be a strong term. 1st edition had multiple attacks for the Fighter as a class feature. I don't want to quibble over terms, because I do get your point; these increasingly detract from the Fighter as we progress in editions.
QuoteSpecialization: Its former benefit split over 2 feats vs 1 WP, and the extra 1/2 attack dropped (Penalty - Fighters)
I was never entirely convinced of the utility of specialization, as it only granted the multiple attack sequences a bit earlier in levels. It was certainly helpful for the Fighter, but I would have to comb over the details a bit more to determine how much of a benefit.
QuoteArmor Changes: Dex limitations added, wizard use of armor with ASF added (Benefit - Wizards, Penalty - Fighters)
Magic-Users wearing armour is just wrong. :)
QuoteSkills: A draw mostly, though Jump & perception skills being added does lean against Fighter a little.
I have no argument, skills were never a big concern in my groups, but that isn't to say they weren't a concern in
any groups.
QuoteEase of Item Creation: (Benefit-Wizards)
Concentration Skill & New Initiative system: (Benefit - Wizards)
Removal of Magic Item Restrictions: (Benefit - Wizards, Rogues)
Unified XP Table: (Net Benefit: Wizards)
Changes to Spell Mechanics (Reduced Memorization times, no Max per Spell Level, 2 spells/level, Introduction of more spells, etc): Benefit (Wizards)
No question. Especially the reduced memorization times. That is pretty much the key to avoiding the 15min workday.
Quote from: SkarnkaiLW;556248I'll be honest that I probably won't post a lot here, since not actively gaming, and my college schedule is pretty rough at the moment. I did enjoy the thread, so felt like I should toss in my coppers
Welcome to the adult swim.
Quote from: Kaldric;55625011% of magical items in AD&D are not swords - because not every magical item that gets found is rolled on the 'magic items' table. Magical treasures are simply 20% likely to have a sword, armor or a shield, AND a miscellaneous weapon. Thus - at least 20% of random magical treasures have a sword in them. The actual number is a bit more, because even if you don't hit that 20%, there's a chance any random magic item is a sword. Same goes for scrolls - there's a 20% chance that the treasure consists of 6 scrolls. There's just a much, much smaller chance that a random scroll is going to be Teleport than there is that a random sword is going to be Vorpal. The reason the odds are twice as good you'll get Teleport is that you find more scrolls, and scrolls often have multiple spells. You find a lot of spells - but there ARE a lot of spells. The odds of getting juuuust the right ones, if your DM doesn't just give them to you, are actually quite low.
Stepping back a minute, there's still a big overarching issue here, which is that you're still arguing against a straw man claim that every 1e magic user is going to have juuuuuuust the right spells.
No one here has claimed that. I specifically said in my post that the odds of a scroll having a specific spell of a specific level are low. My claim is that mid-to-high level magic users are typically going to have a good selection of spells - in contrast to the examples of high-level spell-casters I've seen posted here from the other side.
Going back to the math:
There's a 1% chance that a given sword is vorpal. Each scroll has roughly 2-3 spells, and roughly 1 in 6 chance of each being 5th level, and 1 in 24 of each being right. That's about the same chance: 2.5/24/6 = 1.7% , less because only 63% of scrolls are for magic users. So that's about the same chance, not a "much much smaller" chance.
Looking at the table, there's an average of 0.3 magic swords per magic treasure, and an average of 1.4 magic scrolls per magic treasure. So I get roughly a 1 in 80 chance of there being exactly Teleport on a scroll in a given magic treasure, compared to roughly 1 in 300 of there being a vorpal sword.
Both of these are rare events, as I said. The more signficant number is that a magic user is getting an average of 3 or more spells per magic treasure. Plus, like I said, the spellbooks of allies and defeated enemies as well as spell research. That contributes to getting a good selection.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;556261:boohoo:
Yup.
How insightful.
Quote from: MGuy;556293How insightful.
Right back atcha, sweetheart. I've been reading your same sorry post for a decade now, and it still doesn't pass the laugh test.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;556295Right back atcha, sweetheart. I've been reading your same sorry post for a decade now, and it still doesn't pass the laugh test.
Didn't know I'd been posting here for a decade.
Quote from: MGuy;556297Didn't know I'd been posting here for a decade.
He perceives time in a non-linear way. :)
Quote from: BenoistOK Cool. I can just see you getting worked up over it with all the sycophants behind using this for their own particular ends on this thread and that annoys the fuck out of me, honestly, because you're my friend, and a good dude, and a damn fine poster when you don't let yourself go like that. I know, I'm a professional, healer, heal thyself and all that. But that doesn't make me wrong in this instance.
Speaking of which. Any new encounter tables to share, mate? :)
It's probably best that I don't unleash my inner retard, and get into pointless arguments over rules minutia. So I'll be good. For now. :)
As far as random encounter tables....I intend to publish some products, including a magazine. I'll eventually need to hire some freelancers at some point (writers, editors, artists, cartographers, etc), and I've been actually looking for some office space this week....just so that I could find a nice, quiet place to illustrate and
write. But discussing this is quite premature, as I have much work ahead of me, and it will take time to get the ball rolling.
But yes, there will be more random encounter tables in the future. ;)
@Mguy: The complaint you make about having to 'game the DM' is attached to a certain view of roleplaying games.
Anyway, Maths!
jhkim: I re-did my math, found some discrepancies from the last time. I'd forgotten to adjust for the random items on that table that can't be swords or potions, and I'd forgotten to account for the protection/cursed scrolls (basically, they got added 2x)
Came up with 1 in 113. Pretty confident in that.
I think the reason your rough approximation was a bit higher was that only 37.8% of scrolls that get found are actually magic-user scrolls, not 63%, and a fair number of those scrolls have spells across 8 levels, not 6.
Basically, there's 1.46 scrolls per treasure, and 37.8% of those are normal magic user scrolls, and each magic user scroll has an average of 1.94 spells on it.
Comes out to 1.06215 magic user spells per magical treasure. Almost exactly 1 per. Veddy interesting, no? Of course, nothing prevents these scrolls from being spells he already knows, or cannot learn, but the coincidence of 1 per treasure is kind of neat. I kind of wonder if it is, in fact, coincidence.
Looking at the incidence of magical weapons and armor per treasure, it comes out to 1.24.
Quote from: StormBringer;556264Magic-Users wearing armour is just wrong. :)
Even if they're dwarf Magic-Users ? :)
The argument on incidence of vorpal swords is interesting. Didn't one of Gygax's players have a character ("Erac's Cousin", the first dual-class Fighter/Mage) who was ambidextrous and had two vorpal swords? I'm guessing this was either pre the final table being formed, or EGG was using more placed (rather than random) treasures.
Also, I'd be interested in discussing MGuy's ideas on rules as player enablement further, but perhaps a different thread for it would be better.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;556311The argument on incidence of vorpal swords is interesting. Didn't one of Gygax's players have a character ("Erac's Cousin", the first dual-class Fighter/Mage) who was ambidextrous and had two vorpal swords? I'm guessing this was either pre the final table being formed, or EGG was using more placed (rather than random) treasures.
The item economics in Gygax's game were weird because every character was playing in the same game world, and could group up and swap equipment as required with the other players.
Quote from: jadrax;556325The item economics in Gygax's game were weird because every character was playing in the same game world, and could group up and swap equipment as required with the other players.
or he just made shit up as he went along and let one of his mates play a double vorpal sword wielding ambidextrous fighter/mage for a laugh :)
We're so damn close! Who's the lucky bastard who gets to party like its 1999? We shall see...
PS: Has anyone else calculated out the damage output of the 2e 9th lvl fighter's mercenary squad and elite house guard? A castle with arrow slits and crenellation would be a frightening bevy of cover for missile attacks. If the damage output numbers are as I think they are, a dragon would be be pretty gutsy to attack it head on.
... but first I sleep, then do the math.
D&D really hasn't been D&D since they switched out Hobbit for halfling.
Quote from: Opaopajr;556349We're so damn close! Who's the lucky bastard who gets to party like its 1999? We shall see...
PS: Has anyone else calculated out the damage output of the 2e 9th lvl fighter's mercenary squad and elite house guard? A castle with arrow slits and crenellation would be a frightening bevy of cover for missile attacks. If the damage output numbers are as I think they are, a dragon would be be pretty gutsy to attack it head on.
... but first I sleep, then do the math.
Still not sure where the elit house guard come from and as I demonstrated up post the Cleric gets more soldiers, his stronghold is 50% cheaper to build, he gets an additional 2d10 x 10 followers as well as his soldiers and all of them are fantatical and don;t need to be paid....
Also not quite sure how you are going to carry the castle out to the village where the dragon is attacking, some sort of advanced teleporting flying castle perhaps?
and any one with cash can build a castle which si why when you meet Queen Elizabeth II you will find she is not a 9th level warrior :)
But all debate on this thread topic is already done :)
I think the illusion of balance is just a hangover from the hobby's origins in Wargaming.
Most of my favourite games have either "imbalanced" classes or the potential for really dumb builds however I always thought the point of RPGs was not about winning but having fun and boy do you have fun with a bad class or build in my groups!
Quote from: Ian Warner;556369I think the illusion of balance is just a hangover from the hobby's origins in Wargaming.
Most of my favourite games have either "imbalanced" classes or the potential for really dumb builds however I always thought the point of RPGs was not about winning but having fun and boy do you have fun with a bad class or build in my groups!
Totally agree with that. Liek I said I have no problem playing in an imbalanced game. I can understand that some people don't want that and are looking for ways to balance it and I can see that 3e is far more imbalanced than earlier editions.
I don't really get why The OSR Maffia on one hand claim that balance doesn't matter and on the other than the classes in 1e were perfectly balanced..... Kind of an odd positon to adopt
Quote from: jibbajibba;556375Totally agree with that. Liek I said I have no problem playing in an imbalanced game. I can understand that some people don't want that and are looking for ways to balance it and I can see that 3e is far more imbalanced than earlier editions.
I don't really get why The OSR Maffia on one hand claim that balance doesn't matter and on the other than the classes in 1e were perfectly balanced..... Kind of an odd positon to adopt
Could be that folks who hold that opinion are talking about a different kind of balance.
In wargaming, for instance, balance isn't achieved by evenly matching each side's forces ala Tactics II. To give a common example, Eastern Front games give the German army a massive advantage early on in the game and the Soviet player is often relegated to watching their initial line get overrun and their tactics are given to planning strategic retreats and bleeding the enemy as much as possible. Later in the game, however, the situation will reverse as the Soviets (assuming they played a canny early game) get to go on the offensive.
To my mind, this is sort of analagous to the fighter/m-u situation in the early editions of the game.
fwiw, I don't consider myself a member of any gaming "mafia." Just offering a perspective.
Quote from: KenHR;556377Could be that folks who hold that opinion are talking about a different kind of balance.
In wargaming, for instance, balance isn't achieved by evenly matching each side's forces ala Tactics II. To give a common example, Eastern Front games give the German army a massive advantage early on in the game and the Soviet player is often relegated to watching their initial line get overrun and their tactics are given to planning strategic retreats and bleeding the enemy as much as possible. Later in the game, however, the situation will reverse as the Soviets (assuming they played a canny early game) get to go on the offensive.
To my mind, this is sort of analagous to the fighter/m-u situation in the early editions of the game.
fwiw, I don't consider myself a member of any gaming "mafia." Just offering a perspective.
I can understand the 'campaign' model of balance but since Balance doesn't matter :)
I can also see the GD Posse's position that they want their PC to be able to contribute meaningfully to the game at each stage and not hope that can can dominate early to die later or hide early to emerge as the bos sat a later stage.
That may be a modern thisng of always-want-to-be-having-fun and not prepared-to-earn-the-fun, but it is a RPG the aim of which is to have fun so that is a pretty strong position.
Now for me Roleplay is the fun so balance doesn't matter, but as I noted Gygax himself was of the opinion that the game was sliding to too much role play and not engogh Game .... so meh ...
Quote from: jibbajibba;556378I can understand the 'campaign' model of balance but since Balance doesn't matter :)
I was suggesting that maybe it does matter, but not in the sense that it's often discussed in RPG circles.
But you're more interested in scoring points for some reason.
Quote from: jibbajibba;556378I can also see the GD Posse's position that they want their PC to be able to contribute meaningfully to the game at each stage and not hope that can can dominate early to die later or hide early to emerge as the bos sat a later stage.
That may be a modern thisng of always-want-to-be-having-fun and not prepared-to-earn-the-fun, but it is a RPG the aim of which is to have fun so that is a pretty strong position.
My problem is that folks who hold this position often look at "balance" in limited terms, combat effectiveness being most common. RPGs are about more than rules, and a character's usefulness can't be judged by mechanics alone imo, especially with more bare-bones systems like early editions of D&D.
Quote from: KenHR;556386I was suggesting that maybe it does matter, but not in the sense that it's often discussed in RPG circles.
But you're more interested in scoring points for some reason.
My problem is that folks who hold this position often look at "balance" in limited terms, combat effectiveness being most common. RPGs are about more than rules, and a character's usefulness can't be judged by mechanics alone imo, especially with more bare-bones systems like early editions of D&D.
Sorry been through loop on this a few times now :)
So like I said I am all about the roleplay so I understand that position however The argument that anyone can roleplay regardless of the rules and the mechanics is what led us down sooooo many cul de sacs about fighters that can track, wizards that can hire soldiers and how a figther with the right magic items is a challenge for anyone.
Sure, I agree that mechanics alone can't determine a character's usefulness. But if you're not using mechanics or rules - if you're relying on ad hoc DM rulings, you can't count on that usefulness.
Here's the thing - as a DM I don't want to have to decide if the PCs can knock a hole in a wall. I could try to make a good judgement - I could say swords aren't very good for hacking down walls - and while that seems reasonable, I can see how they might think it is reasonable that they COULD. As I've gotten more experienced, I'm more inclined to think that if the PCs want to do something and think they should be able to, I'm more inclined to allow it unless it seems very obvious that it shouldn't work. But for myself, I prefer if the rules are clear so I don't have to make a ruling they don't agree with. For example, if they can do 1d8+5 with their swords, and the wall has a hardness of 20, I know that they're not going to be able to drill through it. It's not a ruling that anyone can disagree with - it's just the rules of the game. Now the players have a reason to avoid arguing with me and instead figure out another way through - they can either find something better at cutting through walls or find another way through. And the game is better for it.
And people may think that players don't argue, but that's not been my experience. Even as a player, if I think something is reasonable and the DM says it's 'not allowed', I'll challenge it. It's not much fun for me to have all of my seemingly reasonable ideas shot down - and it tends to mean that the only way through an adventure is the way the DM expected you to proceed, and that's railroading and I don't care for it much.
So, when I DM, rather than have a disagreement about what is or isn't reasonable, we can simply talk about what is or isn't allowed by the rules and why. That is important for lots of reasons - not just consistency and not just fairness (but those are important) - but the most important is probably setting a reasonable expectation for what players can or can't expect to do.
In real life, even at 33, I sometimes jump off of things - trees, walls, etc. Before I jump, you better believe that I spend some time deciding if I might get hurt - and if I will, I modify my course of action. If players don't know whether they have a reasonable chance of accomplishing something, they're unlikely to try - and the game suffers for it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;556392Sorry been through loop on this a few times now :)
So like I said I am all about the roleplay so I understand that position however The argument that anyone can roleplay regardless of the rules and the mechanics is what led us down sooooo many cul de sacs about fighters that can track, wizards that can hire soldiers and how a figther with the right magic items is a challenge for anyone.
Me, too. I'm not interested in debating that aspect, either, because no one sees eye-to-eye on this issue. I just don't think the "outside the rules" approach causes as many problems as people seem to think; I mean, in almost 30 years I've never had a group break up or a game devolve into arguments like this. (yeah, yeah, anecdote is not data yadda yadda yadda)
Of course players will argue with the DM and the DM will argue with the players. Debate happens. But it will happen no matter how complex or comprehensive the ruleset. Look at ASL in wargames; incredibly comprehensive rules that are, for the most part, very clear in intent, yet that doesn't stop heated debate. The same for RoleMaster, 3.5e, GURPS, etc.
My problem is that people are either ignoring the point or dismissing my arguments as thinking the wrong way.
@Kaldric: Yes, I have a certain way of thinking about the game based on a combination of my play experience and in making my own game. None of what I have said thus far is something that emerged from just contemplation or theory but are things I've experienced in play across numerous systems (not just DnD).
@Ken: I like to look at more than combat when judging effectiveness but for people arguing against fighter/caster balance there seems to be a dissonant reaction when pointing out that the fighter should be as good at being a hero as everyone else.
Now I say some of the reactions here are obviously dissonant because you have a number of competing thoughts. Obviously not everyone has the same thoughts on the subject and some of them are smashed together or overlap because of how many posters are here lobbing their comments around.
1) Its ok for the fighter to be good at the beginning and suck at the end, while at the same time its common knowledge that the game very well might breakdown before you even get to the part where the wizard can be awesome.
2) We shouldn't think of the game in terms of an arena. Yet one of the major defenses for the fighter is that they JUST be good at fighting. In fact some people think that the fact that the wizard can't take a punch in the face as well as the fighter (as shown by the numbers/rules) then that is balance enough. Then any time I say "Even given that the wizard can't do as much in battle as the fighter he can do so much out of combat that it STILL makes the fighter look weaker" people revert to the arena mentality of "only fights matter" instead of stretching their imagination to understand what an MU can actually do to shore up its weaknesses. Even with the fact that an MU can straight up bring someone else to fight for them is completely ignored, dismissed, or diminished in some fashion by opposition despite it being a legitimate and easy thing to accomplish.
3) And when comparing what the fighter/wizard people seem more than happy to assume the fighter is using his brain in combination with his brawn to defeat a challenge and cover for their lack of actual abilities yet when the wizard steps up it doesn't seem popular to assume the wizard is using his higher than the fighter's intellect to do the same.
4) People say they want the fighter to be like one thing yet be able to perform like a superhero. I mean in the same conversation people lose their shit if the fighter isn't strapped with his better than mundane stuff but are offended if his class grants it to him. They lose their shit if he doesn't have his mystic gear despite them wanting a mundane guy. They lose their shit if you don't let the fighter exhaustively prepare himself and his gear for every encounter. They lose their shit if the fighter doesn't have ready access to mystical help.
Yet when its the wizard's turn they lose their shit if the wizard is assumed to have items that make danger in combat mitigated or a non factor. They lose their shit if the wizard has the SPELL LIST HE WANTS. They lose their shit if you assume the wizard has all the spells he needs to face a certain set of challenges because gods forbid that the wizard might come to every challenge prepared (event though the wizard ACTUALLY has spells that would would allow him to do so). People lose their shit if there's an assumption that the wizard can readily get access to fighter replacements.
Its honestly like people don't recognize that wizards are generally smarter than fighters and thus, in character as part of roleplaying, they would be better suited for crafting solutions that would keep their weaknesses from being an issue. Of course then the fighter is allowed to proposition the DM for some slack so they can do things that their class or abilities don't really allow a good chance for, but if the wizard wants to get a certain spell list to fit his theme or to be more powerful what happens? Is the player being a dick because he wants to be more successful? Is that player only being a dick if he does so as a caster or is there some kind of pity given on fighters so they don't suck as bad?
5) Certain people have a mantra about how you shouldn't play the rules you should play the game. The funny thing about this is that the rules are the only thing that keep the fighter in business at all. The rules are the only thing keeping it plausible that a man can block fire with the harder parts of his face without being cooked. While it can be reasoned that a wizard used magic to do so or a cleric used the power of the gods. The rules are all that's keeping earlier edition fighter magic swords keyed to them (I guess). The arena style thinking that the wizard is allowing himself to be punched in the face while casting are all that's keeping the fighter in the running at all. The minute people realize that conceptually a wizard can do anything people jump RIGHT back on the rules wagon and say "but by the rules I'm better at fighting than him!" or "by the rules SOME of those incredible reality warping spells might be dangerous". However if you take the reigns of the rules off people notice that wizards are the real movers and shakers of the world. The things you fight are magical, the big evil world destroying bad guy is almost always a caster of some sort, ancient being always end up being magical, etc. Without the rules grounding magic in some fashion then casters reign supreme and all fighters are their lackeys.
Even when I point out that, when you step out of the arena, the wizard just plain has more useful shit he can do with his time and abilities that are interesting and cool, this is somehow dismissed because some people play the game arena style and only want their character to matter when the fighting music is on or only want their character to worry about when and where they can fight again. I recognize that I play a different way than most of the gents here, in that my characters tend to have goals beyond fighting (even my barbarian just wanted to climb mountains, the fighting he did was incidental) so it's hard for me to understand tables that just focus on the fighting part of the game. So that may also be an issue I'm having when reading through this thread.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;556395Sure, I agree that mechanics alone can't determine a character's usefulness. But if you're not using mechanics or rules - if you're relying on ad hoc DM rulings, you can't count on that usefulness.
Here's the thing - as a DM I don't want to have to decide if the PCs can knock a hole in a wall. I could try to make a good judgement - I could say swords aren't very good for hacking down walls - and while that seems reasonable, I can see how they might think it is reasonable that they COULD. As I've gotten more experienced, I'm more inclined to think that if the PCs want to do something and think they should be able to, I'm more inclined to allow it unless it seems very obvious that it shouldn't work. But for myself, I prefer if the rules are clear so I don't have to make a ruling they don't agree with. For example, if they can do 1d8+5 with their swords, and the wall has a hardness of 20, I know that they're not going to be able to drill through it. It's not a ruling that anyone can disagree with - it's just the rules of the game. Now the players have a reason to avoid arguing with me and instead figure out another way through - they can either find something better at cutting through walls or find another way through. And the game is better for it.
And people may think that players don't argue, but that's not been my experience. Even as a player, if I think something is reasonable and the DM says it's 'not allowed', I'll challenge it. It's not much fun for me to have all of my seemingly reasonable ideas shot down - and it tends to mean that the only way through an adventure is the way the DM expected you to proceed, and that's railroading and I don't care for it much.
So, when I DM, rather than have a disagreement about what is or isn't reasonable, we can simply talk about what is or isn't allowed by the rules and why. That is important for lots of reasons - not just consistency and not just fairness (but those are important) - but the most important is probably setting a reasonable expectation for what players can or can't expect to do.
In real life, even at 33, I sometimes jump off of things - trees, walls, etc. Before I jump, you better believe that I spend some time deciding if I might get hurt - and if I will, I modify my course of action. If players don't know whether they have a reasonable chance of accomplishing something, they're unlikely to try - and the game suffers for it.
I'm sure that this very reasonable position will be met with some variance of "its all about not playing with assholes/playing with the right people" because I've brought this up so many times in this thread I don't think they'll even bother reading the entire post.
Quote from: MGuy;556407Even when I point out that, when you step out of the arena, the wizard just plain has more useful shit he can do with his time and abilities that are interesting and cool, this is somehow dismissed because some people play the game arena style and only want their character to matter when the fighting music is on or only want their character to worry about when and where they can fight again. I recognize that I play a different way then most of the gents here, in that my characters tend to have goals beyond fighting (even my barbarian just wanted to climb mountains, the fighting he did was incidental) so I'm its hard for me to understand tables that just focus on the fighting part of the game. So that may also be an issue I'm having when reading through this thread.
Its ironic because the very people who are arguing against you would also say that the stuff outside combat is more important than the combats which are incidental.
However, their position would be that outside combat all characters are equal because its a role playing game and you are not bounded by what is on your character sheet and you can do anything you can think of.
Their position would be if combat is 10% of the game and all characters are equal outside combat then the whole balance argument is only 10% of the game and if fighters get 3% and MUs get 7% of that balance the overall margins of balance are still practically equal :)
I wouldn't agree with that necessarily but that is what they would say.
Oh and they would probably mention castles, but not cleric strongholds I have noticed :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;556411Its ironic because the very people who are arguing against you would also say that the stuff outside combat is more important than the combats which are incidental.
However, their position would be that outside combat all characters are equal because its a role playing game and you are not bounded by what is on your character sheet and you can do anything you can think of.
Their position would be if combat is 10% of the game and all characters are equal outside combat then the whole balance argument is only 10% of the game and if fighters get 3% and MUs get 7% of that balance the overall margins of balance are still practically equal :)
I wouldn't agree with that necessarily but that is what they would say.
Oh and they would probably mention castles, but not cleric strongholds I have noticed :)
And that's where the dissonance comes from. Everything a fighter can do out of combat that's just MTPed can be done by every other member of the group. For everything the fighter can try other people can try it as well + the shit that they have on their character sheets. The over arching thought seems to be that the more abilities people have on their character sheets the less thinking they need to do. Anyone who has played a wizard well knows that is not true.
Quote from: MGuy;556407@Ken: I like to look at more than combat when judging effectiveness but for people arguing against fighter/caster balance there seems to be a dissonant reaction when pointing out that the fighter should be as good at being a hero as everyone else.
I have no opposition to this position. I was responding to jibbajibba; I confess that, while I've read the entire thread as it has developed, I have trouble keeping everyone's views (each different in nuance, even if they agree on the broad picture) straight.
In all honesty, I do think fighters in my preferred D&D (AD&D 1e or B/X, depending on the needs of the campaign) are underpowered at high levels. That's why, in my homebrew variant, fighters are the only class that gets access to the best combat table (my combat system is very different, but the fighter progression is equivalent to 2e's Warrior THAC0, i.e. +1/lvl). This is because fighters fight...other classes are more effective in other areas of the game (inside and outside the rules), they aren't nearly as effective in combat.
Lots more good stuff in your post (including a refutation of the point I've just made), but we have to be off to someone's cookout or something. I'll try to reply to those other points later if the conversation hasn't passed by....
Quote from: MGuy;5564071) Its ok for the fighter to be good at the beginning and suck at the end, while at the same time its common knowledge that the game very well might breakdown before you even get to the part where the wizard can be awesome.
The game was designed with a certain style of play in mind: long campaigns with multiple parties adventuring at the same time (few home campaigns did this when the game got popular; it seems more suited to a gaming club environment). I have no problems with changing the game to suit your needs if your game isn't a match to the designer's ideal. I'm not one of the folks who says "you're not playing D&D, get the fuck out." :)
Quote from: MGuy;5564072) We shouldn't think of the game in terms of an arena. Yet one of the major defenses for the fighter is that they JUST be good at fighting. In fact some people think that the fact that the wizard can't take a punch in the face as well as the fighter (as shown by the numbers/rules) then that is balance enough. Then any time I say "Even given that the wizard can't do as much in battle as the fighter he can do so much out of combat that it STILL makes the fighter look weaker" people revert to the arena mentality of "only fights matter" instead of stretching their imagination to understand what an MU can actually do to shore up its weaknesses. Even with the fact that an MU can straight up bring someone else to fight for them is completely ignored, dismissed, or diminished in some fashion by opposition despite it being a legitimate and easy thing to accomplish.
I think a fighter should be the best at fighting, just as the magic-user should be the best at magic-using. Magic can certainly do things that have a dramatic effect in the campaign. Yep, the m-u can summon or cajole creatures to do their bidding. That's part of their job. I still think this is (oh no here's that term) balanced by the fact that their spells are limited in number, that they have to be pre-selected, that they have a good chance of being interrupted when facing canny and intelligent enemies, that magic can be made rare in the campaign, and that its use can also have social ramifications (campaign and DM dependent, of course)
Quote from: MGuy;5564073) And when comparing what the fighter/wizard people seem more than happy to assume the fighter is using his brain in combination with his brawn to defeat a challenge and cover for their lack of actual abilities yet when the wizard steps up it doesn't seem popular to assume the wizard is using his higher than the fighter's intellect to do the same.
I don't see this. Wizards have intellect, but it's put to different use. An IT guy would fare horribly in planning a military campaign.
Quote from: MGuy;5564074) People say they want the fighter to be like one thing yet be able to perform like a superhero. I mean in the same conversation people lose their shit if the fighter isn't strapped with his better than mundane stuff but are offended if his class grants it to him. They lose their shit if he doesn't have his mystic gear despite them wanting a mundane guy. They lose their shit if you don't let the fighter exhaustively prepare himself and his gear for every encounter. They lose their shit if the fighter doesn't have ready access to mystical help.
This isn't me.
Okay, we really have to leave (wife is glaring at me). More later.
Maybe not more later. Conversation seems to have passed this by
Basically, the whole 'Wizard vs. Fighter' balance argument, for it to have any meaning, requires me to accept premises I don't accept. Like 'It's not fair to deny the magic-user his spellbook'. The spellbook is a magic item. Every spell in that spellbook is an individual magic item. If you're going to do comparisons, you should probably compare things that are at least somewhat equal.
Quote from: Kaldric;556442Basically, the whole 'Wizard vs. Fighter' balance argument, for it to have any meaning, requires me to accept premises I don't accept. Like 'It's not fair to deny the magic-user his spellbook'. The spellbook is a magic item. Every spell in that spellbook is an individual magic item. If you're going to do comparisons, you should probably compare things that are at least somewhat equal.
If you think that this premise is the case, or that it is somehow unfair to give the magic user access to its magic that they are guaranteed a chance to acquire by their very class then you have both missed the bulk of what I said and a have fairly skewed view of how equality should work. Magic weapons aren't a fighter ability. Spells are a wizard ability. Wizards are, by the nature of their class, given a chance to acquire spells. I'd say that it at least works that way in 3rd but others have provided ample evidence that this is also true in previous editions.
Quote from: MGuy;556414And that's where the dissonance comes from. Everything a fighter can do out of combat that's just MTPed can be done by every other member of the group.
This is how real life seems to work. I can design web sites far better than my friends just as one of my players who is a rocket engineer can design and test rocket engines FAR better than the rest of us and another player in my group who is a medical tech running MRI equipment can do that FAR better than the rest of us, but in social situations or the like we can all do just about everything the others can. This seems true for every real world specialty I can think of. An RPG that did not have "issues" like these would seem too artificial and gamey to me.
Quote4) People say they want the fighter to be like one thing yet be able to perform like a superhero. I mean in the same conversation people lose their shit if the fighter isn't strapped with his better than mundane stuff but are offended if his class grants it to him. They lose their shit if he doesn't have his mystic gear despite them wanting a mundane guy. They lose their shit if you don't let the fighter exhaustively prepare himself and his gear for every encounter. They lose their shit if the fighter doesn't have ready access to mystical help.
I'm fine with fighters being mystical but own up and realize they are mystical at a certain level. Face it, fighters can't fly or be invisible without outside help be it equipment or another party member who's class feature is magic stuff.
Yes everyone can do what a fighter does technically but a well designed fighter (anything not 3x) does it way better. If you want the mystical just make them stances and or connected to weapon feat trees that allow for overlap into completely different weapon stances/knacks if you are suffienctly advanced in another weapon group. Because fighters are just badass like that, where a wizard studies magic a fighter studies weapons and fighting styles, tactics, and strategy. With a good dash of leadership and dealing with nobility on top. Usually wizards do none of the above and care little for it. So they need their fighter friends to protect them in those situations just like when it's time to fly and teleport the fighter calls on her fighter buddy.
Quote from: RandallS;556487This is how real life seems to work. I can design web sites far better than my friends just as one of my players who is a rocket engineer can design and test rocket engines FAR better than the rest of us and another player in my group who is a medical tech running MRI equipment can do that FAR better than the rest of us, but in social situations or the like we can all do just about everything the others can. This seems true for every real world specialty I can think of. An RPG that did not have "issues" like these would seem too artificial and gamey to me.
Thing is, in DnD a fighter CANNOT try and do magic. Can't even try to do anything that others can't do. You have guy who can do stuff right next to guys who can do stuff + magic (of different sorts).
Quote from: RandallS;556487This is how real life seems to work. I can design web sites far better than my friends just as one of my players who is a rocket engineer can design and test rocket engines FAR better than the rest of us and another player in my group who is a medical tech running MRI equipment can do that FAR better than the rest of us, but in social situations or the like we can all do just about everything the others can. This seems true for every real world specialty I can think of. An RPG that did not have "issues" like these would seem too artificial and gamey to me.
But you don't think a diplomat would be better in a social situation that you and your mates? Or a conman or an actor?
All my mates are equally good at car mechanics which is to say none of us has a fucking idea. that doesn't mean that there aren't people who are trained as car mechanics.
Just because you have a friendship group that doesn't have skills in all areas doesn't mean that there aren't people who specialise in the skills you and your friends don't specialise in.
Quote from: MGuy;556498Thing is, in DnD a fighter CANNOT try and do magic. Can't even try to do anything that others can't do. You have guy who can do stuff right next to guys who can do stuff + magic (of different sorts).
Multiclass or Dual class then. I am completely with Randall on this I demand assymetric archtypes both in different advancement and being flat out better and worse in specific areas than other archtypes. Wizards don't command armies and ascend to kingship without sacrificing in magic vs. a decently designed fighter. They can't be murder machines with any weapon imaginable like a fighter. They may be able to be very good in ONE weapon if they are willing to forgo whole levels of magic. Where a fighter could be death walking in several weapon groups and say...still learn magic to 2nd/3rd level (enough for invisibility or mirror image or many useful buff spells).
Quote from: MGuy;556498Thing is, in DnD a fighter CANNOT try and do magic. Can't even try to do anything that others can't do. You have guy who can do stuff right next to guys who can do stuff + magic (of different sorts).
And in AD&D, a Magic-User CANNOT try and do swording.
See how that works out? In AD&D, the Magic-User was not even guaranteed spells would go off without a hitch. Much like Fighters are not guaranteed to land hits every time. And even if the Magic-User successfully casts a spell, it's unlikely they will do so again, because a full combat load-out for spells means they are virtually useless for other adventuring related activity.
Face it, 3.x burned the edifices that kept Magic-Users (and casters generally) in check to the ground, and the players now innocently wonder why Magic-Users (and casters generally) are so vastly overpowered. And when the simple and time tested solution is provided, there is endless wailing and gnashing of teeth about how Wizards shouldn't be nerfed.
Dipshit.
Quote from: Marleycat;556496I'm fine with fighters being mystical but own up and realize they are mystical at a certain level. Face it, fighters can't fly or be invisible without outside help be it equipment or another party member who's class feature is magic stuff.
Yes everyone can do what a fighter does technically but a well designed fighter (anything not 3x) does it way better. If you want the mystical just make them stances and or connected to weapon feat trees that allow for overlap into completely different weapon stances/knacks if you are suffienctly advanced in another weapon group. Because fighters are just badass like that, where a wizard studies magic a fighter studies weapons and fighting styles, tactics, and strategy. With a good dash of leadership and dealing with nobility on top. Usually wizards do none of the above and care little for it. So they need their fighter friends to protect them in those situations just like when it's time to fly and teleport the fighter calls on her fighter buddy.
My post isn't aimed at anyone else who can accept that fighters get to be special outside the arena. The thing about prestige classing is that having prestige classes doesn't excuse the fighter for its failings. As far as 3rd goes you HAVE to prestige class as a fighter just to be interesting while if I were a druid I can be interesting without it. I CAN prestige class as a druid and there are some interesting prestige options but the BASE class is far and away better than being a fighter.
Quote from: StormBringer;556503And in AD&D, a Magic-User CANNOT try and do swording.
See how that works out? In AD&D, the Magic-User was not even guaranteed spells would go off without a hitch. Much like Fighters are not guaranteed to land hits every time. And even if the Magic-User successfully casts a spell, it's unlikely they will do so again, because a full combat load-out for spells means they are virtually useless for other adventuring related activity.
Face it, 3.x burned the edifices that kept Magic-Users (and casters generally) in check to the ground, and the players now innocently wonder why Magic-Users (and casters generally) are so vastly overpowered. And when the simple and time tested solution is provided, there is endless wailing and gnashing of teeth about how Wizards shouldn't be nerfed.
Dipshit.
I'm not a fighter. I can pick up a sword and start swording at things. I may not be "good" at it but I can try. You know what I can't do? I can't cast a spell. I can't even try. A fighter is in the same boat. Can't even try.
Edit: Oh and I forgot the "dipshit" at the end.
Quote from: MGuy;556505My post isn't aimed at anyone else who can accept that fighters get to be special outside the arena. The thing about prestige classing is that having prestige classes doesn't excuse the fighter for its failings. As far as 3rd goes you HAVE to prestige class as a fighter just to be interesting while if I were a druid I can be interesting without it. I CAN prestige class as a druid and there are some interesting prestige options but the BASE class is far and away better than being a fighter.
I agree that you have multiclass or prestige class to keep up power wise which is why 3x Fighters are crap but disagree about the boring feel, but they could be fixed if people would just give them back what they had in 2e and before and redo the feats in the game to model Fantasy Craft (which wouldn't be impossibly hard given they do use the same exact game engine).
Quote from: MGuy;556505My post isn't aimed at anyone else who can accept that fighters get to be special outside the arena. The thing about prestige classing is that having prestige classes doesn't excuse the fighter for its failings. As far as 3rd goes you HAVE to prestige class as a fighter just to be interesting while if I were a druid I can be interesting without it. I CAN prestige class as a druid and there are some interesting prestige options but the BASE class is far and away better than being a fighter.
I disagree that you have to prestige to be interesting. Fighter prestiges are just kewl powerz, and feat stuff. Had a plenty interesting plain fighter. Sure he didnt throw fireballs, or leap tall buildings. But he was still fun and a force in the game. With out having to go gonzo power gamer. Although don't get me wrong. That can be fun.
Fun is not something I'm contesting. Anything can be fun to someone somewhere no matter how boring someone else may find it. I had said earlier in this thread: Just being able to fight isn't enough for me.
Fair enough:)
Quote from: MGuy;556507I'm not a fighter. I can pick up a sword and start swording at things. I may not be "good" at it but I can try. You know what I can't do? I can't cast a spell. I can't even try. A fighter is in the same boat. Can't even try.
Edit: Oh and I forgot the "dipshit" at the end.
You can try. In AD&D there was almost no point in swinging a sword as a mage as a last resort though. This is one of those things where the nature of magic in a fantasy setting sort of demands a certain lopsided-ness. Yes a wizard can pick up a sword and swing, but he will be (or should be) highly innefective. A fighter cant try to cast a spell because to do so you have to take levels in wizard (which reflects the difficulty of learning how to do it). To me this is realistic and basically balanced since the wizard is feeble with the sword. There are some skill sets that take some basic levels of training to even attempt. I mean I can try to swing a sword or steal a purse and may even succeed. But if i tried to land a jumbo jet, I would fail. If the gm wanted to or the system allowed he could certainly give me a highly penalized roll. But I think it is more than reasonable for a system to simpy say the person who tries such a thing without the training fails.
Quote from: MGuy;556512Fun is not something I'm contesting. Anything can be fun to someone somewhere no matter how boring someone else may find it. I had said earlier in this thread: Just being able to fight isn't enough for me.
That is totally reasonable. I understand why the 4e fighter was considered an improvement by some folks. That kind of stuff isn't for me, but I can see how some people would find it fun to have more options (not saying you want a 4e fighter though). To me I basically just want the fighter to fight. To me that is more believable and more fun.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;556516You can try. In AD&D there was almost no point in swinging a sword as a mage as a last resort though. This is one of those things where the nature of magic in a fantasy setting sort of demands a certain lopsided-ness. Yes a wizard can pick up a sword and swing, but he will be (or should be) highly innefective. A fighter cant try to cast a spell because to do so you have to take levels in wizard (which reflects the difficulty of learning how to do it). To me this is realistic and basically balanced since the wizard is feeble with the sword. There are some skill sets that take some basic levels of training to even attempt. I mean I can try to swing a sword or steal a purse and may even succeed. But if i tried to land a jumbo jet, I would fail. If the gm wanted to or the system allowed he could certainly give me a highly penalized roll. But I think it is more than reasonable for a system to simpy say the person who tries such a thing without the training fails.
I don't expect the fighter to do the same thing as everyone else. I do expect that the fighter should be at least get SOMETHING unique and interesting. We can all agree that games are more than fighting stuff. We can also agree that all the classes reasonably can and indeed should be able to fight stuff. All classes should be able to do interesting stuff in AND out of battle.
Quote from: StormBringer;556503And in AD&D, a Magic-User CANNOT try and do swording.
Sure they can. They can take the -5 proficiency penalty to their already crappy attacks and see how it works out.
Then they can also suck it up and take longer to train due to not playing their class.
Oh so totally worth it. :p
Quote from: MGuy;556498Thing is, in DnD a fighter CANNOT try and do magic. Can't even try to do anything that others can't do. You have guy who can do stuff right next to guys who can do stuff + magic (of different sorts).
A Magic-user in TSR D&D (except maybe 2e which I not very familiar with) cannot even try to use a magic sword or many other weapons. He has no ability with them and cannot learn to use them. I could care less about that one might be able to do in 3.x as I think 3.x is broken. Yes, some people just cannot do certain things -- I can live with that in a game just as i can in the real world.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;556532Sure they can. They can take the -5 proficiency penalty to their already crappy attacks and see how it works out.
Then they can also suck it up and take longer to train due to not playing their class.
Oh so totally worth it. :p
Actually just be a grey elf F/M and get Tenser's Transformation or whatever works pretty well. If we are talking 3x just prestige into Spellword or do something like a 15/5 F/M split if you want to be magic boy so much.
Quote from: RandallS;556487This is how real life seems to work. I can design web sites far better than my friends just as one of my players who is a rocket engineer can design and test rocket engines FAR better than the rest of us and another player in my group who is a medical tech running MRI equipment can do that FAR better than the rest of us, but in social situations or the like we can all do just about everything the others can. This seems true for every real world specialty I can think of. An RPG that did not have "issues" like these would seem too artificial and gamey to me.
The thing is, there's nothing keeping a wizard from being a tactical genius while the Fighter is really just a 'dumb fighter'. As a player, since I have a fair knowledge of tactical military history, I can apply that knowledge regardless of whether I'm playing a wizard or fighter.
If the Fighter SHOULD be better at that type of stuff REGARDLESS of the Player's knowledge, the rules should support that in some way. They don't.
Yes, it is true that a good player can 'try to do things that aren't written on his character sheet' but that's true regardless of class. If the DM is giving the Fighter some kind of 'bonus' on these out of combat checks and not the wizard, there should be some kind of reason for it. And if there's a reason for it, it should be reflected in the rules.
Quote from: Marleycat;556536Actually just be a grey elf F/M and get Tenser's Transformation or whatever works pretty well. If we are talking 3x just prestige into Spellword or do something like a 15/5 F/M split if you want to be magic boy so much.
Sure but a F/MU is is an actual fighter. Being skilled in both areas means slower advancement overall, which is a tradeoff.
Quote from: MGuy;556512. I had said earlier in this thread: Just being able to fight isn't enough for me.
I can completely understand this. The pre-4e D&D fighter plenty fun enough for other D&D players, however, and has been for many years. I don't object that you (and others) don't find playing a fighter (or other class you consider underpowered/boring/whatever) in D&D fun. What I object to is changing D&D to make the fighter suit the needs of folks who never liked the D&D while ignoring the needs of all the players who liked the D&D fighter as it was. There are many other RPGs out there to choose from, so I object strongly to changing what worked well enough in D&D for 20-25 years to suit the desires of those who want D&d to basically be a different game.
This is why I object to upping the power of the fighter to match the broken power of the caster in 3.x instead of simply returning to all the rules that reined in the casters in TSR D&D. I like simple to play fighters whose abilities are strictly mundane (which is what D&D had until 4e) and have no interest playing the type of fighter that would interest you. I don't see why D&D needs to change to fit the needs of those who want the fighter to be something very different from what it always has been in D&D. If you don't like the way the fighter (or another class) works in D&D, don't play one, don't play D&D, houserule your table's D&D to get the fighter you want, etc. but leave the D&D fighter as a mundane fighting machine in the standard D&D rules as it always has been in pre-4e D&D.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;556540Sure but a F/MU is is an actual fighter. Being skilled in both areas means slower advancement overall, which is a tradeoff.
That's my point and what I am saying to MGuy's assertion that Fighters are absolutely some kind of cardboard cutout.
QuoteThis is why I object to upping the power of the fighter to match the broken power of the caster in 3.x instead of simply returning to all the rules that reined in the casters in TSR D&D. I like simple to play fighters whose abilities are strictly mundane (which is what D&D had until 4e) and have no interest playing the type of fighter that would interest you. I don't see why D&D needs to change to fit the needs of those who want the fighter to be something very different from what it always has been in D&D. If you don't like the way the fighter (or another class) works in D&D, don't play one, don't play D&D, houserule your table's D&D to get the fighter you want, etc. but leave the D&D fighter as a mundane fighting machine in the standard D&D rules as it always has been in pre-4e D&D.
This is my preferred solution also.
OK, a question, when people are talking about wizards being unbalanced compared to a fighter, are we including the viability as a target in this?
In any combat, the wizard is targetted first (or at least should be). Yet the wizard has no access to armor as a class, must rely on spells and magic items for defense (which only become effective on a practical level later on), or just be guarded by the fighter. So that makes the wizard, even at higher levels, significantly weaker than the fighter in combat.
Quote from: jeff37923;556557OK, a question, when people are talking about wizards being unbalanced compared to a fighter, are we including the viability as a target in this?
In any combat, the wizard is targetted first (or at least should be). Yet the wizard has no access to armor as a class, must rely on spells and magic items for defense (which only become effective on a practical level later on), or just be guarded by the fighter. So that makes the wizard, even at higher levels, significantly weaker than the fighter in combat.
I mentioned it upthread briefly (buried in a wall of text)...it's definitely a consideration.
Archers in most of my games know to look for the dude in robes.
Quote from: MGuy;556507I'm not a fighter. I can pick up a sword and start swording at things. I may not be "good" at it but I can try. You know what I can't do? I can't cast a spell. I can't even try. A fighter is in the same boat. Can't even try.
Edit: Oh and I forgot the "dipshit" at the end.
Fighters can't turn undead or pick locks either. Welcome to 'niche protection'.
In any case, this says all it needs to. You aren't interested in fixing anything, you just want to bitch about it and have someone else fix it. People have repeatedly described a number of fixes and rules variants. Again and again you are told that if you want the Fighter to have magical powers, give them magical powers. This conversation comes up quite regularly on tBP:
Dipshit: "I want a game that is good for X"
Others: "Game Y is pretty good for that"
Dipshit: "No, it uses mechanic Z."
Others: "How about this other game?"
Dipshit: "That won't work."
...
ad infinitum.
That is why you are a dipshit. You don't want a discussion, you just want to take the contrarian view.
Give Fighters wuxia/anime/superpowers. Remove them from your game. Call them 'Happy Teddy Bear Picnic Unicorn Riders'. Doesn't really matter, just do
something and quit whining about it. If you want uncritical acceptance of every dumb utterance that leaks out of your head, call your folks, talk to a psychiatrist or find a bartender. This isn't the place for that.
You presented DA TROOF and no one is buying it. That doesn't mean no one else can understand you. It generally means you are full of shit. But you refuse to understand that the rest of us legitimately have experience and knowledge as well.
That is why you are a dipshit.
Quote from: jeff37923;556557OK, a question, when people are talking about wizards being unbalanced compared to a fighter, are we including the viability as a target in this?
In any combat, the wizard is targetted first (or at least should be). Yet the wizard has no access to armor as a class, must rely on spells and magic items for defense (which only become effective on a practical level later on), or just be guarded by the fighter. So that makes the wizard, even at higher levels, significantly weaker than the fighter in combat.
No, the Denner's seem to be talking about it as a scenerio or setpiece. Because everybody knows just like Shadowrun the strategy is "geek the mage" at all costs because if you don't that's your fault for not using proper strategy and tactics.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;556532Sure they can. They can take the -5 proficiency penalty to their already crappy attacks and see how it works out.
Then they can also suck it up and take longer to train due to not playing their class.
Oh so totally worth it. :p
Yes, put the Magic-User on the front lines and see how that works out. :)
Quote from: RandallS;556534A Magic-user in TSR D&D (except maybe 2e which I not very familiar with) cannot even try to use a magic sword or many other weapons. He has no ability with them and cannot learn to use them. I could care less about that one might be able to do in 3.x as I think 3.x is broken. Yes, some people just cannot do certain things -- I can live with that in a game just as i can in the real world.
This is quite important, as in 1st edition there are only certain weapons and armour each class can use. Except Fighters, they can use any weapon or armour. That is what we used to call a 'benefit'.
Quote from: RandallS;556542I can completely understand this. The pre-4e D&D fighter plenty fun enough for other D&D players, however, and has been for many years. I don't object that you (and others) don't find playing a fighter (or other class you consider underpowered/boring/whatever) in D&D fun. What I object to is changing D&D to make the fighter suit the needs of folks who never liked the D&D while ignoring the needs of all the players who liked the D&D fighter as it was. There are many other RPGs out there to choose from, so I object strongly to changing what worked well enough in D&D for 20-25 years to suit the desires of those who want D&d to basically be a different game.
This is why I object to upping the power of the fighter to match the broken power of the caster in 3.x instead of simply returning to all the rules that reined in the casters in TSR D&D. I like simple to play fighters whose abilities are strictly mundane (which is what D&D had until 4e) and have no interest playing the type of fighter that would interest you. I don't see why D&D needs to change to fit the needs of those who want the fighter to be something very different from what it always has been in D&D. If you don't like the way the fighter (or another class) works in D&D, don't play one, don't play D&D, houserule your table's D&D to get the fighter you want, etc. but leave the D&D fighter as a mundane fighting machine in the standard D&D rules as it always has been in pre-4e D&D.
But there are lots of mundane stuff you could give the fighter that woudl both fit how they run be simple to operate and improve them at higher levels where they do fall behind even in older editions.
I have already mentioned increasing fighters criticals to keep pace with the thief backstab, improving their base AC in a similar way to a monk, allowing them to gauge the power of an opponent, so by seeing a guy swing a sword they can work out their approximate level.
If you are keen on the domain management stuff it is trivial to say 0 level soldiers under the command of a fighter of level x get bonus moral, get +1 to attacks or any host of other stuff that would represent their ability to lead forces, shit you could even say that they prevent them from pissing themselves and running away when they see a dragon :)
There is a lot of design space into which a regular non-magical non-wuxia fighter could be developed without increasing their complexity or giving them a plethora of alternative powers that slow play. This might not make them as tough as a high level wizard but it would make them better at some stuff they ought to better at like damaging things without needing a holy weapon, leading men into battle and knowing when to cut your loses and run like a bastard and leave the wizards to deal with the bone devil.
And if the 3e powermongers want to go all wuxia on their D&D fine just give figthers a slew of optional feats in little grey boxes in the PHB. Really its not rocket science
QuoteAnd if the 3e powermongers want to go all wuxia on their D&D fine just give figthers a slew of optional feats in little grey boxes in the PHB. Really its not rocket science
Grey boxes are your friend, it worked fine for 2e.:)
Quote from: KenHR;556558I mentioned it upthread briefly (buried in a wall of text)...it's definitely a consideration.
Archers in most of my games know to look for the dude in robes.
Well I know you won't like shield, mirror image or protection from normal missiles because that predictates the MU has randomly aquired one of 1000s of spells, but how about your wizards get some smarts and learn how to dress like a bearer and carry a sack like the other mooks.
If you walk round a dungeon in a pointy hat with wizzard drawn on it you get all you deserve :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;556567Well I know you won't like shield, mirror image or protection from normal missiles because that predictates the MU has randomly aquired one of 1000s of spells, but how about your wizards get some smarts and learn how to dress like a bearer and carry a sack like the other mooks.
If you walk round a dungeon in a pointy hat with wizzard drawn on it you get all you deserve :)
It's a strategy I have used quite often if I am not playing a F/MU or variation of the same. That or wearing traveling clothes with tasteful accessories, now if you got real close you might see the arcane symbols and sigils...but really that defeats your purpose.
Quote from: jibbajibba;556567Well I know you won't like shield, mirror image or protection from normal missiles because that predictates the MU has randomly aquired one of 1000s of spells, but how about your wizards get some smarts and learn how to dress like a bearer and carry a sack like the other mooks.
If you walk round a dungeon in a pointy hat with wizzard drawn on it you get all you deserve :)
Yeah, yeah, I know, score points, that's the raison d'etre of the 'Site. You know damn well what I meant.
And yes, I realize I've been a big part of the problem. Snarky asshole past coming back to haunt me, etc.
Quote from: KenHR;556571Yeah, yeah, I know, score points, that's the raison d'etre of the 'Site. You know damn well what I meant.
Sorry mate but you must admit that when it comes to avoiding being hit with missiles aside from a 17th level Master of Flowers the MU has got a lot more options than everyone else. Protection from Normal Missiles lasts hours as well.
Quote from: jibbajibba;556573Sorry mate but you must admit that when it comes to avoiding being hit with missiles aside from a 17th level Master of Flowers the MU has got a lot more options than everyone else. Protection from Normal Missiles lasts hours as well.
I confess to alcohol blurring your post in my mind's eye and all I saw was the disguise bit of your post.
Prot/Normal Missiles is indeed a cool spell, as are Mirror Image, etc. But if the mage uses it, it comes with a trade-off in that a spell slot is used. That's good to me.
Quote from: jibbajibba;556563.I have already mentioned increasing fighters criticals to keep pace with the thief backstab, improving their base AC in a similar way to a monk, allowing them to gauge the power of an opponent, so by seeing a guy swing a sword they can work out their approximate level.
I have no problem with the first, I'm not a big fan of the second although I did write "Armor for all classes" rules in the late 1970s that basically did this for those who did not like the armor limitations for non-fighting classes but never used them myself as I did not have that problem, and I've always allowed a character to figure out the approximate level of another member of their class (and to a certain extent similar classes) by observing the character in action. It's one of those common sense things (experts in X can tell other experts in X) from normal reality that I never saw the need for a "rule". Just like a fighter knows how to clean and maintain his weapons and armor without it being recorded as a rule.
Translation: I don't really object to mundane things like this as long as they are not taken to such extremes that they are no longer mundane. Increasing AC with level could easily go beyond mundane (as it does with the monk, for example).
QuoteIf you are keen on the domain management stuff it is trivial to say 0 level soldiers under the command of a fighter of level x get bonus moral, get +1 to attacks or any host of other stuff that would represent their ability to lead forces, shit you could even say that they prevent them from pissing themselves and running away when they see a dragon :)
I have a fighter subclass (the Warlord, no relationship to the 4e class other than the same name) which gives bonuses to hirelings and the like under his command. And trained troops have a good chance of holding when they see a dragon in my games even without a warlord, especially if they know in advance they are going out to fight a dragon (or other scary monster). Militia and the like will very likely turn and run -- of course, militia will likely freeze or run in battle with anyone (unless they are fighting to defend their own village or town or the like).
Quote from: KenHR;556582I confess to alcohol blurring your post in my mind's eye and all I saw was the disguise bit of your post.
Prot/Normal Missiles is indeed a cool spell, as are Mirror Image, etc. But if the mage uses it, it comes with a trade-off in that a spell slot is used. That's good to me.
Well a hat and a shovel don't use up any slots at all :) kiddin, kiddin,.....
Quote from: StormBringer;556559Fighters can't turn undead or pick locks either. Welcome to 'niche protection'.
In any case, this says all it needs to. You aren't interested in fixing anything, you just want to bitch about it and have someone else fix it. People have repeatedly described a number of fixes and rules variants. Again and again you are told that if you want the Fighter to have magical powers, give them magical powers. This conversation comes up quite regularly on tBP:
Dipshit: "I want a game that is good for X"
Others: "Game Y is pretty good for that"
Dipshit: "No, it uses mechanic Z."
Others: "How about this other game?"
Dipshit: "That won't work."
...ad infinitum.
Fighter can't pick locks. A wizard can use a spell to get past a magic door.
That is why you are a dipshit. You don't want a discussion, you just want to take the contrarian view.
Give Fighters wuxia/anime/superpowers. Remove them from your game. Call them 'Happy Teddy Bear Picnic Unicorn Riders'. Doesn't really matter, just do something and quit whining about it. If you want uncritical acceptance of every dumb utterance that leaks out of your head, call your folks, talk to a psychiatrist or find a bartender. This isn't the place for that.
You presented DA TROOF and no one is buying it. That doesn't mean no one else can understand you. It generally means you are full of shit. But you refuse to understand that the rest of us legitimately have experience and knowledge as well.
That is why you are a dipshit.
Fighters can't turn undead. True. Clerics do that. Wizards can animate undead. Druids can control animals. Fighter can swing a sword.
Fighters can't pick locks. Rogues can. Wizards can bypass doors completely. Druids can warp the wood that makes the door. Fighters can swing a sword.
Oh man, guess who else can swing a sword? EVERY FUCKING BODY YOU DUMBASS.
Quote from: RandallS;556584I have no problem with the first, I'm not a big fan of the second although I did write "Armor for all classes" rules in the late 1970s that basically did this for those who did not like the armor limitations for non-fighting classes but never used them myself as I did not have that problem, and I've always allowed a character to figure out the approximate level of another member of their class (and to a certain extent similar classes) by observing the character in action. It's one of those common sense things (experts in X can tell other experts in X) from normal reality that I never saw the need for a "rule". Just like a fighter knows how to clean and maintain his weapons and armor without it being recorded as a rule.
Translation: I don't really object to mundane things like this as long as they are not taken to such extremes that they are no longer mundane. Increasing AC with level could easily go beyond mundane (as it does with the monk, for example).
I have a fighter subclass (the Warlord, no relationship to the 4e class other than the same name) which gives bonuses to hirelings and the like under his command. And trained troops have a good chance of holding when they see a dragon in my games even without a warlord, especially if they know in advance they are going out to fight a dragon (or other scary monster). Militia and the like will very likely turn and run -- of course, militia will likely freeze or run in battle with anyone (unless they are fighting to defend their own village or town or the like).
The AC thing depends on the edition I think. in a decending AC system then possibly it becomes 'magical' but, the roll is to hit and deal damage. armour protects from the deal damage side of things but doesn't affect the hit side of things, in the base game that never improves. When a 1st level fighter fights a 1st level fighter both in Chain they miss 70% of the time when a 15th level fighter fights a 15th level figther they both hit all the time (well I guess on a 1) logically a 15th level figther can dodge a 15th level figther as wella s a 1st level one can dodge a 1st level one if you see what I mean.
Is a 15th level fighter in his pyjamas easiert to hit and deal damage to than a first level newbie in Plate and shield. The Genre novels films etc would indicate no the master warrior can run rings round the youngster and never get tagged.
Easier in open ended ascending AC systems I think so you don't think AC 2 is plate and shield. Also if you compute a base AC then give armours a +AC the mental blocks goes away a bit. So Plate mail gives you a + 7 AC dex can give you say +2 and level can give you a +5 then it kind of makes more sense.
Gauging I would let figthers do it to monsters as well, guess the damage a bite woudl do or those claws. Maybe even let them predict tactics
And curiously do you think giving those powers to the Warlord Subclass in your game takes away something from the figther? Even if for figthers it might have bene optional.
Quote from: MGuy;556587Oh man, guess who else can swing a sword? EVERY FUCKING BODY YOU DUMBASS.
The problem is you apparently think that means that everyone swings the sword with the same level of effect, which they do not. *Cue Kaelik with a splatbook-highly-customized-Cleric-WarGod build that does it better then a bog-standard sub-optimized Core fighter.*
Quote from: CRKrueger;556590The problem is you apparently think that means that everyone swings the sword with the same level of effect, which they do not. *Cue Kaelik with a splatbook-highly-customized-Cleric-WarGod build that does it better then a bog-standard sub-optimized Core fighter.*
They can in 3rd but that's not the whole of the issue. Even if you make fighters actually matter in 3rd. Even if they work decent in combat in prior editions. Even if you cut the balls off of other intelligent plans that involve not using fighters in the first place fighter's STILL can't do ANYTHING interesting out of combat. Again, I cannot wrap my mind around this Arena mentality where all that matters in a game is what you fight and how you fight it.
Quote from: MGuy;556593Again, I cannot wrap my mind around this Arena mentality where all that matters in a game is what you fight and how you fight it.
Coming from GD, that's fucking hilarious.
OT, I agree that in 3e special abilities fighters used to have in earlier editions have been turned into general skills/feats that anyone can take.
What non-combat powers would you give a Fighter?
Quote from: CRKrueger;556594What non-combat powers would you give a Fighter?
Training men at arms - al a magnificent 7
Gauging the power of creatures and opponents
Leadership benefits
Knowledge of sieges and general large scale warfare
Ability to select from some sort of kit based themes so
Noble warriors, learn about chivilry, leadership, noble ettiquette, heraldry, realm mangement, laws etc
Military - artilery, castle construction, stategic benefits of terrain, movement or large troops over distances
Lone wilderness types - tracking, survival, weather sene etc
On top of all that some sort of Reputation stat where the locals know about the great warrior some sort of legend, which can cause intimidation, respect or whatever.
all jsut ideas off the top of my head with no Wuxia :)
Quote from: CRKrueger;556594Coming from GD, that's fucking hilarious.
OT, I agree that in 3e special abilities fighters used to have in earlier editions have been turned into general skills/feats that anyone can take.
What non-combat powers would you give a Fighter?
I wouldn't at this point. I would/am get(ting) rid of any and everything named fighter because it has too much baggage. What's more, my solution isn't just making fighters better but drawing back on what wizards can do (because the wizard can do too much). My solution would let everyone have as much access to magic as one would being able to swing a sword. My solution has fighting classes that act a lot more like a paladin and ninja than as a fighter or samurai. However "my" solution was given pages back. As I said then I don't want the conversation to be bogged down with what my vision of DnD is. Only pointing out power discrepancy.
Since the thread made 2000 posts my interest in the discussion and thread is officially over, with that said, have fun guys.:)
Quote from: MGuy;556505My post isn't aimed at anyone else who can accept that fighters get to be special outside the arena. The thing about prestige classing is that having prestige classes doesn't excuse the fighter for its failings. As far as 3rd goes you HAVE to prestige class as a fighter just to be interesting while if I were a druid I can be interesting without it. I CAN prestige class as a druid and there are some interesting prestige options but the BASE class is far and away better than being a fighter.
gah. Hang on, You're arguing single-class fighters vs. single-class wizards, specifically?
For that instance (in 3.x) its probably true that the wizard is often stronger than the fighter, at higher levels, if the wizard is well played and kitted out. From an actual play (and practical optimization) perspective, its mostly moot given that a warrior character will usually pick up a PrC or multiclass.
A fighters' class features include higher BAB and bonus feats (which themselves may require higher BAB), which is to say that
in 3.5s system, one of a fighter's class features is the ability to qualify for a prestige class earlier, and while still picking up other abilities. While on the other hand, one of the problems with wizards is that they often can't multiclass without losing caster levels and sucking badly.
In other words, I'll agree that you're right to a point, but your comparison picks builds that limit its usefulness as a model. I'm not sure its particularly relevant or that I care.
The other part of the problem is that you want a rule system where everything is pinned down and defined - its that system that makes all the multiclassing necessary, because the rules limit the ability to stretch one class to fit any concept (its less likely the single-class character gets the right class skill, or they need Feat X to function as a given concept but can't qualify for it at a reasonable level, whatever).
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;556602gah. Hang on, You're arguing single-class fighters vs. single-class wizards, specifically?
For that instance (in 3.x) its probably true that the wizard is often stronger than the fighter, at higher levels, if the wizard is well played and kitted out. From an actual play (and practical optimization) perspective, its mostly moot given that a warrior character will usually pick up a PrC or multiclass.
A fighters' class features include higher BAB and bonus feats (which themselves may require higher BAB), which is to say that in 3.5s system, one of a fighter's class features is the ability to qualify for a prestige class earlier, and while still picking up other abilities. While on the other hand, one of the problems with wizards is that they often can't multiclass without losing caster levels and sucking badly.
In other words, I'll agree that you're right to a point, but your comparison picks builds that limit its usefulness as a model. I'm not sure its particularly relevant or that I care.
The other part of the problem is that you want a rule system where everything is pinned down and defined - its that system that makes all the multiclassing necessary, because the rules limit the ability to stretch one class to fit any concept (its less likely the single-class character gets the right class skill, or they need Feat X to function as a given concept but can't qualify for it at a reasonable level, whatever).
My problems with Prestige Classes are a separate matter. Without the page long explanation, suffice it to say I don't like prestige classes or how cross classing even works in 3rd though I will say it is a useful (and necessary) engine for making fighting people more interesting. However the fighter isn't even good for dipping any more because there's things like psychic warrior and I think warblade that both give the bonus feats that fighters get. That aside, prestige classes have nothing to do with the value of the class itself because I can play a wizard from levels 1 to 20 and not feel like I missed out on a thing. However, in the interest of making sure we are on the same page you know there are full casting prestige classes that casters would have no problem crossing over to right?
Quote from: MGuy;556605My problems with Prestige Classes are a separate matter. Without the page long explanation, suffice it to say I don't like prestige classes or how cross classing even works in 3rd though I will say it is a useful (and necessary) engine for making fighting people more interesting. However the fighter isn't even good for dipping any more because there's things like psychic warrior and I think warblade that both give the bonus feats that fighters get. That aside, prestige classes have nothing to do with the value of the class itself because I can play a wizard from levels 1 to 20 and not feel like I missed out on a thing. However, in the interest of making sure we are on the same page you know there are full casting prestige classes that casters would have no problem crossing over to right?
Sure, I'm aware of them.
I'm quite fond of psychic warrior, but note it doesn't get full BAB, so still has delayed access to most warrior-type PrCs and some feats. I don't recall details of the Warblade offhand.
Quote from: jibbajibba;556585Well a hat and a shovel don't use up any slots at all :) kiddin, kiddin,.....
;)
Actually, I'd have to hand it to my players for pulling that move (come to think of it, it's a common trick for NPCs already...) and they'd likely get away with it for a while. If they were facing the same enemy, say a tribe of kobolds, they'd get wise to it after a while, but you can't punish ingenuity. And anyway, once the dude with the hat and shovel throws a scad of magic missiles at the enemy, said enemy would endeavor to make him a pincushion post-haste.
I doubt it would exactly satisfy MGuy, but one of my 3e house rules was to give fighters 2 class skills and free 4 ranks in those skills as a "shtick". So you could, for example, have a keen-eyed archer (spot/search), a skilled sailor (prof:sailing/knowledge:nature), a knowledgeable monster-hunter (knowledge:dungeoneering/arcana), a magic-dabbler (spellcraft/UMD), a diplomatic knight (knowledge:nobility/diplomacy), etc. right out of the gate, and the fighter got to contribute outside of combat. It seemed to make a lot of concepts more reasonable.
Quote from: MGuy;556587Fighters can't turn undead. True. Clerics do that. Wizards can animate undead. Druids can control animals. Fighter can swing a sword.
Fighters can't pick locks. Rogues can. Wizards can bypass doors completely. Druids can warp the wood that makes the door. Fighters can swing a sword.
Oh man, guess who else can swing a sword? EVERY FUCKING BODY YOU DUMBASS.
Nope. Wizards and clerics can't.
Quote from: Imp;556622I doubt it would exactly satisfy MGuy, but one of my 3e house rules was to give fighters 2 class skills and free 4 ranks in those skills as a "shtick". So you could, for example, have a keen-eyed archer (spot/search), a skilled sailor (prof:sailing/knowledge:nature), a knowledgeable monster-hunter (knowledge:dungeoneering/arcana), a magic-dabbler (spellcraft/UMD), a diplomatic knight (knowledge:nobility/diplomacy), etc. right out of the gate, and the fighter got to contribute outside of combat. It seemed to make a lot of concepts more reasonable.
This is a great idea, far better than just giving them 4 skillpoints a level, which seemed to be a typical fix. I think I'd combine both to really make it cool. It actually looks very similar to the direction 5e is taking via Themes/Backgrounds.
MGuy: In AD&D, the ability to use all forms of magical weapons and armor is a class ability of the fighter. The magic-user does not have this class ability.
The fighter's ability to use these items, and the relatively greater frequency of their inclusion in treasure, is specifically called out as being included in the class as a balance against a magic-user's ability to cast spells. If you disregard the items a fighter is entitled to, while claiming spells are 'part of' the magic-user, it's no wonder you think there are balance problems.
In 3E, of course, the idea that maybe Magic-Users didn't get to use many magic items because they had all these spells, was thrown out the window as an 'un-fun' restriction.
In 1st and 2nd edition, can a wizard use the magical equipment after using Tenser's Transformation?
Nope. Can only attack with a dagger, actually, in a berserk fashion.
"and although he or she can employ a dagger only in attacking,"
"However, it is worth noting that this spell must run its full course, and the magic-user will continue attacking until all opponents are slain, he or she is killed, the magic is dispelled, or the Transformation duration expires."
Tenser's Transformation is one of the many spells that got a whoooole lot better for Wizards in 3E.
Quote from: Kaldric;556656MGuy: In AD&D, the ability to use all forms of magical weapons and armor is a class ability of the fighter. The magic-user does not have this class ability.
Going slightly beyond the scope of fighter-vs.-wizard, it may also be worth noting that the fighter is unrestricted in how many items they can have, whereas Paladins, Rangers, and Monks (a relatively quite powerful class in 1E, I believe - at least, the PHB suggests Gary thinks so!) all have limitations on what they're allowed to even own.
Quote from: Kaldric;556656MGuy: In AD&D, the ability to use all forms of magical weapons and armor is a class ability of the fighter. The magic-user does not have this class ability.
The fighter's ability to use these items, and the relatively greater frequency of their inclusion in treasure, is specifically called out as being included in the class as a balance against a magic-user's ability to cast spells. If you disregard the items a fighter is entitled to, while claiming spells are 'part of' the magic-user, it's no wonder you think there are balance problems.
In 3E, of course, the idea that maybe Magic-Users didn't get to use many magic items because they had all these spells, was thrown out the window as an 'un-fun' restriction.
A few things:
1: I'm going to take a wild guess and assume there are items in 2e that fighters cannot or wouldn't ever use. Now I KNOW this is true because a fighter cannot use a spellbook to do anything. So the existence of items that a fighter can use, but is not entitled to get ever, does not aid in a discussion about what the fighter can do.
This is doubly true because no matter what fancy +4 sword the fighter gets he still needs an MU or 3 on his team just to adventure. On the other hand, given the right toys on my MU, I can replace or eschew the need to ever have a fighter on my team at all. So if even if the fighter gets what he wants the possibilities that a wizard has if he gets what he wants far outshine the fighter's.
This leads me to 2.
2: I'm going to readily assume that the items other classes can't use are probably geared towards swinging a sword at something but better. If this is so, those items aren't interesting and don't change the "swing a sword at it" dynamic that the fighter runs on. If this is true the fighter still trails behind everyone else in doing interesting things because swinging a sword at something (regardless of whether they are the best sword swinger ever) is still not an interesting thing because all swinging a sword does is help you in the melee arena and nowhere else. +X armor is equally uninteresting because you just put it on to not get punched in the face quite as often.
On the other hand the spells that become available to the wizard (and I must note that he can just research them himself as part of his class) can completely change his actual dynamic in a multitude of ways, all more interesting than the fighter having to trade that awesome spear in because he's specced to be a sword user.
This leads to 3.
3: Assuming that the item thing boils down as I've outlined then the wizard's needs are comparatively small compared to the fighter's. If I, a wizard, need another spell book, scroll, whatever (because I apparently can't do any research on my own despite that being something I can explicitly do as part of my class) then the benefit I get from it is far better than what I get from getting another +1 sword. Compare getting +3 sword of slashing to getting teleport/mirror image. +3 sword of slashing allows me to swing a sword better. Teleport/mirror image allows me to not have to swing a sword at all to get to where I wanna get.
Moreover, I don't specifically NEED to get Teleport OR Mirror Image to adventure. There are a host of other spells I can get that are about as awesome and ALL of them better. And changing up the Spell theme doesn't prevent me from using my other class abilities.
TL:DR: If I give the fighter his awesome goodies and I give the wizard his awesome goodies wizard still comes out on top.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;556666In 1st and 2nd edition, can a wizard use the magical equipment after using Tenser's Transformation?
Elven wizards can. Because they can use long swords and bows.:)
Hence one small reason for level caps on demihumans. And why you went F/MU with them most times.
Quote from: MGuy;556675TL:DR: If I give the fighter his awesome goodies and I give the wizard his awesome goodies wizard still comes out on top.
In AD&D the wizard doesn't get awesome goodies nearly as often as the fighter. That's a 3E thing. In AD&D, the wizard gets 10 magic mouth scrolls, the fighter gets Plate Armor of Etherealness.
Quote from: Kaldric;556696In AD&D the wizard doesn't get awesome goodies nearly as often as the fighter. That's a 3E thing. In AD&D, the wizard gets 10 magic mouth scrolls, the fighter gets Plate Armor of Etherealness.
If this is true that is even more reason for me to not like AD&D.
Quote from: MGuy;556700If this is true that is even more reason for me to not like AD&D.
Well, "Houston we have a problem". You understand what I'm saying? Seriously?
Quote from: MGuy;556587Oh man, guess who else can swing a sword? EVERY FUCKING BODY YOU DUMBASS.
Player's Handbook, pg 19, Character Classes Table II: Armor and Weapons Permitted.
Kindly list the classes that can swing a sword from that table.
Quote from: Kaldric;556696In AD&D the wizard doesn't get awesome goodies nearly as often as the fighter. That's a 3E thing. In AD&D, the wizard gets 10 magic mouth scrolls, the fighter gets Plate Armor of Etherealness.
More often than not in my AD&D and OSRIC games, the magic-user got the spellbooks from the defeated mage. Usually balanced out for awesomeness.
Quote from: StormBringer;556720Player's Handbook, pg 19, Character Classes Table II: Armor and Weapons Permitted.
Kindly list the classes that can swing a sword from that list.
Whoa whoa whoa. I was just gonna let go of Kaldric stating that a wizard gets shitty drops and the fighter gets the best ones out of some strange need to make the fighter feel good about being a shitty class. But this is too big to ignore. Let me get this straight. Are you, Storm, seriously suggesting, there is an actual rule that prevents someone (anyone) from picking up a pointy thing and stabbing other people with it? At BEST you completely missed the point of the "everyone can swing a sword" statement (like a few others have). I am going to assume that is the case, because when I first read it, it seemed like you were suggesting that there was a rule that prevented Joe the crap covered farmer from picking up a sword and swinging it around.
Quote from: MGuy;556700If this is true that is even more reason for me to not like AD&D.
Yeah, because it fixes your whiny-ass dumbshit problems; you would have to shut the hell up about them and actually play a game.
Quote from: MGuy;556724Whoa whoa whoa. I was just gonna let go of Kaldric stating that a wizard gets shitty drops and the fighter gets the best ones out of some strange need to make the fighter feel good about being a shitty class. But this is too big to ignore. Let me get this straight. Are you, Storm, seriously suggesting, there is an actual rule that prevents someone (anyone) from picking up a pointy thing and stabbing other people with it? At BEST you completely missed the point of the "everyone can swing a sword" statement (like a few others have). I am going to assume that is the case, because when I first read it, it seemed like you were suggesting that there was a rule that prevented Joe the crap covered farmer from picking up a sword and swinging it around.
This is why you will never understand or be able to correct the problems you see in 3.x
Quote from: jeff37923;556721More often than not in my AD&D and OSRIC games, the magic-user got the spellbooks from the defeated mage. Usually balanced out for awesomeness.
That sir is how you get spells. There were no Walmart magic shops and no wizard in her right mind ever shared jack willingly. YMMV
Quote from: MGuy;556724I am going to assume that is the case, because when I first read it, it seemed like you were suggesting that there was a rule that prevented Joe the crap covered farmer from picking up a sword and swinging it around.
Joe the Farmer can use a sword. He just can't after his apprenticeship with the local Wizard.
Quote from: MGuy;556724Whoa whoa whoa. I was just gonna let go of Kaldric stating that a wizard gets shitty drops and the fighter gets the best ones out of some strange need to make the fighter feel good about being a shitty class. But this is too big to ignore. Let me get this straight. Are you, Storm, seriously suggesting, there is an actual rule that prevents someone (anyone) from picking up a pointy thing and stabbing other people with it? At BEST you completely missed the point of the "everyone can swing a sword" statement (like a few others have). I am going to assume that is the case, because when I first read it, it seemed like you were suggesting that there was a rule that prevented Joe the crap covered farmer from picking up a sword and swinging it around.
WTF!?!
Quote from: Rum Cove;556729Joe the Farmer can use a sword. He just can't after his apprenticeship with the local Wizard.
Sure she can, just not all that well.
And very specifically in AD&D, you have to have the class ability to use specific items. So, no, not everybody can use a vorpal sword in AD&D. Just the fighter. The wizard actually gets very little cool shit. Here's why:
AD&D DMG Page 121.
QuoteAs mentioned previously, the MAGIC ITEMS table is weighted towards
results which balance the game. Potions, scrolls, armor and arms are
plentiful. Rings, rods and miscellaneous items of magic represent only a
25% occurrence on the table. This is so done in order to keep magic-users
from totally dominating play. They are sufficiently powerful characters
without adding piles of supplementary goodies. What they gain from the
table will typically be used up and discarded.
The Magic-User in AD&D simply doesn't get the 'piles of supplementary goodies' everyone else does. If you decide to change that in your games, you better balance it some other way. Don't claim 'm/u gets goodies and fighter gets goodies, so the m/u still has spells, and he's thus better!' The only way there's item parity is if the DM is slanting the game that way intentionally. The game is set up to give more permanent items to non m/u characters.
I think we should go for 4000 posts on this topic if Pundit allows it.:D
Quote from: Marleycat;556734I think we should go for 4000 posts on this topic if Pundit allows it.:D
Why wouldn't he allow it? It is one of the few threads that is mostly talking about an actual RPG.
Quote from: Rum Cove;556735Why wouldn't he allow it? It is one of the few threads that is mostly talking about an actual RPG.
That it is and it's fun actually. Because most everyone is being fairly sensible most of the time. Even myself! :D
It's a tired subject, but a valid one. People arguing over whether games play a certain way, and why, and how much of that 'why' is rules, and how much is misunderstanding or intentionally subverting them.
Quote from: Kaldric;556738It's a tired subject, but a valid one. People arguing over whether games play a certain way, and why, and how much of that 'why' is rules, and how much is misunderstanding or intentionally subverting them.
As are most gaming subjects. It's why I never pose questions about Mage or go to what's left of White Wolf's boards. I have my answers and opinions about the game so I have little to ask. Dnd is far more varied despite even my personal opinion and stance.
For example I correctly understood MtAw's magic system 2 years before it was accepted as correct on the WW boards despite the actual writer of the system backing me up!
Quote from: StormBringer;556726Yeah, because it fixes your whiny-ass dumbshit problems; you would have to shut the hell up about them and actually play a game.
Ahh I see. You're just trolling me. I made the mistake of taking you serious. Point taken, I'll stop addressing you as if you were taking the conversation seriously.
@ Kaldric: A full 25% of all items dropped are things aimed specifically at casters and you think that means they don't get nice things? A wizard is 1/4th of the average 4 person party. If he's getting 1/4th the loot, and 1/4th of all loot ever is aimed specifically at him (while another, unmentioned portion is for everybody) why is he A) Not able to find the spells he wants when a significant portion of the drops are his and B) only getting crappy loot if there is allot he can use to shore up his weaknesses when he has abilities that specifically allow him to research and find the shit he wants while the fighter has only pomp and circumstance (Mostly DM pity or luck) to rely on if he wants awesome shit?
Second, and I find this hilarious, it actually says in the rulebook that spellcasters are explicitly so much better at adventuring than non magic users that you are encouraged to not provide them with stuff JUST so the man in the metal pants doesn't feel belittled by being around them? This paragraph alone suggests that if you just had a team of spellcasters getting all the loot they'd dominate play. Even the friggin' DESIGNERS of the game know that MUs are better than mundane characters and their balance fix is to provide the fighters with enough gear to make up for their lack of actual class abilities.
Are you telling me that you read, and copied this and the notion that MAYBE the fighters should just plain have superpowers still doesn't seem like a good idea to you? Your entire argument rests on the assumption that casters are indeed more powerful than fighters but to make up for it you're expected to short change the spellcasters specifically and explicitly to keep the fighter from feeling small in the pants.
Perhaps its the length of this discussion, perhaps its the time of night, but can you remind me exactly why its better to give him magic crap then just have him do magic crap?
Quote from: Marleycat;556734I think we should go for 4000 posts on this topic if Pundit allows it.:D
I don't see the Gaming Den bozos giving up on their obsessive, anal-retentive, off-the-rails delusions any time soon, so if you guys keep poking them in the wrong places we might just get there.
Quote from: Benoist;556754I don't see the Gaming Den bozos giving up on their obsessive, anal-retentive, off-the-rails delusions any time soon, so if you guys keep poking them in the wrong places we might just get there.
Well that's obvious, but I missed being the 2000th post. So I'm just setting a goal to keep me interested, given the answer was given in the first 15 posts or so.:D
I get a bit upset about ghosts being bastards but these whackos argue that Fighters are useless for 200+ pages on a site populated by people that actually play the game.
Is it wrong to feed the trolls? Before. I forget, Jeff you shall pay for this stupid thread. :)
Quote from: MGuy;556751Ahh I see. You're just trolling me. I made the mistake of taking you serious. Point taken, I'll stop addressing you as if you were taking the conversation seriously.
This isn't a conversation. This is you whining because no one will validate your poorly formed opinion. You refuse to even accept that another position besides "Fighters are useless" could even exist. You fully admit that you have no experience with editions prior to 2nd, and that your experience with 2nd is pretty limited as well. You have no standing to make your wild claims, especially when the very deep flaws in your argument have been pointed out many times.
You are more than welcome to back out, but that won't change the fundamental errors in what you consider transmitted wisdom from on high. Your inability to grasp why a Magic-User picking up a sword and putting on armour doesn't make them the equivalent of a Fighter is only the most basic of the many, many critical errors in your line of thinking, but you will never give up on it. You haven't the first clue as to how AD&D is played; what is most damaging to your argument is that you think
lacking this knowledge isn't important.
It's abundantly clear you don't want more effective Fighters. You flat out stated that the very rules that keep Fighters and Magic-Users more or less on par in AD&D is a solution that would make you like AD&D
even less. Which would be impossible for normal people, because you haven't even
played AD&D.
Read this carefully again:
Dipshit: "I want a game that is good for X"
Others: "Game Y is pretty good for that"
Dipshit: "No, it uses mechanic Z."
Others: "How about this other game?"
Dipshit: "That won't work."
...
ad infinitum.
Again, that is why you are a dipshit. Without even playing 'other game', you have decided it won't work. And you will keep repeating this cycle, because there can be no answer for your unassailable truth that Fighters are useless.
Quote from: Kaldric;556696In AD&D the wizard doesn't get awesome goodies nearly as often as the fighter. That's a 3E thing. In AD&D, the wizard gets 10 magic mouth scrolls, the fighter gets Plate Armor of Etherealness.
that is not true.
A blantant mistelling
The number of 1e items specificially limited to the fighter is very small.
All amour can be used by the Cleric as well (as well obviously as all figther sub-classes but we won;t go there)
All swords can be used by the thief and the elf.
There are about 3 times as many magic items that are magic User specific than figther specific and that excludes scrolls entirely.
Now in a given treasure trove there is a fair chance of reciveving a magic sword, or armour but once the fighter has a +3 sword, a powerful item but not as powerful as gauntlets of ogre power that a cleric or theif can use, the chance of him finding a better sword deminishes to 10% of all swords found. Remembering that what is it 15% of all swords are cursed (From memory I think the sword table hits +3 at 70% and from 86%-00% the swords are cursed - My memory might be out for a couple of % either way)
So in effect once the figther has found 5 magic swords, which we can assume happens by what 5th level if you are being as generous with treasure as you seem to be and each treasure trove gets a sword then the fighter is very unlikely to get another magic sword that is any use to them. Most such swords go into the party treasure pool to be sold on and the loot split (assuming the elf and the thief already have magic swords.) and in fact the fighter has more chance of getting a sword substantially worse than his +3 sword that he will be cursed to use than he does improving upon it.
There are some unique items, a Helm of Brilliance, a Rod of Lordly might but these are 1% rolls on 3-5% tables so sub 0.5% .
The Wizard has some very powerful items that are wizard only, Ring of Wizardry, Robe of the Magi, numerous staves and wands and because they are not the front line soldier tend to get the lion's share of other "support" items in actual campaign play.
So in effect the 'awesone goodies' the figther gets in gerneral play are limited to various +x swords and armour that are not quite as good as the one he is already has - I have never ever rolled Armour of Etherealness for example in 30 years of playing D&D.
As I have said I have no problem with the imbalance in old versions of D&D but why pretend it doesn't exist. Its simply disingenuous
Jibba, imbalance does exist but it's not imbalance as defined in 3/4e terms.
Quote from: StormBringer;556727This is why you will never understand or be able to correct the problems you see in 3.x
No it is a stupid rule. Everyone knows its a stupid rule.
A farmer's son can try to poke things with a sword but when he is spotted as having natural magical talent he stops....
Crap to hit tables and a -5 with untrained weapon are more than enough to act as a barrier for wizards using swords. Actually enforcing a rule as gamist as "you aren't allowed to" is a hideously and crude attempt to offer 'balance'.
Especially when an elf in OD&D can both use magic and swords becuase of his culture (my human sword culture not good enough for you?) and in 1e a multiclassed Elf can use sword, armour and cast spells but progresses fractionally slower (due to the XP progression tables requiring double XP per level typically an Elven F/MU will be 5/5 to the rest of the party's 6th) and has level limitations because he ancient elven mind can't learn more than a certain amount of stuff. But I digress :)
An elf isn't human hence the nasty limits. Jibba come on you don't actually believe the bullshit you're posting to support such an inane position?
Quote from: Kaldric;556733And very specifically in AD&D, you have to have the class ability to use specific items. So, no, not everybody can use a vorpal sword in AD&D. Just the fighter. The wizard actually gets very little cool shit. Here's why:
AD&D DMG Page 121.
The Magic-User in AD&D simply doesn't get the 'piles of supplementary goodies' everyone else does. If you decide to change that in your games, you better balance it some other way. Don't claim 'm/u gets goodies and fighter gets goodies, so the m/u still has spells, and he's thus better!' The only way there's item parity is if the DM is slanting the game that way intentionally. The game is set up to give more permanent items to non m/u characters.
Again untrue
Having 5 suits of armour and 6 magical sword is of little use in actual play even if you bring your cart with you.
MU get a wider range of items that have a wider range of applications.
I would prefer to have 2 rings a staff a wand some bracers of defense and a coupel of potions say 7 items as opposed to the 11 items I list above.....
Quote from: jibbajibba;556768Again untrue
Having 5 suits of armour and 6 magical sword is of little use in actual play even if you bring your cart with you.
MU get a wider range of items that have a wider range of applications.
I would prefer to have 2 rings a staff a wand some bracers of defense and a coupel of potions say 7 items as opposed to the 11 items I list above.....
So multiclass already! And watch yourself get fucked if you're anything but a martial type in 3e. What's up with the ridiculous black and white bullshit?
Quote from: Marleycat;556767An elf isn't human hence the nasty limits. Jibba come on you don't actually believe the bullshit you're posting to support such an inane position?
You said up post that you thought wizards should be allowed to use swords but at a massive penalty I agree with you.
As for Racial level limits they are attrociously gamist and make zero sense if you are trying to actually create a real logical world. A 20-50% experience penalty for demi-humans which represents the fact that long lived races learn things slower than the Humans is a far better balance attempt.
I also like the Skills and Powers concept (although the implementation is dire) that you pay for a race and those points come out of something else. So a Dwarven fighter can detect undersground slopes, see in the dark, apraise the workmanship of gold and gems, etc etc... but the Human gets extra skill slots at first level (becuase humans learn faster), an additional spell or whatever....
But lets not go down that path because The Night is dark and full of terrors
Quote from: Marleycat;556770So multiclass already! And watch yourself get fucked if you're anything but a martial type in 3e. What's up with the ridiculous black and white bullshit?
I think you are looking at the wrong guy :)
I am refering specifically to 1e in reply to Kaldric.
He claims that in 1e Fighters get all the awesome magic items.
This is disingenuous and mendacious
The GD Posse have already explaiend they do not have experience of pre 3e systems enough to argue the case.
I figured that all we need for tyrants to prosper is for good men to do nothing so pointed out that the reality of actual play was somewhat different and that 5 of the same item is not generally as useful as 3 different items, unless you are talkingabout doughnuts.
Quote from: jibbajibba;556768Again untrue
Having 5 suits of armour and 6 magical sword is of little use in actual play even if you bring your cart with you.
MU get a wider range of items that have a wider range of applications.
I would prefer to have 2 rings a staff a wand some bracers of defense and a coupel of potions say 7 items as opposed to the 11 items I list above.....
This is importantly true. Also recall that by far the most common treasure types where you get magic items are S and T. Those are the ones where you automatically get some potions or scrolls. While Weapons and Armor represent 40% of the "general magic item list", they aren't even
close to that much of the total number of magic items.
Magic weapons are fully 25% of the general magic items, but once the Fighter has a magic sword and a magic bow,
who cares? Special Armors are still rarer than Staves, and 20% of them are cursed and in any case you can only benefit from one. While of course, if you had five magic staves and you found a sixth one
that would go in your golfbag too.
The AD&D DMG treasure tables are actually
not terribly Fighter friendly. It's pretty hard to get to 8th level without having a weapon big enough to hurt the "+X or Better Weapon to Hit" monsters you're facing at that point, but other than that Magic Users get a lot more cool stuff.
-Frank
@Frank, do you ever entertain switching up your charts on the fly? Seriously. Or are you afraid if you make a decision you'll be accused of "Mother May I"?
@Jibba, 50% is fucked for a game but makes complete sense for the world and NPC's. 20% is good for PC's.
I really do want to see just how long you guys will argue indefensible positions because we have 1947 posts to go. So entertain me already.
Quote from: Marleycat;556777@Frank, do you ever entertain switching up your charts on the fly? Seriously.
@Jibba, 50% is fucked for a game but makes complete sense for the world and NPC's. 20% is good for PC's.
I really do want to see just how long you guys will argue indefensible positions because we have 1947 posts to go. So entertain me already.
I am not certain why you say indefensible.
Frank is refering to the 1e magic item tables. They are what they are.
When I get home tonight I might create 5 hordes of treasure, 1-5th level to demonstrate what you actualy get rather than point to single uber rare items... that by their very nature seldome come up in play and when they do become the focus of an entire game.
Why look my mage with his portable hole, Sphere of Anhiliation and Cube of force is really tough.... quelle suprise....
Look at what demihumans actually get compared to humans and work out how you would price them. Then look at the disadvantages. Again the 50% XP penalty is not nearly as bad as you think because XP requirements double between levels so a straight elf figther is 1-2 levels lower than a human fighter with a 50% XP penalty. In return for ... several immumities, bonuses with weapons, extra languages, improved detection , etc etc ... seems fair to me.
Quote from: Marleycat;556777@Frank, do you ever entertain switching up your charts on the fly? Seriously.
Kaldric's point was that if you played AD&D with the treasure chart out of the book, that the Fighter got a lot more magic items than the Magic User. That point is
essentially false. The Fighter is really very likely to find a magic weapon and a suit of magic armor
of some kind in a fairly small number of encounters, but his chances of finding something that adds any real capabilities to him is vanishingly small. The Plate Armor of Etherealness that Kaldric was calling out actually only drops one time out of 1333 times you roll on the AD&D DMG generic magic item table (15% armor, 5% special armor, 10% Plate Mail of Etherealness).
Once you have a halfway decent set of armor, and by that I mean
non magical field plate, it is quite difficult to find better armor off the chart. We're talking
about 2% of general item drops. And once you have something that is pretty good (like maybe +3 Banded Mail or maybe just full plate you had custom fitted for you by a blacksmith), your chances of finding something that increase your options or raise your numbers are considerably less than 1%.
Meanwhile, every wand that a Wizard picks up increases his power. A Wand of Lightning might not produce any spell effects that the Wizard can't produce out of his own spellbook, but it does so out of a different set of charges and on top of whatever he memorized that day.
Kaldric's underlying point is wrong. If you go by the AD&D item drop charts, Magic Users have a considerable advantage in the long campaign. And if you
don't use the magic item chart out of the AD&D DMG, Kaldric doesn't have a point at all. Once the DM is placing items in his campaign world rather than rolling on the charts, then
no class (or perhaps
every class) has any special ability to find more than their share of useful magic items.
-Frank
Fine, I'm done for now because neither one of you understands what you need to do to shake things up and go beyond the charts and rolls. Basically make the game your own.
Fair warning to both f you. I may get bored and troll both of you to at least 4000 posts. It's a goal. So start dancing.:)
Quote from: Marleycat;556785Fine I'm done for now because neither one of you understands that you need to shake things up and go beyond the charts and rolls. Basically make the game your own.
Fair warning to both of you ....I may get bored and troll you to at least game 4000 posts.:D
Of course we can do that.
I have no issue with changing the game to suit what I want no problem at all.
That woudl be me attempting to narrow the gap between the caster and the non caster.
Kaldric is saying there is no gap if you run the game as written.
Can you see the dissonance in that ?
I don't think it is a fair characterization of my position to claim that I don't think that 1st Edition AD&D should be adjusted on a rules level. However, as JibbaJabba and I have already pointed out, we were responding to
Kaldric, who made exactly that claim.
Remember? We are responding to this claim by Kaldric:
Quote from: KaldricAnd very specifically in AD&D, you have to have the class ability to use specific items. So, no, not everybody can use a vorpal sword in AD&D. Just the fighter. The wizard actually gets very little cool shit. Here's why:
AD&D DMG Page 121.
The Magic-User in AD&D simply doesn't get the 'piles of supplementary goodies' everyone else does. If you decide to change that in your games, you better balance it some other way.
And this claim:
Quote from: KaldricIn AD&D the wizard doesn't get awesome goodies nearly as often as the fighter. That's a 3E thing. In AD&D, the wizard gets 10 magic mouth scrolls, the fighter gets Plate Armor of Etherealness.
Got that? Kaldric is making specific claims about the rules
as written. He even cites page numbers, although he doesn't seem to have actually thought through what the charts on those pages really mean.
All this discussion of what is on the magic item charts is a refutation of Kaldric's claims. He made factually untrue statements about who would get the lion's share of the "power ups" if you used Gygax's chart as-is. Double-J and I were merely correcting him on that point.
-Frank
Well there is a gap but pre 3e bridges it nicely. 3x has issues hence I don't play it anymore. And yes, Frank and Jibba I understand. But I really want to understand your perspective without trolling you, even though it would be fun.
Jibbajabba: I just rolled 50 random magical treasures using the 'Magical Treasure' table that the DMG says is weighted towards giving Fighters most of the permanent magic items.
It resulted in 258 items. They are:
18 swords
21 suits of armor and shields
15 miscellaneous magic weapons
10 miscellaneous magic items
6 rings
7 rods
2 wands
67 scrolls
108 potions
Going through the list, the Fighter has 2 Hammers of Thunderbolts, a Rod of Lordly Might, and an Intelligent Frost Brand. Doesn't matter if he can't use 18 different swords at once. What matters is that he gets to roll 18 times on the 'Swords' table, and the wizard doesn't get jack shit. When scrolls come up, the fighter has a 37% chance of being able to use the resultant scrolls. When swords, armor, and miscellaneous weapons come up, the wizard can use absolutely none of the swords or armor, and an extremely limited selection of the miscellaneous weapons.
Of the permanent items: That is, items that do not get 'used up' - there were 59 of them, either not using charges, or rechargeable. The wizard was capable of using 12, and he was not in any way the best choice to be given any of those 12. Four of the items were daggers, better given to a thief. Four were rings, neutral. Two were cloaks - Elvenkind and Protection. Again, neutral. There's one wand that's rechargeable, and anyone can use it - Secret Door Location, Trap Detection. And there's a Rod of Beguiling, the only item on the list a wizard can use, that a fighter can't. The only items out of the 59 that the Fighter couldn't use were the 2 talismans of pure good (cleric only) and the rod of beguiling. The Fighter can use both wands, the ring of spell storing, etc.
Here's the list, expendables are marked with an X.
Spoiler
Fighter can use these items.
Sword 1
Sword 1
Sword 1
Sword 1
Sword 1, 2 vs magic-using or enchanted creatures
Sword 1, 3 vs lycanthropes and shapechangers
Sword 1, 3 vs lycanthropes and shapechangers
Sword 1, 3 vs lycanthropes and shapechangers
Sword 2
Sword 2
Sword 2, giant slayer
Sword 2, giant slayer
Sword 1, luck blade
Sword 3
Sword 3, frost brand, 6 vs fire using/dwelling
Sword 4, defender
Sword 5
sword of dancing
chain mail 1
chain mail 2
chain mail 2
leather armor 1
leather armor 1
plate mail 1
plate mail 2
plate mail 2
plate mail 4
ring mail 1
ring mail 1
ring mail 1
scale mail 2
scale mail 2
splint mail 2
splint mail 2
Shield 1
Shield 5
mattock of the titans
Axe 2
Flail 1
Hammer of Thunderbolts
Hammer of Thunderbolts
Mace 1
Military pick 1
Military pick 1
Spear 2
Rod of lordly might (still an extremely useful magic item when charges are gone)
Dagger 1, 2 vs smaller than men
Dagger 1, 2 vs smaller than men
Dagger 2, 3 vs larger than men
Dagger 2, 3 vs larger than men
ring of spell storing (4 cleric spells)
ring of swimming
ring of warmth
ring of water walking
wand of secret door and trap location
cloak of protection
cloak of elvenkind
Wizard Can Use These 12 Permanent Items
Dagger 1, 2 vs smaller than men
Dagger 1, 2 vs smaller than men
Dagger 2, 3 vs larger than men
Dagger 2, 3 vs larger than men
ring of spell storing (4 cleric spells)
ring of swimming
ring of warmth
ring of water walking
wand of secret door and trap location
cloak of protection
cloak of elvenkind
Rod of beguiling
Neither can use these.
talisman of pure good
talisman of pure good
Non-Rechargeable Items
Brooch of shielding X
dust of disappearance X
quaal's feather token X
quaal's feather token X
quaal's feather token X
Arrow 1, 16 X
Arrow 2, 12 X
Bolt 2, 9 X
ring of mammal control X
ring of multiple wishes (6) X
rod of cancellation X
rod of cancellation X
rod of cancellation X
rod of cancellation X
rod of smiting X
wand of wonder X
There is a single permanent item the wizard can use, that the fighter can't. There are 47 items on the list that the fighter can use, but the wizard can't. It's quite heavily weighted towards the fighter.
Just considering permanent items, the Fighter gets access to 56, the wizard gets access to 12.
So, no, I'm not being disingenuous. Fighters get access to approximately 5 times the number of permanent items the magic user does. And it doesn't matter if he can't use them all at once - he gets 5x the opportunity for a really cool one, or several really cool ones, to come up.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;556782Kaldric's point was that if you played AD&D with the treasure chart out of the book, that the Fighter got a lot more magic items than the Magic User. That point is essentially false.
There's a straight 20% chance that the Fighter gets a sword, plus a suit of armor, and a miscellaneous weapon, in a random magical treasure.
QuoteThe Fighter is really very likely to find a magic weapon and a suit of magic armor of some kind in a fairly small number of encounters, but his chances of finding something that adds any real capabilities to him is vanishingly small.
Not really.
QuoteThe Plate Armor of Etherealness that Kaldric was calling out actually only drops one time out of 1333 times you roll on the AD&D DMG generic magic item table (15% armor, 5% special armor, 10% Plate Mail of Etherealness).
Sure. But you're not going to get the Armor of Etherealness by rolling on the generic magic item table. You're going to get it on the Magic Treasure table, which just straight gives a suit of armor 20% of the time. Plus all the times it gives a random magic item that just happens to be a suit of armor.
QuoteOnce you have a halfway decent set of armor, and by that I mean non magical field plate, it is quite difficult to find better armor off the chart. We're talking about 2% of general item drops.
Your numbers are off, because you're using random items instead of random treasures. Not all items in the random treasure use the random item chart. It's heavily weighted to give lots of swords, armor, and weapons.
QuoteAnd once you have something that is pretty good (like maybe +3 Banded Mail or maybe just full plate you had custom fitted for you by a blacksmith), your chances of finding something that increase your options or raise your numbers are considerably less than 1%.
I just did 50 random treasures. By the end, the fighter had +4 Plate mail, a +5 shield, and a +4 Defender sword.
QuoteMeanwhile, every wand that a Wizard picks up increases his power.
2 wands came up on the rolls for those 50 treasures - both usable by Fighters. Know why? The only way to get a wand is to roll Rods, Staves, Wands on the random item chart - unlike Rods, Rings, Swords, Armor, Misc. Weapons, Potions, and Scrolls - Wands are never guaranteed. They're actually very rare.
QuoteA Wand of Lightning might not produce any spell effects that the Wizard can't produce out of his own spellbook, but it does so out of a different set of charges and on top of whatever he memorized that day.
Yeah - but it's real unlikely he gets more than one or two in his career.
QuoteKaldric's underlying point is wrong. If you go by the AD&D item drop charts, Magic Users have a considerable advantage in the long campaign.
You're looking at the random item chart, which you use after the random treasure chart. Look a wee bit up on the page, to the chart that's very heavility weighted to producing a lot of possibilities for really cool weapons. My 50 rolls came up with 2 hammers of thunderbolts, 4 intelligent swords, and a rod of lordly might. The wizard got... nothing, exclusively to him.
QuoteAnd if you don't use the magic item chart out of the AD&D DMG, Kaldric doesn't have a point at all. Once the DM is placing items in his campaign world rather than rolling on the charts, then no class (or perhaps every class) has any special ability to find more than their share of useful magic items.
Absolutely - if you choose not to use the tools the game gives you to balance wizards and fighters... well, that's on you. Or if, like you, you misinterpret how the tables are meant to be used.
@Kaldric, stop it. I promised not to troll. At least until I'm totally bored. 4000 is a ways off yes?
Quote from: jibbajibba;556589Is a 15th level fighter in his pyjamas easiert to hit and deal damage to than a first level newbie in Plate and shield. The Genre novels films etc would indicate no the master warrior can run rings round the youngster and never get tagged.
I'm not trying to emulate genre films, rather (if anything) better swords & sorcery fiction.
QuoteEasier in open ended ascending AC systems I think so you don't think AC 2 is plate and shield.
I don't use open-ended systems. Even when I use Ascending AC, the limits are the same as they would be in TSR D&D. The best AC you are going to get is about -10 (30) (5 from magic armor, 5 from dex/other bonuses). AC simply tops out there no matter what combination of magic armor, magic spells, and natural abilities one can put together. Closed-ended systems keep things mundane/realistic. You never need +45 to hit or the like.
QuoteAnd curiously do you think giving those powers to the Warlord Subclass in your game takes away something from the figther? Even if for figthers it might have bene optional.
It never has (as in no one has ever complained). Normal fighters can lead hirelings as well, giving them the normal "leader in sight" morale bonuses and such. Warlords can command 0-level forces so well that they have an effective fighter level equal to one-quarter the warlord's level in addition to bonuses to morale. The number of such people the Warlord can command is limited and goes up with his level. Also commanding troops to this level requires all the warlord's attention. If he is engaged in melee combat, the people he commands immediately begin to falter, quickly falling back to their real level (0). And yes, this ability only affects 0-level troops.
Quote from: Kaldric;556790Jibbajabba: I just rolled 50 random magical treasures using the 'Magical Treasure' table that the DMG says is weighted towards giving Fighters most of the permanent magic items.
It resulted in 258 items. They are:
18 swords
21 suits of armor and shields
15 miscellaneous magic weapons
10 miscellaneous magic items
6 rings
7 rods
2 wands
67 scrolls
108 potions
Going through the list, the Fighter has 2 Hammers of Thunderbolts, a Rod of Lordly Might, and an Intelligent Frost Brand. Doesn't matter if he can't use 18 different swords at once. What matters is that he gets to roll 18 times on the 'Swords' table, and the wizard doesn't get jack shit. When scrolls come up, the fighter has a 37% chance of being able to use the resultant scrolls. When swords, armor, and miscellaneous weapons come up, the wizard can use absolutely none of the swords or armor, and an extremely limited selection of the miscellaneous weapons.
Of the permanent items: That is, items that do not get 'used up' - there were 59 of them, either not using charges, or rechargeable. The wizard was capable of using 12, and he was not in any way the best choice to be given any of those 12. Four of the items were daggers, better given to a thief. Four were rings, neutral. Two were cloaks - Elvenkind and Protection. Again, neutral. There's one wand that's rechargeable, and anyone can use it - Secret Door Location, Trap Detection. And there's a Rod of Beguiling, the only item on the list a wizard can use, that a fighter can't. The only items out of the 59 that the Fighter couldn't use were the 2 talismans of pure good (cleric only) and the rod of beguiling. The Fighter can use both wands, the ring of spell storing, etc.
Here's the list, expendables are marked with an X.
Spoiler
Fighter can use these items.
Sword 1
Sword 1
Sword 1
Sword 1
Sword 1, 2 vs magic-using or enchanted creatures
Sword 1, 3 vs lycanthropes and shapechangers
Sword 1, 3 vs lycanthropes and shapechangers
Sword 1, 3 vs lycanthropes and shapechangers
Sword 2
Sword 2
Sword 2, giant slayer
Sword 2, giant slayer
Sword 1, luck blade
Sword 3
Sword 3, frost brand, 6 vs fire using/dwelling
Sword 4, defender
Sword 5
sword of dancing
chain mail 1
chain mail 2
chain mail 2
leather armor 1
leather armor 1
plate mail 1
plate mail 2
plate mail 2
plate mail 4
ring mail 1
ring mail 1
ring mail 1
scale mail 2
scale mail 2
splint mail 2
splint mail 2
Shield 1
Shield 5
mattock of the titans
Axe 2
Flail 1
Hammer of Thunderbolts
Hammer of Thunderbolts
Mace 1
Military pick 1
Military pick 1
Spear 2
Rod of lordly might (still an extremely useful magic item when charges are gone)
Dagger 1, 2 vs smaller than men
Dagger 1, 2 vs smaller than men
Dagger 2, 3 vs larger than men
Dagger 2, 3 vs larger than men
ring of spell storing (4 cleric spells)
ring of swimming
ring of warmth
ring of water walking
wand of secret door and trap location
cloak of protection
cloak of elvenkind
Wizard Can Use These 12 Permanent Items
Dagger 1, 2 vs smaller than men
Dagger 1, 2 vs smaller than men
Dagger 2, 3 vs larger than men
Dagger 2, 3 vs larger than men
ring of spell storing (4 cleric spells)
ring of swimming
ring of warmth
ring of water walking
wand of secret door and trap location
cloak of protection
cloak of elvenkind
Rod of beguiling
Neither can use these.
talisman of pure good
talisman of pure good
Non-Rechargeable Items
Brooch of shielding X
dust of disappearance X
quaal's feather token X
quaal's feather token X
quaal's feather token X
Arrow 1, 16 X
Arrow 2, 12 X
Bolt 2, 9 X
ring of mammal control X
ring of multiple wishes (6) X
rod of cancellation X
rod of cancellation X
rod of cancellation X
rod of cancellation X
rod of smiting X
wand of wonder X
There is a single permanent item the wizard can use, that the fighter can't. There are 47 items on the list that the fighter can use, but the wizard can't. It's quite heavily weighted towards the fighter.
Just considering permanent items, the Fighter gets access to 56, the wizard gets access to 12.
So, no, I'm not being disingenuous. Fighters get access to approximately 5 times the number of permanent items the magic user does. And it doesn't matter if he can't use them all at once - he gets 5x the opportunity for a really cool one, or several really cool ones, to come up.
I will not question the way you rolled I can accept that (no cursed swords though which is unusual as they are quite commopn)
I woudl say that by the time a party have encountered 50 magical treasure hordes they are c 15th level a as bench mark if you disagree please state so.
Instead I will look at the actual items.
The fighter can not use 56 items on that list he can use 1 weapon, with backup weapons, he can use 1 suit of armour, he can use 1 sheild and some assorted other stuff.
So the Figther after encountering 258 magic items will have
Plate Mail +4 unless the cleric claimed it depneds on that particular cache
Sheild +5 - unless the cleric made a claim - depends on that particular cache
+5 Sword
Rod of lordly Might (a game changing major item)
A frost Brand - intelligent
a Hammer of thunderbolts - but only of limited use as no guantlet / girdle combo
Some magic arrows - split with the theif
Qualls feather token - there were 3 of them
+2 Dagger
Other secondary weapons - which he will very rarely use
a slice of the potion count.
The Wizard will probably get
Cloak of Protection
Dagger +2/+3
ring of spell storing (4 cleric spells) - you give one to the cleric and one to the MU as healing backup
wand of secret door and trap location - to backup the rogue
Rod of beguiling
Brooch of shielding X
quaal's feather token X
ring of mammal control X
ring of multiple wishes (6) X
rod of cancellation X
wand of wonder X[/spoiler]
+ choice from 67 scrolls and a slice of the potion count.
That is a realistic split of the treasure to get a more realistic split we would need to see each cache. And we are assuming a cooperative party of 4 Fighter/Cleric/MU/Thief if we add a ranger or planadin as a second martial class of course the split changes but it woudl with a second wizard as well so its a wash.
so using your list how does this refute the following claims
i) most of the fighters magic just improves AC and adds bonuses to hit and damage
ii) having a lot of suits of armour is of limited use just liek havign lots of swords is
iii) the caster can do far more out of combat
Quote from: jibbajibba;556362Still not sure where the elit house guard come from and as I demonstrated up post the Cleric gets more soldiers, his stronghold is 50% cheaper to build, he gets an additional 2d10 x 10 followers as well as his soldiers and all of them are fantatical and don;t need to be paid....
Also not quite sure how you are going to carry the castle out to the village where the dragon is attacking, some sort of advanced teleporting flying castle perhaps?
and any one with cash can build a castle which si why when you meet Queen Elizabeth II you will find she is not a 9th level warrior :)
But all debate on this thread topic is already done :)
Yay, I get to quote chapter and verse! :D
AD&D 2e, PHB, p. 26 (10th printing 1993, blah, blah, blah), 3rd column last paragraph:
"In addition to regular men-at-arms, the 9th-lvl fighter also attracts an elite bodyguard (his "household guards"). Although these soldiers are still mercenaries, they have greater loyalty to their Lord than do common soldiers. In return, they expect better treatment and more pay than the common soldier receives. Although the elite unit can be chosen randomly, it is better to ask your DM what unit your fighter attracts. This allows him to choose a troop consistent with the campaign."
Each of these elite guards are 1st-lvl+, and you get 10~30 of them, kitted out already with gear. This is in addition to the initial men-at-arms group. The larger probability (31%~99%) favors 20+ 1st-lvls.
And that initial group has a 5th-lvl+ leader (kitted out with suggested magic gear) (or if you're lucky you get the 6th-lvl leader w/ an extra 3rd lvl lieutenant). Your initial troops are 0th-lvl like the clerics, however you get anywhere from 60~120, fully kitted out. The greater probability (0%~75%) is either the 80 or 120 soldier option. However this also continues the trend of the smaller the number of soldiers, the nicer the gear.
Most likely the 9th lvl fighter will get a 5th or 6th lvl leader, 80+ 0th-lvl, and 20+ 1st-lvl fighters. So around 100+ on average, with gear. The lowest amount of men-at-arms you can get is 60 0th-lvl cavalry + 10 1st-lvl mounted knights, which is a far cry from the lowest clerics can get with just 20 0th-lvl and ??? gear.
The cleric's followers might have gear, but that's laden in the term 'normal warriors, 0th-level soldiers,' and DM interpretation. Might end up having irregulars who need to be equipped by your coffers. And the cleric explicitly gets no replacements to his fanatical followers that die in his service. "After the initial followers assemble, no new followers trickle in to fill the ranks of those who have fallen in service." (AD&D 2e, PHB, p.33, last column, middle of second to last paragraph)
So no, the fighter is pretty strong in the amount of support he gets.
Now about the example of the dragon fighting, there were two examples: fighter & wizard exposed on a vast Kansas-like plain, and a pic of a dragon assaulting London with an Apache helicopter and Big Ben w/ House of Parliament in the background. Now, they're both comical, but whatever, this flame-warring is all in good fun. But if I chose the city at siege one, a common trope of dragons strafing castles, what sort of danger would the dragon be in?
Given archery slits and crenellation giving anywhere between 75~90% cover... 80 0th-lvl and 20 1st-lvl with short bows ROF of 2/1 (who won't flee because they have military training, they just take a -2 if they're in the path of a dragon's swooping charge)... Target number math really doesn't matter, just assume only nat 20s hit, so that's around 10 hits out of 200 shots. At 1d6 per flight arrow, that's around 34 damage each round at 100% attack. Given that's unrealistic, likely only 50% attack output at a given time (with others putting out fires, manning stations, moving the injured), that's around 15 damage a round.
Assuming 2e Red Dragon Great Wyrm, 15 HD base + 8 for Great Wyrm status, thus 23d8 for HP. Rough average range of between 97~110 HP. Take 110 HP, divide by 15 (the rough damage guesstimate of hail mary shots landing), and that gives... 7.33e repeating. So roughly an average Red Dragon Great Wyrm has less than 7 rounds, or 7 minutes, to assault a 9th-lvl fighter's keep operating at half capacity and get out with its life -- ignoring the 9th-lvl fighter and his 5th-lvl captain.
Same Red Dragon Great Wyrm at max HP, 184 HP, divide by 15 damage a round has... 12.26. Less than 12 rounds, or 12 minutes to attack an average 9th lvl fighter's keep operating at half capacity and get out with its life. ??? I guess then castles are crazy scary symbols of power.
Hmm, methinks the 'nat 20 always hit, nat 1 always miss rule' has more than fair sway in these calculations... I think all this contextless number crunching has been less than fruitful in that light. Oh well, I made a wall of text and wasted everyone's time.
:(
Next post I'll calculate the average damage output of an ambidextrous two-weapon style dagger specialist fighter in 2e!
Quote from: MGuy;556521I don't expect the fighter to do the same thing as everyone else. I do expect that the fighter should be at least get SOMETHING unique and interesting. We can all agree that games are more than fighting stuff. We can also agree that all the classes reasonably can and indeed should be able to fight stuff. All classes should be able to do interesting stuff in AND out of battle.
They get specialization, they get more attacks and the can roll for exceptional strength. For me that was enough. If I needed more balance, all I would ask for is better numbers in those areas. I get you want something different. Nothing wrong with that. But I not everyone is going to agree with you on what classes should and shouldn't do. I am fine with some classes being good out of combat and not great in combat, or vice versa. Games where everyone always has an equal amount of shine in all occassions don't appeal to me.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;556815They get specialization, they get more attacks and the can roll for exceptional strength. For me that was enough. If I needed more balance, all I would ask for is better numbers in those areas. I get you want something different. Nothing wrong with that. But I not everyone is going to agree with you on what classes should and shouldn't do. I am fine with some classes being good out of combat and not great in combat, or vice versa. Games where everyone always has an equal amount of shine in all occassions don't appeal to me.
Out of curiosity, what is it about everyone being able to participate in some fashion in all areas of the game that is a deal breaker for you?
Quote from: MGuy;556867Out of curiosity, what is it about everyone being able to participate in some fashion in all areas of the game that is a deal breaker for you?
That one-liner sounds VERY familiar. Got an account at the Forge, too?
Quote from: Benoist;556874That one-liner sounds VERY familiar. Got an account at the Forge, too?
It needn't have anything to do with the Forge, or whatever other imaginary bugaboo is frosting your shorts this week.
It just requires a group of adults with lives and responsibilities who enjoy roleplaying games but need to make the most out of the time they spend on them. Time spent not contributing anything interesting is time not spent playing the game.
My group mostly plays board games, and we pretty quickly weeded out of the rotation any game that requires most of the group to sit and do nothing while one player takes his turn. Same principle applies.
Quote from: daniel_ream;556884It needn't have anything to do with the Forge, or whatever other imaginary bugaboo is frosting your shorts this week.
It just requires a group of adults with lives and responsibilities who enjoy roleplaying games but need to make the most out of the time they spend on them. Time spent not contributing anything interesting is time not spent playing the game.
My group mostly plays board games, and we pretty quickly weeded out of the rotation any game that requires most of the group to sit and do nothing while one player takes his turn. Same principle applies.
Yeah, truly. I don't think MGuy's desire is necessary (I also don't mind down time in boardgames), but I can't fault him for wanting that from a game. Doesn't mean he's not a REAL role-player. The existence of successful RPGs (REAL ones, not Forge creations or storygames or whatever) that cater to this wish should prove that.
Quote from: MGuy;556867Out of curiosity, what is it about everyone being able to participate in some fashion in all areas of the game that is a deal breaker for you?
Define participation.
My B/X fighter participates in exploration, interaction, and combat. The only thing preventing said participation is if I, as the player, choose not to do so.
The character sheet doesn't have mashable buttons on it that say 'explore', 'fight', or 'interact' but they are all quite possible.
What kinds of games do you play that forbid participation in certain areas?
Quote from: MGuy;556867Out of curiosity, what is it about everyone being able to participate in some fashion in all areas of the game that is a deal breaker for you?
I wouldn't phrase it the way you do here.
For me its simply more fun if I am not equally good at all aspects of the game. Its more interesting to me if characters have strengths, weaknesses, etc. So if my thief isn't all that great at fighting but excellent at tripping traps and sneaking into the palace that provides an important contrast. Makes it that much cooler when i do shine. If it doesn't work for you that is fine
Quote from: MGuy;556867Out of curiosity, what is it about everyone being able to participate in some fashion in all areas of the game that is a deal breaker for you?
I don't think anyone has even remotely made that statement. But see, this is an example of behavior from "your side" that really drives me nuts. It goes right up there along side of "mother may I". You want a codified, defined set of rules that allow every character to be exactly equal in all of the pillars, and anyone who doesn't agree must somehow mean that they favor a system that doesn't allow some people to participate at all.
That's a huge strawman, and excludes a vast middle ground. As bad as Benoit's knee jerk reactions are to a conducive conversation, this type of tactic is far worse.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;556918I wouldn't phrase it the way you do here.
For me its simply more fun if I am not equally good at all aspects of the game. Its more interesting to me if characters have strengths, weaknesses, etc. So if my thief isn't all that great at fighting but excellent at tripping traps and sneaking into the palace that provides an important contrast. Makes it that much cooler when i do shine. If it doesn't work for you that is fine
I am in agreement. I look at the PCs as a team. The modern equivalent of an adventuring party is a special forces squad. Everyone is a lot more skilled than a basic person and they all can fight, but they each have specialties. One SEAL might be better at communications and software, while another is the heavy gunner while another is the sniper. Almost every "team" is composed of specialties that work together, and not a group of people who can contribute in every scenario equally as individuals.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;556923I don't think anyone has even remotely made that statement. .
It definitely wasn't what I was saying when he quoted me. People can always participate. My fighter may not be stealthy but he can try to sneak in the palace or find some other angle. I just dont think you need equal amounts of spotlight at every point in the game.
People have said and suggested the thing I just mentioned. For ever time I've said, fighter should get interesting abilities, I've had someone say something along the lines of "A fighter contributes by fighting" "I'm fine with a fighter who is only good at fighting" or "If the fighter can reliably fight in the beginning then the end game where he is out shined by casters is fine". I can go back and quote any number of people who have explicitly said they don't mind other people getting more screen time or they don't mind/care if the fighter can only fight. This sentiment is the basis for a lot of the "no fighter/wizard disparity" argument. So I'm wondering why people would prefer a game where one party explicitly cannot do anything helpful outside of the arena (other than being an extra pair of hands).
Quote from: MGuy;556931People have said and suggested the thing I just mentioned. For ever time I've said, fighter should get interesting abilities, I've had someone say something along the lines of "A fighter contributes by fighting" "I'm fine with a fighter who is only good at fighting" or "If the fighter can reliably fight in the beginning then the end game where he is out shined by casters is fine". I can go back and quote any number of people who have explicitly said they don't mind other people getting more screen time or they don't mind/care if the fighter can only fight. This sentiment is the basis for a lot of the "no fighter/wizard disparity" argument. So I'm wondering why people would prefer a game where one party explicitly cannot do anything helpful outside of the arena (other than being an extra pair of hands).
Here's your big disconnect. When someone says all that about a fighter, they are
not saying that the fighter can't contribute in other areas.
Quote from: MGuy;556867Out of curiosity, what is it about everyone being able to participate in some fashion in all areas of the game that is a deal breaker for you?
Out of curiosity, what exactly prevents anyone from participating in some fashion in all areas of the game?
Quote from: MGuy;556931People have said and suggested the thing I just mentioned. For ever time I've said, fighter should get interesting abilities, I've had someone say something along the lines of "A fighter contributes by fighting" "I'm fine with a fighter who is only good at fighting" or "If the fighter can reliably fight in the beginning then the end game where he is out shined by casters is fine". I can go back and quote any number of people who have explicitly said they don't mind other people getting more screen time or they don't mind/care if the fighter can only fight. This sentiment is the basis for a lot of the "no fighter/wizard disparity" argument. So I'm wondering why people would prefer a game where one party explicitly cannot do anything helpful outside of the arena (other than being an extra pair of hands).
The problem is you are equating being good at something with partiipating. No one is suggesting any class can't participate, but we are saying they can be better than others and worse than others in certain things. Again, if you don't feel that way, thats fine. It is a perfectly reasonable opinion and i can see why you might want everyone to function at roughly an equal level in all areas of the game. For me that isn't as fun as the other approach.
In terms of waxing and waning fighter/mage I believe only jibba and I have explicitly stated we are okay with that arrangement. Again this doesn't mean the fighter becomes a non participant at higher levels. He is still great at hacking stuff and battling enemies. In AD&D i think the wizard does shine a bit brighter at higher levels, because he has access to a unique kind of power to shape reality. This doesn't bother me because he spends the early part of the game pretty weak. For me this is a perfeclty acceptible design. But not doing it isn't a deal breaker for me. i said many times I am happy to play games that are more balanced. i just dont need the balance to cover every single aspect of play.
Not sure if I should post more game rules, because I am not sure if it will help. Our main DM did use Combat & Tactics rules for Mastery, High Mastery, and Grand Mastery, but not for the Fighter vs Wizard thing being discussed, but to distinguish Fighters more from Paladins and Rangers. The latter were especially powerful/desired in 1e (hence the Three Ranger Limit).
The older rulesets were much more flexible and modular, as evidenced by the plethora of campaign settings, whereas 3e only had two supported settings, both of which were High Magic and Wide Magic (FR & Eberron).
There are possibly no better movies that demonstrate the dynamics of AD&D than the original Conan movies. In the first one, two Fighters and a Thief successfully infiltrate the evil Cleric's temple. The second one shows an almost perfect example of an adventuring party. At no point does Malak 'contribute' to combat the way Denners would want, yet Conan never tells him to GTFO because he is useless. Akiro 'casts' maybe two spells, and also does not contribute to combat.
Appendix N (http://www.digital-eel.com/blog/ADnD_reading_list.htm) is critical to understanding why AD&D is the way it is. Before we start considering Magic-Users that fling fireballs three times a round or Fighters that can walk on clouds, that has to be the starting point. D&D has become its own genre, which may not have been the best turn of events. Along the way, it has absorbed a number of cinematic and literary genres the rules were just never meant to handle.
Which means that in order to make the rules perform all these other tasks, it will take some pretty heavy lifting. AD&D's half-ton truck does a damn fine job ferrying you around with a good bit of tools and supplies; when you try to load up every tool you see, all the supplies to build a house and throw all the workers in the back, no one is surprised when the wheels fall off. And yet, this comes as a complete surprise to people that use 3.x in exactly the same manner. Why does my truck disintegrate when I strap a jet engine to it? Why was the entire back end was crushed when I dumped ten tons of rock into the bed? I can't fit this five foot tall tractor tire in the wheel wells! What's wrong with this stupid truck?
But that doesn't happen. No one in history has ever thought strapping a jet engine on wouldn't cause problems. No one in history has ever blamed a small truck for not carrying ten tons of stuff. No one in history has ever decried half-ton truck manufacturers for not designing the wells to accommodate five foot tires. Yet, D&D is supposed to handle whatever broken, off-the-wall, batshit crazy stuff people throw at it without problems. When problems invariably do crop up and render the game nigh unplayable, these same people are shocked - shocked I tell you! - that everything has spectacularly failed in a manner typically reserved for rocket engineers.
So, give your Fighters magikal wuxia weaboo powerz or whatever. Eliminate them from your game entirely. Make the game how you want to play it, you're allowed. But bitching at the manufacturer because the half-ton D&D can't handle the ten tons of bullshit you are trying to load into the bed doesn't make the designers look stupid. Like in the automotive world, it makes you look stupid. Especially when your entire body of knowledge about truck design starts with the 2002 model year, and the rest of us have been doing this since the F-100 came out in about 1954.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;556935Out of curiosity, what exactly prevents anyone from participating in some fashion in all areas of the game?
Lack of imagination.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;556923As bad as Benoit's knee jerk reactions are to a conducive conversation, this type of tactic is far worse.
It's not a knee-jerk reaction as much as a jab, really. The point is, like the Forge guys who drank the Kool Aid years ago, dudes like MGuy and Kaelic aren't interested in the conversation you guys want to have. It's been clear for a hundred pages or more now. I applaud your willingness to bang your head on the wall expecting a different result, but don't be surprised if all you got is a few more bruises at the end of the day.
Quote from: StormBringer;556951There are possibly no better movies that demonstrate the dynamics of AD&D than the original Conan movies.
This (and the rest of your post) is mostly bullshit. In the Conan movies, for example, most bad guys die when you hit them with a sword. If you take all of the 'attacks' from all of the 'adventurers' for the movie from beginning to end, you probably have enough for 3-4 rounds of 'D&D combat'.
Even the release of Lord of the Rings as a movie trilogy (of course based on the novels which D&D drew on extensively for early inspiration) is subject to this same issue. Cinematic depictions of combat don't come naturally to D&D.
In the fight inside Moria, which is probably the closest I've ever seen to a depiction of 'D&D style combat' most of the enemies were one-hit kills - the cave troll being the noticeable exception.
The game is better for the fact that you have to 'dog-pile' enemies, but if you're going to claim that D&D is clearly reflected in a move - any movie - you're guilty of wishful thinking.
Actually, for the inspiration of the alternate combat system of OD&D, you got to go back to Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?633165-So&p=15589563#post15589563) (which, incidentally, is my absolute favorite movie of all time).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;556956This (and the rest of your post) is mostly bullshit. In the Conan movies, for example, most bad guys die when you hit them with a sword. If you take all of the 'attacks' from all of the 'adventurers' for the movie from beginning to end, you probably have enough for 3-4 rounds of 'D&D combat'.
Even the release of Lord of the Rings as a movie trilogy (of course based on the novels which D&D drew on extensively for early inspiration) is subject to this same issue. Cinematic depictions of combat don't come naturally to D&D.
In the fight inside Moria, which is probably the closest I've ever seen to a depiction of 'D&D style combat' most of the enemies were one-hit kills - the cave troll being the noticeable exception.
The game is better for the fact that you have to 'dog-pile' enemies, but if you're going to claim that D&D is clearly reflected in a move - any movie - you're guilty of wishful thinking.
He's talking about archetypes and roles, not combat mechanics.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;556956In the fight inside Moria, which is probably the closest I've ever seen to a depiction of 'D&D style combat' most of the enemies were one-hit kills - the cave troll being the noticeable exception.
Orcs having 4.5 hit points on average, it would kind of make sense they were being killed in one or two hits from a (let's just say) 5th level party consisting of a Ranger, a Magic-User, three Fighters and four Thieves.
Oh, and do you know who else was a notable exception to the 'one-hit' kill? The adventuring party. They got knocked around quite a bit and didn't go down. Until Boromir took three or four arrows to the chest after fighting a dozen or so more orcs later on.
In other words, your example is not only worthless, it actually undermines your point. Good job, dipshit.
Quote from: StormBringer;556965Oh, and do you know who else was a notable exception to the 'one-hit' kill? The adventuring party. They got knocked around quite a bit and didn't go down. Until Boromir took three or four arrows to the chest after fighting a dozen or so more orcs later on.
In other words, your example is not only worthless, it actually undermines your point. Good job, dipshit.
What's my point? That your diatribe about turning a truck into a big-wheeler is a complex metaphor that boils down to a worthless strawman? Or that movies are not the same as the games we play, even if they draw inspiration from them?
You think the Conan movie represents a great example of an RPG party. At least that's what I took your point to be. My point is that I disagree. A movie is a movie and a game is a game. They may have commonalities, but the relative contribution of each character in combat is NOT one of those commonalities. It would be pretty boring if movie combat went round by round the way D&D combat does - especially if it were shown from different persepectives.
But let me make it clearer.
In a movie, the point of combat is to show off the capabilities of each of the characters for a brief moment. That means they get one or two 'attacks' that show that they're a badass. This isn't to imply that is all they do - it's that in 2 hours (or 3.5 hours) you have limited time to tell the story, and the point of the combat is largely to support the narrative. In D&D if you had 'one or two attacks' that illustrated your character and then you rolled to determine if you 'won or lost', that would reflect movie sensibilities much better. D&D combat (all editions) is a grind. That's why lots of people talk about making D&D combat more cinematic, but it tends not to work. That's an uphill fight.
What I think you're saying is 'the movie Conan is the way I imagine my games after they're done'. But if you're not saying that, cool. You've said enough in this thread and the one on the Gaming Den that I can't help but believe your head is far up your ass that there's no way I'm going to be able to extract it for you.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;556935Out of curiosity, what exactly prevents anyone from participating in some fashion in all areas of the game?
I'm not MGuy, but I'll comment on this.
There have been a few campaigns where I had a character who was very poor at combat (these were not D&D). I always could have participated by wading in even though I was poor at it. However, for many games that would be needlessly endangering myself and making more work for the rest of party to protect me. This can work, but it often wears thin quickly. After that, I generally sat out of combats when possible.
Likewise, I have sometimes played a combat monster who wasn't useful at other things. Say, in a martial arts campaign, I played a drunken boxing fighter who was really an out-of-control drunkard. In that case, I would often make social or other scenes more difficult by my drunken actions. Again, it was funny for a time, but I began to drop it when this schtick wore thin.
The system does make a difference to this, but it is tricky to break this down to specifics. Some systems allow a helping action in combat, for example (Burning Wheel, say, although its helping is kind of boring) - while in others I simply had to try direct combat actions and almost always fail (GURPS).
Quote from: StormBringer;556965Orcs having 4.5 hit points on average, it would kind of make sense they were being killed in one or two hits from a (let's just say) 5th level party consisting of a Ranger, a Magic-User, three Fighters and four Thieves.
That's another thing 3e had that AD&D didn't: hit point inflation.
A freakin' Hill Giant in AD&D could typically have 38 hp...not exactly a 1 hit kill, but is unlikely to last more than 2 rounds against a pair of 7th level fighters.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;556972What's my point? That your diatribe about turning a truck into a big-wheeler is a complex metaphor that boils down to a worthless strawman? Or that movies are not the same as the games we play, even if they draw inspiration from them?
You think the Conan movie represents a great example of an RPG party. At least that's what I took your point to be. My point is that I disagree. A movie is a movie and a game is a game. They may have commonalities, but the relative contribution of each character in combat is NOT one of those commonalities. It would be pretty boring if movie combat went round by round the way D&D combat does - especially if it were shown from different persepectives.
But let me make it clearer.
In a movie, the point of combat is to show off the capabilities of each of the characters for a brief moment. That means they get one or two 'attacks' that show that they're a badass. This isn't to imply that is all they do - it's that in 2 hours (or 3.5 hours) you have limited time to tell the story, and the point of the combat is largely to support the narrative. In D&D if you had 'one or two attacks' that illustrated your character and then you rolled to determine if you 'won or lost', that would reflect movie sensibilities much better. D&D combat (all editions) is a grind. That's why lots of people talk about making D&D combat more cinematic, but it tends not to work. That's an uphill fight.
What I think you're saying is 'the movie Conan is the way I imagine my games after they're done'. But if you're not saying that, cool. You've said enough in this thread and the one on the Gaming Den that I can't help but believe your head is far up your ass that there's no way I'm going to be able to extract it for you.
Not saying I disagree with you or agree but i would say Conan isn't a bad model for a D&D party. It is a bit like Dr Who in that there is one Super Hero and some support.
I woudl say you haven't watched nearly enough martial arts movies. In those the figthing takes hours and the major heroes and anyone not a mook take multiple hits.
I think in fact that in terms of the actual movie structure Project A might make a much better D&D game than CtB.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;556972What's my point? That your diatribe about turning a truck into a big-wheeler is a complex metaphor that boils down to a worthless strawman?
Clearly, you are an idiot and probably the only one that didn't understand what I was saying. I am pretty sure you are being intentionally obtuse, though, so keep fucking that chicken.
QuoteIn a movie, the point of combat is to show off the capabilities of each of the characters for a brief moment.
As Dr Feynmann was fond of saying, "You're not even wrong".
QuoteYou've said enough in this thread and the one on the Gaming Den that I can't help but believe your head is far up your ass that there's no way I'm going to be able to extract it for you.
This from someone that has little to no experience of D&D prior to 3.x.
Keep digging that hole, dipshit.
I was born in 1979. I've been playing D&D since 1985. I've played 1st edition. I've played lots of 2nd edition. I started playing 3rd edition when I was in college. I started playing 3.5 when it was released. I passed up 4th edition because it didn't do a single thing better than 3rd. I experimented with Pathfinder, but ultimately decided they weren't making some changes that need changing and were dicking around with things that did work.
MGuy is the one that has little experience prior to 3rd edition and has limited experience with 2nd edition.
And the reason I say you have your head up your ass is that you've said a lot of stupid things. Like trying to claim that chess in it's modern incarnation was born into the world fully formed like Athena bursting from the head of Zeus, rather than 'evolving' over centuries. And if a game like chess, which is pretty simple compared to an RPG required hundreds of years to get right, I think it's fair to say that the first RPG probably had some warts.
We might disagree on what those are. It's probably because you're a dumbass as you've proven in multiple threads on multiple boards. For me personally, I believe the game benefits from having clear rules and ensuring that everyone has rules that help them contribute in the various circumstances that an adventuring party should be expected to encounter. I'm okay with different classes being better than other classes in some situations, in fact, that's a necessary and important element of class based design. But if a class is defined strictly by what it can do in combat (and the name 'Fighter' has that implication, there will be people who don't feel that anything that is 'not fighting' belongs to that class. That's a major problem for me. Wizards 'fight' by casting spells. Clerics 'fight' by calling on the power of their deity. Thieves 'fight' by being sneaky and stabbing people in the back. And all of those classes have useful abilities outside of combat.
So I have two issues.
1) The fighter can't do anything outside of combat that is unique/interesting/role protected while every single other class can.
2) Even if 'fighting' were enough for a Fighter (see point 1) they aren't really very good at it. While a Fighter can swing a sword better than a Wizard (and who invented the strawman that anyone said that?) there are other ways of fighting. The wizard can have a charmed monster that can fight as well as the Fighter - even without 'obviously suicidal commands' or whatever nonsense you seem to think keeps someone who 'views what you say in the most favorable light' from being willing to help you. And if they can't use charmed monsters, there are other ways they can obviate the need for a fighter. These comments apply specifically to high level (depending on edition, the definition of high level varies) which in 3rd is ~5th. In 2nd edition, it's definitely after 9th - but pretty clear by 12th.
But the thing is, while I've observed this and experienced it directly, I'm also happy to review empirical evidence based on 'likely scenarios' and 'hard math'.
That you seem to believe the word 'evolve' can't apply to a game makes you a dumbass.
That you seem to think that everyone who claims to have observed a difference in the relative contribution of the Fighter versus the Wizard (whether or not they're bothered by it) makes you a dumbass.
The fact that you have dismissed the points people have made based on stupid semantic bullshit about 'representative sample' despite the abundant evidence that this is a widely experienced facet of game play (that not everyone objects to - but some significant number including myself do) makes you a dumbass.
The fact that seem to think it's impossible to have fun with bad rules also makes you a dumbass. I had lots of fun with 1st edition and 2nd edition. They're not much fun for me anymore because I'm aware of the problems and they do detract from the fun. With a good group, I can get around most of it, but I prefer to play a game that is already close to what I enjoy - and so far 3rd edition - despite the problems, comes closest.
Finally, you're a dumbass because you can't seem to comprehend that it's possible to talk about making the Fighter better and/or more interesting without making him 'weaboo' or whatever the fuck you've been going on about. Plenty of posters that prefer 1st or 2nd edition and are long established regulars on these boards have said 'that's something I might do to make Fighters in my game more interesting' - that includes both 'combat' and 'out-of-comat' things.
So, in short, I think you're a dumbass. It's based on my interpretation of everything you've been saying over the last several weeks, which has mostly ranged from unbelievably stupid to just dumb. But at least it's been amusing.
And I don't mind belittling your opinion because I've come to the recognition that you prefer to belittle my opinion rather than discuss game play and offer suggestions that would help me and other posters that have brought up an issue that impacts their games. I don't care if you don't believe me about my experiences (but that makes you a dumbass), and I don't care if you choose to belittle me instead of trying to offer helpful suggestions (that makes you a dick). I do care about the issue - it impacts the games I've played and it impacts the 'heartbreaker' I've been working on the last couple years. And I care that completely ignoring the experiences of people like me may negatively influence 5th edition D&D as far as my ability to like and enjoy it. That's purely selfish, but I honestly believe that if people are open-minded and we discuss this issue, a large 'common ground' could be hammered out - something that everyone would be relatively happy with (that doesn't include weaboo powers) - but the fact that you've dismissed those hopes and are unwilling to discuss it with an open mind shows that of all the posters I've disagreed with, only you deserve to be called a dumbass.
Wear that crown with pride my friend. You've earned it.
D&D combat is highly abstracted. Presumably a lot of fights even at high level, with buckets of HP result in 'one hit kills'; it's just that all of the prior HP damage wasn't from a hit, or at least not a solid one.
Also a combat round is very short, seconds. If you look at the length of the fights in the LotR movie, they are taking dozens of full turns to resolve, which would be like hours-long combat sessions to resolve at the table (which given the number of combatants involved in those scenes, especially fighter types with multiple attacks, is totally believable).
QuoteLikewise, I have sometimes played a combat monster who wasn't useful at other things.
I get what you are saying, but in D&D specifically the game is predominantly combat and exploration, or things like reconnaissance which are still tangentially related to combat and exploration.
The thing is with Fighters in most editions of D&D, and could actually be true in 3.x with minor tweaking, are good at the 'out of combat' aspects of traditional D&D gameplay. The raw physicality of the archetype allows it to do things other classes can't (ignoring the warrior subclasses, which might as well be fighter kits even in 3e, and in 3e are more or less in the same boat balance wise) without special abilities, like kicking in doors with ease, pushing boulders off of cliffs, jumping further and higher, climbing non-sheer surfaces, raising portcullises with elbow-grease Conan-style, et cetera. On top of that, their good armor and high HP allows them a certain amount of leeway in being a Conan-esque, foolhardy adventurer.
I've played characters that were bad at combat, or were undiplomatic (and characters that were bad at combat and undiplomatic), but I never felt that I wasn't "participating". D&D certainly isn't a system where anyone can't do
something in combat, and the rules for any number of non-combat scenarios are so rules-lite (even in 3e) that no one is positively excluded.
The 3.x skill system, and the examples they use, and the actual DCs in published adventures are bunk, but that's not necessarily a failing of the system so much as it was that the vast quantity of materials pushed out by WotC resulted in a lot of writers without sufficient experience actually running the game writing down garbage and sending it to the printers. They also obviously didn't playtest shit for much of the editions run (exampled in worst-case scenario where certain subsystems didn't even work at all, like the Truename Magic in ToM, showcasing that at no point did anyone actually try playing a Truenamer with dice and stuff).
Fact of the matter is, if you are looking at an ability score of 10 as the human average, and you are going off of this as a valid way of assigning DCs to specific non-combat tasks, the standard Fighter is going to be pretty damn good at a number of non-combat tasks and basically pretty average in the rest (ie he can expect relatively good results from routine tasks that he isn't specialized in).
The idea that DCs constantly increase to keep the rate of successful checks completely static (and therefore provide 'challenge') for fully trained characters is basically nonsense. Raw talent, and conditioning go a lot further in real life than they do in 3.x D&D's default assumptions (which aren't explicit rules), and if you follow this much more rational, and pre-3e ethic (which isn't even houseruling per se) then a guy who is faster, more agile, hardier, and vastly stronger than most of the humans that have ever lived, or will ever live, has a lot of utility in scenarios that aren't explicitly combat related.
Even in other realms the Fighter isn't subpar. He is only subpar compared to his fellow paragons in the adventuring party. Rarely should tasks require a paragon though, which is something that gets ignored in 3e games because of the way the rulebooks and adventures got written, and is stuck in people's head when playing the game now.
3.x even has the 'Aiding Another' option for skill resolution where the paragon
is required, but doesn't have to do the whole thing solo. Even there the 8 charisma, non-Diplomacy having Fighter can meaningfully contribute by his mere presence, to the tricky negotiation that the Bard is doing. Arguably the system is so rules-lite that the Fighter's player can do most of the actual talking in character, and the Bard could still roll his check for the resolution, which the Fighter would provide his 'Aiding Another' bonus to; representing the Bard having coached the Fighter (off stage) about how to best handle the situation, while the Fighter was merely lending the weight of his reputation, clout from his social class, et cetera.
Cyrano doesn't merely give Christian a +2 bonus to Diplomacy. It's Cyrano's skill that is doing all the work, and Christian's face is merely lending a little more weight to the words.
Again, 99% of the 'Fighter Problem' is a 3e thing, and it is almost entirely a byproduct of Fighters not being good at fighting. Lots of players want to play a battlefield BAMF, and really don't give a shit about having to wait for their sidekick to walk a tightrope, climb a wall, and unlock the gates so that said BAMF can do all of the actual hero stuff. They don't feel 'excluded' by this breakdown of abilities, especially when they are the undisputed masters of killing stuff with weapons. In a fantasy adventure game that's a pretty popular and strong archetype. Many, many players if told that the Fighter is the best at fighting with weapons, in combat will unreservedly pick that class. No change needs to occur here, except that Fighters should actually be good at fighting again.
They don't definitively need to be further refined or defined beyond that. I personally wouldn't care if the D&D Fighter was defined specifically as a Man-at-Arms in a game that also has the Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, and Monk filling in rather specific warrior niches as well, but I don't think that is anyone's point either, and I don't think most people are really clamoring for the Fighter to be something more specific than what it currently is.
Quote from: jibbajibba;556806I will not question the way you rolled I can accept that (no cursed swords though which is unusual as they are quite commopn)
I woudl say that by the time a party have encountered 50 magical treasure hordes they are c 15th level a as bench mark if you disagree please state so.
Instead I will look at the actual items.
There were some cursed things, they got discarded - they're not permanent items.
QuoteThe fighter can not use 56 items on that list he can use 1 weapon, with backup weapons, he can use 1 suit of armour, he can use 1 sheild and some assorted other stuff.
He gives hand-me-downs to his henchmen, or trades large numbers of them for single better items. You seem to have no trouble with the m/u trading for stuff.
QuoteSo the Figther after encountering 258 magic items will have
Plate Mail +4 unless the cleric claimed it depneds on that particular cache
Sheild +5 - unless the cleric made a claim - depends on that particular cache
+5 Sword
Rod of lordly Might (a game changing major item)
A frost Brand - intelligent
a Hammer of thunderbolts - but only of limited use as no guantlet / girdle combo
Some magic arrows - split with the theif
Qualls feather token - there were 3 of them
+2 Dagger
Other secondary weapons - which he will very rarely use
a slice of the potion count.
He'll have all of the swords, most of the armor, and not the dagger. If he finds two hammers of thunderbolts, then much like the M/U taking weeks off to learn spells, he's going to use those 5 wishes in the luck blade to find out where the gauntlets and belt can be found, then give himself a massive advantage when taking them from whoever owns them. Since he's got two hammers, he'll be throwing one once per round, basically killing whatever he hits, stunning everything else. Maybe he'll use a leftover wish to make himself immune to spells for a few minutes a day, at will. He can do what he wants.
QuoteThe Wizard will probably get
Cloak of Protection
Dagger +2/+3
ring of spell storing (4 cleric spells) - you give one to the cleric and one to the MU as healing backup
wand of secret door and trap location - to backup the rogue
Rod of beguiling
Brooch of shielding X
quaal's feather token X
ring of mammal control X
ring of multiple wishes (6) X
rod of cancellation X
wand of wonder X[/spoiler]
The wizard won't 'probably' get any of these. Because he'll be rolling against the fighter, cleric, and thief - who can
all use these items as well as, or better than, the wizard. The wizard doesn't get first dibs on items everyone can use, just because his 'wizard only' selection is so horrible. Fighter gets all stuff only he can use
automatically, and rolls on everything else he can use. Same with magic-user. End result, magic user just gets a ton less stuff. Which is exactly what the book says is how it should go.
Quote+ choice from 67 scrolls and a slice of the potion count.
He gets the magic-user scrolls, which is about 38% of the total count. He can roll on the protection scrolls, just like the fighter does. There are more fighter-only potions than m/u only ones. Every potion is basically giving the Fighter the opportunity to cast a spell.
QuoteThat is a realistic split of the treasure to get a more realistic split we would need to see each cache.
And we are assuming a cooperative party of 4 Fighter/Cleric/MU/Thief if we add a ranger or planadin as a second martial class of course the split changes but it woudl with a second wizard as well so its a wash.
If there's more characters, they get more treasures, more often. The chart is, exactly as it says, massively weighted towards melee types over caster types.
Quoteso using your list how does this refute the following claims
i) most of the fighters magic just improves AC and adds bonuses to hit and damage
'Just' makes him better at killing monsters. As if that's an insignificant thing, when the only way to get to the treasures is to fight 20 combats in a row - otherwise the monsters take the loot elsewhere. No 15 minute days. Also, the fighter has the same potion access the wizard does, thus the fighter will get to cast dozens of spells, though potions, during his career. Plus all the protection scrolls, special ability swords that might let him teleport, read minds, cast wish, fly, shoot fireballs, etc.
Quoteii) having a lot of suits of armour is of limited use just liek havign lots of swords is
You give them to your your henchmen. You use them as backups, if a rod of cancellation hits your primary suit.
Quoteiii) the caster can do far more out of combat
The fighter has between 5 and 13 wishes. He can do
anything the caster can do, when absolutely necessary. The Luck blade with 5 wishes on it is automatically his
alone, so in fact, he's capable of using several of them at once to, I dunno, turn himself permanently into a magic-resistant creature, give himself spell-casting abilities, etc, etc, etc. He can do whatever the DM deems balanced. He's got a frost brand of ESP, several other intelligent swords with special abilities like detect magic, detect evil, etc, plus
dozens of potions that replicate or improve on what the caster can do. In AD&D, if you WANT the caster to be better than everyone else, you can make him that way. The game assumes it's going to be balanced by the magic item distribution, and actually doing the rolls shows this to be the case.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;557018I was born in 1979. I've been playing D&D since 1985. I've played 1st edition. I've played lots of 2nd edition. I started playing 3rd edition when I was in college. I started playing 3.5 when it was released. I passed up 4th edition because it didn't do a single thing better than 3rd. I experimented with Pathfinder, but ultimately decided they weren't making some changes that need changing and were dicking around with things that did work.
MGuy is the one that has little experience prior to 3rd edition and has limited experience with 2nd edition.
And yet, you make clearly incorrect statements like:
QuoteEven the release of Lord of the Rings as a movie trilogy (of course based on the novels which D&D drew on extensively for early inspiration) is subject to this same issue. Cinematic depictions of combat don't come naturally to D&D.
that show you really don't know much about early AD&D.
And then,
QuoteIn the fight inside Moria, which is probably the closest I've ever seen to a depiction of 'D&D style combat' most of the enemies were one-hit kills - the cave troll being the noticeable exception.
The only time D&D has ever had reliable one-hit kills is... 4e minions. 1st and 2nd edition had no mechanic to guarantee one-hit kills, and even low hit dice monsters were not reliably one-shots. A Fighter with 18/50 Strength could hit an Orc, roll minimum damage with a long sword, and only end up doing 4 points of damage. Regular Orcs can have 8 (or more) hit points.
All this 2e knowledge you claim, and you can't do the basic maths?
QuoteAnd the reason I say you have your head up your ass is that you've said a lot of stupid things. Like trying to claim that chess in it's modern incarnation was born into the world fully formed like Athena bursting from the head of Zeus, rather than 'evolving' over centuries.
A claim I never actually made. This sort of thing shows the level of dishonesty you and other Denners are willing to engage in to make sure you are 'right'.
QuoteWe might disagree on what those are. It's probably because you're a dumbass as you've proven in multiple threads on multiple boards. For me personally, I believe the game benefits from having clear rules and ensuring that everyone has rules that help them contribute in the various circumstances that an adventuring party should be expected to encounter.
Then you should be playing Arkham Horror. For thirty years, non-rules lawyers were just fine with general guidelines and having players take the initiative to contribute. The rules-lawyers joined forces with the 'everyone gets a trophy' crowd to completely fuck things up.
QuoteI'm okay with different classes being better than other classes in some situations, in fact, that's a necessary and important element of class based design. But if a class is defined strictly by what it can do in combat (and the name 'Fighter' has that implication, there will be people who don't feel that anything that is 'not fighting' belongs to that class. That's a major problem for me. Wizards 'fight' by casting spells. Clerics 'fight' by calling on the power of their deity. Thieves 'fight' by being sneaky and stabbing people in the back. And all of those classes have useful abilities outside of combat.
Guess whose problem that is? Yours. No, seriously, it is a problem with your conception, perception, and interpretation. And everything after your first sentence up there completely undercuts your first sentence. You can't be both "...okay with different classes being
better than other classes in some situations..." and then spend the remainder of the paragraph bitching about different classes being better than other classes in some situations.
Mostly because... (are you ready? This will blow your mind)
Classes aren't defined by what they do in combat (historically). That is entirely an artifact of 3.x and later. Something that is generally common knowledge with long time AD&D players, even 2e. Hell, 2e had
Non-weapon proficiencies, which re-inforced non-combat activities.
Quote1) The fighter can't do anything outside of combat that is unique/interesting/role protected while every single other class can.
Dipshittery on the grandest of scales...
Quote2) Even if 'fighting' were enough for a Fighter (see point 1) they aren't really very good at it.
...and the loftiest of heights.
QuoteThat you seem to believe the word 'evolve' can't apply to a game makes you a dumbass.
Ok, this one should be easy for you then. Demonstrate the modern queen's move (any number of squares in any direction) is an evolution over the earlier queen's move (one square along any diagonal only). Show everyone your dazzling brilliance by settling once and for all how one form of movement is clearly and obviously better than another because it was developed more recently. Remember, you are asserting that 'evolution' in games means 'progress' or 'gets better'. Once you have shown the queen's move to be better, it should be child's play for you to conclusively demonstrate how 3.x (despite your constant complaints) is objectively better than its predecessors instead of this flailing about you have been undertaking.
QuoteThat you seem to think that everyone who claims to have observed a difference in the relative contribution of the Fighter versus the Wizard (whether or not they're bothered by it) makes you a dumbass.
Again, you are either unwilling or unable to honestly present views external to your own, a classic symptom of solipsism. What I said was, people who observe that issue, spend hours upon hours bitching on a message board while steadfastly ignoring all the solutions being offered (or actively dismissing them with clearly incorrect statements) is a 'dipshit'. You, for example, are a dipshit.
Other people who have noticed some discrepancies simply fix the problem and move on; or ask for advice, fix the problem and then move on. Those people are called 'gamers'. They ask informed questions, and usually incorporate the advice into their solutions, when they don't have good reason to dismiss it outright ("use broccoli for a randomizer!").
QuoteThe fact that you have dismissed the points people have made based on stupid semantic bullshit about 'representative sample' despite the abundant evidence that this is a widely experienced facet of game play (that not everyone objects to - but some significant number including myself do) makes you a dumbass.
This is why you are a dipshit.
Example: Out of all the gamers in the entire world since 1971, only you and the other Denners have this problem. The fact that you have dismissed the points people have made based on stupid semantic bullshit despite the abundant evidence that this isn't a widely experienced facet of game play makes you a dipshit.
QuoteThe fact that seem to think it's impossible to have fun with bad rules also makes you a dumbass. I had lots of fun with 1st edition and 2nd edition. They're not much fun for me anymore because I'm aware of the problems and they do detract from the fun. With a good group, I can get around most of it, but I prefer to play a game that is already close to what I enjoy - and so far 3rd edition - despite the problems, comes closest.
You can't even keep your stupid as fuck arguments straight for
one goddamn paragraph!
QuoteFinally, you're a dumbass because you can't seem to comprehend that it's possible to talk about making the Fighter better and/or more interesting without making him 'weaboo' or whatever the fuck you've been going on about. Plenty of posters that prefer 1st or 2nd edition and are long established regulars on these boards have said 'that's something I might do to make Fighters in my game more interesting' - that includes both 'combat' and 'out-of-comat' things.
Then
shut the holy fuck up about how useless Fighters are and do those fucking things you goddamn
moron. Because guess what? I am one of those long established regulars on these boards that have been telling you the fucking problem didn't exist in AD&D and was entirely introduced with 3.x, because stupid whiny fucks like you don't have the first
goddamn clue about early versions of AD&D and think things have always been like this.
So, it's cute and all that you have this crush on me and want to play with the adults using the imitation 'dumbass' thing, but please take my word for it: you are in waaaaaay over your fucking head.
QuoteAnd I don't mind belittling your opinion because I've come to the recognition that you prefer to belittle my opinion rather than discuss game play and offer suggestions that would help me and other posters that have brought up an issue that impacts their games.
Oh, but I have been trying to help. Remember the little dialogue from before?
Dipshit: "I want a game that is good for X"
Others: "Game Y is pretty good for that"
Dipshit: "No, it uses mechanic Z."
Others: "How about this other game?"
Dipshit: "That won't work."
...
ad infinitum.
That really is you in the dipshit role up there.
QuoteI don't care if you don't believe me about my experiences (but that makes you a dumbass), and I don't care if you choose to belittle me instead of trying to offer helpful suggestions (that makes you a dick).
Actually, it could mean that you are a lying, bitter never gamer. This is why I don't usually talk about specific experiences except when they sound substantially incorrect. As in, Fighters had no out-of-combat contributions in 2e.
QuoteI do care about the issue - it impacts the games I've played and it impacts the 'heartbreaker' I've been working on the last couple years.
This is honestly the absolute best advice I can offer: shelve that project, learn more game design in general (as in Nash game theory), and read up on a wide variety of game genres from a wide variety of eras; then pick it up again.
QuoteAnd I care that completely ignoring the experiences of people like me may negatively influence 5th edition D&D as far as my ability to like and enjoy it.
Good thing it was the exact opposite of this in 2000 with 3.0.
QuoteWear that crown with pride my friend. You've earned it.
Bona fides from TGD aren't going to score you points anywhere else on the intarwebz. You need to pay your dues, then maybe you will be taken seriously.
QuoteThe thing is with Fighters in most editions of D&D, and could actually be true in 3.x with minor tweaking, are good at the 'out of combat' aspects of traditional D&D gameplay. The raw physicality of the archetype allows it to do things other classes can't (ignoring the warrior subclasses, which might as well be fighter kits even in 3e, and in 3e are more or less in the same boat balance wise) without special abilities, like kicking in doors with ease, pushing boulders off of cliffs, jumping further and higher, climbing non-sheer surfaces, raising portcullises with elbow-grease Conan-style, et cetera. On top of that, their good armor and high HP allows them a certain amount of leeway in being a Conan-esque, foolhardy adventurer.
One additional factor in out-of-combat roleplay is that, if you are operating under default fantasy-world assumptions, the fighters are likely to be the only ones out of the "big four" that are anywhere near mainstream society. The wizard and the thief are right out, of course. The cleric, well, he'll probably be ok or respected, but he's constrained by his relationship with his god even if his god is one of the dominant ones in the area. They're all working with things most people don't understand or actively abhor. People get swords, though. That factor tends to put fighters in at least an assistant face role, if they aren't stupid (as in bad INT or WIS). (In 3e point buy, this is actually more likely because fighters have feat incentives to have decent INT scores.) And, as for alternative classes, there are few that really work as faces in such a world if you're playing to archetype. Bards, of course, and then you're looking at alternative fighters pretty much.
Now this is all working with standard fantasy archetypes though and of course campaigns may vary.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;557018I passed up 4th edition because it didn't do a single thing better than 3rd.
IMO 4th makes designing combats a lot easier on the DM, making the game considerably more newb friendly than 3rd was, but that is about it. The level-based scaling of Skills prevents some of the 3.x absurdity in scaling DCs, but not enough to actually be a good skill system. The core math is less out of whack; the 'Defenses' are more reasonable than their 3e Save counterparts for example. So it's a step up from 3e where ever the 3e bar is set lowest, but not anywhere else, and sacrifices a lot of the better aspects of 3e in the process.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;5570181) The fighter can't do anything outside of combat that is unique/interesting/role protected while every single other class can.
A lot of what the 'Fighter' does out of combat is implicit to the setting, not the class. The 'Fighting Man' occupies a social role in most fantasy settings (and especially in Greyhawk, and many of the realms in FR) where his puissance is valued outside of the battlefield for cultural and religious reasons.
Most people can't Fight and the ability to Fight well imputes some moral values and responsibilities for those that can and will. If it wasn't for the social institutions that the Fighting Man is associated with in-setting then life for most people would be much more solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
If you divorce the system from the implied setting then that's on you. Likewise if you put the D&D Cleric in a world full of atheists then a lot of his 'out of combat' ability goes to the wayside. He'd be relegated from a position of respect in society to having the 'out of combat' ability to terrorize people with magic in the same way that the D&D Fighter removed from the ethics of the fantastic medieval is relegated to terrorizing people with the sword. Neither of these are really 'out of combat' abilities though.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;557018And if they can't use charmed monsters, there are other ways they can obviate the need for a fighter.
Prior to 3e you could obviate the need for an arcane spellcaster. I've played a party with a Fighter (Shadow Warrior kit), Fighter (Battlerager kit), Fighter/Mage (Bladesinger kit) and Paladin to high level (fighters hit 20th), and with 4 low Thac0, 3 specialized sword swingers wading into combat, nothing can survive except super-monsters like the Tarasque. We really didn't need the MCd F/Ms spellcasting, and the Paladin did enough healing because when you are swinging +5 swords ~20 times in 2 rounds, and focus firing every target, shit drops quick.
I don't know exactly what a Cleric or Mage would have provided out of combat that was necessary in D&D 2e. The Shadow Warrior had some Thief abilities, and we used that sneaking, recon and ambushing whenever we could. I suppose a straight up spellcaster could have helped with that recon a lot, but it really wasn't necessary. Long story short a Fighter/warrior 4-way gangbang pre-3e is fuck all unstoppable except for a few edge cases at any level and magic isn't necessary for anything except healing.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;557018These comments apply specifically to high level (depending on edition, the definition of high level varies) which in 3rd is ~5th. In 2nd edition, it's definitely after 9th - but pretty clear by 12th.
But the thing is, while I've observed this and experienced it directly, I'm also happy to review empirical evidence based on 'likely scenarios' and 'hard math'.
Fighter power peaks at level 13 in 2e. At that point on they get neither much more defense or offense. Their slight improvements will be outpaced from there on by monster stats in terms of HP mostly. Although monsters in 2e are still very fragile compared to PCs even at very high levels.
The game never descends into pure Rocket Tag territory because doing HP damage remains a reliable method all the way through, meaning there isn't a cutoff point (level 9 or 12) where SoD/SoS spamming spellcasters become a necessity. They really aren't even that great of an option due to MR and monster saves compared to the SR-reducers and save DC jackers in 3e that make SoD spamming an iWin tactic. The corollary though is that doing HP damage with spells is also pretty much shit in 3e, making SoD spam one of only 2 viable tactics at high level.
The Fighter breakdown in 3e (and 3.5, and PF) starts distinctly at level 5, when the class is 'balanced' on iterative attacks (although still not total crap because the 'power leak' from broken mechanics has only started). The idea that getting 75% of the expected damage of a full BAB attack from these stand-and-deliver iterative attacks over a long period of time didn't pan out. Ignoring the actual unfeasible nature of stand-and-deliver tactics; that damage is way too spikey and unreliable to be 'balanced'.
It's 'balanced' across large numbers of fighters over a large number of rounds almost always getting all of their attacks like an mmo raid fighting a tank-n-spank boss, which was idiotic design. The problem only gets worse at each level until it peaks at 15th or so, and gets slightly better from there when higher BAB tends to be overkill, and your +to hit bonuses from other sources are at their highest, meaning your second iterative attack is more meaningful than ever (but still subpar due to lack of mobility, and being overall balanced around expected damage from the 3rd and 4th regular misses not playing a meaningful role in an individual encounters).
There are some simple math fixes to the Fighter though, in this regard. Making the Fighter more like the Warblade really does fix them for the most part in the offense department. That is giving them their standard mobility in addition to buffing their burst damage. A 20th level Fighter using a 2h weapon should just get a flat +30 damage bonus to his standard attack in addition to all of his other bonuses from feats, strength, enchantment, et cetera; that would replace iterative attacks.
Also I forget who brought them up but the Psychic Warrior is a god awful class, and they have to buff themselves just to get up to fighter levels of bad. One of the worst classes in the game.
The Warblade is from Bo9S and is basically a replacement Fighter. Most games that allow Bo9S will use the Warblade instead of the Fighter, and there really isn't any reason to just simply forget the PHB Fighter exists and call the Warblade a Fighter, since the book was obviously meant to altogether replace the melee combat mechanics in 3.x.
Quote from: Imp;557050One additional factor in out-of-combat roleplay is that, if you are operating under default fantasy-world assumptions, the fighters are likely to be the only ones out of the "big four" that are anywhere near mainstream society.
Exactly.
So the answer to my question of why its ok that the fighter can't do anything of use outside of combat (other than be an extra pair of hands) seems to be a mix of retracting earlier statements and implying that fighters can indeed do things outside of combat.
I said, quite a number of times, earlier in the thread that even if the fighter is better at swording than everyone else he still can't do interesting things outside of combat because everything he can explicitly and implicitly do, anyone else can do.
That idea was met by the statements I mentioned earlier (varying degrees of he doesn't have to do things outside of combat to be cool). So to say now, that those statements didn't mean what they implied is confusing. But ok, so ith those statements retracted we go to the resounding suggestion that fighters are indeed useful in various explicit and implicit ways.
I submit that, in fact, a fighter can do things that are explicitly on his ability list outside of combat. However the only things on his sheet is being able to swing a sword. So explicitly he can't do anything that would be of any help in various non combat situations. anything from infiltrating a friendly group that got wrongfully turned against you in order to clear your name, to beating an evil wizard to finding the chosen one rumored to be the key to bringing him down. Hell swinging a sword doesn't even get you TO the flying fortress of doom that you need to reach in order to fight the Ghost king and his inexplicably angelic followers. Hell,even the fighter's girlfriend gets stolen whenever a smooth talking bard comes by. So a fighter is explicitly kicked square in the nuts when it comes to using the rules to do anything interesting outside of combat because EVERY other hero does more stuff just by being another class.
So what about implicitly? Well a fighter is implicitly a fighting man. A rough and tumble veteran who's life is filled with nothing but seeking battle after battle. Implicitly a fighter knows how to fight and spends much of his free time preparing for a fight. Now implicitly a fighter can' only stab stuff. As being a fighter only suggests that he knows various ways of fighting. so using the implicit suggestions from the name is still a no go.
So let's take what is common knowledge about a fighter instead. Well people expect the fighter to fight. That's a given and a no go. So what else? To be a leader of men? That's a no go. Every other class can be a leader of men. Thief = head of thieves' guild/shadow network. Paladin = leader of holy order of knights. Cleric = obvious church/spiritual leader. Wizard = leader of a cabal of casters.
Ok tactician! Still a no go. A fighter character is only going to be as tactically minded as the player who plays him as will all other people playing any other character. A fighter also has less resources to bolster, aid, or gather info for their army. And finally wouldn't be expected to be any smarter than any of his compatriots (especially the wizard).
Super strength? A no go. Super Strength is a) a super power and forget giving the fighter super powers b) something the barbarian is known to do better and something other classes and beasts of burden can do. Then there's c) where a fighter is apparently not allowed to be anything all that great with that strength since all people expect you to do is open doors and push rocks with it.
So, just by following the thought patterns of the people in this very thread the fighter is not allowed to do anything better than anyone else with any of his current explicit or implicit functions.
So I ask again. What benefit is there to there being a class that specifically (explicitly and implicitly) gets less screen time than everyone else?
Quote from: mguy;556931people have said and suggested the thing i just mentioned. For ever time i've said, fighter should get interesting abilities, i've had someone say something along the lines of "a fighter contributes by fighting" "i'm fine with a fighter who is only good at fighting" or "if the fighter can reliably fight in the beginning then the end game where he is out shined by casters is fine". I can go back and quote any number of people who have explicitly said they don't mind other people getting more screen time or they don't mind/care if the fighter can only fight. This sentiment is the basis for a lot of the "no fighter/wizard disparity" argument. So i'm wondering why people would prefer a game where one party explicitly cannot do anything helpful outside of the arena (other than being an extra pair of hands).
a fighter can do anything a human being can do which is actually quite a lot you fucking dead-imagination baboon.
Quote from: Planet Algol;557073a fighter can do anything a human being can do which is actually quite a lot you fucking dead-imagination baboon.
Obviously you haven't been reading what I said. Here's a little aside: A wizard can be human too dumbfuck. That has shit to do with the CLASS.
Ability scores...
EDIT: Going back to what others have said more eloquently in the past, if D&D isn't working for you why not just play a different RPG?
Quote from: jibbajibba;556768Having 5 suits of armour and 6 magical sword is of little use in actual play even if you bring your cart with you.
Gifting magic items to henchmen increases their loyalty (+10%).
And most (44%) prospective henchmen are fighters (1e
AD&D DMG, pp 35-6).
Anyone carrying around five suits of armor and six magical swords on a cart is an idiot.
Buy a carnivorous ape and hire an animal trainer to teach it how to use a sword...
Quote from: Planet Algol;557081Buy a carnivorous ape and hire an animal trainer to teach it how to use a sword...
LOL! That made me choke on my coffee you bastard! :D
@MGuy: I think you're analysis here is assuming that combat and non-combat are equally important, which isn't necessarily true. I don't personally think an RPG can necessarily be designed to make sure all characters are involved equally all the time - spotlight balance across a session is more reasonable.
When you're comparing the relative value of these things, its worth considering that being bad at non-combat means temporarily not being engaged, whereas being bad at combat probably means death.
One of the reasons I like D&D, as a class-based system, is precisely because to be good at fighting you need to pick the Fighter class, instead of having everyone able to just put all their points into Sword skill, with other skills being unimportant/ignored.
There is I think a fair bit of excluded middle in your argument, insofar as people are happy if their characters have some functionality out of combat, not necessarily given by their class.
Quote from: Benoist;557082LOL! That made me choke on my coffee you bastard! :D
That was a serious reply Ben.
Although upon checking by manuals I see that such a scenario would be by the book in OD&D and B/X, I wasn't able to find a Trainer, Animal listed in the 1st ed. DMG.
Quote from: MGuy;557071So the answer to my question of why its ok that the fighter can't do anything of use outside of combat (other than be an extra pair of hands) seems to be a mix of retracting earlier statements and implying that fighters can indeed do things outside of combat.
Yes, except the exact answer was "the Fighter can do plenty of things outside of combat" followed by "it's only rules-lawyers like you that need things hard-coded so you can be a rules-lawyer with them, the rest of us are fine with it."
QuoteI said, quite a number of times, earlier in the thread that even if the fighter is better at swording than everyone else he still can't do interesting things outside of combat because everything he can explicitly and implicitly do, anyone else can do.
Which was shown to be wrong. Implicitly and explicitly. But you won't let it go until everyone agrees with your solipsistic assertions. Which isn't going to happen, because we have actually played this game you like to make completely mistaken assertions about.
Ex Falso Quodlibet. The rest of your post is utter hogwash that stems from your already proven incorrect premises, so there is very little reason in going over how and why they are wrong
one more fucking time because the odds of you understanding what is being explained are infinitesimal at this point. So, let's just skip to the predictably moronic summary you have at the end:
QuoteSo I ask again. What benefit is there to there being a class that specifically (explicitly and implicitly) gets less screen time than everyone else?
There isn't any. But this class only exists in your mind. For the rest of us that class simply doesn't exist. But the rest of us have spent time playing the game instead of spending that time on TGD thinking it would provide the transmitted wisdom needed to expertly hold forth on design questions.
You have a problem with the Fighter.
You have a problem with 'screen time'.
You refuse to incorporate or even consider the countless suggestions for fixing
your problems that result from a poor grasp of the current and previous rules.
So, you get to join the Dipshit Gallery:
Dipshit: "I want a game that is good for X"
Others: "Game Y is pretty good for that"
Dipshit: "No, it uses mechanic Z."
Others: "How about this other game?"
Dipshit: "That won't work."
...
ad infinitum.
In Soviet Russia, dipshit is you!
So, thrash about and scream your impotent rage that these 30+ year RPG veterans refuse to see the glowing wisdom of your almost ten years playing a single version of a single game.
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
Quote from: Planet Algol;557079Ability scores...
EDIT: Going back to what others have said more eloquently in the past, if D&D isn't working for you why not just play a different RPG?
I'm not surprised that you read what others have said but haven't read my replies to them.
Quote from: MGuy;557092I'm not surprised that you read what others have said but haven't read my replies to them.
That is because regardless of what other people post, your response is a broken record of "Fighters suck!". You might find a bot that can post that to every response, it would save you some time.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;557083@MGuy: I think you're analysis here is assuming that combat and non-combat are equally important, which isn't necessarily true. I don't personally think an RPG can necessarily be designed to make sure all characters are involved equally all the time - spotlight balance across a session is more reasonable.
When you're comparing the relative value of these things, its worth considering that being bad at non-combat means temporarily not being engaged, whereas being bad at combat probably means death.
One of the reasons I like D&D, as a class-based system, is precisely because to be good at fighting you need to pick the Fighter class, instead of having everyone able to just put all their points into Sword skill, with other skills being unimportant/ignored.
There is I think a fair bit of excluded middle in your argument, insofar as people are happy if their characters have some functionality out of combat, not necessarily given by their class.
Every class is expected to fight. Doesn't really matter how because not everyone plays arena games. So the fighter being good at swording is only important in a fight. He has no abilities that help in doing anything else of interest that other classes can't do outside of a fight. If the fighter can't do anything that anyone else can do but better then what is the point of having it?
I'm not sure what the middle ground mantra people are bringing up is (seeing as thus far people haven't brought up what that is) but if it means what I think it means (in that the you think the fighter should get more goodies but you just don't want him having straight up super powers) then congrats. You've affirmed that the gap between fighter/wizard exists and that something (doesn't matter what your flavor of something is) should be done about it.
If that is not your meaning then I will continue ignoring that kind of statement because I don't know what the hell it means.
Quote from: MGuy;557092I'm not surprised that you read what others have said but haven't read my replies to them.
I assure you that I haven't read every page in this thread.
But a human being is perfectly capable of doing all sorts of marvellous things outside of combat.
Quote from: MGuy;557095Every class is expected to fight. Doesn't really matter how because not everyone plays arena games. So the fighter being good at swording is only important in a fight. He has no abilities that help in doing anything else of interest that other classes can't do outside of a fight. If the fighter can't do anything that anyone else can do but better then what is the point of having it?
I'm not sure what the middle ground mantra people are bringing up is (seeing as thus far people haven't brought up what that is) but if it means what I think it means (in that the you think the fighter should get more goodies but you just don't want him having straight up super powers) then congrats. You've affirmed that the gap between fighter/wizard exists and that something (doesn't matter what your flavor of something is) should be done about it.
If that is not your meaning then I will continue ignoring that kind of statement because I don't know what the hell it means.
Does not have specific class abilities related to non-combat =/= can't do anything out of combat.
But basically what you're doing here is deciding to ignore the entire combat-related section of the game, in order to decide fighters shouldn't exist. Good work.
Quote from: MGuy;557095Every class is expected to fight.
Let's just stop right there, because again, that is completely wrong. That is a concept that arose almost whole-cloth with 3.x.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;557097Does not have specific class abilities related to non-combat =/= can't do anything out of combat.
But basically what you're doing here is deciding to ignore the entire combat-related section of the game, in order to decide fighters shouldn't exist. Good work.
No. You're wrong here. I've decided that since everyone can fight, and is indeed expected to and CAN participate in the combat mini game in a number of unique (class specific ways) that combat isn't going to be where I take my stand.
The reason why I choose not to take a stand on combat isn't that I can't make the argument that the fighter falls behind there (because that's already been hammered out exhaustively) nor is it because the fighter actually has interesting things to in combat (spamming I attack every round isn't interesting) but because even in the case where the fighter DOES keep up in combat I DON'T PLAY ARENA ONLY GAMES.
The games I run and play don't JUST revolve around fighting. Fighting only games are uninteresting to me and a great deal of people who like developing stories and shit. So even in the odd case that you castrated every other class such that the fighter was the only one who could fight anything ever I'd STILL not like it because then nobody but the fighter gets to participate in the fighting game and THAT's unbalanced.
So right now I'm letting go of the entire combat argument because its not even worth fighting because the minute anyone points out the fighter's failings in comes a bunch of shit I either can't respond to (prior editions) or whenever someone does people offer spot fixes that primarily count on castrating the wizard or believing that the wizard's high intelligence and mystical capabilities somehow impair the creativity of those playing them.
The only thing that is flat out UNDENIABLE by all parties involved is that the fighter cannot do anything particular interesting or unique that EVERY OTHER MOTHERFUCKING GOD DAMN CLASS IN THE GAME CAN DO but better. A fighter can't even get from point A to point B better than a wizard because a wizard can do it faster, easier and avoid a bunch of pits and snares along the way.
Quote from: Planet Algol;557096I assure you that I haven't read every page in this thread.
But a human being is perfectly capable of doing all sorts of marvellous things outside of combat.
You've missed entire sections of my argument. Being human has nothing to do with the class abilities that a fighter gives you.
Quote from: Kaldric;557041There were some cursed things, they got discarded - they're not permanent items.
He gives hand-me-downs to his henchmen, or trades large numbers of them for single better items. You seem to have no trouble with the m/u trading for stuff.
He'll have all of the swords, most of the armor, and not the dagger. If he finds two hammers of thunderbolts, then much like the M/U taking weeks off to learn spells, he's going to use those 5 wishes in the luck blade to find out where the gauntlets and belt can be found, then give himself a massive advantage when taking them from whoever owns them. Since he's got two hammers, he'll be throwing one once per round, basically killing whatever he hits, stunning everything else. Maybe he'll use a leftover wish to make himself immune to spells for a few minutes a day, at will. He can do what he wants.
The wizard won't 'probably' get any of these. Because he'll be rolling against the fighter, cleric, and thief - who can all use these items as well as, or better than, the wizard. The wizard doesn't get first dibs on items everyone can use, just because his 'wizard only' selection is so horrible. Fighter gets all stuff only he can use automatically, and rolls on everything else he can use. Same with magic-user. End result, magic user just gets a ton less stuff. Which is exactly what the book says is how it should go.
He gets the magic-user scrolls, which is about 38% of the total count. He can roll on the protection scrolls, just like the fighter does. There are more fighter-only potions than m/u only ones. Every potion is basically giving the Fighter the opportunity to cast a spell.
If there's more characters, they get more treasures, more often. The chart is, exactly as it says, massively weighted towards melee types over caster types.
'Just' makes him better at killing monsters. As if that's an insignificant thing, when the only way to get to the treasures is to fight 20 combats in a row - otherwise the monsters take the loot elsewhere. No 15 minute days. Also, the fighter has the same potion access the wizard does, thus the fighter will get to cast dozens of spells, though potions, during his career. Plus all the protection scrolls, special ability swords that might let him teleport, read minds, cast wish, fly, shoot fireballs, etc.
You give them to your your henchmen. You use them as backups, if a rod of cancellation hits your primary suit.
The fighter has between 5 and 13 wishes. He can do anything the caster can do, when absolutely necessary. The Luck blade with 5 wishes on it is automatically his alone, so in fact, he's capable of using several of them at once to, I dunno, turn himself permanently into a magic-resistant creature, give himself spell-casting abilities, etc, etc, etc. He can do whatever the DM deems balanced. He's got a frost brand of ESP, several other intelligent swords with special abilities like detect magic, detect evil, etc, plus dozens of potions that replicate or improve on what the caster can do.
In AD&D, if you WANT the caster to be better than everyone else, you can make him that way. The game assumes it's going to be balanced by the magic item distribution, and actually doing the rolls shows this to be the case.
Well I will note a couple of things.
To get rid of a cursed sword that you have used requires a wish or an exorcism, so that to me is actually pretty permanent. If he gets the Luck blade , and lets face it the Rogue will push hard for it as well then chances are he will use most of those wishes ridding himself of cursed swords ....
The rogue will get 50% of the swords.
The cleric will get 50% of the armour
Re the Hammer of Thumnder bolts
The cleric will Defintely get one of them.
The figther can not wield it at all with less than 18 Strength, nor can the cleric obviously, but both of them will be looking for the Gauntlets Gridle combo and there will be a "discussion" if they waste a wish to find it.
Lastly because I am busy like I said you are doing exactly what you accuse the GD Posse of doing taking these things in a vaccum out of campaign play.
How does a figther defeate a guy in +5 Plate with an intelligent sword? In the first place or are you a DM that lets the party kill the Big Bad and then rolls treasure to find out that he actually had a +5 Sword he forgot to use. Not at my table for sure.
Why do you ignore the rest of the party in the treasure splitting business? The treasure you rolled, (forgetting the cursed stuff you ignored :) ) gets split 4 ways with a typical D&D party, Thief/Cleric/Figther/MU. Typically the method is for each cache of treasure each player picks an item in order til it's all divided up, if at a later stage an item turns out to be unusuable by one of the party they trade to make themselves more effective. The junk items get pooled and sold or as you say passed onto party henchmen, if said people exist. So you have to see that the very best Armour will be split between the figther and the Cleric, the very best swords will be split between the thief and the fighter, the very best magic user stuff the magic user keeps and it makes sense to make him the guy that covers artillery and 'stands at the back in combat doing stuff' becase he is piss poor at standing at the front.
The list of stuff that
only fighters can use is tiny. In your list I think its limited to The Rod of Lordly might (great item) and some of the low end exoitc misc weapons provided that the DM is playing RAW and doesn't let a Cleric Of Ares use a Spear etc.
The net result of that in any game if for the wizards to have lots of 'interesting stuff'. I suggest you get a copy of 1e Rogues gallery and take a look at what actual characters get through play becuase your model of the
'The fighter gets the Luck blade alone, only the Figther can use a vorpal sword and the fighter gets all the swords and all the armour' is just bollocks.
So that someone other than MGuy is saying the obvious:
If you can do a thing that is not written on your character sheet, to a sufficient degree of competency that it's worth your time, it is because that thing does not need to be written on a person's character sheet for them to do it. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that any person can do that thing.
For one obvious example, if the fighter can track people to a sufficient degree of competency that it's worth your time even though it doesn't say so on his sheet, then logically, the wizard - or the wizard's Charmed frost giant - can track people to that degree even though it doesn't say so on his sheet. Also logically, the Ranger is wasting his time by specialising to be "amazing" in this area, because he would already be "good enough" with no investment at all.
For another obvious example, stealth. If it is expected that you can sneak to a sufficient degree of competency that it's worth your time without it saying so on your sheet, then it is impossible for the Thief to be defined by being able to sneak the best. This could easily spawn a separate rant, because stealth is a terrible example of things that everyone can do - the limiting factor on the group as a whole sneaking around is the person who is worst at stealth, rather than the person who is best at it like most other tasks.
The idea's been raised that Fighters are meant to have a unique social role, as the only one of the Big Four who isn't necessarily separated from normal mundanes by their powers or skills. I disagree. I would fully expect most Wizards and Thieves to pass themselves off as something socially acceptable, like traders or pilgrims, if they cannot simply trumpet that they are Wizards and Thieves.
Furthermore, while I am not opposed to the idea of Fighter as a heading for a pile of subclasses who all have a defined social role and the ability to stab people in the face, I find it hard to believe that anyone in-universe would actually call themselves a Fighter, rather than a Knight, a Paladin, a Ranger, a Mercenary, a Swashbuckler, or anything more evocative than Fighter.
Quote from: MGuy;557071So the answer to my question of why its ok that the fighter can't do anything of use outside of combat (other than be an extra pair of hands) seems to be a mix of retracting earlier statements and implying that fighters can indeed do things outside of combat.
I cant speak for others, but in my case I tried to answer your question honestly and all I did was clarify my statements and positions. You can either accept that in good faith (since you appeared legitimately curious about why I held my opinion), or you can just keep arguing with people over whatamounts to preference. I have also said several times if you want fighters to be more interesting outside combat and you want an approach where characters always have an equal amount of abilities for all situations that is fine. That isn't what I want, but I am not going to try to dissect your position to prove my approach is better (because it isn't better since it is just a gaming preference).
QuoteI said, quite a number of times, earlier in the thread that even if the fighter is better at swording than everyone else he still can't do interesting things outside of combat because everything he can explicitly and implicitly do, anyone else can do.
That idea was met by the statements I mentioned earlier (varying degrees of he doesn't have to do things outside of combat to be cool). So to say now, that those statements didn't mean what they implied is confusing. But ok, so ith those statements retracted we go to the resounding suggestion that fighters are indeed useful in various explicit and implicit ways.
Honestly, I think you are just debating to win at this point and i don't think you are really interested in a conversation. It isn't confusing. People disagree over some basic components of the conversation (what constitutes participation, what constitutes interesting, what constitutes fun, whether fun is impeded or aided by lulls in shine time, etc).
Quote from: MGuy;557095Every class is expected to fight. Doesn't really matter how because not everyone plays arena games. So the fighter being good at swording is only important in a fight. He has no abilities that help in doing anything else of interest that other classes can't do outside of a fight. If the fighter can't do anything that anyone else can do but better then what is the point of having it?
I.
It matters how well the other classes can do it. In AD&D 2e rogues are not that good in a fight, clerics are pretty good, mages are terrible inititially, but the fighter is quite strong becuase he gets more attacks (even the other fighter subclasses cant do this at first because they don't have specialization so have tl wait till like 7th level), specialization, better HP, access to exceptioal strength. so other classes can fight in combat but not as well. Clearly there is a change as spellcasters get more powerful, but for the first part of the game the fighter has a strong edge in combat.
Outside combat a fighter can still do many of the things a rogue can do (just not as well) because all classes have access to (even in 2e) to skills like climb. It is just at a much lower percentage and doesn't increase over time. The fighter also has NwPs, which give him access to things to do outside combat. But, a 2e fighter is what the name says, a fighting character. They don't pick locks, they bash down doors instead (and remember only the fighter gets access to exceptional strength). they can participate. They don't excell. If you want a game with more options for the fighter outside combat, pathfinder or 3E is probably more up your alley (with a bit of tweaking I imagine). For me the 2E approach works just fine. I have no issue with a class being great in one part of the game but not so great in another. How well individual editions achieve this is debatable, but its a perfectly valid preference to have. I mean if you just can't accept that different people find different approaches fun, I really don't know what to say. If someone tells me they find X fun but not Y, I usually just accept it, so I am a bit confused about where you are coming from. Why are you so troubled by the fact that someone might be okay with (might want) their fighter not being great outside combat?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;557124It matters how well the other classes can do it. In AD&D 2e rogues are not that good in a fight, clerics are pretty good, mages are terrible inititially, but the fighter is quite strong becuase he gets more attacks (even the other fighter subclasses cant do this at first because they don't have specialization so have tl wait till like 7th level), specialization, better HP, access to exceptioal strength. so other classes can fight in combat but not as well. Clearly there is a change as spellcasters get more powerful, but for the first part of the game the fighter has a strong edge in combat.
Outside combat a fighter can still do many of the things a rogue can do (just not as well) because all classes have access to (even in 2e) to skills like climb. It is just at a much lower percentage and doesn't increase over time. The fighter also has NwPs, which give him access to things to do outside combat. But, a 2e fighter is what the name says, a fighting character. They don't pick locks, they bash down doors instead (and remember only the fighter gets access to exceptional strength). they can participate. They don't excell. If you want a game with more options for the fighter outside combat, pathfinder or 3E is probably more up your alley (with a bit of tweaking I imagine). For me the 2E approach works just fine. I have no issue with a class being great in one part of the game but not so great in another. How well individual editions achieve this is debatable, but its a perfectly valid preference to have. I mean if you just can't accept that different people find different approaches fun, I really don't know what to say. If someone tells me they find X fun but not Y, I usually just accept it, so I am a bit confused about where you are coming from. Why are you so troubled by the fact that someone might be okay with (might want) their fighter not being great outside combat?
But like I mentioned up post it would be good for fighters to be good with troops, like Randy's Warlock subclass. Or be good at running a kingdom. Or mixing with Nobility or running a mercenary brotherhood
In 2e they get NWP but less than the other classes dispite the fact that you would think that hte other classes had more not less homework to do.
As it stands the lowly rogue is as good at leading an army into the field as the figther is.
Also , as I am sure you know the Complete Fighter errata'd the PHB for 2e and all Fighters and fighter subclasses could specialise from 1st level. It was always my understanding that that was to correct an error in the PHB but ... opinions may well vary.
Quote from: jibbajibba;557125But like I mentioned up post it would be good for fighters to be good with troops, like Randy's Warlock subclass. Or be good at running a kingdom. Or mixing with Nobility or running a mercenary brotherhood
In 2e they get NWP but less than the other classes dispite the fact that you would think that hte other classes had more not less homework to do.
As it stands the lowly rogue is as good at leading an army into the field as the figther is.
Also , as I am sure you know the Complete Fighter errata'd the PHB for 2e and all Fighters and fighter subclasses could specialise from 1st level. It was always my understanding that that was to correct an error in the PHB but ... opinions may well vary.
In ad&d fighters are good with troops amd running kingdoms, it's just subtley incorporated into the name level rules.
Quote from: jibbajibba;557125But like I mentioned up post it would be good for fighters to be good with troops, like Randy's Warlock subclass. Or be good at running a kingdom. Or mixing with Nobility or running a mercenary brotherhood
In 2e they get NWP but less than the other classes dispite the fact that you would think that hte other classes had more not less homework to do.
As it stands the lowly rogue is as good at leading an army into the field as the figther is.
Also , as I am sure you know the Complete Fighter errata'd the PHB for 2e and all Fighters and fighter subclasses could specialise from 1st level. It was always my understanding that that was to correct an error in the PHB but ... opinions may well vary.
In 2E there's this NWP (Complete Barbarian's Handbook), if the GM allows it...
Leadership (1 slot, Warrior group)
A character with this proficiency has a commanding manner that makes others of his own kind inclined to respond favorably. The character adds his level of experience to his Charisma score when determining reaction adjustments (see Chapter 1 of the Player's Handbook). This reaction bonus is only in effect when he deals with people from his homeland; the reaction bonus does not affect those of evil alignment.
Should help with the troops though it seems a bit too good to me. There's a Horde NWP for summoning hordes in there as well...both are former Barbarian class abilities in 1E, that they took out when they rebalanced the class for 2E.
I believe I heard Complete Fighter was written before the PHB and that was the reason it has specialization for rangers and paladins, but I'm not sure where I read that. Technically the handbooks are optional of course...
[/FONT][/FONT]
Quote from: jibbajibba;557125But like I mentioned up post it would be good for fighters to be good with troops, like Randy's Warlock subclass. Or be good at running a kingdom. Or mixing with Nobility or running a mercenary brotherhood
In 2e they get NWP but less than the other classes dispite the fact that you would think that hte other classes had more not less homework to do.
And I am fine with them getting less in this case. Like I said, for me it is okay if they are good in combat, not so great out of combat. That is in terms of game play. In terms of realism I think fighters wouldn't have much time for study if they are actively training. I always imagined a fighter training and conditioning in his spare time. Whereas the rogue I can see focusing on more out of combat stuff.
QuoteAs it stands the lowly rogue is as good at leading an army into the field as the figther is.
It has been a while since I employed this stuff in my 2e games (since I have mostly been playing Ravenloft with it and don't use followers) but I would honestly need to crunch the numbers to be sure on this one because the fighter gets lots of 0 level guys while the rogue gets 4d6 leveled characters (and that might play out differnetly than I imagine). But just glancing at the chart a fighter gets one elite leader (between 5-7th level), lots of zero level troops (40-100 infantry, 20-60 cavalry, in various combos), and elite units (10-30 first to 2nd level guys). The rogue gets 4d6 followers that are mostly thieves or fighter/thief, thief/mage, etc ranging in level from 1-8.
QuoteAlso , as I am sure you know the Complete Fighter errata'd the PHB for 2e and all Fighters and fighter subclasses could specialise from 1st level. It was always my understanding that that was to correct an error in the PHB but ... opinions may well vary.
This is an optional book. It isn't expressed as errata it simply states they ao get it. Whether that is intended to fix a mistake in the phb or intended as a change they later came up with, i don't know. But since I have always felt paladins and rangers are rewards for high rolls on stats, it doesn't really bother bother me that much.
I would just add my main point is, regardless of how well specific editions achieve it, i think there is nothing wrong with wanting a game where characters excel at certain parts of play but are weak in others. How well 1e, 2e, and 3e do this is certainly debatable, but the heart of the discussion is really about design goals. All I am saying is creating classes so they varied in different areas of play is fine. For exampl say A is the best at something, B okay and C so, so and D terrible. Taking the exploration, rp and combat model they talk about for next, I am fine with one class being. Cmbat B, Explore C and RP C; another being Combat B, Explore C, and RP B; another class being Cmbat A, Explore D and RP C. Those tiers are just off the top of my head, there is room to discuss specifics, but you get the point. Some people have fun when their character is more power limited in some areas and less in others. Certainly not an approach everyone wants, but it is one that appeals to me. i think it is a lot better than making all charaters B B B.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;557123It isn't confusing. People disagree over some basic components of the conversation (what constitutes participation, what constitutes interesting, what constitutes fun, whether fun is impeded or aided by lulls in shine time, etc).
Worth repeating.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;557133Like I said, for me it is okay if they are good in combat, not so great out of combat.
The 'good in combat, not so great out of combat' thing matters most when you attach a skill system.
Pre-
OA and
DSG/
WSG,
D&D relied primarily on the career catch-all secondary skills - frex, having the forestry secondary skill means you know about trees, their value, their uses, the tools used in forestry, how to harvest and transport them, and how to cut them down for various sorts of lumber. Everything else is handled by player wits and consensus.
With 1e nwps, fighters started with 2 nwps compared to a magic-user's or thief's 3, but the fighter gained proficiencies faster than either magic-users (1 per 3 levels versus 1 per six levels for magic-users) or thieves (1 per three levels versus 1 per 4 for thieves). Fighters might sink these into weapons, but most specialized in a weapon so in my experience additional proficiencies tended to be used for nwps instead of additional weapons that the character rarely used.
3e - once again - screwed that pooch. Fighters get 2 skill points per level, as do wizards, but wizards typically get more because of the bonus for high intelligence, and rogues get 8 points per level.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;5571833e - once again - screwed that pooch. Fighters get 2 skill points per level, as do wizards, but wizards typically get more because of the bonus for high intelligence, and rogues get 8 points per level.
This.
Also, even worse, they made a lot of the skills you would expect a fighter to be at really narrow, (Jump, Climb, Swim) while some of the Wizard ones are pretty broad (Spellcraft). Oh and of course Fighters had (I think) the fewest class skills to boot, even sodding Intimidate was cross class in 3.0...
3.x did not just relax the limits on spell casting, it really did apply a shed load of restrictions on Fighters that were not there before.
Quote from: jadrax;557191This.
Also, even worse, they made a lot of the skills you would expect a fighter to be at really narrow, (Jump, Climb, Swim) while some of the Wizard ones are pretty broad (Spellcraft). Oh and of course Fighters had (I think) the fewest class skills to boot, even sodding Intimidate was cross class in 3.0...
3.x did not just relax the limits on spell casting, it really did apply a shed load of restrictions on Fighters that were not there before.
Exactly. It's why I keep saying a large part of the solution is going back before 3x. Make skills more broad and give fighters good access with faster progression than magic users to narrow that advantage high intelligence tends to give in skills.
I almost feel like I owe Stormbringer that 20 bucks he demands in his sig after reading the later half of this monster over the last couple days.... but then the tl;dr phenomenon caught up with me, saving me the money.
I am curious: If all these various heroic fuckers from history were some other class (Roland: paladin, Hercules: Demigod)... where does that put Gilgamesh?
Quote from: Spike;557227I am curious: If all these various heroic fuckers from history were some other class (Roland: paladin, Hercules: Demigod)... where does that put Gilgamesh?
Well the 3.x
Gauntlets of Gilgamesh are a Monk only item...
Quote from: Spike;557227where does that put Gilgamesh?
Up Enkidu's ass?
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Quote from: MGuy;557095Doesn't really matter how because not everyone plays arena games.
I imagine that people playing a game with virtually no combat wouldn't play a class called 'Fighter' in the first place. Of course that game also probably wouldn't be D&D either.
Fact of the matter is most of the rules in D&D have to do with combat, and that is the most important aspect of the rules side of the game, regardless of what premium actual groups put into that aspect in their adventures is beside the point. In 2e you didn't get experience unless you actually killed the monsters (and Fighters got more experience for this), and this is mostly the way people play 3e despite what the rules say, since the idea of bypassing an encounter being worth the same reward as defeating it is absurd on its' face. My character is instantly level 20 because I'm successfully navigating past all of the encounters on the planet by not leaving the tavern!
No one plays that game, and in 2e its' not even part of RAW. Killing shit is the only way to actually advance your character, and there is a premium on being able to do that more so than any other potential ability a character might have. People take the Thief because they need his abilities. If they were told up front that the campaign wasn't going to be old school, and not have very many traps, secret passages, et cetera, chances are very good that no one would play a Thief because they aren't good fighters.
The outcome of combat is so much more important than the outcome of haggling over the price of rope that no people ITT are focusing on it, despite that being the only thing you want to talk about. No one at a real table is going to weep over the Bard getting the best deal on rope and rations, if it means sacrificing combat effectiveness to get this inconsequential out of combat 'effectiveness'.
The whole 'everyone gets to be good at combat!' game you are playing isn't D&D (that's specifically a 4e mantra). It's not even 3.x, since that game doesn't even pretend that all of the classes are supposed to be great warriors, and the character customization options in purely non-combat skills, feats, prestige classes, et cetera really point to you having to choose combat or non-combat options.
A social-specced Bard in 3e's primary combat function is healing and absorbing hits that might have targeted someone actually useful. So basically he's a targeting dummy holding a wand that occupies the slot of what might have been a useful character. But we'll never pay for full priced rations again!
I'm not defending the fact that the game basically makes you choose lute proficiency over combat effectiveness; but it more or less does do this and it is a form of 'niche protection'. Being
good at something is actually important. I mean, if you ignore the Fighters ability to be better at what they do (in the most important
arena of gameplay) then you might as well ignore lots of other mechanics like levels too. If there is not a significant difference between specifically a high level fighter and a pig farmer NPC that picked up a sword then there isn't a significant difference between a low level and high level spellcaster. Both can cast spells after all.
Honing in on what amounts to a very rules-lite game of make pretend, and the largely inconsequential outcomes of that part of the game is nothing but sophistry. D&D is not a collaborative storytelling game, and there aren't and never will be rules that amount to having shared 'narrative control' so that players get equal 'screen time'. Combat, preparing for combat, being prepared for combat, and successfully navigating to the next combat are all fundamentally more important than anything else that will happen in D&D to the point where there almost aren't rules in the system for anything else.
Quote from: MGuy;557095Doesn't really matter how because not everyone plays arena games.
It really does matter, because
almost everyone does play 'arena games' if they are playing D&D in any edition. That the game has only become more biased towards being about fights in the later editions should really showcase exactly how much the players of this game actually care about 'arena games' in exclusion to pretty much everything else.
@Brendon: My question was answered by you in a fashion where you retracted the implication that fighters can't do anything useful out of combat. I asked "How is having a class only be good at one portion of the game (in which everyone is expected and indeed can contribute anyway) but be terrible at every other part of the game good?"
Your reply to that was that you believed that the fighter was that you did NOT mean to say that the fighter wasn't useless in outside of combat. That was your, and other's, reply. So I responded to THAT. Now you're backtracking AGAIN to say that you are simply ok with the arena style fighter. Please make up your mind. If THAT's the case then I have to ask AGAIN why is it that he should only be good at the same thing everyone else can contribute in equally but not be able to contribute equally in every other thing that could happen in the game. Rogues aren't as good at being punched in the face but as long as he's fighting from the shadows or in a team he can do a good bit of damage. Clerics can fight, heal, be punched in the face, and have spells that can aid in combat. Wizards can straight up bring another fighter to combat. Everyone can participate in combat in a fashion where there's no one I would want to leave at home because they are a liability (2e rogues I'm not 100% on). But I can always count on fighters being a drain on resources at mid to high levels. I can always know that a fighter is functional (in 2e) when the battle music starts but easily replaceable, and in need of various party resources because avoiding and recovering from a fight with him on the team is objectively harder to do because he is a legitimate drain on resources.
So I asked, legitimately, why is THIS good for the game. You have yet to tell me why and instead retract the idea or attempt to claim he's more useful than having an extra pair of hands. And when I respond to that by saying "umm no he isn't" you claim that my question is insincere. If its your preference that the class be worse than every other class that's fine, but how is that good for the game?
The Fighter is best at surviving.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;557234I imagine that people playing a game with virtually no combat wouldn't play a class called 'Fighter' in the first place. Of course that game also probably wouldn't be D&D either.
Fact of the matter is most of the rules in D&D have to do with combat, and that is the most important aspect of the rules side of the game, regardless of what premium actual groups put into that aspect in their adventures is beside the point. In 2e you didn't get experience unless you actually killed the monsters (and Fighters got more experience for this), and this is mostly the way people play 3e despite what the rules say, since the idea of bypassing an encounter being worth the same reward as defeating it is absurd on its' face. My character is instantly level 20 because I'm successfully navigating past all of the encounters on the planet by not leaving the tavern!
No one plays that game, and in 2e its' not even part of RAW. Killing shit is the only way to actually advance your character, and there is a premium on being able to do that more so than any other potential ability a character might have. People take the Thief because they need his abilities. If they were told up front that the campaign wasn't going to be old school, and not have very many traps, secret passages, et cetera, chances are very good that no one would play a Thief because they aren't good fighters.
The outcome of combat is so much more important than the outcome of haggling over the price of rope that no people ITT are focusing on it, despite that being the only thing you want to talk about. No one at a real table is going to weep over the Bard getting the best deal on rope and rations, if it means sacrificing combat effectiveness to get this inconsequential out of combat 'effectiveness'.
The whole 'everyone gets to be good at combat!' game you are playing isn't D&D (that's specifically a 4e mantra). It's not even 3.x, since that game doesn't even pretend that all of the classes are supposed to be great warriors, and the character customization options in purely non-combat skills, feats, prestige classes, et cetera really point to you having to choose combat or non-combat options.
A social-specced Bard in 3e's primary combat function is healing and absorbing hits that might have targeted someone actually useful. So basically he's a targeting dummy holding a wand that occupies the slot of what might have been a useful character. But we'll never pay for full priced rations again!
I'm not defending the fact that the game basically makes you choose lute proficiency over combat effectiveness; but it more or less does do this and it is a form of 'niche protection'. Being good at something is actually important. I mean, if you ignore the Fighters ability to be better at what they do (in the most important arena of gameplay) then you might as well ignore lots of other mechanics like levels too. If there is not a significant difference between specifically a high level fighter and a pig farmer NPC that picked up a sword then there isn't a significant difference between a low level and high level spellcaster. Both can cast spells after all.
Honing in on what amounts to a very rules-lite game of make pretend, and the largely inconsequential outcomes of that part of the game is nothing but sophistry. D&D is not a collaborative storytelling game, and there aren't and never will be rules that amount to having shared 'narrative control' so that players get equal 'screen time'. Combat, preparing for combat, being prepared for combat, and successfully navigating to the next combat are all fundamentally more important than anything else that will happen in D&D to the point where there almost aren't rules in the system for anything else.
It really does matter, because almost everyone does play 'arena games' if they are playing D&D in any edition. That the game has only become more biased towards being about fights in the later editions should really showcase exactly how much the players of this game actually care about 'arena games' in exclusion to pretty much everything else.
I'm not going to respond to all this because most of it is predicated on the idea that "being good at combat" = "being a warrior" and no... That's not the case. Defeating a monster doesn't necessitate me being in a vacuum with no lead up to killing it. It also doesn't mean I have to actually kill it. I can bypass it, use it to help me, make it and another enemy fight each other, aid it, etc and so on in order to "win" an encounter.I've never played in a game where a DM would rationally allow me to grind experience. If that were the case getting to higher level would be EVEN easier for me if I played a caster. Wanton murder, being able to find appropriate targets, etc are all easier for me if I have spells to aid in doing so. But since games are not grindfests, and since games people run aren't arena challenges where I am forced to meet every challenge in a frontal assault and have my face ever ready to be punched, I can assume that then I am given the ability to attempt to set up situations where I can avoid face punchification. Hence why I say everyone doesn't play arena games where all of what I described would be the case. What's more, even when combat IS joined every class has capabilities that allow them to participate and no one ever feels like it would've been better to leave a caster at home because a caster is ALWAYS useful before, during, and after a fight.
Quote from: Rum Cove;557236The Fighter is best at surviving.
I have never denied that the fighter is the best at being punched in the face but being the best at "surviving" in general is open to debate.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;557234A social-specced Bard in 3e's primary combat function is healing and absorbing hits that might have targeted someone actually useful. So basically he's a targeting dummy holding a wand that occupies the slot of what might have been a useful character. But we'll never pay for full priced rations again!
This annoys me to no end and is a reflection of non-tactical thinking.
No, from AD&D2 onward a Bard is not a front-line combatant and was not designed that way, nor should one be used that way. However, a Bard is the D&D equivalent of a Predator drone, the class gathers intelligence needed to maneuver your intended target into the best possible killing zone available and attack it with the best killing tools available. As second-line combatant, the Bard protects and augments spellcasters while providing a little extra healing for the party. A jack-of-all-trades is not used in a role that is better suited to another character class, it is used to plug holes left by the absence of a needed class and as a wild card to maximize damage against a rigid-thinking opponent.
Quote from: MGuy;557239I have never denied that the fighter is the best at being punched in the face but being the best at "surviving" in general is open to debate.
When confronted (out of combat) with a door - who is opening it?
Quote from: MGuy;557235@Brendon: My question was answered by you in a fashion where you retracted the implication that fighters can't do anything useful out of combat. I asked "How is having a class only be good at one portion of the game (in which everyone is expected and indeed can contribute anyway) but be terrible at every other part of the game good?"
Your reply to that was that you believed that the fighter was that you did NOT mean to say that the fighter wasn't useless in outside of combat. That was your, and other's, reply. So I responded to THAT. Now you're backtracking AGAIN to say that you are simply ok with the arena style fighter. Please make up your mind. If THAT's the case then I have to ask AGAIN why is it that he should only be good at the same thing everyone else can contribute in equally but not be able to contribute equally in every other thing that could happen in the game. Rogues aren't as good at being punched in the face but as long as he's fighting from the shadows or in a team he can do a good bit of damage. Clerics can fight, heal, be punched in the face, and have spells that can aid in combat. Wizards can straight up bring another fighter to combat. Everyone can participate in combat in a fashion where there's no one I would want to leave at home because they are a liability (2e rogues I'm not 100% on). But I can always count on fighters being a drain on resources at mid to high levels. I can always know that a fighter is functional (in 2e) when the battle music starts but easily replaceable, and in need of various party resources because avoiding and recovering from a fight with him on the team is objectively harder to do because he is a legitimate drain on resources.
So I asked, legitimately, why is THIS good for the game. You have yet to tell me why and instead retract the idea or attempt to claim he's more useful than having an extra pair of hands. And when I respond to that by saying "umm no he isn't" you claim that my question is insincere. If its your preference that the class be worse than every other class that's fine, but how is that good for the game?
I don't think you want a conversation. Because I believe I have been clear on what I like and why, and on what systems I think achieve it or not. You disagree with a lot of my points and that is fine, but then you expect me to adopt all the assumptions you lay out in your posts. This doesn't feel like a discussion. It feels like you are being deliberately obtuse until you get me to agree with you. So here is my preference for the final time: want classes to have varied abilities in different aspects of the game. Want some classes to be lousy in some areas, great in others. Want classe that are okay across the board. And on and on. Whether 2e achieves that or not is another matter.
There are two different things
Quote from: Rum Cove;557242When confronted (out of combat) with a door - who is opening it?
I'm going to let you flush out the scenario a bit. Because the way it reads now I'd have to say "anyone with hands to turn a nob, or anybody who can push/pull it.
Quote from: MGuy;557244I'm going to let you flush out the scenario a bit. Because the way it reads now I'd have to say "anyone with hands to turn a nob, or anybody who can push/pull it.
The answer is the Fighter.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;557243I don't think you want a conversation. Because I believe I have been clear on what I like and why, and on what systems I think achieve it or not. You disagree with a lot of my points and that is fine, but then you expect me to adopt all the assumptions you lay out in your posts. This doesn't feel like a discussion. It feels like you are being deliberately obtuse until you get me to agree with you. So here is my preference for the final time: want classes to have varied abilities in different aspects of the game. Want some classes to be lousy in some areas, great in others. Want classe that are okay across the board. And on and on. Whether 2e achieves that or not is another matter.
There are two different things
You are missing my point, like entirely. You just repeated the same thing tha you said without considering my last response.
You are ok with a fighter being just good at fighting and lousy at everything else. I've got that. Now consider this: All classes participate well in a fight. They don't do it all in the same way (role/niche/theme protection whatever you want to call it in 2e) but they all get to do SOMETHING that doesn't make you regret bringing them along. Fantastic! But since everyone has combat shit to do then the fighters one area that he specializes in is rendered unimpressive. This is true because not only is it that he is easily replaced, but he can ONLY contribute in the arena and is a drain on resources everywhere else. You may "feel" like I'm assaulting your way of playing, and I'm not saying you can't have fun, but you haven't even TRIED to consider the trivially obvious fact that being handy in combat is something everyone is expected to do. You've instead listened to people who equate being good at combat to being a good warrior.
Quote from: Rum Cove;557245The answer is the Fighter.
I know I've been downing the fighter a lot in this thread but I'm going to at least put the class's usefulness above that of "official door opener". I can mage hand a door open.
Quote from: MGuy;557246You are ok with a fighter being just good at fighting and lousy at everything else.
The Fighter is best at swimming, running, hunting, lifting/moving large objects. They can carry the most treasure (which in older editions equals XP).
Quote from: MGuy;557247I know I've been downing the fighter a lot in this thread but I'm going to at least put the class's usefulness above that of "official door opener". I can mage hand a door open.
Why is it that in all these discussions the Wizard has access to ALL spells at ALL times?
Quote from: MGuy;557247I can mage hand a door open.
If it weighs less than five pounds.
A contemporary hollow-core residential door weighs more than that. Now how much do you think a door made from oak planks bound with iron weighs?
Quote from: Rum Cove;557248The Fighter is best at swimming, running, hunting, lifting/moving large objects. They can carry the most treasure (which in older editions equals XP).
So he's good at being an extra pair of hands and a swimmer (if he takes his armor off). That is just fantastic.
It is becoming more apparent to me that the value of the Fighter is esoteric. In the hands of an intelligent and imaginative player, it is the class with the greatest chance of survival.
Quote from: Rum Cove;557249Why is it that in all these discussions the Wizard has access to ALL spells at ALL times?
Note the "can" and god forbid I just don't have the spell and actually have to use my own hands.
Quote from: jeff37923;557241This annoys me to no end and is a reflection of non-tactical thinking.
No, from AD&D2 onward a Bard is not a front-line combatant and was not designed that way, nor should one be used that way. However, a Bard is the D&D equivalent of a Predator drone, the class gathers intelligence needed to maneuver your intended target into the best possible killing zone available and attack it with the best killing tools available. As second-line combatant, the Bard protects and augments spellcasters while providing a little extra healing for the party. A jack-of-all-trades is not used in a role that is better suited to another character class, it is used to plug holes left by the absence of a needed class and as a wild card to maximize damage against a rigid-thinking opponent.
Agreed. This is actually true of the 1e Bard as well, but it's more tricky because it goes along with what I call the "bag of tricks" and really kicks in at high(ish) levels of play (given the multiclassing involved), where you will be generally outclassed by single class characters, but will be able to be useful in very specific situations AND in plugging holes in most others.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;557243You disagree with a lot of my points and that is fine, but then you expect me to adopt all the assumptions you lay out in your posts. (emphasis added - BV)
A common intreweb malady.
Quote from: Rum Cove;557255It is becoming more apparent to me that the value of the wizard is esoteric. In the hands of an intelligent and imaginative player, it is the class with the greatest chance of survival.
Fixed that for you.
Quote from: Rum Cove;557249Why is it that in all these discussions the Wizard has access to ALL spells at ALL times?
3e fifteen minute adventuring day.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;557258A common intreweb malady.
If you don't want to adopt them, refute them. I've reposted all of his ideas in order to show him I was listening. I even went step by step and showed him how his contentions either don't refute what I've said (in that he's ok with the fighter being useless outside of a fight), I even granted him the lofty assumption that the fighter IS useful in combat (but that everyone else is also that in some fashion), and then I specifically said IF he likes it like that explain WHY that's good for the game that there exist a class that is obviously being iced in the nuts no matter what he does.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;5572603e fifteen minute adventuring day.
In 3e its a common spell off of a short list of 0 level spells considering the number of uses it has I'd very likely prepare it. A 0 level spell (if you don't know) is basically a throw away spell that I can turn into a scroll (if I wanted to waste the time and I wouldn't) at such a low cost that it wouldn't be worth blinking an eye at.
Quote from: MGuy;557262In 3e its a common spell off of a short list of 0 level spells considering the number of uses it has I'd very likely prepare it. A 0 level spell (if you don't know) is basically a throw away spell that I can turn into a scroll (if I wanted to waste the time and I wouldn't) at such a low cost that it wouldn't be worth blinking an eye at.
It's also a spell that won't do what you said it does.
Quote from: MGuy;557261If you don't want to adopt them, refute them.
You begin with a set of expectations you presume are universal. They're not.
There's nothing to "refute."
Guys,
I'm sorry. I've been wrong. If the Fighter is the only one with hands capable of turning a knob, he is really useful.
That would be a crappy adventure if a thief, a bard, a cleric and a wizard couldn't open the door for their lack of opposable thumbs. I just didn't realize the Fighter had thumbs - probably because he usually has them up his ass out of combat.
Quote from: Marleycat;557212Exactly. It's why I keep saying a large part of the solution is going back before 3x. Make skills more broad and give fighters good access with faster progression than magic users to narrow that advantage high intelligence tends to give in skills.
Cool so you agree there is an imbalance that needs fixing :)
Quote from: Marleycat;557212Exactly. It's why I keep saying a large part of the solution is going back before 3x. Make skills more broad and give fighters good access with faster progression than magic users to narrow that advantage high intelligence tends to give in skills.
Also, make non-fighters suck at combat again. Thieves used to be *terrible* in a melee, and spellcasting very difficult. That needs to come back, with probably an extra round added to all spellcasting times.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;557265Guys,
I'm sorry. I've been wrong. If the Fighter is the only one with hands capable of turning a knob, he is really useful.
That would be a crappy adventure if a thief, a bard, a cleric and a wizard couldn't open the door for their lack of opposable thumbs. I just didn't realize the Fighter had thumbs - probably because he usually has them up his ass out of combat.
Oh for fuck's sake. You know, this crap gets really fucking old really fucking fast.
When someone says, "There's no reason why a fighter can't contribute in other areas, and here are examples why and how.", they are
not saying that
only the fighter can do those things. They are two completely different things. Why do you insist on trying to bring up this red herring? It has to be one of the most intellectually dishonest things you're doing. I'm assuming you have basic reading comprehension skills from reading all the rpg books, so why do you feel the need to resort to crap like this?
Because honestly, at this point after this has been pointed out a million times, it tells me that you have no integrity and rather than stand on your own arguments that are falling apart around you, you pull this 1st grade level bullshit.
Quote from: Rum Cove;557255It is becoming more apparent to me that the value of the Fighter is esoteric. In the hands of an intelligent and imaginative player, it is the class with the greatest chance of survival.
Now I agree a smart player can do almost anything but I would have to argue that a smart player with a list of useful proficiencies or the ability to teleport home probably edges one with nowt.
Hyperbole much ?
Maybe we need to rebalance the classes as the Figther is so awesome and the other classes suck so bad ;)
Quote from: MGuy;557261If you don't want to adopt them, refute them.
That's not how it works. If you want someone to adopt your position, the burden is on you to prove to their satisfaction that their original position is incorrect and your position is the correct one. You don't get to demand they either refute your position or adopt it -- well, you can demand it, but as you can see from this thread that doesn't work well. Most of us in this thread have no problem with you thinking the fighter is an awful class and not wanting it in your game unless hyped up to demigod level on class powers, therefore we have no need to refute your positions, however, we see no need to adopt them either as our positions work fine in our games.
They've worked since 1975 for my games, but then I refuse to play with rules lawyers and min-maxers. If one plays with them, my methods of play may not work -- not that that is any of my concern.
Quote from: Benoist;557257Agreed. This is actually true of the 1e Bard as well, but it's more tricky because it goes along with what I call the "bag of tricks" and really kicks in at high(ish) levels of play (given the multiclassing involved), where you will be generally outclassed by single class characters, but will be able to be useful in very specific situations AND in plugging holes in most others.
Not true of Lars Hanshallow my 2e Riddlemaster Bard at all.
He was good at riddles, ran a pretty decent theatre company and was able to cast Charm, friends and a couple of other hey nonny spells.
He never fought, wearing as he did no armour and carrying a rapier.
He was only really a risk when ladies were nearby when he got to practise his real swordmanship skills .....
so ... preator drone.... nah not so much.
Quote from: jibbajibba;557271Hyperbole much ?
Not really. Hit Points are the unit of life in all editions of D&D. The higher the value, the greater the chance of survival.
I'll be the first to mention the 3.x Gnome Illusionist with a Toad Familiar before we waste any time on that.
Quote from: Rum Cove;557242When confronted (out of combat) with a door - who is opening it?
Is it
trapped - the unseen servant
secret - the elf
locked - the thief
magically held - the wizard
warded with strange glyphs - the one with highest spellcraft
A big scary dungeon door that was built to never open - the one with highest strength or a lever
a normal door - just about anyone
number 5 has a reasonable chance of being the fighter
Quote from: jibbajibba;557271Now I agree a smart player can do almost anything but I would have to argue that a smart player with a list of useful proficiencies or the ability to teleport home probably edges one with not.
That's just not true, because HOW smart the player is, i.e. how intelligence or wits express themselves, which tools or freedom or whatever they need to come through in the most efficient ways, will vary from player to player, their outlook on the game, personality, play style, etc. So you might have a player that is supremely comfortable playing a straight fighter in an old edition of the game, and have that same player stall when playing a MU with loads of spells and shit to deal with on his character sheet. The reverse is also true, i.e. players who will be masters at using MU spells in the most effective ways possible who will stall when playing a straight fighter. And any combination of players and classes/rules components thereof, either/or/and, which is why in my mind, the way classes work differently for different types of players in the game is an asset to its game play, a feature, not a bug.
Wanting all classes to play the same, have the same amount of options written on paper and so on only ends up serving one single type of player comfortable with this amount of options, to the detriment of other types of players who might want to play the same game, albeit slightly differently, at the same game table. And since this is the usual practical paradigm under which role playing games are actually played, i.e. with different people with different types of personalities and inclinations as far as the game's concerned, it's a no brainer to me that this is the best paradigm for the game to adopt in order to have actual play function properly for a wide audience of players and tables out there.
Quote from: jibbajibba;557276Not true of Lars Hanshallow my 2e Riddlemaster Bard at all.
Very true of Odhanan, my 1e bard, however.
Quote from: jibbajibba;557278Is it
trapped - the unseen servant
magically held - the wizard
Again, could someone explain to me how the Wizard has access to ALL spells at ALL times?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;5572603e fifteen minute adventuring day.
Well, while the Wizard sleeps in the middle of the afternoon, the rest of the party continues to actually adventure.
Or do we add "Protecting a sleeping Wizard" to more things the Fighter does out of combat?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;557265Guys,
I'm sorry. I've been wrong. If the Fighter is the only one with hands capable of turning a knob, he is really useful.
That would be a crappy adventure if a thief, a bard, a cleric and a wizard couldn't open the door for their lack of opposable thumbs. I just didn't realize the Fighter had thumbs - probably because he usually has them up his ass out of combat.
This made my day, thank you.
Quote from: Benoist;557280That's just not true, because HOW smart the player is, i.e. how intelligence or wits express themselves, which tools or freedom or whatever they need to come through in the most efficient ways, will vary from player to player, their outlook on the game, personality, play style, etc. So you might have a player that is supremely comfortable playing a straight fighter in an old edition of the game, and have that same player stall when playing a MU with loads of spells and shit to deal with on his character sheet. The reverse is also true, i.e. players who will be masters at using MU spells in the most effective ways possible who will stall when playing a straight fighter. And any combination of players and classes/rules components thereof, either/or/and, which is why in my mind, the way classes work differently for different types of players in the game is an asset to its game play, a feature, not a bug.
Wanting all classes to play the same, have the same amount of options written on paper and so on only ends up serving one single type of player comfortable with this amount of options, to the detriment of other types of players who might want to play the same game, albeit slightly differently, at the same game table. And since this is the usual practical paradigm under which role playing games are actually played, i.e. with different people with different types of personalities and inclinations as far as the game's concerned, it's a no brainer to me that this is the best paradigm for the game to adopt in order to have actual play function properly for a wide audience of players and tables out there.
This is why 4e failed.
Quote from: Benoist;557280That's just not true, because HOW smart the player is, i.e. how intelligence or wits express themselves, which tools or freedom or whatever they need to come through in the most efficient ways, will vary from player to player, their outlook on the game, personality, play style, etc. So you might have a player that is supremely comfortable playing a straight fighter in an old edition of the game, and have that same player stall when playing a MU with loads of spells and shit to deal with on his character sheet. The reverse is also true, i.e. players who will be masters at using MU spells in the most effective ways possible who will stall when playing a straight fighter. And any combination of players and classes/rules components thereof, either/or/and, which is why in my mind, the way classes work differently for different types of players in the game is an asset to its game play, a feature, not a bug.
Wanting all classes to play the same, have the same amount of options written on paper and so on only ends up serving one single type of player comfortable with this amount of options, to the detriment of other types of players who might want to play the same game, albeit slightly differently, at the same game table. And since this is the usual practical paradigm under which role playing games are actually played, i.e. with different people with different types of personalities and inclinations as far as the game's concerned, it's a no brainer to me that this is the best paradigm for the game to adopt in order to have actual play function properly for a wide audience of players and tables out there.
Bollocks :)
First off a smart player with options will be better off than a smart player with less options that is just sums.
I have never met a smart player who suddenly became a thickie when confronted by a scary list of an extra couple of dozen options.
Second of all we all know that real AD&D players adopt the 10 foot pole approach to gaming (as clearly outlined in Old Geezer's Q&A to cross polinate threads) so the character they are playing is irrelevant. :)
Quote from: MGuy;557261If you don't want to adopt them, refute them. I've reposted all of his ideas in order to show him I was listening. I even went step by step and showed him how his contentions either don't refute what I've said (in that he's ok with the fighter being useless outside of a fight), I even granted him the lofty assumption that the fighter IS useful in combat (but that everyone else is also that in some fashion), and then I specifically said IF he likes it like that explain WHY that's good for the game that there exist a class that is obviously being iced in the nuts no matter what he does.
The is nothing to refute given the problems you have aren't even an issue to me or most people on this board. Especially since you don't actually want to solve your "problems" because you constistently ignore all the multiple solutions being offered.
Quote from: Rum Cove;557282Again, could someone explain to me how the Wizard has access to ALL spells at ALL times?
Well you could use a random henchman, charmed orc, raised skeleton, one of the various Bigby's hand spells, a summoned monster etc etc .... for door 1 I was just being selective
And No he won't have access to all his spells so the party will be forced to make camp by the magically held door until the next day so he can research Knock because the fighter will have fuck all chance of opening a magically held door under any circumstances at all ever unless he happened to have a battering ram or to be one of the one in 2,160 adventurers with 18 (91+) strength and even then with the best will in the world he has a 16% chance to open it or if he happens to be he strongest man in the world a 33% chance oh and he can only try once .....
so meh....
Quote from: jibbajibba;557295Bollocks :)
First off a smart player with options will be better off than a smart player with less options that is just sums.
No. That's actually what my post was about. You just repeating the same bull doesn't make it true.
Quote from: jibbajibba;557295I have never met a smart player who suddenly became a thickie when confronted by a scary list of an extra couple of dozen options.
I have. Plenty of times, actually. Different people just like different things, are comfortable with different game plays and different "granularities" in terms of rules in the game, and when the game welcomes all manner of inclinations through its different archetypes and character templates, it's greater for it, not lesser.
Quote from: jibbajibba;557295Second of all we all know that real AD&D players adopt the 10 foot pole approach to gaming (as clearly outlined in Old Geezer's Q&A to cross polinate threads) so the character they are playing is irrelevant. :)
Dude, that's a partial reading and also a load of bull.
Hence, your answer is 100% bullshit. But hey, keep fucking that chicken, by all means. :)
Quote from: Marleycat;557297The is nothing to refute given the problems you have are even an issue to me or most people. Especially since you don't actually want to solve your "problems" because you constistently ignore all the multiple solutions being offered.
To be fair very few people have offered a solution they have called him a fuckwad , dickhead and explained through a very selective choice of parameters how his play experience is crap, rubbish and badwrongfun and not at all like their play experience which is real magical and handed down from Lord gary of gygax on golden tablets of fire.
Even people who have admitted that 3e is unbalanced because they have removed limits on casters haven't listened. Instead they have told him that he just neds to put the limits back to make his game more like 2e or 1e or 0D&D or Chainmail.
No one has said oh so you don't want to play a game that has a more Wuxia feel to it. I get it you want all the classes to be a bit more Final Fantasy and a bit less the Blade Itself. Well in that case have you considered .....
The regular posters on this forum have in general been belittling, rude, mendacious bullies and have at no point tried to enter into an actual discussion about the ways MGuy could actually try to make his 3e D&D games more like Wuxia. , becuase that is badwrongfun.
Frankly I am embarrassed. It's easy to see why a 12 year old kid wandering into a FLGS to try his hand at D&D might be but right off by the bunch of sneering evil little bastards that are no doubt sitting there ready to call him a cunt to his little 12 year old face because he thinks it woudl be cool if his warrior could do a power leap up onto the Dragon's back and call on the Power of Greyskull, or some associated anime trope.
Quote from: MGuy;557261If you don't want to adopt them, refute them. I've reposted all of his ideas in order to show him I was listening. I even went step by step and showed him how his contentions either don't refute what I've said (in that he's ok with the fighter being useless outside of a fight), I even granted him the lofty assumption that the fighter IS useful in combat (but that everyone else is also that in some fashion), and then I specifically said IF he likes it like that explain WHY that's good for the game that there exist a class that is obviously being iced in the nuts no matter what he does.
Either I am not intelligent enough to follow or you are morphing my words to suit your argument. You keep injecting assumptions into the mix. When you "paraphrase" my position. There are also two different things being discussed: one is whether it is ever okay to design games without total parity across all areas of the game, the other is whether the particular mix if power in various editions works.
I never embraced your notion that there is a class getting iced in 2E. I don't accept the way you are framing the debate her at all. Fighters excel quite nicely in combat. The rogue is awful in combat, the cleric is decent. The mage pretty much is terribly at all things early on but by later levels becomes good at most things (he cant swing a sword, but he can bring havoc to the table by bending reality). These classes still have things they can do in various instances of the game. The rogue can still try to attack and does have backstab. The fighter has access to things like exceptional strength (which is great for busting doors) and he gets non-weapon proficiencies. So he is free to contribute in various ways out of combat, though he is unlikely to beat the rogue in that department.
To address the design goal issue. You seem to be saying of there is any point in the game where one player might feel like his guy is contributing less, then that is objectively bad. I am saying you might not like it, but i find it makes the game more entertaining if I have a charater who is strong in say combat but is less suited to stuff like intrigue or tripping traps. I find the contrast helps me enjoy the game more. Since it makes me enjoy the game mire, i think it is fair to say, that for me, it is good for the game to have characters with uneven abilities throughout the game.
If you want to discuss those points honestly without trying to bend my argument in another direction, fine. But at this point I have been more than reasonable answering your questions. If you really can't accept that this is what I like and why, then I will just assume you are trolling and not waste anymore time.
Quote from: MGuy;557254So he's good at being an extra pair of hands and a swimmer (if he takes his armor off). That is just fantastic.
McGuy, if 2E isn't the game for you, the solution is easy: don't play it. The problem here is two-fold: one i dont agree the fighter gets iced in 2e nr do I agree that others have quites as much to in conbat and out of combat ad you claim so i am not going to be able to accept your premise that the fighter is hosed because he is equaled by others in combat and dwarfed outside it. If you don't agree about the 2e fighter, that is cool. I can accept you think they suck. Not trying to convert anyone.
But this is a dispute over a specific system. One we are not likely to resolve. Instead lets focus on the deign notion of making one class that is the best at combat, but not good at non combat. Then making a class that is an even mix, then one that is great at non conbat but sucks at combat, finally to make things interesting we add in a wild card that does cool things with magic. We decide to balance him over the campaign for flavor purposes. He starts out very weak, but if he hangs in there he can be come a very poweerful character (but still liited by certain realities of magic use). Now lets assue you succeed in all these stated goals (far more than previous editions of D&D); is this a valid approach? I know I would enjoy it. Might not be for everyone, but I would have a good time with this deign set up.
Quote from: jibbajibba;557303To be fair very few people have offered a solution they have called him a fuckwad , dickhead and explained through a very selective choice of parameters how his play experience is crap, rubbish and badwrongfun and not at all like their play experience which is real magical and handed down from Lord gary of gygax on golden tablets of fire.
But I haven't done any of these things. I have said if he doesn't like fighters and wants another approach that is cool. But he keeps insisting that I need to agree with him that all classes should have more access to buttons (for lack of a better term) that are roughly equal across the game, and at the 2e fighter gets iced. If he doesn't agree with me I am fine with that. But I all I am getting is accusations of backtracking and claims that he is confused by my position.
(http://wrathofzombie.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/the-complete-evolution-of-dnd.jpg?w=490&h=914) (http://wrathofzombie.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/the-complete-evolution-of-dungeons-and-dragons/)
I chuckled.
Quote from: deadDMWalkingThat would be a crappy adventure if a thief, a bard, a cleric and a wizard couldn't open the door for their lack of opposable thumbs. I just didn't realize the Fighter had thumbs
Prior to 3.x, opposable thumbs were a fighter-only class feature. In 3.x Opposable Thumbs is a fighter bonus feat, but anyone can take it, even at first level. Just another way 3.x screws the Fighter class.
Quote from: daniel_ream;557313Prior to 3.x, opposable thumbs were a fighter-only class feature. In 3.x Opposable Thumbs is a fighter bonus feat, but anyone can take it, even at first level. Just another way 3.x screws the Fighter class.
Quote from: daniel_ream;557313Prior to 3.x, opposable thumbs were a fighter-only class feature. In 3.x Opposable Thumbs is a fighter bonus feat, but anyone can take it, even at first level. Just another way 3.x screws the Fighter class.
Opposable thumb
s is a ranger class feature. Without Ambidexterity you only get one working opposable thumb.
Quote from: daniel_ream;557313Prior to 3.x, opposable thumbs were a fighter-only class feature. In 3.x Opposable Thumbs is a fighter bonus feat, but anyone can take it, even at first level. Just another way 3.x screws the Fighter class.
At least that'd offer a plausible explanation for why only the Fighter can use magic swords.
The thing is, if that's supposed to be the 'benefit' of being a Fighter in earlier editions, that kind of sucks. I mean, what's the rationale? Why can't Gandalf use 'Glamdring'? But of course, if you allow other classes to use magic weapons (which in my mind - you totally should) that pretty much takes away the only advantage the Fighter has.
More attacks might seem like the answer, and it probably is to a point - but rolling too many attacks is just a pain. 4-5 on a turn is pretty close to a maximum before it just gets tedious (especially if they're at -5 like in 3rd edition). Extra critical damage also would help make the Fighter 'fight' as well as he's supposed to. More importantly, if a Fighter is supposed to do something other than swing a sword, he has to have a reasonable chance to be able to affect monsters with combat abilities - like pin a giant. I'm sure I'm that what I'm hearing is the sound of grognards groaning, but hear me out. If a well-trained martial artist can use a judo throw to flip an opponent 200 pounds heavier than himself, why can't a 'paragon of human potential' hope to do the same? You'd think the more skilled wrestler might have a chance even against a bigger/stronger opponent.
And definitely the Fighter needs some more flexibility outside of combat. One relatively minor change we made in 3.5 was to eliminate class-skills and give all classes at least 4 + Int mod. While that nominally helps every class, it really did help the Fighter a ton. You could have a fighter that worked as a bodyguard at a magical academy and knew how to recognize spells and use wands (spellcraft, use magic device); you could have a fighter that was able to talk to royalty (diplomacy, knowledge [nobility]); you could have a Fighter that knew how to launch an ambush (hide, move silently); you could have a Fighter that knew how to handle himself far away from civilization (survival, knowledge [nature]). The fact that the Fighter actually had some things that could contribute (even though they were things that anyone else potentially COULD do) helped a lot - because if the other players didn't have that focus, the Fighter was able to contribute to the team; and if the other players had that focus, the Fighter was able to do the same types of things as everyone else, rather than sit around with his hands up his ass.
But in combat, the Fighter still couldn't pull his weight. A big part of it is that the Fighter needs to use the full attack action as often as possible to contribute against foes. Since no option is as good as a full-attack, the only time the Fighter does
anything else is if he has to move first.
But even a hallways with a half-dozen mooks is a major barrier to the Fighter. He has to walk up, hit one. Next round move up and hit the next (etc). A fix that we're about to try is to allow the Fighter to move and make a full attack (including at different points in the move). So, if the hallway is 30' long and there's a mook, 5' of empty space, another mook (etc), the fighter can walk up, hit the first, keep moving, hit the second, etc until he either runs out of attacks or movement. I think that will help a lot.
It won't give the Fighter movement forms that he doesn't already possess, but with some extra critical goodies, it might make it worth casting fly on him (and he might have an item).
I'm moving over the next week or so. I wonder what this thread will look like when I get back. I predict poo.
Quote from: Kaldric;557354I'm moving over the next week or so. I wonder what this thread will look like when I get back. I predict poo.
It's been that for 200 pages already why should it change?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;557339Why can't Gandalf use 'Glamdring'? .
He can, but then again, Gandalf was:
(http://heroesofshadow.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/gandalf_multiclass.jpg)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;557375He can, but then again, Gandalf was:
(http://heroesofshadow.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/gandalf_multiclass.jpg)
I did suggest that option like at the beginning of this monster thread but solutions aren't wanted just navel gazing and bitching about nonissues.
Gandalf wasn't even human. Wouldn't he be an Aasimar?
Quote from: Rum Cove;557381Gandalf wasn't even human. Wouldn't he be an Aasimar?
I thought it was Melar? Basically a super aasmar or high level demigod. Regardless the point is he was multiclassed.
Quote from: Rum Cove;557381Gandalf wasn't even human. Wouldn't he be an Aasimar?
Also, he was neither the basis for nor beholden to the concept of Magic-Users in AD&D.
Quote from: StormBringer;557384Also, he was neither the basis for nor beholden to the concept of Magic-Users in AD&D.
On that note, perhaps the Ranger should have been relabeled the Fighter.
Quote from: StormBringer;557384Also, he was neither the basis for nor beholden to the concept of Magic-Users in AD&D.
Don't burst their bubble this thread is SO much fun, really. :D
It's so awesome arguing about an issue present only in 3x which can easily be fixed no less, with people who think Dnd never existed before 2000 AD.
Quote from: Rum Cove;557386On that note, perhaps the Ranger should have been relabeled the Fighter.
No. Now, if you would remake the Ranger from her actual roots without the Aragon and Drizzt bullshit then we're cooking.
Quote from: Marleycat;557380I did suggest that option like at the beginning of this monster thread but solutions aren't wanted just navel gazing and bitching about nonissues.
I heard you the first time you posted this answer. I even responded to it. Here's the highlights:
1) Multiclassing is the option already used. But its a shame that youHAVE to do it because the fighter class is so shit.
2) I can be a wizard from 1 -20 and never feel like I missed out on anything by not multiclassing. If you don't multiclass with the fighter he fails to keep up with everyone else.
3) The fact that you can go to another class doesn't make the class you changed from any better. The problem is with the fighter class not with whether or not a player can go to another class.
Quote from: Marleycat;557390Don't burst their bubble this thread is SO much fun, really. :D
It's so awesome arguing about an issue present only in 3x which can easily be fixed no less, with people who think Dnd never existed before 2000 AD.
Oryou know we can simply read the posts of people who DID play Ad&D and discover that storm is a troll and that power discrepancy (low and behold) did exist.
Quote from: Marleycat;557391No. Now, if you would remake the Ranger from her actual roots without the Aragon and Drizzt bullshit then we're cooking.
Despite the popular belief, Aragorn was never a ranger anyway. He was a fighter. The give away is his leadership. Rangers were always pretty much solitary. Aragorn was always leading men into battle just like a fighter, and eventually became king. Rangers were never designed to do that. People just think he was a ranger because he started out in the woods and tracked the hobbits. So maybe he was a ranger 4/fighter 10 by the end of it if I'm being generous.
*edit
Or let me say it this way. Despite a whole bunch of folks thinking D&D is heavily pulled form Tolkien, it's not, because even a basic observation of the characters in those books show that some of the main ones don't fit into any D&D class mold.
Quote from: MGuy;557394Oryou know we can simply read the posts of people who DID play Ad&D and discover that storm is a troll and that power discrepancy (low and behold) did exist.
Sorry, but at this point I'm convinced that you're utterly lying, or don't have a clue. I don't know how many people have to tell you the same thing, and yet you still adhere to a whole bunch of false beliefs.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;557395Despite the popular belief, Aragorn was never a ranger anyway. He was a fighter. The give away is his leadership. Rangers were always pretty much solitary. Aragorn was always leading men into battle just like a fighter, and eventually became king. Rangers were never designed to do that. People just think he was a ranger because he started out in the woods and tracked the hobbits. So maybe he was a ranger 4/fighter 10 by the end of it.
Isn't that what I just said? Aragon was just a fighter specialized in longbows.
@MGuy, cry me a river and take up my OTHER suggestions if multiclassing doesn't work for you. Or other more detailed ones already given. Also you look pretty silly calling "the kettle black", just an observation.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;557304Either I am not intelligent enough to follow or you are morphing my words to suit your argument. You keep injecting assumptions into the mix. When you "paraphrase" my position. There are also two different things being discussed: one is whether it is ever okay to design games without total parity across all areas of the game, the other is whether the particular mix if power in various editions works.
I never embraced your notion that there is a class getting iced in 2E. I don't accept the way you are framing the debate her at all. Fighters excel quite nicely in combat. The rogue is awful in combat, the cleric is decent. The mage pretty much is terribly at all things early on but by later levels becomes good at most things (he cant swing a sword, but he can bring havoc to the table by bending reality). These classes still have things they can do in various instances of the game. The rogue can still try to attack and does have backstab. The fighter has access to things like exceptional strength (which is great for busting doors) and he gets non-weapon proficiencies. So he is free to contribute in various ways out of combat, though he is unlikely to beat the rogue in that department.
To address the design goal issue. You seem to be saying of there is any point in the game where one player might feel like his guy is contributing less, then that is objectively bad. I am saying you might not like it, but i find it makes the game more entertaining if I have a charater who is strong in say combat but is less suited to stuff like intrigue or tripping traps. I find the contrast helps me enjoy the game more. Since it makes me enjoy the game mire, i think it is fair to say, that for me, it is good for the game to have characters with uneven abilities throughout the game.
If you want to discuss those points honestly without trying to bend my argument in another direction, fine. But at this point I have been more than reasonable answering your questions. If you really can't accept that this is what I like and why, then I will just assume you are trolling and not waste anymore time.
I'm going to not challenge your intelligence and (as I have thus far) assume I'm not speaking loud enough for you to catch on.
The thing is you keep saying "The fighter being best at combat (early on) is good enough because he's the best at it and so he gets his time in the spotlight".
I CAN challenge this by pointing out arguments laid out earlier in the thread, but I have chosen not to. Instead I point out the fact that those other classes you've mentioned can contribute about equally to combat. At no point in time do I feel bad during combat about having brought anybody on the team. They all, hypothetical fighter included, have something to do.
This is a point where we are talking past each other. I've given you this. I CAN contest it but I'm not. Let's say we live in a world where the fighter can contribute just as much as everybody else in arena combat. Sure, ok, but everyone on the team (as you've pointed out yourself in this thing I've quoted) all have stuff they can do. A rogue can't take a punch in the face but with help he can backstab pretty hard as long as someone else is getting punched in the face instead of him. The MUs too can do things in combat without being told to sit out while the people with the highest BAB do everything.
The fact that this is true and you've thus far not denied, refuted, or even challenged this, means that the arena of overcoming challenges posed by team monster is not, and cannot in fact, be the fighter's alone. So if everyone can contribute in some fashion in combat without being "The official door opener" why is it then that the fighter CANNOT have another place where he can contribute with just as much effectiveness?
I have no qualms, game design wise, with there being and option to just be a guy that just hits stuff and can't be fucked to do anything else. To help this case let me change gears. I never play an Evocator wizard. I find the idea of being a guy who only knows how to blast things with magic to be boring. If there was a firemage in the game that only had the option of "blow it up with fire" as his only thing I would be equally outraged about that as I would the fighter with his one stop "swing a sword" answer to everything. (That's skipping over the fact that blowing shit up is a more interesting answer to stuff than swing a sword but not by a wide margin)
Its not that I'm twisting your argument at all. I'm attempting to show you that even with your argument the fighter never gets to stand alone in the spotlight. I "feel" as though that no one SHOULD get a stand alone in the spotlight moment that noone else can participate in but that's a different argument. If your idea of "balance" is that the fighter's spotlight moment is battle I'm saying that the spot light moment doesn't exist for him.
Quote from: MGuy;557237I'm not going to respond to all this because
...you can't, I know.
Quote from: MGuy;557237It also doesn't mean I have to actually kill it. I can bypass it, use it to help me, make it and another enemy fight each other, aid it, etc and so on in order to "win" an encounter.
Again, only in 3e, and again not how most people actually play 3e regardless of the rules that they didn't read in the DMG. Most DMs won't award me anything at all for 'bypassing' (AKA running away) from an encounter as if that is actually something reward worthy. Especially when 'bypassing' these encounters is completely trivial to do at higher levels. Hiding in a bush while the orc horde's scouts travel by unhindered by our 'heroes' doesn't result in them getting XP for 'defeating' this 'challenge'.
Quote from: MGuy;557237arena challenges where I am forced to meet every challenge in a frontal assault and have my face ever ready to be punched, I can assume that then I am given the ability to attempt to set up situations where I can avoid face punchification. Hence why I say everyone doesn't play arena games where all of what I described would be the case.
So an 'arena game' is this hyperbolic scenario where every single "encounter" is met with a full frontal assault? Fact of the matter is in D&D players in real games will fight at the drop of a hat, and that's really the way the game was made to be played.
"Have at ye heaping pile of potential experience points!"
Games might not result in every single "encounter" being a full frontal assault, but most of those encounters will certainly result in the monsters getting killed, regardless how you approach killing them. Most "encounters" are combat, to the point where 'encounter' is now synonymous with a fight, despite that not being the original intention of the term.
Quote from: MGuy;557237What's more, even when combat IS joined every class has capabilities that allow them to participate and no one ever feels like it would've been better to leave a caster at home because a caster is ALWAYS useful before, during, and after a fight.
Completely untrue. Especially when you expand the quoted from caster to all non-fighters, many of which outright suck at combat and I certainly wish would stay at home. There is an opportunity cost in including these non-combat oriented classes, or terribly specced classes that would otherwise be good in combat but aren't.
Including a shitty combatant is potentially costing the party a good combatant, despite the 'participation' of the shitty combatant. Sometimes a particular character is actually dead weight in a fight (some players insist on playing characters that are always dead weight for that matter) and they only increase the difficulty of the fight with their mere presence. Without them there, the fights would be balanced around a fully combat effective party with one fewer member, making them easier for the same reward.
Quote from: Marleycat;557397@MGuy, cry me a river and take up my OTHER suggestions if multiclassing doesn't work for you. Or other more detailed ones already given. Also you look pretty silly calling "the kettle black", just an observation.
Umm... MArley. Why are you being antagonistic towards me? My original point isn't that there aren't fixes. Nor have I argued how difficult it is to change fighters. My original point was "power discrepancy exists. It should be acknowledged". Th fact that you know there are issues with fighters and have fixed them means you ALREADY agree with me. What else do we have to talk about? My last response was because you suggested no one was listening to you. I have. I've acknowledged what you said. The fact that you already have admitted to changing the rules to attempt to fix the problem means I have no argument with you at all.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;557396Sorry, but at this point I'm convinced that you're utterly lying, or don't have a clue. I don't know how many people have to tell you the same thing, and yet you still adhere to a whole bunch of false beliefs.
Did you read the posts of anyone who brought up how the prior editions of DnD had the discrepancy? How am I lying about what other people posted?
I think we need a new Thunderdome. All the Gaming Den guys playing AD&D+UA characters in G1-3 Against the Giants.
Caveat: They must use Clerics, and Magic-Users only. I would really like to see the this, short as it would be.
The thing is Dnd as I define it is more than arena fighting and perfect special snowflake encounters. That dead weight combat character likely saves your ass in other encounters/scenerios.
Quote from: MGuy;557400Umm... MArley. Why are you being antagonistic towards me? My original point isn't that there aren't fixes. Nor have I argued how difficult it is to change fighters. My original point was "power discrepancy exists. It should be acknowledged". Th fact that you know there are issues with fighters and have fixed them means you ALREADY agree with me. What else do we have to talk about? My last response was because you suggested no one was listening to you. I have. I've acknowledged what you said. The fact that you already have admitted to changing the rules to attempt to fix the problem means I have no argument with you at all.
Because the discrepancy ONLY exists in 3x and is fairly easy to fix. Here's a hint, I am one of the few 3x players/DM'S on this site. So try my fixes and go read the Fighter Heartbreaker thread.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;557399...you can't, I know.
+Stuff
I like how you completely failed to get the first part of what I said. I can't even begin a conversation with you because you think "Good Combatant" = Warrior. And that "Defeating an encounter" = "Arena Combat". Yes, if I don't STOP the advancing horde of orcs I shouldn't get experience from them. But what if I stop them without resorting to violence? I've never played in a game where the DM didn't at least FAKE like I had more than one way to approach an issue.
What's more, if I'm playing in a game where I HAVE to grindfest my way up levels then one of two things HAVE to be going on. I'm either in some kind of railroad campaign where there is only a single way to solve problems (via violence) and that each thing I do between arena fights, amounts to me getting ready to be in another arena fight. Or 2: I'm playing a video game. Now I don't know if 0th, 1st, and 2nd, editions say that you can only grindfest your way to higher levels via murder, but I find that notion ridiculous. Even the hardcore 2e guy I DID play 2e with didn't go as far to enforce that kind of lunacy.
That's not even going over the fact that fighters can't heal themselves between combats, can't avoid detection, can't get through magical puzzles, can't fight magical puzzle creatures. And that's before getting to the fact that he has no way of getting to the flying fortress of doom, seeing in the dark once inside, or recovering from the fear affect Lord Van Doom put on him right as the combat music started.
Quote from: CRKrueger;557403I think we need a new Thunderdome. All the Gaming Den guys playing AD&D+UA characters in G1-3 Against the Giants.
Caveat: They must use Clerics, and Magic-Users only. I would really like to see the this, short as it would be.
If It were to prove a point that it could be done I'd totally participate. Especially if Frank, Kaelik, and Fectin were onboard.
Quote from: Marleycat;557406Because the discrepancy ONLY exists in 3x and is fairly easy to fix. Here's a hint, I am one of the few 3x players/DM'S on this site. So try my fixes and go read the Fighter Heartbreaker thread.
I have fixes, that work marley. And as to whether or not it "Only" exists in 3x what about the people who have played prior editions and still found the problem? You know, the people who've posted in this very thread who aren't me.
Edit: even if they "only" exist in 3e* its still a problem, that's there. We both acknowledge it. There's no argument between me and you on this subject. So Why are you antagonizing me as if we disagree on something on this topic?
*And I say this with quotes because based on the posts in this very thread (even by the ones who say that these problems don't exist in earlier editions, I find their assertions of this weak at best. Mostly because even they admit that they actively cut the balls off of casters who get too uppity while giving the fighter reassuring pets on the head to make sure he doesn't feel bad, which means that they make adjustments to the game which means they know, on some level, that the discrepancies exist (whether or not they choose to acknowledge it).
Quote from: CRKrueger;557403I think we need a new Thunderdome. All the Gaming Den guys playing AD&D+UA characters in G1-3 Against the Giants.
Caveat: They must use Clerics, and Magic-Users only. I would really like to see the this, short as it would be.
They may have "issues" without a defined list of abilities though. Just sayin'.
MGuy, have you tried 4e?
Quote from: Rum Cove;557411MGuy, have you tried 4e?
I don't like 1e. Why would I enjoy 4e which does everything that people who like Ad&D want? I'm a fan of 3rd.
Edit: and yes I have.
Quote from: MGuy;557409I have fixes, that work marley. And as to whether or not it "Only" exists in 3x what about the people who have played prior editions and still found the problem? You know, the people who've posted in this very thread who aren't me.
Edit: even if they "only" exist in 3e* its still a problem, that's there. We both acknowledge it. There's no argument between me and you on this subject. So Why are you antagonizing me as if we disagree on something on this topic?
If you agree with me then why are you being obtuse? We both agree a discrepancy exists in 3x which is easy to fix. Perhaps the disagreement stems from the fact that I believe exactly as Brendan does, as does anybody I know, just not play with, but actually know IRL that plays Dnd?
Quote from: MGuy;557413I don't like 1e. Why would I enjoy 4e which does everything that people who like Ad&D want? I'm a fan of 3rd.
4e has nothing that AD&D players want. It certainly addresses all your concerns and it would be the edition I would recommend you play.
The Fighter was one of the most popular classes in 4e (stated by Wizards in their data received from DDI builder usage - no citation, find it yourself).
Quote from: MGuy;557413I don't like 1e. Why would I enjoy 4e which does everything that people who like Ad&D want? I'm a fan of 3rd.
Edit: and yes I have.
You serious? 4e is Nothing like the edition I like best (2e). How insulting if you're serious.
Quote from: MGuy;557413I don't like 1e. Why would I enjoy 4e which does everything that people who like Ad&D want? I'm a fan of 3rd.
Edit: and yes I have.
If you believe that 4E is like AD&D and does what AD&D fans want, then your head is hopelessly up your ass.
Quote from: Rum Cove;5574154e has nothing that AD&D players want. It certainly addresses all your concerns and it would be the edition I would recommend you play.
The Fighter was one of the most popular classes in 4e (stated by Wizards in their data received from DDI builder usage - no citation, find it yourself).
Of course it is given it's a wizard with training wheels in combination of making every other character class the lowest common denominator. MGuy actually pissed me off a bit. Kudos sir.
Quote from: Rum Cove;5574154e has nothing that AD&D players want. It certainly addresses all your concerns and it would be the edition I would recommend you play.
The Fighter was one of the most popular classes in 4e (stated by Wizards in their data received from DDI builder usage - no citation, find it yourself).
4E absolutely does what the grogs here have been harping about. You CAN'T cut the balls off the wizard any harder than you do in 4E because you make their abilities only matter in combat. All you DO (have rules for) in 4E is combat. EVERYONE does combat in almost the same way. Out of combat abilities are either rituals, rare, or left up to the DM to choose whether or not they work. That's what the grogs here have been very loud about that since the DM is there to reign in powers and can instantly decide in all balanced fairness what should/shouldn't work. There's a whole system for the DM to make up a set of rolls and force everybody to participate with their class skills so that everyone contributes. Even even has a guide for pulling numbers straight out of your ass and an addendum for whether or not you will allow a player to get creative with what a skill can and can't do.
I'm exaggerating of course but not fully because a lot of the "solutions" to a fighter not being useful that they've come up with are hardcoded into the rules in 4e. I'm frankly surprised that 4E isn't popular here.
Quote from: MGuy;5574204E absolutely does what the grogs here have been harping about. You CAN'T cut the balls off the wizard any harder than you do in 4E because you make their abilities only matter in combat. All you DO (have rules for) in 4E is combat. EVERYONE does combat in almost the same way. Out of combat abilities are either rituals, rare, or left up to the DM to choose whether or not they work. That's what the grogs here have been very loud about that since the DM is there to reign in powers and can instantly decide in all balanced fairness what should/shouldn't work. There's a whole system for the DM to make up a set of rolls and force everybody to participate with their class skills so that everyone contributes. Even even has a guide for pulling numbers straight out of your ass and an addendum for whether or not you will allow a player to get creative with what a skill can and can't do.
I'm exaggerating of course but not fully because a lot of the "solutions" to a fighter not being useful that they've come up with are hardcoded into the rules in 4e. I'm frankly surprised that 4E isn't popular here.
I'm done. You either are willfully obtuse or arguing in bad faith. I'll let others decide if they care.
Quote from: Marleycat;557421I'm done. You either are willfully obtuse or arguing in bad faith. I'll let others decide if they care.
M'k.
Quote from: jeff37923;557417If you believe that 4E is like AD&D and does what AD&D fans want, then your head is hopelessly up your ass.
Yeah that really does nothing but display a laughable ignorance of anything having to do with AD&D and the people who actually played it.
Let the records show: Someone says 4E is what I want despite not even tangentially doing anything I want? That's ok.
I suggest 4E fits what the accuser(s) want? That's terribad.
This will be noted.
Quote from: MGuy;557426Let the records show: Someone says 4E is what I want despite not even tangentially doing anything I want? That's ok.
I suggest 4E fits what the accuser(s) want? That's terribad.
This will be noted.
WtF? Just how obtuse can you be? Seriously? He just said it MIGHT work for you, given what you keep saying, end of story. Just a suggestion.
Quote from: Rum Cove;557386On that note, perhaps the Ranger should have been relabeled the Fighter.
Hmmm... I think Ranger is ok; like Paladin, it speaks to a specialized Fighter that can be easily separated from the literary or historical underpinnings. For example, using 'Warder' instead of Ranger isn't really a problem, as any associations with an ancient race of men has been long forgotten.
Quote from: Marleycat;557427WtF? Just how obtuse can you be? Seriously? He just said it MIGHT work for you, given what you keep saying, end of story. Just a suggestion.
And I retorted that it sounds more like what they want, even provided tie ins to support the assumption. Am I really being obtuse or are you reading my posts as negatively as you can? It is already strange enough that you are treating me antagonistically in the first place when you've done nothing but essentially agree with me this entire time.
Quote from: Marleycat;557390Don't burst their bubble this thread is SO much fun, really. :D
It's so awesome arguing about an issue present only in 3x which can easily be fixed no less, with people who think Dnd never existed before 2000 AD.
Post-modern RPGs must first destroy the past. :)
Quote from: Marleycat;557391No. Now, if you would remake the Ranger from her actual roots without the Aragon and Drizzt bullshit then we're cooking.
Absolutely with Drizzt. I think there are some broad archetypes that can be reasonably salvaged from Aragorn, though.
Quote from: MGuy;557432And I retorted that it sounds more like what they want, even provided tie ins to support the assumption. Am I really being obtuse or are you reading my posts as negatively as you can? It is already strange enough that you are treating me antagonistically in the first place when you've done nothing but essentially agree with me this entire time.
I definitely can't figure it out because I have seen you more as middle ground somewhat near to me except in singular areas. Am I offbase?
Quote from: MGuy;557394Oryou know we can simply read the posts of people who DID play Ad&D and discover that storm is a troll and that power discrepancy (low and behold) did exist.
Ah, the people who did play AD&D. You must be referring to people who are not you. But please, continue to treat third- or fourth-hand anecdotes as though they are your own direct experiences.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;557395Or let me say it this way. Despite a whole bunch of folks thinking D&D is heavily pulled form Tolkien, it's not, because even a basic observation of the characters in those books show that some of the main ones don't fit into any D&D class mold.
100%. The influence from Tolkien is pretty slight, by volume or by structure.
Quote from: StormBringer;557434Post-modern RPGs must first destroy the past. :)
Absolutely with Drizzt. I think there are some broad archetypes that can be reasonably salvaged from Aragorn, though.
I'm willing to listen .....
Quote from: Marleycat;557438I'm willing to listen .....
Well, I do think Sacrosanct and yourself have a valid point that Aragorn was really not more than a Fighter with solid archery skills. Now, he did spend a good deal of time in the wilderness, and that is what I would focus on. Mid- to late-AD&D (1st) treated the Ranger almost exclusively so; I recall a Dragon article detailing a beastmaster variant. I think this made it into 3.x as a prestige class...? Anyway, the Fighter/Druid mix works fine for me without the two-weapon or archery 'builds' being locked in.
In fact, before even going too far afield creating new classes, there is a pile of them just waiting by combining (or tweaking) the existing classes in AD&D. What is a Paladin but a Fighter/Cleric with some additional restrictions? Don't want to play a demi-human for the Fighter/Magic-User stuff? Pow! "Mystic Warrior": spells kick in at 3rd, 5th or 8th level dictated by taste, Thief weapons and armour restrictions, maybe d8 for hit points and further restrictions on magic items.
More in-depth would probably be better served by a new thread.
Quote from: Marleycat;557435I definitely can't figure it out because I have seen you more as middle ground somewhat near to me except in singular areas. Am I offbase?
I said it outright earlier:
I'm for drawing back the wizard while powering up fighty types. I want fighters and wizarding types to be closer together.
The reason why 4E doesn't do this (or anything I like) is because no one can do anything outside of battle and battles are given all the consideration for both team monster and team player such that the rules for what you do out of a fight are nigh nonexistent. That is COMPLETELY the OPPOSITE of just about every point I've made about flaws in the rules. Taking away EVERYBODY's goodies doesn't even "kind of" look like any of the solutions I've been giving but it does "kind of" look like the solutions people are suggesting when they want to draw back caster power such that fighters don't feel small in the pants.
However, the failures of prior editions and 4E itself are merely distractions. The fact is power discrepancy exists. The problem I'm having with Brandon is that he believes as long as the fighter gets his time to shine its ok. I'm saying that even if I was ok with individual spotlight times (and let me clarify. I'm not against players getting moments in the game where things focus on them, I'm against players having wide swathes of the game where they cannot and never will shine at all) that the fighter's spotlight time (being in a fight) is a time where EVERY ONE participates somewhat equally and thus he needs something unique and interesting he can do during all parts of the game since casters have that luxury already.
I am going to answer both of you tomorrow. It's bedtime but Stormie I do think a good thread focused on "What really is a Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger?" Just a fighter or more?
Quote from: jeff37923;557241This annoys me to no end and is a reflection of non-tactical thinking.
I was referring specifically to the 3e Bard, which is a bad class. They are a Jack of No Trades, because they are bad enough at everything they do that they can't really fill the hole for another class in any particular realm (referring specifically to high level play). More importantly the Cleric and Druid specifically can do everything the Bard can do and do it better. Those two classes are the real Jack of All Trades in 3e. They fight significantly better than the Bard, they have better spell lists, with more spells, higher level spells, more useful class abilities and so forth.
They don't make good second line combatants at all because their combat abilities are completely negligible (referring here to high level combat), their spellcasting doesn't augment their fighting ability at all really, and their need for a high caster stat precludes them having a lot left over for combat stats (and meeting feat requirements, et cetera) in virtually all 3e games that no longer roll for stats. The class was obviously intended to swing a sword; it's just that among the classes designed to fight in melee they are absolutely the worst at it.
You can certainly use the Bard tactically
in character, and make the most of their abilities but at the metagame level including the Bard is potentially costing you a much more powerful party member. The Bard dabbles in all areas, while other classes specialize in all of those areas simultaneously, making the Bard obsolete.
QuoteNo, from AD&D2 onward a Bard is not a front-line combatant and was not designed that way, nor should one be used that way.
We are discussing specifically after battle is joined, so any of this other stuff is irrelevant. It's "out of combat".
QuoteHowever, a Bard is the D&D equivalent of a Predator drone, the class gathers intelligence needed to maneuver your intended target into the best possible killing zone available and attack it with the best killing tools available.
This is all being classified as "out of combat" here, so speaks to nothing of combat ability at all. I'd also argue that the Bard isn't really the best at any of these tasks either anyway. It's quite likely that any particular Bard knows dick all about maneuvers, targets, killing zones, or killing tools and a lot about finding the best taverns at good prices, and playing stirring ballads. It's certainly not a foregone conclusion anyway that he's a 'Predator drone'.
I think if you asked people what class you are describing with: "the class gathers intelligence needed to maneuver your intended target into the best possible killing zone available and attack it with the best killing tools available" Bard would not leap to mind for most.
Then there is the whole ability score issue, where Bards in 3e are usually more akin to idiot savants than anything else. They
know a lot but will usually have Intelligence and Wisdom comparable to a Fighter, making them dim and unperceptive. The 3e Bard is more the D&D equivalent of Cliff from Cheers.
Quote from: MGuy;557449is a time where EVERY ONE participates somewhat equally
Except they don't, and they shouldn't. The idea that everyone is equal in combat is going to be a huge issue for most players. This is the 4e ethic (and they failed because even their classes aren't balanced on top of it being a stupid idea).
It puts a bad taste in my mouth in 4e that the Avenger, the secretive Holy assassin whose sole existence is bent towards hunting down and killing the enemies of his Church is noticeably worse at performing this role than the 'Artful Dodger' Rogue, or the Ranger, despite their archetypes being noticeably less murder-oriented. The actual Assassin class is unbelievably even worse at assassinating people than the pickpocket.
If you are offering me a class whose description is basically "You are a badass motherfucker", then the class whose description is basically "Grown up Oliver Twist" better goddamn be a lot less of a badass motherfucker than the badass motherfucker class. Participating 'somewhat equally' in combat is completely unacceptable here.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;557451I was referring specifically to the 3e Bard, which is a bad class. They are a Jack of No Trades, because they are bad enough at everything they do that they can't really fill the hole for another class in any particular realm (referring specifically to high level play). More importantly the Cleric and Druid specifically can do everything the Bard can do and do it better. Those two classes are the real Jack of All Trades in 3e. They fight significantly better than the Bard, they have better spell lists, with more spells, higher level spells, more useful class abilities and so forth.
Bad class?
Lessee here, the Bard has the Bardic Music and Bardic Knowledge ability. Neither the Druid or the Cleric has those. Making the Bard exceptional at intelligence gathering and or being knowledgeable. That might come in real handy when dealing with legendary creatures, demigods, and artifacts that tend to show up in high-level play. Not to mention the fact that Bards get a number of skill points per level equal to the Cleric + Druid combined.
I won't even mention the abuse that can be done with
Mass Suggestion.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;557451They don't make good second line combatants at all because their combat abilities are completely negligible (referring here to high level combat), their spellcasting doesn't augment their fighting ability at all really, and their need for a high caster stat precludes them having a lot left over for combat stats (and meeting feat requirements, et cetera) in virtually all 3e games that no longer roll for stats. The class was obviously intended to swing a sword; it's just that among the classes designed to fight in melee they are absolutely the worst at it.
The Bard's BAB (Base Attack Bonus) goes up at the same rate as both the Cleric and the Druid, so they are all as equally negligible in combat abilities as you say. The Bard spell lists have a lot of buff spells in them to both increase their combat stats and those of the party. Not to mention that the main stat for spells is a Bard's Charisma, which with a max spell level of 6 means that a Bard only needs a 16 in that stat - not too high at all, really.
As far as swinging a sword or other melee weapon, it looks like the Bard is an even match for the Druid and Cleric.
Now armor-wise, the Bard starts out only proficient with Light Armor and is not barred from becoming proficient in Medium or Heavy armor, but then he stands a chance of arcane spell failure. The Cleric gets proficiency with Light, Medium, and Heavy armor while the Druid is proficient with Light and Medium armor.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;557451You can certainly use the Bard tactically in character, and make the most of their abilities but at the metagame level including the Bard is potentially costing you a much more powerful party member. The Bard dabbles in all areas, while other classes specialize in all of those areas simultaneously, making the Bard obsolete.
Yup, because knowing your enemy has never won a battle EVER.
And if you are not playing
in character, then why in the fuck are you playing a role-playing game? Why not just play a miniatures game?
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;557451We are discussing specifically after battle is joined, so any of this other stuff is irrelevant. It's "out of combat".
Now we get to the crux of it. If a Bard cannot inflict massive damage, then it is useless is what you believe.
Helping out with a heal or two, guarding the Wizard, watching the party's back, none of that is as important as inflicting massive damage in combat.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;557451This is all being classified as "out of combat" here, so speaks to nothing of combat ability at all. I'd also argue that the Bard isn't really the best at any of these tasks either anyway. It's quite likely that any particular Bard knows dick all about maneuvers, targets, killing zones, or killing tools and a lot about finding the best taverns at good prices, and playing stirring ballads. It's certainly not a foregone conclusion anyway that he's a 'Predator drone'.
I think if you asked people what class you are describing with: "the class gathers intelligence needed to maneuver your intended target into the best possible killing zone available and attack it with the best killing tools available" Bard would not leap to mind for most.
Now you are argueing in bad faith.
Knowing an enemy's weak spots, having an idea of what may be found in the dungeon and preparing for that, knowing what tactics your enemy likes to employ, all of that requires some kind of intelligence gathering. The Bard class is tailor made to find that information out.
And if you are trying to do that in the middle of a fight, then you have already lost.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;557451Then there is the whole ability score issue, where Bards in 3e are usually more akin to idiot savants than anything else. They know a lot but will usually have Intelligence and Wisdom comparable to a Fighter, making them dim and unperceptive. The 3e Bard is more the D&D equivalent of Cliff from Cheers.
This last bit is just fucking stupid. Ability scores? That is a non-issue.
Quote from: Rum Cove;557381Gandalf wasn't even human. Wouldn't he be an Aasimar?
Closer to a Planetar, methinks, or whatever level of Angel can kick a Type VI's ass in one on one combat.
Mguy. The other classes dont. Contribute equally. Having something to do and contributing equally are not the same thing. A 2E thief contributes very little to a fight (backstab is harder to pull of than in 3e), a cleric isnt as good at attacking with weapons (no specialization,exceptional strength fewer attacks) and is less good at hurty spells than the wizard (and many of his buff spells will end up on the fighter), the wizard doesn't get good till much later. frankly my least favorite 2e class to play is the cleric.
So I don't see the problem. That said lets assume there is a problem. Fine, triple the fighters damage dice. Beef this up when he has tacticalnadvantages (to outweigh the wizard blasts), and increase his crit damage. Now he is the undisputed chamb of combat (and if that isn't enough just increase the numbers). Is it now okay that he can't be as effective outside combat? Or will it only be fun for you if classes are equally effective at all stages of the game?
It sounds like your complaint is a lack of buttons outside combat for the fightern(I imagine inside it as well). For me the fighter's basic mode of attack and rules like NWPs are perfectly fine.
Quote from: MGuy;557449I and let me clarify. I'm not against players getting moments in the game where things focus on them, I'm against players having wide swathes of the game where they cannot and never will shine at all) .
I wouldn't say cannot or never (because there is always a chance) but I am totaly fine with some characters performing very poorly in large swaths of the game. I really don't mind it if I have a character for example that is terrible at combat. So long as he has stuff to do outside it, I am good.
If you feel differently that is totally fine. I can see where you are coming from.
Once again I think this conversation would be much more productive if we focused on the design principles rather than specific editions(because we could argue about what 2E fighters can and cant do all month). For me a design where a class is really, really good in a place like combat but pretty terrible in noncombat, is fine. Its perfectly acceptable design. Because it is a roleplaying game that means he will still be able to contribute in some way (unless he is a mute character). If the game has a skill system he should still have access to skills but just a lot fewer than other classes.
Quote from: jadrax;557228Well the 3.x Gauntlets of Gilgamesh are a Monk only item...
Someone failed their classic literature skill roll with that one. Fucking monk?
Quote from: MGuy;557413I don't like 1e. Why would I enjoy 4e which does everything that people who like Ad&D want? I'm a fan of 3rd.
Edit: and yes I have.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH... AHAHAHAHAH... AHAH... AHHH...Hilarious to wake up to! Thank you for the laugh! :D
Quote from: MGuy;557413I don't like 1e. Why would I enjoy 4e which does everything that people who like Ad&D want?
Quote from: MGuy;557413Why would I enjoy 4e which does everything that people who like Ad&D want?
Quote from: MGuy;557413everything that people who like Ad&D want
(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/are-you-fucking-kidding-me.jpg)
I got to give it to you mGuy. I've been on the Internets for a long time, and it's rare that we see such a creature continue to fight so adamantly and for so long on a topic that they literally know nothing about.
4e has what AD&D players want?
Wow. That....just really shows how much you don't have a clue about what AD&D is or what 4e is.
I was reading an old copy of the Dragonlords fanzine this morning (me, a sad old git, I don't know what you mean...) , when I came across the following letter, published in 1981:
Quote"Dear Editor,
Have EGG and TSR lost their marbles? What's all this about MUs being the strongest character class over Level7? How on earth, or anywhere else, do you protect a timid, IQ riddled heap of kobold bait to level 2, let alone 7."
The editor's reply:
Quote"I quite agree with you Bill ... [However] the fact is that if you can get your MU up to level 7, he is the most powerful of all his compatriots ... But then again, if you must play using a silly system like Dungeons and Dragons, what do you expect..."
Truly, what goes around, comes around (and around, and around, and around).
Quote from: Sacrosanct;557522I got to give it to you mGuy. I've been on the Internets for a long time, and it's rare that we see such a creature continue to fight so adamantly and for so long on a topic that they literally know nothing about.
4e has what AD&D players want?
Wow. That....just really shows how much you don't have a clue about what AD&D is or what 4e is.
That's three more tallies for the double standard board.
Quote from: MGuy;557556That's three more tallies for the double standard board.
There is no double standard this board is more of an old school players/gm's than anythiing and is upfront about it. They are just telling you the truth if you think AD&D players think 4e gives them want they want you definitely don't know the game before 3x and can be rightfully questioned about your understanding of 4e. Personally I don't care if you know about 4e though. But it is fairly clear you don't know 0/1/2e.
I could be wrong but it really doesn't look like it from where I am sitting.
Quote from: MGuy;557413I don't like 1e. Why would I enjoy 4e which does everything that people who like Ad&D want? I'm a fan of 3rd.
Edit: and yes I have.
:jaw-dropping:
Mother of God!!!!
Best trolling ever!! :rotfl:
Seriously, I would give him an award or something.
Quote from: Claudius;557576:jaw-dropping:
Mother of God!!!!
Best trolling ever!! :rotfl:
Seriously, I would give him an award or something.
I never thought of that angle. It has to be true, nobody can be that stupid. Well played.
Quote from: MGuy;557556That's three more tallies for the double standard board.
One person (Rum Cove) suggested you might like 4e since from what he had heard, MU's did not have as big a gap from fighters as 3e. Of course, since you specifically said you want to address things outside of combat, with rules, 4e is useless to you, because as far as out of combat rules go, 4e has little to none. As he was referring specifically to you, you replied - you know, how this whole intarwebz thing works.
Your response was to basically say "Nyah nyah, no! I think AD&D people like 4e!" You want to counter an incorrect argument addressed to you with "I know you are but what am I." addressed to an entire group of people, don't be surprised when they call you on it, as you called it on Rum Cove.
I know you're really,
really used to inventing your own facts and expecting them to be considered as such, but that don't work here. Unless of course, you are here just to Epic Troll.
Quote from: Marleycat;557560There is no double standard this board is more of an old school players/gm's than anythiing and is upfront about it. They are just telling you the truth if you think AD&D players think 4e gives them want they want you definitely don't know the game before 3x and can be rightfully questioned about your understanding of 4e. Personally I don't care if you know about 4e though. But it is fairly clear you don't know 0/1/2e.
I could be wrong but it really doesn't look like it from where I am sitting.
There is a double standard. Especially if you or anyone had been reading my posts up until now. The reason I'm calling it as a double standard is for all the hoopla being made over whether or not I "understand" 4E there are direct lines I can draw from 4E to what certain people have been asking for in this very thread. While there are none that can be drawn between what I've expressed and what 4E does. The act of losing one's lunch over my "supposed" misconceptions while not acting equally as offended when someone is obviously misinterpreting what I want is evidence of a double standard. The same with people in this thread coming down on some posters when other posters (Benoist and Storm specifically) have been little more than consistently impeding or ignoring actual points that are being made.
Quote from: CRKrueger;557584One person (Rum Cove) suggested you might like 4e since from what he had heard, MU's did not have as big a gap from fighters as 3e. Of course, since you specifically said you want to address things outside of combat, with rules, 4e is useless to you, because as far as out of combat rules go, 4e has little to none. As he was referring specifically to you, you replied - you know, how this whole intarwebz thing works.
Your response was to basically say "Nyah nyah, no! I think AD&D people like 4e!" You want to counter an incorrect argument addressed to you with "I know you are but what am I." addressed to an entire group of people, don't be surprised when they call you on it, as you called it on Rum Cove.
I know you're really, really used to inventing your own facts and expecting them to be considered as such, but that don't work here. Unless of course, you are here just to Epic Troll.
I'm not "inventing facts" as I said, its the double standard here. I didn't just say "Well 4E has what grogs want" and leave it at that. As soon as it was questioned I drew distinct lines between what certain posters said that they wanted and what 4E does. If I were going to troll I'd probably just copy Storm and Benoist. What's more I should point out that you're coming down on me for making a general statement about an edition or two of DnD but I notice that you did not do the same when Benoist and Storm were making very disparaging remarks of the same ilk with every intent to actually insult players of 3E like myself. (Especially when it came to Kaelik's Cleric). Thus Double Standards noted all around.
Quote from: MGuy;557586There is a double standard. Especially if you or anyone had been reading my posts up until now. The reason I'm calling it as a double standard is for all the hoopla being made over whether or not I "understand" 4E there are direct lines I can draw from 4E to what certain people have been asking for in this very thread. While there are none that can be drawn between what I've expressed and what 4E does. The act of losing one's lunch over my "supposed" misconceptions while not acting equally as offended when someone is obviously misinterpreting what I want is evidence of a double standard. The same with people in this thread coming down on some posters when other posters (Benoist and Storm specifically) have been little more than consistently impeding or ignoring actual points that are being made.
I have been reading your posts you want Fighters to be virtually balanced in all areas of the game. So 4e was suggested because it does come nearest to what you are looking for but fails. 3x is a seperate beast given there is no kind of balance in that game, it wasn't the design intent so that isn't surprising. Dnd before 3x balances the game by spotlight balance and that is the very opposite of what you want. So when you say 4e is related to AD&D I question that you are arguing in good faith and not expressly trolling for Lolz. No double standard here.
Quote from: MGuy;557586There is a double standard. Especially if you or anyone had been reading my posts up until now. The reason I'm calling it as a double standard is for all the hoopla being made over whether or not I "understand" 4E there are direct lines I can draw from 4E to what certain people have been asking for in this very thread. While there are none that can be drawn between what I've expressed and what 4E does. The act of losing one's lunch over my "supposed" misconceptions while not acting equally as offended when someone is obviously misinterpreting what I want is evidence of a double standard. The same with people in this thread coming down on some posters when other posters (Benoist and Storm specifically) have been little more than consistently impeding or ignoring actual points that are being made.
When someone targets a post TO YOU, no one else responds but YOU. Then you target a post TO A GROUP OF PEOPLE and that group of people responds. That's a double standard eh? You expect someone to rise to your defense? You gotta put your own work in around here.
How about you try for the first time in almost 200 posts not to constantly deliver every argument you make from a tower of cards made up of false statements treated like facts, trying to frame your position as if it were unassailable.
You don't need to do that here. You want to talk about how you fix the 3e fighter or create your own melee combatant, make a new thread, without spending 30 posts claiming the problem goes back to 1973. Just talk about what you want to talk about without bringing other versions of D&D in or doing the "statements as fact" GD thing. You want to prove a point, use actual math and rules and stop trying to lump in Frank-style subjective toss-off statements as 100% fact.
Or, you know, you could say "I realize some people think 3e isn't broken, but I do. Please keep the '3e isn't broken' stuff out of this thread. There are other threads for that." You try to deal with people on a fair level, they may just deal fairly with you. Hell, people half convinced you're just trolling are still engaging with you.
Storm and I share a lot of opinions, but we went to the mattresses in the "dark side of the hobby" thread, and may do so again. Ben and I agree probably on more then me and Storm but he thinks Gary ruined his own game with Unearthed Arcana and I think that's...well, not true. :D
I'm not coming to anyone's defense. I played AD&D, and 4e had absolutely nothing for me. You called me out son, and I responded.
FWIW, I did say I had no doubt that the Arrow Demon Cleric was possible, and I have no doubt that with all the restrictions on spell-casting removed from 3e, as well as tons of new spells, that if you go 100% by RAW, yeah, 3e is broken to shit.
However, I also agree with DD, Jeff, Ben etc, who basically say "Who the hell plays an RPG RAW?".
My point is, put all the restrictions back, cut out the stupid spells, and then revisit the fighter. For an analogy, when the Fighter is basically playing Harnmaster and the Wizards and Clerics are playing Exalted, you don't return sanity by amping the Fighter to Exalted levels. You bring the Wizard and Cleric back down to Harnmaster level and then look at altering them together if you want to increase the power levels.
Quote from: Claudius;557576:jaw-dropping:
Mother of God!!!!
Best trolling ever!! :rotfl:
Seriously, I would give him an award or something.
Isn't it? It's AWESOME. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;557598Ben and I agree probably on more then me and Storm but he thinks Gary ruined his own game with Unearthed Arcana and I think that's...well, not true. :D
That's because you are a poopyhead non-gamer who rages impotently about a game he doesn't understand. :D
(Seriously though, I'm fine with people who like UA and use every bit of it, I just consider it a toolbox which includes some parts that alter the game to such an extent I end up enjoying it WAY less with them, like the restructuring of classes in the book, for instance. No Paladin subclasses of Cavaliers in my games, thank you very much. Other parts like some spells, equipment and the like are fine with me, taken individually, included with care, or slightly house ruled even - weapon specs, I am looking at you. So it's fine as a supplement, but not all on as default with me at all.)
Quote from: CRKrueger;557598Storm and I share a lot of opinions, but we went to the mattresses in the "dark side of the hobby" thread...
I think our opinions are not separated by so wide a gulf, but that I had staked out a bit more extreme position due to the circumstances.
Quote... and may do so again.
I count on you people to keep me honest. :)
QuoteBen and I agree probably on more then me and Storm but he thinks Gary ruined his own game with Unearthed Arcana and I think that's...well, not true. :D
UA is certainly the first lesson in very carefully allowing 'official' material into your game. :)
QuoteMy point is, put all the restrictions back, cut out the stupid spells, and then revisit the fighter. For an analogy, when the Fighter is basically playing Harnmaster and the Wizards and Clerics are playing Exalted, you don't return sanity by amping the Fighter to Exalted levels. You bring the Wizard and Cleric back down to Harnmaster level and then look at altering them together if you want to increase the power levels.
Denners don't seem to respond to common sense solutions grounded in experience with actually playing the game. You will also need some internal contradictions if you want to speak their language.
man, I have been avoiding this thread for a while, but wow....this is like Old School Rose colored glasses crapola...
Quote from: LordVreeg;557693man, I have been avoiding this thread for a while, but wow....this is like Old School Rose colored glasses crapola...
We need Abyssal Maw to come and show these kids how it's done. :D
Quote from: Marleycat;557589I have been reading your posts you want Fighters to be virtually balanced in all areas of the game. So 4e was suggested because it does come nearest to what you are looking for but fails. 3x is a seperate beast given there is no kind of balance in that game, it wasn't the design intent so that isn't surprising. Dnd before 3x balances the game by spotlight balance and that is the very opposite of what you want. So when you say 4e is related to AD&D I question that you are arguing in good faith and not expressly trolling for Lolz. No double standard here.
3E does EXACTLY what I want. The only problem (I've brought up here) I have with 3E is that fighters are so badly shafted. 3E has fighters suck. Notice I said they suck, not that they suck vs other classes, that they suck. As I have said Swinging a sword" is not interesting. I have sad time and again, morphing into animals, calling upon the power of your god, and reshaping reality are all interesting things.
4E Makes it so that none of that shit matters. It doesn't matter HOW your powers work or what your powers DO because outside of combat they are shit. The designers of 4E SPECIFICALLY nut shot everybody down to the level of sucky fighter. That isn't even getting into how IMBALANCED some of the classes in 4E are.
But you know what 4E does do? Stuff people in this thread say they want/like.
You want wizards to specifically not use swords? Congrats Implements keeps a wizard from using a sword.
You want to be able to use your own creativity (and no powers) to do stuff out of combat while the DM ass pulls numbers for you to roll to? Congrats! Skill Challenges.
You want to keep fighters with their +1 Swords and Armor? Congrats! That's fixed right on in the rules, still an expectation and a necessity.
You want to make sure that Cleric Archer builds aren't possible such that the cleric stays neatly in the corner watching the fighter swing a sword at stuff? Bam! 4E provides.
You want Fighters being able to open doors and push boulders? Well.. that's in every edition including 4E.
You want monsters that simply are expected to sit in a dungeon and stay on the ground? BAM! That's the exact expectation in 4e!
You think battles are a such a significant part of role play that whether or not you're able to participate in other parts is immaterial? 4E provides.
You want treasure that only the fighter can/will use? Great Weapon implements a'la 4E.
You want fighters who can only swing a sword? BAM 4E provides!
None of this shit is what I want when I game but each and every one of these things have been brought up in this thread by people telling me that for these reasons fighters in 2e would rock my socks off. All of these things are things I don't like but are present in 4E. I don't like any of these things and have been very vocal about it.
What's more designers pointedly put 3e down because they wanted to make a point that 4E was such a huge advancement and that various parts of 3e were tedious or silly such that their new streamlined game would make it a relic of the past. It didn't. Thus we have pathfinder which fuel injects as many options into the game for various classes as it can.
Edit: You know about the only person who could say that I am misrepresenting them is Brendan since he specifically doesn't want everyone "fighting" and thinks that people being able to do damage in a fight is the only way you're really participating. Since all classes in 4E are forced to attempt to do some kind of damage 4E would literally be the opposite of everything he likes. So he has plenty of room to shout at me.
Quote from: MGuy;5576983E does EXACTLY what I want. The only problem (I've brought up here) I have with 3E is that fighters are so badly shafted. 3E has fighters suck.
Have you taken a look at
Pathfinder?
Quote from: jeff37923;557700Have you taken a look at Pathfinder?
Yes. I wouldn't have gotten pathfinder at all (It doesn't change enough to make me want it) but when your friends like your DMing so much that they BUY you the damn core rule books so you don't have an excuse not to run the damn game you get pretty much stuck. Admittedly, I like the direction they seem to have wanted to go in and I'm sad that they didn't put their balls on the line to see it through. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, they seem to have WANTED all the classes to be more interesting and indeed a number of them are marginally better. I really like the way they did Paladins and rogues but fighters and monks still take it hard (though monks have been improved a bit in some of the splats); they all have even more options for pimping out your ride. Pathfinder sold me on its Summoner class though (because summoning is my favorite thing to do in any game ever) so for all the faults it STILL has its a decent copy of 3.5 in my opinion. They could have done a lot more with it but I understand why they didn't want to rock the boat too much.
Brendan believes that if the fighter is able to contribute more to combat than other classes, it's okay that there are other elements of the game that he can be worse at. It's okay not to be the BEST at all situations. I agree with him fully.
However, I don't believe that the fighter is able to contribute more to combat than other classes. The specifics vary by edition and by level; in 3.x it's the most obvious because it's by 5th level that the Fighter falls very clearly behind.
If the Fighter ISN'T the best class in combat (ie, not A in combat) than he can't be the worst in everything else (ie, D in social situations, exploration, magic).
If a Thief is supposed to be Combat B, Exploration A, Social Situations B, Magic C
and a Cleric is supposed to be Combat B, Exploration C, Social Situations B, Magic B
and a Wizard is supposed to be Combat D, Exploration C, Social Situations D, Magic A (understanding that magic REPLACES combat ability when it matters)
and a Bard is supposed to be Combat B, Exploration C, Social Situations A, Magic C
the Fighter should probably logically fall somewhere like this:
Combat A, Exploration B, Social Situations B, Magic D.
My contention is that they are at best a B as far as combat goes; they are a D in all other categories.
There have been some good ideas to help ensure they remain an 'A' in combat - and while that's important, I like that there have at least been some ideas that touch on the other areas. I'm curious what ways people would 'codify' the benefit they seem to expect Fighters should have with 'martial characters' like soldiers and such. A benefit on NPC reaction rolls? What would suggestion look like in 3rd edition?
Quote from: MGuy;5576983E does EXACTLY what I want. The only problem (I've brought up here) I have with 3E is that fighters are so badly shafted. 3E has fighters suck.
If 3.x does EXACTLY what you want, then you really have no room to complain about Fighters. You can't have it both ways.
QuoteYou want wizards to specifically not use swords? Congrats Implements keeps a wizard from using a sword.
Again, let's just stop right here. Prior to 3.x, Magic-Users simply don't use swords. In AD&D, they can't even get a proficiency with them
ever. They will always be -5 to hit with them. So why would I need 4e for that? And why
should Magic-Users be able to use a sword anyway? To emulate all those amazing swordfights Merlin was always getting into? So you can play Ged and have amazing weapon combats?
QuoteEdit: You know about the only person who could say that I am misrepresenting them is Brendan since he specifically doesn't want everyone "fighting" and thinks that people being able to do damage in a fight is the only way you're really participating. Since all classes in 4E are forced to attempt to do some kind of damage 4E would literally be the opposite of everything he likes. So he has plenty of room to shout at me.
Did you notice how very few people are arguing with Brendan? That's because most of us have the same opinion as his: not every class has to participate well in combat to be effective or worthwhile. Indeed, you have presented this notion (that all classes must be combat effective) on several occasions as though it were established and agreed upon fact, and I have specifically explained that as an artefact of 3.x, and entirely not true of previous editions.
Quote from: MGuy;557698As I have said Swinging a sword" is not interesting. I have sad time and again, morphing into animals, calling upon the power of your god, and reshaping reality are all interesting things.
Um. Swinging a Sword is not interesting...
to you. I personally find playing a lute pointless in D&D, boring and useless, but that doesn't stop a lot of players I know from loving the shit out of their bards.
So, unless you are the only person at the table who gets to decide how people enjoy their imaginary elves, it doesn't fucking matter what imaginary elf technique you find 'not interesting'.
Amazing, innit?
I'd address the rest of your post, but its really just pointless snark building on the idea that some game everyone hates they should secretly all love because it does what you think they want their games to do, even though everyone has already said it doesn't actually play the way they want a game to play.
Analogy (since I have an unholy love for them): I say I'm tired of runny shits, so I'm gonna eat more fiber.
You suggest that Not Eating is the solution to my problem, since it solves the runny shit problem.
Why yes, it does. It also happens to do that in a way I'm not particularly fond of, so I don't want that. Obviously.
You then call me a hypocrit, since I obviously don't want to solve the runny shit problem, when in reality I just don't like your solution.
Cue Marleycat pushing us all for another two thousand odd posts, and random people calling each other dipshits and dumbasses.
And yes, I could do the same for a bunch of your other arguments, but luckily for me, they weren't in this post I felt like responding too.
So basically if 3x does EXACTLY what you want you're all set then. By the way Brendan and I are basically identical in our position about this particular issue so I have no clue why you're writing wall of text responses to argue with a person you agree with. You seem to want it both ways and that's not possible.
Don't blame me for this monstrosity Spike, at this point I pretty much only post when addressed. I really don't need to do much else given shit rolls downhill, since we're doing the analogy thing. :)
Quote from: MGuy;557702Yes. I wouldn't have gotten pathfinder at all (It doesn't change enough to make me want it) but when your friends like your DMing so much that they BUY you the damn core rule books so you don't have an excuse not to run the damn game you get pretty much stuck. Admittedly, I like the direction they seem to have wanted to go in and I'm sad that they didn't put their balls on the line to see it through. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, they seem to have WANTED all the classes to be more interesting and indeed a number of them are marginally better. I really like the way they did Paladins and rogues but fighters and monks still take it hard (though monks have been improved a bit in some of the splats); they all have even more options for pimping out your ride. Pathfinder sold me on its Summoner class though (because summoning is my favorite thing to do in any game ever) so for all the faults it STILL has its a decent copy of 3.5 in my opinion. They could have done a lot more with it but I understand why they didn't want to rock the boat too much.
OK, so it sounds like
Pathfinder is an incremental improvement for you. I don't know how much more the game can swing the way that you would like and not have it become 4E.
Quote from: Spike;557708I personally find playing a lute pointless in D&D, boring and useless, but that doesn't stop a lot of players I know from loving the shit out of their bards.
Come and let me introduce you to the world of awesome that is the 3.x/
Pathfinder Bard class....
Quote from: jeff37923;557716OK, so it sounds like Pathfinder is an incremental improvement for you. I don't know how much more the game can swing the way that you would like and not have it become 4E.
Well it would have to swing in the opposite direction of 4E in fact. I believe my last "wall of text" pretty much should give you an idea of why.
Quote from: Marleycat;557710So basically if 3x does EXACTLY what you want you're all set then. By the way Brendan and I are basically identical in our position about this particular issue so I have no clue why you're writing wall of text responses to argue with a person you agree with. You seem to want it both ways and that's not possible.
Don't blame me for this monstrosity Spike, at this point I pretty much only post when addressed. I really don't need to do much else given shit rolls downhill, since we're doing the analogy thing. :)
I am pretty set, in that 3E is the best edition I can play. It should be improving but unfortunately it isn't. If you have no clue why I am arguing with Brendan please go back and read my prior posts that quote him. The reasoning is in there.
MGuy, have you ever looked at Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed and Arcana Evolved?
Quote from: Spike;557708I say I'm tired of runny shits, so I'm gonna eat more fiber.
The way most people post on this site, I'd recommend everyone eat more fiber.
Also, I have never looked at either, but didn't Iron Heroes and Conan d20 try and add a lot more to the Fighter in an attempt to make combat more interesting for the class?
Quote from: Rum Cove;557724MGuy, have you ever looked at Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed and Arcana Evolved?
Totally agree you should look at these games seriously. They are among my favorite 3x games except Fantasy Craft.
Quote from: Marleycat;557728Totally agree you should look at these games seriously. They are among my favorite 3x games except Fantasy Craft.
I vaguely remember there being some kind of Jedi-type class, which seems to be closer to what MGuy would expect from a Fighter. Mind you, he's free to freak out if I'm wrong.
Quote from: Rum Cove;557726Also, I have never looked at either, but didn't Iron Heroes and Conan d20 try and add a lot more to the Fighter in an attempt to make combat more interesting for the class?
Both are worth looking at but Conan D20 is necessarily S&S not High Fantasy like baseline Dnd. Bo9S should be considered also.
Quote from: Rum Cove;557730I vaguely remember there being some kind of Jedi-type class, which seems to be closer to what MGuy would expect from a Fighter. Mind you, he's free to freak out if I'm wrong.
That's the fun of that game line it really is a standalone alternate Dnd. It's not just a suppliment like Bo9S. Let him freak out because believe it or not my main interest is to give him suggestions that may achieve his goal. But the occasional troll is deserved just to keep him grounded in reality.:D
Quote from: Marleycat;557732That's the fun of that game line it really is a standalone alternate Dnd. It's not just a suppliment like Bo9S.
And it's from one of the head designers of 3e, so it's about as "official" as one can get - if that's an issue for some people.
Admittedly, 3.x is my least favorite edition of D&D, but not for any reasons expressed in this thread or any where on this site (that I'm aware of).
With the flood of d20 products, surely the answer to many problems can be found somewhere.
Quote from: Marleycat;557728Totally agree you should look at these games seriously. They are among my favorite 3x games except Fantasy Craft.
Looked at all three. Among them Fantasy Craft advances the furthest away from the paradigm 3rd has set. A significant portion of the rules I'm making harvests some of what Fantasy Craft did. I don't know if I like Fantasy Craft in play though. I bought the core book but my players don't want to learn the new rules (they deem it not worth their time). So only in theory do I like fantasy craft in that its like a big fat tool kit and I haven't done that kind of tool kitting since I was asked to run Savage Worlds. I unfortunately don't have as much time anymore so its collected dust while I turned my attention to running and creating my own games.
Iron Kingdoms... well I bought ALL the books to it. I like... no love the fluff for iron kingdoms far more than I like the mechanics.
Monte Cook's stuff makes about as much difference as pathfinder. His method seems schizophrenic to be honest but his stuff isn't really a great leap forward from what 3rd is. I also played Saga Star Wars. It suffers from imbalance via Jedi but I could figure that out before I even looked at the rules. In either case its weaknesses are alarmingly easy to pick up on. I played first (2 times) then was asked to run it (3 times). I refused to run it after the third time because of its many issues (The problems were to systemic for me to even stomach it even with my house rules). For what its worth there is a good idea sprinkled here and there but they pale in comparison to its issues.
Don't get me wrong Marley. I like d20 (3rd/pathfinder in particular). I like running DnD more than I like playing. I still will bitch that its a pain in the ass to DM and that I believe my players are trying to drive me insane, but I love it all the same. However, my love for the game does not mean it has no flaws. The fighter design is a flaw I believe it should be at least acknowledged.
edit; Have not played Conan D20. It was described to me before but it never caught my interest enough to move my wallet.
Quote from: Rum Cove;557733And it's from one of the head designers of 3e, so it's about as "official" as one can get - if that's an issue for some people.
It's also fully supported moreso than even Fantasy Craft.
It's cool MGuy, I can only give you suggestions that work for me. The thing is the issue isn't that there is an imbalance with 3x fighters. The issue is I and others think your solutions solve problems that aren't viewed as problems. Much like 4e did.
You really should create a focused thread or two about the specific issues that bother you. It would be easier for everyone.:)
MGuy seemed to at least be looking for answers/solutions.
Quote from: Rum Cove;557726Also, I have never looked at either, but didn't Iron Heroes and Conan d20 try and add a lot more to the Fighter in an attempt to make combat more interesting for the class?
Of course, there is always ZeFRS (http://www.midcoast.com/~ricekrwc/zefrs/), if you are looking for a version of the old TSR Conan game. Colour-coded resolution chart
a la Marvel Super Heroes and everything.
Quote from: StormBringer;557755Of course, there is always ZeFRS (http://www.midcoast.com/~ricekrwc/zefrs/), if you are looking for a version of the old TSR Conan game. Colour-coded resolution chart a la Marvel Super Heroes and everything.
StormBringer, have you ever tried playing it?
Quote from: Rum Cove;557756StormBringer, have you ever tried playing it?
I like the tropes in Conan, I am not entirely sure I like the idea of Conan directly translated into gaming stuff. ZeFRS does dispense with a good deal of that, but it still never piqued my interest enough to try running it. I do like how the colour chart works in MSH, and it doesn't look like the ZeFRS version is wildly different. I would have to give the rules a good once over again to see if my recollections of the system are accurate.
Quote from: Rum Cove;557745MGuy seemed to at least be looking for answers/solutions.
I can't actually decide if he is, or just trolling. I am assuming the former against my better judgment.
Quote from: StormBringer;557759I do like how the colour chart works in MSH, and it doesn't look like the ZeFRS version is wildly different. I would have to give the rules a good once over again to see if my recollections of the system are accurate.
I'm a big fan of the old Marvel Super Hero colored table and wonder how close it really is in play.
I never got the chance to run a game of ZeFRS, so I wonder how it actually is.
Quote from: Rum Cove;557762I'm a big fan of the old Marvel Super Hero colored table and wonder how close it really is in play.
I never got the chance to run a game of ZeFRS, so I wonder how it actually runs.
Shouldn't be too hard to set up a playtest on the PbP forums here or at the Citadel.
Quote from: StormBringer;557763Shouldn't be too hard to set up a playtest on the PbP forums here or at the Citadel.
I think I'm going to give the rules a read through tomorrow.
To be continued . . .
Quote from: Marleycat;557744It's cool MGuy, I can only give you suggestions that work for me. The thing is the issue isn't that there is an imbalance with 3x fighters. The issue is I and others think your solutions solve problems that aren't viewed as problems. Much like 4e did.
You really should create a focused thread or two about the specific issues that bother you. It would be easier for everyone.:)
That's where we do disagree. I think there are problems with the fighter. I don't care much about "how" people want to resolve that issue. I just commented on this thread at all because people seemed to want to ignore it.
Quote from: MGuy;557765I just commented on this thread at all because people seemed to want to ignore it.
Or had a different opinion.
Quote from: MGuy;557765That's where we do disagree. I think there are problems with the fighter. I don't care much about "how" people want to resolve that issue. I just commented on this thread at all because people seemed to want to ignore it.
So your involved in a 230 page thread why?
Quote from: MGuy;557765That's where we do disagree. I think there are problems with the fighter. I don't care much about "how" people want to resolve that issue. I just commented on this thread at all because people seemed to want to ignore it.
People are not ignoring it they just have different opinions about the fighter than you.
Quote from: MGuy;5576983E does EXACTLY what I want. The only problem (I've brought up here) I have with 3E is that fighters are so badly shafted. 3E has fighters suck. Notice I said they suck, not that they suck vs other classes, that they suck. As I have said Swinging a sword" is not interesting. I have sad time and again, morphing into animals, calling upon the power of your god, and reshaping reality are all interesting things.
If you dont find swinging a sword fun, then i would either take fighters out, insist fighters have to multiclass, or build a new fighter class that is more wuxia. The only thing is,what you want in a fighter isn't what all people want. This is purely a preference issue. One you can easily fix with a houserule.
Do you find barbarians, rangers, monk paladins interesting? If so you could use those as a starting point.
Have you looked at any of the new martial classes from books like oriental adventures. Might be able to port one of them in as the new fighter (been a while sine I read that book, but i think they had some class options that might fit what you are looking for).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;557704Brendan believes that if the fighter is able to contribute more to combat than other classes, it's okay that there are other elements of the game that he can be worse at. It's okay not to be the BEST at all situations. I agree with him fully.
However, I don't believe that the fighter is able to contribute more to combat than other classes. The specifics vary by edition and by level; in 3.x it's the most obvious because it's by 5th level that the Fighter falls very clearly behind.
If the Fighter ISN'T the best class in combat (ie, not A in combat) than he can't be the worst in everything else (ie, D in social situations, exploration, magic).
If a Thief is supposed to be Combat B, Exploration A, Social Situations B, Magic C
and a Cleric is supposed to be Combat B, Exploration C, Social Situations B, Magic B
and a Wizard is supposed to be Combat D, Exploration C, Social Situations D, Magic A (understanding that magic REPLACES combat ability when it matters)
and a Bard is supposed to be Combat B, Exploration C, Social Situations A, Magic C
the Fighter should probably logically fall somewhere like this:
Combat A, Exploration B, Social Situations B, Magic D.
My contention is that they are at best a B as far as combat goes; they are a D in all other categories.
There have been some good ideas to help ensure they remain an 'A' in combat - and while that's important, I like that there have at least been some ideas that touch on the other areas. I'm curious what ways people would 'codify' the benefit they seem to expect Fighters should have with 'martial characters' like soldiers and such. A benefit on NPC reaction rolls? What would suggestion look like in 3rd edition?
I just want to clarify my position here. I do not think 3E got the fighter right. My issue with 3e is they made the rogue more martial, but opened up the rogue abillities to everyone and the fighters suffer from a similar problem. I also dont think any edition is perfectly balancedin thisregard, but I do think 2e is pretty darn good in this respect. I also think some of the sharp corners in the game are okay (for example wizards getting more powerrful over time).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;557817I just want to clarify my position here. I do not think 3E got the fighter right. My issue with 3e is they made the rogue more martial, but opened up the rogue abillities to everyone and the fighters suffer from a similar problem. I also dont think any edition is perfectly balancedin thisregard, but I do think 2e is pretty darn good in this respect. I also think some of the sharp corners in the game are okay (for example wizards getting more powerrful over time).
Brendan, you admitted yourself that everyone participates in combat in 2E. You may insist that only damage dealers actually fight (for whatever reason) but you at least admit that people can use there abilities to be engaged in a fight.
You and a few other people, insist that I'm just not listenin to your opinions or I'm throwing them out. If you look at my arguments you can notice the opposite. Remember when I said "Even if the fighter is only shining in combat it's still not enough". That's me letting you get your assumption. I could've argued how the fighter is replaceable. How certain spells end combat before the fighter can get to swing his sword. How a number of higher level monsters actually using their abilities will make it impossible or extremely punishing for the fighter to touch them without support. But I didn't. I accepted the premise that the fighter is a valuable member of highlevel combat BUT I pointed out that for your tastes to work the fighter would have to be the only one who could do anything since (in 2E) he can't function in any other capacity that involves locating, getting to, navigating, or escaping from the flying fortress of doom. Since he literally can't do anything else in the adventure of the flying fortress of doom then he'd either have to be the only one participating in any unique degree in combat or he should be given SOMETHING to do in the other parts. Right now he has nothing. And thus far, every time you have repeated your position you have not yet one time attempted to argue that he could do otherwise. So to reach YOUR balance point, which I say again is a balance point I don't like, you STILL would have to upgrade fighters or make it so no one else can do anything in combat.
Your love of having some kind of scaling usefulness (better at the beginning bad at the end or the reverse) is just bad on different levels for design and practical play purposes.
Quote from: Marleycat;557769So your involved in a 230 page thread why?
Because every time I point out a problem with the fighter (no matter how obvious it is) people counter either with fixes (which means they agree), telling me that 2E had no such problem (when other 2e players say there was or have it as an expectation), that I don't "how" to play (Because onetruewayism), that I just want wuxia fighters (I'd like that better than what they do now), that I'm making shit up, That I should just play earlier editions and shut up, that what I'm playing is not dnd, that I should play another game and shut up, that my way f gaming is one truewayism, that fighters should be mundane (at which point I point at their mystical gear and say probably should make that part of the class), or they say the fighter is perfectly balanced with all the other options (at which point I point out that is not). This has been a long thread though and I'm sure I missed some stuff, especially since I stopped reading Benoist's and Storm's posts a ways back.
Quote from: MGuy;557860I accepted the premise that the fighter is a valuable member of highlevel combat BUT I pointed out that for your tastes to work the fighter would have to be the only one who could do anything since (in 2E) he can't function in any other capacity that involves locating, getting to, navigating, or escaping from the flying fortress of doom. Since he literally can't do anything else in the adventure of the flying fortress of doom then he'd either have to be the only one participating in any unique degree in combat or he should be given SOMETHING to do in the other parts. .
I just think is wrong on so many levels I frankly don't know where to begin. First he can do all kinds of things outside of combat. He has access to NWPs, just like everyone else. But even if he doesn't, like all characters he has the ability to speak and ask around for things. 2E isn't like 3E where you need to make a roll for stuff like diplomacy or bluff. He is just as free as anyone else. What he doesn't have is the magic of a cleric or wizard. And he has fewer tools than say the thief (but again those are all about pretty much about theiving). But even many those the fighter has some minimal acces (like all characters in the game). So I am just not seeing that how the fighter is unable to participate out of combat. He might not be as effective as the thief or magic user, just like the thief isn't as effective as the fighter in combat. But that isn't the same thing as being unable to participate. I think what you want is more buttons. Which is fine. But that isn't what I want for the fighter.
But lets grant what you say is true. The fighter is powerless in a few key non combat situations. So what? If he is the best at combat, which can be pretty darn important to some folks, why should it matter if everyone else can participate in combat but he can't do magic or thieving skills outside it? For a lot of players the tradeoff is worth it.
Quote from: MGuy;557862Because every time I point out a problem with the fighter (no matter how obvious it is) people counter either with fixes (which means they agree), telling me that 2E had no such problem (when other 2e players say there was or have it as an expectation), that I don't "how" to play (Because onetruewayism), that I just want wuxia fighters (I'd like that better than what they do now), that I'm making shit up, That I should just play earlier editions and shut up, that what I'm playing is not dnd, that I should play another game and shut up, that my way f gaming is one truewayism, that fighters should be mundane (at which point I point at their mystical gear and say probably should make that part of the class), or they say the fighter is perfectly balanced with all the other options (at which point I point out that is not). This has been a long thread though and I'm sure I missed some stuff, especially since I stopped reading Benoist's and Storm's posts a ways back.
The only reason people have any issue with you is because you won't stop arguing over every point and insisting on your position. You have a point of view and that is great. But you really ought to relax and understand not everyone agrees with your assumptions. Maybe you just haven't been very clear I don't know. But either way, it is getting very old going back to the same three points over and over again.
Well, i think I've learned that you can judge the viability of a class by imagining their utility in flying fortress scenarios.
Quote from: Planet Algol;557877Well, i think I've learned that you can judge the viability of a class by imagining their utility in flying fortress scenarios.
This was an eye-opener.
I'll never play the game the same.
Next time we sit down together, I'm going to ask for wings for my fighter before we even start gaming, I tell you.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;557873I just think is wrong on so many levels I frankly don't know where to begin. First he can do all kinds of things outside of combat. He has access to NWPs, just like everyone else. But even if he doesn't, like all characters he has the ability to speak and ask around for things. 2E isn't like 3E where you need to make a roll for stuff like diplomacy or bluff. He is just as free as anyone else. What he doesn't have is the magic of a cleric or wizard. And he has fewer tools than say the thief (but again those are all about pretty much about theiving). But even many those the fighter has some minimal acces (like all characters in the game). So I am just not seeing that how the fighter is unable to participate out of combat. He might not be as effective as the thief or magic user, just like the thief isn't as effective as the fighter in combat. But that isn't the same thing as being unable to participate. I think what you want is more buttons. Which is fine. But that isn't what I want for the fighter.
But lets grant what you say is true. The fighter is powerless in a few key non combat situations. So what? If he is the best at combat, which can be pretty darn important to some folks, why should it matter if everyone else can participate in combat but he can't do magic or thieving skills outside it? For a lot of players the tradeoff is worth it.
Brendan, I have been over the point you just made. The Fighter's non weapon stuff are not things that no one else can do. So far its been presented that he can swim (though he'd have to take off his armor to do so), he can jump/climb, and he can open doors and push rocks. If there is something that the fighter can do that isn't combat that is unique to the fighter (in that he has a better chance to do it then everyone else randomly deciding to do it as well) please let me know what it is. I'm not saying he has to be the keystone in every other part of the adventure I'm saying he SHOULD be able to contribute to those parts in some fashion.
Let's go back to my example: The Flying Fortress of Doom. None of the fighter's abilities hep him to locate it at all. Rogues (which are pretty darn near down to his level) have better info gathering skills than him and they have it in spades. Clerics can divine the location, Wizards can scry it out. So everyone, but the fighter, has something they can do though the Cleric is probably going to be the one to find it. With the cleric divining the location the rogue can gather info on what might be there the who's who, supply shipments,etc. Once shit like this is known the wizard can more effectively scry and spy on the enemy from a safe distance. What can the fighter do to help at all? Nothing.
Ok, GETTING to the flying fortress of doom. Well the options are a plenty. The rogue can use one of those shipping routes to find a way on. Perhaps gather some info on when it moves close enough to a canyon or something for the team to just hop on. Cleric/wizard can teleport/planeshift/fly the group onto it. If we're talking about asking around the rogue has a better chance at finding a ride. Same with the cleric. Wizard has a number of options on hitching a ride if he wants but as stated before he most likely can just fly up there. The fighter gets NOTHING to help this at all.
Ok so we get the team onto the flying fortress of doom (somehow). So how does navigating it work? Rogue is at his best here. He can scout ahead, find traps (so the cleric/wizard don't have to use spells to bypass them) etc. Magical doors can be tackled by the cleric or wizard (don't know if rogues can pick magical locks or anything in 2e). When it comes to sneaking around rogue/wizard has it covered. I don't know if clerics get silence in 2e but if they don't have any sneaking abilities they are in the same boat as the fighter. Wizard/cleric also has spells that can uncover illusions. They have spells that would allow the group to bypass what would be impassable dangers. What does the fighter contribute? Nothing. In fact they are just baggage since they are carrying all the extra bags and the heavy armor they are more liable to force the group to have to battle more since he can't conceal himself.
So combat... Well everyone gets to participate to some degree. Not going to say otherwise because the insuing argument would obfuscate the point here.
So after combat (and here's a real kicker for the 15minute workday guys) people are hurt and/or have negative conditions on them. Though I hate healbot cleric this is his shining moment. Since the fighter IS going to get hurt the most, seeing as its his role to be punched in the face, he has to be healed the most. He can't fight in a fashion that would prevent face punchification and has no abilities that mitigate a number of status conditions he might accrue. He has no abilities that allow him to heal himself so either someone is there to heal him or he's going to have to take the rest of the day off (a'la 15 minute workday).
So skipping ahead, the big bad is beaten and its time to leave the fortress. Hopefully your crack team did some investigating or are prepared to actually leave. Don't want to spend the night in the flying fortress of doom. So how do we get the treasure out? Well here's a shining moment for the fighter. Load him up like a pack mule then find a way off. Of course don't let the players have access to portable holes or those nifty backpacks with a ppocket dimension that would mitigate the need to have someone particularly strong hold the stuff.
All in all the fighter doesn't have any abilities that help with most of the adventure.Upon going through this it becomes noticeable that if he's along you are essentially forced to fight more because with him on the team you can't reasonably set yourself up so that you avoid more fights.
And this is all a typical mid level adventure. This isn't something higher level like dimension hopping into heaven/hell to get your girlfriend back or journeying to the deepest parts of the sea to fight some tentacled beast that defies sanity. If it were those adventures the fighter AND the rogue would be better off sitting at home and hearing about it when the big boys come back. Of course I'd be willing to spend the spells to cart along the rogue because its capacity for scouting, stealth, and trap avoidance means I have to spend less spells to avoid those.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;557874The only reason people have any issue with you is because you won't stop arguing over every point and insisting on your position. You have a point of view and that is great. But you really ought to relax and understand not everyone agrees with your assumptions. Maybe you just haven't been very clear I don't know. But either way, it is getting very old going back to the same three points over and over again.
I can deal with people not agreeing with my style of play. I can dig people want low magic settings sometimes. Other times people wanna play Justice League. I've been in games on both sides and in the middle. I am being as clear as I possibly can. You, on the other hand, aren't. You keep going back between the fighter only needing to participate in combat then back tracking and saying he "can" do other things without specifying what a typical group would entrust him with doing above the other classes. If you just WANT a fighter who can only participate in combat to any effective capacity that's fine, but that should be an OPTION not an enforced rule.
Quote from: MGuy;557862Because every time I point out a problem with the fighter (no matter how obvious it is) people counter either with fixes (which means they agree)...
No, it doesn't mean anyone agrees with you, nor are these 'problems' at all obvious. We offer fixes because a) you keep fucking complaining about it, and b) we would like you to shut the fuck up about it.
This isn't TGD. We don't endlessly fap over our own cleverness or just continually bitch about a perceived problem without trying to fix it. CRKreuger perhaps thinks the UA is the bee's knees, but I would rather pick and choose from it. Nonetheless, if I wanted to use weapon specialization but tone it down a notch, I can trust I would have an endlessly productive discussion on how to do that. Benoist asks about Boot Hill, and he gets a couple dozen informative responses instead of an endlessly repeated litany of how it's broken and where. Rum Cove is now interested in ZeFRS and wants more information. I fully trust he will get a wide range of evidence-based responses from which to form an opinion in addition to reading the rules.
As mentioned earlier, despite some disagreements on non-RPG topics (and some on RPG related topics), we aren't here to hand out trophies for Closest Toeing to the Forum Line. We are here to discuss actual games played by actual people, and how to make that activity as enjoyable as possible. We aren't afraid of someone else's ideas 'infecting' our games. You came over here thinking TGD gave you some kind of advanced training and superior knowledge, and you are pissed that the real world doesn't simply bow down to your amazing truth.
Suck it up, cupcake, this isn't your TGD hothouse.
Quote from: MGuy;557884The Fighter's non weapon stuff are not things that no one else can do.
Um... so?
Seriously: Why does every character have to have some unique, special snowflake ability in order to be considered contributing? I know real life didn't teach you that, because it's pretty flat out not-true, so why expect that in a game?
QuoteLet's go back to my example: The Flying Fortress of Doom. None of the fighter's abilities hep him to locate it at all.
Where do all these ninja-fortresses come from? Why does every adventure, or even a majority of adventures, require the party to bust hump just to get to? Do people even design adventures like this, where step one is always: Find the dungeon?
Imagine this: The party rolls into town. The rogue immediately hits the tavern and begins gathering information (which the Fighter CAN do, but yes, not as well), the Cleric finds a nice quiet place to talk to god and the wizard begins muttering over a bowl of water...
... and the Fighter just moseys up to the nearest farmer and goes;
"Hey, farmer! Youse guys got any problems with monsters in the area?" while leaning on a random fence and looking like a guy who knows which end of the sword goes into the other guy.
"Why yessir!" the farmer says, "why just last week a dragon swooped out of the sky and ate farmer browns cows, then flew off towards dragon mountain."
And BOOM!
Does that never, ever work in your games?
Never?
QuoteOk, GETTING to the flying fortress of doom. The fighter gets NOTHING to help this at all.
Um: Only the wizard truly has an organic means of getting to any given flying fortress. Obviously, Clerics (without the Travel Domain) are useless and pointless. As are rogues. If the rogue can get to the flying fortress without a wizard, so can the fighter. Also: Magic items that allow flight aren't that hard to get in 3x. Potion of Fly 750 gp. Problem solved.
QuoteSo how does navigating it work?
Well, according to Kaelik, the rogue is committing suicide if he scouts ahead alone, and if the wizard and cleric are burning through spells just to find their way around, they're gonna need mister baggage hauler to actually kill stuff for them, seeing as how the rogue died by scouting and they're out of spells... Also: I've yet to meet a dungeon where 'Ax to the Door' wasn't a viable tactic... at least not with a DM I'd play with more than once. "Um.. these.. um... doors are... um... ax proof. Yeah.. you... HAVE to pick them... because... um... a wizard did it!" Buh bye!
QuoteSo after combat (and here's a real kicker for the 15minute workday guys)
Most people agree the fifeteen minute work day is ass. Attempting to codify that as a good method of play, then complaining that the classes that gain the most from it are superior is hypocritical bullshit.
QuoteSince the fighter IS going to get hurt the most, seeing as its his role to be punched in the face,
That bolded part? That's why you think fighter's suck. You're so busy making sure they play some artificial MMO 'tank' role, then you get busy complaining that being a tank is boring. Well, yes. Which is why I always make fighters who can kill shit. Most D&D games I've been in, at the end of the fights the fighter has taken less damage, as a percentage of his total hitpoints, than any other class, meaning its less vital to heal him up every fight. Rogues start screaming for healing after one solid hit, as do the wizards. Not so much fighter types.
QuoteSo how do we get the treasure out? Well here's a shining moment for the fighter. Load him up like a pack mule then find a way off
.
:rolleyes: That's not even an argument. The Fighter has the same ability to have magic bags as any other character. You're reaching if you want to bring in some weak tea shit like this. NO character has any particular advantage in 'hauling treasure out' worth mention, and I've yet to see a group that gave more than a fig-leave nod to the 'problem' in going on thirty years. Frankly, I'm surprised to see a Denner make this argument, seeing as how you(plural) think its viable to loot a million tons of iron cannonballs from a dungeon to buy +5 swords with the swag. Obviously logistical management isn't a feature for your (plural) types of games anyway.
QuoteAnd this is all a typical mid level adventure. This isn't something higher level like dimension hopping into heaven/hell to get your girlfriend back or journeying to the deepest parts of the sea to fight some tentacled beast that defies sanity. If it were those adventures the fighter AND the rogue would be better off sitting at home and hearing about it when the big boys come back. Of course I'd be willing to spend the spells to cart along the rogue because its capacity for scouting, stealth, and trap avoidance means I have to spend less spells to avoid those.
I, personally, would love to see you try to play remotely balanced high level games where if the character can't get there without the parties help, they are left behind. Let the wizard secure his own beachhead in hell without fighter support. Kaelik has a bone devil he apparently thinks exists only to rape wizards for lunch. Seriously: You guys are the only ones in the world that seem to think Wizards are bad ass soloing machines (really, clerics can't even do all the stuff wizards can regarding going places and overcoming environmental challenges).
As is SOOOOOOOOOooooo often pointed out: Yes, a Wizard can DO all the shit you say they can do. The problem is: They can't do it with perfect knowledge and planning, and they have a real problem with economy of spells. I know, I know: You're going to point out that fighters have an economy of Hit points or something. Of course, for a Wizard to do ANY of the stuff you've said, he's gotta burn spells. A well played fighter doesn't always have to burn his HP.
Quote from: MGuy;557884The Fighter's non weapon stuff are not things that no one else can do.
Assuming that's true - and I don't - do you understand that while that may be a problem for you, it's not a problem for everyone?
But, again, for 1e
AD&D at least, this isn't true, either. Because a fighter's feats of strength aren't limited to a number of times per day, he cannot be replaced by either the magic-user or the thief. And in pre-
OA 1e, secondary skills provided out-of-combat utility that was distinctive to a character as well, without the pitfalls noted for 3e.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;557896Assuming that's true - and I don't - do you understand that while that may be a problem for you, it's not a problem for everyone?
But, again, for 1e AD&D at least, this isn't true, either. Because a fighter's feats of strength aren't limited to a number of times per day, he cannot be replaced by either the magic-user or the thief. And in pre-OA 1e, secondary skills provided out-of-combat utility that was distinctive to a character as well, without the pitfalls noted for 3e.
The reason why its a problem is you ave a class then that specifically can only do what everyone else can do while other classes can do everything he can do plus more. Its bad game design to have a class that is specifically gimped for no reason while you have other classes that can do more just by virtue of being in those classes. It doesn't help the game that you have a person who cannot contribute as much as all the other classes.
Now please inform me, what do feats of strength allow you to do in 1E exactly? In fact, since theorycrafting is something I'm fairly sure you said you were against, give me some game play stories.
Quote from: Spike;557895Quote from: MGuy;557884The Fighter's non weapon stuff are not things that no one else can do.
Um... so?
Seriously: Why does every character have to have some unique, special snowflake ability in order to be considered contributing? I know real life didn't teach you that, because it's pretty flat out not-true, so why expect that in a game?
.
I think his point is that all other classes do have something unique its just the fighter that doesn't. So its fine if no one is a special snowflake but not entirely fair if everyone else is apart from your fighter.
Even if you include Domain management the Cleric does it as well if not better, which a cheaper stonghold, higher taxes and more guys (in 1e)
Now I thing the 2e stuff is better here and a bodyguard for the fighter is a step up from 1e but even so anyone can hire an army so meh.
Again with NWP 2e can make the fighter more useful but he gets less NWPs than the others owing to low starting number and typically lower intelligence.
But I think 2e is probably the most balanced edition.
Quote from: MGuy;557885I can deal with people not agreeing with my style of play. I can dig people want low magic settings sometimes. Other times people wanna play Justice League. I've been in games on both sides and in the middle. I am being as clear as I possibly can. You, on the other hand, aren't. You keep going back between the fighter only needing to participate in combat then back tracking and saying he "can" do other things without specifying what a typical group would entrust him with doing above the other classes. If you just WANT a fighter who can only participate in combat to any effective capacity that's fine, but that should be an OPTION not an enforced rule.
Buddy for the last time I am not saying that at all. You are equating participation with being awesome at something. I am not. There is a fundamental dividing line here that we simply can't agree on. Just because his noncombat abilities are largely available to other classes that doesn't mean he can't partcipate. It just meanshe doesn't have his own noncombat niche. But there is still stuff he can do. His certainly not the est choice for non cpmbat, because combat is his strengh. But he can participate. For me participation doesn't mean he needs quasi magic abilities like some of the other classes. Not only does the fighter get access to nwps (with a whole group tailored to the fighter), he also gets some pretty decent domain management stuff.
So before you paraphrase me again, all i have said ths entire time is it is okay for the fighter to be excellent at fighting, but suck at not fighting. That doesn't mean he can't participate or that I want him to only participate in fighting.
Quote from: Spike;557895Quote from: MGuy;557884The Fighter's non weapon stuff are not things that no one else can do.
Um... so?
Seriously: Why does every character have to have some unique, special snowflake ability in order to be considered contributing? I know real life didn't teach you that, because it's pretty flat out not-true, so why expect that in a game?
I've already explained why that's bad. Please explain why having someone who objectively does less than everyoe else is a good thing.
QuoteWhere do all these ninja-fortresses come from? Why does every adventure, or even a majority of adventures, require the party to bust hump just to get to? Do people even design adventures like this, where step one is always: Find the dungeon?
Imagine this: The party rolls into town. The rogue immediately hits the tavern and begins gathering information (which the Fighter CAN do, but yes, not as well), the Cleric finds a nice quiet place to talk to god and the wizard begins muttering over a bowl of water...
... and the Fighter just moseys up to the nearest farmer and goes;
"Hey, farmer! Youse guys got any problems with monsters in the area?" while leaning on a random fence and looking like a guy who knows which end of the sword goes into the other guy.
"Why yessir!" the farmer says, "why just last week a dragon swooped out of the sky and ate farmer browns cows, then flew off towards dragon mountain."
And BOOM!
Does that never, ever work in your games?
Never?
Now you have to go to dragon mountain and figure out where in dragon mountain the dragon went to. You seriously typed this without thinking past the point of "I hear there's a dragon in the mountains"? And note that the ROGUE hit the tavern and not the motherfucking fighter.
QuoteUm: Only the wizard truly has an organic means of getting to any given flying fortress. Obviously, Clerics (without the Travel Domain) are useless and pointless. As are rogues. If the rogue can get to the flying fortress without a wizard, so can the fighter. Also: Magic items that allow flight aren't that hard to get in 3x. Potion of Fly 750 gp. Problem solved.
Well if we're talking about 3rd edition then here's the thing. The cleric (without the travel domain) has air walk (or was it wind walk?). So step off the 3rd cleric. You'd be better off pegging that shit in an edition I don't play. Now as for buying the potion the fighter would have to spend at least 1500 to get there AND back. What's worse is if he meets anything that flies in there, or if he has to fly around when inside he's screwed since the potion's duration is so short (5 minutes for basic fly potion in 3rd) and he probably didn't specialize in ranged combat so he's at a distinct disadvantage there. But the really REALLY damning thing is that a fighter has to spend more than almost every other class to get geared up to GO to the mother fucking mountain. He has to spend his gold concentrating on getting the +X weapons he needs to be able to reliably hit the monsters he'll be fighting there. He has to spend more than the rogue to do so because the rogue will be spending his gold on things that allow him to avoid combat all together (which comes out to be cheaper). So he HAS the extra money to even get the damn thing.
QuoteWell, according to Kaelik, the rogue is committing suicide if he scouts ahead alone, and if the wizard and cleric are burning through spells just to find their way around, they're gonna need mister baggage hauler to actually kill stuff for them, seeing as how the rogue died by scouting and they're out of spells... Also: I've yet to meet a dungeon where 'Ax to the Door' wasn't a viable tactic... at least not with a DM I'd play with more than once. "Um.. these.. um... doors are... um... ax proof. Yeah.. you... HAVE to pick them... because... um... a wizard did it!" Buh bye!
Kaelik is not me. This is not my argument and I'm not going to get yanked into arguing about his position when I'm not him.
QuoteMost people agree the fifeteen minute work day is ass. Attempting to codify that as a good method of play, then complaining that the classes that gain the most from it are superior is hypocritical bullshit.
Never coded it as a good method of play. This is a strawman.
QuoteThat bolded part? That's why you think fighter's suck. You're so busy making sure they play some artificial MMO 'tank' role, then you get busy complaining that being a tank is boring. Well, yes. Which is why I always make fighters who can kill shit. Most D&D games I've been in, at the end of the fights the fighter has taken less damage, as a percentage of his total hitpoints, than any other class, meaning its less vital to heal him up every fight. Rogues start screaming for healing after one solid hit, as do the wizards. Not so much fighter types.
Him getting punched in the face is what OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD said his use was. I am simply choosing to not argue about it. And yes, the fighter WILL wade into melee unless you CharOp him to do ranged damage and most people don't do that. The rogues, while having less hp also are more focused on not fighting at all and not getting caught which would mitigate the amount of healing they would need.
Quote:rolleyes: That's not even an argument. The Fighter has the same ability to have magic bags as any other character. You're reaching if you want to bring in some weak tea shit like this. NO character has any particular advantage in 'hauling treasure out' worth mention, and I've yet to see a group that gave more than a fig-leave nod to the 'problem' in going on thirty years. Frankly, I'm surprised to see a Denner make this argument, seeing as how you(plural) think its viable to loot a million tons of iron cannonballs from a dungeon to buy +5 swords with the swag. Obviously logistical management isn't a feature for your (plural) types of games anyway.
Again, the fact that the fighter can hold lots of stuff is something OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD argued he was good for.
QuoteI, personally, would love to see you try to play remotely balanced high level games where if the character can't get there without the parties help, they are left behind. Let the wizard secure his own beachhead in hell without fighter support. Kaelik has a bone devil he apparently thinks exists only to rape wizards for lunch. Seriously: You guys are the only ones in the world that seem to think Wizards are bad ass soloing machines (really, clerics can't even do all the stuff wizards can regarding going places and overcoming environmental challenges).
As is SOOOOOOOOOooooo often pointed out: Yes, a Wizard can DO all the shit you say they can do. The problem is: They can't do it with perfect knowledge and planning, and they have a real problem with economy of spells. I know, I know: You're going to point out that fighters have an economy of Hit points or something. Of course, for a Wizard to do ANY of the stuff you've said, he's gotta burn spells. A well played fighter doesn't always have to burn his HP.
Again you're referencing Kaeliks argument about soloing which is not mine. What's more you probably don't want to use 3rd edition to make your stand on fighters not sucking. Thus far you are the only one who seems to think this is not the case in 3rd which is a truly lofty thing to want to argue. What's more is I would rather not see anyone solo (though a wizard and cleric and druid can solo a shit tonne more stuff than the fighter). What I AM saying is that when making a team and I have the option of picking a fighter vs getting another wizard/cleric/druid on my team you can bet the fighter is getting left at home to hold the bags while the big boys go out and do some real high level adventuring.
Quote from: MGuy;557884Brendan, I have been over the point you just made. The Fighter's non weapon stuff are not things that no one else can do. So far its been presented that he can swim (though he'd have to take off his armor to do so), he can jump/climb, and he can open doors and push rocks. If there is something that the fighter can do that isn't combat that is unique to the fighter (in that he has a better chance to do it then everyone else randomly deciding to do it as well) please let me know what it is. I'm not saying he has to be the keystone in every other part of the adventure I'm saying he SHOULD be able to contribute to those parts in some fashion.
.
Why does it have to be unique to the fighter? What is unique is how good he can get at some of these things. Exceptional strength isjust one example. Others don't have it (which impacts bend bars/lift gates).
What I dont get is why you insist participation means having unique abilities that others dont. Maybe you want that but I dont. He doesn't need unique abilities to participate outside combat, he just needs to have stuff he can do. If you want to advocate for more nwps for the fighter, i think that is fair. But he doesn't need a noncombat button the other class pes ave no access to just to say he is participating.
Quote from: jibbajibba;557905Quote from: Spike;557895I think his point is that all other classes do have something unique its just the fighter that doesn't. So its fine if no one is a special snowflake but not entirely fair if everyone else is apart from your fighter.
Even if you include Domain management the Cleric does it as well if not better, which a cheaper stonghold, higher taxes and more guys (in 1e)
Now I thing the 2e stuff is better here and a bodyguard for the fighter is a step up from 1e but even so anyone can hire an army so meh.
Again with NWP 2e can make the fighter more useful but he gets less NWPs than the others owing to low starting number and typically lower intelligence.
But I think 2e is probably the most balanced edition.
That's actually not a true statement, however. Rogues may have more social skills as class skills, but a Fighter is not actually incapable of doing any special snowflake stuff a rogue can do socially... just as an example. The big sticking point, as I understand his arguments, still falls down to magic. Clerics and Wizards have access to 'non-combat magic', which allows them to actually do things that non-spell casters cannot do.
The problem with this argument is that most people like to have worlds where spell casters are not the only people wandering around, both in games and in fantasy literature. Even highly weeboo anime often includes a character (and very often the fuckign MAIN character when they do) a mundane guy who manages to keep up just because he is that awesome. Not because it's logical, but because a lot of people don't really dream about tossing off spells, thus they empathize more with a mundane character.
Which, ultimately, is what this entire thread seems to come down to. A bunch of people who seem to prefer being mighty wizards can't wrap their heads around why those boring non-wizards get any showtime at all. So they pick the dullest designed class, with the dullest name (if the class name actually mattered any...) and pretend that it really isn't about the magic/mundane divide all along by pretending they actually care about, say, the Rogue.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;557908Buddy for the last time I am not saying that at all. You are equating participation with being awesome at something. I am not. There is a fundamental dividing line here that we simply can't agree on. Just because his noncombat abilities are largely available to other classes that doesn't mean he can't partcipate. It just meanshe doesn't have his own noncombat niche. But there is still stuff he can do. His certainly not the est choice for non cpmbat, because combat is his strengh. But he can participate. For me participation doesn't mean he needs quasi magic abilities like some of the other classes. Not only does the fighter get access to nwps (with a whole group tailored to the fighter), he also gets some pretty decent domain management stuff.
So before you paraphrase me again, all i have said ths entire time is it is okay for the fighter to be excellent at fighting, but suck at not fighting. That doesn't mean he can't participate or that I want him to only participate in fighting.
I am not paraphrasing you, this is your argument. I'm saying the fighter is of such negligible use out of combat that no one would use him for anything. Why? Because anything he could possibly do to help anyone else on the team can do but better. So why would I want someone on the team who can only do what everyone else on the team can do but worse? He can't gather info as much as the rogue (and I have to still cart the rogue around), he can't avoid detection as well as the rogue (still someone who is only marginally better than him), he can't help us find the bad guy (something the rogue is more likely able to do whilst being below casters) he's objectively the worst person on the team when doing anything that doesn't involve combat (and an argument can be made for why you don't need him for that either).
I KNOW what your argument is. I haven't shaped it in any funny way but this is hat's real. No one expects or really wants the fighter to do dogshit when he's not fighting other than be another pair of hands. Though those hands may be a bit more powerful than the rogue's its still not distinguished enough to think that he has an equal spot on the team. While the PLAYER can work with the DM to make the fighter "seem" like he's contributing equally he objectively IS NOT because his only shining moment is in combat when everyone else is also shining. By YOUR OWN STANDARDS he is not balanced because he can't even get the spotlight time to himself while every other class can. Even if you disagree with me about equal participation everywhere and feel that spotlight time is what's important he lags behind BY THAT STANDARD.
Quote from: Spike;557913Which, ultimately, is what this entire thread seems to come down to. A bunch of people who seem to prefer being mighty wizards can't wrap their heads around why those boring non-wizards get any showtime at all. So they pick the dullest designed class, with the dullest name (if the class name actually mattered any...) and pretend that it really isn't about the magic/mundane divide all along by pretending they actually care about, say, the Rogue.
So the fact that I've been saying you should improve the fighter class means that I want a bunch of wizards to be the only ones walking around?
Quote from: MGuy;557909Now you have to go to dragon mountain and figure out where in dragon mountain the dragon went to.
It's almost like you have to actually participate in an
adventure instead of just loading the save point you downloaded from IGN.com.
Quote from: MGuy;557914I that either).
I KNOW what your argument is. I haven't shaped it in any funny way but this is hat's real. No one expects or really wants the fighter to do dogshit when he's not fighting other than be another pair of hands. Though those hands may be a bit more powerful than the rogue's its still not distinguished enough to think that he has an equal spot on the team. While the PLAYER can work with the DM to make the fighter "seem" like he's contributing equally he objectively IS NOT because his only shining moment is in combat when everyone else is also shining. By YOUR OWN STANDARDS he is not balanced because he can't even get the spotlight time to himself while every other class can. Even if you disagree with me about equal participation everywhere and feel that spotlight time is what's important he lags behind BY THAT STANDARD.
But everyone else isn't shining in combat. The rogue sure isn't. The cleric gets a bit of shine but mostly when he heals or makes the fighter better with stuff like bull strength. I would take the fighters multiple attacks over the cleric's combat abilities anyday. Sure the cleric is a competent combatant, but I dont know I would call that shining. The wizard will eventually shine, but in a very different way and certainly not initially. So I still am not seeing the issue here. At least not for me.
And the fighter can contibute effectively with the nwps he has. NWPs are ability score based. You have an 18 in the relevant stat and take one rank, you just need to roll 18 or lower to succeed. There are some pretty cool NWPs to choose from. Now the fighter does only get three (increasing it might help some ofyour complaints). But the fighter nwp list alone includes charioteering, gaming, hunting, mountaineering, navigation (something you said the fighter cant do), set snares, tracking (pretty nifty), weaponsmithing and animal lore. That isn't even all of them. The fighter also has access to the general list as well. Which has all kind of cool stuff. So a 2e fighter can do alot more than swim. Plus he gets more nwps every three levels. By the way, the wizard only gets 4 nwps and the rogue only gets 3 as well. Intelligence can modify this total, but nothing stopping you from making a fighter with a higher than average intellect.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;557917But everyone else isn't shining in combat. The rogue sure isn't. The cleric gets a bit of shine but mostly when he heals or makes the fighter better with stuff like bull strength. I would take the fighters multiple attacks over the cleric's combat abilities anyday. Sure the cleric is a competent combatant, but I dont know I would call that shining. The wizard will eventually shine, but in a very different way and certainly not initially. So I still am not seeing the issue here. At least not for me.
And the fighter can contibute effectively with the nwps he has. NWPs are ability score based. You have an 18 in the relevant stat and take one rank, you just need to roll 18 or lower to succeed. There are some pretty cool NWPs to choose from. Now the fighter does only get three (increasing it might help some ofyour complaints). But the fighter nwp list alone includes charioteering, gaming, hunting, mountaineering, navigation (something you said the fighter cant do), set snares, tracking (pretty nifty), weaponsmithing and animal lore. That isn't even all of them. The fighter also has access to the general list as well. Which has all kind of cool stuff. So a 2e fighter can do alot more than swim. Plus he gets more nwps every three levels. By the way, the wizard only gets 4 nwps and the rogue only gets 3 as well. Intelligence can modify this total, but nothing stopping you from making a fighter with a higher than average intellect.
If I remember correctly all your skills depend on your NWPs depend on your stat to make them useful. If I, or as anyone here has described the fighter, am going to have a high stat its going to be strength. Which means that more than likely my NWPs are going to be focused on stuff like climbing, jumping, swimming, etc. The things that might come up on a regular basis. The rogue, however, doesn't need a high str/con so he's more likely to have stats for agility, intelligence, and getting the girl. So most likely the rogue or the wizard is spending points in the NWPs that involve those stats. And the rogue/wizard are more likely to have more since they depend on Int. By the time the fighter has more NWPs than the wizard (at about midlevels) then the wizard is powerful in his own right and doesn't need the NWPs anymore (If I'm understanding the power scheduling for 2E wizards correctly).
I've never seen, nor heard of a fighter who took NWPs that weren't strength focused since that's his stat of choice. So having the fighter do things where his stat isn't focused is odd. In fact, thinking back, no one in this conversation has even suggested a not melee focused fighter this entire time. In either case, I'm sure this works out at lower levels but I'm also sure that is not so at mid to high levels. And I may be giving th rogue some slack but he is only a small step above the fighter in my opinion. I just favor the rogue over being a fighter personally.
Edit: And there is no way I can approach you on the participation in combat thing. I'm fairly sure a cleric is solid at combat at low level and gets other things to do as he gets higher (in 2e). And I can't speak of the wizard's effectiveness without treading the replaceable fighter part of the discussion. In general I find that "I attack" is not really all that different from "I heal" as far as spotlight is concerned.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;557912Why does it have to be unique to the fighter? What is unique is how good he can get at some of these things. Exceptional strength isjust one example. Others don't have it (which impacts bend bars/lift gates).
What I dont get is why you insist participation means having unique abilities that others dont. Maybe you want that but I dont. He doesn't need unique abilities to participate outside combat, he just needs to have stuff he can do. If you want to advocate for more nwps for the fighter, i think that is fair. But he doesn't need a noncombat button the other class pes ave no access to just to say he is participating.
Exceptional strength is weak sauce Brendan. If you use 4d6 drop 1 then your chance of getting an 18 for Strength is 9% (this is the chance of rolling an 18 for any one stat is 1.6% and the chance of getting at least one 18 in 6 stats is 9.3%)
You can't claim something you only get at best for 1 in 11 fighters, (suppossing a fighter with an 18 doesn't decide to take a sub-class) is a balancaning feature especially when what it actually does is give that fighter a massive edge on top of other fighters.
Like I said the only reason fighters need other powers out of combat is if all other characters do and I think McGuy has made the point that they do.
Now the counter to this is not 'you can do whatever you like out of combat you don't need rules' it's the fighter excels in combat that is his sweet spot. Then you get back into the debate of who is actually better in combat, which is a big depends.
However, you can't say skills out of combat don't matter because they define say the rogue almost entirely. If you have Rangers that can track, theives that can sneak, barbarians and acrobats with jump then it is a little off to grant the fighter the same abilities you may as well let fighters polymorph into bears at 7th level ..... :)
Jibba, MGuy hasn't proven a thing beyond the fact that 3x fighters suck and anybody that even cares (nobody here) agrees on that sentiment. Otherwise keep drinking that koolaid it's pretty entertaining to watch from where I'm sitting.
Quote from: Marleycat;557933Jibba, MGuy hasn't proven a thing beyond the fact that 3x fighters suck and anybody that even cares (nobody here) agrees on that sentiment. Otherwise keep drinking that koolaid it's pretty entertaining to watch from where I'm sitting.
Hmm... well he admits he doesn't know about 2e so he won't know about NWPs which do narrow the gap.
But in an AD&D with no NWPs does leave a gap as Mguy says . a fighter can do what everyone can do out of combat, which is to say everyone can do what the fighter can do out of combat but all other classes have a thing they can secifically do.
If there is something that fighters
specifically can do out of combat then please tell me what it is.
Now like I have said thoughout the whole debate I don;t mind the imbalance. Its no different to a superhero game where you are Iron Man and I am Captain America. Because we are roleplaying I don't care that you are stronger, faster, can fly, shoots fire and missiles and I just have a bullet proof shield. To me that is role playing but it doesn't mean there isn't an imbalance.
Quote from: jibbajibba;557944Hmm... well he admits he doesn't know about 2e so he won't know about NWPs which do narrow the gap.
But in an AD&D with no NWPs does leave a gap as Mguy says . a fighter can do what everyone can do out of combat, which is to say everyone can do what the fighter can do out of combat but all other classes have a thing they can secifically do.
If there is something that fighters specifically can do out of combat then please tell me what it is.
Now like I have said thoughout the whole debate I don;t mind the imbalance. Its no different to a superhero game where you are Iron Man and I am Captain America. Because we are roleplaying I don't care that you are stronger, faster, can fly, shoots fire and missiles and I just have a bullet proof shield. To me that is role playing but it doesn't mean there isn't an imbalance.
I must admit, I haven't played 2e (even the little bit I did) in years. And I don't really remember NWPs in any of the core rulebooks I was handed so it does kind of leave me hanging in the wind here.
Edit: I've been trying to get in contact with my 2E guy so he can pass me a couple of 2E books but he's been quite elusive.
Quote from: jibbajibba;557944If there is something that fighters specifically can do out of combat then please tell me what it is.
That's a disingenuous question like any other archetype the fighter can specifically do anything they want except perhaps magic spell use and even that's debatable. Now how well they do something is the actual question you should be asking among other related questions.
Quote from: jibbajibba;557924Exceptional strength is weak sauce Brendan. If you use 4d6 drop 1 then your chance of getting an 18 for Strength is 9% (this is the chance of rolling an 18 for any one stat is 1.6% and the chance of getting at least one 18 in 6 stats is 9.3%)
You can't claim something you only get at best for 1 in 11 fighters, (suppossing a fighter with an 18 doesn't decide to take a sub-class) is a balancaning feature especially when what it actually does is give that fighter a massive edge on top of other fighters.
I agree its not common, it is just one thing on the list of what fighters get. I guess what I dont understand is why they need class specific powers out of combat to contrubute out of combat. BWPs are a great resource out of combat and because it is 2e they dont really have to rely on stuff like diplomacy to interact with folks. All characters can do stuff. For example with the mountaineering nwp you could make a fighter that can climb pretty well. I get he wants more. I just dont see the problem with fighter being good at fighting and contributing somewhat weakly (but certainly still participating) in much of non combat. Certainly not everyone's preference but it is a perfectly valid approach to design.
Quote from: Marleycat;557951That's a disingenuous question like any other archetype the fighter can specifically do anything they want except perhaps magic spell use and even that's debatable. Now how well they do something is the actual question you should be asking among other related questions.
Its not disingenuous its the nub of he question.
Outside combat the thief can do thief stuff, specifically, the cleric and wizard have spells. Rangers can track, paladins can heal, monks can run really fast and do thieves stuff , bards can charm, identify magic items and spells etc etc
Now like I said up post the answer should be fighters fight better than everyone else and i think that debate was interesting and certainly at low levels in 2e and earlier I think Fighters are superior. Its a fair point.
But simply saying fighters can do anything they like is disingenuous because other classes have
specific stuff they can do but the fighter does not.
Not an issue for me but it is a real thing.
I even outlined a few mundane options that narrow the gap without adding any magical stuff to the fighter. I can see that a magical solution might suit some people and I can totally see that , like me, some people don't really care enough to fix it.
Now I'm officially ready for the rest of this thread. :popcorn:
Quote from: MGuy;557909I've already explained why that's bad. Please explain why having someone who objectively does less than everyoe else is a good thing.
MGuy, I really think you're being wilfully ignorant of Brendan's view. All the PCs are participating in the combat part of the game, but its some PCs (i.e. the fighters') chance to shine as they're better at it.
In reply to the bit I've quoted: the answer to this one, is that the cure is worse than the disease. Arguing for characters to be non-magic-item dependent or have 'interesting non-combat powers' seems on the face of it OK, but I would be 100% certain I'm going to like 'fixes' to the problem, far less than I like the problem itself. If the solution is 'kill the fighter class' or 'have a barbarian who can break objects out of combat by yelling at them' the rulebook goes in the trash because its a flat-out fail from a realism/versimilitude/whatever angle.
For the record, 2E NWPs are very specific areas of knowledge which usually have only a very limited impact on adventuring per se - they model character concept moreso than being actively useful on adventures. Most of them are variations on Craft, Perform, or Profession, plus Survival. The 'Diplomacy' skill is Etiquette (GM gives you information that will help you roleplay talking to king - it doesn't directly affect NPC reactions), nothing resembling Spot or Listen, Information Gathering is an obscure proficiency in complete rogue that the GM would probably let you use without the NWP. A majority of tasks are simply an ability roll in 2E; the equivalent in 1E would be a use of player knowledge ('describe to the GM how you search for the trap or whatever'). 2E isn't a skill-driven system, and a majority of game tasks simply aren't covered by NWPs in any fashion - I think its a plus.
BTW as regards skills for the 3E fighter, I don't see a problem with the skill selection as much as I just hate 3E's skill system, but in the past I've either taken Able Learner (cross-class skills are 1:1) and/or multiclassed slightly. There are also racial substitution features for fighters of some races (i.e. dwarves can pick up Knowledge: Dungeoneering, or half-elves can get more skill points and social skills); and there's a UA 'Warrior' variant class that chooses its class skills.
Quote from: MGuy;557898The reason why its a problem is you ave a class then that specifically can only do what everyone else can do while other classes can do everything he can do plus more.
It's not a problem for everyone; it's a problem only if you care that you can't climb sheer walls like a monk or identify plants like a druid.
Anytime I played a fighter it was because I wanted my character to be good at being a fighter. I didn't expect him to be a diplomat or a linguist, though that did happen - more on that in a moment.
It's a problem if you believe that the fighter needs to have the same number of buttons to mash as the other characters in order to be a fun class to play. That's not been my experience, however.
Quote from: MGuy;557898Its bad game design to have a class that is specifically gimped for no reason while you have other classes that can do more just by virtue of being in those classes.
Good game design incorporates trade-offs. Playing a 1e fighter means the most hit points, good saves, the widest access to armor and the most deadly weapons, and the fewest restrictions; the trade-off is fewer buttons to mash.
It's a trade I've happily made many times.
Quote from: MGuy;557898It doesn't help the game that you have a person who cannot contribute as much as all the other classes.
There's more to contributing than rolling dice.
There's also the fact that my characters are more than their classes. I mentioned secondary skills already, but what about a fighter with a high Charisma or Intelligence. Rolling 3d6 instead of using an array produces such characters, so I played fighters who were excellent negotiators or spoke several languages.
Quote from: MGuy;557898Now please inform me, what do feats of strength allow you to do in 1E exactly? In fact, since theorycrafting is something I'm fairly sure you said you were against, give me some game play stories.
My characters have bent the bars on prison cells, lifted portcullises that trapped the party, moved stone slabs to access secret passages, raised heavy items with ropes and chains, turned cranks to raise drawbridges, and broken manacles from their wrists, as well as the more routine opening of stuck doors time and again, that lesser characters could not do or would not even attempt.
'Bu-bu-but the magic-user!' means nothing when the magic-user doesn't have the right spell available, like your silly
mage hand example upthread.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;557958MGuy, I really think you're being wilfully ignorant of Brendan's view. All the PCs are participating in the combat part of the game, but its some PCs (i.e. the fighters') chance to shine as they're better at it.
In reply to the bit I've quoted: the answer to this one, is that the cure is worse than the disease. Arguing for characters to be non-magic-item dependent or have 'interesting non-combat powers' seems on the face of it OK, but I would be 100% certain I'm going to like 'fixes' to the problem, far less than I like the problem itself. If the solution is 'kill the fighter class' or 'have a barbarian who can break objects out of combat by yelling at them' the rulebook goes in the trash because its a flat-out fail from a realism/versimilitude/whatever angle.
For the record, 2E NWPs are very specific areas of knowledge which usually have only a very limited impact on adventuring per se - they model character concept moreso than being actively useful on adventures. Most of them are variations on Craft, Perform, or Profession, plus Survival. The 'Diplomacy' skill is Etiquette (GM gives you information that will help you roleplay talking to king - it doesn't directly affect NPC reactions), nothing resembling Spot or Listen, Information Gathering is an obscure proficiency in complete rogue that the GM would probably let you use without the NWP. A majority of tasks are simply an ability roll in 2E; the equivalent in 1E would be a use of player knowledge ('describe to the GM how you search for the trap or whatever'). 2E isn't a skill-driven system, and a majority of game tasks simply aren't covered by NWPs in any fashion - I think its a plus.
BTW as regards skills for the 3E fighter, I don't see a problem with the skill selection as much as I just hate 3E's skill system, but in the past I've either taken Able Learner (cross-class skills are 1:1) and/or multiclassed slightly. There are also racial substitution features for fighters of some races (i.e. dwarves can pick up Knowledge: Dungeoneering, or half-elves can get more skill points and social skills); and there's a UA 'Warrior' variant class that chooses its class skills.
I'm not willfully ignoring his love of shine moments. But please read earlier than that when I commented that by that standard the fighter's shine moment is when other people are shining.
jibba is correct about my position, and if things went as Brendan thinks, and the fighter got to shine solo in combat we'd be arguing tastes. Now I'll admit, Brendan's balance point is not one that I personally like but even by his own standards things just don't work out.
Now I've heard the verisimilitude talk about mundane stuff before. I've read quite a few discussions about it. I'm going to admit my verisimilitude is definitely different than yours. From my angle it makes sense that if you're born in a world where magical stuff exists (isn't just made, it plain exists), and you have the potential to do magical stuff just from being born, then it would follow that if you got high enough level where being hit by something the size of a truck not only didn't kill you but didn't mess up your shiny metal pants that there is something magical going on. High level fighters can block fire with some of the harder parts of their face, can logically hit something as big and as hard(or harder) than buildings to the point that it suffers critical existence failure after a few swings. They can travel on the same team as someone who can mind rape people, talk to God(s), and turn into animals. For me to logically accept this premise but then turn around and say: "No the fighter cannot break through walls by headbutting them", "No he cannot rearrange the landscape with his bare hands", "No he cannot clap loud enough to make people's ears bleed" is what actually breaks my verisimilitude. You live in a mystical world where you have people who gain mystical abilities/super powers by going up in a level (barbarians - super strength, monks - chi, bards - songs) but for some reason one particular class of people can't learn to be so bad ass with weapons that they get superpowers from it? That just doesn't take.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;557969It's not a problem for everyone; it's a problem only if you care that you can't climb sheer walls like a monk or identify plants like a druid.
My ability to or to not climb isn't the crux of my concern. I don't believe I mentioned climbing at all in my flying fortress of doom scenario. Nor did I mention that everyone who participated in that was making one kind of check.
QuoteAnytime I played a fighter it was because I wanted my character to be good at being a fighter. I didn't expect him to be a diplomat or a linguist, though that did happen - more on that in a moment.
I'd assume readily that if you played a fighter you were going to concentrate on fighting. I've never objected to people's want to be a good fighter. Of course being good at only combat should be an option not the rule to a class.
QuoteIt's a problem if you believe that the fighter needs to have the same number of buttons to mash as the other characters in order to be a fun class to play. That's not been my experience, however.
Its also a problem if you don't want the fighter just to sit around with his thumbs up his ass while the noncombat portions of the adventure are being done.
QuoteGood game design incorporates trade-offs. Playing a 1e fighter means the most hit points, good saves, the widest access to armor and the most deadly weapons, and the fewest restrictions; the trade-off is fewer buttons to mash.
I don't think the trade off at being able to swing the sharpest swords (since you'll be using one or two at most) or wearing the most different kinds of shiny pants (you can only wear one and you'll probably go for the biggest metal pants you can as a fighter) is an equal trade off for cosmic power. I also heavily disagree with making a whole class just based around how well he does in combat when others aren't similarly restricted to certain portions of the game. My personal tastes aside you sound like you have Brendan's tastes. If that is the case please see the part of my argument about shine moments.
QuoteThere's more to contributing than rolling dice.
And yet everything you've put down so far is about how the fighter has bigger numbers in combat. Probably the place where the most dice are rolled. Ironic.
QuoteThere's also the fact that my characters are more than their classes. I mentioned secondary skills already, but what about a fighter with a high Charisma or Intelligence. Rolling 3d6 instead of using an array produces such characters, so I played fighters who were excellent negotiators or spoke several languages.
So you're saying that if you get lucky at character generation your fighter can do more than fight? Cool. But doesn't that apply to any other person playing any other class that happens to get large attributes that they may apply to other areas as well? How is this unique at all to the fighter?
QuoteMy characters have bent the bars on prison cells, lifted portcullises that trapped the party, moved stone slabs to access secret passages, raised heavy items with ropes and chains, turned cranks to raise drawbridges, and broken manacles from their wrists, as well as the more routine opening of stuck doors time and again, that lesser characters could not do or would not even attempt.
So the figher can do what the barbarian, ranger, and paladin can do with having a high strength stat? Goody. So why is it that they can't get special things like those other classes on top of the ability to assign strength as their highest attribute?
Quote'Bu-bu-but the magic-user!' means nothing when the magic-user doesn't have the right spell available, like your silly mage hand example upthread.
I like how magic users are in every game you play apparently "can't look beyond their character sheet" nor can they apparently come up with interesting ways to bypass challenges with their powers. I guess you should give the "look beyond your character sheet" speech to people who play MUs that game with you.
Edit: Hell in some games when I first started I got silent image nerfed (it can only be used at a higher level in the guy's game now) and I had a DM force me to stop making scrolls.
Brendan would be happy if the Fighter is the best at combat.
The Fighter is NOT the best at combat.
But despite that, Brendan (and others) seem to believe that he is.
Clearly, this is because of my failure as a player and not because the Fighter is broken.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;557981Brendan would be happy if the Fighter is the best at combat.
The Fighter is NOT the best at combat.
But despite that, Brendan (and others) seem to believe that he is.
Clearly, this is because of my failure as a player and not because the Fighter is broken.
In 2E the fighter is the best combatant in the first portion of the game. The multiple attacks and specialization alone are massive. A wizard becomes quite a force when he reaches higher levels. But even then it is nowhere near the 3e disparity. And arguably the wizard still doesn't exceed the fighter when you account for other balancing factors (resource management, casting times, accesd to spells, etc). I have said many times though I am fine with the whole wizards do become more powerful overtime because they have to wait for it and start out so weak.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;557981Brendan would be happy if the Fighter is the best at combat.
The Fighter is NOT the best at combat.
But despite that, Brendan (and others) seem to believe that he is.
Clearly, this is because of my failure as a player and not because the Fighter is broken.
I think your optimizing skills as a 3E player are severely lacking, yes.
I get MGuy for the most part but 75% of
your 'fixes' for the fighter are things my fighters can do already.
Quote from: MGuy;557970jibba is correct about my position, and if things went as Brendan thinks, and the fighter got to shine solo in combat we'd be arguing tastes. Now I'll admit, Brendan's balance point is not one that I personally like but even by his own standards things just don't work out.
Actually I just adopted shine time as a measure because it seemed to be where you are coming from.
I have to be honest I think you ade seriously underestimating the fighters combat ability in 2E. Playing a 2E fighter is very different from a 3E fighter. Specialization for melee gives you 3/2 attacks at 1-6 level, 2/1 for 7-12 and 5/2 for 13th and on. With darts you get 4/1 at 1-6, with daggers 3/1. It also gives you the standard +1 to attack and damage (+2). It also opens up point blank range for other attacks. Other classes dont get this (apparently they did open it up to other warrior classes in the complete book but phb is clear saying "not even rangers or paladins" have access to specialization. But either way i am fine with it if other warriors get it because Rangers and Paladins are a reward for rolling high stats.
Quote from: MGuy;557970jibba is correct about my position, and if things went as Brendan thinks, and the fighter got to shine solo in combat we'd be arguing tastes. Now I'll admit, Brendan's balance point is not one that I personally like but even by his own standards things just don't work out.
? .
i dont see why he has to shine solo. Others can certainly illuminate a bit too. But really here your just ignoring the other aspects of balance that are important to me in 2E. Yes, as the wizard advances he catches up with the fighter but that is a trade off. Fighter is good out of the gate and stays highly competant. Balance over the campaign is fine for many of us and produces the sort of setting flavor I look for. So there are other measures of balance going on here.
I meqn if you don't like it that is fine. I think I have been clear on my position: for 2e i think it is generally well balanced enough and frankly what imbalance you might encounter is well worth the resulting flavor (here I think jibba and I agree). The fighter is quite good in 2E. He excels at foghting and like all classes has stuff to do outside combat. The idea that he needs unique abilities no others have outside combat I just font understand (i can see why you might like it, not why it is a must). In terms of general design philosophy, having a class that is great in one area of the game but bad in another is perfectly fine in my opinion and a great way to add some much needed contrast between the classes. Generally speaking, while I don't think you should completely unable to participate, i dont think participation requires special powers. And I am definitely much more comfortable than you having large areas where my contribution will be on a much smaller scale than other characters. We just have different opinions about some fundamental things and I remain unpersuaded by your arguments urging me to adopt your assumptions and conclusions. Nothing wrong with us disagreeing.
No, Mguy's not underestimating anything Brendan. He's 100% right about the 2e game, even though he admits he doesn't play it and never had. Your opinions are objectively wrong, don't you know they don't work, not even for you?
The only people in this entire thread who are correct are the Gaming Den guys and Jibba, the guy who has never understood older D&D either, enjoys making fun of it whenever he can, and since he frequently writes his own RPGs in his head on the fly as he goes, is about as close to anathema to Mguy as you can get, but here...Jibba's 100% correct because he gets shits and giggles from poking a finger in the eye of any discussion of older D&D whenever he gets the chance, so is a perfect ally in this epic abortion of a thread.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;557981The Fighter is NOT the best at combat.
In 0D&D, BD&D, AD&D1 and AD&D2, he is.
That's the problem with these useless cunts. They have an agenda based on 3e, and to justify it, for some unfathomable fucking reason, they feel insignificant unless they can somehow prove this problem exists in older editions, with which they have no experience, or experience decades old.
They like 3e Clerics and Wizards being ridiculously powered gods, so they want to make the Fighter just as ridiculous. Pointing out that things aren't that way in other editions invalidates their need to be weaboo fightan snowflakes with a "spotlight time" clock running and accurate to a millionth of a second. Therefore this problem "needs" to be evident in all versions of D&D and so we get 2000 fucking posts and it will go to 8000 if you keep trying to pretend with a straight face that these guys are arguing in good faith.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;557981Brendan would be happy if the Fighter is the best at combat.
The Fighter is NOT the best at combat.
But despite that, Brendan (and others) seem to believe that he is.
Clearly, this is because of my failure as a player and not because the Fighter is broken.
How about trying this? The fighter is not the best at combat in 3x. That way your view has at least some validity.
@Jibba, have you lost your fucking mind? Or are you just in this for the lolz? Supporting people that never even played the editions they're dispariging. And ignoring sensible fixes for 3x, which anyone sane agrees that pure fighters as used in the PHB are crap.
Quote from: CRKrueger;558002They like 3e Clerics and Wizards being ridiculously powered gods, so they want to make the Fighter just as ridiculous.
Why don't the Character Optimizers take this as a challenge to actually make a viable Fighter?
Quote from: Rum Cove;558007Why don't the Character Optimizers take this as a challenge to actually make a viable Fighter?
We have a thread winner!
Quote from: Rum Cove;558007Why don't the Character Optimizers take this as a challenge to actually make a viable Fighter?
They do, it either involves multiclassing or just replacing the Fighter with the Warblade out of Bo9S if limited to Wotc 3x exclusively.
@Benoist, stop it, you're having more fun about this than a mortal man is allowed. :D
Quote from: Marleycat;558004How about trying this? The fighter is not the best at combat in 3x. That way your view has at least some validity.
@Jibba, have you lost your fucking mind? Or are you just in this for the lolz? Supporting people that never even played the editions they're dispariging. And ignoring sensible fixes for 3x, which anyone sane agrees that pure fighters as used in the PHB are crap.
Point of order: I played 2E. Didn't like it at all. Ironically enough the reason I didn't like it didn't have anything to do with the fighter.
In either case, Brendan. Please explain to me (and I know I've asked this before) what a fighter contributes to mid and high level adventures like the flying fortress of doom scenario I posited earlier. You keep assuring me that he can do something but you still haven't told me what. What would a party consisting of a mid/high level rogue/wizard/cleric/fighter have the fighter doing that isn't participating in combat. I can't really think of a thing that a party who is putting their lives on the line would relegate to someone who doesn't have any powers, abilities, or special talent in finding, getting to, navigating, recovering from, and escaping from any of the mid to high level places they'd be adventuring to.
I can see how fighters do fine on the ground floor when you're fighting orcs. However I can't see them contributing anything of note when you start fighting Lich Kings, Ghost armies, or Demonic Crusades.
Quote from: Rum Cove;558007Why don't the Character Optimizers take this as a challenge to actually make a viable Fighter?
I think a more pertinent question is "how are powered up Clerics/Wizards ridiculous in a game where you're fighting demon lords and magic slinging dragons?". I think its interesting that super powered casters or anything of the sort are only ridiculous in the player's hands. However I can understand that kind of thinking if you've never looked at the higher end dragons' stat blocks.
Edit: Also noting CR's pointedly disingenuous posts have not come under fire. Another tally for Double Standards yay!
You guys are still responding to him? He's already demonstrated on several occasions that he doesn't have the first clue as to what he's talking about, so why are you feeding the troll?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;558018You guys are still responding to him? He's already demonstrated on several occasions that he doesn't have the first clue as to what he's talking about, so why are you feeding the troll?
Boredom? For the lolz? Woman's pergorative? I did say that around 300-400 posts ago that is my intention. :)
Btw MGuy awesome shifting of the goalposts. You say you played the game yet never played it by earlier posts. So which is it again?
Quote from: Marleycat;558019Woman's pergorative?
Sounds painful.... :D
I ran mostly ravenloft campaigns fir 2e, so flying fortresses were not a feature (even in forgetten realms as a player dont think i once ran into one), but in the many showdowns with ancient vampires, liches, ghosts and mummies fighters were super important.
Quote from: Marleycat;558019Boredom? For the lolz? Woman's pergorative? I did say around 300 posts ago that is my intention. :)
Btw MGuy awesome shifting of the goalposts. You say you played the game yet never played it by earlier posts. So which is it again?
I mentioned playing it quite a few pages ago. I never got that far but I played it before. I know its been a long thread but you don't remember the tid bit in the conversation where people telling me my bad experience wasn't because of 2E's rules? Plus that's not goal post shifting that would've been outright lying not a logical fallacy.
Edit: I've never played older editions like 1E, 0E, and I'm not sure what edition Ad&D is.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;558023I ran mostly ravenloft campaigns fir 2e, so flying fortresses were not a feature (even in forgetten realms as a player dont think i once ran into one), but in the many showdowns with ancient vampires, liches, ghosts and mummies fighters were super important.
Ok. How were they important in a way that didn't involve the fight between the party fighting these things?
Quote from: MGuy;558015Please explain to me (and I know I've asked this before) what a fighter contributes to mid and high level adventures like the flying fortress of doom scenario I posited earlier.
Please explain to me why the Fighter doesn't have access to magic items or flying mounts. If you're ignoring half the rules, that might be the root of your problem.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;558018You guys are still responding to him? He's already demonstrated on several occasions that he doesn't have the first clue as to what he's talking about, so why are you feeding the troll?
Olivia Wilde wanted this thread to reach 4,000 posts.
Quote from: Marleycat;558014They do, it either involves multiclassing or just replacing the Fighter with the Warblade out of Bo9S if limited to Wotc 3x exclusively.
Do any of the super-builds for Wizards (or Clerics) not use multiclassing (including Prestige Classes)?
Quote from: Rum Cove;558027Please explain to me why the Fighter doesn't have access to magic items or flying mounts. If you're ignoring half the rules, that might be the root of your problem.
That's something that goes back to the beginning of me commenting on the thread. The items that would logically allow the fighter to do something interesting are not a virtue of the fighter class. Notice that when I went over my scenario for the FFoD none of the other classes involved used magical equipment.
Quote from: jeff37923;558020Sounds painful.... :D
Sue me! I can't spell.:)
@Mguy, I can't and won't keep track of everything said in this silly thread. I suggest making a thread or more about YOUR particular issues. I do remember that has already been suggested. Don't what to do it? Then don't be surprised that I have concluded you're nothing but a troll.
Quote from: MGuy;558031The items that would logically allow the fighter to do something interesting are not a virtue of the fighter class. Notice that when I went over my scenario for the FFoD none of the other classes involved used magical equipment.
Do you play D&D without dice?
Quote from: MGuy;558026Ok. How were they important in a way that didn't involve the fight between the party fighting these things?
Their primary function was fighting these things of course. I never suggested they had to excel at anything else. But fighters still contributed in key ways outside battle with things like tracking, survival and other non weapon proficiencies that they have access to. Because 2e doesn't lean as much on social skills, they also contributed to the investigation in general through RP. Again, we just take very different positions. I dont need their noncombat contributiins to be unique, nor do i need them to have special powers akin to wizards. .
I get yo want somekind of martial equivalent to teleport and divination. If that works for you great but it certainly isn't what I am looking.
This has been fun mguy but i really just have to conclude you are trolling.
Quote from: Rum Cove;558033Do you play D&D without dice?
This has nothing to do with what I just said.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;558034This has been fun mguy but i really just have to conclude you are trolling.
Yeah, removing magic items and flying mounts from the game is pure nonsense.
Quote from: MGuy;558035This has nothing to do with what I just said.
It has EVERYTHING to do with your scenario. Ignoring half the rules in an attempt to prove a point is just nonsense.
Quote from: Rum Cove;558030Do any of the super-builds for Wizards (or Clerics) not use multiclassing (including Prestige Classes)?
Nope. You just have to be more particular because either the payoff is smaller or they are. "traps". As a spellcaster in 3x rule number 1 is never give up spellcasting character levels, pure spell levels? Fine but Never actual power levels of whatever spell levels you have access to.
Quote from: Marleycat;558038Nope. You just have to be more particular because either the payoff is smaller or they are "traps".
Until I see a super-build made from a single class, level 1 up to 20, I am not convinced at all.
Quote from: Marleycat;558032Sue me! I can't spell.:)
@Mguy, I can't and won't keep track of everything said in this silly thread. I suggest making a thread or more about YOUR particular issues. I do remember that has already been suggested. Don't what to do it? Then don't be surprised that I have concluded you're nothing but a troll.
I'm not surprised that people can't remember what I've said over this long, long thread. However, the polite thing to do if you don't know is to either go back and look, ask or say nothing at all. And again, we already don't have anything to discuss. You've already house ruled fighters to get more options. You already agree with me. Is it just the style to further prod at my position because you realize that, at the end of the day, you were arguing with me earlier for nominally no reason? If you are going to do so then why haven't you provided any examples of fighters doing something helpful out of combat since I have asked for such a thing enough times for you not to have accidentally forgotten it?
Since we're making declarations based on lofty observations then I will declare that you are still antagonizing me and my position, not because you don't agree,but because its cool or it helps you come to terms with your comments earlier in the thread if you "lighten" up just a bit but still treat my assertions as some kind of crazy talk.
How does the Wizard reach the flying fortress if it's hovering over a magic dead zone?
Clearly, the Wizard is useless.
Quote from: Rum Cove;558037It has EVERYTHING to do with your scenario. Ignoring half the rules in an attempt to prove a point is just nonsense.
I am not ignoring the rules. I'm not saying special items don't exist but the only ones that are fighter specific are only +1 swords and +1 armors. Any item that can actually be used to give the fighter special powers can be used by someone else who already has special powers. Thus it makes it not a factor when discussing what he gets by virtue of being a fighter.
Quote from: Rum Cove;558042How does the Wizard reach the flying fortress if it's hovering over a magic dead zone?
Clearly, the Wizard is useless.
How is the castle floating in a magical dead zone?
For what it is worth mguy i dont think your assertions are frazy talk. They are reasonable positions. I just find you insistance that people agree with them a bit closed minded.
Quote from: MGuy;558043I am not ignoring the rules. I'm not saying special items don't exist but the only ones that are fighter specific are only +1 swords and +1 armors. Any item that can actually be used to give the fighter special powers can be used by someone else who already has special powers. Thus it makes it not a factor when discussing what he gets by virtue of being a fighter.
Including intelligent weapons that can only be used by Fighters? Ones that give any number of magic abilities to by pass any scenario thrown at them.
Quote from: MGuy;558044How is the castle floating in a magical dead zone?
Fighter-powered propellers and all the hot air from this thread.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;558034Their primary function was fighting these things of course. I never suggested they had to excel at anything else. But fighters still contributed in key ways outside battle with things like tracking, survival and other non weapon proficiencies that they have access to. Because 2e doesn't lean as much on social skills, they also contributed to the investigation in general through RP. Again, we just take very different positions. I dont need their noncombat contributiins to be unique, nor do i need them to have special powers akin to wizards. .
I get yo want somekind of martial equivalent to teleport and divination. If that works for you great but it certainly isn't what I am looking.
This has been fun mguy but i really just have to conclude you are trolling.
Is this actual play experience or are you making this up? I can believe that the DM threw out the diplomacy rules (which I'm pretty sure exists in 2e) so that's not surprising but if we're going to go with tossing the rules out for the fighter to contribute that is something I already touched on. The rest sounds like you're positing that the fighter "could" have contributed by having those nonweapon proficiencies but in playing Ravenloft I have serious doubts that the fighter in your group would have. And this is an honest question, I'm not being sarcastic.
Quote from: Rum Cove;558046Including intelligent weapons that can only be used by Fighters? Ones that give any number of magic abilities to by pass any scenario thrown at them.
Intelligent weapons are some of the rarest ones, thus they are TOO unlikely to be considered a part of the fighter's chassis. If my chance of getting one with actual powers isn't even 10% over the course of the campaign why would I consider it a part of my class? I'd agree with you if such a thing were guaranteed or close enough to guaranteed that I could consider it a part of my class, but it is not.
Quote from: MGuy;558041I'm not surprised that people can't remember what I've said over this long, long thread. However, the polite thing to do if you don't know is to either go back and look, ask or say nothing at all. And again, we already don't have anything to discuss. You've already house ruled fighters to get more options. You already agree with me. Is it just the style to further prod at my position because you realize that, at the end of the day, you were arguing with me earlier for nominally no reason? If you are going to do so then why haven't you provided any examples of fighters doing something helpful out of combat since I have asked for such a thing enough times for you not to have accidentally forgotten it?
Since we're making declarations based on lofty observations then I will declare that you are still antagonizing me and my position, not because you don't agree,but because its cool or it helps you come to terms with your comments earlier in the thread if you "lighten" up just a bit but still treat my assertions as some kind of crazy talk.
Examples? I already said my players say I am going to do x" then. I say "roll x ability score you get a + or - whatever ".
Quote from: Rum Cove;558046Including intelligent weapons that can only be used by Fighters? Ones that give any number of magic abilities to by pass any scenario thrown at them.
There are also weapons that are just better suited to the fighter. Either way i dont get the 'must be uniquely the fighter's' angle. Since his argument is they are no good because they dont contribute outside combat, what does it matter if their contribution is shared by another class in some way?
I just get the feeling there is a lot of term pivoting and goalpost shifting goIng on here.
Make a damn thread already Mguy even my patience has limits.
Quote from: Rum Cove;558047Fighter-powered propellers and all the hot air from this thread.
Well if you're going to make the scenario not serious then I'll get silly too. I'll use TGD's uber wizards to lift a mountain over it and let it drop, crushing all the fighters and their wittle castle.Then, once whatever mechanism they were using to block my magic is done we'll lift the mountain off of them, use our summoned demons and devils to sift through the wreckage and collect their bones, then use our charmed giants to grind them into a tasty bread like substance.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;558051There are also weapons that are just better suited to the fighter. Either way i dont get the 'must be uniquely the fighter's' angle. Since his argument is they are no good because they dont contribute outside combat, what does it matter if their contribution is shared by another class in some way?
I just get the feeling there is a lot of term pivoting and goalpost shifting goIng on here.
Simply he wants particular "buttons" to push. Nothing more, nothing less.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;558051There are also weapons that are just better suited to the fighter. Either way i dont get the 'must be uniquely the fighter's' angle. Since his argument is they are no good because they dont contribute outside combat, what does it matter if their contribution is shared by another class in some way?
I just get the feeling there is a lot of term pivoting and goalpost shifting goIng on here.
No there is no shifting. You're just missing parts. The REASON why they don't count is because they are not a measure of THE CLASS. Since we're talking about the CLASS we have to look at what the CLASS gives you. If we don't do that then any weakness the fighter has can be mitigated by saying "well if he has this magic sword and griffon mount then there's no problem". If we go down THAT road I could say "Well the Wizard goes off Giant hunting and charms his ass into the group so that they don't need a fighter anymore".
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;558051I just get the feeling there is a lot of term pivoting and goalpost shifting goIng on here.
Definitely, my Fighter has already sacked most of the Flying Fortress of Doom, having gotten there on the pedal-driven ornithopter that he built using his Strength-driven Blacksmithing skills.
All you other Fighters are welcome to join him - he just tossed down a huge rope ladder that he crafted while the Wizard and Cleric slept every fifteen minutes, for eight hours at a time.
Quote from: MGuy;558053I'll use TGD's uber wizards to lift a mountain over it and let it drop, crushing all the fighters and their wittle castle.
Yeah . . . sorry, magic dead zone. Not happening. Thanks for playing!
Quote from: Rum Cove;558057Yeah . . . sorry, magic dead zone. Not happening. Thanks for playing!
Gahh! Why can't you think BEYOND the rules! Obviously we lifted it up ABOVE the deadzone (in space) and dropped it like a meteor. God don't you read Dragonlance?
Quote from: MGuy;558058Gahh! Why can't you think BEYOND the rules! Obviously we lifted it up ABOVE the deadzone (in space) and dropped it like a meteor. God don't you read Dragonlance?
And yet still, the only survivors would be Fighters. The only class with enough hit points to survive a mountain being dropped on them.
Quote from: MGuy;558048Is this actual play experience or are you making this up? I can believe that the DM threw out the diplomacy rules (which I'm pretty sure exists in 2e) so that's not surprising but if we're going to go with tossing the rules out for the fighter to contribute that is something I already touched on. The rest sounds like you're positing that the fighter "could" have contributed by having those nonweapon proficiencies but in playing Ravenloft I have serious doubts that the fighter in your group would have. And this is an honest question, I'm not being sarcastic.
I was the GM. 2e has reaction adjustments which are used when the GM is not sure how potential foes would respond to player actions. There are no diplomacy rules that i can recall in the phb or DMG. All you have is chr and reaction adjustment (but the gm only uses the later when he is unsure, he is encouraged to go more by the players action). There is a nwp called ettiquette but all this does is let you know how to act in stuffy situations, you still have to roleplay out the interaction. So etiquette is a knowledge really.
Why do you doubt a fighter in ravenloft would have tracking. I ran ravenloft using 2e for ten years and there were plently of fighters with such NWPs. Its an investigation heavy setting so tracking is a common choice.
Quote from: MGuy;558055No there is no shifting. You're just missing parts. The REASON why they don't count is because they are not a measure of THE CLASS. Since we're talking about the CLASS we have to look at what the CLASS gives you. If we don't do that then any weakness the fighter has can be mitigated by saying "well if he has this magic sword and griffon mount then there's no problem". If we go down THAT road I could say "Well the Wizard goes off Giant hunting and charms his ass into the group so that they don't need a fighter anymore".
Their class abilities are geared toward fighting and they excel at that. This is enough. They certainly need to be able to do stuff out of combat, and this they can achieve by abilities available to them through NWPs. Some classes have access to those same abilities. That isn't an issue because their effectiveness is supposed to be in combat. This other stiff is just making sure they have access to a few noncombat skills as well. So not really seeing the issue. Again we are probably just coming from fifferent positions. Its late. I think i have humored you enough.
Quote from: MGuy;558058Gahh! Why can't you think BEYOND the rules! Obviously we lifted it up ABOVE the deadzone (in space) and dropped it like a meteor. God don't you read Dragonlance?
OK, then I trigger a
Warlock's Wheel on the floating castle and watch all its magic be dispelled.
What? You don't know what a
Warlock's Wheel is? Goddamnit man, don't you read any of Larry Niven's fantasy stories!? They are in Appendix N, after all.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;558060I was the GM. 2e has reaction adjustments which are used when the GM is not sure how potential foes would respond to player actions. There are no diplomacy rules that i can recall in the phb or DMG. All you have is chr and reaction adjustment (but the gm only uses the later when he is unsure, he is encouraged to go more by the players action). There is a nwp called ettiquette but all this does is let you know how to act in stuffy situations, you still have to roleplay out the interaction. So etiquette is a knowledge really.
Why do you doubt a fighter in ravenloft would have tracking. I ran ravenloft using 2e for ten years and there were plently of fighters with such NWPs. Its an investigation heavy setting so tracking is a common choice.
In 3e (and there may be a difference but I'm fairly sure is the same) wisdom was used for tracking (survival). I'd assume that the rogue would have more wisdom (as the scout) and thus be better at tracking. That and I've never heard a tale of a group that used the fighter as the tracker (for the stat dumping reasons I mentioned earlier). But cool, I can dig that the fighter can be useful in those and similar instances. My Ravenloft game (3e) had a lot of weird rules that prevented casters from doing a bunch of stuff (summoning, scrying and teleporting IIRC). but the game was basically kept ground floor and I like the spooky mist riddled style of horror game that Ravenloft does.
Thank you for answering my question though.
I keep reading a lot of crap from the Gaming Den guys about how ability scores are important for skills in 3.x and that is a conceptual error.
Looking at an initial range of 3-18 or even 1-20 for ability scores on character creation, this means a -5 to a +5 modifier. Meanwhile, the skill level itself overtakes even a -5 at 1st level for the classes who get only 2 skill points per level (8 at 1st level). So while ability scores help, they do not compare to the expenditure of actual skill points on the character.
Quote from: MGuy;558066In 3e (and there may be a difference but I'm fairly sure is the same) wisdom was used for tracking (survival). I'd assume that the rogue would have more wisdom (as the scout) and thus be better at tracking. That and I've never heard a tale of a group that used the fighter as the tracker (for the stat dumping reasons I mentioned earlier). But cool, I can dig that the fighter can be useful in those and similar instances. My Ravenloft game (3e) had a lot of weird rules that prevented casters from doing a bunch of stuff (summoning, scrying and teleporting IIRC). but the game was basically kept ground floor and I like the spooky mist riddled style of horror game that Ravenloft does.
Thank you for answering my question though.
The Tracking NWP does use Wisdom. There's little reason for a thief in 2E to have a good Wisdom score, aside from proficiencies - same for the fighter though, really. (both have IIRC a -6 penalty on Tracking compared to the Ranger - which also has a Wis minimum).
Different story again in 1st ed, where Track is just a ranger class feature.
I'm a bit weirded out by the idea that its not good enough for the fighter to be able to track/spot things/persuade people/gather info/whatever, that these have to be actively limited to the fighter and no one else for them to be viable?
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;558072I'm a bit weirded out by the idea that its not od enough for the fighter to be able to track/spot things/persuade people/gather info/whatever, that these have to be actively limited to the fighter and no one else for them to be viable?
That's practically my whole issue with this argument. If it's not a defined skill or weeboo power so it can't be attempted or done. It's pure gamist and rules lawyering crap. If you have a set big enough to refuse to let me try whatever I want regardless of what's written on my character sheet I have a middle finger and a pair of crutches just for you.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;558072The Tracking NWP does use Wisdom. There's little reason for a thief in 2E to have a good Wisdom score, aside from proficiencies - same for the fighter though, really. (both have IIRC a -6 penalty on Tracking compared to the Ranger - which also has a Wis minimum).
Different story again in 1st ed, where Track is just a ranger class feature.
I'm a bit weirded out by the idea that its not good enough for the fighter to be able to track/spot things/persuade people/gather info/whatever, that these have to be actively limited to the fighter and no one else for them to be viable?
Its not that it needs to be fighter exclusive. Its just that it needs to be something they can do to such a degree that any group wouldn't just relegate it to people who do it better (IE Rogue).
As for attribute bonuses and skills in 3E I'm not going to get into that. There are a BUNCH of problems with 3e's skill system. Attribute discrepancies v skill point allotment don't aren't even a big deal in my eyes.
Quote from: MGuy;558024I've never played older editions like 1E, 0E, and I'm not sure what edition Ad&D is.
:rotfl:
Yeah, I'm done here. See y'all in the funny papers.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;558087:rotfl:
Yeah, I'm done here. See y'all in the funny papers.
You sure? We have this great smiley now. Here, let me show you.
:popcorn:
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;558034Their primary function was fighting these things of course. I never suggested they had to excel at anything else. But fighters still contributed in key ways outside battle with things like tracking, survival and other non weapon proficiencies that they have access to. Because 2e doesn't lean as much on social skills, they also contributed to the investigation in general through RP. Again, we just take very different positions. I dont need their noncombat contributiins to be unique, nor do i need them to have special powers akin to wizards. .
I get yo want somekind of martial equivalent to teleport and divination. If that works for you great but it certainly isn't what I am looking.
This has been fun mguy but i really just have to conclude you are trolling.
You are right NWP help and I agree with you that the 2e Fighter is the most balanced (as I noted upthread) outside combat.
I also agree that they have the most relative power in combat, although the figther sub-classes all do better if you allow all figthers to specialise (as per CFHB) .
A personal fix I use for this is that all sub-classes can specialise but only the figther can specialise in more than one weapon.
BUT... MGuy has said that he wants teleporting wuxia figthers. I don;t think he said you need to want that he just says he wants to do it. So long as you agree he can do that then I really don't think the two fo you really have an argument.
Quote from: Rum Cove;558046Including intelligent weapons that can only be used by Fighters? Ones that give any number of magic abilities to by pass any scenario thrown at them.
So here we are assuming an intelligent sword, I think in 1e the base rule is only swords roll for Int, mileage may vary, that a thief can't use. So it would need to be a Two handed sword right?
And if so what about the fighter sub-classes. Remember MGuy isn't arguing about Paladins or Rangers, those are already magical figthers. He might want to bump them up a bit but basically he wants all figthers to play like that. An intelligent sword that only Fighters (not their subclasses) could use would be rare indeed...
Quote from: jibbajibba;558108So here we are assuming an intelligent sword, I think in 1e the base rule is only swords roll for Int, mileage may vary, that a thief can't use. So it would need to be a Two handed sword right?
And if so what about the fighter sub-classes. Remember MGuy isn't arguing about Paladins or Rangers, those are already magical figthers. He might want to bump them up a bit but basically he wants all figthers to play like that. An intelligent sword that only Fighters (not their subclasses) could use would be rare indeed...
er....
Table 114: Weapon alignment
d100 Alignment of Weapon
01-05: Chaotic good
06-15: Chaotic neutral
16-20: Chaotic evil
21-25: Neutral evil
26-30: Lawful evil
31-55: Lawful good
56-60: Lawful neutral
61-80: Neutral
81-100: Neutral good.
Both paladins and rangers may have some alignment restrictions to worry about here (at least in 2E; in 3E rangers can be evil).
Quote from: MGuy;558084Its not that it needs to be fighter exclusive. Its just that it needs to be something they can do to such a degree that any group wouldn't just relegate it to people who do it better (IE Rogue).
As for attribute bonuses and skills in 3E I'm not going to get into that. There are a BUNCH of problems with 3e's skill system. Attribute discrepancies v skill point allotment don't aren't even a big deal in my eyes.
I think I'm reaching my patience limit here as well. I will just say though, that who can do something 'better' in 2E doesn't necessarily boil down to a clear, class-based thing. Tracking is something the ranger is clearly best at, but secondly the fighter since it will cost a rogue more slots to buy.
Alot of the rest of the time a proficiency won't necessarily cover a situation: 'information gathering' might end up as the rogue's job if you need a halfling to stick in a box for awhile overhearing a conversation, the fighter's job if infiltrating some pirates calls for some really heavy drinking, or the cleric's job if they happen to be the only one in the party of the right race/gender to seduce the guard captain. Some fighter types might have sneaking (e.g. elves get improved surprise), while other fighters might have a fighter kit (e.g. swashbuckler or noble or whatnot) that gives them extra reaction bonuses, and so on and so forth. Its a lot more complicated than "oh you're a fighter? In the box until the combat music starts, jerkface".
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;558110er....
Table 114: Weapon alignment
d100 Alignment of Weapon
01-05: Chaotic good
06-15: Chaotic neutral
16-20: Chaotic evil
21-25: Neutral evil
26-30: Lawful evil
31-55: Lawful good
56-60: Lawful neutral
61-80: Neutral
81-100: Neutral good.
Both paladins and rangers may have some alignment restrictions to worry about here (at least in 2E; in 3E rangers can be evil).
Hehehe so we are now worrying about the corner case of a corner case :)
Well in reality any single figther is only going to have one alignment so any single figther is already restricted by alignment. If I am playing a chaotic good Fghter only 1 in 20 swords will be my precise alignment and if you are worried about good versus evil you will see that 15% of swords are evil, and 50% are good. This restriction really fucks up evil PCs and since the only AD&D PHB fighter classs that can be evil is the base fighter one would assume that this rule actually affects fighters more than Paladins or Rangers and its a bitch for the poor old assasin :)
But really its so marginal that it is not really worth focusing on.
I think MGuy would benefit from some clarification of the pre 3e Skills system for D&D
In AD&D there was an optional rule to allow PCs to roll at random a secondary occupation. This included stuff like sailor, craftsman, farmer etc. In play when a situation came up when this secondary profession would apply the DM would rule how effectively it could be used. So if the horses were panicking the fighter who had been a farmer could calm them. If the party were setting up a camp then the thief who had been a hunter could make a fire and catch dinner.
The system was vague and a bit handwavy but it was sufficient for a game that was supposed to be focused on exploring a dungeon.
As D&D evolved the concept of non-weapon proficiencies emerged. A simple skill system based on rolling under a stat , which had been the de facto way these things had always been done. The NWP system was codified in Oriental adventures and expanded in Unearthed Arcana, the Wilderness and Dungeoneers Survival guides.
At this point the figther did quite well they could now take mountaineering, tracking, riding landbased, riding flying , all sorts of skills outside of combat. They did well on the number of skills they could acquire and the lists were divided into class specific and general categories. There were some oddities, areas where skills and class abilites overlapped became an issue.
In 2e the system was marginally reworked and simplified. Where a class got a NWP like skill it was replaced with the skill but with bonuses, so the Ranger tracking rules were removed and replaced with the tracking skill with a +3 bonus etc. Some players didn't like NWP becoming core because it codified stuff they thought all 'adventurers' should be able to do. So suddenly you couldn't ride unless you have ride, you couldn't swim unless you had swim etc.. Also in 2e they moded the way skill progressed. Because skills also included languages they added the Int bonus for laguages to the number of proficencies and clerics and wizards who had had slow progression now got faster progression. The fighter was hit by this 2 fold , as they tended to have a lower Int stat, due to the most efficient way of sorting the stats, they tended to get less proficienies and the rate they acquired new ones dropped. The net result was usually that the wizard had more NWP than the figther until about 15th level but they would tend to be academic or knowledge based where as the fighter's were practical
Now the benefit of this was that the Fighter did have stuff they could do outside combat. In addition the 2e Kit system had the effect of basing the fighter in the game world and giving them a few more NWP slots.Through contextualising the fighter in the wider world more non combat options develop. The Peasant Hero can rouse the local serfs to help the party fortifiy a village or hide them in a hayloft, the Myrmidon has military experience, knows folks in power, has a knowledge of tactics (this is too vague). etc etc.
By putting roleplay to the front this process in effect removed the need to compare numbers and through it the fighter does become a more rounded PC.
So when Brendan and BSJ are talking about 2e this is the context they are refering to.
When you combine this and the fact that at low levels at least , and if you do not opt to allow war priests to specialise, Fighters are much tougher in combat than the other classes means that 2e Figthers are better balanced. I believe that the Ranger and Paladin overshadow them, and I also believe that at higher levels the casters take over, but these are really play styles. Brendan would say that figthers dominate early and wizards later so you have balance, BSJ would say that he is okay with good stats resulting in the ability to play tougher sub-classes.
I really think that 2e narrowed the gap between figther and wizard at high levels, it didn't fix wizards being poor at low levels and doesn't totally negate the widening gap past 9th but it's better than 1e in this regard.
Now none of that resolves your issue to want magical characters at all points but you have to conceed that that is a play option that does not appeal to everyone as indicated by this discussion.
Quote from: jibbajibba;558106BUT... MGuy has said that he wants teleporting wuxia figthers. I don;t think he said you need to want that he just says he wants to do it. So long as you agree he can do that then I really don't think the two fo you really have an argument.
I dont think he is saying I dont need to agree. I have already told him if he wants wuxia fighters, thats fine, and Ive said his dislike of the fighter is reasonable if he feels its lacking (i can see how someone might reach that conclusion). I even suggested using the martial arts system and class options form oriental adventures as a fix. But he seems to be insisting that my position is wrong and arguing agressively to prove it is wrong. Again, I could be misreading him. But I am getting a very different impression of his posts here.
Quote from: MGuy;558066In 3e (and there may be a difference but I'm fairly sure is the same) wisdom was used for tracking (survival). I'd assume that the rogue would have more wisdom (as the scout) and thus be better at tracking. That and I've never heard a tale of a group that used the fighter as the tracker (for the stat dumping reasons I mentioned earlier). But cool, I can dig that the fighter can be useful in those and similar instances. My Ravenloft game (3e) had a lot of weird rules that prevented casters from doing a bunch of stuff (summoning, scrying and teleporting IIRC). but the game was basically kept ground floor and I like the spooky mist riddled style of horror game that Ravenloft does.
Thank you for answering my question though.
2e ravenloft had many of the same spell restrictions. These weremmostly designed to enhance the mystery of the setting.
Edit: having DMd both 2e and 3e ravenloft, my observation is the 2e system plays much better for the intended feel of the setting. Something about 3e andhow it codefied so many social mechanics) really took away from the experience for me. The more gritty power levels of 2E are, I think, also a factor. I had been running ravenloft using 3E for years but decided to go back to 2e just for fun. I had noticed that my ravenloft games during the 3e era we lacking something but chalked it up to nostalgia. However the instant we switched to 2E, the sessions were just like before (and an enormous improvement). Much of this I attribute to players not leaning on social skills and instead focusing on RP---social skills dont force you not to roleplay, but even in a great of very solid roleplayers I think there is a natural tendancy to shift to third person when you make such rolls. At least, that was my observation.
In terms of a fighter having a good wisdom, it really boils down to his rolls. I think most players are not going to put their 18 in wis for a fighter (though I have seen that happen) but because its roll under even if they just put a 12 into wisdom, that isn't half bad (besides they can increase tracking by taking more ranks. So that 12 becomes a 14 if they put two nwp slots into it. Oe thing to keep in mind with 2e, the bonuses tend not to kick in as early as they do in 3e (and they are different for each stat). So you dont get a +1 hp from con until 15 (though it still impacts system shock and resurrection sutvival). Poison save bonus doesn't kick in till 19. So if I have a 14 and 10, am playing a fighter and debating which to put in Wis and which to put in Con, it may be a good choice to put the 14 in Wis if I know i want to take track. I will take a bit of a hit on system shock and resurrection but I think it would be a fair trade given how useful tracking is.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;558117I dont think he is saying I dont need to agree. I have already told him if he wants wuxia fighters, thats fine, and Ive said his dislike of the fighter is reasonable if he feels its lacking (i can see how someone might reach that conclusion). I even suggested using the martial arts system and class options form oriental adventures as a fix. But he seems to be insisting that my position is wrong and arguing agressively to prove it is wrong. Again, I could be misreading him. But I am getting a very different impression of his posts here.
I can see what you are saying I would probably move to discuss ways the fighter can be wuxia'd up as opposed to spliting hairs about what balance means which I think is where the two of you are at. (I personally have no interest in Wuxia'd fighters wanting my fighters to remain mundane, I expect you are in a similar position so the argument so the discussion may have reached an impasse).
I outlined the pre 3e skill model above as a way to try and demonstrate to MGuy the position which it is obvious from some of his posts he does not understand.
Quote from: jibbajibba;558115I think MGuy would benefit from some clarification of the pre 3e Skills system for D&D
.
I may have missed this in your post but also worth emphasizing that 2E was a very modular game. Skills were an optinional add-on and there were three approaches to choose from: secondary skills, NWPs, and using what you know (literally your character has your skills). Of these NWPs was the most fleshed out, and was so popular it pretty much became the default assumption of the game (I dont believe I ever played in a 2e campaign without NWPs).
Combat was similar there were optional rules for combat. There were multiple initiative systems, weapon type versus armor, weapon speed, parrying, etc. So the game could vary greatly depending on which optional rules the group used. The complete books added even more optional material. I haven't read the complete fighter in a while (just pulled it out to check Jibba's statement about rangers and paladins getting specialization). But would be happy to check it out and see what options it offers up that might satisfy some of mguy's concerns here (not sure if there will be satisfactory solutions in there, but I suspect he might like some of the maneuver options---i haven't used them in a while so I am fuzzy but some people seemed to like them).
Quote from: jibbajibba;558120I can see what you are saying I would probably move to discuss ways the fighter can be wuxia'd up as opposed to spliting hairs about what balance means which I think is where the two of you are at. (I personally have no interest in Wuxia'd fighters wanting my fighters to remain mundane, I expect you are in a similar position so the argument so the discussion may have reached an impasse).
I outlined the pre 3e skill model above as a way to try and demonstrate to MGuy the position which it is obvious from some of his posts he does not understand.
Okay. Fair enough. I do think in 2e, it might be possible just using the comlete fighter (see my other post), but would have to leaf through it again.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;558121I may have missed this in your post but also worth emphasizing that 2E was a very modular game. Skills were an optinional add-on and there were three approaches to choose from: secondary skills, NWPs, and using what you know (literally your character has your skills). Of these NWPs was the most fleshed out, and was so popular it pretty much became the default assumption of the game (I dont believe I ever played in a 2e campaign without NWPs).
Combat was similar there were optional rules for combat. There were multiple initiative systems, weapon type versus armor, weapon speed, parrying, etc. So the game could vary greatly depending on which optional rules the group used. The complete books added even more optional material. I haven't read the complete fighter in a while (just pulled it out to check Jibba's statement about rangers and paladins getting specialization). But would be happy to check it out and see what options it offers up that might satisfy some of mguy's concerns here (not sure if there will be satisfactory solutions in there, but I suspect he might like some of the maneuver options---i haven't used them in a while so I am fuzzy but some people seemed to like them).
One small issue of course is on how NWP work. The stat choice is often odd. So the use of Wisdom as perception is particularly odd. It means the Priest that gets Tracking is usually very much better than the Nomadic Figther horsearcher, for example. Same is true of horsemanship and a few others.
Quote from: jibbajibba;558127One small issue of course is on how NWP work. The stat choice is often odd. So the use of Wisdom as perception is particularly odd. It means the Priest that gets Tracking is usually very much better than the Nomadic Figther horsearcher, for example. Same is true of horsemanship and a few others.
There isn't an easy solution. Arguably the guy who wants to make a proper nomadic horse archer should be putting one of his high stats in WIS. Any nature oriented character kind of needs a high wisdom for those NWPs (fire building, riding, fishing, tracking, animal handling, hunting, direction sense, animal training are all wis). The odd one is survival which is intelligence.
Good description of how the skill system evolved I think, JJ
I'm pretty sure 2E is completely not MGuy's thing given that he likes strongly codified rules and higher power levels, but some historical context never hurts in understanding how a system got to where it is...I'm enjoying the tangent at any rate.
If we continued your story into 3E, then you see that skills move from have essentially fixed base chance (just stat checks) to being level-based. There are a couple of other important changes, though:
*Intelligence affects skill points per-level, rather than being once-off smaller bonus, and dramatically - the Int-8 fighter has 4 NWP slots at L1, vs. 5 for his Int-10 friend, while the same Int-8 fighter in 3E (unless they're human) is getting 1 point/level.
*skill checks are now a unified resolution mechanic for most game tasks. So you use Diplomacy to talk to people or Jump to jump things or Search to find stuff or whatever. 2E NWPs cover a smaller range of things. Hence often no NWP will cover a given situation and its down to ability checks or however else the GM wants to resolve things.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;558129There isn't an easy solution. Arguably the guy who wants to make a proper nomadic horse archer should be putting one of his high stats in WIS. Any nature oriented character kind of needs a high wisdom for those NWPs (fire building, riding, fishing, tracking, animal handling, hunting, direction sense, animal training are all wis). The odd one is survival which is intelligence.
Yeah that was the set of NWPs I was hinting at.
I guess it feeds the noble savage, wise indian, stereotype. I just don't Wisdom for a lot of that sort of stuff.
The end result is you may as well make the guy a Ranger :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;558131Yeah that was the set of NWPs I was hinting at.
I guess it feeds the noble savage, wise indian, stereotype. I just don't Wisdom for a lot of that sort of stuff.
The end result is you may as well make the guy a Ranger :)
I suppose ranger is a better bet. Unless you want the weapon specialization and go by the phb instead of the complete.
Quote from: Rum Cove;558042How does the Wizard reach the flying fortress if it's hovering over a magic dead zone?
Clearly, the Wizard is useless.
Still catching up, but really? How is the flying fortress hovering without magic?
Or are you just implying that there is a null-zone somewhere beneath it that the wizard is standing in RIGHT NOW, but he can walk 30 or 40' and then use his magic?
That's really what it comes down to, isn't it? The opposition is using magic, often without 'limitations'. The bad guys found whatever spells it was convenient for them to have, and have artifact level magic if it is convenient for them to have it. With the same narrative power that gives evil warlords access to flying fortresses, the DM could just as easily eliminate the ability of the Fighter to contribute - but not as easily the cleric or magic-user. Because if the bad guys are using magic, everyone else can use magic UNLESS it's somehow restricted to a single TYPE of magic that the heroes don't have. But basically, the DM is giving the bad guys lots of power but then being nice in making sure he doesn't completely eliminate the ability of certain classes to contribute - this is the definition of DM pity. And it's fine unless you see that's what's happening. Then it's insulting.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558138Still catching up, but really? How is the flying fortress hovering without magic?
Or are you just implying that there is a null-zone somewhere beneath it that the wizard is standing in RIGHT NOW, but he can walk 30 or 40' and then use his magic?
That's really what it comes down to, isn't it? The opposition is using magic, often without 'limitations'. The bad guys found whatever spells it was convenient for them to have, and have artifact level magic if it is convenient for them to have it. With the same narrative power that gives evil warlords access to flying fortresses, the DM could just as easily eliminate the ability of the Fighter to contribute - but not as easily the cleric or magic-user. Because if the bad guys are using magic, everyone else can use magic UNLESS it's somehow restricted to a single TYPE of magic that the heroes don't have. But basically, the DM is giving the bad guys lots of power but then being nice in making sure he doesn't completely eliminate the ability of certain classes to contribute - this is the definition of DM pity. And it's fine unless you see that's what's happening. Then it's insulting.
I always force my bad guys to use the same system the pcs do. I don't just declare there is a flying fortress unless the guy who made it used the right spells and magic items to do so (off the top of my head I don't know if that is feasible or not) or something really substantial like a god made it happen.
Either way, there are going to be opponents that the players face which could require magic or magic items to defeat. This might have the effect of making one class in that moment (most likely the theif or fighter, but possibly the cleric or wizard if they don't have the right spells) have little to contribute. There is nothing wrong with this happening once in a while in my opinion. That isn't the same as having a whole swath of the game (combat or non combat where they literally can't participate). For example if the players are fighting a werewolf, they need either a silver weapon, magic weapon or magic to overcome it. If only two members of the party have those things, the other players will find themselves strictly in a support role. THey might find things to do (research, tracking, helping a bit on the battle field but perhaps less directly). This makes it interesting more than anything else. I would much prefer these kinds of situations crop up once in a while than players to always be assured the same exact level of participation and shine in any given scenario.
Brendan, I don't care if you wuxia up fighters. I don't care if you batman/iron man them up so that they are guaranteed get their magic items with special abilities. Id on't care if you give them more NWPs. My "point" as it has always been from the beginning is "power disparity exists". In a number of my rants I've mentioned how I don't care how you fix it, my point is that its there. The stuff you list that the fighter can do is stuff everyone can do and is not a measure of the class, while other classes can do the stuff you listed plus stuff no one else can do. That is the power disparity. Your argument is that he can do stuff in combat no one else can do. The reason why I don't agree with that balance point is because every other class has a special thing in combat and therefore the fighter should reasonably get "something" unique to him outside of combat to be fair.
You keep re framing my argument such that I'm trying to force you into giving the fighter super powers. Logically him having super powers should be the way to go, but if you don't want to you don't have to because that's just one of many solutions to the disparity. That's the communication issue we're having here. The mention of NWPs (which I just knew as "skills") doesn't change the fact that everyone gets those meaning everyone can do those so none of them are "fighter" specific. None of those abilities are intrinsic to the CLASS and thus have to be removed from the discussion if we're to get to the heart of what "being a fighter" allows you to do.
At the heart of it being a fighter allows you to swing a sword. Albeit you're swinging the sword more often and perhaps with a few more +2s than anyone else but that's all the fighter has to call his own.
Holy shit, did this thread really get up to 2410 posts? :eek:
So what did you figure out after all this noise?
Quote from: MGuy;558158Brendan, I don't care if you wuxia up fighters. I don't care if you batman/iron man them up so that they are guaranteed get their magic items with special abilities. Id on't care if you give them more NWPs. My "point" as it has always been from the beginning is "power disparity exists". In a number of my rants I've mentioned how I don't care how you fix it, my point is that its there. The stuff you list that the fighter can do is stuff everyone can do and is not a measure of the class, while other classes can do the stuff you listed plus stuff no one else can do. That is the power disparity. Your argument is that he can do stuff in combat no one else can do. The reason why I don't agree with that balance point is because every other class has a special thing in combat and therefore the fighter should reasonably get "something" unique to him outside of combat to be fair.
You keep re framing my argument such that I'm trying to force you into giving the fighter super powers. Logically him having super powers should be the way to go, but if you don't want to you don't have to because that's just one of many solutions to the disparity. That's the communication issue we're having here. The mention of NWPs (which I just knew as "skills") doesn't change the fact that everyone gets those meaning everyone can do those so none of them are "fighter" specific. None of those abilities are intrinsic to the CLASS and thus have to be removed from the discussion if we're to get to the heart of what "being a fighter" allows you to do.
At the heart of it being a fighter allows you to swing a sword. Albeit you're swinging the sword more often and perhaps with a few more +2s than anyone else but that's all the fighter has to call his own.
Again, i understand your position. I know what your argument is. We simply dont agree on a lot of points. We have to agree to disagree at a certain stage of the discussion. Now I am just following Jibba's suggestion and trying to help you out by offering fixes. I guess I am not clear what you hope to get out of this discussion. Is your only goal for me to concede and say you are right about fighters in 2E and that you are right about the design principle we have been debating? If so that isn't going to happen. You have made your case, and I am not persuaded. I've laid out what I think 2e achieves in termsof balance and have said I am fine with it. Don't agree with your assesment of the 2e fighter and I don't even think we agree on what it means for a class to contribute. So, since we both know what the other concludes, since we both disagree, since we both (i believe) know why and on what points we disagree. The only way forward is to accept the disagreement. If you want to continue to discusspossible ways 3e or 2e might be fixed tp work for you, that is fine. Otherwise there is no reason to post.
Quote from: MGuy;558158. None of those abilities are intrinsic to the CLASS and thus have to be removed from the discussion if we're to get to the heart of what "being a fighter" allows you to do.
.
This isn't a therapy session. I dont agree those need ypto be taken off the table at all. I dont agree giving them magical like abilities is necessary. Bt I am hapoy to help you do those things if you feel it will make the fighter a workable class for you and your group. That is the only way this discussion goes anywhere with me.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;558129There isn't an easy solution. Arguably the guy who wants to make a proper nomadic horse archer should be putting one of his high stats in WIS. Any nature oriented character kind of needs a high wisdom for those NWPs (fire building, riding, fishing, tracking, animal handling, hunting, direction sense, animal training are all wis). The odd one is survival which is intelligence.
I'm not too familiar with 2e, but if I were rolling a fighter in 1e, My highest roll would go in strength, then the 2nd highest would go in wisdom, unless it was a 17 or higher. A 16 con is 18 hit points at 9th level. That's one wack from a nasty critter. A 16 wis, on the other hand, is +2 to saves on all mental based spells and attacks. Trust me, you do not want the guy with +6 damage to get charmed, etc.
Quote from: JRR;558177I'm not too familiar with 2e, but if I were rolling a fighter in 1e, My highest roll would go in strength, then the 2nd highest would go in wisdom, unless it was a 17 or higher. A 16 con is 18 hit points at 9th level. That's one wack from a nasty critter. A 16 wis, on the other hand, is +2 to saves on all mental based spells and attacks. Trust me, you do not want the guy with +6 damage to get charmed, etc.
I always went Str/Wis/Con/Dex/Chr/Int unless I was going with an Elven F/MU.
Quote from: JRR;558177I'm not too familiar with 2e, but if I were rolling a fighter in 1e, My highest roll would go in strength, then the 2nd highest would go in wisdom, unless it was a 17 or higher. A 16 con is 18 hit points at 9th level. That's one wack from a nasty critter. A 16 wis, on the other hand, is +2 to saves on all mental based spells and attacks. Trust me, you do not want the guy with +6 damage to get charmed, etc.
Remember though, that 18 hp might not be much in 3e or 4e, but it was pretty significant in 1e. For a 9th level fighter with average hp rolls, it's the difference between 50 and 68 hp, or a whopping 28% increase. And just as importantly, don't forget about system shock rolls. Since the fighter is on the front line, odds are he is going to be the recipient of more critical attacks than anyone else. You don't want a low system shock % there.
Its probably also worth mentioning that some people rolled straight down and just took what they got (in which case you may find yourself selecting some unexpected NWPs) and others would assign stats based on charact personality and background (without worrying too much about effectiveness). I think in 2e this last one was especially common (at least in many of the groups I played with).
This has certainly been a thread.
Some random thoughts:
Even for action movies, wu xia is ridiculously over the top. There is an excluded middle between Flesh & Blood and Zu: Warriors of the Magic Mountain, though. A lot of Japanese chambara and some of the more recent anime set during the Meiji restoration shows samurai using sword techniques that are superhuman but not splashy. The animated film The Flight of Dragons has a scene in which a mundane knight errant walks through a dragon's breath weapon unharmed by virtue of his faith in the rightness of his cause. In a world as soaked with gonzo magic as the implied D&D setting, it doesn't seem unreasonable that skilled and experienced fighters would have some unique counter-charms or secret techniques that would let them contend with magical opponents.
Earthdawn and (IIRC) the Weapons of Legacy books had the concept of a signature weapon that grew in power and abilities with its wielder, becoming a unique magic weapon that could only be used to its fullest potential by the warrior who'd carried it through all its trials. There's a bit of this in the Vlad Taltos novels as well.
Mythology is full of examples of heroes who gained permanent superhuman power through unique magic items gained via their own signature quests: Herakles and the skin of the Nemean Lion, Thor and Mjolnir, Marduk and his weapons, etc. This doesn't need to mean all Fighters get to be demigods out of myth; a book I'm reading now has a character who becomes known as a great Sword-Thane by slaying two icewyrms in their cavern, but they bleed so much in dying that their blood floods the cavern, forcing the warrior to tread water in it for three days until it seeps away. The prolonged exposure to the blood stains his skin a purplish-blue and gives him skin impervious to cold and normal weapons.
I think the 3.x Fighter class is entirely too mundane by comparison to the other base classes; replacing it with something with more flavour and more power while maintaining the primary up-close beatdown nature of the class would improve things.
An idle thought: What if, as a Fighter class feature, Fighters had something called Imbue Self and/or Imbue Weapon, which would allow them to expend XP for permanent enchantments to either their weapons, armour, equipment, or themselves? This would probably require a Great Quest of some kind, or a least a Great Deed. This allows the Fighters to perform on an even footing with the other classes, keeps their powers unique to the Fighter class, and gives the option of having a power that can never be taken away, should they choose Imbue Self.
Quote from: MGuy;558158Brendan, I don't care if you wuxia up fighters. I don't care if you batman/iron man them up so that they are guaranteed get their magic items with special abilities. Id on't care if you give them more NWPs. My "point" as it has always been from the beginning is "power disparity exists". In a number of my rants I've mentioned how I don't care how you fix it, my point is that its there. The stuff you list that the fighter can do is stuff everyone can do and is not a measure of the class, while other classes can do the stuff you listed plus stuff no one else can do. That is the power disparity. Your argument is that he can do stuff in combat no one else can do. The reason why I don't agree with that balance point is because every other class has a special thing in combat and therefore the fighter should reasonably get "something" unique to him outside of combat to be fair.
You keep re framing my argument such that I'm trying to force you into giving the fighter super powers. Logically him having super powers should be the way to go, but if you don't want to you don't have to because that's just one of many solutions to the disparity. That's the communication issue we're having here. The mention of NWPs (which I just knew as "skills") doesn't change the fact that everyone gets those meaning everyone can do those so none of them are "fighter" specific. None of those abilities are intrinsic to the CLASS and thus have to be removed from the discussion if we're to get to the heart of what "being a fighter" allows you to do.
At the heart of it being a fighter allows you to swing a sword. Albeit you're swinging the sword more often and perhaps with a few more +2s than anyone else but that's all the fighter has to call his own.
The highlighted part isn't true. In the 2e and indeed the late 1e NWP systems skills are divided into categories based on class you can by skills from another class group but it cost double and so its rarely done espeically because a skill like tracking is a 2 slot skill so for say a Wizard to take tracking would cost them 4 slots and they get 3 at first level (+ int bonus) so would be unlikely to take it.
Now I for one have no wish to ban skills from certain groups. I beleive niche protection, which is really what this part of the discussion boils down to in design parlance, can be achieved through weighting the costs of skills. I argued this strongly in the 5e thief thread where I proposed using the thief to indroduce a unified skill system which old school player could just use for stealth, open locs, climb walls etc or aas an option open it up to a full skill list open to all classes and allow wizards to buy stealth but at twice the cost of theives and give thieves more skill points a majority of which they
must spend from the thief skill list. (the OSR guys didn't like it as it was too new fangled I guess and they opted for yes you guessed it exactly like 1e as the best system for theives skills :) )
So I have no problem if the Ranger gets track for free and so can boost his skill with extra points, if the fighter can buy it quite cheap, and if the Wizard can buy it but forsake a heap of other skills and find it hard to improve as a result. I think this makes the Fighter specific NWPs pass muster as being significantly weighted towards the class.
Now you have to understand that the logical extension of this idea is that any class can do anythign at a cost. I don't liek BRP for fantasy because it feels bland to me (no idea why I love it for modern and CoC) but I don't mind you trying to make a Fighter into a wizard by buying very expensive spell skills. Skill and Powers for 2e tried this in possibly the worst set of rule that were produced upto 4e but the idea is sound and I linked to a better online iteration upthread.
My own heartbreaker allows fighters to buy casting and magic but it costs more than 4 times the expenditure that a caster would make so if you want that partical combination there are better ways. My heartbreaker is specifically built wiht a S&S feel though which means that the magicians are magical and the warriors and theives are generally very mundane and there are no hybrids excpet where someone has set out deliberately to take that path.
Quote from: daniel_ream;558188This has certainly been a thread.
Some random thoughts:
Even for action movies, wu xia is ridiculously over the top. There is an excluded middle between Flesh & Blood and Zu: Warriors of the Magic Mountain, though. A lot of Japanese chambara and some of the more recent anime set during the Meiji restoration shows samurai using sword techniques that are superhuman but not splashy. The animated film The Flight of Dragons has a scene in which a mundane knight errant walks through a dragon's breath weapon unharmed by virtue of his faith in the rightness of his cause. In a world as soaked with gonzo magic as the implied D&D setting, it doesn't seem unreasonable that skilled and experienced fighters would have some unique counter-charms or secret techniques that would let them contend with magical opponents.
Earthdawn and (IIRC) the Weapons of Legacy books had the concept of a signature weapon that grew in power and abilities with its wielder, becoming a unique magic weapon that could only be used to its fullest potential by the warrior who'd carried it through all its trials. There's a bit of this in the Vlad Taltos novels as well.
Mythology is full of examples of heroes who gained permanent superhuman power through unique magic items gained via their own signature quests: Herakles and the skin of the Nemean Lion, Thor and Mjolnir, Marduk and his weapons, etc. This doesn't need to mean all Fighters get to be demigods out of myth; a book I'm reading now has a character who becomes known as a great Sword-Thane by slaying two icewyrms in their cavern, but they bleed so much in dying that their blood floods the cavern, forcing the warrior to tread water in it for three days until it seeps away. The prolonged exposure to the blood stains his skin a purplish-blue and gives him skin impervious to cold and normal weapons.
I think the 3.x Fighter class is entirely too mundane by comparison to the other base classes; replacing it with something with more flavour and more power while maintaining the primary up-close beatdown nature of the class would improve things.
An idle thought: What if, as a Fighter class feature, Fighters had something called Imbue Self and/or Imbue Weapon, which would allow them to expend XP for permanent enchantments to either their weapons, armour, equipment, or themselves? This would probably require a Great Quest of some kind, or a least a Great Deed. This allows the Fighters to perform on an even footing with the other classes, keeps their powers unique to the Fighter class, and gives the option of having a power that can never be taken away, should they choose Imbue Self.
Always been a Flesh and Blood man myself 'Next', but a well made point.
I can see in a 3e world where everyone is wuxia's up the yazoo the fighter is bland. Much as I loathe them do the multiclassing rules fix this easily? Or is it a case of a 9th level fighter with 2 levels of Wizard is still a bit crap?
I like the mythic idea of the imbued fighters. It feels quite Beowulfian would like that to be randomly rolled and have a flavour of the old 1e mixed potions or random magic pools about it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;558113Hehehe so we are now worrying about the corner case of a corner case :)
Example of corner case of a corner case: A Wizard with access to ALL spells at ALL times.
Just my $0.02, but I think it's not a good idea to talk about the fighter in this context and take way the magical items.
In the earlier editions at least, the fighter was designed with the intent having these magical items. To take those away arbitrarily hamstrings the class from the way it was designed to be, and I find that a bit disingenuous. Might as well take away the spellbook from a MU.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;558203Just my $0.02, but I think it's not a good idea to talk about the fighter in this context and take way the magical items.
In the earlier editions at least, the fighter was designed with the intent having these magical items. To take those away arbitrarily hamstrings the class from the way it was designed to be, and I find that a bit disingenuous. Might as well take away the spellbook from a MU.
The fighter can keep his equipment that is necessary for him to use his class abilities. Its when people start assuming he gets full plate of etherealness that I start shaking my head. Otherwise the arbitrary +1s and 2 are fine by me. I'd expect the same for other classes. None of my FFoD scenario assumed any magic items for anyone involved.
As for semi exclusive NWPs the case can be made that since it costs more to actually get them, it gives the fighter the advantage in cherry picking skills no one else on the team has.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;558187Its probably also worth mentioning that some people rolled straight down and just took what they got (in which case you may find yourself selecting some unexpected NWPs) and others would assign stats based on charact personality and background (without worrying too much about effectiveness). I think in 2e this last one was especially common (at least in many of the groups I played with).
I am very much from the last camp but I was sometimes irked that things worked as they did.
I would never assign stats for CharOp purposes by the way just as a feel for the chanracter. If you are playing Jaimie Lannister then his Chr is more important than is Constitution and his Wisdom really has to be your lowest stat.
As an aside for old school D&D you might want to up the criticality of Charisma due to reactions and henchmen. The best fights of course being the ones you don't have to fight and the guy with the gang winning.
These are my stats for Rask in Drohem's current 2e game.
Str : 18 (35%)
Dex: 19 (later dropped to 18 due to the curse)
Con: 9
Wis: 9
Int: 12
Chr: 14
From these numbers 11 ; 9 ; 17 ; 12 ; 14 ; 18 with a +2 dex and -2 Wis for race.
Now I chose Rakasha fighter - straight no subclass before I rolled as I had a character concept but once I read it I nearly changed my mind because it's really over powered and has a marginal weakness versus some awesomly tough benefits. So I am playing him naive and trusting which for me is a stetch.
That altered the concept as the original concept of a more world wearly veteran would have been too tough.
Now with those numbers I could have been a Human Paladin and still had 18 Strength but its all about the roleplay right :)
Quote from: MGuy;558204The fighter can keep his equipment that is necessary for him to use his class abilities. Its when people start assuming he gets full plate of etherealness that I start shaking my head. Otherwise the arbitrary +1s and 2 are fine by me. I'd expect the same for other classes. None of my FFoD scenario assumed any magic items for anyone involved.
.
So you're shafting the fighter based on your own arbitrary bullshit beliefs? That's on you, not the fighter nor on how the fighter was designed with the assumption of what items he or she would have. As has been pointed out at least once (I know because I've said it in this thread), by the time a fighter reaches name level, he or she is going to have some of those uber magical items. Just look at the published adventure modules and magic item lists for levels 9-14.
Quote from: Rum Cove;558200Example of corner case of a corner case: A Wizard with access to ALL spells at ALL times.
So you think its more common in any version of D&D for a Paladin to find an intelligent magical sword he can't use because of its alignment than it is for a wizard to have a broad and useful selection of spells.... really ? I mean really ? Even if you let them pick just one per level as Ben stated you can do from some obsure rule in the DMG?
You play some funny old games mate.
Quote from: jibbajibba;558211You play some funny old games mate.
It's true. My group has managed to play every edition for the duration of it's publication cycle without any problems. Clearly, we are a corner case of a corner case.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;558208So you're shafting the fighter based on your own arbitrary bullshit beliefs? That's on you, not the fighter nor on how the fighter was designed with the assumption of what items he or she would have. As has been pointed out at least once (I know because I've said it in this thread), by the time a fighter reaches name level, he or she is going to have some of those uber magical items. Just look at the published adventure modules and magic item lists for levels 9-14.
Actually I was just reading the Fighters in the Rogue's gallery and .... no not so much
Take Phoebus for example... (the guy that got reinced as a Lizard man)
10th Level Fighter
Magic items -
+1 sword
+1 Trident
2 figurines of wonderous power (gold lions)
Bracers of defence AC 3
Bag of Holding
Ring of Fire resistance.
Or Arrarat
8th level fighter
+4 defender
+1 Shield
Scroll of protection from magic
Scroll of protection from undead
Potion of Speed
Potion of giant Str
Potion of red Dragon control
Potion of heroism
He would beat that Read Dragon from upthread though :)
Not exactly an aladin's cave is it.
But we have been through this section of the debate and there is never goign to be an agreement . Some players like their characters to have neat stuff and some prefer their characters to be stand alone and rely on their own skills.
I am from the later camp and have gimped myself deliberately dumping items that spolit the character concept.
However unless you move to a 4e entitlement paradigm where unless you have magic items worth XXX by the time you are YYY level you can acuse the DM of cheating you, you can not rely on magic items.
Remember haw we all spent all those wasted hours explaining to AM et al that magic items are to be found through play and are in the fief of the DM and not something you should gain automatically or be able to buy in a shop.....
Quote from: Rum Cove;558212It's true. My group has managed to play every edition for the duration of it's publication cycle without any problems. Clearly, we are a corner case of a corner case.
We stopped at 2e :)
So maybe its us :D
Quote from: Melan;558159Holy shit, did this thread really get up to 2410 posts? :eek:
So what did you figure out after all this noise?
I learned there is no actual middle ground to be found.
Quote from: jibbajibba;558214Actually I was just reading the Fighters in the Rogue's gallery and .... no not so much .
I'm not talking about Rogue's Gallery where they are just a bunch of thrown together NPCs. I'm talking about the actual modules that characters adventured through between levels 9-14.
QuoteHowever unless you move to a 4e entitlement paradigm where unless you have magic items worth XXX by the time you are YYY level you can acuse the DM of cheating you, you can not rely on magic items.
4e's option of inherent bonuses are a big help in mitigating this.
QuoteI learned there is no actual middle ground to be found.
I uninfortunately think you may be correct at least with Denner's.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;558208So you're shafting the fighter based on your own arbitrary bullshit beliefs? That's on you, not the fighter nor on how the fighter was designed with the assumption of what items he or she would have. As has been pointed out at least once (I know because I've said it in this thread), by the time a fighter reaches name level, he or she is going to have some of those uber magical items. Just look at the published adventure modules and magic item lists for levels 9-14.
Thanks for taking my comment and reading it in the worst way possible. No, I do not expect any group to go through the game without goodies. I said earlier in the thread when someone posited a situation where the Gm arbitrarily dropped a bunch of scrolls of magic mouth on me (as a wizard) and the fighter got armor of etherealness and this was not only to be accepted but was the expectation for Ad+D that its even more reason for me to not like it.
I expect people to get goodies but the goodies they may/may not does not tell me about the class's abilities.
Quote from: Marleycat;558220I uninfortunately think you may be correct at least with Denner's.
Blissfully ignoring people who are not from the Den and the fact that I want to burn the candle from both ends. Another Tally for Double Standards.
Quote from: MGuy;558221Thanks for taking my comment and reading it in the worst way possible.
Taking it the worst possible way? Dude, you said that in the context of comparing power levels between fighters and MUs, you're OK with the fighter having minor magical items at high levels but not powerful magical items, which is an assumption the game was designed around.
You know, if you're finding that most everyone is always "taking you in the most negative way", maybe it's you and not everyone else around you that's the problem.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;558219I'm not talking about Rogue's Gallery where they are just a bunch of thrown together NPCs. I'm talking about the actual modules that characters adventured through between levels 9-14.
Dude I am talking about the personalities in the Rogues galleries. Bigby, Tenser, Robilar, you know the actual PCs of the guys that actually sat with Uncle Gary and ate pizza and listened to his disembodied voice from behind the filing cabinet... some thrown together NPCs .... shame on you....
Actually now I get to Robilar, the highest level PC in Greyhawk I see he is pretty pimped
15th level fighter
Girdle of Storm Giant Strength
+3 Sword
+3 Plate Mail
+3 shield
+1 Bow
Flying carpet
Ring of spell Turning
Ring of Invisibility
I suspect your 15th level PC would have his 3rd assistant under butler kitted out like this though :D
Random NPCs ... shakes head
Quote from: MGuy;558222Blissfully ignoring people who are not from the Den and the fact that I want to burn the candle from both ends. Another Tally for Double Standards.
Not ignoring you just making an observation. We disagree and I don't agree with your premises so I choose not to argue about it.
MGuy,
Clearly they think that if you don't care for 2nd edition, you're from the Gaming Den. You've been registered here since April of 2011 (that's 17 months for those that aren't mathematically inclined).
Likewise, I myself have posted at the RPGSite nearly as long and as often as I've posted at the Gaming Den - not my regular haunt, either. I'm an Archivist, if it matters.
But MarleyCat uses the den as a derogative for people who analyze game features. Benoist doesn't like those people, either - the game is for playing - only. Heaven forbid that you only have your gaming friends over once each week and spend any time outside of that discussing gaming. Remind me, why are any of us here?
Oh yeah, because we DO talk about gaming when we're not actually playing. But I think this was a lost cause from the beginning - not because you're not objectively right (there is a power disparity and most people have FINALLY acknowledged it) but because some people are worried that if they admit it to YOU - a DENNER (even if you're not) that will somehow allow you to magically transform the Fighter in their 1st or 2nd edition games into a Shadowlord.
Or maybe they worry their players will realize that the cool 'full-plate of etherealness' that they inisted the Fighter get and not the cleric was DM Pity and will start wanting to play a game where their abilities and how smart they play actually make a difference.
Quote from: Benoist;558218I learned there is no actual middle ground to be found.
I'm pretty Middle-y.
My position can be summed up as -
there is an imbalance but I don't care.....
and it's your table so its up to you if you want Wuxia or Game of Thrones.....
surely these are fairly medium positions to adopt.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558229MGuy,
Clearly they think that if you don't care for 2nd edition, you're from the Gaming Den. You've been registered here since April of 2011 (that's 17 months for those that aren't mathematically inclined).
Likewise, I myself have posted at the RPGSite nearly as long and as often as I've posted at the Gaming Den - not my regular haunt, either. I'm an Archivist, if it matters.
But MarleyCat uses the den as a derogative for people who analyze game features. Benoist doesn't like those people, either - the game is for playing - only. Heaven forbid that you only have your gaming friends over once each week and spend any time outside of that discussing gaming. Remind me, why are any of us here?
Oh yeah, because we DO talk about gaming when we're not actually playing. But I think this was a lost cause from the beginning - not because you're not objectively right (there is a power disparity and most people have FINALLY acknowledged it) but because some people are worried that if they admit it to YOU - a DENNER (even if you're not) that will somehow allow you to magically transform the Fighter in their 1st or 2nd edition games into a Shadowlord.
Or maybe they worry their players will realize that the cool 'full-plate of etherealness' that they inisted the Fighter get and not the cleric was DM Pity and will start wanting to play a game where their abilities and how smart they play actually make a difference.
Or maybe I just can't keep track who is from where in this abortion of a thread? Could be. Basically I agree with MGuy about 3x but Dnd is more than 3x and alot of the solution to 3x is to go back to previous and add in the limits on spellcasters and restoring fighters back to what they used to have at the same time. From there then we can talk specifics.
Quote from: jibbajibba;558224Dude I am talking about the personalities in the Rogues galleries. Bigby, Tenser, Robilar, you know the actual PCs of the guys that actually sat with Uncle Gary and ate pizza and listened to his disembodied voice from behind the filing cabinet... some thrown together NPCs .... shame on you....
Shame on me? Shame on you for not noticing that the Rogue's gallery was not written by the guys who actually played most of those characters. Do you think Blume had Mordinkainen's character sheet in front of him?
Besides of which, that wasn't the point. 99% of players didn't play in Gary's campaign. They played the modules. And in those modules, there was plenty of uber gear. This is the third time I've said this; I'm not sure why you've continued to not acknowledge it. Who cares how Gary played. When talking about the chances of a name level fighter having uber gear, you have to look at how the majority of people played the game.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;558237Shame on me? Shame on you for not noticing that the Rogue's gallery was not written by the guys who actually played most of those characters. Do you think Blume had Mordinkainen's character sheet in front of him?
Besides of which, that wasn't the point. 99% of players didn't play in Gary's campaign. They played the modules. And in those modules, there was plenty of uber gear. This is the third time I've said this; I'm not sure why you've continued to not acknowledge it. Who cares how Gary played. When talking about the chances of a name level fighter having uber gear, you have to look at how the majority of people played the game.
A fair point I guess though Talbot I cited uptread was Dave Cook's PC and he and Jean Wells who's character is also in the book are sited as contributors to the book and I guess since Blume was working in TSR when he wrote it in '79 that he could have you know asked Gary, "Hey Gary what were Mordenkainen's stats mate?" but I guess we will never know.
I would suggest that since it was an offical product that it is supposed to give some indication of the level of power you might expect to find from some high level PCs ...
I always disliked official adventures mainly because I thought they were a bit crap but also because it was deemed bad form to have to rely on the imagination of others, just a group thing I reckon.
Out of interest how pimped are the Tournament charaters from say the A series (that was 9th+ wasn't it). Do you have it handy? I am genuinely curious.
Quote from: jibbajibba;558239Out of interest how pimped are the Tournament charaters from say the A series (that was 9th+ wasn't it). Do you have it handy? I am genuinely curious.
I don't have them handy, but I know that there were some really powerful items in Against the Giants (a +4 sword was one), ToEE (an intelligent frost brand or flame strike, I can't recall), Lost Caverns of Tsocanthghslkdhgite had a hugely powerful artifact, several players found a way to escape White Plume Mountain with Whelm, Blackrazor, and Wave.
But I don't have them handy at the moment. I would also posit that tourney NPCs would have less items than a PC because they were designed for tourney purposes, and scoring was based on how far you went, not that you were ever expected to beat the module. I mean, what 7th level character only had 3 magic items? Oh, and the A series was level 4-7.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;558223Taking it the worst possible way? Dude, you said that in the context of comparing power levels between fighters and MUs, you're OK with the fighter having minor magical items at high levels but not powerful magical items, which is an assumption the game was designed around.
You know, if you're finding that most everyone is always "taking you in the most negative way", maybe it's you and not everyone else around you that's the problem.
Dude, read the post you are quoting me from. Read what I quoted from you:
Quote from: SacSo you're shafting the fighter based on your own arbitrary bullshit beliefs? That's on you, not the fighter nor on how the fighter was designed with the assumption of what items he or she would have. As has been pointed out at least once (I know because I've said it in this thread), by the time a fighter reaches name level, he or she is going to have some of those uber magical items. Just look at the published adventure modules and magic item lists for levels 9-14.
You accused me of shafting the fighter for arbitrary reasons and that they WILL have good gear at higher levels. You said that in response to this:
QuoteThe fighter can keep his equipment that is necessary for him to use his class abilities. Its when people start assuming he gets full plate of etherealness that I start shaking my head. Otherwise the arbitrary +1s and 2 are fine by me. I'd expect the same for other classes. None of my FFoD scenario assumed any magic items for anyone involved.
The fact that you think I'm shafting JUST THE FIGHTER when I make a scenario that has ALL classes devoid of magical equipment indicates that on some level you KNOW that only the FIGHTER is the MOST shafted if you take away anything that isn't necessary to allow him to operate. A wizard NEEDS his spell book in order to operate his class abilities, a cleric NEEDS his focus in order to operate his class abilities, a fighter merely NEEDS his +X number equipment to use his class abilities. So in a situation where all the classes get the base shit they need to operate even YOU can see the fighter gets hosed.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;558203Just my $0.02, but I think it's not a good idea to talk about the fighter in this context and take way the magical items.
In the earlier editions at least, the fighter was designed with the intent having these magical items. To take those away arbitrarily hamstrings the class from the way it was designed to be, and I find that a bit disingenuous. Might as well take away the spellbook from a MU.
Or, actually enforce the memorization rules. :)
Quote from: StormBringer;558246Or, actually enforce the memorization rules. :)
"The MU is way overpowered over the fighter even in 1e, so the rules are broken!"
"Hmmm...I notice that you're ignoring spell components, spell interrupts, granting auto success to learn new spells, and you let the player choose new spells at every level rather than find new spellbooks."
"Yeah, like I said, rules are broken, the MU is way overpowered."
:banghead:
Quote from: Sacrosanct;558248"The MU is way overpowered over the fighter even in 1e, so the rules are broken!"
"Hmmm...I notice that you're ignoring spell components, spell interrupts, granting auto success to learn new spells, and you let the player choose new spells at every level rather than find new spellbooks."
"Yeah, like I said, rules are broken, the MU is way overpowered."
:banghead:
+1
I'm not even going to try to make a list of spell components, so let's run the memorization numbers in 1st edition AD&D for those who started out with 3.x:
10th level Magic-User spell load out:
1st: 4
2nd: 4
3rd: 3
4th: 2
5th: 2Doesn't really matter what the spells are.
So, the MU goes nova at some point. Highest level spell to regain is 5th level, so that requires a minimum of 8hrs uninterrupted rest. That's just the sleeping part, folks. After the MU wakes up, they must then spend 15mins
per spell level re-memorizing
each spell.
1st: 1hr
2nd: 2hrs
3rd: 2hrs 15mins
4th: 2hrs
5th: 2hrs 30minsJust shy of another 10hrs to re-memorize all the spells (9hrs, 45mins).
That's why the grognards look at people funny when they talk about a 15min workday, or the amazing Magic-User that replaces all the other characters. Sure, I could probably pick a good load-out that would minimize or negate the other players, but then who is going to stand watch while my MU sleeps and studies the better part of the next day away?
15th level is even worse (obviously):
1st: 5
2nd: 5
3rd: 5
4th: 5
5th: 5
6th: 2
7th: 1
The highest level spell is 7th, and that requires 10hrs of rest.
1st: 1hr 15mins
2nd: 2hrs 30mins
3rd: 3hrs 45mins
4th: 5hrs
5th: 6hrs 15mins
6th: 3hrs
7th: 1hr 45mins
Grand total: 23hrs 30mins.
After the 10hrs of rest.
That's why you are having problems with your 3.x Fighters, Denners. I don't know how many times I got into arguments with the other players back in the day about casting spells. We didn't just fritter away even a
knock spell without a damn good reason.
And in case you are salivating over a potential loophole, those exact numbers apply to all casters. Magic-Users, Illusionists, Clerics and Druids. That includes Rangers and Paladins.
Quote from: StormBringer;558256+1
I'm not even going to try to make a list of spell components, so let's run the memorization numbers for those who started out with 3.x:
10th level Magic-User spell load out:
1st: 4
2nd: 4
3rd: 3
4th: 2
5th: 2
So, the MU goes nova at some point. Highest level spell to regain is 5th level, so that requires a minimum of 8hrs uninterrupted rest. That's just the sleeping part, folks. After the MU wakes up, they must then spend 15mins per spell level re-memorizing each spell.
1st: 1hr
2nd: 2hrs
3rd: 2hrs 15mins
4th: 2hrs
5th: 2hrs 30mins
That's why the grognards look at people funny when they talk about a 15min workday, or the amazing Magic-User that replaces all the other characters. Sure, I could probably pick a good load-out that would minimize or negate the other players, but then who is going to stand watch while my MU sleeps and studies the better part of the next day away?
15th level is even worse (obviously):
1st: 5
2nd: 5
3rd: 5
4th: 5
5th: 5
6th: 2
7th: 1
1st: 1hr 15mins
2nd: 2hrs 30mins
3rd: 3hrs 45mins
4th: 5hrs
5th: 6hrs 15mins
6th: 3hrs
7th: 1hr 45mins
That's why you are having problems with your 3.x Fighters, Denners. I don't know how many times I got into arguments with the other players back in the day about casting spells. We didn't just fritter away even a knock spell without a damn good reason.
And in case you are salivating over a potential loophole, those exact numbers apply to all casters. Magic-Users, Illusionists, Clerics and Druids. That includes Rangers and Paladins.
Actually from the 3.5 SRD
QuotePreparation Environment: To prepare any spell, a wizard must have enough peace, quiet, and comfort to allow for proper concentration. The wizard’s surroundings need not be luxurious, but they must be free from overt distractions. Exposure to inclement weather prevents the necessary concentration, as does any injury or failed saving throw the character might experience while studying. Wizards also must have access to their spellbooks to study from and sufficient light to read them by. There is one major exception: A wizard can prepare a read magic spell even without a spellbook.
Spell Preparation Time: After resting, a wizard must study her spellbook to prepare any spells that day. If she wants to prepare all her spells, the process takes 1 hour. Preparing some smaller portion of her daily capacity takes a proportionally smaller amount of time, but always at least 15 minutes, the minimum time required to achieve the proper mental state.
Spell Selection and Preparation: Until she prepares spells from her spellbook, the only spells a wizard has available to cast are the ones that she already had prepared from the previous day and has not yet used. During the study period, she chooses which spells to prepare. If a wizard already has spells prepared (from the previous day) that she has not cast, she can abandon some or all of them to make room for new spells.
When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, she can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of her spells.
Minimum time 15 minutes maximum time 1 hour plus 8 hours sleep.
Quote from: Marleycat;558261Actually from the 3.5 SRD Minimum time 15 minutes maximum time 1 hour plus 8 hours sleep.
And there is the problem.
I was showing the numbers from the 1st edition DMG, I should have been clearer. I will edit the previous post and make note of that.
Quote from: StormBringer;558263And there is the problem.
I was showing the numbers from the 1st edition DMG, I should have been clearer. I will edit the previous post and make note of that.
You are right as far as 1/2e and it just shows ANOTHER problem with 3x.
Quote from: StormBringer;558256Grand total: 23hrs 30mins. After the 10hrs of rest.
N00b. Wizards don't need all those spells, as soon as the first Wizard casts Charm Monster, it makes every Fighter throughout the entire world irrelevant, don't you remember?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558229MGuy,
Clearly they think that if you don't care for 2nd edition, you're from the Gaming Den. You've been registered here since April of 2011 (that's 17 months for those that aren't mathematically inclined).
Likewise, I myself have posted at the RPGSite nearly as long and as often as I've posted at the Gaming Den - not my regular haunt, either. I'm an Archivist, if it matters.
But MarleyCat uses the den as a derogative for people who analyze game features. Benoist doesn't like those people, either - the game is for playing - only. Heaven forbid that you only have your gaming friends over once each week and spend any time outside of that discussing gaming. Remind me, why are any of us here?
Oh yeah, because we DO talk about gaming when we're not actually playing. But I think this was a lost cause from the beginning - not because you're not objectively right (there is a power disparity and most people have FINALLY acknowledged it) but because some people are worried that if they admit it to YOU - a DENNER (even if you're not) that will somehow allow you to magically transform the Fighter in their 1st or 2nd edition games into a Shadowlord.
Or maybe they worry their players will realize that the cool 'full-plate of etherealness' that they inisted the Fighter get and not the cleric was DM Pity and will start wanting to play a game where their abilities and how smart they play actually make a difference.
Lol...when you're not actually playing, you and your mouth-breathing aspie basement case friends jerk eachother off in a circle while fantasizing about math.
This is exactly why women don't respect you.
Quote from: Benoist;558218I learned there is no actual middle ground to be found.
Pretty much. After 180 pages of this crap, MGuy and deaddm have eventually convinced me that I should agree with Declan and Benoist :)
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;558271Pretty much. After 180 pages of this crap, MGuy and deaddm have eventually convinced me that I should agree with Declan and Benoist :)
Well that's something at least. No worries I think I'll join you.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558229MGuy,
Clearly they think that if you don't care for 2nd edition, you're from the Gaming Den. You've been registered here since April of 2011 (that's 17 months for those that aren't mathematically inclined).
Likewise, I myself have posted at the RPGSite nearly as long and as often as I've posted at the Gaming Den - not my regular haunt, either. I'm an Archivist, if it matters.
But MarleyCat uses the den as a derogative for people who analyze game features. Benoist doesn't like those people, either - the game is for playing - only. Heaven forbid that you only have your gaming friends over once each week and spend any time outside of that discussing gaming. Remind me, why are any of us here?
Oh yeah, because we DO talk about gaming when we're not actually playing. But I think this was a lost cause from the beginning - not because you're not objectively right (there is a power disparity and most people have FINALLY acknowledged it) but because some people are worried that if they admit it to YOU - a DENNER (even if you're not) that will somehow allow you to magically transform the Fighter in their 1st or 2nd edition games into a Shadowlord.
Or maybe they worry their players will realize that the cool 'full-plate of etherealness' that they inisted the Fighter get and not the cleric was DM Pity and will start wanting to play a game where their abilities and how smart they play actually make a difference.
By 'their abilities' I think you're referring to the character's abilities?
And these two things you're cited here are actually in conflict.
Much of the complaints about a high-powered playstyle is from people who in essence believe that this supports weak play.
So anyway, your fighter is down a pit with a dead elf, some iron spikes, a flask of dwarf rotgut and needs to then get past two carrion crawlers to escape. The correct answer to this scenario is:
a) if pits are a level-appropriate challenge, the fighter needs to be able to climb out with no equipment. There need to be detailed Handle Animal rules in case they want to then domesticate a carrion crawler and ride it back to town.
b) the wizard is better than the fighter because they can cast levitate
c) the pit rules are broken, and by our calculations a level 9 wizard can create a stronghold with 234,567 pits.
d) use the materials at hand and escape.
Also, facepalm.
Bloody Stupid Johnson,
In your example, what makes the Fighter any more likely to be able to use the materials present to escape than a Wizard?
Even assuming the Fighter is marginally better than the Wizard at climbing, neither is as good as a thief (who has a chance to climb the walls without resorting to equipment).
If the Fighter isn't even better than a Wizard at climbing out of a pit and the Wizard doesn't even bother resorting to spells, that's a problem.
Besides which, you can't expect the wizard to have levitate prepared. He's much more likely to have feather fall which means 1) he didn't take any damage for falling in the pit (so much for the Fighter's increased survivability) and 2) he may have been falling so slowly that his friends were easily able to grab him before he fell below their reach.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558285Bloody Stupid Johnson,
In your example, what makes the Fighter any more likely to be able to use the materials present to escape than a Wizard?
Even assuming the Fighter is marginally better than the Wizard at climbing, neither is as good as a thief (who has a chance to climb the walls without resorting to equipment).
If the Fighter isn't even better than a Wizard at climbing out of a pit and the Wizard doesn't even bother resorting to spells, that's a problem.
Besides which, you can't expect the wizard to have levitate prepared. He's much more likely to have feather fall which means 1) he didn't take any damage for falling in the pit (so much for the Fighter's increased survivability) and 2) he may have been falling so slowly that his friends were easily able to grab him before he fell below their reach.
Unless you're expecting to be falling off things, it doesn't necessarily make sense to have a feather fall due to limited number of spells available (this would be the 2E answer); or if you prefer in 3E, feather fall requires an immediate action to cast, and hence can't be used when flat-footed (if the pit opened up unexpectedly). Hence in my hypothetical example the wizard gets to be already dead due to sucky hit points, and gets to be bait for the carrion crawlers.
Also, facepalm again.
Quote from: CRKrueger;558265N00b. Wizards don't need all those spells, as soon as the first Wizard casts Charm Monster, it makes every Fighter throughout the entire world irrelevant, don't you remember?
Dammit, of course!
Charm Monster, the very spell used by Lews Therin Kinslayer that shattered the world and the altered the nature of magic itself!
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;558273So anyway, your fighter is down a pit with a dead elf, some iron spikes, a flask of dwarf rotgut and needs to then get past two carrion crawlers to escape. The correct answer to this scenario is:
a) if pits are a level-appropriate challenge, the fighter needs to be able to climb out with no equipment. There need to be detailed Handle Animal rules in case they want to then domesticate a carrion crawler and ride it back to town.
b) the wizard is better than the fighter because they can cast levitate
c) the pit rules are broken, and by our calculations a level 9 wizard can create a stronghold with 234,567 pits.
d) use the materials at hand and escape.
Also, facepalm.
Oooooh! I know this one! It's 'D'!
Throw the dead Elf at the carrion crawlers to distract them, smash the bottle of Dwarven Rotgut between them, then set it on fire by striking the spikes against the stone floor of the pit. Keep one of the spikes handy as a makeshift dagger to finish off the carrion crawlers, then use them both as improvised pitons to climb out of the pit.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;558248"The MU is way overpowered over the fighter even in 1e, so the rules are broken!"
"Hmmm...I notice that you're ignoring spell components, spell interrupts, granting auto success to learn new spells, and you let the player choose new spells at every level rather than find new spellbooks."
"Yeah, like I said, rules are broken, the MU is way overpowered."
:banghead:
Spell Components: What about them?
Spell Interrupts: Considering I spent the last few pages talking to Brendan about what happens out of combat, please tell me, what about them?
Auto Success: This was very clearly approached earlier in the thread, its very likely that the caster has the spells he needs through research, hooking up with other wizards, and/or finding them in treasure even if he doesn't get the "specific" spell he wants he's likely to have another of comparable power. You see the reason you need to bang your head is because you're not very good at understanding your opposition.
Quote from: CRKrueger;558265N00b. Wizards don't need all those spells, as soon as the first Wizard casts Charm Monster, it makes every Fighter throughout the entire world irrelevant, don't you remember?
Or maybe the wizard waits an extra day to go adventuring? I suppose downtime doesn't exist in Stormbringer's games. Or perhaps every wizard always blows they're entire spell pay load every single day when he games? I don't know but it doesn't matter. Storm and Benoist aren't interested in a conversation and it seems you and Marley are going to join them.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;558287Unless you're expecting to be falling off things, it doesn't necessarily make sense to have a feather fall due to limited number of spells available (this would be the 2E answer); or if you prefer in 3E, feather fall requires an immediate action to cast, and hence can't be used when flat-footed (if the pit opened up unexpectedly). Hence in my hypothetical example the wizard gets to be already dead due to sucky hit points, and gets to be bait for the carrion crawlers.
Also, facepalm again.
Why do either of them fall into the pit? Shouldn't the rogue be scouting ahead for traps? If not, and traps are reasonable on any adventuring day why didn't I prepare a spell for just such an occasion like fly or overland flight?
Edit: Oh wait, sorry silly me. I forgot that the high intelligence wizard doesn't understand how to assess risks. I retract my questions.
Quote from: MGuy;558314Spell Components: What about them?
Spell Interrupts: Considering I spent the last few pages talking to Brendan about what happens out of combat, please tell me, what about them?
Auto Success: This was very clearly approached earlier in the thread, its very likely that the caster has the spells he needs through research, hooking up with other wizards, and/or finding them in treasure even if he doesn't get the "specific" spell he wants he's likely to have another of comparable power. You see the reason you need to bang your head is because you're not very good at understanding your opposition.
Keep swinging. What I typed are arguments that I hear frequently about how 1e MUs are way overpowered compared to fighters, only to find out that people making those arguments ignore half of the rules that mitigate that power.
The only thing you've shown is your complete inability to know what the fuck you're talking about. Just like your response here. You don't have the first clue as to what I was talking about.
Quote from: StormBringer;558313Oooooh! I know this one! It's 'D'!
Throw the dead Elf at the carrion crawlers to distract them, smash the bottle of Dwarven Rotgut between them, then set it on fire by striking the spikes against the stone floor of the pit. Keep one of the spikes handy as a makeshift dagger to finish off the carrion crawlers, then use them both as improvised pitons to climb out of the pit.
N00b. Now you're gaming the GM. You either spend a lot of time under the table or your GM takes pity on you and you're playing "Mother May I Play Magical Tea Party". ;)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;558325Keep swinging. What I typed are arguments that I hear frequently about how 1e MUs are way overpowered compared to fighters, only to find out that people making those arguments ignore half of the rules that mitigate that power.
The only thing you've shown is your complete inability to know what the fuck you're talking about. Just like your response here. You don't have the first clue as to what I was talking about.
I am forced to believe that you didn't read the post you quoted before typing this. 2/3 of what I posted were questions. Even the last bit isn't a reflection of the rules just that logically an MU is making an effort to be able to do what he needs to do.
Quote from: CRKrueger;558330N00b. Now you're gaming the GM. You either spend a lot of time under the table or your GM takes pity on you and you're playing "Mother May I Play Magical Tea Party". ;)
Wrong response. If you're going to make fun of my position at least get it right. I would be pointing out that everything he said can be done by everyone else no matter which class you are but between the two of them only the wizard might have a spell to get himself unstuck.
Quote from: CRKrueger;558330N00b. Now you're gaming the GM. You either spend a lot of time under the table or your GM takes pity on you and you're playing "Mother May I Play Magical Tea Party". ;)
I don't know what these grogtards are thinking to even think this is fun to play, man. There should be gaming reeducation camps built with mandatory courses of game design 101 to even hope to get them up to speed but even then, I just think it's too late for these
Unterspieler. They are irremediably brain-damaged by years of gaming abuse playing [strike]incoherent games[/strike] Magical Tea Party with DMs taking pity on them.
Quote from: StormBringer;558313Oooooh! I know this one! It's 'D'!
Throw the dead Elf at the carrion crawlers to distract them, smash the bottle of Dwarven Rotgut between them, then set it on fire by striking the spikes against the stone floor of the pit. Keep one of the spikes handy as a makeshift dagger to finish off the carrion crawlers, then use them both as improvised pitons to climb out of the pit.
Good stuff.
Quote from: MGuy;558318Why do either of them fall into the pit? Shouldn't the rogue be scouting ahead for traps? If not, and traps are reasonable on any adventuring day why didn't I prepare a spell for just such an occasion like fly or overland flight?
Edit: Oh wait, sorry silly me. I forgot that the high intelligence wizard doesn't understand how to assess risks. I retract my questions.
To answer your questions:
1) To the extent its not a player skill, 'risk management' would be Wisdom
2) Hooray for goalpost shifting!
Quote from: Benoist;558336I don't know what these grogtards are thinking to even think this is fun to play, man. There should be gaming reeducation camps built with mandatory courses of game design 101 to even hope to get them up to speed but even then, I just think it's too late for these Unterspieler. They are irremediably brain-damaged by years of gaming abuse playing [strike]incoherent games[/strike] Magical Tea Party with DMs taking pity on them.
they should be bullied out of the hobby. it is objectively true.
I think this thread should be re purposed as the Old Geezer Q&A.
Quote from: Gib;558344I think this thread should be re purposed as the Old Geezer Q&A.
What do we do with the oldgeezer q&a?
I'm just afraid that if we have two threads, the rescue workers won't hear us crying out from where we lay crushed beneath the text walls; the air is running out.
Quote from: MGuy;558317Or maybe the wizard waits an extra day to go adventuring? I suppose downtime doesn't exist in Stormbringer's games.
Did you even read the numbers, moron? Do you think the party just calls a cab and heads back to the inn for a quick refresher before heading back to the dungeon? It's 33 fucking hours, and the Magic-User sure as hell can't stay awake for 24hrs straight to memorize all the spells and head out for more adventuring. At best, 12hr sessions over two days. More likely would be three 8hr sessions over as many days. There's your downtime, dipshit. And if you handwave it away, well... I guess we have shown again that the rules aren't at fault, you are just a shitty player.
QuoteOr perhaps every wizard always blows they're entire spell pay load every single day when he games?
In order for the Magic-User to make every other class 'useless',
yes, dipshit. Casting
magic missile twice doesn't make the Fighter obsolete*. One
spider climb spell isn't forcing the Thieves Guild to shutter the windows. And until Magic-Users get access to healing spells, Clerics won't need to hang up their maces just yet.
The only way a Magic-User could even possibly begin to overshadow another class is to arrange a load-out that
specifically overshadows another class. And they could do it,
at best, once every three days. Good luck getting the other players to keep your sleeping ass safe afterwards, however.
QuoteI don't know but it doesn't matter. Storm and Benoist aren't interested in a conversation and it seems you and Marley are going to join them.
I am plenty interested in conversations, and have had many, many very productive conversations here. What I am not interested in is your little game where you make some outlandish positive assertion without knowing the history of what you are stating, not even pretending to read responses correctly, then assuming that summarizing with "...because
Wizards!" and a flourish will put everyone back on their heels in awe of your amazing insights.
Like I said before: The ink is still drying on your automotive design diploma, and you are marching in on the Ford bullpen and demanding that 20- and 30-year engineering veterans agree with your assessment of what is horribly, horribly wrong with their car lines. Car lines that you have no knowledge of prior to the 2010 model year (and very little regarding 2010), but still insist that the 2011s are the greatest cars ever (except for that little problem where the wheels fall off whenever you strap a Pratt and Whitney engine to the roof).
Hence, you are a
goddamn dipshit, and a moronic asshole to boot. Not because I don't like you or some other childish reason you assume. It's really because you are unable to understand that your
experiences are not universal. Moreover, your almost complete lack of knowledge regarding editions prior to 3.x means you really shouldn't be making dead certain positive assertions about earlier versions,
but you fucking do anyway. Like a goddamn moron.
When the 15th level Magic-User in 1st Edition AD&D took almost a full 24hrs straight to re-acquire all their spells (in
addition to the 10hr rest), but the 3.x version can get all those back in a
maximum of 9hrs and you can't figure out where your 'problem' is... just go ahead and keep bitching about the Fighter. You are the living embodiment that there are none so blind as they who refuse to see. Or, there are none so positive as those who are half-right.
And you aren't even half-right.
*
And definitely not the even more daft notion that charm monster will do so.
Quote from: CRKrueger;558330N00b. Now you're gaming the GM. You either spend a lot of time under the table or your GM takes pity on you and you're playing "Mother May I Play Magical Tea Party". ;)
I know, I know. Back in the day, we just sat around staring at the walls without hundreds upon hundreds of pages of spells, skills and feats detailing exactly what we could and couldn't do with our characters. It was pretty much just a round-robin writing class with occasional dicing.
And holy shit! The two minutes between one set of my actions and the next set while other people were doing stuff? It was agonizing! It sometimes stretched to... dare I say it? Almost
five minutes. I thought those days would never end, and I was stuck in some kind of airless
hellscape where I was forced to watch my very good friends enjoy themselves and participate in a shared social activity without my input for up to ten minutes at a time! Ten minutes where I was not describing my character's actions
at all!
The shivers again... I need to take my medication and hopefully the memories will fade after the appointment with the psychiatrist tomorrow...
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;558338Good stuff.
:hatsoff:
It's all just "20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours of gaming" anyway. Ryan Dancey was right. Now if only we could find a way to radically change the goal of the game to make it more fun for *everyone*, everything would be awesome. Those people who thought they actually liked to play these fundamentally flawed, unfun abortion of games in the 70s and 80s will just wake up that day and realize they had been trapped in their own nightmares all along.
Quote from: jeff37923;557457Bad class?
Lessee here, the Bard has the Bardic Music and Bardic Knowledge ability.
Both are pretty much worthless; all other spellcasters also get abilities that replicate these abilities as well.
QuoteThat might come in real handy when dealing with legendary creatures, demigods, and artifacts that tend to show up in high-level play.
It might. It's a really big might though. There's no reason why you couldn't get that information without Bardic Knowledge which is just a knowledge skill check essentially. You can substitute the relevant knowledge skill (which will probably have a higher bonus to the check, can be influenced by synergistic bonuses from other party members, et cetera), or one of several Divination spells. I'd say in a bog-standard 3.x game you can get a lot more reliable information with high level spells than you can with skill checks.
QuoteI won't even mention the abuse that can be done with Mass Suggestion.
Mind control magic isn't exclusively the province of the Bard, so this one power doesn't mean much. If I was all about brainwashing monsters I probably wouldn't play a Bard to do so. I'd certainly want a class that could optimize their spell penetration and save DCs without sacrificing too much. I'm not saying I wouldn't play a Bard. I'm just saying I wouldn't play one and expect to be good, or expect my offensive magic to not be a total crapshoot at high level.
QuoteThe Bard's BAB (Base Attack Bonus) goes up at the same rate as both the Cleric and the Druid, so they are all as equally negligible in combat abilities as you say.
...
As far as swinging a sword or other melee weapon, it looks like the Bard is an even match for the Druid and Cleric.
BAB isn't the determining factor in combat ability here. The Psychic Warrior has the same BAB and is terrible, the Monk in 3.5/PF has a better BAB and is terrible, and the Fighter has an even higher BAB and is terrible.
You are displaying a lack of 'system mastery' here if you think that the Bard can be good in melee the same way that a Cleric can, or the same way that an enraged bear-summoning bear can.
QuoteThe Cleric gets proficiency with Light, Medium, and Heavy armor while the Druid is proficient with Light and Medium armor.
And gets better buffing spells making them the most defensively solid class in the game in the case of the Cleric, and who can get impressive natural defenses via Wild Shape in the case of the Druid, both of whom have better spontaneous battlefield control, movement, direct damage, crowd control and healing than the Bard.
Both can gather intelligence as well, by having direct access to divine powers no less.
QuoteAnd if you are not playing in character, then why in the fuck are you playing a role-playing game? Why not just play a miniatures game?
I'm not saying to not stay in-character. The conversation is fundamentally about metagame concerns (power, balance, mechanics).
I'm saying that you can probably make a Bard not a total waste with a lot of effort, but he'll still be worse than one of several other classes being played with little effort.
QuoteNow we get to the crux of it. If a Bard cannot inflict massive damage, then it is useless is what you believe.
The crux of it is that the bard cannot heal well, cannot do damage well, has no significant abilities to defend either themselves or anyone else and that ending combat as quickly as possible is the best tactic once combat is joined.
QuoteHelping out with a heal or two, guarding the Wizard, watching the party's back, none of that is as important as inflicting massive damage in combat.
Game mechanic wise none of that is as important as downing the enemy fast which obviates the need to engage in attrition tactics that require a lot of healing, guarding, et cetera.
Again though we are discussing specifically HIGH LEVEL. What exactly is the Bard protecting the 17th Level+ Wizard from? What does this Bard have in his arsenal to save a wizard from anything besides taking a potentially fatal blow on his behalf? Why would a Bard be better at this guardian role than an archer Ranger that can do great damage from the back, also heal, has better perception abilities to actually detect spontaneous threats, et cetera? Having some guy sit there doing pitiful or no damage "protecting" the most powerful member of the party is completely silly.
QuoteNow you are argueing in bad faith.
Knowing an enemy's weak spots, having an idea of what may be found in the dungeon and preparing for that, knowing what tactics your enemy likes to employ, all of that requires some kind of intelligence gathering. The Bard class is tailor made to find that information out.
It's not MY argument. It would be my argument that all of these things are explicitly related to combat and are essentially combat abilities in the first place (which aren't exclusive to the Bard and he isn't best at, and aren't worthy trading out actual ability to survive attacks, inflict damage, and heal for). It's MGuy's position that things that happen "In Combat" are part of some "Arena Game" which doesn't involve anything that happens "Out of Combat". Yes, it is a bad faith argument. It's not mine though, so don't attribute it to me.
QuoteAnd if you are trying to do that in the middle of a fight, then you have already lost.
Maybe if you are playing a party full of Bards, because they suck. I've certainly survived ambushes, even at high level. Of course most of the classes in the game are more balanced towards being able to kick in the door and nuke the room without 52 sessions worth of careful intelligence gathering to exploit the specific weakness of the dungeon's first random encounter.
Which is beside the point because you don't need a Bard to do any of that stuff, and they aren't even necessarily the best at it.
QuoteThis last bit is just fucking stupid. Ability scores? That is a non-issue.
Ability scores are not a non-issue. The system in question is heavily biased towards optimization. Making a character with willy nilly stats is a complete no-go.
Maybe RPing those scores isn't enforced at every table but it is at many. Most DMs won't let me RP the 'smartest guy in the room' as my 8 INT Fighter. I certainly won't be allowed to "RP" the party mule as my 8 STR Wizard either. Most game tables will enforce some kind of ruling based on your stats.
The Bard is underpowered. The PHB even says they make the best fifth wheel. That's not true, but at least they are trying to tell you that a Bard can't do any prime role at all so don't even try. If you have all of your core roles filled, then sure why not pick a Bard (not that any number of other classes wouldn't be superior). The other classes can pick up the Bard's slack. The descriptions won't say this about any other class. It won't tell you that you shouldn't play a Cleric or Druid unless someone else is already playing a Bard so your ass is covered. Bard's don't cover asses. They roll skill checks and tell stories (about how useful they are) which are of dubious origin and truthfulness.
Quote from: StormBringer;558256+1
I'm not even going to try to make a list of spell components, so let's run the memorization numbers in 1st edition AD&D for those who started out with 3.x:
10th level Magic-User spell load out:
1st: 4
2nd: 4
3rd: 3
4th: 2
5th: 2
So, the MU goes nova at some point. Highest level spell to regain is 5th level, so that requires a minimum of 8hrs uninterrupted rest. That's just the sleeping part, folks. After the MU wakes up, they must then spend 15mins per spell level re-memorizing each spell.
1st: 1hr
2nd: 2hrs
3rd: 2hrs 15mins
4th: 2hrs
5th: 2hrs 30mins
That's why the grognards look at people funny when they talk about a 15min workday, or the amazing Magic-User that replaces all the other characters. Sure, I could probably pick a good load-out that would minimize or negate the other players, but then who is going to stand watch while my MU sleeps and studies the better part of the next day away?
15th level is even worse (obviously):
1st: 5
2nd: 5
3rd: 5
4th: 5
5th: 5
6th: 2
7th: 1
1st: 1hr 15mins
2nd: 2hrs 30mins
3rd: 3hrs 45mins
4th: 5hrs
5th: 6hrs 15mins
6th: 3hrs
7th: 1hr 45mins
That's why you are having problems with your 3.x Fighters, Denners. I don't know how many times I got into arguments with the other players back in the day about casting spells. We didn't just fritter away even a knock spell without a damn good reason.
And in case you are salivating over a potential loophole, those exact numbers apply to all casters. Magic-Users, Illusionists, Clerics and Druids. That includes Rangers and Paladins.
A fair point.
You have to remebr though that in any fight where the MU blows their entire wad of spells, which less face it is extremely unlikely simple because at 15th level they have 30 so its a minimum of 30 rounds .... anyway the front line fighter in any such fight is goign to have taken a good few hits. Say at 15th he has 90 hp... he is going to be down almost 50% I would think.
As has been stated his HP are one of his primary resources but after the day that he MU recharges all of their spells the fighter has regained 2hp, if he is allowed to rest fully with no exhaustion. So whilst the MU is back upto pretty much 100% efficiency after 24 hours the Fighter is still running on 50%.
So as ablative resource management goes you could argue that the magic user has a faster recovery than the figther, I guess.
Quote from: jibbajibba;558384A fair point.
You have to remebr though that in any fight where the MU blows their entire wad of spells, which less face it is extremely unlikely simple because at 15th level they have 30 so its a minimum of 30 rounds .... anyway the front line fighter in any such fight is goign to have taken a good few hits. Say at 15th he has 90 hp... he is going to be down almost 50% I would think.
As has been stated his HP are one of his primary resources but after the day that he MU recharges all of their spells the fighter has regained 2hp, if he is allowed to rest fully with no exhaustion. So whilst the MU is back upto pretty much 100% efficiency after 24 hours the Fighter is still running on 50%.
So as ablative resource management goes you could argue that the magic user has a faster recovery than the figther, I guess.
Why are you giving this argument the time of day? Why is the MU not preparing his spells BEFORE he adventures? Wy is he blowing all of it in a few fights? Where's the cross examination of how much the fighter can do in a day before needing to go back because he has no way of recovering his HP? Storm is not interested in actually weighing the limits and boons of each of the classes. He and Benoist don't even want this subject talked about.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;558287Unless you're expecting to be falling off things, it doesn't necessarily make sense to have a feather fall due to limited number of spells available (this would be the 2E answer); or if you prefer in 3E, feather fall requires an immediate action to cast, and hence can't be used when flat-footed (if the pit opened up unexpectedly). [Hence in my hypothetical example the wizard gets to be already dead due to sucky hit points, and gets to be bait for the carrion crawlers.
Also, facepalm again.
Quote from: MGuy;558318Why do either of them fall into the pit? Shouldn't the rogue be scouting ahead for traps? If not, and traps are reasonable on any adventuring day why didn't I prepare a spell for just such an occasion like fly or overland flight?
Edit: Oh wait, sorry silly me. I forgot that the high intelligence wizard doesn't understand how to assess risks. I retract my questions.
Please note the bolded parts because they are important. If I'm dungeon delving for whatever reason why would I not (since this has to be a low level dungeon considering that we're laying simple pit trap games) bring a trap finder along and if I'm not going to do that why wouldn't I be wary of traps or have anti trap spells prepared/active? That's the point you missed there. I didn't ask just about the wizard I'm wondering why the fighter isn't being more careful? Even the FIGHTER should know that he has no trap finding abilities and that he shouldn't be risking it since he needs his HPs to take punches in the face from his actual targets instead of taking bites to the ankles from distractions. Hell I'm giving the FIGHTER the benefit of the doubt and saying that neither he nor the wizard should have fallen into it. The fighter knows he's probably the heaviest on the team and the rogue is more likely to be able to spot and foil potential traps. But of course you have to read what I post in the worst way possible right?
What's more is this scenario is odd anyway. Why doesn't the fighter have basic adventuring equipment with him like a rope or something?
Quote from: MGuy;558389Please note the bolded parts because they are important. If I'm dungeon delving for whatever reason why would I not (since this has to be a low level dungeon considering that we're laying simple pit trap games) bring a trap finder along and if I'm not going to do that why wouldn't I be wary of traps or have anti trap spells prepared/active? That's the point you missed there. I didn't ask just about the wizard I'm wondering why the fighter isn't being more careful? Even the FIGHTER should know that he has no trap finding abilities and that he shouldn't be risking it since he needs his HPs to take punches in the face from his actual targets instead of taking bites to the ankles from distractions. Hell I'm giving the FIGHTER the benefit of the doubt and saying that neither he nor the wizard should have fallen into it. The fighter knows he's probably the heaviest on the team and the rogue is more likely to be able to spot and foil potential traps. But of course you have to read what I post in the worst way possible right?
What's more is this scenario is odd anyway. Why doesn't the fighter have basic adventuring equipment with him like a rope or something?
Obviously low level scenario, yes. I'd assumed there was a trap and they missed it obviously; either there's no rogue (2 player game) and no henchmen were willing to venture to the Caves of Despair, or if we have to be clever, the NPC (halfling) rogue and/or wizards' animated skeleton trap-finders wandered ahead searching for traps but weren't heavy enough to trip them.
I have been in dungeons before where we lost the rope i.e. climbing
in required one and we left it there to make sure we could get
out. And prior to 3E, even the thief had to actually make a skill check to find a damn trap rather than taking 10.
Mostly this is missing the point anyway; I wasn't so much building death traps for Elminster as bitching that apparently 'good design' in a game means eliminating any sort of challenge for the players in favour of installing win buttons on the character sheet, as deaddm was suggesting.
Quote from: MGuy;558387Why are you giving this argument the time of day? Why is the MU not preparing his spells BEFORE he adventures? Where's the cross examination of how much the fighter can do in a day before needing to go back because he has no way of recovering his HP? Storm is not interested in actually weighing the limits and boons of each of the classes. He and Benoist don't even want this subject talked about.
It's alright for you I have to live here :)
The point is that resource management is a major part of play in 1e and in 2e to a lesser extent as the roleplay story paradigm begins to dominate by 2e.
In any case 1e id very much a resource management game and a MUs spells are definitely a resource that needs to be managed. What to memorise and when to expend a resource. It informs a lot of things and is why a smart caster will use a long lived spell like an Unseen Servant to do a lot of exploration tasks as opposed to summoning a goblin to do it. One is a 1st level spell that lasts for hours and can not be harmed by physical damage, so is perfect for triggering physical traps the summoned goblin on the other hand is only round for a few minutes is a 3rd level spell, although you do get half a dozen goblins. Now deciding what spell to use and when to maximize your resource pool is a cirital part of 1e play and relearing those spells, as Stormy points out, is critical for how effective the MU remains over an extended period.
Typically a high level Wizard uses items most of the time. They scribe scroll to ensure that they don't need to waste slots on utility spells like Contact Other Plane, that is often not used but sometimes is invaluable. In addtion casters generally use a magic item in combat, a wand of some type typically, rather than waste spell slots.
So recovery of spells is critical.
However, in debates it is often easier to report one side of the argument and ignore others. One of the fighter's main advantages in D&D especially low level is their Hit points. It's been pointed out here quite clearly that the Figther will survive becuase he has more hit pionts the fighter is better because he has more hit points etc. I was merely pointing out that just like Spells for a caster Hit points for a fighter are another ablative resource except that are one that recovers at a much slower rate.
Now the obvious answer is magical healing and yes healing potions are about in most games and a potion of healing is a relatively common potion (1in 20 potions) but it only heals 2d4+2 so on average 7 HP which at high level is not a massive boon and in addition generally potions are used when a PC is one hit from death and so a figther gets to that point less often and often actually in combat.
Extra healing potions are far better 3d8 +3 hp average 18 but they are obviously far rarer. And remember this is not a computer game where you find healing potions and medikits round each corner.
Certainly in my games and I suspect most other experienced DMs if a humanoid has a potion of healing in their treasure horde they will drink it in combat. Shit they may not know what the potion does and it might be wasted but if a bunch of evil adventurerers are pounding the door in then the Orc captain is going to use whatever he has to survive.
In any case drawing attention to the fact that wizards are not the only class with resource management to think about is I think a valid point.
Took you long enough to respond.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;558367Both are pretty much worthless; all other spellcasters also get abilities that replicate these abilities as well.
It might. It's a really big might though. There's no reason why you couldn't get that information without Bardic Knowledge which is just a knowledge skill check essentially. You can substitute the relevant knowledge skill (which will probably have a higher bonus to the check, can be influenced by synergistic bonuses from other party members, et cetera), or one of several Divination spells. I'd say in a bog-standard 3.x game you can get a lot more reliable information with high level spells than you can with skill checks.
Mind control magic isn't exclusively the province of the Bard, so this one power doesn't mean much. If I was all about brainwashing monsters I probably wouldn't play a Bard to do so. I'd certainly want a class that could optimize their spell penetration and save DCs without sacrificing too much. I'm not saying I wouldn't play a Bard. I'm just saying I wouldn't play one and expect to be good, or expect my offensive magic to not be a total crapshoot at high level.
And the important point you are missing is that a Bard can accomplish all this without expending a spell, unlike other classes.
If you do not think that gaining information about your opponent is important, then you are as fucked up as a soup sandwich.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;558367BAB isn't the determining factor in combat ability here. The Psychic Warrior has the same BAB and is terrible, the Monk in 3.5/PF has a better BAB and is terrible, and the Fighter has an even higher BAB and is terrible.
You are displaying a lack of 'system mastery' here if you think that the Bard can be good in melee the same way that a Cleric can, or the same way that an enraged bear-summoning bear can.
'System wankery' is more like it. You got all this from reading some idiot's CharOp masturbation fantasy which you don't even understand yourself. Go re-read Wild Shape (Su), especially the part where it says that while in animal form the Druid cannot talk - which nullifies the use of spells that require a Verbal component, like
Summon Nature's Ally.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;558367And gets better buffing spells making them the most defensively solid class in the game in the case of the Cleric, and who can get impressive natural defenses via Wild Shape in the case of the Druid, both of whom have better spontaneous battlefield control, movement, direct damage, crowd control and healing than the Bard.
Both can gather intelligence as well, by having direct access to divine powers no less.
Because some asshole said that the Cleric and the Druid are best in combat on a CharOp forum? You have a lot to learn, kid.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;558367I'm not saying to not stay in-character. The conversation is fundamentally about metagame concerns (power, balance, mechanics).
I'm saying that you can probably make a Bard not a total waste with a lot of effort, but he'll still be worse than one of several other classes being played with little effort.
So the Bard sucks because you must think while playing the class and cannot just mash the buttons on a character sheet? Bards suck because they require
effort?
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;558367The crux of it is that the bard cannot heal well, cannot do damage well, has no significant abilities to defend either themselves or anyone else and that ending combat as quickly as possible is the best tactic once combat is joined.
Game mechanic wise none of that is as important as downing the enemy fast which obviates the need to engage in attrition tactics that require a lot of healing, guarding, et cetera.
But tactically it is invaluable. Also game mechanic wise, because you obviously do not know what that means.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;558367Again though we are discussing specifically HIGH LEVEL. What exactly is the Bard protecting the 17th Level+ Wizard from? What does this Bard have in his arsenal to save a wizard from anything besides taking a potentially fatal blow on his behalf? Why would a Bard be better at this guardian role than an archer Ranger that can do great damage from the back, also heal, has better perception abilities to actually detect spontaneous threats, et cetera? Having some guy sit there doing pitiful or no damage "protecting" the most powerful member of the party is completely silly.
Would you rather have this formidible sounding Ranger protecting the Wizard or out in front doing actual damage to an opponent?
Also, level for level, the Bard is a better healer than the Ranger based on simple spell progression by a 2 to 1 margin.
And where are you getting that a Ranger has
de facto better perception abilities?
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;558367It's not MY argument. It would be my argument that all of these things are explicitly related to combat and are essentially combat abilities in the first place (which aren't exclusive to the Bard and he isn't best at, and aren't worthy trading out actual ability to survive attacks, inflict damage, and heal for). It's MGuy's position that things that happen "In Combat" are part of some "Arena Game" which doesn't involve anything that happens "Out of Combat". Yes, it is a bad faith argument. It's not mine though, so don't attribute it to me.
If it isn't your arguement, then why did you bring it up?
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;558367Maybe if you are playing a party full of Bards, because they suck. I've certainly survived ambushes, even at high level. Of course most of the classes in the game are more balanced towards being able to kick in the door and nuke the room without 52 sessions worth of careful intelligence gathering to exploit the specific weakness of the dungeon's first random encounter.
That is because a Bard would already know what is in the room and be standing behind the meat shield who will get killed in his stead when the door is kicked in. For extra role-playing xp, he would compose a poem and recite it while counting the deceased meat shield's share of the treasure for himself.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;558367Which is beside the point because you don't need a Bard to do any of that stuff, and they aren't even necessarily the best at it.
Except that you have yet to prove that.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;558367Ability scores are not a non-issue. The system in question is heavily biased towards optimization. Making a character with willy nilly stats is a complete no-go.
Math and big numbers do not matter nearly as much as the ability of the Player to effectively play his or her character.
Quote from: jeff37923;558067I keep reading a lot of crap from the Gaming Den guys about how ability scores are important for skills in 3.x and that is a conceptual error.
Looking at an initial range of 3-18 or even 1-20 for ability scores on character creation, this means a -5 to a +5 modifier. Meanwhile, the skill level itself overtakes even a -5 at 1st level for the classes who get only 2 skill points per level (8 at 1st level). So while ability scores help, they do not compare to the expenditure of actual skill points on the character.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;558367The Bard is underpowered. The PHB even says they make the best fifth wheel. That's not true, but at least they are trying to tell you that a Bard can't do any prime role at all so don't even try. If you have all of your core roles filled, then sure why not pick a Bard (not that any number of other classes wouldn't be superior). The other classes can pick up the Bard's slack. The descriptions won't say this about any other class. It won't tell you that you shouldn't play a Cleric or Druid unless someone else is already playing a Bard so your ass is covered. Bard's don't cover asses. They roll skill checks and tell stories (about how useful they are) which are of dubious origin and truthfulness.
Please point out exactly where in the PHB it says this about the Bard.
Since what it actually says is:
Quote from: D&D 3.5 PHB, p27The Bard is perhaps the ultimate generalist. In most adventuring groups, he works best in a supporting role. He can't usually match the stealth of a Rogue, the spellcasting power of a Wizard, or the combat prowess of a Barbarian or the Fighter. However, he makes all the other characters better at what they do, and he can often fill in for another character when needed. For a typical group of four characters, the Bard is perhaps the most useful fifth character to consider adding, and he can make a great team leader.
a couple of minor things that occur to me
Fighters are not always the best treasure carriers often its the thief. The figther is typically already carrying a load of kit.
With armour and a selection of weapons a lot of fighters only have a few pounds extra.
A thief on the other who typcially has midling strength 13-15 also typically wears leather has a coupel of dagers 1 sword and a short bow so has a higher carrying capacity.
Also humourously the wizard with his 9-10 Strength basically isn't carrying anything so often has a larger extra weight capacity than the fighter.
On spell acquistion.
You can't list out 250+ items that a 10th level figther's party has found for hism to trawl through and ignore the fact that those hordes included literally dozens of magic user scrolls even just using these and ignoring perloined spell books and exchanges with NPCs this gives a 10th level caster sight of on average 60-70 random spells. Even if we assume they can only learn 70% that is still a reasonable pot to play with.
Just a couple of things that sprang to mind as I scanned through posted I had missed.
Quote from: MGuy;558387Why are you giving this argument the time of day? Why is the MU not preparing his spells BEFORE he adventures? Wy is he blowing all of it in a few fights? Where's the cross examination of how much the fighter can do in a day before needing to go back because he has no way of recovering his HP? Storm is not interested in actually weighing the limits and boons of each of the classes. He and Benoist don't even want this subject talked about.
Mguy, storm probably just made the single best point in this entire thread.
I disagree.
I've never seen a wizard use up all of their spells. When we point out that a single casting of charm monster lasts for days and provides a 'non-suicidal' but easily influenced minion with all the combat capability of a Fighter, there's no NEED for the Fighter. He can play the back-up to the Fire Giant, or Troll, or Owlbear, or whatever was handy at the time. An intelligent creature can literally do anything the Fighter can do as far as 'problem-solving'. As can a wizard, or a cleric, or rogue. The big difference is that the spell-casters have ALL the SAME problem-solving abilities PLUS spells.
The Fighter isn't even better at climbing than the Wizard. Isn't that lame?
Can you seriously be sitting here saying 'it's okay that Fighters can't climb as well as Wizards - I like to have one class that can't even perform basic functions you'd expect'? Or are you saying 'it's okay that the Fighters can't perform basic functions of their class because I let them do it anyway because I'm not a dick DM?'
Either way, is that seriously better than making it explicit 'Fighters are good at climbing'? I think not.
Oh.
....because, wizards!!!
I am not terribly familiar with 1E, but if that is the case I would say charm person shouldn't have such a long duration. However I suspect lots of people will have differing opinions on whether charm allows you get people to tag along with you on a full adventure. Their charmed but that doesn't mean they can just pick up and go with you to the dungeon (or that they lose all agency).
For climb, in 2e at least the mountaineering nwp is gives you a big boost (and mountaineering is stat based. So the warrior is much more likely to be better at climbing than the wizard. Don't know how it is handled in 1E. Basically thieves are the best climbers, followed by folks with mountaineering, then everyone else (and gear matters a good deal). there is a huge list of modifeirs for climbing in the phb, but dont have it on hand at the moment. Might be interesting to break them down.
Either way storm raised an excellent point in my opinion,which shows there are some serious limits on wizards. They might not cast all their spells but it still can take hours to gain many of their most powerful spells back. I am not going to deny there could be some broken spells in the spell list. If I encounter something that clearly breaks the game my solution is to alter it. It doesn't mean the underlying design of the game is crap, just that one compenent wasn't vetted enough or thought out.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;558401Mguy, storm probably just made the single best point in this entire thread.
:hatsoff:
Quote from: MGuy;558387Where's the cross examination of how much the fighter can do in a day before needing to go back because he has no way of recovering his HP?
So maybe AD&D Fighters and Magic-Users don't have quite the disparity you thought they did...
However, any DM worth their salt will have some kind of patron deity of adventurers with at least a chapel damn near everywhere making all kinds of coin off careless adventurers that need constant healing. Keeps the players in the game, and it relieves the characters of all that heavy gold that tends to weigh them down.
Quote'System wankery' is more like it. You got all this from reading some idiot's CharOp masturbation fantasy which you don't even understand yourself. Go re-read Wild Shape (Su), especially the part where it says that while in animal form the Druid cannot talk - which nullifies the use of spells that require a Verbal component, like Summon Nature's Ally.
It can be negated by taking the feat Natural Spell or whatever which allows for full spellcasting in Wildshape as long as you could verbalize something I assume. It really is a no brainer for a Druid to take and breaks the class three ways to Sunday.
Quote from: StormBringer;558424However, any DM worth their salt will have some kind of patron deity of adventurers with at least a chapel damn near everywhere making all kinds of coin off careless adventurers that need constant healing. Keeps the players in the game, and it relieves the characters of all that heavy gold that tends to weigh them down.
Seriously? What kind of immersion-breaking, gamist shit is this? D&D is not a video game.
Quote from: Marleycat;558425It can be negated by taking the feat Natural Spell or whatever which allows for full spellcasting in Wildshape as long as you could verbalize something I assume. It really is a no brainer for a Druid to take and breaks the class three ways to Sunday.
True dat.
One of my favorite characters (who am I kidding - they're all my favorite) was a bard 1/cleric x in an Eberron Campaign. I started as bard, but then advanced as a cleric the rest of his career. As he became more and more powerful, I'd point out 'you must be mistaken - I took a level of bard'.
In 3.x, it's very difficult to build an effective bard character. They'd be nice to have, but the morale bonuses they provide tend to be so small that people forget to apply them more often than not. If you have 1d8+5 written on your character sheet, remembering to treat that as 1d8+6 takes more effort. And if the amount of benefit isn't worth the amount of effort, nobody bothers.
Bards are useless as much because other players don't take advantage of the benefit they provide as much as because the benefit is very limited.
Likewise, bard players are often 'spotlight' seekers, and the areas the bard shines (NPC interaction, primarily) don't always engage the other players. If the bard is the only player 'playing' at a particular time, most game tables will keep those areas short and get to areas where EVERYONE can participate. This is the reverse of the Fighter problem - the Fighter often has no reason to participate outside of combat - with a bard, everyone else has no reason to participate outside of combat.
QuoteLikewise, bard players are often 'spotlight' seekers, and the areas the bard shines (NPC interaction, primarily) don't always engage the other players. If the bard is the only player 'playing' at a particular time, most game tables will keep those areas short and get to areas where EVERYONE can participate. This is the reverse of the Fighter problem - the Fighter often has no reason to participate outside of combat - with a bard, everyone else has no reason to participate outside of combat.
This can happen with the bard but it really is a DM problem or player problem more than a system issue.
Quote from: StormbringerOriginally Posted by StormBringer
However, any DM worth their salt will have some kind of patron deity of adventurers with at least a chapel damn near everywhere making all kinds of coin off careless adventurers that need constant healing. Keeps the players in the game, and it relieves the characters of all that heavy gold that tends to weigh them down.
Quote from: Fifth Element;558427Seriously? What kind of immersion-breaking, gamist shit is this? D&D is not a video game.
This is an example of what I've been referring to as 'DM Pity'. You're absolutely right that it's immersion-breaking gamist shit.
I would expect that if you were in Stormbringer's campaign, each of these temples would also have a cleric of high enough level to provide whatever service you need. You need a cure disease? They have a cleric able to cast it.
You died and want a
Raise Dead. Yep, he's high enough level to cast that.
Why didn't he clear out the nearby dungeon infested with low-level monsters that posed no threat to him?
I don't know... Because, wizards?
Quote from: Marleycat;558431This can happen with the bard but it really is a DM problem or player problem more than a system issue.
No disagreement there. I was just pointing out that this tends to be more likely with a player that LIKES to play a bard.
The idea of a bard is a 'synergistic benefit' - having a bard is supposed to make everyone else better. Additionally, the bard is supposed to be able to fill any 'missing role' that the party might have (but not as effectively as a dedicated class). By and large, they ended up doing nothing well-enough to make them able to 'sub-in' for other classes, and most of the 'making other people better' just isn't significant enough to justify their place on the team.
Most bards I've seen in play end up as more of a 'comic-sidekick' than a real adventurer.
Quote from: Fifth Element;558427Seriously? What kind of immersion-breaking, gamist shit is this? D&D is not a video game.
Perhaps you like Greyhawk, in which case you can turn to Pelor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelor) in times of need. Forgotten Realms, perhaps? Ilmater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilmater) has Clerics wandering the land to ease suffering. Not into published settings, then. No problem, classic mythology from pretty much any society has at least one deity (often female) that watches over people and makes sure they are in good health.
Immersion-breaking, gamist shit is several holsters of Wands of Cure Light Wounds and bandoliers stuffed with flasks of various healing potions, a very common sight in 3.x.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558433No disagreement there. I was just pointing out that this tends to be more likely with a player that LIKES to play a bard.
The idea of a bard is a 'synergistic benefit' - having a bard is supposed to make everyone else better. Additionally, the bard is supposed to be able to fill any 'missing role' that the party might have (but not as effectively as a dedicated class). By and large, they ended up doing nothing well-enough to make them able to 'sub-in' for other classes, and most of the 'making other people better' just isn't significant enough to justify their place on the team.
Most bards I've seen in play end up as more of a 'comic-sidekick' than a real adventurer.
Not in my experience but I can't say you don't have a point but I am specifically talking 1/2e here. Never really saw anybody play a 3x bard.
Quote from: Benoist;558364It's all just "20 minutes of fun packed into 4 hours of gaming" anyway. Ryan Dancey was right. Now if only we could find a way to radically change the goal of the game to make it more fun for *everyone*, everything would be awesome. Those people who thought they actually liked to play these fundamentally flawed, unfun abortion of games in the 70s and 80s will just wake up that day and realize they had been trapped in their own nightmares all along.
If only we could replace those systems with something more dynamic like Jenga, or perhaps at least an Escalation system.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558432This is an example of what I've been referring to as 'DM Pity'. You're absolutely right that it's immersion-breaking gamist shit.
I would expect that if you were in Stormbringer's campaign, each of these temples would also have a cleric of high enough level to provide whatever service you need. You need a cure disease? They have a cleric able to cast it.
You died and want a Raise Dead. Yep, he's high enough level to cast that.
Why didn't he clear out the nearby dungeon infested with low-level monsters that posed no threat to him?
I don't know... Because, wizards?
Please, don't pretend you are suddenly some hard-ass grognard DM. It makes you look even dumber than usual. 3.x virtually has Wand of Cure Light Wounds trees, and fountains in every grotto dispensing healing potions.
And yes, oddly, temples are staffed by Clerics, some of whom are high enough level to cast spells the players might need. I can see how having a religious institution manned by religious adherents is difficult to wrap your head around. I know that in the real world, churches are exclusively run by people with no experience or training in the religious traditions they support, but this is a fantasy game.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;558443If only we could replace those systems with something more dynamic like Jenga, or perhaps at least an Escalation system.
Pictionary, dude. It's the new hotness in RPG design.
Quote from: StormBringer;558445Pictionary, dude. It's the new hotness in RPG design.
Please don't use "RPG" in reference to Role-story-events. It's highly deprotagonizing.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;558450Please don't use "RPG" in reference to Role-story-events. It's highly deprotagonizing.
I didn't mean to take away your narrative control. You get an extra turn holding the talking stick to make up for it.
Holy crap! This thread is dragging on longer than a 4E combat.
Can we get to 300 pages before the DM calls it quits and just say the PCs win?
:popcorn:
Quote from: StormBringer;558444Please, don't pretend you are suddenly some hard-ass grognard DM.
I don't pretend anything. I'm speaking from my experiences. I've been playing D&D since 1985. I was six when I started playing. My older brother liked the game and got me started. I also read
the Hobbit and started reading Piers Anthony novels around that time. I had a very active fantasy life. In 4th grade I'd play D&D during recess. The teachers wanted us to keep moving, so we had to walk around the playground the whole time. It was mostly 'magical tea-party' because we couldn't roll dice while walking. And that worked for me, then. It wouldn't work for me, now. There's plenty of people that have played D&D longer than I have, but it's certainly true that I grew up playing the game.
Quote from: StormBringer;558444It makes you look even dumber than usual.
And that's your opinion. Since you're a dumbass, I don't really care about your opinions. I'm still interested in your observations, but not your opinions. Once I run them through my dumbass filter they come out as 'derp - derp - derp'.
Quote from: StormBringer;5584443.x virtually has Wand of Cure Light Wounds trees, and fountains in every grotto dispensing healing potions.
So, now it's time for you to start providing your experience with 3.5. That was never my experience. First off, 3.5 uses 'wealth by levels guidelines'. If you're not using those kinds of items up, the DM is supposed to reduce treasure to generally keep you somewhere on the 'expected power level'. But this isn't about 3.x, anyways. If the party has access to healing wands or (more to the point) healing potions, that actually helps the Fighter - he has a chance to apply some of his resources to ensure he has the tools to do his job. If he buys some potions of
cure, he might be able to get his hit points back. Since the cleric MIGHT or MIGHT NOT have available spells left to heal him, that helps extend the Figther's adventuring day.
Also, in 3.5, enemies can do some serious damage. A
Wand of Cure Light Wounds provides 50 charges of 1d8+1 hit points of healingg. Since you can only use one charge at a time, you probably would use an item like this outside of combat, but when an opponent is doing 2d8+16, it doesn't exactly 'keep you in the fight'.
Quote from: StormBringer;558444And yes, oddly, temples are staffed by Clerics,
Sure, I'd expect that you'd find some clerics in a temple. But many temples also have novitiates, cooks, gardeners, etc. You can have lots of 'dedicated religious people' without NECESSARILY having clerics. You can also have Paladins and other Warriors with religious training. You can also have Aristocrats that were able to use political connections to secure a position of importance in a religious hierarchy (at least, if the fantasy world is anything like the game world). But even assuming that EVERYONE in the temple is a cleric....
Quote from: StormBringer;558444some of whom are high enough level to cast spells the players might need.
Some of the time. The 3.5 rules do include guidelines for what the highest level character should be based on the population of the town. Outside of a major city, you're unlikely to find clerics that can cast 5th level spells or higher. If you start putting a cleric of high enough level to cast the spells you need your party to be able to buy where the rules indicate they shouldn't be, that's your perogative. But that's also 'DM Pity'. Now, if you wanted the remote temple of Pelor to have a 3rd level cleric with access to a scroll of
Raise Dead, that might work, but of course, then there's the chance to fail the casting.
Quote from: StormBringer;558444I can see how having a religious institution manned by religious adherents is difficult to wrap your head around. I know that in the real world, churches are exclusively run by people with no experience or training in the religious traditions they support, but this is a fantasy game.
In the real world there have been plenty of people that were not qualified for the role that they played in the church hierarchy, especially in the dark ages and medieval period in Europe. Popes have been known to appoint bastard children into positions of power in the church; kings and other powerful nobles have been known to enthrone their own loyal servants as a bishop or archbishop while the pope was forced to accede to their demands. But, sure, I'll give you 'everyone at the temple is a cleric' if that's what you want. But the presence of temples should make sense based on the game world and the level of those clerics should make sense based on the game world.
How many 17th level clerics are their in the entire world? That's one of the first things I ask myself when I'm setting up a game, so if the party plans on raising the dead, they have a rough idea of where they need to go, and it's usually only a few places in the entire world...
Oh. Because, Wizards!!!
Quote from: Exploderwizard;558459Holy crap! This thread is dragging on longer than a 4E combat.
Can we get to 300 pages before the DM calls it quits and just say the PCs win?
:popcorn:
We've killed all the 1HP minion fire giants and are now fighting the 27th level wizard/34th level sorcerer/18th level striker/27th level defender fire giant. It's going to be a while.
Now how many rounds is his pet gray ooze controller knocked prone for...
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558460And that's your opinion. Since you're a dumbass, I don't really care about your opinions. I'm still interested in your observations, but not your opinions. Once I run them through my dumbass filter they come out as 'derp - derp - derp'.
:teehee:
It's cute when you try to act like the adults.
Quote from: StormBringer;558463derp - derp - derp.
What?
Quote from: Marleycat;558425It can be negated by taking the feat Natural Spell or whatever which allows for full spellcasting in Wildshape as long as you could verbalize something I assume. It really is a no brainer for a Druid to take and breaks the class three ways to Sunday.
True, but again it is something that must be specificly crafted for on the character sheet. It is not the inherant slam dunk that someone from a CharOp board imagined automatically comes with the class.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;558459Holy crap! This thread is dragging on longer than a 4E combat.
Can we get to 300 pages before the DM calls it quits and just say the PCs win?
As I've said before, this place is RPG.net's Sartre-ban.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558460I had a very active fantasy life. !
Still do, apparently. Sorry dude, but I put little stock in the memory of someone on how the game was played when they were six years old. Even if you get past the fact that 6 year olds most likely were playing some weird pseudo version of the game because that's all a typical 6 year old can mentally handle, a person's memory of when they were in grammar school is going to be highly flawed. You were 10 when 2e came out, so I doubt you really know all that much about how 1e was actually played in the 70s and 80s.
QuoteThere's plenty of people that have played D&D longer than I have, but it's certainly true that I grew up playing the game.
No, you were playing
pretend. A game that kids have been doing for thousands of years. I can guarantee you that at 6-9 years old, you weren't playing an functional version of D&D by walking around the schoolyard pretending to be elves.
But either way, do you folks remember when I statted myself out? And I gave myself a wisdom of 7 or 8? That's because of threads like this. I have continued to respond even though I know that MGuy is nothing but a troll. There is no way a functional human being can be that...out there without doing it on purpose for shits and giggles. And I fell for it. Ergo, I have low willpower ;)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558433The idea of a bard is a 'synergistic benefit' - having a bard is supposed to make everyone else better. Additionally, the bard is supposed to be able to fill any 'missing role' that the party might have (but not as effectively as a dedicated class). By and large, they ended up doing nothing well-enough to make them able to 'sub-in' for other classes, and most of the 'making other people better' just isn't significant enough to justify their place on the team.
This is where I point out the obvious class differences between a generalist, like a bard, and specialist, like every other class.
As far as "spotlight hogging", what a load of crap! When the Fighter Player excells in melee combat is he a "spotlight hog" for being the best at swinging a sword? You play a class to its strength and a Bard is strong at in-game social situations, fucking deal with it or ban Bards as a character class.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558460So, now it's time for you to start providing your experience with 3.5.
Actually, we just have to take a look at yours. Your "experience" with 3.5 seems to be made of excursions with Charmed giants under the control of the Wizard, while Charm Monster does NOT provide such control to instead maintain the creatures under the control of the DM as NPCs friendly to your cause (which then through the magic of actual DMing and actual play you could use to actually make the game fun for everyone, as evidenced in this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=550607#post550607)), of Wizards who have magically memorized all the spells they need in the exact right amount before having as much down time as they need to craft all the wands and potions they might require to do anything they want.
It's cool you started playing the game at 6 and grew up with it. It's too bad your imagination and DM skills died between then and now. We get it. It's not your fault. It's just the system that's broken.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558464What?
Look, here's why you are not to be taken seriously:
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558460Sure, I'd expect that you'd find some clerics in a temple. But many temples also have novitiates, cooks, gardeners, etc. You can have lots of 'dedicated religious people' without NECESSARILY having clerics. You can also have Paladins and other Warriors with religious training. You can also have Aristocrats that were able to use political connections to secure a position of importance in a religious hierarchy (at least, if the fantasy world is anything like the game world). But even assuming that EVERYONE in the temple is a cleric....
You don't have a temple without a Cleric in charge. Novitiates don't just sit down with a copy of the scriptures and get on-the-job training. A church without a priest is just a building full of heretics, as far as the Church was concerned. In game terms, the Cleric is the direct contact with a deity, analogous to the Christian priest. How many churches of any denomination are you aware of that don't have a pastor/reverend/priest? Sure, the vicar or the deacon or whatever might be out in the community more, but they still have a boss. The Cathedral at Canterbury isn't counting on cooks and gardeners to minister to people in Oxford; they have their own cathedral staffed by... wait for it... a bishop and assorted staff.
It's as though you aren't even vaguely aware of how organizations in general are created and maintained, let alone how a religious organization is maintained. And yet, you want people to take your wildly misguided ideas as the most iron-clad of facts. It is simply impossible for this to be a good faith discussion on your part, because you make the most outlandish of claims in order to 'score points' or whatever your metric is for participating.
And just to demonstrate how fucking stupid your math is, a Wand of CLW is 750gp, while 10th level WBL is 49,000gp. 10 wands at 7,500gp for 500 charges of CLW doesn't seem too spendy, does it?
Quote from: StormBringer;558475It is simply impossible for this to be a good faith discussion on your part, because you make the most outlandish of claims in order to 'score points' or whatever your metric is for participating.
You owe me a new irony meter.
Quote from: daniel_ream;558476You owe me a new irony meter.
I will fully admit I exaggerate for effect from time to time. I think you would be hard pressed to find a post where I tenaciously cling to notions like 'not all churches had priests', however.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;558470You were 10 when 2e came out, so I doubt you really know all that much about how 1e was actually played in the 70s and 80s.
I'm not arguing that I
am a grognard. Far from it. I don't think it should matter when you started playing, and limited experience doesn't necessarily imply that observations should be immediately discounted.
For myself, I'm not really interested in the question of whether Fighters were more or less powerful than Wizards in 1st or 2nd edition. I think they were, but it certainly wasn't to the
degree that it is true in 3.5. However, it was quite striking in 3.5, and it doesn't appear that it'll be changing any time soon.
From what I've learned about D&D Next, it seems quite possible that they're committed to making sure that the Fighter doesn't get any better. In 4th edition, they seemed to bring everyone to a level where they all did the same thing in different ways - and that's boring, too.
I want Wizards that are capable of doing amazing things. In general, I don't think a single wizard should be able to do ALL the amazing things - I prefer the idea of 'strict specialists' - I'd prefer a necromancer with a bunch of curse and undeath spells that offers a comprehensive 'option' for their spellcasting; an enchanter with a bunch of mind-affecting and morale-boosting spells, an evoker with lots of ways to blow people up, etc. The idea that a single wizard can do
ALL of those things, sometimes even on the same day, and
fly and
teleport is a problem. But even if Wizards did have more serious restrictions in terms of spell list, the Fighter still needs to have a few more 'tools' in his toolkit.
In 3.x terms (and note that the designers of D&D Next have experience with 3.x and 4e) the Fighter doesn't have access to much of anything that other people can't get. The things he can get (improved Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Weapon Specialization) don't even make him as capable a combatant as the Rogue (so in 2e terms, the Thief is a better Fighter than the Fighter), and tons of spells render him completely superfluous - and often make him more of a liability to the party than an asset. Of course, you don't see any high-level 3.x Fighters (people that play the class multi-class or prestige out of it because it is clearly a 'trap' option by the time you get to mid- to high-levels).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558478I'm not arguing that I am a grognard. Far from it. I don't think it should matter when you started playing, and limited experience doesn't necessarily imply that observations should be immediately discounted.
No, of course not. Why should we accord any value to vulgar
experiences? It's not like the resident Chief Neurosurgeon at a large hospital is any better than a newly minted doctor starting their internship, right?
Quote from: StormBringer;558475You don't have a temple without a Cleric in charge.
Talk about taking something in the worst possible way. But here's one for you - in a published module, there is a temple where the only person is a Paladin of Heironeous. No clerics. The Paladin is fairly high level. This was one of the WotC modules - probably
Speaker in Dreams if I'm remembering correctly. Of course, you'll just dismiss the published module because you don't like WotC, I get that. But clearly, at least in SOME games, there are SOME temples without a cleric. Further, there are some Deities that don't have temples. Farlahagn is a deity that may have 'roadside shrines' but not many temples. If they do have temples, there's no guarantee that a cleric is in residence - since they wander a lot, they might stay for a while and then leave as the whims of their deity dictate.
So I guess this is the difference between the way I play and the way you play - I use the rules to support the story. You ignore the rules to tell the story you want to play. I just think it's funny that you're accusing me of doing that.
Since you missed the point before - a temple may have a cleric. The cleric may even be high level. But high-level clerics are supposed to be rare, and in 3.x, the number of clerics and the level of those clerics is determined by the number of people living nearby. In a hamlet, you won't find a 15th level cleric except the one you brought with you.
Quote from: StormBringer;558475A church without a priest is just a building full of heretics, as far as the Church was concerned. In game terms, the Cleric is the direct contact with a deity, analogous to the Christian priest.
And I agree that's true TODAY. But in the later days of the Roman Empire all the way through to about the 20th century, there were a lot of 'priests' without religious training. D&D seems to have lots of modern sensibilities, but this isn't necessarily one of them. In some games, cultists are able to pose as priests of an opposing faith. In some games most non-adventurers are experts or other NPC classes. Priests that actually call down miracles from the heavens may be more or less rare depending on your tastes - but if clerics are less than 1% of the population, and you have more than 1 religious person for every 100 people, by definition, some of your religious people
are not clerics. Since this is a place that's pretty encouraging of 'different strokes for different folks', I think your apparent claim that 'all temples in all games everywhere always have at least one cleric' is moronic and fails to use the required sample size - and I know that's important to you. Feel free to retract your assertions if you don't feel you speak for every gamer everywhere.
Quote from: StormBringer;558475It's as though you aren't even vaguely aware of how organizations in general are created and maintained, let alone how a religious organization is maintained.
And it's like you're ignoring historical fact. Almost like you're making 'the most outlandish of claims to score points or whatever'.
Quote from: StormBringer;558475And just to demonstrate how fucking stupid your math is, a Wand of CLW is 750gp, while 10th level WBL is 49,000gp. 10 wands at 7,500gp for 500 charges of CLW doesn't seem too spendy, does it?
I didn't say it did. But at 10th level, a barbarian might have 150 hit points, easy. At an average of 5.5 points of healing per use of the wand, it might take 27.25 charges of the wand to bring him to full from 0. So if you're relying on wands, you could literally be using up 2 such wands on the barbarian between fights if that's your only source of healing (assuming an adventuring day of 4 encounters using 25% of your resources each encounter). And of course, a
wand of cure light wounds doesn't solve blindness, or ability damage, or death, or being turned into a statue. At 10th level, those are all real possibilities.
It's great if a party has the resources to deal with all of those contingencies. If they don't, it's probably smart to go to a temple that is prepared to deal with them. But if it's the local temple in the nearby thorpe of 15 farmers, your game is probably dumb. It's probably gamist, and is the definition of 'DM Pity'.
If your game is
not like that, you're wanking pretty hard to defend that position.
Quote from: StormBringer;558479No, of course not. Why should we accord any value to vulgar experiences? It's not like the resident Chief Neurosurgeon at a large hospital is any better than a newly minted doctor starting their internship, right?
You see, this where you start sounding like a dumbass every time. It's like there is a world in your head and a 'real world' and they don't look anything alike.
Did you know that there are studies that indicate that doctor's that have been practicing a long time are actually often WORSE than new doctors? Medical care is (oh no - here comes that word again) EVOLVING at an amazing rate as new technology expands the number of care options available. Keeping up on the latest developments requires a lot of time and effort - time and effort that is hard to put in when you're busy doing 'doctoring and shit' full-time. Most doctors
DO try really hard to stay up on the latest developments in their field, but you know where a good place to get educated is?
That's right - medical school. Sometimes people fresh out of medical school know MORE than people that have been doing things for years and years and relying on their own experience because when you get an education, you benefit from the experiences of LOTS of other people.
Now, personally, I don't think that having NO experience is desireable - and I didn't say that. But if I'm in the position of having surgery, I do want someone who is educated - not someone who learned how to do brain surgery practicing on homeless people in a back alley - regardless of how much experience they CLAIM to have.
Besides, once someone is out of medical school, how do you judge the QUALITY of their experience? If someone has been out of medical school for 3 years and performs the surgery 3x/week, and someone has been out of medical school for 12 years and performs the surgery 1/month, which one is 'more experienced'? What about 1/week?
I think you'd recognize that an argument could be made for either person as the 'more experienced', and it comes down to some subjective factors. Or rather, I would expect you to recognize that if you weren't a) a dumbass and b) predisposed to disagree with everything I say for no other reason than I say it.
Oh. Forgot. Because, Wizards!!
And yet again, deadDM, you are not answering my post. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=550607#post550607) Time and time again, I've been alluding to it, reminding you of it, and none of you buffoons (you, Kaelic, MGuy, etc) have bothered answering it yet.
Why? Because it directly debunks your bullshit and proves that these issues you keep having ignore the power you yourselves hold as individuals around the game table to make the experience enjoyable for everyone, that is is a fundamental part of the equation that makes a Role Playing Game work for everyone, that the rules are in fact not the game, and the game not the rules. That annoys the fuck out of you, because you just might have to look at the way you choose to play the game and learn, instead of blaming the rules for your failings.
See also this post for more of my thoughts (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=551011&postcount=889) based on this.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;558461We've killed all the 1HP minion fire giants and are now fighting the 27th level wizard/34th level sorcerer/18th level striker/27th level defender fire giant. It's going to be a while.
Now how many rounds is his pet gray ooze controller knocked prone for...
Your (lack of) 4E knowledge is showing there.
Quote from: Fifth Element;558487Your (lack of) 4E knowledge is showing there.
How bout we just started on Lolth- Stage 2. :p
Quote from: Benoist;558486And yet again, deadDM, you are not answering my post. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=550607#post550607) Time and time again, I've been alluding to it, reminding you of it, and none of you buffoons (you, Kaelic, MGuy, etc) have bothered answering it yet.
I'm sorry. I read your post. There weren't many questions, and those I saw were in the body of the post, not broken out in a way that seemed to require a response.
Quote from: Benoist;558486Why? Because it directly debunks your bullshit and proves that these issues you keep having ignore the power you yourselves hold as individuals around the game table to make the experience enjoyable for everyone, that is is a fundamental part of the equation that makes a Role Playing Game work for everyone, that the rules are in fact not the game, and the game not the rules. That annoys the fuck out of you, because you just might have to look at the way you choose to play the game and learn, instead of blaming the rules for your failings.
No. Not that.
The Fighter had a long-bow. The fighter could not stand out of the water with a long-bow, but could have used it with a penalty. It was no big deal, however, because Wyvern's can't lift and carry a Large creature. They would have been interested in attacking the PCs, but they weren't interested in attacking giants. The presence of the giants was enough to end the encounter - no actual fighting was required. If it came to actual fighting, the bow probably had a better range than the rocks, but I don't know for sure, especially without knowing what penalty using a long-bow in waist-deep water would use. Should have been a short bow, I guess.
I agree that the adventure could have been more fun to play. As far as 'exactly how it went down', I didn't cover all the details. There were times when the players did control the giants and times that they didn't. The Fighter player decided that a giant was cooler than his Fighter, and that bothered him. The fact that the Frost Giants have a massive LA (for no apparent reason that I can discern) made it impossible to simply switch. A Frost Giant is a CR 9 creature, so it is supposed to be 'equivalent to a 9th level Fighter), but it has 14 HD and a +4 LA, so it would have required the Fighter to be an 18th level character to play a 'from the book' Frost Giant.
Can you imagine how much worse that would have been? To be told that while the Wizard can have some major influence on a Frost Giant at levels 9 and 10, you have to be 18th level to play one on your own?
In your post you also talked about how Diplomacy is broken in 3.5. I don't disagree.
The things that I remember from that game are that things broke without 'breaking any rules'. I could try to remove and/or fix
charm monster, or I could try to make sure that a 9th level Fighter is equivalent to a CR 9 Frost Giant. I do think casters need to be reigned in, but in general, I don't want to play a game where 'magic doesn't exist'. The ability to charm powerful monsters and use them against your enemies is generally acceptable to me. But if it's in the game, there should be something that makes sure Fighters can stay relevant at the levels where these abilities come into play.
Fighters have little reason to exist after 5th level [in 3.x]. Most people recognize this to be true. The designers PRETEND that a 15th level Fighter is equivalent to a 15th level 'anything else', but that's misleading. It's why some people refer to it as a 'trap option'. If you don't know any better, or if you liked playing a Fighter in 2nd edition, you might try to stick with the class until it really does become 'unplayable'.
The example I provided was just a situation where a player that loved Fighters decided that Fighters weren't that lovable in 3.5.
For me, as someone who loves the
idea of a Fighter, I think it's a crying shame that you can't really have them in the game... Or if you do, they are fundamentally at 'henchman status' - even if the player is smart. Because if the other players are smart, they can do everything the Fighter can do
and more. That includes hitting enemies, usually (but not alwasy) with a sword. And I care because they're developing a new version of D&D, and they don't look like they're going to address any of the problems with 'Fighter Balance' - which some people don't seem to believe is an issue, but most of the people in this thread have admitted to noticing in 3.x.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't nerf the caster - in fact, I've suggested some ways of doing it in the last two hours. But making it so casters can't do 'magical things' is going too far. 4th edition went to far nerfing casters (and everyone else). Some people might think that 'limiting the caster first' is important, but I disagree with the presciption.
Firstly, I think that establishing what you want in the 'melee game' as far as reasonable damage is better. Once you have the 'melee baseline' you can build your caster (especially their damaging spells) around that.
Limitations that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT matter (such as a % chance to access a certain spell) are much harder to consider. If a spell breaks the game 100% of the time it is included, and you think it's okay because there is only a 50% chance that the spell is in the game, you're crazy. That means half of all games are broken. That's a good reason to fix that spell.
Basically, when I hear people talking about 'put restrictions on the caster', a voice in the back of my head says 'and if he finds a way around that restriction' - because that's what most of these are - things you play around. If you can be interrupted in melee, you avoid melee. If you avoid melee, you cannot be interrupted. If you cannot be interrupted, you are not limited by the 'interruption mechanics'. Things like 'spells per day' are a much more legitimate limitation because they pretty much WILL apply, as opposed to having a 'percent chance' of applying. But even that has some loopholes - including scrolls, wands, and staves. And this was true in 2nd edition as well as 1st edition... So, while it's a limitation, the
degree that it affects play is at least somewhat variable.
If we're talking limitations,
they should apply. If they're theoretical but easily circumvented,
they're not really limitations.
So, I would like to discuss reasonable limitations for the wizard - I even suggested some that I think would work for me. But pretty much whatever limitations you put other than 'wizard spells take more than 1 round to cast' pretty much still leaves Wizards as superior UNLESS the Fighter is improved as well.
So, where do we disagree, exactly? Is it the part where I think Stormbringer is a dumbass? Because I have to tell you, that is a deeply held conviction, and there is nothing
YOU can say to change my mind about that. There's a possibility Stormbringer could, but the possibility seems so remote it's almost not worth mentioning.
Quote from: Fifth Element;558487Your (lack of) 4E knowledge is showing there.
I don't care.
That's cool. You're evading the actual substance of the post, which was rephrased and structured in the second post I linked in my previous post. I was expecting as much, since you and your buddies' rhetoric have proven over the course of the last 200 pages at least that you will not not give an inch on your position, whatever it takes, no matter how silly or dumb you sound, up to the point we have guys like MGuy who actually writes walls of text about 1e without having so much as laid eyes on it ever in his life.
Like I've said a long time ago now on this thread, you've defeated yourself with your mental gymnastics. No actual gamer can possibly take what you're saying seriously at this point, because you just demonstrated time and time again just how far in la-la-land you are willing to get to not have to admit you have been pulling our legs for the last 2,000 posts.
I've got to thank you, however, because in no other thread that I remember has this been so blatantly obvious coming from the charop, 'rules are everything', whiny 3rd ed crowd. There's a lot to criticize when it comes to games like 4e and their fans who drank the Forge Kool Aid, but you guys are just as bad in many ways.
You've given in to this whole idea that system is everything, that the rules are the game and the game the rules, that "System Matters" in the Forgist sense of the term, and that renunciation on the actual value of a role playing game as it is played leads you to terrible experiences of game play, terrible games which could be solved were you still aware of the multiple parts that make an RPG function besides its rules.
It's also disheartening, in all honesty, to see you double-down on this poison on an idea to blame the rules for your own failings around the game tables, to then advocate changes to a game which in fact works perfectly fine for living, thinking people bent to have fun together around the dinner table, changes which would lead to more delusions, more bad games, more frustrations focusing on the wrong problems springing the wrong solutions, ad nauseam, et bis repetita, until one day you'll finally burn out on RPGs to play WoW or some strategy games with hardcoded rules that will respond more to your actual needs as a gamer.
That reminds me of this (http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/325792-convincing-4th-edition-players-consider-5th-edition-post5964073.html#post5964073) exchange (http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/325792-convincing-4th-edition-players-consider-5th-edition-57.html#post5964147) on ENWorld where you clearly have posters advancing Forge agenda with or without realizing it by talking about role playing as a "system" and then finding out that it's "incoherent" because then role playing isn't governed by rules, and if it's a system well... it really ought to be governed by rules and rules alone, which is extremely similar to your idea that any interaction with the DM is ipso facto "magical tea party", begging to the DM and having him "take pity on you".
On that ENWorld thread, they're using the idea that that "System Matters" in the Forgist sense of the expression, using the very same rhetoric used to disparage what they branded "simulationism" back in the day: it started with the idea that there's Gamism, Narrativism and Simulationism, to later posit that Simulationism seems "strange" and weird, like it's incoherent as a play style, to then posit point blank "wait, that's because Simulationism in fact doesn't exist! It's because people who consider themselves Sims are in fact proto-Gamists or proto-Narrativists! As soon as they realize that they have a creative agenda playing an RPG, they'll just assume their 'real' playstyle". All that suddenly mattered was what was going on from a metagame point of view.
That's the same thing there. First they posit that role playing is in fact a "system", then they pretend to realize "Hey, wait a minute, that's incoherent! If it's a system, howcome there are no formal procedures in the rules to deal with it?" And boom, suddenly you have shit like skill challenges showing up. The rules are the game. The game the rules.
You support the very same idea, from a different (3rd ed CharOp) point of view, speaking about a different "problem". "The fighter is useless and can't do anything because he doesn't have abilities written on the character sheet." It "ought to be covered by the system", because System Matters. The rules are the game. The game the rules.
You've lost your way mate. We're not playing the same hobby anymore, and that's a problem. It's a real problem for the hobby in general, IMO, because if that is really the case, that effectively we are not playing the same games anymore and thereby enjoying the same past-times you and I, then there's no possible middle ground between my position and yours. If that is so, 5e is doomed, since it's based on the notion a middle-ground approach actually exists and is possible to reach. Personally, each and every single of these internet shitstorms convince me more and more, one by one, bit by bit, that it is in fact the case: that there is no middle-ground to reach, and that's what I learned big time on this thread in the last few days, thanks in part to you.
So thank you, mate, for showing me the light. This is going to be useful in the future.
Jumping in again for a few comments...
Quote from: Benoist;558486Because it directly debunks your bullshit and proves that these issues you keep having ignore the power you yourselves hold as individuals around the game table to make the experience enjoyable for everyone, that is is a fundamental part of the equation that makes a Role Playing Game work for everyone, that the rules are in fact not the game, and the game not the rules. That annoys the fuck out of you, because you just might have to look at the way you choose to play the game and learn, instead of blaming the rules for your failings.
This is broken logic. I can sit down at a table with a set of broken rules and still have fun with the people I'm playing with. That doesn't mean that the rules aren't broken - that means that I can have fun
despite problems with the rules.
While I go back and forth over details brought up here, my experience of AD&D1 is that spellcasters are indeed dominant at high levels. This didn't ruin the game because we played as a team, exact balance wasn't as important as generally interesting play, and high level play was the exception rather than the rule. Still, this doesn't mean that the rules were perfect as written, and I think we would have enjoyed things more if the rules were more balanced.
Sometimes, the wisest course isn't to keep working around rules to have fun - it's to change the rules to what works better for you.
Also, two general trends of this discussion have seemed odd to me:
1) Discussion has focused solely on limits and problems for magic users, focusing only on high level. In my experience, 1e magic users absolutely sucked at low levels, and this was more of an issue for me than the high-level play. So many of the points about how the system made problems for magic users don't seem like good things to me.
2) Several posts imply anger at the magic-user. Like if the magic users wiped out a threat without the fighter getting to fight, then the fighter would be mad and might, say, refuse to guard the magic user while he slept. In my experience, we worked as a team - and we were generally happy if our party could defeat its foes without taking any damage.
Quote from: jhkim;558497Jumping in again for a few comments...
I would expect no less from a Storygaming/Forge apologist.
Quote from: jhkim;558497Jumping in again for a few comments...
This is broken logic. I can sit down at a table with a set of broken rules and still have fun with the people I'm playing with. That doesn't mean that the rules aren't broken - that means that I can have fun despite problems with the rules.
While I go back and forth over details brought up here, my experience of AD&D1 is that spellcasters are indeed dominant at high levels. This didn't ruin the game because we played as a team, exact balance wasn't as important as generally interesting play, and high level play was the exception rather than the rule. Still, this doesn't mean that the rules were perfect as written, and I think we would have enjoyed things more if the rules were more balanced.
Sometimes, the wisest course isn't to keep working around rules to have fun - it's to change the rules to what works better for you.
Everything you've said here gets a big +1 from me.
Quote from: jhkim;558497Also, two general trends of this discussion have seemed odd to me:
1) Discussion has focused solely on limits and problems for magic users, focusing only on high level. In my experience, 1e magic users absolutely sucked at low levels, and this was more of an issue for me than the high-level play. So many of the points about how the system made problems for magic users don't seem like good things to me.
I agree here. If I were coming in with a 1st or 2nd edition perspective, my focus would be 'wizards are too limited at low levels' and 'wizards are too powerful at high levels'. Certainly, low-level play would be more of an issue than high level play because the game assumes that's where you start and not everyone reaches high levels.
This is clearly a matter of taste, and I understand that some people feel that it's okay that the wizard 'pays' for more power later by being weak at the beginning. It's not to my taste, but I understand that it works for some people.
What 3rd edition did by removing some of these annoying limitations is push the problems of high-level play MUCH earlier in the game. Which is why I have a problem with it.
Quote from: jhkim;5584972) Several posts imply anger at the magic-user. Like if the magic users wiped out a threat without the fighter getting to fight, then the fighter would be mad and might, say, refuse to guard the magic user while he slept. In my experience, we worked as a team - and we were generally happy if our party could defeat its foes without taking any damage.
I don't disagree with this, either. I don't think I've seen Fighter players get MAD at wizard players - I have seen Fighter players come to the conclusion that they weren't providing any benefit to the team. Every character should be able to contribute in a meaningful fashion at all levels of play. Those terms are very subjective, but I think that's a good way of summarizing my position.
Quote from: jhkim;558497While I go back and forth over details brought up here, my experience of AD&D1 is that spellcasters are indeed dominant at high levels. This didn't ruin the game because we played as a team, exact balance wasn't as important as generally interesting play, and high level play was the exception rather than the rule. Still, this doesn't mean that the rules were perfect as written, and I think we would have enjoyed things more if the rules were more balanced.
The issue is whether this is broken is a matter of pespective and subjective taste. Games are not all designed to be balaced equally. And different groups prefer a different approach to balance. For example:
Quote1) Discussion has focused solely on limits and problems for magic users, focusing only on high level. In my experience, 1e magic users absolutely sucked at low levels, and this was more of an issue for me than the high-level play. So many of the points about how the system made problems for magic users don't seem like good things to me.
I agree low level magic users are weak (at least in 2e, not familiar enough with 1e to comment on that edition in this respect). But to me that is the point. They start out weak and get more powerful (perhaps more powerful than other classes to a degree) as they reach higher levels. For lots of people this is a perfectly acceptable way to balance the game and leads to the bestossible flavor.
The points about limits faced by magic users are just to illustrate they are not as super powerful as people declare online. They do have some built in limits that need to be considered and are often ignored in these discussions. These limits are important.
There are going to be mechanics the community can point to and agree something is off or broken. But a lot of this stuff is a matter of preference and I think people are reacting to terms like "objectively bad design", "broken" and "bring the game forward" being thrown around when most of the time they just reflect the poster's personal taste and are just another way of saying " I don't like it".
Quote2) Several posts imply anger at the magic-user. Like if the magic users wiped out a threat without the fighter getting to fight, then the fighter would be mad and might, say, refuse to guard the magic user while he slept. In my experience, we worked as a team - and we were generally happy if our party could defeat its foes without taking any damage.
This I agree with. It is like people complaining when the cleric buffs their fighter or the wizard summons a monster. If the wizard finds a way to make the fighter's life easier, thats great for me.
Quote from: StormBringer;558475Look, here's why you are not to be taken seriously:
You don't have a temple without a Cleric in charge. Novitiates don't just sit down with a copy of the scriptures and get on-the-job training. A church without a priest is just a building full of heretics, as far as the Church was concerned. In game terms, the Cleric is the direct contact with a deity, analogous to the Christian priest. How many churches of any denomination are you aware of that don't have a pastor/reverend/priest? Sure, the vicar or the deacon or whatever might be out in the community more, but they still have a boss. The Cathedral at Canterbury isn't counting on cooks and gardeners to minister to people in Oxford; they have their own cathedral staffed by... wait for it... a bishop and assorted staff.
It's as though you aren't even vaguely aware of how organizations in general are created and maintained, let alone how a religious organization is maintained. And yet, you want people to take your wildly misguided ideas as the most iron-clad of facts. It is simply impossible for this to be a good faith discussion on your part, because you make the most outlandish of claims in order to 'score points' or whatever your metric is for participating.
And just to demonstrate how fucking stupid your math is, a Wand of CLW is 750gp, while 10th level WBL is 49,000gp. 10 wands at 7,500gp for 500 charges of CLW doesn't seem too spendy, does it?
This is totally a campaign choice i ran a campaign where he old Gods had been usurped by a Shiny new god. The new god was infact a sham run by cleric that worshiped a demon. The kingdom was filled with churches that were run by Priests that were 0 level humans (well a few had other class skills) there through political influence and wealth, just like the real church.
Whereas clerics of the old gods were pursued as heretics and the Inquistion. The PCs were all clerics of the old gods of course.
Even in my vanilla games typcially powerful church positions are given to 0 level folks and genuine clerics, especially powerful ones beyond 1st level who had to go adventureing to gain that experience, are rare and treated like Saints.
So what you are saying may well be true of your games but i don't think that makes it ubiquitous.
And as for going to church and making a donation to the gods to gets your magic wand charged .... no fucking chance. That is as liklely as finding a shop that sells +3 sword in a variety of colours to suite andy wardrobe.
Benoist,
I've re-read both of the posts you linked to. It appears that your contention is that the rules, when the impede the game, can be changed to improve the game.
House-ruling is a revered tradtion in D&D, and it's something that we all do. It's a good thing. Because it helps shape each campaign a little differently and it helps certain groups achieve the feel they want. In some games players start with extra hit points... In my games Fighters start with more skill points. This definitely makes the game better for me and my groups.
Other groups do things that are similar.
I believe that when enough people are making similar house rules to achieve the same effect in game (in relation to this thread - making the Fighter not suck) it probably makes sense to change the 'baseline rules'.
If I say 'Fighters don't suck in my games, I've given them: this, that, those, and these' the statement is difficult to evaluate unless you try it in your games as well. But if enough people say 'I used the rules as written and my experience was the Fighter Sucked', that lends credence to the idea that changing the rules that make it suck could be worthwhile. In fact, if it comes out that in most (assuming a reliable way of gathering data) games, the group experienced the same issue with the normal rules and in most games that used a variant that impacted that area of the game DIDN'T notice that effect, that version of the game is better.
For myself, I'm not a slave to the rules. I understand how they work as well as what kind of game they're hoping to achieve. When the rules IMPEDE the game, which happens pretty often, I'm capable of making the changes that take care of the problem.
But that's only something you should EXPECT from an experienced DM. If the rules DON'T WORK, and only experienced DMs can fix them, nobody new will be entering the hobby unless an Experienced DM brings them in. If you're an experienced DM and you're good at what you do, you're probably NOT bringing in a lot of new players. You have a committed gaming group and they ARE NOT giving up their place at the table.
My assertion is that New Players suffer most if the rules don't work. Since most of the people posting on theRPGsite are very experienced, they may forget what it's like if you don't have years and years of experience of playing to draw on. Stormbringer (that dumbass) doesn't even deny it - he seems to think the only people that have value to the game are people that have experience with it. Personally, I like to welcome new people to the hobby. And there are times when I think 'fresh eyes' bring an interesting perspective that 'people who have been around the block' would find interesting - if they keep an open mind, at least.
I want to make sure that the rules are 'the best they can be' even if they can't be perfect. If you aim for the stars, even if you fall short, you might hit the moon - of whatever 'feel good shit' you think would appropriate there.
Quote from: Fifth Element;558427Seriously? What kind of immersion-breaking, gamist shit is this? D&D is not a video game.
Indeed :)
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;558502I agree low level magic users are weak (at least in 2e, not familiar enough with 1e to comment on that edition in this respect). But to me that is the point. They start out weak and get more powerful (perhaps more powerful than other classes to a degree) as they reach higher levels. For lots of people this is a perfectly acceptable way to balance the game and leads to the best possible flavor.
This I agree with. If that's what you like - that's great. It just seems like most of the old-school-ish side of this debate aren't arguing like you that it's OK for magic users to be more powerful at high levels - they're arguing that magic users are
not more powerful, and are in fact perfectly balanced with fighters at high level.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558432This is an example of what I've been referring to as 'DM Pity'. You're absolutely right that it's immersion-breaking gamist shit.
I would expect that if you were in Stormbringer's campaign, each of these temples would also have a cleric of high enough level to provide whatever service you need. You need a cure disease? They have a cleric able to cast it.
You died and want a Raise Dead. Yep, he's high enough level to cast that.
Or maybe they just keep a reserve of scrolls.
QuoteWhy didn't he clear out the nearby dungeon infested with low-level monsters that posed no threat to him?
I don't know... Because, wizards?
It would be bad for business.
Probably they are recruiting new monsters to fill after the adventurers have cleaned the dungeon out.
Quote from: Benoist;558486And yet again, deadDM, you are not answering my post. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=550607#post550607) Time and time again, I've been alluding to it, reminding you of it, and none of you buffoons (you, Kaelic, MGuy, etc) have bothered answering it yet.
Why? Because it directly debunks your bullshit and proves that these issues you keep having ignore the power you yourselves hold as individuals around the game table to make the experience enjoyable for everyone, that is is a fundamental part of the equation that makes a Role Playing Game work for everyone, that the rules are in fact not the game, and the game not the rules. That annoys the fuck out of you, because you just might have to look at the way you choose to play the game and learn, instead of blaming the rules for your failings.
See also this post for more of my thoughts (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=551011&postcount=889) based on this.
What is in your post he should have answered?
He explained his perfectly reasonable play example and you countered it with some valid points and expressed the opinion that his DM could have been more creative in the design of the dragon's lair.
A fair point again but hardly deadDM's fauly right he can only play the dungeon put before him.
You might also add that Dragons rarely pick their lairs to be environmentally interesting more they are picked for convenience, ambient temperature and the schools.
I agree with your point which is that everyone round the table is responsible for making the game enjoyable for everyone else and to me that is why balance is no big deal. But I can toally see that there are GD types that want to play optimised characters that is where they get their chuckles. For them the responsiblity to make the game fun for everyone is for everyone to bring a powerful character than can participate fully in their god like games. If you don't do that you are spoiling the fun for everyone else much like your early example of the cleric who using his powers to deliberately marginalise the fighter. its all about preference and play style.
In one game the rule is you must be this tall to enter here in the other its don't piss on another man's rhubarb both are valid ways to play if agreed up front.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558511Benoist,
I've re-read both of the posts you linked to. It appears that your contention is that the rules, when the impede the game, can be changed to improve the game.
No, (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=550607#post550607) it's not. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=551011&postcount=889) I know it's hard to get for someone who believes the rules are the game and the game the rules.
Try again.
Quote from: jhkim;558519This I agree with. If that's what you like - that's great. It just seems like most of the old-school-ish side of this debate aren't arguing like you that it's OK for magic users to be more powerful at high levels - they're arguing that magic users are not more powerful, and are in fact perfectly balanced with fighters at high level.
But the truely hysterical bit is that they are also the guys that used to argue with AM about what bullshit balance was. They will happily tell you that in real D&D it was common a 3rd level thief to be adventuring with a 12th level fighter just because those were the PCs in that part of the world at that time.
So on one hand balance is bullshit but on the other 1e was toally balanced which is a tricky position to maintain.
It wasn't balanced. It doesn't matter.
If it matters at your table fix it.
Now discussion how to fix it is interesting debating the rest is why we are on post 45,987
Quote from: Just Another User;558520Or maybe they just keep a reserve of scrolls.
Casting spells above your level from scrolls is difficult and dangerous.
They would need to be clerics to cast scrolls obviously and creating scrolls is expensive time consuming and difficult
If it wasn't then all those Wizards wudl be walking round with dozens of scrolls they prepared earlier and never using their spell slots...
Talking about spell slots can anyone tell me why as Wizards advance in level the pace at whch they gain spells increases.
I asked it up thread but everyone must have missed it.
At 9th elvel a wizard has 12 spells at 15th level they have 30 so their rate of spell acrual almost doubles.
Whereas in this phase the figthers HPs that wereincreasing by 1d10+con bonus per level out to increase at 3 per level (just 2 higher than the MU) .
Anyone think that is a good idea? Why is it justified
I think I mentioned this earlier in this trainwreck of a thread but if I didn't, here it is and if I did, here it is again:
Magic-users get that world-ending spell once per day. Period. Let's look at the fight-enders, the ZOMG DEPROTAGONIZED THE FIGHTER level spells, at least per AD&D which for some backwards-assed reason people think was where the badwrongfun started:
5th level:
Cloudkill
Conjure Elemental
Feeblemind
Hold Monster
Wall of...
Teleport
6th level:
Death Spell
Disintegrate
Geas
Spiritwrack
Tenser's Transformation
7th level:
Bigby's Grasping Hand
Limited Wish
Power Word, Stun
8th level:
Incendiary Cloud
Mass Charm
Maze
Power Word, Blind
Trap The Soul
9th level:
Astral Spell
Bigby's Crushing Hand
Power Word, Kill
Prismatic Sphere
Time Stop
Wish
...
Even discounting the casting time on many of those spells, the earliest in a career a magic-user can cast those starts at 9th level. And the magic-user in question gets to cast it ONCE. Jumping ahead a bit, assuming the magic-user has an 18 intelligence, you have to be 18th level to cast ONE 9th level spell. This assumes you found a scroll with a 9th level spell on it, or a high-level magic-user's spellbook to loot (not an unreasonable prospect).
And a lot of those spells have conditional save-or-die on them...and by the time you're using WISH in the middle of combat to dismiss something horrible, you're fighting something with phenomenal (18+ HD/level creatures) saving throws anyway.
So when Doug Henning doesn't pan out and David Blaine can't cut the mustard, who wades in and does exactly what they've been doing for the last 3 or 4 years of the campaign? The fighter, that's who. The fighter who, if he is on par with the magic-user level-wise is attacking two times every round. Our intrepid fighter may well be wielding a magic sword (or other weapon) capable of adding up to +5 to hit or damage, and may have a strength bonus (due to physical abilities or magic items) of up to an additional +6 (or more! - see Deities & Demigods) damage, not to mention bonuses to-hit. The fighter, if equipped with a two-handed sword of greatest magic properties is putting the smack down for up to 42 points of damage every round. If, again, he's the same level as the magic-user, that is to say, 18th, in our example, then he's hitting almost every round.
Assuming a +5/+5 two-handed sword, and a +3 to-hit bonus from strength and nothing else (no Bless, etc.) our intrepid fighter need not roll more than a 1 to hit, and will average 24 points of damage every round. In addition to other stuff the party is doing.
What's the point of all of this?
The point is that there was never, ever any real disparity between what the Magic-user can do and what the fighter can do; it only existed in the minds of people who didn't play by the rules, and because they didn't they let this non-issue become an issue and decided to "fix" matters.
And even if the magic user does get that spell off and fries the Fire Giant before the rest of the party begins combat? So what? That's the magic-user's one. Assuming, of course, these high-level fighters didn't charge, which happens before initiative - and well before spellcasting. Again a 1e thing.
Based on what I've said, the thread title is very apt. Wizard vs Fighter balance bullshit - because it is bullshit. They're already balanced.
Quote from: jhkim;558519This I agree with. If that's what you like - that's great. It just seems like most of the old-school-ish side of this debate aren't arguing like you that it's OK for magic users to be more powerful at high levels - they're arguing that magic users are not more powerful, and are in fact perfectly balanced with fighters at high level.
Not me. I don't mind it just like Brendan but at high levels they are objectively more powerful but it really isn't as large a gap as 3x. Besides I have ways to narrow the gap even in a 3x game. There are no magic marts in my world and wizards do not freely trade with each other. You want something you will pay for it. Think Mage the Awakening to get a feel for wizards in my games. Spells like rotes are power and power ALWAYS has strings attached and and a price to pay.:)
Edit: Delver is right though most of this supposed imbalance is because people flat out ignore large swaths of the rules.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;558532Based on what I've said, the thread title is very apt. Wizard vs Fighter balance bullshit - because it is bullshit. They're already balanced.
That's right. They are "balanced." Just not the way people keep expecting, which then they try to "fix" over and over instead of trying to understand what the game's "balance" actually is, and what it is predicated on (hint: it isn't just covered by the rules, and the rules assumptions' themselves might not be your own). Fail.
Quote from: jhkim;558519This I agree with. If that's what you like - that's great. It just seems like most of the old-school-ish side of this debate aren't arguing like you that it's OK for magic users to be more powerful at high levels - they're arguing that magic users are not more powerful, and are in fact perfectly balanced with fighters at high level.
While I do think high level mages are a bit more powerful in AD&D 2E (much more powerful in 3E), I can also see that this is a somewhat subjective call. It is very hard to evaluate these things given all the moving parts. And I think many of the old school posters here who point to the significant limiting factors for wizards in older editions are making reasonable points. I happen to come down on the side of wizards starting weak and ending a bit stronger, but I don't think it is as black and white as folks like Mguy are claiming. I wouldn't say 2E wizards are objectively more powerful than fighters at high levels. I would say my impression is that they are to a degree, but it is okay because it balances over the course of the campaign and fighters still have plenty to contribute.
Quote from: Benoist;551011The morality I want to stress here is that, though rules systems can't be perfect, or 'balanced', ever, they can be great tools to bring the awesome in your campaign. The most important thing is that, in the end, you are in charge of the way you want your game to unfold. Not the rules. When you get that there is a world surrounding the situations you guys keep ranting about, suddenly it becomes a matter of skillful application of the rules' premise and mastery of the game itself to create an environment that is challenging and enjoyable by the players. This responsibility is yours, and you can be a great DM.
If, however, your reflex is instantly to blame the rules for whatever shortcomings you witness in the game, you will not progress. You will remain a mediocre DM, and the rules, modified by the designers to fit your own shortcomings, will just become more and more stiffling, more and more limitating, all of that for the sake of 'fairness'.
That was the thought process that basically gave us 4e.
Trying to claim that I want people to only be able to do things written on their character sheet is incorrect. I (and MGuy) have pointed out that if an ability IS NOT on your character sheet, anyone can do it. Trying to do things that aren't codified in the rules is an important part of play, and I don't want to dismiss it. But please recognize that anything that anybody can do
does not represent a Fighter benefit.
I also agree that a Great DM will have no trouble being in charge of the game and ensuring that everything is fun for everyone all the time. That's the thing about Great DMs. They're great. It's tautological. But not every DM is great. Some are medicore. Some are brand new. Some are picking up the game for the first time and they're poring through the books and they're trying to get their friends excited to play a game they've never played before. And unless they're 'wankers' like us, hanging out on an RPG discussion forum, they're not going to know what is likely to be a problem in their game
until they run into it.
The point of the rules is to ensure that a new DM and/or new player have a starting point where the game can be run 'as written' and still be fun. Perfection may not be possible. But addressing 'obvious errors' is.
Since just about everyone in this thread has agreed that there is a problem with the 3.x Fighter in high level play (somewhere between 5th-12th) what's wrong with wanting people to 1) admit that it's a problem and 2) make sure they address it in future editions. Anybody still here believe that the Fighter in 3.x isn't severely limited compared to the other characters in high-level play? Or even compared to earlier editions?
I don't think 4th edition addressed it. It tried to say 'you can't do anything - just like the Fighter'. Clearly, few people were satisfied with that. Anybody here play 4th edition? Anybody want to chime in for how popular and satisfying the game is?
Right now, D&D Next looks to have a lot more of 4th edition than 3rd edition. That doesn't work for me. 3rd edition still had lots of room for players to try things that 'weren't on the character sheet'. But as a player, and as a DM, I like having abilities that I can try to use in interesting ways. Sure, I don't need an ability to do lots of things - but everybody else can do those too. But sometimes you DO need an ability.
You need an ability to Track
You need an ability to Sneak
You need an ability to Climb
Right off the bat - the Fighter ought to be good at these, but he's not.
Track requires a Feat - it's not particuarly valuable as a Feat, however, because you need skill ranks to use it.
Hide and Move Silently are used to sneak. Since an opponent can hear you OR see you, you need high ranks in BOTH to be effective. Since a Fighter only gets 2 skill points per level, and both of these are class skills (ie, 1 rank costs 2 points) the Fighter is never going to be good at either of these - especially since they're incompatible with heavy armor.
Climb uses Strength as a primary attribute. It is also a class skill. So a Fighter with full ranks can climb as well as, what? Not much. First off, this is also subject to an armor check penalty, so they may struggle to climb at all, even with good ranks. What's more, they're denied their Dexterity modifier. No matter how much they practice climbing and/or how good they are at it, they're never going to be as good as a monkey. Is it impossible to believe that a Fighter can be as good at climbing as Tarzan? Apparently, by the rules, it is. And even then you climb at 1/4 speed - with heavy armor that's 5'. You could move at half speed if you take a big enough penalty - 10'...
In 3.x, the Fighter isn't able to do the things he OUGHT to be able to do. That's a failure of the rules. And a DM shouldn't be expected to fix all of these things. They should have come up in playtesting pretty much immediately.
They've certainly come up to a lot of people in a lot of editions of the game - Fighter's suck isn't a new discussion. But to deny it - that I just don't understand. I haven't seen anyone trying to provide evidence that high level fighters DON'T suck - it just seems that people disagree about WHY they suck - mostly whether Wizards are TOO POWERFUL or Fighters are TOO WEAK, or BOTH.
I'm in the 'BOTH' camp.
Quote from: Just Another User;558520Or maybe they just keep a reserve of scrolls.
Actually, that's exactly what I suggested would USUALLY be more reasonable - a low-level cleric that has scrolls for these issues, but no guarantee that he'll be able to cast them successfully...
Quote from: Just Another User;558520It would be bad for business.
Probably they are recruiting new monsters to fill after the adventurers have cleaned the dungeon out.
I could see that. But apparently their deity will step down into the mortal plane and quash them for their willingness to deal with evil creatures. Or something like that. I admit to not understanding the way of the deities in some campaigns. They apparently object to their clerics using bows, even though not all clerics are opposed to blood-shed...
There's such a communication breakdown that I'm forced to conclude, once again, that there is something so fundamentally different in the way we understand role playing games and the role rules, in particular, play at a game table that any effort for us to try to find a middle ground is doomed from the outset.
You and MGuy have a different past-time than I do. To me, you're not playing role playing games. You game rules and basically understand the role of such systems as they would play for a board game, a computer game, or some other type of game that isn't an RPG. You are further victim of the old canard of the "evolution" of rules and systems variants available to play an RPG being somehow a form of positive "Progress" in the scientific sense of the term, which is such a fundamentally stupid idea I can't even begin to write yet another post debunking it.
The conclusion really is that, as I've concluded some 200 pages back, we really have nothing to say to one another. If you drag the D&D game with you into that non-RPG territory you want so much to "fix" your issues with the game, so be it. We'll just enjoy our different hobbies separately.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558551Trying to claim that I want people to only be able to do things written on their character sheet is incorrect. I (and MGuy) have pointed out that if an ability IS NOT on your character sheet, anyone can do it. Trying to do things that aren't codified in the rules is an important part of play, and I don't want to dismiss it. But please recognize that anything that anybody can do does not represent a Fighter benefit.
I also agree that a Great DM will have no trouble being in charge of the game and ensuring that everything is fun for everyone all the time. That's the thing about Great DMs. They're great. It's tautological. But not every DM is great. Some are medicore. Some are brand new. Some are picking up the game for the first time and they're poring through the books and they're trying to get their friends excited to play a game they've never played before. And unless they're 'wankers' like us, hanging out on an RPG discussion forum, they're not going to know what is likely to be a problem in their game until they run into it.
The point of the rules is to ensure that a new DM and/or new player have a starting point where the game can be run 'as written' and still be fun. Perfection may not be possible. But addressing 'obvious errors' is.
Since just about everyone in this thread has agreed that there is a problem with the 3.x Fighter in high level play (somewhere between 5th-12th) what's wrong with wanting people to 1) admit that it's a problem and 2) make sure they address it in future editions. Anybody still here believe that the Fighter in 3.x isn't severely limited compared to the other characters in high-level play? Or even compared to earlier editions?
I don't think 4th edition addressed it. It tried to say 'you can't do anything - just like the Fighter'. Clearly, few people were satisfied with that. Anybody here play 4th edition? Anybody want to chime in for how popular and satisfying the game is?
Right now, D&D Next looks to have a lot more of 4th edition than 3rd edition. That doesn't work for me. 3rd edition still had lots of room for players to try things that 'weren't on the character sheet'. But as a player, and as a DM, I like having abilities that I can try to use in interesting ways. Sure, I don't need an ability to do lots of things - but everybody else can do those too. But sometimes you DO need an ability.
You need an ability to Track
You need an ability to Sneak
You need an ability to Climb
Right off the bat - the Fighter ought to be good at these, but he's not.
Track requires a Feat - it's not particuarly valuable as a Feat, however, because you need skill ranks to use it.
Hide and Move Silently are used to sneak. Since an opponent can hear you OR see you, you need high ranks in BOTH to be effective. Since a Fighter only gets 2 skill points per level, and both of these are class skills (ie, 1 rank costs 2 points) the Fighter is never going to be good at either of these - especially since they're incompatible with heavy armor.
Climb uses Strength as a primary attribute. It is also a class skill. So a Fighter with full ranks can climb as well as, what? Not much. First off, this is also subject to an armor check penalty, so they may struggle to climb at all, even with good ranks. What's more, they're denied their Dexterity modifier. No matter how much they practice climbing and/or how good they are at it, they're never going to be as good as a monkey. Is it impossible to believe that a Fighter can be as good at climbing as Tarzan? Apparently, by the rules, it is. And even then you climb at 1/4 speed - with heavy armor that's 5'. You could move at half speed if you take a big enough penalty - 10'...
In 3.x, the Fighter isn't able to do the things he OUGHT to be able to do. That's a failure of the rules. And a DM shouldn't be expected to fix all of these things. They should have come up in playtesting pretty much immediately.
They've certainly come up to a lot of people in a lot of editions of the game - Fighter's suck isn't a new discussion. But to deny it - that I just don't understand. I haven't seen anyone trying to provide evidence that high level fighters DON'T suck - it just seems that people disagree about WHY they suck - mostly whether Wizards are TOO POWERFUL or Fighters are TOO WEAK, or BOTH.
I'm in the 'BOTH' camp.
As you know I think there is a balance issue however I would disagree with your point on the 3 skills you list out.
I don't think Fighters should be good at those things and I certainly don't think anyone in plate armour should be swimming, climbing or ninja'ing about the place.
I do think the fighter needs to have the option to be good at these things. But that option shoudl extend to realm management, military leadership, dealing with nobility, tactics etc .
Basically I am just adding a caveat that I don't want figthers to get a set list of things they need to be good at becuase that limits my roleplaying but I think it would be good if they could choose to be good at some of a list of things.
Again I would also give them the combat benefits of improved AC, and crits that match thieves' backstab multipliers. The fighter should be capable of laying down the biggest beat in the room if they time their blow just right.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;558532I think I mentioned this earlier in this trainwreck of a thread but if I didn't, here it is and if I did, here it is again:
Magic-users get that world-ending spell once per day. Period. Let's look at the fight-enders, the ZOMG DEPROTAGONIZED THE FIGHTER level spells, at least per AD&D which for some backwards-assed reason people think was where the badwrongfun started:
5th level:
Cloudkill
Conjure Elemental
Feeblemind
Hold Monster
Wall of...
Teleport
6th level:
Death Spell
Disintegrate
Geas
Spiritwrack
Tenser's Transformation
7th level:
Bigby's Grasping Hand
Limited Wish
Power Word, Stun
8th level:
Incendiary Cloud
Mass Charm
Maze
Power Word, Blind
Trap The Soul
9th level:
Astral Spell
Bigby's Crushing Hand
Power Word, Kill
Prismatic Sphere
Time Stop
Wish
...
Even discounting the casting time on many of those spells, the earliest in a career a magic-user can cast those starts at 9th level. And the magic-user in question gets to cast it ONCE. Jumping ahead a bit, assuming the magic-user has an 18 intelligence, you have to be 18th level to cast ONE 9th level spell. This assumes you found a scroll with a 9th level spell on it, or a high-level magic-user's spellbook to loot (not an unreasonable prospect).
And a lot of those spells have conditional save-or-die on them...and by the time you're using WISH in the middle of combat to dismiss something horrible, you're fighting something with phenomenal (18+ HD/level creatures) saving throws anyway.
So when Doug Henning doesn't pan out and David Blaine can't cut the mustard, who wades in and does exactly what they've been doing for the last 3 or 4 years of the campaign? The fighter, that's who. The fighter who, if he is on par with the magic-user level-wise is attacking two times every round. Our intrepid fighter may well be wielding a magic sword (or other weapon) capable of adding up to +5 to hit or damage, and may have a strength bonus (due to physical abilities or magic items) of up to an additional +6 (or more! - see Deities & Demigods) damage, not to mention bonuses to-hit. The fighter, if equipped with a two-handed sword of greatest magic properties is putting the smack down for up to 42 points of damage every round. If, again, he's the same level as the magic-user, that is to say, 18th, in our example, then he's hitting almost every round.
Assuming a +5/+5 two-handed sword, and a +3 to-hit bonus from strength and nothing else (no Bless, etc.) our intrepid fighter need not roll more than a 1 to hit, and will average 24 points of damage every round. In addition to other stuff the party is doing.
What's the point of all of this?
The point is that there was never, ever any real disparity between what the Magic-user can do and what the fighter can do; it only existed in the minds of people who didn't play by the rules, and because they didn't they let this non-issue become an issue and decided to "fix" matters.
And even if the magic user does get that spell off and fries the Fire Giant before the rest of the party begins combat? So what? That's the magic-user's one. Assuming, of course, these high-level fighters didn't charge, which happens before initiative - and well before spellcasting. Again a 1e thing.
Based on what I've said, the thread title is very apt. Wizard vs Fighter balance bullshit - because it is bullshit. They're already balanced.
A couple of questions first is a ruling thing.
To me if a creature charges they need to travel 1/2 their movement rate to get a benefit and casters can of course cast whilst the ghargers are charging. How do you rule that ? It sounds line we have a difference of interpretation on that one.
You missed out some killer 4th level spells
Charm Monster
Fear
Dig - great for those chargers
Poly other
and some killer 3rd level spells
Hold Person
Invisibility 10 ' radius
Phantasmal force - especially when used to replicate a dig spell you just used
Suggestion
Fly
Protection from normal missiles
all great stuff
@DeadDM: Stop answering Benoist. Benoist, Storm, and now Krueger are not interested in actually having a conversation. You're wasting time and page space even talking to him. He's already decided what way the game works and no introduction of "facts" or "logic" is going to sway him.
I already stopped reading his posts half the thread back and Storms as well. If you do the same you'll find that you can concentrate more on people who actually have arguments. Or respond to people who are just choosing to say a lot of nothing, whichever your poison of choice may be.
Quote from: MGuy;558565@DeadDM: Stop answering Benoist. Benoist, Storm, and now Krueger are not interested in actually having a conversation.
LOL As though you ever were. Sure you are, as soon as we accept your premise and framing of the topic thereof, however you want it, and not any other way. When that fails, you rephrase the arguments of people who try to have a conversation with you, like Brendan, to say things they never said, or rehash stuff they already answered to, etc etc. Et bis repetita. That's not exactly what I call conducive of an actual exchange of ideas, pal. So get off your high horse, and kindly go fuck yourself.
Quote from: jibbajibba;558564A couple of questions first is a ruling thing.
To me if a creature charges they need to travel 1/2 their movement rate to get a benefit and casters can of course cast whilst the ghargers are charging. How do you rule that ? It sounds line we have a difference of interpretation on that one.
You missed out some killer 4th level spells
Charm Monster
Fear
Dig - great for those chargers
Poly other
and some killer 3rd level spells
Hold Person
Invisibility 10 ' radius
Phantasmal force - especially when used to replicate a dig spell you just used
Suggestion
Fly
Protection from normal missiles
all great stuff
I'm purposefully going to sidestep the argument about whether or not a wizard can dispense the need for a fighter in a given battle. There are too many mitigating conditions that might prevent a given battle from happening, reduce the effect of some standard spell choices, or require outside the box (but fairly situation dependent) solutions that may or may not occur in common play. There are also factors that may or may befall the fighter before he gets to swing his sword such as suffering from any number of status conditions prior to joining in battle or right before battle begins (such as being turned to stone or fear auras) that are likely but not necessarily a big part of facing higher level threats.
TL: DR its not worth attempting to ponder whether or not the MUs can rid themselves of a fighter in the party and still function. The argument could be made that they don't but it is riddled with too many possible things that could go wrong.
Moving on: I always get a bad taste when discussing the paradigm of "good at the beginning bad at the end" or its inverse. As I said before realistic Real Life gets in the way of gaming and you are very likely not going to be able to play the whole swathe of the game where your character gets his greatest shine moment. As a designer who has to design a game. That kind of makes it a bad idea if you consider that the people who play your games might not be able to pull off the long campaign style of play.
Quote from: Benoist;558496You're evading the actual substance of the post, which was rephrased and structured in the second post I linked in my previous post. I was expecting as much, since you and your buddies' rhetoric have proven over the course of the last 200 pages at least that you will not not give an inch on your position, whatever it takes, no matter how silly or dumb you sound
Goddamnit, Ben, I
just replaced that irony meter.
Quote from: daniel_ream;558573Goddamnit, Ben, I just replaced that irony meter.
You're very welcome. :)
I like how Jeff creates this abortion of a thread and stays miles away from it. Maybe he's on to something.....
Quote from: MGuy;558568Moving on: I always get a bad taste when discussing the paradigm of "good at the beginning bad at the end" or its inverse. As I said before realistic Real Life gets in the way of gaming and you are very likely not going to be able to play the whole swathe of the game where your character gets his greatest shine moment. As a designer who has to design a game. That kind of makes it a bad idea if you consider that the people who play your games might not be able to pull off the long campaign style of play.
I'd agree that there are a lot of games that are only low-level, as well as some that are primarily high-level. (Plus some that start out high-level.)
This seems like the kind of thing that could be an interesting option. Maybe any PC could take a penalty at early levels in order to gain a bonus at higher levels.
Quote from: MGuy;558568Moving on: I always get a bad taste when discussing the paradigm of "good at the beginning bad at the end" or its inverse. As I said before realistic Real Life gets in the way of gaming and you are very likely not going to be able to play the whole swathe of the game where your character gets his greatest shine moment. As a designer who has to design a game. That kind of makes it a bad idea if you consider that the people who play your games might not be able to pull off the long campaign style of play.
I agree with that and it was why I raised caster spell acquisition and why it accellerates as spells get more powerful.
Wouldn't it make sense from a design perspective to have casters getting more spells at first level and their acquistion of spells getting slower.
Would that not preserve Vancian casting, and all the parephenalia that I do actually love round D&D spells and acquistion of same but make casters tougher at low leves and weaker at high levels and so correct the balance ?
I have always found that the sweet spot is 5-8 ish before that MUs are weaker and after that they start to get much tougher. Wouldn't just tweaking the rate of aquistion of spells help to fix it.
I have done this using spell points before but I can see that some people regard Vancian casting as a sacred cow which is fine.
If at first level a caster could cast 4 first level spells a day but at 15th he was more like 7/5/4/3/2/1 than 5/5/5/5/5/2/1 would that make a difference.
Interesting (well to me the rest of you will find it duller than dishwater :) ) my Heartbreaker has a hermetic spell system (as well as some other magic types) that has a lot of flavoured spells - I love the Bigby spells, Rarys stuff all the named spells, and rules to create them as formulaes but they don;t have levels at all. When you learn a spell you can cast it and you expend Mana to power it your Mana pool grows as you level up. You can pump as much mana as you want into a spell but if you excced your level then the chances of it goiong wrong are very high. the mana you expend determines the power of the spell.
So a 1st level Wizard can cast fireball Except it would be called "Freilands Firey Spheres". They might have 8 Mana points so they could cast a 1 point fireball at no risk, or they could cast a 4 point fireball and it would have a 60% chance of backfiring (20% per point spent over their level).
This means High level casters can chuck low level small stuff around at will but they can use the same spells for high level effects
The base game comes with about 20 spells
Now in my setting which is really just an iteration of the toolkits in the base rules I want 300 spells and that is the rub because I need to construct them formualicly so the toolkit can create all the spells in the game. I have about 50 and I might stop at 100.
I also want to use it to kind of create the illusion of a world through the recurrance of spells and references.
Sorry for the diversion ... back to fighters being a bit rubbish
QuoteIf at first level a caster could cast 4 first level spells a day but at 15th he was more like 7/5/4/3/2/1 than 5/5/5/5/5/2/1 would that make a difference.
Definitely a step in the right direction. You could dispense with spell levels entirely given you already are using spellpoints. It's just a step away from what Fantasy Craft does. They limit the total spells known (your Wis score plus Spellcraft rank with a few other adders that can be gotten via class/feat/lifestyle) So 40-60 spells is average. More than a 3x/Pathfinder Sorcerer but fairly limited with the tradeoff of as you level you can use 0/1/2 level spells at will under certain triggers and that you have certain signature spells that cost a level lower in spellpoints, that kind of thing.
Sorry for the digression but idea has merit and I like it. Back to your scheduled programming.
Quote from: jibbajibba;558582Interesting (well to me the rest of you will find it duller than dishwater :) ) my Heartbreaker has a hermetic spell system (as well as some other magic types) that has a lot of flavoured spells - I love the Bigby spells, Rarys stuff all the named spells, and rules to create them as formulaes but they don;t have levels at all. When you learn a spell you can cast it and you expend Mana to power it your Mana pool grows as you level up. You can pump as much mana as you want into a spell but if you excced your level then the chances of it goiong wrong are very high. the mana you expend determines the power of the spell.
So a 1st level Wizard can cast fireball Except it would be called "Freilands Firey Spheres". They might have 8 Mana points so they could cast a 1 point fireball at no risk, or they could cast a 4 point fireball and it would have a 60% chance of backfiring (20% per point spent over their level).
This means High level casters can chuck low level small stuff around at will but they can use the same spells for high level effects
The base game comes with about 20 spells
Now in my setting which is really just an iteration of the toolkits in the base rules I want 300 spells and that is the rub because I need to construct them formualicly so the toolkit can create all the spells in the game. I have about 50 and I might stop at 100.
I also want to use it to kind of create the illusion of a world through the recurrance of spells and references.
Glad to see someone else using the Mana idea. I find it disturbing that your idea is actually startlingly close to my own. In fact... its almost a copy of it. 20 base spells (I got that exactly). Using more mana to up the effects of the spell (also in my idea). Using formulae to change the effects of spells to create new ones (my version has you combining base spells t get different effects and then using "metamagic" to change the range, dimensions, number of targets, etc of individual spells).
Quote from: MGuy;558589Glad to see someone else using the Mana idea. I find it disturbing that your idea is actually startlingly close to my own.
It's not exactly a new idea. I can name at least half a dozen game systems off the top of my head that have the exact same system.
Quote from: Marleycat;558578I like how Jeff creates this abortion of a thread and stays miles away from it. Maybe he's on to something.....
He's actually popped in at times and responded directly to people. It just got lost in the flood.
Quote from: Rum Cove;558601He's actually popped in at times and responded directly to people. It just got lost in the flood.
Yeah, I have seen him pop in I was mostly teasing because he really does have the right idea. This thread has a mind of its own at this point.
Before the days of the internet, I had always thought that the Cleric was the most powerful class.
Every player that would be labeled "power gamer" or "optimizer" these days always seemed attracted to it.
What is the consensus on "balance" between the Cleric and Wizard?
It's because the rainmen just won't quit arguing stuff people never actually said.
Quote from: Rum Cove;558603Before the days of the internet, I had always thought that the Cleric was the most powerful class.
Every player that would be labeled "power gamer" or "optimizer" these days always seemed attracted to it.
What is the consensus on "balance" between the Cleric and Wizard?
Clarify which edition we are talking about and maybe I could give an answer later. I have to go back to work.
Quote from: Marleycat;558605Clarify which edition we are talking about and maybe I could give an answer later. I have to go back to work.
Much like this mess of a discussion, pick any and all editions. Though, I do ask that you clarify which edition(s).
I would think that there would be a strong argument weighing in the Cleric's favor.
Picking on the Fighter, compared to two magical classes and claiming the class lacks magic is silly. Who wins the Cleric vs. Wizard debate?
Quote from: MGuy;558568Moving on: I always get a bad taste when discussing the paradigm of "good at the beginning bad at the end" or its inverse. As I said before realistic Real Life gets in the way of gaming and you are very likely not going to be able to play the whole swathe of the game where your character gets his greatest shine moment. As a designer who has to design a game. That kind of makes it a bad idea if you consider that the people who play your games might not be able to pull off the long campaign style of play.
but if they are willing, able and prefer this sort of balance and flavor, you ought to provide it to them. If your audience doesn't want it or doesn't have time for it, then that is fine.
There is no perfect design for everyone. With D&D they do need to make it broad enough to appeal to a majority so i don't think we will see "good at the beginning bad at the end" in Next. However I rather enjoy it and don't consider it bad design to be given something I like.
Quote from: Rum Cove;558606Much like this mess of a discussion, pick any and all editions. Though, I do ask that you clarify which edition(s).
I would think that there would be a strong argument weighing in the Cleric's favor.
Picking on the Fighter, compared to two magical classes and claiming the class lacks magic is silly. Who wins the Cleric vs. Wizard debate?
Somewhere up thread I did a quick sortie into the world of the Cleric.
I reckon they are hugely over powerful in 1e. Details above.
Not only can they wear armour, fight close to fighters, build strongholds at 50% of the cost, attract more followers than fighters and tax more than fighters and wizards (if you care for such things) but they get typically 3 spells at first level owing to extra wisdom and by 3rd level have seven with just 16 wisdom, they get great hit points, can turn undead or at high levels destroy or control them. They also get Command which is one of the most ludicrous spells ever, at first level (no save if you are less then 6hd or 13 intelligence), which is effect as lethal as powerword kill at low levels. Oh and they can prey for whatever spells they want with no limits and usually, with some exceptions, they only need their holy symbol as a material component.
2e opened it up to good roleplaying but often opened it up to hideous power gaming.
In Skills and Powers you could build a cleric of theivery who had all the thieves skills as good as a thief fought like a cleric and had spells.... (although S&P was dire)
its sounds like in 3e they actually got worse
Quote from: MGuy;558589Glad to see someone else using the Mana idea. I find it disturbing that your idea is actually startlingly close to my own. In fact... its almost a copy of it. 20 base spells (I got that exactly). Using more mana to up the effects of the spell (also in my idea). Using formulae to change the effects of spells to create new ones (my version has you combining base spells t get different effects and then using "metamagic" to change the range, dimensions, number of targets, etc of individual spells).
If it makes you feel any better my system has 6 sorts of magic and this is just one of them and the 20 base spells are only there because i need to demonstrate how the spell building toolkit works. the setting as i say i want to have 300 spells, but I will probably stop at 100 just due to effort.
The others are
Demon Summoning (which can be reskinned for Djin and Faey depending on setting)
True Names - in which knowing the name of a thing gives you control over it to a degree
Miracles - divine magic more like Marabouts in the Magreb than clerics in D&D
Divination - through signs and symbols - really aimed at NPCs but available to PCs
Crafting - not sure how this will work yet but I wanted a separate type of magic to create magic items
You can achieve effects common in all of course. So a Saint could bless your sword, a Demonologist could bind a Demon into it a wizard could cast a spell on it, a Namer (which i need a good name for ...) could learn the true name of Iron and then make the iron behave in a certain way, A Crafter however could create permanent magic items which the others can not.
so there you go hope it makes you feel better :)
They all use a Mana pool to power their effects though.
Clerics did kick butt in 1e, but worse Thaco, Saves, number of attacks, no Weapon Spec, no Exceptional Str combined to make the Cleric a poor replacement for a Fighter for melee(remember most of the 3e self-buff spells weren't around).
Quote from: MGuy;558565@DeadDM: Stop answering Benoist. Benoist, Storm, and now Krueger are not interested in actually having a conversation. You're wasting time and page space even talking to him. He's already decided what way the game works and no introduction of "facts" or "logic" is going to sway him.
The thing is, I think Benoist and I probably have similar play styles, even if we come there from different directions. I haven't been talking much about play style, because while it matters, I think that good rules support a good play style, so that's the focus of the discussion for me. Besides, Benoist, while seemingly enjoying being contrary isn't the dumbass that StormBringer is. And if I ignored Stormbringer, I wouldn't have much reason to mention what a huge dumbass I think he is. And for me, having a good reason to call Stormbringer a dumbass is worth the price of admission - and getting the chance to point out WHY he's a dumbass - that's just gravy.
@Rum Cove - the Cleric in 3.5 is definitely the most powerful class. The reason it's so powerful is that by default, a cleric can 'petition his deity for any spell available to clerics' - thus, unlike wizards that are limited by what spells they either 'learn for free' or 'find while adventuring', a cleric has EVERY spell. That kind of flexibility is crazy-powerful. With the right spells, there isn't a single concept that you can't take and do it with a cleric, better.
Now, in a strictly core game, it's not quite such a problem. And most DMs do limit non-core spell materials for good reason. But unless there's a better mechanic to limit what spells a cleric has access to, they're pretty much always going to be more powerful than any other class, because they'll always have more options... It's not possible to make a 'bad' cleric, but you can definitely pick options that synergize well... Mostly it has to do with picking domains that give you access to spells that normally aren't available to clerics (or that are available at earlier levels by domain choice).
In a wizard vs. cleric matchup, the cleric has:
1) better armor
2) no spell failure chance
3) better saves (good Fort and Will, Wisdom is their primary attribute)
4) better attack bonus
5) ability to self-heal
If the cleric is expecting trouble (or as a matter of course, because some buffs are super-long duration) he can usually be better prepared than the wizard.
The wizard has an advantage with some spell combinations that he might be able to pull-off, particularly with scry-and-die tactics and/or access to
Time Stop, but at those levels, it's often referred to as 'rocket tag' by denners for a reason. Whoever goes first usually wins.
Quote from: CRKrueger;558612Clerics did kick butt in 1e, but worse Thaco, Saves, number of attacks, no Weapon Spec, no Exceptional Str combined to make the Cleric a poor replacement for a Fighter for melee(remember most of the 3e self-buff spells weren't around).
But remember in 1e until UA no one had specialisation and exceptional strength is very rare.
Up until 7th level clerics have better saves (1st level its 10/13/14/16/15 vs 14/15/16/17/17 for the figther) and they get a bonus vs mental stuff cos of High wisdom.
If you look at THACO 1st&2nd they are the same as fighters and they progress at 2 per 3 as opposed to fighters 2 per 2 so a 10th level Cleric has a THACO of 14 and a 10th level Fighter has a THACO of 12
So .... apart from fighters getting the extra attack for 3/2 at 7th and 2/1 at 13th and the cleric getitng less WP slots its really a lot closer than you think.
2e does buff figthers cos of specialisation but if you go to CPH then some speciality priests get it as well .
Quote from: jibbajibba;558509This is totally a campaign choice i ran a campaign where he old Gods had been usurped by a Shiny new god. The new god was infact a sham run by cleric that worshiped a demon. The kingdom was filled with churches that were run by Priests that were 0 level humans (well a few had other class skills) there through political influence and wealth, just like the real church.
Sure, but check out that first sentence again: 'totally a campaign choice'. You aren't desperately clinging to this last chance effort to salvage an absolutely moronic blanket statement. You aren't presenting an edge case like it is normal and universal.
Obviously, there isn't a Cleric hiding behind the calving barn of every half-acre farm. And a corrupt hierarchy like you have described sounds like a fantastic campaign arc. But again, limiting access to healing as these Denners suggest is just another disingenuous ruse to make the Fighter seem much weaker. There is no honest discussion behind it.
However, if you can get me about five to seven pages of write up on the church plot up there, I would be interested in putting it in the 'zine once I get things underway again. :)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558501What 3rd edition did by removing some of these annoying limitations is push the problems of high-level play MUCH earlier in the game. Which is why I have a problem with it.
It's like watching a version of
Memento where the main character didn't leave himself any notes.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558613The thing is, I think Benoist and I probably have similar play styles, even if we come there from different directions. I haven't been talking much about play style, because while it matters, I think that good rules support a good play style, so that's the focus of the discussion for me. Besides, Benoist, while seemingly enjoying being contrary isn't the dumbass that StormBringer is. And if I ignored Stormbringer, I wouldn't have much reason to mention what a huge dumbass I think he is. And for me, having a good reason to call Stormbringer a dumbass is worth the price of admission - and getting the chance to point out WHY he's a dumbass - that's just gravy.
:teehee:
Wookit hims! Trying to put on the big boy pants!
Quote from: Rum Cove;558606Much like this mess of a discussion, pick any and all editions. Though, I do ask that you clarify which edition(s).
I would think that there would be a strong argument weighing in the Cleric's favor.
Picking on the Fighter, compared to two magical classes and claiming the class lacks magic is silly. Who wins the Cleric vs. Wizard debate?
Well 1e fairly even because most spells carried by a cleric were healing. 2e clerics had the advantage especially dependent on which options and suppliments are used. 3e no contest cleric only the Druid had a chance to match them. They weren't called Codzilla for nothing. Its a deliberate design choice no less to get people to play them.
Though 3E clerics "can" be pretty powerful I would only rate their advantage above the wizard in the very beginning levels of the game. What the cleric gains with armor, and higher bab he makes up for with less versatile spell selection. The cleric at beginning levels (minus certain domains) don't get the combat enders that wizards get earlier on. So the trade off on spell power vs some martial power shouldn't be ignored however you can make the case that the wizard's versatility is a fair trade off for it. The wizard gets a familiar instead of turn undead. He gets spells like they do. Because he depends on intelligence he also gets more skills. And he gets scribe scroll for free. So at the front end they are roughly even. They pretty much maintain that all the way through. At the high end of the game they are both beastly.
The thing I don't like about the cleric is that the ability set doesn't change much from faith to faith. This wouldn't be much of a problem if the game were going more generic like the one I'm making but the fact of the matter is, without taking certain prestige classes, the cleric lacks the flavor that servicing different gods should give.
My problem with the wizard is that it is a bit too is too generic in a game where definite class themes are a thing (Ranger, Druid, Paladin, etc). The thing that mitigates this is that you can select the spells you need to create your theme while the cleric spell list just pretty much stays the same with the exception of 1 domain spell per level per day.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558485Did you know that there are studies that indicate that doctor's that have been practicing a long time are actually often WORSE than new doctors?
I am assuming you have links to these studies, but didn't post them because ctrl+v wasn't working properly at the time.
I've read a bunch of posts where DeadDM describes an adventure where the Fighter is shamefully hapless and helpless in the face of a bunch of charmed Frost Giants. I'm not going to get into the mess of the giants.
I will say, however, that it seems painfully obvious to me that the GM had a serious beef against the Fighter to begin with. For one, even stripped of his armor, ONLY the fighter apparently seems to suffer serious risk of Drowning, despite the fact that the fighter has Swim as a class skill. Did the fighter not take swim? that's fine, since neither the cleric nor the wizard could take it at all (except as cross-class) and Swim is a Str skill, which meant (stripped of armor) the fighter was still the best at it (other than, possibly, the rogue. Was the rogue an olympian class swimmer?)
Then there is the wyvern fight, where the deadly dangerous giants are ignored by the wyvrns in favor of, apparently, murdering* the only character not actually participating in the fight, meaningfully, the fighter. Why not meaningfully? Because the DM also ruled the fighter's ranged weapon was horribly penalized by conditions.
So once we enter the swamps I have a some questions: Why are the heavier giants not penalized by the mud? To make the fighter smaller in the pants, maybe?
Why isn't the cleric constantly falling into deep water? I mean: Heavy armor, lower strength, swim isn't a class skill?
For that matter: Once the fighter strips off his armor, why aren't the rogue and wizard constantly falling into deep water with him? Same armors, and the wizard can't swim either.
Once the wyverns were engaged, do you honestly think (at this point) it matters WHAT the fighter tried to do? Apparently he was going to be penalized no matter what.
You think, just maybe, that Fighters Objectively Suck compared to Charmed Giants especially when the GM is routinely using the strap-on of many-spikes on the Fighter every chance he gets?
And if 'falling into deep water' was some sort of random check, then do you think, just maybe, that the fighter's apparently uniquely awful rolling may have more to do with it than any choices in character design?
* Seriously: by the time he started describing the big fight my eyes were glazing over from the sheer one-sided nature of the GM's rulings that I stopped caring. Also: he (deadDM) has no idea how to use the rules for monster classes and Level Adjustment. None. I feel safe in saying that DeadDM likewise has no idea how to use a bunch of other rules, probably relevant to discussion, and can safely be ignored when talking about anything based on rules thereby. Including relative balance of classes.
As a clue: A 9th level fighter with a +4 LA race is either a level 13 (not 18) character with a 9th level class, or a level 9 character with 5 class levels if your GM wants to keep the party balanced. Not that it matters, as the entire system for monster races/LA's is horribly done outside of a few 1-2HD critters.
Quote from: StormBringer;558666I am assuming you have links to these studies, but didn't post them because ctrl+v wasn't working properly at the time.
To be honest, he's not wrong. However, its not terribly relevant to D&D, since it is specific to the recent trend in vast, sweeping improvements in medical technology over the span of a single human lifetime, which is purely an artifact of the modern world (and is not likely to last as we hit a point of diminishing returns in technological improvements).
While its a nice gotcha for your point about doctors (presuming of course, a few decades in the industry... not just a few years, where the advantage is on experience still), it has nothing to do with adventurers, fantasy clerics or even game playing... which is what you were talking about.
@Spike, why do you have to write wall of text posts 100 times longer than mine? I can't quote them this makes Marleycat upset. :)
Anyway the answer is obvious according to the Denner's it's all "Mother may I".
To be fair, that particular wall of text is much shorter than what I had to wade through (luckily I have forum swimming as a class skill...) to have something to say in response.
Also: I be verbose.
Quote from: Marleycat;558690Anyway the answer is obvious according to the Denner's it's all "Mother may I".
This is quite relevant actually. Any time you suggest a GM make a reasonable call to preserve playability, this tends to be what the Den accuses you of doing. Not handwaving away 23 hours of spell study so they can do 15 minute adventuring days? You're playing Mother May I. Let them hand wave away 10 years of organized labor to move 1 million pounds of iron cannonballs so they can buy a +5 sword? You're playing mother-may-I and being 'unfun'.*
Oddly, pointing out that letting them get away with such things leads to the complaints they have about the game being unfun never gets you anywhere.
*I used to do logistics for a living, and I have, in fact, had this very argument on the Den. They regularly ignore the 'human element' in their theoreticals. NPCs apparently do not sleep nor eat, for example.
Just to let you know I would marry you. But since you and Jeff seem to have sane women already ...the search continues.:)
Quote from: Marleycat;558702Just to let you know I would marry you.
I have that effect on men and women both. I think it's the hair... or maybe my rosey cheeks....
It's the hat, man. It's all about the hat. ;)
Quote from: Spike;558696This is quite relevant actually. Any time you suggest a GM make a reasonable call to preserve playability, this tends to be what the Den accuses you of doing. Not handwaving away 23 hours of spell study so they can do 15 minute adventuring days? You're playing Mother May I. Let them hand wave away 10 years of organized labor to move 1 million pounds of iron cannonballs so they can buy a +5 sword? You're playing mother-may-I and being 'unfun'.*
Oddly, pointing out that letting them get away with such things leads to the complaints they have about the game being unfun never gets you anywhere.
*I used to do logistics for a living, and I have, in fact, had this very argument on the Den. They regularly ignore the 'human element' in their theoreticals. NPCs apparently do not sleep nor eat, for example.
I think I vaguely know what talking about. I can't remember exactly what it was about but there was a discussion about "greyhawking" at some point or another. In either case, playing "mother may I" isn't inherently bad. However if you are using the defense that there isn't an issue with the rules because you can talk it over with the DM you are not discussing rules you are discussing "Mother May I" and thus no real discussion can be had. Any argument that suggests the DM can do X can be countered with the DM can also not do X.
Quote from: Marleycat;558690@Spike, why do you have to write wall of text posts 100 times longer than mine? I can't quote them this makes Marleycat upset. :)
Anyway the answer is obvious according to the Denner's it's all "Mother may I".
Marley, DeadDM said up thread that neither this nor the Den are his regular sites. He said he's an archivist. Is "Denner" a catch all term for a type of person for you?
Quote from: Spike;558687To be honest, he's not wrong. However, its not terribly relevant to D&D, since it is specific to the recent trend in vast, sweeping improvements in medical technology over the span of a single human lifetime, which is purely an artifact of the modern world (and is not likely to last as we hit a point of diminishing returns in technological improvements).
More or less what I was getting at. The doctors aren't necessarily better, their access to information is not dependant on having it memorized.
QuoteWhile its a nice gotcha for your point about doctors (presuming of course, a few decades in the industry... not just a few years, where the advantage is on experience still), it has nothing to do with adventurers, fantasy clerics or even game playing... which is what you were talking about.
Essentially. I just wanted to point out that experience really does count for something.
Quote from: Benoist;558707It's the hat, man. It's all about the hat. ;)
Hat's be sexy but rosey cheeks are a factor.:D
You guys need to vote, cat or girl and should I just make a poll and pick my next avatar? I need help here!
Quote from: MGuy;558722Marley, DeadDM said up thread that neither this nor the Den are his regular sites. He said he's an archivist. Is "Denner" a catch all term for a type of person for you?
Good question sir, for me yes, kinda. "Denners" are mathheads and go by RAW only. It's an opposite of me. A RAI Mage Girl. :D
To me both Mage and Dnd are supposed to be houseruled and played RAI. "Mother may I by a Denners" definition.
Quote from: Marleycat;558578I like how Jeff creates this abortion of a thread and stays miles away from it. Maybe he's on to something.....
:popcorn: :teehee:
Quote from: Marleycat;558702Just to let you know I would marry you. But since you and Jeff seem to have sane women already ...the search continues.:)
If only I could be so lucky.
Marleycat, if I were 10 years younger and you a little blind in one eye, oh what beautiful music we could make.
:thanx:
Quote from: MGuy;558717I think I vaguely know what talking about. I can't remember exactly what it was about but there was a discussion about "greyhawking" at some point or another. In either case, playing "mother may I" isn't inherently bad. However if you are using the defense that there isn't an issue with the rules because you can talk it over with the DM you are not discussing rules you are discussing "Mother May I" and thus no real discussion can be had. Any argument that suggests the DM can do X can be countered with the DM can also not do X.
Well I may be using the wrong Den Jargon. Specifically, apparently, the GM is expected to let the party hand wave away almost any obstacle to game breaking nonsense (up to and including ten years of hired labor involving thousands of peasants), or else he's a dickhead not 'playing by the rules' by making unfun rulings.
Even if said rulings keep the party from breaking the game.
Quote from: jeff37923;558739If only I could be so lucky.
Marleycat, if I were 10 years younger and you a little blind in one eye, oh what beautiful music we could make.
:thanx:
You're probably closer to my age than you imagine. Remember I got into Dnd fairly late. I really started with Palladium and White Wolf almost just to make my brother mad.:) I have grey hairs myself when I forget to dye them. Shhh....I have the blind eye thing covered, trust me.:D
Quote from: Marleycat;558746You're probably closer to my age than you imagine. Remember I got into Dnd fairly late. I really started with Palladium and White Wolf almost just to make my brother mad.:) I have grey hairs myself when I forget to dye them. Shhh....I have the blind eye thing covered, trust me.:D
Its the Olivia pic. People on the internets are gullible like that.
Quote from: Spike;558747Its the Olivia pic. People on the internets are gullible like that.
I need to make a poll "Should Marleycat be a girl or cat" you choose. :)
I do have some great favorite music stars I like, no pressure. Except Gwen has great hats......
Quote from: Marleycat;558752I need to make a poll "Should Marleycat be a girl or cat" you choose. :)
I do have some great favorite music stars I like, no pressure. Except Gwen has great hats......
Well, since you've managed to ask this question in three or more threads that I've seen with no answer all I can say is that I'm a dirty minded little pika, but cats are delicious in gravy...
So pick yer poison.
Quote from: Marleycat;558752I need to make a poll "Should Marleycat be a girl or cat" you choose. :)
I do have some great favorite music stars I like, no pressure. Except Gwen has great hats......
I think you should stick with Olivia Wilde personally. :cool:
Quote from: StormBringer;558631Sure, but check out that first sentence again: 'totally a campaign choice'. You aren't desperately clinging to this last chance effort to salvage an absolutely moronic blanket statement. You aren't presenting an edge case like it is normal and universal.
Obviously, there isn't a Cleric hiding behind the calving barn of every half-acre farm. And a corrupt hierarchy like you have described sounds like a fantastic campaign arc. But again, limiting access to healing as these Denners suggest is just another disingenuous ruse to make the Fighter seem much weaker. There is no honest discussion behind it.
However, if you can get me about five to seven pages of write up on the church plot up there, I would be interested in putting it in the 'zine once I get things underway again. :)
I can write it up sir :)
Quote from: CRKrueger;558776I think you should stick with Olivia Wilde personally. :cool:
I will stick with Olivia for now. I like her hat.:)
Quote from: jibbajibba;558781I can write it up sir :)
Outstanding!
Quote from: Spike;558686I've read a bunch of posts where DeadDM describes an adventure where the Fighter is shamefully hapless and helpless in the face of a bunch of charmed Frost Giants. I'm not going to get into the mess of the giants.
I'm still catching up, but I'll correct you where you're wrong. First off, they were Frost Giants, not Storm Giants. Storm Giants are much larger and more powerful. It's probably possible that the Wizard could have charmed Storm Giants, but that didn't happen.
Quote from: Spike;558686For one, even stripped of his armor, ONLY the fighter apparently seems to suffer serious risk of Drowning, despite the fact that the fighter has Swim as a class skill. Did the fighter not take swim?
No. In my post I explained that the Fighter nearly drowned when he was wearing his Full Plate Armor. He had to take off his armor so he could swim effectively. The cleric might have taken off his armor too, I didn't say and I don't remember. I do remember that the Fighter is the one who nearly drowned - probably because he tried to move into melee while the cleric hung back. What I remember is that the Fighter had trouble because of the terrain... And we're not talking about 'floating castles' and 'planes of lava' - we were talking about walking through a swampy mire - something that I think high level Fighters should probably have a chance to move through more effectively than he could by the rules. But I don't want you to come to that conclusion if you don't agree with it - I wanted to point out what happened in a game that was using the rules - and if that isn't what SHOULD have happened, maybe you can make suggestions about what should have been different - either rules changes or what the player was doing that was 'stupid'.
Quote from: Spike;558686Then there is the wyvern fight, where the deadly dangerous giants are ignored by the wyvrns in favor of, apparently, murdering* the only character not actually participating in the fight, meaningfully, the fighter.
No. In my post I explained how the wyverns had been sighted and moved toward the party, but were ultimately scared off by the presence of Giants. My understanding is that because the Wyverns couldn't carry off a giant, they weren't 'tempting targets' the way a party of squishy humans, elves, and dwarves would have been.
Quote from: Spike;558686So once we enter the swamps I have a some questions: Why are the heavier giants not penalized by the mud? To make the fighter smaller in the pants, maybe?
The giants were Large creatures, while the human is a medium creature. When the Fighter is neck-deep in water, the giants are waist-deep in water. I honestly don't know off the top of my head what the appropriate penalties are for that - but if you consider the medium creature to be 'swimming', he's really in trouble - for example, all of his weapons do half damage or less. Since the giants were able to swing their weapons above the surface of the water, it wouldn't have affected them to the same degree. But maybe I don't understand the rules for wading in water? Maybe you can provide an explanation of what the DM should have done assuming that the water-level doesn't get changed to 'DM Pity' the Fighter...
Quote from: Spike;558686Why isn't the cleric constantly falling into deep water? I mean: Heavy armor, lower strength, swim isn't a class skill?
I don't think I mentioned it before until the post above, but that might have happened, but I don't remember it. Probably (though I'm not sure), the cleric cast
water breathing on himself. At 9th or 10th level, that would be 18 or 20 hours of safety from drowning. He probably figured it was smarter to keep himself alive and trust the Fighter to be able to swim once he took off his armor. Again, if I remember correctly, the Fighter did take off his armor after nearly drowning the first time. As for whether the Fighter had taken max ranks of Swim, I don't know, but probably not. With 2 skill points/level (maybe +1 for human and maybe -1 to +1 for Int) we're looking at probably no more than 4 skill points/level. Climb, Jump, Ride - those are also possible choices, and if the Fighter didn't expect to be spending a lot of time in water, they might have been better choices for this particular campaign... But again, I don't have the Fighter character sheet in front of me - I know the Fighter had heavy armor and he took off the heavy armor after he nearly drowned. I don't know if he would have failed the check without the Armor Check penalty, but I imagine not.
Quote from: Spike;558686For that matter: Once the fighter strips off his armor, why aren't the rogue and wizard constantly falling into deep water with him? Same armors, and the wizard can't swim either.
Once the party was aware of the danger, it was easy enough to avoid. And without a serious penalty to the check from armor, I don't know that anyone was at risk. Besides, if it happened outside of combat, it wouldn't have mattered. If nothing else a giant could pull the character out of the water. It was only when the Fighter was trying to move into melee range during a fight that it came up. If there wasn't a fight, everyone would have been free to help the Fighter without a problem.
Quote from: Spike;558686Once the wyverns were engaged, do you honestly think (at this point) it matters WHAT the fighter tried to do? Apparently he was going to be penalized no matter what.
If you read my post, you'd have remembered that the Wyverns DIDN'T engage. The threat of giants throwing rocks was enough to scare them away - probably in part because they couldn't have carried off the giants, anyways.
Quote from: Spike;558686You think, just maybe, that Fighters Objectively Suck compared to Charmed Giants especially when the GM is routinely using the strap-on of many-spikes on the Fighter every chance he gets?
I think this mischaracterizes my experience. You probably should read it again. But as I remember it, nobody was trying to make the Fighter feel bad (except when they were teasing him for nearly drowning - but that was just some good-natured ribbing). It just happened as the Fighter realized his ability to contribute was pretty limited. I don't think anyone tried to make him realize that, and I don't think the DM was picking on him - if anything, as I remember that game, most of the enemies focused on the wizard and/or cleric. Honestly, I'd say the DM did more to give the Fighter ways to contribute (DM Pity) than anybody else - but by this point in the game it just came to the Fighter that he could be more effective as a different class.
Again, I don't know that everyone will have that particular conclusion - I'm just reporting what I observed from a game.
Quote from: Spike;558686And if 'falling into deep water' was some sort of random check, then do you think, just maybe, that the fighter's apparently uniquely awful rolling may have more to do with it than any choices in character design?
No. Do you? The Fighter was the one trying to run up and kill enemies. Maybe if everyone else ran up they would have been the ones to find this out. But nobody else really had any reason to run up and try to stab people in the face.
Quote from: Spike;558686* Seriously: by the time he started describing the big fight my eyes were glazing over from the sheer one-sided nature of the GM's rulings that I stopped caring. Also: he (deadDM) has no idea how to use the rules for monster classes and Level Adjustment. None. I feel safe in saying that DeadDM likewise has no idea how to use a bunch of other rules, probably relevant to discussion, and can safely be ignored when talking about anything based on rules thereby. Including relative balance of classes.
There were no monsters that were 'player characters'. They were charmed monsters, who agreed with the Wizard when he suggested that killing the dragon was in their own best interest. While a Frost Giant is a CR 9 creature, it is a 14 HD monster with a +4 LA. If someone wants to play a Frost Giant in the game straight from the Monster Manual, it counts as an 18th level PC. I mentioned that in an earlier post (not the one that I discussed the play experience) - what part of that doesn't sound correct?
I think the Fighter might have enjoyed playing a Frost Giant instead of his Fighter. The Frost Giant was large size (offering some potentially interesting opportunities), was strong and tough and good at hitting things. Since a CR 9 creature fighting another CR 9 creature should have about a 50% chance of winning (ie, in a mirror match) it might be unfair to treat a CR 9 monster as a Level 18 character (especially in the case of giants). The LA rules seem to assume that some abilities (like Flight) make a PC much tougher than a creature that only appears on screen for 1 fight. That may be true, but the Level Adjustment rules are clearly NOT balanced. A Frost Giant is not the equivalent of an 18th level character...
Quote from: Spike;558686As a clue: A 9th level fighter with a +4 LA race is either a level 13 (not 18) character with a 9th level class, or a level 9 character with 5 class levels if your GM wants to keep the party balanced. Not that it matters, as the entire system for monster races/LA's is horribly done outside of a few 1-2HD critters.
A creature has an ECL of its total HD plus Level Adustment. A 9th level Fighter with no racial HD and a +4 LA is a level 13th character. A Frost Giant has 14 HD, and a +4 LA. The 'ECL' or 'Effective Character Level' is 14 for HD + 4 for Level Adjustment - so an ECL of 18. If the Frost Giant also had 9 levels of Fighter it would be considered an ECL of 27 - an epic character. But if you don't know how ECL, LA, and racial HD work, I don't blame you. It results in some wonky shit like a Frost Giant counting as an 18th level character. But don't take my word for it. Go ask someone that has any familiarity with the rules. They should be able to tell you why you're talking out of your ass.
@Spike,
Thank you for responding to StormBringer. I didn't provide links to any such studies because I don't care - it just happens to be true. I appreciate that you were willing to stand up for my point even though we're disagreeing on another issue at the moment. That's certainly something one might expect from reasoned discourse, but it seems to be a rare thing on the internet in this day and age. Thank you.
@StormBringer
Yes - the availability and power-level of clerics varies by campaign. Your assertion appeared to indicate that there would always be a cleric available with the right spells. I consider that versimilitude breaking gamist bullshit. The rules do provide a baseline for what the PCs should expect in the game world, and those rules are tied directly to population in the surrounding area. 'Leaving the dungeon and visiting a cleric' may or may not be a solution, but in most of my games, it would not be (including both those I've played and those I've DMed). Most 'dungeon crawls' tend to take place in remote areas (though not all, some are even right below major cities), as do many 'wilderness adventures'. Usually, if the PCs need to go see a cleric quickly, they'll need to travel pretty far - some parties keep a couple scrolls of teleport for just such an eventuality. But my point (and I think others have made it as well) is that the viability of your suggested course of action does and SHOULD vary by campaign, so to assert that it IS an option, istead of MIGHT be an option is lame. But that's okay, because you are a dumbass.
@Stormbringer (again)
As for experience, I do agree that it's valuable. People with lots of experience might have some very interesting things to say, and can speak to the historical antecedents for why things are the way they are. A 'newbie' may not recognize that the way things are is a direct result of the way things used to be, and that can also be a good thing. Someone who is looking at something is often better at asking whether something makes sense or not because they're not looking at the historical baggage that led to that situation. That's not always the case (and I didn't assert that it was always the case). But if you were to discount everything everyone says who doesn't have at least as much experience as you have would be a mistake. The kind of mistake only an out-of-touch dumbass with his head lodged so firmly in his sphincter that he has no hope of recognizing what a dumbass he is - a dumbass just like you. Dumbass.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558798@Spike,
Thank you for responding to StormBringer. I didn't provide links to any such studies because I don't care - it just happens to be true. I appreciate that you were willing to stand up for my point even though we're disagreeing on another issue at the moment. That's certainly something one might expect from reasoned discourse, but it seems to be a rare thing on the internet in this day and age. Thank you.
But here's the thing: I trust Spike to discuss in good faith. I Give Spike the benefit of the doubt, because I have not known him to make up shit whole cloth and present it as objective fact. You, on the other hand, would be well advised to support your assertions with links and evidence until the same can be said of you.
And he didn't really bolster your point, he demonstrated that it was highly, highly conditional.
QuoteI consider that versimilitude breaking gamist bullshit.
QuoteUsually, if the PCs need to go see a cleric quickly, they'll need to travel pretty far - some parties keep a couple scrolls of teleport for just such an eventuality.
Ah, so a store of recall potions (http://www.giantbomb.com/recall-potion/93-2738/) are fine, but having a Cleric somewhat nearby is "versimilitude breaking gamist bullshit".
QuoteThe kind of mistake only an out-of-touch dumbass with his head lodged so firmly in his sphincter that he has no hope of recognizing what a dumbass he is - a dumbass just like you. Dumbass.
See, it's the emotional meltdowns like this* coupled with your clear lack of any comprehensive understanding about rpgs in general - and D&D prior to 2000 specifically - that really demonstrate how little value your 'participation' imputes. It also clearly shows how much of a mistake it
isn't.
*
most often seen in those who want to short-cut or short-shrift 'experience' because they have so little
Quote from: StormBringer;558802But here's the thing: I trust Spike to discuss in good faith. I Give Spike the benefit of the doubt, because I have not known him to make up shit whole cloth and present it as objective fact. You, on the other hand, would be well advised to support your assertions with links and evidence until the same can be said of you.
And I don't care if you give me the benefit of the doubt. If I say something that is true and I don't support it, you can feel free to refute it. Or not. And if I feel like it, I will support it. But a lot of that depends on how relevant it is to the conversation. Reading medical journals isn't fun for me. Finding an article in a medical journal and providing you a link to the abstract isn't fun for me. You seem to think you can dictate that I have to jump through hoops for your benefit.
I don't.
I won't jump through hoops for your benefit because it is my considered opinion that you're a dumbass. I also like telling you that. Dumbass.
Quote from: StormBringer;558802Ah, so a store of recall potions (http://www.giantbomb.com/recall-potion/93-2738/) are fine, but having a Cleric somewhat nearby is "versimilitude breaking gamist bullshit".
No... Using the rules consistently is not 'versimilitude breaking gamist bullshit'. If scrolls are a thing, and they have a cost (just like, say, a backpack) and the party has the resources to find and acquire those things, there is no reason that they shouldn't be able to acquire those things. Often, if the PCs are hired by a powerful wizard, they might very well ask for scrolls of
teleport instead of 'pile of cash'.
The difference - and this is important - is that if the PCs CHOOSE to get a particular item and they direct the narrative in order to achieve that goal, the PCs are DRIVING the story.
If the PCs end up in trouble and the DM uses a deus-ex-machina to 'save them', that is DM Pity.
If there is a cleric available BEFORE the PCs need one, that's fine. The game world supports that as an available option. If the cleric is 'added' after the PCs need it, that's 'versimilitude breaking gamist bullshit'.
When it comes down to it, as a player and a DM, I like to let the players decide what they want to do, and more importantly, how they'd like to do it. I provide 'hooks', and I let them follow them as they please. And if they say 'I want to go to this dunegon and recover this item' and they say 'we should buy equipment' - that's good. I encourage that. And if they buy good tools (like a scroll of
teleport), that's even better. Now, that doesn't mean that they're guaranteed to be able to find those scrolls (if they were, that would also be DM Pity). But in 3.x, there are rules for determining the availability of characters that could provide those types of things - and in a major city, it isn't usually that hard. But in the wilderness, it is.
So if you can't see the difference between letting the Players take actions and achieve their goals and the DM 'rescuing' the party if things get too tough, you are a dumbass. Or more of a dumbass. Whatever.
Quote from: StormBringer;558802derp. derp. derp.
What?
Probably something like: but, Wizards!!!
Quote from: CRKrueger;558776I think you should stick with Olivia Wilde personally. :cool:
Totally. That's my vote.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558793I'm still catching up, but I'll correct you where you're wrong. First off, they were Frost Giants, not Storm Giants. Storm Giants are much larger and more powerful. It's probably possible that the Wizard could have charmed Storm Giants, but that didn't happen.
You might... um... want to check the quoted text again. Just sayin'.
QuoteNo. In my post I explained that the Fighter nearly drowned when he was wearing his Full Plate Armor. He had to take off his armor so he could swim effectively. The cleric might have taken off his armor too, I didn't say and I don't remember. I do remember that the Fighter is the one who nearly drowned - probably because he tried to move into melee while the cleric hung back.
I believe you ALSO said how even after he removed his armor the wizard and/or cleric still had to keep a water breathing spell handy, implying it was still a problem. If it was also a problem for melee, then the rogue should have had an issue when closing for his SAs.
The point is: If only one person (the fighter) is having trouble with the terrain it is
highly unlikely to be a trouble with the class. Occam's razor and all that chuff.
QuoteNo. In my post I explained how the wyverns had been sighted and moved toward the party, but were ultimately scared off by the presence of Giants. My understanding is that because the Wyverns couldn't carry off a giant, they weren't 'tempting targets' the way a party of squishy humans, elves, and dwarves would have been.
Okay.
QuoteThe giants were Large creatures, while the human is a medium creature. When the Fighter is neck-deep in water, the giants are waist-deep in water. I honestly don't know off the top of my head what the appropriate penalties are for that - but if you consider the medium creature to be 'swimming', he's really in trouble - for example, all of his weapons do half damage or less. Since the giants were able to swing their weapons above the surface of the water, it wouldn't have affected them to the same degree. But maybe I don't understand the rules for wading in water? Maybe you can provide an explanation of what the DM should have done assuming that the water-level doesn't get changed to 'DM Pity' the Fighter...
Re: Giants in a swamp, its weight more than height that make the difference in swampy/muddy terrain. Off the top of my head I don't recall for certain how the size penalty affects terrain in general, if at all. If not, then the GM probably should have applied it equally by RAW.
Also, and again: Why wasn't the rogue being penalized by this water? Did he not fight? If not, then wasn't he in the same boat as the fighter in his inability to contribute meaningfully to this part of the adventure?
Also: Not face-fucking the fighter's player at every opportunity with rules that (from your description of events anyway) were unevenly used against the fighter is not the same as playing Pity the Fighter. Seriously. How is that even a thing?
QuoteI don't think I mentioned it before until the post above, but that might have happened, but I don't remember it. Probably (though I'm not sure), the cleric cast water breathing on himself. At 9th or 10th level, that would be 18 or 20 hours of safety from drowning.
Swell, but that also doesn't explain why you weren't talking about how the non-drowning cleric wasn't constantly being pulled out of the water after falling in. I just checked, and Water Breathing does nothing to help you swim at all.
Also, and again: Did no one else ever fall in water? The armor check penalty only applies once you're in the water and trying to swim, it doesn't (last I checked) make it any more likely for you to actually GO SWIMMING.
Forgive me if I'm making a big deal out of this, but seriously:
Half* your anti-fighter screed deals with how lame the fighter is for almost always drowning... yet, at the same time on of the few things Fighters can do that almost no one else gets happens to be... wait for it... wait for it.... SWIMMING! (and yes: Also armor check penalties... like the non-swimming cleric).
QuoteOnce the party was aware of the danger, it was easy enough to avoid. And without a serious penalty to the check from armor, I don't know that anyone was at risk. Besides, if it happened outside of combat, it wouldn't have mattered. If nothing else a giant could pull the character out of the water. It was only when the Fighter was trying to move into melee range during a fight that it came up. If there wasn't a fight, everyone would have been free to help the Fighter without a problem.
Seriously: THe non-skilled, presumably weak as shit, wizard is probably almost as disadvantaged as a strong fighter with an armor check, or at least close to it. Failure to apply the rules evenly does not make a case that the shit end of the stick deserves it.
I
Quotef you read my post, you'd have remembered that the Wyverns DIDN'T engage. The threat of giants throwing rocks was enough to scare them away - probably in part because they couldn't have carried off the giants, anyways.
So if there was no fight with the wyverns, when did the fighter move to engage in melee? I'm confused now. Also: How is the fighter deprotagonized by giants if there is no fight for them to outshine him at?
QuoteI think this mischaracterizes my experience. You probably should read it again. But as I remember it, nobody was trying to make the Fighter feel bad (except when they were teasing him for nearly drowning - but that was just some good-natured ribbing). It just happened as the Fighter realized his ability to contribute was pretty limited. I don't think anyone tried to make him realize that, and I don't think the DM was picking on him - if anything, as I remember that game, most of the enemies focused on the wizard and/or cleric. Honestly, I'd say the DM did more to give the Fighter ways to contribute (DM Pity) than anybody else - but by this point in the game it just came to the Fighter that he could be more effective as a different class.
I dunno: You make repeated references to almost drowning, to weapon check penalties for deep water and so on and so on... all of which apparently ONLY applied to the fighter (by your two or three repeats of the story), and you expect me to believe that the DM wasn't apparently fucking the fighter player over? Either he was biased, or you are in retelling it.
Personally I can't even imagine this group plodding through neck deep water to reach the fight the whole way. That's not a swamp that's a god damn shallow lake. Personally, shy of having some sort of water walking, I can't imagine ANY class of character having an easy go of that terrain.
Again, I don't know that everyone will have that particular conclusion - I'm just reporting what I observed from a game.
QuoteNo. Do you? The Fighter was the one trying to run up and kill enemies. Maybe if everyone else ran up they would have been the ones to find this out. But nobody else really had any reason to run up and try to stab people in the face.
Well, having played 3E games since it was released under several GMs (I move a lot), I have to say that first: I have never, ever, seen a terrain condition that routinely penalized a single player at every single aspect of the game, and only that one player. Ever. Which makes your anecdote a serious outlier. Secondly: Most rogues I've played with also attempt to close to melee for sweet sweet flanking SAs, so yes, the fighter wouldn't be the only one trying to face stab wyverns (well, stab anyway).
I'm withholding comment on the Wyverns running away, but with everything else it does tend to lend some credence to my theory that the GM is an asshole from top to bottom. But hey, silver lining: That means your reporting might not actually be horrifically biased!
QuoteThere were no monsters that were 'player characters'. They were charmed monsters, who agreed with the Wizard when he suggested that killing the dragon was in their own best interest. While a Frost Giant is a CR 9 creature, it is a 14 HD monster with a +4 LA. If someone wants to play a Frost Giant in the game straight from the Monster Manual, it counts as an 18th level PC. I mentioned that in an earlier post (not the one that I discussed the play experience) - what part of that doesn't sound correct?
I never said anyone played a monster. As for what's incorrect: you scale down the monster's HD as it's monster level to one appropriate for the game. You're taking like, one line, out of a whole chapter of rules and running it straight.
And its a horrible fucking mess, which is why no one uses it. At least my copy of Savage Races (as I recall) equates monster 'levels' as NPC levels, so they are like '1/2' of an actual PC level if you wanted to go there (which I don't... and I don't see that in the SRD so it's either not Open License content or 3.0 material changed for 3.5 (SR was so bad I didn't update my copy...).
So your fighter would have been playing a 5HD frost giant at worst (oy, you didn't realize you could scale HD? Silly boy!), or if the GM was smart and generous, a 5th level fighter who happened to be equal to a 5 HD frost Giant (saving both of them some headaches in the process. Given the horrible scaling of LA's I'd ALSO make the giant LA equal to innate HD (making the 'youngest' playable Frost Giants 5HD minimum...), but we've officially progressed to house rules, so I'll quit here.
Quote from: StormBringer;558802I Give Spike the benefit of the doubt, because I have not known him to make up shit whole cloth and present it as objective fact.
Does anyone know where I can buy irony meters in bulk?
Quote from: Marleycat;558746You're probably closer to my age than you imagine. Remember I got into Dnd fairly late. I really started with Palladium and White Wolf almost just to make my brother mad.:) I have grey hairs myself when I forget to dye them. Shhh....I have the blind eye thing covered, trust me.:D
So, you are telling me I
do have a chance.... :)
Quote from: jeff37923;558835So, you are telling me I do have a chance.... :)
Get a Room :D
Quote from: jeff37923;558835So, you are telling me I do have a chance.... :)
Jeff, for crying out loud, score already, dammit. :D
Quote from: Spike;558808You might... um... want to check the quoted text again. Just sayin'.
Sorry. I don't know why I read it as Storm Giant. For some reason, that came up a few different times in other posts, and while it doesn't REALLY matter, a Storm Giant is Huge (instead of Large) so they wouldn't have fit in the caverns, and they're also a CR 13, so officially, each of them would be 'better' than a party.
The rules of EL indicate that if you double the number of creatures, you increase the EL by 2 (ie, 2 CR 9 creatures is an EL 11; four is EL 13). The party without the giants would have been about EL 13; with the giants they would be about EL 15.
Quote from: Spike;558808The point is: If only one person (the fighter) is having trouble with the terrain it is highly unlikely to be a trouble with the class. Occam's razor and all that chuff.
That's true to a degree. The rogue certainly would have trouble moving into melee, and often that's exactly what they do. This rogue happened to be a dagger specialist and used a dagger of returning in addition to other weapons. They liked the idea that they could use the dagger either as a ranged or melee weapon, and we actually had quite a few 'extra daggers' because they're pretty common treasure. They were probably basing the character a little on 'Woodchuck' from Record of Lodoss War because the player is a huge anime fan. Other classes might had had problems, too, but I was definitely summing up the experience with a focus on the Fighter's experience. I don't mean to make it sound worse that it was - I just wanted to focus on the areas that it wasn't good.
Quote from: Spike;558808Re: Giants in a swamp, its weight more than height that make the difference in swampy/muddy terrain. Off the top of my head I don't recall for certain how the size penalty affects terrain in general, if at all. If not, then the GM probably should have applied it equally by RAW.
I can see that. If the bottom of the swamp is mud, a Large Giant that weighs 8x as much as a human might sink deeper into the mud. But that's a question of physics that I wouldn't expect the DM to figure out. The DM treated the bottom of the swamp as 'solid ground' - I don't have enough experience wading through swamps to argue that the DM was wrong in that call - but even if that's the case, I imagine the giants wouldn't be likely to sink more than a foot deeper than the other members of the party (the density of the mud would get higher as you sink deeper) - so treating it as 'basically solid ground' probably makes the most sense...
Quote from: Spike;558808Also, and again: Why wasn't the rogue being penalized by this water? Did he not fight? If not, then wasn't he in the same boat as the fighter in his inability to contribute meaningfully to this part of the adventure?
I didn't mean to imply that the terrain wasn't an issue for everybody. It totally was. It just happened to be a bigger issue for the Fighter. I believe that is because the Fighter doesn't have other ways of moving, and his choice of weapon happened to make standing in waist deep water more of a problem than it was for other people. And I don't want you to think that I'm amending what I said - but if it matters, I can provide more detail. The 'enemies' were kobold cultists that worshipped the dragon as a God. They used ambush tactics to take advantage of areas where the terrain was more of a burden to the party than it was to them. When we had some fights, the DM drew a series of parallel lines on the battlemat in blue. Between the blue lines was 'deeper water', and outside of the blue lines was somewhat higher ground - thick mud with dying grasses (I'm not sure if the dying grass was a result of the dragon's poison or if that was normal for this swamp). If the party stayed on the higher ground, there was usually no problem. If the party had to move through the 'deeper water' it might be. For myself, if the Fighter 'sank to the bottom', I usually allow them to 'walk' and don't require them to make a swim check. I think that's what Benoist is talking about as 'Great DM making sure the game is fun for everyone'. It seems like a reasonable call for me, but we're at least technically outside the rules, and if anything, I think the DMs call was CLOSER to the spirit of the rules. Which I guess is my point, anyways - the closer to play to the 'rules as written' the more clearly the Fighter sucks. 'DM Pity' seems to be something of a requirement - it's built in that the DM needs to make generous interpretations for the Fighter, but not as much for other classes. With the same interpretation, none of the other classes had as much to worry about. Clearly part of this is a result of what weapons they chose to use. The Fighter could have thrown daggers as well as the rogue (though couldn't have gotten sneak attack), but I can understand why the player picked a Composite Longbow - more range, more damage, etc. He just didn't plan on using the weapon in a swamp - nor should he plan on doing it most of the time - but in this particular case, it just reinforced how little he could do once he couldn't rely on the 'tools of his trade'.
Quote from: StormBringer;558802Also: Not face-fucking the fighter's player at every opportunity with rules that (from your description of events anyway) were unevenly used against the fighter is not the same as playing Pity the Fighter. Seriously. How is that even a thing?
This is definitely one of those things that's hard to judge without direct experience. I don't think the DM was out to get the Fighter - I think he was trying to enforce the rules as he understood them fairly. I don't know for sure that he succeeded - I didn't corner him in a back alley and make him show me his session notes, or anything like that. I'm usually familiar with the rules (but definitely I have not memorized the 'underwater combat' stuff), but everything he said seemed reasonable at the time, and it didn't bother the other players. It didn't even bother the Fighter at first - it was just as the Fighter player seemed to realize that 'random obstacle that is designed to require players to be smart' were unusually hard on him - he doesn't have many abilities that let him overcome these obstacles - there were no doors to knock down, and the nature of these obstacles were definitely 'decreased mobility', which was absolutely the point of these locations for the ambushes.
Quote from: StormBringer;558802Swell, but that also doesn't explain why you weren't talking about how the non-drowning cleric wasn't constantly being pulled out of the water after falling in. I just checked, and Water Breathing does nothing to help you swim at all.
If there's no risk of drowning, there's no problem with being underwater and unable to surface. If it happened, and it probably did, it was easily skipped in play - even if the Cleric had to try 15 times before succeeding, there was no doubt that he would, so unless there was a reason to know how long it took (like combat) it wouldn't have mattered. Outside of combat, the PCs could also take 10 on swim checks, so that was probably enough. The cleric was a bit of a 'warrior priest', so he certainly had a decent strength.
Quote from: StormBringer;558802Also, and again: Did no one else ever fall in water? The armor check penalty only applies once you're in the water and trying to swim, it doesn't (last I checked) make it any more likely for you to actually GO SWIMMING.
I agree. Wearing armor didn't necessarily make the Fighter more likely to fall in. And once the Fighter took off his armor, he didn't
have to worry about falling in - he couldn't fail his swim check without his armor. It just happened that the Fighter happened to be wearing the heaviest armor he could find - not terribly unusual with Fighters - it's supposed to be one of the features of the class. For the rogue and the wizard it was a non-issue - the DCs weren't too high without the penalty from Full Plate. And while I'm not sure, I honestly believe that the Fighter didn't have full ranks in Swim - if he did, it would have been useful in this situation, but not most of the campaign. It probably would have been a little strange for him to put his limited skill points into a skill that hardly ever came up (there was some time on boats, but most of the combat happened on the boats, not in the water, and when the Fighter expected to be at risk of falling in the Ocean he switched to a much lighter armor).
Quote from: StormBringer;558802Forgive me if I'm making a big deal out of this, but seriously: Half* your anti-fighter screed deals with how lame the fighter is for almost always drowning... yet, at the same time on of the few things Fighters can do that almost no one else gets happens to be... wait for it... wait for it.... SWIMMING! (and yes: Also armor check penalties... like the non-swimming cleric).
I didn't mean for the not being able to swim to be taken as the primary reason the Fighter sucks. I mean, it was something that happened, and it was clearly a situation that the Fighter sucked... But the reason I mention that is, in looking back at the experience, that seemed to be the BEGINNING of where the player decided his character was kind of sucky. That MIGHT NOT be right, but when you're relating a series of experiences related to a particular theme, including everything would dilute that point. I didn't talk about wenching before going on the adventure - the Fighter MIGHT have decided to retire because he decided he was going to settle down with a particular innkeeper's daughter. But I THINK that he made that decision AFTER the events of the 'going to kill the dragon'. From my perspective, basking in the glow of being a hero is a good way to retire a character you're not interested in playing anymore.
The Fighter player seemed to be bothered more by the fact that a Frost Giant, which had the same CR he had (or maybe 1 less - because I really can't remember if we were 9th or 10th level - but it was about that point) seemed to actually be more fun to play than his character. I don't think playing a 5 HD giant would have been more fun than his Fighter Character (fewer Hit Points, less chance of hitting, etc), but maybe we could have tried that. Basically, the ECL rules are a mess, and that would have probably been more trouble than it's worth. I wouldn't have thought so
at the time, but now I don't really see a problem if the player had given up his character and decided to take over one of the Frost Giants permanently... That actually would have been a pretty cool development, and if we weren't convinced that it would break the game (because, rules!!!) maybe we would have done it. But to say a player can play a character that is SUPPOSED to be the equivalent of an 18th level character really sounds 'broken', doesn't it? Now, I think I realize that it wouldn't have been, but that's the benefit of experience...
If the Frost Giants hadn't been so good in combat (at least as good as the Fighter), it might not have mattered.
Quote from: Spike;558808Seriously: THe non-skilled, presumably weak as shit, wizard is probably almost as disadvantaged as a strong fighter with an armor check, or at least close to it. Failure to apply the rules evenly does not make a case that the shit end of the stick deserves it.
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but let's assume the Fighter started with an 18 strength, and had raised it to 20 (+1 at 4th, +1 at 8th). Let's assume a +6 stat boosting item so he had a strength of 26. That sound reasonable? That's a +8 Strength bonus. If he didn't have ranks in swim, and he was wearing normal Full Plate (-6 Armor Check, doubled for swimming) he would have had a net -4. If the wizard had no armor, and a +0 Strength, he's good to go. Especially if the DC were fairly easy - like 10. If the DC is 10, and you're allowed to TAKE 10, the Wizard always passes and the Fighter always fails. Again, I can't assert that these numbers are correct, but they're certainly plausible. If they HAPPEN to be correct, the Fighter would statistically, make the check approximate one time for every four times he rolls. I don't know if the Fighter failed his roll twice, or six times, before he made it - I just remember he was teased for nearly drowning.
Quote from: Spike;558808So if there was no fight with the wyverns, when did the fighter move to engage in melee? I'm confused now. Also: How is the fighter deprotagonized by giants if there is no fight for them to outshine him at?
The last fight against the dragon is the one I remember best. There were several fights with kobold cultists. I know I mentioned that in the post I originally made on this subject. I didn't go into details of each fight - I just mentioned what type of encounters we had along the way.
Quote from: Spike;558808I dunno: You make repeated references to almost drowning, to weapon check penalties for deep water and so on and so on... all of which apparently ONLY applied to the fighter (by your two or three repeats of the story), and you expect me to believe that the DM wasn't apparently fucking the fighter player over? Either he was biased, or you are in retelling it.
It's possible I'm biased. I provided an example of play as I interpret it related to how the Fighter wasn't able to contribute in a 'level-appropriate way'. When I wanted to talk about these things in the theoretical, I was told that the only thing that matters is play experience. I disagree with that, but since I was asked, I provided an example of a play experience that illustrated what I'm talking about over the course of an adventure. There are other examples I can probably think of if I had to, but this one really seemed to cover most of the issues without getting into 'that's just one encounter'. I get it - it's okay if the Fighter isn't able to talk to NPCs (using the rules) as well as the Rogue - that's the Rogue (or bard's) chance to shine. As long as the Fighter has a chance to shine, too, it should all 'basically balance out'. This was something that I would consider a 'fairly standard adventure' (and I understand that this is entirely a subjective opinion, but I haven't heard anyone tell me that it sounds too crazy - even Benoist seemed to think it sounded pretty normal) and I can't remember a single instance in that adventure where he had his chance to shine. Now, I'll admit, this is pretty much because the spell
charm monster really did cover his role - but I wanted to point out that it wasn't ENTIRELY as a result of that. If the giants HADN'T been there, a similar result might have been possible - but they definitely made it impossible to notice that the Fighter wasn't able to contriute anything that the Giants weren't able to contribute as well or better...
Quote from: Spike;558808Personally I can't even imagine this group plodding through neck deep water to reach the fight the whole way. That's not a swamp that's a god damn shallow lake. Personally, shy of having some sort of water walking, I can't imagine ANY class of character having an easy go of that terrain.
I didn't mean to imply that anyone had an easy time - nor did I intend to imply that the Fighter was neck-deep the entire time. Most of the journey was on 'treacherous mud flats'. There were several encounters. The drowning one was pretty memorable. There was a time where the kobolds had prepared a 'pit' of 'sucking mud' that everyone who stepped into it had to make strength checks to escape. I don't remember, but let's say the DC was 20, and I don't remember, but let's say the Fighter made his check. With four Frost Giants, each of which had a +9 Strength (possibly 1 higher than the 'reasonable assumption' I gave up above comparing the Fighter and Wizard's ability to swim), probably at least one of them made it - maybe two, maybe three. Probably not all four. And if the Fighter contributed to that fight roughly as much as one of the Frost Giants, what does that prove? Personally, I don't think it proves much one way or the other, so I didn't think it worth mentioning. If he happened not to free himself and was unable to contribute, that's still not damning - he would have had a better chance of escaping the mud than anyone else in the party other than the Giants.
Quote from: Spike;558808Well, having played 3E games since it was released under several GMs (I move a lot), I have to say that first: I have never, ever, seen a terrain condition that routinely penalized a single player at every single aspect of the game, and only that one player. Ever. Which makes your anecdote a serious outlier.
I think any single example could be accused of such. I prefer to look at theoretical situations that are more common. That said, there was a stated preference to look at an example 'from play'. I don't think the terrain was intended to fuck with the Fighter more than the other players - I think it just happened that way - partly because of the equipment the player chose, and partly because the other players had other options to increase their mobility. I don't think any of the choices the Fighter made are unusual - in fact, in most situations they're probably optimal. In this particular case, they weren't. I don't think anyone expected to be dealing with 'difficult terrain' as much as we did, but that was part of the adventure. I don't mind 'playing it as it lies', so the fact that it was hardest on the Fighter (because of equipment and a lack of abilities that grant mobility) just seemed to be a natural result.
There were also times that a Balance check was required. In those situations, the cleric and wizard could still cast spells while prone. The rogue had a good Dexterity. The Fighter had a +1 Dex because he had Full Plate and wasn't worried about having a really high score there, and I know he didn't have ranks in balance. He also fell in the mud at least as much as other characters, but he couldn't fire a bow while prone, and if he had to stand up, he lost his ability to full-attack. I wouldn't think that slippery mud (or
grease) is INTENDED to penalize the fighter more than other characters - it just happens to.
Quote from: Spike;558808Secondly: Most rogues I've played with also attempt to close to melee for sweet sweet flanking SAs, so yes, the fighter wouldn't be the only one trying to face stab wyverns (well, stab anyway).
I've been typing a lot today, so I don't even remember if it's in this post or above, but the Rogue was a dagger specialist. He DEFINITELY preferred melee, but I know he had a returning dagger (and a bunch of other daggers, honestly), so he could attack at (limited range) fairly effectively. Against the kobolds he would usually hide (and or use a
ring of invisibility), move into a good position, then sneak attack. I suppose the Fighter could have been given the
ring of invisibility, but I know that to us, it seemed like the Rogue would get the most utility out of it. Likewise, the Fighter COULD have used the
magical returning dagger, but he didn't usually need it since he had a magic sword and a magic bow - he'd only have used the dagger when the other weapons didn't work - and that wasn't very often - just happened to be true in this particular case.
Quote from: Spike;558808I'm withholding comment on the Wyverns running away, but with everything else it does tend to lend some credence to my theory that the GM is an asshole from top to bottom. But hey, silver lining: That means your reporting might not actually be horrifically biased!
I don't think the DM was an asshole. I think we all had fun with the campaign up to that point - and these types of things were pretty common, by and large. It's just that at this level of play, they really stopped having much impact on the other players, but it continued to have an impact on the Fighter. Again, this is my personal opinion, but it is informed by observation: I think the Fighter was tired of playing 'low-level style' now that he was at high level. The fighter was still dealing with the same kinds of problems at 10th level that were a problem at 1st and 2nd level - or he was relying on other people to solve them for him. At 1st level, the Fighter might strip off his armor, climb the cliff and lower a rope for everyone else - that's contributing in a level-appropriate way.
But at 10th level, nobody needs that anymore. The Wizard can use
spiderclimb, or
fly, or
dimension door, or if he's really fucking lazy,
teleport. Now I'm not saying that cliffs
should be a challenge for a high level character, but the Fighter clearly was able to contribute at low-levels and most of that utility is easily and quickly replaced by spells. Some of this is spell design (ie,
knock is auto-success compared to Open Locks which requires a roll), and some of it is just the nature of magic. I'm not saying that access to magic is bad - I like it for my games - but I am saying that it's important to realize that it CAN and usually DOES erode the value non-magical characters can contribute. The rogue specifically has the advantage of being able to do a lot of dice of damage with a sneak attack. The Fighter NEEDS full attacks to have a chance to keep pace with a 'standard action' that the Rogue gets, and that gets harder and harder when enemies don't have to stand toe-to-toe to be effective...
Quote from: Spike;558808I never said anyone played a monster. As for what's incorrect: you scale down the monster's HD as it's monster level to one appropriate for the game. You're taking like, one line, out of a whole chapter of rules and running it straight.
And its a horrible fucking mess, which is why no one uses it. At least my copy of Savage Races (as I recall) equates monster 'levels' as NPC levels, so they are like '1/2' of an actual PC level if you wanted to go there (which I don't... and I don't see that in the SRD so it's either not Open License content or 3.0 material changed for 3.5 (SR was so bad I didn't update my copy...).
So your fighter would have been playing a 5HD frost giant at worst (oy, you didn't realize you could scale HD? Silly boy!), or if the GM was smart and generous, a 5th level fighter who happened to be equal to a 5 HD frost Giant (saving both of them some headaches in the process. Given the horrible scaling of LA's I'd ALSO make the giant LA equal to innate HD (making the 'youngest' playable Frost Giants 5HD minimum...), but we've officially progressed to house rules, so I'll quit here.
I'm not arguing that the Level Adjustment rules don't suck - they totally do. I'm just saying that a 5 HD giant wouldn't have been as good as the 9th level Fighter; and the DM didn't let him play a 14 HD giant which is probably about as good as his character was (roughly, anyway). For this particular player, even if the giant wasn't more powerful, it would have been a fun diversion because, hey, he's a giant. At the moment, I don't think it would have broken the game (especially when compared to the wizard and cleric), but I can understand why the DM thought it would. I don't like to disagree with the DM on 'judgement calls' - only if they misunderstand a rule. Even then, I don't mind if they change it, just so long as they understand that's what they're doing.
So, anyways, probably a lot has been said about this one example of one adventure from one gaming group. I don't mean it to be 'definitive proof' that the Fighter sucks - just an example that happened where it turned out to be true. I am interested in WHY the Fighter sucks, and I think this example is somewhat illustrative. But mostly, I provide this as a firm rebuttal to any claim that 'the Fighter has never sucked in any game in any group ever, and if it did, it was because the player didn't play right'. This one
might be subject to the criticism that the GM misapplied the rules, but I don't see any clear examples of how that's true. If you ask real nice, probably some people from the Gaming Den can look through it and find some things that the DM either didn't do or didn't do right, but again, I'm not aware of any, and everything seemed reasonable and 'above-board' at the time.
I aided and abetted on thsi thread earlier, then it went to hell...
And it is just worse now.
I have 'get a room' and a few crazy arguments, including some insane long posts. Spike and Story, WTF? Can one of you boil it down a bit?
Dead, to keep this from getting any longer per post I'ma have to sum up without direct quotations here.
A singular combination of events that makes the fighter look bad does not make a case that fighters objectively suck (and for the record, if it is that bad, the penalties should have been more universal. Sounds like a clear case of denied Dex footing at a minimum... and if the swamp is that deep/lacking firm ground (and I have, unfortunately, trudged across swamps), then making the casters take concentration checks might have been called for...but that's a GM's call), any more than having to adventure in an area of wildmagic would prove a Wizard Sucks (or, god forbid, a dungeon with random anti-magic zones, and silencing critters).
Compounding the matter is that a single CR 9 frost giant should make the entire party feel at least a little small in the pants (one giant is a match for a party of lvel 9 adventurers. 4 is a 'match' for level 11 parties, yes?).
Someone else pointed out that there are non-rules considerations (and this isn't a 'pity the fighter' comment, there are ALWAYS non-rules considerations by the nature of game books...) that should apply to charm spells that make this just a little more difficult (some of which are eluded to in the spell, others are not...), such as the fact that even friendly giants are going to be upset if they see you hocusing their pals, and charmed critters are not, by default, robots who simply do as they are told... and GMs SHOULD use that to avoid having the entire party reduced to a temp agency for hiring out monsters to do shit.
Blog it, fuckers.
Quote from: LordVreeg;558878I aided and abetted on thsi thread earlier, then it went to hell...
And it is just worse now.
I have 'get a room' and a few crazy arguments, including some insane long posts. Spike and Story, WTF? Can one of you boil it down a bit?
The long post just above yours?
Sure: DeadDM has a story about a party of 4 9th level characters that charmed 4 frost giants into helping them walk into a swamp and kill a dragon. The fighter mostly drowned a lot and the giants did all the killing.
I have been pointing out that the fighter's drowning a lot and generally being a useless git has absolutely nothing to do with his class, and attempting to pin the story down a bit farther on details to tease out why DeadDM would think that it does make the fighter a sucky class, with a small side bar about the current state of monsters as playable PCs in the 3X rules (they suck, and hard, short form).
Quote from: Spike;558887and GMs SHOULD use that to avoid having the entire party reduced to a temp agency for hiring out monsters to do shit.
I might steal this for my next character idea, actually.
I totally get where you're coming from here. For myself, I think the Fighter would have sucked in other situations just as much - this situation just really highlighted the fact... But basically anytime the Fighters aren't getting to use Full Attack actions they're not able to contribute in a 'level-appropriate fashion'.
Problems as I see them:
1) Save or Suck spells are totally divorced from hit points.
A Fighter can hit an opponent 15 or 20 times, and no matter how close to death it might be, a single
Finger of Death can instantly kill it. Rather than spending time hacking monsters, it's more efficient to kill them outright, if possible. If hitting them made them somehow EASIER to kill, that would be a great way to synergize the Fighter and the Wizard.
2) The Fighter relies on making full attacks to deal level appropriate damage.
A 5th level fireball does 5d6 damage to a bunch of targets (save for half). Assuming nothing that makes that more dangerous, that's 17.5 damage (or half of that). Assuming that you hit 5 people for full damage (pretty easy considering the spread), the Fighter at 5th level might reasonably be doing 1d8+9 (average 14.5) - but the only way he can do that to two opponents (let alone 5) is if they're standing right next to each other. The Fighter pretty much needs a way to move and still get the extra attacks (or each attack needs to do more damage to mitigate the reduction in attack bonus between primary and secondary and the possibility of not getting more attacks). The Rogue is pretty good in this regard - a single attack that deals 1d6+4+3d6 sneak attack (18 damage) is still respectable, especially if you're coming from the perspective that the Fighter should be 'better' in combat than the Rogue (a seemingly popular view on these boards)
3) The Fighter is
too easily disabled
This is of course a judgement call, but I'll provide some additional reasoning here. First off, the easiest way to disable a Fighter is attacking his Will save (low base bonus plus low Wisdom). Things like
hold person are very difficult for the Fighter to defend against, making it ridiculously easy to kill him outright (
hold person + coup d'grace, even with a Good Fortitude save is easy). Likewise at higher levels, it's easy to
dominate a Fighter, making him more of a liability than an asset - he can easily be turned against the party, and if it's quick enough, he's standing right next to his friends, so he can get a full-attack in the first round. Even attacks that don't hit the Will save can take a Fighter out - if he's wearing heavy armor, he doesn't really need more than a +1 Dex bonus; without skills like Balance, he's very likely to slip on common types of 'difficult terrain' - like ice. I think most DMs stop using interesting terrain because it's just so difficult for people that need to move and attack, as opposed to casters that can stand back from melee without losing effectiveness. Even Reflex saves which attack hit points (something that is supposed to be a strength for the Fighter) are tough... The Fighter is the most likely to take full damage (or, if other classes do, they tend to have more ways to protect themselves), which means having +40% hit points over a rogue doesn't really help - especially if the rogue takes NO DAMAGE on a save. Essentially, the ways to hurt a Fighter are pretty broad, making the idea of a Fighter going up to stab a Dragon in the mouth (you know, like in the stories) pretty silly...
Edit - Oh, one other thing. If the Fighter is making full attacks to contribute in a level-appropriate way, it gets boring pretty quickly. The 10th time you say 'full attack' in a session is *yawn*, boring. The thing that's missing is the tactical depth. Why don't Fighters try to trip opponents (because it means fewer attacks, and most of their enemies have 4 legs, or 10 legs, or are the size of a house); why don't they use other tactics (because other tactics don't actually confer a bonus in the game), etc. Having some meaningful options other than 'full attack', or letting the Fighter add special maneuvers without giving up the damage the full attack deals might make that go a lot further.
I think most people agree that Fighter's saves are needlessly bad in 3X vs older editions.
The curious bit when comparing damage from melee vs damage from spells (SoDs especially) is that the fighter is pretty much always doing damage, while spells can (and do) fail, and are then gone.
Yes, fighters can miss, but when you're tossing 7 attacks a round (with the two weapon chain and potentially hasted (which doesn't always require a wizard... plenty of haste magic items), chances are you're hitting with some...
So, to take your example of the fighter vs Fireball: Yes, the wizard is doing more damage to each critter in range than the fighter is likely to be doing with one hit. At fifth level the wizard can do that... twice, and I've found that the average damage per hit of the fighter tends to rise faster than the average damage of the fireball, and we haven't even gotten to the fact that higher level critters often have resistances (yes, and DR, but almost all DR can be overcome).
EDIT::: to respond to Dead's Edit: Agreed that spamming full attacks is somewhat boring (but also: Some players don't want a lot of options, they like spam). The simple fix is to simply remove AoO's against non-standard tactics (like trip...), though I should point out the fun I had with a non-optimized disarmer (no feat), who took away nasty magic staff from the lich (then AoO'd him when he retrieved it... then disarmed him again..., then another AoO... then the lich used magic to escape the cycle... coward :P )
I do find it sad that the rogue can be a better damage dealer (with more special options as well!!!) than teh fighter, but I take solace in to factors that get ignored: Rogues are very much glass cannons that can not (and will not), under most circumstances, stand up to enemy monsters at all... and secondly, the Fighter favors fights with lots of bad guys... which the rogue sucks at... (almost impossible to get SAs in fights where the party is outnumbered... even by weaker opponents), while the fighter only sucks in comparison on straight damage when fights favor the rogue. Scaling for BaB and iterative attacks also comes into play before it gets too out of hand.
In short, a properly built straight fighter will probably not be outshown by the rogue or by straight damage spells over a long game, and can be played more aggressively than either.
Guys, DeadDM's avatar is the picture for the cleric in the 3.5 PHB. That should tell you all you need to know about how this conversation would go.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;558913Guys, DeadDM's avatar is the picture for the cleric in the 3.5 PHB. That should tell you all you need to know about how this conversation would go.
...and yours is currently from a thinly-veiled commercial for kids' toys. What conclusions are we to draw from that?
Quote from: jeff37923;558397And the important point you are missing is that a Bard can accomplish all this without expending a spell, unlike other classes.
Other classes can accomplish this without the use of spells, or can do it much better by expending spells during down time. Bards also have spells, and to gather information really need to use them.
QuoteIf you do not think that gaining information about your opponent is important, then you are as fucked up as a soup sandwich.
If you think parties without bards can't gather information then yada, yada. If you think the Bard is significantly better at this than a standard party working together yada, yada.
Quote'System wankery' is more like it. You got all this from reading some idiot's CharOp masturbation fantasy which you don't even understand yourself. Go re-read Wild Shape (Su), especially the part where it says that while in animal form the Druid cannot talk - which nullifies the use of spells that require a Verbal component, like Summon Nature's Ally.
It is wildly hilarious to think that taking a single feat that has no prerequisites that druids don't meet by virtue of having selected the class, and is in the core book even qualifies as "Character Optimization". It's the only Druid specific feat in the book, and it dramatically increases the power of the class. Find me any Druids without this feat and I'll find you just as many terrible players.
QuoteBecause some asshole said that the Cleric and the Druid are best in combat on a CharOp forum? You have a lot to learn, kid.
Yeah, I'm clearly talking to a 3e pro here, he who denies the power of CoDzilla. :rolleyes:
QuoteSo the Bard sucks because you must think while playing the class and cannot just mash the buttons on a character sheet? Bards suck because they require effort?
They suck because they sacrifice combat abilities for having good social skills, and consequentially they are a very unpopular class (and I'm not the only one that notices this even in this thread since Marleycat has said the same thing; she doesn't see people playing Bards. Class is bad dude. Accept it and move on.)
QuoteBut tactically it is invaluable. Also game mechanic wise, because you obviously do not know what that means.
It
is tactically invaluable. It's also nothing that the Bard is significantly better at than other classes.
QuoteWould you rather have this formidible sounding Ranger protecting the Wizard or out in front doing actual damage to an opponent?
I'd rather him do damage with his bow, which is both a better offensive and defense option than two-weapon fighting in 3e. He'll do more damage from the back and he'll be less likely to be hit. Although you don't need a Ranger to protect the party's most powerful member, so this is a moot point.
QuoteAlso, level for level, the Bard is a better healer than the Ranger based on simple spell progression by a 2 to 1 margin.
The Bard has to select which spells he knows, so he doesn't necessarily have the full repertoire of healing spells available on his class list available, and at high levels in 3.x, in combat you are only casting your highest level Cure X Wounds spell and Heal (which neither the Bard nor Ranger get).
The Bard is a better healer, but not by a large enough margin to matter. He's not worth taking
as a healer and he'd be worse even than the Paladin despite the spell progression disparity, so that's a non-factor. The Bard's highest level healing spell is an AoE Cure Light Wounds (which is terrible for its' level.) Otherwise his 5th and 6th level spells are devoid of healing magic, so the slightly weaker Ranger spell progression is less of an issue. If you need either class to heal then you are in trouble to start with. Having the Bard instead of the Ranger is such a minor discrepancy in power to be all but irrelevant.
QuoteAnd where are you getting that a Ranger has de facto better perception abilities?
1)He likely has at least a 14 WIS.
2)He has a spell with a long duration to buff WIS to 18 (the Bard does not)
3)He has Spot as a class skill (the Bard does not)
4)His spell list has better spells that pertain to detecting dangers in combat than the Bard
5)He has bonuses to perception skills against his favored enemies to give other circumstantial bonuses
6)At the actual table you see a lot more Rangers with maxed Spot/Listen than you do Bard's because that isn't the Bard's shtick in the first place.
7)At the table most Bard's will have neither Spot nor Listen, since one is cross classed, they are all but useless except as a duo, and the Bard is much more likely to specialize his skills in his strong areas and let another class be the party scout (ie be good at seeing shit)
For someone that wants to talk about 'system wankery' you seem awfully focused on what is
theoretically possible versus what
actually happens at the game table. Who here is playing games where their Ranger party mates are worse at the job of noticing shit happening in the moment (arguably the class strongest at this) than the Bard?
QuoteIf it isn't your arguement, then why did you bring it up?
To point out that "BEING GOOD AT FIGHTING" is in fact a worthwhile thing to have, and that few would sacrifice their combat ability for out of combat utility (ie the Bard is unpopular because they have been designed to be worse at combat and better at haggling for rope).
What's being argued against this is that it doesn't even matter if the Fighter is best at fighting, when it oh so obviously does. That lots of people will play 'The Best Swordsman' archetype even if that is all the archetype does.
QuoteExcept that you have yet to prove that.
I was trying not to engage in 'system wankery' too much. Also its' pretty much self-evident.
QuoteMath and big numbers do not matter nearly as much as the ability of the Player to effectively play his or her character.
Yeah, they really, really do. This is snobbish storytelling crap where people think they should get to be awesome because their Mary Sue backstory says so, or they should be showered with DM pity because of their rule of cool concept.
The numbers matter. Your ability to play an effective swordsman is high dependent on what the numbers in the book and on the sheet say about your ability to do this. In 3.x that's equally true for every other endeavor, and even being a little subpar in any area is a significant penalty.
QuotePlease point out exactly where in the PHB it says this about the Bard.
Since what it actually says is:
Yeah, you are right, my mistake. That passage isn't even wrong.
Quote from: Spike;558895The long post just above yours?
Sure: DeadDM has a story about a party of 4 9th level characters that charmed 4 frost giants into helping them walk into a swamp and kill a dragon. The fighter mostly drowned a lot and the giants did all the killing.
I have been pointing out that the fighter's drowning a lot and generally being a useless git has absolutely nothing to do with his class, and attempting to pin the story down a bit farther on details to tease out why DeadDM would think that it does make the fighter a sucky class, with a small side bar about the current state of monsters as playable PCs in the 3X rules (they suck, and hard, short form).
He provided that post because several other posters screamed that they would believe nothing but actual campaign experiences, as if nothing else could ever be illustrative. So he posted it. Not surprisingly, some people (such as yourself) have apparently been spending more time than it likely took to play the original session trying to disprove the idea that it proved anything.
And yet, the story, as related, doesn't actually appear to show any major rules being broken, any particularly stupid play, or any particularly poor character builds. The drowning, specifically, is not really all that important, even though you've harped on it. More important is how the area the Fighter is supposed to really contribute to the party in is completely overshadowed by the resources brought to bear by another party member. Which I think was the original contention the story was brought up to support.
Ultimately, I don't think even that matters, because those who were asking for it were never going to believe it, regardless. You're really no better, picking at nits, as if removing one or two of them will somehow change the thrust of story.
I'll also say that there's really nothing to prove in terms of some kind of balance between the Fighter and other classes; that there has been an issue that crops up, at some point, is an idea that has been floating around
at least since AD&D (didn't play 0e, so can't speak to that). Even the All-Holy Gygax commented on it. The notion that all those who've experienced this, talked about it, or posted online about it, are all just doing it wrong...well, I'm amazed people can make that claim with a straight face.
For my own experience it's really not even that big a deal in 1E, and it's not even really noticeable until you're into the mid-teens, in terms of levels. I'd say the sheer scarcity of people who ever played to that point has a lot to do with why it's not a bigger complaint. During the entire run of AD&D 1E+2E I had less than half-a-dozen campaigns make it into that territory (as both a player and a DM).
This all assumed, of course, that every character had magic items. These were all organically obtained through play, or, very occasionally, created by party members. I think that any kind of analysis that wants to dump the items is fatally flawed - that's just not the assumption that D&D (in any version) works under. Besides, individuals making these kinds of assumptions do not understand just how squishy Magic-Users were in earlier editions without their items (or sometimes even with them) until they had access to some of the top tier spells.
D&D 3.x is a different animal altogether, however. Issues with the Fighter (or with other classes, depending on how you look at it) crop up far sooner, and have been pointed out by a far larger portion of the playing community. And I'm not talking about CharOp here - the day someone like that plays at my table is the day
after they plant me in a pine box - just regular people playing the game largely as written. There's a perfectly good reason E6 exists, after all. I've certainly experienced these kinds of things myself, and I'm a core-rulebook-only, justify-to-me-why-your-character-should-multi-class kind of a DM. I think it's a major failing of the playtest that more of these kinds of problems weren't caught before launch.
Now, as for D&D4E...who cares?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558903I might steal this for my next character idea, actually.
I totally get where you're coming from here. For myself, I think the Fighter would have sucked in other situations just as much - this situation just really highlighted the fact... But basically anytime the Fighters aren't getting to use Full Attack actions they're not able to contribute in a 'level-appropriate fashion'.
Problems as I see them:
1) Save or Suck spells are totally divorced from hit points.
A Fighter can hit an opponent 15 or 20 times, and no matter how close to death it might be, a single Finger of Death can instantly kill it. Rather than spending time hacking monsters, it's more efficient to kill them outright, if possible. If hitting them made them somehow EASIER to kill, that would be a great way to synergize the Fighter and the Wizard.
2) The Fighter relies on making full attacks to deal level appropriate damage.
A 5th level fireball does 5d6 damage to a bunch of targets (save for half). Assuming nothing that makes that more dangerous, that's 17.5 damage (or half of that). Assuming that you hit 5 people for full damage (pretty easy considering the spread), the Fighter at 5th level might reasonably be doing 1d8+9 (average 14.5) - but the only way he can do that to two opponents (let alone 5) is if they're standing right next to each other. The Fighter pretty much needs a way to move and still get the extra attacks (or each attack needs to do more damage to mitigate the reduction in attack bonus between primary and secondary and the possibility of not getting more attacks). The Rogue is pretty good in this regard - a single attack that deals 1d6+4+3d6 sneak attack (18 damage) is still respectable, especially if you're coming from the perspective that the Fighter should be 'better' in combat than the Rogue (a seemingly popular view on these boards)
3) The Fighter is too easily disabled
This is of course a judgement call, but I'll provide some additional reasoning here. First off, the easiest way to disable a Fighter is attacking his Will save (low base bonus plus low Wisdom). Things like hold person are very difficult for the Fighter to defend against, making it ridiculously easy to kill him outright (hold person + coup d'grace, even with a Good Fortitude save is easy). Likewise at higher levels, it's easy to dominate a Fighter, making him more of a liability than an asset - he can easily be turned against the party, and if it's quick enough, he's standing right next to his friends, so he can get a full-attack in the first round. Even attacks that don't hit the Will save can take a Fighter out - if he's wearing heavy armor, he doesn't really need more than a +1 Dex bonus; without skills like Balance, he's very likely to slip on common types of 'difficult terrain' - like ice. I think most DMs stop using interesting terrain because it's just so difficult for people that need to move and attack, as opposed to casters that can stand back from melee without losing effectiveness. Even Reflex saves which attack hit points (something that is supposed to be a strength for the Fighter) are tough... The Fighter is the most likely to take full damage (or, if other classes do, they tend to have more ways to protect themselves), which means having +40% hit points over a rogue doesn't really help - especially if the rogue takes NO DAMAGE on a save. Essentially, the ways to hurt a Fighter are pretty broad, making the idea of a Fighter going up to stab a Dragon in the mouth (you know, like in the stories) pretty silly...
Edit - Oh, one other thing. If the Fighter is making full attacks to contribute in a level-appropriate way, it gets boring pretty quickly. The 10th time you say 'full attack' in a session is *yawn*, boring. The thing that's missing is the tactical depth. Why don't Fighters try to trip opponents (because it means fewer attacks, and most of their enemies have 4 legs, or 10 legs, or are the size of a house); why don't they use other tactics (because other tactics don't actually confer a bonus in the game), etc. Having some meaningful options other than 'full attack', or letting the Fighter add special maneuvers without giving up the damage the full attack deals might make that go a lot further.
But the liability of the fighter in your example is simple verisimilitude. A guy wearing plate is fucked in a swamp. If he has to engage with the enemy he is double fucked.
Now it just so happens that to be effective a fighter realy has no option but to wear armour but that shouldn't mean that should be no swamps in the world or no rivers or no really hot deserts were wearing plate will get you cooked.
So the scenario did punish the fighter but the fighter should have just relaxed. Personally, if I were the fighter I would have asked a Giant if I could ride upon his shoulder and act as lookout for the party and taken my bow up there with me. I would have volunteered to roll for the Giants and play them all as well , probably with a good dose of the three stooges. Then when the moment arose for me to loose my bow or whatever fine but in the down time when it was the frost giants not me getting dragon roasted or whatever I would have been happy enough.
The Infantry don't complain when they get a tank platoon escourt even if individualy they don't get to crush thier enemies, See them driven before them, and to hear the lamentation of their women!
Sure everyone could do that and to be honest if you have a giant to ride why the fuck wouldyou walk :) but it would have been a more fun game.
Quote from: jibbajibba;558917But the liability of the fighter in your example is simple verisimilitude. A guy wearing plate is fucked in a swamp. If he has to engage with the enemy he is double fucked.
Now it just so happens that to be effective a fighter realy has no option but to wear armour but that shouldn't mean that should be no swamps in the world or no rivers or no really hot deserts were wearing plate will get you cooked.
So the scenario did punish the fighter but the fighter should have just relaxed. Personally, if I were the fighter I would have asked a Giant if I could ride upon his shoulder and act as lookout for the party and taken my bow up there with me. I would have volunteered to roll for the Giants and play them all as well , probably with a good dose of the three stooges. Then when the moment arose for me to loose my bow or whatever fine but in the down time when it was the frost giants not me getting dragon roasted or whatever I would have been happy enough.
The Infantry don't complain when they get a tank platoon escourt even if individualy they don't get to crush thier enemies, See them driven before them, and to hear the lamentation of their women!
Sure everyone could do that and to be honest if you have a giant to ride why the fuck wouldyou walk :) but it would have been a more fun game.
I think it's important to keep in mind that no one story or scenario from play is ever going to prove anything. I thinked it verged on disingenuous to ask for one as evidence when it was never going to be accepted as such. How
many stories would it take to constitute evidence? Lots, presumably? Over an RPing career I've had lots, and heard enough from others to make me realise there was nothing truly unique about my expereinces. In Basic, 1E and 2E the issues are either nonexistant or nowhere near large enough for me to care about. 3.x? Love it as a game, but it's seriously busted in lots of places. Much of that is "fixable" by a DM, but eventually you're either completely breaking verisimilitude, or doing far more work than it's worth. With the rules as written I doubt I'd ever play past 12th any more, maybe not even that far, depending on the group.
Quote from: Bobloblah;558918I think it's important to keep in mind that no one story or scenario from play is ever going to prove anything. I thinked it verged on disingenuous to ask for one as evidence when it was never going to be accepted as such. How many stories would it take to constitute evidence? Lots, presumably? Over an RPing career I've had lots, and heard enough from others to make me realise there was nothing truly unique about my expereinces. In Basic, 1E and 2E the issues are either nonexistant or nowhere near large enough for me to care about. 3.x? Love it as a game, but it's seriously busted in lots of places. Much of that is "fixable" by a DM, but eventually you're either completely breaking verisimilitude, or doing far more work than it's worth. With the rules as written I doubt I'd ever play past 12th any more, maybe not even that far, depending on the group.
And you'd be right. Personal experiences, personal tastes, etc are all things that can't be standardized or argued about in any sane fashion.
Quote from: KenHR;558914...and yours is currently from a thinly-veiled commercial for kids' toys. What conclusions are we to draw from that?
Nice.
Quote from: KenHR;558914...and yours is currently from a thinly-veiled commercial for kids' toys. What conclusions are we to draw from that?
That I have better taste than you?
Seriously, if you couldn't put the pieces together, than there's no sense explaining to you.
On charm monster, do people really abuse this spell to enslave monsters? The spell makes a monster(s) your friend. The spell makes the creature your friend. That's it. Having these charmed creatures follow you about in deadly dungeons and what have you is simply not possible. It's tantamount to me asking my friends to join the army with me, or perhaps rob a bank, maybe break into Fort Knox. They are simply not going to comply. Hell, I doubt I could convince my friends to mow my yard for me.
It's a little ironic that I chose this avatar (long, long, ago) in large part because I thought it looked the most 'Fighter'-like among the available avatars - that and I bear a much stronger relationship to this avatar than any of the others that were available...
As for charm monster, I have no doubt that you, JRR, would not be able to convince your friends to participate in a bank heist with you. But there are people who do convince their friends to join them in a bank heist, or worse. And if someone is magically compelled to consider your words in the most favorable light, it's hard to believe that you couldn't convince them - as long as the rewards outweigh the risk.
Now, in the example I provided (as asked), the DM felt that it was reasonable, considering the charm effect, that the giants would help based on their own self interest - the party made a pretty convincing case that the dragon would pose a danger to the giants at some point in the future. I suppose that the party could also have sweetened the deal by agreeing to split the dragon's treasure. I don't know what reaction rolls the DM may have used, but I don't think he did anything unreasonable under the circumstance.
It's possible charm monster is too powerful, and maybe he should have made it less effective, but trying to run the game as written, that wouldn't make sense.
And while this leaves the realm of play experience and moves back into the theoretical, there are other ways the Wizard (or the Cleric) could have achieved the same effect.
Just admit that you just assumed that Charm Monster gave control of the creatures to the Wizard, that from there you just let the Wizard player take control of the giants as though they were his puppets, and that you basically fucked up on what the spell ACTUALLY does, and your responsibilities thereof as a DM. You should have kept control of the NPC creatures, have played them as friends, and from there all sorts of situations and caveats might have shown up. Alternately, you might have rearranged who controlled whom during tactical combat, so that the players wouldn't feel like the NPC giants were doing everything instead of them. Between that and the trek in the swamp, the setup of the dragon's lair itself... dude. Take your ball, go home, and reassess your DMing, will you?
Quote from: JRR;558938On charm monster, do people really abuse this spell to enslave monsters? The spell makes a monster(s) your friend. The spell makes the creature your friend. That's it. Having these charmed creatures follow you about in deadly dungeons and what have you is simply not possible. It's tantamount to me asking my friends to join the army with me, or perhaps rob a bank, maybe break into Fort Knox. They are simply not going to comply. Hell, I doubt I could convince my friends to mow my yard for me.
Are we back to this? The charm spell in both 1e and 3e explicitly says that it
is possible - although not guaranteed - that a charmed creature will agree to hold off an onrushing red dragon for the spellcaster. That might not be the way you play, but it is what the spell description says.
I frankly do not give a rat's ass about RAW if it causes an imbalance. The GM should know when the spell is unbalancing the game and assign proper balancing penalties and probabilities.
It's part of what makes a good GM, the ability to balance the game, because every game is different and the GM adjudicates....an important word.
Quote from: jhkim;558947Are we back to this? The charm spell in both 1e and 3e explicitly says that it is possible - although not guaranteed - that a charmed creature will agree to hold off an onrushing red dragon for the spellcaster. That might not be the way you play, but it is what the spell description says.
Try again.
"This spell is similar to a Charm Person spell (q.v.), but it will affect any living creature - or several creatures of lesser level as explained hereafter. The magic-user casts the Charm Monster spell, and any affected creature regards the spell caster as friendly, an ally or companion to be treated well or guarded from harm. If communication is possible, the charmed creature will follow reasonable requests, instructions, or orders most faithfully (cf. Suggestion spell). Affected creatures will eventually come out from under the influence of the spell, and the probability of such breaking of a Charm Monster spell is a function of the creature's level, i.e. its number of hit dice:"
"Naturally, overtly hostile acts by the person charming the monster will automatically break the spell, or at the very least allow the monster a new saving throw versus the charm. The spell will affect from 2-8 1st level creatures, 1-4 2nd level creatures, 1 or 2 3rd level, or 1 creature of 4th or higher level."
Quote from: jhkim;558947Are we back to this? The charm spell in both 1e and 3e explicitly says that it is possible - although not guaranteed - that a charmed creature will agree to hold off an onrushing red dragon for the spellcaster.
I don't remember anything that specific in 1e for charm person or charm monster. The closest to it is a comment that '...but
might believe the druid if assured that the only chance to save the druid's life is if the creature holds back an onrushing red dragon for "just a round or two".' (description also applies to the MU spell charm person; emphasis mine as "might" has a much different meaning than "will".)
This, however, implies that this is a very good level of communication between the two. They have to both speak a common language well as this idea would be very hard to get across without that. Also, the charmed beings alignment would have to be such that the being would be likely to risk his life for a friend. A low intelligence would make agreeing more likely, of course, as would a high charisma on the part of the caster. In my game, the charmed being would get a reaction roll in a case like this modified by the above (and the charm effect) and if we got a 75% or higher (immediate action), the charmed creature would attempt to hold off the dragon, otherwise more discussion/convincing would be required.
Also Charming a Giant to maybe stand in the way of a Dragon (which in 1e might not be that much bigger) is one thing. Asking the Giant to leave family and clan behind to follow the Mage around for weeks like a pet dog during which time he might stand in the way of anything is something else.
But who cares about Charm Monster, because both the Cleric and Wizard have several other ways apparently to achieve the same effect, so it doesn't matter how you used Charm Monster. How convenient for us then we won't have to waste time arguing it then and can follow the goalpost to the next stadium.
Quote from: JRR;558951Try again.
"This spell is similar to a Charm Person spell (q.v.), but it will affect any living creature - or several creatures of lesser level as explained hereafter. The magic-user casts the Charm Monster spell, and any affected creature regards the spell caster as friendly, an ally or companion to be treated well or guarded from harm. If communication is possible, the charmed creature will follow reasonable requests, instructions, or orders most faithfully (cf. Suggestion spell). Affected creatures will eventually come out from under the influence of the spell, and the probability of such breaking of a Charm Monster spell is a function of the creature's level, i.e. its number of hit dice:"
"Naturally, overtly hostile acts by the person charming the monster will automatically break the spell, or at the very least allow the monster a new saving throw versus the charm. The spell will affect from 2-8 1st level creatures, 1-4 2nd level creatures, 1 or 2 3rd level, or 1 creature of 4th or higher level."
And when you look up the Charm Person or Mammal spell, here's what you find (just like I said earlier (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=555262&postcount=1874)).
The creature then will regard the druid who cast the spell as a trusted friend and ally to be heeded and protected. The spell does not enable the druid to control the charmed creature as if it were an automaton, but any word or action of the druid will be viewed in its most favorable way. Thus, a charmed creature would not obey a suicide command, but might believe the druid if assured that the only chance to save the druid's life is if the creature hold back an onrushing red dragon for "just a round or two." (...) If the druid harms, or attempts to harm, the charmed creature by some overt action... the charm will be broken automatically.Quote from: RandallS;558952I don't remember anything that specific in 1e for charm person or charm monster. The closest to it is a comment that '...but might believe the druid if assured that the only chance to save the druid's life is if the creature holds back an onrushing red dragon for "just a round or two".' (description also applies to the MU spell charm person; emphasis mine as "might" has a much different meaning than "will".)
Yes, and that's exactly what I said - and it contradicts your earlier claim that it is "simply not possible" for charmed creatures to fight for you or even follow you into deadly dungeons.
I think the key thing to the red dragon example is it is for just a round or two and seems to be in the heat of the moment. This is a judgement call of course, but I think some folks just see charm as being significantly more powerful than that. Getting the charmed creature to chip in for a few rounds as the dragon threatens the caster is very different from having the charmed creature travel months with the party on dangerous adventures. Not saying the spell is perfect but this is a part of the game where human judgement (and the GM) becomes very important.
MIGHT believe...
Quote from: jhkim;558956Thus, a charmed creature would not obey a suicide command, but might believe the druid if assured that the only chance to save the druid's life is if the creature hold back an onrushing red dragon for "just a round or two." (...)
Sure, if said dragon is currently attacking the druid. But following the druid into the dragons lair so the druid can jump in front of the dragon is stretching the spell past it's intentions. Not to mention the druids life needs to be in danger. Just yelling sic him won't work. Again, if someone is trying to kill me, my friends would probably help me defend myself - at least I'd like to think so - but if I plan on intentionally seeking this person out and starting a fight, I'd probably be on my own.
Quote from: Benoist;558962MIGHT believe...
I'd wager the interpretation depends if the spell is cast from a PC on an NPC/creature or from an NPC on a PC.
Bingo.
Quote from: Rum Cove;558965I'd wager the interpretation depends if the spell is cast from a PC on an NPC/creature or from an NPC on a PC.
I guess that'd be up to role playing in the latter case, but the point is that the example in the spell is just that, an example predicated on the notion there are no additional dubious elements to the friend's story or other reasons for the target to doubt the genuine intentions of its "friend". It's your FRIEND. It trusts you. But it's not your bitch, nor does it automatically overlooks you lying to your teeth or stretching lies and so on.
Come on now. The notion that a friend intent on defending you and being helpful is the equivalent not only of a SLAVE, but of a creature you'd POSSESS or Control as a PUPPET is totally retarded, and clearly beyond the scope of the spell.
Quote from: JRR;558964Sure, if said dragon is currently attacking the druid. But following the druid into the dragons lair so the druid can jump in front of the dragon is stretching the spell past it's intentions. Not to mention the druids life needs to be in danger. Just yelling sic him won't work. Again, if someone is trying to kill me, my friends would probably help me defend myself - at least I'd like to think so - but if I plan on intentionally seeking this person out and starting a fight, I'd probably be on my own.
That's right.
if you know what a charm spell is then youd know that the charm spell only speeds up trust and friendship (ex. creature trust or friendship taking one year with charm spell it may only take 1 day.) therefor it in no way means it with stand in the way of a dragon or anything else unless it once to.
Quote from: LordVreeg;558950I frankly do not give a rat's ass about RAW if it causes an imbalance. The GM should know when the spell is unbalancing the game and assign proper balancing penalties and probabilities.
It's part of what makes a good GM, the ability to balance the game, because every game is different and the GM adjudicates....an important word.
Okay. Fine. That's your point of view. I do care about the RAW if it causes imbalance. It's fine to say the "GM
should know" but that doesn't guarantee that the GM
does know. How is it unreasonable to expect that the rules try to be balanced, and then the GM only has to deal with things that didn't appear to be broken. If using a spell exactly the way it appears to be intended is broken, the designers have a fucking
obligation to try to fix it before it goes to print. Because if
charm monster, a spell that does exactly what it is supposed to do, is broken, it could have been fixed.
For example, if the intent is
NOT for a giant to be willing to join his friend the Wizard for a week to join him on a quest that provides a benefit to the giant, they could have fixed it by making the duration 10 min/CL instead of 1 day/CL. They didn't do that. So which is it? Is it supposed to be a long duration effect so you
can get the benefit for a week, or is it supposed to be something that lasts a few rounds? Because as written, it's a week or two.
Quote from: JRR;558964Sure, if said dragon is currently attacking the druid. But following the druid into the dragons lair so the druid can jump in front of the dragon is stretching the spell past it's intentions. Not to mention the druids life needs to be in danger. Just yelling sic him won't work. Again, if someone is trying to kill me, my friends would probably help me defend myself - at least I'd like to think so - but if I plan on intentionally seeking this person out and starting a fight, I'd probably be on my own.
In the post before the one I'm quoting, you're still quoting 1st edition DMG regarding a 3rd edition spell? How does that even make sense? If the only thing that matters is play experience, let's keep it inside the edition that the example is from. Unless you're admitting that the spell was broken in 1st edition as well? As far as the danger to the giants? It was minimal. They had the services of a party of adventurers with them helping keep them safe. Since the dragon could likely kill any of them individually, if they really did want to kill the dragon (which, be aware, was handled through roleplay but the
charm effect was icing on the cake), joining forces with the party was a pretty reasonable way to do it. So, take that example and consider this counter-example.
There's a guy that's promised to kill you and rape your girlfriend. You don't think he knows where you live, but you know he hates your guts. One of your friends tells you that he knows where this guy is going to be, he has a couple of pistols, and he thinks you and he can take him out before he knows what he's up against? Maybe in our modern society you would be reluctant - the police should handle that type of stuff, for sure. But if the threat is credible and the authorities won't help you, I'm sure you can imagine that this offer might be your best course of action.
Quote from: CRKrueger;558955Also Charming a Giant to maybe stand in the way of a Dragon (which in 1e might not be that much bigger) is one thing. Asking the Giant to leave family and clan behind to follow the Mage around for weeks like a pet dog during which time he might stand in the way of anything is something else.
Again, why make the duration last days instead of minutes or hours?
Quote from: CRKrueger;558955But who cares about Charm Monster, because both the Cleric and Wizard have several other ways apparently to achieve the same effect, so it doesn't matter how you used Charm Monster. How convenient for us then we won't have to waste time arguing it then and can follow the goalpost to the next stadium.
This is a discussion about the relative contribution of the Fighter compared to the Wizard and/or Cleric. Somehow we're going back in a time warp about 1500 posts. But since your tiny brain is apparently incapable of remembering the conversation so far, I'll oblige you.
In addition to
charm monster which was used apparently by the rules to achieve a pretty powerful effect, casters have other options to relegate the Fighter to 'second class status'.
For example, at the same level of play you can use
Lesser Planar Binding. One example of a creature you can summon and compel to serve is a Bearded Devil, a 6-HD outsider (CR 5). I don't remember exactly what the context was, but I did have a character that had a pair of Bearded Devils as bodyguards. I picked them largely because I had the minis, and I had painted them, and they were too cool not to let them see regular play. A pair of them is equivalent to a 7th level character (two CR 5s are a CR 7). But one of their benefits is that if they hurt someone, that person continues to bleed at 2 hit points/round until the opponent uses the Heal skill, uses a
cure or
heal spell. You know what types of creatures can't usually use the Heal skill? Lots of monsters you might face.
You know what 2nd level spell avoids any pesky issues with deciding if an action is reasonable or not?
Command Undead. Intelligent undead perceive what you say in the most favorable way, so it's like
charm in that respect. But nonintelligent undead? It specifically says "Nonintelligent undead won't resist suicidal or obviously harmful orders." That seems pretty clear-cut.
Now, I understand that most of you here would have the gods come down and smite a character that uses commanded undead (whether a wizard or a cleric), but since I don't understand why that makes the game better, I'm going to pretend that wouldn't be your response.
The 'best' zombie in the SRD is a grey render (CR 6), but it's a template, and it could be applied to scarier monsters for sure. There's a 'young adult red dragon skeleton' that's a CR 8 in the SRD as well. And I know what you're thinking - how'd the party find any of these zombies or skeletons to command? Well, in 10 levels of adventuring, it's probably unlikely that they NEVER fought mindless undead. But assuming that DID happen, if you fought the living creature, you could use the
animate dead combined with
desecrate to animate a skeleton or zombie with HD equal to double your Caster Level. The Red Dragon Skeleton we were talking about? 19 HD. That means a 10th level cleric using
desecrate and
animate dead can animate the Adult Red Dragon corpse if he can find one (or if the party can kill an Adult Red Dragon).
Okay - so that's three ways that a Wizard or Cleric could replace the Fighter -
charm monster, [/i]lesser planar binding[/i] and/or
command undead.
There's other ways, too. I don't mean that to mean we should discuss these that I've already mentioned. But so far I haven't seen anything to indicate
charm monster was used incorrectly - it really seems like it was used exactly the way it was meant to be used, and to extremely good effect - and if that's bad, that's just one more argument for fixing the rules of the game. But if people like it the way it is, because they think that kind of thing sounds fun, well, where that does that leave us? I think that just means making the Fighter better, right?
For myself personally, I think
charm monster is a good spell - I don't want 4th edition where nobody can do anything out of combat. So if my choices are 'take that spell (and maybe a dozen more that make the Fighter useless) out of D&D'
OR 'make sure the Fighter has level-appropriate abilities at all levels of play', I'll take the second, thank you very much.
Because, wizards!!!
Quote from: DJ Slide;558974if you know what a charm spell is then youd know that the charm spell only speeds up trust and friendship (ex. creature trust or friendship taking one year with charm spell it may only take 1 day.) therefor it in no way means it with stand in the way of a dragon or anything else unless it once to.
And that's just bullshit.
IF the charm spell will specifically make it so a charmed creature will stand in front of a charging dragon 'just for a round or two' (which, according to the spell description is exactly what happens
AND people in this thread are correct that normal friends won't put their lives in jeopardy
THEN a
charmed creature actually likes you BETTER than a real friend, at least for the duration of the spell.
But, and here's the kicker -
If the spell is being used incorrectly even though it's being used exactly as described, the rules are at best misleading and at worst broken. Maybe a 'good GM' will recognize that, but not EVERY GM will recognize that. And if, let's say half of all GMs think having a squad of
charmed monsters work with you for a single mission that is in their long-term best interest is within the scope and/or intent of the rules, then in half of all campaigns, the
possibility of rendering the Fighter totally useless
exists.
That doesn't mean it will happen in every game. Maybe it doesn't even mean it will happen in MOST games. But if making a character completely irrelevant is something you want to avoid (and I think that's pretty reasonable as a minimum design goal) this is something that could stand to be addressed.
And... moar nonsense bullshit. What a surprise...
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558981And that's just bullshit.
IF the charm spell will specifically make it so a charmed creature will stand in front of a charging dragon 'just for a round or two' (which, according to the spell description is exactly what happens
AND people in this thread are correct that normal friends won't put their lives in jeopardy
THEN a charmed creature actually likes you BETTER than a real friend, at least for the duration of the spell.
But, and here's the kicker -
If the spell is being used incorrectly even though it's being used exactly as described, the rules are at best misleading and at worst broken. Maybe a 'good GM' will recognize that, but not EVERY GM will recognize that. And if, let's say half of all GMs think having a squad of charmed monsters work with you for a single mission that is in their long-term best interest is within the scope and/or intent of the rules, then in half of all campaigns, the possibility of rendering the Fighter totally useless exists.
That doesn't mean it will happen in every game. Maybe it doesn't even mean it will happen in MOST games. But if making a character completely irrelevant is something you want to avoid (and I think that's pretty reasonable as a minimum design goal) this is something that could stand to be addressed.
Personally I am not that concerned about what bad GMs do. I do not want to build the game with the bogeyman of the bad GM in mind. Maybe I am just lucky and have gamed with better GMs than most, or maybe I am just more laid back and don't think its the end of the world when a session isn't absolutely perfect. But for me its much better to have fun spells like Charm in there which work fine in the hands of a competent GM, than strip out the flavor and ut in guard rails because someone, somewhere might have a bad experience at the table. I am not saying you shouldn't feel this way, but try to understand lots of us feel this is where 4e went seriously wrong.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558804The difference - and this is important - is that if the PCs CHOOSE to get a particular item and they direct the narrative in order to achieve that goal, the PCs are DRIVING the story.
And if the PCs CHOOSE to get a particular item, who is the DM to say them 'no', right?
I think the forums over at the Forge are still online, although they may not be as active as before.
QuoteIf the PCs end up in trouble and the DM uses a deus-ex-machina to 'save them', that is DM Pity.
If there is a cleric available BEFORE the PCs need one, that's fine. The game world supports that as an available option. If the cleric is 'added' after the PCs need it, that's 'versimilitude breaking gamist bullshit'.
Christ, what a dipshit.
Charm whatever isn't Dominate which is a 9th level spell so gets to be a game changer. It really is that simple and illustrates how stupid this whole discussion of the spell is. I feel sorry for those that can't understand the intention behind the words it sure must make for a joyless game of beancounting but each to their own I guess.
Quote from: DeadDMQuote from: Originally Posted by LordVreeg I frankly do not give a rat's ass about RAW if it causes an imbalance. The GM should know when the spell is unbalancing the game and assign proper balancing penalties and probabilities.
It's part of what makes a good GM, the ability to balance the game, because every game is different and the GM adjudicates....an important word.
Okay. Fine. That's your point of view. I do care about the RAW if it causes imbalance. It's fine to say the "GM should know" but that doesn't guarantee that the GM does know. How is it unreasonable to expect that the rules try to be balanced, and then the GM only has to deal with things that didn't appear to be broken. If using a spell exactly the way it appears to be intended is broken, the designers have a fucking obligation to try to fix it before it goes to print. Because if charm monster, a spell that does exactly what it is supposed to do, is broken, it could have been fixed.
For example, if the intent is NOT for a giant to be willing to join his friend the Wizard for a week to join him on a quest that provides a benefit to the giant, they could have fixed it by making the duration 10 min/CL instead of 1 day/CL. They didn't do that. So which is it? Is it supposed to be a long duration effect so you can get the benefit for a week, or is it supposed to be something that lasts a few rounds? Because as written, it's a week or two.
No. I know some people want the rules to be perfect and that they should always be followed...and that works great in closed situational games like Monopoly.
But RPGs are open situation games, freeform roleplay guidelines. SO first of all, the GM has to be constantly aware of the rules VS situation conundrum. When I taught D&D (there were some advantages to a small private High School), I always stressed rules vs situation and rules vs campaign.
SO you can believe that somehow, the system in question should have provided the perfectly rendered and balanced ruling to every single situation in every single homebrew...and yes this is my opinion, but just like the law or art, bad practitioners follow the rule, the better ones see the intent.
The game is more important than the rules. No humanly created ruleset can forsee every situation, or especially every homebrew.
And that is when you know you have a good GM. Because the Game will keep going after the proper adjudication without being broken. The bad GM slavishly follows the rules over the long-term effects on the game.
Quote from: JRR;558938On charm monster, do people really abuse this spell to enslave monsters? The spell makes a monster(s) your friend. The spell makes the creature your friend. That's it. Having these charmed creatures follow you about in deadly dungeons and what have you is simply not possible. It's tantamount to me asking my friends to join the army with me, or perhaps rob a bank, maybe break into Fort Knox. They are simply not going to comply. Hell, I doubt I could convince my friends to mow my yard for me.
+1
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558943As for charm monster, I have no doubt that you, JRR, would not be able to convince your friends to participate in a bank heist with you. But there are people who do convince their friends to join them in a bank heist, or worse. And if someone is magically compelled to consider your words in the most favorable light, it's hard to believe that you couldn't convince them - as long as the rewards outweigh the risk.
Because if anyone on the entire planet at any point in recorded human history has done something, that means everyone has a reasonable chance of doing so.
Talk about a severe case of DM's Pity.
Quote from: LordVreeg;558950I frankly do not give a rat's ass about RAW if it causes an imbalance. The GM should know when the spell is unbalancing the game and assign proper balancing penalties and probabilities.
It's part of what makes a good GM, the ability to balance the game, because every game is different and the GM adjudicates....an important word.
Awesome.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558981IF the charm spell will specifically make it so a charmed creature will stand in front of a charging dragon 'just for a round or two' (which, according to the spell description is exactly what happens...
Not as I read that spell description. "Might" does not mean the same thing as "will". You MIGHT give me a million dollars is not the same thing as you WILL give me a million dollars.
Charm person as written is somewhat contradictory with the red dragon example - which was pretty much pasted from the old description when dragons were a helluva lot smaller. As written the spells 'makes a target's attitude "friendly", which is a a defined thing in the game:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm
Friendly -Wishes you well Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate
What you want if you want people to hold off Dragons is "Helpful" (Will take risks to help you; Protect, back up, heal, aid). At the very least this should require additional diplomacy.
Even treating charm as complete subjugation, I'm not convinced its completely broken. It can be very effective in some circumstances, but if you're fighting more than one monster, you can expect the ones that aren't charmed to be not too impressed, unless the wizard has some specific way of hiding that he's cast the spell. Also, keeping charmed things around long-term is a bad idea (particularly without a fighter!) given that eventually the spell will wear out and they'll attempt to mash you.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558979Okay. Fine. That's your point of view. I do care about the RAW if it causes imbalance. It's fine to say the "GM should know" but that doesn't guarantee that the GM does know.
You're right, it isn't. At first, you use your common sense and try to adjudicate situations as they arise, following the intent of the rules, rather than their letter. Then, sooner or later, you WILL make mistakes. And you learn from them. You hone your skills. You analyze what it is you are doing and how it impacts the game. You are aware of the different moving parts of a role playing game, including your own actions and decisions as a GM. And sooner rather than later, you DO improve, and you
get to know.
If your first reflex when an undesired outcome occurs in your game is to blame the rules, and beg for [insert publisher name] to "fix the rules" for you, you will NEVER get there. You will remain a mediocre GM. By your own choice.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558981IF the charm spell will specifically make it so a charmed creature will stand in front of a charging dragon 'just for a round or two' (which, according to the spell description is exactly what happens
This is the result of putting too much emphasis on the rules. Also, having or being a shitty DM.
I'm not sure if its evident from my above post, but my approach is "if you live by the RAW, you die by the RAW". I think 3.5 has about twice as many rules is it needs, most of the time (3.5 reminds me Reverend Lovejoy's quote on the bible in the Simpsons when Marge asks if getting a divorce would be a sin, I think - "Have you ever read this thing? Technically its a sin to go to the bathroom.").
Keep charmed monsters around too long in my games and they'll eventually go something nasty but legit, like going to PHB II and retraining their feats to become resistant to it. Really though, I think the game works best when everyone's relaxed about the rules and happy with common-sense adjudication of them.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;559023I'm not sure if its evident from my above post, but my approach is "if you live by the RAW, you die by the RAW". I think 3.5 has about twice as many rules is it needs, most of the time (3.5 reminds me Reverend Lovejoy's quote on the bible in the Simpsons when Marge asks if getting a divorce would be a sin, I think - "Have you ever read this thing? Technically its a sin to go to the bathroom.").
Keep charmed monsters around too long in my games and they'll eventually go something nasty but legit, like going to PHB II and retraining their feats to become resistant to it. Really though, I think the game works best when everyone's relaxed about the rules and happy with common-sense adjudication of them.
Har! Sounds like something I would do. But seriously aren't you guys completely forgetting a couple things? Intelligent high level monsters like you're talking about almost always have good SR and magic items they use just like any PC. In 3x there's even a good chance they have PC class levels also.
What everyone has ignored in the last several posts are
1) In terms of long-term play, being able to convince a group of giants to aid and abet the party didn't overshadow any characters other than the Fighter
2) While we could debate the intent of
charm monster and/or whether this was a good example of the way it can be used or an example of a bad DM decision, it remains only a single example of a spell (in this case a 4th level spell) that could, in the right circumstances, obviate the need for a Fighter.
3) It's not just this spell.
Command undead (2nd level) can be used just as easily, and with nonintelligent undead, there is no concern about whether they would or would not follow an order - in this case, they're commanded, not charmed and it is specific that they would obey even suicidal orders.
Planar Binding (6th level) allows a 12 HD outsider - that could include a Barbed Devil (CR 11), a Trumpet Archon (CR 14), an Astra Deva Angel (CR 14), a Glabrezu (CR 13) - since those cover the 4 corners of the alignment system, PCs should be able to find
someone that shares their moral outlook and would want to help them in their quest. At this point, it's not a question of 'why don't we get someone to join us that can do the Fighters job', it's a question of 'why don't we have the PC play a role that we can't get a friendly outsider to cover for us'.
Quote from: StormBringer;558991And if the PCs CHOOSE to get a particular item, who is the DM to say them 'no', right?
You're such a fucking dumbass. But while I have no respect for your intellectual ability, I'm going to try to help you understand why you sound like a retard here. I'm going to try to keep this simple, but I'm going to struggle to keep it easy enough for your defective brain to handle.
Let's say that there is an item in the game world. It doesn't matter what it is. It could be Excalibur, or it could be a
scroll of teleport, or it could be a
sword of sharpness. It doesn't matter what it is, it just matters if it exists. Now, the DM does not have to include any items in his game world that he doesn't want to. In fact, he absolutely SHOULDN'T include any items in his game world that he doesn't want to exist. But clearly, if he has allowed it to be in the game world, he's okay with it existing.
If it exists, the PCs can learn of it's existence. They can learn of it by doing research (ie, poring through ancient tomes of myths and legends that discuss items that they're interested in). They can seek out information through a network of contacts to see if anybody has heard any rumors of its current whereabouts. They can contact divine beings and ask them where the item is located, and what obstacles might guard it.
So, if you're the DM, and you tell the party that there is an item that they're interested in, and the party takes steps to acquire that item, and then you tell them that the item that you already confirmed the existence of
no longer exists because you don't want them to have it, you're a dick and a bad DM.
This is the basis of player agency. The players determine what they want their characters to do. The DM decides what obstacles the players will face. If the players overcome those obstacles
they will accomplish what they want to do. If they
fail to overcome those obstacles, they won't.
But it doesn't matter how difficult you intend those obstacles to be. If you say Excalibur is at the bottom of a lake, guarded by a spirit dragon, and only someone worthy can draw it from the lake, the PCs have some pretty difficult obstacles to overcome - but if they overcome them, they will get Excalibur.
Now, if you tell them that they can't go get Excalibur because you have a particular adventure written for them where they're supposed to go fellate your Mary Sue NPC, that's being a dick and pretty railroady. Once you accept that the players decide what actions their characters will take, you will realize that players dictate the action - not the RESULTS of those actions, but those results have to be predicated on what they did.
If the players walk toward town x and away from town y, everyone should expect that they'll move further from town y and eventually get to town x. This is not 'DM Pity' - this is the natural result of players having 'agency' in the world. And if your players don't have agency, you're not doing it right. And if you don't believe me, you can ask Benoist - he knows that I'm right on this point, you mentally deficient dumbass.
Quote from: StormBringer;559000Because if anyone on the entire planet at any point in recorded human history has done something, that means everyone has a reasonable chance of doing so.
Is that what you think I said? Dumbass.
I said that in the real world, people convince other people, especially their friends, to do things that their friends should not do. Deadbeats convince their friends to lend them money, even though the friend knows the deadbeat will never pay them back. Many parents have lied to protect their children from legal consequences resulting from their 'youthful indiscretions'. And some friends have been convinced to 'take the fall' and serve long prison sentences to help their friends.
These all happen in the real world, even though there is no magical compulsion.
In D&D, you can basically do everything that you can do in the real world, subject to the game rules. How do you simulate your ability to convince friends to join you in a bank heist?
In 3.x, you usually use the Diplomacy rules. You don't need me to tell you that the Diplomacy Rules are a piece of shit, but unlike what others have said, a good DM shouldn't be required to toss them out and figure out something that actually works - that's a lot of work and it's hard. The designers should have done that for us. But, since asking for working rules seems to be considered unreasonable, let's use what we've been given.
The DC to raise someone's attitude from 'friendly' to 'helpful' is 20.
Charm Monster raises their attitude to friendly automatically. A 10th level Rogue with full ranks in Diplomacy has a +13. With a relatively good stat, possibly with a bonus from something like
Eagle's Splendor having a +6 Charisma modifier isn't particularly hard (that'd be a +19). On skill checks, you don't even fail automatically on a 1. This means it would be impossible for the rogue to fail to improve the attitude of a charmed creature to Helpful (assuming no rushed check). This doesn't include the possible synergy bonuses. It appears synergy bonuses may stack, but that's not 100% clear. If they
do stack, you can get another +6 from synergy bonuses. If they don't stack, you can choose one of three different ways to get a +2 bonus. And if you really care, you can take two feats for another +5 bonus; and an item that gives you +5 on a skill check costs (5 squared x 100 gp = 2500 gp). Since you've already made it clear that 7500 gp for 10 wands of
cure light wounds (or was that 100 that you said they could have) is chump change at that level, I'm sure you'll agree that setting up a situation where it's impossible to fail the Diplomacy check is...trivial. You can also throw another +2 in for aid another.
So, if you really wanted to make Diplomacy a feature of your rogue, you would have at 10th level a +31 or +35 (+13 ranks, +6 attribute, +2 or +6 synergy, +3 Skill Focus, +2 Negotiator, +5 Item) depending on how you rule synergy works - and another +2 for Aid Another on top of that - for a +33 or +37. Depending on the sources you allow, you might also get bonuses for Traits, and you may allow spells that grant a bonus to skill checks or Diplomacy.
So, considering that we're trying to emulate the difficulty of convincing someone that wants to help you (Helpful seems like the kind of attitude you'd expect a parent to have for their child - they want to help them, but they don't want to kill themselves to do it and they DO want their child to grow up right - sometimes meaning to do things the hard way) to do something that is difficult, but will not cost them money and is unlikely to seriously hurt them? Maybe like take a 3-week road trip to see the Grand Canyon? I mean, that might not be the BEST example, but it seems a little more fair than comparing it to a bank robbery... How hard should that be? A DC 25? That's considered Formidable... Sounds about right. But let's call it Heroic (DC 30). Yep. Turns out it's impossible to fail. What if it's 'nearly impossible'. That a DC 40. It's possible to fail, but odds are pretty good you won't.
So, either we use the spells as they're written with the Diplomacy rules as they're written, and we end up with admittedly fun but possibly broken situations (and if I haven't stressed this before, let me do so now - the Fighter player had FUN, but they didn't have FUN because of their character. They wanted to keep playing, they just wanted to play someone more FUN)
orWe rely on the DM to make major changes to the rules on the fly to ensure that certain results that HE THINKS are in the interest of the 'long-term health' of the game would be, which, as Benoist points out, he's bound to screw up until he gets really good at these kinds of ad-hoc adjustments
orThe designers realize that this kind of stuff is a natural result of playing the game using the rules (ie, the way the game is built), hopefully in the early stages of playtesting and they fix it.
If we go with Option 1, the game ends up breaking. Usually well before level 15.
If we go with option 2, some player that really wanted to do something that appeared 'acceptable' by the rules as written may be disappointed that they can't - and in the worst situations, players have no way of knowing what is or isn't allowed, and characters may become unplayable if a particular 'option' is removed (for example, a prestige class that the player took the feats and skills to qualify for).
If we go with option 3, what's the downside? I'm still not seeing it.
Dumbass.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559061Let's say that there is an item in the game world. It doesn't matter what it is. It could be Excalibur, or it could be a scroll of teleport, or it could be a sword of sharpness. It doesn't matter what it is, it just matters if it exists. Now, the DM does not have to include any items in his game world that he doesn't want to. In fact, he absolutely SHOULDN'T include any items in his game world that he doesn't want to exist. But clearly, if he has allowed it to be in the game world, he's okay with it existing.
So, it's a case of DM Pity, then.
Walls of Texts, they Burns my precioussss, they Burns!
Stormbringer, you sir, are enjoying this ENTIRELY too much. :D
Quote from: Marleycat;559065Stormbringer, you sir, are enjoying this ENTIRELY too much. :D
:hatsoff:
They are so eager to appear the sophisticated game connoisseurs and expert designers, they throw themselves wildly at any claim without pausing to think things through, while being so thoroughly committed to their positions it becomes a matter of identity that they can't retreat from.
I think Ali called it 'rope-a-dope'. :)
Quote from: StormBringer;559067:hatsoff:
They are so eager to appear the sophisticated game connoisseurs and expert designers, they throw themselves wildly at any claim without pausing to think things through, while being so thoroughly committed to their positions it becomes a matter of identity that they can't retreat from.
I think Ali called it 'rope-a-dope'. :)
Heh, I wasn't being a bitch when I requested this thread there are many serious game design guys on this site. Not me of course. But if Mguy takes the feedback constructively he might come up with an intriguing game. The desire and effort are there and that's not exactly common. He just needs the knowledge.
Quote from: JRR;558964Sure, if said dragon is currently attacking the druid. But following the druid into the dragons lair so the druid can jump in front of the dragon is stretching the spell past it's intentions. Not to mention the druids life needs to be in danger. Just yelling sic him won't work. Again, if someone is trying to kill me, my friends would probably help me defend myself - at least I'd like to think so - but if I plan on intentionally seeking this person out and starting a fight, I'd probably be on my own.
Okay if you told your best friends. Guys there is this guy in Memphis he raped my wife and kids so i am going to go out there and teach the fucker a lesson, would they come?
What if you went up to your neighbour and said that you and a few guys were going to go and have a word with the the crack dealers that had moved in down the street that eh police wouldn't touch?
These charmed creatures are charmed you have much more influence than on your friends that is a first level spell :)
Think what lengths you would go to for your best buddy. Charm is a bit more powerful than that.
Now the spell isn;t very well written we get that but lots of stuff in D&D is badly written. the hold of a red dragon just for a round or two comment is funny and ammusing but its not well written becauses just this sort of debate. The point of that comment was that a charmed monster will not actively commit suicide but they can be cajoled into doing something that will result in them dying. The hold of a red dragon for a minute while I get the car started is meant to be certain death. You can pursuade an orc to hold off a dragon.
Saying but a giant is about the same size as a dragon so its totally different from telling him to hold off Tiamat is missing the point entirely because the spell works on anything the relative power is not important.
I know you are all annoyed that a wizard can take control of a powerful monster. I get it its too touch so change it but don't try and pretend that a 4th level charm monster spell that needs a named level wizard to cast, one of the most powerful creatures on the planet, is akin to having the monster be a bloke you occassionally have a pint with down the pub. Its disingenuous and makes other arguments that might have validity weaker.
Some spells in D&D need to be nerfed because no one is perfect.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559061The designers realize that this kind of stuff is a natural result of playing the game using the rules (ie, the way the game is built), hopefully in the early stages of playtesting and they fix it.
So why do you think no-one has ever achieved this? Seriously, what prevents it happening?
Interpretation is key Jibba and you sir at least make me laugh because you're not actually committed to your current stance. You're way smarter than that. Even I know that. And I'm just an ordinary casual female gamer. :)
It burns me to no end that Bedrock Brendan had a blurb about fighters and daggers 40 some pages ago and I had an appointment forcing me to walk away. It was a most awesome segue to my 2e Ambidextrous Two-Weapon Style Master Dagger Specialist. And because you people have to talk in expository essay format with around 10 pages a day, there's no discreet way to backtrack. These alignments of fortune in conversation occur ever so rarely... and I had to miss it!
So I leave this non-sequitur turd in the punchbowl, as it were. :mad: :p And I leave you all to continue this madness wondering: "why Fighters without any gear aren't as good as Magic Users with all the best gear per circumstance?"
Quote from: Opaopajr;559106It burns me to no end that Bedrock Brendan had a blurb about fighters and daggers 40 some pages ago and I had an appointment forcing me to walk away. It was a most awesome segue to my 2e Ambidextrous Two-Weapon Style Master Dagger Specialist. And because you people have to talk in expository essay format with around 10 pages a day, there's no discreet way to backtrack. These alignments of fortune in conversation occur ever so rarely... and I had to miss it!
So I leave this non-sequitur turd in the punchbowl, as it were. :mad: :p And I leave you all to continue this madness wondering: "why Fighters without any gear aren't as good as Magic Users with all the best gear per circumstance?"
Now that is just unfair! PM me your thought at least..:)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559061What everyone has ignored in the last several posts are
1) In terms of long-term play, being able to convince a group of giants to aid and abet the party didn't overshadow any characters other than the Fighter
2) While we could debate the intent of charm monster and/or whether this was a good example of the way it can be used or an example of a bad DM decision, it remains only a single example of a spell (in this case a 4th level spell) that could, in the right circumstances, obviate the need for a Fighter.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Aside from the fact that much of that you say appliers only to 3.x (a game I neither play nor care about playing), all your arguments in this thread have have done is to further convince me that my decision back in the 1970s to ban rules lawyers (and by extension members of the cult of the RAW) and min-maxers/munchkins from my games is one of the best decisions I have ever made in my life. This decision means I and the players in my games never have to put up with unending rules/balance type arguments like you have presented in this thread -- arguments that would not ever end until you wore everything down to the point that would run the game the way you want just to shut you up.
However, I agree with you about the fighter in D&D to this extent: the fighter in every 3.x game played anything close to RAW with even one rules lawyer, min-maxer or "gamist first" player present is likely to be noticeably broken and will ruin the game for everyone because said rule lawyer/min-maxer/"gamist first" player will ensure that it does by whining about the fighter, balance, and how other classes and much else in the game contributes to making the fighter broken. To a lesser extent, I will agree this is also true of the fighter in other versions of the game.
BTW, I have never seen a tabletop RPG that was designed to make the rules lawyers, min-maxers, and gamist-first/gamist-only players happy that was any fun for me to play, let alone run. The only people who seem to really enjoy such designs (in my experience) are other rules lawyers, min-maxers, or gamist-first/gamist-only players.
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;558915Butthurt whargarbl.
Dance monkey! Dance!
Quote from: Opaopajr;559106It burns me to no end that Bedrock Brendan had a blurb about fighters and daggers 40 some pages ago and I had an appointment forcing me to walk away. It was a most awesome segue to my 2e Ambidextrous Two-Weapon Style Master Dagger Specialist. And because you people have to talk in expository essay format with around 10 pages a day, there's no discreet way to backtrack. These alignments of fortune in conversation occur ever so rarely... and I had to miss it!
So I leave this non-sequitur turd in the punchbowl, as it were. :mad: :p And I leave you all to continue this madness wondering: "why Fighters without any gear aren't as good as Magic Users with all the best gear per circumstance?"
Yeah. Totally off subject, but a lot of days I can only peer here a few times. I posted yesterday from the ipad while the boy was in the bath.
And after skimming a bunch, I basically came up with the main argument going on was broken because someone with decent rules knowledge, some good anecdotal evidence, and a ton of time to write also really had never figured out the place of static rules in a multiple context game.
Quote from: StormBringer;559062Originally Posted by deadDMwalking
Let's say that there is an item in the game world. It doesn't matter what it is. It could be Excalibur, or it could be a scroll of teleport, or it could be a sword of sharpness. It doesn't matter what it is, it just matters if it exists. Now, the DM does not have to include any items in his game world that he doesn't want to. In fact, he absolutely SHOULDN'T include any items in his game world that he doesn't want to exist. But clearly, if he has allowed it to be in the game world, he's okay with it existing.
So, it's a case of DM Pity, then.
This would be interesting if you weren't so mentally deficient. You're almost proposing that, since the DM is the world-builder, every decision including whether an item or monster exists is DM Pity. Such a premise, if you were asserting it (or something similar) would be interesting because it would allow us to discuss that position versus my position - allowing each of us and everyone else reading the thread to see us clarify our position and advance the conversation to reach a deeper and more meaningful understanding.
It's too bad that's not what you did here.
If you were making an assertion, I'd have something I could respond to - but you're not. It's like you want to lure me into tilting at windmills. But I'm not going to present an argument and then attack it - even if the argument was the same as yours, you could simply walk away from it and say 'I never said that' - which would be true. In fact, you basically haven't said anything here.
You've certainly IMPLIED that determining if an item exists in a particular game world is DM Pity, but you haven't said it. So if you want to say something like that, I'll be happy to respond to that assertion.
And since we're on the subject of positive assertions, I want to assert that you are a dumbass.
Quote from: Glazer;559093So why do you think no-one has ever achieved this? Seriously, what prevents it happening?
Firstly, I don't think many of the play-tests have been very rigorous. A game like a role-playing game is much more complicated than a game like Monopoly - and if you try to test individual components to the exclusion of a holistic test, you get wonkiness between the way the different sub-systems interact. The project is large enough that ensuring consistency between project teams is difficult - especially if you're working against a tough deadline. Changes might be slipped in right up to the deadline without testing. In 'in-house' playtesting, designers often have a sense of what the game is (after all, they built it), but the actual form of the game may differ from the version in their minds. Having a pair or two of outside eyes can catch many of these issues pretty easily - people at the Den, for instance, seem to live for that shit. One of my gaming friends lives for that shit - without using char op boards, he tries to find something he thinks is interesting and exploit the shit out of it - he has fun when he breaks the game. But once he's broken in (using the rules) he's happy to tone it down to keep the game functioning...
I should mention that the recent wave of 'public playtests' have pointedly ignored criticism that points out a failing in the game - D&D Next has used several excuses
1) it's an early version, so that will change
2) we're only testing for the FEEL of the game
3) that example, while certainly possible or even plausible, isn't based on a full length session or adventure - if you want to contribute your observations, you have to play the game the way we want you to play it - don't think for a minute that this is a tool-kit to build your own games
That's a shame and erodes any confidence I had.
Changing the direction for a moment -
In the post I made last night, I pointed out some other spells that break the game in similar ways - spells that do not hinge on the interpretation of what you can or can't convince someone of. Nobody has responded to those.
Further, I have asserted that it is better if the rules work. Diplomacy is apparently an example of a rule that is widely known not to work. I've been told that I'm a shitty DM (either because I recognize problems in the rules and mentioned them here or because I didn't recognize problems in the rules and ran them as written which only a retard does, apparently).
Can you see a problem here?
1) You are a shitty GM
2) There is a problem with the rules
3) Stop being a shitty GM and fix the problem.
Wouldn't my solution be more reasonable?
1) You are a shitty GM
2) There is a problem with the rules that every GM, even the good ones recognize
3) Good GMs fix those problems
4) Change the rules to include the fix applied by the good GMs.
Well, here's to hoping that someone genuinely engages and discusses my points. Especially CRKrueger - you know, since he objected to me mentioning other ways spells make Fighters superfluous but called me out for not mentioning what those other spells are AGAIN (and maybe that's fair, since it was probably around 2000 posts ago). So, I did.
Command Undead,
Lesser Planar Binding,
Planar Binding. I didn't mention it, but as Marleycat points out,
Dominate Monster is a 9th level spell that renders the question about whether a charmed creature would or would not follow a 'request', or whether a particular request is 'reasonable' or not.
Dominate Person, which I didn't bring up before, can usually handle this as well - it doesn't work on Giants, but there are other creatures that are humanoids and could fulfill the Fighter role quite well while allowing the player that usually plays a Fighter to choose a character that can contribute something MORE than melee combat which is easily covered by 80% of the Monster Manual.
Quote from: Opaopajr;559106It burns me to no end that Bedrock Brendan had a blurb about fighters and daggers 40 some pages ago and I had an appointment forcing me to walk away. It was a most awesome segue to my 2e Ambidextrous Two-Weapon Style Master Dagger Specialist. And because you people have to talk in expository essay format with around 10 pages a day, there's no discreet way to backtrack. These alignments of fortune in conversation occur ever so rarely... and I had to miss it!
So I leave this non-sequitur turd in the punchbowl, as it were. :mad: :p And I leave you all to continue this madness wondering: "why Fighters without any gear aren't as good as Magic Users with all the best gear per circumstance?"
Shame about the 2 weapons dagger master would have been amusing but you should have played for the Girdle of storm giant Strength wearing dart master for the most broken archetype.....
5 attacks per round 1d3 +18 damage per dart ...etc .....
:)
As for the figther without gear we have discussed that ad nauseam.
The point is a naked spell caster can still cast and verbal and somantic spells they have learned and a fair few low level spells have mundane components, a spider, a gold coin, a grasshopper.
A standard 2e 15th level figther with no equipment is AC 10, 90 HP, 2 attacks per round 1-3/1-3 subdual damage not fantasitc :)
That very issue has occured in MMO games and caused them to change the game structure. because naked spell casters became a real game imbalance.
Quote from: RandallS;559125Etc. Etc. Etc.
Aside from the fact that much of that you say appliers only to 3.x (a game I neither play nor care about playing), all your arguments in this thread have have done is to further convince me that my decision back in the 1970s to ban rules lawyers (and by extension members of the cult of the RAW) and min-maxers/munchkins from my games is one of the best decisions I have ever made in my life. This decision means I and the players in my games never have to put up with unending rules/balance type arguments like you have presented in this thread -- arguments that would not ever end until you wore everything down to the point that would run the game the way you want just to shut you up.
However, I agree with you about the fighter in D&D to this extent: the fighter in every 3.x game played anything close to RAW with even one rules lawyer, min-maxer or "gamist first" player present is likely to be noticeably broken and will ruin the game for everyone because said rule lawyer/min-maxer/"gamist first" player will ensure that it does by whining about the fighter, balance, and how other classes and much else in the game contributes to making the fighter broken. To a lesser extent, I will agree this is also true of the fighter in other versions of the game.
BTW, I have never seen a tabletop RPG that was designed to make the rules lawyers, min-maxers, and gamist-first/gamist-only players happy that was any fun for me to play, let alone run. The only people who seem to really enjoy such designs (in my experience) are other rules lawyers, min-maxers, or gamist-first/gamist-only players.
You are wrong on 3e figthers. Min-max rules laywers just don't play them so they won't be whinging about how crap they are.
Quote from: jibbajibba;559091I know you are all annoyed that a wizard can take control of a powerful monster. I get it its too touch so change it but don't try and pretend that a 4th level charm monster spell that needs a named level wizard to cast, one of the most powerful creatures on the planet, is akin to having the monster be a bloke you occassionally have a pint with down the pub. Its disingenuous and makes other arguments that might have validity weaker.
That's really not it at all. For starters, "take control (http://www.syndicatewiki.com/wiki/Persuadertron)" is far too generous of a description of what the spell can do. All it really does is make the creature more disposed to your suggestions, much more like a reliable form of hypnotism. Packing up and traipsing across the country side in pursuit of dragons is a good deal more than charm spells are capable of. Especially if the target differs in alignment. Your Good aligned party can convince the Evil aligned giant guard(s) to let them pass, and perhaps even to vouch for them with the other giants. The guards aren't likely to take part in an assault on the Giant King's throne room, however. That would be an automatic re-roll on the save. Now, some of those same guards might harbour resentment towards the king and are looking to depose him, but that isn't guaranteed. That is what another failed save would entail. It would take a really powerful spell like
geas or
quest to change the nature of the creature to that degree.
QuoteSome spells in D&D need to be nerfed because no one is perfect.
On a table-by-table basis, sure. But again, that is more a matter of group dynamics than an objective flaw with the system. If your group is going around charming every creature they run across as a matter of course, that is more of a player buy-in problem. Or 'verisimilitude breaking gamist bullshit', depending on how you look at it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;559139You are wrong on 3e figthers. Min-max rules laywers just don't play them so they won't be whinging about how crap they are.
Why make a fighter when you can make a scimerang slinger?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559130You've certainly IMPLIED that determining if an item exists in a particular game world is DM Pity, but you haven't said it. So if you want to say something like that, I'll be happy to respond to that assertion.
Oh, no, I have implied no such thing. I merely pointed out that is exactly what you have said. If providing the Fighter with appropriate equipment is DM Pity, then providing anyone with appropriate equipment is DM Pity. And you have said the former directly. Hence, your notion of DM Pity is utter bullshit. I only wish that was a surprise.
QuoteAnd since we're on the subject of positive assertions, I want to assert that you are a dumbass.
:teehee:
Hims adorable!
Quote from: StormBringer;559150If providing the Fighter with appropriate equipment is DM Pity, then providing anyone with appropriate equipment is DM Pity. And you have said the former directly.
Since you assert I said that, you can no doubt quote me. It's not like it involves reading abstracts of medical journals. Presumably, I've said it in this thread. And if you click on my profile, you can look at every post I've posted on this site - it shouldn't take you so long.
So, where do I assert that providing the Fighter with
appropriate equipment is DM Pity?
I'll wait.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559130So, I did. Command Undead, Lesser Planar Binding, Planar Binding
All of the spells that "replace the fighter" suffer from the same possible weaknesses. Not all of these always apply.
1. You have to have a monster in question to charm/bind.
2. The monster has to be successfully charmed/bound.
3. You have a monster travelling around with you, this might cause non-combat issues (food, increased encounters, lack of stealth, seen as an enemy by other humans you encounter).
4. The charm might be dispelled/reversed, this happens at the wrong time, it can go from walk-in-the-park to TPK.
5. If you're using a planar being constantly, the gods might object to that, or you might get increased opposition from the "other side".
6. In many settings, Undead and the summoning thereof is considered Evil.
Also your argument stems from 3e, where it is possible for a Cleric to Summon a monster, then buff himself up to levels where he can actually outfight the fighter. At this point the question "shouldn't every Fighter in our party be replaced by a Cleric" comes into mind.
However, if the Cleric casts those spells to "replace the fighter" then he's not casting other spells against the opposition. With the fighter there, the Cleric can use his full spell repertoire to assault, defend, heal, or whatever.
Plus, I really am not a fan of CharOp to the level where people are telling others what they can or cannot play due to mathematical effectiveness. This isn't a MMOG and we're not raiding.
I've said before I agree that 3e played 100% RAW is broken to shit. Even in 3e, however, I don't think any single spell makes any other class "useless", and the Wizard/Fighter problem didn't exist anywhere near this level prior to 3e, despite how badly Jibba wants to stick his dick in the OSR's ear.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559153Since you assert I said that, you can no doubt quote me. It's not like it involves reading abstracts of medical journals. Presumably, I've said it in this thread. And if you click on my profile, you can look at every post I've posted on this site - it shouldn't take you so long.
So, where do I assert that providing the Fighter with appropriate equipment is DM Pity?
I'll wait.
You will be waiting a long time. You post any number of assertions without links or quotes, so you don't get to play the 'prove it' game now.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;559149Why make a fighter when you can make a scimerang slinger?
Exactamundo
Quote from: jibbajibba;559139You are wrong on 3e figthers. Min-max rules laywers just don't play them so they won't be whinging about how crap they are.
Given many of the posts in this thread by people I would consider (judging by their posting in this thread), to be min-max rules lawyers, I'm sadly not so sure you are correct. :confused:
Quote from: StormBringer;559147That's really not it at all. For starters, "take control (http://www.syndicatewiki.com/wiki/Persuadertron)" is far too generous of a description of what the spell can do. All it really does is make the creature more disposed to your suggestions, much more like a reliable form of hypnotism. Packing up and traipsing across the country side in pursuit of dragons is a good deal more than charm spells are capable of. Especially if the target differs in alignment. Your Good aligned party can convince the Evil aligned giant guard(s) to let them pass, and perhaps even to vouch for them with the other giants. The guards aren't likely to take part in an assault on the Giant King's throne room, however. That would be an automatic re-roll on the save. Now, some of those same guards might harbour resentment towards the king and are looking to depose him, but that isn't guaranteed. That is what another failed save would entail. It would take a really powerful spell like geas or quest to change the nature of the creature to that degree.
On a table-by-table basis, sure. But again, that is more a matter of group dynamics than an objective flaw with the system. If your group is going around charming every creature they run across as a matter of course, that is more of a player buy-in problem. Or 'verisimilitude breaking gamist bullshit', depending on how you look at it.
The top stuff is all open to debate because the rule is open to debate. Convincing an evil giant to hit another evil giant doesn;t seem like a stretch to me, just tell him he's been shagging his giantess. You aren't changing their nature you are manipulating their perceptions.
Like I said how far would you go for your mates? Well Charm is a bit further than that. And sure if you don't like it nerf it I have no issue but pretending that is equivalent to a 1st level friends spell or a good reaction check as written is bollocks.
If your group is going round using charm on every creature then what? What is the issue? The fighter is sure as shit going to use his +4 defender on every creature. Is there a limit for how many creatures you can charm at the same time? is there a restriction imposed by the gods on use of charm? If you give the players a tool they will use the tool and 'good' (meaning most sucessful in gamist terms) will use the best tool as many times as they are allowed to by rule and circumstance.
You might think it doesn't advance the story, you might think its dull, you might think its poor roleplaying but saying you can't do that becuase its too tough is also bollocks.
QuoteThe top stuff is all open to debate because the rule is open to debate.
Maybe to you it is, but fact is Charm is not Dominate end of story. You do whatever wankery at your table you please. But don't insult my intelligence anymore with your silly wrong interpretation. I am seriously disappointed in you Jibba. Fuck just how stupid can you be?
269 pages of almost pure shit 269! With no end in sight.
Maybe this will get us to 300 pages:
To be honest, I think charm person and Diplomacy are a lot weaker than is generally accepted, and they both suffer from essentially the same weakness.
DeadDM, I think you're using Diplomacy incorrectly. RAW, all it can do is influence NPCs' attitudes, negotiate, and plead a case in an argument or hearing or whatever. There's no rule for trying to convince people to do things against their best interest. All you can do is look at the little table in the skill description and try to make someone Indifferent, or Friendly, or Helpful. After that, it's all up to the DM to decide how far the NPC is willing to go to help you, no matter how high you've rolled.
Now, in practice, loads of people use Diplomacy as a catch-all "Persuade" skill, because there's no better option in the rules, but they're kind of making stuff up when they do. But, RAW, all it does is change attitudes.
So, in the best case, you largely have the effect of charm person: someone is now Helpful to you. They "Will take risks to help you," and will "protect, back up, heal, [or] aid" you. What kind of risks? To what extent? Up to the DM.
I've always been kind of wary of Diplomacy for that reason: no matter how high I roll to make the town guard my buddy, there's a good chance the DM will just say, "Sorry, he's still not letting you out of prison. The guard has a family, mouths to feed, and he can't afford to lose his job, even for his bestie. He feels real bad about you being locked up, though."
At least charm person can get an enemy to stop trying to murder you. Which is nice.
Edit: all of the above is for 3.x.
You want to see the Gold Standard for misuse of social skills per RAW? Go to the Dumpshock forums for Shadowrun and search for "Pornomancer". It's a Pun-Pun like build based on the idea that social skills can equal mind control.
Basically 3e and Shadowrun 4e are perfect examples of people using MtG game-design philosophy with absolutely no grasp of the implications of the rules they are making.
Quote from: RandallS;559164Given many of the posts in this thread by people I would consider (judging by their posting in this thread), to be min-max rules lawyers, I'm sadly not so sure you are correct. :confused:
None of those guys woudl play fighters though they all have Cleric Zen archer polymorphed to Arrow Demon Split bow using mega builds :)
Quote from: Marleycat;559166269 pages of almost pure shit 269! With no end in sight.
I thought you wanted it to go to 4000 posts. I've been trying to oblige you without resorting to posting without reason. You know, like telling someone they said something they didn't say and not at least explaining why I thought they believed something they claim not to believe.
Quote from: StormBringer;559158You will be waiting a long time. You post any number of assertions without links or quotes, so you don't get to play the 'prove it' game now.
You're right. I can't make you 'prove it now'. I don't really care if you choose not to. If you claim 'you believe this' and I say 'I don't believe that' and you say 'I can't prove you believe this', that makes you look like a dumbass. Now, if you say 'I heard this' and I say 'where did you hear this' and you say 'that's tangential to the point of the conversation so I don't want to derail the thread with a lengthy exposition on where I heard this and what their methodology is and whether it's valid or not' that doesn't really detract from the point you were trying to make. So, to anyone who's been reading this thread long enough to know that you're:
1) Claiming I said things that I did not, in fact say
2) Refusing to address the points I make that support my reasoning for my assertion
you'll end up looking like a dumbass. And if that's what you want, I'm not going to stand in the way. You don't need any help from me to look like a dumbass.
But if you feel that I haven't provided support for anything relating directly to:
1) How a wizard or cleric can gain the benefit of a 'helper' capable of fulfilling the Fighter role
2) How a wizard or cleric can use spells to make themselves more effective than a Fighter in the 'hitting things with a sword role'
3) How spellcasters in general have amazing options available to them at high levels that put to shame 'level-appropriate abilities' that other classes are presumed to get
You can let me know which point you don't feel I've provided supporting material for, and I'll provide it - links and all.
As for edition, I understand if you don't like 3rd edition. I also understand if you didn't see these issues in 1st or 2nd (or earlier editions). They tend not to be as pronounced because a) it takes a lot longer to get to high level play; b) play style supports keeping casters out of play as long as possible; c) casters are much weaker at early levels and that leads some to feel casters have 'paid' for their power later in their career. But since I'm approaching this from the point of game design for D&D Next, and the designers for D&D Next are only familiar with 3rd and 4th editions, and they realize 4th edition has been a failure, so they'll be back to harvest some of the 'good bits' in 3rd edition, it's important to discuss what the 'bad bits' are, so the designers don't grab onto the wrong things.
The fact that choosing a Feat at 15th level that you could have chosen at 4th level is considered 'level-appropriate' compared to a 7th level spell is laughable, even on the face of it. I don't want weaboo Fighters, but if the designers of D&D Next think 3.5 Fighters were 'acceptable' in high-level play, they have another think coming. And I hope to use the discussion here to help influence the discussion elsewhere. If grognards will recognize that I have a point - even if it's only related to 3.5 - that's all I hoped to accomplish.
Well, that, and to have a little fun calling Stormbringer a dumbass. It's a lot more rewarding than doing a full-attack time after time after time after time. It never gets old. That Stormbringer; what a dumbass.
Quote from: Marleycat;559166Maybe to you it is, but fact is Charm is not Dominate end of story. You do whatever wankery at your table you please. But don't insult my intelligence anymore with your silly wrong interpretation. I am seriously disappointed in you Jibba. Fuck just how stupid can you be?
269 pages of almost pure shit 269! With no end in sight.
Calm down tiger.
This is how charm works. With Charrm Monster - I can make you hold off a red dragon for a couple of rounds if I make a decent case of it. You Marelycat, not someone that things on the balance of probabilities they could proabably take a red dragon but you. It is certain death.
Like I say imagine your best friends and what you would do for them and then add a little bit more than that including risking your life.
Like I said up post Charm Monster is a 4th level spell.
I can freaking fly with a 3rd level spell or cause a massive ball of fire to appear from nowhere stretching the very laws of entropy to breaking point but I am not allowed to pursuade a giant to come on an adventure with me because that is stretching credulity ? really ?
Shit I have seen Derran Brown persude normal law abiding folks to try and rob security vans and shoplift and there is no way he is 9th level ...maybe 4th level tops.
Why doesn't someone go and ask Old Geezer how uncle gary used to run it in the old days, maybe you will belive him....
One aspect of charm spells that tends to be overlooked- they do eventually wear off and the victim becomes aware the he/she was magically duped.
Intelligent subjects might not let on that they are no longer under the magic until the wizard is in a very vulnerable spot.
To those who would adventure with a party of charmed companions, it is something worthy of consideration and why such subjects are no substitute for real friends.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;559206One aspect of charm spells that tends to be overlooked- they do eventually wear off and the victim becomes aware the he/she was magically duped.
Intelligent subjects might not let on that they are no longer under the magic until the wizard is in a very vulnerable spot.
To those who would adventure with a party of charmed companions, it is something worthy of consideration and why such subjects are no substitute for real friends.
*nod*
When the victim has doubts, it actually may be allowed to roll a new saving throw.
Enemies may dispell magic like say... a spellcasting dragon?
Etc.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559202But since I'm approaching this from the point of game design for D&D Next, and the designers for D&D Next are only familiar with 3rd and 4th editions[...]
They claim they played older editions as well while working on Next, so unless they're lying, they're familiar with pre-3e editions. Of course, if they didn't play them when the editions were popular, their experiences are likely to be different from those of people who did play them back in the day, but, I don't know, credit where credit's due. Or something.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;559206One aspect of charm spells that tends to be overlooked- they do eventually wear off and the victim becomes aware the he/she was magically duped.
Intelligent subjects might not let on that they are no longer under the magic until the wizard is in a very vulnerable spot.
To those who would adventure with a party of charmed companions, it is something worthy of consideration and why such subjects are no substitute for real friends.
You're absolutely right here. A single charmed minion is not the
best long term solution. But best is usually a subjective claim. Having a
different charmed minion each adventure isn't hard at these levels. Heck, the PCs could have a prison (a la Arkham) or a well-stocked magical zoo full of powerful creatures they've defeated in the past (if they wanted to - without resorting to DM pity). The question then is this -
If you can get a 'Fighter Equivalent' for the adventure without using up any limited resources, freeing up the 'Fighter Player' to play a different class capable of contributing more (such as a second cleric), why wouldn't you?
One answer - because the guy that wants to play the Fighter wants to play a Fighter, not a cleric. And that's actually a good answer.
But the thing about the play example that I brought up - the person that LIKES Fighters decided that it wasn't fun anymore because his contributions appeared more and more meaningless. Being strong and being able to pull his friends from a pit trap when they were too weak to climb out on their own is rewarding - it's fun to be the 'hero'. That's a big part of fantasy role-play. If you never get a chance to be the 'hero', the game tends to break down, at least in my experience.
D&D has often been compared to 'special forces'. Each member is supposed to be able to contribute different specialties, but the success of the mission relies on every memeber of the team contributing. At high level, the Fighter has a very narrow range of what he is ABLE to contribute to (in a meaningful fashion beyond what anyone else can do), and this very narrow range is easily eclipsed by an effective (but not necessarily optimized) member of a spell-casting class.
That shouldn't be hard to address - you can start by making sure a CR 9 Fighter is an even match for a CR 9 Giant. If you manage that, you're already half-way there.
Quote from: soulbro;559211They claim they played older editions as well while working on Next, so unless they're lying, they're familiar with pre-3e editions. Of course, if they didn't play them when the editions were popular, their experiences are likely to be different from those of people who did play them back in the day, but, I don't know, credit where credit's due. Or something.
That's assuming no one on the design team played the older versions before. Do we know that?
Quote from: soulbro;559211They claim they played older editions as well while working on Next, so unless they're lying, they're familiar with pre-3e editions. Of course, if they didn't play them when the editions were popular, their experiences are likely to be different from those of people who did play them back in the day, but, I don't know, credit where credit's due. Or something.
Right. They have said that their experience began after working on NEXT, and they're playing to 'get a feel' for the game. They have not said how many levels they've played, or how many sessions of each version. Nor have they said if they played EVERY version. Was it OD&D? AD&D? Second edition? Even assuming it was all versions, it appears very clear that the 'play' was extremely limited in scope. Then, given that it is not something they had familiarity with, would someone who was familiar recognize it? That is to say, did they play it the right way, or did they ignore a bunch of rules? Like how did wizards learn spells? Did they include interrupts?
The way I understand it, they've explained that they tried to 'go back to D&D roots' to understand some of the hobby, but this appears to be a very 'superficial' experience.
Quote from: jibbajibba;559203Calm down tiger.
This is how charm works. With Charrm Monster - I can make you hold off a red dragon for a couple of rounds if I make a decent case of it. You Marelycat, not someone that things on the balance of probabilities they could proabably take a red dragon but you. It is certain death.
Like I say imagine your best friends and what you would do for them and then add a little bit more than that including risking your life.
Like I said up post Charm Monster is a 4th level spell.
I can freaking fly with a 3rd level spell or cause a massive ball of fire to appear from nowhere stretching the very laws of entropy to breaking point but I am not allowed to pursuade a giant to come on an adventure with me because that is stretching credulity ? really ?
Shit I have seen Derran Brown persude normal law abiding folks to try and rob security vans and shoplift and there is no way he is 9th level ...maybe 4th level tops.
Why doesn't someone go and ask Old Geezer how uncle gary used to run it in the old days, maybe you will belive him....
I think this isn't so black and white. The spell entry is still quite vague and supplies an example of what you might be able to do. My reading of it as a gm is making someone friendly to you, means their personality, interests and all that must still be factored in. Like I said, getting a hand with a dragon for a few moments is one thing, convincing them to drop everything and go on a month long trek into dungeons, is another. Just because they are seeing what you say in the best light, doesn't mean they become idiots or automatically thnk you are right (if you tell the fire giant that the other fire giant is sleeping with his giantess, he might believe you sincerely think this, but i dont think it is a given he agrees with you). Its not a terrible stretch either. Any spell like this, the GM needs to consider the pointp of view of the charmed entity carefully.
I do think the entry could be more clear and that the durations are potentially problematic. At the same time, i have never personally had any trouble with this spell on either side of the screen and the spell adds a lot of flavor to the game.
Quote from: StormBringer;559147That's really not it at all. For starters, "take control (http://www.syndicatewiki.com/wiki/Persuadertron)" is far too generous of a description of what the spell can do. All it really does is make the creature more disposed to your suggestions, much more like a reliable form of hypnotism. Packing up and traipsing across the country side in pursuit of dragons is a good deal more than charm spells are capable of. Especially if the target differs in alignment. Your Good aligned party can convince the Evil aligned giant guard(s) to let them pass, and perhaps even to vouch for them with the other giants. The guards aren't likely to take part in an assault on the Giant King's throne room, however.
I agree that "take control" is too generous a description. Pitched as "Follow me about and obey me" wouldn't get a charmed creature to come along in my game. However, "come join us as an equal to get the dragon gold" seems quite possible. After all, the other PCs agreed to this. Difference in alignment doesn't seem like a big deal, because at least in my games we didn't wear signs saying "I am chaotic good." If we didn't say our alignment, it wasn't very obvious. I start from the base that the spell can potentially get a creature to hold off an onrushing red dragon - which is a
lot more influence than just letting someone pass.
Quote from: StormBringer;559147If your group is going around charming every creature they run across as a matter of course, that is more of a player buy-in problem. Or 'verisimilitude breaking gamist bullshit', depending on how you look at it.
Well, my parties couldn't charm
every creature because of spellcasting limits. However, it is a damn useful spell and we would use it regularly if it wasn't house-ruled away. I don't see this as either gamist bullshit or verisimilitude-breaking. It's a reasonable choice for the characters to make.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;559206One aspect of charm spells that tends to be overlooked- they do eventually wear off and the victim becomes aware the he/she was magically duped.
Intelligent subjects might not let on that they are no longer under the magic until the wizard is in a very vulnerable spot.
To those who would adventure with a party of charmed companions, it is something worthy of consideration and why such subjects are no substitute for real friends.
Now that is a good point.
So is that an area dispell will have the same effect (with appropriate level type stuff).
But it doesn't mean that the giant eagle won't carry you to Mordor it just means that he minght decide to eat you once he 'wakes' up.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559212You're absolutely right here. A single charmed minion is not the best long term solution. But best is usually a subjective claim. Having a different charmed minion each adventure isn't hard at these levels. Heck, the PCs could have a prison (a la Arkham) or a well-stocked magical zoo full of powerful creatures they've defeated in the past (if they wanted to - without resorting to DM pity). The question then is this -
If you can get a 'Fighter Equivalent' for the adventure without using up any limited resources, freeing up the 'Fighter Player' to play a different class capable of contributing more (such as a second cleric), why wouldn't you?
Of course its perfectly natural to keep our best friends locked up in some shithole until we retrieve them. Nothing funky about that. I'm sure it won't affect thier opinion of you whatsoever. :rolleyes:
Charm doesn't affect memory. If you pummel some bastard into a stupor, lock him up for a time, then try and charm him, you might get different results than trying to charm someone you just met.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559214Right. They have said that their experience began after working on NEXT, and they're playing to 'get a feel' for the game. They have not said how many levels they've played, or how many sessions of each version. Nor have they said if they played EVERY version. Was it OD&D? AD&D? Second edition? Even assuming it was all versions, it appears very clear that the 'play' was extremely limited in scope. Then, given that it is not something they had familiarity with, would someone who was familiar recognize it? That is to say, did they play it the right way, or did they ignore a bunch of rules? Like how did wizards learn spells? Did they include interrupts?
The way I understand it, they've explained that they tried to 'go back to D&D roots' to understand some of the hobby, but this appears to be a very 'superficial' experience.
I read that they played all they way up to high levels, and DID play every version. And I think it's false to assume that no one on the team played AD&D prior to working on D&D Next.
But hey, that's never stopped haters from making assumptions anyway, so continue.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;559218Of course its perfectly natural to keep our best friends locked up in some shithole until we retrieve them. Nothing funky about that. I'm sure it won't affect thier opinion of you whatsoever. :rolleyes:
Charm doesn't affect memory. If you pummel some bastard into a stupor, lock him up for a time, then try and charm him, you might get different results than trying to charm someone you just met.
Ever heard of Stockholm syndrome?
But you're forgetting that all of this is theoretical, divorced from actual game-play. You know what one of the most commonly used items are in games I've seen? A
hat of disguise. Adventurers like it because they can walk around the King's Ball in Full Plate but look like they're wearing fancy dresses (if they're a lady). But they could also use it to look like different people when they subdue the monster in question. Then, in their 'normal form' they can 'spring the monster' from jail.
That might help the reaction roll, right?
The point is not that one particular method has advantages or drawbacks - it's that if there's one thing the world doesn't have a shortage of, it's monsters. Every adventure assumes the PCs are running into people/creatures/monsters/organizations that are interested in killing the PCs at one point or another. Unless they're all part of the same organization, turning one 'new friend' against a bunch of 'villains of the week' shouldn't be hard. Or even if it is hard in some campaigns, it's probably not hard in most campaigns. And even if it's hard in most campaigns, it's certainly not hard in all campaigns.
Moving away from the theoretical again, in my experience, most players enjoy the feeling of contributing to the group's success. Most classes have tools that help the party achieve success. After the adventure, most of the players are able to talk about things their character did that made a difference. The Fighter player consistently has less to say than anyone else. It's gotten to the point that there isn't a Fighter player. At best, you get someone taking the class to 4th level and then multi-classing and/or taking prestige classes. And since I like Fighters, that makes me sad.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;559215I think this isn't so black and white. The spell entry is still quite vague and supplies an example of what you might be able to do. My reading of it as a gm is making someone friendly to you, means their personality, interests and all that must still be factored in. Like I said, getting a hand with a dragon for a few moments is one thing, convincing them to drop everything and go on a month long trek into dungeons, is another. Just because they are seeing what you say in the best light, doesn't mean they become idiots or automatically thnk you are right (if you tell the fire giant that the other fire giant is sleeping with his giantess, he might believe you sincerely think this, but i dont think it is a given he agrees with you). Its not a terrible stretch either. Any spell like this, the GM needs to consider the pointp of view of the charmed entity carefully.
I do think the entry could be more clear and that the durations are potentially problematic. At the same time, i have never personally had any trouble with this spell on either side of the screen and the spell adds a lot of flavor to the game.
We are in agreement that the spell is badly written and needs clarity.
Again though I don't think pursuading peopleto go and do something they might quite liek to do is so hard. I do think that a Charm spell breaks through the guilt that you might stop you ditching the misses for a road trip.
I also think that the subject of the charm is proposed to belive the caster and see everythign they say in the most favourable light. - to whit
he regards the caster as a personal friend to be heeded and protected. The spell does not enable the caster to control the charmed creature as if it were an automoton, but any word or action of the caster is viewed in the most favorable wayBut if the spell was well written then we wouldn't be having this debate.
There is a discussion of it here on Drgaonsfoot and the same if slightly less vitriolic debate exisits there too. http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=55051 (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=55051)
One comment on that thread I did like was that it depends on how the caster phrases the request.
I can ask you to do the same thing in two different ways.
'Jump of that cliff' - no suicidal request breaks charm
'Hey you know what would be relaly cool? If I could dive off this cliff. I don't think its that hard I saw these guys doing it once at the Falls in Kingsport. Do you dare me to do it? Tell you what I will if you will. You go first. Yeah you'll need to take your armour off first.' - hmm... sounds like a reasonable Jackass type request
Quote from: Exploderwizard;559206To those who would adventure with a party of charmed companions, it is something worthy of consideration and why such subjects are no substitute for real friends.
Hold on. I didn't think that was the topic. I presumed that we were talking about a regular adventuring party where a spell-caster used charm in addition to their other resources.
Likewise in discussing the fighter, people here are bringing up cases while high level where the fighter is less useful than another spell-caster like a magic user or cleric. I presume that is because
that is the topic under discussion. I experienced this in my high-level AD&D1e play. That doesn't imply that in actual play I would kick the player of the fighter to the curb and literally replace his fighter with a charmed monster. However, I would definitely use charm monster to supplement our forces.
It sounds to me like a number of people don't want a spell-caster to be able to use a charmed creature to (for example) hold off an onrushing red dragon. If that is the case, then make it a house rule that charm doesn't work that way. It is fucking annoying to try that and then be told that I'm an abusive, gamist jerk for trying to pull off exactly what is in the spell description.
Quote from: jhkim;559224Hold on. I didn't think that was the topic. I presumed that we were talking about a regular adventuring party where a spell-caster used charm in addition to their other resources.
Likewise in discussing the fighter, people here are bringing up cases while high level where the fighter is less useful than another spell-caster like a magic user or cleric. I presume that is because that is the topic under discussion. I experienced this in my high-level AD&D1e play. That doesn't imply that in actual play I would kick the player of the fighter to the curb and literally replace his fighter with a charmed monster. However, I would definitely use charm monster to supplement our forces.
It sounds to me like a number of people don't want a spell-caster to be able to use a charmed creature to (for example) hold off an onrushing red dragon. If that is the case, then make it a house rule that charm doesn't work that way. It is fucking annoying to try that and then be told that I'm an abusive, gamist jerk for trying to pull off exactly what is in the spell description.
yup (why does my reply need 4 charaters?)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559214Then, given that it is not something they had familiarity with, would someone who was familiar recognize it?
To get a proper understanding of previous versions (minimum to be able to try to include stuff from it in a way that would likely appeal to those who use that edition as their "go to" system in 5e), I think they would need to play at least 4 to 6 four+ hour sessions under a DM who did use the system as his/her "go to" system. And they would be far better off playing like that under 3-4 different GM each with his/her own homebrew setting and group of players with an established play style. With each designer playing each old game like this with different GMs and groups of players they would come to understand how the game actually playing in different settings and with different groups of players and their associated different group styles of play.
This would be a much more useful experience than the designers sitting down as a group and playing each editions for a few sessions -- as they would be exposed to how non-designers who like and use a particular edition actually played the game. If they play among themselves they only reinforce the idea that everyone plays the way they do. Example: during the late 3.x era I mentioned to a WOTC designer than I really did not like the ever growing dependence on grids and minis. His reply was something to the effect that everyone at WOTC played with minis and grids and would not play without them, therefore they assumed everyone else wanted to play that way too.
Of course the irony is we are focused on the minutia of the charm spell.
This is relevant to the question of fighters utility only in as much as it's the example that has been given.
Someone mentioned a Dominate spell that does actually Dominate... does that replace the utility of the fighter, or an animate dead, or a golem or an air elemental or any number of other options that exist.
The advantage that Charm has is ease of casting , longevity of duration and relatively low level for effect.
Other options do not suffer from being as badly written do they sucessfully replace the figther?
Quote from: jibbajibba;559228Of course the irony is we are focused on the minutia of the charm spell.
This is relevant to the question of fighters utility only in as much as it's the example that has been given.
Someone mentioned a Dominate spell that does actually Dominate... does that replace the utility of the fighter, or an animate dead, or a golem or an air elemental or any number of other options that exist.
The advantage that Charm has is ease of casting , longevity of duration and relatively low level for effect.
Other options do not suffer from being as badly written do they sucessfully replace the figther?
I mentioned this quite some ways upthread - many people here are focusing on the minutiae, as opposed to the bigger picture that is achievable in multiple other ways. It's kind of like plugging your ear and shouting, "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! I can't hear you!"
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559061Let's say that there is an item in the game world. It doesn't matter what it is. It could be Excalibur, or it could be a scroll of teleport, or it could be a sword of sharpness. It doesn't matter what it is, it just matters if it exists. Now, the DM does not have to include any items in his game world that he doesn't want to. In fact, he absolutely SHOULDN'T include any items in his game world that he doesn't want to exist. But clearly, if he has allowed it to be in the game world, he's okay with it existing.
If it exists, the PCs can learn of it's existence. They can learn of it by doing research (ie, poring through ancient tomes of myths and legends that discuss items that they're interested in). They can seek out information through a network of contacts to see if anybody has heard any rumors of its current whereabouts. They can contact divine beings and ask them where the item is located, and what obstacles might guard it.
So, if you're the DM, and you tell the party that there is an item that they're interested in, and the party takes steps to acquire that item, and then you tell them that the item that you already confirmed the existence of no longer exists because you don't want them to have it, you're a dick and a bad DM.
This is the basis of player agency. The players determine what they want their characters to do. The DM decides what obstacles the players will face. If the players overcome those obstacles they will accomplish what they want to do. If they fail to overcome those obstacles, they won't.
But it doesn't matter how difficult you intend those obstacles to be. If you say Excalibur is at the bottom of a lake, guarded by a spirit dragon, and only someone worthy can draw it from the lake, the PCs have some pretty difficult obstacles to overcome - but if they overcome them, they will get Excalibur.
Now, if you tell them that they can't go get Excalibur because you have a particular adventure written for them where they're supposed to go fellate your Mary Sue NPC, that's being a dick and pretty railroady. Once you accept that the players decide what actions their characters will take, you will realize that players dictate the action - not the RESULTS of those actions, but those results have to be predicated on what they did.
If the players walk toward town x and away from town y, everyone should expect that they'll move further from town y and eventually get to town x. This is not 'DM Pity' - this is the natural result of players having 'agency' in the world. And if your players don't have agency, you're not doing it right. And if you don't believe me, you can ask Benoist - he knows that I'm right on this point, you mentally deficient dumbass.
Since you brought me in on this I'm going to comment.
Your original statement Stormbringer was answering to was this:
Quote from: deadDMwalking;558804The difference - and this is important - is that if the PCs CHOOSE to get a particular item and they direct the narrative in order to achieve that goal, the PCs are DRIVING the story.
There is no "story" in my games. The players are not "driving the narrative," because there's no such thing as a "narrative".
There is a game world.
The game world exists in our mind's eye. It's is a "real" place with stuff going on in it, events and people who go about their own business. The PCs happen to be some of these people, and they go about doing stuff in the world however they see fit. They choose to care about this or that, to go about exploring this or that area of the map, to accept the baron's offer for mercenaries they heard about at the tavern or not, to go left instead of right
as though they were in situation, Live, NOT as the "authors of a story" or people "narrating what their puppet on the board does".
This is an important, CRITICAL, distinction between a "role playing game" and "not a role playing game" to me.
So. In the world, you will have maybe a chaplain servicing his flock in the village the PCs come from. He'll be able to perform some healing for the PCs maybe, or to give them information about his cults and others he's heard about, to discuss the life of some people attending his offices in the village, whatever the case may be.
Some things the PCs might want, he would not have, would not know or would not be able to perform. He might point them in the right direction to get information pertaining to certain items or pieces of information they want, like say, talking about that old man living in the forest who was, they say, a sage working in the next city once, but who got mad in some mysterious circumstances and retreated in the wilderness to live like a wild man. The PCs might seek him out and ask about where to find some things they need, and maybe he'll know, maybe he won't.
It's not about "player agency". That's a bullshit metagame term invented by the Forge. It's crap theory that's been coopted by morons who don't know any better. What there is is the game world. Everything starts with the game world.
Now, if the PCs want to quest for items every session that's fine by me, it's their characters, their adventures, and I run the environment from there. But don't be surprised if you're sent on wild goose chases, have your characters killed in the process because of this or that challenge along the way, find out that the bad guy you wanted to confront attacked the village and destroyed it in the meantime while you were searching for that uber-item, or to find that out that, after months of actual game play, you've actually accomplish next to nothing into the game world because you were basically spending all this time building yourself an arsenal and secluding yourself in laboratories to build all this shit you thought you needed.
It's not about taking pity on the players, nor is it about being a dick for the sake of it. It's about the game world, the consistency of its reality.
Now if you didn't use shit expressions like "player agency" when referring to what I agree on or not, I might take you more seriously. But all that tells me when I read that is that you drank the Forge Kool Aid, which in turn makes you think that System Matters in the sense these fuckwads would like you to believe, which in turn makes you worship "almighty game balance", believe that the rules are the game, and the game the rules. I wish I could dissipate that spell for you, but I cannot. It's your choice to open your eyes and horizons to consider the entirety of the experience that makes or breaks a roleplaying game, to become a better DM, or not. I can't do it for you.
Quote from: jhkim;559224Hold on. I didn't think that was the topic. I presumed that we were talking about a regular adventuring party where a spell-caster used charm in addition to their other resources.
Likewise in discussing the fighter, people here are bringing up cases while high level where the fighter is less useful than another spell-caster like a magic user or cleric. I presume that is because that is the topic under discussion. I experienced this in my high-level AD&D1e play. That doesn't imply that in actual play I would kick the player of the fighter to the curb and literally replace his fighter with a charmed monster. However, I would definitely use charm monster to supplement our forces.
It sounds to me like a number of people don't want a spell-caster to be able to use a charmed creature to (for example) hold off an onrushing red dragon. If that is the case, then make it a house rule that charm doesn't work that way. It is fucking annoying to try that and then be told that I'm an abusive, gamist jerk for trying to pull off exactly what is in the spell description.
It isn't so much a matter of charm 'not working that way' as the possibility of it not working that way depending on the subject and the circumstances.
Some spell effects are meant to be tempered with common sense. There may be a difference in the effects of a charm spell depending on the subject just as there may be difference in the effects of a fireball cast in an area containing a dozen barrels of oil vs one cast in an empty room.
The rules are there to serve as guidelines for the actual situations that arise in play to be adjusted and modified by those situations. In other words, if the rules properly serve the game rather than the participants trying to slavishly follow the rules, shit will work itself out.
If everything must have a binary 0/1 answer then play a fucking computer game.
Quote from: jhkim;559224I experienced this in my high-level AD&D1e play. That doesn't imply that in actual play I would kick the player of the fighter to the curb and literally replace his fighter with a charmed monster. However, I would definitely use charm monster to supplement our forces.
Six billion zillion posts in here and I still don't understand why a fighter PC would mind having the help.
As for charm, I'd have charmed creatures fight under normal-to-favorable circumstances, but unless they are basically wired to throw their lives away at a moment's provocation they wouldn't do the jump-in-front-of-a-charging-red-dragon thing; besides, that's what
dominate is for.
Quote from: Benoist;559230It's not about taking pity on the players, nor is it about being a dick for the sake of it. It's about the game world, the consistency of its reality.
Now if you didn't use shit expressions like "player agency" when referring to what I agree on or not, I might take you more seriously. But all that tells me when I read that is that you drank the Forge Kool Aid, which in turn makes you think that System Matters in the sense these fuckwads would like you to believe, which in turn makes you worship "almight game balance", believe that the rules are the game, and the game the rules. I would I could dissipate that spell for you, but I cannot. It's your choice to open your eyes and horizons to consider the entirety of the experience that makes or breaks a roleplaying game, to become a better DM, or not. I can't do it for you.
I don't even know what the Forge is. Apparently they've corrupted the term 'agency' and you object to it. I didn't mean to use the term in that way - ie, players don't get what they want because they want it. I meant agency in the way you and I have agency in the real world. I could get up out of my desk at work, walk out and never look back. That's an option that I have. And it has consequences for me. I could do it, and if I did it, I'd expect to experience those consequences.
What you're describing is what I usually refer to as 'sand-box. The world comes first. The players are people in the world, and the world responds logically to their actions. But players can choose what actions to take. That is the only sense I mean for 'agency'.
But the way you describe it sounds like a game I'd enjoy.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559239I don't even know what the Forge is.
That's a problem, because you are coopting a logic and associated terms that they came up with, which means you are operating under a logical paradigm you do not completely grasp, which is, I suspect, part of our fundamental cultural disconnect in terms of gaming.
Given the way Frost Giants are usually portrayed, it doesn't seem like it would be all that difficult to convince some of them to go a-viking with you.
Yeah, asking a monster to go into a dungeon with you is not the equivalent of asking a friend to rob a bank with you; I'm a little appalled that anyone would think so. They're fucking monsters; asking them to go to the dungeon with you is like asking a 16 year old girl if she wants to go to the mall.
Quote from: Benoist;559230Since you brought me in on this I'm going to comment.
<...>.
Now if you didn't use shit expressions like "player agency" when referring to what I agree on or not, I might take you more seriously. But all that tells me when I read that is that you drank the Forge Kool Aid, which in turn makes you think that System Matters in the sense these fuckwads would like you to believe, which in turn makes you worship "almighty game balance", believe that the rules are the game, and the game the rules. I wish I could dissipate that spell for you, but I cannot. It's your choice to open your eyes and horizons to consider the entirety of the experience that makes or breaks a roleplaying game, to become a better DM, or not. I can't do it for you.
He doesn;t mean it like that he is using words cos they are like words that mean a thing.
He is saying that if the players decide that their PCs could do with a scroll of teleport and they are aware that such things exist and perhaps have contacts that might be able to get them such things then they are totally entitled to go and try and get one.
Nothing he says disagrees with a world in motion or any of that. He is using Player agency to mean players that give their pCS goals and ambitions in the game world that they then set out to achive rather than passively absorbing the game as presented by the DM. Its classic Sandbox play.
Don;t try and label the GD posse as Forgeites or storygamers becuase it will make this thread even longer and weaken your position.
I actually think, and I think DeadDM mentioned it uptread, that the two of you have a similar playstyle and would get on really well round the table.
Quote from: Gib;559249Yeah, asking a monster to go into a dungeon with you is not the equivalent of asking a friend to rob a bank with you; I'm a little appalled that anyone would think so. They're fucking monsters; asking them to go to the dungeon with you is like asking a 16 year old girl if she wants to go to the mall.
They were worried that the Frost giants might not want to leave their wives and children earlier :)
They obviously forgot the old adage what happens in Castle Gygax stays in castle Gygax
Quote from: Benoist;559242That's a problem, because you are coopting a logic and associated terms that they came up with, which means you are operating under a logical paradigm you do not completely grasp, which is, I suspect, part of our fundamental cultural disconnect in terms of gaming.
When I use a term, I usually mean it as you would in 'dictionary language'. When I use a phrase that has a specific connotation (like 'DM Pity') I usually try to make it clear that I'm referring to that term that has a broader meaning specific to the gaming community. Likewise, I try to italicize spells and such to make it clear that I'm talking about a specific gaming term rather than a general definition. Thus, I use
charm differently than the term 'charm her panties off' - one is a gaming term and one is a real-world phrase with a totally different connotation.
But as far as the term 'player agency', I mean it specifically that the DM creates the world and the things in it - then the players respond as appropriate for their characters.
When I use the term 'narrative', I mean the sum total of the adventures the players have had up to that point, put into a story form. I've been toying with providing a 'narrative' of the encounter with the Frost Giant chief - divorcing it from much of the game terms but covering it from the perspective of someone WATCHING what happened in the game, as if the game world were a world just as real as our own.
Because after the dice are rolled and the game is 'over', I think about it in the same way you might think about a story or a movie - I don't think 'I rolled a natural 20', I think 'I sliced my sword deep into his neck and watched black ichor drip down the blade and stain my hands'. In general, I've been told that the way I approach gaming is mostly simulationist. And in reference to something you said above, I don't consider simulationist to be 'pre-narrative' or 'pre-gamist'.
Agency is a word that is used in way more contexts than the forge, Ben. It's anthropology 101 type stuff. The same goes for narrative.
I think I'm starting to get the nature of the sustained impetus behind the 100 Years War.
Quote from: Benoist;559242That's a problem, because you are coopting a logic and associated terms that they came up with, which means you are operating under a logical paradigm you do not completely grasp, which is, I suspect, part of our fundamental cultural disconnect in terms of gaming.
Bullshit. This is just a bunch of words which means "I made a big assumption about who I was talking to, and that assumption turned out to be wrong, but now I'll see if I can find a way to make it seem like the assumption was right all along, rather than just admit I was fucking wrong about it."
"You used a word like they use! You must think in exactly the same way they do!" There's some massive logical holes there, bigger than the biggest Kool Aid-soaked bat penis could ever fill.
Now, I'm thirsty and horny.
Quote from: Benoist;559242That's a problem, because you are coopting a logic and associated terms that they came up with, which means you are operating under a logical paradigm you do not completely grasp, which is, I suspect, part of our fundamental cultural disconnect in terms of gaming.
To rephrase this point and make it clearer to you, DeadDM, this paradigm under which you operate, logically speaking, works like a series of dominoes. If you understand the Forge and Ron Edwards' theories, which have shaped the terms you coopted and how you view gaming, the role of game balance in particular, in the equation of a role playing game, you would much better understand where I am coming from and what it is I am trying to communicate to you.
Once you coopt terms like player agency, or the notion that there is a creative agenda going on, you are entering the trap layed out by GNS. You are basically opting for a view of gaming that ultimately leads to the consideration that Simulation is not a proper, coherent goal of gaming, that 'simulationists' are deluded gamers who are either proto-gamists, or proto-narrativists, which affects the way you will look at the metagame going on around the game table and its place in the RPG equation thereof, which means it affects the way you look at the role of the rules at the game table, which then affects the way you think about them, what intent they must fulfill in terms of design, including the illusion of "game balance" in the rules as written, in a vacuum divorced from the other components that make or break a role playing game in actual play.
Once you start debunking that poison bullshit and take a step back, you will see how your expectations have been forged (pun intended) over the years by the stuff you read on the internet, which in turn lead to experiences like the one you had with the frost giants, which in turn shaped the way you considered this experience of yours not to become a better player or GM, but to blame the rules instead.
All this stuff is linked, is what I'm trying to explain to you.
So the sooner you make yourself aware of the way you've been drinking the Kool Aid all these years, the better you'll be off at your game table to tackle the real problems and the real issues which, in time, will make you the great GM you ought to be.
Quote from: Fifth Element;559256Bullshit.
Go fuck yourself, Iain.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559254When I use the term 'narrative', I mean the sum total of the adventures the players have had up to that point, put into a story form.
And this is exactly what Benoist means by story, as well, as I recall from previous fracases. But whenever someone uses the term "narrative", even in the most natural-use-of-the-language way, he goes all shitcocks.
He's very particular as to which words you choose to use, so be warned!
Quote from: Benoist;559259Go fuck yourself, Iain.
No need, your momma already took care of that.
Quote from: Benoist;559258Once you start debunking that poison bullshit and take a step back, you will see how your expectations have been forged (pun intended) over the years by the stuff you read on the internet,
I don't even...
Quote from: Fifth Element;559261No need, your momma already took care of that.
They're so cute when they're trying to play with the big boys. "I made a joke about your mom! Be offended! Care about what I say!" :teehee:
Quote from: Benoist;559264They're so cute when they're trying to play with the big boys. "I made a joke about your mom! Be offended! Care about what I say!" :teehee:
You really missed the point of that one, "big boy". I don't give a rat's ass about you, I'm just mocking your level of discourse.
If you think "go fuck yourself" puts you in with the big boys, I do question what you consider "big boys". It seems you mean exactly what is says on the tin: old enough to know what the swears are, but still too young to realize that swears don't make an argument.
I'll stay over here with the men, I guess. You can have the big boys all to yourself.
Quote from: Benoist;559258To rephrase this point and make it clearer to you, DeadDM, this paradigm under which you operate, logically speaking, works like a series of dominoes. If you understand the Forge and Ron Edwards' theories, which have shaped the terms you coopted and how you view gaming, the role of game balance in particular, in the equation of a role playing game, you would much better understand where I am coming from and what it is I am trying to communicate to you.
Once you coopt terms like player agency, or the notion that there is a creative agenda going on, you are entering the trap layed out by GNS. You are basically opting for a view of gaming that ultimately leads to the consideration that Simulation is not a proper, coherent goal of gaming, that 'simulationists' are deluded gamers who are either proto-gamists, or proto-narrativists, which affects the way you will look at the metagame going on around the game table and its place in the RPG equation thereof, which means it affects the way you look at the role of the rules at the game table, which then affects the way you think about them, what intent they must fulfill in terms of design, including the illusion of "game balance" in the rules as written, in a vacuum divorced from the other components that make or break a role playing game in actual play.
Once you start debunking that poison bullshit and take a step back, you will see how your expectations have been forged (pun intended) over the years by the stuff you read on the internet, which in turn lead to experiences like the one you had with the frost giants, which in turn shaped the way you considered this experience of yours not to become a better player or GM, but to blame the rules instead.
All this stuff is linked, is what I'm trying to explain to you.
So the sooner you make yourself aware of the way you've been drinking the Kool Aid all these years, the better you'll be off at your game table to tackle the real problems and the real issues which, in time, will make you the great GM you ought to be.
WTF ?
Read what he wrote ..... he means exactly what you mean.
I don't think its possible to be drinking the Kool aid if you didn't know there was any kool aid and you never went to the Kool aid shop.
The whole forge thing is like a microcosm of a microcosm, outside of a few designers, the people who used to go to the forge and pundit no one gives a shit about it.
Quote from: Fifth Element;559274derp derp derp
When I read this this is how I see you in my mind's eye:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rr4kz-ScwEw/T_rph19mPZI/AAAAAAAABBQ/K0gDAGxbSps/s1600/1083839-nerd_rage_super.gif)
Keep going at it, you make ENWorld proud!
Quote from: Benoist;559258To rephrase this point and make it clearer to you, DeadDM, this paradigm under which you operate, logically speaking, works like a series of dominoes. If you understand the Forge and Ron Edwards' theories, which have shaped the terms you coopted and how you view gaming, the role of game balance in particular, in the equation of a role playing game, you would much better understand where I am coming from and what it is I am trying to communicate to you.
Sounds like homework. But, since I obviously have some spare time (as evinced by the dozens of posts in this thread) I'll start reading up on it.
Quote from: Benoist;559258Once you coopt terms like player agency, or the notion that there is a creative agenda going on, you are entering the trap layed out by GNS.
It sounds like you mean the term 'player agency' in a strictly 'meta-game' context. I mean the term in a strictly 'simulationist' context. The players have control over the character actions, and if the world is consistent and makes sense (a goal for a sand-box or simulationist game), players can achieve their character's goals. Since this term as I used it caused confusion, I will start using the term 'character agency' in its place. In this context, the two are more-or-less interchangeable - what the player wants for his character is what the character wants for himself. So, 'character agency' it is from here on in. I apologize for the confusion it caused.
Quote from: Benoist;559258You are basically opting for a view of gaming that ultimately leads to the consideration that Simulation is not a proper, coherent goal of gaming, that 'simulationists' are deluded gamers who are either proto-gamists, or proto-narrativists, which affects the way you will look at the metagame going on around the game table and its place in the RPG equation thereof, which means it affects the way you look at the role of the rules at the game table, which then affects the way you think about them, what intent they must fulfill in terms of design, including the illusion of "game balance" in the rules as written, in a vacuum divorced from the other components that make or break a role playing game in actual play.
I wanted to break up the quote, but there's no break point... While I believe that the best games are simulationist, the question becomes 'what are we simulating'? I think D&D has a promise that the players take on the role of 'heroic characters' that can generally do things that are strange and wonderful - they live in a fantasy world. The Fighter, more than any other class, loses out on that promise. While we have examples of 'real people' doing some amazing things, often the Fighter falls well-short of what a 'real person' can do.
Quote from: Benoist;559258All this stuff is linked, is what I'm trying to explain to you.
I don't think one necesarily has to approach balance from the direction that the Forge seems to do so. The game could just as easily be 'Wizards and Lackeys' - you can simulate being a wizard or part of his cadre of bodyguards. But that game probably wouldn't be fun for the lackeys. A basic proposition of the game is that each character is relatively equivalent to another character - at least of the same level. The biggest 'meta-concern' is usually 'why do the PCs travel with that particular PC'. If you're playing 1st edition and a 12th level party adds a new character, they usually add that character at 1st level. Why would a party of powerful characters accept a 'lowly' character as an equal? The only reason is because he is controlled by a Player - which for me breaks versimilitude. I'd rather the player be allowed to be of roughly equal power (or at least close) to make him capable of contributing to the group - thus explaining their desire to have the new player join them. Balance for me is much more about what characters should logically do, and that means trying to avoid 'PCs are SpESHUL' tag around each of their necks. A living, breathing world demands that players respond to other players in a similar way that they would to NPCs. If they don't let 1st level NPCs join their party as equal members, why should they let a 1st level PC? But if the PC isn't able to join, the game suffers. I think this is important to address - so this is what I mean by 'balance' and 'level-appropriate contribution'.
Quote from: Benoist;559258So the sooner you make yourself aware of the way you've been drinking the Kool Aid all these years, the better you'll be off at your game table to tackle the real problems and the real issues which, in time, will make you the great GM you ought to be.
I'm trying to stake out my position so you can see where the Kool Aid might overlap, but I think it's minimal or non-existant... Once I do my homework, I might clarify if there are any points in my position that are consistent with the 'Forge'.
Quote from: Benoist;559276Keep going at it, you make ENWorld proud!
Wait, I represent ENWorld? Shouldn't I be getting a cut of the subscription money then? This could be quite the windfall for me!
Seriously Ben, if you'd stop being such an internet caricature we wouldn't be having these exchanges. You didn't use to be this bad. Seems you've been drinking the Pundit Kool Aid, though. You make theRPGsite proud: swears,
and name-calling. You're the whole package.
Sorry, deadDMwalking, I'm probably distracting from any point you're trying to make. I'll go away now.
Quote from: jibbajibba;559275The whole forge thing is like a microcosm of a microcosm, outside of a few designers, the people who used to go to the forge and pundit no one gives a shit about it.
Well, when those designers in question are the makers of D&D 4e, and WFRP 3e, the two biggest fantasy franchises in RPGs, that is a big portion of the "microcosm of a microcosm".
I swear, I'm just not going to even bother installing these things any more.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559279Sounds like homework. But, since I obviously have some spare time (as evinced by the dozens of posts in this thread) I'll start reading up on it.
Good thing. A place to start when talking theory on the RPG Site: //www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=7931
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559279It sounds like you mean the term 'player agency' in a strictly 'meta-game' context. I mean the term in a strictly 'simulationist' context. The players have control over the character actions, and if the world is consistent and makes sense (a goal for a sand-box or simulationist game), players can achieve their character's goals. Since this term as I used it caused confusion, I will start using the term 'character agency' in its place. In this context, the two are more-or-less interchangeable - what the player wants for his character is what the character wants for himself. So, 'character agency' it is from here on in. I apologize for the confusion it caused.
I simply will not use the term. I prefer to speak in plain English. You are talking about player and character choices and how they relate to the game world and the way the campaign unfolds. We don't need Forge jargon to speak about this.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559279I wanted to break up the quote, but there's no break point... While I believe that the best games are simulationist, the question becomes 'what are we simulating'?
The thing is, GNS is shit to begin with. Its premise is set up in such a way that "simulationism" becomes a dumping ground for all that doesn't fit the neat little boxes of "gamism" and "narrativism". If you buy into the jargon, you're already trapped into the loop that invariably leads to "lol wut simulationism is incoherent" to "simulationism is a delusion, the play style wouldn't exist if its defenders would wake up to their creative agendas."
I'm not a "simulationist". I'm a role player. I play role playing games. Fuck the "simulation" box. Fuck the Forge.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559279I think D&D has a promise that the players take on the role of 'heroic characters' that can generally do things that are strange and wonderful - they live in a fantasy world. The Fighter, more than any other class, loses out on that promise. While we have examples of 'real people' doing some amazing things, often the Fighter falls well-short of what a 'real person' can do.
(1) Your premise is wrong. D&D is not about "heroic characters". It's about characters living in a breathing fantasy world, going on adventures, exploring the world, its dungeons and wilderness, with the promise to strike it rich or die trying. When you start at level 1 in O/AD&D, you are not a hero. You are a veteran of a few squirmishes or battles who just starts out on an adventuring life. "Hero" in OD&D is explicitly level 4 for a fighting man, and "Super hero" level 8.
(2) The criteria you use to judge whether the fighter is up on par with other characters in the game, to take a theoretical situation at a moment "m" and then compare abilities strictly by the rules divorced from actual play, are laughably misguided. You are wrong. You have been wrong from the start, you have been told as much about a zillion times on this thread, several of (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=550607#post550607) my own posts (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=551011&postcount=889) and others have actually demonstrated as much based on your own scenarios, and you still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it. This conversation will not move on until you acknowledge you (or whoever was running your game, I'm still unclear on that) fucked up multiple times while running the game with the frost giants.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559279I don't think one necesarily has to approach balance from the direction that the Forge seems to do so. The game could just as easily be 'Wizards and Lackeys' - you can simulate being a wizard or part of his cadre of bodyguards. But that game probably wouldn't be fun for the lackeys.
See there you are demonstrating to me that you don't really know what it is you are talking about. I'll just wait until you've done some homework because at this point, any exchange about this will be misinterpreted by you just like it is now in this part of your post.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559279A basic proposition of the game is that each character is relatively equivalent to another character - at least of the same level.
Actually no, it isn't. The assumption in AD&D is rather that PCs will be of different levels at any given time, not only because of the different XP charts and development rates, but because the amount of XP per PC might also widely vary, that characters might have been killed and replaced in the meantime, some hirelings became PCs, etc etc. So no, (1) it is not assumed by the game that characters will be at the same level at any given moment of the campaign, and (2) it is not assumed that their abilities match up perfectly at any given level, quite the contrary, actually, since the development rates are different and some classes are designed to be hard to play at low level but gain greater power IF they manage to survive up to the later stages of the campaign - MUs, for instance.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559279The biggest 'meta-concern' is usually 'why do the PCs travel with that particular PC'. If you're playing 1st edition and a 12th level party adds a new character, they usually add that character at 1st level.
Actually no. The DMG advises you to replace characters maybe a few levels lower than the group average, but it's up to the DM to work these things out, including starting characters straight from level 1 if that's what he wants (though it's explicitly not advised if the discrepency is great).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559279Why would a party of powerful characters accept a 'lowly' character as an equal?
Role playing. Just as an example, it might be a level 0 man-at-arms hireling that followed the group for some time, was helpful in a number of situations and managed to survive for quite some time miraculously, thus becoming an adventurer in its own right (level fighter). Another possibility would be some adventurer prisoners freed from some jail in the dungeon and accepted as full members of the group if say, their information to get to this or that objective is particularly helpful, or they lead the PCs to a particular area with the promise of great treasure which materializes later on, etc. I've played such a characters before.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559279The only reason is because he is controlled by a Player - which for me breaks versimilitude.
It doesn't have to break verisimilitude. It's up to the players and DM, and the particular occurences of that scenario in the game and campaign.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559279I'd rather the player be allowed to be of roughly equal power (or at least close) to make him capable of contributing to the group - thus explaining their desire to have the new player join them. Balance for me is much more about what characters should logically do, and that means trying to avoid 'PCs are SpESHUL' tag around each of their necks. A living, breathing world demands that players respond to other players in a similar way that they would to NPCs. If they don't let 1st level NPCs join their party as equal members, why should they let a 1st level PC? But if the PC isn't able to join, the game suffers. I think this is important to address - so this is what I mean by 'balance' and 'level-appropriate contribution'.
A living, breathing world doesn't have PCs that are all equally of the same level at all times, earning the very same amount of XP with no outside mitigating factors thereof, facing "level appropriate" challenges throughout their adventuring lives. Your criteria of "balance" are moronic, and skewed. You should revise your DMing and widen your horizons. You're still not getting it.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559279I'm trying to stake out my position so you can see where the Kool Aid might overlap, but I think it's minimal or non-existant... Once I do my homework, I might clarify if there are any points in my position that are consistent with the 'Forge'.
It very much overlaps. You're not seeing it yet.
Quote from: CRKrueger;559286Well, when those designers in question are the makers of D&D 4e, and WFRP 3e, the two biggest fantasy franchises in RPGs, that is a big portion of the "microcosm of a microcosm".
But the influence on those games is at best marginal. There's a reason the Forge ideas have fallen out of favor: they're an oversimplification of a really complex issue. D&D has always been primarily gamist in those terms, but never self-consciously. Gygax and Moldvay and Tweet and Heinsoo didn't sit down and mark off tickers in the GNS columns. The Forge theories, warts and all, can be applied to a game, but that doesn't mean the games were designed with those theories at the core.
Even most modern 'storygames' like FATE and Savage Worlds are still fundamentally more like D&D than they are like Forge games.
Welcome dude. :)
Quote from: TomatoMalone;559347Even most modern 'storygames' like FATE and Savage Worlds are still fundamentally more like D&D than they are like Forge games.
You're wrong. It's more complicated that it looks.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;559347But the influence on those games is at best marginal. There's a reason the Forge ideas have fallen out of favor: they're an oversimplification of a really complex issue. D&D has always been primarily gamist in those terms, but never self-consciously. Gygax and Moldvay and Tweet and Heinsoo didn't sit down and mark off tickers in the GNS columns. The Forge theories, warts and all, can be applied to a game, but that doesn't mean the games were designed with those theories at the core.
Even most modern 'storygames' like FATE and Savage Worlds are still fundamentally more like D&D than they are like Forge games.
Wait, what? How is Savage Worlds a 'storygame'?
3k posts- in the bag.
Quote from: Benoist;559345Good thing. A place to start when talking theory on the RPG Site: //www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=7931
I've seen some of Pundit's blog posts, so I doubt his forum posts will be any more sane.
QuoteI simply will not use the term. I prefer to speak in plain English. You are talking about player and character choices and how they relate to the game world and the way the campaign unfolds. We don't need Forge jargon to speak about this.
You're right, but honestly I don't think I've ever even heard of Forge jargon used in any other context than dismissing it as bullshit. So I don't know about the others, but for me, you're barking up a tree that not only doesn't have the game you're chasing, but no leaves on it to obscure that fact.
QuoteThe thing is, GNS is shit to begin with. It's premise is set up in such a way that "simulationism" becomes a dumping ground for all that doesn't fit the neat little boxes of "gamism" and "narrativism". If you buy into the jargon, you're already trapped into the loop that invariably leads to "lol wut simulationism is incoherent" to "simulationism is a delusion, the play style wouldn't exist if its defenders would wake up to their creative agendas."
I'm not a "simulationist". I'm a role player. I play role playing games. Fuck the "simulation" box. Fuck the Forge.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic of Fighter and Wizard balance.
Quote1) Your premise is wrong. D&D is not about "heroic characters". It's about characters living in a breathing fantasy world, going on adventures, exploring the world, its dungeons and wilderness, with the promise to strike it rich or die trying. When you start at level 1 in O/AD&D, you are not a hero. You are a veteran of a few squirmishes or battles who just starts out on an adventuring life. "Hero" in OD&D is explicitly level 4 for a fighting man, and "Super hero" level 8.
Skirmishes. Also, the premise of D&D depends on which edition you're playing. Basic, 3rd, and 4th definitely have more of a heroic bent. I'm also not sure why D&D has to have a singular premise. Playing characters in a living breathing fantasy world is all well and good, but it's also a somewhat pointless exercise without things for them to do.
QuoteThe assumption in AD&D is rather that PCs will be of different levels at any given time, not only because of the different XP charts and development rates, but because the amount of XP per PC might also widely vary, that characters might have been killed and replaced in the meantime, some hirelings became PCs, etc etc. So no, (1) it is not assumed by the game that characters will be at the same level at any given moment of the campaign, and (2) it is not assumed that their abilities match up perfectly at any given level, quite the contrary, actually, since the development rates are different and some classes are designed to be hard to play at low level but gain greater power IF they manage to survive up to the later stages of the campaign - MUs, for instance.
Okay, but not all D&D is AD&D. And even in the older games, the disparity in character levels has a reason as well as mitigating factors. Non-humans get level caps because they were thought to be too powerful. Different classes accrue XP differently specifically in an effort to balance them relative to each other so that no one player dominates the battle. Characters were also far faster to create and much easier to kill in the older editions, so characters being different levels wasn't a huge drag on the party.
QuoteA living, breathing world doesn't have PCs that are all equally of the same level at all times, earning the very same amount of XP with no outside mitigating factors thereof, facing "level appropriate" challenges throughout their adventuring lives. Your criteria of "balance" are moronic, and skewed. You should revise your DMing and widen your horizons. You're still not getting it.
But a living breathing world... doesn't have 'PCs' or 'levels' or 'XP' at all. These things are all abstractions of the game mechanics. I'm not sure where you get off calling him moronic, either. Balancing a game so that the players are all able to contribute is one of the most fundamental principles of good game design. It's one of the reasons that level caps and XP differences existed, as mentioned before--Gygax and Arneson felt that non-human races and certain classes were overpowered if they leveled up at the same rate.
QuoteIt very much overlaps. You're not seeing it yet.
It seems to me more like you're confused by this Pundit guy. I recall reading a rant of his the other day that somehow tried to link what happened to Mongoose/James Desborough over at RPG.net to a plot of the Forge to take over Gaming or something? It was pretty crazy shit, and a lot of the stuff you're saying makes me think you've been reading him too long.
Quote from: Gib;5593523k posts- in the bag.
Sigh. One Horse Town may as well sticky this thread.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;559347But the influence on those games is at best marginal. There's a reason the Forge ideas have fallen out of favor: they're an oversimplification of a really complex issue. D&D has always been primarily gamist in those terms, but never self-consciously. Gygax and Moldvay and Tweet and Heinsoo didn't sit down and mark off tickers in the GNS columns. The Forge theories, warts and all, can be applied to a game, but that doesn't mean the games were designed with those theories at the core.
Even most modern 'storygames' like FATE and Savage Worlds are still fundamentally more like D&D than they are like Forge games.
We've had this discussion here many times, so you can find it, but Jay Little (WFRP3) is very much an Edwards follower, and the 4e designers certainly knew of his theories and in some cases subscribe to them or those of Robin Laws.
Quote from: Benoist;559349Welcome dude. :)
You're wrong. It's more complicated that it looks.
Than it looks.
And of course it is, but the differences are still mostly cosmetic. In D&D you make decisions based on a combination of your character's knowledge and metagame knowledge such as the tendenices of the DM, the rules of the game, etc.
In FATE, you do the same thing, and also add in genre-savvy to the mix. It's not a matter of kind, just a matter of degree.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;559351Wait, what? How is Savage Worlds a 'storygame'?
In the sense that it's stated goal is genre emulation, with metagame mechanics like Bennies. But your reaction is basically what I'm saying: modern games that use Forge ideas are still far more fundamentally similar to traditional roleplaying games than the artsy Forge material.
Quote from: CRKrueger;559360We've had this discussion here many times, so you can find it, but Jay Little (WFRP3) is very much an Edwards follower, and the 4e designers certainly knew of his theories and in some cases subscribe to them or those of Robin Laws.
Well of course they knew of this theories. It would be pretty hard not to given how much they influenced game design in the 90s. Incidentally, Edwards missed the mark on a lot of things, but Robin Laws is consistently solid. He worked on the DMG2 for 4E, and it's one of the best DM guides on the market.
Quote from: Benoist;559345I'm not a "simulationist". I'm a role player. I play role playing games. Fuck the "simulation" box. Fuck the Forge.
Dude, the Forge didn't come up with the term "simulationist". It was already in use years before the Forge was founded - by people who prized simulation. In my experience, the majority of people who use the term "simulationist" don't mean it in the GNS sense - because the GNS sense is counter-intuitive and bizarre.
Ron Edwards used lots of words. I think he even used "fantasy" and "game" and "the". Someone using those same words doesn't mean they are agreeing with him.
I think asking a few questions would be a good idea - as in, "How would you handle X?" or "What do you think about Y?" I suspect there is a fair amount of common ground here.
Common ground wont get us to 4k posts, man.
All this forge nonsense is just a distraction because everyone realises from my earlier posts that Clerics are indeed tougher than figthers in 1e and not even by a small margin....
But at least the Fighter vs Caster was a new and interesting argument becuase it actually had somethign to do with actually playing a game unlike the forthcoming wave of Narritivsm vs Gamist malarky Sigh :(
Quote from: TomatoMalone;559361In the sense that it's stated goal is genre emulation, with metagame mechanics like Bennies. But your reaction is basically what I'm saying: modern games that use Forge ideas are still far more fundamentally similar to traditional roleplaying games than the artsy Forge material.
Metagame point have been around since the 1980s. (Top Secret, I think?). They're not a forge idea.
SW, as far as I know, has no forge influence in it at all. I don't see any particular connection between 'genre emulation' and being a 'storygame', either.
Welcome to theRPGsite.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;559361It's not a matter of kind, just a matter of degree.
I like the cut of your jib.
Of course, Pundit will be along shortly to brand you a "Swine" (and if he really likes you, as a "Pundit-hater" too) and to shout at the top of his lungs that FATE isn't a storygame (the mental gymnastics are fun to watch).
As for Savage Worlds, "storygame" might be a tad harsh, but it definitely feels
more storygamey than, say, TSR-era D&D or BRP, so I think I grok your position. I don't care about labels that much. Want to call CoC a storygame? Go right ahead. Can't say it's going to be a popular opinion 'round these parts ("troll" is the nicest thing they'll call you), but why let that stop you? :D
Quote from: Gib;559365Common ground wont get us to 4k posts, man.
willful disagreement and a few small splinter groups are a good start, Aos.
Quote from: jibbajibba;559367All this forge nonsense is just a distraction because everyone realises from my earlier posts that Clerics are indeed tougher than figthers in 1e and not even by a small margin....
Complete and total horseshit.
I would like to get back to heated discussion regarding how Jeff Rients' unreleased flying fortress adventure emasculated the Fighting-Man class please.
"When the sun of your campaign world or a neighbouring star is about to go supernova maybe than you'll realize how useless Fighters are outside of combat!"
Quote from: Benoist;559345(2) The criteria you use to judge whether the fighter is up on par with other characters in the game, to take a theoretical situation at a moment "m" and then compare abilities strictly by the rules divorced from actual play, are laughably misguided.
This accusation is laughably misguided. I judge whether the fighter is on par with other characters based on experience in play. Then, after recognizing an issue that impacted the enjoyment of players (including myself) I thought about why this issue kept coming up. If something comes up every time the game is played, it's a good bet that something ABOUT the game causes it to keep coming up. And the 'fix' is extensive, to say the least.
As I've mentioned before - for myself, I can play a Fighter up until Level 4 (usually with a more highly skilled class choice at 1st level). I never take Ftr 5. I've tried, and I just can't bring myself to do it. I don't know anyone willing to play a high level fighter anymore. What's the point of having a 'Base Class' that nobody ever plays?
Since I like the idea of a Fighter, I'd like to see the class be worth playing at high levels. There may be people that do like the 3.x Fighter at high levels, but they haven't been very vocal in this thread. We've heard from more bards than Fighters - if that's not telling, I don't know what is.
Quote from: Benoist;559345You are wrong. You have been wrong from the start, you have been told as much about a zillion times on this thread, several of (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=550607#post550607) my own posts (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=551011&postcount=889) and others have actually demonstrated as much based on your own scenarios, and you still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it. This conversation will not move on until you acknowledge you (or whoever was running your game, I'm still unclear on that) fucked up multiple times while running the game with the frost giants.
In both of the posts you link to, I don't know where you specifically said things went wrong. You presume that the players didn't control a Frost Giant - that was an assumption that you made that I saw no reason to address. It wasn't true, but I see it as irrelevant. The game
was fun. All the players had fun with the adventure. Everyone had fun at the table. One player came to recognize that his
character was no longer contributing in a meaningful fashion as far as he was concerned.
I think it's a little unfair that you're discounting someone else's personal experience. I don't claim that it is universally applicable. I do claim that it applies for ME, and I think I've provided good reasons that explain why I came to that conclusion; I've also provided examples of how situations might arise in normal play that could easily create a similar situations for others.
But I certainly see how other people MIGHT not feel the same way I do in these similar circumstances. I'm curious to know why they wouldn't. One thing I do know - while the party shouldn't 'demand' that a player play a character that he doesn't want to play, most parties expect the other players to make a character that is at least effective, or works to ensure that all the 'major roles' are covered. Particularly in 2nd edition, I found that someone was always being 'encouraged' to play the cleric. Now, in 3.5, people tend to 'discourage' a straight Fighter build. It just doesn't functionally expand the capabilities of the party. Again - that's my experience.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;559369Metagame point have been around since the 1980s. (Top Secret, I think?). They're not a forge idea.
SW, as far as I know, has no forge influence in it at all. I don't see any particular connection between 'genre emulation' and being a 'storygame', either.
James Bond hero points 1983 I think... and they did more than beenies they also altered the game world and let you find stuff like uniforms that fitted or a pack of tarot cards where all the cards were The Lovers
Quote from: LordVreeg;559371willful disagreement and a few small splinter groups are a good start, Aos.
I trolled the shit out of this thread a thousand posts ago. I've done my part, but I got depressed when no matter how crazy my posts were somebody was willing to take them at face value.
Quote from: CRKrueger;559375Complete and total horseshit.
You know its true :)
(without stat bonuses)
1e
5th level cleric
AC:2 HP: 23 Attack 1/round 1d+1 Thaco 18
spells: 3/3/1
turn undead
Saving throws 9/12/13/15/14
XP required : 13,001
***
5th level fighter
AC: 2 HP: 28 Attack 1/round 1d8 Thaco 16
Spells - none
Saving throws 11/12/13/13/14
XP required : 18,001
***
:)
Without stat bonuses. Of course, the Fighter gets exceptional Str and Con bonuses above +2, which the Cleric does not.
Even in your example with no stat bonuses, I fail to see how the Cleric having a worse Thaco and worse HPs qualifies him to be tougher then a Fighter and not by a small margin? He is worse, by a small margin, which increases with stats, which increases with levels.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;559369I don't see any particular connection between 'genre emulation' and being a 'storygame', either.
It's genre emulation when you like it, and storygame when you think it sucks.
(Aos, am I doing this right?)
Quote from: The Butcher;559392(Aos, am I doing this right?)
Aos is dead. Long live Gib!
Quote from: The Butcher;559370As for Savage Worlds, "storygame" might be a tad harsh, but it definitely feels more storygamey than, say, TSR-era D&D or BRP, so I think I grok your position. I don't care about labels that much. Want to call CoC a storygame? Go right ahead. Can't say it's going to be a popular opinion 'round these parts ("troll" is the nicest thing they'll call you), but why let that stop you? :D
There's some metagame stuff in SW, I'd grant you. "Its a storygame" be fightin' words, though...
I think a better example of a recent RPG featuring Forge ideas would be Marvel Heroic (Cortex +). The one where Doom Pool takens go everywhere, and you ask the GM for an action scene to reduce your damage whenever you're heavily injured. I'm totally fine with people dissing that, and it even credits the DiTV guy up the front, I think.
Quote from: jibbajibba;559388You know its true :)
(without stat bonuses)
1e
5th level cleric
AC:2 HP: 23 Attack 1/round 1d+1 Thaco 18
spells: 3/3/1
turn undead
Saving throws 9/12/13/15/14
XP required : 13,001
***
5th level fighter
AC: 2 HP: 28 Attack 1/round 1d8 Thaco 16
Spells - none
Saving throws 11/12/13/13/14
XP required : 18,001
***
:)
Stupid question, since I don't have my books on me...if it was ranged rather than melee, are there any cleric ranged weapons with ROF greater than 1? I know the fighter gets longbow, but I can't remember what slings do.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;558958I think the key thing to the red dragon example is it is for just a round or two and seems to be in the heat of the moment. This is a judgement call of course, but I think some folks just see charm as being significantly more powerful than that. Getting the charmed creature to chip in for a few rounds as the dragon threatens the caster is very different from having the charmed creature travel months with the party on dangerous adventures. Not saying the spell is perfect but this is a part of the game where human judgement (and the GM) becomes very important.
Also, even if a charmed giant (for simplicity, let's keep using the giant as an example) would be willing to fight a dragon for you, I doubt that a wizard could bring him around for weeks or months in all his adventure, the spell make him
the caster's friend and nobody else, and the moment he leave him alone he'll act on his nature and being chaotic evil it means all sort of disasters, if he feel peckish he'll snack on the local cows, and when the peasant complain/call the guard he'll start splatting them up, and who is going to be blamed? why, the wizard that brought his giant pet there, of course.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;559353I've seen some of Pundit's blog posts, so I doubt his forum posts will be any more sane.
This is the Pundit's forum. He's the owner, here.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;559353Skirmishes. Also, the premise of D&D depends on which edition you're playing.
OAD&D is D&D to me.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;559353I'm also not sure why D&D has to have a singular premise. Playing characters in a living breathing fantasy world is all well and good, but it's also a somewhat pointless exercise without things for them to do.
The players decide on their characters' objectives. The world is ripe with adventure opportunities. All you've got to do as a player is role play your character and make decisions on what you want to do, when and how.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;559353Okay, but not all D&D is AD&D.
I'm talking about OAD&D.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;559353But a living breathing world... doesn't have 'PCs' or 'levels' or 'XP' at all. These things are all abstractions of the game mechanics.
That's nonsensical. An abstraction is the act of considering or summarizing the reality of a complex system or situation as something with a general quality or characteristic. As such, levels, and XPs are real in the game world, they represent the summary of a complex reality in the game world. The acquisition of experience, the ability to sustain more effort, more abuse in combat, the development of your abilities wielding a weapon, etc etc. As for PCs, from the game world's point of view, they are people, adventurers like any other who live and die by sword and spell.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;559353I'm not sure where you get off calling him moronic, either. Balancing a game so that the players are all able to contribute is one of the most fundamental principles of good game design. It's one of the reasons that level caps and XP differences existed, as mentioned before--Gygax and Arneson felt that non-human races and certain classes were overpowered if they leveled up at the same rate.
No. What you understand as game balance is extremely narrow and limited. A strict, absolute equivalence of the components of a game is NOT a fundamental principle of game design. A
relative balance, varying with the exact set up of the game and its challenge(s), in order to have a fighting chance between sides and have a shot at "winning", whatever that means in the context of the game, is something that is part of the fun of playing said game (assuming the game effectively has sides, the sides in a role playing game being, not PvP, but Players against Environment). Assymetric game design is possible and leads to all sorts of games, like the Tafl games for instance, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafl_games) which are valuable and fun games in and of themselves, at least to some people, and do not include a strict, absolute balance of the rules, its components or sides thereof.
You fail at game design.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;559361Than it looks.
OMG. A typo! Thank you for calling the Grammar Gestapo on me. Is that you, Rand? :rolleyes:
Quote from: jibbajibba;559367All this forge nonsense is just a distraction because everyone realises from my earlier posts that Clerics are indeed tougher than figthers in 1e and not even by a small margin...
In your dreams.
I already told you this: you repeating your bullshit doesn't make it magically true.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;559402Stupid question, since I don't have my books on me...if it was ranged rather than melee, are there any cleric ranged weapons with ROF greater than 1? I know the fighter gets longbow, but I can't remember what slings do.
Fighters gets all of everything of course. the cleric can have a sling or a bag of rocks :)
I would give rocks 2/1 as dagers get it. the range is crap though :)
of course range has to be quite a way a way as the Cleric has Command and the fighter is unlikely to even get a save so will be comatose.
I guess we do need to include weapons
So the figther gets 5 and the cleric gets 3
Lets give the figther
Long sword, dagger, long bow, spear and a random one - halberd or pick to taste.
The Cleric gets footman's mace, sling , staff
I guess the figther could then grab a halberd in return for loosing 1AC.
The fighter would win a long range battle, but the cleric woudl have to be a bit daft just to sit round and wait to be skewered... The point is the cleric doesn't have to be better at fighting than the fighter but the fact that he is very nearly as good and has magic and can turn undead is clearly out of kilter....
I often wonder why a cleric wouldn't use blunt bolts we used to use them for hunting rabbits.
And the whole spill no blood thing always confused me cos if I hit you with a mace there is going to be lots of blood. It I hit you with a quarter staff there is going to be blood.
Its even more pronouced at lower levels due to saves and the number of low level spells a cleric picks up.
At high levels the more powerful spells kick in and the cleric gets a bigger army which is free and fantatical and they can raise more tax and have a 50% reduction in the cost of their castle....
I prefer dropping clerics back to thief to hits and d6 hp and moving thieves up to improve in 3s and get d8s
But I know that the clerics origins are pretty opaque so ....
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559382This accusation is laughably misguided. I judge whether the fighter is on par with other characters based on experience in play. (...)
In both of the posts you link to, I don't know where you specifically said things went wrong.
OK. I must assume you have reading comprehension problems at this point. I can't really help you with that.
Quote from: Benoist;559412In your dreams.
I already told you this: you repeating your bullshit doesn't make it magically true.
So now the truth relies solely on your opinion, so sorry, I missed the announcement :D
Quote from: jibbajibba;559415So now the truth relies solely on your opinion, so sorry, I missed the announcement :D
I hate to have broken the news to you that your opinions on fighters and cleric are not truth just by virtue of you stating them ad nauseam on this thread. Don't be mad at me, okay? XOXOXO. ;)
Quote from: CRKrueger;559390Without stat bonuses. Of course, the Fighter gets exceptional Str and Con bonuses above +2, which the Cleric does not.
Even in your example with no stat bonuses, I fail to see how the Cleric having a worse Thaco and worse HPs qualifies him to be tougher then a Fighter and not by a small margin? He is worse, by a small margin, which increases with stats, which increases with levels.
I omitted stats becuase it makes the cleric weaker.
But I agree if your fighter rolled 2 18s he woudl be tougher that happens ....ALL THE TIME IN MY GAMES :)
The cleric gets bonus spells for his wisdom if they have 13 + and that gives them bonus saving throws too of course, the figther to get bonus damage needs 16 Str and of course the cleric can get that as well
So the marginal cases for 17 or 18 con and 18 str for the fighter are less than 10% of the fighter population and so I took out stats which penalises the cleric more often to be fair like (a cleric will nearly alwasy have 15 Wis so get bonus spells figther stat bonues especially the 'specific' figther ones are very much rarer)
The reason he is tougher is becuase fighting is his second job to being a caster ..... we can compare how well fighters do at that if you like ?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559202So, to anyone who's been reading this thread long enough to know that you're:
1) Claiming I said things that I did not, in fact say
2) Refusing to address the points I make that support my reasoning for my assertion
So, you just wanted to whine about the sand in your vagina.
QuoteWell, that, and to have a little fun calling Stormbringer a dumbass. It's a lot more rewarding than doing a full-attack time after time after time after time. It never gets old. That Stormbringer; what a dumbass.
Awww... it's really adorable the way you imitate everything I do, but you might want to work on your own schtick. It's bad enough that you don't have anything but moronic assertions that everyone has told you are not only false, but incredibly ill-informed as well. Your complete lack of originality in retort does not reflect well on you, although I am certain you and your cadre of brohammers think it is still the pinnacle of wit like it was in high school.
Hopefully you have discovered that a backwards cap and a 'sassy attitude' don't get you very far out here in the real world. If not, you are in for a very painful collision with the brick wall of adulthood.
Quote from: Benoist;559416I hate to have broken the news to you that your opinions on fighters and cleric are not truth just by virtue of you stating them ad nauseam on this thread. Don't be mad at me, okay? XOXOXO. ;)
Bah - there you go with your One True Way-ism again.
Quote from: daniel_ream;559433Bah - there you go with your One True Way-ism again.
Heh. I don't care for red today. ;)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559222Ever heard of Stockholm syndrome?
:rotfl:
Keep fucking that chicken, moron!
You can't get better entertainment than this thread even if you paid for it.
:popcorn:.
Quote from: Benoist;559416I hate to have broken the news to you that your opinions on fighters and cleric are not truth just by virtue of you stating them ad nauseam on this thread. Don't be mad at me, okay? XOXOXO. ;)
I know that was directed at jibbajibba, but let's talk about 3.5.
In objective fact, a 9th level cleric is able to contribute more resources to the party than a 9th level Fighter. Using the same resources (ie, same attribute array, same wealth, etc) the cleric can plan on doing the same job as the Fighter as well as the Fighter for longer than the Fighter. A big part of this is that the Cleric has spells that heal. Even if he just did the same thing that the Fighter did (stand toe to toe, try to hit things), he is tough enough to take it, and at this level, he has enough spells to heal himself up from 1 hit point to full hit points. Since a cleric has more than 1/2 the hit points of a Fighter of equal level, the ability to effectively 'double' his hit point total gives him more effective hit points than the Fighter. So if damage is on par and to-hit rolls are on par, that alone puts the Cleric ahead. The fact that throughout the adventuring day, the cleric can use some spells to make themselves more effective than the Fighter (even if for a limited time) combined with their healing powers, puts them even further ahead.
Clerics also have lots of options to combine spells in interesting ways with a lot of additional source material. I hate to bring up more examples from play, but there is a Feat that allows you to 'exclude' an area from an area of effect spell. I had an Eberron Cleric with the Protection Domain. When he had access to
anti-magic field, he could create a null-magic zone all around himself, but exclude the space he was standing. Thus, his magic armor would work, as would all his defensive spells, but any opponent he fought in melee would not get the benefit of their magical gear. This simple tactic made him extremely deadly both versus spell-casters and classes that rely on magical gear (including the Fighter). It turned out to be an extremely effective combination.
Other examples abound. The fact that the cleric has more options is hardly controversial - the ability to cast spells divorced from the requirement to research or find scrolls - giving them access to every cleric spell automatically means that, with preparation, there's nothing they can't do well. They might be prepared to do one thing well and be called upon to do something else - they're not perfect. But even then, unlike a wizard, those spells do not have to be wasted - they can be converted into healing spells, allowing the cleric to fall back on swording and still deal more total damage and/or absorb more total damage than the Fighter could do.
Now, once you accept that the Cleric is able to contribute more resources to the party than a Fighter (both in combat and most especially OUTSIDE of combat) you can approach the question of whether that matters or not.
That's the part that becomes a matter of preference. Some people are okay with one class being clearly dominate in a particular campaign. Some people are okay with most classes being good and one being really, really bad - especially if they were relatively good at one point of the game. The idea of 'balance' has different meanings to different people. But ultimately, it is a game. And the game is played by real people. And when the game makes real people feel bad, that's a problem with the game. I've seen how players of a Fighter feel bad about their character choices at a certain point. The class doesn't become 'magically unplayable' - it just takes a special kind of person to keep enjoying doing the same kind of thing they've been doing since 1st level when everyone else is hobnobbing with elder gods in their spare time.
The Fighter never transitions to 'high-level play'. At heroic and super-heroic levels, he's still doing 'mundane' things.
That wouldn't bother me if he were good at those mundane things, but he's not. He's not a threat for level-appropriate foes without either a lot of support (enough that his presence wouldn't be missed) or a lot more magical gear than other players of more effective characters of the same level.
So while I respect that not everyone considers it an issue, I do expect that anyone comparing the capabilities of the classes will notice that the Cleric has far more capabilities than the Fighter - and that includes 'swinging a sword all day'.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559452I hate to bring up more examples from play, but there is a Feat that allows you to 'exclude' an area from an area of effect spell. I had an Eberron Cleric with the Protection Domain. When he had access to anti-magic field, he could create a null-magic zone all around himself, but exclude the space he was standing.
There's a lot of broken feats, but if that works its incredibly dumb. Anti-magic field is an 'emanation' and actually radiates out from the caster; it doesn't make any sense for them to be able to exclude themselves from the area. A cleric doing that and putting in an exclusion zone for their fighter buddy should work, though :)
EDIT TO ADD: wtf are you smoking that you should bring up Anti Magic Field in a wizard-vs-fighter thread, when you're pro-wizard? I think this counts as a Godwin.
Quote from: Marleycat;559441You can't get better entertainment than this thread even if you paid for it.
:popcorn:.
I guess you haven't read my sig lately. I am making some
bank this month. :)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559452I know that was directed at jibbajibba, but let's talk about 3.5.
Well, actually, I don't give a shit about discussing 3.5. I do play it, but when I do, I make sure none of you rainmen assholes are around to bitch about "game balance". And yes, I can have a lot of fun with it. So your theoretical bullshit about Clerics having the right spell and feat memorized at the right time just for the right encounter with as much downtime as they need to do whatever the fuck they want in the campaign... I really don't give a shit, to be honest.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559452In objective fact, a 9th level cleric is able to contribute more resources to the party than a 9th level Fighter.
That, however, deserves a comment. No, it's not an "objective fact". It depends how you define "resources." If you take it to mean "the cleric has more spells than a fighter at 9th level" then well... duh. If you mean it by saying "the cleric has more feats than the fighter at 9th level" well... fuck no? If we're talking wealth, things start to be debatable. Where's all that gold the Cleric spent on sages and divinations, all that cash blown on making magical items? Well, it's spent, isn't it? So, assuming the fighter found some actual magic items in the game, well... he doesn't blow nearly as much cash as the Cleric and Wizards in the game on bullshit resources, does he? So the end result is... he's got more to participate to common goals, apparently. Equipment? He's more likely to have the tools of trade too, since all the others blow their cash on bullshit magic, alchemy, magic item building, divinations to get their builds to work and shit.
Or maybe we're talking about actual suggestions in solving situations in the game? Well, that's up to the player, isn't it? How about role playing? Well, that's a resource too, in actual play, as far as I'm concerned. It's actually dependant on the player as well. How about promoting a good mood and just being conducive to having fun at the game table? Up to the player's personality I guess. The smarts of coming up with the right solutions at the right time, including and not limited to the right use of abilities and attacking when warranted or not and so on? Well, up to the player's judgment.
The point? (1) depending on the way you define "resources" by the rules, this is not an objective fact by any stretch of the imagination, especially when the players behave like selfish assholes and blow their cash on bullshit in the game, (2) there's more to the "resources" in the game than just mere spells and feats and cash.
That's called "actual play".
You're welcome.
Quote from: deadDMwalkingI know that was directed at jibbajibba, but let's talk about 3.5.
Quote from: Benoist;559489Well, actually, I don't give a shit about discussing 3.5. I do play it, but when I do, I make sure none of you rainmen assholes are around to bitch about "game balance". And yes, I can have a lot of fun with it. So your theoretical bullshit about Clerics having the right spell and feat memorized at the right time just for the right encounter with as much downtime as they need to do whatever the fuck they want in the campaign... I really don't give a shit, to be honest.
I intended to completely avoid this thread, but it's hard. :)
Quote from: deadDMwalkingIn objective fact, a 9th level cleric is able to contribute more resources to the party than a 9th level Fighter.
Quote from: BenoistThat, however, deserves a comment. No, it's not an "objective fact". It depends how you define "resources." If you take it to mean "the cleric has more spells than a fighter at 9th level" then well... duh. If you mean it by saying "the cleric has more feats than the fighter at 9th level" well... fuck no? If we're talking wealth, things start to be debatable. Where's all that gold the Cleric spent on sages and divinations, all that cash blown on making magical items? Well, it's spent, isn't it? So, assuming the fighter found some actual magic items in the game, well... he doesn't blow nearly as much cash as the Cleric and Wizards in the game on bullshit resources, does he? So the end result is... he's got more to participate to common goals, apparently. Equipment? He's more likely to have the tools of trade too, since all the others blow their cash on bullshit magic, alchemy, magic item building, divinations to get their builds to work and shit.
Or maybe we're talking about actual suggestions in solving situations in the game? Well, that's up to the player, isn't it? How about role playing? Well, that's a resource too, in actual play, as far as I'm concerned. It's actually dependant on the player as well. How about promoting a good mood and just being conducive to having fun at the game table? Up to the player's personality I guess. The smarts of coming up with the right solutions at the right time, including and not limited to the right use of abilities and attacking when warranted or not and so on? Well, up to the player's judgment.
The point? (1) depending on the way you define "resources" by the rules, this is not an objective fact by any stretch of the imagination, especially when the players behave like selfish assholes and blow their cash on bullshit in the game, (2) there's more to the "resources" in the game than just mere spells and feats and cash.
That's called "actual play".
You're welcome.
Before the discussion continues, we need to ask some basic questions. Here's a top 10 list:
(1.) Is the discussion about 3.5 or AD&D? The two games bring different factors into play.
(2.) How many PCs are in the party?
(3.) What is the level range of the group? Being 1st-level is vastly different from being 11th-level.
(4.) Are random encounters used in play? Random encounters can drain resources, but many people do not use them in their games...
(5.) Is the campaign a short series of one-shot adventures, or is it a very long-term campaign....with long-term planning and goals?
(6.) Does the campaign focus more on combat, roleplaying, or exploration?
(7.) How important are strategy and tactics in solving problems?
(8.) How much time is spent in the city, as opposed to the dungeon or wilderness?
(9.) If combat happens, does it occur more than once or twice in a gaming session?
(10.) How important is resource management?
Before we get into another single argument, can we at least pick an edition of D&D, and discuss that
first? :idunno:
I made my comment on that last point and am not especially interested in getting into a back-and-forth about the minutia of the rules at this stage of the conversation so, by all means Lamb, pick 3.5 since that's what the rainmen obviously want to talk about and roll with it.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;559500I intended to completely avoid this thread, but it's hard. :)
Before the discussion continues, we need to ask some basic questions. Here's a top 10 list:
(1.) Is the discussion about 3.5 or AD&D? The two games bring different factors into play.
(2.) How many PCs are in the party?
(3.) What is the level range of the group? Being 1st-level is vastly different from being 11th-level.
(4.) Are random encounters used in play? Random encounters can drain resources, but many people do not use them in their games...
(5.) Is the campaign a short series of one-shot adventures, or is it a very long-term campaign....with long-term planning and goals?
(6.) Does the campaign focus more on combat, roleplaying, or exploration?
(7.) How important are strategy and tactics in solving problems?
(8.) How much time is spent in the city, as opposed to the dungeon or wilderness?
(9.) If combat happens, does it occur more than once or twice in a gaming session?
(10.) How important is resource management?
Before we get into another single argument, can we at least pick an edition of D&D, and discuss that first? :idunno:
Sac, you are pretending that Benoist wants to engage in actual conversation about the subject. It is obvious from the beginning that if the conversation isn't about how good his DnD is, or how to make other people's play experience closer to his he is not invested in the conversation. In the very post you quoted he states he doesn't care about 3rd and doesn't want people bitching about game balance. He's not interested in theories, he's not interested in facts (Like how the writers of the game comment on the imbalance). Benoist is anti argument. Attempting to engage with someone who refuses to be engaged with is an exercise in futility. He has explicitly stated that he has already made his decision and he is not in the mood to hear people's "bitching" otherwise. You would think then that he would just stay out of a conversation about game balance since any bitching about it is anathema to him but he more than just hates game balance, he wants to actively stop any attempt at people discussing it because he hates it so.
That's a lot of sand, MGuy. Are you sure your vagina is okay? :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;559418The reason he is tougher is becuase fighting is his second job to being a caster ..... we can compare how well fighters do at that if you like ?
So he's not as good of a Fighter, glad to see you haven't abandoned all sanity in your windmill-tilt to yank the AD&D'ers chain. He does have spells in addition, which means in a 1-on-1 he would have an advantage - IF he can get the spells off, which are not guaranteed. However, the disparity increases as the Fighter gains levels and increased number of attacks. With them both at 18th level, the Cleric is a mighty caster that can stand in melee, for a bit, but he pales in comparison to the fighter.
As far as the stats go, I realize you're being intellectually dishonest here, but that's ok, I'm getting used to it from people who have a permanent Ben-chip on their shoulder. Maybe at 5th level the Fighter might not have exceptional stats, but at 10th? 15th? 18th? The party is likely to receive magical stat boosts at some point. The Int ones will go to the Wizard, the Wis ones will go to the Cleric, the Dex ones will go to the Thief and the Str ones (and probably Con as well) will go to the Fighter. Magic items that boost Str and Con will go to the Fighter first if the party is worth a damn.
BTW, while we're on the subject of intellectual honesty, why don't you try and tell me with a straight face that when you played AD&D(1&2) you decided not to take any Fighters along and took Clerics instead because they were better? No? No experiences of playing G1-3 with no Fighters because Clerics and Wizards could do it all? DIDN'T THINK SO (unless you are so far gone at this point you're gonna lie here).
SO why don't you stop being a useless jackass in supporting the contention that Fighter/Wizard disparity was as much an issue as it is in 3rd, an edition totally anathema to your playstyle?
WTF? Are you trying to become theRPGSite Mistwell?
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;559500(1.) Is the discussion about 3.5 or AD&D?
Yes.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb(2.) How many PCs are in the party?
A Wizard, her entourage of Frost Giants, the Cleric, his army of undead and a Fighter to open doors.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb(3.) What is the level range of the group?
The Wizard and Cleric are 20th. The Fighter is 1st.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;559500Before the discussion continues, we need to ask some basic questions. Here's a top 10 list:
(1.) Is the discussion about 3.5 or AD&D? The two games bring different factors into play.
(2.) How many PCs are in the party?
(3.) What is the level range of the group? Being 1st-level is vastly different from being 11th-level.
(4.) Are random encounters used in play? Random encounters can drain resources, but many people do not use them in their games...
(5.) Is the campaign a short series of one-shot adventures, or is it a very long-term campaign....with long-term planning and goals?
(6.) Does the campaign focus more on combat, roleplaying, or exploration?
(7.) How important are strategy and tactics in solving problems?
(8.) How much time is spent in the city, as opposed to the dungeon or wilderness?
(9.) If combat happens, does it occur more than once or twice in a gaming session?
(10.) How important is resource management?
Before we get into another single argument, can we at least pick an edition of D&D, and discuss that first? :idunno:
You'll notice SL, you didn't get a real answer to your question - that's because the GD style of debate is based on pure math, "white-room" scenarios, arena-style combat, not taking into consideration the types of campaigns a large section of the playerbase prefer.
I mentioned many times in this thread there is no "D&D" there are 8+ versions of D&D, with various levels of compatibility. Basically here's what you have.
1. A group of people who believe that class balance in 3/3.5 RAW is broken to the point where a pure Fighter(no prestige) is simply inferior to a pure Cleric or pure Wizard. This point here I've personally said is true many times, as have others.
So what's the problem?
2. For some reason, 3/3.5 being broken is not enough. Earlier versions of D&D have to be just as broken for the "Fighters suck" crowd. Therein lies the problem, because those earlier editions were nowhere near as disparate in power levels, and anyone with familiarity with those systems and has actually played in those systems for years, knows it.
So you have people here arguing against the "Fighters suck" crowd on 2 points.
3. Maybe 3/3.5 RAW is unbalanced, but who the hell plays RAW? There are lots of campaign factors to consider outside of pure class balance.
4. This "Wizard vs. Fighter Balance Bullshit" is a 3/3.5e problem.
That's 2800 posts in a nutshell. Oh yeah and Jibba whoring himself out to score anti-Ben points. :huhsign:
Quote from: CRKrueger;559509If you put (and keep) the fighter in an arena and make sure the cleric doesn't buff himself before they fight you will see that the fighter can probably win.
I don't understand what intellectual honesty is so I'm going to shift the argument so what I'm saying makes more sense. Stat wise if everybody acts like they are "supposed" to the fighter will receive all the strength boosting stuff at higher levels. This will allow him to have exceptional strength.
BTW, while I'm talking about intellectual honesty I might as well be as intellectually dishonest as I can by posing loaded questions and then answering them myself. Did you ever play a set of game modules in a very specific fashion only relevant to this conversation, whilst simultaneously getting everyone else at the table to do the same so you could prove a point at some random time in the future to me? A point that, even if you were to make I still would nit pick at. You didn't? HA! I got you somehow! Now let me pat myself on the back.
So why don't you stop being reasonable in supporting the contention that you never made!
WTF?!? How dare you approach a conversation in a reasonable and honest way even though the power disparity doesn't fucking bother you by your own admission!
Translated.
Quote from: CRKrueger;559511You'll notice SL, that me being just an asshole isn't enough for me, so let me try and go further.
I mentioned many times in this thread there is no "D&D" and so I only play generic nameless systems.
Basically here's what you have.
1. A group of people who have pointed out a flaw with the system that even I'd have to be completely backwoods stupid to not agree with. Mostly because my retainers here allow me to think that.
So what's the problem?
2. My retainers and I have to believe that no such imbalance can exist in prior editions so in order to keep with this style of thinking we need to make sure to change people's argument to: "" Earlier versions of D&D have to be just as broken" even though no one is claiming that. Only by doing this can people like me continue to think that there is an actual argument to be had because as long as there is some tiny part to nitpick further thinking is not necessary.
So now I can boil down my arguments into 2 parts:
1. Maybe 3/3.5 RAW is unbalanced, but who the hell plays RAW? I mean, I certainly don't play by the rules of the rpg. I mean why would I? I buy the books for the pictures.
2. This "Wizard vs. Fighter Balance Bullshit" is a 3/3.5e problem.
So now that I've shown I have made no points in any of the posts I made I should make sure to make one of the few reasonable posters out like he's doing something wrong. :huhsign:
Translated.
Quote from: Rum Cove;559510Yes.
A Wizard, her entourage of Frost Giants, the Cleric, his army of undead and a Fighter to open doors.
The Wizard and Cleric are 20th. The Fighter is 1st.
Flawless Victory.
Quote from: MGuy;559512Translated.
Quote from: MGuy;559515Translated.
This was every bit as clever 20 years ago when they first did it on dial-up bulletin board systems.
EDIT: Wait, I meant it was every bit as dipshitastic 20 years ago.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;559500Before the discussion continues, we need to ask some basic questions. Here's a top 10 list:
(1.) Is the discussion about 3.5 or AD&D? The two games bring different factors into play.
It doesn't actually matter. These are shitty players who have to rules-lawyer everything, including this discussion. OD&D, AD&D, 3.x, 4e, 5e... They will fuck up any game they come in contact with because they are shitty, shitty players.
Quote(2.) How many PCs are in the party?
How many is less important than what kind. A single Fighter will completely fuck up the game for everyone within a ten mile radius.
Quote(3.) What is the level range of the group? Being 1st-level is vastly different from being 11th-level.
Not for Fighters. They always suck, no matter what, and there is no way to fix that.
Quote(4.) Are random encounters used in play? Random encounters can drain resources, but many people do not use them in their games...
What kind of verisimilitude breaking gamist bullshit is that?
Quote(5.) Is the campaign a short series of one-shot adventures, or is it a very long-term campaign....with long-term planning and goals?
The only planning is what creatures to use a broken interpretation of
charm monster on so the Fighter is useless.
Quote(6.) Does the campaign focus more on combat, roleplaying, or exploration?
There is something other than combat?
Quote(7.) How important are strategy and tactics in solving problems?
The only problem to be solved is how many broken rules can be applied to non-Fighter classes so Fighters look useless.
Quote(8.) How much time is spent in the city, as opposed to the dungeon or wilderness?
As much time as it takes to recruit anyone and everyone so the Fighter appears useless.
Quote(9.) If combat happens, does it occur more than once or twice in a gaming session?
Thousands of times. Unless there is a Fighter, in which case the dice melt from the pure suck aura around the Fighter.
Quote(10.) How important is resource management?
It takes a lot of logistics to make the Fighter appear useless.
There are no shitty classes, only shitty players.
Quote from: CRKrueger;559509So he's not as good of a Fighter, glad to see you haven't abandoned all sanity in your windmill-tilt to yank the AD&D'ers chain. He does have spells in addition, which means in a 1-on-1 he would have an advantage - IF he can get the spells off, which are not guaranteed. However, the disparity increases as the Fighter gains levels and increased number of attacks. With them both at 18th level, the Cleric is a mighty caster that can stand in melee, for a bit, but he pales in comparison to the fighter.
As far as the stats go, I realize you're being intellectually dishonest here, but that's ok, I'm getting used to it from people who have a permanent Ben-chip on their shoulder. Maybe at 5th level the Fighter might not have exceptional stats, but at 10th? 15th? 18th? The party is likely to receive magical stat boosts at some point. The Int ones will go to the Wizard, the Wis ones will go to the Cleric, the Dex ones will go to the Thief and the Str ones (and probably Con as well) will go to the Fighter. Magic items that boost Str and Con will go to the Fighter first if the party is worth a damn.
BTW, while we're on the subject of intellectual honesty, why don't you try and tell me with a straight face that when you played AD&D(1&2) you decided not to take any Fighters along and took Clerics instead because they were better? No? No experiences of playing G1-3 with no Fighters because Clerics and Wizards could do it all? DIDN'T THINK SO (unless you are so far gone at this point you're gonna lie here).
SO why don't you stop being a useless jackass in supporting the contention that Fighter/Wizard disparity was as much an issue as it is in 3rd, an edition totally anathema to your playstyle?
WTF? Are you trying to become theRPGSite Mistwell?
Magical stat boost ? But I don't really get this
The party is likely to receive magical stat boosts at some point This is in no way common in 1e.
A handful of magic items (Girdle or Gauntlets), or are you refering to a wish or a magical pool or a freakish combination of potions? Its certainly not
likely.
I will assume the first two as the others are not worthy os a discussion on balance being as they are freakishy rare.
Guantlets and girdles are usable by Clerics, theives and figthers. Who ever gets them depends solely on how the party divides treasure. Some groups divide the treasure to make the group more effective this is really part of the gamist apporach of 1e where player skill is paramount but it is definitely not the only way it was done or the most common. Typically we would divide the treasure into piles stuff that was only usable by one class, which is generally magic user kit we put to one side likewise for scrolls. Then we dished out the stuff in the class only pile to whoever was a valid choice rolling to determine who got what in the event of two of that class. Then the person with the least got to pick and item from the remainder to balance it up then we round robin based on dice rolls highest choosing.
So say we found a wand of lightning, a +4 shield, a ring of spell turning, a girdle of giant Strength, a +3 defender, 3 potions and a scroll. And we had a party of cleric/figther/MU/thief we woudl probably :
Wand - MU
Scroll to one side for later analysis
Remainder the cleric/thief/figther roll a d6 highest chooses.
Whoever wins that roll will probably take the girdle. It makes whoever takes it much more effective in combat so they will all want it.
Then the next guy would take the defender, unless they were the cleric who would grab the shield, depending on what he was currently carrying.
etc
So in this example the figther has about a 1:3 chance of a strength boost as does the cleric.
Now its already a corner case because a girdle has a less than 1% chance of turning up.
As for actual play for us you play whatever you like we don't CharOp, which for me includes PartyOp, we roleplay . Everyone wants to play a fighter cos we just watched Hearts and Armour... okay we are all fighters. Like I said many times I don't mind the imbalance because I am in it for the roleplaying so I will play Captain America to your Iron Man. Sure there will be times I am frustrated as you fly off to battle the angel demons but I am a big boy and I can cope.
I have played in all wizard parties, all cleric parties (probably the most effective in gamist terms), all fighter parties, all orc scout parties, all thief parties. I have never played an all Bard party though I did try and pursuade all the characters to be mebbers of an acting troop.
So in Drohem's 2e game I am playing a fighter, now 2e is the most balanced edition without a doubt (well til S&P where a fighter gets 10 points and a cleric 200) but I didn't think what is the most powerful option for me to play or what sort of character will best optimise this party. I read the background and thought a Rakastan figther woudl be cool to play. After I rolled the numbers I could have made him a paladin with 18 str but I already had a background for him and an roleplay idea so I stuck to it.
Quote from: MGuy;559512Translated.
BTW, that's generally considered douchebag forum etiquette here, makes it hard to quote you, since you're pretending to be someone else. Quote me and insert your lame translations next time.
Quote from: MGuy;559512If you put (and keep) the fighter in an arena and make sure the cleric doesn't buff himself before they fight you will see that the fighter can probably win.
Show me the AD&D buffs the Cleric would use for the fight. Please. Oh yeah, you never played the game, so you don't know most of the 3e stat-buffing shit
doesn't even exist.
Quote from: MGuy;559512I don't understand what intellectual honesty is
I'm aware you don't. See how that works?
Quote from: MGuy;559512Stat wise if everybody acts like they are "supposed" to the fighter will receive all the strength boosting stuff at higher levels. This will allow him to have exceptional strength.
Campaign-wise, and I know this is hard to imagine for you, players play together for a long time, over several adventures. In AD&D, if the Thief gets all the Wis and Int gear, that does not make him a better Thief like it does in 3e. Your ignorance of editions is showing again. If players do want to succeed and get to higher level play, they must allocate treasure logically according to who is going to best use the item in question. A Fighter who calls dibs on an enemy caster's spellbook because it can be worth a lot of money isn't going to have many adventuring friends. There's that whole campaign and roleplay thing again, I know it's hard.
Quote from: MGuy;559512BTW, while I'm talking about intellectual honesty I might as well be as intellectually dishonest as I can by posing loaded questions and then answering them myself. Did you ever play a set of game modules in a very specific fashion only relevant to this conversation, whilst simultaneously getting everyone else at the table to do the same so you could prove a point at some random time in the future to me? A point that, even if you were to make I still would nit pick at. You didn't? HA! I got you somehow! Now let me pat myself on the back.
His contention was, the AD&D Cleric was tougher then the Fighter and not by a small margin. Please go back and read that if you forgot already. So naturally, the assumption should be the same that it is in 3e, you can easily replace the Fighter with a Cleric, right? So I asked him if when he played AD&D he did in fact swap out all the Fighters for Clerics. Of course he did not, because while that may be a good strategy for 3e MMOG-play, it is suicide in AD&D, and he fucking well knows it, apparently you do not, but we've already established that you're willing to talk out of your ignorant ass about game editions you've never played.
Quote from: MGuy;559512WTF?!? How dare you approach a conversation in a reasonable and honest way even though the power disparity doesn't fucking bother you by your own admission!
Jibba has about as much use for you and your ideas about gaming as he does for a Vagina in each armpit. He's white-knighting this because he's got a long-standing feud with some people here over old-school games. Sad, but true, because he's an otherwise brilliant poster.
Oh BTW, are you ever going to answer Sacrificial Lambs questions, or my actual post instead of your childish attempt at diversion? Guess not. What a surprise. :rotfl:
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559452In objective fact, a 9th level cleric is able to contribute more resources to the party than a 9th level Fighter.
And a 9th level Bard can beat both of them in resource contributions.
Jibba, have you ever played First Edition AD&D? If so to what level?
How high level did you play Second Edition AD&D?
Have you ever played the classic AD&D higher level modules like G1-3, D1-2, Q1, S1-3, Temple of Elemental Evil, etc?
Quote from: MGuy;559512Translated.
Well not quite in an arena combat the Cleric is highly likely to win immediately below 6th level as he has hte Command spell.
If the cleric wins initiative he casts Command a 1 segment (ie casting time 1) spell. The fighter is less than 6th level and is unlikely to have 13 Int as in 1e there is no benefit to int for a fighter and this stat is better for charisma, con etc. so he gets no saving throw. This means the figher is done either asleep or in a comatosed state.
If the figther starts combat in sword range then he can try to hit the wizard to disrupt the spell if he wins initiative (lots of options with that) and he has a 35% of hitting AC 2 otherwise he is done.
That gives him a 83% chance of winning combat on round 1 (50% from initiative straight roll, + 65% of the lost initiatives)
The cleric will typically split his 1st level spells 2 commands to 1 Cure light (some might go 1/2) and in 1e they can't trade spells for heals. (if were were using stats he wouldprobably have min 15 Wis and 2 extra 1st level spells).
Now at a long range the fighter can bow the cleric but the cleric isn't just going to stand there while he does it. But in that position the Fighter is dominant.
As you say though this is just in an arena combat and doesn't give a good measure of the cleric's effectiveness in Campaign play nor of the figthers of course.
Quote from: MGuy;559515Translated.
Quote from: MGuy;559515You'll notice SL, that me being just an asshole isn't enough for me, so let me try and go further.
Still not answering his post, again, I'm just shocked.
Quote from: MGuy;559515I mentioned many times in this thread there is no "D&D" and so I only play generic nameless systems.
Apparently you are even more ignorant of D&D's history then I thought, so let me help out.
OD&D
OD&D - with supplements
Basic D&D - Holmes
Basic D&D - Moldvay
Basic D&D - Mentzer
Advanced D&D 1st
Advanced D&D w/ UA and Survival Guides, (called 1.5 by some)
Advanced D&D 2nd
Advanced D&D 2nd with the Powers books, (called 2.5 by some)
So, 9 variants of D&D before we get to where you entered the hobby, and yes I have played them all.
Quote from: MGuy;559515A group of people who have pointed out a flaw with the system that even I'd have to be completely backwoods stupid to not agree with. Mostly because my retainers here allow me to think that.
I have mentioned several times in this thread, that 3/3.5 RAW is broken to shit, the Arrow Demon Cleric is real, and Clerics and Wizards are retardedly powerful. The "retainers" you're talking about disagree with me on that.
Quote from: jeff37923;559522And a 9th level Bard can beat both of them in resource contributions.
True. Being immortalized in song is vastly under-appreciated in the gamer community. But all the legendary heroes of history knew where the real power was at. That's why they commissioned and patronized the arts.
He who controls the lyre controls the lies. /guffaw :D I made a "punny."
OK, I'm off to go scrounge my dagger fighter. He's going to fight an equal level wizard in a white room arena. But this time the wizard's gonna be naked! (which means no memorized spells... hey, if the fighter has to fight with only his fists while naked, why should the wizard have anything memorized when naked? fair's fair!) It'll be an awesome Thunderdome experience; there'll be Tina Turner singing and everything! :D
"We don't need another heeeeero!":cheerleader:
Quote from: CRKrueger;559523Jibba, have you ever played First Edition AD&D? If so to what level?
How high level did you play Second Edition AD&D?
Have you ever played the classic AD&D higher level modules like G1-3, D1-2, Q1, S1-3, Temple of Elemental Evil, etc?
So Unlike the GD posse I have played a fair bit of AD&D from 1980 -87 when 2e came out I basically played 4-5 times a week 42 weeks a year with occasional breaks for Boot Hill , James Bond, Traveller and Paranoia. Then I played 2e two or 3 times a week for 10 years with occasional breaks for oWoD then came MTG so a couple of years off and now we play 2e again so I have played a fair bit...
I posed up Jonam of Ar my 1e 10th level fighter, who came up from 1st, I think I have posted Silk my 13th level thief who came up from 1st (switching from 1e to 2e halfway through) . I have a 20th level wizard in 2e that started at 15th. I have played and run 20th level games. I have played and run 1,000,000 XP buy whatever you like games. I have played every class and every race apart from a gnome that appears in 1e or 2e base. I have run campaigns that go 1-12.
I have only every owned 1 module Bone Hill. I borrowed and played G1 - the Steadying of the Hilll Giant Chief, and the A series. I hate modules because they are basically crap railroads.
I have designed numerous games of different ilks for my own use from CCGs to board games to RPGS of every genre. I even do a think where I will ad lib the entire game system, mechanics and scenario based on the desires of the people at the table.
So what's the driver here? because I noticed the disparity in 1e between fighters and casters and am I shitty player? a shitty DM, mentally ill, or just having badwrongfun because I don't agree with you ? :D
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;559500Here's what I'm talking about:
(1.) Is the discussion about 3.5 or AD&D? The two games bring different factors into play.
OD&D or AD&D 1e -- but most apply to any edition of TSR that does not include any of the 2e "Player's Option" stuff. All are house-ruled. I never play any version of D&D RAW and see no point in discussing D&D as if it must be played RAW. Rules loopholes, especially those created by mixing in rules material from supplements, are fixed by GM fiat instead of allowed because they are in the RAW. Rules lawyers, min-maxers, and munchkins are not welcome in at my table. If I played 3.x (which I seldom do as I consider WOTC D&D at odds with what I want from D&D, for the most part), all of the above would still apply.
(2.) How many PCs are in the party?
I average 7 to 10 players in most campaigns, each with one PC in play at any time. Most players have two or three PCs in the campaign and do not always play the same PC in every session. Most PCs have hirelings, some have henchmen. Not all hirelings and henchmen are active in every session.
(3.) What is the level range of the group? Being 1st-level is vastly different from being 11th-level.
My current campaign has 9 players, their main PC averages 5th or 6th level, but all PCs used a session are not the same level, in some sessions there are 3 or 4 levels difference between the lowest level PC and the highest level PC.
(4.) Are random encounters used in play? Random encounters can drain resources, but many people do not use them in their games...
Yes, random encounters are used in play. Wandering monsters in dungeons and wilderness areas, random encounters in cities, etc.
(5.) Is the campaign a short series of one-shot adventures, or is it a very long-term campaign....with long-term planning and goals?
I only run long-term sandbox campaigns. All goals and planning is done by the players who are free to try to do whatever they wish to do in the campaign setting. I do not have a story to tell. What the PCs do in the campaign can be told in retrospect as a story, although it would be unlikely to have the structure of a well-written novel any more than the story of your life would if someone told it. There are no "level appropriate adventures" which the players are directed to. They determine what they want to take on (e.g. what they consider "something they might succeed at given their current abilities as a group").
(6.) Does the campaign focus more on combat, roleplaying, or exploration?
All three at (different) times, depending on what the players choose to do in a game session.
(7.) How important are strategy and tactics in solving problems?
Real world strategy and tactics is pretty important. "Game mechanics" strategy and tactics (e.g. "system mastery" -- knowing, using, and manipulating the rules and game system to benefit the PCs and solve problems in the game) is not important at all.
(8.) How much time is spent in the city, as opposed to the dungeon or wilderness?
It depends on the game session. Some are almost entirely one of the above. others are a mixture (in varying amounts).
(9.) If combat happens, does it occur more than once or twice in a gaming session?
It depends on the game session. Sessions spend in a dungeon might have as many as 15-20 potential combat encounters, that is where combat is likely to happen -- although reaction rolls and player actions can avoid combat. Other sessions will have less. Some sessions might have none.
BTW, players don't risk their PCs in combat unless they are almost certain of a win or they have no other choice. Combat happens, but the players do not assume that every being or group they encounter is a being/group they must fight. This is especially true as I run a sandbox, they encounter what it at the location which is may not be at all "level-appropriate."
(10.) How important is resource management?
Very important. PCs seldom have access to unlimited resources and nonsense like the 15-minute adventuring day, being about to know any spell available anywhere in the game world, being able make or buy any item they want immediately at any place in the world, etc. simply is not going to happen in my campaigns.
Yay! I finally did it! Let's see if it cuts and pastes well. The 2nd lvl one I NPC now uses Weapon+Shield Style Specialization, because firing *from* melee has no real penalties in core. That and ganking people from behind a shield sounds cool. But whatever... So, wait no longer! To the thunderdome arena!
"In a white room with black curtains near the station" (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-party-smileys-614.gif) (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/skype-emoticons.html)
9th lvl ambidextrous two-weapon style dagger specialist
Sources used: 2e PHB & Complete Fighter
(PO:S&P opens weapon specialization to everyone, but for more CP: Fighters = 5, Rangers, Paladins, Bard = 10, Thief, Cleric, Druid, Wizard = 15. Then you need CP and Min. Lvl atop that: Fighter 2cp & 1st lvl; Ranger/Paladin 4cp & 3rd lvl; Priest 6cp & 5th lvl, etc. At some point it's waaay too costly to bother. Fastest outside Fighter is Ranger/Paladin 14cp & 3rd lvl, whereas Fighter just needs 7cp at 1st... But this is twinktastic and tedious, so I'm not going to use it.)
Base Atk/Rd = 3/2 Base Atk Bonus = +8 (THAC0 12)
Followers... with suggested gear
Leader: 5th lvl fighter (plate mail, shield, battle axe +2)
Men-at-Arms (may replenish over time): All start at 0th lvl
20 Cavalry (ring mail, shield, 3 javelins, long sword, hand axe)
100 Infantry (scale mail, polearm, club)
Elite Bodyguard (may replenish over time):
30 Infantry 1st lvl fighters (plate mail, body shield, spear, short sword)
TOTALLY OPTIONAL THEORY WANK! :)
9th lvl Warrior = 7 WP
3 slot. Broad - Small Throwing: Dagger/Dirk, Dart, Hand/Throw Ax, Knife/Stilleto, Shuriken
1 slot. Dagger Specialization: +1atk and +2 dmg (clarified spec dmg is melee only in
PO:S&P); 9th lvl = Melee 2/1 atk/rd; Thrown Dagger 4/1 atk/rd
1 slot. Knife Specialization: " "
1 slot. Ambidexterity: +0/+2 (removes -2 off-hand penalty)
1 slot. Two-Weapon Style Spec: +2/+2 on 2W atk (instead of -2/-4, now -0/-2)
Two-Weapons gives 1 additional attack per round.
Weapon Specialization gives 1 additional attack per 2 rounds.
Ambidex & Two-Weapon Spec removes -2/-4 atk penalty.
Ignoring strength and magic weapons right now, just cuz. :P
Melee = #atk 2/1+1 ; atk all +9; dmg 1d4+2
Ranged = ROF #atk 4/1+1; range 1/2/3; atk +9 short/+7 med/+4 long; dmg 1d4
(She has easy access to called shots! :D)
vs.
9th lvl Wizard... naked... with no spellbook... or spells memorized...
Melee = #atk 1; atk +2; dmg 0~2
Wizards suck. They're completely dependent on their spells. ;) Total "Mother, may I?" class; you have to beg the GM to get anything.
Now wasn't that productive! :p
"We don't need another heeeero!" (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/singer-003.gif) (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/facebook-smileys.html)
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;559500Before the discussion continues, we need to ask some basic questions. Here's a top 10 list:
I notice CRKrueger thinks it's strange that you didn't get an answer to these questions, despite not answering them himself. I don't know why. For myself, I haven't answered these questions for three reasons.
1) I don't spend every moment of my life here, and since it was posted at 1:44 AM and it is now 8:56 AM (under 8 hours later) I think it's a little early to start accusing anyone of not being willing to want to ignore the questions.
2) Before answering a thoughtful question, it deserves a thoughtful answer.
3) After thinking about the questions and the answers, I've decided that answering them reduces the issue to a matter specific to each campaign. I've always approached this from the perspective of
while these things are common to many campaigns, specific examples help highlight the universality of these aspects.
But, even though it doesn't advance any argument and just muddies the waters, I'll provide an answer to all of these questions. If nothing else, it marches us inexorably toward 4000 posts.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;559500(1.) Is the discussion about 3.5 or AD&D? The two games bring different factors into play.
Each version of D&D has commonalities and differences. While something that is clearly true in one addition may not be exactly true in another edition, usually there is enough commonality that the statement in questions would be 'mostly true' in another edition. For example, you can say 'Fighters have a bigger HD than Wizards'. As far as I know, that's true in every edition of the game - though clearly there can be differences. For example, a 3rd edition Fighter continues to gain 'full HD' long after he would get a fixed incremental increase in Hit Points in earlier editions.
So what edition is it about? What edition do you want it to be about? I prefer to talk about 3.5. While it's not the most popular version of the game on the RPGsite, it was a very popular version of the game, and it sounds like most players of 1st and 2nd edition (or other editions) have also had some experience with 3rd edition. 3rd edition is useful as a 'lingua franca' - with 9 editions of the game (according to one count), finding a common point of comparison would be difficult without finding a version that most (or all) are familiar with. Since I have experience with 1st and 2nd edition, but have not played them in a long time, those editions would not be my first point. Further, since the current design staff of D&D Next has limited experience with earlier editions, I don't think the lessons from earlier editions are likely to make it into D&D Next. I understand that this may be incorrect, since they're taking a 'training course' in play... But that's neither here nor there.
Basically, if I say
charm monster works like [this] in 3.5, and it appears to work the same in other editions of the game, it doesn't really matter what edition we're talking about. If it breaks 3.5, it might very well break the other version. If it doesn't, that's great to talk about. However, most of the 'doesn't break earlier editions' talk sounds like a debate over what someone who takes your statements in the best possible light would or wouldn't believe and a willful desire to disregard rules for 'the good of the game'.
I'm firmly in the camp that players need to know the rules so they have a way of reasonably determining what they can or can't do. In the real world, I have a basic knowledge of physics - there are times I have to decide if it's worth it to jump off a high place (like a roof) or if it makes more sense to climb down the ladder. I have children, so if I'm on the roof and one of them looks to be doing something dangerous, having a sense of how likely something is to work or fail spectacularly is important. If the Players find the 'game world' to be inconsistent, that direclty impacts their ability to determine what they can or cannot do.
In 3rd edition, it's probably important to know what
charm monster can or cannot do from a character perspective before choosing that as a 4th level spell. In 1st edition, it's probably important to know what
charm monster can or cannot do from a character perspective before expending resources (money, or trading spells) on acquiring it. If it works differently than you think, you might have been better off using those resources to acquire a spell that would be more useful to you. Honestly, it doesn't matter to me how useful it could be in a game - I like the idea of the spell, honestly, and I think it's pretty cool - it just matters to me that players have a sense of how it will be used before spending time and effort adding it to their toolbox. Or before they make a plan that invovles recruiting giants to help them in their mission before the DM decides that it won't be allowed because he's not sure if he can 'keep it fun'. Personally, I think that if a DM is too afraid of his ability to make the game interesting with the spell used like that, it is a
failure on the part of that DM - making him a 'bad, shitty GM' - but that's just opinion. In the example from play I used, everyone had fun in the game. Everyone enjoyed the adventure. Nobody was much 'challenged', but that was kind of the point - the players were smart and they brought overwhelming force against the challenge. They 'won' easily, and that was rewarding. It just happened that the Fighter decided that his character wasn't as cool as a Frost Giant; and even though a Frost Giant was the same CR, he wouldn't be allowed to play one
instead of the Fighter. He decided to play something that had more options in high level play.
And if it matters, I'll mention that this campaign did not allow Prestige Classes. Usually, that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned. But it certainly hurts Fighters more than other classes - until later supplements there was virtually no reason to prestige out of being a wizard - it was never worth it to lose a level of spell-casting.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;559500(2.) How many PCs are in the party?
I've had the experience of the Fighter ceasing to be relevant regardless of the number of players. Usually we have between 3 and 6 players. I've run games for up to 9 players. I've been a player in games with up to 6 players at a time. In the example I provided when asked to discuss an example from play involved 4 players. It also happened to be the 'classic archetype' of 1 Wizard, 1 Fighter, 1 Cleric, and 1 Rogue. Of those, the only one that you wouldn't NECESSARILY expect is the Fighter - you could have a Ranger or a Paladin or a Barbarian more or less interchangeably with the Fighter; likewise you could probably trade out the cleric for a Druid and the Wizard for a Sorcerer (but you shouldn't). That said, the party didn't want to have a strong wilderness theme... More on that in the next question.
(3.) What is the level range of the group? Being 1st-level is vastly different from being 11th-level.[/quote]
Absolutely. I've pointed out that in 3.5, the Fighter becomes irrelevant around 5th level. That can give them four levels of serious contributions. But I've never found that I'm unable to contribute with a different class at levels 1-4. Wizard might be the hardest, but with judicious restraint in spells, the Wizard can do some very interesting things - even if it's just using
spider climb to take up a position on the ceiling to use a crossbow. In 3rd edition, the issue pops up starting at 5th, but it becomes increasingly obvious at higher levels. At 10th level it is impossible to ignore.
In 2nd edition, I remember it becoming noticeable about 12th level. I'm also more aware of it now than I might have been at the time. For example, in the 2nd edition campaign I was involved with through Junior High and High School, the DM sometimes had a 'Fighter type' who would issue a challenge, and my Fighter character would fight him single-handedly. One such Fight involved someone with such great armor that hitting him was impossible. I had to make a called-shot to knock off his helment. Once that was done, I could attack his head much more easily than the rest of him - and eventually, after a hard fight, was able to defeat him. But if the fight hadn't been one-on-one, the Wizard could have lit him up fairly easy. All that fancy armor that protected him from my sword wouldn't have done much to keep him from being burned alive. I had fun at the time because I felt I won a difficult fight - but I realize it was only a difficult fight
for my character. This is why I call it 'DM Pity'. I didn't have to fight him all alone. If I were interested in being as effective as possible, I would have let the wizard deal with him. Essentially, the victory is essentially meaningless because while he posed a threat to my character, he never really posed a threat to the party.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;559500(4.) Are random encounters used in play? Random encounters can drain resources, but many people do not use them in their games...
I use random encounters. In 3rd edition they're not as common as 1st edition. However, I don't see how any number of random encounters were likely to 'drain the resources' of the wizard, when those resources were 'four giants each equivalent to the Fighter'. It's not like he had to use spells from that day to keep the giants friendly.
If the Fighter's main purpose is to 'guard his companions' so they contribute during the 'real fights', that seems...unsatisfying.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;559500(5.) Is the campaign a short series of one-shot adventures, or is it a very long-term campaign....with long-term planning and goals?
How does this matter? No, I mean, seriously? Are you saying that the disparity might exist in one but not the other? Or are you saying that the disparity is more grating in campaign play because you deal with those consequences longer.
It's true that I usually play campaign-style games. At low-levels I enjoy playing a Fighter. At high-levels, I don't. For a one-shot, I'd be willing to play a low-level fighter, but not a high-level fighter. For a campaign, I'd be willing to play a low-level Fighter, but not a high-level fighter. I prestige out of Fighter or multi-class by 5th level (and if I'm planning on doing that, I usually take Rogue or Ranger at 1st level for the additional skill points).
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;559500(6.) Does the campaign focus more on combat, roleplaying, or exploration?
Yes. All of these are important. Since the Fighter seems to have an obvious focus on Combat to the exclusion of exploration and 'problem-solving', you'd think that would help, but it doesn't. The Fighter isn't even the best at Fighting in 3rd edition. As for Roleplaying, that's part of EVERYTHING, including combat and exploration. Or do you mean NPC interaction? If the Fighter has the lowest charisma and the fewest social skills, no matter how good a roleplayer the player might be, allowing him to 'charm the panties off' every Princess he meets seems...strangely wrong.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;559500(7.) How important are strategy and tactics in solving problems?
What does this even mean? Like how much is player creativity and how much is 'push button'? It's all player creativity, even if that's saying 'hey look, I have a grappling hook on my character sheet' or if that's saying 'hey look, I have Power Attack on my character sheet'. Using character abilities creatively is just as important as using equipment creatively.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;559500(8.) How much time is spent in the city, as opposed to the dungeon or wilderness?
Again, this varies by campaign. In my example, they were city based, but they did most of their adventuring in the wilderness. But how does it matter? Are you claiming the Fighter is more effective in the City? I've found that rogues and bards really shine in city games (and wizards and clerics aren't a slouch - but they're always good). In Wilderness games, I've found that Rangers, Druids, and to a lesser extent, Barbarians shine. The Fighter is not an optimal choice if either one is predominant.... Are you suggesting because he's not BETTER in one or the other conversely he's not WORSE? So, if you spend 50% of your time in the wilderness and 50% in the city (where the Ranger is not as good), the Fighter is 'better' because he's just as bad at both? I'd rather take the 'being good' 50% of the time than 'being okay' 100%.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;559500(9.) If combat happens, does it occur more than once or twice in a gaming session?
Depends on the adventure, but usually. Four or five fights is probably about par. Several of them might be quick. About half of game time is spent on combat.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;559500(10.) How important is resource management?
Again, what does this mean? Resources like 'daily powers'? Resources like 'strongholds'? If the player is good with resources, the Fighter looks bad, because he has the fewest resources to manage. If resources are squandered, people look a lot better than the fighter for a short time, but they could end up in trouble... Sort of. Again, a cleric isn't going to be hurting against a Fighter if he's used up all of his daily powers and he's down to swinging a sword - he's still done a mountain more that day than the Fighter could ever hope to do.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;559500Before we get into another single argument, can we at least pick an edition of D&D, and discuss that first? :idunno:
Sure. What edition do you want to talk about? I think 3.x is most relevant to D&D Next, but if you think it's another edition, tell me why. +
Quote from: jibbajibba;559537So what's the driver here?
You mentioned playing all Wizard parties and all Cleric parties, I'm wondering how long that lasted. It's very hard to imagine either of those parties getting that far unless they stuck to adventuring and taking jobs where they wouldn't need the contribution of other classes.
And that's what the GD crowd is talking about, is contribution. Can an AD&D 18th level Wizard outdamage anyone else with a Meteor Swarm? Yeah, and he can do it once a day, and it's going to take him 8 hours to rest and an hour and a half to memorize that one spell again. In the meantime the Fighter has put out 30 times that amount of damage over the course of the day. All without any of the problems of a summoned/charmed/bound/enslaved creature.
The GDers are actually saying "Dude, don't take a Fighter, they're worthless." Did you ever do that in 1e? Honestly. And don't dissemble with the Captain America/Iron Man thing, you know damn well that's not the same.
You didn't take the Fighter even though you knew he was worthless just because you wanted to play one. The Fighter wasn't the red-headed stepchild of AD&D with article after article in Dragon and White Dwarf about how bad they sucked. You and everyone else who played one, took the Fighter because it did what the class was supposed to do.
In 3e maybe it does not, but it 1e and 2e it does, and no the 1e or 2e Cleric cannot do it better.
Quote from: CRKrueger;559550Yeah, and he can do it once a day, and it's going to take him 8 hours to rest and an hour and a half to memorize that one spell again. In the meantime the Fighter has put out 30 times that amount of damage over the course of the day.
This is the major point of contention I still have with a number of posters on this thread.
A Fighter can attack 1/round every round for the entire day. Let's say that these rounds are 1 minute rounds (but they could be 10 second, or 6 seconds - we're using 1 minute rounds for the sake of convenience). Since there's no rule that says attacking every round causes you fatigue, the Fighter could conceivably do this for the entire day. So 1440 minutes = 1440 attacks. At 1d8+4, he's doing 13,680 points of damage. If a round is 10 seconds he's doing 82,080 damage; and if a round is 6 seconds he is doing 136,800 damage a round.
Look at how broken the Fighter is!!!
The idea that there could be so many enemies is what's laughable. Sure, maybe you get into a fight 10x in a single day, and all the spell casters are running low on spells (that means no healing for the Fighter, either) and the Fighter, who has no 'expendable' resources (other than hit points) is basically as effective as he was in the first fight that day. Oh, and there are no
charmed,
dominated,
commanded or
bound bruisers able to step in to do the Fighter's job as well as he could... What does that prove? That the Fighter is the most effective when everyone else has been doing cool things for a helluva long time? That only once everyone else has done fun things that he gets a chance to shine?
In my experience - that's when the party books it. Either they find a secure location, lock up tight (maybe use
rope trick to escape into an extra-dimensional space) or they get the hell out of Dodge (maybe
teleport or
plane shift).
The thing I find is that in the types of situations that a Fighter would actually be useful, the rest of the party avoids like the fucking plague. Since they DON'T happen (even if they theoretically could) I don't see what difference it makes.
If something could theoretically happen, and it happens with some frequency, we're not talking about 'theory wanking' - we're talking about game experience.
Charm Monster isn't a theoretical
possibility - it's something that happens in the game. As are some of the other examples.
I don't know why people would pretend that some things don't happen when they do. I don't know why some people would say the 'rules don't matter' and then defend those rules when it is pointed out how following the rules results in 'bad things for the game'. I don't know why some people would say 'balance doesn't matter' but then also say 'balance was achieved in every edition except 3rd edition because they removed all the limitations on the casters'.
So which is it?
Do these things happen in some games, or not?
Do the rules matter, or not?
Does balance (in some way, shape, or form) matter, or not?
My answers are: Yes. Yes. Yes.
That's where a campaign as opposed to a white room arena comes in. Sometimes you can't just leave or bad things happen, like the world goes boom, the big bad gets away, they fix the way you got in before, etc ad infinitum. Emergent play off the character sheet.
Maybe you hole up, what happens when you get found? Who holds the door? Do you even have the spell you were about to suggest?
Remember I'm talking about AD&D, where you get 1 free spell per level. Everything else you find. You don't find much when you flee as soon as the casters are out of spells and teleporting can instakill you.
It's been a long time since you've played AD&D, and frankly I don't think you remember much of what it was like. You're constantly looking at the situation from the point of 3e and just assuming it was the same, when in fact, it wasn't even close.
You don't care about AD&D, you think 3.5e is the focus of Next, it's the game you like, the game you want fixed, the game you think should be what WotC is looking at. 3e is broke, I agree. Why don't you just leave AD&D the fuck out of your arguments and get on with posting how to fix the 3.5e fighter since you like it so much? (In other thread, this one is hopeless at this point).
Quote from: CRKrueger;559521What are you doing?! Stop being mean to me!
Now, show me stats so that I can nit pick at them like I've done every time someone else does! I want you to pretend that I'm trying to make a point damnit! Tat way I can declare victory and pat myself on the back.
Now you obviously don't know the full glory of my DnD so your mind can't wra around the fact that when I play angels sing and the many races and creeds of people on the earth join together to harmoniously chant my name, such that I may enjoy playing better. I mean logically you WOULD LOVE the way I lay DnD and obviously don't like your own. So instead of trying to imagine your shitty, angel and choir-less DnD you should just play like I play and quit doing it your way. You may think you have fun but in reality you don't.
Now that I have dealt with you nonbeliever I will mve on to mislabeling jibba's point s that I may continue to argue with him as an extremist since he is making the grave mistake of thinking I want to engage in an actual debate about the subject. I mean sure my question was loaded, and totally ignored the fact that he is ok with fighters, and assumed he had control of the desires of the entire group, or was thinking about doing a thought experiment, and whatever other bullshit I can ass pull to make it look like I have a point. At the end of the day I can do whatever mental gymnastics is necessary to make my blatantly loaded question, that I answered myself, seem reasonable to myself. You who cannot divorce yourself from logic and reason would never understand the mental flexibility this takes.
Jibba is only disagreeing with me and my retainers not because he has his own position but just because he wants to piss in certain people's cheerios. That's the only reason he can acknowledge the trut that even the designers of the game have noted. If he agreed with me he'd still be posting brilliantly.
Oh BTW, I notice that you are refusing to engage with actual conversation withh me! You can't do that! That is the job of me and my retainers! Plus you're not sidestepping argument in the traditional RPGsite fashion! Why can't you be like Storm who just posts gibberish or Benoist who openly says he's not going to be listening to anyone or me who likes to nit pick at tiny details, whether they are relevant or not, whilst ignoring the main thrust of people's arguments? Obviously my way of trolling is the one true way:rotfl:
Translated.
Quote from: CRKrueger;559526I notice that you haven't posted again yet! HA! that makes me have an excuse to speak again!
Apparently you are ignorant based on me having just said that. So let me put a whole bunch of old D&D supplements on here that you can find on wikipedia.
OD&D
OD&D - with supplements
Basic D&D - Holmes
Basic D&D - Moldvay
Basic D&D - Mentzer
Advanced D&D 1st
Advanced D&D w/ UA and Survival Guides, (called 1.5 by some)
Advanced D&D 2nd
Advanced D&D 2nd with the Powers books, (called 2.5 by some)
And you know I played all of them, thus proving there is no D&D like I said earlier. Only these amesless systems that happen to have D&D in the name..
I have mentioned several times in this thread, something that essentially no one in the thread is arguing against, my retainers included. So I'm going to mention it again for no reason.
Translated.
LOL! :rotfl:
CRKrueger, you have him on the ropes now since his best retort now is the massively weak sauce 'Translated.'
Quote from: CRKrueger;559550I have no imagination. I do not play DnD in anyway that would rock the boat or change up my experiences. All attempts to mention doing so are beyond the scope of what my mind space can handle.
The intelligent and handsome crowd from GD might have mentioned some things that make some damn sense but why would I actually go off of anything they said? That would be actually hard to wrap my mind around so I'm going to make up an argument using one spell I randomly picked off the list and claim that they want wizards to out do them in HP damage. That point that nobody made is much easier to argue!Wait a sec... That's not enough. So lets just arbitrarily say that the fighter is doing a lot more HP damage at an arbitrary multiplier without even the slightest hint of thinking about how this damage would be done or how adventuring actually works at the level Wizards are casting meteor swarm.
Those magnificent GD bastards are actually saying "Dude, the fighter is the shittiest class in the book!" but let me rephrase that in a fashion that's more easily arguable. Did you ever do that in 1e? Everyone knows that's not the rank and file way to think about the game! And honestly, don't point out to me that the fighter basically has to do the Captain America/Iron Man thing. You know thinking about how shit works makes my head hurt.
Now you know you like fighters at least well enough to take them. I should know, because you actively said that the imbalance doesn't bother you. However knowing that isn't going to make me stop talking to you as if you had said such a thing.
Prior editions rule later editions drool!
Translated.
Quote from: Drohem;559573Ha this level of trolling is not NEARLY enough to satisfy me. CR you have clearly put him on the ropes!'
Translated.
@Deadman, bravo for the shifting of the goalposts on a professional level. I see now why it's useless to discuss anything with a "denner" it's literally beyond you guys to frame a POV in good faith. 3x as lingua franca indeed. Using the edition where everyone knows it's the only edition where it's an issue is awesome, kudos what dance is next monkey?
Quote from: CRKrueger;559563There are some situations you can't just escape from because of time restraints. This is an actual argument against why 15 minute workday don't work out. Its a decent argument against why locking up and holding out isn't an option. There are some other snafus about being caught and shit but my point is clear.
No, I'm not going to do an analysis of about how many battles a fighter might be able to make it through before getting stuck with a sucy status condition or before running low on HPs because of traps, snares, kiting, ambushes, etc.
Now remember this is your grandpa's D&D. So you have to walk to the adventure uphill both ways! None of that cut and run crap. In these days combat were sticky, unavoidable, and running as never an option. You obviously haven't played "D&D " in along time even though there is no "DD" and I think you're starting to go senile.
Fact is older editions of DnD are my favorite. That means saying that my perfect versions of the game are not up for discussion. I mean obviously my versions of D&D (that don't exist cause there is no "D&D" cause there's so many different versions of it) is just fine and pointing out anny flaws in it is taboo!
Translated.
Quote from: Marleycat;559578@Deadman, bravo for saying stuff I don't understand in response to other people's posts I don't understand. I see now why it's useless for me to be in this discussion with those dead sexy "denners". It's literally beyond me to add anything to the discussion so I'm going to be a cheerleader instead. Ok guys give me an "R"! give me a "P"! Give me a "G"! N-E-T! N-E-T! N-E-T! hurray!
Translated.
This 'translated' shit is tiresome. I guess we have covered enough pages that coming up with your own boring shit isn't good enough so you feel the need to parrot other people's boring shit.
Quote from: MGuy;559584Translated.
Dance monkeys dance! Keep it coming I have loads of this :popcorn:.
Quote from: CRKrueger;559550You mentioned playing all Wizard parties and all Cleric parties, I'm wondering how long that lasted. It's very hard to imagine either of those parties getting that far unless they stuck to adventuring and taking jobs where they wouldn't need the contribution of other classes.
I have played several all cleric games. I posted up-thread of a game I ran where the party were all clerics of the old gods and a new religions swept the land. They started at 3rd level and it ran til they were 6th -7th. Was using 2e Priests though so they were able to expand their portfolio.
I have played an all evil priest game where the whole point of the exercise was for us to bring our religion to the heathen and establish a new cult. It ran 1-4th til a TPK by a giant tree with tentacles. The DM on that one ran a version of it that lasted 4 years where it all became about the politics of the church. And I dropped in and out of a game one of my mates ran whilst I was living in London where the party were all clerics of different gods on a quest which he ran for 9 months (that was the one that inspired my one with teh old gods by the way).
Our all wizard games are a bit different. Being HUGE Dying earth fans we started a chain email about 15 years ago between 3 archmages that were always trying to put each other down. Its actually where the name JibbaJibba come from as JibbaJibba of the Long Staves was my wizard (the other contributors were Dambervance and Protoppis the 3rd they all had exceeding long titles). Anyway when my uncle died we started running annual memorial games. To do it we took ideas from that chain email (it ran for a year so was infinitely mineable) and created a wizardly group who would meet every year and that inspired the wizard party. The whole thing got a bit Larpy and we would dress up in costumes and bring Robin's (my Uncle) ashes in an urn. I think I mentioned once I hired a cook to make a roast hog's head we ate as part of an in character feast. Note the aniversary games were pre-children so they would run for two 14 hour sessions 9am -11pm Sat & Sun we ran them for four 4 years til it got stale and in that time I rose from 15th to 20th level but we were playing a high level wizard game (it was 2e ) so the concept of roles we were unable to fill is kind of moot.....
QuoteAnd that's what the GD crowd is talking about, is contribution. Can an AD&D 18th level Wizard outdamage anyone else with a Meteor Swarm? Yeah, and he can do it once a day, and it's going to take him 8 hours to rest and an hour and a half to memorize that one spell again. In the meantime the Fighter has put out 30 times that amount of damage over the course of the day. All without any of the problems of a summoned/charmed/bound/enslaved creature.
You are not playing the same game as me, obviously. For an 18th mage to use Meteor Storm would be the height of gauche. Like a used car salesman driving round in a gold Rolls Royce. An 18th level Mage threatens to cast a Meteor Storm and then everyone does exactly what he says. He doesn't need to deal xxxx damage per round to optimise his play build. He can change the fundamental fabric of reality nd because he can so that he never needs to do it.
If he ever was to actually cast a high level spell it would be something he had prepared on a scroll or had planned for meticulously. Now a load of spells might trigger from his hung Contingencies and Chain contingencies, he might engage with some bad guys using one of several wands. 18th level wizards do not wander through dungeons looking for mcGuffins, then send parties of 8th level characters to do that for them.
QuoteThe GDers are actually saying "Dude, don't take a Fighter, they're worthless." Did you ever do that in 1e? Honestly. And don't dissemble with the Captain America/Iron Man thing, you know damn well that's not the same.
You didn't take the Fighter even though you knew he was worthless just because you wanted to play one. The Fighter wasn't the red-headed stepchild of AD&D with article after article in Dragon and White Dwarf about how bad they sucked. You and everyone else who played one, took the Fighter because it did what the class was supposed to do.
In 3e maybe it does not, but it 1e and 2e it does, and no the 1e or 2e Cleric cannot do it better.
I take the fighter because I like playing fighters nearly as much as I like playing thieves. Same reason 90% of my PCs are human, it isn't because humans are tougher than elves and dwarfs I can assure you.
2e as I said made the fighter better NWP and Specialisation close the gap and the fighter shines at low level, still not as tough as a Paladin or a ranger but certainly better at combat than a cleric unless you allow War gods from the Complete Priest who's clerics can specialise in any appropriate weapon.
Why do you think they introduced weapon and style specialisation rules if it wasn't to narrow the gap? And how can 2e be balanced and 1e be balanced when 2e has specialisation which massively bumps the fighter in terms of to hit damage and number of attacks and 1e doesn't?
Just because I like playing fighters and thieves does not mean that I can't see that casters are tougher. A high level wizard in D&D is untouchable. If you like I can write out Abellard's spells, equipment, contingencies etc if you doubt that statement.
At low levels in 1e a Cleric is better than a fighter. Its a simple truth. at 1st level they have the same THACO d8 vs d10 hp and typically 3 spells 2 command and 1 CLW or 1 Command and 2 CLW. At high levels they get a bigger army they can bend the undead to their will - yes dominate them and a dominated Ghost is a pretty useful tool to have at your disposal. And they get spells.
Like I said I have no problem with playing a weaker character its all about the roleplay. I play sub-optimal characters all the time. I can see that other people might not want to.
In my Heartbreaker I remove Clerics as a class and make them another caster. I think in D&D they should fight on the thief table and get d6 HP.
Just take a step back from what, if you excuse me for saying it, is your prejudice and look at the data I have provided on the cleric v fighter. Forget all the fun you have had playing fighters, its not relevant to this debate, just compare them side by side in pre UA 1e and you will see I am right.
Quote from: MGuy;559577Translated.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :rotfl:
Quote from: Drohem;559594HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :rotfl:
I miss Charles Bronson with his axe. :(
Jibba, I completely understand what you're saying but you are totally agreeing with CK that it's a playstyle issue. You happen to be playing Mage with Dnd most people don't do that because Mage is better at doing that than Dnd, even 2e. Besides my DM'S could make you put up or shut up no matter what contingencies you might have prepared. Our tables play Dnd full "metal" no mercy. I have only played under experienced DM's that played only hardball and played wizards themselves except once and well he took serious steps to limit me with my permission for story arc reasons only. Shut up Ben it was 2e.
Quote from: Benoist;559598I miss Charles Bronson with his axe. :(
I agree. Fair warning I am changing my avatar tomorrow also. Someone gave me a good idea via PM.:)
Quote from: Marleycat;559588Yay! You included me :popcorn:.
Translated #Noproblem.
Quote from: jibbajibba;559589I am going to make a completely reasonable post, filled with my own personal experience delivered in a non abrasive manner that showcases that I am a reasonable human being and like this system despite its flaws.
Translated #Applause.
Quote from: Drohem;559594Applause :rotfl:
Translated #No Problem.
Quote from: Marleycat;559599You happen to be playing Mage with Dnd most people don't do that because Mage is better at doing that than Dnd, even 2e.
We can all agree that Mages from World of Darkness are more powerful than Vampires and Werewolves. They aren't even in the same league.
Quote from: Marleycat;559600Go Benoist! Yay! Also, big RPGnet event coming up! I'm changing my avatar!
Translated
Quote from: Rum Cove;559606I agree Marley, you don't have anything to add. I will continue doing the same.
Translated.
Quote from: Marleycat;559599Jibba, I completely understand what you're saying but you are totally agreeing with CK that it's a playstyle issue. You happen to be playing Mage with Dnd most people don't do that because Mage is better at doing that than Dnd, even 2e. Besides my DM'S could make you put up or shut up no matter what contingencies you might have prepared. Our tables play Dnd full "metal" no mercy. I have only played under experienced DM's that played only hardball and played wizards themselves except once and well he took serious steps to limit me with my permission for story arc reasons only. Shut up Ben it was 2e.
Well I have been saying its a play style issue for about 3,000 posts :).
CK is saying there is no issue even when I detailed the numbers for cleric and fighters and put them together he still claimed there was no disparity.
In 1e there was a disparity they added Specialisation to fix it and it works up until maybe 8th 9th .... when the top end spells come in and the bad guys move from being bigger orcs towards being Orcus.
I am an anti-optimiser, as CK points out the very anathema of the GD Posse, The Zen cleric archer fills me with a hideous dread. However, its not up to me to dictate what they do or how they play, its not up to any of us its up to them. The RAW have an imbalance, some people don't really care (me) some people do. The D&D designers from Gary on up obviously did because its a gap they have been trying to plug since UA introduced specialisation and NWPs.
Quote from: Rum Cove;559606We can all agree that Mages from World of Darkness are more powerful than Vampires and Werewolves. They aren't even in the same league.
That's actually debatable, if all the characters start with three dots of powers/disciplines/spheres, standard point repartition, and play in a by night. The Vampire and Werewolves will develop powers a lot faster than the Mage who will have to pay exorbitant prices for his Spheres and Arete, minimum.
That was a painful realization for the people who played Mages in my Paris by Night.
If however you start say, vampires at 10 dots of disciplines, and make them face a mage with 10 dots of spheres and an Arete of 4, they are probably going to cry, whether the Mage has dots in Matter or not.
We also played a Vampire Werewolf Mage crossover over the length of a Convention week end too with about 50 players and the result was that the Werewolves obliterated the whole city. Nobody but a Nosferatu in torpor by the end of the game survived the onslaught. It was absolutely epic. All but one of the PCs (50+) got killed over the week end. It was basically a war between the supernaturals playing itself out from beginning to end.
Quote from: MGuy;559608Translated.
Not sure how old you are, but your (lack of) maturity level is showing.
Fair warning, the moderators don't take kindly to site disruption.
I was genuinely making a statement. Mages in World of Darkness can not only duplicate any ability of a Vampire or Werewolf, but do it better.
The question is: Is Paradox less when a Mage mimics a Vampire in a crowd of Vampires than when doing it alone or in a crowd of regular humans?
Nice temper tantrum Mguy don't be disappointed "adult swim" is too much for you. Maybe you can either get this aptly named thread to 4k posts or closed, either suits me fine.
Quote from: Benoist;559610That was a painful realization for the people who played Mages in my Paris by Night.
Oh good, actual game play experience.
It's been too long to remember the specifics of my experience. I do remember playing a Verbena Mage in Ascension and making the others look redundant (they didn't even know he was a Mage for the first few sessions).
Quote from: Rum Cove;559606We can all agree that Mages from World of Darkness are more powerful than Vampires and Werewolves. They aren't even in the same league.
And yet my favourite oWoD character was a mortal with no special powers at all but he did have a van and some hardware.
Quote from: Rum Cove;559611Not sure how old you are, but your (lack of) maturity level is showing.
Fair warning, the moderators don't take kindly to site disruption.
I was genuinely making a statement. Mages in World of Darkness can not only duplicate any ability of a Vampire or Werewolf, but do it better.
The question is: Is Paradox less when a Mage mimics a Vampire in a crowd of Vampires than when doing it alone or in a crowd of regular humans?
I knew you're being serious. Ok first please specify which edition that needs to be known before I can give an answer.
Quote from: jibbajibba;559615And yet my favourite oWoD character was a mortal with no special powers at all but he did have a van and some hardware.
For some reason this reminds me of an old session of Marvel Super Heroes (FASERIP) where one player had Daredevil and he was shot and killed in the first round by some random bank robber.
Quote from: Marleycat;559613Nice temper tantrum Mguy don't be disappointed "adult swim" is too much for you. Maybe you can either get this aptly named thread to 4k posts or closed, either suits me fine.
Should someone change the thread title to "CONFIRMED"?
Quote from: jibbajibba;559615And yet my favourite oWoD character was a mortal with no special powers at all but he did have a van and some hardware.
Mortals can be so fun in the hands of the right player and mindset. My favorite part of the NWoD is blueline. Seriously well done game and so flexible and portable to other games and settings.
Quote from: Marleycat;559616I knew you're being serious. Ok first please specify which edition that needs to be known before I can give an answer.
That's up to you and your experience. State whichever edition relates to your anecdote or make a general statement.
To me, it doesn't matter which edition we're talking about as long as it's made clear in the individual post(s).
As I stated in the OTHER thread about Wizards vs. Fighters long ago,
of course the Wizard is more powerful than the Fighter - he is a WIZARD.
Quote from: Rum Cove;559614Oh good, actual game play experience.
It's been too long to remember the specifics of my experience. I do remember playing a Verbena Mage in Ascension and making the others look redundant (they didn't even know he was a Mage for the first few sessions).
Totally depends on the amount of XP that flows into the game and your precise choice of Spheres. Combos in Mage was where the true Gonzo was at, it was part of the fun. I played a game with an oustanding GM where we had a gazillion XPs and ended in the 20s dots of Sphere range with 6+ Arete and it was fucking epic man. It was like playing fucking Amber, I kid you not, and we were up against Bob, whatever the fuck his name is, the most powerful Nephandus on Earth, in Japan. A vampire wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes in that game.
Quote from: MGuy;559605My vagina is spewing a frothy, warm geyser of liquid sand and I can't help it!
Translated. ;)
Quote from: Rum Cove;559617For some reason this reminds me of an old session of Marvel Super Heroes (FASERIP) where one player had Daredevil and he was shot and killed in the first round by some random bank robber.
Yeah I did get killed by a Noferatu but meh .... :) nothing like watching those Vamps scatter when you break out he UV grenades and the White phosporous
Quote from: Rum Cove;559611Fair warning, the moderators don't take kindly to site disruption.
What he's doing is spam, but he's just mad at the moment and he's just bothering this one thread. If he keeps up with that shit and it starts to bleed in other threads I'm going to start reminding him about site disruption and the consequences that carries. He should be careful with that tantrum of his.
Quote from: Marleycat;559620Mortals can be so fun in the hands of the right player and mindset. My favorite part of the NWoD is blueline. Seriously well done game and so flexible and portable to other games and settings.
Be careful if you mention dice pools and WoD to Pundit he will brand you an Enemy of the Site.
Still doesn't effect the fact that clerics are uber tough in 1e though
Quote from: Benoist;559610That's actually debatable, if all the characters start with three dots of powers/disciplines/spheres, standard point repartition, and play in a by night. The Vampire and Werewolves will develop powers a lot faster than the Mage who will have to pay exorbitant prices for his Spheres and Arete, minimum.
That was a painful realization for the people who played Mages in my Paris by Night.
If however you start say, vampires at 10 dots of disciplines, and make them face a mage with 10 dots of spheres and an Arete of 4, they are probably going to cry, whether the Mage has dots in Matter or not.
We also played a Vampire Werewolf Mage crossover over the length of a Convention week end too with about 50 players and the result was that the Werewolves obliterated the whole city. Nobody but a Nosferatu in torpor by the end of the game survived the onslaught. It was absolutely epic. All but one of the PCs (50+) got killed over the week end. It was basically a war between the supernaturals playing itself out from beginning to end.
And it's completely different from Ascension to Awakening. Like Rum Cove the Vampires had no clue I was ever a mage, Verbana with Correspondence in fact, until I chose to prove it.
Quote from: Benoist;559598I miss Charles Bronson with his axe. :(
Quote from: Marleycat;559600I agree. Fair warning I am changing my avatar tomorrow also. Someone gave me a good idea via PM.:)
Good, I liked it too.
Quote from: Drohem;559636Good, I liked it too.
Awesome. Love the "RPG Diversifier" title with the axe man. Nice touch. :D
Quote from: jibbajibba;559631Be careful if you mention dice pools and WoD to Pundit he will brand you an Enemy of the Site.
Still doesn't effect the fact that clerics are uber tough in 1e though
I disagree only that they are better than fighters because most my experience is late 1e and 2/3e. We used obvious outside limiters that are not even comphrended by a "Denner" let alone used by them. It's a RAI thing. ;)
Pundit and anybody else I care about on this site already know I'm a Magegirl way before Dnd.:)
Quote from: Marleycat;559632And it's completely different from Ascension to Awakening. Like Rum Cove the Vampires had no clue I was ever a mage, Verbana with Correspondence in fact, until I chose to prove it.
I'm talking about Ascension to be clear. The rules of Awakening are different, and that's one area where the new game is much more consistent, the cross-overs I mean, since all the games are basically built on the same frame and the rules are very specific about the way different powers of different sources interact in play (Gnosis beating Blood Potency or not? Etc.).
So, in OWoD, to truly compare you'd have to give specifics about the cross-over rules that were in use, because throughout the OWoD games and supplements there were at least a half-dozen different versions of those, from the truly castrating to the "everything goes" kind of deal. If for instance you implement the cross-over rule that a Vampire with an Auspex greater than your Sphere rating can actually pierce through Magick and see your real aura, then, given the rate of development of Clan disciplines over the course of the Chronicle it's trivially easy for a vampire to beat your cover, especially when we're talking about the main Toreador fief in the world ( ;) ). If we're talking about the Generation having to beat your Arete, then it's another problem altogether. Are we playing with Elysium rules? What variant of diablery rules are we using? Is the city in Europe, or the US (average vampire generation will vary widely), etc etc.
This is really turning into a Den-style conversation.
Quote from: jibbajibba;559631Be careful if you mention dice pools and WoD to Pundit he will brand you an Enemy of the Site.
Untrue. Pundit knows I'm a big fan of the WoD games myself, and he's never given me shit for it on the site.
The difference is, I don't rub my WoD games in his face, and I specifically agree with him about the pretentiousness of the whole "storytelling" bullshit and so on. If you read the Pundit's posts about WoD you'll see he's basically got the same appraisal I have about the games: that they are in fact traditional RPGs that use the "storytelling" rhetoric as a front to sound kool and edgy. I run WoD games (and Vampire in particular) as the traditional sandbox RPGs they really are. I just discard the whole "story/art" bullshit. They really work great when you do.
Quote from: Benoist;559643I'm talking about Ascension to be clear. The rules of Awakening are different, and that's one area where the new game is much more consistent, the cross-overs I mean, since all the games are basically built on the same frame and the rules are very specific about the way different powers of different sources interact in play (Gnosis beating Blood Potency or not? Etc.).
So, in OWoD, to truly compare you'd have to give specifics about the cross-over rules that were in use, because throughout the OWoD games and supplements there were at least a half-dozen different versions of those, from the truly castrating to the "everything goes" kind of deal. If for instance you implement the cross-over rule that a Vampire with an Auspex greater than your Sphere rating can actually pierce through Magick and see your real aura, then, given the rate of development of Clan disciplines over the course of the Chronicle it's trivially easy for a vampire to beat your cover, especially when we're talking about the main Toreador fief in the world ( ;) ). If we're talking about the Generation having to beat your Arete, then it's another problem altogether. Are we playing with Elysium rules? What variant of diablery rules are we using? Is the city in Europe, or the US (average vampire generation will vary widely), etc etc.
Correct. Hence a discussion I have no interest in getting into here. Either on this thread or site unless maybe it was it's own thread in "Other Games".
Quote from: Benoist;559646Untrue. Pundit knows I'm a big fan of the WoD games myself, and he's never given me shit for it on the site.
The difference is, I don't rub my WoD games in his face, and I specifically agree with him about the pretentiousness of the whole "storytelling" bullshit and so on. If you read the Pundit's posts about WoD you'll see he's basically got the same appraisal I have about the games: that they are in fact traditional RPGs that use the "storytelling" rhetoric as a front to sound kool and edgy. When I run WoD games (and Vampire in particular) as the traditional sandbox RPGs they really are. I just discard the whole "story/art" bullshit. They really work great when you do.
I love em think they are great. Did a nice police procedural mod easy .
but Pundit does hate them a bit more than that i think :) I can remember a good few rants over 'dice pools'
but to get back on topic :)
Quote from: Rum Cove;559621As I stated in the OTHER thread about Wizards vs. Fighters long ago, of course the Wizard is more powerful than the Fighter - he is a WIZARD.
(http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/photo-caption-lol-18.jpg?w=500)
Butcher! Nice to see you again after 200+ pages. Good to know this stupidity is getting read and my any opinion of me is going in the toilet like this car wreck of a thread. :)
Quote from: Marleycat;559649Correct. Hence a discussion I have no interest in getting into here. Either on this thread or site unless maybe it was it's own thread in "Other Games".
WoD games are traditional RPGs. Threads pertaining to them go into the Role Playing Games forum. Pundit stated as much.
Quote from: The Butcher;559651Ugly photo
Some people just aren't very pretty
Quote from: jibbajibba;559650I love em think they are great. Did a nice police procedural mod easy .
but Pundit does hate them a bit more than that i think :) I can remember a good few rants over 'dice pools'
but to get back on topic :)
Jibba, why are being such a machoist? Seriously what's the longest ever thread on this site? I need a goal. :D
I can't even go off to lunch before there is a 3 page bump from last time I posted. So I'll only get to handle the highlights.
Quote from: Rum Cove;559611You are being a kid. I will get my fighter, that has hands, to handle you!
I was genuinely making a statement that only tangentially involves the topic of discussion.
Translated #Itookyouseriously
Quote from: Marleycat;559613Nice job calling me out on my lack of input in this conversation Mguy. I'm glad you haven't given up on this thread but decided to take it about as seriously as I have been. Only you can improve the quality of this thread's trolling!
Translated #You're Welcome
Quote from: Marleycat;559616Rum, knew you're being serious by bringing up a point that has had nothing to do with the now with the topic at hand so I'm going to help you. Ok first please specify which edition that needs to be known before I can give an answer.
Translated #Tangential point
Quote from: Drohem;559626MGuy you are a scholar and a gentleman. I shall copy your ways.
Translated#You'rewelcome.
Quote from: Benoist;559657WoD games are traditional RPGs. Threads pertaining to them go into the Role Playing Games forum. Pundit stated as much.
Okay then. Cool I used the HAP/HOP thing as nobody there not vulgar until obvious the thing is using magic to mimic a discipline may trigger paradox.
But there really so many factors to consider. Like my PC used "Parma Magica" which effectively doubled her mana pool and before she ever made an overt magical move she was Arete 7. Otherwise gifting living golden roses to the Toreador worked just fine for her actual goal and purpose. :D
At arete 3? She wasn't in the city unless she was "vampire hunting" it's called a bit of Mind 1/2 level magic after your flunky's do some legwork. . Why give up that advantage?
Quote from: MGuy;559663I can't even go off to lunch before there is a 3 page bump from last time I posted. So I'll only get to handle the highlights.
Translated #Itookyouseriously
Translated #You're Welcome
Translated #Tangential point
Translated#You'rewelcome.
*spray!*(http://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/gallery/files/2/9/7/4/6/troll_spray.jpg)
Quote from: Drohem;559672*spray!*
(http://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/gallery/files/2/9/7/4/6/troll_spray.jpg)
I am actually sad that he is so frustrated. I haven't actually ever been bitchy to him.
Quote from: MGuy;559663Translated #Itookyouseriously
Translated #You're Welcome
Translated #Tangential point
Translated#You'rewelcome.
Did I call it a thousand posts ago or what? No need to take these folks seriously, they totally fall apart when they aren't being fellated by their echo chambers.
Awww, is widdle baby having a mewtdown?
Flameouts are fun to watch. :popcorn:
It did seem to me that there was a difference in scale between the games.
Vampire was contesting the physical world.
Werewolf was contesting the spiritual world.
Mage was contesting all of reality. :eek:
Quote from: StormBringer;559674Did I call it a thousand posts ago or what? No need to take these folks seriously, they totally fall apart when they aren't being fellated by their echo chambers.
This ia straight awesome to see live. Remember my forum experience is all Mage before February. :) Doesn't mean I didn't play the game.
Quote from: CRKrueger;559678It did seem to me that there was a difference in scale between the games.
Vampire was contesting the physical world.
Werewolf was contesting the spiritual world.
Mage was contesting all of reality. :eek:
Interesting, I had never thought of things that way. It makes complete sense, though.
Quote from: StormBringer;559681Interesting, I had never thought of things that way. It makes complete sense, though.
Nwod via HtV codified it. Mages are Tier 4. Archmages are Tier 5. Vampires are tier 2/3. It's the same in the OWoD but up to RAI interpretation.
Quote from: Marleycat;559685Nwod via HtV codified it. Mages are Tier 4. Archmages are Tier 5. Vampires are tier 2/3. It's the same in the OWoD but up to RAI interpretation.
I have not read a sentence that dense in jargon and TLAs since I left the Air Force. I am entirely unable to comprehend what idea you are conveying. :)
Quote from: StormBringer;559689I have not read a sentence that dense in jargon and TLAs since I left the Air Force. I am entirely unable to comprehend what idea you are conveying. :)
New World of Darkness
Hunter the Vigil
Old World of Darkness
Rules as Interpreted
Quote from: StormBringer;559689I have not read a sentence that dense in jargon and TLAs since I left the Air Force. I am entirely unable to comprehend what idea you are conveying. :)
Troll. :D. I worked for DoD also so yeah.:) The SoP reading every fucking day was the cherry on my sundae. Seriously.
Quote from: CRKrueger;559678It did seem to me that there was a difference in scale between the games.
Vampire was contesting the physical world.
Werewolf was contesting the spiritual world.
Mage was contesting all of reality. :eek:
That's a good way to look at it, IMO.
Quote from: CRKrueger;559676Awww, is widdle baby having a mewtdown?
Flameouts are fun to watch. :popcorn:
Sir do NOT talk to Marley that way! She might have to change her avatar soon and she doesn't need you downing her!
With that said let's focus more on this detail continue talking about white wolf products 'cause fuck D&D!
Quote from: CRKrueger;559690New World of Darkness
Hunter the Vigil
Old World of Darkness
Rules as Interpreted
Hold on, sonny, I've got to get my reading glasses on...
:cool:
Thanks, though, that was a lot faster than Googling.
Quote from: MGuy;559698fuck D&D!
fuck 3rd Edition D&D you mean. ;)
Quote from: CRKrueger;559703fuck 3rd Edition D&D you mean. ;)
I'm pretty sure that we have established there is no "D&D".
Quote from: CRKrueger;559703fuck 3rd Edition D&D you mean. ;)
The way these guys fap over it, anyway.
Quote from: Benoist;559712The way these guys fap over it, anyway.
Great, now I have an image in my head of D&D with Porn Stars, only these guys use RealDolls instead.
Don't blame the game system, blame the Players.
The biggest problem these guys have is that they believe that gaming the system is actually playing the game. That can happen with any game system.
Someone bring in politics, this is winding down.
Quote from: MGuy;559698Sir do NOT talk to Marley that way! She might have to change her avatar soon and she doesn't need you downing her!
With that said let's focus more on this detail continue talking about white wolf products 'cause fuck D&D!
Don't even try to enter my name or pov into your actual views. Don't do it. Unless you expect derision and disrespect unless you quote me correctly.
Quote from: Marleycat;559723Don't even try to enter my name or pov into your actual views. Don't do it.
After that you gotta keep the Olivia Wilde "gunfighter stare" avatar. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;559676Awww, is widdle baby having a mewtdown?
Flameouts are fun to watch. :popcorn:
They're just starting to realize now that their bullshit isn't phasing anyone on this thread and that they actually lost some 250 pages ago, except Jibba who's happy to use any opportunity to ride his own horse for himself and will go on with this schtick because well, that's what he does (the denners didn't realize it just yet, or they're desperate so they'll take any ally in their crusade they can get).
MGuy's meltdown was inevitable, in any case. When you are so full of shit you keep at it like a rainman over more than 2,000 posts, you're going to lose your shit, sooner or later.
Quote from: jeff37923;559716The biggest problem these guys have is that they believe that gaming the system is actually playing the game.
Yup. It's been my point all along. And it's like I'm speaking fucking Chinese to them.
Quote from: CRKrueger;559724After that you gotta keep the Olivia Wilde "gunfighter stare" avatar. :D
I know but I am woman and catlike. I want to change it to my current mindset. But good thing for all you guys she's in my girl/cat rotation. :) I didn't know if female avatars would work well with my actual posting style. As opposed to cats. :)
Quote from: Benoist;559731Yup. It's been my point all along. And it's like I'm speaking fucking Chinese to them.
Exactly. It's why NWod is my actual game I personally run. Fuck it I'm old end of story.
Quote from: jeff37923;559716The biggest problem these guys have is that they believe that gaming the system is actually playing the game.
That sums up the situation accurately, IMHO.
QuoteThat can happen with any game system.
It seems more likely with some game systems than others: D&D 3.x really invites it, IMHO.
Sigh
and I was going to post my Religion of the Flame Priestly kits for 2e . Which I think i posted 2 or 3 years ago but might be directly relevant to the power of Clerics even in the best of edition of D&D vis a vis 2e but since there is no interest I will diminish and go into the west....
Lucky me. I thought I'd have a bunch of things to respond to, but there was only one post on topic the whole time. This is easy!
Quote from: CRKrueger;559563That's where a campaign as opposed to a white room arena comes in. Sometimes you can't just leave or bad things happen, like the world goes boom, the big bad gets away, they fix the way you got in before, etc ad infinitum. Emergent play off the character sheet.
If you can't run away because the 'world will go boom' and you don't have any resources to fight, it logically follows that if you fight, you will lose, and the world will go boom, anyway. If that's the case, I'd be much happier being a cleric with access to
plane shift since I could escape even the destruction of my entire world. Fighters, on the other hand, are limited to how fast they can run in heavy armor or how fast their mount can fly. Basically, they have no hope of escaping an 'end of world' scenario.
Nor do they have much hope of defeating it without magic. I can't even begin to comprehend a threat to the fabric of reality (like the Nothing in Never Ending Story) that can be dealt with by 'swording'.
Quote from: CRKrueger;559563Maybe you hole up, what happens when you get found? Who holds the door? Do you even have the spell you were about to suggest?
How do you get found in an extra-dimensional space? Or is that non-dimensional. I honestly don't keep the difference in my head. But there are lots of ways to 'rest' without getting found out if you have magic. The big one is 'just not being there'. Unless there are blocks against
teleport, a party of this level can leave and return with impunity. At this level of play, if I'm a caster, I like to retreat to my personal demi-plane of delight. If I'm a Fighter, I like to sleep on the floor. Dem's the breaks. But assuming I don't have any spells to retreat, I don't have any spells that would effectively block the door (
stone shape, hold portal, etc), I'd use mundane means to block the door as effectively as possible. This would include using pitons to make the door as difficult to open as possible. Then, since the Fighter would have to sleep, just like everyone else, I wouldn't have anyone 'hold' the door. We'd set a watch and see what happens, just like any other 'rest' situation.
The thing about spells is that they cover a lot of theoretical ground. And spells, by their very nature, do things that are either difficult or impossible to do with mundane means. So if you have spells that make you functional, you have options to protect yourself in these situations. I didn't even mention spells like
alarm, or any of the
glyph spells...
The fact is, the specific collection of spells can and will vary. However, because of the wide variety of useful spells, and the ability of the Wizard to optimize his prepared spells from all the spells in his spellbook based on the situation he anticipates finding (and with his divination abilities, his anticipation should be pretty good compared to a Fighter or a Rogue), a Wizard is likely to have one or more spells that are useful in just about any situation he might find himself in. If you've played a Wizard or Cleric, you know this is true. This is particularly true if you never cast any of your spells because you're afraid of spending 1 out of every 3 days preparing every spell you've cast.
What I'm hearing is 'the wizard is the most powerful class if he uses his spells, so he never uses his spells'. If that's the case, what's the point of the wizard? Or is it 'the Fighter handles all the little problems, and the wizard jumps in if the Fighter is in danger'? That doesn't sound like it makes the Fighter particularly important - nor does it prevent the Fighter being replaced by any number of available minions...
Quote from: CRKrueger;559563Remember I'm talking about AD&D, where you get 1 free spell per level. Everything else you find. You don't find much when you flee as soon as the casters are out of spells and teleporting can instakill you.
If you're high enough level to cast
Teleport, you probably haven't been running from dungeons. I offered that as
one possible option after the Wizard and Cleric ran out of spells. While I admit that the Fighter is 'theoretically' still able to continue adventuring without magical support, in my experience, it doesn't happen. The Fighter calls it a day with his friends. And in point of fact, I can't recall ever experiencing a situation where the casters had used all their spells and the Fighter wasn't either unconscious or extremely low on hit-points - that's the hard part about your job description being 'stand in front of strong opponents and let them punch you in the face'.
Quote from: CRKrueger;559563It's been a long time since you've played AD&D, and frankly I don't think you remember much of what it was like. You're constantly looking at the situation from the point of 3e and just assuming it was the same, when in fact, it wasn't even close.
Actually, I'm constantly making reference to 3rd edition, and only rarely do I mention how something works in any other edition. I've let other people debate that. For example, while I talked about 3rd edition
charm spells, I let other people with more recent experience talk about how
charm spells in first or second edition were nearly verbatim the same. I am interested in applying commonalities between editions to my general points, but I'm open to specific exceptions.
And as I say, the problem in 3rd edition happens much earlier and much more noticeably than in earlier editions. But that is not the same as claiming it doesn't exist in other editions. If Gygax and others have been wrestling with this questions since the 70s, it's clearly an issue - not for all, but clearly for enough people to spill thousands of pages of ink (real or virtual) about their observations of the issue. It's clearly enough of an issue that it has engaged game designers (not that it's necessarily done a lot of good).
Quote from: CRKrueger;559563You don't care about AD&D, you think 3.5e is the focus of Next, it's the game you like, the game you want fixed, the game you think should be what WotC is looking at.
This is mostly true. I do care about AD&D. I mean, I have fond memories of it, and I won't delve in too deeply because I don't want to ruin those memories. I don't want to play it or modify it. I don't care about 'fixing' it. But that doesn't mean that 3.x
introduced the problems with the Fighter versus the Wizard. It just made them more pronounced. And I do absolutely care about that, and I do want it fixed in the next edition. And not in the crappy 4th edition way of making everything suck....
Quote from: CRKrueger;5595633e is broke, I agree. Why don't you just leave AD&D the fuck out of your arguments and get on with posting how to fix the 3.5e fighter since you like it so much? (In other thread, this one is hopeless at this point).
Hopeless? The only thing that I think is hopeless is for Stormbringer to pull his head out of his ass. But I'm happy to leave AD&D the fuck out of my arguments if other people don't keep bringing it up. But clearly if something that is possible in 3rd edition is equally possible in an earlier edition; and that thing is broken in 3red edition, it's equally possible that it breaks the earlier edition, why wouldn't you want to talk about that? Wouldn't that just give you a starting point for your houserules? Why is that so bad?
I keep hearing 'My game is perfect, and I don't use the rules, so why do you keep talking about changing the rules?'. I keep talking about changing the rules because if the game works better with house rules, discussing those rules is good. If people know what the houserules are, they can implement them in their own game. If people know what the houserules are, designers might see them and incorporate them into later editions. If people know what the houserules are, they might be inspired with tools to improve their own game. Why wouldn't we talk about that?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559772Nor do they have much hope of defeating it without magic. I can't even begin to comprehend a threat to the fabric of reality (like the Nothing in Never Ending Story) that can be dealt with by 'swording'.
Then your ability to 'comprehend' is severely impaired, and by extension, your ability to 'imagine'.
Conan the Destroyer, final fight scenes with the awakened Dagoth. How much magic is brought to bear against Dagoth?
QuoteHopeless? The only thing that I think is hopeless is for Stormbringer to pull his head out of his ass.
I can send you a packet to join my fan club. All you had to do was ask.
Quote from: StormbringerThen your ability to 'comprehend' is severely impaired, and by extension, your ability to 'imagine'.
Where did I read that before?
Quote from: Rum Cove;557255In the hands of an intelligent and imaginative player, it is the class with the greatest chance of survival.
Oh, right.
Quote from: Rum Cove;559781Where did I read that before?
Oh, right.
:hatsoff:
Great minds think alike.
Quote from: Rum Cove;559781Where did I read that before?
Oh, right.
It all comes together now. ;)
Quote from: Benoist;559787It all comes together now. ;)
It's almost like TSR originally had a tag-line like that. "Products of the rules"... that isn't right. "Products of your bitch-fest". That doesn't sound correct either.
It's on the tip of my tongue, I just can't seem to remember it... :)
Quote from: StormBringer;559795It's almost like TSR originally had a tag-line like that. "Products of the rules"... that isn't right. "Products of your bitch-fest". That doesn't sound correct either.
It's on the tip of my tongue, I just can't seem to remember it... :)
This... this cannot be... it's all coming to me now...
(http://www.awesomelols.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/jackie-chan-are-you-serious.png)
Quote from: RandallS;559739It seems more likely with some game systems than others: D&D 3.x really invites it, IMHO.
It does, but any complex game system does the same. In
Traveller, it comes out with technological toys (i.e. "Battle Dress makes me invincible!"). While in
Star Wars (any version) it comes out in Force Powers (i.e. "I'm an unstoppable Jedi/Sith/Nightsister of Dathomir/Whatever with these powers!").
Quote from: jeff37923;559812It does, but any complex game system does the same.
I think it's more precise than that. Any complex system that involves some LEGO components you can pick and choose with or without specific budgets to customize your characters, or small descriptive units, will invite that. Stuff like feats, specific powers, equipment pieces indeed... I guess you could say that the more complex a system becomes the more likely it is to fall victim to a sort of LEGOification, so to speak, but maybe not automatically so. Rolemaster is an extensive system, and I actually haven't seen it being used and abused by CharOp players the way 3rd ed was - at least as we can see it here on this thread. Sure, from the Companions you'll have stuff like taking knacks and flaws that, but even these are random by the book, IIRC.
By comparison, to pursue my idea here, the WoD games are all-in-all pretty light, but loaded with these little LEGO components, dots of this or that, backgrounds, merits and flaws, etc etc, and I've seen some players optimize the SHIT out of their characters to an extent you would not believe. Cue Gypsy with a Garou gene who is mummified in the times of Egypt etc etc...
Quote from: jeff37923;559812It does, but any complex game system does the same. In Traveller, it comes out with technological toys (i.e. "Battle Dress makes me invincible!"). While in Star Wars (any version) it comes out in Force Powers (i.e. "I'm an unstoppable Jedi/Sith/Nightsister of Dathomir/Whatever with these powers!").
Please tell me of these "nightsisters" not Drow Clerics. :) I seriously want to know! Women kick your ass unless you guys make up some nonsensical rule and you know it. Bladedancers are VERY fun both in 3.5 and LL.:)
Quote from: Marleycat;559819Please tell me of these "nightsisters" not Drow Clerics. :) I seriously want to know! Women kick your ass unless you guys make up some nonsensical rule and you know it. Bladedancers are VERY fun both in 3.5 and LL.:)
Dathomir's a planet of Force-users, The Witches of Dathomir. The Nightsisters are Dark Force using Witches. They have male members as well, Spiderbrothers or something IIRC. It's Expanded Universe stuff, dunno if it's comic or novel.
Quote from: StormBringer;559776Then your ability to 'comprehend' is severely impaired, and by extension, your ability to 'imagine'.
Conan the Destroyer, final fight scenes with the awakened Dagoth. How much magic is brought to bear against Dagoth?
I can send you a packet to join my fan club. All you had to do was ask.
I don't give a fuck if I actually agree with you but after the bullshit WoT. Can I join? Seriously can I?
Quote from: CRKrueger;559821Dathomir's a planet of Force-users, The Witches of Dathomir. The Nightsisters are Dark Force using Witches. They have male members as well, Spiderbrothers or something IIRC. It's Expanded Universe stuff, dunno if it's comic or novel.
You serious? A male/female split? Too awesome. Can you explain further?
Quote from: Marleycat;559827You serious? A male/female split? Too awesome. Can you explain further?
I think the original art designs/concepts ended up being used for Darth Maul.
Quote from: Marleycat;559827You serious? A male/female split? Too awesome. Can you explain further?
The Witches of Dathomir were human. At some point Zabrak males were introduced and interbred with the Witches creating the Dathomirians (Darth Maul was one of these Human/Zabrak hybrids). The Witches were matriarchal, so the Dathomirian men were warriors/breeding stock.
I don't know if all the Witch Clans had Dathomirian hybrids or just the Nightsisters, but the ones serving the Nightsisters were the Nightbrothers. I think one of the Night Clans was a spidersomething so that's where I got the spider from. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;559834The Witches of Dathomir were human. At some point Zabrak males were introduced and interbred with the Witches creating the Dathomirians (Darth Maul was one of these Human/Zabrak hybrids). The Witches were matriarchal, so the Dathomirian men were warriors/breeding stock.
I don't know if all the Witch Clans had Dathomirian hybrids or just the Nightsisters, but the ones serving the Nightsisters were the Nightbrothers. I think one of the Night Clans was a spidersomething so that's where I got the spider from. :D
Neat, why is it guys have ALL the fun.:( Why couldn't there been a female Darth Mal to kick his sorry ass? Sorry to ask that question but it pisses me off just like WHFRP and 40k.
Quote from: CRKrueger;559821They have male members as well, Spiderbrothers or something IIRC. It's Expanded Universe stuff, dunno if it's comic or novel.
It's definitely comic, but not in the sense you mean.
Quote from: Marleycat;559835Neat, why is it guys have ALL the fun.:( Why couldn't there been a female Darth Mal to kick his sorry ass?
George Lucas.
Quote from: Rum Cove;559839George Lucas.
Is it still wrong to be pissed though?
Kickass female Jedi are all over the books and comics. I think one of the Witches kicks Luke's ass after he becomes the King Jedi.
Quote from: MGuy;559607Translated
Ok, you need to stop this bullshit right now. This is the one warning.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Marleycat;559835Neat, why is it guys have ALL the fun.:( Why couldn't there been a female Darth Mal to kick his sorry ass? Sorry to ask that question but it pisses me off just like WHFRP and 40k.
Mara Jade was a female Emperor's hand (Sith Assassin type) that not only kicked Luke Skywalker's ass, but also ended up getting married to him. There are lot of strong female types in the Expanded Universe of
Star Wars. Just take a look at some of the novels and comic books, start with the Thrawn Trilogy by Timothy Zahn.
There was a Dark Side Jedi in the computer game
Force Unleashed II.
(http://i.neoseeker.com/mgv/179845-Arcanium/845/60/marisbroodprincipal_display.png)
Quote from: RPGPundit;559854Ok, you need to stop this bullshit right now. This is the one warning.
RPGPundit
MGuy, since you're new, and in case you miss it in among all the other pages of posts, just thought I'd point out that you should take RPGPundit VERY seriously here - he's the site owner and he doesn't fuck around.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559772Nor do they have much hope of defeating it without magic. I can't even begin to comprehend a threat to the fabric of reality (like the Nothing in Never Ending Story) that can be dealt with by 'swording'.
OK, nitpick. Atreyu in The Neverending Story is the hero for most of the movie (only the first half of the book; the second half is about Bastian) and closest fit for him in D&D would probably be Ranger.
The book is a book because it takes a quest to address the problem. "Pug casts his
repair dimensional anomaly spell at the Nothing, and then goes and has a cupcake" would not have been a success, as plots go.
I think bring this up at the Den and you get some sort of complaining about how you're "sucking the DM's cock" if there's actually an X that solves a problem and you have to go find it, but ?? - I'm not sure what the flying dick-laser-shooting supermen are supposed to do in a game session. Get an auto-win over Holes In Reality using the right combination of feats, then go masturbate over how great their min/maxing ability is, I guess.
I know I'm new here, but deliberately derailing a thread has to be considered bad manners. It is everywhere else. I had not been very impressed by the regular posters here, but that is a new low.
And what's wrong with having a vagina? That's new to me. Sand in a vagina sounds uncomfortable. I would think that if you had that condition, getting it out would provide substantial relief.
Besides, didn't you know that Women are like Wizards and men are like Fighters. Women have Reproductive Powers - they can use them to create offspring. It takes a while to really build up a powerful force of hench-people, but there's no theoretical limit to how many times an individual woman can create offspring (though most seem to limit it to ~1/year). In any mixed gender group, the women would be well-served to replace their men-folk with additional women. There's virtually nothing the women can't do for themselves... Basically the men are just there to open the door and stand guard when the women sleep.
As for Atreyu, I don't have much objection to Rangers. Their primary ability may be 'swording', but they actually have a lot more options than a Fighter. A big part of that is their limited selection of spells. They also have much better skill selection and 3x as many skills per level.
But while it's fine that Atreyu can't defeat the Nothing, and a wizard likely wouldn't be able to, either, let's go back to D&D for a moment.
One 'classic' villain is the lich. The lich's great weakness, however, is that he needs to have a phylactery. If it is destroyed, so is he. A lich, by definition, is a powerful spell-caster.
A Fighter (or even a group of Fighters) really has no chance to kill such an iconic monster. A lich can hide the phylactery inside a stone object (such as by using stone shape), far, far away (teleport), or even another plane of existence (plane shift). The Fighter doesn't even have 'tracking' as an ability, but even if he did, not even his vaunted 'imagination' can help him defeat the lich.
The lich is a monster that proves there are two tiers of characters - those that have abilities that matter, and those that don't. Combined with a character who's abilities matter, a Fighter might be able to contribute, but certainly can't count on it.
And since nobody has refuted this point, I'll state it again. A creative player is a great asset to the game. They can be creative while playing a Fighter; but they can also be creative while playing any other character. Unless their creativity involves lifting heavy objects (you know, with muscles instead of a pulley or telekinesis) anybody else could do those same things.
The Fighter is a class without abilities. Feats are nice (I'm a feat junkie), but they aren't 'high-level options' - not even the 'top-tier' Feats. Access to Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus and Improved Weapon Specialization are hardly 'class features' - especially since a +2 to attack and +4 to damage at 12th level is pretty paltry. A cleric can (note, can as in the sense 'always has it available as option', even if he doesn't collect scrolls or enemy spellbooks) cast Divine Favor (1st level) to gain a +3 to Attack and Damage.
Even the Fighter's 'signature' abilities are rendered meaningless by how easily they can be emulated by other classes.
Girls are wizards, men are fighters? You're just trolling at this point. Seriously?
Over 3000 posts, yay! Only 1086.to go Gib. What's the record? I need to be in the thread that does it. It's a goal. I am a girl of little goals, fuck you. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;559842Kickass female Jedi are all over the books and comics. I think one of the Witches kicks Luke's ass after he becomes the King Jedi.
Good.:)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559870The lich is a monster that proves there are two tiers of characters - those that have abilities that matter, and those that don't. Combined with a character who's abilities matter, a Fighter might be able to contribute, but certainly can't count on it.
I think you mean two tiers of
players.
QuoteAnd since nobody has refuted this point, I'll state it again. A creative player is a great asset to the game. They can be creative while playing a Fighter; but they can also be creative while playing any other character. Unless their creativity involves lifting heavy objects (you know, with muscles instead of a pulley or telekinesis) anybody else could do those same things.
You can write things down while playing a Fighter, but you can write things down while playing any other character. Literacy is
useless.
QuoteThe Fighter is a class without abilities.
Sure, as long as you wilfully ignore all their abilities.
Quote from: StormBringer;559876Sure, as long as you wilfully ignore all their abilities.
Such as?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559870A Fighter (or even a group of Fighters) really has no chance to kill such an iconic monster. A lich can hide the phylactery inside a stone object (such as by using stone shape), far, far away (teleport), or even another plane of existence (plane shift). The Fighter doesn't even have 'tracking' as an ability, but even if he did, not even his vaunted 'imagination' can help him defeat the lich.
The lich is a monster that proves there are two tiers of characters - those that have abilities that matter, and those that don't. Combined with a character who's abilities matter, a Fighter might be able to contribute, but certainly can't count on it.
Oh really...
Catch the lich, rip off its head (it doesn't need it to live), and pull off its arms so it can't cast any spells. Go seal the body is stone so it can't get out. Permanent neutralization. It didn't "die", so the phylactery never even gets activated.
So are we doing the whole PHB spell by spell, then MM monster by monster now? This would be stupid, since no character can prevail in every possible scenario.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;559883then MM monster by monster now?
Don't forget
Book Worms!
This is awesome. Dance monkeys, dance! Only 1179 to go! I am here to move it along quickly. Just be stupid I will reply, I promise.
Quote from: Rum Cove;559884Don't forget Book Worms!
I call dibs on Thunderdome: Flumph Frenzy!
Quote from: Rum Cove;559884Don't forget Book Worms!
You're scaring me, man! I'm not sure a fighter can take one of those!
"Anti-magic fields demonstrate there are two tiers of characters in the game: those who have abilities that you can rely on, and those you can't."
Quote from: Rum Cove;559884Don't forget Book Worms!
I remember when I first read that entry in the MM2 I thought, "Wow, a monster specifically designed to fuck up my Magic-User."
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;559889You're scaring me, man! I'm not sure a fighter can take one of those!
Fighter's don't need books and Wizards do. WIZARDS ARE BORKEN!
Quote from: StormBringer;559893Fighter's don't need books and Wizards do. WIZARDS ARE BORKEN!
I see what you did there.
Quote from: StormBringer;559893Fighter's don't need books and Wizards do. WIZARDS ARE BORKEN!
Now I'm expecting a goalpost shift so it becomes a battle between sorcerers and clerics for the next ten pages...
Quote from: jeff37923;559857Mara Jade was a female Emperor's hand (Sith Assassin type) that not only kicked Luke Skywalker's ass, but also ended up getting married to him. There are lot of strong female types in the Expanded Universe of Star Wars. Just take a look at some of the novels and comic books, start with the Thrawn Trilogy by Timothy Zahn.
There was a Dark Side Jedi in the computer game Force Unleashed II.
(http://i.neoseeker.com/mgv/179845-Arcanium/845/60/marisbroodprincipal_display.png)
Now that just rocks sox! Mara Jade? Nice name.:)
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;559898Now I'm expecting a goalpost shift so it becomes a battle between sorcerers and clerics for the next ten pages...
Clerics can do everything Magic-Users can do, plus healing.
Flame Strike + Heal > Magic Missile.
Magic-Users are useless and need to be removed.
Sorcerers are obviously shit. They are useless, more so than fighters, albeit barely more useful than bards.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;559898Now I'm expecting a goalpost shift so it becomes a battle between sorcerers and clerics for the next ten pages...
My arcane bloodline sorceress will kick any cleric's ass no questions asked. :D
It really is fun to use metamagic on the fly.
Quote from: Benoist;559901Sorcerers are obviously shit. They are useless, more so than fighters, albeit barely more useful than bards.
They should have called it Clerics and Crypts from the beginning, because every other class is worse than the shit a Cleric cleans off their shoes.
Quote from: Marleycat;559902My arcane bloodline sorceress will kick any cleric's ass no questions asked. :D
In your dreams. Sorcerers aren't D&D anyway. :D
Quote from: StormBringer;559903They should have called it Clerics and Crypts from the beginning, because every other class is worse than the shit a Cleric cleans off their shoes.
Clerics & Craven.
Clerics & Cunts.
Clerics & Clerics.
Quote from: Marleycat;559902My arcane bloodline sorceress will kick any cleric's ass no questions asked. :D
It really is fun to use metamagic on the fly.
Quote from: Benoist;559904In your dreams. Sorcerers aren't D&D anyway. :D
They are in my Dnd or (Fantasy Craft/Pathfinder) or whatever Dnd is being run at my table. :):
Quote from: Marleycat;559906They are in my Dnd or (Fantasy Craft/Pathfinder) or whatever Dnd is being run at my table. :):
Impure wretch! :D
Quote from: Benoist;559905Clerics & Craven.
Clerics & Cunts.
Clerics & Clerics.
Cleric & Cleric-er.
Quote from: StormBringer;559908Cleric & Cleric-er.
Wait a minute. Aren't we forgetting about the Wizard here? Here's the REAL Thunderdome, man: Cleric or Wizard? Who wins?!
Quote from: Benoist;559907Impure wretch! :D
That would be "wench" and call me Ms. Jade fool Jedi.:D
Where's Kaelic, by the way? Did he chicken out of the Thunderdome?
Quote from: Benoist;559912Where's Kaelic, by the way? Did he chicken out of the Thunderdome?
Hope not, but have no idea.
I learned long ago not to try to engage that guy/creature in dialogue, there's just no there there.
Quote from: Benoist;559910Wait a minute. Aren't we forgetting about the Wizard here? Here's the REAL Thunderdome, man: Cleric or Wizard? Who wins?!
My Wizard fool. I would just set it up to send my Sorceress as a proxy with a bit of "help".:D
Quote from: Benoist;559901Sorcerers are obviously shit. They are useless, more so than fighters, albeit barely more useful than bards.
The man goes to his first rodeo and now thinks he can ride this bull....
Defend your assertion that a Sorcerer is barely more useful than a Bard. Obviously you will be using 3.x/
Pathfinder as source.
Quote from: Benoist;559912Where's Kaelic, by the way? Did he chicken out of the Thunderdome?
I think he is hiding from Spike.
Come to think of it, most of the Gaming Den goon rush has gone away.
Quote from: Benoist;559910Wait a minute. Aren't we forgetting about the Wizard here? Here's the REAL Thunderdome, man: Cleric or Wizard? Who wins?!
We don't need another Wiiiiiizard!
We don't need to know the chaaaaarm spell!
All we want's in the arena, Thunderdome!
Quote from: jeff37923;559922The man goes to his first rodeo and now thinks he can ride this bull....
Defend your assertion that a Sorcerer is barely more useful than a Bard. Obviously you will be using 3.x/Pathfinder as source.
Everybody knows the bard wouldn't even have the strength to carry treasure. Hirelings are more useful than a bard! :D
Quote from: Benoist;559927Everybody knows the bard wouldn't even have the strength to carry treasure. Hirelings are more useful than a bard! :D
The Bard would merely enthrall and then suggest to common folk to work as hirelings!
Rock Star entourage with fans, baby! :D
Quote from: jeff37923;559928The Bard would merely enthrall and then suggest to common folk to work as hirelings!
Rock Star entourage with fans, baby! :D
Wait. Doesn't the bard have Charm Person? OMG the Bard is BORKEN!!One.
Quote from: Benoist;559912Where's Kaelic, by the way? Did he chicken out of the Thunderdome?
Quote from: Benoist;559929Wait. Doesn't the bard have Charm Person? OMG the Bard is BORKEN!!One.
I saw what you did there.
Quote from: Benoist;559929Wait. Doesn't the bard have Charm Person? OMG the Bard is BORKEN!!One.
They have it, but they don't need it!
Remember in the movie
Conan when Thulsa Doom demonstrated how flesh was stronger than steel? That was old Thulsa using his Bard levels!
Jeanne de Arc? She may have talked to God with her Cleric levels, but the troops responded to her Bard levels!
The movie
Labyrinth? Can anyone deny that the Goblin King was a Master Bard!
I guess my elven enchantress must be so brorken as to be illegal by Game Den parameters?
I guess my elven enchantress must be so brorken as to be illegal by Game Den parameters? Especially if I make her a Fey Sorceress?
Quote from: Marleycat;559935I guess my elven enchantress must be so brorken as to be illegal by Game Den parameters? Especially if I make her a Fey Sorceress?
Does she have levels of bard? If so, she's b0rken.
...Why, oh why, are you all shitting over and derailing the thread? Two pages of nonsense since the last good point that was made, merely because it was made against the view that Fighters exactly as written without using houserules are a viable class.
Why do you have such opposition to the idea of actually acknowledging that if you need to make significant changes to the rules in order to play a game, then the rules were not suitable for that game and could have been changed formally to make that game more playable before they were published?
It is common for the Gaming Den to outright assume the absolute stupidest abuses of 3.5, such as Persistent Time Stops or chain-binding genies for infinite wealth, will be outright forbidden by DM fiat or else nerfed heavily. Admittedly, if you have seen the Tome series, it includes a version of chain-binding genies that FrankTrollman considered to be acceptable at the level at which it is possible to do it, and an exploration of what happens to the world when everyone past a certain level has access to N times daily wish. All the accusations that they play RAW only, or believe the rules are the entirety of the game, are ad hominem nonsense. The rules are guidelines. But if 99% of users heavily diverge from those guidelines, due to problems many of them suffer when trying to obey those guidelines, why is it so terrible to place the blame for those avoidable problems on the guidelines which, if followed, result in those problems, rather than on the people who don't yet know better than to follow those guidelines and thus suffer those problems?
You cannot tell me that if I went back, I could not find evidence of multiple prominent posters being angry at "rainmen" for "blaming the rules" for the problems caused by following the rules.
Oh wait, I'm using reasoned discourse in this thread. Wonder why Spike's fled this thread as well - almost as if lots of people started actively sabotaging reasoned discourse.
You sure are butthurt over the truth.
Quote from: omegonthesane;559939...Why, oh why, are you all shitting over and derailing the thread? Two pages of nonsense since the last good point that was made, merely because it was made against the view that Fighters exactly as written without using houserules are a viable class.
Why do you have such opposition to the idea of actually acknowledging that if you need to make significant changes to the rules in order to play a game, then the rules were not suitable for that game and could have been changed formally to make that game more playable before they were published?
It is common for the Gaming Den to outright assume the absolute stupidest abuses of 3.5, such as Persistent Time Stops or chain-binding genies for infinite wealth, will be outright forbidden by DM fiat or else nerfed heavily. Admittedly, if you have seen the Tome series, it includes a version of chain-binding genies that FrankTrollman considered to be acceptable at the level at which it is possible to do it, and an exploration of what happens to the world when everyone past a certain level has access to N times daily wish. All the accusations that they play RAW only, or believe the rules are the entirety of the game, are ad hominem nonsense. The rules are guidelines. But if 99% of users heavily diverge from those guidelines, due to problems many of them suffer when trying to obey those guidelines, why is it so terrible to place the blame for those avoidable problems on the guidelines which, if followed, result in those problems, rather than on the people who don't yet know better than to follow those guidelines and thus suffer those problems?
You cannot tell me that if I went back, I could not find evidence of multiple prominent posters being angry at "rainmen" for "blaming the rules" for the problems caused by following the rules.
Oh wait, I'm using reasoned discourse in this thread. Wonder why Spike's fled this thread as well - almost as if lots of people started actively sabotaging reasoned discourse.
3e is broken to hell and back RAW, they'll get no argument from me. As others have said, though, it is perfectly playable with houserules, GM intervention, and not using every option in the entire 3e library. However, unlike some others, I don't believe that excuses the rules problem.
However, fixing it doesn't require making the 3e Fighter just as broken, and proving it doesn't require claiming the breaking goes all the way back to 1e, which it does not.
Your premise (second paragraph) is wrong, Omegon. Some of us happen to believe that you in fact do not need to make significant changes to the rules in order to play the D&D game. The rules are in fact suitable for our own games, and therefore do not need to be "formally changed to make that game more playable". It is perfectly playable and enjoyable as it is, once you take your head out of your ass and actually play the game instead of gaming the rules, that is.
All the so-called issues of this thread have been debunked one by one, from completely laughable "builds" that wouldn't pass a smell test at an actual game table, to "actual play" examples which have been shown to have gone south due in part to a mismanagement of the game and a lack of common sense on the DM's part, to a "thunderdome" bullshit contest where your champion just vanished, seemingly giving up before it even started.
I love how you brandish outrage over our lack of "reasoned discourse", but that doesn't look too good on your side of the fence at this point, pal. So. You sure you want to give it a go yourself? Have any actual play experiences to share to show us just how useless the fighter is in a D&D game? Please go ahead.
CRKrueger? Benoist? You guys are taking him seriously?
I don't think 3E, 3.5, or Pathfinder is broken at the Core Rules level. Allowing the unrestricted use of optional splatbooks along with the Core Rules is asking for a disaster. Some of the OGL d20 splatbooks had some really broken shit in them, some of the WotC Official d20 stuff was even fucking worse.
The thing is, munchkinism sucks in a game being played. In a game being theorized, it is awesome because it allows the person theorizing the chance to prove that he, she, or it has an adequitely sized penis. Drop those same rules wankery fucks into a game with Actual Play and you will find that they cannot use tactics because thinking on your feet is anethema to them. Give them a button to mash in the form of a feat, special ability, spell, or power and they feel much less naked.
Why is the Gaming Den crew not here now? Because they could not sustain their arguement and adapt to an actual test of their claims.
Quote from: jeff37923;559949CRKrueger? Benoist? You guys are taking him seriously?
I don't think 3E, 3.5, or Pathfinder is broken at the Core Rules level. Allowing the unrestricted use of optional splatbooks along with the Core Rules is asking for a disaster. Some of the OGL d20 splatbooks had some really broken shit in them, some of the WotC Official d20 stuff was even fucking worse.
The thing is, munchkinism sucks in a game being played. In a game being theorized, it is awesome because it allows the person theorizing the chance to prove that he, she, or it has an adequitely sized penis. Drop those same rules wankery fucks into a game with Actual Play and you will find that they cannot use tactics because thinking on your feet is anethema to them. Give them a button to mash in the form of a feat, special ability, spell, or power and they feel much less naked.
Why is the Gaming Den crew not here now? Because they could not sustain their arguement and adapt to an actual test of their claims.
No they are no here because arguing with a bunch of folks who's only response is 'you're wrong, nah nah nah ...' Gets tiring after 3000 posts.
Really guys it appears that group think takes over
and jeff your OP actually accepts their is imbalance and suggests ways of fixing it that keep the flavour of the classes . Perhaps the reasoned discourse of the OSR has pursuaded you.
Quote from: jibbajibba;559953and jeff your OP actually accepts their is imbalance and suggests ways of fixing it that keep the flavour of the classes . Perhaps the reasoned discourse of the OSR has pursuaded you.
My OP suggests that imbalance be solved by working together in Actual Play while maintaining the classes, not using CharOp to munchkinate them or change the rules so that they are "balanced". I have been saying that all along this damn thread.
For someone who thinks of himself as a smart guy, you sure do have your head up ass on this.
Quote from: jeff37923;559955My OP suggests that imbalance be solved by working together in Actual Play while maintaining the classes, not using CharOp to munchkinate them or change the rules so that they are "balanced". I have been saying that all along this damn thread.
For someone who thinks of himself as a smart guy, you sure do have your head up ass on this.
My point was you admitted the imbalance.
How its solved wuxia , player synergy, co-operation or giving the fighter some nwps and some mundane fighting stuff is all about play style.
Like I said I don't mind the imbalance because it does,'t effect roleplay but does it exist... Sure
Quote from: MGuy;559663I can't even go off to lunch before there is a 3 page bump from last time I posted. So I'll only get to handle the highlights.
Translated #Itookyouseriously
Translated #You're Welcome
Translated #Tangential point
Translated#You'rewelcome.
Myah, where's your flying fortress now, myah!
(http://s7.postimage.org/jcewjfs2f/rsz_4edward_g_robinson_in_the_ten_commandments_f.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/jcewjfs2f/)
Quote from: jibbajibba;559953No they are no here because arguing with a bunch of folks who's only response is 'you're wrong, nah nah nah ...' Gets tiring after 3000 posts.
Really guys it appears that group think takes over
.
I acknowledge there were plenty of ad homs being lobbed at these guys, but I did make a genuine effort to converse with them and felt their responses were not good faith arguments. I do wish there were less insults, but they did come into a forum with its own sensibilities about play and attack those sensibilities. If I went into the gaming den and just said things that pushed their buttons (or rpgnet for that matter) you would see a similar reaction (which is people making actual points about the rules but accompanying them with attacks). Certainly not saying it is the best way to handle things, but I can't imagine they expected a different reaction. And when I tried to provide reasonable responses, they were not exactly reasonable in turn.
This was also quite clearly a bit of an invasion thread. When you have new posters with largely june 2012 accounts arguing the same line, people generalky wont take their views as seriously as established members (i do realize there were one or two older accounts in the mix).
Benoist:
You make reference to "gaming the rules" as a thing that causes you consternation. If you are saying that on your table, I am not allowed to do a thing that is perfectly permitted under the rules, because in doing that I am making the game unplayable - you are, in fact, making "significant changes to the rules" that you actually play by, because in addition to the rules of the book, you are adding a rule that prevents that given broken combination.
Your accusation that the Cleric of Boccob who Kaelik played at his table "wouldn't pass a smell test at an actual game table", besides being flat-out untrue, not, in the slightest, a refutation of the idea that you need to make "significant changes to the rules" to prevent that sort of build.
I would like to see a clear statement of how, exactly, deadDMwalking's play example was mismanaged. The frost giants were Charmed, making them friendly, and in their Charmed state were convinced that it was in their best interests to assist the party in destroying a dragon that would left to its own devices have eventually come and killed the frost giants anyway - an argument I could see having flown even without the Charm spells. The fighter suffered for wearing heavy armour because the rules of a swamp were applied consistently - would you have preferred there be a paved road across it to the dungeon, so that no Dex rolls needed to be made? Frankly your record is not good, but I am willing to be proven wrong - both about the actual thread title and about my utter disbelief that you have been discussing in good faith.
CRK - I have no investment in how broken or otherwise 0e-2e are; the amount I know about them is enough to convince me they are not designed to run the sort of games that I would enjoy. You have shown a lot more reason and good faith in four sentences than many of "the Denners" have given you credit for, and certainly more than either Benoist or Jeff in about the last ten pages. The fact is, some people actually like the level of power that a Wizard who is powergaming can produce, and also like the idea of Fighters, and thus would like the option to raise Fighters to those lofty heights in the framework of 3.5.
Honestly I'm not convinced D&D needs to try to simulate both Game of Thrones and Epic of Gilgamesh, let alone Game of Thrones and... whatever it is high-level 3.5 emulates, I really can't think of fictional examples of the sort of plane-hopping adventures that Frank & K's Tomes were designed to assist - but then again I'm an utter hack.
Jeff - Nice ad hominem there. I've played 3.5 clerics. The lack of Martial Weapon Proficiency is a much smaller gap than one might think, and you need to reach level 12 before the difference between an unbuffed Cleric and an unbuffed Fighter's attack rolls is smaller than that between someone who rolled high and rolled low on the stat that ended up in Strength or Dexterity - and by the time you get to that point, the cleric's long since been able to Divine Power himself for a sufficient number of fights per day, a Self Only buff in core that gives him fighter BaB and a bunch of other shinies.
BedrockBrendan - You've certainly been a lot more reasonable in tone than most of this forum; I'm not going to go back and reread a 297 page thread to remind myself of your line, if you even still care about fighter & wizard balance.
Marleycat - Yeah, I'm in part doing this to get the thread to the 300 line. Can't have all my motives mature after all.
Everyone - Tasked with running, or helping to run, a high-powered 3.5 game, how would you go about making it possible to play the archetypal Fighter in such a way that he contributes strictly more than a wizard's ability to Charm/Dominate/Animate/In Some Fashion Control a mere meatshield, or a cleric's ability to self-buff himself to Fighter levels and still have plenty of spells left? I will refrain from mentioning noncombat for now - that'll be the next question.
WOTC needs to print this thread, bind it into a book, and publish it as the real reason 5E is doomed.
Quote from: Benoist;559891"Anti-magic fields demonstrate there are two tiers of characters in the game: those who have abilities that you can rely on, and those you can't."
This approaches a valid point. A wizard without magic clearly does have a major issue. It's clearly not as significant an issue for a cleric (seeing as how they have nice weapons, armor, etc). But how is a Fighter generating an anti-magic field?
This would actually be an interesting way to 'non-magically' make the Fighter a better character. If a Fighter is engaged in melee with a Wizard, instead of allowing the Wizard to 5-foot-step away and cast any spell they want
or provoking an attack that even if it hits has virtually no chance of disrupting the spell,
maybe the Fighter should be able to have a 'field' that disrupts the spell-casting. Sort of a anti-magic effect - it could be the ability to remove/destroy spell components, the ability to 'twist' an arm out of the right form for somatic components - what have you.
But as written, if you're against an anti-magic field, you're pretty clearly against someone with access to pretty powerful magic.
Quote from: Benoist;559910Wait a minute. Aren't we forgetting about the Wizard here? Here's the REAL Thunderdome, man: Cleric or Wizard? Who wins?!
That one is much harder to judge than caster versus Fighter. In general, I think the cleric is the more powerful option - primarily because they have access to all cleric spells each day, unlike a wizard who is limited by what spells he has acquired. More hit points, better saves (and a synergy between Wisdom and Will). Combined with access to
all] the healing magic, a party of all clerics is certainly more viable than a party composed of a combination of any other class. In fact, a party without a cleric is almost unplayable - if the party is to recover after a difficult fight, they have to spend days and days recovering hit points - unless they invest heavily in healing wands/potions, etc.
One way you could approach the relative power is like the show 'Deadliest Warrior'. Once they calculate all of the details, they run the results 1000 times. Even the most 'unbalanced fights' one side could get lucky and win - but the percentage of wins determines who's the deadliest warrior. So 990 to 10 is not an argument that 'because a character was able to win 10 times, he's clearly not inferior' - it is clear from those kinds of figures that one character is clearly superior in a match-up and the other is inferior.
Either a wizard or cleric is more powerful than a Fighter. As is a druid, which we haven't really gone into. But in high level fights, the cleric has some pretty significant advantages. It's certainly a lot closer than either class versus the Fighter, but I think the cleric has the edge.
Quote from: jeff37923;559949Why is the Gaming Den crew not here now? Because they could not sustain their arguement and adapt to an actual test of their claims.
It's 4am on a Friday night when you posted this (Eastern). I think expecting everyone to be posting on your schedule is a little...unfair. Who specifically are you looking for from the Den? Kaelik? FrankTrollman? I figure they probably realized there is no point. Benoist keeps claiming to have proved things he hasn't proved; points that are supported by experience or the rules have been completely disregarded with either 'you are a bad, shitty DM or player and have no imagination' or 'why are you complaining about rules that don't work when nobody uses them that way, anyway'. The likelihood of a productive conversation is minimal. But I'll respond to that in more detail with a quote further down in this reply.
Quote from: jeff37923;559955My OP suggests that imbalance be solved by working together in Actual Play while maintaining the classes, not using CharOp to munchkinate them or change the rules so that they are "balanced". I have been saying that all along this damn thread.
One way to help synergize Fighers and Wizards is to allow hit point damage to work on the same field as Save-or-Die. For example, if a creature were reduced to half hit-points, if they took a -4 to saving throws, that'd be a pretty good reason to try to wear them down before hitting them with a wizard's most powerful spells. Something like that is probably easier to implement than 'synergistic spells' that make the Fighter better - especially when there are already spells that do the same thing without relying on the Fighter to deliver it - there's no benefit to putting a
scorching ray in the Fighter's sword versus hitting the monster with a sword hit followed by a
scorching ray - not unless death by massive damage is being used or the creature has lots of DR (that was, for some reason, applied to energy damage).
It's been pointed out (but in case you forgot), in actual play, the Wizard has no incentive to 'contribute' to the Fighter. The Fighter has every reason to HOPE that spell-casters will 'contribute' to the Fighter, but often in a 'strict evaluation of efficiency', that is not a valid option. Not every group tries to get through each encounter with the most ruthless of efficiency, but if people's lives are on the line, such a stance isn't entirely unreasonable and certainly isn't strictly 'gamist'.
So while reasons to combine attacks would possibly help make the Fighter more relevant, changes are needed to make that a
better option than not combining attacks. If you figure that out, you might have something. But figuring that out probably means changing the rules in some significant fashion that you appear unwilling to consider.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;559966I acknowledge there were plenty of ad homs being lobbed at these guys, but I did make a genuine effort to converse with them and felt their responses were not good faith arguments.
There's a lot of ground that's been covered on this thread. All of my responses are 'good faith'. For you, specifically, I have had to agree to disagree. You don't claim that Fighters and Wizards are balanced at high levels (a claim that others make). you don't claim that Fighters and Wizards are unbalanced but balance doesn't matter. You claim that Wizards are weak at lower levels and more powerful at higher levels. That is a form of 'balance', but not one that works for me, personally. It really encourages people to play a Fighter for a long time and then switch to a new character if they want to be effective.
And if we require them to make a new character at 1st level, the problem doesn't get better. If we allow them to make a new character close to the current party power-level (as Benoist suggests) it is clear that balance is a major consideration. So clearly, balance is an issue.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;559966I do wish there were less insults, but they did come into a forum with its own sensibilities about play and attack those sensibilities. If I went into the gaming den and just said things that pushed their buttons (or rpgnet for that matter) you would see a similar reaction (which is people making actual points about the rules but accompanying them with attacks).
The Gaming Den is proud of the fact that they can tell people to 'go suck a barrel of cocks'. So they do that. A lot. Understanding for a moment that the people at the Den have some long-standing and deeply divided beliefs, they wouldn't respond identically to your points. But as you say, every site has it's own, let's say, cultural expectations. People from RPGsite would be ridiculed and dismissed - not for pushing buttons - but for making assertions without any reference to anything other than their own ideals. For example, the denners would get a kick out of being told 'it's the cleric's
JOB to buff the Fighter'. They would point out that nothing makes that true - not in the rules, not in 'role-playing' the character - nothing. So, the Gaming Den is a more effective forum for discussing the game, because they'll actually discuss what makes the game work or fail to work based on the design and rules - not rely on 'DM hand-waving' to fix everything in secret and not even explain what they did.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;559966Certainly not saying it is the best way to handle things, but I can't imagine they expected a different reaction. And when I tried to provide reasonable responses, they were not exactly reasonable in turn.
Someone can disagree with you and still be reasonable. Certainly I think your responses deserved some challenging to clarify exactly what your position was. Since you've clarified it, nobody has really had a disagreement with you - your position
does come down to play styles. While the rest of this community probably wishes their position could be explained that way, it doesn't look like that works. Mostly, it appears their positions are internally inconsistent - both denying a problem and then claiming it exists but only if you use the game's rules, but not explaining what you would use instead.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;559966This was also quite clearly a bit of an invasion thread. When you have new posters with largely june 2012 accounts arguing the same line, people generalky wont take their views as seriously as established members (i do realize there were one or two older accounts in the mix).
That's definitely variable between forums. Stormbringer is a dumbass because, among other things, he won't consider the opinion or experience of someone that has less experience than he does. Somebody can be fucking brilliant and have some awesome insight that he'll dismiss because he's not bright enough to have thought of it on his own and he doesn't trust the other person's experience. Now, he might be right that the person has nothing to offer - but that can only be determined if he considers the argument, not the source. He's a fucking dumbass in part because he doesn't believe FrankTrollman can ever say anything right because 'it's fucking FrankTrollman'.
There have been people in this thread that are objectively right and their positions have been dismissed.
There have been people in this thread that were subjectively right, and they were called 'bad, shitty, dumb'.
And maybe that should be expected if 'outsiders' challenge the beliefs of a long-established cadre, but it doesn't reflect badly on the outsiders.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559879Such as?
Stormbringer,
I must have missed your response. What abilities does a Fighter have that I'm ignoring?
Quote from: omegonthesane;559974Benoist:
You make reference to "gaming the rules" as a thing that causes you consternation. If you are saying that on your table, I am not allowed to do a thing that is perfectly permitted under the rules, because in doing that I am making the game unplayable - you are, in fact, making "significant changes to the rules" that you actually play by, because in addition to the rules of the book, you are adding a rule that prevents that given broken combination.
So what? I tell all potential players up front that I do not use the RAW for any game I run as I consider the rules as nothing more than guidelines for the GM. I change them as needed -- on the fly if necessary -- to fit my campaign setting and the play-styles I choose to support. I also clearly state that there is no place at my table for rules lawyers, min-maxers, or munchkins. There is certainly no place at my table for players who insist that they have a right to use rules the GM considers broken (or simply do not fit the campaign) just because they were published in a rule book -- or combination of rule books. Potential players who have problems with any of this are welcome to decide not to play.
You might think I would have trouble finding players who would put up with this. I don't, there are a large number of players out there who enjoy a game where they don't have to worry about players exploiting broken rules or put up with rules lawyers wasting game time arguing rules, min-maxers building characters that are only interesting to a power-gamer and that likely dwarf the abilities of every other character in the game, etc.
Quote from: RandallS;559986So what? I tell all potential players up front that I do not use the RAW for any game I run as I consider the rules as nothing more than guidelines for the GM. I change them as needed -- on the fly if necessary -- to fit my campaign setting and the play-styles I choose to support. I also clearly state that there is no place at my table for rules lawyers, min-maxers, or munchkins. There is certainly no place at my table for players who insist that they have a right to use rules the GM considers broken (or simply do not fit the campaign) just because they were published in a rule book -- or combination of rule books. Potential players who have problems with any of this are welcome to decide not to play.
You might think I would have trouble finding players who would put up with this. I don't, there are a large number of players out there who enjoy a game where they don't have to worry about players exploiting broken rules or put up with rules lawyers wasting game time arguing rules, min-maxers building characters that are only interesting to a power-gamer and that likely dwarf the abilities of every other character in the game, etc.
I do not wish to imply there is anything
wrong with changing the rules - I firmly believe at the end of the day, the GM is expected to put in more work than any other player, potentially more work than all the other players put together, and should have the right to decide what shit they can be bothered to deal with. However, you should acknowledge that you are deviating from the rules if you act differently to RAW, and ideally how far you are deviating from the rules. It is a lack of acknowledgement of this fact that can cause confusion and inconsistency, and has done so in this thread - if you are aware a rule is bad, and you therefore don't play by that rule, you should not then turn around and pretend that the rule is not bad. After all, you found it so bad that you didn't play by it.
On-the-fly changes can lead bad places, but sometimes situations just don't come up until crunch time. This is why WotC is often criticised for not playtesting sufficiently - as the publishers, they should have done their own beta testing, not published a product that had holes that kept coming up and kept having to be fixed.
Where I will have to dispute you is this: rules lawyers, min-maxers, and munchkins are not in any way interchangeable terms. I don't honestly think anyone actively goes to great efforts to avoid any trace of min-maxing, i.e. having weaknesses that don't directly weaken your intended area of functionality and taking traits that directly improve your intended area of functionality - a Fighter who puts all his best stats in Str, Wis, and Con and dumps his other stats is minmaxing, whether or not that makes perfect sense for the character being portrayed. Similarly I see no harm in having someone at the table who knows what the actual rules are, so the GM can consult and decide to follow the rules or not. I think "munchkin", though, and I think someone actually actively hostile to the table, rather than merely someone who might be coming in with the wrong expectations.
I'm not sure any amount of playtesting would have caught the Charm Spell, given that the text of the spell is almost identical to the original spell... which did not break the game in previous editions.
The failure of the Charm Spell, circa 3X was due in part to a sea change in the player culture that made it possible to interpret it the way it is, and in so doing to make the fighter potentially overshadowed.
There is a synergistic effect as well, one can assume, from the inflation of monster hp which goes along with a tendency towards fighters with smaller numbers of tougher monsters. Charming a single frost giant (or even four) in previous, lower HP, editions was less useful, as the wizard would need to frequently replace them, lowering their utility.
I note too that the Rogue, frequently cited as a more effective melee combatant than the Fighter actually benefits from this same synergiest effect. The Rogue's Sneak Attack is much harder to use consistently when the party is outnumbered by attackers.
But again: 3X culture tends to drift to large tough monsters, reinforced by high HP on monsters across the board. Its as much a cultural change as it is a rule change, as nothing really stops a GM from bringing in a force of 1 HD orc archers numbering in the hundreds or thousands... large enough to 'suck' a few AoE spells with little consequence (and utterly unconcerned with SoD finger of death), at higher levels... not in the rules anyway.
QuoteMarleycat - Yeah, I'm in part doing this to get the thread to the 300 line. Can't have all my motives mature after all.
You do know that I think the solutions have been offered hundreds of pages ago and basically I am here to prove that this whole argument is senseless. The only logical thing left is to see just how long this thread can get or how long some people will talk in circles.
Quote from: omegonthesane;559988On-the-fly changes can lead bad places, but sometimes situations just don't come up until crunch time. This is why WotC is often criticised for not playtesting sufficiently - as the publishers, they should have done their own beta testing, not published a product that had holes that kept coming up and kept having to be fixed.
No matter how much playtesting rules get before publication, there are going to be rules in the game that simply do not do what is needed for a given homebrew setting or the needs of a specific group of players. Note that playtesting is certainly important, but even years of testing and rules modification based on that testing will not ensure that the RAW will work with a homebrew setting, a specific group of players, and a specific style of play.
QuoteWhere I will have to dispute you is this: rules lawyers, min-maxers, and munchkins are not in any way interchangeable terms.
I don't believe I said (or even implied) that these are interchangeable terms -- if I did, I certainly did not mean to. However, they are three sets of players who are not welcome at my table when I GM and will make me leave a group when I play. A min-maxer is someone who puts too much priority character optimizing, not someone who puts their best scores in the appropriate attributes for their character, just like having a good familiarity with the rules is not the same as being a rules lawyer.
About rules in general -- most of the people I game with have little interest in the rules as rules. They describe what they want their characters to try to do in the game world, and leaving figuring out what rules need to be applied to the GM. Some of the players in my current campaign haven't even bothered to read the rules. There is little or no difference in the effectiveness of characters played by those who have studied the rules, those who have just read the rules, and those who haven't read the rules.
Quote from: RandallS;559994About rules in general -- most of the people I game with have little interest in the rules as rules. They describe what they want their characters to try to do in the game world, and leaving figuring out what rules need to be applied to the GM. Some of the players in my current campaign haven't even bothered to read the rules. There is little or no difference in the effectiveness of characters played by those who have studied the rules, those who have just read the rules, and those who haven't read the rules.
This is likely to be because you've mentioned that you modify the rules, including on an 'on-the-fly' basis. If the rules are inconsistent or subject to DM whim (regardless of what positive spin you put on a DM making ad-hoc rulings) there is no point in knowing what the rules are.
Knowledge of the rules only provides a benefit if you want to be able to figure out 'how likely am I to be able to do this'? Now, ultimately, this punishes creative players
the most. They might think of 15 or 20 things that could be fun, interesting, effective, but describing each of the 15 or 20 things to the DM before selecting a single option would be time consuming and probably annoy the DM. The DM is likely to start saying things like 'you only have 6 seconds in a round, so just make your decision already'.
Such a player is likely to go with an option that they previously established would work, or take a 'devil-may-care' attitude. It's easier to just describe something that you'll do without actually caring if it is going to be effective or not.
I saw a movie some time ago, called 'The Other Guys'. It starred Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrel (don't know the spellings) and was mostly a terrible movie. But the 'original guys' remind me of this conundrum. They were chasing some bad guys and eventually decided to jump off a skyscraper to continue the pursuit. They intended to 'land in the bushes'. The things they had been doing to that point were so outlandish that it was clear they didn't really have a sense that it would be certain death. They ended up dying. But if you have no way of knowing whether sometimes you 'can slow yourself by grabbing at nearby window ledges' or 'soften the blow by landing in the bushes', or maybe 'maneuver while falling to land on a canopy', you're leaving yourself open to DM fiat. The DM literally gets to decide if you live or die not based on your character action or abilities, but what the DM thinks would be best for 'the game'. A generous DM might let you live through the 'leap of certain death'; a rules-DM or less generous DM might have you die. This is why Denners suggest 'fellating your DM' in these kinds of situations. A happy DM is a generous DM. And a DM that's just received a hummer is a happy DM.
Rules help keep the game fair for players and GMs. Since GMs shouldn't have an agenda or a vested interest in how the game plays out, that's not a bad thing - at least in my opinion.
And if you have a bunch of players that enjoy that type of game, and they've compared it to a more 'rules-oriented game', that's fine. In that case, it probably doesn't matter if you use the D&D rules or just have them roll a d20 and figure 'high roll is good' - you can describe what happens without regard to rules and make a very fun and playable game. But you aren't really defending the rules in D&D when you go that route.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559982Stormbringer,
I must have missed your response. What abilities does a Fighter have that I'm ignoring?
You didn't miss anything. You shit your pants all over this thread with several rage-siezures, and now it is
far too late to pretend you want an honest discussion. Even Brendan, possibly the most reasonable poster here, thinks your motives are disingenuous
at best. And you have dragged me into your arguments long after I gave up on actually responding to you. Do you think I am suddenly going to take you seriously?
All the wounded bird act will get you around here is more mockery. Luckily for you, this isn't tBP. In a couple of months, if you work at it, people might take you seriously again. The big hurdle you will need to work on is doing your own damn research. Case in point:
What abilities does a Fighter have that you are ignoring?
All of them. Get a copy of OD&D, Holmes Basic, Moldvay/Cook B/X, Mentzer BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia, AD&D 1st Edition (optional: Unearthed Arcana), AD&D 2nd Edition (Complete Fighter's Handbook; optional: Player's Option: Combat and Tactics; Arms & Equipment Guide) and read those. Play a few games with a DM that isn't interested in making the Fighter look bad. Follow the actual rules for all the classes. Read a couple of the books in Appendix N. In other words, learn a little bit regarding the game about which you endlessly complain. Then you will understand what abilities a Fighter has that you have been ignoring.
Or, keep spouting off like an ignorant jackass. The decision is yours, as is the responsibility for educating yourself. But don't pretend you have all the answers when your grasp of the version you claim as your favourite is shaky in many regards.
Quote from: jibbajibba;559958My point was you admitted the imbalance.
I also said that it does not bother me.
Quote from: jibbajibba;559958Like I said I don't mind the imbalance because it does,'t effect roleplay but does it exist... Sure
Oh wait, you admit that the imbalance does not bother you as well.
Quote from: omegonthesane;559974Jeff - Nice ad hominem there.
Dude, FrankTrollman got handed his ass in this thread, he went running over to The Gaming Den and whined about it, then we had an invasion from there that has only posted in this very thread.
So yes, you are butthurt over the truth.
Quote from: Spike;559989I'm not sure any amount of playtesting would have caught the Charm Spell, given that the text of the spell is almost identical to the original spell... which did not break the game in previous editions.
The failure of the Charm Spell, circa 3X was due in part to a sea change in the player culture that made it possible to interpret it the way it is, and in so doing to make the fighter potentially overshadowed.
Can't say I was there for when 0-2e was the big thing, so I can't comment on what the culture was at the time.
Quote from: Spike;559989There is a synergistic effect as well, one can assume, from the inflation of monster hp which goes along with a tendency towards fighters with smaller numbers of tougher monsters. Charming a single frost giant (or even four) in previous, lower HP, editions was less useful, as the wizard would need to frequently replace them, lowering their utility.
No more frequently than he would need to replace the Fighter, surely - the idea being postulated here is that a wizard can charm some giants and give them all the shinies they'd give a Fighter, without having to fill a player slot with a Fighter.
Quote from: Spike;559989I note too that the Rogue, frequently cited as a more effective melee combatant than the Fighter actually benefits from this same synergiest effect. The Rogue's Sneak Attack is much harder to use consistently when the party is outnumbered by attackers.
But again: 3X culture tends to drift to large tough monsters, reinforced by high HP on monsters across the board. Its as much a cultural change as it is a rule change, as nothing really stops a GM from bringing in a force of 1 HD orc archers numbering in the hundreds or thousands... large enough to 'suck' a few AoE spells with little consequence (and utterly unconcerned with SoD finger of death), at higher levels... not in the rules anyway.
Partly culture, partly simple practicality of running large number encounters on a tabletop. Every single one of those orcs would have to be considered, individually, to run that encounter with the rules 3.5 provides. This could have been facilitated with the use of a decent mass combat system.
3.5 also assumes that anything more than 8 levels below you cannot possibly be a threat, no matter how large the numbers it comes in, because you're meant to be that hardcore by level 9 that level 1 orcs are no threat.
Using the numbers from 3.5, a 9th level fighter who gets his share of the amount of treasure you're expected to get can be reasonably expected to wear +2 full plate and have a +1 Dex bonus; this is enough that a 1 HD orc will only hit him on a 20. So, assuming there is an orc on every square adjacent to him, there is a slightly more than 65% chance on each turn that he will not be hit even once in the entire round. Against their AC of 13, by level 9 he is bringing a +9 base attack bonus, and because it's a Fighter it'll have at least a +2 from Strength, and because level appropriate loot it'll have at least a +2 sword, for a total of 14 - more than what's needed to hit the SRD orc. Unless they're all being specially rolled for, on average orcs have 5 HP - and with a +2 Strength modifier and a +2 sword, a fighter is doing a minimum of 5 damage per strike - thus, he has a 95% chance of killing an orc with his first attack, and a 75% of killing an orc with his second attack.
And this is the *fighter* we're on about. I'm not going to get into what clerics can do, because that would mean scanning the spell compendium and the core list for what buffs last all day and thus would be up; nor Wizards, because their solution is to Charm a pet Fighter. It's not even a very well optimised Fighter, I didn't give it Cleave or anything.
EDIT: And that's Jeff and StormBringer on ignore. Probably forever.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559981It's 4am on a Friday night when you posted this (Eastern). I think expecting everyone to be posting on your schedule is a little...unfair.
Cry me a river.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559981One way to help synergize Fighers and Wizards is to allow hit point damage to work on the same field as Save-or-Die. For example, if a creature were reduced to half hit-points, if they took a -4 to saving throws, that'd be a pretty good reason to try to wear them down before hitting them with a wizard's most powerful spells. Something like that is probably easier to implement than 'synergistic spells' that make the Fighter better - especially when there are already spells that do the same thing without relying on the Fighter to deliver it - there's no benefit to putting a scorching ray in the Fighter's sword versus hitting the monster with a sword hit followed by a scorching ray - not unless death by massive damage is being used or the creature has lots of DR (that was, for some reason, applied to energy damage).
Or you can just not go the way of 4E.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559981It's been pointed out (but in case you forgot), in actual play, the Wizard has no incentive to 'contribute' to the Fighter. The Fighter has every reason to HOPE that spell-casters will 'contribute' to the Fighter, but often in a 'strict evaluation of efficiency', that is not a valid option. Not every group tries to get through each encounter with the most ruthless of efficiency, but if people's lives are on the line, such a stance isn't entirely unreasonable and certainly isn't strictly 'gamist'.
OK, how about the fact that you are sitting at a table with other people trying to accomplish a goal and maybe a little cooperation between Players would be more fun than a constant dick-waving contest of character sheets?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;559981So while reasons to combine attacks would possibly help make the Fighter more relevant, changes are needed to make that a better option than not combining attacks. If you figure that out, you might have something. But figuring that out probably means changing the rules in some significant fashion that you appear unwilling to consider.
Yes, I am unwilling, because it is not a problem with the rules - it is a problem with the Players.
The Gaming Den crowd has been espousing a common belief that it is the character sheet that makes a Player special which means changing rules for 'balance' to make the character sheets uniformly fair to one another. I and several others here advocate that the character sheet is a tool and how the Player uses what is on that character sheet is what makes a Player special.
Hence, the cultural divide showcased in this thread.
Quote from: omegonthesane;560014EDIT: And that's Jeff and StormBringer on ignore. Probably forever.
Schweet! :popcorn:
Quote from: deadDMwalking;560001This is likely to be because you've mentioned that you modify the rules, including on an 'on-the-fly' basis. If the rules are inconsistent or subject to DM whim (regardless of what positive spin you put on a DM making ad-hoc rulings) there is no point in knowing what the rules are.
Perhaps for some players, but not for most of my players over the years. For example, my current campaign uses my Microlite74 rules. As I wrote these rules myself, they don't require constant changes to work with my campaigns. I give printed copies of these rules to all players, two of the nine players have never read them and only refer to them when they need to create a character.
My players are what most here would call "causal players" -- they aren't interested in the mechanics, they prefer the mechanics to fade into the background. What they are interested in pretending to be their character and explore/interact with the setting.
QuoteKnowledge of the rules only provides a benefit if you want to be able to figure out 'how likely am I to be able to do this'?
My players never seem to have problems knowing this at least to the level they would in the real world. If in doubt, they ask. If I think they are expecting a much better (or much worse) chance than they have (and would actually know this), I tell them.
QuoteNow, ultimately, this punishes creative players the most. They might think of 15 or 20 things that could be fun, interesting, effective, but describing each of the 15 or 20 things to the DM before selecting a single option would be time consuming and probably annoy the DM.
The only players I have ever had act like this were players who simply did not enjoy our style of play. Most people in the real world in a tight situation do not think of 15 or 20 things to try and compare the odds of each in their head before they select the one with the absolute best odds and try it. In most remotely tight situations in the real world, one simply does not have the time to think up that many options, let alone evaluate the odds on each one; nor do they have complete enough information to do anything more that rough guess the odds. The game world isn't much different.
I realize that it is possible to run an RPG more like a chess game where players have time to consider 15 or 20 options and like in a chess game the rules provide 100% of the options available and allow one to very accurately predict the likely results of each action. I realize that some players enjoy this "chess game-like" style of play and find it the "most fun" way to play. However, I do not like this style of play. In fact, I find not playing at all to be much more fun than this style of play.
QuoteSuch a player is likely to go with an option that they previously established would work, or take a 'devil-may-care' attitude.
Going with what one has previously established in likely to work is what most people do most of the time in the real world, so doing so it makes sense in a game world to me.
QuoteAnd if you have a bunch of players that enjoy that type of game, and they've compared it to a more 'rules-oriented game', that's fine.
About half of the players in my current campaign have played in 3.x and 4e games with a RAW stress in the past. All have said they greatly prefer my games because they can play their character without having to play the rules.
QuoteBut you aren't really defending the rules in D&D when you go that route
I'm certainly not defending the rules in WOTC D&D, but the rules in early versions of TSR D&D were clearly designed for GM to modify to create his game. OD&D clearly says this in several places in the rules, for example. As I don't like WOTC editions of D&D very much, this is fine by me. WOTC D&D is great if you like it, but it does not lend itself to the styles of play I enjoy.
Quote from: StormBringer;560007You didn't miss anything. You shit your pants all over this thread with several rage-siezures, and now it is far too late to pretend you want an honest discussion.
I didn't think I missed anything, but it sounded like you were planning on engaging in an honest discussion, maybe for the first time. And when I tell you that you're a dumbass, it is virtually without emotion. I don't really care that you're a dumbass. It certainly reduces the quality of the conversation I hoped to have, but this is the internet, and most of the people who post through message boards are dumbasses. They're just more common in some places than others (like ask.com). If everyone on the RPGsite were a dumbass, I wouldn't post here - you're the only one that is clearly a dumbass.
Benoist is difficult, of course. He even appears to have that reputation. He also seems to ascribe motivations to people that they don't have - and seems convinced that any plain English is a slipper slope to whatever the Forge's agenda is. But I still have hope that he and I can come to understand each other's positions better. But you - I have no hope that you'll stop being a dumbass. I don't have any emotion invested in that statement. I don't intend for it to hurt you nor do I expect it will hurt you - you don't care about my opinion, so why should it. But my opinion is that you are a dumbass. If you carefully evaluated why I came to that opinion, you might even have a chance to improve yourself. Because, and let me make this clear, while there are a lot of people posting here that I disagree with (even denners), you are the only one that I think is a hopeless dumbass.
Quote from: StormBringer;560007Even Brendan, possibly the most reasonable poster here, thinks your motives are disingenuous at best. And you have dragged me into your arguments long after I gave up on actually responding to you. Do you think I am suddenly going to take you seriously?
No. I don't think you ever had any intention of taking me seriously. Nor do I think you ever had any intention of responding to any point I made, or any issue I brought to the table for discussion. It's clear that you don't want me here. But I promise you, I'm not being 'disingenuous'. I'm still very interested in why people that say this problem doesn't exist have come to that conclusion - since for me it appears self-evident. Brendan has made it clear why, while he clearly recognizes the imbalance, it does not pose a problem for him. I respect that decision. If it works for him and his game, it's a good thing. I just point out that it doesn't work for me, or my game, or a large number of people that I know.
Quote from: StormBringer;560007All the wounded bird act will get you around here is more mockery. Luckily for you, this isn't tBP. In a couple of months, if you work at it, people might take you seriously again. The big hurdle you will need to work on is doing your own damn research.
I don't mind mockery. Despite your accusation that I'm suffering from 'nerd rage', I'm not. I have enjoyed trying to communicate the issues as I see them in an effective fashion. I've clearly failed, but in reviewing my posts, I can take pride in the fact that all of my responses at least attempt to address the topic at hand (Wizard vs Fighter Balance Bullshit), and I've used generally correct punctuation and grammar. While I may have failed to communicate effectively, it's not for lack of trying. And people like you have consistently claimed that I don't have a point while consistently failing to say why my point is invalid.
Quote from: StormBringer;560007Case in point:
What abilities does a Fighter have that you are ignoring? All of them. Get a copy of OD&D, Holmes Basic, Moldvay/Cook B/X, Mentzer BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia, AD&D 1st Edition (optional: Unearthed Arcana), AD&D 2nd Edition (Complete Fighter's Handbook; optional: Player's Option: Combat and Tactics; Arms & Equipment Guide) and read those.
I've tried to explain why I consider most of these abilities as 'non-abilities'. Just like I tried to explain why 3.5 feats are mostly 'non-abilities'. But I certainly think it would be more productive to pick an edition, clarify disagreements there, and then start shifting to different editions. I've also explained several reasons why I think 3.5 is the best edition to start the discourse in - besides being the arguably most popular D&D system ever, it is also one that the current designers of D&D Next have extensive experience with. Further, the issues that I'm talking about are much clearer in 3.5 than other editions. It's a little like Kepler finding the eccentricity of Mar's orbit - since it was the most eccentric, it was the easiest to prove the validity of the theory, then the theory could be applied to other situations to see if it applied or did not.
Quote from: StormBringer;560007Play a few games with a DM that isn't interested in making the Fighter look bad. Follow the actual rules for all the classes. Read a couple of the books in Appendix N. In other words, learn a little bit regarding the game about which you endlessly complain. Then you will understand what abilities a Fighter has that you have been ignoring.
I've also explained that this is something I've done. As a Player and a DM, I have nothing against Fighters. I like the
idea of fighters - but the rules don't support the idea of Fighters. They become unplayable without 'tweaking'. That's a problem because I think rules should support the game design. Fighters as a 'base class', conceivably played up to 20th level appears to be a game design - but it failed because Fighter abilities don't transition to high level play.
Quote from: StormBringer;560007Or, keep spouting off like an ignorant jackass. The decision is yours, as is the responsibility for educating yourself. But don't pretend you have all the answers when your grasp of the version you claim as your favourite is shaky in many regards.
I'll keep 'spouting off'. I think I've made some points worthy of consideration but nobody is addressing them. So it's hard to tell that I'm an ignorant jackass. I wouldn't mind someone pointing out where I'm wrong.
Quote from: jeff37923;560011I also said that it does not bother me.
Oh wait, you admit that the imbalance does not bother you as well.
Absolutely and I have said that in every post I have made on the thread. Your point ?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;560021I didn't think I missed anything...
It's too late for that.
QuoteI wouldn't mind someone pointing out where I'm wrong.
Go back and read the last 1500 posts.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560024Your point ?
That you are just here to gibber, which does nothing but add to the background noise.
You should be adding to the foreground noise instead!
Quote from: jeff37923;559949CRKrueger? Benoist? You guys are taking him seriously?]
I was giving him a choice.
Hey, deadDMwalking. Props for being polite under trying circumstances. While the worst of this thread was MGuy with his "translated" bullshit, the ad hominems from the other side are pretty thick - as well as the general line "You are a stupid fool who has never played if you don't think that old-school D&D is perfect in every way."
To actually answer your question, deadDMwalking - the advantages the fighter has in 1e are:
1) Compared to the cleric: slightly better hit points (+1 per level on average, more if Con 17+), better THAC0, and the ability to use swords (important because magic swords are the most common magic weapon).
2) Compared the the magic user: much better hit points, much better THAC0, and ability to use a much better range of armor and weapons.
In 3.X, add in the bonus feats that fighters get.
The question is, how much are these advantages worth? In my experience with 1e, the fighter is much more powerful than the magic-user at low levels - but conversely was majorly overshadowed at high levels (esp. 13+). I don't have experience with high levels in 3.X, but I did find that the wizard was better off at low levels compared to 1e. I considered a good thing for low-level play, compared to my 1e experience of the low-level magic-user as the dart-throwing guy - but I also recognize that this made the wizard more unbalanced at higher levels.
However, the relative value of spells vs. the advantages listed depends a lot on how you play. The frost giant example of play gave me a fair idea, and it sounded reasonable to me, but there are options within the rules to give more opportunities to the fighter under similar circumstances. I posted another example of play a few hundred posts back of breaking into a castle, but no one commented on it that I noticed. I'm not entirely sure what other peoples' style of high-level play looks like, but I can see some circumstances where the fighter isn't overshadowed.
To others: instead of platitudes, ad-hominems, and/or examples from non-gaming fiction like Conan - can you give some actual play examples of what your high-level play looks like?
The comments about being rules-bound and/or lacking creativity seem largely irrelevant to the fighter-vs-spellcaster issue. Certainly in my AD&D1e play, we were all creative, but one of the prime sources for creativity was creative uses of spells and other magic.
Quote from: omegonthesane;559974Benoist:
You make reference to "gaming the rules" as a thing that causes you consternation. If you are saying that on your table, I am not allowed to do a thing that is perfectly permitted under the rules, because in doing that I am making the game unplayable - you are, in fact, making "significant changes to the rules" that you actually play by, because in addition to the rules of the book, you are adding a rule that prevents that given broken combination.
... and you blow it. That is a completely retarded logic. I hate to break it to you, but yes, everything you do at my game table is up to my approval, because I'm the DM and referee here. Not the rules book. If you don't like it, you can run your own game. It's not "changing the rules", it's using them for what they were intended: as a tool, a mean, not an end.
Quote from: omegonthesane;559974Your accusation that the Cleric of Boccob who Kaelik played at his table "wouldn't pass a smell test at an actual game table", besides being flat-out untrue, not, in the slightest, a refutation of the idea that you need to make "significant changes to the rules" to prevent that sort of build.
I dare you to take Kaelic's build and present it at various game tables to play. I guarantee you that, unless you are playing among your peers (i.e. OCD players who just enjoy ridiculous builds to game the system instead of, you know... playing the game), or playing with a complete retard of a DM who has no fucking idea what it is he is doing, your Arrow Demon will be rejected outright. In 90+% of cases. We can make a bet on this if you want.
Quote from: omegonthesane;559974I would like to see a clear statement of how, exactly, deadDMwalking's play example was mismanaged.
See (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=550607#post550607) there. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=551011&postcount=889)
Quote from: omegonthesane;559974CRK - I have no investment in how broken or otherwise 0e-2e are; the amount I know about them is enough to convince me they are not designed to run the sort of games that I would enjoy.
There are three types of people on your side of the equation here: (1) people like you who actually know fuck all about gaming prior to 2000 and have basically had all their tabletop experience influenced by the bullshit of the internet for the past 12 years, including the idea that "System Matters" and all the Forge bullshit that snowballed to give us the worst of 3.5, including 4th ed, which you might not appreciate for aesthetic reasons, while in fact supporting its base logic of absolute game balance, "gamism" and all that - i.e. it's not that you wouldn't like 4e because of its design intents, but instead because it failed to materialize these intents in a way that would be to your liking. (2) People who apparently should definitely know better but have let themselves be drowned into the bullshit. These people are more to blame - they had a choice before them, unlike you who started role playing and learned from what you got - because they deliberately let themselves brainwashed into that CharOp OCD bullshit over the years. They don't realize it, and like you, they are basically speaking another gaming language by now, completely divorced from what guys like me and others are talking about on this thread. (3) People who actually know what they're doing and are coming to this thread with an agenda of their own, which you are coopting without any idea what it is you are in fact supporting.
I'll let you find out which is which.
Quote from: jhkim;560035Hey, deadDMwalking. Props for being polite under trying circumstances.
That's right, constantly calling Stormbringer a dumbass is not ad hominem at all, it's actually super polite in these trying circumstances...
Give me a fucking break, John. Try harder.
And guys. This is NOT RPGnet here. You don't get props for expressing manufactured outrage over "personal attacks" here. That doesn't actually do anything for you, but demonstrate what a fucking hypocrite you are.
youstopitnoyou
Somebody suggested that this thread should be sent to WotC to demonstrate why 5e is most likely not going to work. I think that's the big lesson of this thread here, to me: there is no middle ground.
I think there's a fundamental break in gaming culture that occurred with the advent of 3rd ed. Not for every person that enjoys 3rd ed to this day mind you - I got plenty of friends who enjoy 3rd ed like Jeff or Marleycat etc etc - are brainwashed by all the bullshit displayed by the rainmen here, but this is something that was at work from the onset of 3rd ed and only gained momentum since then, especially thanks to the internet echo chamber, up until we've had total shitcakes like 4e and WFRP3 dumped on us by designers who listened to the Forge sirens.
At this point there's just a fundamental cultural break going on, from my POV. I don't think you can build a game without either cattering to one side of this debate, or the other. If I'm right, 5e is doomed, no matter how modular it ends up being, because the echo chamber will take over and drown everything into a single edition culture just like it did with 3rd ed up to the point it gave us 4th ed. I just don't see this having a happy outcome in the short term.
Quote from: Benoist;560051Somebody suggested that this thread should be sent to WotC to demonstrate why 5e is most likely not going to work. I think that's the big lesson of this thread here, to me: there is no middle ground.
I think there's a fundamental break in gaming culture that occurred with the advent of 3rd ed. Not for every person that enjoys 3rd ed to this day mind you - I got plenty of friends who enjoy 3rd ed like Jeff or Marleycat etc etc - are brainwashed by all the bullshit displayed by the rainmen here, but this is something that was at work from the onset of 3rd ed and only gained momentum since then, especially thanks to the internet echo chamber, up until we've had total shitcakes like 4e and WFRP3 dumped on us by designers who listened to the Forge sirens.
At this point there's just a fundamental cultural break going on, from my POV. I don't think you can build a game without either cattering to one side of this debate, or the other. If I'm right, 5e is doomed, no matter how modular it ends up being, because the echo chamber will take over and drown everything into a single edition culture just like it did with 3rd ed up to the point it gave us 4th ed. I just don't see this having a happy outcome in the short term.
At first I would've been inclined to disagree with you but after watching the reactions to the playtest et al. I fear that you may be totally correct. I do absolutely agree that you're partially correct which is bad enough in my eyes.
Quote from: Marleycat;559826I don't give a fuck if I actually agree with you but after the bullshit WoT. Can I join? Seriously can I?
:hatsoff:
I am on Facebook, and I have a Vintage Gaming page. I will be more than happy to have that double as my fan club page. :)
Quote from: Benoist;560051...especially thanks to the internet echo chamber...
the internet is a good thing, but the downside for gamers is it can be so easy to buy into sophistry or arguments that look good on paper. I have definitely seen great GMs decline because they were trying to appease some vague cliq on the internet rather than the people playing at their table (or themselves for that matter).
Quote from: Marleycat;560053At first I would've been inclined to disagree with you but after watching the reactions to the playtest et al. I fear that you may be totally correct. I do absolutely agree that you're partially correct which is bad enough in my eyes.
I would not have agreed with that thought a few weeks ago, and yet here we are. But never fear. This is mostly bad news for WotC and other publishers, including the small fish who hope to become bigger by selling us another hobby altogether where they would rule as kings and queens, who are dreaming to take over the whole hobby with one game to rule them all. This is not the end of the role playing hobby (or the story game hobby for that matter).
I'm still convinced we won, and the role playing hobby won (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=18606) in the last few years. If anything, WotC falling apart with 4th edition has proven once and for all that you can't sustain a game cattering solely to one segment of the players' base.
What remains is us, the enthusiasts, whatever side we're on, and we'll keep on bringing stuff to our game tables and sharing it with the outside gaming world because that's ultimately what we do. This is a creative hobby, and wanting to share stuff with other gamers is part of that picture. The guys who understand fuck all about role playing games, the theorists who want to change the hobby to catter to their own ego and "visions" of "how better it could get if only we changed the fundamental nature of the games," the failed authors who want to use the hobby as a springboard for fiction writing, onward to better jobs in the MMO industry, the guys who masturbate on marketing plans that hopefully will make gamers forget they are the ones in charge of their own games and not the next DDI update, these are the real fucking losers here. Fuck you guys. Leave the hobby, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Let us play with our model trains and enjoy the hell out of our cottage "industry".
We know what's good for ourselves. You don't. And we'll keep on playing because we love these games, and we'll share them with our kids, our neighbors and friends. You guys have fucking lost on your bid to change the hobby into a money treadmill by feeding people bullshit about "progress in game design" and "game balance uber alles" and "story is everything, wait for the next module feeding you the metaplot for next week!" and all that crap.
Goodbye assholes. You won't be missed.
Since we touched on this in both the "Mother May I?" and grid-based combat threads, I'm going to revisit a point I was making there in the context of this one, too.
Quote from: RandallS;560020My players are what most here would call "causal players" -- they aren't interested in the mechanics, they prefer the mechanics to fade into the background. What they are interested in pretending to be their character and explore/interact with the setting.
In my experience, casual players can be easy to run for so long as their goals are pretty clear. They tend to go with the flow, tend to not sweat the details, and tend not to try to do things outside of the box too much. As an added bonus, they'll also often accept whatever the GM tells them without question.
But there are also players who are "power players", not in the "power-gamer" sense of trying win but in the "power user" sense that they proactively make their own flow, do sweat the details, and do try to do things outside of the box. Such players can also be pretending to be their characters who are exploring and interacting with their setting and may even want the mechanics to fade into the background, but they do so at a deeper detail.
And you can see this divide between normal people in the real world. For example, there are plenty of people who drive who have a superficial understanding of how their car works and use it simply to get from point A to point B on a well-marked road. There are, however, other people who drive off-road or race or even engage in high-speed driving to pursue criminals. A "power driver" needs more understanding and information than a "casual driver" does. And when I role-play, I personally play to be the off-road driver, the drift racer, or a police officer and not a guy in a minivan driving home from the grocery store (which could be me in the real world).
In the group I've done most of my gaming with, most of the players were also GMs and even those that were often had a pretty good idea of what they wanted their characters to do. In the cases where we had true casual gamers, they could get overwhelmed and eclipsed by the other players and the divide was pretty clear. A discussion we had about it at one point labeled the two types of players "wolves" and "sheep". (The point of that discussion was about keeping the "sheep", the casual gamers, from being overwhelmed by the "wolves" , the proactive players.)
My point here is that what works fine for a group of casual gamers with a good GM doesn't necessarily work for "power players", not because they are "rules lawyers", "min-maxers", "munchkins", or are deliberately trying to disrupt the game, slow down the game, or annoy the GM but because the way they interact with the setting can be more complex, detailed, and outside the box than what casual gamers usually do. As such, their need for details and information can dominate or even overwhelm the verbal communication channel to the GM such that alternatives such as visual representations of the scene (e.g., map grids) and detailed rules (which the players can look up and evaluate without talking to the GM) become quite useful. I don't advocate for objective rules, detailed rules, or map boards because I want a slower game or want to play the rules rather than my character, but because I've seen games run worse without them.
And I think that's a big part of why there is no one best system for everyone. What people need are rules to help them take care of the things that they can't do as well without rules but they don't need rules for things that they do just fine without rules. The same is true of various tools for gaming. For you, things like map grids are an unnecessary overhead because your games run fine without them, but for someone whose game doesn't run fine without them, they can be a desirable addition.
Quote from: RandallS;560020My players never seem to have problems knowing this at least to the level they would in the real world. If in doubt, they ask. If I think they are expecting a much better (or much worse) chance than they have (and would actually know this), I tell them.
This, too, can depend on the group and how well their assumptions about how reality works mesh with each other. In cases where assumptions frequently don't mesh (and this can happen whether we are talking about genre assumptions or "realism"),
every assumption can be in doubt. Assumption clash can be caused by everything from the participants drawing inspiration from different genres or works within a genre to how well the participants understand physics and the real world.
How likely is it that a character will get hurt jumping down a 10 foot wall? What are the odds of surviving a 50 foot fall? How likely is it for me to sneak up behind a guard and kill him with a sword without him making a noise? How likely is it for a single arrow shot to be able to kill a target in one shot so they can't call out for help? Even these basic questions can produce a wide range of answers based on everything from what fictional television shows, movies, or books a person has read to whether they've participated in athletics or understand physics and even that gets terribly clouded by anecdotal examples (e.g., the rare person who survives a fall from a 40+ story building or from an airplane without their parachute opening).
I've played with the same group of people for over a decade and we still suffered from all sorts of assumption clashes. That's because the players had different experiences and were drawing from different examples for their understanding of how things should work. Casual players can mask a lot of the problem because they generally don't get too fancy and will go along with whatever the GM tells them, but it becomes a bigger issue when players start trying things that are fancy and fall into areas where different interpretations are more likely.
Quote from: RandallS;560020The only players I have ever had act like this were players who simply did not enjoy our style of play. Most people in the real world in a tight situation do not think of 15 or 20 things to try and compare the odds of each in their head before they select the one with the absolute best odds and try it. In most remotely tight situations in the real world, one simply does not have the time to think up that many options, let alone evaluate the odds on each one; nor do they have complete enough information to do anything more that rough guess the odds. The game world isn't much different.
People in the real world have the advantage of a visceral "multimedia" understanding of their surroundings and options that comes from being there that can be seriously diminished or lacking from a verbal overview of the situation and how it's described.
For example, right now I have no idea how many
feet I can leap in a running jump or even what's reasonable for a normal person without looking the numbers up, but faced with a chasm that I can see, I could come up with a pretty good visceral feel for whether I could jump it or not. So if you tell me there is a 10-foot chasm splitting the room, I can't viscerally evaluate how well I think my character could jump that chasm without knowing how either the rules or the GM evaluate that jump. Even if I'd carefully researched jumping and memorize the Olympic records for reference, there is no guarantee that the GM is going to understand the odds the same way that I do or agree that real world facts matter in their fantasy setting.
What rules add to a situation like this is an objective assessment that the players can consult without having to query the GM about it. (And, yes, one way to mitigate this problem is for the GM to simply warn players when they think they are about to make a clearly foolish decision that their character wouldn't try.)
What well-researched rules can also do is give players a better understanding of how things work. For example, players can learn something about how real combat works based on what gives positive and negative modifiers in the rules system.
Quote from: RandallS;560020I realize that it is possible to run an RPG more like a chess game where players have time to consider 15 or 20 options and like in a chess game the rules provide 100% of the options available and allow one to very accurately predict the likely results of each action. I realize that some players enjoy this "chess game-like" style of play and find it the "most fun" way to play. However, I do not like this style of play. In fact, I find not playing at all to be much more fun than this style of play.
And to the degree that this is simply a matter of preference, you should certainly play the sorts of games that you and your players enjoy. I do understand the appeal of a fast-moving game and also understand the desire for the rules to fade into the background, and that's a big reason why I often prefer rules-light games like Fudge over much heavier systems. But all of these choices come with a trade-off and the reason why rules exist in various game systems is because someone, somewhere, thought they would either be fun or necessary, not because they were trying to produce a crummy game or experience.
Quote from: RandallS;560020About half of the players in my current campaign have played in 3.x and 4e games with a RAW stress in the past. All have said they greatly prefer my games because they can play their character without having to play the rules.
I also understand the appeal here, but sufficient assumption clash between player and GM can lead to the players playing the GM rather than their character which, in my experience, than playing the rules. And you'll notice that this is exactly what many of the counter examples that people give you talk about. It may not be a problem that you have but it is a problem that other people have, and it's not necessarily because they are "rules-lawyes", "min-maxers", "munchkins", or are bad people with serious character deficiencies that nobody could have run role-playing with.
Quote from: Benoist;560042... and you blow it. That is a completely retarded logic. I hate to break it to you, but yes, everything you do at my game table is up to my approval, because I'm the DM and referee here. Not the rules book. If you don't like it, you can run your own game. It's not "changing the rules", it's using them for what they were intended: as a tool, a mean, not an end.
Your insistent terminology is meaningless. The baseline for a game you are running is the rules of that game. Every deviation from that is a change, unspoken or otherwise, to your table's rules.
Quote from: Benoist;560042
See (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=550607#post550607) there. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=551011&postcount=889)
Yeah, I'm seeing. The only, and I mean only, calls made there were the idea that there totes should've been convenient contrived side passages (not something the GM would naturally think of) and that the party should have controlled the frost giants from the start (which would not have disguised in any way the fact the fighter was weaker than a frost giant).
Quote from: Benoist;560042Ad hominem ranting categorisation of anyone who could possibly disagree with me
Well, I gave you a chance despite what I'd seen of you in the last three hundred fucking pages. That was a mistake.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;560057the internet is a good thing, but the downside for gamers is it can be so easy to buy into sophistry or arguments that look good on paper. I have definitely seen great GMs decline because they were trying to appease some vague cliq on the internet rather than the people playing at their table (or themselves for that matter).
Certainly. I have seen some terrific GMs getting sucked into the internet theory and was constantly going "WTF is this shit?" at the end of the 3rd ed years. It's one of the main reasons I burned out on the internet message boards like ENWorld c. 2007.
Quote from: Benoist;560059I would not have agreed with that thought a few weeks ago, and yet here we are. But never fear. This is mostly bad news for WotC and other publishers, including the small fish who hope to become bigger by selling us another hobby altogether where they would rule as kings and queens, who are dreaming to take over the whole hobby with one game to rule them all. This is not the end of the role playing hobby (or the story game hobby for that matter).
I'm still convinced we won, and the role playing hobby won (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=18606) in the last few years. If anything, WotC falling apart with 4th edition has proven once and for all that you can't sustain a game cattering solely to one segment of the players' base.
What remains is us, the enthusiasts, whatever side we're on, and we'll keep on bringing stuff to our game tables and sharing it with the outside gaming world because that's ultimately what we do. This is a creative hobby, and wanting to share stuff with other gamers is part of that picture. The guys who understand fuck all about role playing games, the theorists who want to change the hobby to catter to their own ego and "visions" of "how better it could get if only we changed the fundamental nature of the games," the failed authors who want to use the hobby as a springboard for fiction writing, onward to better jobs in the MMO industry, the guys who masturbate on marketing plans that hopefully will make gamers forget they are the ones in charge of their own games and not the next DDI update, these are the real fucking losers here. Fuck you guys. Leave the hobby, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Let us play with our model trains and enjoy the hell out of our cottage "industry".
We know what's good for ourselves. You don't. And we'll keep on playing because we love these games, and we'll share them with our kids, our neighbors and friends. You guys have fucking lost on your bid to change the hobby into a money treadmill by feeding people bullshit about "progress in game design" and "game balance uber alles" and "story is everything, wait for the next module feeding you the metaplot for next week!" and all that crap.
Goodbye assholes. You won't be missed.
+1 to infinity.
Quote from: omegonthesane;560066Well, I gave you a chance despite what I'd seen of you in the last three hundred fucking pages. That was a mistake.
Fuck you too! :hatsoff:
Quote from: Benoist;560051I think there's a fundamental break in gaming culture that occurred with the advent of 3rd ed. Not for every person that enjoys 3rd ed to this day mind you - I got plenty of friends who enjoy 3rd ed like Jeff or Marleycat etc etc - are brainwashed by all the bullshit displayed by the rainmen here, but this is something that was at work from the onset of 3rd ed and only gained momentum since then, especially thanks to the internet echo chamber, up until we've had total shitcakes like 4e and WFRP3 dumped on us by designers who listened to the Forge sirens.
Serious style differences in this hobby go all the way back to early days of the hobby (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html) and, frankly, the sort of game that Old Geezer describes playing with Gary Gygax in the very earliest days of the hobby seem every bit as undesirable and alien to me and what I do when I role-play as the games championed by 4e advocates do. The way games have traditionally escaped this problem was by offering a framework that could be used by all styles of play in a form that was easy to house rule.
Where recent editions of D&D (and other games) have fallen down is that they have rules that are so tightly integrated and intertwined that trying to introduce house rules or trying to fudge anything has become very difficult. And they've also fallen down by drinking the Forge Kool Aid called "coherency" which recommends building games that maximize the experience for one style of play at the expense of all others, thus offering nothing to anyone who doesn't like that style of play.
Quote from: omegonthesane;560066...the idea that there totes should've been convenient contrived side passages...
Are you
fucking kidding me? Did you run that message through the "popular junior high-school student" filter before posting? Were you under the impression that most of us here are 14yrs old?
The cool thing about message boards is that you don't have to abbreviate. You actually have the time to type out whole words so people know what you are talking about, and you don't look like you are replying from a Selena Gomez concert.
Quote from: StormBringer;560068+1 to infinity.
Yeah.
I have not been on this thread as much as I'd like, due to insane worload and parenting, but to echo Ben earlier, there are a number of 'cultural divides' here that are very, very hard to bridge.
Rules vs game
Gm as referee, not just rules interpreter (and GM balance vs rules balance)
Immersion vs Shared Narrative
Though I disagree about the marketing aspect. There are ways WotC could use modularity to synthesize and take advantage of the GM's need to houserule to match system to setting/gamestyle, they just don't have the vision and mental scope.
Quote from: John Morrow;560072Serious style differences in this hobby go all the way back to early days of the hobby (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html) and, frankly, the sort of game that Old Geezer describes playing with Gary Gygax in the very earliest days of the hobby seem every bit as undesirable and alien to me and what I do when I role-play as the games championed by 4e advocates do. The way games have traditionally escaped this problem was by offering a framework that could be used by all styles of play in a form that was easy to house rule.
Where recent editions of D&D (and other games) have fallen down is that they have rules that are so tightly integrated and intertwined that trying to introduce house rules or trying to fudge anything has become very difficult. And they've also fallen down by drinking the Forge Kool Aid called "coherency" which recommends building games that maximize the experience for one style of play at the expense of all others, thus offering nothing to anyone who doesn't like that style of play.
I basically agree that the Forge was the defining factor that precipitated the change in game design focus and methodology and poisoned the conversation at the well for the past few years at least. When I read the WotC guys talking about the game today I find myself rolling my eyes more often than not, and that is the fruit of that change in paradigm, big fucking time.
Quote from: John Morrow;560072Serious style differences in this hobby go all the way back to early days of the hobby (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html) and, frankly, the sort of game that Old Geezer describes playing with Gary Gygax in the very earliest days of the hobby seem every bit as undesirable and alien to me and what I do when I role-play as the games championed by 4e advocates do. The way games have traditionally escaped this problem was by offering a framework that could be used by all styles of play in a form that was easy to house rule.
Where recent editions of D&D (and other games) have fallen down is that they have rules that are so tightly integrated and intertwined that trying to introduce house rules or trying to fudge anything has become very difficult. And they've also fallen down by drinking the Forge Kool Aid called "coherency" which recommends building games that maximize the experience for one style of play at the expense of all others, thus offering nothing to anyone who doesn't like that style of play.
I couldn't agree more. 4e is especially bad for this. The game itself is tight the rules clear and solid but there just isn't any good way to alter the game to taste like you're supposed to do with a game like Dnd (a gateway game to the hobby that is supposed to cater to all playstyles).
Quote from: Marleycat;560077I couldn't agree more. 4e is especially bad for this. The game itself is tight the rules clear and solid but there just isn't any good way to alter the game to taste like you're supposed to do with a game like Dnd (a gateway game to the hobby that is supposed to cater to all playstyles).
Vreeg's first Rule of Setting Design,
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."
The underlying logic here is that each setting and homebrew and style actually requires houseruling, since they are all different. Ergo, a RPG with tighly bound, hard to alter without fucking up the rest of the game rules is applicable to a very narrow band of settings and gamestyles.
Quote from: LordVreeg;560075Yeah.
I have not been on this thread as much as I'd like, due to insane worload and parenting, but to echo Ben earlier, there are a number of 'cultural divides' here that are very, very hard to bridge.
Rules vs game
Gm as referee, not just rules interpreter (and GM balance vs rules balance)
Immersion vs Shared Narrative
Well, the reason this particular thread has gone nowhere in a month of the same fucking posts is that it's a taste argument that's been pretending to be a bunch of other things and taste arguments can never go anywhere. Specifically, one group (the regulars) are advocating a sword & sorcery game, and the other group (the Gamer's Den people) are advocating a laser-eyebeams-or-GTFO supers game. The rules vs. game stuff in this thread isn't the crux of the argument really.
Quote from: Imp;560084Well, the reason this particular thread has gone nowhere in a month of the same fucking posts is that it's a taste argument that's been pretending to be a bunch of other things and taste arguments can never go anywhere. Specifically, one group (the regulars) are advocating a sword & sorcery game, and the other group (the Gamer's Den people) are advocating a laser-eyebeams-or-GTFO supers game. The rules vs. game stuff in this thread isn't the crux of the argument really.
Bingo! I like the avatar Imp, The Far Side rocks.:)
Quote from: Marleycat;560077I couldn't agree more. 4e is especially bad for this. The game itself is tight the rules clear and solid but there just isn't any good way to alter the game to taste like you're supposed to do with a game like Dnd (a gateway game to the hobby that is supposed to cater to all playstyles).
4e added the "coherency" nonsense, which (combined with the deliberate "rule mastery" nonsense from 3e) made things go from being a problem to bring a disaster.
Quote from: John Morrow;560064In my experience, casual players can be easy to run for so long as their goals are pretty clear. They tend to go with the flow, tend to not sweat the details, and tend not to try to do things outside of the box too much. As an added bonus, they'll also often accept whatever the GM tells them without question.
That's not my experience, or at least not completely. Some causal players are just like this description, but the majority of the ones I've had in my games over the years are not really like this. They don't always go with the flow, often sweat the details, and often try stuff outside the box. The difference between casual players and hardcore in my experience is that hardcore players think in terms of the rules and often are actively buying games, reading gaming magazines, reading message boards, etc. outside my campaign while the casual players don't buy rules, say what they want to do without many rules references, don't follow hobby news, gaming boards, or the like and probably don't even think of RPGs when they aren't doing something related to my game (or whatever game they are playing).
QuoteAnd when I role-play, I personally play to be the off-road driver, the drift racer, or a police officer and not a guy in a minivan driving home from the grocery store (which could be me in the real world).
As do most of the casual players in my games. :)
QuoteAnd I think that's a big part of why there is no one best system for everyone. What people need are rules to help them take care of the things that they can't do as well without rules but they don't need rules for things that they do just fine without rules. The same is true of various tools for gaming. For you, things like map grids are an unnecessary overhead because your games run fine without them, but for someone whose game doesn't run fine without them, they can be a desirable addition.
100% agreement. This is why I oppose efforts to narrow D&D to focus on one particular style of play as 4e did. You can end up with a great game that way -- at least for the people who want the game focused in the area it does. But D&D has always catered to many different styles of play and ways of playing. It should never require minis and battlegrids or terrain, but it really must accommodate those who want to use them. It should be flexible enough to allow those who want the rules to be use RAW and as law to treat them as such while not preventing those who want them to be nothing more than guidelines for the GM to treat them as such. Etc.
QuoteAssumption clash can be caused by everything from the participants drawing inspiration from different genres or works within a genre to how well the participants understand physics and the real world.
Agreed, but it simply isn't a problem I have very often. My assumptions as GM determine reality and I apparently communicate them well enough that very few of the many players I've had over the years have a major problem with it.
QuoteHow likely is it that a character will get hurt jumping down a 10 foot wall? What are the odds of surviving a 50 foot fall? How likely is it for me to sneak up behind a guard and kill him with a sword without him making a noise?
Those questions are meaningless to me as they cannot be answered in general (which is what a rules set would need to do). They can only be answered in terms of a specific situation. Even something simple like jumping off a ten foot wall has too many situation dependent variables (weather, what's at the bottom of the wall, the character's attributes, the character's current condition, what the character is wearing, how the character jumps, etc.) for some type of one-size fits all probability and list of standard modifiers. The chances of successful jumping one time probably will not be exactly the same another time.
QuoteSo if you tell me there is a 10-foot chasm splitting the room, I can't viscerally evaluate how well I think my character could jump that chasm without knowing how either the rules or the GM evaluate that jump.
Or you could do what players in such situations have been doing in my games for years ask how likely their character "thinks" it is that he would be able to make the jump. It is, after all, something the character would have a good idea about so it is information the GM should be happy to give out. Just as he should provide cultural info the character would know that the player would not.
QuoteWhat rules add to a situation like this is an objective assessment that the players can consult without having to query the GM about it. (And, yes, one way to mitigate this problem is for the GM to simply warn players when they think they are about to make a clearly foolish decision that their character wouldn't try.)
I do the latter too. Just as I would warn a Paladin about to do something his god would consider evil that the player might not.
QuoteBut all of these choices come with a trade-off and the reason why rules exist in various game systems is because someone, somewhere, thought they would either be run or necessary, not because they were trying to produce a crummy game or experience.
No argument there. I doubt even the designer of FATAL set out to make an awful game. I know the designers of D&D 4e did not either. However, from my POV, both of those games provide an experience I'd really rather avoid. Just as I'm sure there are a lot of players who'd really rather avoid the OD&D or the Microlite74 experience.
Quote from: John Morrow;560072Where recent editions of D&D (and other games) have fallen down is that they have rules that are so tightly integrated and intertwined that trying to introduce house rules or trying to fudge anything has become very difficult. And they've also fallen down by drinking the Forge Kool Aid called "coherency" which recommends building games that maximize the experience for one style of play at the expense of all others, thus offering nothing to anyone who doesn't like that style of play.
Thread winner!!!
Quote from: John Morrow;5600914e added the "coherency" nonsense, which (combined with the deliberate "rule mastery" nonsense from 3e) made things go from being a problem to bring a disaster.
Worst of both world's I guess. At least in 3x's case the system mastery stuff could be mitigated. But this coherency issue you speak of just can't be ignored or mitigated.
Quote from: Marleycat;560095Worst of both world's I guess. At least in 3x's case the system mastery stuff could be mitigated. But this coherency issue you speak of just can't be ignored or mitigated.
So the key to D&D Next working for a large part of the hobby may be less a matter of creating rules that everyone will like but rules that anyone can safely ignore or fudge around.
Quote from: John Morrow;560096So the key to D&D Next working for a large part of the hobby may be less a matter of creating rules that everyone will like but rules that anyone can safely ignore or fudge around.
We already have that. It's called 0/1/2e. That is practically 2e's calling card.:)
Currently I am pretty depressed about 5e it doesn't seem to be going in a direction I will find to my liking. I could be wrong though so I will wait and see.
Quote from: LordVreeg;560075Yeah.
I have not been on this thread as much as I'd like, due to insane worload and parenting, but to echo Ben earlier, there are a number of 'cultural divides' here that are very, very hard to bridge.
Rules vs game
Gm as referee, not just rules interpreter (and GM balance vs rules balance)
Immersion vs Shared Narrative
Though I disagree about the marketing aspect. There are ways WotC could use modularity to synthesize and take advantage of the GM's need to houserule to match system to setting/gamestyle, they just don't have the vision and mental scope.
There are divides for sure I am not certain they are unbreachable.
For example I think that DeadDM and Ben could sit down at a table and play a great game and enjoy it. I think I could play a game with nearly everyone on this site and enjoy it. What binds us together is much stronger than one divides us. We are like Alcoholics arguing about our favouite drinks.
The irony is that both sides of the argument are basically saying the same thing which is that if something in your game doesn't work change it. The only difference is that one group says that that should be fed back to the designers and the game fixed and the other says that that is for the GM to do at the table.
When you strip it down to that lowest level the vitriol produced seems ludicrous.
And you can build a game that caters to all of that you just need a simple core and flexible options. A 5e that plays like 1e with a healing surge type mechanic and skill system of sorts both of which can be switched off if the GM desires would be fine. the options would cover feats, would cover Wuxia games would cover deeepr roleplaying would cover city games etc ... its eminently doable.
I do think that some extreme sides of the debate won't be happy because for whatever reason they think the Core has to be exactly what they want, its not enough that there play style is catered to by option 3. Now that is weird to me and it comes back down to something that emerged here which is the idea that people play the game wrong that a particular play style is objectively superior. Be that Wuxia super gods, 10 foot pole player skill or hey nonny narativist roleplayers.
Now that to be is insane everyone thinks their play style is superior of course because otherwise they would change their play style but that doesn't invalidate anyone else.
I have supported the GD Posse here for a couple of reasons. The main one is quite simply from a rational perspective I think they are right. When you look at the rules their argument is persuasive to me. The second is that its when people engage in a debate on this site that claims the badge of free speech then they deserve to be engaged with in a mature fashion. Brendan has managed it here and more credit to him for it.
I have been aware of the power discrepancy for years. As I have repeated here often, it doesn't break the game for me but that is probably because I have played with the same group of players for 30 years and we have torn the game apart a hundred times and rebuilt it but we also know each other we know who the power gamer is we know who the combat monkey is going to be we know the munchkin and we know the rules lawyer so that and the fact we have been best men at each other's weddings and known each other since we were 10 and are fully integrated into each other's lives means that the fact that you can charm a Frost Giant that fighters better than I do means shit.
Do I think there are some rules that would help. Yup and I have listed some of them out. Do they cater to the Wuxia style that MGuy wants to see, no because I am looking at my desires could. I could come up with Wuxia rules of course, maybe I'll have a stab at it. I don't rrally understand why peopel refuse to engage with that discussion. Why the answer to "I want wuxia style fighters" is "you can't have them fuck off and gimp wizards instead". Just seems a really odd response.
Anyway like I said at the top of this meandering post what unites us is much stronger than what divides us.
Quote from: John Morrow;560072The way games have traditionally escaped this problem was by offering a framework that could be used by all styles of play in a form that was easy to house rule.
Where recent editions of D&D (and other games) have fallen down is that they have rules that are so tightly integrated and intertwined that trying to introduce house rules or trying to fudge anything has become very difficult.
I would disagree here, particularly with 3.x/
Pathfinder. The OGL has allowed a multitude of variations on the SRD, each variation could be considered a houserule of that SRD. The quality of these variations/houserules is dependant on what kind playstyle the DM wants to use, some will fit the playstyle while others will not.
The tight integration of rules is a factor of implementation by Players and DM, not necessarily the product of the rules themself.
Quote from: John Morrow;560072And they've also fallen down by drinking the Forge Kool Aid called "coherency" which recommends building games that maximize the experience for one style of play at the expense of all others, thus offering nothing to anyone who doesn't like that style of play.
This I totally agree with and the end result is a game like 4E wher you do not create a character, you build a character.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560106The irony is that both sides of the argument are basically saying the same thing which is that if something in your game doesn't work change it. The only difference is that one group says that that should be fed back to the designers and the game fixed and the other says that that is for the GM to do at the table.
Nope.
You could not have gotten it more wrong.
QuoteThe irony is that both sides of the argument are basically saying the same thing which is that if something in your game doesn't work change it. The only difference is that one group says that that should be fed back to the designers and the game fixed and the other says that that is for the GM to do at the table.
Sorry not buying it. One side is saying if you don't like it then change it the other side is saying the rules are objectively broken and some designer must fix it and fix it in the way that I deem "correct".
Quote from: jeff37923;560108Nope.
You could not have gotten it more wrong.
Ditto. What we are (well, I am, in any case) actually saying is that the "problem" doesn't exist at an actual game table, when you play the actual game, instead of gaming its rules, and that you are actually much better off playing on all the interlocked components of a role playing game to make it work for you and your friends (including setting up the environment and challenges properly, communicating around the game table, using the rules as guidelines, not arbiters etc etc) rather than blaming the rules instantly for anything that doesn't go down as expected in your game to then try to [strike]fix[/strike] change the game for everyone at every single game table that exists for this game in the world because somehow you consider yourself a special snowflake who needs to have your way in every way at the level of the game's design otherwise "the game is br0ken."
I'm saying that it is not a rules problem at all, but a Player/DM problem. Trying to use rules to correct the behavior of Players is a path to madness.
Quote from: jeff37923;560112I'm saying that it is not a rules problem at all, but a Player/DM problem. Trying to use rules to correct the behavior of Players is a path to madness.
Exactly.
Quote from: jeff37923;560112I'm saying that it is not a rules problem at all, but a Player/DM problem. Trying to use rules to correct the behavior of Players is a path to madness.
Agreed.
Quote from: Marleycat;560110Sorry not buying it. One side is saying if you don't like it then change it the other side is saying the rules are objectively broken and some designer must fix it and fix it in the way that I deem "correct".
Quote from: Benoist;560111Ditto. What we are (well, I am, in any case) actually saying is that the "problem" doesn't exist at an actual game table, when you play the actual game, instead of gaming its rules, and that you are actually much better off playing on all the interlocked components of a role playing game to make it work for you and your friends (including setting up the environment and challenges properly, communicating around the game table, using the rules as guidelines, not arbiters etc etc) rather than blaming the rules instantly for anything that doesn't go down as expected in your game to then try to [strike]fix[/strike] change the game for everyone at every single game table that exists for this game in the world because somehow you consider yourself a special snowflake who needs to have your way in every way at the level of the game's design otherwise "the game is br0ken."
Quote from: jeff37923;560112I'm saying that it is not a rules problem at all, but a Player/DM problem. Trying to use rules to correct the behavior of Players is a path to madness.
There must be some way to combine these statements and make them chapter one of the RPG designer's handbook.
Quote from: jeff37923;560107I would disagree here, particularly with 3.x/Pathfinder. The OGL has allowed a multitude of variations on the SRD, each variation could be considered a houserule of that SRD. The quality of these variations/houserules is dependant on what kind playstyle the DM wants to use, some will fit the playstyle while others will not.
I don't think that publishing any of those alternatives was easy or casual. I'm talking about house rules produced casually by individual GMs, not published variants written by professional or semi-professional game designers.
Quote from: jeff37923;560107The tight integration of rules is a factor of implementation by Players and DM, not necessarily the product of the rules themself.
If the rules are intertwined and interact with each other, then it's a factor of the rules.
Quote from: John Morrow;560124If the rules are intertwined and interact with each other, then it's a factor of the rules.
With 4e, yes it is a rules factor but with previous editions of Dnd it's a DM/Player issue/problem.
Quote from: John Morrow;560124I don't think that publishing any of those alternatives was easy or casual. I'm talking about house rules produced casually by individual GMs, not published variants written by professional or semi-professional game designers.
Then I misunderstood you. My apologies.
Quote from: John Morrow;560124If the rules are intertwined and interact with each other, then it's a factor of the rules.
Except that no rule for a game exists in a vacuum, the majority of them intertwine and interact with each other.
Quote from: Benoist;560111Ditto. What we are (well, I am, in any case) actually saying is that the "problem" doesn't exist at an actual game table, when you play the actual game, instead of gaming its rules, and that you are actually much better off playing on all the interlocked components of a role playing game to make it work for you and your friends (including setting up the environment and challenges properly, communicating around the game table, using the rules as guidelines, not arbiters etc etc) rather than blaming the rules instantly for anything that doesn't go down as expected in your game to then try to [strike]fix[/strike] change the game for everyone at every single game table that exists for this game in the world because somehow you consider yourself a special snowflake who needs to have your way in every way at the level of the game's design otherwise "the game is br0ken."
So you are saying I guess that al the people that said thewre was an issue are wrongs, right from Jeff, to Brendan, to me to the GD posse are objectively not telling the truth.
And what does "play the actual game, instead of gaming its rules" mean if it doesn't mean adjust the rules to suit your mode of play which is what I just fucking said ?
You are saying both use all the rules and adjust the rules you don't like..... does that strike you and somewhat odd?
And they don't want to change every single game at every single gaming table .... they want some optional rules they can use to play the game they want.
You are the guy that has said that a healing surge /HD mechanic in the base 5e rules is a deal breaker for you even if there is an optional rule that lets you turn that off.
Anyway there you go ... Apologies if I have insulted any of you but stating my gaming preferences.
Quote from: jeff37923;560112I'm saying that it is not a rules problem at all, but a Player/DM problem. Trying to use rules to correct the behavior of Players is a path to madness.
So players that create Zen Archer cleric monster builds are a player problem we cause they do something the rules allow ?
Now like I said I don't worry about the imbalance does that free from the bad player label? but I recognise it and think it would be relatively easy to narrow it and I can accept that other players might want to take more drastic steps especially if they want every one to be at teh top end of what the rules will aloow, does that make be a bad player again?
See I don't understand ?
If the style of play you want can;t be achieved by imposing the 1e rules that gimp the caster why can't you bump the Figther instead? why does that cause such an explosion of hatred and ire?
If I had a chair that had 2 legs longer than the other 2 why is my only option to cut a bit of each of those legs rather than putting a bit of wood under the other two?
Quote from: jibbajibba;560128Anyway there you go ...
Keep fucking that chicken, bro.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560129So players that create Zen Archer cleric monster builds are a player problem we cause they do something the rules allow ?
What if the entire group of players make Zen Archer Cleric Monsters? Is that really a problem?
Quote from: jibbajibba;560129If the style of play you want can;t be achieved by imposing the 1e rules that gimp the caster why can't you bump the Figther instead? why does that cause such an explosion of hatred and ire?
If I had a chair that had 2 legs longer than the other 2 why is my only option to cut a bit of each of those legs rather than putting a bit of wood under the other two?
You are welcome to do what you want for your game, but for mine I want to keep the fighter both mundane and extremely simple to play (for new players and for players with zero interest in a mechanically complex character). Imposing TSR-era restrictions on 3.x casters reduces their power and their ability to run away with the 3.x game while satisfying my requirements to keep the the fighter class very simple to play.
Quote from: Imp;560084Well, the reason this particular thread has gone nowhere in a month of the same fucking posts is that it's a taste argument that's been pretending to be a bunch of other things and taste arguments can never go anywhere. Specifically, one group (the regulars) are advocating a sword & sorcery game, and the other group (the Gamer's Den people) are advocating a laser-eyebeams-or-GTFO supers game. The rules vs. game stuff in this thread isn't the crux of the argument really.
Agreed - and I would add to that the nonsense that someone has to declare their allegiance to either one type of game or the other. I enjoy swords and sorcery games and superhero games. I also enjoy Call of Cthulhu, Amber, and lots of other styles of games.
Quote from: Benoist;559938Does she have levels of bard? If so, she's b0rken.
Doesn't need that Bard stuff. Remember Sorcerer's are Charisma based and well do you need to really ask what "Fey Bloodline" means?:D
What this has to do with Fighters and Wizards I have no idea but does it really matter in this abortion of a thread?
Quote from: jeff37923;560126Except that no rule for a game exists in a vacuum, the majority of them intertwine and interact with each other.
Not all to the same degree. Two/three big ones in D&D 3.5 are the difficulty in getting rid of the grid (or even just getting rid of Attacks of Opportunity provoked by movement) and getting rid of Feats. While there are certainly GMs and variants that have done this, there are a lot of implications to those deletions that go far beyond simply not using those rules because other parts of the game assume they'll be there.
Quote from: John Morrow;560136Not all to the same degree. Two/three big ones in D&D 3.5 are the difficulty in getting rid of the grid (or even just getting rid of Attacks of Opportunity provoked by movement) and getting rid of Feats. While there are certainly GMs and variants that have done this, there are a lot of implications to those deletions that go far beyond simply not using those rules because other parts of the game assume they'll be there.
I'm confused now. Why are Feats a problem in 3.x/
Pathfinder?
Quote from: RandallS;560132You are welcome to do what you want for your game, but for mine I want to keep the fighter both mundane and extremely simple to play (for new players and for players with zero interest in a mechanically complex character). Imposing TSR-era restrictions on 3.x casters reduces their power and their ability to run away with the 3.x game while satisfying my requirements to keep the the fighter class very simple to play.
I'm curious. I only played low-level 3rd ed D&D, and I didn't find that wizards were particularly dominant. Was this true for you as well?
If so, wouldn't it make more sense just to tone down the higher-level abilities rather than adding limitations for all levels?
E6 (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/E6_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29) is such an option, but there are a lot of other possibilities.
Quote from: jeff37923;560137I'm confused now. Why are Feats a problem in 3.x/Pathfinder?
Read the various D&D Next threads from the past few months and you'll find a lot of dissatisfaction with Feats ranging from their very existence to the way that they build on each other and so on. At a very fundamental level, I think Feats break the "Pick race, class, and alignment" simplicity of earlier D&Ds that don't require a novice player to make any meaningful decisions that they can't easily understand without understanding how the game mechanics work. Once you ask players to start picking feats, they're either guessing, having someone else pick for them, or forced to learn the rules, none of which are ideal, in my opinion. Beyond that, Feats are the core of the problem of planned character builds, where a player needs to think about the feats they want to pick in 8 levels so they can pick the correct prerequisites now. Even if you simply want to reduce it to a taste issue, Feats become very difficult to get rid of once they are weaved into (or actually contain) the rules for how to do various things in the game.
Quote from: jhkim;560138I'm curious. I only played low-level 3rd ed D&D, and I didn't find that wizards were particularly dominant. Was this true for you as well?
I quickly became "not a fan" of 3.x, so never really played it at high level. and I played more 3.0 (which is closer to TSR D&D in some ways) than 3.5. I think the highest level characters in 3.x games I played were 10th or 11th level. I don't remember fighters being useless or wizards being all-powerful at those levels. Note, however, that the people in the group were people who started with some version of TSR D&D and we more or less played 3.x the same way. We weren't much into system mastery and no was was into charop -- in fact we laughed about the charop boards when we heard about them.
However, I know of many other groups who played 3.x even longer than we did and encountered few, if any, of the game-breaking problems so often discussed on message boards during the 3.x era. It seems to be a matter of play style: some play-styles are apparently far more likely to encounter game-breaking 3.x issues than other play-styles.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560129So players that create Zen Archer cleric monster builds are a player problem we cause they do something the rules allow ?
Now like I said I don't worry about the imbalance does that free from the bad player label? but I recognise it and think it would be relatively easy to narrow it and I can accept that other players might want to take more drastic steps especially if they want every one to be at teh top end of what the rules will aloow, does that make be a bad player again?
See I don't understand ?
If the style of play you want can;t be achieved by imposing the 1e rules that gimp the caster why can't you bump the Figther instead? why does that cause such an explosion of hatred and ire?
If I had a chair that had 2 legs longer than the other 2 why is my only option to cut a bit of each of those legs rather than putting a bit of wood under the other two?
See? This is an example of you gibbering.
Again, it is not a rules problem, but a Player problem. Gaming the system is not playing the game. This problem is not limited to D&D 3.x/
Pathfinder, I believe it to be a product of any complex game system.
Several times I have shown that this has happened in games such as
Traveller and
Star Wars. I can draw a parallel between what has happened with 3.x and rule change decisions that led to 4E, and how Mike Pondsmith created
Cyberpunk 2020 and then changed things for
Cybergeneration - and still did not fix the problem because it is a Player problem.
I can only think that you have not bothered to read those posts because that would have answered your questions already and not given you the chance to attempt to masturbate like you are now.
Quote from: John Morrow;560139Read the various D&D Next threads from the past view months and you'll find a lot of dissatisfaction with Feats ranging from their very existence to the way that they build on each other and so on. At a very fundamental level, I think Feats break the "Pick race, class, and alignment" simplicity of earlier D&Ds that don't require a novice player to make any meaningful decisions that they can't easily understand without understanding how the game mechanics work. Once you ask players to start picking feats, they're either guessing, having someone else pick for them, or forced to learn the rules, none of which are ideal, in my opinion. Beyond that, Feats are the core of the problem of planned character builds, where a player needs to think about the feats they want to pick in 8 levels so they can pick the correct prerequisites now. Even if you simply want to reduce it to a taste issue, Feats become very difficult to get rid of once they are weaved into (or actually contain) the rules for how to do various things in the game.
OK, now I understand where you are coming from. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand.
Quote from: jeff37923;560141Again, it is not a rules problem, but a Player problem. Gaming the system is not playing the game. .
Wow, this thread has gone far. I was forced to skip ahead because there had to be at least 3 pages of pure circle jerking between Marley, Benoist, Storm and the gang and I'm sure I missed nothing there. It seems Ome and jibba managed to get more people to admit that they know flaws exist in the game but of course this is met with Ad Hominem attacks against "Denners" or the ole' Oberoni Fallacy. Some people in fact do a masterful combination of both.
Here we have jeff doing a very nice job at mental gymnastics. Obviously he thinks if people don't play the game in a fashion he thinks is acceptable they are doing it wrong. This would make sense if only jeff's version of "make believe" were somehow inherently/objectively better than other people's. Unfortunately for jeff's argument this is not the case. Thus this post says a whole lot of nothing as far as passable arguments go.
Quote from: jeff37923;560142OK, now I understand where you are coming from. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand.
I should add that I think the problem faced by novices with Feats was only exacerbated by designers who deliberately wove skill mastery gotchas into them that make it easy for a novice player to make an objectively bad or inefficient Feat choice. The Savage Worlds Combat Survival Guide (http://www.peginc.com/freebies/SWcore/Combat%20Survival%20Guide.pdf) is how I think games should approach game mastery -- just
tell novices the basics of what they need to do.
Quote from: jeff37923;560141Several times I have shown that this has happened in games such as Traveller and Star Wars. I can draw a parallel between what has happened with 3.x and rule change decisions that led to 4E, and how Mike Pondsmith created Cyberpunk 2020 and then changed things for Cybergeneration - and still did not fix the problem because it is a Player problem.
Can you point to where you discussed this? I'm curious about your examples and I acknowledge that I've only been skimming this thread.
Quote from: MGuy;560146Wow, this thread has gone far. I was forced to skip ahead because there had to be at least 3 pages of pure circle jerking between Marley, Benoist, Storm and the gang and I'm sure I missed nothing there. It seems Ome and jibba managed to get more people to admit that they know flaws exist in the game but of course this is met with Ad Hominem attacks against "Denners" or the ole' Oberoni Fallacy. Some people in fact do a masterful combination of both.
Here we have jeff doing a very nice job at mental gymnastics. Obviously he thinks if people don't play the game in a fashion he thinks is acceptable they are doing it wrong. This would make sense if only jeff's version of "make believe" were somehow inherently/objectively better than other people's. Unfortunately for jeff's argument this is not the case. Thus this post says a whole lot of nothing as far as passable arguments go.
Thank you for proving that sour grapes make the best whine.
At least you didn't just say, "translated".
And I will answer you. Yes, my version is inherently/objectively better.
Why?
Because the CharOp arms race can be likened to deck building in a CCG. Sure, you can create an uber PC on paper, but until that PC is engaged in Actual Play it is nothing but a theoretical exercise. Once Actual Play happens, then you have entered a different realm, one where it does not matter so much what is on your character sheet but how that character sheet is used by the Player within the game. I have yet to see a CharOp/System Mastery Player that could hold a candle in game to a Player who knew how use tactics and role-playing - even with munchkinised characters you have to know how to play the game first and foremost.
They Monty Haul game gets old quickly. Uber characters fighting lightweight opponents that provide no challenge for phat loot in excess of the difficulty overcome gets very boring. The bored will drop the game or change their playstyle, so it never lasts without some outside force. That outside force has been forums that support and encourage gaming the system for who can build the best CharOp Experiment, but even deck-building gets boring over time if you do not play.
Want evidence for this? Notice the number of Gaming Den wankers who have come into this thread and stayed for awhile because they had finally found a good conversation about what was wrong with their playstyle. When they failed to convince anyone with their arguements, they melted down or melted away.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560128So you are saying I guess that al the people that said thewre was an issue are wrongs, right from Jeff, to Brendan, to me to the GD posse are objectively not telling the truth.
And what does "play the actual game, instead of gaming its rules" mean if it doesn't mean adjust the rules to suit your mode of play which is what I just fucking said ?
You are saying both use all the rules and adjust the rules you don't like..... does that strike you and somewhat odd?
And they don't want to change every single game at every single gaming table .... they want some optional rules they can use to play the game they want.
You are the guy that has said that a healing surge /HD mechanic in the base 5e rules is a deal breaker for you even if there is an optional rule that lets you turn that off.
Anyway there you go ... Apologies if I have insulted any of you but stating my gaming preferences.
jibba, Benoist isn't interested in having a reasonable conversation about anything. Benoist doesn't want any complaints ever, because his game is flawless and he must keep other people from claiming any different.
Storm doesn't actually believe in rules. At this point his argument is that making good rules is a fool's errand so to try to aim for that is foolishness.
Quote from: MGuy;560146This would make sense if only jeff's version of "make believe" were somehow inherently/objectively better than other people's.
Of course, that's impossible because
your version is objectively better. It's a good thing you brought DA TROOF here to save our benighted souls.
Quote from: MGuy;560151Storm doesn't actually believe in rules. At this point his argument is that making good rules is a fool's errand so to try to aim for that is foolishness.
I am stunned that you still manage to plumb new depths in your quest to obliterate all traces of your integrity.
Quote from: jeff37923;560150Thank you for proving that sour grapes make the best whine.
At least you didn't just say, "translated".
And I will answer you. Yes, my version is inherently/objectively better.
Why?
Because the CharOp arms race can be likened to deck building in a CCG. Sure, you can create an uber PC on paper, but until that PC is engaged in Actual Play it is nothing but a theoretical exercise. Once Actual Play happens, then you have entered a different realm, one where it does not matter so much what is on your character sheet but how that character sheet is used by the Player within the game. I have yet to see a CharOp/System Mastery Player that could hold a candle in game to a Player who knew how use tactics and role-playing - even with munchkinised characters you have to know how to play the game first and foremost.
They Monty Haul game gets old quickly. Uber characters fighting lightweight opponents that provide no challenge for phat loot in excess of the difficulty overcome gets very boring. The bored will drop the game or change their playstyle, so it never lasts without some outside force. That outside force has been forums that support and encourage gaming the system for who can build the best CharOp Experiment, but even deck-building gets boring over time if you do not play.
Want evidence for this? Notice the number of Gaming Den wankers who have come into this thread and stayed for awhile because they had finally found a good conversation about what was wrong with their playstyle. When they failed to convince anyone with their arguements, they melted down or melted away.
You have NO idea what conversations are like over at TGD obviously if you think "this" circle jerk here is a "good conversation". Only certain people on this board have shown that they are interested in actual dialogue.
Some of the very people you're circle jerking with have openly stated that they aren't interested in even hearing about differing opinions. Benoist has to have the most posts in this thread and has very little to say on what balance is because balance for him is kept as long as no one challenges his thinking.
Storm doesn't give a shit about rules.
And you are subsisting off the mistaken view that your way of playing imagination land is somehow inherently better than anyone else's. I don't even VISIT CharOp boards. I don't participate in theory crafting indestructible characters. The only reason I'm involved in this conversation is because sometimes someone says something interesting. John having brought up an interesting topic.
Quote from: John Morrow;560148Can you point to where you discussed this? I'm curious about your examples and I acknowledge that I've only been skimming this thread.
In
Traveller, it is usually equipment that gets singled out. A PC will get Battle Dress and suddenly declare that they are invincible or get a starship with a Black Globe Generator and believe that they are now unstoppable.
In
Star Wars (all versions), it was the use of certain Force Powers that made Players believe that they were invincible Jedi/Sith/Nightsisters of Dathomir/Whatever. So Players would try to unlock those Force Powers at all cost.
As is written in the inside cover of
Cybergeneration by Mike Pondsmith and mentioned in
Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads by the same author. Mike was disappointed when he went to conventions and saw people playing
Cyberpunk 2020 in full munchkin mode. The Players were not the underground freedom fighters he envisioned trying to change the world, they were full borged out near-cyberpsychoes enforcing the tyranical rule of the governments and corporations who bankrolled them. So Mike thought that by changing the rules would change the behavior of these Players, thus
Cybergeneration is set up (by means of the Carbon Plague plot device) to only allow Players to be children who are teenagers (between 12 and 18) because he thought that by choosing an age where the kids are still growing that they could not have the uber cyberwear grafted to them.
Unfortunately, this didn't work. The Players who were munchkins, were still munchkins. They just concentrated on integrating their Carbon Plague abilities with cyberwear, trying to maturate their characters, and gathering money or equipment.
It was very similar to the design decisions between 3.5 and 4E D&D, and followed the same path.
Quote from: MGuy;560153You have NO idea what conversations are like over at TGD obviously if you think "this" circle jerk here is a "good conversation". Only certain people on this board have shown that they are interested in actual dialogue.
Some of the very people you're circle jerking with have openly stated that they aren't interested in even hearing about differing opinions. Benoist has to have the most posts in this thread and has very little to say on what balance is because balance for him is kept as long as no one challenges his thinking.
Storm doesn't give a shit about rules.
And you are subsisting off the mistaken view that your way of playing imagination land is somehow inherently better than anyone else's. I don't even VISIT CharOp boards. I don't participate in theory crafting indestructible characters. The only reason I'm involved in this conversation is because sometimes someone says something interesting. John having brought up an interesting topic.
And you have the gall to say that I am engaged in mental gymnastics.
Quote from: John Morrow;560147I should add that I think the problem faced by novices with Feats was only exacerbated by designers who deliberately wove skill mastery gotchas into them that make it easy for a novice player to make an objectively bad or inefficient Feat choice. The Savage Worlds Combat Survival Guide (http://www.peginc.com/freebies/SWcore/Combat%20Survival%20Guide.pdf) is how I think games should approach game mastery -- just tell novices the basics of what they need to do.
It depends on what the Player wants out of that character, doesn't it?
No, a novice Player may choose Feats poorly for his character concept. Yet what about the expert who chooses Feats that support the character concept? Usually when CharOp wankers discuss choosing Feats poorly, it is because the Feats chosen do not support the character becomming a combat only character. Yet there are many different ways to play 3.x/
Pathfinder than just as a combat centric game. Thus Players may choose combat suboptimal Feats in order to fulfill their character concept.
Indeed. TGD is not simply a place where "go suck a barrel of cocks" is considered a reasonable counter-argument, it's actually well above average to the point of being a fairly intelligent response for TGD.
Quote from: jeff37923;560158No, a novice Player may choose Feats poorly for his character concept. Yet what about the expert who chooses Feats that support the character concept?
That complaint was specifically directed at novices who are presented with a list of Feats to choose from where it won't be clear what they should or shouldn't pick, whether we are talking about effectiveness or fidelity to their character concept, without understanding the rules where the choice of race, class, and alignment don't really require an understanding of the rules.
Quote from: John Morrow;560161That complaint was specifically directed at novices who are presented with a list of Feats to choose from where it won't be clear what they should or shouldn't pick, whether we are talking about effectiveness or fidelity to their character concept, without understanding the rules where the choice of race, class, and alignment don't really require an understanding of the rules.
I get that, but the Feats are presented fairly clearly in the PHB, even tiered for Feat chains. I can understand if the Player wants to go for a Prestige Class of some kind that has prerequisites, but the Feats are pretty clear (at least to me, anyways).
Then again, I don't recommend that any gamer cut their teeth on 3.x/
Pathfinder unless they are using the D&D
Basic Game or the
Pathfinder Beginner's Box because those are written for novices.
Quote from: MGuy;560153Only certain people on this board have shown that they are interested in actual dialogue.
A lot of people are interested in dialogue around here, just not with disingenuous pedant douchebags like you. When you were given the benefit of the doubt, you publicly shit yourself and demanded we all call it Chanel No 5. What followed from you was meltdown after meltdown because you were furious at being expected to actually support your wild assertions with 'evidence' or 'coherence'.
QuoteSome of the very people you're circle jerking with have openly stated that they aren't interested in even hearing about differing opinions.
We are quite interested in hearing different opinions. Yours, however, are uninformed, unsupported and completely unintelligent.
QuoteStorm doesn't give a shit about rules.
Sure I do, just not in the fetishist OCD rules-lawyering Tourette's shit-spewing manner like you and your cohort.
QuoteAnd you are subsisting off the mistaken view that your way of playing imagination land is somehow inherently better than anyone else's.
Is this anything like demanding everyone agree with the objective truth that Fighters are useless in every edition of D&D, even the ones you don't know jack shit about?
If you notice plenty of people discuss things with me and I do the same. Excuse me if I don't prefer discussion with people I believe are arguing in bad faith at best.
Quote from: MGuy;560153Benoist has to have the most posts in this thread and has very little to say on what balance is because balance for him is kept as long as no one challenges his thinking.
And trs wonder where the 'Mother May I' ideas comes from.
Quote from: Sommerjon;560173And trs wonder where the 'Mother May I' ideas comes from.
And it comes full circle.
Quote from: MGuy;560151jibba, Benoist isn't interested in having a reasonable conversation about anything. Benoist doesn't want any complaints ever, because his game is flawless and he must keep other people from claiming any different.
Quote from: Sommerjon;560173And trs wonder where the 'Mother May I' ideas comes from.
Oh... the tears of unfathomable sadness!
(http://images.wikia.com/southpark/images/e/e9/ScottTenormanMustDie30.gif)
What I love is how these shits have not seen us go at each other when we disagree, so they assume that we are all just one Big Happy Addams Family because we agree on this subject.
Quote from: jeff37923;560176What I love is how these shits have not seen us go at each other when we disagree, so they assume that we are all just one Big Happy Addams Family because we agree on this subject.
To be fair I don't go to TGD enough to see if there's any non-asberger's rules twinks over there. There very well may be but I can't be arsed to find out, especially given this trainwreck of a thread. And the sterling examples of "denners" that have shown up.
Quote from: Marleycat;560174And it comes full circle.
Indeed. TGD OCD douches and 4vengers now unite, because they share the same basic conviction that the rules are the game, and the game the rules, that uber-balance is all important, that the DM being the referee is bad so we should cut his balls with the rules as final arbiters, etc. They just don't agree on the implementation, the manner, the details of the approach to take from there, but they both succumbed to the Forge-think.
Quote from: Benoist;560182Indeed. TGD OCD douches and 4vengers now unite, because they share the same basic conviction that the rules are the game, and the game the rules, that uber-balance is all important, that the DM being the referee is bad so we should cut his balls with the rules as final arbiters, etc. They just don't agree on the implementation, the manner, the details of the approach to take from there, but they both succumbed to the Forge-think.
What gets me mad is that I like reasonable balanced rules and reasonable overall game balance. Just not virtual balance because I know that's impossible and like any battle plan, rules are broken and altered the second they hit the real world or in this case, the real game environment. So you have to have a human arbiter to make sure the rules work as intended in dynamic fluid environments like rpg's. Because no way can a designer create some rule as written to cover every variable.
Yet my playstyle gets called "mother my I" because I understand rpg's are dynamic like the people playing them? Horseshit! It's offensive besides. And they wonder why I have small to no respect for their pov. Really? You get what you give, it's a rule like taxes and death.
This is my house and it's exactly like taking a shit in the middle of my livingroom.
This took forever to write so its a bit late, sorry...
Quote from: jibbajibba;560129So players that create Zen Archer cleric monster builds are a player problem we cause they do something the rules allow ?
Now like I said I don't worry about the imbalance does that free from the bad player label? but I recognise it and think it would be relatively easy to narrow it and I can accept that other players might want to take more drastic steps especially if they want every one to be at teh top end of what the rules will aloow, does that make be a bad player again?
See I don't understand ?
If the style of play you want can;t be achieved by imposing the 1e rules that gimp the caster why can't you bump the Figther instead? why does that cause such an explosion of hatred and ire?
If I had a chair that had 2 legs longer than the other 2 why is my only option to cut a bit of each of those legs rather than putting a bit of wood under the other two?
My 2c on this is that its not quite as easy as shorten two legs/lengthen two legs.
Thing is if you like "Sword n' Sorcery" D&D even for 3E its not that hard to get a working game-you don't use material that introduces problems, and make sure that logical limitations for spells are enforced. (I guess this would be the 'playing the game not the rules thing')
If you're allowing the most broken interpretations of spells and going crazy the fighter falls behind a bit without PrCs and magic equipment its much harder - the super-fighter thing more or less requires a total rebuild of the system.
People trying to justify the immense effort of such a rebuild tend to rationalize why its required; Kaelik's archer cleric baffles me as evidence - its honestly hard to take seriously anyone who looks at this and thinks "shit, my fighter isnt' that good...it needs more powers!" instead of "that monstrosity has to nerfed into the ground right now.". Likewise MGuy and deaddm accuse the fighter of being worthless based on a number of edge-cases - more or less assuming that the wizard has optimal spells for any given situation (unreasonable) and overlooking the weaknesses of the class (its critically weak Fortitude save, running out of spells, and poor hit points, for example).
We've also seen complaints that a fighter can't do _ on his own, which are true but miss the point that a party is meant to work together as a group, although again in the trap and charmed giant scenarios (which got side tracked into discussion of Diplomacy), there were complaints from the den side about how a rogue would have changed the situation, which I found inconsistent with previous discussion (of whether fighters should be able to fly, for instance).
Underrunning it all are complaints about magic-item-dependency for fighters, which I think underlies a bunch of the theorizing ; its often assumed that such dependency is 'bad design' and consequently limited access to magic items runs through alot of the scenarios that have been pulled out (most recently I could probably point at deaddm asking "how does a fighter get an anti magic field" - and I would have to say, hey, magic item).
I can understand people not wanting magic stuff coming out of every orifice; nonetheless that's not particularly standard for a D&D game and I think is constantly throwing out much of the analysis (of older editions in particular), since whether or not an item is a "class feature" of the class in question (fighter) they do help the warrior cover its weaknesses quite handily, while the other classes are less affected. We could of course argue all day about how many magic items a game is supposed to have for older editions, since nothing is standardized, but I think its an inaccurate analysis to take away the magic items and then complain the game isn't balanced; its complaining the game isn't designed the way you want, rather than proving some actual imbalance.
Quote from: Marleycat;560184What gets me mad is that I like reasonable balanced rules and reasonable overall game balance. Just not virtual balance because I know that's impossible and like and like a battle plan, rules are broken and altered the second they hit the real world or in this case, the real game environment. So you have to have a human arbiter to make sure the rules work as intended in dynamic fluid environments like rpg's. Because no way can a designer create some rule as written to cover every variable. Yet my playstyle gets called "mother my I" because I understand rpg's are dynamic like the people playing them? Horseshit!
Behold the great lie: "System Does Matter", by Ron Edwards. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html)
Quote from: Benoist;560186Behold the great lie: "System Does Matter", by Ron Edwards. (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html)
Thanks alot Ben, I feel stupider and permanently brain damaged for reading that. What a steaming pile of horseshit. :(
Quote from: John Morrow;560139Read the various D&D Next threads from the past few months and you'll find a lot of dissatisfaction with Feats ranging from their very existence to the way that they build on each other and so on.
Add me to that list. Remove Feats from the game. It won't happen though.
Quote from: Rum Cove;560193Add me to that list. Remove Feats from the game. It won't happen though.
They're fine when done like Fantasy Craft, no +1 this or if "this happens on the second Tuesday of this week" that, shite.
Quote from: Marleycat;560198They're fine when done like Fantasy Craft, no +1 this or if "this happens on the second Tuesday of this week" that, shite.
Like Skills, they clash with the concept of a Class-based system.
Quote from: Rum Cove;560199Like Skills, they clash with the concept of a Class-based system.
No, in FC they have serious mechanical heft combat focused feats beget a couple maneuvers or stances for each weapon tree you persue and trees are exactly 3 feats long. The more trees/weapons you know starts giving you "virtual" feats of related weapons and forth.
Quote from: Marleycat;560191Thanks alot Ben, I feel stupider and permanently brain damaged for reading that. What a steaming pile of horseshit. :(
And now for the awesome: Jim Bob (whom you might know as Kyle Aaron here on the RPG Site) versus Edwards: A Socratic Dialog. Or "GNS suxxorz!"
(http://jimboboz.livejournal.com/7305.html?nojs=1)
Quote from: Benoist;560214And now for the awesome: Jim Bob (whom you might know as Kyle Aaron here on the RPG Site) versus Edwards: A Socratic Dialog. Or "GNS suxxorz!"
(http://jimboboz.livejournal.com/7305.html?nojs=1)
When reading this, you should be weeping tears of joy that such a man as Kyle Aaron exists in our hobby.
Quote from: Marleycat;560191Thanks alot Ben, I feel stupider and permanently brain damaged for reading that. What a steaming pile of horseshit. :(
Agreed. He says that systems should specialize in exactly one of his version of gamist, simulationist, or narrativist. It's nonsense - just like the claim made here that systems have to cater to either the Gaming Den or old school. There's a range of games that cater to all different crowds - not just two. You can find people happily playing World of Darkness who also enjoy old-school D&D and others.
P.S. Although I disagree with it, that's actually among the more reasonable of Ron's essays. For real horseshit, try these:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=24
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=18707.0
Quote from: Benoist;560214And now for the awesome: Jim Bob (whom you might know as Kyle Aaron here on the RPG Site) versus Edwards: A Socratic Dialog. Or "GNS suxxorz!"
(http://jimboboz.livejournal.com/7305.html?nojs=1)
Thank God! It's a miracle my brain has been healed and my intelligence restored. :D
Seriously that should be required reading just to join RPGsite.
Quote from: jhkim;560216Agreed. He says that systems should specialize in exactly one of his version of gamist, simulationist, or narrativist. It's nonsense - just like the claim made here that systems have to cater to either the Gaming Den or old school. There's a range of games that cater to all different crowds - not just two. You can find people happily playing World of Darkness who also enjoy old-school D&D and others.
P.S. Although I disagree with it, that's actually among the more reasonable of Ron's essays. For real horseshit, try these:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=24
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=18707.0
gamist/simulationist/narrativist thinking is bullshit to begin with. Any article holding them up as a subject matter in any fashion other than "gamist/simuulationist/narrativist thinking is bullshit" is doomed to failure. Likewise having to change arguments like mine into something that at no point I claimed is equally bullshit. No one who has come from "the Den" nor the people arguing differently (like jibba, saclamb, or other people not explicitly involved with te supposed "invasion") have once started an argument about "Den" playa vs "old school". That much is purely an invention by the people here.
jeff: Yes, you do practice mental gymnastics. If the crux of your argument is: My imagination land is inherently better than other people's, then yes you have to be going through some pretty weird mental gymnastics to get there because that is a hefty pile of bullshit to swallow.
Quote from: jhkim;560216Agreed. He says that systems should specialize in exactly one of his version of gamist, simulationist, or narrativist. It's nonsense - just like the claim made here that systems have to cater to either the Gaming Den or old school. There's a range of games that cater to all different crowds - not just two. You can find people happily playing World of Darkness who also enjoy old-school D&D and others.
P.S. Although I disagree with it, that's actually among the more reasonable of Ron's essays. For real horseshit, try these:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=24
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=18707.0
You mean like myself? I make no bones my favorite game is NWoD with MtAw in particular but also will play any version/retroclone/simulcra of Dnd prior to 4e.
I will read those essays later but my little brain can only take so much nonsense at a time.
Quote from: MGuy;560220gamist/simulationist/narrativist thinking is bullshit to begin with. Any article holding them up as a subject matter in any fashion other than "gamist/simuulationist/narrativist thinking is bullshit" is doomed to failure. Likewise having to change arguments like mine into something that at no point I claimed is equally bullshit. No one who has come from "the Den" nor the people arguing differently (like jibba, saclamb, or other people not explicitly involved with te supposed "invasion") have once started an argument about "Den" playa vs "old school". That much is purely an invention by the people here.
jeff: Yes, you do practice mental gymnastics. If the crux of your argument is: My imagination land is inherently better than other people's, then yes you have to be going through some pretty weird mental gymnastics to get there because that is a hefty pile of bullshit to swallow.
So let me get this straight, you're going to try reason and a reversal of view AFTER shitting on my playstyle for 250+ pages? Nope, not buying it.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;560185Thing is if you like "Sword n' Sorcery" D&D even for 3E its not that hard to get a working game-you don't use material that introduces problems, and make sure that logical limitations for spells are enforced. (I guess this would be the 'playing the game not the rules thing')
If you're allowing the most broken interpretations of spells and going crazy the fighter falls behind a bit without PrCs and magic equipment its much harder - the super-fighter thing more or less requires a total rebuild of the system.
Core fighter is weaker than core cleric. Even without pointing to the save or die possibilities the cleric can be as good at melee if not better or at worst slightly behind at most levels and can do more than him to keep up at higher levels. If you're going to argue that the fighter has a chance stick to earlier editions at least where the gap isn't as bad.
QuotePeople trying to justify the immense effort of such a rebuild tend to rationalize why its required; Kaelik's archer cleric baffles me as evidence - its honestly hard to take seriously anyone who looks at this and thinks "shit, my fighter isnt' that good...it needs more powers!" instead of "that monstrosity has to nerfed into the ground right now.".
If you nerf it you're admitting a flaw in the rules. If you admit that there are flaws then what have you been arguing this entire time?
QuoteLikewise MGuy and deaddm accuse the fighter of being worthless based on a number of edge-cases - more or less assuming that the wizard has optimal spells for any given situation (unreasonable) and overlooking the weaknesses of the class (its critically weak Fortitude save, running out of spells, and poor hit points, for example).
I have to assume you're talking about earlier edition wizards because that's the only way I can see this making any sense at all. And no, my argument isn't that the fighter is worthless, just that its the worst class.
QuoteWe've also seen complaints that a fighter can't do _ on his own, which are true but miss the point that a party is meant to work together as a group, although again in the trap and charmed giant scenarios (which got side tracked into discussion of Diplomacy), there were complaints from the den side about how a rogue would have changed the situation, which I found inconsistent with previous discussion (of whether fighters should be able to fly, for instance).
Blame that on the group here who like to concentrate and nit pick on unimportant factors during the conversation.
QuoteUnderrunning it all are complaints about magic-item-dependency for fighters, which I think underlies a bunch of the theorizing ; its often assumed that such dependency is 'bad design' and consequently limited access to magic items runs through alot of the scenarios that have been pulled out (most recently I could probably point at deaddm asking "how does a fighter get an anti magic field" - and I would have to say, hey, magic item).
I can understand people not wanting magic stuff coming out of every orifice; nonetheless that's not particularly standard for a D&D game and I think is constantly throwing out much of the analysis (of older editions in particular), since whether or not an item is a "class feature" of the class in question (fighter) they do help the warrior cover its weaknesses quite handily, while the other classes are less affected. We could of course argue all day about how many magic items a game is supposed to have for older editions, since nothing is standardized, but I think its an inaccurate analysis to take away the magic items and then complain the game isn't balanced; its complaining the game isn't designed the way you want, rather than proving some actual imbalance.
Magic item accumulation in earlier editions is random, the effects of the items aren't guaranteed, and by analyzing the fighter's lack of helpful abilities when his magic toys are taken away evidences that he lacks any real abilities outside of swinging a sword. This is not to say I expect or want groups to go through the game without magic pants just that the inclusion of those when analyzing how well the class works obfuscates the point because anytime I can point at what the fighter lacks someone could say "Well he should have a magic item for that" or complain that I'm assuming he doesn't have it when there is no guarantee that he WOULD have a magic item that would suit the situation at all while a spellcaster at least has a percentile chance of having the spell he needs or another spell of equal, or close to it, use to solve the situation. So it follows then that if you expect to have magic items specifically to give the fighter interesting abilities you might as well have it as part of the shit he gets for being a fighter in the first place so whenever I point out an ability he doesn't have you can point to the "gets magic pants" ability on his class and say that he has a good chance of having exactly, or close to it, what he needs to succeed.
Quote from: Marleycat;560222So let me get this straight, you're going to try reason and a reversal of view AFTER shitting on my playstyle for 250+ pages? Nope, not buying it.
Reversal? Please tell me what have I reversed?
Quote from: jhkim;560216Agreed. He says that systems should specialize in exactly one of his version of gamist, simulationist, or narrativist. It's nonsense - just like the claim made here that systems have to cater to either the Gaming Den or old school. There's a range of games that cater to all different crowds - not just two.
Have people really been saying that there's only two types of game?
QuoteYou can find people happily playing World of Darkness who also enjoy old-school D&D and others.
This isn't even a response to the claim that you're ascribing to the locals here.
According to you, the claim is "Games must be either X or Y". That has no bearing on whether someone might like games of type X and games of type Y.
On the other hand, I do think that a game which caters to the preferences of the GD folks on this thread can't cater to the old school aesthetic--at least if you reasonably define the two. The preferences of the GD folks are for games which narrowly, inflexibly cater to a specific, rather extreme taste; the old school aesthetic (as I see it) favors games which are flexible and adaptable to a fairly broad range of moderate tastes. A game can't be simultaneously flexible and inflexible, and if the range of tastes it appeals to are moderate, then it doesn't cover extreme tastes.
Quote from: MGuy;560220jeff: Yes, you do practice mental gymnastics. If the crux of your argument is: My imagination land is inherently better than other people's, then yes you have to be going through some pretty weird mental gymnastics to get there because that is a hefty pile of bullshit to swallow.
You find yourself losing and now are having a deathbed reconcilliation.
Fuck you for the weasely piece of shit you are, MGuy.
Go, enjoy your way of gaming while it lasts and when it no longer entertains you, then come crawling to me and let me know how you were wrong. I will reject you for the bad faith opinions you hold and try to argue for.
Return to the Gaming Den, you have been rejected here for the lack of substance your ideas have.
Quote from: jeff37923;560230You find yourself losing and now are having a deathbed reconcilliation.
Fuck you for the weasely piece of shit you are, MGuy.
Go, enjoy your way of gaming while it lasts and when it no longer entertains you, then come crawling to me and let me know how you were wrong. I will reject you for the bad faith opinions you hold and try to argue for.
Return to the Gaming Den, you have been rejected here for the lack of substance your ideas have.
And by rule of the internet the first person to claim victory shall be the VICTOR. Let all know that jeff, by virtue of telling me that I do not know how to game has seen through my wicked ways and has become the savior of gaming. All who disagree are foolish in the face of jeff's baseless claims and obviously self boosted ego. I mean clearly jeff invented gaming which is why he knows how to do it so well. If only he knew how to construct a logical argument which didn't involve his head being shoved up his ass.
Quote from: MGuy;560234And by rule of the internet the first person to claim victory shall be the VICTOR. Let all know that jeff, by virtue of telling me that I do not know how to game has seen through my wicked ways and has become the savior of gaming. All who disagree are foolish in the face of jeff's baseless claims and obviously self boosted ego. I mean clearly jeff invented gaming which is why he knows how to do it so well. If only he knew how to construct a logical argument which didn't involve his head being shoved up his ass.
Then let time tell us who is right and who is wrong.
I will accept that.
Because you would not be so butthurt if I was not correct in my evaluation of you. The truth, points to itself.
Quote from: jhkim;560216Agreed. He says that systems should specialize in exactly one of his version of gamist, simulationist, or narrativist. It's nonsense - just like the claim made here that systems have to cater to either the Gaming Den or old school. There's a range of games that cater to all different crowds - not just two. You can find people happily playing World of Darkness who also enjoy old-school D&D and others.
P.S. Although I disagree with it, that's actually among the more reasonable of Ron's essays. For real horseshit, try these:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=24
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=18707.0
I have to say that I much prefer the labels you indicated in the threefold model as Drama, Simulation and Challenge because these are to me much more explicit and each makes room for the existence of immersion and avoid the whole creative agenda bullshit of Edwards. You can be interested in drama or conflicts in the game world from your character's POV; you can be interested in the accuracy and vicariousness of the game world through the character; you can love the thrill of the challenge through the eyes of your character's eyes as his/your life hangs in the balance.
I still have problems with the categories themselves, but this is more acceptable from my perspective.
Now, to go back to our topic here, the reason I'm saying there's no middle-ground is not because I don't want any myself: I've been involved in the playtests of Next and you can ask estar or thedungeondelver, though I very much promote my own take on the game to be recognized and playable with the new game, I am always talking in terms of options and choices to allow different people to enjoy their D&D however they see fit, whether they want full auto-healing on rests, at-wills for spellcasters, narrative mechanics, whatever.
The reason I'm saying I believe there's no middle ground here is because you basically have two sides here: those that say that the fighter is not a problem,that there are other parts to roleplaying that make the game work like situations and setup, prep, DMing skills, players skills, communication across the table etc ('it's not a problem with the rules, it's a problem with the players, Jeff says, and I agree"), and those that say it's all about the rules and nothing but the rules. If we were to implement a compromise between those, well... it just wouldn't work, since, if you make the game ultra-balanced and nitpicky in all sorts of areas and basically go on with the late 3rd/4e paradigm guys like me are just going to walk, and if any leeway or interpretation or anything less than a greater rules balance is implemented in the game the Den and its bozos are going to go apeshit once again.
The side that isn't willing to compromise, that is dealing in absolutes about the rules of the game isn't mine here. It's theirs. The side that isn't willing to recognize that there is anything else relevant to the question of the balance of the fighter and wizard than the rules in a theoretical vacuum, and nothing but the rules in a theoretical vacuum, is theirs.
Hence. No possible compromise.
Quote from: jeff37923;560235Then let time tell us who is right and who is wrong.
I will accept that.
Because you would not be so butthurt if I was not correct in my evaluation of you. The truth, points to itself.
Yes let us let time be the deciding factor. In fact you should sit on your front porch with your head up your ass while self fellating your obviously huge e-penis waiting for me to crawl there and beg for your forgiveness. Because CLEARLY 10 years worth of gaming has not taught me a damn thing and ONLY when I get bored of having fun will I find that, all along, only you have known how I can REALLY have fun.
Quote from: MGuy;560245Because CLEARLY 10 years worth of gaming has not taught me a damn thing and ONLY when I get bored of having fun will I find that, all along, only you have known how I can REALLY have fun.
See? You aren't so stupid after all.
You acknowledge the superiority of my position.
This is just the pain of finding yourself reborn as an actual gamer who plays the game and does not merely game the system. You should embrace the pain because it signals a new and longer lasting life for your gaming.
Quote from: MGuy;560234If only he knew how to construct a logical argument which didn't involve his head being shoved up his ass.
Please dazzle us with your Vulcan command of logic.
Let's start with something simple enough for even
you to understand: a deductive argument. The easiest way to employ this is two premises and a conclusion. Of course, you can have more than two premises, but two is pretty much the minimum.
Here's the classic:
P1: All humans are mortal
P2: Socrates is a human.
C: (Therefore) Socrates is mortal.
The premises cannot contradict the conclusion or each other, and they are general terms that support the specific conclusion. Now, the conclusion can be the premise for a further refining of the argument, but this is an advanced technique.
So, right now, your argument would be something like this:
P1: Classes must be perfectly balanced against each other
P2: All Fighters are weaker than every other class (unbalanced)
C: Fighters should be removed from the game.
Obviously, you can refine or clarify this as you need, but that is the basic argument you presented. So, take it from here, and knock our socks off with your total mastery of logic.
Quote from: MGuy;560245Yes let us let time be the deciding factor. In fact you should sit on your front porch with your head up your ass while self fellating your obviously huge e-penis waiting for me to crawl there and beg for your forgiveness. Because CLEARLY 10 years worth of gaming has not taught me a damn thing and ONLY when I get bored of having fun will I find that, all along, only you have known how I can REALLY have fun.
So... you've been gaming for ten years. I know that's going to piss you off, but it's no wonder you have no fucking clue what it is we are talking about. You came into gaming when 3rd ed already existed and the Kool Aid was already being served to anyone who would listen. You virtually have no experience of a tabletop RP gaming world prior to the existence of almighty God Balance, or Forge theory, for that matter.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;560229Have people really been saying that there's only two types of game? This isn't even a response to the claim that you're ascribing to the locals here.
That was how I read what Benoist has been writing - in general declaring that there is a fundamental two-side split, and that if someone isn't standing with the old-school and against 3e & 4e, then they're with the enemy. Below is a quote which gave that expression, but I don't want to erect a straw man. Benoist - you're welcome to clarify otherwise.
Quote from: Benoist;560051At this point there's just a fundamental cultural break going on, from my POV. I don't think you can build a game without either cattering to one side of this debate, or the other.
I don't agree with this as written. I believe that it is possible to build a game without catering to one side or the other. There are many different crowds of gamers who are distinct from both old-school and Gaming Den. Further, I think it's possible to cater to people like me who don't think it's a big deal and will play both or in-between.
FWIW, I'm looking at playing some D&D with my son and nephews on an upcoming vacation, and a friend gave me both the Pathfinder Beginner Box and Sorcery & Wizardry. My son's been reading both books, and he's asked for Pathfinder - but I may run both just to try.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;560229On the other hand, I do think that a game which caters to the preferences of the GD folks on this thread can't cater to the old school aesthetic--at least if you reasonably define the two. The preferences of the GD folks are for games which narrowly, inflexibly cater to a specific, rather extreme taste; the old school aesthetic (as I see it) favors games which are flexible and adaptable to a fairly broad range of moderate tastes. A game can't be simultaneously flexible and inflexible, and if the range of tastes it appeals to are moderate, then it doesn't cover extreme tastes.
I tend to define moderate and extreme relative to the actual gaming population. As far as I can tell, the majority of D&D-like game players play 3.X ed, 4th ed, or Pathfinder - whereas players 1e, 2e, and retro-clones are common but still a minority. I consider any of these to be all reasonably broad. Specific or extreme tastes would be rarely-played games, like (sadly) Monster Island or Hellcats & Hockeysticks.
I explained that statement you quoted above, John. See my previous posts. The cultural break I'm talking about is well represented by MGuy and his gaming world that always included the existence of the Almighty God Balance to the point he's completely oblivious to the notion there could be anything else but an ever-increasing search for greater rules balance in the D&D game. It sounds completely insane to him to think otherwise.
QuoteI don't agree with this as written. I believe that it is possible to build a game without catering to one side or the other.
Well part of the impetus of this whole silly thread is that people have played 3.x games in very different styles. It was/is a pretty big-tent game that way. As we all know. People fought (fight, apparently) about how to play it, but they still all played it, right?
And if 5e somehow succeeds in becoming a big-tent D&D again, there will be people playing it in very different & incompatible styles, and they will fight about it.
Quote from: Imp;560257Well part of the impetus of this whole silly thread is that people have played 3.x games in very different styles. It was/is a pretty big-tent game that way. As we all know. People fought (fight, apparently) about how to play it, but they still all played it, right?
And if 5e somehow succeeds in becoming a big-tent D&D again, there will be people playing it in very different & incompatible styles, and they will fight about it.
Various editions of DnD aren't the only thing I've ever played. There exist solid games that encourage various playstyles all across the board. Conversations like these always break down whenever attention is turned away from something actually debatable (whether or not the fighter class falls behind the others) to matters of taste. (IE how jeff thinks his way of playing is the only actually good way of playing). It breaks down even further when someone wants to force some kind of edition war.
Quote from: Benoist;560239The reason I'm saying I believe there's no middle ground here is because you basically have two sides here: those that say that the fighter is not a problem,that there are other parts to roleplaying that make the game work like situations and setup, prep, DMing skills, players skills, communication across the table etc ('it's not a problem with the rules, it's a problem with the players, Jeff says, and I agree"), and those that say it's all about the rules and nothing but the rules.
To MGuy, deadDMwalking, or other people who have been arguing with Benoist - do you think that "rules and nothing but the rules" is an accurate representation of your preferred play style? If not, could you comment on examples or bits of actual play where you go beyond the rules?
I'd like some more clarity on what the actual split it like.
(Benoist - I cross-posted with you at some point in here - I'll respond to your more recent post later.)
Quote from: MGuy;560223Core fighter is weaker than core cleric. Even without pointing to the save or die possibilities the cleric can be as good at melee if not better or at worst slightly behind at most levels and can do more than him to keep up at higher levels. If you're going to argue that the fighter has a chance stick to earlier editions at least where the gap isn't as bad.
We were discussing wizards. I didn't say core though, necessarily: expand a bit beyond core and you'd find a lot more useful feat options and race choices and whatnot for fighters. SoDs start getting shitty when you start finding the various save-boosters in sourcebooks, whereas there's very little that helps hit points.
QuoteIf you nerf it you're admitting a flaw in the rules. If you admit that there are flaws then what have you been arguing this entire time?
For 3.5, I'm certainly happy to admit there are flaws in the rules. However, heavily degenerate character builds are in essence edge cases with little relevance to what happens at the table; Kaelik's thing basically proves that outsider polymorph cheese, the splitting bow and Divine Metamagic are broken, not the cleric class itself. As its a cleric-based thing, it has no bearing on fighter vs. wizard, strictly speaking (start your own damn Cleric vs. Fighter thread...) and it has no validity as an argument that the fighter needs powering up, unless you accept it as a valid balance point for what the game should look like.
QuoteMagic item accumulation in earlier editions is random, the effects of the items aren't guaranteed, and by analyzing the fighter's lack of helpful abilities when his magic toys are taken away evidences that he lacks any real abilities outside of swinging a sword. This is not to say I expect or want groups to go through the game without magic pants just that the inclusion of those when analyzing how well the class works obfuscates the point because anytime I can point at what the fighter lacks someone could say "Well he should have a magic item for that" or complain that I'm assuming he doesn't have it when there is no guarantee that he WOULD have a magic item that would suit the situation at all while a spellcaster at least has a percentile chance of having the spell he needs or another spell of equal, or close to it, use to solve the situation. So it follows then that if you expect to have magic items specifically to give the fighter interesting abilities you might as well have it as part of the shit he gets for being a fighter in the first place so whenever I point out an ability he doesn't have you can point to the "gets magic pants" ability on his class and say that he has a good chance of having exactly, or close to it, what he needs to succeed.
Trying to 'balance' the game gives problems when you discover that in trying to determine what's balanced and what's not, some things are not easily quantifiable. This is where we've been going with the whole 'removing magical items' thing: the likelihood of a character not having an item is unknown, but rather than treating it as an unknown you've simplified it out of the analysis and so gotten a dubious answer. Anyway, for my part I expect PCs - wizards or not - to not always have a tool available to solve a given problem, and that's OK. Part of the game. If you don't have a thing, maybe you can do a quest to get a thing.
Another side of this is assuming a wizard will have a spell for a given situation, which is more or less a complete unknown and screws up (IMHO) quite a bit of armchair theorizing as to how effective wizards are. In play I've seen wizards suck and die moderately often, as opposed to being gods. With a bad player, a wizard is actually a huge liability as either inefficient spell use or friendly-fire casualties render the PC worse than useless.
Quote from: MGuy;560259Various editions of DnD aren't the only thing I've ever played. There exist solid games that encourage various playstyles all across the board. Conversations like these always break down whenever attention is turned away from something actually debatable (whether or not the fighter class falls behind the others) to matters of taste. (IE how jeff thinks his way of playing is the only actually good way of playing). It breaks down even further when someone wants to force some kind of edition war.
Your butthurt over my opinion is just more acknowledgement that I am correct.
I'm living rent free inside your head! Forever!
Quote from: jhkim;560251That was how I read what Benoist has been writing
I can't speak for Benoist. Not only that, I don't read most of what he writes. Didn't realize you were talking specificially about him.
QuoteI tend to define moderate and extreme relative to the actual gaming population. As far as I can tell, the majority of D&D-like game players play 3.X ed, 4th ed, or Pathfinder - whereas players 1e, 2e, and retro-clones are common but still a minority. I consider any of these to be all reasonably broad.
I'm talking about tastes, not games--I don't think it's necessary to quibble over the tastes catered to by 3e/Pathfinder, since the GD people who've come to this thread are complaining about those games. (On the other hand, I believe the common wisdom that 4e was strongly influenced by narrow, extreme tastes, and I think that's why 4e didn't do as well as its publisher & designers had hoped, in spite of its huge market advantages.)
The normative aspect of "extreme" and "moderate" isn't important to the point I'm trying to make. What I'm saying is mainly that if you drew a two-dimensional diagram of the tastes which can be satisfied by old-school D&D, on one hand, and the tastes catered to by a notional "ideal TGD game", the first set would be "bigger" (in terms of the spread of tastes, if not the population of players), and the overlap with the second set would be fairly small, if any. It is true that I chose the term "extreme" because it seems that the "TGD approach" (shorthand for the assumptions and preferences of the TGD people in this thread) is very, very concerned with a style of play focused on manipulation of a set of well-defined rules, minimizing discretion to the extent possible, and generally valuing play in terms of meeting and defeating challenges through those manipulations. Old-school D&D play can stretch in that direction, but it doesn't reach all the way. Old-school D&D play can also stretch in other directions, but also doesn't easily reach the points occupied by the rules and culture of play of, say, Harnmaster or Dogs in the Vineyard.
Really, I can't see how you can reconcile an objection to the term "extreme" with e.g. the triangle of GDS. Not sure if you do object, now that I've defined my terms, but let me point out that GDS posits that an individual's "style" can tend toward a "corner" of the triangle. This would be meaningless if the triangle didn't have a center, and my impression is that the center is defined theoretically, rather than being based on the aggregate of RPG practice, which may vary over time.
Quote from: jhkim;560260To MGuy, deadDMwalking, or other people who have been arguing with Benoist - do you think that "rules and nothing but the rules" is an accurate representation of your preferred play style? If not, could you comment on examples or bits of actual play where you go beyond the rules?
Given the choice, I would lean towards consistency. Given the choice I would also lean towards not having to read a 128 page legal document to understand how 90% of likely situations will pan out.
If one of the rules in a system I am using is unworkable, I will openly admit that and change that rule, preferably before anyone has based a character around it. Most GMs I have played with have generally gone with the idea that consistent rules changes should be done when the mechanics would otherwise be broken. For example, in my last 3.5 campaign, the DM didn't spot-change Diplomacy every time someone tried to use it, he picked a ruling that worked well enough for the levels we were playing and stuck to it regardless of the consequences. When I last ran Unknown Armies, I played attacks as rolled rather than spot-tweaking combat to get the results I wanted, even when it meant the party successfully insta-killed a plot critical NPC. I admit to houseruling to allow a window to first-aid someone who's been dropped to 0 HP, but that's a rule I would stick to for everyone rather than a special defence I gave that day to protect PCs.
Obviously "rules and nothing but rules" can never be quite 100% accurate, as the rules cannot literally cover every situation, but at the ideal I'd prefer to be able to reduce most situations to a consistent rules call as and when they come up. There's a lot of bile about this when it comes to things like Charm Person, simply because people don't like losing even the slightest bit of control of their characters - especially of their PCs - which I can understand, but which makes it a lot harder to create functional mechanics to allow people to play characters with greater social skills than their own (or lesser skills, for that matter).
Quote from: jhkim;560260To MGuy, deadDMwalking, or other people who have been arguing with Benoist - do you think that "rules and nothing but the rules" is an accurate representation of your preferred play style? If not, could you comment on examples or bits of actual play where you go beyond the rules?
I'd like some more clarity on what the actual split it like.
(Benoist - I cross-posted with you at some point in here - I'll respond to your more recent post later.)
Back from page 51 I posted this:
QuoteThe lion share of my experiences are in 3rd ed. I've played 2ed but Ii have a bad opinion on it because of the over reliance on DM wankery in order to do almost anything so to prevent my negative taste for that edition from poisoning my recounting I'll stick with 3rd ed. I also will avoid talking about other systems so that I can refer to something most people seem to be familiar with. Lastly I'm going to only refer to the games where the most fun was had to show that even though fun was had the imbalance was clear.
Quite a few years back I ran a game in high school, primarily on lunch hours and over the weekends. This is when I first started playing, before I got absorbed within the internet culture so I had no guiding hand as to "how" to play DnD and I was the only one who spent the time learning the system so it could be run. This is a few games away from the first time I played so I'd been playing for effectively a year and a half. In this game we had a Bard, Barbarian, and cleric to start. A couple of levels in the players were falling on hard times (primarily around level 4) and things were difficult for the group. The Cleric was spending ost of his spells keeping the barbarian alive and the bard was spending his rounds playing songs. The only one having the real fun after a while was the barbarian. So, I added a druid to the group. I made him basically an extra man. Unfortunately even though I played him primarily as a combat piece in the simplest way I could (turn him into an animal attack into melee) the Barbarian saw this and started asking me to turn into an animal. The bard was wholly unsatisfied with not being able to do anything in battle and asked to change classes while the cleric started to realize just how powerful he was when he WASN'T the heal bot. So I took the druid out (melded him into the Barbarian) gave the Barbarian a trinket that not only enable him to wildshape but allowed him to keep his rage. Later on I just turned him into a werebear. The Bard decided to be a rogue instead. I essentially gave him the ability to become a shadow dancer to keep up with everyone else's awesome. The rest of the game as smooth sailing.
So let's recap: Cleric was being held back by the party. Druid came in and with the simple ability to turn into a creature and out shined the barbarian (who could do more damage anyway). I fixed the issue by handing out upgrades to the barbarian and rogue. Didn't have to touch the cleric at all.
Now I'll reference something much more recent and one of the best campaigns I ever played. I had a campaign (undead apocalypse) that started with a kender who had a special class from the races of ansalon supplement that allowed him to deal with undead (he chose it without knowing I was planning an undead thing), an orc Barbarian who turned into a human fighter who turned into a human fighter/rogue (different characters. The switching was unrelated to this discussion), a druid who turned into a factotum (druid chose to die changed characters, again unrelated). There were other characters involved but these were the primary players.
The game was too long (and awesome) to recount every event for this discussion but the relevant parts are: The Fighter cross classed to rogue, then cross classed into invisible blade, then occult slayer. Each of his cross classes were made for in story reasons and I warped the rules to facilitate the changes (ignored prereqs, let certain things stack etc). I even gave him an intelligent sword as a sidekick. The Factotum worked in the background through most of the game didn't do much. Every thing he did was in the background and he (as a player) is dedicated to the story to the point that he was going to kill his character off (for story purposes) had the kender not accidentally saved it. Despite him having some magical ability I allowed him to accumulate Inspiration Points until the latter parts of the game such that he could stand in the spotlight throughout entire dungeons with the rest of the party.
Conclusion: Out of everybody in the party the person I had to give the most candy to was the only nonmagical fighter in the group.
Now I'll go over some times when I actually played.
Once I played a gnome barbarian named Bastion Mountain Hopper. He was a joke character that ended up being very popular such that a female friend of mine played his "daughter" in a later campaign. He was a cross class character I was intentionally playing sub optimally because I knew the DM didn't like number crunches. However this didn't stop the DM from pissing in my cheerios every now and again for various unrelated things. Now, about mid level I was having my gnome leap as high as his extremely high (at this point) jump check would allow. Now by the rules there was a jump ceiling and the DM was a bit edgy about letting me break that ceiling despite me killing, stealing, and murdering my way to grabbing stackable bonuses to allow me to jump obscenely high. Essentially I, as a dumb melee character, was breaking his willing suspension of disbelief because I was turning the mere act of leaping high into something that seemed magical or, in his words, too anime. Now while other people in the game had better abilities it really disturbed HIM that I was able to leap beyond the bounds of what characters should be able to just by pumping up my strength a bunch (he didn't even blink at the amount of damage I was doing with the strength bonus). I, instead of arguing, just conceded and started having the psychic warrior in the group throw me as a projectile weapon. The campaign ended not long after because of magic shenanigans but I had a good time while it lasted.
The main take away here though is that there is quite a lot of resistance present in the minds of some players about allowing mundane characters to do anything that smacks of magic without much magical help.
Another time I played a summoner (pathfinder). Now while I had magic and a summon, and more things I could summon I decided to hold back. I had already had a bad run in with a DM before for summoning "too much" and outshining two fighters in the group over several sessions in a small 3.5 group I had played in a year before. So with Pathfinder I took up the summoner class (Cause I love summoning stuff) but downplayed how much better at fighting my actual summon was than the group fighter. Instead I spent much of the lower levels using my absurdly high diplomacy and bluff check to make it so that I used enemies or NPCs to fight for me. The DM, at the time, didn't want to bother with all the extra work handling surprise allies would've had to make him do so I volunteered to not only stat up each and every NPC I had (using templates and various books to get sample characters out) but I used my own, personal in game money to outfit them and directed them all in combat. Apparently despite the indirect method I took I had (collectively) a higher kill count than the fighter. I was then personally asked to downplay using the NPCs I'd rightfully persuaded to join my side. So I sent them away and started playing the Dungeon crawling game everyone else was. The only way I, at that point, could keep from outshining half of the rest of the group (A Fighter/Barbarian, Rogue, and Magus. The only other real caster was the Druid) was by not doing anything at all other than playing the face at talks and being a combat set piece. Why did I have to do this? Because my summon had a better attack routine than the Fighter/Barbarian + reach. It had a better perception than the rogue, and the magus just had attack buffs and spells that still didn't put his damage output above my initial summon's and that is without going into how I can buff my summon and myself at the same time or my ability to simply summon more stuff. I should also note that my summon had not a magical item on him and that I didn't need to do anything special to make him more badass than half the group.
Conclusion: The only way some classes can shine is if better classes intentionally hold themselves back to keep them from noticing.
Final Conclusion: With this and many other experiences in various systems, games, and with various people the disparity between what a fighter can do and what a caster can do should be obvious. It is not an insurmountable problem but we have to AT LEAST acknowledge that the problem exists and WHY it exists before we can start fixing it
Since you seem to actually want a conversation I'm posting this for you. I warn you that attempting to sway people like Benoist is useless as he is not interested in having an actual conversation.
Quote from: omegonthesane;560269Obviously "rules and nothing but rules" can never be quite 100% accurate, as the rules cannot literally cover every situation, but at the ideal I'd prefer to be able to reduce most situations to a consistent rules call as and when they come up. There's a lot of bile about this when it comes to things like Charm Person, simply because people don't like losing even the slightest bit of control of their characters - especially of their PCs - which I can understand, but which makes it a lot harder to create functional mechanics to allow people to play characters with greater social skills than their own (or lesser skills, for that matter).
This bares repeating.
Quote from: jhkim;560035To others: instead of platitudes, ad-hominems, and/or examples from non-gaming fiction like Conan - can you give some actual play examples of what your high-level play looks like?
The comments about being rules-bound and/or lacking creativity seem largely irrelevant to the fighter-vs-spellcaster issue. Certainly in my AD&D1e play, we were all creative, but one of the prime sources for creativity was creative uses of spells and other magic.
I'll just use 2e Birthright here. At higher lvl play, even if your character does not end up holding a Province or Realm, the fighter's advantage with a fort, lieutenant, men-at-arms, and elite house guard, means he has several advantages. A taxable base without having to adventure all the time is crucial, as is being able to make investments into the land (beyond a fort, you can build homes for rent to villein, silos, mills, etc.). Further you have a jump start on henchmen and followers power projection -- and if you treat them well it's one that stays since it's "replenishable" (the cleric's followers are explicitly
not, per PHB). You also have delegating authority with your henchmen, thus your power projection can do easily more than one action at a time.
Currently my Guilder player in Birthright is doing a grand tour of his singular province demesne. He's going to need to set up lieutenants ASAP. And currently he needs to raise his standing troops, without issuing peasant levies. If he was a fighter, he'd already have a house guard that could secure his location at the county seat, have a fort powerbase to project power, and have a personal cache of loyal fighters with an already available lieutenant to give him multiple action advantage. Even though he's starting with outrageous stats and advantages (I used PO:S&P to twink it out; it's his first BR game), he has to build all of those resources up, and they'll generally be less loyal, personal, and directly manageable (BR allows contesting various power holdings: i.e. law, trade, religion, mana source).
Granted, this is not the only style of play for high level D&D. Some people prefer the "demigods traipsing through the multiverse doing arena battles" style of play. But, outside of Planescape, or occasional visits to Ravenloft (edit: which is not to say those are the only ways to run those settings), I don't run those type of games. That and I find keeping a calendar where you know your character is eventually going to die form old age really helps constrain power creep (it also explains why long lived humanoids had level caps...). But hey, play as you like.
Yeah, so there's an example of 2e high lvl play (and managing to keep it into a reasonable 3 paragraph block).
Quote from: Marleycat;560198They're fine when done like Fantasy Craft, no +1 this or if "this happens on the second Tuesday of this week" that, shite.
The biggest problem I have with Feats (WOTC D&D style) is that too many of them take something just about anyone can try to do with a least a small chance of success and by the way the Feat rules were written (combined with the player cultures that grew up around them) turn those things into something only a character who has taken the Feat is allowed to even try to do. Even one feat that does this would be "too many" IMHO.
Feats should be limited to adding a bonus to attempts to do something anyone should be able to try to do with at least a small chance of success. Only things which truly require specialized knowledge, training, or genetics to even attempt would be turned into "only those characters who have this feat can even attempt this" feats.
I have no problems with players wanting their character to be "special/unique" but I am not willing to see them made "special/unique" by limiting what "everyman" should be able to try to do with some chance of success to make more opportunities for the "specialness/uniqueness." Feats as I've usually seen them handled in D20-based games violate this principle so often that I have come to loathe the very idea of "Feats".
Quote from: RandallS;560282The biggest problem I have with Feats (WOTC D&D style) is that too many of them turn something just about anyone can try to do with a least a small chance of success and by the way the Feat rules were written (combined with the player cultures that grew up around them) turn those things into something only a character who has taken the Feat is allowed to even try to do. Even one feat that does this would be "too many" IMHO.
Feats should be limited to adding a bonus to attempts to do something anyone should be able to try to do with at least a small chance of success. Only things which truly require specialized knowledge, training, or genetics to even attempt would be turned into "only those characters who have this feat can even attempt this" feats.
I have no problems with players wanting their character to be "special/unique" but I am not willing to see them made "special/unique" by limiting what "everyman" should be able to try to do with some chance of success to make more opportunities for the "specialness/uniqueness." Feats as I've usually seen them handled in D20-based games violate this principle so often that I have come to loathe the very idea of "Feats".
I agree with this criticism of Feats. This is a problem of splatbook bloat that came with that treadmill WotC adhered to once Hasbro took over the company.
Quote from: Rum Cove;560131What if the entire group of players make Zen Archer Cleric Monsters? Is that really a problem?
No not at all .
In fact that would suit the mode of play they were after as everyone could contribute.
It might be a bit dull and it seems that there are plenty of other CharOp options available, but a problem no not at all.
Quote from: jhkim;560251I don't agree with this as written. I believe that it is possible to build a game without catering to one side or the other. There are many different crowds of gamers who are distinct from both old-school and Gaming Den. Further, I think it's possible to cater to people like me who don't think it's a big deal and will play both or in-between.
Sure, it's possible to write a version of D&D that doers not cater to one side or the other on the many issues where what one side needs to have fun ruins the fun for the other side -- like the type of balance being discussed in this thread. I just don't think it is possible to create a "compromise" game good enough that it will become the "goto" game for most D&D players.
I wrote about this in my blog in August of last year. Give it a read if you want as it is too long to include here:
A New Edition of D&D Designed to Unite D&D Players -- Can It Be Done? (http://blog.retroroleplaying.com/2011/08/new-edition-of-d-designed-to-unite-d.html)
Regarding Feats,
I absolutely agree that if the existence of a Feat removes the ability for someone to do something in the game, it is bad design. A feat should increase your ability to do something, or make you better at doing something - but if there's no way to do that thing without the Feat, it's usually a problem.
Regarding Rules,
I think there's been some disconnect here between 'published rules' and 'the rules'. If a DM has changed a rule or the way something works for their game, that's not a problem. I've gone on record that I think house rules are an important part of the game, and they make it better - at least for that group. A good house rule helps bring the game to the place where the group wants it to be. If the group is having more fun, the house rules are good, and I have no objection to them. I do use house rules. In fact, I'm working on my own system which further embraces and advances the concept of making a system 'perfect' for a given group of regular players.
Whether you use published rules (as written) or you use the published rules modified in some degree with house rules or precedent, you are using 'rules' as long as you're consistent. If sometimes jumping a chasm is a DC 10 and sometimes it's a DC 15 (depending on DM's whim) that would be being inconsistent. I object to inconsistency - it brings a lot of problems to the table. Among them is DM Favoritism. If DM girlfriend gets a DC 5, everyone else has a DC 10, but the person who ate the last cookie gets a DC 20, the DM is being a dick. Obviously, if the rules (even if modified by house rules) are consistent, that can't happen.
Further, the published rules can't come up with every possible scenario. For example, if you're falling from a height sufficient that it takes more than 1 round to hit the ground, and you ready to cast dimension door before hitting, do you keep your momentum? Or do you appear where you want to appear without taking damage? Honestly, that's not something I need to see in the rules - it could be included, but it's not too likely to come up much - as long as the DM picks a ruling and sticks with it, it's good.
Regarding Fighters as an example of a chair leg -
It's really more like having one long leg, one short leg, and two medium legs. If you cut down the three longer legs, your chair is too short for your table. If you build up the three shorter legs, your chair is too tall for your table. You end up needing to cut off the longest leg (casters) and build up the shortest leg (Fighters).
Regarding Stormbringers laughable attempt to build a deductive argument
1) I recognize that at high levels, Fighters can no longer contribute in a 'level-appropriate' way. This would not be terribly objectionable if the players were notified in advance. However, since a Fighter is often a 'new player' character, in large part because of the simplicity, there is no reason to expect someone to anticipate that the high level Fighter ceases to be effective.
a) Part of this is the CR system. A CR 9 creature is supposed to be essentially equivalent to every other CR creature as far as the challenge it poses for a group of adventurers or a 'mirror match'. A 9th level Fighter is worth just as much experience as a 9th level Wizard (as an enemy) and is presumed to be able to deplete the party resources in a similar fashion. My experience is that a Fighter is less of a challenge - and recognizing that fact would go a long way toward addressing this issue.
2) Contributing in a level-appropriate way seems the most 'fun' for the way I play. I've played in games where someone is 'the boss' and everyone else plays a 'henchman'. But if the boss doesn't need henchmen and/or the party didn't agree to that coming in, it's not going to be a fun game. Level-appropriate doesn't mean 'exactly equal to' or any other such drivel - it means you're in the ballpark. If the Wizard has 25 ways to completely remove someone from the Fight, the Fighter should have a couple that don't involve dealing damage exclusively - especially with hit point bloat.
a) Feats are not 'level-appropriate' - even top tier Feats are similar to 1st or 2nd level spells. Further, a 'logical build' ends up with so many Feat Taxes that don't actually contribute to the character that it becomes very difficult (note - at some point I'll provide information on a two-weapon hook-sword Fighter and exactly what Feats he chose, why, and how he stopped mattering at higher levels.
b) Combined with low skills and poor class skill choices, the Fighter doesn't have any skill contributions that aren't clearly worse than 'magic' - even low-level magic - nor are any of his skills class protected. The Fighter's contributions outside of combat are essentially limited to 'what anyone else could do - usually even a level 1 commoner'.
3) Since I have observed that nobody plays high-level Fighters in D&D anymore (they prestige out of it) and Fighters are supposed to be a valid class, and I like the concept of a Fighter (though I do want an effective character), I want a Fighter that has class abilities (instead of just Feats). Such a fighter does not need 'eye-lasers' to be effective. Many people here from the RPGsite have offered suggestions for 'class abilities' that would be good for the Fighter to have - including increased critical hit likelihood, increased damage. There are others suggestions as well.
Quote from: Imp;560257Well part of the impetus of this whole silly thread is that people have played 3.x games in very different styles. It was/is a pretty big-tent game that way. As we all know. People fought (fight, apparently) about how to play it, but they still all played it, right?
And if 5e somehow succeeds in becoming a big-tent D&D again, there will be people playing it in very different & incompatible styles, and they will fight about it.
That's correct basically what Ben is arguing for for is the "big tent" vs the "small tent" 4e everything must be virtually balanced, everyone must participate exactly evenly in every area of the game TGD et al. Are arguing for. Basically the bigger the tent and cleaner and simplier the base core 5e is the more likely Ben gets his Dnd. Me? I am easy I just want something I could combine to make my version of 2/3e. I'm Wotc's target audience for 5e.
Quote from: RandallS;560282The biggest problem I have with Feats (WOTC D&D style) is that too many of them take something just about anyone can try to do with a least a small chance of success and by the way the Feat rules were written (combined with the player cultures that grew up around them) turn those things into something only a character who has taken the Feat is allowed to even try to do. Even one feat that does this would be "too many" IMHO.
Feats should be limited to adding a bonus to attempts to do something anyone should be able to try to do with at least a small chance of success. Only things which truly require specialized knowledge, training, or genetics to even attempt would be turned into "only those characters who have this feat can even attempt this" feats.
I have no problems with players wanting their character to be "special/unique" but I am not willing to see them made "special/unique" by limiting what "everyman" should be able to try to do with some chance of success to make more opportunities for the "specialness/uniqueness." Feats as I've usually seen them handled in D20-based games violate this principle so often that I have come to loathe the very idea of "Feats".
That's my point in FC everyone can do anything except spellcasting of course because despite using the 3x D20 engine it's purely a skill based game. Arcane Magic included. Feats don't give bonuses to manuevers everyone can do they give entirely different techniques split into several areas but at the most basic combat/magic/social.
Quote from: RandallS;560282Feats as I've usually seen them handled in D20-based games violate this principle so often that I have come to loathe the very idea of "Feats".
If the designers really want D&D Next to be modular and flexible, I think a big test of that would be how easy it is for a group to eliminate feats from the rules and still have a viable system to play. In my case, I simply don't think feats offer enough benefits to justify their overhead.
Quote from: RandallS;560286Sure, it's possible to write a version of D&D that doers not cater to one side or the other on the many issues where what one side needs to have fun ruins the fun for the other side -- like the type of balance being discussed in this thread. I just don't think it is possible to create a "compromise" game good enough that it will become the "goto" game for most D&D players.
I wrote about this in my blog in August of last year. Give it a read if you want as it is too long to include here:
A New Edition of D&D Designed to Unite D&D Players -- Can It Be Done? (http://blog.retroroleplaying.com/2011/08/new-edition-of-d-designed-to-unite-d.html)
I might or might not agree, depending what you mean by "satisfy". In a sense, there's never been a version of D&D that satisfied most players as written. From the very start, D&D players would frequently house-rule like crazy. It was a frequent feature of D&D games. From early on, there was the Basic-vs-Advanced split that attempted to satisfy major crowds. 3rd ed came close to unifying, but it was also frequently either house-ruled or used with OGL variants (Arcana Unearthed, Iron Heroes, etc.).
Also, I'd needs to consider what we mean by most. Satisfying a majority (i.e. 51%+) isn't the same as satisfying everyone. As I said earlier, from the evidence of market data, convention games, and online studies - it looks to me like most players are playing one of 3.X ed, 4th ed, or Pathfinder. A new edition could step in the direction of old school, but still be unpopular with most old school players, and yet still come close to satisfying most players overall.
Quote from: jeff37923;560284I agree with this criticism of Feats. This is a problem of splatbook bloat that came with that treadmill WotC adhered to once Hasbro took over the company.
This would carry more weight if not for the fact that the first series of "Complete" books was in 2E. They might not have been called splats at the time, but that's what they were. Complete Fighter, Thief, Priest, Wizard, Dwarf, Bard, Elf, Gnome/Halfling, Ranger, Paladin, Druid, Barbarian, etc.
D&D was on a "treadmill" long before Hasbro came calling. Hell, the first of these books were published before Wizards of the Coast even existed, much less owned D&D.
Quote from: Fifth Element;560321This would carry more weight if not for the fact that the first series of "Complete" books was in 2E. They might not have been called splats at the time, but that's what they were. Complete Fighter, Thief, Priest, Wizard, Dwarf, Bard, Elf, Gnome/Halfling, Ranger, Paladin, Druid, Barbarian, etc.
D&D was on a "treadmill" long before Hasbro came calling. Hell, the first of these books were published before Wizards of the Coast even existed, much less owned D&D.
But the 2E complete books and 3E complete books were quite different in my experience. Kits had a much smaller impact on the game. The 2E books were primarily about flavor, the 3E complete books getting the must-have feats, prestige classes and other mechanics. Was a huge fan of the earlier complete books but despised the ones put out by WOTC.
Just take a look at the complete fighter from 2e and compare it side by side with the 3E complete book.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;5602943) Since I have observed that nobody plays high-level Fighters in D&D anymore (they prestige out of it)....
That's simply not true. There are a couple of long running 3.x campaigns in Central Texas with high-level fighters. There could be more because I don't look for them. I know of these because 3 players in my Microlite74 campaign also play in one of these campaigns (two in one, one in the other). Both campaigns use a limited selections books beyond the core books, are set in the Forgotten Realms, and do not allow any charop the GM or other players consider too extreme (if the character really outguns any of the not-really charoped characters in the game, it's too extreme), etc. Advancement is slower than standard for 3.x as the players don't like the high speed advancement of modern D&D.
One of the players in my campaign has a 15th level fighter and says his fighter is quite effective both in and out of combat. Of course, when I asked him last week how his average damage per round compared to that of other characters, he just looked at me strangely and said "who would waste time figuring stuff like that"? What this tells me is that there are probably a good number of players who value their characters on a very different set of value standards than those used by folks at TGD. :)
I suspect whether fighters are considered useful/fun to play at high levels is similar to whether the rules issues in 3.x will derail your game. It varies by table of players, their interests, and their style of play. Blanket statements are probably going to be false.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;560329But the 2E complete books and 3E complete books were quite different in my experience. Kits had a much smaller impact on the game. The 2E books were primarily about flavor, the 3E complete books getting the must-have feats, prestige classes and other mechanics. Was a huge fan of the earlier complete books but despised the ones put out by WOTC.
Just take a look at the complete fighter from 2e and compare it side by side with the 3E complete book.
Very true that the focus was different I remember that if you didn't have "The Complete
you were playing GoT's to everyone else's Matrix.
Then again that's just my experience not something overall but like Randall's groups we always run 2/3e with a specific set of books and sources depending on specific campaign so these issues the Denner's talk about have never happened at our tables.
Quote from: Marleycat;560332Very true that the focus was different I remember that if you didn't have "The Complete you were playing GoT's to everyone else's Matrix.
Then again that's just my experience not something overall but like Randall's groups we always run 2/3e with a specific set of books and sources depending on specific campaign so these issues the Denner's talk about have never happened at our tables.
You already admitted to changing the rules and to liking Fantasy Craft above regular DnD. You must have had something disturb you about the game in order to make you praise one above the other and enable you to go on record as saying problems exist in 3e.
Quote from: RandallS;560331That's simply not true. There are a couple of long running 3.x campaigns in Central Texas with high-level fighters. There could be more because I don't look for them. I know of these because 3 players in my Microlite74 campaign also play in one of these campaigns (two in one, one in the other). Both campaigns use a limited selections books beyond the core books, are set in the Forgotten Realms, and do not allow any charop the GM or other players consider too extreme (if the character really outguns any of the not-really charoped characters in the game, it's too extreme), etc. Advancement is slower than standard for 3.x as the players don't like the high speed advancement of modern D&D.
One of the players in my campaign has a 15th level fighter and says his fighter is quite effective both in and out of combat. Of course, when I asked him last week how his average damage per round compared to that of other characters, he just looked at me strangely and said "who would waste time figuring stuff like that"? What this tells me is that there are probably a good number of players who value their characters on a very different set of value standards than those used by folks at TGD. :)
I suspect whether fighters are considered useful/fun to play at high levels is similar to whether the rules issues in 3.x will derail your game. It varies by table of players, their interests, and their style of play. Blanket statements are probably going to be false.
Randall makes an excellent point here. A lot of players are not even worried about the kinds of issues people raised on this thread, so regardless of how effective/not effective a class is, the idea that one one plays it anymore at hogh level seems quite an overstatement. I know players that make visibly suboptimal decisions and choices to realize certain character concepts. For them character effectiveness only matters in terms of the character concept, so they are not keeping a tally of how well their guy does in battle or elsewhere unless doing well in some area of the game is a feature of the character.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;560339Randall makes an excellent point here. A lot of players are not even worried about the kinds of issues people raised on this thread, so regardless of how effective/not effective a class is, the idea that one one plays it anymore at hogh level seems quite an overstatement. I know players that make visibly suboptimal decisions and choices to realize certain character concepts. For them character effectiveness only matters in terms of the character concept, so they are not keeping a tally of how well their guy does in battle or elsewhere unless doing well in some area of the game is a feature of the character.
On the flip side a lot of players are troubled about the issues such that they go and make various rules changes (such as not allowing any character to outdo other characters) in order to fix it. The fact that there are so many issues with having various trap options in the game and the sometimes necessity of playing a certain way to remain effective is another mark on the system but one that has a lot of key components and can't be nailed down in a discussion that used to be about the power disparity between a fighter/wizard.
These two things bare repeating:
1) No one is talking about fun. Fun can be had no matter what the rules are. I've known people to have more fun playing 4th edition than anything else. I've known people who like to play White Wolf games where everything boils down to following the Storyteller's planned story. "Fun" is not objective and thus can't be discussed in any reasonable fashion because anytime you say group A had fun with it you can say group B did not and the discussion gets nowhere.
2) "Fixing" problems by changing the rules does not make the actual rules any better. If you are forced to change the rules for something as common as keeping whole swathes of classes (casters) from outdoing significant portions of other classes (non casters) then this indicates that there is a power disparity created by the rules.
I'm pretty sure no one here honestly started from the position that the Fighter will ever (in any edition) compete with a wizard casting Wish. Thus, objectively, your vastly simplified point that wizards are 'more powerful' than fighters can be taken for granted as a statement of fact.
The dispute has been with the attendant statement that this somehow makes Fighters unplayably bad, broken and unfun for anyone. Any number of posters have, in various shades of good faith, pointed out that by any number of metrics the Fighter remains perfectly viable, as long as you don't go in assuming they'll be casting Wish and adventuring for XP to use casting Wish, at some point.
Not the least of which is that a decently made fighter with level appropriate gear (which, yes, can be somewhat random if that's your thing) can absolutely gut a decently made wizard at that same level in a single full action, while the wizard's ability to gut the fighter relies on beating saving throws, planning in advance, or the fighter having absolutely no allies.
(and though I hated the movie, I vaguely want to post a video link of Stiffler telling off his boss near the end of the American Pie Reunion...)
Because, if we're positing white-room arena situations I see no reason to exclude: The fighter and wizard are standing right next to one another, unbuffed. Roll Initiative.
Quote from: MGuy;560338You already admitted to changing the rules and to liking Fantasy Craft above regular DnD. You must have had something disturb you about the game in order to make you praise one above the other and enable you to go on record as saying problems exist in 3e.
My reasons for using Fantasy Craft and Pathfinder is in the case of FC I absolutely love the magic system everything else is bonus such as how feats are done and how WBL is tied purely to reputation not level etc. Pathfinder? Because it's supported by a company that doesn't piss on their fans and both games adhere to Marley's Rule of 5.
I freely admit 3x RAW is extremely unbalanced hence you have to have the concept of RAI and limits on which sources are allowed in your game.
Quote from: MGuy;560340On the flip side a lot of players are troubled about the issues such that they go and make various rules changes (such as not allowing any character to outdo other characters) in order to fix it. The fact that there are so many issues with having various trap options in the game and the sometimes necessity of playing a certain way to remain effective is another mark on the system but one that has a lot of key components and can't be nailed down in a discussion that used to be about the power disparity between a fighter/wizard.
.
I believe we have discussed this many time already in this thread. There probaboy isn't muched to be gained at this point by revisiting the same arguments.
Quote from: Spike;560341I'm pretty sure no one here honestly started from the position that the Fighter will ever (in any edition) compete with a wizard casting Wish. Thus, objectively, your vastly simplified point that wizards are 'more powerful' than fighters can be taken for granted as a statement of fact.
The dispute has been with the attendant statement that this somehow makes Fighters unplayably bad, broken and unfun for anyone. Any number of posters have, in various shades of good faith, pointed out that by any number of metrics the Fighter remains perfectly viable, as long as you don't go in assuming they'll be casting Wish and adventuring for XP to use casting Wish, at some point.
Not the least of which is that a decently made fighter with level appropriate gear (which, yes, can be somewhat random if that's your thing) can absolutely gut a decently made wizard at that same level in a single full action, while the wizard's ability to gut the fighter relies on beating saving throws, planning in advance, or the fighter having absolutely no allies.
(and though I hated the movie, I vaguely want to post a video link of Stiffler telling off his boss near the end of the American Pie Reunion...)
Because, if we're positing white-room arena situations I see no reason to exclude: The fighter and wizard are standing right next to one another, unbuffed. Roll Initiative.
This argument would go very far if I posited a wizard using
wish like at all, in any of my posts. Additionally I didn't, and I specifically am not challenging the fighter's ability to sword things successfully (in 2e not 3e where the fighter is COMPLETELY hosed). And lastly, my argument is that fighters are gimped compared to just about every casting class. Your argument does not even begin to impact mine at all.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;560344I believe we have discussed this many time already in this thread. There probaboy isn't muched to be gained at this point by revisiting the same arguments.
You never argued against anything I said in the part that you quoted. Can't revisit an argument we never had.
Quote from: MGuy;560347This argument would go very far if I posited a wizard using wish like at all, in any of my posts. Additionally I didn't, and I specifically am not challenging the fighter's ability to sword things successfully (in 2e not 3e where the fighter is COMPLETELY hosed).
See, it's not an argument of 'slightly off balance' or 'maybe we could find some middle ground'. Nope. It's 'the fighter is COMPLETELY hosed' in 3rd ed. All caps. Absolute statement. No middle ground. It *has* to be 'fixed'. It's 'horribly broken'. The end.
Quote from: RandallS;560331That's simply not true. There are a couple of long running 3.x campaigns in Central Texas with high-level fighters. There could be more because I don't look for them.
Quote from: RandallS;560331One of the players in my campaign has a 15th level fighter and says his fighter is quite effective both in and out of combat. Of course, when I asked him last week how his average damage per round compared to that of other characters, he just looked at me strangely and said "who would waste time figuring stuff like that"? What this tells me is that there are probably a good number of players who value their characters on a very different set of value standards than those used by folks at TGD. :)
That's interesting in that it runs counter to both the old-school side's criticism of 3.X (i.e. that 3.X broke itself by dropping important 1e/2e spellcaster limits) as well as the Gaming Den's view.
While I'll buy that there are different value standards, I don't think that bothering to calculate averages is a sure sign of value standards. I calculate averages all the time out of curiosity, particularly if I'm in a thread discussing rules design. Conversely, there are people who don't calculate averages who nevertheless do care if they don't feel like they're contributing equally based on observables.
That is, there might be one player who will happily play a 1st level fighter in a group of 10th - 12th level characters. As long as he has things to swing a sword at, he's fine. Another player might have issues with this, even if he's not calculating average damage. Those are different value standards.
Quote from: Benoist;560349See, it's not an argument of 'slightly off balance' or 'maybe we could find some middle ground'. Nope. It's 'the fighter is COMPLETELY hosed' in 3rd ed. All caps. Absolute statement. No middle ground. It *has* to be 'fixed'. It's 'horribly broken'. The end.
I thought you agreed that in 3x the removal of early limits on spell casters abilities meant that speall casters were broken.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;560294Regarding Stormbringers laughable attempt to build a deductive argument
:jaw-dropping:
You mean, you aren't going to present an argument using the logic supposedly missing from everyone else's arguments?
No fucking way.
Also, I wasn't building an argument, I was demonstrating how it was done for you and the other Denners. Clearly, you like the sound of the word 'logic', but don't have the first clue how to go about it. Continue to reject a logical format while whining about everyone's lack of logic. It really bolsters your argument.
Here, I will set it up for you:
P1: High level Fighters cannot contribute to play in a level appropriate manner
P2: Level-appropriate contributions provide the greatest fun in play.
C: Therefore, high level Fighters are not fun in play.
Setting aside the goalpost shift for the moment (level appropriate contribution), you see how easy that is? All you have to do now is make sure both premises are valid, and the conclusion is also valid.
P1 is only vaguely true in a highly conditional fashion. P2 is likewise contingent on a number of factors, but hardly universal. Hence, the conclusion C cannot be valid.
Maybe you should try it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560351I thought you agreed that in 3x the removal of early limits on spell casters abilities meant that speall casters were broken.
You're mixing me with the other posters of this thread. I never made such a statement. What I've been consistently saying is that there is more than the rules to the game, used the actual play examples provided (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=550607#post550607) to demonstrate it, (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=551011&postcount=889) and was ignored and dismissed as a result as "not solving the real problem", which to me is complete nonsense, since any "real" problem occurs at an actual game table, with real people involved, an actual scenario and campaign set up being used and adjusted to the game's needs, actual GM adjudication and management thereof, players involved in the flow of the game, etc, in practice.
Quote from: John Morrow;560307If the designers really want D&D Next to be modular and flexible, I think a big test of that would be how easy it is for a group to eliminate feats from the rules and still have a viable system to play. In my case, I simply don't think feats offer enough benefits to justify their overhead.
Feats should definitley be an optional block you can switch in if you like. As you note when you ingrain in the base game its too hard to easily extract.
In the early 5e threads I posited that you simply lable class abilitys as feats. The base game comes with class abilitys in an optional block you switch them out for another class ability in effect a feat.
So Turn Undead is a clerical feat, it can be picked up by Paladins and in the base game it is. However int eh feat options you can switch out turn undead and replace it with one of another set of feats, say talk with animals, cause fear in certain creatures, charm certain creatures (I would run these more liek suggestion than CHARM person : ) ) etc etc ,,
The traditional Class abilities become the default instance of feats gained at each level .
Quote from: Fifth Element;560321This would carry more weight if not for the fact that the first series of "Complete" books was in 2E. They might not have been called splats at the time, but that's what they were. Complete Fighter, Thief, Priest, Wizard, Dwarf, Bard, Elf, Gnome/Halfling, Ranger, Paladin, Druid, Barbarian, etc.
D&D was on a "treadmill" long before Hasbro came calling. Hell, the first of these books were published before Wizards of the Coast even existed, much less owned D&D.
I eas thinking the same thing. Once 1e saturated the market with the core books they started the Mill. So the servival guides, UA, Oriental adventures, the setting specific hardbacks for Greyhawk, FR etc .
This isn't bad at all in my opinion by the way if i want to play a game i am happy if there is lots of support for it and a range of optional add ins. I don't need to buy any of them if I don't want and I certainly don't need to allow them round my table but the fact that they available give me choice and choice is a good thing.
Quote from: Benoist;560353You're mixing me with the other posters of this thread. I never made such a statement. What I've been consistently saying is that there is more than the rules to the game, used the actual play examples provided (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=550607#post550607) to demonstrate it, (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=551011&postcount=889) and was ignored and dismissed as a result as "not solving the real problem", which to me is complete nonsense, since any "real" problem occurs at an actual game table, with real people involved, an actual scenario and campaign set up being used and adjusted to the game's needs, actual GM adjudication and management thereof, players involved in the flow of the game, etc, in practice.
Tell me if I'm offbase or flat insane but didn't I say this, less eloquently, of course a few pages ago?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;560329But the 2E complete books and 3E complete books were quite different in my experience. Kits had a much smaller impact on the game. The 2E books were primarily about flavor, the 3E complete books getting the must-have feats, prestige classes and other mechanics. Was a huge fan of the earlier complete books but despised the ones put out by WOTC.
Just take a look at the complete fighter from 2e and compare it side by side with the 3E complete book.
That is part of the move I refered to as Roleplay edition to Sytem Mastery edition.
It was obvious to me from the begining that 3e was going to be able system mastery. I had loved the way 2e had said 'you know what a barbarian is just a fighter that comes from the wilderness' (of course that frame of mind didn't last)
in 3e every class and subclass had its own mechanical rules, this was how 1e had gotten especially if you brought in all the class bloat from Dragon and other non-canon areas. To us that was a step backwards. We had gotten off the 2e treadmill at the complete Humanoid point and it was obvous that S&S and then 3r was all going to be about build optimisation and not about flavour.
Quote from: MGuy;560347This argument would go very far if I posited a wizard using wish like at all, in any of my posts. Additionally I didn't, and I specifically am not challenging the fighter's ability to sword things successfully (in 2e not 3e where the fighter is COMPLETELY hosed). And lastly, my argument is that fighters are gimped compared to just about every casting class. Your argument does not even begin to impact mine at all.
So?
You are disputing that Wish is far more powerful than anything a fighter can do?
I'm confused, I thought it was your contention that wizards had spells, and since fighters don't have spells, fighters are bollocks. Wish is, last I checked, a spell.
I think you may want to re-read what I posted. If you need help understanding exactly what I'm saying, you could try asking. Here, I'll even start you out with a freebie: I agree, ipso facto, that wizards have spells that can do amazing things that no fighter can do, thus (and I said this already) Wizards are objectively more powerful at the upper end (represented by Wish).
From here you can disagree with this point (which it seems you just did), which seems awfully foolish... I mean, swinging a sword is nowhere near as cool as creatio ex nihilo, man!
You could push the bounds lower... though you may want to rethink aiming for the really low charm/animate dead spells you guys have been bandying about.
You could agree that I've conceded (ooh... big word!) that wizards get awesome shit at the top end and address the actual argument I made that this does not actually remove the fighter (or any purely mundane melee class) from contention as a useful contributor... or at least one who can, under not terribly limited conditions... kill a wizard capable of casting Wish (or whatever OTHER high end spell you chose to represent the pinnacle of wizardly power).
Since I was conceding a point, rather than rebutting anything, by using wish, your angry retort just makes you look like a simpleton. Who cares what wish proves or disproves? It was illustrative of a concession, not an argument.
Did I repeat myself enough for you to grasp what you quoted yet or should I say it a couple more times?
Quote from: Marleycat;560358Tell me if I'm offbase or flat insane but didn't I say this, less eloquently, of course a few pages ago?
Yes, yes you did.
Quote from: jeff37923;560362Yes, yes you did.
Just checking between the "denners" wanting to revisit done arguments and Jibba getting his lolz on I was getting confused.
Quote from: Marleycat;560358Tell me if I'm offbase or flat insane but didn't I say this, less eloquently, of course a few pages ago?
Yes, I think we've been basically echoing each other's opinions throughout the thread.
Just for the Lulz, go back and really read MGuy's description of the first game he ever ran.
He's got a lot bigger issues with D&D than any designer could ever hope to fix.
His widdle GMPC Druid somehow managed to wildshape into something far more powerful than the barbarian... I suspect it was misunderstanding the rules and the fact that the cleric didn't have to heal the GMPC druid... note too: The cleric became more powerful once no one needed to be healed... like... ever.
Ya... its totally awesome when you can alpha strike and then rest until the GMPC's wildshape cooldown procs.
MGuy: This is me being mean to you. I'm tired of your irrational nerd-rage, your inability to understand simple concepts, even when they support your case, and general fuckwittery. Since I don't actually have to win here (seeing as I've already won the Interwebz... all of them.), I am perfectly happy to mock your general lack of intellect or gaming ability.
Here, a freebie: Yes, you win the argument. I've been reduced to mocking you, so I obviously have no true response to your keen wit and insight. Don't you feel all happy in your pants now?
Quote MGuy's post Spike is talking about for reference:
Quote from: MGuy;550464The lion share of my experiences are in 3rd ed. I've played 2ed but Ii have a bad opinion on it because of the over reliance on DM wankery in order to do almost anything so to prevent my negative taste for that edition from poisoning my recounting I'll stick with 3rd ed. I also will avoid talking about other systems so that I can refer to something most people seem to be familiar with. Lastly I'm going to only refer to the games where the most fun was had to show that even though fun was had the imbalance was clear.
Quite a few years back I ran a game in high school, primarily on lunch hours and over the weekends. This is when I first started playing, before I got absorbed within the internet culture so I had no guiding hand as to "how" to play DnD and I was the only one who spent the time learning the system so it could be run. This is a few games away from the first time I played so I'd been playing for effectively a year and a half. In this game we had a Bard, Barbarian, and cleric to start. A couple of levels in the players were falling on hard times (primarily around level 4) and things were difficult for the group. The Cleric was spending ost of his spells keeping the barbarian alive and the bard was spending his rounds playing songs. The only one having the real fun after a while was the barbarian. So, I added a druid to the group. I made him basically an extra man. Unfortunately even though I played him primarily as a combat piece in the simplest way I could (turn him into an animal attack into melee) the Barbarian saw this and started asking me to turn into an animal. The bard was wholly unsatisfied with not being able to do anything in battle and asked to change classes while the cleric started to realize just how powerful he was when he WASN'T the heal bot. So I took the druid out (melded him into the Barbarian) gave the Barbarian a trinket that not only enable him to wildshape but allowed him to keep his rage. Later on I just turned him into a werebear. The Bard decided to be a rogue instead. I essentially gave him the ability to become a shadow dancer to keep up with everyone else's awesome. The rest of the game as smooth sailing.
So let's recap: Cleric was being held back by the party. Druid came in and with the simple ability to turn into a creature and out shined the barbarian (who could do more damage anyway). I fixed the issue by handing out upgrades to the barbarian and rogue. Didn't have to touch the cleric at all.
Now I'll reference something much more recent and one of the best campaigns I ever played. I had a campaign (undead apocalypse) that started with a kender who had a special class from the races of ansalon supplement that allowed him to deal with undead (he chose it without knowing I was planning an undead thing), an orc Barbarian who turned into a human fighter who turned into a human fighter/rogue (different characters. The switching was unrelated to this discussion), a druid who turned into a factotum (druid chose to die changed characters, again unrelated). There were other characters involved but these were the primary players.
The game was too long (and awesome) to recount every event for this discussion but the relevant parts are: The Fighter cross classed to rogue, then cross classed into invisible blade, then occult slayer. Each of his cross classes were made for in story reasons and I warped the rules to facilitate the changes (ignored prereqs, let certain things stack etc). I even gave him an intelligent sword as a sidekick. The Factotum worked in the background through most of the game didn't do much. Every thing he did was in the background and he (as a player) is dedicated to the story to the point that he was going to kill his character off (for story purposes) had the kender not accidentally saved it. Despite him having some magical ability I allowed him to accumulate Inspiration Points until the latter parts of the game such that he could stand in the spotlight throughout entire dungeons with the rest of the party.
Conclusion: Out of everybody in the party the person I had to give the most candy to was the only nonmagical fighter in the group.
Now I'll go over some times when I actually played.
Once I played a gnome barbarian named Bastion Mountain Hopper. He was a joke character that ended up being very popular such that a female friend of mine played his "daughter" in a later campaign. He was a cross class character I was intentionally playing sub optimally because I knew the DM didn't like number crunches. However this didn't stop the DM from pissing in my cheerios every now and again for various unrelated things. Now, about mid level I was having my gnome leap as high as his extremely high (at this point) jump check would allow. Now by the rules there was a jump ceiling and the DM was a bit edgy about letting me break that ceiling despite me killing, stealing, and murdering my way to grabbing stackable bonuses to allow me to jump obscenely high. Essentially I, as a dumb melee character, was breaking his willing suspension of disbelief because I was turning the mere act of leaping high into something that seemed magical or, in his words, too anime. Now while other people in the game had better abilities it really disturbed HIM that I was able to leap beyond the bounds of what characters should be able to just by pumping up my strength a bunch (he didn't even blink at the amount of damage I was doing with the strength bonus). I, instead of arguing, just conceded and started having the psychic warrior in the group throw me as a projectile weapon. The campaign ended not long after because of magic shenanigans but I had a good time while it lasted.
The main take away here though is that there is quite a lot of resistance present in the minds of some players about allowing mundane characters to do anything that smacks of magic without much magical help.
Another time I played a summoner (pathfinder). Now while I had magic and a summon, and more things I could summon I decided to hold back. I had already had a bad run in with a DM before for summoning "too much" and outshining two fighters in the group over several sessions in a small 3.5 group I had played in a year before. So with Pathfinder I took up the summoner class (Cause I love summoning stuff) but downplayed how much better at fighting my actual summon was than the group fighter. Instead I spent much of the lower levels using my absurdly high diplomacy and bluff check to make it so that I used enemies or NPCs to fight for me. The DM, at the time, didn't want to bother with all the extra work handling surprise allies would've had to make him do so I volunteered to not only stat up each and every NPC I had (using templates and various books to get sample characters out) but I used my own, personal in game money to outfit them and directed them all in combat. Apparently despite the indirect method I took I had (collectively) a higher kill count than the fighter. I was then personally asked to downplay using the NPCs I'd rightfully persuaded to join my side. So I sent them away and started playing the Dungeon crawling game everyone else was. The only way I, at that point, could keep from outshining half of the rest of the group (A Fighter/Barbarian, Rogue, and Magus. The only other real caster was the Druid) was by not doing anything at all other than playing the face at talks and being a combat set piece. Why did I have to do this? Because my summon had a better attack routine than the Fighter/Barbarian + reach. It had a better perception than the rogue, and the magus just had attack buffs and spells that still didn't put his damage output above my initial summon's and that is without going into how I can buff my summon and myself at the same time or my ability to simply summon more stuff. I should also note that my summon had not a magical item on him and that I didn't need to do anything special to make him more badass than half the group.
Conclusion: The only way some classes can shine is if better classes intentionally hold themselves back to keep them from noticing.
Final Conclusion: With this and many other experiences in various systems, games, and with various people the disparity between what a fighter can do and what a caster can do should be obvious. It is not an insurmountable problem but we have to AT LEAST acknowledge that the problem exists and WHY it exists before we can start fixing it.
I have concluded that Marley is from Venus and Mguy is from Mars. Make of that what you will. I'm pretty much done here except to see this thread become the longest in RPGsite history. I'm off to take "Trolling 101" class from Gib to prepare myself properly.:D
@Jibba, I have my eye on you.:)
Quote from: Benoist;560374Quote MGuy's post Spike is talking about for reference:
"My DM wouldn't let me be a special snowflake by taking all the broken rules and combining them into one massively broken character so I could get all the attention at the table I never got at home! D&D is B0RKEN!"
Quote from: Benoist;560367Yes, I think we've been basically echoing each other's opinions throughout the thread.
It's a once in a lifetime occurrence as Jeff noted so enjoy "denners".:D
Amazing what reaction you get when coming into someone else's house and pissing all over the furniture, "mother may I" indeed.
Quote from: Spike;560361So?
You are disputing that Wish is far more powerful than anything a fighter can do?
I'm confused, I thought it was your contention that wizards had spells, and since fighters don't have spells, fighters are bollocks. Wish is, last I checked, a spell.
I think you may want to re-read what I posted. If you need help understanding exactly what I'm saying, you could try asking. Here, I'll even start you out with a freebie: I agree, ipso facto, that wizards have spells that can do amazing things that no fighter can do, thus (and I said this already) Wizards are objectively more powerful at the upper end (represented by Wish).
From here you can disagree with this point (which it seems you just did), which seems awfully foolish... I mean, swinging a sword is nowhere near as cool as creatio ex nihilo, man!
You could push the bounds lower... though you may want to rethink aiming for the really low charm/animate dead spells you guys have been bandying about.
You could agree that I've conceded (ooh... big word!) that wizards get awesome shit at the top end and address the actual argument I made that this does not actually remove the fighter (or any purely mundane melee class) from contention as a useful contributor... or at least one who can, under not terribly limited conditions... kill a wizard capable of casting Wish (or whatever OTHER high end spell you chose to represent the pinnacle of wizardly power).
Since I was conceding a point, rather than rebutting anything, by using wish, your angry retort just makes you look like a simpleton. Who cares what wish proves or disproves? It was illustrative of a concession, not an argument.
Did I repeat myself enough for you to grasp what you quoted yet or should I say it a couple more times?
The fact that you bring up "wish" is misleading. "Wish" has various issues that make it not the best spell to bring up in a direct fight. While wish "IS" more amazing than anything the fighter can ever do EVER it is unwieldy as a weapon. At least when used directly. If I were going accept this "high level" arena based, fighter somehow ambushed me scenario (standard conditions for someone looking to put the wizard on edge apparently) I'd at least approach it with the wizard having something he can reasonably directly cast on the fighter because it wouldn't take much to bring him down. What's more is that even if I pointed out that your "not terribly limited conditions" assumes that the fighter "somehow" not only ambushed a high level wizard completely unbuffed (don't know why he's unbuffed) but is right next to him such that he gets a free full attack for what ever reason. I suppose I at least have to acknowledge that you didn't just have the fighter also half kill the wizard in a surprise round or something so it at least indicates that you are not COMPLETELY screwing the wizard over just mostly in a purely hypothetical not very likely high level situation. So in this situation, that has the wizard so completely unfit for battle that the fighter even gets a chance to do this, we assume the fighter can reliably do 80+ damage in his full attack routine. Because he had better do it in this one go because a wizard at this level can reasonably and reliably cast defensively (avoiding the provoke) and cast a number of spells that will easily bypass the fighter's dismally low Will Save. Or he just traps him in a dome of something (no save), a force cage, Maze, teleports away before scrying him later on to teleport back in with vengeance, polymoprh into something and tear the fighter a new one, plane shift the fighter somewhere else, or a number of other strategies that are more effective and direct than casting wish. But of course that's assuming the wizard doesn't already have magic items specifically geared towards avoiding and/or mitigating danger from mundane foes such as the fighter. Or maybe you trap the wizard in some place where he can't use his spells.
I'm sure you didn't bring up the arena style fighter/wizard thing to actually engage in conversation but let me ask you how well do you think a high level fighter does, with regular gear, against high level threats from the monster manual? Can you pick a few core monsters out of there and show me how a reasonably prepared core fighter of equally high level handles them?
Quote from: Marleycat;560384It's a once in a lifetime occurrence as Jeff noted so enjoy "denners".:D
Amazing what reaction you get when coming into someone else's house and pissing all over the furniture, "mother may I" indeed.
I gues sI should be glad that I came for the once in a lifetime show where you join Benoist in circle jerking. Its been a real painful experience to watch so I should thank you for it. Its like you're echoing benoist's lack of anything to add to the conversation.
Quote from: MGuy;560387I'm sure you didn't bring up the arena style fighter/wizard thing to actually engage in conversation but let me ask you how well do you think a high level fighter does, with regular gear, against high level threats from the monster manual? Can you pick a few core monsters out of there and show me how a reasonably prepared core fighter of equally high level handles them?
P1: A Fighter can only have 'regular gear'
P2: Many high level threats require magical equipment to defeat.
C: Fighter is useless.
Nice goalpost shift, by the way. 'Regular gear', 'reasonably prepared'... In other words, crippled to the point that your argument makes sense. This is no different than throwing a Magic-User in the mix with no spells, or only first and second level spells.
Quote from: MGuy;550464Quite a few years back I ran a game in high school, primarily on lunch hours and over the weekends. This is when I first started playing, before I got absorbed within the internet culture so I had no guiding hand as to "how" to play DnD and I was the only one who spent the time learning the system so it could be run. This is a few games away from the first time I played so I'd been playing for effectively a year and a half. In this game we had a Bard, Barbarian, and cleric to start. A couple of levels in the players were falling on hard times (primarily around level 4) and things were difficult for the group. The Cleric was spending ost of his spells keeping the barbarian alive and the bard was spending his rounds playing songs. The only one having the real fun after a while was the barbarian. So, I added a druid to the group. I made him basically an extra man. Unfortunately even though I played him primarily as a combat piece in the simplest way I could (turn him into an animal attack into melee) the Barbarian saw this and started asking me to turn into an animal. The bard was wholly unsatisfied with not being able to do anything in battle and asked to change classes while the cleric started to realize just how powerful he was when he WASN'T the heal bot. So I took the druid out (melded him into the Barbarian) gave the Barbarian a trinket that not only enable him to wildshape but allowed him to keep his rage. Later on I just turned him into a werebear. The Bard decided to be a rogue instead. I essentially gave him the ability to become a shadow dancer to keep up with everyone else's awesome. The rest of the game as smooth sailing.
So let's recap: Cleric was being held back by the party. Druid came in and with the simple ability to turn into a creature and out shined the barbarian (who could do more damage anyway). I fixed the issue by handing out upgrades to the barbarian and rogue. Didn't have to touch the cleric at all.
That's not what I'm seeing here. What I see is that you had a base situation where the group "by level 4 fell on hard times," which you then explain as the Cleric spending his time healing the Barbarian, the Bard singing songs throughout combat, and Barbarian having "all the fun."
At this point I'm wondering what "fun" is in this game. Is the only source of fun in the campaign just tactical combat? That's already something rather specific which will challenge characters like a bard. IMO, bards are jack-of-all-trades, and they get the most out of being confronted to a variety of challenges and situations, rather than playing combat after combat. If all you do that is a source of "fun" in the game is combat, then it's really no surprise that the most satisfied player will be the one playing the guy with the bashing character.
As for the Cleric, one of his multiple roles is to keep others alive. If as a player you have a fundamental problem with being second in the line and casting buffs and healing spells on others, you are basically better off playing something else. Not to mention, if you end up playing a Cleric, having issues and problems to deal with related to the Cleric's religion and order might be bringing in more spotlight time and thereby, satisfaction to the Cleric's player.
So what you got here is basically a problem of campaign and scenario setups. A problem of GMing in other words, and maybe also a problem of players choosing character archetypes they would in fact rather not play in favor of other character types. If you don't enjoy jack-of-all-trades and support characters, don't play them.
So you misdiagnosed the problem and instead opted for a GMPC which somehow overshadowed the barbarian. The barbarian player obviously went "WOW that is cool - can I get some?" And you proceeded to give him extra abilities and whazoo to satisfy him. You turn the dude into a monster, the Cleric starts playing his own little game buffing himself and finding out he can be a real monster if he just joins the arms' race and stops supporting the others, which in turn leaves the bard out in the cold, since everything now in the game is about combat, so instead he goes for rogue and you hand him out more powerz so he can keep up.
You could have managed the game better. Instead, you chose to blame the rules for your failings.
Quote from: MGuy;560388I gues sI should be glad that I came for the once in a lifetime show where you join Benoist in circle jerking. Its been a real painful experience to watch so I should thank you for it. Its like you're echoing benoist's lack of anything to add to the conversation.
Sour grapes, best whine evar!
Quote from: Benoist;560395That's not what I'm seeing here. What I see is that you had a base situation where the group "by level 4 fell on hard times," which you then explain as the Cleric spending his time healing the Barbarian, the Bard singing songs throughout combat, and Barbarian having "all the fun."
At this point I'm wondering what "fun" is in this game. Is the only source of fun in the campaign just tactical combat? That's already something rather specific which will challenge characters like a bard. IMO, bards are jack-of-all-trades, and they get the most out of being confronted to a variety of challenges and situations, rather than playing combat after combat. If all you do that is a source of "fun" in the game is combat, then it's really no surprise that the most satisfied player will be the one playing the guy with the bashing character.
As for the Cleric, one of his multiple roles is to keep others alive. If as a player you have a fundamental problem with being second in the line and casting buffs and healing spells on others, you are basically better off playing something else. Not to mention, if you end up playing a Cleric, having issues and problems to deal with related to the Cleric's religion and order might be bringing in more spotlight time and thereby, satisfaction to the Cleric's player.
So what you got here is basically a problem of campaign and scenario setups. A problem of GMing in other words, and maybe also a problem of players choosing character archetypes they would in fact rather not play in favor of other character types. If you don't enjoy jack-of-all-trades and support characters, don't play them.
So you misdiagnosed the problem and instead opted for a GMPC which somehow overshadowed the barbarian. The barbarian player obviously went "WOW that is cool - can I get some?" And you proceeded to give him extra abilities and whazoo to satisfy him. You turn the dude into a monster, the Cleric starts playing his own little game buffing himself and finding out he can be a real monster if he just joins the arms' race and stops supporting the others, which in turn leaves the bard out in the cold, since everything now in the game is about combat, so instead he goes for rogue and you hand him out more powerz so he can keep up.
You could have managed the game better. Instead, you chose to blame the rules for your failings.
Actually, MGuy should have just switched to 4E. Would have solved all his problems.
Quote from: Benoist;560395You could have managed the game better. Instead, you chose to blame the rules for your failings.
The Dragonball Z syndrome.
"FIREBALL KAMEHAMEHA
9000!"
Quote from: MGuy;550464Now I'll reference something much more recent and one of the best campaigns I ever played. I had a campaign (undead apocalypse) that started with a kender who had a special class from the races of ansalon supplement that allowed him to deal with undead (he chose it without knowing I was planning an undead thing), an orc Barbarian who turned into a human fighter who turned into a human fighter/rogue (different characters. The switching was unrelated to this discussion), a druid who turned into a factotum (druid chose to die changed characters, again unrelated). There were other characters involved but these were the primary players.
The game was too long (and awesome) to recount every event for this discussion but the relevant parts are: The Fighter cross classed to rogue, then cross classed into invisible blade, then occult slayer. Each of his cross classes were made for in story reasons and I warped the rules to facilitate the changes (ignored prereqs, let certain things stack etc). I even gave him an intelligent sword as a sidekick. The Factotum worked in the background through most of the game didn't do much. Every thing he did was in the background and he (as a player) is dedicated to the story to the point that he was going to kill his character off (for story purposes) had the kender not accidentally saved it. Despite him having some magical ability I allowed him to accumulate Inspiration Points until the latter parts of the game such that he could stand in the spotlight throughout entire dungeons with the rest of the party.
Conclusion: Out of everybody in the party the person I had to give the most candy to was the only nonmagical fighter in the group.
I'm not seeing any problem with this one. It seems everyone had fun, the Fighter got his gizmos which additionally were in tune with the background of the campaign, cool magical items and so on, everyone had a good time.. the bulk of the argument here is basically that you posit that if you had done none of this the fighter would have sucked. Which is an hypothetical, and not what actually happened.
OK. You had a good time and you actually chose to ignore pesky prerequisites guidelines and shit once in a while so you could all get what you wanted out of the game. Well done.
QuoteThe Dragonball Z syndrome.
Well, no, 3.x isn't like Dragonball Z that way.
It's like Dragonball Z because of when you spend 30 minutes calculating modifiers, finally roll the dice, make shit go boom, and whoops time to pack it in for that session.
Also when the next session starts and the DM realizes he forgot to roll for magic resistance so it turns out the bad guy is still standing when the smoke clears, that's also very Dragonball Z like. :D
Quote from: MGuy;560388I gues sI should be glad that I came for the once in a lifetime show where you join Benoist in circle jerking. Its been a real painful experience to watch so I should thank you for it. Its like you're echoing benoist's lack of anything to add to the conversation.
Just matching your lack of substance word for word hon.
Quote from: MGuy;550464Now I'll go over some times when I actually played.
Once I played a gnome barbarian named Bastion Mountain Hopper. He was a joke character that ended up being very popular such that a female friend of mine played his "daughter" in a later campaign. He was a cross class character I was intentionally playing sub optimally because I knew the DM didn't like number crunches. However this didn't stop the DM from pissing in my cheerios every now and again for various unrelated things. Now, about mid level I was having my gnome leap as high as his extremely high (at this point) jump check would allow. Now by the rules there was a jump ceiling and the DM was a bit edgy about letting me break that ceiling despite me killing, stealing, and murdering my way to grabbing stackable bonuses to allow me to jump obscenely high. Essentially I, as a dumb melee character, was breaking his willing suspension of disbelief because I was turning the mere act of leaping high into something that seemed magical or, in his words, too anime. Now while other people in the game had better abilities it really disturbed HIM that I was able to leap beyond the bounds of what characters should be able to just by pumping up my strength a bunch (he didn't even blink at the amount of damage I was doing with the strength bonus). I, instead of arguing, just conceded and started having the psychic warrior in the group throw me as a projectile weapon. The campaign ended not long after because of magic shenanigans but I had a good time while it lasted.
The main take away here though is that there is quite a lot of resistance present in the minds of some players about allowing mundane characters to do anything that smacks of magic without much magical help.
Yeah, I basically agree with you here: the problem in this situation clearly had fuck all to do with the rules per se, but everything to do with a clash of play styles and genre expectations, and a shitty DMing to boot. That's why it's important to make sure that everyone's playing the same game and that this game catters to these expectations. It's part of the pre-game briefing, for me, where with the players I discuss what we want to do with the game, what feel we'd want out of it, what the players would ideally want to get out of it, etc.
Quote from: Benoist;560395That's not what I'm seeing here. What I see is that you had a base situation where the group "by level 4 fell on hard times," which you then explain as the Cleric spending his time healing the Barbarian, the Bard singing songs throughout combat, and Barbarian having "all the fun."
At this point I'm wondering what "fun" is in this game. Is the only source of fun in the campaign just tactical combat? That's already something rather specific which will challenge characters like a bard. IMO, bards are jack-of-all-trades, and they get the most out of being confronted to a variety of challenges and situations, rather than playing combat after combat. If all you do that is a source of "fun" in the game is combat, then it's really no surprise that the most satisfied player will be the one playing the guy with the bashing character.
As for the Cleric, one of his multiple roles is to keep others alive. If as a player you have a fundamental problem with being second in the line and casting buffs and healing spells on others, you are basically better off playing something else. Not to mention, if you end up playing a Cleric, having issues and problems to deal with related to the Cleric's religion and order might be bringing in more spotlight time and thereby, satisfaction to the Cleric's player.
So what you got here is basically a problem of campaign and scenario setups. A problem of GMing in other words, and maybe also a problem of players choosing character archetypes they would in fact rather not play in favor of other character types. If you don't enjoy jack-of-all-trades and support characters, don't play them.
So you misdiagnosed the problem and instead opted for a GMPC which somehow overshadowed the barbarian. The barbarian player obviously went "WOW that is cool - can I get some?" And you proceeded to give him extra abilities and whazoo to satisfy him. You turn the dude into a monster, the Cleric starts playing his own little game buffing himself and finding out he can be a real monster if he just joins the arms' race and stops supporting the others, which in turn leaves the bard out in the cold, since everything now in the game is about combat, so instead he goes for rogue and you hand him out more powerz so he can keep up.
You could have managed the game better. Instead, you chose to blame the rules for your failings.
So again any issues anyone sees with the game are becuase they are shit at it :)
got ya,
Any letting a barbarian Polymorth into a bear by the way is not giving him powers up the wazoo. Its a pretty standard fantasy trope from Norse myth through Beorn in Middle Earth to Barak in the Belgariad books.
Its exactly the type of power I would suggest for a high magic gae where the martial characters want to keep up with the casters.
The real review of MGuys games is simple.
A group of kids start to learn D&D on their own they have the rules but no one telling them how to interpret the rules so they take them at face value.
As the game progresses it starts to focus heavily on combat. A very common effect from having more than half the rules in the book be about combat or how they can affect comabt. At this point it is obvious that the Bard can't keep up and the Cleric's function is to keep the Barbarian pumping out damage. Again for a combat heavy game very common. The DM seeing the party is struggling brings in an NPC (you of course refer to them as a GMPC because that is a derogatory term to you despite having parties full of NPC henchmen as a common part of your games). Again an NPC that can do some of the healing and so give the cleric more options and can take come of the combat load seems quite sensible.
However the players are not entirely satisfied by this solution mainly because the Bard still can't participate in the combat heavy game and the Druid whilst not pumping out more damage per round than the barbarian is just more fun and more , well magical.
the DM realises the party aren't really happy and so talks to them and they tell him what they would like the game to be like. He takes that away and has a think and realises that the Barbarian just likes the bear changing stuff so passing him that power in play is a reasonable thing to do and it means he can remove the Druid NPC who's presence didn't work as planned. So he works an amulet into teh game that gives the Barbarian the same power. the cleric is fine now he can focus on buffing himself so he can particiapate in combat but the Bard doesn't have a lot to do so they change the character concept and eventually make him some rogue class that can deal lots of damage and is cool so the player stays engaged.
Now all of that sounds pretty sensible the outcome was that the players enjoyed themselves and kept on playing. For a group starting out that to be seems perfectly fine and probably a lot more sucessful than my own cocks up, of drawing the dungeion out on 2cm graph paper and playing the whole thing like a board game for the first 2 weeks.
But because the outcome wasn't what you think D&D should be, how you think it shoudl be played you belittle the effort and insult the messenger.
If all people tried as hard as MGuy to keep their players happy and to use their imaginations to keep the game going and their players interested there would be a lot more people playing D&D now.
This thread is now about unwholesome magical pets.
I want a bird that looks like a vulture but has a human skull for a head, and if you meet its gaze your skin starts to rot.
I'm going to call it the Skulture.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;560329But the 2E complete books and 3E complete books were quite different in my experience. Kits had a much smaller impact on the game.
That seemed to be the intent, at least at first, and it certainly started out that way. But don't make me bring the bladesinger in here.
Edit: Of course, one reason the 2E books didn't include any feats or prestige classes is that in 2E, there was no such thing as feats or prestige classes.
Quote from: StormBringer;560391P1: A Fighter can only have 'regular gear'
P2: Many high level threats require magical equipment to defeat.
C: Fighter is useless.
Nice goalpost shift, by the way. 'Regular gear', 'reasonably prepared'... In other words, crippled to the point that your argument makes sense. This is no different than throwing a Magic-User in the mix with no spells, or only first and second level spells.
By regular he means of a magical level that would be appropriate for his experience.
so a 10th level fighter with a +3 sword, some armour, a few potions a ring and a couple of misc items for example.
the statement is to differentiate fromt eh 10th level figther with a girdle of storm Giant Strength , Gualtels of OGre Power and a Hammer of thunder bolts, a flying carpent a Ring of major spell turing, a rod of lordly might, Plate mail of etherealness, etc etc. Ie a 10th level figther who gets to pick any magic items they want from the list in other words.
Quote from: Benoist;560403I'm not seeing any problem with this one. It seems everyone had fun, the Fighter got his gizmos which additionally were in tune with the background of the campaign, cool magical items and so on, everyone had a good time.. the bulk of the argument here is basically that you posit that if you had done none of this the fighter would have sucked. Which is an hypothetical, and not what actually happened.
OK. You had a good time and you actually chose to ignore pesky prerequisites guidelines and shit once in a while so you could all get what you wanted out of the game. Well done.
Just for dumb girl that's your sockpuppet. You mean he actually put on big boy pants and did EXACTLY what he deinagrates me for? Changing the rules to suit the campaign and make the game fun? Golly Gee! Forrest whouda ever thunk it?
Quote from: jibbajibba;560417So again any issues anyone sees with the game are becuase they are shit at it :)
got ya,
Keep fucking that chicken, bro.
Quote from: Benoist;560425Keep fucking that chicken, bro.
Finally, an on topic post.
Quote from: Fifth Element;560420That seemed to be the intent, at least at first, and it certainly started out that way. But don't make me bring the bladesinger in here.
I will give you the Bladesinger. In fact nearly the whole of the CBoE was borderline at best and most was banned outright in typical games.
Quote from: Marleycat;560427I will give you the Bladesinger. In fact nearly the whole of the CBoE was borderline at best and most was banned outright in typical games.
One reason to visit RPG.net: there's a "let's read" thread for the Book of Elves, and it really highlights the trainwreck that book is.
@Jibba, this is why I worry about you. Beorn doesn't control his power it's a teas and it's an advantage as much as a disadvantage. See? Marley reads books also. :)
Quote from: Benoist;560425Keep fucking that chicken, bro.
Isn't that just one of those memes that's designed to shut down discussion? Like "onetrueway" and "nerdrage"?
Quote from: Benoist;560353You're mixing me with the other posters of this thread. I never made such a statement. What I've been consistently saying is that there is more than the rules to the game, used the actual play examples provided (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=550607#post550607) to demonstrate it, (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=551011&postcount=889) and was ignored and dismissed as a result as "not solving the real problem", which to me is complete nonsense, since any "real" problem occurs at an actual game table, with real people involved, an actual scenario and campaign set up being used and adjusted to the game's needs, actual GM adjudication and management thereof, players involved in the flow of the game, etc, in practice.
A bit off-topic, but I'm curious. Does this mean that my having fun in actual play of various story games like Polaris, 1001 Nights, etc. is proof against criticism of those game designs?
Quote from: Fifth Element;560429One reason to visit RPG.net: there's a "let's read" thread for the Book of Elves, and it really highlights the trainwreck that book is.
Best thread on the site imo.
Quote from: Imp;560406Well, no, 3.x isn't like Dragonball Z that way.
It's like Dragonball Z because of when you spend 30 minutes calculating modifiers, finally roll the dice, make shit go boom, and whoops time to pack it in for that session.
Also when the next session starts and the DM realizes he forgot to roll for magic resistance so it turns out the bad guy is still standing when the smoke clears, that's also very Dragonball Z like. :D
Awesome. :D
Quote from: Spike;560341Because, if we're positing white-room arena situations I see no reason to exclude: The fighter and wizard are standing right next to one another, unbuffed. Roll Initiative.
I know this one .... they roll initiative the wizard casts dimesion door, casting time 1 the fighter draws his longsword thus doubling its weapon speed to 10. The wizard thus wins initiative and now appears 150 yards away from the figther.
On round 2 the fighter charges and the wizard casts dig with the fighter in the centre so he falls into the 80 foot pit with no save and takes 8d6 damage or (20d6 depending on how you read the falling damage rules :) )
On round 3 the Wizard kills the fighter with any number of evocation spells? while the figther draws and readies his low bow weapons speed factor 7, I think, so doubled for 14.
How does that sound? :D
Or are we talking about a high level wizard who's only memorised spell is read magic 30 times ?
And you obviously didn't read any of MGuy's posts because he has continuously been saying he is more concerned about what the Figther can do out of combat as opposed to what he can do in combat.
Quote from: Fifth Element;560420That seemed to be the intent, at least at first, and it certainly started out that way. But don't make me bring the bladesinger in here.
There are certainly a handful of questionable options in those books, but there is just no comparison between the splat material of 3e and the crazy builds they could be used for and the kind of stuff going on in the 2e brown books (which were just element of an entire line of mostly flavor books). It really isn't until things like skills and powers (which no one in my group ever allowed near any of our campaigns) that you run into anything like 3e....and even then I think the volume of flavor material available for 2e makes a hige difference in the aim. Its one of the reason we called them fluff books back then rather than splat books with 3e.
I won't defend 2e's whole run. Somewhere around 2005 the quality of the material seriously declined. But it suffered from different problems than D&D under wotc. It wasn't a treadmill in the way it was under 3e where the books were mostly vehicles for must have mechanical additions to the game. With 2e books we were buying them primarily to add cool flavor to the settings and fit the characters with interesting backgrounds or concepts. I ran both systems their full run and to me the difference was night and day.
Quote from: Marleycat;560431@Jibba, this is why I worry about you. Beorn doesn't control his power it's a teas and it's an advantage as much as a disadvantage. See? Marley reads books also. :)
Bringing up Beorn makes me think of my son, since I'm reading The Hobbit to him at the moment. He's a gamer at heart, even at 7. When he saw my Cthulhu "mini" his reaction was "Whoa. How much damage does it take to kill
that?"
Just thought I'd lighten the mood a bit.
Quote from: jhkim;560434A bit off-topic, but I'm curious. Does this mean that my having fun in actual play of various story games like Polaris, 1001 Nights, etc. is proof against criticism of those game designs?
Maybe to Ben or Stormie, unlikely from Jeff. And myself? Nope. See what Jeff and I are saying about perfect convergence? Jibba is in this for the lolz just ignore him for this particular question.:)
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;560439It really isn't until things like skills and powers (which no one in my group ever allowed near any of our campaigns) that you run into anything like 3e....and even then I think the volume of flavor material available for 2e makes a hige difference in the aim. Its one of the reason we called them fluff books back then rather than splat books with 3e.
The Player's Options books were a dry run of 3.0. Even if TSR had been solvent and WotC didn't buy the company, I am pretty sure the TSR version of 3.0 would have been very similar to the 3.0 that WotC published.
Quote from: MGuy;550464Another time I played a summoner (pathfinder). Now while I had magic and a summon, and more things I could summon I decided to hold back. I had already had a bad run in with a DM before for summoning "too much" and outshining two fighters in the group over several sessions in a small 3.5 group I had played in a year before.
OK if you say so. Not enough data here to decide whether you are selectively recounting, making that shit up, whether the DM actually knew how to run a game and keep the fighters engaged... whatever. Let's get on with the actual play example.
Quote from: MGuy;550464So with Pathfinder I took up the summoner class (Cause I love summoning stuff) but downplayed how much better at fighting my actual summon was than the group fighter.
OK. So the summoner class isn't the problem in this example because you actually haven't played its abilities like you could have. Instead...
Quote from: MGuy;550464Instead I spent much of the lower levels using my absurdly high diplomacy and bluff check to make it so that I used enemies or NPCs to fight for me. The DM, at the time, didn't want to bother with all the extra work handling surprise allies would've had to make him do so I volunteered to not only stat up each and every NPC I had (using templates and various books to get sample characters out) but I used my own, personal in game money to outfit them and directed them all in combat.
OK now I doubt your original run-ins with that same DM in 3.5. He's obviously lazy, doesn't want to bother with all the allies, or summoned creatures I suppose, especially since you 'summoned too much' in the previous 3.5 games and... he still lets you play a summoner nonetheless, and/or you didn't get the hint that if you were going for a summoner with him he would give you the short end of the stick?
Now, seriously now. The DM basically asks you to summon less in two different games because he can't be bothered to address the specificities of the group and characters in the actual game, and you don't see it coming for the third game and still go for the Summoner? Wow.
So we have this DM who is basically lazy and commits a series of grave mistakes, one after the other. He lets you stat the guys yourself, he lets you equip them however you want, AND he gives you control of the NPCs to boot! Your high Diplomacy and Bluff DO NOT give you control of the NPCs, or make them EPIC-friendly towards you. They just make you have more chance to affect an attitude towards friendly. Friendly NPCs still have their own agenda, their own set of goals and requirements, they are not your slaves, not your bitches, and you certainly do not possess them as though you'd cast Dominate on them.
This DM is in fact so lazy that he sets up the situation for your character and his friends to be a problem at the game table. That's the problem. Your DM sucked.
Quote from: MGuy;550464Apparently despite the indirect method I took I had (collectively) a higher kill count than the fighter.
That's not really surprising, is it? Strength in numbers etc etc. If the DM made this absolutely dumb series of mistakes to begin with, let's you control your entire squad of guys in the game that you employ tactically in combat situation, how could you not get a higher kill count?
Quote from: MGuy;550464I was then personally asked to downplay using the NPCs I'd rightfully persuaded to join my side. So I sent them away and started playing the Dungeon crawling game everyone else was.
WOW see your DM is AWFUL. You 'summon too much'. Twice. He asks you to not summon as much because he can't be assed to work with it. YET you still play a Summoner in the Pathfinder game and lo and behold! He asks you again not to summon. So you Diplomate. And he's lazy enough as fuck to let you make them up, equip them AND control them to THEN ask you after it's clear you're taking over tactical situations "You know, you really should tone it down with that shit." DO YOUR FUCKING JOB in the first place, DM. Fucking asshole.
And he plays a dungeon crawling game that basically fits the other members of the group and not your character, by your own recounting. He also sucks at setting up the campaign to provide proper challenges to you. That's one hell of a DM, really.
Quote from: MGuy;550464The only way I, at that point, could keep from outshining half of the rest of the group (A Fighter/Barbarian, Rogue, and Magus. The only other real caster was the Druid) was by not doing anything at all other than playing the face at talks and being a combat set piece. Why did I have to do this?
[strike]Because my summon had a better attack routine than the Fighter/Barbarian + reach. It had a better perception than the rogue, and the magus just had attack buffs and spells that still didn't put his damage output above my initial summon's and that is without going into how I can buff my summon and myself at the same time or my ability to simply summon more stuff. I should also note that my summon had not a magical item on him and that I didn't need to do anything special to make him more badass than half the group.[/strike]
All this shit has FUCK ALL to do with the story you've been telling us so far. The reason why you did have to keep doing this was because your DM sucked ass and made a series of terrible choices combined with a terrible campaign set up. That's it.
Quote from: MGuy;550464Conclusion: The only way some classes can shine is if better classes intentionally hold themselves back to keep them from noticing.
No. You had to tone it down and hold yourself back because your DM sucked ass.
Quote from: Fifth Element;560440Bringing up Beorn makes me think of my son, since I'm reading The Hobbit to him at the moment. He's a gamer at heart, even at 7. When he saw my Cthulhu "mini" his reaction was "Whoa. How much damage does it take to kill that?"
Just thought I'd lighten the mood a bit.
Awesome sir.:) just don't force him though and it'll work out fine.:)
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;560439There are certainly a handful of questionable options in those books, but there is just no comparison between the splat material of 3e and the crazy builds they could be used for and the kind of stuff going on in the 2e brown books
I'll only point out that such things were simply not possible in 2E.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;560439I won't defend 2e's whole run. Somewhere around 2005 the quality of the material seriously declined.
I'll say it did. It had ceased to exist entirely!
Quote from: Marleycat;560444Awesome sir.:) just don't force him though and it'll work out fine.:)
Force him? I've run one D&D-light type game for him and his sister, and he's done nothing but ask when we're going to do the next one.
Quote from: jhkim;560434A bit off-topic, but I'm curious. Does this mean that my having fun in actual play of various story games like Polaris, 1001 Nights, etc. is proof against criticism of those game designs?
Whoever told you that you personally couldn't have fun with storygames, if building a story is what you personally want out of your game sessions? And whoever told you that a storygame couldn't be well designed to build a story? I certainly didn't say that.
@Benoist, the Summoner in Pathfinder is a nasty/optional class and a DM is fully within her rights to ban it outright. Fair warning before you go down the rabbit hole.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560423Ie a 10th level figther who gets to pick any magic items they want from the list in other words.
How is that different from a Wizard with a dream repertoire of spells?
Quote from: Fifth Element;560432Isn't that just one of those memes that's designed to shut down discussion? Like "onetrueway" and "nerdrage"?
It's actually a phrase of encouragement.
Quote from: MGuy;550464Final Conclusion: With this and many other experiences in various systems, games, and with various people the disparity between what a fighter can do and what a caster can do should be obvious. It is not an insurmountable problem but we have to AT LEAST acknowledge that the problem exists and WHY it exists before we can start fixing it.
Final conclusion: out of the actual play examples you told us about, all of them demonstrated some clear failures in terms of DMing and playing skills. The first game was mismanaged and you initiated an arms race you could have avoided. The second didn't actually present any problem because everyone had a good time (the exception of the bunch). The third had everything to do with a clash of genre/playstyle expectations and bad DMing. The fourth featured an unbelievably lazy, incompetent DM and showcased you stubborness to play summoners with complete idiots like him, knowing full well he couldn't stand them.
That's not a stellar case to blame the rules in this thread.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560437And you obviously didn't read any of MGuy's posts because he has continuously been saying he is more concerned about what the Figther can do out of combat as opposed to what he can do in combat.
Until you respond and he ignores that and moves on to translating others.
Quote from: Marleycat;560441Maybe to Ben or Stormie, unlikely from Jeff. And myself? Nope. See what Jeff and I are saying about perfect convergence? Jibba is in this for the lolz just ignore him for this particular question.:)
Not at all. Anyone can have great fun playing a game I don't care for on whatever level, but it is still possible to look at the game critically and determine if the rules do what they claim to. For example, while this is scattered throughout all editions, it was particularly prevalent in late 3.x and all of 4e: a spell or power description would go something like "...you spin around like a top, gathering cosmic energy about you, and unleash it in a devastating attack!" Damage? 2d8 Did you really need to get the marketing department involved in writing spell/power descriptions?
It's a very minor example, but illustrative. Essentially, my question in judging a game is usually first and foremost: does it do what it says on the tin? Often, this is more than a little subjective, but not always. If "Clerics & Crypts" was 375pgs of intricate and fiddly combat rules, then about 25pgs of background material, I think we can all agree that could hardly be called a 'storytelling' game. It might still be a wonderfully designed and entirely enjoyable game.
Quote from: Fifth Element;560446Force him? I've run one D&D-light type game for him and his sister, and he's done nothing but ask when we're going to do the next one.
Is his sister older than him? Just asking because I got into gaming to hang out with my brothers and his friends. The brother that got 0/1e was the oldest of us and I tagged along and got to play when others didn't show up. Mostly I got to watch and maybe play an NPC sometimes.:)
Quote from: Marleycat;560431@Jibba, this is why I worry about you. Beorn doesn't control his power it's a teas and it's an advantage as much as a disadvantage. See? Marley reads books also. :)
No one said the barbaian controled the power either but its moot. whether he turnes into a bear if he gets hit for 12 poitns of damage drops to 50% hits or at will if he can make a will save is really not the point. the point is simply that barbarian types turning in bears is something that a lot of kids might expect to see in a fantasy game.
So exactly how it works in a particular case is moot the point is that the DM was listening to his players and giving them a game they coudl all enjoy.
Only said maybe guys thanks for the clarification. Fact is both you are old school. I'm not convinced I am, at least in several areas.
Quote from: Marleycat;560448@Benoist, the Summoner in Pathfinder is a nasty/optional class and a DM is fully within her rights to ban it outright. Fair warning before you go down the rabbit hole.
I have the Advanced Players Guide. It's just one more example of how terrible that DM was. Instead of saying "look. You played two summoners in the 3.5 game, and the summoner is from the APG, it's optional, I just won't allow it. I just don't want to micromanage all the monsters and NPCs you want to order around and prefer to concentrate on making a good game for everyone, not just you. Play something else," the guy agreed to the Summoner, then asked MGuy not to summon stuff, couldn't be assed to play the NPCs and make stats for them when he turned into a Diplomancer so let him, the player, stat them AND equip them AND control them however he wanted, as though he possessed them... and THEN he's got the balls to go to MGuy and tell him to stop his shit? I mean COME ON. What kind of a moron is this DM, exactly?
Quote from: jibbajibba;560458No one said the barbaian controled the power either but its moot. whether he turnes into a bear if he gets hit for 12 poitns of damage drops to 50% hits or at will if he can make a will save is really not the point. the point is simply that barbarian types turning in bears is something that a lot of kids might expect to see in a fantasy game.
So exactly how it works in a particular case is moot the point is that the DM was listening to his players and giving them a game they coudl all enjoy.
It'd be fine with me if he can do the shapeshift into an appropriate animal while in Rage after a certain trigger or acquisition of a Rage feat like PF. Rock on babe.
Quote from: StormBringer;560442The Player's Options books were a dry run of 3.0. Even if TSR had been solvent and WotC didn't buy the company, I am pretty sure the TSR version of 3.0 would have been very similar to the 3.0 that WotC published.
Agreed.
They could see that most players what lots of rules and options. Give them as many rules as you can and churn out books and books.
I don't know the time line but I wouldn't be suprised if the core of 3e was a TSR artefact.
Quote from: Benoist;560461I have the Advanced Players Guide. It's just one more example of how terrible that DM was. Instead of saying "look. You played two summoners in the 3.5 game, and the summoner is from the APG, it's optional, I just won't allow it. I just don't want to be assed to make stats up for all the guys you want to order around and prefer to concentrate on making a good game for everyone, not just you. Play something else," the guy agreed to the Summoner, then asked MGuy not to summon stuff, couldn't be assed to play the NPCs and make stats for them when he turned into a Diplomancer so let him, the player, stat them AND equip them AND control them however he wanted, as though he possessed them... and THEN he's got the balls to go to MGuy and tell him to stop his shit? I mean COME ON. What kind of a moron is this DM, exactly?
EXACTLY. Wasn't sure you had the book my bad.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560417So again any issues anyone sees with the game are becuase they are shit at it :)
got ya,
Yes.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560417Any letting a barbarian Polymorth into a bear by the way is not giving him powers up the wazoo. Its a pretty standard fantasy trope from Norse myth through Beorn in Middle Earth to Barak in the Belgariad books.
Its exactly the type of power I would suggest for a high magic gae where the martial characters want to keep up with the casters.
Actually, it is giving them powers up the wazoo when you add that to the abilities a 3.x Barbarian already has. Particularly when you allow a Barbarian to be a Werebear.
Not to mention the incompatibility problems. A Werebear is Lawful Good and a Barbarian cannot be of a Lawful alignment.
Wild Shape does not allow you to change into a lycanthrope, but only a regular animal (you could debate that little conundrum until the end of time, I think).
Quote from: jibbajibba;560417The real review of MGuys games is simple.
A group of kids start to learn D&D on their own they have the rules but no one telling them how to interpret the rules so they take them at face value.
As the game progresses it starts to focus heavily on combat.
But it didn't have to.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560417A very common effect from having more than half the rules in the book be about combat or how they can affect comabt. At this point it is obvious that the Bard can't keep up and the Cleric's function is to keep the Barbarian pumping out damage. Again for a combat heavy game very common. The DM seeing the party is struggling brings in an NPC (you of course refer to them as a GMPC because that is a derogatory term to you despite having parties full of NPC henchmen as a common part of your games). Again an NPC that can do some of the healing and so give the cleric more options and can take come of the combat load seems quite sensible.
However the players are not entirely satisfied by this solution mainly because the Bard still can't participate in the combat heavy game and the Druid whilst not pumping out more damage per round than the barbarian is just more fun and more , well magical.
the DM realises the party aren't really happy and so talks to them and they tell him what they would like the game to be like. He takes that away and has a think and realises that the Barbarian just likes the bear changing stuff so passing him that power in play is a reasonable thing to do and it means he can remove the Druid NPC who's presence didn't work as planned. So he works an amulet into teh game that gives the Barbarian the same power. the cleric is fine now he can focus on buffing himself so he can particiapate in combat but the Bard doesn't have a lot to do so they change the character concept and eventually make him some rogue class that can deal lots of damage and is cool so the player stays engaged.
Now all of that sounds pretty sensible the outcome was that the players enjoyed themselves and kept on playing. For a group starting out that to be seems perfectly fine and probably a lot more sucessful than my own cocks up, of drawing the dungeion out on 2cm graph paper and playing the whole thing like a board game for the first 2 weeks.
But because the outcome wasn't what you think D&D should be, how you think it shoudl be played you belittle the effort and insult the messenger.
So, while the party struggles to accomplish its goals by brute force alone, the DM encourages this approach by giving them - more brute force.
Whatever happened to using your brains?
Or even like I have been saying since the OP, tactics.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560417If all people tried as hard as MGuy to keep their players happy and to use their imaginations to keep the game going and their players interested there would be a lot more people playing D&D now.
Monty Haul doesn't last. It never does.
Quote from: Marleycat;560462It'd be fine with me if he can do the shapeshift into an appropriate animal while in Rage after a certain trigger or acquisition of a Rage feat like PF. Rock on babe.
Exactly it's kind of like the idea of high level fighters getting imbued with unique powers through quests that Daniel_ream mentioned a million posts ago.
Quote from: jeff37923;560466Yes.
Actually, it is giving them powers up the wazoo when you add that to the abilities a 3.x Barbarian already has. Particularly when you allow a Barbarian to be a Werebear.
Not to mention the incompatibility problems. A Werebear is Lawful Good and a Barbarian cannot be of a Lawful alignment. Wild Shape does not allow you to change into a lycanthrope, but only a regular animal (you could debate that little conundrum until the end of time, I think).
But it didn't have to.
So, while the party struggles to accomplish its goals by brute force alone, the DM encourages this approach by giving them - more brute force.
Whatever happened to using your brains?
Or even like I have been saying since the OP, tactics.
Monty Haul doesn't last. It never does.
maybe but in my first games we did all sorts of shit. Don't you remember playing D&D with your mates when you were a kid ?
Shit for the first couple of years we actually played games were we thought the be end all of D&d was exploring fucking dungoens, killing things and taking their stuff, wasn't til we were 12 or 13 that we realised what a shallow play style that was .... :D
Quote from: Marleycat;560460Only said maybe guys thanks for the clarification. Fact is both you are old school. I'm not convinced I am, at least in several areas.
I'm old school all right I am just from the Old School up the road.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560470maybe but in my first games we did all sorts of shit. Don't you remember playing D&D with your mates when you were a kid ?
I do. I guess that we were just better at outsmarting our in-game opponents than just plain old outfighting them.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560470Shit for the first couple of years we actually played games were we thought the be end all of D&d was exploring fucking dungoens, killing things and taking their stuff, wasn't til we were 12 or 13 that we realised what a shallow play style that was .... :D
And this is you gibbering for the audience again.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560467Exactly it's kind of like the idea of high level fighters getting imbued with unique powers through quests that Daniel_ream mentioned a million posts ago.
Dude, you're crunching on the wrong girl. I have already said here and TBP that at some point one direction that has be taken if you insist on using on 3x and RPGA/PS bullshit is that the fighting man must have an avenue to turn mystical. I"ve gotten threadbanned for such logic!
Can someone teach me how to troll decently? I have a goal here jeez!
Quote from: jeff37923;560475I do. I guess that we were just better at outsmarting our in-game opponents than just plain old outfighting them.
Maybe but we were 10. I was self taught from the blue book moved upto 1e after 4 months and taught al my mates 6 of whom have been my closest friends ever since.
When I was 10 or 11 I just wanted to play Aragorn, Lancelot, Tristram and Achilies when I reached 12 I realised that playing Corwin or Odyseus was probably more rewarding and at the age of 13 I realised that in all probabilty my favourite characters were all going to be a bit like Silk. Who I then created and play to this day :)
So you can't judge a group of players first self taught campaigns too harshly. I guess MGuy to be in his late 20s so a whole different set of influences. The fact that they picked up a game, engaged with it and used their imaginations to make it into something they enjoyed should be lauded not derided by a bunch of old grognards on a web site.
And I have always liked an audience :D
Quote from: jibbajibba;560478Maybe but we were 10. I was self taught from the blue book moved upto 1e after 4 months and taught al my mates 6 of whom have been my closest friends ever since.
When I was 10 or 11 I just wanted to play Aragorn, Lancelot, Tristram and Achilies when I reached 12 I realised that playing Corwin or Odyseus was probably more rewarding and at the age of 13 I realised that in all probabilty my favourite characters were all going to be a bit like Silk. Who I then created and play to this day :)
So you can't judge a group of players first self taught campaigns too harshly. I guess MGuy to be in his late 20s so a whole different set of influences. The fact that they picked up a game, engaged with it and used their imaginations to make it into something they enjoyed should be lauded not derided by a bunch of old grognards on a web site.
And I have always liked an audience :D
In a VtM game you'd be a Toreador Posuear and I would be a Toreador attribue. Or a Tzimicie pretending to be a Toreador.:D
Quote from: jibbajibba;560478And I have always liked an audience
That much is painfully obvious.
Jeff, you got to tell me how I can get that wonderful hat.
Quote from: Marleycat;560483Jeff, you got to tell me how I can get that wonderful hat.
Part of earning the right to wear the Viking Hat is the quest to find a Viking Hat. :)
Quote from: Marleycat;560483Jeff, you got to tell me how I can get that wonderful hat.
This particular one that I wear was won after accomplishing the second of three drinking challenges at Green's Tavern.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560437I know this one .... they roll initiative the wizard casts dimesion door, casting time 1 the fighter draws his longsword thus doubling its weapon speed to 10. The wizard thus wins initiative and now appears 150 yards away from the figther.
On round 2 the fighter charges and the wizard casts dig with the fighter in the centre so he falls into the 80 foot pit with no save and takes 8d6 damage or (20d6 depending on how you read the falling damage rules :) )
On round 3 the Wizard kills the fighter with any number of evocation spells? while the figther draws and readies his low bow weapons speed factor 7, I think, so doubled for 14.
How does that sound? :D
Or are we talking about a high level wizard who's only memorised spell is read magic 30 times ?
And you obviously didn't read any of MGuy's posts because he has continuously been saying he is more concerned about what the Figther can do out of combat as opposed to what he can do in combat.
jibba, you have got be having fun in order to still be engaging half these people seriously.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560478Maybe but we were 10. I was self taught from the blue book moved upto 1e after 4 months and taught al my mates 6 of whom have been my closest friends ever since.
When I was 10 or 11 I just wanted to play Aragorn, Lancelot, Tristram and Achilies when I reached 12 I realised that playing Corwin or Odyseus was probably more rewarding and at the age of 13 I realised that in all probabilty my favourite characters were all going to be a bit like Silk. Who I then created and play to this day :)
So you can't judge a group of players first self taught campaigns too harshly. I guess MGuy to be in his late 20s so a whole different set of influences. The fact that they picked up a game, engaged with it and used their imaginations to make it into something they enjoyed should be lauded not derided by a bunch of old grognards on a web site.
And I have always liked an audience :D
A real pain in the ass it was just to get players in te first place. I tell ya, kids at my school that were interested in sitting down and playing imagination land when they could be watching Dragonball Z was a toughie.
Tastes have changed since then. That group's bard now favors rogue/fighters. His play style favors using his environment and thinking outside of the box when meeting challenges. That and setting things on fire.
That groups cleric developed a taste for playing angst filled half demons, first in the vane of Inuyasha then going on to be more like Vampire Hunter D.
I don't play with the guy who played a Barbarian anymore. He consistently broke character whenever he could and character consistency is a must at my tables.
Since then I met a good friend of mine who was the first to ever break me out of my "No kender ban" by convincing me he could play one without disrupting the game and did so successfully (in the undead campaign).
I have a regular player who still has a hard time separating meta game knowledge from in game action. Ironically enough he is autistic but is very bad at crunching the numbers and bad at putting together a competent character without my help.
Makes me wish I had more time for gaming now a days.
Quote from: Marleycat;560481In a VtM game you'd be a Toreador Posuear and I would be a Toreador attribue. Or a Tzimicie pretending to be a Toreador.:D
Maybe a Baali :)
(http://s19.postimage.org/49ccrqtu9/halloween_007.jpg)
Quote from: jibbajibba;560491Maybe a Baali :)
(http://s19.postimage.org/49ccrqtu9/halloween_007.jpg)
In your dreams sir.:)
I'm like Brendan consider 2e my actual Dnd though I love 3e based stuff. I'm easy but not that easy. Doncha just love it when a plan comes together?:D
Quote from: jibbajibba;560470maybe but in my first games we did all sorts of shit. Don't you remember playing D&D with your mates when you were a kid?
No, I don't -- and this may be why my experience of D&D is so different from so many people. I was just about 18 when I bought a copy of brown box OD&D in 1975 -- just a month or two before I graduated from high school. I did not get to play a game until that fall when I was in college. I had been playing Avalon Hill and SPI board games for 5 or 6 years by then -- and had played in a few ancients minis games. I quickly fell in love with D&D and played those wargames far less often.
Quote from: jeff37923;560485This particular one that I wear was won after accomplishing the second of three drinking challenges at Green's Tavern.
I could do that!
@Stormbringer, a quest? I like quests doesn't mean I would succeed but whatever, failure is a part of life and quests, correct?
Quote from: MGuy;560489Tastes have changed since then. That group's bard now favors rogue/fighters. His play style favors using his environment and thinking outside of the box when meeting challenges. That and setting things on fire.
If only he could have changed his playstyle earlier then he would have been able to do more with his Bard than just have him sing. Good to see that tactics come around to the creative ones.
Quote from: MGuy;560489That groups cleric developed a taste for playing angst filled half demons, first in the vane of Inuyasha then going on to be more like Vampire Hunter D.
From self-buffing to self-fellating a character is not a big leap. Angsty emo types never play well with others.
Quote from: MGuy;560489I don't play with the guy who played a Barbarian anymore. He consistently broke character whenever he could and character consistency is a must at my tables.
Of course he is not going to be consistant what with you giving him whatever he wants in game. When he didn't get it, he broke character because he knew it would annoy you.
Quote from: Marleycat;560493In your dreams sir.:)
I'm like Brendan consider 2e my actual Dnd though I love 3e based stuff. I'm easy but not that easy. :D
I am 2e to the core and have vociferously defended it from all comers on this very site many a time.
(And I just realised I wasn't wearing any shoes in the photo which kinds of ruins the hellboy look a tad, such a faux pas. - just uploading a bunch of stuff to make a photobook of halloweens and costume parties from the last 5 years which is why the photo was handy in case you thought I had dressed up special :) )
I have really been thinking about Daniel_ream's idea of imbued powers for fighters and I really like it more and more.
I am working on a Doom mechanic for my Heartbreaker which had been a kind of heropoint /beenie thing but i am thinking about fleshing it out to be something a bit grander... hmm not sure how it fits with the S&S feel of it though having a Doom or a Geas is I guess pretty S&S-ish all in. Hmm needs some thought.
but back on topic.
to pick up on a recent thread of ideas ....
Surely the point of RPGs is to have fun and D&D worked becuase it was such a broad church you could do almost anything within the fantasy milleu, from GoT to Wuxia and all roads in between. Why would we the players want to prevent any of those options provided that the game also supported our mode of play . So 5e shoudl have a Wuxia CharOp thread with suitable expansions for that sort of play, not doing it disenfranchises a large % of the play base and stops you selling shit to them. Likewise it should have a stripped down mode of play that appeals to the OSR that was why Estar and Pundit got involved right?
Quote from: RandallS;560494No, I don't -- and this may be why my experience of D&D is so different from so many people. I was just about 18 when I bought a copy of brown box OD&D in 1975 -- just a month or two before I graduated from high school. I did not get to play a game until that fall when I was in college. I had been playing Avalon Hill and SPI board games for 5 or 6 years by then -- and had played in a few ancients minis games. I quickly fell in love with D&D and played those wargames far less often.
Like you or hate you. You sir have SERIOUS standards. I would beg to play in any game you ran. Me surviving? Not guaranteed. But thank god you are in the hobby.
Quote from: RandallS;560494No, I don't -- and this may be why my experience of D&D is so different from so many people. I was just about 18 when I bought a copy of brown box OD&D in 1975 -- just a month or two before I graduated from high school. I did not get to play a game until that fall when I was in college. I had been playing Avalon Hill and SPI board games for 5 or 6 years by then -- and had played in a few ancients minis games. I quickly fell in love with D&D and played those wargames far less often.
Okay so that is a different thing I understand that and if you came from a hard crunch realistic type background I can see that you would have a different take but you can surely imagine the fun side of it too right? Like when I first bought V&V and me and a mate stated up the Hulk and the Thing and played straight through Double Physics (and last week you'll be glad to know I twonked him at Sealed deck Magic :) )
@Jibba, this is why I am so mad at you. You and I and are nearly brother and sister on multiple issues but you're playing to the audience on this singular issue. My main issue is that I think Ben isn't talking out his ass THIS time. They seem to be forgetting what I care about at the core.
1.KISS and PSSS in that order, I'm seriously worried here.
Quote from: Marleycat;560500@Jibba, this is why I am so mad at you. You and I and are nearly brother and sister on multiple issues but you're playing to the audience on this singular issue. My main issue is that I think Ben isn't talking out his ass THIS time. They seem to be forgetting what I care about at the core.
1.KISS and PSSS in that order, I'm seriously worried here.
I am involved in this because i can seen and have seen serious gaps in power between casters and non casters in 1e and in very high 2e (15
Brendan is spot on where he says that the weak at the start and powerful later is how the game kind of levels that out but I woudl agree with the GD guys that that isn't a very satisifying resolution. I would much rather see wizards more powerful at low levels (remember your Eponymous thread on could a cat kill a 1st level MU) and weaker at high levels.
I already demonstrated that Clerics in 1e are just toughter period. at 1st level they are far toughter than fighters.
I asked and posted some quite specific questions that no on aswered or talked to because they can't be handwaved away.
i) Compare my 5th level cleric and 5th level fighter summaries are those two characters really balanced ?
ii) Why does MU spell slot acquistion double in rate between 9th and 15th - wouldn't redistributing those spell slots be a simple way of balancing the game but keeping all of the rules and feel?
iii) If 1e was balanced then why introduce Specialisation in UA and how can it still be balanced afterwards ? Surely 1e Post UA and 2e must be unbalanced and the wizard needs more powers to catch up?
iv) Why don't fighters get extra abilities when leading troops. It seems so obvious.
But no one wants to try and talk to them.
Like I have said from the off I understand why the imbalance won;t bother people. It won't bother players who use player skill because a lot of the game is about how players beat the environment or the monsters and you can do that whatever is written on yoru character sheet because you are the same player whether you have a hobbit thief or a Paladin. It doesn't bother me as an immersive role player who really doesn't mind being worse than everyone else most of the time. But it will totally bother a role player who wants the limits of what they can do in the game world to be tied to what their PC knows and can do. Perhaps because I come from that roleplay side of the house I can totally see that an 18 year old farm hand that just got made into a warrior won't think of throwing a bag of flour into the room to help him spot invisible creatures, shit he probably doesn't even know what invisible means. A knight won't be able to swim, when the fuck was he going to have time to learn how to do that, fuck most sailors in the middle ages couldn't fucking swim. The idea that the knowledge and skills of the PC are limited, bounded in some way is obvious and unavoidable. I can toally see that some players what clarity of rules round that.
anyway its bed time for me.
I enjoy reading the next 34 pages of this tomorrow at work.
Quote from: Rum Cove;560450It's actually a phrase of encouragement.
A dismissive phrase of encouragement? You may have blown my mind.
Quote from: Marleycat;560457Is his sister older than him? Just asking because I got into gaming to hang out with my brothers and his friends. The brother that got 0/1e was the oldest of us and I tagged along and got to play when others didn't show up. Mostly I got to watch and maybe play an NPC sometimes.:)
My daughter's 10. She's not so much a gamer like he is but she reads a ton and it's almost all fantasy. They've both watched D&D games when I've hosted them, and my son used to help roll my dice when he was a little tyke sitting on my knee.
Quote from: StormBringer;560442The Player's Options books were a dry run of 3.0. Even if TSR had been solvent and WotC didn't buy the company, I am pretty sure the TSR version of 3.0 would have been very similar to the 3.0 that WotC published.
This does seem likely.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560437I know this one .... they roll initiative the wizard casts dimesion door, casting time 1 the fighter draws his longsword thus doubling its weapon speed to 10. The wizard thus wins initiative and now appears 150 yards away from the figther.
The fighter punches the wizard in the face - fist or open hand, speed factor 1, + 4 to hit against an opponent without armor, + strength bonus to damage.
Spell fails.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;560519The fighter punches the wizard in the face - fist or open hand, speed factor 1, + 4 to hit against an opponent without armor, + strength bonus to damage.
Spell fails.
Why not double hand choke the Wizard to death?
Quote from: Rum Cove;560526Why not double hand choke the Wizard to death?
Have you
seen the 1e grappling rules?! ;)
In any case, I like the fighter going all Wyatt-Earp-slapping-Johnny-Tyler-at-the-Oriental on the wizard: "Are you gonna do something, or just stand there and bleed?"
Quote from: Fifth Element;560517A dismissive phrase of encouragement? You may have blown my mind.
My daughter's 10. She's not so much a gamer like he is but she reads a ton and it's almost all fantasy. They've both watched D&D games when I've hosted them, and my son used to help roll my dice when he was a little tyke sitting on my knee.
This does seem likely.
Careful, you have a minimarley on your hands. Yay!
Quote from: Fifth Element;560517This does seem likely.
I am thinking that one of the big differences probably would have been expanded kits instead of Prestige Classes. It's an interesting thought experiment, as PrCs do essentially the same thing, only they cost levels in your 'regular' class.
Since I anticipate this post being rather long, I'll point out that I started writing it after Post #3203. I'm not sure how many pages I'll be behind when I finish. There were a lot of interesting posts that deserve a response. Double so since I was called away while responding...
First off, Stormbringer actually said something intelligent, and I agree with it fully. It pains me a little to say it, but I have a lot of things to respond to that are his typically dumbassery, so it's not a total loss.
Stormbringer, I am going to quote you out of sequence because I think it makes the most sense...
Quote from: StormBringer;560456Not at all. Anyone can have great fun playing a game I don't care for on whatever level, but it is still possible to look at the game critically and determine if the rules do what they claim to.
This is true. I'm really approaching this whole subject from the point of view of asking if the rules do what they claim to. One example of that is the CR system - a Wizard of level x is supposed to pose a similar challenge to a Fighter of level x. A PC class has a CR equal to the Class Level (though it may be modified by templates or racial adjustments). Since the rules claim that the two are supposed to be equivalent challenges, do they succeed on that claim?
I assert they do not. I've also provided experience from the gaming table to support that position. I've also provided mechanical examples, wherein using the rules without modification, the same results arise repeatedly.
Typically, if one discounts or dismisses the position I've asserted, one would provide experience from the gaming table that illustrates that such a position is not universal, allowing those of us who make the assertion to review and determine if there were 'mitigating factors' - such as using different rules. So far, I think only Mguy and Myself have provided such examples from play. Alternatively, one could post
reasonable mechanical examples that illustrate the point. I gather that none of these 'valid responses' has been attempted largely because they do not exist.
I intend to provide a good example of some of the differences between a Fighter and Rogue without access to level-appropriate gear sometime tomorrow - for example, a prison break scenario. I'll probably also provide some examples of characters with level-appropriate gear and point out some of the 'difficulties' for the Fighter (particularly) to contribute in a level-appropriate fashion.
Quote from: StormBringer;560352You mean, you aren't going to present an argument using the logic supposedly missing from everyone else's arguments?
...
Here, I will set it up for you:
P1: High level Fighters cannot contribute to play in a level appropriate manner
P2: Level-appropriate contributions provide the greatest fun in play.
C: Therefore, high level Fighters are not fun in play.
This is pretty close to a logical argument - much better than your first attempt (I'll go into more detail in a moment). For the conclusion you've drawn to be correct, P2 would have to be: Only level-appropriate contributions are fun.
You could also make your conclusion: Therefore, high level Fighters do not provide the greatest fun in play.
Either way, to draw the conclusion you've drawn, you'd probably need to add something to the mix.
Quote from: StormBringer;560249So, right now, your argument would be something like this:
P1: Classes must be perfectly balanced against each other
P2: All Fighters are weaker than every other class (unbalanced)
C: Fighters should be removed from the game.
Obviously, you can refine or clarify this as you need, but that is the basic argument you presented. So, take it from here, and knock our socks off with your total mastery of logic.
This would be a terrific strawman if I accepted that this was my argument. First off, both premises are false - therefore, we cannot be sure that any conclusion would be necessarily true. Further, the conclusion does not follow from those premises. A better example would be:
P1: Classes should be relatively balanced against each other
P2: The Fighter class is weaker than every other class, and is therefore unbalanced.
P3: Classes that are not balanced (ie, greatly weaker or greatly stronger) should be removed from the game
C: The Fighter should be removed from the game.
However, while I agree with P1 and P2, I have not asserted P3. In my personal opinion, it should be:
P3: Any class that is not balanced (ie, greatly weaker or greatly stronger) should be modified to bring it in line with the balance of the other classes
C: The Fighter should be modified to make it approximately as strong as the other classes.
Clearly, that's not to everyone's taste, though I still don't understand why people
wouldn't want a Fighter that was balanced with the other classes. So far, the only reason I've seen is that people feel that it
necessarily means 'laser-eyes' or something. That position certainly makes some logical sense - if mundane characters can never be anything more than mundane, and magical characters can do more than mundane characters, it could make sense to make everyone 'magical'. I think that's going too far... Further, I think that there's a lot of things you could do to make sure the mundane character has the ability to 'meaningfully contribute', even if there are instances that magic is much more 'powerful'. There is something to the 'ability to keep swinging a sword all day' - or at least, there could be if that action were actually 'meaningful'.
Quote from: StormBringer;560391P1: A Fighter can only have 'regular gear'
P2: Many high level threats require magical equipment to defeat.
C: Fighter is useless.
Once again you've drawn a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premise. And while it's been pointed out before, 'regular gear' isn't 'non-magical gear' necessarily. 'Regular gear' is what you would normally expect a Fighter to have at that level. For examples of 'regular equipment', you could look at the sample NPC Fighter in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Magical equipment is 'regular equipment' at a certain level. What is
not regular equipment is artifact level magic - not at any level. There are certainly times when a character
might have artifact level magic; or even magical items beyond what you would 'regularly' expect.
While such things are 'possible', because they are beyond what you would expect, to posit that it must be so is a little strange... If it should be so or must be so, you could make 'access to appropriate equipment' a class feature. There are different ways to achieve this effect if you want - some don't even have to be 'totally magical'. For example, a Fighter could have 'ancestral spirits' that imbue his armor or weapon with magical bonuses - thus he could have a 'level appropriate weapon', even in a 'jailbreak scenario'. Or a Fighter, because of his super-awesome ability to make the most out of a weapon, it could be treated as having an enhancement bonus to attack and damage equal to 1/4 his Fighter level (+1 at 4th, up to +5 at 20th). While those aren't necessarily solutions I want, they do help ensure that the Fighter always have 'level-appropriate gear', which he relies upon more than other classes to contribute in a 'level-appropriate way'.
Quote from: jeff37923;560150And I will answer you. Yes, my version is inherently/objectively better.
Why?
None of those things are 'objective'. It's a simple matter of preference. It's possible that some people don't get tired of 'deck building' or 'Monty Haul'. Even if all people do, it's doesn't necessarily follow that one or more styles of play couldn't be 'more fun' or 'better' in a limited sense or as a change of pace.
And of course, Stormbringer couldn't resist being a dumbass again:
Quote from: StormBringer;560152Of course, that's impossible because your version is objectively better. It's a good thing you brought DA TROOF here to save our benighted souls.
Observing a facet of the game (ie, Fighters have a bigger HD than Clerics) is an objective observation. It can be verified by any number of people and doesn't require any value judgement. It can be shown that 'objectively' a cleric has more abilities to contribute to the party. It cannot be 'objectively' shown that the cleric is 'better' - that's a matter of preference. And some people
MIGHT like a Fighter better, even if he can't contribute to level-appropriate opposition. There are lots of reasons that might be true - but there are lots of reasons the converse might be true. It's true for me. Fighters are a poor choice for high level play (value judgement) because of their lack of meaningful abilities to contribute to group success.
Quote from: Marleycat;560184What gets me mad is that I like reasonable balanced rules and reasonable overall game balance. Just not virtual balance because I know that's impossible and like any battle plan, rules are broken and altered the second they hit the real world or in this case, the real game environment.
I also like 'reasonable balance'. I assume by 'virtual' you mean 'perfect' or 'exact'. Since this is a role-playing game, you can have two 'reasonably balanced options' without them being exactly equal. For example, the Ranger's Favored Enemy bonus is a good example - choosing Undead or Evil Outsiders are both 'relatively balanced'. It is certainly true that in some campaigns, choosing Undead will be a better option and in some campaigns, choosing Evil Outsiders is a better option. Still, without advance knowledge of which one will be 'more beneficial', they are 'reasonably balanced'. In the event that the DM decides not to include a favored enemy in the game
at all, you might cross over from 'reasonably balanced' to 'underpowered'. An ability like this is an important example of why a Player will need game-world knowledge to make his character - if you take favored enemy gnoll, and the only gnoll that ever lived was the one that killed your parents and is never heard from again - it could be a problem.
Quote from: Marleycat;560184So you have to have a human arbiter to make sure the rules work as intended in dynamic fluid environments like rpg's. Because no way can a designer create some rule as written to cover every variable.
Again, I agree. But clearly some situations come up often enough and cause sufficient dispute at the table either within a group (or to people that can't join the group because of those differences) that addressing them at the design stage would be desirable. Again, it's not 'perfection' that's to be aimed for - it's just catching most of the issues and not hoping to 'patch' them later - it's an RPG, not a video game.
Quote from: Marleycat;560184Yet my playstyle gets called "mother my I" because I understand rpg's are dynamic like the people playing them? Horseshit! It's offensive besides. And they wonder why I have small to no respect for their pov.
I don't think you've engaged anyone on their point of view in this thread, so I can't be certain that you had any intention of engaging in a meaningful discussion. But since I haven't been a player at your table, I have not accused you of 'mother may I' style of gaming. Open or fluid rules don't NECESSARILY mean 'mother may I' - but inconsistent rules definitely do. If something is sometimes acceptable but other times is not, that is 'mother may I'. If the bad guys can use a spell against the PCs, but the PCs cannot use that same spell in the game-world, that is 'mother may I'. For example, if an evil cleric NPC can
animate dead, but an evil PC cannot, the world is inconsistent... Now, obviously you could choose not to allow evil PCs and/or you could restrict
animate dead to evil people - problem solved without resort to inconsistency. But if you can't be consistent (even if it is for some vaunted purpose like 'the good of the game'), I tend to object... It doesn't suit my personal taste.
Quote from: Marleycat;560184This is my house and it's exactly like taking a shit in the middle of my livingroom.
Thank you for making us so welcome. :) I know you apparently enjoy posting here, but this site makes a big deal about how 'all are welcome' if the discussion is related to role-playing games. Whether you consider me a 'denner' or not; whether you consider people in this thread pointing out perceived 'deficiencies' with the Fighter unwelcome - this is the site belonging to RPGPundit, and he's free to invite any of us to leave if we're not engaging in the type of discourse he seems interested in fostering. I've enjoyed my time here, but I have no wish to stay if I am officially 'not welcome'.
Quote from: jhkim;560260To MGuy, deadDMwalking, or other people who have been arguing with Benoist - do you think that "rules and nothing but the rules" is an accurate representation of your preferred play style? If not, could you comment on examples or bits of actual play where you go beyond the rules?
I'd like some more clarity on what the actual split it like.
(Benoist - I cross-posted with you at some point in here - I'll respond to your more recent post later.)
Sorry for the delay in responding to your question. I definitely didn't mean to let it go this long, but the thread has been advancing at a rapid pace, so it's easy to postpone responding and then forget what you had intended to respond to, or even find it again.
That said, I do not think 'the rules and nothing but the rules' is an accurate representation of my play style. A better representation would be 'the rules, unless something else would be better'. However, if something does work better than the rules, it usually
becomes the rules. I absolutely believe in consistency between PCs and NPCs - ie, if Cleave works one way for a PC, it works the same way for an NPC. If a spell works one way for an NPC, it works the same way for a PC. Consistency is important for me.
Quote from: omegonthesane;560269Given the choice, I would lean towards consistency. Given the choice I would also lean towards not having to read a 128 page legal document to understand how 90% of likely situations will pan out.
If one of the rules in a system I am using is unworkable, I will openly admit that and change that rule, preferably before anyone has based a character around it. Most GMs I have played with have generally gone with the idea that consistent rules changes should be done when the mechanics would otherwise be broken. For example, in my last 3.5 campaign, the DM didn't spot-change Diplomacy every time someone tried to use it, he picked a ruling that worked well enough for the levels we were playing and stuck to it regardless of the consequences. When I last ran Unknown Armies, I played attacks as rolled rather than spot-tweaking combat to get the results I wanted, even when it meant the party successfully insta-killed a plot critical NPC. I admit to houseruling to allow a window to first-aid someone who's been dropped to 0 HP, but that's a rule I would stick to for everyone rather than a special defence I gave that day to protect PCs.
Obviously "rules and nothing but rules" can never be quite 100% accurate, as the rules cannot literally cover every situation, but at the ideal I'd prefer to be able to reduce most situations to a consistent rules call as and when they come up. There's a lot of bile about this when it comes to things like Charm Person, simply because people don't like losing even the slightest bit of control of their characters - especially of their PCs - which I can understand, but which makes it a lot harder to create functional mechanics to allow people to play characters with greater social skills than their own (or lesser skills, for that matter).
I wanted to quote the whole reply - it wasn't terribly long, and I agree with this fully and completely, without reservation.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;560261Trying to 'balance' the game gives problems when you discover that in trying to determine what's balanced and what's not, some things are not easily quantifiable. This is where we've been going with the whole 'removing magical items' thing: the likelihood of a character not having an item is unknown, but rather than treating it as an unknown you've simplified it out of the analysis and so gotten a dubious answer.
This is true. A role playing game is much more complicated than Monopoly. Some things are difficult to quantify; and even if they can be quantified, the benefit may vary depending on variable factors. For example, a +1 to hit is very quantifiable in terms of 'average damage' against a particular AC. However, what is not easily quantifiable is how much of the game will be combat-based; how often that particular AC comes up (ie, your +1 to hit will matter more if you needed a 10 to hit than if you needed a 20 to hit and still do). While these things are
hard to quantify,
reasonable examples can be illustrative. Providing an example from play, or a 'theoretical possibility' that passes the 'smell test' works. When I work out my 'jailbreak scenario' at some point in the future, I think people will be able to say 'that kind of thing
does happen 'all the time', so even if these characters are just 'representative' and have not 'gone through this situation' around a gaming table, I think the example will still provide some useful information regarding the types of advantages and disadvantages a Fighter might have.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;560261Another side of this is assuming a wizard will have a spell for a given situation, which is more or less a complete unknown and screws up (IMHO) quite a bit of armchair theorizing as to how effective wizards are. In play I've seen wizards suck and die moderately often, as opposed to being gods. With a bad player, a wizard is actually a huge liability as either inefficient spell use or friendly-fire casualties render the PC worse than useless.
This is certainly a possibility. And it's true that a Fighter is worth more than a self-destructive wizard. Some assumptions about the ability of a character to use their abilities effectively have got to be made. Because if nobody uses their abilities effectively, none of the classes are capable of effectively neutralizing 'level-appropriate' enemies. That said, it's not required to assume that a Wizard has one or a few specific spells - it's only required to assume that it likely that a wizard have access to any one of similar spells. For example, there are more than one 'save-or-die' spell. To discuss 'save-or-die', you don't have to presume that a wizard has access to every such spell in the core books and/or supplementary material - but if they have a reasonable chance of having access to
at least one, the observations you make about save-or-die
in general have some validity. If there were only a single save-or-die, or even 'save-or-suck', such an assumption might not be valid - but considering the wide variety of spells that fill this role, it'd be unreasonable to assume that a wizard
will not have access to at least one - unless the DM has removed them or modified them in his or her game.
Quote from: RandallS;560331That's simply not true. There are a couple of long running 3.x campaigns in Central Texas with high-level fighters. There could be more because I don't look for them. I know of these because 3 players in my Microlite74 campaign also play in one of these campaigns (two in one, one in the other). Both campaigns use a limited selections books beyond the core books, are set in the Forgotten Realms, and do not allow any charop the GM or other players consider too extreme (if the character really outguns any of the not-really charoped characters in the game, it's too extreme), etc.
Others have made this observation, but I'll second it. If you make it so no character can 'seriously out-gun' any other character, Fighters would still be relevant. The thing is, in 3.5 it's not difficult to 'outgun' a Fighter - even without resorting to 'character optimization bullshit' and such. This would entail 'bringing everyone down to the approximate level of the Fighter' - but that's pretty difficult... Most likely, some of the players aren't 'showboating' even though they could. If another player is 'holding back' - not because he wants to be prepared for the next fight but just because he wants to avoid making my character look bad, even though he totally could - that wouldn't be fun for me... It wouldn't be fun for me as the player getting to shine and it wouldn't be fun for me as the player holding back. Ideally, every character can contribute in a level-appropriate way.
And I might as well clarify this for Stormbringer - level-appropriate does not mean 'changing the goalposts'. I have indicated that 'having a Fighter' is more useful than 'not having a Fighter'. That's tautological. Unless a Fighter is actually NEGATIVE POWER, adding one or more to the group increases the power of the group. Adding 10 would be better. Adding 20 would be even better. But adding a Cleric instead of a Fighter has more 'marginal utility' - regardless of the number of clerics added. So if you have a choice of adding a Cleric or a Fighter, everything else being equal (such as player preference) the group will benefit more from the addition of a Cleric. A group of 'all Clerics' can actually perform amazingly well - a group of all Fighters, not so much. This is because while a Fighter might add 'something' to the group, it is not something that can't either be a) replicated by a spell or ability; or b) done by someone else without much additional training.
Quote from: Spike;560341I'm pretty sure no one here honestly started from the position that the Fighter will ever (in any edition) compete with a wizard casting Wish. Thus, objectively, your vastly simplified point that wizards are 'more powerful' than fighters can be taken for granted as a statement of fact.
I'm glad you recognize it. It seems that quite a few people actually did come from the position that the Fighter and Wizard were of 'roughly equal power'. Most of the 3000+ posts have been based on still trying to establish that a high level Wizard is 'more powerful' than a high level Fighter. Some of the discussion has been an attempt to 'qualify' the benefits of extra attacks, etc; but most of it is simply been to have all sides accept this essential preference. I wouldn't mind it if everyone still participating would sound off if they accept this as a statement of fact, or not. Once that's done, we could more easily respond to differences in opinion (ie, if this is a fact, does it matter. Why or why not?).
Though Mguy is right that
wish is a little disingenuous as an example - if you assume that a Fighter
must be able to compete with
wish, you by necessity would have 'laser-eyes'. A Fighter doesn't have to have
wish or anything like it to 'contribute in a level-appropriate manner'. It's okay for contributions to be in a form of 'different kind'. The fact that a cleric can heal and a wizard has access to more 'deadly' magic means they're not 'exactly equivalent', but they both have 'level-appropriate options'.
Heal is not the same as
Circle of Death, but by-and-large, they're 'equivalent' in terms of relative utility. That's what I'm aiming for with the Fighter.
Quote from: Spike;560341Because, if we're positing white-room arena situations I see no reason to exclude: The fighter and wizard are standing right next to one another, unbuffed. Roll Initiative.
Sure. That might happen sometimes. And the Wizard
might not have a contingency. Winning or losing a single fight doesn't
prove anything one way or another. It could be illustrative. If it turns out that the
only way for the Fighter to win is to begin adjacent to the Wizard and make a full attack, that's actually very damning to the 'these classes are roughly equivalent in overall power' position. The important thing would be testing them in a variety of 'reasonable' scenarios. That
MIGHT be one such scenario, but I can't think of many plausible scenarios that result in that - ie, I can't think of any that pass the 'smell test' of a reasonable example of play.
Finally, as an aside regarding Beorn -
@Marleycat - the book leaves whether it is a blessing or a curse unanswered - nor does it explain whether Beorn has control or not. The book is written from the perspective of Bilbo Baggins explaining his adventures - for the parts that he is absent for, it is explained that he put those narratives together by speaking to those who experienced them. Since Bilbo is not an omniscient 3rd-party narrator, we'd be forced to consider anything he says through that lens - he might even willfully misrepresent events (as it is alluded he did about finding the ring until, iirc, it was updated by Frodo).
@Jeff37923
Being able to 'turn into a bear' is not the same as 'being a werebear'. The rules for lycanthropes in 3.5 are a bit wonky in some ways. But most importantly, a werebear 'gains' +6 HD compared to a non-lycanthrope human. Ie, a human Barbarian has 1d12 hit points plus Con. A werebear Barbarian has 1d12+6d8+(7xCon mod). That's a big difference in power, and a werebear adds +9 to his Challenge Rating (ie, a 1st level Barbarian is considered a 10th level character). A black bear, by contrast, has only 3HD; and the benefits of 'being a bear' are rather limited compared to being a Barbarian. A black bear is a CR 2, so it's not
totally unreasonable to allow a Barbarian to 'turn into' a standard MM black bear. But turning him into a werebear is a whole different beast (no pun intended).
I'll get back to you Deadman since you seem to love taking everything I say out of context when I have access to a computer. Which is too bad because you made sense until you called me out about others telling me my playstyle is objectively wrong.
I WAS WITH YOU FOOL. Until you called me out over their stupidity. I'll even keep it to a small paragraph or shorter for those that get pissed about wall of text posts that can be said in 4 sentences or less. Try it sometime.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;560548None of those things are 'objective'. It's a simple matter of preference. It's possible that some people don't get tired of 'deck building' or 'Monty Haul'. Even if all people do, it's doesn't necessarily follow that one or more styles of play couldn't be 'more fun' or 'better' in a limited sense or as a change of pace.
I am willing to wait and let time tell. But it never lasts. Interestingly, even MGuy admitted that his game group lost some members and the others changed their playstyles away from brute force munchkinism and Monty Haul. I love how you just skipped over all that. Objective, indeed.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;560548@Jeff37923
Being able to 'turn into a bear' is not the same as 'being a werebear'. The rules for lycanthropes in 3.5 are a bit wonky in some ways. But most importantly, a werebear 'gains' +6 HD compared to a non-lycanthrope human. Ie, a human Barbarian has 1d12 hit points plus Con. A werebear Barbarian has 1d12+6d8+(7xCon mod). That's a big difference in power, and a werebear adds +9 to his Challenge Rating (ie, a 1st level Barbarian is considered a 10th level character). A black bear, by contrast, has only 3HD; and the benefits of 'being a bear' are rather limited compared to being a Barbarian. A black bear is a CR 2, so it's not totally unreasonable to allow a Barbarian to 'turn into' a standard MM black bear. But turning him into a werebear is a whole different beast (no pun intended).
Except that MGuy had said that he let the Player be a werebear.
Go on, read the post again, I'll wait.
Regardless, still a brute force approach and still Monty Haul.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;560548@Jeff37923
Being able to 'turn into a bear' is not the same as 'being a werebear'. The rules for lycanthropes in 3.5 are a bit wonky in some ways. But most importantly, a werebear 'gains' +6 HD compared to a non-lycanthrope human. Ie, a human Barbarian has 1d12 hit points plus Con. A werebear Barbarian has 1d12+6d8+(7xCon mod). That's a big difference in power, and a werebear adds +9 to his Challenge Rating (ie, a 1st level Barbarian is considered a 10th level character). A black bear, by contrast, has only 3HD; and the benefits of 'being a bear' are rather limited compared to being a Barbarian. A black bear is a CR 2, so it's not totally unreasonable to allow a Barbarian to 'turn into' a standard MM black bear. But turning him into a werebear is a whole different beast (no pun intended).
Very nice post. I'd just like to point out that I didn't just turn him into a werebear until about the end of the campaign. At level 16 it really didn't make a whole lot of change in the character. He didn't change his attack routine and the boost worked better than slapping a whole bunch of magic items on him.All in all it worked out without making an overwhelming difference for the character.
Quote from: jeff37923;560557I am willing to wait and let time tell. But it never lasts. Interestingly, even MGuy admitted that his game group lost some members and the others changed their playstyles away from brute force munchkinism and Monty Haul. I love how you just skipped over all that. Objective, indeed.
I never said my style was Monty Haul. That's been your assertion this entire time. But please, do keep only reading parts of my post so you can decorate your mind with imagined victories.
Quote from: Marleycat;560551I'll get back to you Deadman since you seem to love taking everything I say out of context when I have access to a computer. Which is too bad because you made sense until you called me out about others telling me my playstyle is objectively wrong.
I WAS WITH YOU FOOL. Until you called me out over their stupidity. I'll even keep it to a small paragraph or shorter for those that get pissed about wall of text posts that can be said in 4 sentences or less. Try it sometime.
Marley what you do/don't agree with is hard to follow. On one hand you seem like you wanna be reasonable on the other you take people like Benoist and jeff's arguments wholesale instead of distancing yourself from it. If you're going to distance yourself from their opinion you should post as much since you don't I can understand why he, and I, lump you in with them because you haven't posted to the contrary.
Quote from: jeff37923;560557I am willing to wait and let time tell. But it never lasts. Interestingly, even MGuy admitted that his game group lost some members and the others changed their playstyles away from brute force munchkinism and Monty Haul. I love how you just skipped over all that. Objective, indeed.
Except that MGuy had said that he let the Player be a werebear.
Go on, read the post again, I'll wait.
Regardless, still a brute force approach and still Monty Haul.
Don't be mean, that's my job. I am the Queen Bee and there's only only one bitch allowed on this thread. :)
You're a guy, you don't have the touch, sorry. ;)
Quote from: MGuy;560559I never said my style was Monty Haul. That's been your assertion this entire time. But please, do keep only reading parts of my post so you can decorate your mind with imagined victories.
I shall as long as you let me live rent free inside your head!
See, you don't have to admit that your style was Monty Haul, you described it perfectly when you started talking about giving your Players special characters when they could not brute force outfight their opponents. Instead, you should have tried to get them to use their brains and develop some tactics.
Why has there been no mention of the
My first 3.5 experience thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23442)?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560345The most "powerful" classes so far in combat were the fighter and barbarian. The fighter by far because he had plate mail and a shield and could never get hit, and both were dealing out more damage than anyone else. Maybe we'll see this big shift at higher levels. Who knows. But traditionally we retire characters long before they reach super high level (by name level in AD&D) so who knows. With 4 1st and 2 2nd level spells, I certainly didn't feel anywhere near as powerful as the other two. But I didn't dwell on it either. I noticed we paid more attention to the flavor of our characters rather than keeping track of who was better in what situation.
Quote from: Marleycat;560562Don't be mean, that's my job. I am the Queen Bee and there's only only one bitch allowed on this thread. :)
You're a guy, you don't have the touch, sorry. ;)
My apologies. I shall leave the castrating of these fine fellows to you. :)
Quote from: jeff37923;560563I shall as long as you let me live rent free inside your head!
See, you don't have to admit that your style was Monty Haul, you described it perfectly when you started talking about giving your Players special characters when they could not brute force outfight their opponents. Instead, you should have tried to get them to use their brains and develop some tactics.
I suppose you didn't read the bit about the Zombie Apocalypse then. That game was only 2 years ago. People's styles are pretty firmly set and yet people still had a lot of powers. An account that always comes up was how the Kender's raised zombie dragon fought a white dragon on the side of a cliff in that game.
Of course reading the whole post is beyond you so I wouldn't expect you to have picked up on that part.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;560548
Holy TL;DR Batman!
Quote from: Rum Cove;560564Why has there been no mention of the My first 3.5 experience thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23442)?
Probably because we can safely discount what people say about their games, if we don't like it? People who find wizards too powerful are told they're not doing it right - so people who find fighters are the big guns could be told the same I suppose?
Quote from: MGuy;560560Marley what you do/don't agree with is hard to follow. On one hand you seem like you wanna be reasonable on the other you take people like Benoist and jeff's arguments wholesale instead of distancing yourself from it. If you're going to distance yourself from their opinion you should post as much since you don't I can understand why he, and I, lump you in with them because you haven't posted to the contrary.
Three questions and a suggestion ..
1. You Deadman?
2. You actually know 3x?
3. You actually know or REALLY play/run any Dnd pre 3x?
4. Shut the fuck up and learn, even my posts have value if you get the sarcasm. Why should I need to explain the bullshit details of where I disagree with Jeff or Ben? I agree with the "meaning"of their argument, clear?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;560548Once again you've drawn a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premise.
Holy shit. I am not making those arguments. I was offering a framework for you to present your arguments. It's no wonder you suck at RPGs, you can't even grasp the basic idea of a normal paragraph.
I am going to have to charge you a good deal more than the usual $20 for tutoring. This will require starting over from just about square one for you with basic reading skills.
Quote from: Marleycat;560571Three questions and a suggestion ..
1. You Deadman?
2. You actually know 3x?
3. You actually know or REALLY play/run any Dnd pre 3x?
4. Shut the fuck up and learn, even my posts have value if you get the sarcasm. Why should I need to explain the bullshit details of where I disagree with Jeff or Ben? I agree with the "meaning"of their argument, clear?
So with that stalwart "No" for distancing yourself from idiocy I take it you don't mind me lumping you in with the others. No you don't "need" to explain yourself but if you don't then it is unreasonable to get pissy when other people misunderstand you. Marley you yourself haven't made one post on the topic at hand that was helpful or insightful. You've either parroted what other people have said or agreed with the premise laid down about 3rd. And that's between bouts of circle jerking.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;560548This is certainly a possibility. And it's true that a Fighter is worth more than a self-destructive wizard. Some assumptions about the ability of a character to use their abilities effectively have got to be made. Because if nobody uses their abilities effectively, none of the classes are capable of effectively neutralizing 'level-appropriate' enemies. That said, it's not required to assume that a Wizard has one or a few specific spells - it's only required to assume that it likely that a wizard have access to any one of similar spells. For example, there are more than one 'save-or-die' spell. To discuss 'save-or-die', you don't have to presume that a wizard has access to every such spell in the core books and/or supplementary material - but if they have a reasonable chance of having access to at least one, the observations you make about save-or-die in general have some validity. If there were only a single save-or-die, or even 'save-or-suck', such an assumption might not be valid - but considering the wide variety of spells that fill this role, it'd be unreasonable to assume that a wizard will not have access to at least one - unless the DM has removed them or modified them in his or her game.
What? No, you've actually missed what I was trying to say. I'm not arguing that SoD spells don't exist, I'm explaining that their value diminishes as save bonuses increase. Non-core you can expect saves (particularly Fort) to just increase as more prestige classes, magical items, feats and whatnot appear. Monsters fall behind a bit, but the party of somewhat twinked characters generates so much damage that the monsters are probably advanced to hell to compete, and will fail a fortitude save only very rarely.
Anyway: I will admit, that its harder to build a really crazily powerful fighter in 3E, and that if we're the system could make that a bit easier. I'm not swayed so much by any of the arguments in the thread so much as being broken by another player in an online game at the moment, whose L4 fighter is a city guardsman with Blind-Fight, Run, Weapon Focus: grapple (his 6 Dex didn't let him pick up Improved Grapple) and some cross-class skills in Spot and so on. He's someone I played 2E with mostly, and I'd forgotten what it was like playing 3E with of the variety of player who don't spend all their time munchkining out with quintuple damage dragon riding charge lance monsters or thri-kreen multiweapon fighting soul eaters that drain 16 levels/round.
I still don't agree at all with any of the arguments about fighters being worse than wizards in older editions (and don't see much point arguing it with you people for the most part).
Incidentally, I haven't been really following the bear side of the conversation but there's a prestige class in 3E that lets your barbarian turn into a bear (Bear Warrior). High level Berserkers in 2E (Complete Viking class) could do this as well.
Man. The honey niceness to catch a few flies disappeared fast.
Quote from: StormBringer;560573Holy shit. I am not making those arguments. I was offering a framework for you to present your arguments. It's no wonder you suck at RPGs, you can't even grasp the basic idea of a normal paragraph.
I know
you weren't making those arguments. You were suggesting that they would be a 'logical framework' around which to build
my argument. I pointed out that they a) weren't logical and b) were built off false premises that differed from my stated beliefs.
If I had
used the arguments that you suggested I use, we'd both be calling me a dumbass right now. But since I didn't, I'll exclude myself from that and simply call you a dumbass.
Quote from: Marleycat;560551I'll get back to you Deadman since you seem to love taking everything I say out of context when I have access to a computer. Which is too bad because you made sense until you called me out about others telling me my playstyle is objectively wrong.
I'll look forward to that. In short, I meant to offense whether you're 'with me' or not. Some people (Jeff particularly) have indicated it would be better if some people posting in this thread were to leave permanently - and it appeared you agreed with him. Whether that was meant to include me or not, I just wanted to point out - in all sincerity - that if RPGPundit would prefer I leave, I don't mind going. And disagreement is not meant to be 'shitting in your living room'... Again, I couldn't tell which parts you were referring to with those comments - but I didn't want to fail to address it.
Quote from: Fifth Element;560568Holy TL;DR Batman!
I don't mind being called wrong. I don't mind being called a dumbass. But never let it be said that I'm not willing to be considerate* in my reply.
*Using the 2nd definition from dictionary.com:
carefully considered; deliberate.
Quote from: Benoist;560577Man. The honey niceness to catch a few flies disappeared fast.
Presuming this refers to me...
I have not tried to be 'honey nice' in this thread (haven't you noticed how many times I've called Stormbringer a dumbass), but I submit that it is likely considering the length of the post that the tone might have come out more 'negatively' than I intended. When I feel pressed for time, I tend to be more 'matter-of-fact', and with electronic communication particularly, it tends to sound much harsher than I meant.
Quote from: MGuy;560575So with that stalwart "No" for distancing yourself from idiocy I take it you don't mind me lumping you in with the others. No you don't "need" to explain yourself but if you don't then it is unreasonable to get pissy when other people misunderstand you. Marley you yourself haven't made one post on the topic at hand that was helpful or insightful. You've either parroted what other people have said or agreed with the premise laid down about 3rd. And that's between bouts of circle jerking.
Wow. I must be doing something wrong for you to "lump" me into guys that game more in a week than I do in a month. Good job excuse me while I laugh.
Dumbfuck, yeah you Mguy. I am the "excluded middle" get it?
Quote from: Benoist;560577Man. The honey niceness to catch a few flies disappeared fast.
Fuck you and your hat. This is typical RPGsite and you love it.
I confess that I have not read this thread, but here are my thoughts on this subject:
If you think the Fighter is underpowered it doesn't affect me and I don't really care, but I offer the following possibilities for consideration:
1. Don't play one.
2. Switch to a system where Fighters are as powerful you as want.
3. House-rule your game so Fighters are as exalted as you like.
(This post can be made much more interesting if you add the phrase "...and shut the fuck up" to the end of each of the above options.)
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;560585My thoughts on this subject:
If you think the Fighter is underpowered it doesn't affect me and I don't really care, but I offer the following possibilities for consideration:
1. Don't play one.
2. Switch to a system where Fighters are as powerful you as want.
3. House-rule your game so Fighters are as exalted as you like.
(This post can be made much more interesting if you add the phrase "...and shut the fuck up" to the end of each of the above options.)
Can I? With your permission? No. I respect you because you actually know Dnd. But could I just this time? Please? Doing a 4 point "fuck you would be fun.
Quote from: Marleycat;560587Can I? With your permission? No. I respect you because you actually know Dnd. But could I just this time? Please?
I'll consider it.
Looking at it, again, sorry for the threadcrap. Too many pints can make me twitchy.
Quote from: Marleycat;560584Fuck you and your hat. This is typical RPGsite and you love it.
I know, that's what I find hilarious about it: DeadDM and MGuy trying to pretend the last 300 pages just didn't happen somehow to then sound all nice and charming while basically maneuvering their way to gather support amongst the people they see as "the weakest links" and repeat the same inane bullshit they've been blathering about all along. And lo and behold, when you tell them "lul WTF are you serious?!" The venom comes rushing back to their mouths.
Quote from: Marleycat;560582Wow. I must be doing something wrong for you to "lump" me into guys that game more in a week than I do in a month. Good job excuse me while I laugh.
Dumbfuck, yeah you Mguy. I am the "excluded middle" get it?
The fact that you have no insight on the matter doesn't make you an excluded middle. You argued with me and others about 3rd for several pages ignoring the fact that you were basically agreeing with the premise that the imbalance exists and should be fixed. Then, once you realized what you were doing you hopped on the "there was no problem in pre 3e boat". You have not, and I've been waiting for it, provided any actual deep insight about the imbalance between fighters/wizards that wasn't either you agreeing with someone else's argument (IE: Benoist's, Storm's, etc) or you circle jerking with mentioned posters. Seriously for the last 3000 + posts you haven't made a single valid point at all. The most "concrete" thing you've done is talk about changing your avatar and made "denners" a derogatory term for yourself.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;560585I confess that I have not read this thread, but here are my thoughts on this subject:
If you think the Fighter is underpowered it doesn't affect me and I don't really care, but I offer the following possibilities for consideration:
1. Don't play one.
2. Switch to a system where Fighters are as powerful you as want.
3. House-rule your game so Fighters are as exalted as you like.
(This post can be made much more interesting if you add the phrase "...and shut the fuck up" to the end of each of the above options.)
Please read the thread. All of these points have been approached before. If you do 1 it doesn't change the imbalance. 2 is avoiding the argument. 3 is admitting that there is imbalance and doing something about it and means that you disagree with the premise that the imbalance doesn't exist.
Quote from: MGuy;560607You argued with me and others about 3rd for several pages ignoring the fact that you were basically agreeing with the premise that the imbalance exists and should be fixed.
Actually, it was more like noting that there was an imbalance and being OK with that imbalance.
This kind of shit only gets in the way on the internet, it hardly ever comes up in Actual Play.
No character is formed in a vacuum. I want to present a character that could be a 'representative' Fighter. Since it's possible that I'll be considered to have a vested interest in making the Fighter appear weaker than he should be, I present all of this information for you to review and suggest any impropriety or suggestions to 'improve' the character while still keeping true to the 'player's intention'.
After I work out a few other 'sample characters', I'll probably post some thoughts about how they could interact with the game-world in a new thread (but I'll link to it here).
I'm particularly interested to know if you think this is a sufficiently 'organic' character, and if it passes the 'smell test' for something you'd expect to see in play.
Jian
The player in this case was inspired by the 'hook sword' he was first exposed to in Deadliest Warrior.
After discussing the point of inspiration, the player worked out some background with the DM for his character, Jian. While the hooksword is a 'real world' weapon, the DM could not find any useful game information on them – he decided to work out the weapon rules with the player. This is the result:
Hooksword Light Exotic weapon; 1d6/19-20/x2
A hooksword is a slashing weapon with a backward curving blade forming a hook. The weapon is usually used in tandem. When using a hooksword, you get a +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an enemy (including the opposed attack roll to avoid being disarmed if such an attempt fails). You can also use this weapon to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the dire flail to avoid being tripped. If you are using two hookswords you can, as a swift action, join them together forming a reach weapon. You gain no other benefit of fighting with two-weapons (treat this as a single weapon for all purposes).
The following is campaign-world information that may have little bearing, but is provided for reference:
The campaign will be in a primarily 'western European' flavored fantasy world, but the DM's world does include an Asiatic area. An Empire (loosely based on Ancient China) was divided between six siblings ages ago. Since that time, the Kingdoms have fought numerous wars. One such Kingdom, ruled from the Jade Throne, is known for a royal guard that use the hooksword as their primary weapon. Another kingdom, whose leadership was focused on the necromantic arts, was defeated by a coalition of four of the kingdoms, but at great cost. The Blood King, so called because of his ruby throne, did not join the coalition, but instead turned on the other kingdoms, swallowing up two of them and the remains of the necromantic kingdom. The Kingdom of the Jade Throne survived the onslaught, but the casualties were enormous. Neither side could continue the struggle, and were forced to accept a tenuous peace while waiting for a new generation of warriors to mature.
Jian's father survived the war, but not without losing his leg, and nearly his life. Unwilling to see his children forced into the conflict when they were old enough, he abandoned his old life, and his honor, to flee to western lands. Jian was too young to understand most of this, but it may become relevant in later play.
Jian and his father grew up in a small town of around 750 people. Jian's father was skilled at weapon smithing, so even without a leg, he runs a thriving business. He also trains the local militia, and teaches anyone who is willing to learn the intricacies of some of the exotic weapons from his homeland.
In part because finding hookswords will be difficult in this campaign, and partly because the DM objects to 'magic-marts', Jian's player and the DM have agreed that Jian will have a chance to 'upgrade' his weapons during play, but he is unlikely to find new weapons 'lying around'. At high level, he may seek special weapons within the Kingdom of the Jade Throne – but only if the campaign goes that far. Jian's Player (and the other players) don't like the idea of looting bodies (Jian thinks that worrying about mere money is more suited to merchants than a mighty warrior like himself), which is fine by the DM. He plans for the campaign to largely focus on intrigue between two (nominally good) kingdoms, with a war brewing between them due to a variety of misunderstandings. The players are looking forward to this type of game, and have all made characters to fit. If they're successful, their patron will be able to enchant their weapons and armor, and if provided 'special materials', may be able to make 'specialty items' on demand.
For example, to make a ring of invisibility, he will require the blood of an Invisible Stalker. By tying item creation to special materials, the DM is not restricted to the 'normal caps' for weapon creation (for example, normally a caster must be 15th level to make a +5 weapon) – he has decided to make an 'artificer class' who can make more items than normal without being an 'uber-wizard', which would be bad for the game. This will ensure that items in the game are either a) found in play, b) approved by the DM or c) have difficulties put in place due to the special materials – ie, a ring of invisibility requires defeating a CR 7 creature, so it is unlikely that providing the right materials would be possible before the PCs are of an approximate level that the item is 'intended for'.
Because the DM is pleased with the character backstory and knows that wealth will be lower than a standard game, he is willing to give the players better than normal starting equipment. Jian starts with two masterwork hookswords and his father's armor – a suit of MW Lamellar (from Oriental Adventures).
Jian at 1st level
Male human Fighter 1: CR 1; Medium humanoid (human);
HD 1d10+1; 11 hp; Init +2; Spd 20ft. (4 squares);
AC 17 (+2 Dex, +5 Armor), 12 touch, 15 flat-footed;
BAB/Grapple +1/+3;
Atk +4 melee (1d6+2/19-20x2, MW hooksword);
Full atk +2/+2 melee (1d6+2/19-20x2, MW hookswords);
SA -; SQ -; AL LN;
SV Fort +3, Reflex +2, Will +0;
Str 14, Dex 15, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 8.
Skills: Handle Animal +3, Intimidate +3, Ride +6, Swim* +0;
Feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Languages: Common, Ta'Thien
Possessions: MW Lamellar Armor, MW Hooksword (x2), backpack, flint and steel, traveler's outfit, waterskin, whetstone.
Armor check penalty: -3
* Includes Armor Check penalty
Notes: Abilities use the elite array, which corresponds to a 25-point buy. I used the elite array in part because 'resources allocation' may favor some classes over others (primarily casters by pumping their primary stat). In order to avoid any accusation of 'being unfair' in the comparison, I think using the same array for the several characters makes the most sense. In order to qualify for interesting Feats like Improved Trip he needed a 13 Intelligence; for the two-weapon fighting tree, Dexterity is paramount.
Jian would have loved to take Weapon Focus at 1st level, but just didn't have the Feats available. Since he wanted it primarily to qualify for Weapon Specialization, he figured he had time, and being able to trip people is a more interesting tactical option.
Jian at 10th level
Male human Fighter 10: CR 10; Medium humanoid (human);
HD 10d10+10; 69 hp; Init +5; Spd 20ft. (4 squares);
AC 21 (+3 Dex, +7 Armor, +1 Natural), 13 touch, 18 flat-footed;
BAB/Grapple +10/+12;
Atk +18 melee (2d6+5/17-20x2, +1 flaming hooksword or +1 frost hooksword) or +13 melee (1d8+2/20x2, unarmed strike) or +16 ranged (1d8+3/20x3, +1 dragon bane composite longbow;
Full atk +18/+13 melee (2d6+5/17-20x2, +1 flaming hooksword or +1 frost hooksword) or +16/+16/+11/+11 melee (2d6+5/19-20x2, +1 flaming hooksword and +1 frost hooksword) or +16/+11 ranged (1d8+3/20x3, +1 dragon bane composite longbow;
SA -; SQ -; AL LN;
SV Fort +8, Reflex +5, Will +3;
Str 14, Dex 21, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 8.
Skills: Handle Animal +12, Intimidate +12, Ride +16, Swim* +9;
Feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, Improved Critical, Greater Weapon Focus, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Unarmed Strike, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Specialization.
Languages: Common, Ta'Thien
Possessions: +2 Lamellar Armor, +1 flaming hooksword, +1 frost hooksword, +1 dragon bane composite longbow (Str +2), gloves of dexterity +4, ring of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +1, potion of cure light wounds [x2], potion of cure moderate wounds, arrows [20], alchemical-silver arrows [20], cold iron arrows [20], backpack, flint and steel, traveler's outfit, waterskin, whetstone & miscellaneous equipment worth 400 gp (variety.
Armor check penalty: -3
*Includes armor check penalty
Notes: Jian's player liked the idea of being able to use unarmed strikes. Since he's going for something of a 'martial artist' specializing in hooked swords, but he wasn't interested in the 'spiritual elements' of a monk, the DM decided that for this campaign, anyone who takes Improved Unarmed Strike does unarmed damage like a monk of 4 levels lower. The expected wealth a this level is 49,000 – the DM didn't count the value of starting equipment when determining what 'rewards' Jian would be able to claim from his adventuring patron. Even with that, this is actually 6 gp over the 'suggested wealth', since he ran up to the limit before buying arrows.
Tactics: Jian enjoys using his unarmed strike to initiate a disarm attempt – while he doesn't benefit from the +2 his weapon provides, if he fails, he cannot be disarmed instead. Jian exclusively uses his feet for 'unarmed strikes', so he literally kicks the weapon out of people's hands. If he successfully disarms an opponent, he will usually try to trip them, allowing him to get a better attack bonus against them and possibly forcing them to provoke. Against monsters that either don't use normal weapons or have more than two legs, Jian relies on getting in close and making as many attacks as possible.
No character is formed in a vacuum. I want to present a character that could be a 'representative' Fighter. Since it's possible that I'll be considered to have a vested interest in making the Fighter appear weaker than he should be, I present all of this information for you to review and suggest any impropriety or suggestions to 'improve' the character while still keeping true to the 'player's intention'.
After I work out a few other 'sample characters', I'll probably post some thoughts about how they could interact with the game-world in a new thread (but I'll link to it here).
I'm particularly interested to know if you think this is a sufficiently 'organic' character, and if it passes the 'smell test' for something you'd expect to see in play.
Jian
The player in this case was inspired by the 'hook sword' he was first exposed to in Deadliest Warrior.
After discussing the point of inspiration, the player worked out some background with the DM for his character, Jian. While the hooksword is a 'real world' weapon, the DM could not find any useful game information on them – he decided to work out the weapon rules with the player. This is the result:
Hooksword Light Exotic weapon; 1d6/19-20/x2
A hooksword is a slashing weapon with a backward curving blade forming a hook. The weapon is usually used in tandem. When using a hooksword, you get a +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an enemy (including the opposed attack roll to avoid being disarmed if such an attempt fails). You can also use this weapon to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the dire flail to avoid being tripped. If you are using two hookswords you can, as a swift action, join them together forming a reach weapon. You gain no other benefit of fighting with two-weapons (treat this as a single weapon for all purposes).
The following is campaign-world information that may have little bearing, but is provided for reference:
The campaign will be in a primarily 'western European' flavored fantasy world, but the DM's world does include an Asiatic area. An Empire (loosely based on Ancient China) was divided between six siblings ages ago. Since that time, the Kingdoms have fought numerous wars. One such Kingdom, ruled from the Jade Throne, is known for a royal guard that use the hooksword as their primary weapon. Another kingdom, whose leadership was focused on the necromantic arts, was defeated by a coalition of four of the kingdoms, but at great cost. The Blood King, so called because of his ruby throne, did not join the coalition, but instead turned on the other kingdoms, swallowing up two of them and the remains of the necromantic kingdom. The Kingdom of the Jade Throne survived the onslaught, but the casualties were enormous. Neither side could continue the struggle, and were forced to accept a tenuous peace while waiting for a new generation of warriors to mature.
Jian's father survived the war, but not without losing his leg, and nearly his life. Unwilling to see his children forced into the conflict when they were old enough, he abandoned his old life, and his honor, to flee to western lands. Jian was too young to understand most of this, but it may become relevant in later play.
Jian and his father grew up in a small town of around 750 people. Jian's father was skilled at weapon smithing, so even without a leg, he runs a thriving business. He also trains the local militia, and teaches anyone who is willing to learn the intricacies of some of the exotic weapons from his homeland.
In part because finding hookswords will be difficult in this campaign, and partly because the DM objects to 'magic-marts', Jian's player and the DM have agreed that Jian will have a chance to 'upgrade' his weapons during play, but he is unlikely to find new weapons 'lying around'. At high level, he may seek special weapons within the Kingdom of the Jade Throne – but only if the campaign goes that far. Jian's Player (and the other players) don't like the idea of looting bodies (Jian thinks that worrying about mere money is more suited to merchants than a mighty warrior like himself), which is fine by the DM. He plans for the campaign to largely focus on intrigue between two (nominally good) kingdoms, with a war brewing between them due to a variety of misunderstandings. The players are looking forward to this type of game, and have all made characters to fit. If they're successful, their patron will be able to enchant their weapons and armor, and if provided 'special materials', may be able to make 'specialty items' on demand.
For example, to make a ring of invisibility, he will require the blood of an Invisible Stalker. By tying item creation to special materials, the DM is not restricted to the 'normal caps' for weapon creation (for example, normally a caster must be 15th level to make a +5 weapon) – he has decided to make an 'artificer class' who can make more items than normal without being an 'uber-wizard', which would be bad for the game. This will ensure that items in the game are either a) found in play, b) approved by the DM or c) have difficulties put in place due to the special materials – ie, a ring of invisibility requires defeating a CR 7 creature, so it is unlikely that providing the right materials would be possible before the PCs are of an approximate level that the item is 'intended for'.
Because the DM is pleased with the character backstory and knows that wealth will be lower than a standard game, he is willing to give the players better than normal starting equipment. Jian starts with two masterwork hookswords and his father's armor – a suit of MW Lamellar (from Oriental Adventures). In addition, the DM has decided that Jian will have 'weapon familiarity' with the hooksword, meaning he can treat it as a martial weapon, instead of an exotic weapon.
Jian at 1st level
Male human Fighter 1: CR 1; Medium humanoid (human);
HD 1d10+1; 11 hp; Init +2; Spd 20ft. (4 squares);
AC 17 (+2 Dex, +5 Armor), 12 touch, 15 flat-footed;
BAB/Grapple +1/+3;
Atk +4 melee (1d6+2/19-20x2, MW hooksword);
Full atk +2/+2 melee (1d6+2/19-20x2, MW hookswords);
SA -; SQ -; AL LN;
SV Fort +3, Reflex +2, Will +0;
Str 14, Dex 15, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 8.
Skills: Handle Animal +3, Intimidate +3, Ride +6, Swim* +0;
Feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Two-Weapon Fighting.
Languages: Common, Ta'Thien
Possessions: MW Lamellar Armor, MW Hooksword (x2), backpack, flint and steel, traveler's outfit, waterskin, whetstone.
Armor check penalty: -3
* Includes Armor Check penalty
Notes: Abilities use the elite array, which corresponds to a 25-point buy. I used the elite array in part because 'resources allocation' may favor some classes over others (primarily casters by pumping their primary stat). In order to avoid any accusation of 'being unfair' in the comparison, I think using the same array for the several characters makes the most sense. In order to qualify for interesting Feats like Improved Trip he needed a 13 Intelligence; for the two-weapon fighting tree, Dexterity is paramount.
Jian would have loved to take Weapon Focus at 1st level, but just didn't have the Feats available. Since he wanted it primarily to qualify for Weapon Specialization, he figured he had time, and being able to trip people is a more interesting tactical option.
Jian at 10th level
Male human Fighter 10: CR 10; Medium humanoid (human);
HD 10d10+10; 69 hp; Init +5; Spd 20ft. (4 squares);
AC 21 (+3 Dex, +7 Armor, +1 Natural), 13 touch, 18 flat-footed;
BAB/Grapple +10/+12;
Atk +18 melee (2d6+5/17-20x2, +1 flaming hooksword or +1 frost hooksword) or +13 melee (1d8+2/20x2, unarmed strike) or +16 ranged (1d8+3/20x3, +1 dragon bane composite longbow;
Full atk +18/+13 melee (2d6+5/17-20x2, +1 flaming hooksword or +1 frost hooksword) or +16/+16/+11/+11 melee (2d6+5/19-20x2, +1 flaming hooksword and +1 frost hooksword) or +16/+11 ranged (1d8+3/20x3, +1 dragon bane composite longbow;
SA -; SQ -; AL LN;
SV Fort +8, Reflex +5, Will +3;
Str 14, Dex 21, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 8.
Skills: Handle Animal +12, Intimidate +12, Ride +16, Swim* +9;
Feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, Improved Critical, Greater Weapon Focus, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Unarmed Strike, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Specialization.
Languages: Common, Ta'Thien
Possessions: +2 Lamellar Armor, +1 flaming hooksword, +1 frost hooksword, +1 dragon bane composite longbow (Str +2), gloves of dexterity +4, ring of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +1, potion of cure light wounds [x2], potion of cure moderate wounds, arrows [20], alchemical-silver arrows [20], cold iron arrows [20], backpack, flint and steel, traveler's outfit, waterskin, whetstone & miscellaneous equipment worth 400 gp (variety.
Armor check penalty: -3
*Includes armor check penalty
Notes: Jian's player liked the idea of being able to use unarmed strikes. Since he's going for something of a 'martial artist' specializing in hooked swords, but he wasn't interested in the 'spiritual elements' of a monk, the DM decided that for this campaign, anyone who takes Improved Unarmed Strike does unarmed damage like a monk of 4 levels lower. The expected wealth a this level is 49,000 – the DM didn't count the value of starting equipment when determining what 'rewards' Jian would be able to claim from his adventuring patron. Even with that, this is actually 6 gp over the 'suggested wealth', since he ran up to the limit before buying arrows.
Tactics: Jian enjoys using his unarmed strike to initiate a disarm attempt – while he doesn't benefit from the +2 his weapon provides, if he fails, he cannot be disarmed instead. Jian exclusively uses his feet for 'unarmed strikes', so he literally kicks the weapon out of people's hands. If he successfully disarms an opponent, he will usually try to trip them, allowing him to get a better attack bonus against them and possibly forcing them to provoke. Against monsters that either don't use normal weapons or have more than two legs, Jian relies on getting in close and making as many attacks as possible.
Quote from: MGuy;560607The fact that you have no insight on the matter doesn't make you an excluded middle. You argued with me and others about 3rd for several pages ignoring the fact that you were basically agreeing with the premise that the imbalance exists and should be fixed. Then, once you realized what you were doing you hopped on the "there was no problem in pre 3e boat". You have not, and I've been waiting for it, provided any actual deep insight about the imbalance between fighters/wizards that wasn't either you agreeing with someone else's argument (IE: Benoist's, Storm's, etc) or you circle jerking with mentioned posters. Seriously for the last 3000 + posts you haven't made a single valid point at all. The most "concrete" thing you've done is talk about changing your avatar and made "denners" a derogatory term for yourself.
Wow, keep digging that hole. Also keep insulting me it should work out well for you. Trust me.
Quote from: jeff37923;560612Actually, it was more like noting that there was an imbalance and being OK with that imbalance.
This kind of shit only gets in the way on the internet, it hardly ever comes up in Actual Play.
You aren't drinking enough! Seriously aren't you mad by now? Or is this part of my plan to make this the longest and greatest thread ever?
Quote from: Marleycat;560616You aren't drinking enough! Seriously aren't you mad by now? Or is this part of my plan to make this the longest and greatest thread ever?
Er, sorry to be a killjoy, but if you do a sort by number of replies/descending you'll find "Orcs = Genocidal Colonial Endorsement" was only 1862 posts; that's the previous record. We're hit the Earth's core and are tunnelling through to the other side at this point.
Quote from: Marleycat;560616You aren't drinking enough! Seriously aren't you mad by now? Or is this part of my plan to make this the longest and greatest thread ever?
Circle jerkin' like a champ. You've got some well oiled wrists. I best not point out that you're circle jerkin' though. You might take offense.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;560578I know you weren't making those arguments. You were suggesting that they would be a 'logical framework' around which to build my argument. I pointed out that they a) weren't logical and b) were built off false premises that differed from my stated beliefs.
If I had used the arguments that you suggested I use, we'd both be calling me a dumbass right now. But since I didn't, I'll exclude myself from that and simply call you a dumbass.
Ok, let's look at your arguments, then.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;560548P1: Classes should be relatively balanced against each other
P2: The Fighter class is weaker than every other class, and is therefore unbalanced.
P3: Classes that are not balanced (ie, greatly weaker or greatly stronger) should be removed from the game
C: The Fighter should be removed from the game.
However, while I agree with P1 and P2, I have not asserted P3. In my personal opinion, it should be:
P3: Any class that is not balanced (ie, greatly weaker or greatly stronger) should be modified to bring it in line with the balance of the other classes
C: The Fighter should be modified to make it approximately as strong as the other classes.
To tidy things up a bit:
P1: Classes should be relatively balanced against each other
P2: The Fighter class is weaker than every other class, and is therefore unbalanced.
P3: Any class that is not balanced (ie, greatly weaker or greatly stronger) should be modified to bring it in line with the balance of the other classes
C: The Fighter should be modified to make it approximately as strong as the other classes.
Simply making an assertion does not automatically create a valid premise, which, if you remember, is the requirement for a valid argument. A premise should generally be a true or false statement.
P1 is absolutely a statement of preference. It is not possible to assign a truth value, which is evident in the statement itself due to the word "should". Additionally, 'balance' is highly ambiguous in this context. You have been repeatedly told that both 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D balanced characters across all levels, while later editions increasingly balanced characters against each other at very specific points; ie at the same level. Since this premise is not valid, it can't be used to support the conclusion.
P2 is similarly a statement of preference, and the second part does not follow from the first. At first level, AD&D Magic-Users are weaker than every other class as well, but they have great power at higher levels; hence, they are balanced. Just not in a fashion you are comfortable with. Even if we allow that Fighters are weaker than every other class (which I don't), that doesn't automatically make them 'unbalanced'. You would need to show that separately. This premise is not even internally consistent, so it can't possibly support the conclusion.
P3 isn't really a premise, it would be the conclusion of the first two, if we agreed those were valid, which I don't. And again, this is a statement of preference, owing to the "should" in this statement as well. As with the previous premise, the truth value can't be determined, so it also cannot support the conclusion.
Speaking of the conclusion, this is the only place you want to put a "should", because this is ultimately the action for which you should be arguing. In this case, however, you haven't made any mention in the premises about how "strong" any given class is or should be. You don't want to be adding new statements in the conclusion. The premises aren't valid, and even if the conclusion was well formed, it couldn't be true based on those statements.
Here's how your statements
should have read:
P1: Classes are relatively balanced against each other
P2: The Fighter class is unbalanced.
C
1: Any class that is not balanced should be modified to bring it in line with the balance of the other classes
or,
C
2: The Fighter should be modified to bring it in line with the balance of the other classes.
These premises are still not valid, and neither conclusion can be drawn from them, but at least the form is correct.
Regardless, first conclusion is actually the more useful one, as it would apply in any situation, where the second one is only arguing for the Fighter; while the present argument revolves around the Fighter, general conclusions are still better than specific conclusions.
There's your $20 worth of free lessons. I mean, MGuy took off for the hills, so I guess I have to at least give you credit for making the attempt. I would advise some personal study time before trying again, however.
Quote from: MGuy;560618Circle jerkin' like a champ. You've got some well oiled wrists. I best not point out that you're circle jerkin' though. You might take offense.
You do know what my actual purpose is? Keep it coming hon. Dig that hole also. Because it entertains me.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;560614No character is formed in a vacuum. I want to present a character that could be a 'representative' Fighter.
Thanks, that's helpful for seeing how you picture things. Offhand, it looks reasonable. I'd expect at least a little more powerful magic weapons - but it doesn't seem majorly off.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;560617Er, sorry to be a killjoy, but if you do a sort by number of replies/descending you'll find "Orcs = Genocidal Colonial Endorsement" was only 1862 posts; that's the previous record. We're hit the Earth's core and are tunnelling through to the other side at this point.
What's remarkable to me is that it keeps coming back to the actual topic.
Also, a curious thing is that many old-school-ish posters and Gaming Den posters have similar complaints about 3.X rules being poorly thought out and giving excessive power to spell-casters. Despite actual agreement on this key point, though, the battle lines remain sharply drawn.
Quote from: Rum Cove;560526Why not double hand choke the Wizard to death?
Still an initiaive roll though eh. Speed factor 1 for the spell speed factor 1 for the open hand attack. MU has a 50% chance of winning.
I mean if the figther was armoured then the wizard could of course run away at Mvmnt rate 12" whilst the Fighter chased him at Mvment rate 6" but since that would be an initiative roll as well I'd go for the spell.
:D
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;560585I confess that I have not read this thread, but here are my thoughts on this subject:
If you think the Fighter is underpowered it doesn't affect me and I don't really care, but I offer the following possibilities for consideration:
1. Don't play one.
2. Switch to a system where Fighters are as powerful you as want.
3. House-rule your game so Fighters are as exalted as you like.
(This post can be made much more interesting if you add the phrase "...and shut the fuck up" to the end of each of the above options.)
No, no, NO! The whole point is for you to
understand that your AD&D game is
objectively wrong and flawed (even if I've never played it). Then once you submit you must agree to the jihad/crusade to petition any new version -- perhaps like 5e -- into "The One True Way." My logic is empirical because it uses numbers!:pundit:
/sarcasm (sign for the humor impaired)
Quote from: StormBringer;560621P1 is absolutely a statement of preference. It is not possible to assign a truth value, which is evident in the statement itself due to the word "should". Additionally, 'balance' is highly ambiguous in this context. You have been repeatedly told that both 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D balanced characters across all levels, while later editions increasingly balanced characters against each other at very specific points; ie at the same level. Since this premise is not valid, it can't be used to support the conclusion.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I and a number of others have said that in our experience, AD&D made spellcasters (magic-users in particular) weaker than other classes at low levels but increasingly more powerful as they got higher in level. Taking a magic user took a while to pay off, but it did later on. Is that what you meant by "balanced across all levels"? If so, what is the contrast?
On the other hand, other people who also had AD&D experience have said different things.
The same goes for 3.X - there are a few people who have said that they have played a fighter at high level in 3.X with no problems.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560632Still an initiaive roll though eh. Speed factor 1 for the spell speed factor 1 for the open hand attack. MU has a 50% chance of winning.
I mean if the figther was armoured then the wizard could of course run away at Mvmnt rate 12" whilst the Fighter chased him at Mvment rate 6" but since that would be an initiative roll as well I'd go for the spell.
:D
The MU only has a chance if he's not actually denuded -- this includes his memorized spells. He's still assumed armed in your scenario, thus disqualified. If you are going to let the MU have any spells memorized, then the fighter is allowed to have multiple magic items and weapons secreted on his person and have a loyal cadre backing him up running covering support.
So which is it? Is the MU truly naked like the fighter? Or is he only as naked as you conveniently like, with a secret stash of perfectly situation-convenient, memorized, zero-component spells? You only get to pick one. Choose carefully if you want to have an honest discussion...
This is great. We have old/middle/new school tearing into each other
This is almost as good as the mage wars. Dance my monkeys dance. Your Queen Bee is intrigued. :)
Oh I know Jibba is having a bit of intraforum coup counting. I don't know why, but whatever. It's not like any of this matters; if your D&D fighters need wires and CG for flying street fighter fu, more power to you.
But it is annoyingly pedantic to say what I played in my AD&D games was obviously a fevered delusion of false contentment. My games are fine when I use the rules (guidelines) within their small sphere and then work with the rest of the manifold contextual product. Since nothing operated in a void in my games (or the "white room" arena), player solutions to problems were more involved than finding the hot button on a character sheet that's the Big Bad Evil Guy's weakness.
Hearing complaints about "where's my 'win button/uber combo?'" and "nuh-uh, that's no 'win button/uber combo' that's just using the control pad and regular attacks to win! Lamexorz!" is trying to my patience. Didn't liked the whinging in hard video games -- though I do understand balance being an issue in a game with constrained potential. However I never liked it in ttrpgs; a game with nigh-infinite responses to problems shouldn't lead to cries of 'i no get to play/win, teh suxxorz!' unless something is going very, very wrong.
Remember how large the roleplaying sections were in 2e Complete books (the Fighter one is a large chapter, IIRC)? It's like there's more to the game than stat lines or something...
Quote from: Opaopajr;560635The MU only has a chance if he's not actually denuded -- this includes his memorized spells. He's still assumed armed in your scenario, thus disqualified. If you are going to let the MU have any spells memorized, then the fighter is allowed to have multiple magic items and weapons secreted on his person and have a loyal cadre backing him up running covering support.
So which is it? Is the MU truly naked like the fighter? Or is he only as naked as you conveniently like, with a secret stash of perfectly situation-convenient, memorized, zero-component spells? You only get to pick one. Choose carefully if you want to have an honest discussion...
In that case you are toally correct. In an arena scenario where the fighter and wizard both have no memories, preparation and no weapons or equipment the Fighter through the benefit of his higher hit points and better THACO will win.
Now I hasten to add that I didn't design this scenario and neither combatant were naked. The situation merely was 'if neither of them are buffed and they are adjacent in an arena who would win'.
I didn't complain that a high level wizard would typically buff himself as casually as you or I might clean our teeth in the morning, I did't draw attention to his nested contingencies or the possibility that he might have prepared magic items to protect himself. I accepted the scenario as it was presented. In addtion I limited myself to 4th level spells, Dimension Door and Dig and I tackled the scenario with no reference to books , so as to prohibit me from perusing tomes of magic to fine some obsure Bigby spell from Greyhawk that may have been more effective. I didn't even complain that the original scenario had started both combatants adjacent deliberately to help the fighter rather than have them emerging from either end of a dark tunnel to the beat of a thousand drums which of course would be terribly unfair.
But if you want to change the initial scenario to one in which both combatants have had their memories wiped and all their equipment removed then I conceed the Wizard is no match for a fighter in bare knuckle hand to hand combat. Which is critial to actual play as it occurs so often.
In the 150 odd posts since I went to bed, MGuy asked me for a high level encounter the Fighter could participate in.
Here ya go, sweetie.
Iron Golem, CR 13.
Two Iron Golems CR 14*
Four Iron Golems CR 15*
Need higher and don't feel like cluttering your table with 8 or more monsters?
Greater Stone Golem CR 16
That was the first thing that came to my mind. Its usually pretty amusing to watch the wizard curse and moan when the golems show up. Also the Rogue and sometimes the Cleric.
Do you want a more exhaustive list? I took down a lich with a fighter (the spell casters were the first to die... true, the enlarged ranger hand to hold my fighter up to reach the flying lich, but hey... real play gets messy that way....). I did a solo fight against an abyssal greater basalisk with a fighter one time, though that's more of a mid-level matchup. Hey, there was the time I used the cape of the mountbank to bypass the (Friendly!) blade barrier and took on (and out!) an entire pirate NPC command staff that was meant to challenge the entire party. Yes, I cheated, that character was a tempest, not a pure fighter.
Quote from: Opaopajr;560644Oh I know Jibba is having a bit of intraforum coup counting. I don't know why, but whatever. It's not like any of this matters; if your D&D fighters need wires and CG for flying street fighter fu, more power to you.
But it is annoyingly pedantic to say what I played in my AD&D games was obviously a fevered delusion of false contentment. My games are fine when I use the rules (guidelines) within their small sphere and then work with the rest of the manifold contextual product. Since nothing operated in a void in my games (or the "white room" arena), player solutions to problems were more involved than finding the hot button on a character sheet that's the Big Bad Evil Guy's weakness.
Hearing complaints about "where's my 'win button/uber combo?'" and "nuh-uh, that's no 'win button/uber combo' that's just using the control pad and regular attacks to win! Lamexorz!" is trying to my patience. Didn't liked the whinging in hard video games -- though I do understand balance being an issue in a game with constrained potential. However I never liked it in ttrpgs; a game with nigh-infinite responses to problems shouldn't lead to cries of 'i no get to play/win, teh suxxorz!' unless something is going very, very wrong.
Remember how large the roleplaying sections were in 2e Complete books (the Fighter one is a large chapter, IIRC)? It's like there's more to the game than stat lines or something...
I agree that in a roleplaying game the relative balance is not critical I never said it was in fact I don't care if I am in a game where you are tougher than me like I said I will play Captain America to your Iron man.
However, becuase I accept something does not deny it's existance. I can accept that I will never be an olympic sportsman does that mean I can run as fast as Bolt or cycle as fast as Hoyte, no of course not.
My issue isn't that people here have said 'the difference doesn't bother me, its part of the game and you don't need to fixate on it.' my issue is they have said 'there is no imbalance if you play the game as written'. They have gone on to say that anyone that sees and imblance is
Now that annoys me.
Quote from: Opaopajr;560644Oh I know Jibba is having a bit of intraforum coup counting. I don't know why, but whatever. It's not like any of this matters; if your D&D fighters need wires and CG for flying street fighter fu, more power to you.
But it is annoyingly pedantic to say what I played in my AD&D games was obviously a fevered delusion of false contentment. My games are fine when I use the rules (guidelines) within their small sphere and then work with the rest of the manifold contextual product. Since nothing operated in a void in my games (or the "white room" arena), player solutions to problems were more involved than finding the hot button on a character sheet that's the Big Bad Evil Guy's weakness.
Hearing complaints about "where's my 'win button/uber combo?'" and "nuh-uh, that's no 'win button/uber combo' that's just using the control pad and regular attacks to win! Lamexorz!" is trying to my patience. Didn't liked the whinging in hard video games -- though I do understand balance being an issue in a game with constrained potential. However I never liked it in ttrpgs; a game with nigh-infinite responses to problems shouldn't lead to cries of 'i no get to play/win, teh suxxorz!' unless something is going very, very wrong.
Remember how large the roleplaying sections were in 2e Complete books (the Fighter one is a large chapter, IIRC)? It's like there's more to the game than stat lines or something...
I agree that in a roleplaying game the relative balance is not critical I never said it was in fact I don't care if I am in a game where you are tougher than me like I said I will play Captain America to your Iron man.
However, becuase I accept something does not deny it's existance. I can accept that I will never be an olympic sportsman does that mean I can run as fast as Bolt or cycle as fast as Hoyte, no of course not.
My issue isn't that people here have said 'the difference doesn't bother me, its part of the game and you don't need to fixate on it.' my issue is they have said 'there is no imbalance if you play the game as written'. They have gone on to say that anyone that sees and imblance is
Now that annoys me.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560645Now I hasten to add that I didn't design this scenario and neither combatant were naked. The situation merely was 'if neither of them are buffed and they are adjacent in an arena who would win'.
Which is just a nebulous white room discussion devoid of context. It's a
waste of time to attempt any answer to that scenario because the premise is so
undefined (especially for such a multi-contextual game) as to be a circular argument regardless. My counter is not "but what about the fighter presented
this way!" it's "why are you, jibbajabba, wasting time trying to answer an obviously fruitless question." The correct answer is to reject the premise because
it's so devoid of contextual meaning it cannot fruitfully entertain any sort of argumentation.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560645[various entertaining and debatable details to a deliberately vague premise]... I accepted the scenario as it was presented...
You accepted a logic trap.
Stop wasting time. Well, unless you too are interested in reaching the 4000 mark. If so, do carry on.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560650My issue isn't that people here have said 'the difference doesn't bother me, its part of the game and you don't need to fixate on it.' my issue is they have said 'there is no imbalance if you play the game as written'. They have gone on to say that anyone that sees and imblance is
Now that annoys me.
Again, you're accepting a ludicrous premise. Define "balance" exactly, as it pertains to D&D. Go on! Define what that means in a game where you can literally fashion any
setting, universe and all, let alone the pertinent aspects that retain player attention. When the GM sets the basis of the world, and the players ascribe meaning to it by their selection of what gets interacted with, at what level does the rules recommendations of actual numbered bonuses and interlocking mechanics matter?
When you have a game where you can first, create it, then, interact with the world on a multifaceted level -- with each facet being shapable into its own complex web of interaction (or as I feel Benoist would likely prefer termed, a "dungeon" structure) -- what meaning does "balance" have? From adventurer, to lord, to trader, to historian/explorer, to mere "classes" the game has no lack of situations to let players exercise their advantages. And once you can define balance beyond that primordial soup (god help the first fool to use the word 'objectively' in their defining attempt), what are we "balancing it" towards?
And now, how does that emphasis help the game's 'presentation fluidity' for people who want something else? Nothing's stopping people from tinkering with wushu fightan powerz for their homebrew. What we're trying to stop is shoving that crap down our throat and having us call it 'core.' For plenty, it's unnecessary and unwanted; and it is this reality that's bothersome to the visiting true believers.
It can only make for a universally better game experience once everyone's on the same page that all previous game experiences were flawed and needs to 'find the true way'. Thus the zealous need to denounce all other interpretations, even from editions never played, as contrary to the 'true design understanding' (and therefore inimical to any future design goals). Those who disagree are obviously recalcitrant and unenlightened belligerents who want to hold back D&D's 'evolution.'
But this moves the game's focus away from a KISS and human-centric emphasis, to a statutory rules mastery emphasis. And I want D&D as approachable, easy, and fun as possible to all comers (ideally I want it evergreen too). Remember, it's easier for users to add personalizing elements to a base structure than personalize by removing elements from a complex and tight structure. Case in point, 4e.
Quote from: jhkim;560623Thanks, that's helpful for seeing how you picture things. Offhand, it looks reasonable. I'd expect at least a little more powerful magic weapons - but it doesn't seem majorly off.
Thanks for taking a look. It only took me just over three thousand posts to realize that a concrete example might be helpful for everyone, regardless of their particular position. Regarding the weapon, as 'iconic' as two-weapon fighting seems to be, one of the disadvantages is the expense of 'duplicating' magical items. Two +2 weapons are a combined 16,000 gp; roughly the cost of a +3 weapon (18,000 gp). If this particular Fighter weren't a two-weapon Fighter, I'd probably drop the amulet of Natural Armor (though I proabably forgot the +1 AC bonus for the
Ring of Protection) and upgrade to a +3 - probably a flaming burst weapon.
Quote from: Spike;560649In the 150 odd posts since I went to bed, MGuy asked me for a high level encounter the Fighter could participate in.
Here ya go, sweetie.
Iron Golem, CR 13.
Two Iron Golems CR 14*
Four Iron Golems CR 15*
Need higher and don't feel like cluttering your table with 8 or more monsters?
Greater Stone Golem CR 16
That was the first thing that came to my mind. Its usually pretty amusing to watch the wizard curse and moan when the golems show up. Also the Rogue and sometimes the Cleric.
Assuming that the Fighter I created is somewhat representative (obviously not every Fighter follows the same build - which means they're not all Power Attack obsessed two-handed weapon wielders), he'd have quite a lot of trouble with any golem. Since he's only level 10, putting him and his group against the Iron Golem might be unfair. A clay golem is CR 10, so let's look at that matchup for a moment. The golem has DR 10/adamantine and bludgeoning. Jian is able to do 1d6+5 weapon damage each attack, and his weapon is not adamantine and bludgeoning, so at most he can deal 1 point of 'normal damage' over the golem's DR. Fortunately, the golem is not immune to fire or cold damage; these are not spell-like abilities and are not subject to spell immunity, thus they can bypass the golem's DR (good thing Jian took energy damage instead of an additional +1 to hit and damage!).
If they were to fight, Jian would want to wait until the golem gets close. So even if he wins initiative, he'll delay until after the golem moves within melee range. Jian has an AC of 22 (forgot the
ring of protection in his stat block, so the golem needs an 8 or better to hit. In a straight up slug fest the golem does 2d10+7 (average 18) damage per hit. With a 65% chance to hit with each attack and two attacks per round, the golem deals 23.4 average damage per round before accounting for criticals which almost, but push the average damage to 24/round). Jian should go down in around 3 rounds if he stands there and takes it.
Jian thinks his best chance of winning is hitting as many times as possible - because the energy damage can add up quickly. His primary attack with each hand is at +16 (hits on a 6 or better or 75% chance) and his second attack is +11 (hits on an 11 or better or 50% chance). Each attack does ~3 damage (even accounting for the chance of dealing 1 point of weapon damage). That works out to ~7 damage/round (rounding up). It would take Jian around 12 rounds to defeat the golem.
Clearly, stacking some odds in his favor is going to be necessary. Tripping the golem (increasing Jian's chance to hit and decreasing the golem's odds) would definitely be worthwhile - with a Touch Attack against 8, Jian has a 95% chance of hitting; he has a +2 Strength modifier and a +4 on the check for his Feat; he has a +6 on his Strength check, the golem has a +7; even if he has to use two attacks, he's likely to succeed.
So, how does Jian do with tactical advantage?
The golem now needs a 12 or better to hit: he's reduced to around 16 dmg/round. Jian's average damage increases to ~11. The golem would defeat Jian in ~5 rounds. Jian would need 8+ rounds to defeat the golem.
Now things aren't ALL bad for Jian. Even though the golem is 'roughly equivalent' to him and he doesn't have much chance to defeat it
without help, he's likely to have friends. A well-timed heal spell effectively doubles his hit points - meaning a tripped golem would need 9 rounds to defeat him, and Jian can scrape by with a victory - barely. And of course, we haven't addressed the golem's
haste ability...
Of course, Jian doesn't have to rely on feats alone to defeat the golem. Purhaps there is a nearby pit or cliff. The DC to climb 'A rough surface, such as a natural rock wall or a brick wall.' is DC 25. If someone in the party has a flask of oil, they could make the surface slippery, increasing the DC by +5. The golem can never exceed a 26 on his Climb Check, so the party would have a chance to bypass the encounter, possibly without taking damage. Of course, anyone in the party could lure the golem off the edge of a cliff - in fact, anyone with a movement better than 20 would be a better choice.
Of course, if Jian were aware that he were going to fight a golem, and he had access to a magic-mart, he could have purchased a
golemsbane scarab and he would have defeated the golem easily. This is an example where the right item can really make a difference, but you can't always count on having the right item.
Of course, the wizard has options to address the problem as well. A spell like
invisibility sphere might allow the entire party to bypass the golem without being detected. A
wall of force coud likewise trap the golem long enough for the party to potentially bypass the threat. Actually defeating the golem - I don't think he has many options
of his own that will outright provide victory, but there's nothing stopping him from using a
dominated person, or, depending on the relative risk, a
charmed monster. Without a time limit, once the wizard has 6th level spells, he could
potentially get access to
move earth. Since a golem doesn't 'heal' the way a living creature does, if he has an abundance of time, he could wear it down one spell at a time.
I think this is a good 'thought experiment' since a golem is largely designed to be an effective opponent against a wizard or other magical party. It should largely fall into the domain of the Fighter, but does it? From analyzing some of the possible outcomes, I'd posit that it's clearly not a 'slam dunk'. If I were a betting man, I'd put the odds on the Golem, despite the fact that they're supposed to be 'roughly equivalent'.
Quote from: Spike;560649Do you want a more exhaustive list?
Combat examples can be illustrative, but I suppose that depends on whether the gallery can agree that the player 'acted in a wise or smart fashion', as opposed to being a 'bad, shitty player'.
Quote from: Opaopajr;560657Again, you're accepting a ludicrous premise. Define "balance" exactly, as it pertains to D&D. Go on! Define what that means in a game where you can literally fashion any setting, universe and all, let alone the pertinent aspects that retain player attention. When the GM sets the basis of the world, and the players ascribe meaning to it by their selection of what gets interacted with, at what level does the rules recommendations of actual numbered bonuses and interlocking mechanics matter?
This is something I just don't understand.
If there is literaly an infinite number of possibilities, how can any information be meaningful?
Sure, I see that 'Fighter/Wizard Balance' is 'bullshit' to some people. But it clearly matters to other people, and despite a game where people can 'fashion any
setting, universe and all', this issue seems to come up a lot. Ways of handling it seem to be a popular request.
Quote from: Opaopajr;560657But this moves the game's focus away from a KISS and human-centric emphasis, to a statutory rules mastery emphasis. And I want D&D as approachable, easy, and fun as possible to all comers (ideally I want it evergreen too). Remember, it's easier for users to add personalizing elements to a base structure than personalize by removing elements from a complex and tight structure. Case in point, 4e.
I agree here. A big part of that for me is 'trap options'. Trap options are things that 'sound cool' but turn out not to be. Basically, they're an example of what Stormbringer was talking about where the rules don't support the fluff. I really enjoy the ability to 'customize' your character using Feats in 3.5, but, and this becomes partcularly noticeable with the 'supplement bloat' - a lot of options are bad options and don't see use in play. If they
do see use in play, they often make the character more difficult to use and overall less effective...
Quote from: Opaopajr;560657Again, you're accepting a ludicrous premise. Define "balance" exactly, as it pertains to D&D. Go on! Define what that means in a game where you can literally fashion any setting, universe and all, let alone the pertinent aspects that retain player attention. When the GM sets the basis of the world, and the players ascribe meaning to it by their selection of what gets interacted with, at what level does the rules recommendations of actual numbered bonuses and interlocking mechanics matter?
When you have a game where you can first, create it, then, interact with the world on a multifaceted level -- with each facet being shapable into its own complex web of interaction (or as I feel Benoist would likely prefer termed, a "dungeon" structure) -- what meaning does "balance" have? From adventurer, to lord, to trader, to historian/explorer, to mere "classes" the game has no lack of situations to let players exercise their advantages. And once you can define balance beyond that primordial soup (god help the first fool to use the word 'objectively' in their defining attempt), what are we "balancing it" towards?
And now, how does that emphasis help the game's 'presentation fluidity' for people who want something else? Nothing's stopping people from tinkering with wushu fightan powerz for their homebrew. What we're trying to stop is shoving that crap down our throat and having us call it 'core.' For plenty, it's unnecessary and unwanted; and it is this reality that's bothersome to the visiting true believers.
It can only make for a universally better game experience once everyone's on the same page that all previous game experiences were flawed and needs to 'find the true way'. Thus the zealous need to denounce all other interpretations, even from editions never played, as contrary to the 'true design understanding' (and therefore inimical to any future design goals). Those who disagree are obviously recalcitrant and unenlightened belligerents who want to hold back D&D's 'evolution.'
But this moves the game's focus away from a KISS and human-centric emphasis, to a statutory rules mastery emphasis. And I want D&D as approachable, easy, and fun as possible to all comers (ideally I want it evergreen too). Remember, it's easier for users to add personalizing elements to a base structure than personalize by removing elements from a complex and tight structure. Case in point, 4e.
Well I think having balance being able to contribute in character to various aspects of the game at each level. Is a reasonable ask of balance.
If we decide that niche protection is important then each class needs to be the best in it's niche and be able to contribute to other aspects of play to a lesser degree.
I agree that wushu like powers should be optional but I don't see why they can't be provided for by the offical optional rules.
Just like I think that a very 1e game should also be an offically supported option.
No one ever said that stuff needed to be core.
I have suggested very mudane fighter powers that simple make figthers more like they are presented in the fluff but not supported in the crunch, stuff like benefits leading troops, a critical damage progression that mirrors that of the thief's backstab, progressive immunity to fear and intimidation, etc etc ... none of these things are Wuxia magic powerz, none of these things make the poor figther PC all confused because they can't work out what to do from all their options, none of them provide a 'super magic win button to mash', they simply make the fighter better at what the fighter is supposed to be able to do.
Take my comparison of the figther and the Monk. The Monks natural AC improves as they gain levels. This represents their ability to dodge and slip blows like Bruce Lee... or really David Carradine ... how come an Oriental martial artist can do this but an Occidental martial artist can't.
Why do wizards acquisition of spell slots double in pace as they gain xp? why can't we look at the acquisition of spell slots and come up with something that makes the wizard tougher at low level and less powerful at high level?
Take my Comparison of the fighter and the Cleric. Wouldn't the cleric be better "balanced" if they fought on the thief's table and had d6 HP. My feel is that a magic user who can wear armour is already better than a magic user who can't and is they fight a little better and have slightly better HP than a magic user isn't that enough to make up for the slighty less agressive spell options (combined with the ease of spell acquisition).
Look at my point that if 1e was balanced figthers/Casters then why did they add specialisation and once they added it how could they still be balanced?
Rather than chasitising me for suggesting that the classes might not be well balaced and that might annoy some players, I know what a sacriligious statement, why not tackle those simple 5 points?
This is all in the context of a new edition coming out. How can that new edition avoid some of the percieved issues in earlier editions but Still keep the feel of those editions?
Quote from: MGuy;560607Then, once you realized what you were doing you hopped on the "there was no problem in pre 3e boat".
Going to post something that Gygax said again.
Quote from: GygaxQuote from: Originally Posted by Raven CrowkingExcepting, of course, that if you were a cavalier, you couldn't gain double specialization (or even specialization). One requirement is that you are a single-class fighter or ranger.
And, Shadeydm, you can gain double specialization at 1st level.
However, there is only one new method of rolling ability scores in the UA; it is not 9d6 for every ability score. It is intended to ensure that you can make the minimum requirements for any class, though, so close enough.
In UA, you see an attempt to balance the fighter against the Magic-User, Cleric, and other spellcasters. The new classes are designed to be on par with those classes. It is an attempt to create a balance that, if balance was truly the holy mantra that some would have it be, should make us applaud the intent if not the execution.
Ah, at last!
Someone that understands the thrust of the UA work and doesn't muddy the water by getting into edition wars crap
As I have covered on another thread here on these boards what I did not have a chance to get into a revised edition of OAD&D but did have the opportunity to demonstrate in the Yggsburgh campaign setting for the C&C game is the following;
Monster HD number would have remained basically the same, although intelligent monster leader types would have more HD than the run of the mill members of their sort, thus using the attack matrix their chance to successfully attack would remain the same save for exceptional members of their kind that would increase.
Monster HD type would vary by the size and robustness of the creature: Small and relatively puny ones would have d4, those slightly more powerful would have d6, then d8, next d10, and finally d12 for the big and very robust monsters such as ogres, giants, and of course dragons. Furthermore, normal robust adults of large humanoid sort would have their d12 HPs determined by rolling d6 and adding 6 (for 7-12 HPs per HD), while elderly, injured, and immature specimins would only half the normal potential--so a d6 for the d12, This same system applies to the lesser HDs as well--d10, d8, d6, and d4.
Finally the large and powerful or otherwise particularly deadly monsters would have in addition to any strength bonus added to their damage inflicted, a size or attack form bonus equal to the number of HD they possessed (or half that number of the wealer sort getting onlt hald HD potential). Thus for example an oger would be attacking with a +4 additional damage, a hill giant +8 for size and ferocity, plus theior Str bonus, of course.
Now I suppose some whill call that monster munchkinism...
Cheerio,
Gary
P.S. Of course my ideas regarding gaming, and virtually everything else for that matter, change over time because of experience and relection, additional knowledge and understanding. I do believe that is called growth and maturity.
Funny that Gygax himself knew there was issues between Fighter and Caster.
DeadDM: I wasn't really talking to you when I posted the golems, that was in response to MGuy's 'high level' monster questions.
Its not terribly surprising your ass-pull fighter can't do jack against a monster with a cr 3 higher than his level, though at least a part of that is general inexperience (player inexperience). By level...oh... 8 or so any fighter worth a salt in 3X (where you more or less buy your magic items to spec), not having an adamantine main weapon is almost inexcusable, since short of silver (which has penalties, and is thus better dealt with by backup weapons) it is THE most common non-magic DR cutting substance.
That said, I have used fighters to kill iron golems at level ten (with full party support, and yes, the wizard was useless as was the rogue). Ironically, in that case the adamantium weapon used was actually a backup, a bit of loot we hadn't sold yet that got passed to the rogue, since my character could cut the DR the hard way and his couldn't.
But again: I'm not terribly surprised that your fighter couldn't address a challenge answer towards another poster's challenge.
Now, depending on the GMs proclivities, I find it generally useful to make sure the fighter has at least an adamantine weapon by mid levels, and by double digits he should have a means of making it aligned (though, yes, Holy weapons are expensive), probably to Good. (see: if you have a GOOD party you can negotiate with good aligned critters, and everyone needs to be able to kill demons and shit... harder to do if you are evil, ironically enough.).
Likewise, by that point he should seriously be looking at one or two mobility items. Flying and or some form of non-linear movement (blink, DD, teleport... that sort of thing).
Getting the right gear is not reliant on DM pity, given the magic-item economy (and if you really want to get silly with it, just take leadership and make sure your cohort is a magic item factory wizard.... narf, narf...) you can get what you need for gold if it won't 'drop' for you. This sort of minimal equipment assumption was built after playing more than a few mid-range games... as a fighter.
Of course, I also believe shields are for clerics and heal-adins (to steal a term from the WoW crowd)... if you use a shield you don't get to complain your melee damage is weak.
Quote from: Opaopajr;560657Again, you're accepting a ludicrous premise. Define "balance" exactly, as it pertains to D&D. Go on! Define what that means in a game where you can literally fashion any setting, universe and all, let alone the pertinent aspects that retain player attention. When the GM sets the basis of the world, and the players ascribe meaning to it by their selection of what gets interacted with, at what level does the rules recommendations of actual numbered bonuses and interlocking mechanics matter?
When you have a game where you can first, create it, then, interact with the world on a multifaceted level -- with each facet being shapable into its own complex web of interaction (or as I feel Benoist would likely prefer termed, a "dungeon" structure) -- what meaning does "balance" have? From adventurer, to lord, to trader, to historian/explorer, to mere "classes" the game has no lack of situations to let players exercise their advantages. And once you can define balance beyond that primordial soup (god help the first fool to use the word 'objectively' in their defining attempt), what are we "balancing it" towards?
And now, how does that emphasis help the game's 'presentation fluidity' for people who want something else? Nothing's stopping people from tinkering with wushu fightan powerz for their homebrew. What we're trying to stop is shoving that crap down our throat and having us call it 'core.' For plenty, it's unnecessary and unwanted; and it is this reality that's bothersome to the visiting true believers.
It can only make for a universally better game experience once everyone's on the same page that all previous game experiences were flawed and needs to 'find the true way'. Thus the zealous need to denounce all other interpretations, even from editions never played, as contrary to the 'true design understanding' (and therefore inimical to any future design goals). Those who disagree are obviously recalcitrant and unenlightened belligerents who want to hold back D&D's 'evolution.'
But this moves the game's focus away from a KISS and human-centric emphasis, to a statutory rules mastery emphasis. And I want D&D as approachable, easy, and fun as possible to all comers (ideally I want it evergreen too). Remember, it's easier for users to add personalizing elements to a base structure than personalize by removing elements from a complex and tight structure. Case in point, 4e.
The dungeon and wilderness maps and play structures are tools to create and organize an environment that is ripe with a variety of adventure opportunities, challenges, traps, encounters, and so on. That is their real utility and purpose in the game and IMO one of the key components that makes D&D something special when compared to other RPGs.
I agree with your whole post here, and really couldn't resist the "QFMT".
Quote from: Sommerjon;560690Going to post something that Gygax said again.
Funny that Gygax himself knew there was issues between Fighter and Caster.
funny that people who like to trot out that quote always fail to mention that the vast majority of people who played AD&D with UA viewed the cavalier as a very badly overpowered and broken class, if not the entire book in general.
-or-
Even Gary could be mistaken.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560694funny that people who like to trot out that quote always fail to mention that the vast majority of people who played AD&D with UA viewed the cavalier as a very badly overpowered and broken class, if not the entire book in general.
-or-
Even Gary could be mistaken.
Vast majority? So you went and talked to the
vast majority of gaming groups and popped the question?
Really? Vast majority?
Let me laugh at that.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAH...breathe...HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH...breathe....HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA..heh...whew
That felt good. Thanks for the laugh
Quote from: Sommerjon;560697Vast majority? So you went and talked to the vast majority of gaming groups and popped the question?
Really? Vast majority?
Let me laugh at that.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAH...breathe...HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH...breathe....HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA..heh...whew
That felt good. Thanks for the laugh
yes.
The better way to write that would have been, "The Vast Majority of threads I've seen about UA that discussed the cavelier concluded that it was broken..."
Which means that it was not a well written statement, not that he is wrong and you are right.
SO stop the silly laughing.
Quote from: Sommerjon;560690Going to post something that Gygax said again.
Funny that Gygax himself knew there was issues between Fighter and Caster.
I'm on record saying I believe UA is good as a mine of options for the game, but that I blame it in part for starting the ball rolling on the inevitable slope that would lead to OA, the Survival Guides, and finally 2e.
Contrarily to popular belief, I don't think EGG was a Saint, or that his game designs are automatically good by virtue of being his (see Cyborg Commando). The PS you quoted here is key to me here: his outlook on the game changed with time and I do not agree in spirit or substance with that call as embodied by the reorganization of classes in UA or the way weapon specializations were implemented (I think specs are useful but now houserule them in my games). I did like what he came up with later with Mythus (along with Dave Newton), though there again it's more about finding your sweet spot between the Prime rules and the Advanced rules set rather than trying to game with the whole thing right out the gate, to me. But that's another story.
The bottom line is: I don't agree with EGG on this. I think UA is a fine work when you take it as a toolbox to get ideas and houserule the game in a variety of ways, but on this particular point of "balance" it is a solution in search for a problem that did not need to be addressed in this way.
Quote from: Sommerjon;560690Going to post something that Gygax said again.
Funny that Gygax himself knew there was issues between Fighter and Caster.
Nothing in Uncle Gary's reply indicates what you say it does. He is talking about monster HD. "Raven Crowking" is talking about the UA.
Wait! You mean Sommerjon was wrong again!
Say it ain't so! :duh:
Quote from: StormBringer;560703Nothing in Uncle Gary's reply indicates what you say it does. He is talking about monster HD. "Raven Crowking" is talking about the UA.
You really that moronic?
Did you not read his first two points? Here let me quote them again. Just for you, cause you seem to be 'special'
At least jeffy wears his helmet with pride.
Quote from: GygaxAh, at last!
Someone that understands the thrust of the UA work and doesn't muddy the water by getting into edition wars crap
See. Sounds lke Gary was agreeing with the other poster, Now why would he be agreeing with that poster, but 'only' talking about Monster HD?
Wait.. could it be... he agreed and is adding more to what the other poster was saying. My gawd the concept is preposterous.
Quote from: Opaopajr;560657When you have a game where you can first, create it, then, interact with the world on a multifaceted level -- with each facet being shapable into its own complex web of interaction (or as I feel Benoist would likely prefer termed, a "dungeon" structure) -- what meaning does "balance" have? From adventurer, to lord, to trader, to historian/explorer, to mere "classes" the game has no lack of situations to let players exercise their advantages. And once you can define balance beyond that primordial soup (god help the first fool to use the word 'objectively' in their defining attempt), what are we "balancing it" towards?
This is a broad general question of design. Is there any basis for design decisions at all? Some people might have used and liked the AD&D 1e psionics rules - does that mean that they should stay untouched instead of changing them in 2nd ed and subsequent editions? The reality is that even though D&D campaigns vary, there is a rough center of what adventures tend to be like. That is what the designers will (or should) generally be designing for. We can see this expectation in published modules, random encounter sets, and so forth.
While someone might be running a D&D campaign where all the characters are historians vying over publication of their latest theories, that isn't what the game is designed for. It's silly to try to paralyze design decisions by suggesting that the historian game is important. We have a similar though not identical ideas about what adventures are like.
In all editions, classes were designed with some idea of balance. This was true when the monk was introduced, when the cavalier was introduced in 1e Unearthed Arcana, and continued to be true. As far as I've seen, there are 2 or 2.5 major senses that people speak to balance. The first is general effectiveness - of which combat effectiveness is a major part for D&D. i.e. How well do you tackle the challenges presented in the adventure? The other is spotlight time - i.e. how much of the time at the table is focused on your character(s)? For the rough center of expected adventures, the classes should be roughly balanced on these measures.
Quote from: Opaopajr;560657But this moves the game's focus away from a KISS and human-centric emphasis, to a statutory rules mastery emphasis. And I want D&D as approachable, easy, and fun as possible to all comers (ideally I want it evergreen too). Remember, it's easier for users to add personalizing elements to a base structure than personalize by removing elements from a complex and tight structure. Case in point, 4e.
There's no such thing as "fun as possible to all comers", because people have different tastes. Even though you don't like it and I don't like it, there are a significant number of people who like 4e. It's nonsensical to imply that they are inhuman as you do above - i.e. a game is either "human-centric" or system mastery.
It's fine to push for D&D Next to be a game that caters to your taste. Just don't make it out to be something different than it is. What's fucked up is when you imply that your taste is the only valid one, and people who have other tastes are objectively wrong.
Quote from: Sommerjon;560707At least jeffy wears his helmet with pride.
For the uninitiated, when posters start calling me 'jeffy' it is a sure sign that they have A) lost the arguement and B) are butthurt. It is like a 'tell' in poker.
EDIT: You know, I should don my cowboy hat again and change my title to "El Jefe". Why didn't I think of that before?
EDIT: I like the Viking Hat better.
Quote from: Sommerjon;560697Vast majority? So you went and talked to the vast majority of gaming groups and popped the question?
Really? Vast majority?
Let me laugh at that.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAH...breathe...HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH...breathe....HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA..heh...whew
That felt good. Thanks for the laugh
Really?
OK, I've been playing AD&D continuous since 1981. I know not as long as others. And certainly not with the hundreds of thousands of people who played it.
However, I have played with literally hundreds of other players of AD&D, and everyone except the munckins thought most of the book was broken, and most certainly the Cavalier class was.
I have also spent roughly two decades having this discussion with people on the interwebs, and again the "vast majority" of people in those discussions think that the cavalier was a broken class.
So I've got a pretty decent sample size spanning decades that help me come to my conclusions. What do you have that counters that? A quote by Gary to a reply that is more vague than anything else?
Yeah, OK. That totally counters everything else. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Spike;560692DeadDM: I wasn't really talking to you when I posted the golems, that was in response to MGuy's 'high level' monster questions.
I understand that. But we're sort of in a larger discussion, with different people contributing as the mood strikes them.
Quote from: Spike;560692Its not terribly surprising your ass-pull fighter can't do jack against a monster with a cr 3 higher than his level, though at least a part of that is general inexperience (player inexperience). By level...oh... 8 or so any fighter worth a salt in 3X (where you more or less buy your magic items to spec), not having an adamantine main weapon is almost inexcusable, since short of silver (which has penalties, and is thus better dealt with by backup weapons) it is THE most common non-magic DR cutting substance.
When building Jian, I absolutely would have liked to have an adamantium weapon. To upgrade just one of his weapons to adamantium would have required +3,000 gp. In order to keep him around the suggested wealth per level guidelines in the DMG (49,000 gp), some sacrifices had to be made. But even if he had an adamntium hooksword, it would not have been helpful against the clay golem. The clay golem's DR is 'adamantium
and bludgeoning[/b]. Carrying around a 'golf-bag' of weapons might be an answer, but one thing that this example should show pretty clearly is that a bag of 'super-weapons' puts a character above the wealth-guidelines pretty quickly. Considering how a number of people have pointed out that 'a high level Fighter needs his items', I think looking at the suggested wealth is worthwhile.
As for the Fighter build, I've asked for suggestions to 'improve' it, if you don't think it looks 'reasonable'. I'd certainly want to avoid being accused of 'charop' to the point that the character wouldn't be acceptable. But more than that, I think, as jibbajibba has pointed out, the character should usually make decisions that suit the character... The only thing that I feel was probably a bad choice was 'Two-Weapon Defense', but considering it's a Feat on the Two-Weapon Fighting tree, it seems reasonable to posit a player interested in two-weapon fighting would be inclined to select it - especially if they're not familiar with all of the hundreds of options that might be available outside of the core books.
Quote from: Spike;560692Now, depending on the GMs proclivities, I find it generally useful to make sure the fighter has at least an adamantine weapon by mid levels, and by double digits he should have a means of making it aligned (though, yes, Holy weapons are expensive), probably to Good. (see: if you have a GOOD party you can negotiate with good aligned critters, and everyone needs to be able to kill demons and shit... harder to do if you are evil, ironically enough.).
Like an
oil of align weapon? Since it is a second level spell, Jian could trade his
potion of cure moderate wounds for one such oil... He could downgrade the +2 composite longbow (+1 dragonbane) to a simple +1. That would give him +6,000 gp - enough to make both weapons adamantine. Would that be better?
Quote from: Spike;560692Likewise, by that point he should seriously be looking at one or two mobility items. Flying and or some form of non-linear movement (blink, DD, teleport... that sort of thing).
I'm open to suggestions. I allowed 49,000 gp (plus free MW weapons x2 and free MW armor). A
ring of blink would cost 27,000 gp. He could give up his
gloves of dexterity +4 (16,000), remove the +2 armor bonus (4,000 gp), and reduce the bonus on one weapon from +2 to +1 (6,000 gp) and we're almost there... Or he could forget about a
ring of blink and just trade out the
gloves of dexterity for
winged boots - that's a 'straight up fair trade' according to the magic item prices...
So, looking at Jian as an example of a 'normal' non-super-charop Fighter, what suggestions would you make if this is what a player at your game was building (and for the purpose of this question, you can assume you've been working with the player since level 1).
Quote from: Spike;560692Getting the right gear is not reliant on DM pity, given the magic-item economy (and if you really want to get silly with it, just take leadership and make sure your cohort is a magic item factory wizard.... narf, narf...) you can get what you need for gold if it won't 'drop' for you. This sort of minimal equipment assumption was built after playing more than a few mid-range games... as a fighter.
If I've made some errors in 'standard level-appropriate equipment', please feel free to help me understand where I've done that. The guidelines do seem to presume that Fighters will have the same value of gear as other characters in the party. Are you suggesting that they should have a
higher value of wealth?
Quote from: Spike;560692Of course, I also believe shields are for clerics and heal-adins (to steal a term from the WoW crowd)... if you use a shield you don't get to complain your melee damage is weak.
Jian doesn't use a shield. He does have two-weapon defense that can provide a +1 or +2 shield bonus. Admittedly a weak feat - and people have definitely suggested that moving beyond 'core' helps the Fighter (some even claiming it helps Fighters more than other classes), so other Feats that would be better are fine.
I'm really interested in finding out what people here consider a 'normal' Fighter. I've gotten the impression, no matter how unintended I'm sure it was, that there is an assumption that a Fighter will have the 'right build' for any challenge, even though that's not really possible with the resources available - the Fighter has to make some tough choices and he can't excel at everything...
In this case, he has 11 feats (4 from levels, 1 from race, 6 Fighter Bonus) and he's still pretty narrowly focused. I think it's possible that letting a Fighter get a Fighter Bonus Feat every level might even be appropriate - he still couldn't qualify for 'powerful feats' any earlier - like Improved Critical, but he'd have a few more to spare on 'trivial' matters. So if he got a Fighter Bonus feat at 3, 5, 7, 9 (four additional feats), he might pick up some defensive abilities (Iron Will, Lighting Reflexes), or improve another attack (Improved Grapple). Or he might take Feats that allow him to improve with the bow - he's pretty much had to choose melee or ranged.
I don't think Jian is a 'special snowfalke', but I think I can see areas that he doesn't perform well in, despite being expected to 'shine' in combat.
"There is no such thing as 'fun as possible to all comers' because people have different tastes." Note that the full sentence says "AS approachable, easy AND fun AS possible". To me, the game serves a larger audience in terms of tastes and preferences when the character archetypes vary, not only in their background or what they represent in the game world, but also in their rules "granularity", the amount of rules components you deal with to play your character, the types and amount of resource management involved, and so on so forth.
You want to have lots of abilities to deal with and have a rules-based resource management for your character? Play a magic-user. You don't want to have to deal with that at all and prefer to deal with more concrete stuff like equipment and the like? Play a fighter. Want something in between? Play a Cleric.
I have seen the differences in granularity of the character classes in the D&D game work in its favor time and time again as a DM and player. Sometimes new gamers would find their sweet spot right away. Sometimes they would change character during the campaign in search for that sweet spot until they found it (like my wife who ultimately fell in love with the fighter class after playing it for the first time in a Red Box Vancouver B/X game). Most IME will have different favorites and switch between them time and again (this is me switching between fighters and MUs depending on what I feel like playing generally, with breaks with Clerics, most of the time).
The point is, the disparity in detail and amount of rules to deal with as a player at a D&D game table is an ASSET to the game. A feature, not a flaw. Those who are obsessed with "balance" to the point of giving exactly the same amount of abilities to all character classes would destroy that asset to the game. 3rd ed is bad enough in that regard as it is (way too many rules across the board to deal with, if you ask me), but the logical extreme of this "one size fits all" thinking is embodied by 4e, which was published, did exist, was tried in practice for real, and FAILED, in part because all the classes felt the same, dealt with the same amount of rules granularity across the board, etc. In order to make the game "fair" (so-called) by the book, it became exclusive of other inclinations and playstyles, and THIS is what really makes it a shitcake of a game.
I'm glad it failed.
Quote from: Benoist;560717The point is, the disparity in detail and amount of rules to deal with as a player at a D&D game table is an ASSET to the game. A feature, not a flaw. Those who are obsessed with "balance" to the point of giving exactly the same amount of abilities to all character classes would destroy that asset to the game.
I'll buy that having a mix of simpler and more complex classes is an asset.
I don't see how any balance adjustments inherently mean destroying this. For example, deadDMwalking suggested giving the fighter a damage or critical bonus. I don't see how that adds to the amount of rules to deal with, since the character has a damage bonus already (from strength).
Quote from: jhkim;560727I don't see how any balance adjustments inherently mean destroying this. For example, deadDMwalking suggested giving the fighter a damage or critical bonus. I don't see how that adds to the amount of rules to deal with, since the character has a damage bonus already (from strength).
You must have missed the last 300 pages of posts lamenting the lack of toys for the fighter to play with by the rules, the complete bewilderment and incomprehension at how anybody could possibly be satisfied by such a sad state of affair, plus or minus a few goalposts shifts, of course.
Quote from: Sommerjon;560707See. Sounds lke Gary was agreeing with the other poster, Now why would he be agreeing with that poster, but 'only' talking about Monster HD?
Wait.. could it be... he agreed and is adding more to what the other poster was saying. My gawd the concept is preposterous.
So, you are saying the authour of the book thinks the thrust of it was balancing fighting classes, even though those only take up a few pages at the beginning of the book? If there was such a huge disparity that you claim he was aware of, where is all the information that brings Fighters in line with the other classes? Why isn't there a big section just related to Fighters? Introducing Barbarians and shifting Paladins under Cavaliers doesn't seem like a huge push to 'balance' Fighters coming from the
designer of the game. If he was fully aware of this disparity, as you claim, you would think there would be something a bit more direct, like "Fighters are really weak compared to other classes, here's how to fix that..." instead of some throwaway line that amounts to "Good point".
Quote from: Benoist;560734You must have missed the last 300 pages of posts lamenting the lack of toys for the fighter to play with by the rules, the complete bewilderment and incomprehension at how anybody could possibly be satisfied by such a sad state of affair, plus or minus a few goalposts shifts, of course.
Does "a few" mean something different in French? In English it means "three, maybe four", and that hardly describes the thousands of goalposts shifts this thread has seen. The continental plates haven't moved as much as the goalposts in this thread. :)
Quote from: Benoist;560717I'm glad it failed.
(http://arch.413chan.net/Stop_liking_what_I_don't_like-(n1315212424812).jpg)
Seriously, there's a big difference between "I do not enjoy that" and "I'm glad the people who do enjoy that aren't going to have it anymore."
5E: The Schadenfreude Edition.
Quote from: Fifth Element;560745Seriously, there's a big difference between "I do not enjoy that" and "I'm glad the people who do enjoy that aren't going to have it anymore."
"Not have it anymore"? Did the 4e books self-combust when Next was announced? Did eBay go bankrupt and people stopped selling anything over the net without me knowing about it? Did used-books bins in stores vanish when I looked elsewhere?
(hmm.. where have I heard that before I wonder...)
I know you're frustrated and everything...
(http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2010/09/22/s2vblnabzx.gif)
... He! Oh! Don't look at me like that, Iain! Relax! Take a chill pill! Live a little. :D
Quote from: StormBringer;560739So, you are saying the authour of the book thinks the thrust of it was balancing fighting classes, even though those only take up a few pages at the beginning of the book? If there was such a huge disparity that you claim he was aware of, where is all the information that brings Fighters in line with the other classes? Why isn't there a big section just related to Fighters? Introducing Barbarians and shifting Paladins under Cavaliers doesn't seem like a huge push to 'balance' Fighters coming from the designer of the game.
The change for Fighters in Unearthed Arcana was the introduction of weapon specialization, which made a big difference.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;560593Looking at it, again, sorry for the threadcrap. Too many pints can make me twitchy.
This whole thread is a forumcrap.
Quote from: Benoist;560755"Not have it anymore"? Did the 4e books self-combust when Next was announced? Did eBay go bankrupt and people stopped selling anything over the net without me knowing about it? Did used-books bins in stores vanish when I looked elsewhere?
Then what do you mean by you're glad it failed? If they're still going to have their stuff, that's not much of a failure.
Is it just some sort of "it proves my preferences are better" bullshit?
Quote from: Benoist;560755I know you're frustrated and everything...
Frustrated by what? Your incessant hypocrisy? You could be right. It can be fun to poke the internet rage bear sometimes though.
"Onetrueway" = meaningless meme intended to shut down discussion
"Nerd rage" = valid response to someone you disagree with
I can't believe I got you to post that image again. You're getting too predictable.
I'm starting to think there's no such thing as a troll. Instead, there are people who think they are being trolled. They react the same regardless of who's talking to them. Like Ricky Gervais says, "offence is taken, not given."
Quote from: Rum Cove;560771This whole thread is a forumcrap.
Yeah, if you have any meaningful or insightful to say, start a new thread. The discussion in this one was over several hundred posts ago.
Quote from: Fifth Element;560776Then what do you mean by you're glad it failed?
Because it's proven to be a failure and we hopefully can get back to a D&D design that actually welcomes people who want different types of granularity at their game table when playing their own characters, and not a "one size fits all" game design.
Quote from: Fifth Element;560776(bitch bitch bitch)
You feeling better now? :)
See, it's cool to have a forum where you can call each other "cunts", isn't it?
Quote from: Rum Cove;560771This whole thread is a forumcrap.
Indeed. I nearly closed it a couple hundred posts ago, but it's acting as such a good shit-sink for the site as a whole, that it is actually perfoming a useful function.
A Farewell to Kings is one of my favorite albums - definitely my favorite Rush album, followed by Test for Echo.
But I think it's going to take some kind of special genius to get this thread back on topic...
Quote from: deadDMwalking;560789followed by Test for Echo.
Worst. Rush. Album. Evar!
Quote from: jhkim;560727I'll buy that having a mix of simpler and more complex classes is an asset.
I don't see how any balance adjustments inherently mean destroying this. For example, deadDMwalking suggested giving the fighter a damage or critical bonus. I don't see how that adds to the amount of rules to deal with, since the character has a damage bonus already (from strength).
Many of us offered mundane solutions to the fighter like additional damage bonuses, attack bonuses, etc. I have said many times that I am fine with such a solution. My impression was the other side felt this wasn't enough, that they not only needed actual special abilities (rather than just baking in some solid numbers to their normal attacks) but they also needed additional class specific things to do outside combat.
2112 ftw!
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560713Really?
OK, I've been playing AD&D continuous since 1981. I know not as long as others. And certainly not with the hundreds of thousands of people who played it.
However, I have played with literally hundreds of other players of AD&D, and everyone except the munckins thought most of the book was broken, and most certainly the Cavalier class was.
Like that slip of the munchkin in there, so classy of you. I get it, if I have a different opinion I'm being labeled a munchkin.
Wow you so sly dawg....
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560713I have also spent roughly two decades having this discussion with people on the interwebs, and again the "vast majority" of people in those discussions think that the cavalier was a broken class.
Sure they did. The other were labeled 'munchkins' and ignored no matter how big that contingent is.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560713So I've got a pretty decent sample size spanning decades that help me come to my conclusions. What do you have that counters that? A quote by Gary to a reply that is more vague than anything else?
Well you got me..
Beat by a couple years I didn't start until '83. I do have you beat on people gamed with, I've lived in 18 different states, continents, countries in those 29 odd years. And you know what, it wasn't really talked about much. It's always been about the haves spells and the have nots spells.
Also Gygax has a lot more to pull from then your decidedly slanted 'data'.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560713Yeah, OK. That totally counters everything else. :rolleyes:
Yeah it does. Let's look at this website. There are 4675 'members' Of course the "
vast majority" are all about old school play. Or is it? We don't know because maybe, at best, 50 people post anything on here. That doesn't stop the kool- aid drinking dingleberries here from talking about the "vast majority" here as if they actually knew. It's not, the silent majority "agrees" unless they actually post dissent. Which of course then brings the ridicule....
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560713Really?
OK, I've been playing AD&D continuous since 1981. I know not as long as others. And certainly not with the hundreds of thousands of people who played it.
However, I have played with literally hundreds of other players of AD&D, and everyone except the munckins thought most of the book was broken, and most certainly the Cavalier class was.
I have also spent roughly two decades having this discussion with people on the interwebs, and again the "vast majority" of people in those discussions think that the cavalier was a broken class.
So I've got a pretty decent sample size spanning decades that help me come to my conclusions. What do you have that counters that? A quote by Gary to a reply that is more vague than anything else?
Yeah, OK. That totally counters everything else. :rolleyes:
Go gygax invented an unbalanced class, undeniable the cavalier is a broken class. So is the cleric which he invented as well and for the even more dubious reason of countering a PC vampire that was obviously broken.
We get it Gary created some classes that aren't very balanced.
So when the GD guys say they think at hight levels , not all theteh time, but at high levels the fighter is broken compared to the ohter classes, why isn't that worth consideration?
Quote from: jeff37923;560712For the uninitiated, when posters start calling me 'jeffy' it is a sure sign that they have A) lost the arguement and B) are butthurt. It is like a 'tell' in poker.
Nah it's a term of endearment for our slow-witted.
Quote from: jeff37923;560712For the uninitiated, when posters start calling me 'jeffy' it is a sure sign that they have A) lost the arguement and B) are butthurt. It is like a 'tell' in poker.
EDIT: You know, I should don my cowboy hat again and change my title to "El Jefe". Why didn't I think of that before?
EDIT: I like the Viking Hat better.
Is that how you saw it?
I thought I saw the term used by Pseudo quite often after...well, let's just say he had not lost the argument.
Viking hat wins, I think.
Quote from: Sommerjon;560798Like that slip of the munchkin in there, so classy of you. I get it, if I have a different opinion I'm being labeled a munchkin.
Wow you so sly dawg....
Sure they did. The other were labeled 'munchkins' and ignored no matter how big that contingent is.
Well you got me..
I define a munchkin as someone who either looks to squeak out every + bonus they possibly can, regardless if it makes logical sense or not, or someone who demands to be level 10 and have a +5 vorpral sword after a few adventures.
In my experience, that is a small group of people only. If that's how you define yourself...
QuoteBeat by a couple years I didn't start until '83. I do have you beat on people gamed with, I've lived in 18 different states, continents, countries in those 29 odd years. And you know what, it wasn't really talked about much. It's always been about the haves spells and the have nots spells.
So you've been playing AD&D continuous since then like myself? If you haven't, then no wonder it wasn't talked about much. But if you have, then it should have come up often because that book was something someone was always referencing.
Oh, and you don't have me beat on people. I've been to 19 different countries, let alone states. And I spent 6 years in the military, where gaming groups switched constantly. Every month new people would join and others would leave as duty assignments changed. But that's really kind of moot, since the point was that nearly everyone agreed that the cavalier was way overpowered
QuoteAlso Gygax has a lot more to pull from then your decidedly slanted 'data'.
Why? The guy wasn't infallible. He's also known to be a huge fan of the knight archetype (judging by a dragon article he wrote right before UA came out), so it's not a far reach to say he went overboard from bias. So what I'm doing, is using the feedback from a ton of people who actually played the game over the opinion of one person who happened to write the rules.
I write rules all the time, and it's often the players who discover the imbalances before me.
QuoteYeah it does. Let's look at this website. There are 4675 'members' Of course the "vast majority" are all about old school play. Or is it? We don't know because maybe, at best, 50 people post anything on here. That doesn't stop the kool- aid drinking dingleberries here from talking about the "vast majority" here as if they actually knew. It's not, the silent majority "agrees" unless they actually post dissent. Which of course then brings the ridicule....
Again, you missed the part where I've been having this conversation on the internets for
2 decades, on pretty much every gaming forum of decent size. At this point, I'm not surprised that you would miss that, as paying attention to detail doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560815Again, you missed the part where I've been having this conversation on the internets for 2 decades, on pretty much every gaming forum of decent size. At this point, I'm not surprised that you would miss that, as paying attention to detail doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
Holding the same opinion for two decades isn't proof of being objectively correct, though. I accept that you have valid preferences, and I also accept that other people have valid preferences that are different than yours. There is a common feeling that spellcasters (especially magic users) are underpowered at low levels and overpowered at high levels. Some agree with this and consider it a feature. Some people deny that this is true. Some think that it is true and would prefer otherwise.
The latter opinion is common enough that I think it's worth considering and offering options for, as long as they don't otherwise detract from the game.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;560791Many of us offered mundane solutions to the fighter like additional damage bonuses, attack bonuses, etc. I have said many times that I am fine with such a solution. My impression was the other side felt this wasn't enough, that they not only needed actual special abilities (rather than just baking in some solid numbers to their normal attacks) but they also needed additional class specific things to do outside combat.
I'll buy that you got that impression. I also distinctly remember deadDMwalking making a very similar suggestion, and being told by certain members of the other side (i.e. the old-school side) that this was completely unacceptable.
Anyway, here are my two cents on classes:
From my point of view, I would lean towards fighters having both an increasing damage bonus with level and expanded critical range with level - as well as equivalent skill to other classes like ranger or cleric. I'd also prefer for spellcasters to have more spells but lower level for a reduction of their "burst" effectiveness but letting them last longer.
Quote from: jhkim;560819Holding the same opinion for two decades isn't proof of being objectively correct, though. I accept that you have valid preferences, and I also accept that other people have valid preferences that are different than yours. There is a common feeling that spellcasters (especially magic users) are underpowered at low levels and overpowered at high levels. Some agree with this and consider it a feature. Some people deny that this is true. Some think that it is true and would prefer otherwise.
The latter opinion is common enough that I think it's worth considering and offering options for, as long as they don't otherwise detract from the game.
I'll buy that you got that impression. I also distinctly remember deadDMwalking making a very similar suggestion, and being told by certain members of the other side (i.e. the old-school side) that this was completely unacceptable.
Anyway, here are my two cents on classes:
From my point of view, I would lean towards fighters having both an increasing damage bonus with level and expanded critical range with level - as well as equivalent skill to other classes like ranger or cleric. I'd also prefer for spellcasters to have more spells but lower level for a reduction of their "burst" effectiveness but letting them last longer.
All sensible and well presneted points.
One of MGuy's main points was that even if you improved the figther in combat he was still very passive outside of it. The wizards can use spells to work with the environment, investigate, scry and do a host of ther stuff, the rogue can explor sneak etc and has skills to support that and other hybrid classes generally include something outside of combat that they can explicitily do better than others.
I refered up thread to how 2e set the fighter in the game world much more comprehensively through kits and that sets up a lot of roleplay stuff that a lot of DMs don't think to add an a lot of players avoid because it seems like trying to hog the limelight.
Now I also think that giving Fighters a few class skills out of combat, like making forces of men at armes more effective, improving their morale, etc might be a nice way to achieve that. Its non invasive engages the domian management stuff the 1e guys are harking back for but actually makes Fighters better at it.
Similarly giving them a wider skill base definitely helps.
To me the ranger shouldn't be a subclass at all. The ranger should be one interation of what you can do with a base fighter if you focus on wilderness/survival/tracking. Likewise with paladins. I would loose their spells but I have no issues with a high level fighter taking a 'Spell module' class ability so they can be as a ranger or as a Paladin. I just think that the ones that don't select it should get something equally effective instead.
Quote from: jhkim;560708This is a broad general question of design. Is there any basis for design decisions at all? Some people might have used and liked the AD&D 1e psionics rules - does that mean that they should stay untouched instead of changing them in 2nd ed and subsequent editions? The reality is that even though D&D campaigns vary, there is a rough center of what adventures tend to be like. That is what the designers will (or should) generally be designing for. We can see this expectation in published modules, random encounter sets, and so forth.
While someone might be running a D&D campaign where all the characters are historians vying over publication of their latest theories, that isn't what the game is designed for. It's silly to try to paralyze design decisions by suggesting that the historian game is important. We have a similar though not identical ideas about what adventures are like.
In all editions, classes were designed with some idea of balance. This was true when the monk was introduced, when the cavalier was introduced in 1e Unearthed Arcana, and continued to be true. As far as I've seen, there are 2 or 2.5 major senses that people speak to balance. The first is general effectiveness - of which combat effectiveness is a major part for D&D. i.e. How well do you tackle the challenges presented in the adventure? The other is spotlight time - i.e. how much of the time at the table is focused on your character(s)? For the rough center of expected adventures, the classes should be roughly balanced on these measures.
It's worth remembering that D&D as originally conceived is a game of campaigns, not isolated adventures. The reason I bring this up is that, to your two conceptions of balance (which are good), I'd add "survivability".
Also, I'd like to justify why anything deserves to fall under the "balance" rubric. To take a stab at it, I think that what makes for balance, in general, is if you take a group of players (not necessarily all in the same party), will a good number of them enjoy playing each class? Or will certain classes be avoided? (Certain classes might only be played if people are forced to, and then not have fun doing so--that would also be a sign of imbalance. But you might have a system with fairly random assignment of class, and in that case, lack of choice might not be imbalance.)
QuoteThere's no such thing as "fun as possible to all comers", because people have different tastes. Even though you don't like it and I don't like it, there are a significant number of people who like 4e. It's nonsensical to imply that they are inhuman as you do above - i.e. a game is either "human-centric" or system mastery.
Tendentious interpretation of others' speech, I guess, is par for the course, John. But aside from that, I'll note that 4e
failed. By your own criteria at the top of your post, it failed because it didn't play to the center of what "D&D" should be like.
Quote from: Benoist;560781Because it's proven to be a failure and we hopefully can get back to a D&D design that actually welcomes people who want different types of granularity at their game table when playing their own characters, and not a "one size fits all" game design.
Why? Don't you still have your old books, eBay, etc, etc?
It gave some people what they wanted without taking anything away from you. Why would be glad something like that "failed"? Only I should get what I want? There should not be any options for someone else to get what he wants?
Quote from: Benoist;560781See, it's cool to have a forum where you can call each other "cunts", isn't it?
Only in the sense of morbid curiosity of what society of sociopaths might be like, not in the sense of "adult" discussions you try to flog.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560815So you've been playing AD&D continuous since then like myself? If you haven't, then no wonder it wasn't talked about much. But if you have, then it should have come up often because that book was something someone was always referencing.
Continuously? Nope. I like my hobby to have more flavor then just D&D. I was hardcore until like '98 then not so much, usually tap it every year or so for a bit.
Though it does make me scratch my head a bit that you have such a strong issue with the Cavalier, a class not many play all that much and not the usual wizard/fighter.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560815Oh, and you don't have me beat on people. I've been to 19 different countries, let alone states. And I spent 6 years in the military, where gaming groups switched constantly. Every month new people would join and others would leave as duty assignments changed. But that's really kind of moot, since the point was that nearly everyone agreed that the cavalier was way overpowered
Sorry, I more than double your service years and most of my time in was TDYs.
Which is strange, that we have such different experiences. I was the new guy more often than not. Being the new guy and wanting to game was far more important to me, then getting all prune-faced about a class. Especially a class that has such limitations on it like the Cavalier does.
You know what people bitched about, yeah that age old bitch that will always continue with D&D, Spellmen vs. NonSpellmen. I've seen all sorts of house rulings on it.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560815Why? The guy wasn't infallible. He's also known to be a huge fan of the knight archetype (judging by a dragon article he wrote right before UA came out), so it's not a far reach to say he went overboard from bias. So what I'm doing, is using the feedback from a ton of people who actually played the game over the opinion of one person who happened to write the rules. I write rules all the time, and it's often the players who discover the imbalances before me.
Never said he was. Think the guy was more ass than anything else personally, but what he did have is being himself. With all those fans telling him their favorite characters, all the letters bitching about the game, all of his own experiences with the game, private games and con games. He wasn't an eye dee ten tee.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560815Again, you missed the part where I've been having this conversation on the internets for 2 decades, on pretty much every gaming forum of decent size. At this point, I'm not surprised that you would miss that, as paying attention to detail doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
So? You have a favorite pet bitch. Am I supposed to be impressed?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;560716I understand that. But we're sort of in a larger discussion, with different people contributing as the mood strikes them.
Well, if you want then. Just, in context, your jumping in like that was a little off putting.
QuoteWhen building Jian, I absolutely would have liked to have an adamantium weapon. To upgrade just one of his weapons to adamantium would have required +3,000 gp. In order to keep him around the suggested wealth per level guidelines in the DMG (49,000 gp), some sacrifices had to be made. But even if he had an adamntium hooksword, it would not have been helpful against the clay golem. The clay golem's DR is 'adamantium and bludgeoning[/b]. Carrying around a 'golf-bag' of weapons might be an answer, but one thing that this example should show pretty clearly is that a bag of 'super-weapons' puts a character above the wealth-guidelines pretty quickly. Considering how a number of people have pointed out that 'a high level Fighter needs his items', I think looking at the suggested wealth is worthwhile.
3000 gp for a tenth level fighter is actually chump change. Yes, it doesn't help on the clay golem (then again if you really want to get crazy with math, I think bludgeoning cuts more DR than slashing... but hey, you'll never win them all. Not even the wizard can do that.). Also, in real play, WBL sucks. Its a good way to get jumpstarted into an established game, but it in no way reflects where you should be if you've been playing. I've had a GM try to restrict party wealth to WBL, and the players would do odd jobs in downtime to make enough gold to buy that upgrade. Its railroady as hell. Not to say that giving away free money is good for the game either...
QuoteAs for the Fighter build, I've asked for suggestions to 'improve' it, if you don't think it looks 'reasonable'. I'd certainly want to avoid being accused of 'charop' to the point that the character wouldn't be acceptable.
If you want. Look at the Tempest class (Complete Adventurer I believe), a five level two weapon fighting mundane class. It offsets penalties and allows a sort of pounce attack on the charge. Also: either get used to disarming with the hook swords or ditch improved disarming. Seriously. Exotic weapons are already a bad feat imho, compounding it by ignoring the weapon's inherent benefit AND spending a feat to do the same thing is just... wrong. THat's not even charop level, that's just avoiding the trap. Frankly< I usually take two-weapon defense myself. Its a pissant bonus, but since you've got two weapons and plenty of feats to go around...
QuoteLike an oil of align weapon? Since it is a second level spell, Jian could trade his potion of cure moderate wounds for one such oil... He could downgrade the +2 composite longbow (+1 dragonbane) to a simple +1. That would give him +6,000 gp - enough to make both weapons adamantine. Would that be better?
I'd probably drop the magic bow altogether. Unless you're spending feats to be good at range its sort of a waste. You can grab one from loot later. Oil works. I've used the silver oil a few times. Focus on being good at one thing (hook swording from the sounds of it...). I'm not actually gonna read your character line by line, since I'm not your GM.
QuoteI'm open to suggestions. I allowed 49,000 gp (plus free MW weapons x2 and free MW armor). A ring of blink would cost 27,000 gp. He could give up his gloves of dexterity +4 (16,000), remove the +2 armor bonus (4,000 gp), and reduce the bonus on one weapon from +2 to +1 (6,000 gp) and we're almost there... Or he could forget about a ring of blink and just trade out the gloves of dexterity for winged boots - that's a 'straight up fair trade' according to the magic item prices...
See? Specialize. You shouldn't really bother with the gloves of dex at all. Strength first, then dex. The Cape of the MOuntbank is 10k I believe, but its only one use a day. Good for tenth, but at higher levels you'd want more flex.
QuoteSo, looking at Jian as an example of a 'normal' non-super-charop Fighter, what suggestions would you make if this is what a player at your game was building (and for the purpose of this question, you can assume you've been working with the player since level 1).
Pretty much what I've said. Pick a theme, either Hook Swording or Archery, and stick too it. Once you've laid down the solid basis (hook swording, say), you can use random drop loot and spare feats (and fighters are about the only class that can say that with a straight face) to boost up your secondary (archery, I assume).
QuoteI'm really interested in finding out what people here consider a 'normal' Fighter. I've gotten the impression, no matter how unintended I'm sure it was, that there is an assumption that a Fighter will have the 'right build' for any challenge, even though that's not really possible with the resources available - the Fighter has to make some tough choices and he can't excel at everything...
A normal fighter? High strength. Fights with either two weapons (with attendant chain) or one two-handed weapon. Can fight with a shield but probably shouldn't bother (imho, yadda yadda). Weapon focus and specialization in
a preferred weapon. I prefer a decent dex and lighter armors (mithril for the 'light' umph). If I've got a shit dex (bad dice rolls, whatever) than its full plate and adamantium if I can afford it (which, not really...). Some form of saving throw boost in there, possibly even an Iron Will feat (since mind control currently fucks fighters sideways... and again: you can afford it).
I'll be honest: I'm as happy with simple weapons as martial weapons, and exotic weapons mostly piss me off due to the inflationary feat economy if nothing else. I'll play any race, but for people struggling to 'keep up' I recommend half-orcs, occasionally dwarves... or something exotic that radically alters your fundamentals in unexpected ways. But me? I tend to play humans.
Though I did have a monkey grip barbarian at my table one time... Sadly, the players GF devoured his soul before he did anything cool with it. New player too... Technically that was his first and second ever D&D characters... (they were twin brothers. Brother 1 was killed by the party within minutes of showing up...sigh).
Quote from: Fifth Element;560844Why? Don't you still have your old books, eBay, etc, etc?
Because a game that allows more people to find their own sweet spot of granularity of the rules and components describing their character archetype will be welcoming a broader audience and potentially appeal to a greater number of players who might have been introduced to the hobby but were not comfortable with the "one-size-fits-all" granularity of class design and rules in 4e.
It might also ensure that there is a filiation and common language between the variants of the game and their fans, ensuring more people find more games to their liking, instead of having a market leader cattering to one specific subtype of D&D fans who want "this size, this amount of rules and abilities, or nothing."
It isn't about me. I have my old books, eBay, etc, as you noted.
Quote from: Sommerjon;560847Continuously? Nope. I like my hobby to have more flavor then just D&D. I was hardcore until like '98 then not so much, usually tap it every year or so for a bit.
Well, if you haven't been playing it for the past 15 years, no shit you haven't heard of it being an issue. Wow.
QuoteThough it does make me scratch my head a bit that you have such a strong issue with the Cavalier, a class not many play all that much and not the usual wizard/fighter.
No shocker that you're scratching your head in confusion, because the context of your quote was that the cavalier was meant to help balance out why the "fighting man" classes were underpowered, and as I said, most people found that the fix wasn't needed and all the cavalier did was create a bigger imbalance between him and everyone else
QuoteSorry, I more than double your service years and most of my time in was TDYs.
Big fucking deal. Like I said, the point is moot, because I was saying that out of all these people I was playing AD&D with, most agreed that the cavalier (and UA in general) created more balance problems than it supposedly fixed, with the exception of the munchkins.
But if you want to get technical, my entire 6 year enlistment was deployed. I never set foot once in the US. But again, that pissing contest doesn't matter to the context of my point.
QuoteSo? You have a favorite pet bitch. Am I supposed to be impressed?
No, but you're supposed to be able to read. When I say that I've had these conversations for the past 2 decades re: UA, anyone with even a tiny bit of common sense knows I'm not just talking about this site. What it does, is establish a pretty well defined trend of information.
Your argument, it should be noted, literally has nothing to support it but a vague comment by one guy.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;560833Also, I'd like to justify why anything deserves to fall under the "balance" rubric. To take a stab at it, I think that what makes for balance, in general, is if you take a group of players (not necessarily all in the same party), will a good number of them enjoy playing each class? Or will certain classes be avoided? (Certain classes might only be played if people are forced to, and then not have fun doing so--that would also be a sign of imbalance. But you might have a system with fairly random assignment of class, and in that case, lack of choice might not be imbalance.)
I think popularity of the class is tricky to balance, because most players choose a class based on the image or concept of the class - not on balance. If a class is unpopular because its image isn't cool, then boosting its power may not have the desired effect. It may remain unpopular for most players, but be a key choice for power-gamers.
I've seen at least plausible arguments that this happened with the cleric in 3.X editions. The cleric was an unpopular figure because being a priest isn't cool to most players. They added on lots of powers in an effort to make it more popular, until it was an overpowered choice.
I think it's fine if some classes aren't popular, and that's different than classes being unbalanced.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;560833Tendentious interpretation of others' speech, I guess, is par for the course, John. But aside from that, I'll note that 4e failed. By your own criteria at the top of your post, it failed because it didn't play to the center of what "D&D" should be like.
Based on evidence I've seen, it seems plausible that 4e didn't play to the center of D&D players, and thus failed to capture the majority of D&D players.
Still, there's a huge difference between being the most popular, and being a worthwhile and valid play style. Old school games (i.e. retroclones or pre-3.0 editions) seem pretty cool, but from what I can tell, they are overall no more popular than 4e is. The most popular version seems to be Pathfinder.
For what it's worth, my personal tastes are far from the center. I'd love to see one of my favorite games (like James Bond 007, Hellcats & Hockeysticks, or 1001 Nights) be half as popular as 4th ed D&D - but it's never going to happen, and that's fine.
Quote from: jhkim;560858I think popularity of the class is tricky to balance, because most players choose a class based on the image or concept of the class - not on balance. If a class is unpopular because its image isn't cool, then boosting its power may not have the desired effect. It may remain unpopular for most players, but be a key choice for power-gamers.
I've seen at least plausible arguments that this happened with the cleric in 3.X editions. The cleric was an unpopular figure because being a priest isn't cool to most players. They added on lots of powers in an effort to make it more popular, until it was an overpowered choice.
.
I think the cleric suffers from this from 1e onwards. I think the reliance on magical healing, which in 3e they tried to fix with the lose a slot for a heal spell rule, was a big contributor to that percieved issue.
Funny. The Cleric has always been immensely popular in all the 1e games I've seen, and not as an obligatory character, but because lots of people love to play them. So the whole "Clerics aren't cool because they're religious" thing doesn't resonate with my personal experience at all.
Quote from: Benoist;560861Funny. The Cleric has always been immensely popular in all the 1e games I've seen, and not as an obligatory character, but because lots of people love to play them. So the whole "Clerics aren't cool because they're religious" thing doesn't resonate with my personal experience at all.
For us with 1e they were popular with power gamers not so much with the die hard role players. Though we played some all cleric games.
When you look at the literature there are so few Cleric archeypes/inspiration.
Priest kits in 2e helped an awful lot. They boomed then.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560850Well, if you haven't been playing it for the past 15 years, no shit you haven't heard of it being an issue. Wow.
How did you put it..oh '
paying attention to detail doesn't seem to be your strong suit.'
See where I said I bring out the system every year or so. That means I play the system. How the hell did you come up with that I haven't been playing it?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560850No shocker that you're scratching your head in confusion, because the context of your quote was that the cavalier was meant to help balance out why the "fighting man" classes were underpowered, and as I said, most people found that the fix wasn't needed and all the cavalier did was create a bigger imbalance between him and everyone else
No actually my 'context' was the Gygax said UA was done to help close the divide between spellmen and nonspellmen. You are the one pouting that the Cavalier gives you nightmares of borkenhood.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560850Big fucking deal. Like I said, the point is moot, because I was saying that out of all these people I was playing AD&D with, most agreed that the cavalier (and UA in general) created more balance problems than it supposedly fixed, with the exception of the munchkins.
But if you want to get technical, my entire 6 year enlistment was deployed. I never set foot once in the US. But again, that pissing contest doesn't matter to the context of my point.
Doesn't matter, yet you spent 2 paragraphs on it?
Sorry Sac, with your obsession on the Cavalier you honestly want us to believe nearly every goddamn person you played with hated the cavalier? Really?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560850No, but you're supposed to be able to read. When I say that I've had these conversations for the past 2 decades re: UA, anyone with even a tiny bit of common sense knows I'm not just talking about this site. What it does, is establish a pretty well defined trend of information.
All the silly shit in 1e, but the Cavalier makes you all butthurt, so butthurt in fact you have spent the past 2 decades bitching and whining about all over the net. Obsess much?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560850Your argument, it should be noted, literally has nothing to support it but a vague comment by one guy.
Um,
one guy is the designer of the game.
Or we have you with your, "you don't know me form Adam, but I've talked to a couple billion million people about this and we all agree with one billion percent accuracy that that one guy who created this hobby is fuckin clueless on this matter he aint got nothing, aint nutin wrong with this game until he wrote that stupid shit. fuck him."
Sorry Sac I'll go with
one guy every time.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560866For us with 1e they were popular with power gamers not so much with the die hard role players.
Right.
QuoteWhen you look at the literature there are so few Cleric archeypes/inspiration.
Priest kits in 2e helped an awful lot. They boomed then.
That's because the Cleric class is really a specific case of a Priest. The Cleric should have been a Kit.
Quote from: Rum Cove;560870Right.
That's because the Cleric class is really a specific case of a Priest. The Cleric should have been a Kit.
I can agree with that once they got recast as Templars, Shaman, etc they just seemed to be more attractive to the roleplayers. Yeah you could have played at templar before but he couldn't use an actual sword which felt a bit daft. Likewise a Black priest wandering round in plate and shield when he should be slitting the throats of unwilling virgins just didn't cut it.
I like Cleric as a Priest Kit. Makes sense.
Quote from: CRKrueger;5607952112 ftw!
+1(billion)
And seriously, Test for Echo? Yikes.
It's in 3rd ed IME that the Cleric stopped being really popular. It was considered boring by most. I've only ever seen the idea that the Cleric breaks everything and wins everything coming from CharOp CoDzilla intarwebz discussions, this thread not being an exception.
Quote from: jhkim;560858I think popularity of the class is tricky to balance, because most players choose a class based on the image or concept of the class - not on balance. If a class is unpopular because its image isn't cool, then boosting its power may not have the desired effect. It may remain unpopular for most players, but be a key choice for power-gamers.
I've seen at least plausible arguments that this happened with the cleric in 3.X editions. The cleric was an unpopular figure because being a priest isn't cool to most players. They added on lots of powers in an effort to make it more popular, until it was an overpowered choice.
I think it's fine if some classes aren't popular, and that's different than classes being unbalanced.
I was going to suggest that balance should depend on whether a "rational" player would be indifferent to choosing one class over another. The idea would be that a class's "value" would be a function of effectiveness, plus spotlight time, plus future growth prospects in both areas (discounted for survivability). If you assume that those are the things most valued by players, then the writeup for any given class in the book isn't wasted space, and nobody will go wrong by picking a "trap" class.
This approach is fine by me, at least for one kind of analysis. I think it's the sort of thinking that went into D&D through 1e, and it provides a tool for seeing why the D&D approach ran into trouble over time. That is, while D&D originally had magic users advancing more slowly than other characters*, and dying more easily (particularly at low levels), both effects were frequently negated at the table through house ruling and fudging.
*If I'm not mistaken. I have PDFs of several editions of Swords & Wizardry handy, and the advancement charts of all three are different. I think my two OSRIC pdfs are also different.
Quote from: Sommerjon;560868No actually my 'context' was the Gygax said UA was done to help close the divide...
No, he didn't
say that. He vaguely and noncommittally quasi-agreed with someone else's assessment of the UA. That is what I was trying to get you to understand before. If that was the major idea behind the UA, Uncle Gary is about the last person to dance around the topic and wait for someone else to make the point so he could agree with them. But I can see how your misinterpretation arises, desperately clinging to any possible straw that has even the merest appearance of supporting your nonsensical argument.
Quote from: StormBringer;560876+1(billion)
And seriously, Test for Echo? Yikes.
A Farewell to Kings is my favorite. The title track and Xanadu are constantly vying for 'top spot'. But when I evaluate the albums of a band, I tend to like albums that are dissimilar. If four albums are pretty similar and one album is different, I'll pick the best of the similar albums and the one that's different (as long as I like it).
Also, Test for Echo was released while I was in High School and I got to go to the concert in support of it. That might influence my decision, but as some people say, there's no accounting for taste. It just happens to be an album I enjoy.
Back to the Fighter, I think this thread has been helpful for me. It's clarified a lot of my thinking, and I have the benefit of a lot of suggestions to apply back to the game. I might be inspired to start up a 3.5 game - using some tweaks.
Quote from: Sommerjon;560868How did you put it..oh 'paying attention to detail doesn't seem to be your strong suit.'
See where I said I bring out the system every year or so. That means I play the system. How the hell did you come up with that I haven't been playing it?
Playing it once a year is hardly playing it at all, and for the purposes of this context, like I said, no wonder you haven't run into it.
QuoteSorry Sac, with your obsession on the Cavalier you honestly want us to believe nearly every goddamn person you played with hated the cavalier? Really?
Did I say every person hated the cavalier. Jesus you can't be this stupid on purpose. You said you spent 12 years in the service, so I imagine you're older than 14. Try not to use 14 year old debate tactics. I said most people I played with, and continue to play with, view it as a broken overpowered class. Which it is. The whole point of you bringing up that quote was to show that UA classes were meant to fix a balance. Guess what fruitcake, you can't now act like the Cavalier class wasn't a huge part of that because it completely shuts down your "point".
QuoteAll the silly shit in 1e, but the Cavalier makes you all butthurt, so butthurt in fact you have spent the past 2 decades bitching and whining about all over the net. Obsess much?
Once again, pay attention to what I'm actually saying, or keep your mouth shut. I did not say I spent 2 decades bitching about the Cavalier. I said in the past 2 decades, when this conversation would come up, the near unanimous feeling is that UA is broken and the Cavalier is too overpowered. Holy...
QuoteUm, one guy is the designer of the game.
Or we have you with your, "you don't know me form Adam, but I've talked to a couple billion million people about this and we all agree with one billion percent accuracy that that one guy who created this hobby is fuckin clueless on this matter he aint got nothing, aint nutin wrong with this game until he wrote that stupid shit. fuck him."
Sorry Sac I'll go with one guy every time.
Then you're even a bigger idiot than I gave you credit for. Did you not see where I said that I design games (and have for almost 30 years), and as a designer, it's the players who are the best ones to point out imbalances because as a designer, you're often influenced by biases that you often times don't even notice?
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;560880I was going to suggest that balance should depend on whether a "rational" player would be indifferent to choosing one class over another. The idea would be that a class's "value" would be a function of effectiveness, plus spotlight time, plus future growth prospects in both areas (discounted for survivability). If you assume that those are the things most valued by players, then the writeup for any given class in the book isn't wasted space, and nobody will go wrong by picking a "trap" class.
This approach is fine by me, at least for one kind of analysis. I think it's the sort of thinking that went into D&D through 1e, and it provides a tool for seeing why the D&D approach ran into trouble over time. That is, while D&D originally had magic users advancing more slowly than other characters*, and dying more easily (particularly at low levels), both effects were frequently negated at the table through house ruling and fudging.
*If I'm not mistaken. I have PDFs of several editions of Swords & Wizardry handy, and the advancement charts of all three are different. I think my two OSRIC pdfs are also different.
Fighter vs MU xp thresholds are all over the place in 1e as well. The fighter advances Faster for 1-6 whewre he is tougher, slower until 14th when the magic user slowes down again ... go figure ?
Quote from: Benoist;560849Because a game that allows more people to find their own sweet spot of granularity of the rules and components describing their character archetype will be welcoming a broader audience and potentially appeal to a greater number of players who might have been introduced to the hobby but were not comfortable with the "one-size-fits-all" granularity of class design and rules in 4e.
Is 4E the only RPG available? Between Pathfinder and the multitude of retroclones available, these comments ring hollow.
Quote from: Fifth Element;560888Is 4E the only RPG available?
No, but unless you're telling me Paizo and Pathfinder not just outsold, but nothing short of
obliterated 4e in terms of sales to the point it KILLED the D&D brand once and for all, it still has more recognition outside of the tabletop RPG hobby than just about any other RPG's combined. As such, the hobby as a whole will benefit from a D&D game design that is welcoming different people in search of different types of granularities when it comes to play their character archetypes at the game table, rather than the "one size fits all" class and system design of Fourth Edition.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;560614Jian
OK so you have a lengthy backstory to explain the worst possible design decisions here...so its really hard to do anything with your concept there. You could probably do better with Monk in this case (there's at least one monk sword, the butterfly sword).
If you sincerely wanted to play this guy, and I wanted to sincerely help you within the 3.5 rules it might look something like this. Nothing useful really, but the concept limitations here are extremely severe... Classes like Swashbuckler (and a number of prestige classes) were invented because fighter is not the best choice for the concept. It took long enough to make I thought I'd post it anyway.
Str 12 Dex 15 Con 14 Int 13 Wis 8 Cha 10
H1 feat- Combat Expertise, C1-Exotic Weapon (hook sword), F1- Improved Trip
F2: Weapon Focus C3: Improved Unarmed Strike F4: Weapon Specialization
skills (maxed out): Ride, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform (weapons drill) 1 (+1/2 BAB, +2 bonus each for Weapon Focus, Quick Draw, TWF), Jump 1, Swim 1
also at L3: skill trick -Dismount attack - fast dismount from mount counts as charge.
Level 5 through 7 multiclass to Swashbuckler (gain Weapon Finesse at L1) - add 8 ranks in Tumble, 6 ranks Balance, skill trick: Twisted charge (one direction change during charge); skill trick: Nimble Stand (stand up from prone without provoking an AoO, e.g. if tripped); add Int bonus to damage rolls with light weapons.
C6: Daring Warrior- fighter and swashbuckler levels stack for grace, dodge bonus and feat qualifying; substitute dodge variant for Shield of Blades (PHB II; +2 shield bonus on full attacks with two light weapons, this increases to +3 at level 10); (I normally prefer Improved Buckler Defense for TWFers, but this was convenient in this build, and you specified magic items were rare)
F6-Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
C9-Quick Draw (this would let you make multiple thrown attacks; hence TWF/Improved TWF is boosting your ranged attack rate/damage. Something like a bola would be handy since even with a -4 nonproficiency it'd probably hit [touch attack], so you can trip [crash] flying creatures).
F8-Two-weapon pounce (make two weapon attacks on charge) or Dual Strike (move and perform two attacks at -4 as standard action)
You might also consider Exotic weapon master as a class choice (twin exotic weapon fighting would lower the TWF penalty, and trip would give an extra +2 on trip attacks).
Actually the Cavalier isn't a broken class if you actually use the rules that constrain his behavior, make someone actually roll those stats, and remember that the characters serves a lord, which might impinge on his adventuring from time to time. :D
My handful of experiences with Cavaliers and Barbarians were that the roleplay/ class limitations were more than enough. The "must target strongest foe and charge them" thing for Cavaliers was particularly bad, because the DMs I played with had no problem with introducing giants or dragons starting as low as first level. To get the Monty Python "Run Away! Run Away!" response perhaps if nothing else from the players ;)
Quote from: Benoist;560889As such, the hobby as a whole will benefit from a D&D game design that is welcoming different people in search of different types of granularities when it comes to play their character archetypes at the game table, rather than the "one size fits all" class and system design of Fourth Edition.
So like Essentials, then?
At any rate, you're close to making rational points here. That's what happens when you get away from all the shitcocking sometimes. I don't buy that D&D specifically must do this at all times, while other RPGs can do whatever they want, but you're at least making a bit of sense.
Quote from: Fifth Element;560925So like Essentials, then?
At any rate, you're close to making rational points here. That's what happens when you get away from all the shitcocking sometimes. I don't buy that D&D specifically must do this at all times, while other RPGs can do whatever they want, but you're at least making a bit of sense.
Thanks for the tip. My turn now: stop acting like a fucking white knight trolling douchebag once in a while and then
maybe I'll take some of the things you say seriously. Until then, you'll have to deal with me shitcocking you whenever I feel like it, and live with it.
Any version of D&D that pretty much forces you to play with minis isn't an "all inclusive" version.
3333 posts? :eek:
So what new insight has this thread produced under the last thousand posts?
Quote from: Sommerjon;560868Sorry Sac, with your obsession on the Cavalier you honestly want us to believe nearly every goddamn person you played with hated the cavalier? Really?
I've been playing since '81 as well, and have had an online presence since I got my first C-64 with a 300 baud modem. My experience is the same. Everyone except a handful of munchkins thought it was broken as hell. My experience may be anecdotal, but my sample size is probably in the thousands.
Quote from: Fifth Element;560745(http://arch.413chan.net/Stop_liking_what_I_don't_like-(n1315212424812).jpg)
Seriously, there's a big difference between "I do not enjoy that" and "I'm glad the people who do enjoy that aren't going to have it anymore."
5E: The Schadenfreude Edition.
This could be used for every comment Benoist and jeff have made over the entirety of the thread and nothing of value to the discussion would be lost.
Quote from: MGuy;560956This could be used for every comment Benoist and jeff have made over the entirety of the thread and nothing of value to the discussion would be lost.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v369/ahmed413/cartman_tears.gif)
Quote from: MGuy;560956This could be used for every comment Benoist and jeff have made over the entirety of the thread and nothing of value to the discussion would be lost.
Is that a premise or your conclusion? Or did you give up on the whole 'logic' thing when it bit you in the ass?
Quote from: Melan;5609423333 posts? :eek:
So what new insight has this thread produced under the last thousand posts?
The same it produced under the first two thousand. :D
Well if vacuous bullshit counts as insight... ;)
Quote from: SkarnkaiLW;560909My handful of experiences with Cavaliers and Barbarians were that the roleplay/ class limitations were more than enough. The "must target strongest foe and charge them" thing for Cavaliers was particularly bad, because the DMs I played with had no problem with introducing giants or dragons starting as low as first level. To get the Monty Python "Run Away! Run Away!" response perhaps if nothing else from the players ;)
both classes were broken.
The Cavalier was broken because of the -HP thing mostly.
The Barbarian was broken because of stat generation and the anti-magic stuff. The Anti-magic stuff seems like its double edged because a barbarian can't use magic but the benefits given to outweigh that are more regular and more predictable and effectively equate to a moderate magic horde. Then layer on all the wilderness, climbing etc etc
However, that is all broken in relation to mundane fighters. I don't think a 15th level Barbarian is broken in comparison to a 15th level Wizard for example.
The problem for both classes is that they excel at the early levels where fighters were already strong so if the curve was Fighters strong but fading its now barbarians/cavaliers uber strong but fading.
The range and Paladin are more balanced as they stay strong at the top end because magic just gives them the boost they need to keep up with the full casters. Of courser Rangers have some very odd features in 2 e why do they get free 2 weapons styel spec? Never understood that why does a wilderness guide bloke get that for free when a run of the mill fighter is far more likely to pick the skill up from fighting acadamies, teh arena and a host of other civilised places.
Quote from: Sommerjon;560804Nah it's a term of endearment for our slow-witted.
Now Sommerjon, just because you only engage in Actual Play once a year does not mean you are slow-witted. There is plenty of other evidence to show that you are slow-witted.
Quote from: LordVreeg;560811Is that how you saw it?
I thought I saw the term used by Pseudo quite often after...well, let's just say he had not lost the argument.
Viking hat wins, I think.
That is how I have always seen it. I mean really, if you are going to insult me then there are far far better ways to go about it.
Calling me 'Jeffy' was Pseudo's last gasp every time we disagreed. He could never come up with anything more devastating than that, certainly not an arguement that was convincing.
Quote from: MGuy;560956This could be used for every comment Benoist and jeff have made over the entirety of the thread and nothing of value to the discussion would be lost.
Butthurt much?
D&D is not a game like Chess, with solid defined rules.
It's not a computer game with pre-set parameters.
It is a game where you have another guy as the referee. That referee can make or break any rules he wants. How the players react to that is, well, up to the players reacting every which way they want.
An 'edition war' is.. just people arguing. D&D is a game of pretend, and nobody wants to be told that they were pretending wrong. So let's not do that. If you had fun, then yeah that's great, so let's not argue that, that's dumb, and everyone here is at least competent enough to figure out how to register for an online forum.
With that aside,
RULES are something that can be tangibly discussed.
PLAY EXPERIENCE is entirely mutable based on a bunch of humans interacting in a free form manner. Within the same edition you can have a rad time or everything sucks because X DM/Player did Y and Z. Everyone interacts with the rules in different ways
You can play close to the rules, you can modify them, you can throw them out.
But the rules, as printed, remain what they are. So if you want to talk rules, talk rules.
If we are to talk rules, then giving examples where the rules are used would be better than where they are ignored.
QuoteNever understood that why does a wilderness guide bloke get that for free when a run of the mill fighter is far more likely to pick the skill up from fighting acadamies, teh arena and a host of other civilised places.
Rangers, if they're to specialize in any melee weapon, should probably be using spears. Yeah it was quite odd trying to grasp why a hunter/tracker archetype uses a fighting style that is a product of civilized folks trying to kill each other.
I remember our group using Unearthed Arcana for extra magic item possibilities and cantrips. I really liked the cantrips and had since first reading about them in Dragon magazine.
The Barbarian never really caught on due to the ridiculous xp requirements per level (IIRC it was 6000xp to second, where by then most were third or fourth level) and their antagonism towards magic which made things difficult for the magic-users and clerics in the party.
The Cavalier, we actually had to knock unconscious a few times with subdual damage when the Player (in character and according to class) was about to engage in combats that would have gotten our whole party killed.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;560891If you sincerely wanted to play this guy, and I wanted to sincerely help you within the 3.5 rules it might look something like this. Nothing useful really, but the concept limitations here are extremely severe... Classes like Swashbuckler (and a number of prestige classes) were invented because fighter is not the best choice for the concept. It took long enough to make I thought I'd post it anyway.
I do appreciate you taking the time to point these things out. I agree, the build you're suggesting is better. It takes a fair amount of 'charop' to get there - using alternate classes and such. I know a lot of DMs that take the firm stance that anything outside of the core rules needs a justification before it can be included - classes from the
Complete books are viewed with suspicion at best - probably because they are noticeably better than some of the 'core classes'.
Clearly, the Fighter which seems like a good 'canvas' to build your character on doesn't work that way in practice.
I've never seen a 'Fighter build' that doesn't benefit by taking different classes instead of Fighter. Fighter levels 1-4 are usually as far as that goes (weapon specialization) and 3 bonus feats in 4 levels.
And that's probably okay for people who are really familiar with the rules. If you have access to a large number of splat books, are generally familiar with the rules, and engage in a little 'min-maxing' (not to the archer demon cleric extent), you can make a decent melee character - but you can't do it by advancing your Fighter. If the idea is that Fighters are
supposed to be
simple for novice players, they should also be
effective. Giving class abilities instead of bonus feats is actually
simpler and
more effective. It's simpler because you have fewer options to consider - for example, the Ranger and Monk get to choose bonus feats from a narrow list at some levels - the Fighter could choose among hundreds depending on the available splat options. And if you can choose, you can choose
poorly. The Fighter is better if players without rules mastery can be effective. Because everyone has a concept of what a Fighter does (he fights, probably with a sword) - but the rules don't make the Fighter the best choice for Fighting. I think that's what most of the people here have said they want to see.
Quote from: OgreBattle;560991D&D is not a game like Chess, with solid defined rules.
It's not a computer game with pre-set parameters.
It is a game where you have another guy as the referee. That referee can make or break any rules he wants. How the players react to that is, well, up to the players reacting every which way they want.
An 'edition war' is.. just people arguing. D&D is a game of pretend, and nobody wants to be told that they were pretending wrong. So let's not do that. If you had fun, then yeah that's great, so let's not argue that, that's dumb, and everyone here is at least competent enough to figure out how to register for an online forum.
With that aside, RULES are something that can be tangibly discussed. PLAY EXPERIENCE is entirely mutable based on a bunch of humans interacting in a free form manner. Within the same edition you can have a rad time or everything sucks because X DM/Player did Y and Z. Everyone interacts with the rules in different ways
You can play close to the rules, you can modify them, you can throw them out.
But the rules, as printed, remain what they are. So if you want to talk rules, talk rules.
If we are to talk rules, then giving examples where the rules are used would be better than where they are ignored.
Rangers, if they're to specialize in any melee weapon, should probably be using spears. Yeah it was quite odd trying to grasp why a hunter/tracker archetype uses a fighting style that is a product of civilized folks trying to kill each other.
Welcome to RPGsite OgreBattle! Please stop trying to inject logic into this I might get confused.:)
Quote from: jeff37923;560994I remember our group using Unearthed Arcana for extra magic item possibilities and cantrips. I really liked the cantrips and had since first reading about them in Dragon magazine.
The Barbarian never really caught on due to the ridiculous xp requirements per level (IIRC it was 6000xp to second, where by then most were third or fourth level) and their antagonism towards magic which made things difficult for the magic-users and clerics in the party.
The Cavalier, we actually had to knock unconscious a few times with subdual damage when the Player (in character and according to class) was about to engage in combats that would have gotten our whole party killed.
We definitely used the new level caps but after a while no Cavaliers and we modded the Barbarian because the antimagic thing while fun was a pain in the ass. Also cantrips were used. And being stupid Comliness also which actually made it worse in some cases for female players in my experience (the whole 14 year old purile joke stuff).
Quote from: jhkim;560769The change for Fighters in Unearthed Arcana was the introduction of weapon specialization, which made a big difference.
Sure, no doubt it made a difference. But going from that to claiming the entire thrust of the book was an attempt to 'balance' Fighters? That is quite a stretch. Whatever else anyone thinks of Uncle Gary's design chops, you would think the attempt to 'balance' Fighters would involve quite a bit more than just that.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;561019I do appreciate you taking the time to point these things out. I agree, the build you're suggesting is better. It takes a fair amount of 'charop' to get there - using alternate classes and such. I know a lot of DMs that take the firm stance that anything outside of the core rules needs a justification before it can be included - classes from the Complete books are viewed with suspicion at best - probably because they are noticeably better than some of the 'core classes'.
Clearly, the Fighter which seems like a good 'canvas' to build your character on doesn't work that way in practice.
I've never seen a 'Fighter build' that doesn't benefit by taking different classes instead of Fighter. Fighter levels 1-4 are usually as far as that goes (weapon specialization) and 3 bonus feats in 4 levels.
And that's probably okay for people who are really familiar with the rules. If you have access to a large number of splat books, are generally familiar with the rules, and engage in a little 'min-maxing' (not to the archer demon cleric extent), you can make a decent melee character - but you can't do it by advancing your Fighter. If the idea is that Fighters are supposed to be simple for novice players, they should also be effective. Giving class abilities instead of bonus feats is actually simpler and more effective. It's simpler because you have fewer options to consider - for example, the Ranger and Monk get to choose bonus feats from a narrow list at some levels - the Fighter could choose among hundreds depending on the available splat options. And if you can choose, you can choose poorly. The Fighter is better if players without rules mastery can be effective. Because everyone has a concept of what a Fighter does (he fights, probably with a sword) - but the rules don't make the Fighter the best choice for Fighting. I think that's what most of the people here have said they want to see.
Actually: He was throwing out swashbuckler as an Idea because your particularly weedy example of a fighter (12 str? Seriously? Outside of a straight 3d6, no move, statblock that is almost impossibly weak for a 3x fighter...) is suffering from poor design choices that the Swashbuckler class seems ideal to meet.
While some GMs (myself included from time to time) often reject the wild splat-booking, I've never heard one say it was because Swashbucklers made fighters 'too powerful', or Charoping fighters from it was problematic. Take out my tempest recommendations and you have a straight class hook-sword fighter that is far more viable without violating your concept of a vaguely monkish hook-sword dual wielding fighter.
Mostly, I find it laughably offensive that you seem to have constructed this pity fighter as some sort of 'trap' to get us to optimize him minimally using one or two simple class options from splats to 'prove' the fighter doesn't work.
If that wasn't your intent, then you might want to rethink your last post.
Quote from: OgreBattle;560991D&D is not a game like Chess, with solid defined rules.
It's not a computer game with pre-set parameters.
It is a game where you have another guy as the referee. That referee can make or break any rules he wants. How the players react to that is, well, up to the players reacting every which way they want.
Welcome to the adult swim.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560632Still an initiaive roll though eh. Speed factor 1 for the spell speed factor 1 for the open hand attack. MU has a 50% chance of winning.
No, shitwit, it's 42% - the fighter also wins ties.
Welcome to the RPG Site, OgreBattle.
Quote from: Spike;561049Actually: He was throwing out swashbuckler as an Idea because your particularly weedy example of a fighter (12 str? Seriously? Outside of a straight 3d6, no move, statblock that is almost impossibly weak for a 3x fighter...) is suffering from poor design choices that the Swashbuckler class seems ideal to meet.
I used the Elite Array to build the Fighter in question. That's 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. I put the 14 is Strength, not the 12. The 15 was required to go in Dexterity to ensure he qualifies for the advanced two-weapon fighting Feats. The 13 was required for Intelligence to qualify for Combat Expertise (which is a pre-requisite for Improved Trip and Improved Disarm). Since this was a Dex-based Fighter, and he didn't have available funds to greatly increase both Strength and Dexterity, I took a Feat to allow him to add Dexterity modifier to attack rolls (instead of Strength). Strength is limited to 'just damage', at that point, while Dexterity affects Initiative, AC, melee attack rolls and ranged attack rolls.
Personally, I think two-weapon fighting is a bad choice, but I can see why it appeals to a lot of people - while mechanically it doesn't really work, it looks cool when you see it in a movie. Since most of the people I've enjoyed playing with start with a character concept from a single point of inspiration, and the hook sword demonstration is pretty inspiring, I thought it apt.
Quote from: Spike;561049While some GMs (myself included from time to time) often reject the wild splat-booking, I've never heard one say it was because Swashbucklers made fighters 'too powerful', or Charoping fighters from it was problematic.
What I've found is that people's desire to 'lock-down' caster abuse tends to unfairly penalize the Fighter. DMs that have been burned by optimizers like to restrict access to 'broken shit'. Most shit breaks when combined with spells, because ultimately, you can have a spell do pretty much 'anything'. And if that 'anything' combines with some other Feat or special ability in a particularly effective synergistic way, you have a problem. Limiting access to Splat Books isn't done because the Fighters are too powerful - it's usually done because the casters are too powerful and it's easier to ban a book outright than to go through line by line and explain what is and isn't allowed. It's also easier than saying 'only with DM approval' and talking to the wizard 25 times and saying 'no' and only saying 'yes' to the Fighter once...
Quote from: Spike;561049Mostly, I find it laughably offensive that you seem to have constructed this pity fighter as some sort of 'trap' to get us to optimize him minimally using one or two simple class options from splats to 'prove' the fighter doesn't work.
If that wasn't your intent, then you might want to rethink your last post.
I don't intend it as a sort of 'trap'. I do intend it as an example that's fairly close to the 'rules' that shows some of the shortcomings of the class. Further, I invite someone to build an 'optimized' core Fighter at 10th level using the elite array and wealth-by-level guidelines.
Why would I want that?
Just like a Wizard
might have the right spell for a given situation, a Fighter
might have the right build for a specific situation. But a Wizard can 'rebuild' his character every day by preparing a different spell selection. A Fighter is 'locked in' by his choices, starting at 1st level. I think it's helpful to take an honest example (and really, that's what I intended with Jian - it's a character concept I'd enjoy playing, but mechanically a little disappointing) and see if it meets our expectations about what you'd expect a high-level Fighter to be able to do.
These are the types of things that I've noticed people who think the Fighter is a 'good choice' expect from the Fighter (and I think Stormbringer's point that we should evaluate whether the rules support these or not is good).
1) The Fighter is an expert at combat. He should be able to outfight level-appropriate foes.
2) The Fighter is a sound tactician - he knows how to exploit terrain and his weapon mastery to put his opponents at a disadvantage.
3) The Fighter is tough - he's able to take a lot more punishment than his companions and still contribute to the fight.
4) The Fighter (at high levels) is a leader of men. He is able to use his tactical knowledge to command troops effectively.
Jian isn't a complete waste - he's relatively effective against medium-sized humanoid opponents using weapons. Trip and Disarm greatly contribute to that fact. Having four attacks per round help him deal good damage for his level compared to some builds. A 2-handed weapon (
+1 flaming greatsword) with 21 Strength (Jian's highest score) would do 6d6+24 (average 45) if both attacks hit. Jian does 8d6+20 (average 48) if all four attacks hit - and more attacks mean more chances to score a critical. Both easily outstrip a 'sword and board' fighter with a
+1 flaming bastard sword 2d10+2d6+16 (average 34).
Jian's greatest deficiencies as I see them:
1) Two-weapon fighting is more wealth intensive than having a single-weapon. Freeing up some money that would be spent on a second weapon can give a magical item that increases options.
2) Two-Weapon Fighting Feats are expensive for the benefit they provide. Improved Two Weapon Fighting is an 'extra attack', just like 'Two-Weapon Fighting' is, but it's at -5 over your primary attack. Against an opponent that you need a 10 to hit on your primary attack, you'd need a 15 with your second, so the 'extra damage' from the attack is half as much as the first. Greater Two Weapon Fighting is even worse - if you need a 10 on your first attack, you need a 20 on the third attack - the extra damage is minimal. But I don't really expect most people to spend any time thinking about the 'average damage' the Feat would add to their build - I want people to think about Feats in terms of what 'looks cool' and I expect the rules to support the fluff. Honestly, Two-Weapon Fighting wouldn't be overpowered if the base feat gave you the same number of attacks with your off-hand as you have with your primary hand. That would also reduce the
insane Dex requirements - a 19 Dex for Greater Two Weapon Fighting is 'beyond the limits of normal humans'. To get a 19 Dex (to ensure he can use the Feat outside of an anti-magic field), Jian needs to be 16th level (+1 Dex at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th). Part of the power-creep in 3rd edition involves everyone wanting really good scores - because you need them. To be effective, Jian is supposed to have a high strength, a high Dex, a relatively high Int (13+) and can't take Con as a dump stat. That leaves him with a low Wisdom and Charisma - so the more effective he is in combat, the scarier he is to his own party since he can be
dominated and turned against them...
Quote from: OgreBattle;560991D&D is not a game like Chess, with solid defined rules.
It's not a computer game with pre-set parameters.
It is a game where you have another guy as the referee. That referee can make or break any rules he wants. How the players react to that is, well, up to the players reacting every which way they want.
That part I agree with. D&D is not a game like Chess, with solid, defined rules that apply in each and every single situation equally.
A role playing game system, even a rules-light one, is also a lot more complex, since it has many, many more rules that interact with each other according to specific in-game circumstances, the players' decision-making process when put into these specific circumstances, and the adjudication of the DM based on this set of circumstances and input from the players.
Quote from: OgreBattle;560991With that aside, RULES are something that can be tangibly discussed. PLAY EXPERIENCE is entirely mutable based on a bunch of humans interacting in a free form manner. Within the same edition you can have a rad time or everything sucks because X DM/Player did Y and Z. Everyone interacts with the rules in different ways
You can play close to the rules, you can modify them, you can throw them out.
But the rules, as printed, remain what they are. So if you want to talk rules, talk rules.
If we are to talk rules, then giving examples where the rules are used would be better than where they are ignored.
That's the part where I disagree fundamentally, assuming I understood your argument here.
Excluding all human components and specific game circumstances to consider the rules system and the rules alone is not only a waste of time and energy, but can lead to very, very wrong analysis that leads to the diagnosis of "problems" that are overblown or inexistent in actual play, because you are excluding not only a large chunk (the social and human elements) from the experience that is a role playing game, but also excluding the very purpose of these rules - to be used, adjudicated on, and applied by human beings in the process of playing the game in different ways, with different sets of priorities, different thought processes, different preferences, different individual interpretation and the combined social interactions of these interpretations towards a consensus of play thereof.
Rules have no positive existence beyond the game table where, when, and how they come into play, according to these specific circumstances based on the game world and make-believe, the intellect and social interactions of the participants, their adjudication and decision-making, etc.
Play experience, which indeed is entirely mutable the way human interactions in general are, can be discussed, thought about, and designed for. Actually, I would say that these considerations should be front and center in a role playing game's design precisely because fundamentally, as you noted in the first part of your post, this is a social activity first, and the rules are used or not, or this rule rather than that one, or changed, or expanded upon, by the players of the game themselves.
The argument you are making that play experience is so mutable that it couldn't be discussed tangibly, or should be excluded from the rules discussions to the point its systems take a life of their own in a vacuum divorced from various social, intellectual and psychological considerations of game play, is like saying that you cannot possibly discuss human interactions in a tangible manner in general because human interactions are mutable themselves. If that were the case, we wouldn't have social sciences to begin with. We wouldn't have fields and discussions surrounding these fiels of knowledge like Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, and many others.
If role playing games are not games of Chess with dry systems contained by the limits of a checkered game board and applied systematically in exactly the same ways by the players of the game barring specific choices in move sequences, but instead with complex systems with hundreds of thousands individual, interacting parts which then come into in contact with the specific circumstances of each game, their game worlds, encounter setups, participants involved, their use of the rules thereof, then it follows that the activity of role playing should considered with those things in mind, with the idea that no rules system survives contact with the human interactions and imaginations involved in the game. Designing role playing game rules must therefore take into consideration the social interactions, group makeups, including various observations, study and the like which then will inform the design so the rules may be usable effectively by different groups of people with different uses of the rules and different campaigns and intellects and social interactions.
Just handwaving these elements leads to poor game design and a tendency to fix imaginary problems with systems as they appear on the page, rather than the way they are used, executed, twisted, and so on. Role playing games are social activities, and the discussion of their rules and their application thereof must be viewed through the lense of their existence at a game table, interacting with the various elements I mentioned repeatedly. The alternative is not only a potential waste of time, but may -and did- lead to shit game design in several instances, some of them in recent memory.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;561081I used the Elite Array to build the Fighter in question. That's 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. I put the 14 is Strength, not the 12.
The fact that you thought putting your fourth worst stat into strength at all means you have absolutely no ground to stand on if you then want to complain that fighters are bullshit. Regardless of the method of determining stats, that is just backwards thinking all around. If you ALSO cannot grasp that you might have to make sacrifices to concept to account for a crappy stat-line... and that is, in fact, a crappy statline, then you ALSO have no ground to stand on... well, now your digging a hole.
Barring an archer fighter, there is no excuse for Strength not to be number 1 or maybe number 2 on the fighter's stat list. None. (I'll provide the caveat for certain hard core roleplayers that like to overcome adversity and shit like that.. but they don't go around complaining how weak the class is when they do)
QuotePersonally, I think two-weapon fighting is a bad choice, but I can see why it appeals to a lot of people
Well, deliberately gimping yourself half a dozen feats on top of taking a feat heavy chain? Sure, I can see how you'd think it doesn't work.
QuoteWhat I've found is that people's desire to 'lock-down' caster abuse tends to unfairly penalize the Fighter. DMs that have been burned by optimizers like to restrict access to 'broken shit'
.
If you can't convince your random DM to allow a Swashbuckler because the cleric is aiming for a polymorphing demon archer, then get a little less ambitious with your character concept. I still hold that DM's rejecting swashbucklers are going to be in the minority.
QuoteI don't intend it as a sort of 'trap'. I do intend it as an example that's fairly close to the 'rules' that shows some of the shortcomings of the class. Further, I invite someone to build an 'optimized' core Fighter at 10th level using the elite array and wealth-by-level guidelines.
Sure. No, I don't see that at all. I see a painfully back asswards fighter build that is horribly gimp-tastic and requests to fix it. When requests are met with reasonable responses you crow about how that proves the fighter class is broken.
Yeah, that doesn't AT ALL look like a trap. :rolleyes:
Here is the simple protip: Your bad concept does not make the class itself more or less powerful. It makes your concept bad.
You want a simple, core only, tenth level fighter?
Drop the exotic weapons. Drop the combat expertise shit chain (or don't, really). Make strength your primary attribute, con your second, dex or int your third. If dominate person looks scary to you, take a level of Iron will and buy a cloak of resistance (Will saves granted: +3-5. Loss to combat effectiveness, almost nothing). Since your strength is high, you can drop weapon finesse too. (AMAZING, I
KNOW!!!!)
Hell, play a fucking halfling and you've STILL got a better core fighter than your Jian character.
Want to play your gimpy hook-sword milquetoast? Listen to the advice you got and stop trying to play gotcha since it doesn't rely on the PHB only.
With a decent strength bonus (and even restricted to the shittastic Elite Array that is never used at a real table), and weapon focuses, your BaB is actually going to be closer to +15 than +10, making your second strikes +10 (yes, yes, penalties for two weapon fighter, whatever man: Tempest off-sets that, and magic weapons also offset. AMAZING, right? I
KNOW!!!!)
Or, you know. Grab a big smacking two handed thing and save a few feats.
Because, for all I snipped your long ass bullshit about wizards being able to change their speciality every day (nonsense. Most wizards memorize their favorite spells and only have a few outside options to experiment with), there are very few things a good fighter can't beat to death with his only real speciality: Whacking shit with a big stick.
Not "Combat", becuase yes, every 3x class can do something in combat (even, sigh, the bard), but actually whacking shit with a big stick, in a variety of ways... and leaving aside nonsense semantics about barbarians and rangers... nobody really does it better than the fighter guy.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560885Playing it once a year is hardly playing it at all, and for the purposes of this context, like I said, no wonder you haven't run into it.
Okay, dumbass. How does playing it once a year now, you know 2012, make a difference about a class that came out in what 1985? Did something change about a class from a book from 27 years ago that I didn't catch?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560885Did I say every person hated the cavalier. Jesus you can't be this stupid on purpose. You said you spent 12 years in the service, so I imagine you're older than 14. Try not to use 14 year old debate tactics. I said most people I played with, and continue to play with, view it as a broken overpowered class. Which it is. The whole point of you bringing up that quote was to show that UA classes were meant to fix a balance. Guess what fruitcake, you can't now act like the Cavalier class wasn't a huge part of that because it completely shuts down your "point".
You've said 'vast majority' 'nearly all' numerous times. Which is weird coming from a forum who always talks about the millions of people playing 1e, yet you've 'encountered' a couple hundred.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560885Once again, pay attention to what I'm actually saying, or keep your mouth shut. I did not say I spent 2 decades bitching about the Cavalier. I said in the past 2 decades, when this conversation would come up, the near unanimous feeling is that UA is broken and the Cavalier is too overpowered. Holy...
Why is the cavalier overpowered?
Where are the links to these discussions?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;560885Then you're even a bigger idiot than I gave you credit for. Did you not see where I said that I design games (and have for almost 30 years), and as a designer, it's the players who are the best ones to point out imbalances because as a designer, you're often influenced by biases that you often times don't even notice?
Oh so you started designing games the day after you started playing. Wow, guess that silly shit I did long ago counts as 'designing' Oh wait nope you website says '86. Do love those forums of yours though. Lots o'traffic going on there. Guess your shit is super popular.
Quote from: Spike;561098The fact that you thought putting your fourth worst stat into strength at all means you have absolutely no ground to stand on if you then want to complain that fighters are bullshit. Regardless of the method of determining stats, that is just backwards thinking all around.
I'm going to say this again and I hope it doesn't get lost. I put the
second highest stat into Strength.
Str 14, Dex 15, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 10, Chr 8
If it helps, I'll put them in order of high to low:
Dex (15), Str (14), Int (13), Con (12), Wis (10), Chr (8).
I point this out because I'd agree with you - if you were right.
Quote from: Spike;561098Barring an archer fighter, there is no excuse for Strength not to be number 1 or maybe number 2 on the fighter's stat list. None. (I'll provide the caveat for certain hard core roleplayers that like to overcome adversity and shit like that.. but they don't go around complaining how weak the class is when they do)
I agree. Strength is the second highest stat in this build. Agility is more important because:
1) Dexterity of 19 is required for Greater Two-Weapon Fighting. None of the feats selected require a high strength. If he later takes Power Attack, it only requires a 13+, which he would qualify for.
2) Because he is able to use his Dexterity modifier in place of his Strength modifier for both melee and ranged attack rolls, the only benefit of a high strength is extra damage. The benefit of a high dexterity is attack rolls (all), AC, Initiative. The benefit of a high Strength is 'weapon damage rolls'.
Quote from: Spike;561098Well, deliberately gimping yourself half a dozen feats on top of taking a feat heavy chain? Sure, I can see how you'd think it doesn't work.
Jian's build doesn't deliberately 'gimp' himself on a half-dozen feats. Two-Weapon Fighting is 'core' to the character concept. Improved Trip and Improved Disarm are actually very good options for ensuring the Fighter doesn't just 'full attack' every round - especially since you can get a free attack if you trip your opponent. Weapon Focus, Improved Weapon Focus, and Weapon Specialization are not 'gimpy' feats - they're WEAK, but they're still solid choices that almost everyone chooses. Improved Critical is great - especially for someone that has focused on a single weapon the way Jian has.
Quote from: Spike;561098If you can't convince your random DM to allow a Swashbuckler because the cleric is aiming for a polymorphing demon archer, then get a little less ambitious with your character concept. I still hold that DM's rejecting swashbucklers are going to be in the minority.
To me, this supports Kaelik's argument. Fighters can't do cool things because they're called 'Fighters'. Why can't a Fighter be a 'swashbuckling' Fighter. For a 'generic fighting class' they can't do anything that is COOL. If someone thinks of something COOL a FIGHTER could do, they immediately take it away from the Fighter and make a new class out of it. The Fighter is bad MOSTLY because anything good keeps being taken away. Fighters are good with weapons? Let's take that away and make a 'Weapon Master' class. Fighters are good with commanding troops? Let's take that away and make a 'Marshal' class.
I want to point out that it keeps happening, so maybe the process can be reversed. You put all the COOL into the Fighter class, let them pick the abilities that suit their 'style' and you're good to go. And if these abilities are 'too good' for normal Feats, just make them 'Fighter Only'. So maybe Improved Critical gets turned into a 'Fighter Only' feat, just like Weapon Specialization. And maybe an ability that gives you an AC bonus equal to your Intelligence bonus (limited perhaps, by level) could be a 'Fighter Only' feat. Heck, you could probably let Fighters take any Feat for the 'bonus feat', because if they have a bunch of cool 'fighter only' options, those are the ones they'll probably take. But if they want to take 'Skill Focus' instead, more power to them.
Quote from: Spike;561098Sure. No, I don't see that at all. I see a painfully back asswards fighter build that is horribly gimp-tastic and requests to fix it. When requests are met with reasonable responses you crow about how that proves the fighter class is broken.
Yeah, that doesn't AT ALL look like a trap. :rolleyes:
I'm real confused. Making a Fighter using the normal rules means I'm making a 'trap'. Even though I pointed out in the original post that I wanted to make a 'realistic' Fighter, and that I would no doubt be considered 'biased' toward making it 'gimp-tastic', so I asked for suggestions to ensure it remained an example of a REAL Fighter - not one made specifically built to prove a point.
I also invited you to build the best Fighter you can build in 3.5 so we can look at it instead.
Because here's what I think.
I think that everyone here wants the Fighter to be good. I think that some people think the Fighter is good because the IDEA of a Fighter is good. But the rules don't support making a good Fighter. It's almost a GIVEN, that at some point, taking non-Fighter levels is EXPECTED. I've taken a level of cleric in a Fighter Build for the +2 Fortitude and Will save
and no other reason - that's better than spending two feats to get the same benefit. At high levels when you 'always hit' with your primary attack, sacrificing a +1 to hit can be worth it. Taking 3 levels of rogue means giving up an average of 4 hit points and +1 Attack, but you get +2d6 weapon damage pretty reliably... And a +3 on Reflex saves and a +1 to Fortitude and Will.
Quote from: Spike;561098Here is the simple protip: Your bad concept does not make the class itself more or less powerful. It makes your concept bad.
Okay - so two-weapon-fighting trip/disarm Fighter is a bad concept?
I get that we can't all be 'special snow-flakes', but I think that D&D should
at the least allow us to make characters that are as good as 'real people' in the 'real world'. I'm not talking about wuxia or anime - I'm talking about a show that's about how real weapons were really used by real people in the real world with no magic - and that's a valid build. And if you presume, for a moment, that the best martial artist in the real world is equivalent to what, a 5th level Fighter, that with 10 levels,
you should be better than anyone currently living.
You know what I think?
I think that we assume that some real Shaolin monk is like an 18th level character, so if you're a Fighter and you're REALLY GOOD, you get to be like someone in the real world. But if you're a Wizard, and you're REALLY GOOD, you get to be better than anyone that has ever lived because
there are no wizards in the real world. That kind of thinking is fucked up in D&D world, and needs to be challenged.
Quote from: Spike;561098You want a simple, core only, tenth level fighter?
Drop the exotic weapons. Drop the combat expertise shit chain (or don't, really). Make strength your primary attribute, con your second, dex or int your third. If dominate person looks scary to you, take a level of Iron will and buy a cloak of resistance (Will saves granted: +3-5. Loss to combat effectiveness, almost nothing). Since your strength is high, you can drop weapon finesse too. (AMAZING, I KNOW!!!!)
Spike, do you think that will make a good Fighter?
If you do, why don't you write up a stat block for it?
I know it takes some time. But we're more than 3000 posts into this thread. I'd think that at this point we'd be willing to take the extra time to make our points pretty clear.
If you think you can build a good 10th level Fighter, give me the stat block. Let's see how it compares against some 'standard enemies' without support. Because I know what happens when I put a Clay Golem against a Fire Giant (both are CR 10). I can see that they're both melee bruisers, but the golem has some benefits against casters. But you know what I think? I think the best Fighter build will suffer against a Fire Giant. More hit points, better attack, better damage, possibly better defenses, and definitely better saving throws. I think the best Fighter will only handle a Clay Golem with great difficulty, even though it's designed to be more effective against wizards than Fighters.
Quote from: Spike;561098Want to play your gimpy hook-sword milquetoast? Listen to the advice you got and stop trying to play gotcha since it doesn't rely on the PHB only.
Okay. I'm going to protest here. The Exotic Weapon that Jian uses is
outright better than the core Exotic Weapons. The best Light Weapon does 1d6 damage (as the hooksword), but the critical range is 20x2. The hooksword is 19-20 x2. That is objectively better than the BEST of core.
The armor he chose (+5 AC, Max Dex +3) is effectively Breastplate. It's a medium armor, but since it was FREE at first level, it was objectively better than any other available armor. And sure, you could trade it out for Full Plate, if you think that's better. Or a mithril shirt if you think that's better. Spending money on different armor is definitely an option - especially once his Dex gets beyond +3. But not upgrading your 'father's armor' shouldn't necessarily be the worst option. But if it is, go ahead and show us how a different option works better. Just remember to spend the money to replace the 'free armor' from the 49,000 GP you have available.
Quote from: Spike;561098With a decent strength bonus (and even restricted to the shittastic Elite Array that is never used at a real table), and weapon focuses, your BaB is actually going to be closer to +15 than +10, making your second strikes +10 (yes, yes, penalties for two weapon fighter, whatever man: Tempest off-sets that, and magic weapons also offset. AMAZING, right? I KNOW!!!!)
I don't even know what you're saying anymore. I used the 'shittastic' Elite Array because I planned on doing some other characters of other classes using the same array. It's equivalent to a 25-point buy. How is that 'never used at a real table'? Are you such power gamers that you're always equivalent to 32 point buy? Or do you cheat when you roll the dice? I wanted to use the 'elite array' because I didn't want an accusation that 'you blew all your points on a high Strength, so that's why you suck'. Because if you get an 18 for Strength, you're going to have weaknesses EVERYWHERE else.
And at 10th level, your Base Attack Bonus is: +10. Not +15. Never +15. At 15th level, you can have a +15. But never at 10th. Now, attack bonus, that's different.
And Jian's bonus is +18/+13 (+10 Base, +5 Dex, +1 Weapon, +1 Weapon Focus, +1 Greater Weapon Focus). Even with the two-weapon penalty +16/+16/+11/+11 is fairly respectable. Unless, of course, you're way over suggested wealth levels or started with incredible stats.
I'm not saying that Fighters SHOULDN'T have more or better equipment - but I am pointing out that if they DON'T, it's hard to make an effective character.
But if you don't believe, I
really encourage you to show me how.
Quote from: Spike;561098Or, you know. Grab a big smacking two handed thing and save a few feats.
I'm glad you brought that up. If Jian hadn't taken a ridiculously Feat intensive specialty, he would have had more Feats. But what can he spend them on that makes him more powerful? I mean once you take Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, if you plan on full-attacking the rest of your life, what more do you need? Why do you keep getting 'class abilities' that don't actually make your abilities better?
One problem Fighters face is that they have a list of available 'bonus feats'. Once they select the ones they want, they're left picking from a list that they didn't care about. At 18th level, no Fighter cares about his Fighter Bonus Feat. It doesn't add anything he didn't already REJECT five times. Of course, since nobody plays an 18th level straight Fighter, maybe nobody notices.
Quote from: Spike;561098Because, for all I snipped your long ass bullshit about wizards being able to change their speciality every day (nonsense. Most wizards memorize their favorite spells and only have a few outside options to experiment with), there are very few things a good fighter can't beat to death with his only real speciality: Whacking shit with a big stick.
Your experience with wizards is not necessarily representative of everyone's experience with wizards. But in any case, I find that most wizards pick a 'general' list of spells that gets them through most situations pretty well. In the event that they are going against a
specific threat, they do customize their spell lists for that purpose. People who use 'scry-and-die', who know what they'll be fighting and at a time of their choosing, absolutely pick spells that are going to be used for that fight and are
optimized for that fight. Likewise, if you expect to fight a lot of undead, you probably put
command undead on your prepared list in place of
hynotic pattern. That may only work if you know what you expect to be fighting (and you probably want to keep some generalist spells prepared), but wizards and other casters are best suited to know what to expect. Powerful divinations can let you know about the dungeon before you get there.
Don't believe me? Ask your 'fireball happy wizard' what spells he'll prepare if he's planning on going up against a bunch of Fire Giants. I bet you even money that he'll switch out all of his fire spells for frost spells if possible, and keep a few 'general damage' spells in case they have something immune to Cold.
Quote from: Spike;561098Not "Combat", becuase yes, every 3x class can do something in combat (even, sigh, the bard), but actually whacking shit with a big stick, in a variety of ways... and leaving aside nonsense semantics about barbarians and rangers... nobody really does it better than the fighter guy.
Barbarians and Rangers are absolutely NOT semantic arguments. The barbarian is BETTER than the Fighter. The Ranger is BETTER than the Fighter. They both have the same attack bonus, but the barbarian has more hit points, deals more damage, and has more skills. The ranger has a lot more skills, and has spells to boot. In a play-by-post I'm involved in, I took my first level as Ranger almost exclusively for access to the Ranger spell-list. Specifically, I wanted
entangle, and it absolutely has saved the party's bacon the way a Fighter simply COULD NOT do. We would have been overwhelmed by superior numbers if I had been forced to attack them one at a time, rather than 'capture' some in the entangle and slow the rest down enough that they could never bring their superior numbers to bear.
But, even if FIGHTERS were really good at beating people with a stick (which I don't necessarily agree with), what would you conclude if a CLERIC were objectively better at it? What difference would it make if that could be proven beyond a 'reasonable doubt'?
Holy fucking textwall Batman!
Quote from: jibbajibba;560983both classes were broken.
The Cavalier was broken because of the -HP thing mostly.
The Barbarian was broken because of stat generation and the anti-magic stuff. The Anti-magic stuff seems like its double edged because a barbarian can't use magic but the benefits given to outweigh that are more regular and more predictable and effectively equate to a moderate magic horde. Then layer on all the wilderness, climbing etc etc
However, that is all broken in relation to mundane fighters. I don't think a 15th level Barbarian is broken in comparison to a 15th level Wizard for example.
The problem for both classes is that they excel at the early levels where fighters were already strong so if the curve was Fighters strong but fading its now barbarians/cavaliers uber strong but fading.
The range and Paladin are more balanced as they stay strong at the top end because magic just gives them the boost they need to keep up with the full casters. Of courser Rangers have some very odd features in 2 e why do they get free 2 weapons styel spec? Never understood that why does a wilderness guide bloke get that for free when a run of the mill fighter is far more likely to pick the skill up from fighting acadamies, teh arena and a host of other civilised places.
You do realize that Barbarians can't group with casters initally (like no Clerics/healing to 2nd level, no mages at all to 4th - then no XP, and 1/2 exp at 8th)? and have an exp chart three times as steep as Fighters?. Literally 6,000 XP for UA Barbarian to get to 2nd level, while the Fighter will be 3rd and halfway to 4th, and the wizard would also be 3rd level. In AD&D, unlike 3e, characters are generally better compared with equivalent XP totals vs levels.
A 15th level barbarian has the same XP total as a 19th level wizard, on his way to 20th.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;561148Holy fucking textwall Batman!
He's good like that.:D
Quote from: deadDMwalking;561147I'm going to say this again and I hope it doesn't get lost. I put the second highest stat into Strength.
I could swear you posted a stat line with a 12 str, but frankly I don't give a shit to go back and look. I DO know you took gloves of dex over gloves of str, which, again: the fuck?
QuoteJian's build doesn't deliberately 'gimp' himself on a half-dozen feats. Two-Weapon Fighting is 'core' to the character concept. Improved Trip and Improved Disarm are actually very good options for ensuring the Fighter doesn't just 'full attack' every round - especially since you can get a free attack if you trip your opponent.
Sure you did. You took an exotic weapon feat, you took weapon finesse since you decided to go high dex, then you took weapon expertise followed by improved trip and improved disarm. That's five right there. I'm sure if I looked I could find a sixth to round out the 'half dozen'.
If you took a simple or martial weapon and focused on strength you'd save two feats at a minimum. If you stopped worrying about marginal tactics you can actually do anyway (Trip and disarm), you'd save three. Expertise is balls unless you plan on not attacking and just taking lumps. It sounds cool, and sadly it is a prerequist for vaguely useful feats.
But you've also said you're going to utterly ignore the hook swords only reason for existing (To disarm motherfuckers) in favor of some sort of bullshit unarmed disarm for flavor reasons, so you're still fucked.
QuoteTo me, this supports Kaelik's argument. Fighters can't do cool things because they're called 'Fighters'. Why can't a Fighter be a 'swashbuckling' Fighter. For a 'generic fighting class' they can't do anything that is COOL.
Any number of people like to think wearing armor and whacking things in one of three flavors (big honking weapon, two weapons or board and weapon) is plenty of cool options. Amazingly, no one polled said 'playing a whimpy dude who doesn't know what the fuck he wants to do in life' was an option that needed support to make Fighters cool. However, despite that, there happens to be additional support for wimpy fighters called the Swashbuckler. This, amazingly enough, does not intrude on the burly guy with the big whackstick called the Fighter in any way. I
KNOW!!!
QuoteI want to point out that it keeps happening, so maybe the process can be reversed. You put all the COOL into the Fighter class,
If all that you (and I'm tempted to make this a collective you, rather than singular) wanted to do was discuss ways of making the fighter cooler I'd totally be down with that.
However, you pretty much are arguing that since it doesn't meet your minimum standards of cool it should be gotten rid of.
Well:Fuck you. I don't want to play a berzerker or a lost in the woods making sweet sweet love to his pet wolf guy, or the snooty hoity-toity religious knight. I like my fighters to be generic scruffy mercenary types who like cities, wenches and occasionally telling Crom to go fuck himself while I handle my shit.
WHich, amazingly, the fighter pretty much lets me do.
QuoteI'm real confused. Making a Fighter using the normal rules means I'm making a 'trap'.
No. Making a weak as shit 'concept' fighter then protesting when the better way to do it is 'not as a fighter' to 'prove' fighters are borked is a trap.
You apparently posted in bad faith, wasting time of at least two other posters who honestly tried to make 'your guy' a sounder mechanical representation of your admittedly crap concept. So you could attempt to score points off us instead.
QuoteI also invited you to build the best Fighter you can build in 3.5 so we can look at it instead.
Sure. Half orc. Big swinging thing. Cleave, weapon focus, weapon spec, power attack once his BaB starts to support it. Iron will to offset shitty will save once charm spells come online.
Oh... the pain. I have to lie down after all that work.
QuoteBecause here's what I think.
I don't really care what you think after your little 'gotcha' attempt up thread, but whatever. I'll play along for Marleycat's sake (four thousand, here we come!)
QuoteIt's almost a GIVEN, that at some point, taking non-Fighter levels is EXPECTED.
Sure. PrC's are built into the core mechanics of 3X. EVERY class is expected to diversify at some point.
QuoteI've taken a level of cleric in a Fighter Build for the +2 Fortitude and Will save and no other reason - that's better than spending two feats to get the same benefit.
That's because you're an idiot. The fighter doesn't need a +2 fort save from the cleric. the trade off to cleric isn't total shit, but by the time you've done it a level 1 anything is kinda useless. So, trade off some HP and BaB for the +2 will save you actually want/need, or spend one feat for the same benefit?
QuoteAt high levels when you 'always hit' with your primary attack, sacrificing a +1 to hit can be worth it.
Yet you complain that your iterative attacks miss to often. Make up your mind: DO you have an excess of BaB or too little?
QuoteTaking 3 levels of rogue means giving up an average of 4 hit points and +1 Attack, but you get +2d6 weapon damage pretty reliably... And a +3 on Reflex saves and a +1 to Fortitude and Will.
Its an average of 6 HP, not four, with a high end cap of 12. Any class can gain extra saves by multi-classing pretty much, so it says absolutely nothing about the fighter, and again with sacrificing BaB. The reason to go rogue isn't a crap SA bonus, but fucking skills. Duh. Of course, mc'ing over to ranger provides almost as much benefit with fewer tradeoffs... hey!
QuoteOkay - so two-weapon-fighting trip/disarm Fighter is a bad concept?
Since a well built fighter can trip or disarm without feats, when they need too, and burnign three feats to do it means ALWAYS trying to trip/disarm... sure. Given the volume of monsters that don't use weapons, I find disarming to be an edge case anyway. Sure, its NICE to take away the lich's staff. I've DONE it. Taking a feat to disarm and finding out the GM is throwing bears at the party... not fun.
QuoteYou know what I think?
Not much, obviously. But again, Marleycat is counting on me...
QuoteI think that we assume that some real Shaolin monk is like an 18th level character, so if you're a Fighter and you're REALLY GOOD, you get to be like someone in the real world.
Um.
I hate to be the barer of bad news, but... um... there is this class... and this is embarassing, but its actually in the Player's Hand Book. I know, I know, its awkwardly placed or something, hard to find... but... well... it's called the Monk.
Yeah.
I know, you probably thought it was some sort of jesuit or fransciscan thing, all tonsured fat guy with ink stained fingers...
But... and this is a shocker, I know:
It's actually sort of patterned off the Shaolin Monk type of monk!
Weird, huh?
So... as it turns out: No one really thinks a Shaolin Monk is some sort of 18th level Fighter after all.
QuoteBut if you're a Wizard, and you're REALLY GOOD, you get to be better than anyone that has ever lived because there are no wizards in the real world. That kind of thinking is fucked up in D&D world, and needs to be challenged.
I'd love to see how you'll change people's minds about wizards being better than anyone who ever lived because, you know, that old guy down the street is totally a fifth level wizard or something.
Yeah. that was mean of me, cutting up your paragraph like that and totally attacking the conclusion out of context. Whatever. I'm an asshole and it looked fun. Sadly, it wasn't.
QuoteSpike, do you think that will make a good Fighter?
If you do, why don't you write up a stat block for it?
I don't know why I'd have to. I've given you the idiot's guide to good fighters a dozen times now. I've got a whole fucking party of tenth level characters rotting away in the Thunderdome thread because Kaelik was too chickenshit to bring his bone devil in when people would actually be doing things like enforcing the rules about, oh, actions and shit. I didn't even try to hard to optimize them, but there is a perfectly ordinary, good competitive fighter in the bunch if you care that much.
QuoteIf you think you can build a good 10th level Fighter, give me the stat block. Let's see how it compares against some 'standard enemies' without support.
Why without support? You want to put a single wizard in a dungeon without support? That ought to be amusing. Besides, I've already statted up a tenth party (see above). Should I adjust them a bit more? Maybe. Actually: I'd put my fighter up against the fire giant over the golem, since I was rushed and forgot the adamantine weapon thing. Ironically: his weapon is blugeoning. Go figger.
QuoteOkay. I'm going to protest here. The Exotic Weapon that Jian uses is outright better than the core Exotic Weapons. The best Light Weapon does 1d6 damage (as the hooksword), but the critical range is 20x2. The hooksword is 19-20 x2. That is objectively better than the BEST of core.
You are spending a feat to improve your critical range one whole point? Ooohhh... scary!
QuoteBut not upgrading your 'father's armor' shouldn't necessarily be the worst option.
I dunno. That's a Roleplaying consideration, not a rules thing, unless I missed some terrible feat you took in return for a tiny, tiny pile of gold.
QuoteIt's equivalent to a 25-point buy. How is that 'never used at a real table'?
Well, i always roll dice, and I don't have to cheat. If it happens to be equivalent to a 25 point buy, it still sucks in comparison if only because of all the odd numbers that it lands on. Odd numbers are wasted points.
QuoteI'm glad you brought that up. If Jian hadn't taken a ridiculously Feat intensive specialty, he would have had more Feats.
Oh, yes. One extra feat every five or so levels. Massively intensive. If you burn 5 feats on useless crap as detailed above. As for what to do with feats you 'don't need'? Explore your options. Take that Iron will instead of bitching about how you always fail will saves. Take the mobility tree and explore the joys of running around the battlefield like a crack monkey. Take Improved Initiative and Improved Criticals, Take Monkey Grip and explore fighting with two two-handed swords... smell that? That's the smell of freedom, motherfucker. I know, it smells just a little bit like wooden-teeth halitosis, but you'll get used to it.
QuoteYour experience with wizards is not necessarily representative of everyone's experience with wizards.
You mean: My experiences with a GM who isn't there to just let the party get away with whatever? You mean a GM who is happy to put time limits (like valuable hostages to be sacrificed, angry NPCs who will throw the party out of town if they don't clear their names or what have you?) on adventures? Or smarter monsters who have plenty of defenses to, oh... scrying spells? (+5 to will saves for 'second hand knowledge', which is usually the best case senario, is not a joke). Likewise, scry and die sort of implies a 'skip to the end' mentality which rarely works.
QuoteBarbarians and Rangers are absolutely NOT semantic arguments.
Generally: They are. The Ranger's spells are mostly crap, come on line too late in the game at too low a level to keep up. The fact is both classes, like the fighter, contribute mostly through beat-sticking shit to death.
Which, according to a whole bunch of people is boring, stupid, and ineffective.
so, yes: semantically the same.
QuoteBut, even if FIGHTERS were really good at beating people with a stick (which I don't necessarily agree with), what would you conclude if a CLERIC were objectively better at it? What difference would it make if that could be proven beyond a 'reasonable doubt'?
I'd say that if the cleric is proving to be objectively better at whacking shit with a stick than the fighter (and the fighter isn't some gimpy, half-assed monk wannabe like your Jian), then the GM is being very generous with allowing the spell casters to prepare before every fight, and to relax after every fight to get spells back. Plus that cleric probably sucks at clerical shit like turning and general spellcasting (healing or indirect buffing, etc).
Because, amazingly like you proved with your hook-sword archer, multiple specializations tends to result in weaker results across the board. Awesome beatsticking with a cleric requires sacrifices elsewhere.
Here, let me help you a little bit: If your cleric casts Divine Power, you know, that spell that everyone points out is objectively the bad-ass fighter beater self-buff?
Yes, for rounds/level the clerics BaB catches up, as do his Hp. The only other bonus is the +6 to strength. Now, given that clerics need a high Wis for clericking and SHOULD have (but frequently don't) a decent Cha for turning dead, they're already down a couple of points. If the cleric is seriously packing gauntlets of strength and a mighty magic weapon instead of some sort of spell casting magic items... well... he just sacrificed spell casting to be a beatstick, didn't he.
Otherwise? That +6 str? That probably lets him start approaching the fighter's unbuffed strength (and by level 8, its likely, if not(yet) common, that he'll still fall short), and we haven't even gotten to feat allocation yet.
Oooh... scary.
Divine power: Making the cleric ALMOST a fighter since 2001.
So yeah: If you totally build your cleric just like a fighter, you get a shitty fighter who can keep up a few rounds a day and has some gimped spell casting he can throw down on top of it. But at least his saves are better, right?
EDIT::: Sweet godawlmighty! I snipped the fuck out of his post and STILL have a wall of text.
Quote from: SkarnkaiLW;561158You do realize that Barbarians can't group with casters initally (like no Clerics/healing to 2nd level, no mages at all to 4th - then no XP, and 1/2 exp at 8th)? and have an exp chart three times as steep as Fighters?. Literally 6,000 XP for UA Barbarian to get to 2nd level, while the Fighter will be 3rd and halfway to 4th, and the wizard would also be 3rd level. In AD&D, unlike 3e, characters are generally better compared with equivalent XP totals vs levels.
A 15th level barbarian has the same XP total as a 19th level wizard, on his way to 20th.
Yes I just said that at low levels Barbarians are tougher than fighters who are tough at low levels but at high levels they aren't quite tough enough to toe to toe with the casters ..... but they are very close.
One assumes that the party accepts that there is a barbarian and is built on that premise otherwise he is soloing ... not an issue but not so much fund.
As an aside just after UA came out I ran a Thieves' World Campaign with a Barbarian, a thief and a Dwarven Weaponsmith class out of a dragon magazine. The barbarian who has a long history is now 11th level but lives in Canada.... Anyway because of the huge modifiers the barbarian dominated play.
So at first level a barbarian and I think foolishly allowed the use of Method V from the UA and this barbarian had 17 STR, 18 Dex and 18 Con that meant at first level if he wore Studded Leather armour he was AC -1 and he had 20 fucking hit points.
If you think a 1st level character with AC-1 and 20 HP isn't tough you have to remember he can jump, climb, sneak, hide, track, do first aid, heals faster, can detect illusion and magic and well ..thats enough really.
The really odd bit though is the big restriction, ca';t use magic, erodes really fast. So he can hit magic creatures at 4th level but by 4th level he is already allowed to use magic weapons so WTF ? Also if you look at the fighter's 80 heavy footmen at 9th compared to the barbarian's 500 man horde although that is only temporary, but he can always summon it again :)
It is broken I promise.
QuoteI think that we assume that some real Shaolin monk is like an 18th level character, so if you're a Fighter and you're REALLY GOOD, you get to be like someone in the real world.
Hawhawhawhawhawhawhawhawhawhawhawhw...
(http://www.sundriesshack.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Nelson-Muntz.jpg)
Hawhawhawhawhahww.....
Fuck...
Are you fourteen? Do you sleep in a bed that looks like a car? Do you carry an umbrella with a samurai sword handle?
I sincerely hope that you are trolling! But if not, I'd suggest that you take a nice long break from RPGs, video games, fantasy novels, comics, action movies and drugs.
Quote from: Spike;561186I could swear you posted a stat line with a 12 str, but frankly I don't give a shit to go back and look. I DO know you took gloves of dex over gloves of str, which, again: the fuck?
*cough* I was the one who did that; I rearranged the stats and put the 12 in Strength because I decided the 14 in Con was better (harder to get bonus HPs, and since the 13 Int and 15 Dex were feat requirements. Also since with the swashbuckler levels, the Int bonus adds to damage (and applies fully to the offhand, instead of 1/2).
Forgot to mention that you could potentially dump frost/fire for Wounding, which is probably better in terms of taking down big monsters if you have a lot of attacks, though its expensive.
Anyway, I know its a trap concept. Though 'Jian' would be perfectly fine as a 2E fighter (when TWF is actually one of the better options, and anyone can attempt to Trip/Disarm) or in 4E (with its Tempest Fighter build option being apparently quite good).
@deaddm: OK, anyway so what's the difference you're proposing between fighters getting class features and fighters getting feats? What does it matter if you get 'Cleave: fighter feat' or 'Cleave; fighter at-will 1", or TWF as a feat vs. 4E-style 'Twin Strike' power?
I do admit alot of feats are pretty sucky (yay Toughness!) and trap options are bad for the newbies, of course. (Not that 3.5 is being played by them, apart from Pathfinder). If you want something better, I doubt Mearls is your man - I'd give up on 5E and try some DIY. Happy to critique anything you do in the Design & Development - I only rarely venture to the gaming den, though.
Regarding 'Shaolin Monks' - the Monk class emulates things they're supposed to be able to do in the 'mythic past'. Real Shaolin Monks (you know, real people who live in the real world and do shows for tourists) can't do any of those things. They're basically martial artists.
A Fighter is something like a 'western' martial artist. Because people have been beating other people to death with their bare hands even after they learned rocks work better.
But let me rephrase. What is the difference between a Fighter (western knight) and a Samurai (Japanese knight)?
Or rather, why is there a difference?
Regarding Jian, the only reason he had a bow was several posters in this thread insisted that any high level Fighter would have a bow. Because otherwise, how is he going to take down a flying dragon? If I didn't have a bow, I'd be taken to task for deliberately gimping him. If I do give him a bow I'm taken to task for giving him a weapon that he doesn't have any specialty with.
Regarding attack bonus and multiple attacks - the attack bonus usually makes the primary attack a 'sure thing'. The -10 usually makes a tertiary attack a near-guarantee miss. Of course it depends on the target AC, but it really ends up working out both ways - you usually don't care about another +1 for your first attack, but it might make a difference for your third attack. But if you have to move and end up getting only a single attack, it doesn't matter. If you're building a Lancer, and all your damage comes from a Mounted Charge, you don't care about multiple attacks.
Regarding prestige classes, they were included in the DMG for a reason. They shouldn't be an 'expectation' for a player, but they probably did become that. That's probably the worst thing about 3rd edition. You could build a good character with multi-classing, but all the 'goodies' were buried in prestige classes.
Regarding the difference between Feats and Class Abilities - since Feats are intended for 'everyone', and there was concern by the designers over how many people would get, especially since they were new to the game, I think they deliberately made them weaker than they should. A Feat that you get for your entire career is a +1 to attack; a 1st level spell is a +20 (of course, useable every other round). The general weakness of feats is a problem, of course, but so is spending new feats to 'enhance' an ability that you already have, rather than adding a new ability. Improved Two Weapon Fighting is a good example of this - attacking with 2 weapons is already established - you're just paying a Feat tax to keep 'developing that tree'.
Regarding 'removing the fighter', that's Kaelik's suggestion. He thinks a 'shadowlord' or something would be better, because nobody objects to a shadowlord doing cool things. People do object to Fighters doing cool things. Mguy originally seemed to want to keep the Fighter, but over the course of 3000+ posts, he decided that there was too much resistance to the idea of a Fighter doing cool things.
For myself, I do want to improve the Fighter. I think the Fighter is a cool idea, but the implementation, sadly, doesn't work. A high level Fighter is never seen in games that I play because it's a bad class. People take it for a few levels, but nobody sticks with it. And that's true even if Prestige Classes are absolutely not allowed.
Understanding for a moment that I played the whole run of 3.0 and 3.5, there was a definite 'increase' in the number of people taking prestige classes for granted. But especially in the beginning, they weren't an 'every character' kind of thing - especially since there weren't that many prestige classes...
If Feats were meaningful (like if Cleave subsumed Great Cleave so you only had to take 1 feat to get the benefit), that would help the Fighter. If the Fighter received a bonus feat every level, that would help the Fighter. This is especially true at level 5... Fighter 5 is the 'deadest' level in the entire game. +1 BAB and NOTHING ELSE.
For myself (remember, I like Fighters), I never play a straight Fighter. I always take a level of a high skill class to start with (rogue or ranger) and then take no more than 4 levels of Fighter, and go from there.
I'd like the Fighter to have more options available to them, even if they were Fighter exclusive feats (the way weapon specialization is). Some options might be things like a 'base defense bonus' (sort of like the monk) that you could get with a Feat - especially if it scales with level. Because taking the same feat over and over (even if it is mechanically superior) is rough.
Beyond combat ability, Fighters need more skills. They also need a better selection of skills. Why isn't 'survival' a class skill for Fighters? Why isn't 'diplomacy'? In a lot of source material, the fighter is the one that's good at talking to people - especially if it's a wizard/fighter duo.
In these 3000+ posts, I've actually posted a lot about ways to make the fighter effective against level-appropriate foes. However, most of the time I have to go back and reassert that the Fighter can't contribute to level-appropriate foes.
But I'll check out the Fighter you've made. I was hoping to see that combat resolved.
Only 635 posts to go.:) Dance my pretties, dance!
Quote from: deadDMwalking;561256Regarding 'Shaolin Monks' - the Monk class emulates things they're supposed to be able to do in the 'mythic past'. Real Shaolin Monks (you know, real people who live in the real world and do shows for tourists) can't do any of those things. They're basically martial artists.
A Fighter is something like a 'western' martial artist. Because people have been beating other people to death with their bare hands even after they learned rocks work better.
But let me rephrase. What is the difference between a Fighter (western knight) and a Samurai (Japanese knight)?
Or rather, why is there a difference?
.
Dude: Learn to keep your replies relatively short. If
I'M telling you that you know you have a real problem.
As far as core D&D goes: There is no difference between a fighter and a samurai. That's something that crops up in various other books and winds up frequently contradictory.
To be honest, I find the existing Samurai Class in D&D (as differentiated from the Samurai Class in the Rokugan book, or whatever they called it (OA?)), to be actually crappier than just making a samurai flavored fighter. Seriously.
You'd be better off asking why there has to be a swashbuckler class to make nimble light fighters work (er.. there doesn't. Make 'em rogues with rapiers.)... then we can address the core limitations of D&D as a physics engine, along with all the sacred cows that never get fixed, and has fuck all to do with wether or not 'Fighters suck'.
Because, really, that's what your fighter v. Samurai question is driving towards.
But if a good proper physics engine is what you want, so that weedy hook sword psuedo-monk fighters don't feel small in the pants is what you want, D&D may not be the game for you. Try GURPS. That way you can see what every single point actually gets you on the table top. Try Runequest, where armor actually absorbs damage, and being a pansy-ass with a knife means you can still gut a fool in one good hit, but also playign the same character for twenty years is not proof of some gutter snipe gutting you with a knife in one hit either. Play faaking Exalted, where your fighter is expected (or so I'm told...) to throw mountains at problems... as his leading move. His finishing move reshapes reality by the power of awesome, making mages wonder why htey have to study twenty years for a shitty flamethrower, when their natural awesome allows them to convince enemy weapons to turn on their owners (or so I'm told...).
Because, really: Your complaints about how Jian shapes up
IN D&D suggest you actually have fundamental issues that would be better addressed
OUTSIDE of D&D.
Quote from: Spike;561271Dude: Learn to keep your replies relatively short. If I'M telling you that you know you have a real problem.
As far as core D&D goes: There is no difference between a fighter and a samurai. That's something that crops up in various other books and winds up frequently contradictory.
To be honest, I find the existing Samurai Class in D&D (as differentiated from the Samurai Class in the Rokugan book, or whatever they called it (OA?)), to be actually crappier than just making a samurai flavored fighter. Seriously.
You'd be better off asking why there has to be a swashbuckler class to make nimble light fighters work (er.. there doesn't. Make 'em rogues with rapiers.)... then we can address the core limitations of D&D as a physics engine, along with all the sacred cows that never get fixed, and has fuck all to do with wether or not 'Fighters suck'.
Because, really, that's what your fighter v. Samurai question is driving towards.
But if a good proper physics engine is what you want, so that weedy hook sword psuedo-monk fighters don't feel small in the pants is what you want, D&D may not be the game for you. Try GURPS. That way you can see what every single point actually gets you on the table top. Try Runequest, where armor actually absorbs damage, and being a pansy-ass with a knife means you can still gut a fool in one good hit, but also playign the same character for twenty years is not proof of some gutter snipe gutting you with a knife in one hit either. Play faaking Exalted, where your fighter is expected (or so I'm told...) to throw mountains at problems... as his leading move. His finishing move reshapes reality by the power of awesome, making mages wonder why htey have to study twenty years for a shitty flamethrower, when their natural awesome allows them to convince enemy weapons to turn on their owners (or so I'm told...).
Because, really: Your complaints about how Jian shapes up IN D&D suggest you actually have fundamental issues that would be better addressed OUTSIDE of D&D.
Less words are always better because I wasn't about to respond to your friendly recognition of my goal in your previous post. Way too much work. But the last paragraph in this post needs to be QFT.
Quote from: Spike;561186I've got a whole fucking party of tenth level characters rotting away in the Thunderdome thread because Kaelik was too chickenshit to bring his bone devil in when people would actually be doing things like enforcing the rules about, oh, actions and shit.
What what the the fuck fuck? There is a thunderdome thread? Why didn't someone... I don't know, PM me.
It was mentioned several times, discussed at length even.
Quote from: Kaelik;561283What what the the fuck fuck? There is a thunderdome thread? Why didn't someone... I don't know, PM me.
Shit! Really? There's a whole thread we just thought you disappeared. Never thought to PM you, sorry I usually only PM people on my "friend" list. Safer that way you know?
Quote from: Spike;561284It was mentioned several times, discussed at length even.
Well I completely lost the time to even pretend to keep up with this thread before I even started posting in the other thread, so I didn't notice anything in this thread.
I just sort of had some free time. Personally, I don't blame you at all, but fectin has seen me post like 10 times on TGD since he started and never thought to PM me on either forum.
EDIT: I really should be writing a paper due tomorrow, so I'll have to actually delay my actual posting in that thread until late tomorrow... unless I am a really bad student.
Quote from: Kaelik;561291Well I completely lost the time to even pretend to keep up with this thread before I even started posting in the other thread, so I didn't notice anything in this thread.
I just sort of had some free time. Personally, I don't blame you at all, but fectin has seen me post like 10 times on TGD since he started and never thought to PM me on either forum.
EDIT: I really should be writing a paper due tomorrow, so I'll have to actually delay my actual posting in that thread until late tomorrow... unless I am a really bad student.
Do your paper for Godsake! We know you're game now so the thread will be there. :)
A problem with the Fighter concept is how they've added options to them... by not adding options to Fighter.
You want to be filled with anger? Barbarian
You want to be a knight in shining armor? Cavalier
You want to dodge people without armor? Swashbuckler
You want to track and have a pet wolf? Ranger, but he has Druid stuff later
You want to be fearless and inspiring? Paladin, but he has some Cleric stuff later
You want to sneak and stab? That's the Rogue, buddy.
And if you pick one of those options, you specialize in it and other options become closed off.
Compare it to a Wizard's options:
You want to shoot fireballs? Wizard
You want to charm mortals? Wizard
You want to summon angels? Wizard
You want to speak with demons? Wizard
You want to turn invisible? Wizard
You want to fly? Wizard
You want to make magic swords? Wizard
You want to teleport? Wizard
You want to predict the future? Wizard
and the core wizard is able to do
ALL OF THAT without losing versatility.
And if they reeeeaally want to, they can become a Specialist Wizard and give up One thing.
Compare it to a Cleric's options:
You worship the God of Strength? Cleric
You worship the God of the Sun? Cleric
You worship the God of Dragons? Cleric
You worship the God of Death? Cleric
You worship the God of Fighters? You ain't a fighter boy, you're a Cleric!
You worship the God of Magic-That-Wizards-Use? Hey, for some reason their priests are Clerics too!
And no matter if your God demands you sacrifice virgins, save virgins, be a virgin, whatever, you get to access to "grow huge" and "here's some food guys!"
At this point though it's a D&Dism. A wizard can put some guys to sleep, shield himself in magic, and make the floor greasy, all in one fight and that's normal. The fighter though, if he has a bow, he specializes in it with finite resources so shooting the bow is always the better choice than swinging a sword. If he has a sword, then the use of his finite resources to be darn good with that sword is taking away from being OK with a bow. With that being said, my favorite caster class is probably Sorcerer, because they just pick their stuff and stick with it.
There are two ways you can tackle this. Either the 'Fighter' concept becomes as versatile as the Wizard concept, or the Wizard concept becomes as compartmentalized as all of the various classes who are variations of "I fight with weapons". Later 3e classes like Beguiler, Warmage, and Dread Necromancer carry the latter idea well.
QuoteAs far as core D&D goes: There is no difference between a fighter and a samurai.
The Fighter has no social or knowledge skills. Because in D&Dland, it takes more mental energy to wield a sword skillfully (Int 13 Expertise) than to shoot seizure rainbows from your hand (Int 11, level 1 magic)
I agree with what you're saying OB but the previous attempts are too extreme. Quite simply all the general wizard needs is total spells known per level limited like before 3x. From that baseline just start consalidating the "fighter" and redo the cleric 2e style and enforce the fucking limits for being a zealot. Paladin needs to be Templar or Hospitaler, done.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560688I agree that wushu like powers should be optional but I don't see why they can't be provided for by the offical optional rules.
Just like I think that a very 1e game should also be an offically supported option.
No one ever said that stuff needed to be core.
Because when you have arguments about "fixing the fighter" what does that mean? Fixing entails more than giving just options. A setting splatbook can handle this (as BoNS, etc.) and we should all be fine in this discussion. But just looking at this topic it's obviously not enough for some. Now, have you asked yourself why? Maybe those you carry water for really do not see eye to eye as you think...
Further, I think adding a bucket of options in a book needs a bit more than grey boxing. Like the example of 2e and optional WP/NWP being the assumed default, adding a large supplemental extra tends to work better as a separate book. People get confused when optional rules tend to be very large. I prefer an optional rules appendix at the very least. But we don't need to repeat the presentation mistakes we've already lived through.
Now, and please everyone forgive the coming wall of text and point-by-point reply, working with your 5 points:
Quote from: jibbajibba;560688I have suggested very mudane fighter powers that simple make figthers more like they are presented in the fluff but not supported in the crunch, stuff like benefits leading troops, a critical damage progression that mirrors that of the thief's backstab, progressive immunity to fear and intimidation, etc etc ... none of these things are Wuxia magic powerz, none of these things make the poor figther PC all confused because they can't work out what to do from all their options, none of them provide a 'super magic win button to mash', they simply make the fighter better at what the fighter is supposed to be able to do.
A benefit leading troops to battle sounds interesting. Especially since it'd mean reintroducing hirelings and henchmen into the game's main attention thrust. Not a bad idea for 5e.
Crit damage progression is kinda too situational meh, especially since rogue backstab will also be markedly lower in occurrence once hirelings and henchmen are brought to the fore again. Not a great gain (or great loss for the rogue). The TSR fighter's save progression is pretty solid, but if 5e designers want to rewrite save progression in favor of the fighter, sure OK.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560688Take my comparison of the figther and the Monk. The Monks natural AC improves as they gain levels. This represents their ability to dodge and slip blows like Bruce Lee... or really David Carradine ... how come an Oriental martial artist can do this but an Occidental martial artist can't.
I don't follow 1e or 3e monk, so I can't say except how many people in 3e call them a glass cannon. Outside of DEX adjustment fighters access to any armor really does make them very hard to hit from the start. Does it need to continually scale? I have my issues with continuing scaling, and note that's one of the largest flaws of 3e in my opinion (it led to HP bloat, etc.). I don't think this would be an overall benefit for the game. Besides, the 2e fighter gets an additional AC during their Full Parry (to all attacks), and with their progressing THAC0 (BAB) and # of attacks, they are the class best suited to take advantage of the optional Parry rule as well. Not a worthwhile direction.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560688Why do wizards acquisition of spell slots double in pace as they gain xp? why can't we look at the acquisition of spell slots and come up with something that makes the wizard tougher at low level and less powerful at high level?
Doesn't double in pace on the 2e chart I'm looking at... Largest per level jump is 4 extra slots. Usually it is just 1 or 2 slots. Here's total slot progression from 1~17 (1,2,3,5,7,8,10,12,13,15,18,21,25,26,28,31,33...). That and it takes a long time for spell level slots to expand, (i.e it takes from lvl 4~13 to expand from 4 1st lvl sells to 5). But, whatever.
The TSR game placed in the GM's hands a lot of power to manage spell acquisition and general power. But if you feel tinkering with the spell slot progression is important, go ahead and tinker. I'd rather there be more info on its ramifications than just changing core blindly. Maybe expanding the lower spell lvl base faster than adding higher spell lvl slots does something good for the game. I don't know. But isn't slot progression more of a MU issue than a fighter balance issue? And overall, isn't that a setting issue, too? (Birthright caps most MU to 3rd lvl spells, unless you're a true wizard.) Fixing the fighter doesn't look like it'll fix this.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560688Take my Comparison of the fighter and the Cleric. Wouldn't the cleric be better "balanced" if they fought on the thief's table and had d6 HP. My feel is that a magic user who can wear armour is already better than a magic user who can't and is they fight a little better and have slightly better HP than a magic user isn't that enough to make up for the slighty less agressive spell options (combined with the ease of spell acquisition).
Easier spell acquisition and 'memorization' for the Cleric is one of those personal things I rail against. The cleric is wholly dependent on the GM to assess his play and determine if he deserves his spells (determine "good standing"). Further, in 2e the Cleric has to pray and ("[t]he conditions for praying are identical to those needed for the wizard's studying." PHB p.85). So MU spells are more reliable because it doesn't check behavior. Just a peeve of mine.
Sure I guess there is a problem if your clerics have little ethos restrictions on weapons and behavior. Being restricted to slings for ranged attacks and other bludgeoning weapons is usually a hinderance. That and lack of # of attacks compared to the fighter would be a problem. Further, and I know this rarely happens in games nowadays, a cleric's responsibility to the community tended to hold them back from choosing just any profitable adventure -- which one upon a time, with game calendars being calculated and the like, was a huge advantage to classes like the fighter. But times change and previous checks and balances are now casually thrown to the wind.
Quote from: jibbajibba;560688Look at my point that if 1e was balanced figthers/Casters then why did they add specialisation and once they added it how could they still be balanced?
I don't play much 1e anymore and don't have the books with me. But perhaps they just added options for some players who are interested instead of having a larger issue of "balance" looming over their decision. I don't normally suppose grand motives or conspiracies to additional rules. Maybe you're right and it was part of their "grand design to correct injustice" but pardon me if in my 1e ignorance I don't buy it.
And your concluding question:
Quote from: jibbajibba;560688How can that new edition avoid some of the percieved issues in earlier editions but Still keep the feel of those editions?
By worrying about that which they can control most. Keeping the feel of the older editions is easier than trying to anticipate solutions to perceived issues from a large and diverse market pool. Apparently, as highlighted by this topic, D&D's perceived issues aren't all that agreed upon, let alone their solutions. So perhaps lobbing new solutions answering just one of the online mob's cacophony isn't the most fruitful course of action. Keeping things open and flexible as they were in previous D&D would be.
However, I do give major props to the Fighter granting morale (and maybe more) bonus to hirelings and henchmen, if for the very least it'd ensure hirelings and henchmen are more than an afterthought for 5e.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;560688This is something I just don't understand.
If there is literaly an infinite number of possibilities, how can any information be meaningful?
It only becomes as meaningful as the context your table applies to it. Hence customization. We're dealing with human imagination here, not programming code. One's far too vast to be sequestered into discrete, movable parts.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;560688Sure, I see that 'Fighter/Wizard Balance' is 'bullshit' to some people. But it clearly matters to other people, and despite a game where people can 'fashion any setting, universe and all', this issue seems to come up a lot. Ways of handling it seem to be a popular request.
And the ways of handling it will be as manifold different as the needs for each table. Just as one can't (reliably) read minds, one can't reliable come up with solutions to all the permutations of table problems. That's where DM and players use the Table Talk to customize their gameplay.
You are seeking an external solution to a highly individualized internal problem. In essence, you are wasting everyone's time by not seeking a solution for yourself. And, granted, sitting there in dissatisfied judgment with any "official" solution offered (until designers read from your mind your ideal solution) is a catbird seat of power -- it too however is wholly unproductive to the hobby and generally a pathetic form of conflict resolution for your table.
Quote from: jhkim;560708There's no such thing as "fun as possible to all comers", because people have different tastes. Even though you don't like it and I don't like it, there are a significant number of people who like 4e. It's nonsensical to imply that they are inhuman as you do above - i.e. a game is either "human-centric" or system mastery.
It's fine to push for D&D Next to be a game that caters to your taste. Just don't make it out to be something different than it is. What's fucked up is when you imply that your taste is the only valid one, and people who have other tastes are objectively wrong.
If the best you can do is come up with extreme interpretations of what I have written, then I lament your reading comprehension. Normally I wouldn't care, but when you pose that I imply that they are "inhuman" -- instead of understanding the difference between human-centric adjudication v. statutory law mastery adjudication -- then I fully feel justified in pointing out your utter failing at reading comprehension. Go ahead and tilt at your phantoms, you just further sound ridiculous.
Go play your fucked up games of misinterpretation and attribution elsewhere. I'm done with your nonsense.
Quote from: OgreBattle;561310A problem with the Fighter concept is how they've added options to them... by not adding options to Fighter.
You want to be filled with anger? Barbarian
You want to be a knight in shining armor? Cavalier
You want to dodge people without armor? Swashbuckler
You want to track and have a pet wolf? Ranger, but he has Druid stuff later
You want to be fearless and inspiring? Paladin, but he has some Cleric stuff later
You want to sneak and stab? That's the Rogue, buddy.
And if you pick one of those options, you specialize in it and other options become closed off.
Compare it to a Wizard's options:
You want to shoot fireballs? Wizard
You want to charm mortals? Wizard
You want to summon angels? Wizard
You want to speak with demons? Wizard
You want to turn invisible? Wizard
You want to fly? Wizard
You want to make magic swords? Wizard
You want to teleport? Wizard
You want to predict the future? Wizard
and the core wizard is able to do ALL OF THAT without losing versatility.
And if they reeeeaally want to, they can become a Specialist Wizard and give up One thing.
Compare it to a Cleric's options:
You worship the God of Strength? Cleric
You worship the God of the Sun? Cleric
You worship the God of Dragons? Cleric
You worship the God of Death? Cleric
You worship the God of Fighters? You ain't a fighter boy, you're a Cleric!
You worship the God of Magic-That-Wizards-Use? Hey, for some reason their priests are Clerics too!
And no matter if your God demands you sacrifice virgins, save virgins, be a virgin, whatever, you get to access to "grow huge" and "here's some food guys!"
At this point though it's a D&Dism. A wizard can put some guys to sleep, shield himself in magic, and make the floor greasy, all in one fight and that's normal. The fighter though, if he has a bow, he specializes in it with finite resources so shooting the bow is always the better choice than swinging a sword. If he has a sword, then the use of his finite resources to be darn good with that sword is taking away from being OK with a bow. With that being said, my favorite caster class is probably Sorcerer, because they just pick their stuff and stick with it.
There are two ways you can tackle this. Either the 'Fighter' concept becomes as versatile as the Wizard concept, or the Wizard concept becomes as compartmentalized as all of the various classes who are variations of "I fight with weapons". Later 3e classes like Beguiler, Warmage, and Dread Necromancer carry the latter idea well.
The Fighter has no social or knowledge skills. Because in D&Dland, it takes more mental energy to wield a sword skillfully (Int 13 Expertise) than to shoot seizure rainbows from your hand (Int 11, level 1 magic)
You are being a bit too general here for me. Which version of D&D are you talking about?
Quote from: Opaopajr;561394Because when you have arguments about "fixing the fighter" what does that mean? Fixing entails more than giving just options. A setting splatbook can handle this (as BoNS, etc.) and we should all be fine in this discussion. But just looking at this topic it's obviously not enough for some. Now, have you asked yourself why? Maybe those you carry water for really do not see eye to eye as you think...
Further, I think adding a bucket of options in a book needs a bit more than grey boxing. Like the example of 2e and optional WP/NWP being the assumed default, adding a large supplemental extra tends to work better as a separate book. People get confused when optional rules tend to be very large. I prefer an optional rules appendix at the very least. But we don't need to repeat the presentation mistakes we've already lived through.
I would agree an entire expansion needs a book. However, if the base rules have class powers, as in 2e and 1e, but you have an option of switching some of those out for alternate class powers , that is an optional feat system
that is doable as part of the core rules. You can issue a second book with a whole stack of feats that the CharOp guys can go to town on.
When you do this the fact that the 1e figther gets 1 Class power which is may build a stronghold at 9th level makes you think. Compare them to rangers or Paladins... Rangers get tracking, (or in 2e a bonus to the skill which I prefer), Addition damage to Giant class creatures (or named foe in 2e) , Spells, followers, use any magical Scrying devices. The 2 lists don't seem very balanced.
Even when UA brings in Specialisation the Ranger gets it too..... and by 2e (CFHB) all fightewrs have it.
But I am in detail and your was a presentaion issue. I think all rules are optional but some rules are more optonal than others and presentation is important.
QuoteNow, and please everyone forgive the coming wall of text and point-by-point reply, working with your 5 points:
A benefit leading troops to battle sounds interesting. Especially since it'd mean reintroducing hirelings and henchmen into the game's main attention thrust. Not a bad idea for 5e.
mobbing dungeons with hordes of NPCs isn;tmy play style but yes I can se eit enabling that as wel. I was thinkign more of Magnificent Seven scenarios.
QuoteCrit damage progression is kinda too situational meh, especially since rogue backstab will also be markedly lower in occurrence once hirelings and henchmen are brought to the fore again. Not a great gain (or great loss for the rogue). The TSR fighter's save progression is pretty solid, but if 5e designers want to rewrite save progression in favor of the fighter, sure OK.
Crit damage is sutuational but in 1e/2e the biggest single hits come from the Rogues.
Even if you add hirelings rogues will still be sneaking off to scout and there is a whole city playstyle away from dungeons in which lone thieves climb across roftops and do nefarious shit that the rogue will still have.
I just think its a minor think with no impact on speed or pacing and its kind of heroic, that mighty blow to the creatures vitals.
QuoteI don't follow 1e or 3e monk, so I can't say except how many people in 3e call them a glass cannon. Outside of DEX adjustment fighters access to any armor really does make them very hard to hit from the start. Does it need to continually scale? I have my issues with continuing scaling, and note that's one of the largest flaws of 3e in my opinion (it led to HP bloat, etc.). I don't think this would be an overall benefit for the game. Besides, the 2e fighter gets an additional AC during their Full Parry (to all attacks), and with their progressing THAC0 (BAB) and # of attacks, they are the class best suited to take advantage of the optional Parry rule as well. Not a worthwhile direction.
Here you have taken a gamist approach I am on the simulationist, to purloin the terms.
I think a 10th level figther in his pyjama's should be harder to land a blow on that a 1st level fighter in his pyjamas. As it stands he just isn't. The monk learns how to move like a leaf on the wind, the figther learns how to stay still and take more damage.
If armour added to AC , like Piecemeal armours did, then the base AC coudl increase from 10 with experience.
Saying Fighters can wear Plate from 1st level is the gamist solution. You get better AC because you can wear armour and we don't let these guys wear armour. Like I have said previously I want the rules to be a physics engine.
As an aside in my heartbreaker I have tackled this issue with improving Defense scores and Armour use as a skill. So the Wizard can wear full plate but will walk round like a rusty TIN man in the Wizard of Oz because access to the armour skill for them is very expensive. The Fighter can improve his defence and his armour skill and a very skilled knight gains his full defense in armour but can also use armour offensively to snag weapons, deal increased damage and to locate the weak spots in others.
QuoteDoesn't double in pace on the 2e chart I'm looking at... Largest per level jump is 4 extra slots. Usually it is just 1 or 2 slots. Here's total slot progression from 1~17 (1,2,3,5,7,8,10,12,13,15,18,21,25,26,28,31,33...). That and it takes a long time for spell level slots to expand, (i.e it takes from lvl 4~13 to expand from 4 1st lvl sells to 5). But, whatever.
The TSR game placed in the GM's hands a lot of power to manage spell acquisition and general power. But if you feel tinkering with the spell slot progression is important, go ahead and tinker. I'd rather there be more info on its ramifications than just changing core blindly. Maybe expanding the lower spell lvl base faster than adding higher spell lvl slots does something good for the game. I don't know. But isn't slot progression more of a MU issue than a fighter balance issue? And overall, isn't that a setting issue, too? (Birthright caps most MU to 3rd lvl spells, unless you're a true wizard.) Fixing the fighter doesn't look like it'll fix this.
Look again. At 9th level the MU in 1e has 13 spells, by 15th level they have 28 so in the 6 levels from 9 -15 they have gained 15 spells compared to the 13 they gained in 1-9 (2e is the same). So their rate of progression goes from 13:9 to 15:6. Now at the same time they are gaining more powerful spells so its a double whammy.
As a balance issue this thread is a fighter vs Cater balance debate so there are 2 sides to the seesaw. Now the GD guys don't want to see the wixard gimped they like him how he is. I am looking at the wider balance debate. Wizards start weak and get tougher. I am not sure that is an optimal design choice. At 1st level in 1e, and 2e to a lesser degree because of NWPs, Wizards cast their spell and then they are slightly less use than a torch bearer because he can use a sword and has a d6 HP and might even wear leather armour or a chain shirt if he can find one.
To me changing the spell slots to benefit the wizard early on and reign him in later seems sensible.
QuoteEasier spell acquisition and 'memorization' for the Cleric is one of those personal things I rail against. The cleric is wholly dependent on the GM to assess his play and determine if he deserves his spells (determine "good standing"). Further, in 2e the Cleric has to pray and ("[t]he conditions for praying are identical to those needed for the wizard's studying." PHB p.85). So MU spells are more reliable because it doesn't check behavior. Just a peeve of mine.
Sure I guess there is a problem if your clerics have little ethos restrictions on weapons and behavior. Being restricted to slings for ranged attacks and other bludgeoning weapons is usually a hinderance. That and lack of # of attacks compared to the fighter would be a problem. Further, and I know this rarely happens in games nowadays, a cleric's responsibility to the community tended to hold them back from choosing just any profitable adventure -- which one upon a time, with game calendars being calculated and the like, was a huge advantage to classes like the fighter. But times change and previous checks and balances are now casually thrown to the wind.
The combat restictions are there don't get me wrong but Clerics are only part combat the other half is casting. If we look at a line from Fighter best combat worst caster to wizard best caster worse combat, the cleric is, espeiclaly in 1e low levels , a little worse than the fighter better than the wizard due to more spells, at high levels they are still a robust fighter an attack less than the figther but still robust, AC the same although the fighters access to magical swords which are more common may be an issue based on each campaign (again 1 in 7 magical swords is actually cursed in 1e :) ). As casters the Wizard pulls away at maybe 9th in terms of agressive spells.
I think if Clerics fought on the thief table with d6 hp but were still allowed armour and kept their number of spells. If Wizards had the same number of spells ,( ie assuming a 15 Wisdom or tacking number of spells to Intelligence) then I think the balance would be closer.
QuoteI don't play much 1e anymore and don't have the books with me. But perhaps they just added options for some players who are interested instead of having a larger issue of "balance" looming over their decision. I don't normally suppose grand motives or conspiracies to additional rules. Maybe you're right and it was part of their "grand design to correct injustice" but pardon me if in my 1e ignorance I don't buy it.
Why they added it is only part of it. The point is if 1e is balananced and 2e is balanced but in 2e fighters are far tougher they have a full range of NWP they have specialisation and double specialisation. So in 2e Fighters are definitely tougher so how can they be balanced in both editions.
as for the intention of UA, it would be nice to explicitly see these - side box we did this because ......- but D&D in particualr has never been good at that it does say
'the scope of the Figther class is expanded in two major respects. First, fighters are able to employ any and all of the new weapon types detailed in this book. Second and potentially more meaningful is the benefit of weapon specialisation...' So they definitely saw this as a benefit and an expansion one assumes that that means they thought the class needed a bump but .... that is an assumption of course.
QuoteAnd your concluding question:
By worrying about that which they can control most. Keeping the feel of the older editions is easier than trying to anticipate solutions to perceived issues from a large and diverse market pool. Apparently, as highlighted by this topic, D&D's perceived issues aren't all that agreed upon, let alone their solutions. So perhaps lobbing new solutions answering just one of the online mob's cacophony isn't the most fruitful course of action. Keeping things open and flexible as they were in previous D&D would be.
However, I do give major props to the Fighter granting morale (and maybe more) bonus to hirelings and henchmen, if for the very least it'd ensure hirelings and henchmen are more than an afterthought for 5e.
I am not proposing a pardigm shift here. My suggestions are much more 1e -> 2e than they are 2e -> 3e
A simple core is a good idea but a few adjustsments I think can be made. There is a mind set that 1e was perfect and the random kludge of xp levels, spell progression and oddly over powered classes and al that were part of a master plan. This is not true this stuff was put down to set standards but a lot of it is disparate and contradictory and in some cases like Rangers and scrying is just dragged out of a particular book or trope that the authors liked for whatever reason.
2e made a decent fist of organisation and rationalisation and I think taking a similar approach in regard of modern gaming foibles and play styles whilst providing options for an OSR feel is the most sensible way of moving forward
Quote from: Marleycat;561344I agree with what you're saying OB but the previous attempts are too extreme. Quite simply all the general wizard needs is total spells known per level limited like before 3x. From that baseline just start consalidating the "fighter" and redo the cleric 2e style and enforce the fucking limits for being a zealot. Paladin needs to be Templar or Hospitaler, done.
Int #spells
9: 6
10: 7
11: 7
12: 7
13: 9
14: 9
15: 11
16: 11
17: 14
18: 18
19: all
1e has 30 1 level spells, 24 2-6 level spells, 16 7-8 level spells, 12 9 level spells. People talk about banning of spells, so it's even less than what is listed.
How is spells known a
limitation?
Sure if you do it with Pathfinder that has something around 700+ spells (think it's like 98 first level spells), yes that is a limitation. However it doesn't jive with 1e where the limitation isn't nearly as severe.
Quote from: Sommerjon;561497Int #spells
9: 6
10: 7
11: 7
12: 7
13: 9
14: 9
15: 11
16: 11
17: 14
18: 18
19: all
1e has 30 1 level spells, 24 2-6 level spells, 16 7-8 level spells, 12 9 level spells. People talk about banning of spells, so it's even less than what is listed.
How is spells known a limitation?
Sure if you do it with Pathfinder that has something around 700+ spells (think it's like 98 first level spells), yes that is a limitation. However it doesn't jive with 1e where the limitation isn't nearly as severe.
Because if you actually roll your characters 18's are rare and there is nothing saying you couldn't just cap it at 18 per level NO matter how high your INT is. Or lower the caps across the board. Get the idea? It really isn't as hard as you make out.
Quote from: Sommerjon;561497Int #spells
9: 6
10: 7
11: 7
12: 7
13: 9
14: 9
15: 11
16: 11
17: 14
18: 18
19: all
1e has 30 1 level spells, 24 2-6 level spells, 16 7-8 level spells, 12 9 level spells. People talk about banning of spells, so it's even less than what is listed.
How is spells known a limitation?
Sure if you do it with Pathfinder that has something around 700+ spells (think it's like 98 first level spells), yes that is a limitation. However it doesn't jive with 1e where the limitation isn't nearly as severe.
Your problem is that you're using only the PHB for spells. UA had a lot more, Oriental Adventures had even more, a lot of modules also added new ones, and of course Dragon Magazine had new spells in a bunch of issues.
Oh c'mon now, I've been playing AD&D/2nd edition for decades. I don't think I've ever seen a wizard with IQ less than 15 (even in a hard core "play 3d6 as they're rolled" campaign it's hard to get below 13). I seriously doubt in actual play I've ever had a wizard cast more than six distinct first level spells, and probably never seen more than four distinct higher level spells, whole campaign.
The real restriction is the % chance to even know a spell; even at 18, there's about a 1 in 6 chance the wizard won't be able to learn it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;561234Yes I just said that at low levels Barbarians are tougher than fighters who are tough at low levels but at high levels they aren't quite tough enough to toe to toe with the casters ..... but they are very close.
One assumes that the party accepts that there is a barbarian and is built on that premise otherwise he is soloing ... not an issue but not so much fund.
As an aside just after UA came out I ran a Thieves' World Campaign with a Barbarian, a thief and a Dwarven Weaponsmith class out of a dragon magazine. The barbarian who has a long history is now 11th level but lives in Canada.... Anyway because of the huge modifiers the barbarian dominated play.
So at first level a barbarian and I think foolishly allowed the use of Method V from the UA and this barbarian had 17 STR, 18 Dex and 18 Con that meant at first level if he wore Studded Leather armour he was AC -1 and he had 20 fucking hit points.
If you think a 1st level character with AC-1 and 20 HP isn't tough you have to remember he can jump, climb, sneak, hide, track, do first aid, heals faster, can detect illusion and magic and well ..thats enough really.
The really odd bit though is the big restriction, ca';t use magic, erodes really fast. So he can hit magic creatures at 4th level but by 4th level he is already allowed to use magic weapons so WTF ? Also if you look at the fighter's 80 heavy footmen at 9th compared to the barbarian's 500 man horde although that is only temporary, but he can always summon it again :)
It is broken I promise.
Forgive me, if I don't take your word for it. I played in many AD&D campaigns from 96-03, and we power gamed quite a bit (because our primary DM was a killer DM type mostly), but our use of Cavalier and Barbarian showed the opposite.
The brokenness of the barbarian in your example seems primarily due to the high stats from method V. If you did not allow the other PCs to use it for stat generation I am not surprised. Also your example does not use a core Fighter class in comparison, only a thief, and a Dragon mag class (which were typically very hit or miss, aka the Death master). Also the only non-bulky armor types per the DMG are leather and elfin chain. Maximum AC would be -1 if he also used a shield (preventing dual wield, bows, etc)
Your example also focuses mainly on level 1, which is a very poor point to balance a class at. A Wizard with sleep can kill a whole (non-Elven) party with a single casting if he rolls well enough on the 2d4. The cleric can heal for potentially 3d8 per day, and so forth.
With your stat array. A fighter could easily start with Chain or Splint Mail, and have almost as good AC (if not mobility), as well as Single or Double specialization (for an extra attack on the first then alternating rounds and either +1hit/+2dmg or +3 to both, over the Barbarian). As levels increase, the disparity in HP tends to shrink, then reappear as the fighter levels more quickly ,only to begin to shrink again after Name level.
On Saves, the Barbarian does have very good initial saves, and during the titled levels, he keeps this advantage, being a level behind (and thus 1/2 a point behind on saves). But after Name Level, the fighter's improvement in saves doubles and thus by the barbarians 12th level, the Fighter has caught up. The Barbarians Best save (Poison) is at a 3, while the Fighters is also 3 (at 17th level), and better than the Barbarian at the others.
The ability to hit magical is unique to Barbarians (and Kensai in OA), and allows them to use mundane arms vs to-hit magical. Its power is determined by circumstances, and on the general magic level in a campaign. Needless to say, being able to pick up any weapon and hit a demon, or just to use your fists is an advantage if not a huge one. (or wrestle, ala Beowulf and Grendel).
The Barbarian Horde is not exactly the same as giving the Barbarian 500 men or whatever, as they will not "set up shop" in the same manner as the Fighter's followers, and potentially reinforce a Stronghold. Additionally they are much more difficult to control as noted in the ability description, the Horde being summoned for some purpose or another, and then disbanding (with a possible extension if there was sufficient looting and pillaging).
Magical items are subject to campaign, but when added also improve the fighter (who can use them from 1st level).
Quote from: Marleycat;561511Because if you actually roll your characters 18's are rare and there is nothing saying you couldn't just cap it at 18 per level NO matter how high your INT is. Or lower the caps across the board. Get the idea? It really isn't as hard as you make out.
Depends on what method you use for rolling.
Taking your cap of 18, hell make it 17, of the 48 7-9 level spells you can't get a whooping 4 of them. Let me sit down from that massive revelation. Or I guess we lower the caps across the board. Why? Now your fucking with the cleric, fighter, rogue to stop the magic user from a high stat. Brilliant.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;561522Your problem is that you're using only the PHB for spells. UA had a lot more, Oriental Adventures had even more, a lot of modules also added new ones, and of course Dragon Magazine had new spells in a bunch of issues.
No, not my problem it's the boards problem. The core 3 books are put on a pedestal and people genuflect towards them as the log into the forums. Oh and people here are always talking about banning spells, so just how are we to know how many are even used?
That is why I only use the PHB in discussions here.
Quote from: Sommerjon;561609No, not my problem it's the boards problem. The core 3 books are put on a pedestal and people genuflect towards them as the log into the forums. Oh and people here are always talking about banning spells, so just how are we to know how many are even used?
That is why I only use the PHB in discussions here.
Based on your posting history, sorry, I don't buy it. Once again you show a complete lack of knowledge about the game you're talking about, and now are trying to make up some bullshit reason to backpedal.
QuoteDepends on what method you use for rolling.
Taking your cap of 18, hell make it 17, of the 48 7-9 level spells you can't get a whooping 4 of them. Let me sit down from that massive revelation. Or I guess we lower the caps across the board. Why? Now your fucking with the cleric, fighter, rogue to stop the magic user from a high stat. Brilliant.
Why yes it does silly. I don't have a problem with how it actually works out because I actually play the game. I just pointing out the bulk of wizards have INT at 18 or lower and basically that means IF they are successful in finding spells and rolling to learn them they would have 162 TOTAL spells which is around 3x as many as a Pathfinder Sorcerer which isn't as bad as you are making it out to be. More likely their cap is lower so less total spells (16-17 INT is/was very common) so we are taking more like 99-126 TOTAL spells known which is totally reasonable.
I am just giving a reasonable suggestion if that bothers you basically hardcap it or lower the cap no biggie. Heck, make 7-9th level spells ritual only it is your damn game not TSR's or WotC's.
Quote from: SkarnkaiLW;561576Forgive me, if I don't take your word for it. I played in many AD&D campaigns from 96-03, and we power gamed quite a bit (because our primary DM was a killer DM type mostly), but our use of Cavalier and Barbarian showed the opposite.
The brokenness of the barbarian in your example seems primarily due to the high stats from method V. If you did not allow the other PCs to use it for stat generation I am not surprised. Also your example does not use a core Fighter class in comparison, only a thief, and a Dragon mag class (which were typically very hit or miss, aka the Death master). Also the only non-bulky armor types per the DMG are leather and elfin chain. Maximum AC would be -1 if he also used a shield (preventing dual wield, bows, etc)
Your example also focuses mainly on level 1, which is a very poor point to balance a class at. A Wizard with sleep can kill a whole (non-Elven) party with a single casting if he rolls well enough on the 2d4. The cleric can heal for potentially 3d8 per day, and so forth.
With your stat array. A fighter could easily start with Chain or Splint Mail, and have almost as good AC (if not mobility), as well as Single or Double specialization (for an extra attack on the first then alternating rounds and either +1hit/+2dmg or +3 to both, over the Barbarian). As levels increase, the disparity in HP tends to shrink, then reappear as the fighter levels more quickly ,only to begin to shrink again after Name level.
On Saves, the Barbarian does have very good initial saves, and during the titled levels, he keeps this advantage, being a level behind (and thus 1/2 a point behind on saves). But after Name Level, the fighter's improvement in saves doubles and thus by the barbarians 12th level, the Fighter has caught up. The Barbarians Best save (Poison) is at a 3, while the Fighters is also 3 (at 17th level), and better than the Barbarian at the others.
The ability to hit magical is unique to Barbarians (and Kensai in OA), and allows them to use mundane arms vs to-hit magical. Its power is determined by circumstances, and on the general magic level in a campaign. Needless to say, being able to pick up any weapon and hit a demon, or just to use your fists is an advantage if not a huge one. (or wrestle, ala Beowulf and Grendel).
The Barbarian Horde is not exactly the same as giving the Barbarian 500 men or whatever, as they will not "set up shop" in the same manner as the Fighter's followers, and potentially reinforce a Stronghold. Additionally they are much more difficult to control as noted in the ability description, the Horde being summoned for some purpose or another, and then disbanding (with a possible extension if there was sufficient looting and pillaging).
Magical items are subject to campaign, but when added also improve the fighter (who can use them from 1st level).
Like I said the brokenness of the barbarian is higher at lower levels and the disparity narrows as you progress in levels.
Now the HP will not narrow remember a Barbarian gets double Con bonus . The gap only starts to reduce as a % of overall HP at named level.
I agree method V is broken and that is part of the issue but I have played with other barbarians I played a fuck lot of D&D from '80 to the start of the this summer so I have an opinion based on fact I think
Cavaliers are also broken.
However I have an amusing story about a party which included a Barbarian and a Cavalier who just didn't get on (I say amusing although that might be stretching it) .
Eventually the Barbarian was fed up with the Cavalier and so started riling him up until the Cavalier challenged him to a duel of corse the Barbarian chose wrestling with no armour or weapons. He knew he would AC 4 in the figther where as the other guy would have AC 8 (17 dex versus 16 dex) and he knew he had 20 HP more even if we inlcied hte cvavaleire wondering abotu on -whatever. the Cavalier refused to fight deeming it inproper and beneathhim. Eventually the DM penalised him some XP under because he had refused the challange. Well it made me laugh.
Sommerjon is a total retard with zero reading comprehension and no actual play experience as far as AD&D is concerned. No point in wasting time with the likes of him.
Quote from: jibbajibba;561630Like I said the brokenness of the barbarian is higher and lover levels and the disparity narrows as you proogrssin levels.
Now the HP will not narrow remember a Barbarian gets double Con bonus . the gap only starts to reduce as a % of overall HP at named level.
I agree method V is broken and that is part of the issue but I have played with other barbarians I played a fuck lot of D&D from '80 to the start of the this summer so I have an opinion based on fact I think
Cavaliers are also broken.
However I have an amusing story about a party which included a Barbarian and a Cavalier who just didn't get on (I say amusing although that might be stretching it) .
Eventually the Barbarian was fed up with the Cavalier and so started riling him up until the Cavalier challenged him to a duel of corse the Barbarian chose wrestling with no armour or weapons. He knew he would AC 4 in the figther where as the other guy would have AC 8 (17 dex versus 16 dex) and he knew he had 20 HP more even if we inlcied hte cvavaleire wondering abotu on -whatever. the Cavalier refused to fight deeming it inproper and beneathhim. Eventually the DM penalised him some XP under because he had refused the challange. Well it made me laugh.
The HP gap disappears when the Barbarian is 20th level, and the Fighter 32nd
level. In the interim, the fighter will have an extra one half attack, better THAC0 and Damage. The Barbarian is better at survival, especially at low levels, due to HP and Saves, but will deal less damage and hit less often than a specialized or double specialized Fighter. Even without Specialization, the Fighter's THAC0 will be 1 point better until Name level, and then will be decreasing twice as fast.
There are cases were a barbarian would be more 'dominant' and those would be with very high stats, and most especially if his Dex or Con rise above 18 (Manuals, Gauntlets of Dex, etc). Also in the classic 'get stripped of gear' scenario, as your story says. Lastly, in the wilderness he will have significant advantaged due to his secondary and tertiary abilities. This gap could be closed with NWPs by the fighter somewhat, but is it significant boost at 1st.
A comparable advantage would have been the 'Holy Rollers' campaign my friends and I played, where the five PCs were all worshipers of the Triad (FR), and as such Bless, Prayer, Chant, Recitation, etc all stacked. It was interesting, but we lacked thief abilities, and a bit of mage firepower, as I played the only mage (a Half-Elf Mage/Cleric of Ilmater). With all the healing on the side though, it kinda balanced out.
Quote from: Benoist;561648Sommerjon is a total retard with zero reading comprehension and no actual play experience as far as AD&D is concerned. No point in wasting time with the likes of him.
I figured it out too late.:)
As an aside to give you guys a glimpse of why I have a problem with "denners" and Jibba in this particular thread is because this is all about playstyles not rules. For example in my 3x group I wanted to play a Drow so my DM said go for it but understand you agreed to houserule doc. I said "yes sir". He said "fine you are the only visable non evil drow in the setting ". I said "cool I shall be a preistess of ellistrea a bladedancer" . He said cool "ellistrea is not heard of in the setting you have a job to do then, correct? " Instant quest and domain level game for me from level 1.:) I had a reason for EVERY move I made or what feat or direction my build went "in world" as a cleric from the start.
Quote from: Doom;561544Oh c'mon now, I've been playing AD&D/2nd edition for decades. I don't think I've ever seen a wizard with IQ less than 15 (even in a hard core "play 3d6 as they're rolled" campaign it's hard to get below 13). I seriously doubt in actual play I've ever had a wizard cast more than six distinct first level spells, and probably never seen more than four distinct higher level spells, whole campaign.
The real restriction is the % chance to even know a spell; even at 18, there's about a 1 in 6 chance the wizard won't be able to learn it.
I'm playing in a 1e game right now and my magic user has an 11 int. He started with a 12, but got screwed in Castle Amber.
Quote from: Marleycat;561683I figured it out too late.:)
As an aside to give you guys a glimpse of why I have a problem with "denners" and Jibba in this particular thread is because this is all about playstyles not rules. For example in my 3x group I wanted to play a Drow so my DM said go for it but understand you agreed to houserule doc. I said "yes sir". He said "fine you are the only visable non evil drow in the setting ". I said "cool I shall be a preistess of ellistrea a bladedancer" . He said cool "ellistrea is not heard of in the setting you have a job to do then, correct? " Instant quest and domain level game for me from level 1.:) I had a reason for EVERY move I made or what feat or direction my build went "in world" as a cleric from the start.
And what makes this more funny is that ACKS basically ripped of that 3x FR Prestige class wholesale and made it a base class.:D
Quote from: JRR;561689I'm playing in a 1e game right now and my magic user has an 11 int. He started with a 12, but got screwed in Castle Amber.
My point exactly. :) Theorywank charop is interesting but in real games where you roll your character up and get an 18 means 3 things 1. Paladin. 2. Cavalier. 3. Elven multiclassing.
Quote from: Marleycat;561683As an aside to give you guys a glimpse of why I have a problem with "denners" and Jibba in this particular thread is because this is all about playstyles not rules. For example in my 3x group I wanted to play a Drow so my DM said go for it but understand you agreed to houserule doc. I said "yes sir". He said "fine you are the only visable non evil drow in the setting ". I said "cool I shall be a preistess of ellistrea a bladedancer" . He said cool "ellistrea is not heard of in the setting you have a job to do then, correct? " Instant quest and domain level game for me from level 1.:) I had a reason for EVERY move I made or what feat or direction my build went "in world" as a cleric from the start.
Cool DM for sure, and I would have thought along the same lines too after he said okay. :)
Quote from: Drohem;561710Cool DM for sure, and I would have thought along the same lines too after he said okay. :)
Of course you would Drohem, you're my 2e touchstone and I refuse to play under a DM with less skill and only hope to be a shadow of it when I run games. Which aren't going to be straight Dnd unless forced. :)
Jibba is like me he plays concept first so I'm confused with his current stance in this thread. It's a baseline 2e thing to play a concept even if it's not optimal.
Is your new avatar Sam Elliot?
Quote from: jeff37923;561422You are being a bit too general here for me. Which version of D&D are you talking about?
It's generalized because it's a general symptom of D&D of any edition.
Quote from: jibbajibba;561434Compare them to rangers or Paladins... Rangers get tracking
What's stopping the Fighter's player from attempting to track, if his DM allows it?
Quote from: Doom;561544Oh c'mon now, I've been playing AD&D/2nd edition for decades. I don't think I've ever seen a wizard with IQ less than 15 (even in a hard core "play 3d6 as they're rolled" campaign it's hard to get below 13). I seriously doubt in actual play I've ever had a wizard cast more than six distinct first level spells, and probably never seen more than four distinct higher level spells, whole campaign.
Do you think that is a good thing or a bad thing? I haven't gone through 300 pages of this thread so I don't know what your stances are.
Quote from: OgreBattle;561721It's generalized because it's a general symptom of D&D of any edition.
What's stopping the Fighter's player from attempting to track the dragon back to his lair?
Absolutely nothing sir. The Ranger is better at it especially IF it's on hated species list especially. She's a tracker silly. Love seeing you here btw you always have cool views even if I don't agree sometimes. :)
Quote from: OgreBattle;561721It's generalized because it's a general symptom of D&D of any edition.
Combat Expertise doesn't exist before 3E.
2E specialty priests get different spells depending on the domians of what they worship, as well as possibly different granted powers.
About half of the extra fighter classes you mentioned don't exist, either. 2E has rangers, paladins, fighters (and thieves) - barbarians and gladiators if you want, but these are fighter 'kits' as well as optional classes, depending on preference.
Fighter characters aren't super locked into a particular weapon, either - you might be non-specialized or non-proficient in something for a couple of levels, but you're not stuck with a chain of the wrong feats forever.
Quote from: OgreBattle;561721Do you think that is a good thing or a bad thing? I haven't gone through 300 pages of this thread so I don't know what your stances are.
I think it's an irrelevant thing; to be clear, the "limit on total spells known" is meaningless in actual play for AD&D/2nd Edition. It's never come up, as a wizard with fairly unimpressive intelligence will still be hard pressed to reach the limit for his spellbook, and won't come close to that limit when it comes to spells he'll actually memorize and cast.
Quote from: Marleycat;561627Why yes it does silly. I don't have a problem with how it actually works out because I actually play the game. I just pointing out the bulk of wizards have INT at 18 or lower and basically that means IF they are successful in finding spells and rolling to learn them they would have 162 TOTAL spells which is around 3x as many as a Pathfinder Sorcerer which isn't as bad as you are making it out to be. More likely their cap is lower so less total spells (16-17 INT is/was very common) so we are taking more like 99-126 TOTAL spells known which is totally reasonable.
You think that 99-126 total spells is reasonable? I think 30 spells is reasonable.
My point was the limit/int isn't a limit. It's an illusion of limitation. The real limitation is from the DM.
Give the wizard a decent AC, a decent attack bonus, and curtail the spells, you know like how Vance wrote it. Then the last 30 years of the bitching would never have been around.
Quote from: Doom;561734I think it's an irrelevant thing; to be clear, the "limit on total spells known" is meaningless in actual play for AD&D/2nd Edition. It's never come up, as a wizard with fairly unimpressive intelligence will still be hard pressed to reach the limit for his spellbook, and won't come close to that limit when it comes to spells he'll actually memorize and cast.
Exactly.
The limit was never the issue with intelligence, it was the 'chance to learn spell' that is the important part.
Quote from: Benoist;561648Sommerjon is a total retard with zero reading comprehension and no actual play experience as far as AD&D is concerned. No point in wasting time with the likes of him.
Uh-oh someones mad cause I called him on his bullshit.
Quote from: Sommerjon;561749You think that 99-126 total spells is reasonable? I think 30 spells is reasonable.
My point was the limit/int isn't a limit. It's an illusion of limitation. The real limitation is from the DM.
Give the wizard a decent AC, a decent attack bonus, and curtail the spells, you know like how Vance wrote it. Then the last 30 years of the bitching would never have been around.
I happen to be up so entertain me monkey. Start dancing. I'm serious. At least as much as I care to be about rpg's. Get to dancing already, I bore quickly.
Quote from: Sommerjon;561749You think that 99-126 total spells is reasonable? I think 30 spells is reasonable.
My point was the limit/int isn't a limit. It's an illusion of limitation. The real limitation is from the DM.
Give the wizard a decent AC, a decent attack bonus, and curtail the spells, you know like how Vance wrote it. Then the last 30 years of the bitching would never have been around.
Good Lord, you are really dumb. That maximum limit? That is how many you can know per level
ever. Once you hit that maximum, let's hope you like the selection because
that's it. And that is just the maximum number of spells the character can know (and eventually which ones specifically). They still can't cast any more than their level permits.
So that 18 Intelligence Magic-User you have that can* learn 18 spells per level? Well, when you run across that 19th spell you want to learn...
tough shit. You can't un-learn one of your current spells to add that one. It's a Magic-User, not a USB drive.
Oh, did you think 'Vancian casting' only meant 'fire-and-forget'? Keep with the original rules, and Magic-Users are "...you know like how Vance wrote it." Dipshit.
*
Emphasis on "can". You blow the roll to learn the spell, again, tough shit. The only time you get to re-roll is if you don't have the minimum per level by Intelligence.
Quote from: Sommerjon;561749Give the wizard a decent AC, a decent attack bonus, and curtail the spells, you know like how Vance wrote it. Then the last 30 years of the bitching would never have been around.
The 'Bard-as-Wizard' then? Bardic Lore becomes 'pointy hat guy Lore', change the CHA stuff to be INT fueled. Songs become 'arcane mutterings' and "general magic stuff that helps you"
Quote from: OgreBattle;561784The 'Bard-as-Wizard' then? Bardic Lore becomes 'pointy hat guy Lore', change the CHA stuff to be INT fueled. Songs become 'arcane mutterings' and "general magic stuff that helps you"
We talking 3x? Either way it's cool because the Dnd I play is a all about the "houserules" that IS Dnd sir, yes it is.:)
These boys keep talking RAW where like any rpg it's RAi. And just to be clear, I'm a Mage Girl. :)
Quote from: OgreBattle;561721It's generalized because it's a general symptom of D&D of any edition.
Others have covered this already, but those attributes and classes do not exist in all versions of D&D, and in those where they do as a kit or prestige class may be banned by the choice of the DM.
Quote from: StormBringer;561783Good Lord, you are really dumb.
Pot, kettle.
Quote from: StormBringer;561783That maximum limit? That is how many you can know per level ever. Once you hit that maximum, let's hope you like the selection because that's it. And that is just the maximum number of spells the character can know (and eventually which ones specifically). They still can't cast any more than their level permits.
I think it was quite clear that he understood what the limit is. And if you have a limit of 18 spells per spell level, and their are 9 levels of spells, your total number of spells known
across all levels is 162. That's a fuckton of spells. If you're limited to preparing 5 spells per day in the spell slot, even if you don't duplicate, you're using only 27% of your known spells for 'regular use'. The other 73% of your known spells - they can be 'special use' types of spells.
A limit of
5 known spells per level would be meaningful. But 18 per level? that's hardly a limit because in play you don't see a lot of people saying 'darn, I have 17 fifth level spells so now I really need to be careful before deciding what the last one I can learn will be'.
Do you know why that doesn't happen? Because everyone in this thread has pointed out how 'scarce' new spells are and how Wizards can
never reliably count on having access to a particular spell.
I suppose it's no surprise how often reading comprehension has been brought up in this thread.
Quote from: OgreBattle;561721It's generalized because it's a general symptom of D&D of any edition.
What's stopping the Fighter's player from attempting to track, if his DM allows it?
Sure anyone can attempt to track and he would just as good at it as me, as a real person who has never tried tracking.
I never disallow anything just set a target number and roll.
If we were using 1e and secondary professions and he was a forester, trapper or what not I would give him 1/2 the rangers chance of tracking, the same as I would give the thief, cleric or wizard who had a relevant secondary profession.
I am pretty flexible though I woudl allow a Wizard to pick up a sword and try and hit someone with it, without docking all their XP for daring to break the rules barrier, I woudl allow an injured theif to don a suit of plate armour if it meant they coudl disguise themselves as a guard.
But I am a flexible DM willing to change the rules and modify everything.
Quote from: Sommerjon;561751Uh-oh someones mad cause I called him on his bullshit.
Not exactly. It means I think you are so fundamentally retarded and/or dishonest (I vote for both) that engaging in an exchange to debunk all your bullshit would an amazingly time-wasting exercise I'm not willing to pursue.
People who know the games will see my point, and see you for what you are. I believe they do.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;561853I think it was quite clear that he understood what the limit is. And if you have a limit of 18 spells per spell level, and their are 9 levels of spells, your total number of spells known across all levels is 162. That's a fuckton of spells. If you're limited to preparing 5 spells per day in the spell slot, even if you don't duplicate, you're using only 27% of your known spells for 'regular use'. The other 73% of your known spells - they can be 'special use' types of spells.
A limit of 5 known spells per level would be meaningful. But 18 per level? that's hardly a limit because in play you don't see a lot of people saying 'darn, I have 17 fifth level spells so now I really need to be careful before deciding what the last one I can learn will be'.
Not like this is a big surprise, but
wrong again. You get 18 spells per level if you make the roll to know each spell. That roll is 85% at 18 Intelligence, meaning the number will be closer to 15 per level, or 135 total. Still an impressive amount, but that is for a Magic-User with
18 Intelligence. The cream of the crop, one of the finest in a given campaign. Most will have something more like a 14 or 15 Intelligence.
Ability Chance Min Max
9 35% 4 6
10-12 45% 5 7
13-14 55% 6 9
15-16 65% 7 11
17 75% 8 14
18 85% 9 18
At 14, the maximum would be 9 per level, but realistically, 5 per level. At 15, 11 per level, but realistically 7 per level. Holy shit! Those are a lot closer to your 'meaningful' limit. Amazing what the rules tell you when you know what they say!
Let's pretend there's a Magical Library, where your Magic-User can check scrolls out all day long. There are 30 1st level spells, so our 18 Int super genius
could learn 25 of them, seven more than their max. That doesn't leave many behind. But wait, our somewhat less talented 15 Int Magic-User could only learn about 20 of them, while the even less inclined 14 Int Magic-User could learn 17. That's if the previous limits weren't already in place. Except they are. For 9th level spells (there are only 12), the 18 Int will miss one of them, the 15 will miss three of them, and the 14 will miss four of them.
But there isn't a Magical Library. Each of these spells must be hunted down. The odds of running across all 30 first levels spells should be very slim. The odds of finding all 12 9th level spells should be a hair on this side of impossible.
QuoteDo you know why that doesn't happen? Because everyone in this thread has pointed out how 'scarce' new spells are and how Wizards can never reliably count on having access to a particular spell.
Except, it did happen, because not everyone had a Magic-User with 18 Intelligence. Most of us worked with something in the 13-15 range.
QuoteI suppose it's no surprise how often reading comprehension has been brought up in this thread.
Most often by those who utterly fail at it.
Quote from: StormBringer;561904Not like this is a big surprise, but wrong again. You get 18 spells per level if you make the roll to know each spell. That roll is 85% at 18 Intelligence, meaning the number will be closer to 15 per level, or 135 total.
You are missing the point. Someone claimed the limit of 18 spells per level is a limit to Wizards. Someone else pointed out that it actually isn't, and that the 85% chance to learn a spell is the real limit.
You are just proving him right. on average most 18 Int Wizards can't even learn 18 spells of any level. So the 18 cap is imaginary, and isn't a real limit.
Quote from: StormBringer;561904Not like this is a big surprise, but wrong again. You get 18 spells per level if you make the roll to know each spell. That roll is 85% at 18 Intelligence, meaning the number will be closer to 15 per level, or 135 total. Still an impressive amount, but that is for a Magic-User with 18 Intelligence. The cream of the crop, one of the finest in a given campaign. Most will have something more like a 14 or 15 Intelligence.
Ability Chance Min Max
9 35% 4 6
10-12 45% 5 7
13-14 55% 6 9
15-16 65% 7 11
17 75% 8 14
18 85% 9 18
At 14, the maximum would be 9 per level, but realistically, 5 per level. At 15, 11 per level, but realistically 7 per level. Holy shit! Those are a lot closer to your 'meaningful' limit. Amazing what the rules tell you when you know what they say!
Let's pretend there's a Magical Library, where your Magic-User can check scrolls out all day long. There are 30 1st level spells, so our 18 Int super genius could learn 25 of them, seven more than their max. That doesn't leave many behind. But wait, our somewhat less talented 15 Int Magic-User could only learn about 20 of them, while the even less inclined 14 Int Magic-User could learn 17. That's if the previous limits weren't already in place. Except they are. For 9th level spells (there are only 12), the 18 Int will miss one of them, the 15 will miss three of them, and the 14 will miss four of them.
But there isn't a Magical Library. Each of these spells must be hunted down. The odds of running across all 30 first levels spells should be very slim. The odds of finding all 12 9th level spells should be a hair on this side of impossible.
Except, it did happen, because not everyone had a Magic-User with 18 Intelligence. Most of us worked with something in the 13-15 range.
Most often by those who utterly fail at it.
You are assuming only the Spells in the PHB though and Dragon was producing new 'official' spells about 2 months after the PHB was published and the total list of spells by say 1982 was probably tripple the PHB lists.
In addition a wizard can create their own spells to fill any slots that they were unable to fill through collected spells. Now spell creation is expensive and time consuming but its in the rules and NPC wizards can do that as well and PCs can learn those spells.
If you look here - http://www.wizardmark.com/spellinv/spells.asp
Its a 2e resource but you can limit the search to all TSR spells and at first level I find 271 of them...... If we assume that 1e is half that
its still a shed load of spells.....
Quote from: Kaelik;561907You are missing the point. Someone claimed the limit of 18 spells per level is a limit to Wizards. Someone else pointed out that it actually isn't, and that the 85% chance to learn a spell is the real limit.
You are just proving him right. on average most 18 Int Wizards can't even learn 18 spells of any level. So the 18 cap is imaginary, and isn't a real limit.
Except that only applies to
18 Intelligence. Most Magic-Users only had 9 or 11 spells per level maximum. That's a
limit when you have 30 first level spells.
If your belief is that a further 5 or 6 spells are the only ones that will be used, that is a
limit on the ability to play well.
Quote from: jibbajibba;561910You are assuming only the Spells in the PHB though and Dragon was producing new 'official' spells about 2 months after the PHB was published and the total list of spells by say 1982 was probably tripple the PHB lists.
Sounds reasonable.
QuoteIn addition a wizard can create their own spells to fill any slots that they were unable to fill through collected spells. Now spell creation is expensive and time consuming but its in the rules and NPC wizards can do that as well and PCs can learn those spells.
Yeah, kind of a loophole, but an expensive and time consuming one. Also, not guaranteed to work.
QuoteIf you look here - http://www.wizardmark.com/spellinv/spells.asp
Its a 2e resource but you can limit the search to all TSR spells and at first level I find 271 of them...... If we assume that 1e is half that its still a shed load of spells.....
a) That is an awesome resource!
b) I was using the PHB for simplicity, but with this added list, it is even more apparent that 18 per level is a tangible limit. I am going to guess those max spell numbers were created with at least half a mind towards more spells being introduced in various products after the PHB was published.
And don't forget that this limit applies in conjunction with the Chance to Know spells percentile, which means you will sooner or later fail the roll to learn a spell like Charm Person or Magic Missile or Shield or Sleep etc then might very well hit the minimum number of spells per level between then and the moment he would have gone through the whole list for the spell level concerned (and as a matter of fact will even more probably the more spells the DM adds to his campaign), which means he will NOT get to reroll later on.
Quote from: Benoist;561924And don't forget that this limit applies in conjunction with the Chance to Know spells percentile, which means you will sooner or later fail the roll to learn a spell like Charm Person or Magic Missile or Shield or Sleep etc then hits the minimum number os spells per level between then and the moment he would have gone through the whole list for the spell level concerned, which means he will NOT get to reroll later on.
Well, technically you can, but only if you fail to meet your minimum spells per level quota
Quote from: Sacrosanct;561927Well, technically you can, but only if you fail to meet your minimum spells per level quota
That's exactly what I said, mate. :)
Quote from: Benoist;561930That's exactly what I said, mate. :)
Good lord...
Today's been one of these days for me:
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal05/2012/7/17/11/enhanced-buzz-wide-26829-1342538818-5.jpg)
Quote from: StormBringer;561916Except that only applies to 18 Intelligence. Most Magic-Users only had 9 or 11 spells per level maximum. That's a limit when you have 30 first level spells.
Not really, because a lower intelligence also equates to a lower chance to learn the spell as well, so having a lower max limit also means you are only capable of getting a smaller percentage of the total spells of that level.
I will happily concede that the limit on spells per level effected level 1 spells if you will agree they had no effect whatsoever on level 9 spells. And we can work through the rest of the list from there.
Quote from: Benoist;561930That's exactly what I said, mate. :)
Didn't I say the same thing? It did start this tangent. (Nobody ever listens to Marley).
Quote from: Benoist;561930That's exactly what I said, mate. :)
Don't have the books in front of me, but don't you get to roll again if your Intelligence changes?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;561940Don't have the books in front of me, but don't you get to roll again if your Intelligence changes?
Actually I don't know I had assumed that if your intelligence lowered you lost max/min slots and if it came back you could reroll to see if you gained back your old spells. Maybe it was a houserule as is most of Dnd. I would be interested to see what it actually says though.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;561940Don't have the books in front of me, but don't you get to roll again if your Intelligence changes?
Yes, you may.
It's been years for me, but that's what I remembered.
If you find a bunch of scrolls, if you fail to learn them, you hold on to them and the moment you get a +1 Intelligence, you try again. Since most games I played involved eventually getting a +1 at some point, the odds of failing to learn a given spell (completely, permanently) is lower than the 'base figures'. If you have a 50% chance to fail to learn it, then get a +1 and have a 45% chance to fail, your chance to fail is only 22.5%. If you got another +1 and reduce the chance to 40%, the chance to fail is only 9% - and that assumes no retries. If you're allowed to try twice the chance of failure drops dramatically.
Again, numbers are made up, but the principle holds true.
I don't recall ever running into a problem with having the 'maximum number of spells known' and wishing I could learn ONE MORE SPELL. I do remember failing to learn a spell I wanted.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;561954It's been years for me, but that's what I remembered.
If you find a bunch of scrolls, if you fail to learn them, you hold on to them and the moment you get a +1 Intelligence, you try again. Since most games I played involved eventually getting a +1 at some point, the odds of failing to learn a given spell (completely, permanently) is lower than the 'base figures'. If you have a 50% chance to fail to learn it, then get a +1 and have a 45% chance to fail, your chance to fail is only 22.5%. If you got another +1 and reduce the chance to 40%, the chance to fail is only 9% - and that assumes no retries. If you're allowed to try twice the chance of failure drops dramatically.
Again, numbers are made up, but the principle holds true.
I don't recall ever running into a problem with having the 'maximum number of spells known' and wishing I could learn ONE MORE SPELL. I do remember failing to learn a spell I wanted.
Actually I hit my cap way before. But as I said most the Wizards I played had around a 16 INT.
Quote from: StormBringer;561904Let's pretend there's a Magical Library, where your Magic-User can check scrolls out all day long. There are 30 1st level spells, so our 18 Int super genius could learn 25 of them, seven more than their max. That doesn't leave many behind. But wait, our somewhat less talented 15 Int Magic-User could only learn about 20 of them, while the even less inclined 14 Int Magic-User could learn 17. That's if the previous limits weren't already in place. Except they are. For 9th level spells (there are only 12), the 18 Int will miss one of them, the 15 will miss three of them, and the 14 will miss four of them.
But there isn't a Magical Library. Each of these spells must be hunted down. The odds of running across all 30 first levels spells should be very slim. The odds of finding all 12 9th level spells should be a hair on this side of impossible.
Isn't this arguing against your own point? I'd agree with the others that in my 1e experience, the two important limits were (1) the limit that you have to find the spellbooks or scrolls to learn from, and (2) the chance to learn each spell. The maximum per level wasn't an important limit, because you needed to acquire 18+ spells before the maximum kicked in, on average. As you say, acquiring this many spells from scrolls or spellbooks is uncommon.
(This doesn't change that much with intelligence, because with a lower intelligence you're learning a smaller fraction of the spells you acquire. A 15 Int magic user who acquires 17 spells will only learn 11 of them on average.)
Quote from: deadDMwalking;561954It's been years for me, but that's what I remembered.
If you find a bunch of scrolls, if you fail to learn them, you hold on to them and the moment you get a +1 Intelligence, you try again. Since most games I played involved eventually getting a +1 at some point, the odds of failing to learn a given spell (completely, permanently) is lower than the 'base figures'. If you have a 50% chance to fail to learn it, then get a +1 and have a 45% chance to fail, your chance to fail is only 22.5%. If you got another +1 and reduce the chance to 40%, the chance to fail is only 9% - and that assumes no retries. If you're allowed to try twice the chance of failure drops dramatically.
Again, numbers are made up, but the principle holds true.
I don't recall ever running into a problem with having the 'maximum number of spells known' and wishing I could learn ONE MORE SPELL. I do remember failing to learn a spell I wanted.
Well I don't know what your DMs were doing. What I do know is that a fluctuation of Intelligence in my AD&D games is far less likely to occur than say.. in an edition of the game where you get automatic bonus points to your ability scores, like, say... 3rd ed. In AD&D your Intelligence might be affected in a variety of ways, such as, for instance, if you happen to age and get to a different category that would modify your Intelligence, but it isn't very common or at least, not nearly as common as playing 3rd ed would make you assume.
Quote from: Benoist;561969Well I don't know what your DMs were doing. What I do know is that a fluctuation of Intelligence in my AD&D games is far less likely to occur than say.. in an edition of the game where you get automatic bonus points to your ability scores, like, say... 3rd ed. In AD&D your Intelligence might be affected in a variety of ways, such as, for instance, if you happen to age and get to a different category that would modify your Intelligence, but it isn't very common or at least, not nearly as common as playing 3rd ed would make you assume.
I'll nitpick with you here because I remember that the spell
Haste in prior to 3.x versions would cause the caster to age a year or so (IIRC). You could get old and venerable really quick with constant casting.
Quote from: jeff37923;561971I'll nitpick with you here because I remember that the spell Haste in prior to 3.x versions would cause the caster to age a year or so (IIRC). You could get old and venerable really quick with constant casting.
True. If you spam some specific spells and are a human MU you might at some point change your age category. It can happen, but it's not going to happen all the time, at each level or whatnot. At least in my games.
I remember that items that provide a permanent bonus to an attribute (including Intelligence) were USUALLY included in the game - not frequently, but in the course of the campaign, you'd probably find most of them, and we always seemed to find at least one that provided a bonus to Intelligence. And we always gave it to the Wizard, because that's what you do - give the item to the person who gets the most benefit out of it. Manual of Gainful Exercise, Tome of Understanding, these were not new in 3rd edition.
How many did you find in the campaign?
Quote from: Benoist;561986How many did you find in the campaign?
Randomly, by the AD&D treasure rules? I think three separate texts within 15 years of play. One was for Intelligence.
There was also a magic egg that was Save vs. Poison - instant death or raise an ability score by one.
Otherwise, I'd never have gotten an Intelligence of 20. Good luck rolling an 18.
Quote from: Benoist;561986How many did you find in the campaign?
Now you guys are making sense.
Stat increases prior ro 3e are incredible rare, so rare as to be statistically ignored. As I tried to expalin up post when told Fighters got extra HP bonus for 17+ con and exceptional strength on an 18 .... which were ignored in my cleric versus fighter example and held out as a fult in my logic :)
Where were you guys when you should have been defending me then :D
If you roll 4d6 drop 1 and arrange, in my experience by far the most common stat generation method in 1e. you have a 9% chance of getting an 18. You actually have a 30% chance of getting at least 1 17 and a whopping 57% of getitng at least 1 16.
From what I understand, wishes weren't all that uncommon in EGG's games. He even devotes a bit of space to ability score increases in the DMG section on wishes. I have a feeling that wouldn't be there if it hadn't happened that often...and before anyone brings up the stuff EGG didn't use like weapon vs. AC and the like, this is more in the vein of direct advice that comes from actual play and not a rule system.
Quote from: Benoist;561986How many did you find in the campaign?
I think by name level, it wasn't all that uncommon for a character to have one attribute increased. Either by the aforementioned tombs, or ioun stones, or the many magical pools out there that increased stats (Castle Amber, In Search of the Unknown, etc).
That all being said, usually that bonus brought a stat up to 17 or 18, and not higher since most of our characters had 15-17 as the highest ability score by rolling 4d6 drop 1.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;562013I think by name level, it wasn't all that uncommon for a character to have one attribute increased. Either by the aforementioned tombs, or ion stones, or the many magical pools out there that increased stats (Castle Amber, In Search of the Unknown, etc).
Another good example, yeah.
I like all the guys giving out math statistics about probabilities of having an 18.
I think Knights of the Dinner Table have shown, repeatedly, what sort of entirely legal (if not necessarily kosher) lengths players would go through to GET an 18 stat.
Rolling and junking unsuitables being a highly common one. Being a hardcase DM isn't proof against it either, since the character could just suicide by monster in the first session.
Let me just say I was not at all surprised to see 're-roll infinite times' hard coded into the Baldur's Gate character generator. Or, for that matter, on the disk that came with my 3.0E PHB.
Quote from: Spike;562021I like all the guys giving out math statistics about probabilities of having an 18.
I highly doubt anyone that rolls for ability scores complains about the Wizard being too overpowered.
Quote from: Spike;562021I like all the guys giving out math statistics about probabilities of having an 18.
I think Knights of the Dinner Table have shown, repeatedly, what sort of entirely legal (if not necessarily kosher) lengths players would go through to GET an 18 stat.
Rolling and junking unsuitables being a highly common one. Being a hardcase DM isn't proof against it either, since the character could just suicide by monster in the first session.
Let me just say I was not at all surprised to see 're-roll infinite times' hard coded into the Baldur's Gate character generator. Or, for that matter, on the disk that came with my 3.0E PHB.
Like I said at my table to play what you roll and we use 4d6 drop 1.
If a PC was really poor then we woudl tinker with backgrounds , i mentioned up thread PCs playing Children theives etc, this meant their stats could expand.
I think I could cound the number of permanent stat increases I have experienced on a PC in 32 years of gaming on the fingers of one hand. A magic Pool, a divine intervention (in a pretty daft game i don't count) my current figther character who is a werewolf so gets +2 Str at night takign him to 17 again not sure I would DM it that way, but .... he will end up being a CE NPC soon I suspect :(. that is about it. Oh My 13th level thief increased A stat by 1 I think when he found his Luck blade think it was his Con from 14 to 15.
I draw your attention to the Gygax note on Wishes inproving stats in 1e - Pg 11 DMG
A wish can only increase a stat from 16 up by 1/10 of a point. So it takes 10 wishes to get your 16 to a 17 and ten more to 18 .
But the tone does suggest he was chucking wishes about like jello shots at a frat party.
(http://venturefans.org/wiki/images/thumb/0/08/Race_bannon_dead.png/800px-Race_bannon_dead.png) (http://venturefans.org/vbwiki/Race_Bannon)
This thread still isn't dead yet?
Quote from: John Morrow;562102(http://venturefans.org/wiki/images/thumb/0/08/Race_bannon_dead.png/800px-Race_bannon_dead.png) (http://venturefans.org/vbwiki/Race_Bannon)
This thread still isn't dead yet?
I think it is undead at this stage.
Quote from: John Morrow;562102(http://venturefans.org/wiki/images/thumb/0/08/Race_bannon_dead.png/800px-Race_bannon_dead.png) (http://venturefans.org/vbwiki/Race_Bannon)
This thread still isn't dead yet?
No way, it's going for lichdom.:D
4,000 or bust.
Quote from: John Morrow;562102(http://venturefans.org/wiki/images/thumb/0/08/Race_bannon_dead.png/800px-Race_bannon_dead.png) (http://venturefans.org/vbwiki/Race_Bannon)
This thread still isn't dead yet?
That was a hilarious
Venture Brothers episode.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;562103I think it is undead at this stage.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pWl4S28YA4Q/TEewTArYEEI/AAAAAAAAAQE/TSj-xvtnBhQ/s1600/Turn+Undead.JPG)
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;562114That was a hilarious Venture Brothers episode.
That doesn't narrow it down.
Quote from: Doom;562131That doesn't narrow it down.
You could click on the picture. It does link through to a description of where it's from.
Quote from: The Butcher;562125(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pWl4S28YA4Q/TEewTArYEEI/AAAAAAAAAQE/TSj-xvtnBhQ/s1600/Turn+Undead.JPG)
Holy shit that halfling REALLY wants to kick ass! He's almost foaming at the mouth!
Quote from: jeff37923;561971I'll nitpick with you here because I remember that the spell Haste in prior to 3.x versions would cause the caster to age a year or so (IIRC). You could get old and venerable really quick with constant casting.
Not only that, depending on how brutal your DM was, you could have to roll system shock or die, because Haste is unnatural aging, like seeing a Ghost. Always amuses me to read 3e/4e players griping about Wish in AD&D, when it came with a 5 year price tag per casting, and was basically an open invitation for the DM to screw with you.
Quote from: jhkim;561962Isn't this arguing against your own point? I'd agree with the others that in my 1e experience, the two important limits were (1) the limit that you have to find the spellbooks or scrolls to learn from, and (2) the chance to learn each spell. The maximum per level wasn't an important limit, because you needed to acquire 18+ spells before the maximum kicked in, on average. As you say, acquiring this many spells from scrolls or spellbooks is uncommon.
I think it is important that they be taken as a whole, though. One or the other isn't honestly much of a limitation. If your Magic-User has a 65% chance to know a spell, and they miss it on
sleep, there is always
DarkBlack's Dweomer of Drowsiness, or
slumber, or
nappy time, or any of a few hundred other variations of the spell name, as JibbaJabba points out. That is a fairly improper way to go about it, unless the DM is also imposing research costs; both time and money.
Quote(This doesn't change that much with intelligence, because with a lower intelligence you're learning a smaller fraction of the spells you acquire. A 15 Int magic user who acquires 17 spells will only learn 11 of them on average.)
But it does make each choice more valuable, even considering just the PHB list of spells. Bring in all the other material, as Jibba mentions, and even the 18 Int Turjan analogue's eighteen spells is looking pretty shabby. I don't even know how many spells are in just the Wizard's Spell Compendium books, they don't say. The four volumes have over 1000 pages, but some of that is appendices and instructions and so forth. Maybe 900 pages of spells, perhaps an average of two spells per page, so 1800 spells total? Distributed evenly (which they obviously aren't), that makes 200 spells per level. Super intelligent MU, even if they had access to every one of those spells, would only know less than 10% of them, maximum. Using only the chance to know roll, they would be able to learn 170 of them instead.
I wouldn't expect Uncle Gary foresaw quite that many spells being available, but judging by the numbers, I would have to guess he was expecting a good deal more to be introduced at some point in the product life.
Quote from: StormBringer;562174I think it is important that they be taken as a whole, though. One or the other isn't honestly much of a limitation. If your Magic-User has a 65% chance to know a spell, and they miss it on sleep, there is always DarkBlack's Dweomer of Drowsiness, or slumber, or nappy time, or any of a few hundred other variations of the spell name, as JibbaJabba points out. That is a fairly improper way to go about it, unless the DM is also imposing research costs; both time and money.
But it does make each choice more valuable, even considering just the PHB list of spells. Bring in all the other material, as Jibba mentions, and even the 18 Int Turjan analogue's eighteen spells is looking pretty shabby. I don't even know how many spells are in just the Wizard's Spell Compendium books, they don't say. The four volumes have over 1000 pages, but some of that is appendices and instructions and so forth. Maybe 900 pages of spells, perhaps an average of two spells per page, so 1800 spells total? Distributed evenly (which they obviously aren't), that makes 200 spells per level. Super intelligent MU, even if they had access to every one of those spells, would only know less than 10% of them, maximum. Using only the chance to know roll, they would be able to learn 170 of them instead.
I wouldn't expect Uncle Gary foresaw quite that many spells being available, but judging by the numbers, I would have to guess he was expecting a good deal more to be introduced at some point in the product life.
I think in the early days spell research was much more important and much less heavily ruled. Bigby can't cast a lot of his own spells for example. That to me (as noted in my Ever the wizard there ever their was thread) is much more part of Vancian magic that spell slots.
Quote from: SkarnkaiLW;562173Not only that, depending on how brutal your DM was, you could have to roll system shock or die, because Haste is unnatural aging, like seeing a Ghost. Always amuses me to read 3e/4e players griping about Wish in AD&D, when it came with a 5 year price tag per casting, and was basically an open invitation for the DM to screw with you.
I ran into the
Haste problem when I played with RPGA weenies during AD&D 2E. They all tended to be elves while myself and another guy were humans. In one weekend our characters went from teenagers to middle aged due to the constant use of
Haste by the RPGA cheese weasels.
Quote from: jeff37923;562188I ran into the Haste problem when I played with RPGA weenies during AD&D 2E. They all tended to be elves while myself and another guy were humans. In one weekend our characters went from teenagers to middle aged due to the constant use of Haste by the RPGA cheese weasels.
This is why proportionate aging should be used. Dwarves age at 5x the rate as humans and elves 10x.
So elves would age 10 years a pop from haste. ;)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;562215This is why proportionate aging should be used. Dwarves age at 5x the rate as humans and elves 10x.
So elves would age 10 years a pop from haste. ;)
We did pretty much that ourselves. Haste/Limited Wish/Wish are rarely if ever used at our tables. Personally I think physically aging someone for using Haste is the hieght of stupid but whatever. Far more sensible is severe physical fatigue that cannot be healed in any way beyond natural.
Quote from: Marleycat;562249We did pretty much that ourselves. Haste/Limited Wish/Wish are rarely if ever used at our tables. Personally I think physically aging someone for using Haste is the hieght of stupid but whatever. Far more sensible is severe physical fatigue that cannot be healed in any way beyond natural.
The aging is meant to be a deterrent of sorts, to make the magic something that is only used in the most extreme circumstances.
Fatigue would only serve as a cooldown. Something as good as haste would always be used when available without a permenant cost.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;562327The aging is meant to be a deterrent of sorts, to make the magic something that is only used in the most extreme circumstances.
Fatigue would only serve as a cooldown. Something as good as haste would always be used when available without a permenant cost.
But you aren't asking what the "cooldown" is and what it actually costs.:)
You see Haste is just about going beyond your normal physical limits for a short time not anything doing with actually screwing with the concept of "time" it's all about speed like "acceleration or celerity. Now something like LW or Wish? That's changing reality and given the game isn't Mage aging or making it ritual only is quite acceptable if you have the sack to say to reality "I demand a do over".:)
In fact a great "in game" reason to limit magic is to do what I do and make magic fickle and possibly corruptive the higher level it goes. Want to really be a bitch? Or go more S&S? All spells arcane/divine/psi are ritual only and you can still add aging if you like overkill.
Quote from: Marleycat;562343But you aren't asking what the "cooldown" is and what it actually costs.:)
You see Haste is just about going beyond your normal physical limits for a short time not anything doing with actually screwing with the concept of "time" it's all about speed like "acceleration or celerity. Now something like LW or Wish? That's changing reality and given the game isn't Mage aging or making it ritual only is quite acceptable if you have the sack to say to reality "I demand a do over".:)
In fact a great "in game" reason to limit magic is to do what I do and make magic fickle and possibly corruptive the higher level it goes. What to really be a bitch? Or go more S&S? All spells arcane/divine/psi are ritual only and you can still add aging if you like overkill.
So what's the cooldown and the details?
Quote from: Marleycat;562343You see Haste is just about going beyond your normal physical limits for a short time not anything doing with actually screwing with the concept of "time" it's all about speed like "acceleration or celerity.
According to you. You however, did not author the spell.
Not trying to be snarky, but literally moving twice as fast as your normal maximum speed is physically impossible. What is the Magic doing? If the magic is forcing your body to dramatically outperform to that degree, the cooldown period would have a huge disadvantage as well as possibly physical damage as your body was torn to reach that level of performance.
Alternatively, the magic could be accelerating time for you, which gives you no physical damage or fatigue, but does have an effect, that of aging.
Since the Haste spell does not in fact cause extreme fatigue and damage and instead causes aging, then it is obvious by which mechanism the spell works. Alteration of Time.
The fact that Marley doesn't like the way the spell works, because it's not WW Celerity, does not in fact change how the spell actually works, which is clear from the effects. :D
Quote from: Exploderwizard;562348So what's the cooldown and the details?
Ha! I knew you would ask, been a long time since I played pure Dnd. But went something like 3 days (basically level of spell iirc) you couldn't even attempt to rememorize spells, an hour less per level and still have to sleep 8 hours or 4 hours reverie if an elf to rememorize spells. You also suffered max encumberance penalties throughout.
Quote from: CRKrueger;562349According to you. You however, did not author the spell.
Not trying to be snarky, but literally moving twice as fast as your normal maximum speed is physically impossible. What is the Magic doing? If the magic is forcing your body to dramatically outperform to that degree, the cooldown period would have a huge disadvantage as well as possibly physical damage as your body was torn to reach that level of performance.
Alternatively, the magic could be accelerating time for you, which gives you no physical damage or fatigue, but does have an effect, that of aging.
Since the Haste spell does not in fact cause extreme fatigue and damage and instead causes aging, then it is obvious by which mechanism the spell works. Alteration of Time.
The fact that Marley doesn't like the way the spell works, because it's not WW Celerity, does not in fact change how the spell actually works, which is clear from the effects. :D
I love you too CK. I did say in other games we do porportional aging. My game does my above houserule. I would still play in any Dnd game you ran would you in any Mage game I ran?
Quote from: Marleycat;562351I love you too CK. I did say in other games we do porportional aging. My game does my above houserule. I would still play in any Dnd game you ran would you in any Mage game I ran?
I would. As I said, I wasn't trying to be snarky, but your argument came across as a little harsh to me.
For example - The Fireball spell creates an explosion that fills something like 33 10x10x10 cubes of volume. You may not like that spell, you can create another spell that does something completely different, but saying "That's idiotic, Fireball works by filling a sphere of 30' radius, without "spilling over", is kind of odd. That may be how you want Fireball to work, and you certainly have the ability to create a spell that does that, but declaring the means by which a magical spell functions as open to interpretation when the spell itself is very clear is just weird to me.
Can't you not like the function of a spell without it being stupid?
When you said
Quote from: MarleycatYou see Haste is just about going beyond your normal physical limits for a short time not anything doing with actually screwing with the concept of "time" it's all about speed like "acceleration or celerity.
That was objectively false. How can I say that? Because the magic spell Haste has a clear effect, and due to the nature of that effect, ie. aging, it clearly does screw with the concept of time, regardless of your opinion on the matter.
So what you do is make MarleyHaste and then use that instead, which is 100% legit. However, you don't declare that the author of the magic spell who meant it to alter time was "wrong". His spell DOES alter time. Period.
Quote from: CRKrueger;562370I would. As I said, I wasn't trying to be snarky, but your argument came across as a little harsh to me.
For example - The Fireball spell creates an explosion that fills something like 33 10x10x10 cubes of volume. You may not like that spell, you can create another spell that does something completely different, but saying "That's idiotic, Fireball works by filling a sphere of 30' radius, without "spilling over", is kind of odd. That may be how you want Fireball to work, and you certainly have the ability to create a spell that does that, but declaring the means by which a magical spell functions as open to interpretation when the spell itself is very clear is just weird to me.
Can't you not like the function of a spell without it being stupid?
When you said That was objectively false. How can I say that? Because the magic spell Haste has a clear effect, and due to the nature of that effect, ie. aging, it clearly does screw with the concept of time, regardless of your opinion on the matter.
So what you do is make MarleyHaste and then use that instead, which is 100% legit. However, you don't declare that the author of the magic spell who meant it to alter time was "wrong". His spell DOES alter time. Period.
Checked and.knotted. You Caledonia me on being a bitch without being an asshat. Yep, you sir are cool and why I'd play any game you ran or just beside you. No questions asked.
I hate phones, you checked me without being an asshat.
I've always wanted to play in a Mage or Promethean game. Except for a couple who liked Vampire, Werewolf and Wraith, most of my players weren't into WW. Of course that didn't stop me from buying I think the entire oWoD print run. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;562410I've always wanted to play in a Mage or Promethean game. Except for a couple who liked Vampire, Werewolf and Wraith, most of my players weren't into WW. Of course that didn't stop me from buying I think the entire oWoD print run. :D
Mage the Ascension is the best!
Quote from: CRKrueger;562410I've always wanted to play in a Mage or Promethean game. Except for a couple who liked Vampire, Werewolf and Wraith, most of my players weren't into WW. Of course that didn't stop me from buying I think the entire oWoD print run. :D
Maybe someday I'll get run a game for you. Life is full of twists. Promethean is awesome btw.:D
Quote from: Marleycat;562406Checked and.knotted. You Caledonia me on being a bitch without being an asshat. .
I know that was a phone spell checker, but it is still awesome. You Caledonia me indeed! After being Checked AND Knotted.
Quote from: Spike;562548I know that was a phone spell checker, but it is still awesome. You Caledonia me indeed! After being Checked AND Knotted.
Caledonia, Caledonia!
Thou hast checked and knotted me!
Fuck both you no job having losers. :D Seriously I am off to bed work beckons.
Quote from: Marleycat;562564Seriously I am off to bed work beckons.
Umm, not sure that came out right. :D
Why I'm really here though: Since I can't put this stake in the heart of the Colonial Genocide thread, I'll put it here.
(http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/i-HNp8dgz/0/L/i-HNp8dgz-X3.jpg)
Once again Gabe and Tycho show us the way.
As long as someone else is doing the thread resurrection, I did have something else I wanted to add.
I've been watching Avatar: the Last Airbender with my daughter (she's 5). We've both been enjoying the hell out of the show. And if you haven't watched it, I suggest giving it a try. It's a well made show by basically any criteria.
In any case, we recently watched Season 3: Episode 4. At this point in the story, the Avatar (who can do any type of elemental magic) is traveling with someone who can do water magic and someone who can do earth magic. Sokka, a warrior who has been traveling with the Avatar since episode 1 has a revelation - he's not really contributing to the group anymore. With their powerful magic, he's superfluous. He can't do anything that they couldn't do with magic BETTER than him. It is not a combat problem that causes him to have this discovery - it's dealing with fires generated by a meteorite falling from the sky.
Sokka puts out one small flame caused by a falling spark. The three casters put out the huge fire around the meteorite itself. The Avatar's pet flying lemur is so fast that it actually puts out a half dozen small fires in the time it takes Sokka to deal with just one.
At that point, they really did deal with the problem in a way that resounded with my play experience. I could really see this happening to 'real people at a real table'.
The response of the caster's was telling, too. Things like, 'Sokka, you're our idea guy,' and 'Sokka, you make us laugh'.
In any case, I'm not sure what the end result of this episode is. Sokka sought out a sword master who taught him to use his 'creativity' in combat. Things like 'using the terrain to his advantage' and 'identifying his strengths versus his opponents weaknesses'. Finally, Sokka forged a 'special' sword from the meteorite...
I expect that in the Avatar world, the sword is only 'magical' if the person wielding it can 'activate' it, through some sword technique or something - because otherwise they might run into the issue where the sword is more useful than Sokka, and could be used by any member of the party and still contribute without Sokka needing to be around...
Anyways, if someone else has seen the rest of the series, they'll know how it addressed the 'fighter recognizes that any of his contributions can be duplicated by magic' issue.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;567887The response of the caster's was telling, too. Things like, 'Sokka, you're our idea guy,' and 'Sokka, you make us laugh'.
So, the rest of the party weren't douchebags that pissed and moaned like four year olds because he wasn't 'contributing' exactly the way the rules specified?
I have a feeling you took away the wrong lesson from that episode. It's only the same 'everyone is valuable' lesson 30min commercials have been presenting since the early 80s, so I guess it was easy to miss...?
I thought this thread was dead and buried? Oh well my bad. I guess I will do my part for the drive to 4k. DeadDM you're view is why 4e is a steaming pile of shit. When everyone is a special snowflake it results in nobody being one and just makes the whole thing about keel powahz, blech.
It's my fault, but I'll try to put the picture on topic.
According to the Denners, the Orc in the picture is a 1st level Wizard and the guy with a sign is a 40th level Fighter. :D
I would have responded to the Airbender part, but I couldn't find a crying emoticon ridiculous enough.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;567887Anyways, if someone else has seen the rest of the series, they'll know how it addressed the 'fighter recognizes that any of his contributions can be duplicated by magic' issue.
Sokka's ex girlfriend was the moon.
Non-casters get shit done.
Joking aside, Sokka wasn't just a fighter. He was a comic relief character. You'd be better off looking at Jet's gang, the chi-blocking girl, or the Kyoshi warriors as the archetypes of fighters in that setting.
Additionally, Sokka was a bit of a techie whenever the writers remembered it, and signs point to such a "class" existing. So he was probably a multiclass character. He wasn't much in a fight, but the party legitimately wouldn't have had a chance against the giant drill at Ba Sing Tse (sp?) without his help.
Quote from: beejazz;567984Joking aside, Sokka wasn't just a fighter. He was a comic relief character.
Umm, same thing to these guys.
Quote from: beejazz;567984So he was probably a multiclass character. He wasn't much in a fight, but the party legitimately wouldn't have had a chance against the giant drill at Ba Sing Tse (sp?) without his help.
You expected his arguments to be factually accurate? What fucking thread have you been reading? :idunno:
Quote from: CRKrueger;567988You expected his arguments to be factually accurate? What fucking thread have you been reading? :idunno:
He said he hadn't seen the whole series. I have. Sometimes misunderstanding is just misunderstanding.
I think it's really bad to compare Avatar to D&D classes, because Sokka wasn't even a fighter. Maybe a level 1 or 2 while everyone else leveled around him, but that was it.
If Sokka was an equal level fighter compared to his buddies, he would be wiping up the floor with all the other soldiers and bandits he ran across.
No, he was there for comic relief and to represent the "normal" man.
Quote from: beejazz;567984Sokka's ex girlfriend was the moon.
Non-casters get shit done.
Joking aside, Sokka wasn't just a fighter. He was a comic relief character. You'd be better off looking at Jet's gang, the chi-blocking girl, or the Kyoshi warriors as the archetypes of fighters in that setting.
Additionally, Sokka was a bit of a techie whenever the writers remembered it, and signs point to such a "class" existing. So he was probably a multiclass character. He wasn't much in a fight, but the party legitimately wouldn't have had a chance against the giant drill at Ba Sing Tse (sp?) without his help.
Beej here hits the mark here. Sokka is indeed a fighter for their world he is also comic relief so his contributions are limited more than they should be. Jet is a better example along with Tai Lee. The setting in this stage of avatar even when fighters are doing their best still shows the stark contrast between what a character who can bend can do vs what someone who can't bend can do. Jet/kyoshi warriors/etc can only do well in combat arena showdowns, ambushes, and by being straight up better at fighting than the benders they fight. It should be noted that DnD wise Tai Lee would be more of a monk. Moving on, if you gave any of them the job of putting out a raging fire they'd be just extra hands while the benders and their pet bison would be able to get more done. Additionally none of these people would be ever be able to participate in high level combat such as that between aang and ozai, azula and katara/zuko, etc. What's more being able to be a capable fighter in the avatar universe is something benders can do (as shown by zuko who has proven). Now reasonably all the benders are martial artists though they don't fight hand to hand for some reason.
The bender/nonbender divide is extrapolated further in Legend of Korra where the plot focuses on bending vs non bending. Now in LoK nonbenders get a leg up in that they get special equipment and are basically all chi-blockers. However even then anyone can use their equipment though benders typically just don't. However the inclusion of better equipment allows the fighters to solve more issues than prior to it. Also it shows that chi-blocking can be learned in night classes and that benders can actually learn and use it (most just don't). So there's that too.
Quote from: beejazz;567990He said he hadn't seen the whole series. I have. Sometimes misunderstanding is just misunderstanding.
Beej, its not a misunderstanding. Sokka describes himself as a warrior and he IS a warrior from his tribe. The fact that he's the only techie in the group at all is incidental and doesn't really add much of anything to his skill set. I mean shit he goes to the oldest best warrior in the fire nation he can to get better warrior training. I don't think CRK actually knows dog shit about the series nor does he have the ability to construct a sound/reasoned argument about anything.
Quote from: MGuy;568015Beej here hits the mark here. Sokka is indeed a fighter for their world he is also comic relief so his contributions are limited more than they should be. Jet is a better example along with Tai Lee. The setting in this stage of avatar even when fighters are doing their best still shows the stark contrast between what a character who can bend can do vs what someone who can't bend can do. Jet/kyoshi warriors/etc can only do well in combat arena showdowns, ambushes, and by being straight up better at fighting than the benders they fight. It should be noted that DnD wise Tai Lee would be more of a monk. Moving on, if you gave any of them the job of putting out a raging fire they'd be just extra hands while the benders and their pet bison would be able to get more done. Additionally none of these people would be ever be able to participate in high level combat such as that between aang and ozai, azula and katara/zuko, etc. What's more being able to be a capable fighter in the avatar universe is something benders can do (as shown by zuko who has proven). Now reasonably all the benders are martial artists though they don't fight hand to hand for some reason.
At this point we're kind of arguing the system of Avatar, and not just the classes but also the levels of the characters. It's a tangent, but as a gearhead and an avatar fan it's a fun one.
You could easily argue Zuko into a case of cross-classing same as you could with Sokka. He's actually not as powerful a bender as "full caster" characters like Katara or his sister Azula. What you see as the "for some reason" that many benders don't fight hand to hand is simply that most benders don't cross class.
Combat-wise, I'd say bending capabilities are (relatively) limited. They can defend themselves (unless they're fire), attack (usually at range), move cool ways (if they're air or water), mess with terrain (unless they're air), and immobilize opponents (unless they're air or fire). From the looks of things most can only sustain one effect at a time, at a middling range (less than arrows), and only so long as they can move. I'd also imagine sufficient physical trauma can stun and end effects.
In Avatarverse, only messing with terrain is really barred to fighters. And as you can see from the drill and the plan to bust that dam and maybe a few other cases, non benders still fuck with the terrain. It just takes longer most of the time. Sokka's counter-techie stuff is why the wall held.
Avatar characters didn't level in lockstep.
QuoteThe bender/nonbender divide is extrapolated further in Legend of Korra where the plot focuses on bending vs non bending. Now in LoK nonbenders get a leg up in that they get special equipment and are basically all chi-blockers. However even then anyone can use their equipment though benders typically just don't. However the inclusion of better equipment allows the fighters to solve more issues than prior to it. Also it shows that chi-blocking can be learned in night classes and that benders can actually learn and use it (most just don't). So there's that too.
Benders don't use the golves because they can already pin a person at range (metalbending police are the pros at this). Same goes for the chi blocking. Also the chiblocking in Korra is specifically antibender, where (IIRC) Tai Lee's could do full immobilization. Probably the latter version took more skill.
Quote from: MGuy;568016Beej, its not a misunderstanding. Sokka describes himself as a warrior and he IS a warrior from his tribe. The fact that he's the only techie in the group at all is incidental and doesn't really add much of anything to his skill set. I mean shit he goes to the oldest best warrior in the fire nation he can to get better warrior training. I don't think CRK actually knows dog shit about the series nor does he have the ability to construct a sound/reasoned argument about anything.
The fact that he was a techie did more for Ba Sing Tse than the rest of the party's bending did. If that drill had gotten through the whole bloodless coup thing wouldn't have been necessary. Imagine the casualties.
I was going to talk about the season finale but I realized I don't know if you've finished this and I don't want to spoil it.
Quote from: MGuy;568016I don't think CRK actually knows dog shit about the series
Never seen an episode, but I know it has about as much to do with any version of D&D as Thundercats, Ranma 1/2, or Deadwood.
The only argument a jackass like you calls "reasoned or sound" is one that fits your opinion pathetically inflated by your life in an echo chamber, so... considering the source...Hey, thanks for the compliment, you useless fuck! :hatsoff:
Zuko is a capable fire bender. He is capable enough to match and beat generals in his father's army. The fact that he is not as good as his sister is incidental but he has shown to be a fully capable fire bender. Also I would not make the argument that Sokka is cross classed. The fact that he's the clever character, again, is incidental. What's more "bending" are all forms of martial arts. There's no official reason for why benders don't just fight hand to hand and I'm not going to ascribe some kind of "unseen class" reasoning to that. Even so both Zuko AND his uncle have been shown to be capable hand to hand fighters so bending does not intrinsically keep you from being able to use your hands the characters just don't.
Combat wise benders have more options than most of the fighters in the Avatar verse. As you noted benders can do things fighters in the avatar verse just can't. Fighters can dodge and attack that's it. That's all the ever get. Tai Lee and dagger throwing girl also took up a skill for stunning or restraining people (respectively) but none of that is on par with changing the very battle field you're on, limited or full on flight, or being able to single-handedly disable ships and vessels in one or two actions.
The Drill is not a "fighter" skill. In fact you can probably guess that fire benders made the drill. Blowing up a dam is also something that's not a "fighter" skill.Fucking around with setting pieces is something they "can" do if the conditions are right (IE there being a drill, there being a dam) but only benders can do it intrinsically.
I do believe you're right that Tai Lee could do full body stunning though which could be attributed with her having more "character levels"
Quote from: CRKrueger;568021Never seen an episode,
Thank you for proving my point. That is all.
Quote from: MGuy;568024Thank you for proving my point. That is all.
You're welcome. While I'm being so helpful...since you ran crying out of the Golarion thread and missed it... THERE'S GOOD NEWS.
We no longer have to depict a Zulu Warrior as this:
(http://themitchycakesestate.wikispaces.com/file/view/ZuluWarrior.jpg/56917772/ZuluWarrior.jpg)
We can use this:
(http://wiimedia.ign.com/wii/image/article/105/1050312/tatsunoko-vs-capcom-ultimate-all-stars-20091130025311343-000.jpg)
Now the Zulus can be happy about their heritage.
Oh, and before Dan slaps me for topicality, this has as much to do with Wizards and Fighters in D&D as any non-D&D TV show. :D
Quote from: MGuy;568023Zuko is a capable fire bender. He is capable enough to match and beat generals in his father's army. The fact that he is not as good as his sister is incidental but he has shown to be a fully capable fire bender. Also I would not make the argument that Sokka is cross classed. The fact that he's the clever character, again, is incidental. What's more "bending" are all forms of martial arts. There's no official reason for why benders don't just fight hand to hand and I'm not going to ascribe some kind of "unseen class" reasoning to that. Even so both Zuko AND his uncle have been shown to be capable hand to hand fighters so bending does not intrinsically keep you from being able to use your hands the characters just don't.
In Zuko's case I'm more pointing out that what you attribute to class and what you attribute to level is a fuzzy thing. He is a higher level bender than the generals and a lower level bender than his sister. I'd expect him to fare better against Tai Lee than his sister would, though. He is actually trained to use those swords while she is not. Bending may be a martial art, but that doesn't mean that it has a hand to hand focus, or even a hand to hand component. The most skilled archer in the world could be called a martial artist, but that doesn't mean I expect him to box well. From a mechanical standpoint it just means that they have to move to bend. To put it another way, Aang ends the campaign pretty fucking high level. But if he couldn't bend, I'm pretty sure Sokka, Tai Lee, Jet, and yes, Zuko could beat the crap out of him.
QuoteCombat wise benders have more options than most of the fighters in the Avatar verse. As you noted benders can do things fighters in the avatar verse just can't. Fighters can dodge and attack that's it. That's all the ever get. Tai Lee and dagger throwing girl also took up a skill for stunning or restraining people (respectively) but none of that is on par with changing the very battle field you're on, limited or full on flight, or being able to single-handedly disable ships and vessels in one or two actions.
Flight was pretty limited in the Avatar-verse. Even accounting for its speed and maneuverability, you usually couldn't simultaneously bend attacks while flying or bend a shield while flying or so on. Even if you could, attacks' ranges were pretty limited, so the movement wouldn't put you out of the range of arrow (or in this case, tank) fire.
Fighters could dodge and attack, but they also had relatively easy access to immobilizing attacks, and I'd say sufficient damage can break the sequence of a bending move (not just during casting, but while sustained). And if you look at, say, Jet, you'll see that they were extremely mobile as well. That really covers most of the bases of bending combat. If the bender can only get an edge in one thing at a time, and are a bit less good at fighting everywhere else (even if we give them that they aren't exactly helpless wizards) that's really enough to put them on par.
QuoteThe Drill is not a "fighter" skill. In fact you can probably guess that fire benders made the drill. Blowing up a dam is also something that's not a "fighter" skill.Fucking around with setting pieces is something they "can" do if the conditions are right (IE there being a drill, there being a dam) but only benders can do it intrinsically.
I do believe you're right that Tai Lee could do full body stunning though which could be attributed with her having more "character levels"
The fire bender tech was mostly designed (explicitly) by the single highest level non-bender techie from that abandoned air temple. The fire *nation* might have built the drill, but a world-class engineer designed it. The guy the gaang beat up, who had the schematics? Was a low level non-bender techie.
_______________
That said, the specifics of the show are often determined by the logic of making a kids show. It's why poking people is more effective than swords, and why there are mechs but no guns in Korra, and why fire just hurts people a little. Fighters make people bleed most of the time, while casters can immobilize people. One of these things can be shown. One can't.
Forgive me but can anybody tell me what airbending Avatar style has to do with the actual topic? That is beyond 4000 posts ago where I flat out said this is the most sensible direction to take the Fighter? Unless you insist on the 4e model of suckitude?
Quote from: beejazz;567984Sokka's ex girlfriend was the moon.
Non-casters get shit done.
Joking aside, Sokka wasn't just a fighter. He was a comic relief character. You'd be better off looking at Jet's gang, the chi-blocking girl, or the Kyoshi warriors as the archetypes of fighters in that setting.
Additionally, Sokka was a bit of a techie whenever the writers remembered it, and signs point to such a "class" existing. So he was probably a multiclass character. He wasn't much in a fight, but the party legitimately wouldn't have had a chance against the giant drill at Ba Sing Tse (sp?) without his help.
First off, I brought up an episode of Avatar: The Last Airbender not because it was D&D, but because it was a depiction of something that I've seen in tabletop games. This is like saying 'Indiana Jones' and 'Lord of the Rings' are not D&D - of course they're not. But they sure do inspire a lot of games. Avatar isn't D&D. But some episodes look a lot like they
could be a D&D game. So specifically, I pointed out that a particular episode dealt with the 'I'm a Warrior and my contributions to the group are meaningless'. I didn't say the warrior didn't contribute - I pointed out that
he said that.
That was a brilliant depiction of what I've been talking about, and I just saw it this week, so I didn't have it as an example earlier.
Sokka did contribute to defeating the drill. He does approach problems in a novel way. In D&D terms, his
player has good ideas. But in D&D terms, there is
nothing preventing Aang's player from being the 'idea guy'.
So when Aang and others say 'we like you being with us', they didn't say 'you know, if there was someone as smart as you, as funny as you, and capable of bending, they sure would be better on the team'. But I think Sokka took it that way.
Now, I'm sure he will have contributions. One major advantage that fiction (whether book or TV show or movie) has is that the authors decide what the action will be. Even in Avengers they gave Hawkeye a chance to contribute. Just about everyone I've spoken to pointed out how truly useless he was, but he had a chance to shine.
There's a difference between having a character able to contribute in the same story as everyone else and being given 'spotlight time' by the author (or DM). Personally, I prefer to have a character that doesn't have to rely on the DM doing 'special' things for my characters.
And I don't like 4th edition. I don't want everyone's abilities to be 'the same' and I don't want them to be 'meaningless outside of combat'. I want everyone to be able to contribute in a 'level-appropriate way'.
In combat, if someone can do 50 damage and someone else can do 30 damage, that's not a problem - that's not EQUAL, but both are a contribution.
But sometimes, with magic, you either can participate or you can't participate. And as far as D&D Next goes, I think it'll be important that they try to make sure everyone has abilities that matter - especially outside of combat. Because the best games are going to have a mix of combat and non-combat... Assigning characters to one category or the other is BAD DESIGN. All characters need to be able to contribute in both categories - NOT EQUALLY, but they need to be able to contribute.
Currently, in D&D, Fighters contribute outside of combat ONLY based on what the player's creativity allows - which is true regardless of the class he plays. Even opening doors can be easily solved by a 'pulley' as evinced by the '10-foot pole' thread.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;568097Sokka did contribute to defeating the drill. He does approach problems in a novel way. In D&D terms, his player has good ideas. But in D&D terms, there is nothing preventing Aang's player from being the 'idea guy'.
The plan to sabotage it from the inside was a player thing. The ability to read the schematics and find weaknesses probably would have been a character skill, as would the way he figured out how to half-cut beams and still break the thing (though that last bit would be more arguable).
My larger point is that if both casters and non casters can:
1)Move
2)Attack
3)Defend
4)Immobilize
Even if casters can:
5)Manipulate terrain
You can still very easily adjust levels and costs on each progression until you find parity, ESPECIALLY if casters have limits to simultaneously sustained continuous abilities and/or are weak in areas they aren't pumping magic into.
___________
Finally, Sokka isn't a great example of a fighter. He used a sword (sometimes a club or boomerang) and the show couldn't actually show him shedding other peoples' blood, so he became the comic relief role almost entirely. Tai Lee was allowed to be more effective because her attacks didn't involve making people bleed. They weren't addressing a fighter parity problem that came from the existence of wizards; they were addressing a fighter parity problem that came from having fighters in a kid show.
Quote from: beejazz;568126The plan to sabotage it from the inside was a player thing. The ability to read the schematics and find weaknesses probably would have been a character skill, as would the way he figured out how to half-cut beams and still break the thing (though that last bit would be more arguable).
My larger point is that if both casters and non casters can:
1)Move
2)Attack
3)Defend
4)Immobilize
Even if casters can:op
5)Manipulate terrain
You can still very easily adjust levels and costs on each progression until you find parity, ESPECIALLY if casters have limits to simultaneously sustained continuous abilities and/or are weak in areas they aren't pumping magic into.
___________
Finally, Sokka isn't a great example of a fighter. He used a sword (sometimes a club or boomerang) and the show couldn't actually show him shedding other peoples' blood, so he became the comic relief role almost entirely. Tai Lee was allowed to be more effective because her attacks didn't involve making people bleed. They weren't addressing a fighter parity problem that came from the existence of wizards; they were addressing a fighter parity problem that came from having fighters in a kid show.
Duh, I only graduated out of high-school and get that. It's obvious for godsake!
Quote from: deadDMwalking;567887Anyways, if someone else has seen the rest of the series, they'll know how it addressed the 'fighter recognizes that any of his contributions can be duplicated by magic' issue.
There's another episode where the exiled fire prince (him and his uncle are the serie's best characters) has to hide the fact he can use fire magic. But to make up for that he's a really, really, really good swordsman AND really, really, really good at stealth sneaking stuff.
But he eventually gets into a fight where his swordsmanship can't overcome the fact he's fighting multiple dudes hurling boulders at him, so what was a tough fight for a swordsman is ended quickly with blasts of fire.
hmm... the series Naruto also handles the "mundane vs magic" dilemma with the character Rock Lee. But the way they solve that is he becomes superhuman through extreme training. So yes he can't use ninjutsu, shoot fireballs or make shadowclones, instead he can move at inhuman speed and punch holes in boulders.
Here's a transcript of the episode if anyone's curious.
http://avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Transcript:Sokka%27s_Master
Quote from: beejazz;568126The plan to sabotage it from the inside was a player thing. The ability to read the schematics and find weaknesses probably would have been a character skill, as would the way he figured out how to half-cut beams and still break the thing (though that last bit would be more arguable).
My larger point is that if both casters and non casters can:
1)Move
2)Attack
3)Defend
4)Immobilize
Even if casters can:
5)Manipulate terrain
You can still very easily adjust levels and costs on each progression until you find parity, ESPECIALLY if casters have limits to simultaneously sustained continuous abilities and/or are weak in areas they aren't pumping magic into.
___________
Finally, Sokka isn't a great example of a fighter. He used a sword (sometimes a club or boomerang) and the show couldn't actually show him shedding other peoples' blood, so he became the comic relief role almost entirely. Tai Lee was allowed to be more effective because her attacks didn't involve making people bleed. They weren't addressing a fighter parity problem that came from the existence of wizards; they were addressing a fighter parity problem that came from having fighters in a kid show.
Beej you're missing the fact that benders have more mobility and other uses than non benders. Aang can fly, move fast, etc. Toph can toss herself into the air, cover a lot of ground in a short amount of time, and can completely cut off followers who don't have the same skill. Katara can heal, move quickly and without any trouble in water, can completely cut off followers, can heal, etc etc. While fighters in the avatar verse can fight and that's it.
Nonbenders can immobilize (if they know a specific martial art or have a rope which anyone can have). Can only attack in a basic and unchanging fashion (swing sword, punch body parts), CANNOT defend against most elemental attacks (and thus have to dodge). Non benders only have a leg up when plot allows them to (in that the benders simply "don't" do a lot of stuff it would seem like they' be able to do and a lot of the benders are mooks).
This loops back into the discussion. Everything a fighter can do that's special in the Avatar verse isn't all that impressive. At best you can get an old man who can cut a tank in half with his sword (something people on this board are against) but when it comes down to it they can't participate in high level battles most of the time (IE Aang/fire lord ozai), its not something that benders can't do (since they are all martial artists), and they can't approach incidents that aren't "a fight" in any unique way that is inherent in being a "fighter". The best fighters in the series (Tai Lee, various chi blockers, etc) cannot do anything meaningful in adventures where you want to travel somewhere fast, save a town from an erupting volcano, or put out a large fire. Worst yet, time and time again bending proves to be the more versatile and more times than not more powerful ability.
Quote from: Marleycat;568059Forgive me but can anybody tell me what airbending Avatar style has to do with the actual topic? That is beyond 4000 posts ago where I flat out said this is the most sensible direction to take the Fighter? Unless you insist on the 4e model of suckitude?
Wait, what? The 4E Fighter is easily one of the most competent and varied classes in the game. Even in the first PHB you can simultaneously fill the role of defender and secondary striker with a Great Sword/Maul/Polearm build. If anything, it's the best place to start.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568321Wait, what? The 4E Fighter is easily one of the most competent and varied classes in the game. Even in the first PHB you can simultaneously fill the role of defender and secondary striker with a Great Sword/Maul/Polearm build. If anything, it's the best place to start.
She hasn't actually played or read 4E and doesn't really understand why its bad. You can safely disregard all of Marley's posts because she doesn't have anything to add to the discussion at all. I'm willing to bet she never will.
Quote from: MGuy;568323She hasn't actually played or read 4E and doesn't really understand why its bad. You can safely disregard all of Marley's posts because she doesn't have anything to add to the discussion at all. I'm willing to bet she never will.
That's fair I do the same and think the same about you so I guess we're even. Don't be butthurt that I think 4e sucks so bad that I actually gave my books away. That's not a good sign from a completist like myself.
Quote from: Marleycat;568325That's fair I do the same and think the same about you so I guess we're even. Don't be butthurt that I think 4e sucks so bad that I actually gave my books away. That's not a good sign from a completist like myself.
I'm not "hurt" at all that you don't know anything about the game you decided was so bad you gave it away.
4vengers 4ssemble!
Quote from: MGuy;568330I'm not "hurt" at all that you don't know anything about the game you decided was so bad you gave it away.
Dude, have you figured out how stupid that statement is yet? I actually got the books and played the game hence my conclusion about the game and giving the books away. Around about 12-13 of them no less. So I definitely know the game and I definitely think it's a pile of shit.
On more important matters, only 497 posts to go, so please keep up the stupidity, it humors me and helps achieve my ultimate goal for this thread.:D
Quote from: Marleycat;568339Dude, have you figured out how stupid that statement is yet? I actually got the books and played the game hence my conclusion about the game and giving the books away. Around about 12-13 of them no less. So I definitely know the game and I definitely think it's a pile of shit.
The fact that you think the 4E fighter sucks makes me think you're lying or that you played without actually using it. Anyone with a modicum of creativity can fucking ruin the day of any monster on the field. If anything, the Fighter may be a bit overpowered in 4E. So you're full of shit, basically.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568342The fact that you think the 4E fighter sucks makes me think you're lying or that you played without actually using it. Anyone with a modicum of creativity can fucking ruin the day of any monster on the field. If anything, the Fighter may be a bit overpowered in 4E. So you're full of shit, basically.
I have to lean towards this, the 4e fighter was way too dominating on the battlefield.
The nice, fluid, 4e system of combat turned into sludge with a fighter around.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568342The fact that you think the 4E fighter sucks makes me think you're lying or that you played without actually using it. Anyone with a modicum of creativity can fucking ruin the day of any monster on the field. If anything, the Fighter may be a bit overpowered in 4E. So you're full of shit, basically.
I never said the 4e fighter sucks. I said the GAME sucks. But that's completely seperate from the fighter. Now it is true that the 4e fighter isn't a fighter to me, but just a half assed wizard but again that's a whole different issue. Especially since EVERY class in 4e is a half assed wizard. What's worse they couldn't even make a wizard half assed.
And the worst sin of 4e is that it basically solved the QW/LF issue by making everyone have the same resource management scheme while simulataneously making the fighter way too powerful. It's the Dnd hater's wet dream pure and simple.
Quote from: Marleycat;568351I never said the 4e fighter sucks. I said the GAME sucks. But that's completely seperate from the fighter.
Quote from: Marleycat;568059Forgive me but can anybody tell me what airbending Avatar style has to do with the actual topic? That is beyond 4000 posts ago where I flat out said this is the most sensible direction to take the Fighter? Unless you insist on the 4e model of suckitude?
Please don't lie.
QuoteNow it is true that the 4e fighter isn't a fighter to me but just a half asses wizard but again that's a whole different issue. Especially since EVERY class in 4e is a half asses wizard. What's worse they couldn't even make a wizard half asses.
Or repeat dumbass Enworld Bullshit. For God's Sake, the game's been out for four years. If you still buy into the 'every class is a wizard' shit, then you're probably arguing disingenuously to start with. 4E is a fundamentally flawed game, but absolutely nothing constructive can come from repeating old paizogrog canards.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568352Please don't lie.
Or repeat dumbass Enworld Bullshit. For God's Sake, the game's been out for four years. If you still buy into the 'every class is a wizard' shit, then you're probably arguing disingenuously to start with. 4E is a fundamentally flawed game, but absolutely nothing constructive can come from repeating old paizogrog canards.
Your reading comprehension is truly stunning. Absolutely amazing it really is. About ENworld what the hell does that strawman have to do with MY findings? Keep on digging that hole. It's entertaining on a certain level.
Your findings are, lets say, suspiciously similar to the ENworld and Paizo misinformation echochamber that's been happening for the past five years. "Fourth Edition isn't REAL D&D, all the classes are exactly the same, it's just WOW on paper." Like, there are totally fantastic reasons not to like 4E. Combat is fiddly and technical, Ability Scores are pointless because anything but the optimum is a trap choice, the feat list is absurd.... But your findings, are literally, the same sort of misinformation that will get you laughed out of discussions anywhere but ENworld and the Paizo boards.
And maybe you came to your conclusions all your own. If you did, my bad. I'll shut up.
(You're still wrong though.)
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568358Your findings are, lets say, suspiciously similar to the ENworld and Paizo misinformation echochamber that's been happening for the past five years. "Fourth Edition isn't REAL D&D, all the classes are exactly the same, it's just WOW on paper." Like, there are totally fantastic reasons not to like 4E. Combat is fiddly and technical, Ability Scores are pointless because anything but the optimum is a trap choice, the feat list is absurd.... But your findings, are literally, the same sort of misinformation that will get you laughed out of discussions anywhere but ENworld and the Paizo boards.
And maybe you came to your conclusions all your own. If you did, my bad. I'll shut up.
(You're still wrong though.)
Honestly, how can someone say that someone else's opinion is 'wrong'? She doesn't like 4e. You listing a bunch of silly bantering on other sites isn't going to change her mind, and neither is a long, well defined set of arguments.
I think 4e sucks as well. I didn't even buy it, I flipped through it at the FLGS and said "Meh. Not for me, i don't like the feel it's putting off," and never picked it up again. My reasons are my own, but you won't convince me that it doesn't suck, because I don't like it.
I think GURPS sucks. I didn't like playing it, and maybe it was just because I played a couple bad games. But that's my opinion and I'm easily going to stick with it, in the face of all argument. Is it a game with a long history and huge following? Sure. Does the point system in it work? Sure. I like HERO better than it, but their system works too, I just don't like it.
None of it is worth descending into flamewar over though. Accept that she thought the system was garbage and gave her books away, it's not like arguing the point of if it sucks or not is going to do anything for the discussion. Nor is bringing yourself to the level of insulting someone's intelligence because they think differently from you. That's just 4th grade level.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568365None of it is worth descending into flamewar over though. Accept that she thought the system was garbage and gave her books away, it's not like arguing the point of if it sucks or not is going to do anything for the discussion. Nor is bringing yourself to the level of insulting someone's intelligence because they think differently from you. That's just 4th grade level.
Well, the rest of us beat the lot of them bloody, so they have to do something to recover a bit of dignity. Especially now that they have publicly shit themselves once again by totally missing the point of an episode of Avatar. An episode that they were hoping would shatter the keystone and all the arguments arrayed against them would crumble into dust.
But it is an important lesson in why it's a bad idea to draw the conclusion first, and then start gathering evidence.
Panzerkraken, where did you find your avatar? It kinda looks like a walker tank from Cyberpunk 2020, but I'm not sure.
Regardless, it looks pretty cool.
Quote from: jeff37923;568370Panzerkraken, where did you find your avatar? It kinda looks like a walker tank from Cyberpunk 2020, but I'm not sure.
Regardless, it looks pretty cool.
It is, exactly that.. specifically the KPV-R PanzerKraken from Solo 2.
I think I pulled that picture off of the Datafortress 2020 site while I was looking for hover/grav APC artwork to use because Living Steel never bothered to draw theirs.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568372It is, exactly that.. specifically the KPV-R PanzerKraken from Solo 2.
I think I pulled that picture off of the Datafortress 2020 site while I was looking for hover/grav APC artwork to use because Living Steel never bothered to draw theirs.
I'm not a videogame player and never played or read Cyberpunk 2020 but I have to agree, it's pretty cool looking. I thought it was a sci-fi monster at first glance.:)
It reminded me of Starship Troopers. And the giant beetle tank bugs.
Quote from: Marleycat;568374I'm not a videogame player and never played or read Cyberpunk 2020 but I have to agree, it's pretty cool looking. I thought it was a sci-fi monster at first glance.:)
It reminded me of Starship Troopers. And the giant beetle tank bugs.
Cyberpunk hasn't really been a videogame yet.. but it's coming. I just read some stuff that says that RTG signed with the polish company that made Witcher to make a CP2020 specific videogame.
And I hope they DO have PanzerKrakens in it. One of the things I've always liked about CP2020 was the sliding scale of it.. I never felt like I had to keep players down in the street, if they wanted to play with the big boys, they could.
In fact, I titled my longest running game of it "So You Wanna Be Big Time?".
Very off topic though. Sorry.
So where was the conversation before I jumped in with my hippie peace and love and let's get along, or at least not get personal during discussions stuff? Oh, I suppose we're waiting for TM to turn the plasma on me :)
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568378Cyberpunk hasn't really been a videogame yet.. but it's coming. I just read some stuff that says that RTG signed with the polish company that made Witcher to make a CP2020 specific videogame.
And I hope they DO have PanzerKrakens in it. One of the things I've always liked about CP2020 was the sliding scale of it.. I never felt like I had to keep players down in the street, if they wanted to play with the big boys, they could.
In fact, I titled my longest running game of it "So You Wanna Be Big Time?".
Very off topic though. Sorry.
So where was the conversation before I jumped in with my hippie peace and love and let's get along, or at least not get personal during discussions stuff? Oh, I suppose we're waiting for TM to turn the plasma on me :)
Meh, your tangent is interesting as most. Especially since the original topic and argument is done and buried despite some fools who keep insisting to humor us. I am even up front about my participation in this thread, hence why I'm utterly stunned this bastard just refuses to die.
So tell my about Cyberpunk 2020. I love Baird/Gibson novels and Shadowrun so I might like it.
Quote from: Marleycat;568381Meh, your tangent is interesting as most. Especially since the original topic and argument is done and buried despite some fools who keep insisting to humor us. I am even up front about my participation in this thread, hence why I'm utterly stunned this bastard just refuses to die.
So it's just working on making another 483 posts then?
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568383So it's just working on making another 483 posts then?
You have hope sir. At least talking cyberpunk wouldn't bore me given I do have a goal. It's a stupid one but "Stupid Girl" is one of my favorite songs .....
I actually don't know about Cyberpunk 2020 so it's a win win situation.:)
Ah.. about CP2020... It's a good, dystopian setting. It's not toned too awfully dark, but it does have a lot of nice themes that run through it, Style over Substance and Metal is Better than Meat for instance. I enjoyed a few times where we saw the glaring differences, like when the Rocker decided that the group needed to 'lie low' for a bit, so he bought a government seizure yacht and the group sailed around the caribbean for a couple months.
It's got guns, cyberware, power armor, vehicles, computer hacking, viruses, clones... pretty much everything someone could want in that sort of setting, but there's always the ever-present spectre of drawing attention to yourself and winding up squashed like a bug. Because there's always someone with a bigger stick, no matter who you are. One of my favorites from the setting was during the 4th Corporate War, two of the biggest Military/Industrial Corps went at it, and eventually it got so disruptive that the governments of the US and Japan stepped in and squashed their little war. In two days.
Of course, the US got uppity at one point and the ESA dropped two rocks on it too (the 'magic' of orbital bombardment. They landed on Tampa (SOCOM) and Colorado Springs (Cheyenne Mountain/SAC)). So like I said.. no matter who you are.
I did a lot with it, but eventually I moved and my new group wasn't the same with it as the old one, so I sort of gave up on it. I still have reams of stuff like a point-based character creation system and collection of house rules, but unless I fulfill my dream of retiring from the Army and opening a FLGS somewhere, I don't anticipate running it again.
By comparison to Shadowrun... it's a very different feel. The system is d10+stat+skill, so there's more of a pass/fail aspect than there is in SR, and because the damage is much more specific, it CAN be more deadly, depending on how the GM runs it. I added in a lot of house rules to level the playing field, but no matter how you kick it around, it's a game system where you can die anytime you're in combat. In fact, just straight baseline, there's a 10% chance that taking more than 5 points of damage will kill you (if it hits your head).
If you liked Gibson (which I did too, and credit with having gotten into CP2020, but oddly enough I find myself liking his new millennium series MUCH more) then you'll see a lot of things that are similar in CP2020.
Quote from: Marleycat;568384You have hope sir. At least talking cyberpunk wouldn't bore me given I do have a goal. It's a stupid one but "Stupid Girl" is one of my favorite songs .....
Garbage or Cold?
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568386Garbage or Cold?
Garbage hon. She is among my favorite groups/singers right behind Elizabeth Fraiser and Portishead and Texas. And of course Gwen and/or No Doubt.;)
Quote from: Marleycat;568388Garbage hon. She is among my favorite groups/singers right behind Elizabeth Fraiser and Portishead and Texas.
That would've been my first guess. I didn't know where Cold came off reusing the title for the song. My favorite from them was You Look So Fine.
On the subject of music, I found that my tastes would vary a lot depending on which game I was running... during cyberpunk games I tended to lean a lot towards David Bowie (Diamond Dogs), Billy Idol (Cyberpunk, duh :) ), and Nine Inch Nails (everyfuckingthing).
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568389That would've been my first guess. I didn't know where Cold came off reusing the title for the song. My favorite from them was You Look So Fine.
On the subject of music, I found that my tastes would vary a lot depending on which game I was running... during cyberpunk games I tended to lean a lot towards David Bowie (Diamond Dogs), Billy Idol (Cyberpunk, duh :) ), and Nine Inch Nails (everyfuckingthing).
NIN is very cyberpunk good call. But Billy Idol? Really? If I use music for games it's instrumental like "Aphex Twin" or "Daftpunk" or "Orbital".
Quote from: Marleycat;568390NIN is very cyberpunk good call. But Billy Idol? Really?
Have you ever listened to Cyberpunk?
Spoiler
A time warp scene
A cy-fi story
A dirt coloured love
Hey hope for glory
I like to fight,
I kill global oppression
If I quit, no hope of redemption
Blue eyes crying in the rain
For how long
Tomorrow people
I laugh tomorrow gone
For how long
Tomorrow people
Tomorrow people
Well you know I'm free on arrival
Left behind my babe, by guilt of survival
I don't know where I'm runnin' to
I lost my love, lost my hold,
I lost my heaven too
Blue eyes crying in the rain
For how long
Tomorrow people
I laugh tomorrow gone
For how long
Tomorrow people
Blue eyes crying in the rain
For how long
Tomorrow people
I laugh tomorrow gone
For how long, soon come
Tomorrow people
Tomorrow people
Yah come on loud
Now my life is truly misspent
I said
I'm here to tell you, to tell you
That I won't repent
World War III
Death pain
It's fate lets do it again
Tomorrow man
Tomorrow people
Tomorrow man
Tomorrow people
Tomorrow man
A time warp scene
A ci-fy story (Tomorrow people)
A dirt coloured sky (Tomorrow people)
New hope for glory
I like to fight
I kill global oppression
(Tomorrow people)
When I quit, new hope for redemption
(Tomorrow people)
Blue eyes crying in the rain
Tomorrow people
I laugh tomorrow gone
Tomorrow people
Tomorrow people
Tomorrow people
Tomorrow people
Tomorrow people
It was for me to listen to when I was working out ideas or walking to/from the game. There was some played during it, but that was mostly during the long game where the hook for the group was being in a megaband, and they were more of a 'Skynard-meets-Metallica and Primus crashes the party' type sound.
But I also got a lot of inspiration from rap stuff.. inner city themes and such. DMX was really good for it, I thought. I guess Tupac might have been, but i could never stand his voice to listen and find out.
It was a nice time back then.. I was in the right situation to run the game 3-4 times a week. Prior to all this 'responsibility' and 'grown-uppedness' stuff.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568392It was for me to listen to when I was working out ideas or walking to/from the game. There was some played during it, but that was mostly during the long game where the hook for the group was being in a megaband, and they were more of a 'Skynard-meets-Metallica and Primus crashes the party' type sound.
But I also got a lot of inspiration from rap stuff.. inner city themes and such. DMX was really good for it, I thought. I guess Tupac might have been, but i could never stand his voice to listen and find out.
It was a nice time back then.. I was in the right situation to run the game 3-4 times a week. Prior to all this 'responsibility' and 'grown-uppedness' stuff.
Yeah, growing up sucks, to have the energy and passion of youth and the intelligence and wisdom of age...it would be almost godlike if you ask me. Call me a disillusioned hippy I guess.
That "cyberpunk" song is Billy Idol's? If so, very cool and completely fitting.
Quote from: Marleycat;568394Yeah, growing up sucks, to have the energy and passion of youth and the intelligence and wisdom of age...it would be almost godlike if you ask me. Call me a disillusioned hippy I guess.
Hippies don't listen to Shirley Manson, they listen to expanding spiritual sounds like bird turds dropping in a pond while frogs croak appreciatively in the amazon basins.
Also, Lois Bujold said "Middle aged is ten years older than you are right now." I still don't feel 'old', just like I have more on my plate that I HAVE to deal with. Which is why I want to go the FLGS route when I retire. Then I can own ALL THE GAMES.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568395Hippies don't listen to Shirley Manson, they listen to expanding spiritual sounds like bird turds dropping in a pond while frogs croak appreciatively in the amazon basins.
Also, Lois Bujold said "Middle aged is ten years older than you are right now." I still don't feel 'old', just like I have more on my plate that I HAVE to deal with. Which is why I want to go the FLGS route when I retire. Then I can own ALL THE GAMES.
Yeah, you and I will get along just fine. If you ever want a business partner call me. Owning a game store may not make me money but it would make me happy to show up to work everyday.
Quote from: Marleycat;568396Yeah, you and I will get along just fine. If you ever want a business partner call me. Owning a game store may not make me money but it would make me happy to show up to work everyday.
I have no idea where it would be, so it's a crap shoot. But if, in 6-11 years, I'm still posting here, I'll let everyone know that they can come by for a 15% discount :)
Back on the subject of music and eclectic tastes, here's what I have as a playlist for just playing whenever. It's pretty representative of my tastes as a whole, although it has some "I miss you" tracks included because of the deployment status.
Spoiler
Punk Ska Covers - NOFX - Turning Japanese.mp3
AC-DC - Ride On.mp3
AC/DC - Whole Lotta Rosie
Alice Cooper - Might As Well Be On Mars
Alice Cooper - Poison
Alkaline Trio - Emma
Billy Idol - Endless sleep
Billy Idol - Prodigal blues
Buck Cherry - All Lit Up Again
Cage The Elephant - Ain't No Rest For The Wicked
DJ Champion - No Heaven
Far East Movement - LA Stunners
Far East Movement - Millionaire ft Jin
Flogging Molly - Death Valley Queen
Flogging Molly - Drunken Lullabies
Flogging Molly - Never Met a Girl Like You Before
Flogging Molly - The Worst Day Since Yesterday
George Thorogood and The Destroyers - Who Do You Love?
GET SET GO - Die Motherf er Die [Explicit]
GET SET GO - I Hate Everyone [Explicit]
Liz Phair - Everything To Me
Liz Phair - H.W.C.
GET SET GO - In the Name of All That's Evil on the Earth
Liz Phair - Johnny Feelgood
Liz Phair - Liz Phair - Flower
Liz Phair - Liz Phair - Supernova
Liz Phair - Whitechocolatespaceegg
Liz Phair - Why Can't I
Billy Idol - Tomorrow People
Prince and The New Power Generation - 7
Macy Gray - Creep
Macy Gray - Kissed It (feat. Velvet Revolver)
Macy Gray - Lately
Macy Gray - Nothing Else Matters
Macy Gray - That Man
Macy Gray - The Comeback
Macy Gray - The Sellout
Macy Gray & Fatboy Slim - Demons
My Chemical Romance - Desolation Row
my life with the thrill kill - a daisy chain 4 satan
Ozzy Osbourne - No More Tears
Prince - Let's Go Crazy
Prince - Purple Rain
Queen - Fat Bottomed Girls
Steve Earle & The Pogues - Johnny Come Lately
The Cataracts - Top of The World
The Cranberries - Linger
The Cure - Friday I'm In Love
The Decemberists - The Legionnaire's Lament
The Georgia Satellites - Battleship Chains
The Georgia Satellites - Keep Your Hands To Yourself
Type O Negative - Angel
Voltaire - The Vampire Club
My God! Fully 75% of that list is among the music I listen to a favor. Very good taste that you like The Cure, Liz Phair and Prince.
You active military? I ask because you mentioned deployment.
Quote from: MGuy;568319Beej you're missing the fact that benders have more mobility and other uses than non benders. Aang can fly, move fast, etc. Toph can toss herself into the air, cover a lot of ground in a short amount of time, and can completely cut off followers who don't have the same skill. Katara can heal, move quickly and without any trouble in water, can completely cut off followers, can heal, etc etc. While fighters in the avatar verse can fight and that's it.
You're missing the part where their mobility is gimped by the fact that they can't sit in the air and lob ranged attacks.
Air can move and push but not much else.
Fire can't actually move (they got flight during the comet, and it seems still rare in the second season) and can't shoot fire while doing so.
Water can sorta move but not much else while moving.
Earth is similar to water (sure toph can lob herself in the air, but she loses contact with the ground).
Since they can't simultaneously move by bending and defend by bending, it's nothing arrows can't handle. Since they have to dance about to sustain the effect they can neither arrow nor offensively bend at people. This limits the utility of their movement.
QuoteNonbenders can immobilize (if they know a specific martial art or have a rope which anyone can have). Can only attack in a basic and unchanging fashion (swing sword, punch body parts), CANNOT defend against most elemental attacks (and thus have to dodge). Non benders only have a leg up when plot allows them to (in that the benders simply "don't" do a lot of stuff it would seem like they' be able to do and a lot of the benders are mooks).
I really don't know what nonbenders you were watching first of all. Mobility wise, you must have missed the Jet fight in the trees. Think Azula could move like that? How about the people running on wires in the fire bender prison?
And blocking is functionally similar to dodging. Sure you can defend a target besides yourself (if you're okay with leaving yourself open) but given the mobility and ease of throwing people about in that combat system I'm sure a nonbender could throw someone out of the way of something.
Immobilizing doesn't require special tools or techniques. Simply hitting a person sometimes knocks them out, and the system would probably have easier grappling than in D&D.
QuoteThis loops back into the discussion. Everything a fighter can do that's special in the Avatar verse isn't all that impressive. At best you can get an old man who can cut a tank in half with his sword (something people on this board are against) but when it comes down to it they can't participate in high level battles most of the time (IE Aang/fire lord ozai), its not something that benders can't do (since they are all martial artists), and they can't approach incidents that aren't "a fight" in any unique way that is inherent in being a "fighter". The best fighters in the series (Tai Lee, various chi blockers, etc) cannot do anything meaningful in adventures where you want to travel somewhere fast, save a town from an erupting volcano, or put out a large fire. Worst yet, time and time again bending proves to be the more versatile and more times than not more powerful ability.
Well, nobody did shit about the only erupting volcano in the series and I'm pretty sure they would have wanted to. And the fire issue came up with probably the lowest level fighter in the show and a comic relief character. Who was instrumental in destroying the drill. Pretty big shit for one of the weaker fighters in the show. I'm sorry, but if the dam was a set-piece thing, so was the fire.
And yes, Jet's parkouring is very much unique to his mastery of hooked swords as depicted. Jet fights Azula in the woods and he pretty much doesn't have to worry about her. He's got constant cover for the lightning plus superior mobility and if she starts fires she's fucked 'cause she can't escape.
Aang vs Fire Lord Ozai is a unique case because both had innate flight at the time, and one of them only had it because of the comet. Hypothetical best fighter in the world could still shoot them with arrows and interrupt the flight though. I say hypothetical because it's not for sure that we saw the best fighter in the world actually fighting. Jet was an even fight for Zuko, who was not the highest level bender. So it would stand to reason that Jet is not the highest level fighter.
Quote from: StormBringer;568367Well, the rest of us beat the lot of them bloody, so they have to do something to recover a bit of dignity. Especially now that they have publicly shit themselves once again by totally missing the point of an episode of Avatar. An episode that they were hoping would shatter the keystone and all the arguments arrayed against them would crumble into dust.
But it is an important lesson in why it's a bad idea to draw the conclusion first, and then start gathering evidence.
I don't know what you're even talking about. Beat my bloody? You mean in this discussion? You think you made some kind of comment that hurt me? Or made me look bad? Or that I feel some kind of loss of dignity?
Nope. None of those things. I don't know why you'd want to accomplish any of those things in a nominally friendly discussion, but you're a dumbass, so no surprises.
As for bring up an episode of Avatar, I did not try to say that Avatar is like D&D system-wise. It's not. But what I did say is that Sokka's concerns in that episode REALLY STRUCK HOME, because it reminded me very strongly of a game that I've already talked about in some detail.
Quote from: SokkaIt's just, all you guys can do this awesome bending stuff like putting out forest fires, and flying around and making other stuff fly around. I can't fly around, okay? I can't do anything.
If you're playing a game with real people and real feelings, and someone says something like that, you're an asshole if you don't have concerns. And while his friends try to make him feel better, it's not that easy.
Quote from: KataraThat's not true. No one can read a map like you.
Reading a map is probably a useful ability. But in the context of the campaign, there are a series of fights that are supposed to culminate in defeating the Fire Lord - so helping the party get to where they need to go is important, but just about every player wants to 'kill the bad guys'. It just happens that in the Avatar universe, casters are so dominant that what I observed in my campaign (that fighters no longer make meaningful contributions at high levels) happens to be more vividly apparent. Not every game will end up with 'fighters as useless', because not every caster is as good as they could be. Sometimes DMs 'throw a player a bone' and give him or her a chance to shine (like in a duel). But as the disparity in power becomes more obvious, those solutions also become more apparent, and as such, may bother some players (like me, and other people I know).
Quote from: beejazz;568418You're missing the part where their mobility is gimped by the fact that they can't sit in the air and lob ranged attacks.
Air can move and push but not much else.
Fire can't actually move (they got flight during the comet, and it seems still rare in the second season) and can't shoot fire while doing so.
Water can sorta move but not much else while moving.
Earth is similar to water (sure toph can lob herself in the air, but she loses contact with the ground).
And other stuff..
Okay, while any discussion of the mechanics of the Avatar are clearly tangential to a discussion of the D&D Fighter (any edition), I'll bite.
First off, we did see Avatar Roku fighting a volcano. Aang even mentions how he's WINNING. He creates a giant trench that protects the town. When the lava threatens to overflow it, he blasts it with freezing air, instantly solidifying the lava into a high stone wall. He directs the eruption away from the village, so even though the eruption can be seen one hundred miles away (according to the Fire Lord), it looks like nobody got hurt (except Roku, when he was betrayed by the Fire Lord).
Secondly, Earth Benders are extremely mobile. We see Toph do some kind of 'earth skating'. The earth sort of pushes her along at high speeds without her needing to lift her feet. Similarly, we see Earth Benders propel a train in Ba Sing Se much faster than normal walking speed. And while the 'tanks' used in the invasion of the fire nation didn't look particularly fast, they were moving a freaking tank while moving with their infantry... So much for encumbrance.
Aang is able to use air bending while flying. I specifically remember him doing so when defending the air temple from fire nation tanks. This was when the mechanist ended up detonating natural gas to drive off the fire nation and they invented hot air balloons. Aang is also able to run at incredibly fast speeds (for instance, when he goes to see the herbalist when Sokka and Katara are sick before he gets captured and rescued by the 'Blue Spirit'). That, and he can fly...
Fire Benders seem to be able to fly. Azula used jets of fire to fly through the air when fighting Aang in the Crystal Catacombs beneath Ba Sing Se (no comet). It appears to be a difficult technique, so clearly not common - but it does appear to exist.
Water Benders seem to be the least mobile... I haven't seen any move very quickly except on a body of water. But rivers and streams seem pretty common. Based on the way the swamp benders moved their craft, I'm sure that Water Benders with the right technique can move very quickly.
But whether they can all move at extreme speeds or not is almost immaterial. In the Avatar Universe, benders
are more powerful than non-casters. There's no claim that warriors are better or equal - they do have uses, and that's mostly fighting 'mook benders' or regular soldiers. The Kyoshi Warriors are supposed to be 'pretty bad ass mother fuckers', but they still have their asses handed to them when they go against 'powerful' (ie, high level) benders.
Now, none of that would be a problem if there weren't people playing the game who cared about it being a problem. Sokka is a character, and he'll respond in whatever way is 'best for the story'. A human player has other motivations, including having fun. If there contributions aren't particularly useful, it makes sense that they'd want to play someone else...
In the case of Sokka, if he was a player (not a character), he could create a bending character that was good at reading maps, and in any measurable way, the group would be better off.
So you end up with two options... If you have a player that finds their character is totally 'useless' (and it happens in my opinion pretty frequently - like my monk character), the player either makes a new, more effective character
or you try to make their existing character more effective. I mean, I guess you could tell them to suck it up and live with the bad choices they made, but that'd pretty much make you a dick.
Personally if I've had a character in the game since level 1 and he isn't 'cutting it' and it's bothering the player, I'm inclined to find ways to make him better, rather than make him make a new character. But if I don't recognize the problem until it BECOMES a problem, fixing the character could be a major problem. If I decide that adding 10 feats will make the character viable, it's better if I add 1 feat every other level, rather than adding them all at once...
So, making people aware of the issue is important. Trying to fix the issue is important to me - particularly in the context of a new version of D&D coming out.
Quote from: Marleycat;568402My God! Fully 75% of that list is among the music I listen to a favor. Very good taste that you like The Cure, Liz Phair and Prince.
You active military? I ask because you mentioned deployment.
you guys rocked the music portion of the thread, BTW. I used 'Automatic' from VNV nation for a recent online game for the background music.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;568428Nope. None of those things. I don't know why you'd want to accomplish any of those things in a nominally friendly discussion, but you're a dumbass, so no surprises.
You didn't come over here for that. You came over here to show everyone how cool and smart you are with the popular kids' arguments about how shitty Fighters are compared to the awesome Wizards. You got a bloody nose from people who know better.
QuoteAs for bring up an episode of Avatar, I did not try to say that Avatar is like D&D system-wise. It's not. But what I did say is that Sokka's concerns in that episode REALLY STRUCK HOME, because it reminded me very strongly of a game that I've already talked about in some detail.
Don't join a game with shitty players. That has nothing to do with relative class abilities.
QuoteIf you're playing a game with real people and real feelings, and someone says something like that, you're an asshole if you don't have concerns. And while his friends try to make him feel better, it's not that easy.
If your game reaches that point, you are a crappy player and a shitty person besides.
QuoteSo, making people aware of the issue is important. Trying to fix the issue is important to me - particularly in the context of a new version of D&D coming out.
I thought you just said it was only a game in which you participated:
Quote from: deadDMwalking;568428As for bring up an episode of Avatar, I did not try to say that Avatar is like D&D system-wise. It's not. But what I did say is that Sokka's concerns in that episode REALLY STRUCK HOME, because it reminded me very strongly of a game that I've already talked about in some detail.
So which is it? Did that episode remind you of a single incident in a single game, or are you presenting evidence for an argument?
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568365Honestly, how can someone say that someone else's opinion is 'wrong'? She doesn't like 4e. You listing a bunch of silly bantering on other sites isn't going to change her mind, and neither is a long, well defined set of arguments.
Panzer while it is adorable that you're coming to Marleycat's "aid" then circle jerk with her to make her feel like a part of the conversation when someone has to lie about playing a game then they are wrong. If she doesn't understand the game that's fine, but then she shouldn't turn around and act like she does. If she's going to act like she knows about a game she doesn't then people are right to call her out on her bullshit.
Quote from: beejazz;568418You're missing the part where their mobility is gimped by the fact that they can't sit in the air and lob ranged attacks.
Air can move and push but not much else.
Fire can't actually move (they got flight during the comet, and it seems still rare in the second season) and can't shoot fire while doing so.
Water can sorta move but not much else while moving.
Earth is similar to water (sure toph can lob herself in the air, but she loses contact with the ground).
Since they can't simultaneously move by bending and defend by bending, it's nothing arrows can't handle. Since they have to dance about to sustain the effect they can neither arrow nor offensively bend at people. This limits the utility of their movement.
I really don't know what nonbenders you were watching first of all. Mobility wise, you must have missed the Jet fight in the trees. Think Azula could move like that? How about the people running on wires in the fire bender prison?
And blocking is functionally similar to dodging. Sure you can defend a target besides yourself (if you're okay with leaving yourself open) but given the mobility and ease of throwing people about in that combat system I'm sure a nonbender could throw someone out of the way of something.
Immobilizing doesn't require special tools or techniques. Simply hitting a person sometimes knocks them out, and the system would probably have easier grappling than in D&D.
Well, nobody did shit about the only erupting volcano in the series and I'm pretty sure they would have wanted to. And the fire issue came up with probably the lowest level fighter in the show and a comic relief character. Who was instrumental in destroying the drill. Pretty big shit for one of the weaker fighters in the show. I'm sorry, but if the dam was a set-piece thing, so was the fire.
And yes, Jet's parkouring is very much unique to his mastery of hooked swords as depicted. Jet fights Azula in the woods and he pretty much doesn't have to worry about her. He's got constant cover for the lightning plus superior mobility and if she starts fires she's fucked 'cause she can't escape.
Aang vs Fire Lord Ozai is a unique case because both had innate flight at the time, and one of them only had it because of the comet. Hypothetical best fighter in the world could still shoot them with arrows and interrupt the flight though. I say hypothetical because it's not for sure that we saw the best fighter in the world actually fighting. Jet was an even fight for Zuko, who was not the highest level bender. So it would stand to reason that Jet is not the highest level fighter.
Basically what DeadDM said. Fighters are woefully less mobile than bender characters and the only bad ass archers in the series are beat multiple times by the main characters (primarily Zuko and Aang). Archery can't break through rocks, is ruined by wind fire and water. Jet was not an even fight for Zuko. Zuko actively did not want to hurt Jet so he could have been said to be gimping himself in order to not just burn him the fuck alive. The best fighter in the world would probably have to be the old swordsman who gave Sokka lessons. Fact of the matter is all he can do is fight. That's all he's shown to be able to do and he does it by cutting tanks in half (something most grognards would balk at if the fighter were doing it and something I say fighters should be able to do at high level) and leaping around really high. However he pointedly did not fighter the other old men of his own level because while he was taking out single tanks Uncle was pouring streams of fire on the field while Bumi was hurtling boulders the size of small hills around.
Azula can absolutely move as well as Jet. She's shown a mastery of fighting techniques and like EVERY able character in the show she is agile and acrobatic. To think that somehow Jet's dexterity is unique to him you'd have to ignore the very way these benders fight at all. Again every capable character in the show is a martial artist.
What's more Sokka is not the worst fighter in the setting. He's just the comic relief so he "seems" worse than he is but only because he's next to people that are all better than him. Sokka can take out mooks fairly effectively has shown his skill with both a boomerang and with a sword but he's juxtaposed to characters that again, are better than he is so anything he could do that would be grand is overshadowed by the rest of his team.
Also, immobilizing someone via knockout does not compete with ice restraints, rock restraints. Its not "good enough" because "knocking them out" is "knocking them out" not just immobilizing them. Again you'd have to ignore what these benders can do to think that nonbenders stand on equal footing with them. Yes someone may be able to punch really good (Tai Lee) or be good at ranged attacks (mai) but even the best of these fall in lock step behind real powerhouses (Azula) all the time. This has parallels in DnD where ALL the big plots are done by casters or otherwise mystical beings.
Quote from: MGuy;568464Panzer while it is adorable that you're coming to Marleycat's "aid" then circle jerk with her to make her feel like a part of the conversation when someone has to lie about playing a game then they are wrong. If she doesn't understand the game that's fine, but then she shouldn't turn around and act like she does. If she's going to act like she knows about a game she doesn't then people are right to call her out on her bullshit.
It looks to me like all she did was suggest fighters in 4e are like watered down wizards....it is just an opinion but I tend to agree that they resemble wizards mechanically. These are subject assessments of the feel a system produces. Not really seeing the issue here.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;568468It looks to me like all she did was suggest fighters in 4e are like watered down wizards....it is just an opinion but I tend to agree that they resemble wizards mechanically. These are subject assessments of the feel a system produces. Not really seeing the issue here.
What she said was that fighters were wizards in the game. That's laughably untrue in both feel (since everything is practically a fighter in the game) nor mechanics since Fighters have the martial power source and only have stock effects that don't even have magical qualities in the effects nor the fluff involved. So she'd be absolutely wrong in every way about it and could have avoided being as wrong as she obviously is had she took any time to you know... Read those books she gave away.
Spoiler
I am however, willing to bet that she didn't read them for fear of being a labeled an autistic on this board, what with the social stigma on here against people who can read and all.
Quote from: MGuy;568464Panzer while it is adorable that you're coming to Marleycat's "aid" then circle jerk with her to make her feel like a part of the conversation when someone has to lie about playing a game then they are wrong. If she doesn't understand the game that's fine, but then she shouldn't turn around and act like she does. If she's going to act like she knows about a game she doesn't then people are right to call her out on her bullshit.
I wasn't coming to anyone's aid but my own. The argument was ridiculous and WAY more pointless than the conversation I had with her afterwards, which was, within a post or two each time, at least fully game related and not centered around someone's lack of education or reading comprehension.
As for the conversation going somewhat off topic, meh. Call it what you like. I'm new here, talking on a public forum and letting people get to know me. Vapor people's opinions mean nothing to me, so unless there's some code-worded valid discussion subtext going on, I don't think we were disturbing anyone. I'm sure if an admin hadn't liked it I'd have a PM.
Regarding Marleycat, unless you know her IRL and are calling her on it that way, doesn't it seem kind of silly to call her a liar about playing? She's over in another discussion talking about the value of the 4e DMG and the layout, so it sounds like she's actually been in the presence of the books at least once. Maybe she read it and got a different interpretation. Maybe she doesn't consider a game with builds and career planning to be something that adequately represents her games. Maybe she just made a statement to draw you into flaming at her. I hear the kids are calling that Trolling, on the interweb these days.
The point of my post yesterday wasn't to defend her, the point was to suggest that less San Francisco Pride Marching and more reasonable discussion might be in order. Especially since what we have here is a topic where it would be more valuable to discuss the possible house rules to MAKE the fighters and casters more balanced. I doubt that 5e is going to drop a Rosetta Stone solution in our laps, after all.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568470I wasn't coming to anyone's aid but my own. The argument was ridiculous and WAY more pointless than the conversation I had with her afterwards, which was, within a post or two each time, at least fully game related and not centered around someone's lack of education or reading comprehension.
As for the conversation going somewhat off topic, meh. Call it what you like. I'm new here, talking on a public forum and letting people get to know me. Vapor people's opinions mean nothing to me, so unless there's some code-worded valid discussion subtext going on, I don't think we were disturbing anyone. I'm sure if an admin hadn't liked it I'd have a PM.
Regarding Marleycat, unless you know her IRL and are calling her on it that way, doesn't it seem kind of silly to call her a liar about playing? She's over in another discussion talking about the value of the 4e DMG and the layout, so it sounds like she's actually been in the presence of the books at least once. Maybe she read it and got a different interpretation. Maybe she doesn't consider a game with builds and career planning to be something that adequately represents her games. Maybe she just made a statement to draw you into flaming at her. I hear the kids are calling that Trolling, on the interweb these days.
The point of my post yesterday wasn't to defend her, the point was to suggest that less San Francisco Pride Marching and more reasonable discussion might be in order. Especially since what we have here is a topic where it would be more valuable to discuss the possible house rules to MAKE the fighters and casters more balanced. I doubt that 5e is going to drop a Rosetta Stone solution in our laps, after all.
While I'm sure you have any number of reasons to want to come to Marley's aid, circle jerk with her about a point that is actually WAY off topic, and then make a call to staying on topic, the fact is she is full of shit, showed it, got called out on it. If you're going to make a call to stay on topic then don't engage in discussions with people who don't know about the topic and who has a habit of engaging in circle jerks about off topic things.
Quote from: MGuy;568469What she said was that fighters were wizards in the game. That's laughably untrue in both feel (since everything is practically a fighter in the game) nor mechanics since Fighters have the martial power source and only have stock effects that don't even have magical qualities in the effects nor the fluff involved. So she'd be absolutely wrong in every way about it and could have avoided being as wrong as she obviously is had she took any time to you know... Read those books she gave away. Spoiler
I am however, willing to bet that she didn't read them for fear of being a labeled an autistic on this board, what with the social stigma on here against people who can read and all.
I am sorry but my impression of 4E fighters is they are very much like wizards. The classes operate on the same core system of managing resources in the way spellcasters have. There may be some superficial differences but marleycat's opinion is certainly not "laughably untrue". I think a lot of problems people have with 4e has to do with fighters feeling like wizards.
Quote from: MGuy;568472While I'm sure you have any number of reasons to want to come to Marley's aid, circle jerk with her about a point that is actually WAY off topic, and then make a call to staying on topic, the fact is she is full of shit, showed it, got called out on it. If you're going to make a call to stay on topic then don't engage in discussions with people who don't know about the topic and who has a habit of engaging in circle jerks about off topic things.
I've really never seen 'circle jerk' used that often in text. And you repeated yourself some, you could've just quoted from your last post.
Anyway, sorry if it mortally offended you, but my call wasn't to stay on topic, that would have been something like
Quote"Hey, guys, you're acting like shitheads, why not talk about the stuff on the topic instead?"
Instead it was
Quote"Hey, guys, you're acting like shitheads."
But it was late, and so noone was there to flame back at me. Thanks for getting around to me though, I understand it must take a while for you.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;568473I am sorry but my impression of 4E fighters is they are very much like wizards. The classes operate on the same core system of managing resources in the way spellcasters have. There may be some superficial differences but marleycat's opinion is certainly not "laughably untrue". I think a lot of problems people have with 4e has to do with fighters feeling like wizards.
So you're saying they are like wizards on the mere fact that they have "daily" and "encounter" abilities? That actually is "laughable".
Quote from: MGuy;568477So you're saying they are like wizards on the mere fact that they have "daily" and "encounter" abilities? That actually is "laughable".
Yes. And you are free to disagree but i think it very much makes them like wizards. Lots of people agree. It has been a while since I have played or read the books (at least two years I think) but going from memory I eel a lot of the powers also felt magical to me (even if they weren't described as such). Again, it is very subjective.
I'm finding MGuy & DeadDMWalking's passionate discussion OF SOME BULLSHIT KIDDIE CARTOON SHOW illuminating regarding their entitled whining baby opinions of D&D.
"My fighter's purse strap broke... the game is broken... please someone help us"
Quote from: MGuy;568464Panzer while it is adorable that you're coming to Marleycat's "aid" then circle jerk with her to make her feel like a part of the conversation when someone has to lie about playing a game then they are wrong. If she doesn't understand the game that's fine, but then she shouldn't turn around and act like she does. If she's going to act like she knows about a game she doesn't then people are right to call her out on her bullshit.
Awesome, let's just see if you're more stupid than I first assumed. This is almost shocking that my stated intention might actually be working!
If you're going to call me out about NOT actually playing the game at least pick one that I haven't.
Panzerkraken, my Cyberpunk 2020 games used almost the same soundtrack but included Depeche Mode, Front 242, and Nitzer Ebb. I foofed out during the netrunning parts and used Tangerine Dream for those.
Quote from: jeff37923;568489Panzerkraken, my Cyberpunk 2020 games used almost the same soundtrack but included Depeche Mode, Front 242, and Nitzer Ebb. I foofed out during the netrunning parts and used Tangerine Dream for those.
+1 here.
Jeff, I used TD Hyperboria on an online game recently.
Quote from: LordVreeg;568495+1 here.
Jeff, I used TD Hyperboria on an online game recently.
Tangerine Dream just has that sound that works with a lot of different genres as background music.
When I used music while GMing Tangerine Dream got some heavy rotation.
But nowadays I think gaming soundtracks are apostasy.
Because this thread is so freaking long, it should be pointed out that waaaay earlier in it MGuy is the one who said that 4e offers everything that an AD&D fan wants out of D&D.
You should keep that in mind when talking to him, because it puts his entire position into the right context.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;568473I am sorry but my impression of 4E fighters is they are very much like wizards. The classes operate on the same core system of managing resources in the way spellcasters have. There may be some superficial differences but marleycat's opinion is certainly not "laughably untrue". I think a lot of problems people have with 4e has to do with fighters feeling like wizards.
It's completely the opposite of this, though. The similarities are only on the surface: the power scheduling is the same, yes, but the way they work in the game is completely different.
Fighters are tough. They take hits. They punish creatures for hitting the wizard. They have few area attack options, and don't have much in the way of ranged options at ranges beyond 25 feet (the range of a throwing hammer). You don't want the fighter anywhere near you in combat.
The Wizard is weak, physically. It has less HP and very few surges. Monsters
want to be right next to it because most of its best options are ranged spells, and casting them will give the monster a free shot at clobbering the wizard. But a well-protected wizard is a beast when it comes to ruining an enemy's day. Zone effects, splash damage, illusions, summoned beasts, sleep effects, fireballs--you do not want to be in the crosshairs of a wizard. Their utility spells are not constrained by 'martial' flavored things, so they also have excellent support abilities as well.
Wizards also have great out of combat options because they get both more skills than the fighter, and have automatic access to rituals. Fighters have to get arcana training and take a feat on top to get rituals--which uses up resources that a fighter might want to have used making sure he hits harder or stays stuck to monsters better.
Playing them is completely different in practice, both from a tactical combat perspective as well as role-playing and exploration. So yes, if Marleycat thinks that fighters and wizards are even remotely the same, then she's flat out wrong. If your initial impressions were based largely on the power scheduling, then you really should track down some actual play podcasts or something.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;568473I am sorry but my impression of 4E fighters is they are very much like wizards. The classes operate on the same core system of managing resources in the way spellcasters have. There may be some superficial differences but marleycat's opinion is certainly not "laughably untrue". I think a lot of problems people have with 4e has to do with fighters feeling like wizards.
As someone who has quite a bit of experience with 4E, I agree that the fighter and wizard feel similar; most classes in 4E have at wills, encounters, and dailys. There is an undeniable similarity there.
There are some differences in what the actual powers do, and the classes have different saves, skills, etc...
But the 'similarness' is there.
It's a lot like how in 1E a cleric is simiar to a druid, and an illusionist is similar to a wizard.
In 4E, most classes share that degree of similarity.
I personally don't mind, but I can see where many people would find that unappealing.
I totally see that, in older D&Ds differing subclasses would share the same mechanic of their parent class; in 4E all classes share the same mechanics.
Quote from: Planet Algol;568482I'm finding MGuy & DeadDMWalking's passionate discussion OF SOME BULLSHIT KIDDIE CARTOON SHOW illuminating regarding their entitled whining baby opinions of D&D.
"My fighter's purse strap broke... the game is broken... please someone help us"
Your inability to link the issues between the cartoon show and playing imagination land is not surprising. Its even less surprising that Sacrosanct would bring yup my assertion about AD+D and 4e without bringing up any of the point I made linking the two.
"The Cathy strip in today's funnies really provided some gripping insights into the Fighter-Wizard imbalance facing today's D&D gamers..."
Quote from: Bill;568516As someone who has quite a bit of experience with 4E, I agree that the fighter and wizard feel similar; most classes in 4E have at wills, encounters, and dailys. There is an undeniable similarity there.
There are some differences in what the actual powers do, and the classes have different saves, skills, etc...
But the 'similarness' is there.
It's a lot like how in 1E a cleric is simiar to a druid, and an illusionist is similar to a wizard.
In 4E, most classes share that degree of similarity.
I personally don't mind, but I can see where many people would find that unappealing.
I find it unappealing bits part of the reason I don't like 4e. It's not
THE reason I don't because in 3e a cleric/wizard/druid/sorcerer's primary abilities are all "cast a spell" so people being on the same power schedule is acceptable. But saying that the fighters are basically weeaboo characters with mystical powers (marley) and that they play like wizards (also marley) just shows that for all their bluster someone (marley) either didn't read the books or never actually played the game for any reasonable amount of time.
Quote from: MGuy;568533Your inability to link the issues between the cartoon show and playing imagination land is not surprising.
Similarly, thrashing about for any example, no matter how irrelevant, is also not surprising. If your version of 'imagination land' goes no further than a
prima facie understanding of a cartoon, it's hardly puzzling why you can't grasp the nuances of this discussion.
Quote from: Planet Algol;568534"The Cathy strip in today's funnies really provided some gripping insights into the Fighter-Wizard imbalance facing today's D&D gamers..."
+1 :hatsoff:
(There is no 'thumbs-up' smiley, or I would have used that, too.)
The only mechanic that's really shared through all the classes (aside from the basic d20 engine) is the power schedule, though. This is important, because I can see how, obviously, a cursory look makes all the classes look pretty similar. But the differences are in the details--the fluff and function of the powers, the various expression of role mechanics, etc.
Every defender can mark, but they don't all mark the same way and have very different punishments.
Every striker has a method of adding extra damage, but those methods are very different between classes, even the Rogue and Ranger who work within the same power source.
Every leader has a power similar to the cleric's Healing Word, but broadly they work quite differently. Only divine characters get magical healing; clerics dish out buffs to allies and debuffs to enemies while Warlords grant extra attacks or coordinate movement.
Controllers (Wizards, Psions, Druids) don't have a shared type of mechanic but compensate rather well by being extremely versatile.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568538The only mechanic that's really shared through all the classes (aside from the basic d20 engine) is the power schedule, though.
That is the unique part to 4e that was never done before. The details of the classes have always been different.
And giving non-magical classes totally mundane things they can only do once per day clashes directly with logic. Sure, any number of
post hoc justifications can be imagined. It still makes no sense that Michael Jordan can only dunk once a day, or a doctor can only stitch one laceration per day, or a car dealer can only influence one customer per day. Outside of pressing a button when it is 10:30 in the morning, there is virtually nothing that is naturally limited to once a day.
Dailies are the height of Vulcan philosophy compared to encounter powers, however, which can be used zero, once or a dozen times a day with no set schedule other than 'once per encounter', or outside of combat, every five minutes. So, a Fighter can sit in their room at the inn and perform a
spinning sweep 288 times a day, unless there are Orcs in the room, in which case they get to perform it once, then have to wait until the Orcs leave to do it again. While dailies at least vaguely follow convention, encounter powers (http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/Z/Zero-One-Infinity-Rule.html) explicitly break one of the primary programming guidelines.
Who had daily 'powers' in previous versions? Magic-Users. We called them 'spells'. In a few rare instances, other classes had some limitations on their abilities (barbarian rage). Nothing was limited by a wildly variable time unit called the 'encounter'. Nonetheless, mundane abilities being limited by 'encounter' is preposterous as well, and bears more than a passing similarity to 'spells' or magical abilities.
What is being done is less important than
how it is being done in regards to the frequency of use. Arcane effects have always been understood to be limited in some way, while mundane effects are not. Vancian fire-and-forget, spell points, psionic points, whatever. And it has nothing to do with individual damage potential; a 20th level Magic User who memorizes
burning hands once can only cast it once, while the 20th level Fighter (
girdle of storm giant strength, natch) can swing his
+5 flaming longsword all day long.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568538The only mechanic that's really shared through all the classes (aside from the basic d20 engine) is the power schedule, though. This is important, because I can see how, obviously, a cursory look makes all the classes look pretty similar. But the differences are in the details--the fluff and function of the powers, the various expression of role mechanics, etc.
Every defender can mark, but they don't all mark the same way and have very different punishments.
Every striker has a method of adding extra damage, but those methods are very different between classes, even the Rogue and Ranger who work within the same power source.
Every leader has a power similar to the cleric's Healing Word, but broadly they work quite differently. Only divine characters get magical healing; clerics dish out buffs to allies and debuffs to enemies while Warlords grant extra attacks or coordinate movement.
Controllers (Wizards, Psions, Druids) don't have a shared type of mechanic but compensate rather well by being extremely versatile.
All of this would only be apparent to someone who has actually played/read the game though and this board has a taboo on people who actually read the rules or apply them in theory.
Quote from: Bill;568516As someone who has quite a bit of experience with 4E, I agree that the fighter and wizard feel similar; most classes in 4E have at wills, encounters, and dailys. There is an undeniable similarity there.
There are some differences in what the actual powers do, and the classes have different saves, skills, etc...
But the 'similarness' is there.
It's a lot like how in 1E a cleric is simiar to a druid, and an illusionist is similar to a wizard.
In 4E, most classes share that degree of similarity.
I personally don't mind, but I can see where many people would find that unappealing.
This pretty much gets at what saying. That is precisely the similarity I was thinking of. If people like 4E that is great, if they feel the distinctions are big between classes fine. But posters suggestion we are "flat out wrong" because we feel the sameness is there and important are not going to convince at this point.
I have read the books, i have played the game, and for me the critiism that the classes all feel like wizards is a fair one. It isn't one that It isn't one everyone to share but i find it very odd people are seriously arguing its bizarre or flat wrong to feel this way about 4e.
Quote from: MGuy;568533Its even less surprising that Sacrosanct would bring yup my assertion about AD+D and 4e without bringing up any of the point I made linking the two.
That's because you never had a salient point that even remotely made your statement true in any way, shape, or form.
4e and AD&D are soooo different, there is no way 4e would ever have everything that an AD&D fan wants in D&D.
Face it, it was a really stupid thing to say that showed you have no idea what AD&D is or how it was played.
Quote from: MGuy;568546All of this would only be apparent to someone who has actually played/read the game though and this board has a taboo on people who actually read the rules or apply them in theory.
I personally know Bill and he plays in mutliple regular 4E games and has read the books several times. He even likes 4E. And he seems to think there is something to us seeing this similarity. Whatis more, we have all played and read the books. Not as much as 4e players, but I have played several times and I keep seeing these similarities.
Quote from: Planet Algol;568482I'm finding MGuy & DeadDMWalking's passionate discussion OF SOME BULLSHIT KIDDIE CARTOON SHOW illuminating regarding their entitled whining baby opinions of D&D.
Avatar: The Last Airbender is a show aimed at the 6-11 year old crowd. I'd been told that it's a good series, and I've had it recommended to me by several of my gaming friends, including one that plays in my weekly Sunday game. Since it is available streaming from Netflix, my 5-year-old daughter has been watching it with me. I've had a kick out of watching the show and out of watching it with her. I've really enjoyed hearing her say that she's Katara and she's Water Bending while she splashes me in the pool.
I make no apologies for enjoying a television show with my daughter. Further, if I were watching the show on my own, I'd not apologize either. While I wouldn't spend that much time watching TV for my own benefit, I don't see anything wrong with enjoying a well-written television program. As for the fact that it happens to be animated - that doesn't bother me at all. While I don't watch anime anymore, I really enjoyed doing so in high school and college. Animation is a medium, just like live-action or a book. A good story is a good story, no matter how it is presented.
You can reject Avatar as some BULLSHIT KITTY CARTOON, but putting it in the same class as Spongebob Squarepants or even GI Joe is doing it a terrible disservice. So, I don't mind defending it.
Quote from: StormBringer;568536Similarly, thrashing about for any example, no matter how irrelevant, is also not surprising. If your version of 'imagination land' goes no further than a prima facie understanding of a cartoon, it's hardly puzzling why you can't grasp the nuances of this discussion.
I'm not thrashing about for any example, no matter how relevant. I mentioned how this has come up in games that I've played and my own direct experience. Reluctantly, I provided one such experience from play. Since I provided that example so we could move the discussion from 'these things never happen' to 'what would be a good response when it does happen', you can see how I was disappointed. Not given a bloody nose by any means, but certainly disappointed.
I didn't revive the thread, but since someone else did, I thought I would contribute a situation from a fictional setting that accurately describes what I had observed. Since I had seen the episode just recently, it seemed appropriate. I brought it up from the context of 'person who is a warrior points out that he has no ability to contribute because the casters can handle anything that comes up better than he could'. In that specific example, I thought it was particularly telling that one of the 'pets' actually contributed more than he did. If you watched the episode, in the time it took Sokka to beat out one of the small fires, MoMo (sp?) was able to put out five or six...
Personally, I think that if you end up in that situation, it's the result of bad game design, not bad players. I think good players use their abilities effectively. If one player has effective abilities and uses them, and one character doesn't have effective abilities, I don't think you should blame the players for that. Especially if the characters are nominally supposed to be 'equal'. In 3.5, because a 10th level character is a CR 10 whether he is a Fighter or a Wizard, at least nominally, they should be equal. In my experience, they are not.
But since discussion fictional settings that address an example of this type of situation (which I thought was great, because usually it's just ignored), let me bring up another example from play.
In a game that I was a player based on low-magic exploration of Egyptian tombs (this was D&D, but it had a big dose of Raiders of the Lost Ark), one of the players made an explorer named Gazan largely based on Indiana Jones. for fun, I built a character based on Short Round from Temple of Doom. We had fun with the characters and the game. But eventually, it got to be that as a MONK, I couldn't contribute in a meaningful way.
But what really chapped my ass was an issue between an 'organic' character versus a 'char-op' character. At 1st level, as a human, I could get two Feats. I liked the idea of Improved Trip, so I took Combat Expertise and Improved Trip. That was a good choice, because it was actually a good option at low levels, particularly before my BAB (compared to a Fighter's) and my Strength (compared to just about anything - as a monk Strength wasn't my top choice for ability score) became too low to have a chance of having an effect.
The Bonus Feat options for Monk at 6th level are Improved Trip or Improved Disarm. If I recall correctly, I went ahead and took that one at 3rd level. What's the point of a bonus feat if you can pick it up EARLIER than when it is an option? I don't like the idea of waiting to pick up an ability you want so you can be more 'effective at higher levels' rather than being more effective RIGHT NOW. That's a hell of a choice to make, especially if you don't know how long the campaign will run.
I think balancing characters is pretty hard. I think trying to balance characters to their expected contribution in combat is important. I think 3.5 could have done better. I hope that the next version of D&D does better, without eliminating the ability for all classes to contribute OUTSIDE of combat.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;568548That's because you never had a salient point that even remotely made your statement true in any way, shape, or form.
4e and AD&D are soooo different, there is no way 4e would ever have everything that an AD&D fan wants in D&D.
Face it, it was a really stupid thing to say that showed you have no idea what AD&D is or how it was played.
Whether you wholesale reject my points because you don't believe I could have made any is your own baggage but I laid out clear parallels between what posters on this board wanted and what 4e does and for all the shouting and accusations I got over it not one person ever denied, refuted, or challenged any of the lines I drew. Their responses were like yours, wholesale rejection of the idea because there's just "no way".
Quote from: StormBringer;568545That is the unique part to 4e that was never done before.
So? Every edition introduces something new. If it didn't, then there'd be no point in publishing it.
QuoteAnd giving non-magical classes totally mundane things they can only do once per day clashes directly with logic. Sure, any number of post hoc justifications can be imagined. It still makes no sense that Michael Jordan can only dunk once a day, or a doctor can only stitch one laceration per day, or a car dealer can only influence one customer per day. Outside of pressing a button when it is 10:30 in the morning, there is virtually nothing that is naturally limited to once a day.
Maybe it doesn't quite make sense if you try and interpret in a strictly literal fashion, but the 'daily schedule' is rather similar to the classic Vancian Wizard: either you've spent a long time weaving a spell, or you're waiting for the right combination of opportunity and effort to give you a powerful hit. Regardless of the reasoning, the point is to mete out the power structure to simulate the very real effects of fatigue that any combat or (theoretically) heavy spellcasting would inflict on a person. It's an abstraction, to be sure, but what isn't in an RPG?
QuoteDailies are the height of Vulcan philosophy compared to encounter powers, however, which can be used zero, once or a dozen times a day with no set schedule other than 'once per encounter', or outside of combat, every five minutes. So, a Fighter can sit in their room at the inn and perform a spinning sweep 288 times a day, unless there are Orcs in the room, in which case they get to perform it once, then have to wait until the Orcs leave to do it again. While dailies at least vaguely follow convention, encounter powers (http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/Z/Zero-One-Infinity-Rule.html) explicitly break one of the primary programming guidelines.
Uh yeah, what? First of all, encounters require rest in between their reuse. Again, it's an abstraction to simulate fatigue. Throwing a fireball or stabbing an orc through plate armor is, theoretically, tiring. It's not something you can do repeatedly, but it's something that you can perform again easily enough after a breather.
QuoteWho had daily 'powers' in previous versions? Magic-Users. We called them 'spells'. In a few rare instances, other classes had some limitations on their abilities (barbarian rage). Nothing was limited by a wildly variable time unit called the 'encounter'. Nonetheless, mundane abilities being limited by 'encounter' is preposterous as well, and bears more than a passing similarity to 'spells' or magical abilities.
Yes, I suppose? Even so, it's sort of irrelevant in actual practice. It's like, brain surgery and heart surgery require many of the same skills, but I don't think a surgeon one would argue that this makes them 'feel similar' in practice.
QuoteWhat is being done is less important than how it is being done in regards to the frequency of use. Arcane effects have always been understood to be limited in some way, while mundane effects are not. Vancian fire-and-forget, spell points, psionic points, whatever. And it has nothing to do with individual damage potential; a 20th level Magic User who memorizes burning hands once can only cast it once, while the 20th level Fighter (girdle of storm giant strength, natch) can swing his +5 flaming longsword all day long.
Sure, I get that. But there's nothing stopping this in 4E. If you have a Vancian spell such as Fireball or Sleep memorized you can only cast it once per day. Your fighter can swing his sword all day long.
The thing that 4E introduced, which I feel is very helpful in terms of verisimilitude and balance, is that the Wizard can cast light spells such as Magic Missile and Force Orb often, and Fighters can put for the extra effort to hit someone particularly hard (Or Rogues can pull off a particularly difficult trick). It keeps Wizards from running out of gas and keeps Fighters feeling less like robots preprogrammed for a single action. It makes a lot more sense when magic missile doesn't take the same level of mental effort to cast as an explosive fireball or summoning a demon.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;568549I personally know Bill and he plays in mutliple regular 4E games and has read the books several times. He even likes 4E. And he seems to think there is something to us seeing this similarity. Whatis more, we have all played and read the books. Not as much as 4e players, but I have played several times and I keep seeing these similarities.
I do not like 4E enough to go on the long road to pointing out how fighter is different from wizard in 4e. Them having the same power schedule isn't "samey" enough to make the claim that they are all the same. Yes, that is a similarity that almost all the classes share in 4e (not sure how essentials works) but it doesn't make fighters into wizards.
Quote from: StormBringer;568545What is being done is less important than how it is being done in regards to the frequency of use. Arcane effects have always been understood to be limited in some way, while mundane effects are not. Vancian fire-and-forget, spell points, psionic points, whatever. And it has nothing to do with individual damage potential; a 20th level Magic User who memorizes burning hands once can only cast it once, while the 20th level Fighter (girdle of storm giant strength, natch) can swing his +5 flaming longsword all day long.
I've addressed this point before, but I'll address it again. The statement that a Fighter can swing a sword all day long presumes that he has reason to do so. If there are enough enemies that he can keep hitting people 'all day long', it might matter. But if there are small numbers of enemies (which is entirely possible) it ceases to be meaningful. If you fight one creature (especially if you have reason to believe that it will be the only fight of the day), the Wizard has no reason not to use a large number of powerful spells - allowing him to 'unload' all his dailies in a short time to 'blow shit up'. The Fighter, though he has the ability to keep attacking, can't sacrifice his future efficacy to increase his potential now. He essentially has a 'flat' power curve - or he would, if you didn't ignore one important fact.
The Fighter's ability to 'swing a sword all day long' is limited by his ability to keep standing all day long. Effectively, he has a limited number of hit points, so if he's able to hit something with a sword, it's able to hit him as well. Once the wizard has used all his spells and the cleric has used all her spells, the Fighter is well-served to withdraw with his friends to recuperate. Sure, he COULD press on, but if something is a challenge for the TEAM, it's probably impossible for him alone.
Further, if we're talking about being respectful of other players, which is worse? To ask your friends to put themselves in danger so you can keep fighting for a 'few more rounds' or to ask your friend to hang back so everyone can contribute?
In most games, I've found that people are more likely to play at the speed of the 'weakest player'. So if one person in the party is knocked unconscious, the whole party usually rests until that person is better. If one person is out of spells, the party usually rests until that person is better. Is that the way it's supposed to be played? I don't know. But I see it happen a lot. Sure, sometimes it isn't possible to just take a break - but most of the time, it is. Especially with magic.
Unless the adventure has a timer or the consequences of not finishing them off are too extreme, players DO take a break. They've been doing it since first edition when they start pounding iron spikes behind the door to keep it from being opened... As the power-level increases, the options available to creative players also increases. Smart players usually DON'T have to worry about not being able to take a break, unless they went into a particular situation knowing that in advance.
That's just the way it is when you have experienced, creative players.
TBQH I'm rather tired of 4E myself, but that's what my group plays for now!
The thing that bothers me about Next, and of the very dismissive attitude people take towards balance and parity for these classes is that, regardless of how I feel about any given edition of D&D, a game where one of two classes dominates, by accident or design, is a game that will have a difficult time attracting new players. Without new players the industry stagnates and the hobby becomes less diverse and less interesting.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;568558I've addressed this point before, but I'll address it again. The statement that a Fighter can swing a sword all day long presumes that he has reason to do so. If there are enough enemies that he can keep hitting people 'all day long', it might matter. But if there are small numbers of enemies (which is entirely possible) it ceases to be meaningful. If you fight one creature (especially if you have reason to believe that it will be the only fight of the day), the Wizard has no reason not to use a large number of powerful spells - allowing him to 'unload' all his dailies in a short time to 'blow shit up'. The Fighter, though he has the ability to keep attacking, can't sacrifice his future efficacy to increase his potential now. He essentially has a 'flat' power curve - or he would, if you didn't ignore one important fact.
The Fighter's ability to 'swing a sword all day long' is limited by his ability to keep standing all day long. Effectively, he has a limited number of hit points, so if he's able to hit something with a sword, it's able to hit him as well. Once the wizard has used all his spells and the cleric has used all her spells, the Fighter is well-served to withdraw with his friends to recuperate. Sure, he COULD press on, but if something is a challenge for the TEAM, it's probably impossible for him alone.
Further, if we're talking about being respectful of other players, which is worse? To ask your friends to put themselves in danger so you can keep fighting for a 'few more rounds' or to ask your friend to hang back so everyone can contribute?
In most games, I've found that people are more likely to play at the speed of the 'weakest player'. So if one person in the party is knocked unconscious, the whole party usually rests until that person is better. If one person is out of spells, the party usually rests until that person is better. Is that the way it's supposed to be played? I don't know. But I see it happen a lot. Sure, sometimes it isn't possible to just take a break - but most of the time, it is. Especially with magic.
Unless the adventure has a timer or the consequences of not finishing them off are too extreme, players DO take a break. They've been doing it since first edition when they start pounding iron spikes behind the door to keep it from being opened... As the power-level increases, the options available to creative players also increases. Smart players usually DON'T have to worry about not being able to take a break, unless they went into a particular situation knowing that in advance.
That's just the way it is when you have experienced, creative players.
You're also forgetting that the fighter has to run away if he's slapped with a status condition cause he can't remove it. He has to run away if he's specced for melee fighting and flying archers appear. But you know, it's Stormbringer. No amount of logic will break his iron wall of stupidity.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568560TBQH I'm rather tired of 4E myself, but that's what my group plays for now!
The thing that bothers me about Next, and of the very dismissive attitude people take towards balance and parity for these classes is that, regardless of how I feel about any given edition of D&D, a game where one of two classes dominates, by accident or design, is a game that will have a difficult time attracting new players. Without new players the industry stagnates and the hobby becomes less diverse and less interesting.
The thing that bothers me about NEXT is absolutely no effort is being taken to address and/or rectify mistakes in the past. None of the lessons that should have sunken in between 1st ed and 4th's essentials are being considered as the game is being made. As far as I can tell 5th is going to be rules-lite DnD.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568560TBQH I'm rather tired of 4E myself, but that's what my group plays for now!
The thing that bothers me about Next, and of the very dismissive attitude people take towards balance and parity for these classes is that, regardless of how I feel about any given edition of D&D, a game where one of two classes dominates, by accident or design, is a game that will have a difficult time attracting new players. Without new players the industry stagnates and the hobby becomes less diverse and less interesting.
I feel balance is importany as well, but it is also important to keep in mind different people have very different ideas of what balance should be. For me 3E went too far in the direction of class disparity, 4e too far in the direction of class parity. I want balance but also some room for important differences. For me wizards being able to do amazing things isn't a problem, it just needs to be reigned in with casting times, consequences and resource management. I guess for me, the classic wizard and classic fighter are so central to what I feel D&D is, any attempts to reconfigure that in a major way just isn't going to appeal to me. I don't even really play D&D all that much any more, but when I do, I want it to feel like D&D. If I need a game with different character options or a different approach to balance, I play a different rpg.
Quote from: MGuy;568554I do not like 4E enough to go on the long road to pointing out how fighter is different from wizard in 4e. Them having the same power schedule isn't "samey" enough to make the claim that they are all the same. Yes, that is a similarity that almost all the classes share in 4e (not sure how essentials works) but it doesn't make fighters into wizards.
I am going to just have to disagree with you there and say this is very much in the eye of the beholder. For you maybe this isn't similar enough for it them to feel the same. For me it very much is. I think those kind of structures very much impact the feel of a class in play. One reason a wizard and rogue are so distinct in AD&D is because they don't operate on the same power schedule. For me, 4e feels like they took the basic concept of vancian casting, then carved it up into dailies, encounters and at wil and applied that framework to all the characters. So for me fighters very much feel like wizards in 4E.
Quote from: MGuy;568561He has to run away if he's specced for melee fighting and flying archers appear.
God forbid that someone have the sense to retreat when faced with an overwhelmingly asymmetrical tactical situation, that wouldn't be
fun!
Quote from: Planet Algol;568566God forbid that someone have the sense to retreat when faced with an overwhelmingly asymmetrical tactical situation, that wouldn't be fun!
Then I'll also point out - the Fighter has a number of abilities that make him or her better at fighting. He's expected to take that training and apply it to every situation he runs into.
A wizard, by contrast, is defined by his or her prepared spells. If the spells available are not suitable for the particular challenge, it is POSSIBLE to completely reconfigure the abilities to prepare for that challenge.
If the Fighter doesn't have the right abilities then his only hope is that a caster use some spells to temporarily give him those abilities.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;568558I've addressed this point before, but I'll address it again. The statement that a Fighter can swing a sword all day long presumes that he has reason to do so.
No, it doesn't. It presumes he has the
means to do so. Which requires nothing more than, you know... a sword. The means for a Magic-User to cast a spell is having the spell memorized, which allows for one casting until the following day.
Pretty simple to grasp, wouldn't you say?
Quote from: Planet Algol;568566God forbid that someone have the sense to retreat when faced with an overwhelmingly asymmetrical tactical situation, that wouldn't be fun!
Your sarcasm is literally right. It wouldn't be fun. Retreating isn't fun because it's not engaging with the game in a meaningful way. Or rather, retreating for no reason but that the DM decided to dick over your underpowered class with a tactically asymmetrical encounter. A retreat can be made fun, but it depends on the context.
Plus, a party with a marginally competent Wizard in 3E and to a lesser extent in AD&D wouldn't have to retreat just because the Fighter didn't have any ranged ability. The problem is that the fighter wouldn't be able to do anything while the ranger and wizard blasted the archers.
QuoteThen I'll also point out - the Fighter has a number of abilities that make him or her better at fighting. He's expected to take that training and apply it to every situation he runs into.
If you make a Fighter that's not somewhat versatile, and you run into situations where your lack of versatility hampers you, that's your own fault.
If a Fighter isn't carrying around a decent ranged weapon and a supply of ammunition, regardless of the characters specialization, that the player is acting in an inept fashion.
If a Fighter with some levels under their belt (in modern magic-tem rich editions) isn't carrying around a magic bow and an emergency stash of magic arrows, regardless of the characters specialization, that the player is acting in an inept fashion.
But all arguing aside, my reaction, as a player, even using my moderately high-level flying magic-user, to the idea of "flying archers" is, aside from some feasible plan suck as luring them into an ambush where they are unable to bring their flying abilities to bear, would be along the lines of "Fuck this, completely not worth it." Flying archers? You gotta pick your battles, and that sounds like a complete debacle in the making.
Unless I'm a flying archer and have a bunch of flying archer buddies, or we have the flying archers seriously outnumbered/outclassed, no way man, no way.
Spoiler
(http://blog.2bluesolutions.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/BronnJeromeFlynnPaulSchiraldi_a_p.jpg)
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568573Plus, a party with a marginally competent Wizard in 3E and to a lesser extent in AD&D wouldn't have to retreat just because the Fighter didn't have any ranged ability. The problem is that the fighter wouldn't be able to do anything while the ranger and wizard blasted the archers.
QuoteThe problem is that the fighter wouldn't be able to do anything while the ranger...blasted the archers.
And why isn't this fighter carrying a longbow and ammunition?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;568551I'm not thrashing about for any example, no matter how relevant. I mentioned how this has come up in games that I've played and my own direct experience. Reluctantly, I provided one such experience from play. Since I provided that example so we could move the discussion from 'these things never happen' to 'what would be a good response when it does happen', you can see how I was disappointed. Not given a bloody nose by any means, but certainly disappointed.
I am pretty sure the point was 'these things don't happen with good players'. Which begs the question: why are you using shitty players as an example?
QuoteI didn't revive the thread, but since someone else did, I thought I would contribute a situation from a fictional setting that accurately describes what I had observed. Since I had seen the episode just recently, it seemed appropriate. I brought it up from the context of 'person who is a warrior points out that he has no ability to contribute because the casters can handle anything that comes up better than he could'.
And I told you, that has been a trope since the early 80s at least. Read this very carefully (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatKindOfLamePowerIsHeartAnyway). And stop gaming with shitty people.
QuoteIn that specific example, I thought it was particularly telling that one of the 'pets' actually contributed more than he did. If you watched the episode, in the time it took Sokka to beat out one of the small fires, MoMo (sp?) was able to put out five or six...
Which only points out the reality that not everyone has to be the ultimate badass in every situation. Something 3e largely ignored and 4e took as a challenge.
QuotePersonally, I think that if you end up in that situation, it's the result of bad game design, not bad players.
Then you'd be wrong. There are a rare few games that have severe problems, but they generally aren't played or talked about because... they have severe playability problems.
QuoteBut since discussion fictional settings that address an example of this type of situation (which I thought was great, because usually it's just ignored), let me bring up another example from play.
Are you just going to use anecdotes to claim 'it happens'? No shit, Sherlock. CharOp wankers and shitty players abound. This still provides not one shred of evidence it is system wide, nor that it is a general problem experienced by a significant number of players.
QuoteIn a game that I was a player based on low-magic exploration of Egyptian tombs (this was D&D, but it had a big dose of Raiders of the Lost Ark), one of the players made an explorer named Gazan largely based on Indiana Jones. for fun, I built a character based on Short Round from Temple of Doom. We had fun with the characters and the game. But eventually, it got to be that as a MONK, I couldn't contribute in a meaningful way.
Then you had a shitty DM. But you still 'had fun with the characters and the game', so what are you whining about? Was not contributing in a meaningful way enjoyable? Or did you have fun socializing with friends despite the shitty DM negating your ability to contribute?
QuoteBut what really chapped my ass was an issue between an 'organic' character versus a 'char-op' character. At 1st level, as a human, I could get two Feats. I liked the idea of Improved Trip, so I took Combat Expertise and Improved Trip. That was a good choice, because it was actually a good option at low levels, particularly before my BAB (compared to a Fighter's) and my Strength (compared to just about anything - as a monk Strength wasn't my top choice for ability score) became too low to have a chance of having an effect.
The Bonus Feat options for Monk at 6th level are Improved Trip or Improved Disarm. If I recall correctly, I went ahead and took that one at 3rd level. What's the point of a bonus feat if you can pick it up EARLIER than when it is an option? I don't like the idea of waiting to pick up an ability you want so you can be more 'effective at higher levels' rather than being more effective RIGHT NOW. That's a hell of a choice to make, especially if you don't know how long the campaign will run.
"Hey, guys, no CharOp bullshit, OK? Let's just have some fun dungeon crawling."
QuoteI think balancing characters is pretty hard. I think trying to balance characters to their expected contribution in combat is important. I think 3.5 could have done better. I hope that the next version of D&D does better, without eliminating the ability for all classes to contribute OUTSIDE of combat.
It's only hard if it has to fit your demands for all classes to contribute significantly in combat
and all classes to contribute significantly outside of combat. You may as well play a skill based game like Heroes and start each player with 1000 points.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568573Plus, a party with a marginally competent Wizard in 3E and to a lesser extent in AD&D wouldn't have to retreat just because the Fighter didn't have any ranged ability. The problem is that the fighter wouldn't be able to do anything while the ranger and wizard blasted the archers.
i think in 3e there is a challenge there, but in 2E the fighter can do some amazing things if he specializes in ranged weapons like darts.
Quote from: StormBringer;568569No, it doesn't. It presumes he has the means to do so. Which requires nothing more than, you know... a sword. The means for a Magic-User to cast a spell is having the spell memorized, which allows for one casting until the following day.
Pretty simple to grasp, wouldn't you say?
Having the means without a reason is meaningless. Swinging a sword when no enemies are present has no point. Casting a spell without a target also has no point.
If you're discussing the game, you need to talk about options that matter. Swinging a sword doesn't matter if there is no reason to swing a sword.
The wizard only casts spells if he has a reason to do so - the means are irrelevant.
But even if the wizard has only a limited number of spells prepared, it's fairly trivial to supplement the prepared spells with items that cast spells for you. A
wand of fireballs for instance.
As for building a Fighter that's prepared for 'anything' - it's harder than it looks. I built a Fighter that I thought would be interesting to play (after building it, I also determined it had a lot of similarity to Jet from the Last Avatar, but that's apparently a BULLSHIT KIDDIE SHOW, so the fact that it seems like something that SHOULD be fun to play just has to be left aside), but I was told that spending money on a 'decent ranged weapon' was a mistake - that you have to pick one or the other and 'hyper-specialize' to be meaningful in your chosen field.
Wizards don't 'hyper-specialize'. I'm making a 16th level Abjurer right that will be a major 'item creator' for a campaign. I like to know what items a party could or could not get. I went through every item in the SRD, and there weren't many he couldn't make. In part, it is because Limited Wish allows him to emulate most spells for the purpose of item creation. The only items that were really problems were those that involved
animate objects (a 6th level cleric spell), some items that required a high level-spell from a prohibited school, an item with a racial or skill requirement (
ring of jumping or
belt of Dwarvenkind for instance.
The wizard is very flexible because he can change spells on a day-to-day basis.
Quote from: MGuy;568561You're also forgetting that the fighter has to run away if he's slapped with a status condition cause he can't remove it. He has to run away if he's specced for melee fighting and flying archers appear. But you know, it's Stormbringer. No amount of logic will break his iron wall of stupidity.
Ah, I completely forgot that all other classes are immune to spells, and Magic Users are specifically immune to any and all status effects.
Toss a
silence, 15' radius on the Magic User and watch them run for the hills because they can't cast
dispel magic on themselves. A
silenced Fighter just can't hear their enemies scream when they kill them.
Magic Users are vulnerable to every status effect Fighters are, plus one additional effect,
silence. Hence, Magic Users are weaker than Fighters. QED.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;568580Having the means without a reason is meaningless. Swinging a sword when no enemies are present has no point. Casting a spell without a target also has no point.
The point is, Fighters are not limited in their abilities and Magic Users are. For the whole argument, you and your buddies have been acting like Magic Users can cast any spell from any book an unlimited number of times a day.
QuoteIf you're discussing the game, you need to talk about options that matter. Swinging a sword doesn't matter if there is no reason to swing a sword.
And unless it is the only combat of the day, and it only lasts one round, the Fighter gets to exercise their abilities far, far more often than the Magic User.
QuoteThe wizard only casts spells if he has a reason to do so - the means are irrelevant.
The means aren't irrelevant, you just haven't realized that because you started with the conclusion and are desperately trying to gather evidence to support it.
QuoteBut even if the wizard has only a limited number of spells prepared, it's fairly trivial to supplement the prepared spells with items that cast spells for you. A wand of fireballs for instance.
It's fairly trivial in the
obviously unbalanced editions that you love so much.
QuoteAs for building a Fighter that's prepared for 'anything' - it's harder than it looks. I built a Fighter that I thought would be interesting to play (after building it, I also determined it had a lot of similarity to Jet from the Last Avatar, but that's apparently a BULLSHIT KIDDIE SHOW, so the fact that it seems like something that SHOULD be fun to play just has to be left aside), but I was told that spending money on a 'decent ranged weapon' was a mistake - that you have to pick one or the other and 'hyper-specialize' to be meaningful in your chosen field.
Don't game with shitty DMs/players.
QuoteWizards don't 'hyper-specialize'. I'm making a 16th level Abjurer right that will be a major 'item creator' for a campaign. I like to know what items a party could or could not get. I went through every item in the SRD, and there weren't many he couldn't make. In part, it is because Limited Wish allows him to emulate most spells for the purpose of item creation. The only items that were really problems were those that involved animate objects (a 6th level cleric spell), some items that required a high level-spell from a prohibited school, an item with a racial or skill requirement (ring of jumping or belt of Dwarvenkind for instance.
And that is why you fail.
QuoteThe wizard is very flexible because he can change spells on a day-to-day basis.
The Fighter is very flexible because they can change weapons on a round-to-round basis.
Quote from: MGuy;568552Whether you wholesale reject my points because you don't believe I could have made any is your own baggage but I laid out clear parallels between what posters on this board wanted and what 4e does and for all the shouting and accusations I got over it not one person ever denied, refuted, or challenged any of the lines I drew. Their responses were like yours, wholesale rejection of the idea because there's just "no way".
The reason you got so many wholesale rejections is because your statement was downright laughable, and showed your complete ignorance of AD&D.
Here, let me help you out. I've been playing AD&D continuous for 3 decades, so I have a pretty good idea of the factors that appeal to AD&D gamers who have not moved on to newer editions. The three most common factors I have heard are (in no particular order):
* niche protection
* fast combat
* combat without minis or maps
They are certainly some of the big reasons why I still pay AD&D and not 3e or 4e.
So when you say that 4e has everything that an AD&D player would want (implying that they are not satisfied 100% in AD&D), people are going to point and laugh because 4e, RAW, doesn't come close to achieving the top 3 reasons why people still play AD&D.
So no, you don't get to say that you're right because everyone else mocked you instead of taking that statement seriously when you say something worth mocking.
Quote from: StormBringer;568584And that is why you fail.
.
Because he's saying he's making a 16th level character from scratch like it's the norm, and then complains that the wizards are uber better than a fighter when he's skipping the part of the game that most people actually play (levels before 16)?
But that's no surprise. I've noticed that the most fervent and passionate people who complain about the fighter being weak are the same people who spend most of their time making builds that are already end game.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;568585So no, you don't get to say that you're right because everyone else mocked you instead of taking that statement seriously when you say something worth mocking.
I think there was a statement earlier in the thread to that effect...
Quote from: MGuy;568464If she doesn't understand the game that's fine, but then she shouldn't turn around and act like she does. If she's going to act like she knows about a game she doesn't then people are right to call her out on her bullshit.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;568586Because he's saying he's making a 16th level character from scratch like it's the norm, and then complains that the wizards are uber better than a fighter when he's skipping the part of the game that most people actually play (levels before 16)?
But that's no surprise. I've noticed that the most fervent and passionate people who complain about the fighter being weak are the same people who spend most of their time making builds that are already end game.
This particular Wizard isn't a character for play. It's an NPC. It's helpful to have around so if a player says 'can I pay someone a fuckton of money to buy a magic item I want' I can look at what this character can or cannot make and then give the player an answer that doesn't depend solely on DM fiat.
But I don't understand why it would necessarily matter if the character got to where he was through 16 levels of play or not. I mean, once you get to that point, the fact remains that the character is dominant.
If you say 'make up characters and start at 16th level', I think it's too bad that people choose not to play the Fighter, but if you make 2nd or 4th level characters, people do. Obviously the Fighter is a good choice at some levels of play, but is ridiculously weak at the high end.
As for my choice of game - yes, 3rd edition is my favorite. I think everyone admits that there are flaws in every game. Perfection may be an impossible goal, but I think we can get closer.
I know
I can get closer, but that doesn't really help if you have cause to change from one gaming group to another. Then it becomes a matter of getting everyone else on board.
I'm okay with changing the rules, but I think you have to start with the rules as written as a baseline. If your rules are so bad that everyone has to houserule them, that's a problem. I'm here to point out that the problem exists.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;568586Because he's saying he's making a 16th level character from scratch like it's the norm, and then complains that the wizards are uber better than a fighter when he's skipping the part of the game that most people actually play (levels before 16)?
But that's no surprise. I've noticed that the most fervent and passionate people who complain about the fighter being weak are the same people who spend most of their time making builds that are already end game.
Exactly. A Fighter with a rusty sword, leather armour, intentionally bad feat selection and minimum hit points that succumbs to every effect compared with a Magic User that is bristling with wands and potions, pulled directly from the CharOp boards and somehow has the ability to cast any spell ever invented at will.
Odd how the Fighter comes out looking worse in that situation.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;568591As for my choice of game - yes, 3rd edition is my favorite. I think everyone admits that there are flaws in every game. Perfection may be an impossible goal, but I think we can get closer.
It's called "AD&D".
QuoteIf your rules are so bad that everyone has to houserule them, that's a problem.
Not everyone wants to houserule them. Even 3.x.
Quote from: StormBringer;568593It's called "AD&D".
:hatsoff:
I found the statement implying that an AD&D Fighter would be ineffectual at ranged combat delightful...
Quote from: Planet Algol;568597I found the statement implying that an AD&D Fighter would be ineffectual at ranged combat delightful...
It is.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;568585The reason you got so many wholesale rejections is because your statement was downright laughable, and showed your complete ignorance of AD&D.
Here, let me help you out. I've been playing AD&D continuous for 3 decades, so I have a pretty good idea of the factors that appeal to AD&D gamers who have not moved on to newer editions. The three most common factors I have heard are (in no particular order):
* niche protection
* fast combat
* combat without minis or maps
They are certainly some of the big reasons why I still pay AD&D and not 3e or 4e.
So when you say that 4e has everything that an AD&D player would want (implying that they are not satisfied 100% in AD&D), people are going to point and laugh because 4e, RAW, doesn't come close to achieving the top 3 reasons why people still play AD&D.
So no, you don't get to say that you're right because everyone else mocked you instead of taking that statement seriously when you say something worth mocking.
Well at least you don't ask for much. Combat without minis and faster combat resolution are certainly things 4e don't provide but none of these are the parallels I drew to 4E so all you've done is shown you probably don't remember WHAT I said about why 4e is suitable for your tastes. If niche protection (IE protecting the fighter's right to always swing a sword) is something that you feel needs to be protection then 4E provides that with weapon implements that PREVENT wizards from ever deciding to pick up a sword or fighting in melee. However all three of those are doable in 3e (Well that is if you don't think swinging a sword is a niche worth protecting which I don't).
So yes when people don't read what I actually said or engage anything I've actually said YES I get to point out that the assholes did not do so. THat's why when MARLEY said her bullshit I engaged her BULLSHIT just like I'm engaging your BULLSHIT.
Smaller paragraphs please.
Wait.
How is 4e anywhere close to AD&D?
Quote from: MGuy;568606Well at least you don't ask for much. Combat without minis and faster combat resolution are certainly things 4e don't provide but none of these are the parallels I drew to 4E....
They are, however, things many AD&D players (hell, TSR D&D players in general) really want when playing D&D. If 4e does not give them the things they want most, none of the other parallels you see are likely to make them want to play 4e.
Quote from: MGuy;568606Well at least you don't ask for much. Combat without minis and faster combat resolution are certainly things 4e don't provide but none of these are the parallels I drew to 4E so all you've done is shown you probably don't remember WHAT I said about why 4e is suitable for your tastes.
It doesn't really matter, because it doesn't do those three things, which are pretty high on the list of things veteran gamers look for. Especially in D&D.
Quote from: RandallS;568612They are, however, things many AD&D players (hell, TSR D&D players in general) really want when playing D&D. If 4e does not give them the things they want most, none of the other parallels you see are likely to make them want to play 4e.
Which is why when I made that post I asked how 4E doesn't satisfy. A question that wasn't answered when I asked it and only was answered now when I specifically pointed out that it wasn't answered.
Quote from: MGuy;568606So yes when people don't read what I actually said or engage anything I've actually said YES I get to point out that the assholes did not do so. THat's why when MARLEY said her bullshit I engaged her BULLSHIT just like I'm engaging your BULLSHIT.
What you
actually said was that 4e had everything a fan of AD&D would want out of D&D. You didn't have a whole lot of qualifiers with that statement. Not until after people started laughing at you did you start to backpedal and shift the goal posts.
The fact that you still think that's the case speaks volumes. You obviously have no clue about AD&D, so please stop trying to act like you do.
Quote from: Rum Cove;568609Wait.
How is 4e anywhere close to AD&D?
Here're the crib notes:
People in this thread: Only fighters should ever be able to have hands that touch swords!
4E: Weapon implements to ensure wizards won't be using swords.
People in this thread: I don't want rules for what happens when not in combat! I just want the GM to ass pull numbers after I tell him what I wanna do!
4E: Skill Challenges and freeform skills do exactly that.
People in this thread:I want fighters to only ever swing swords from now until the day he dies!
4E: Martial power source characters only ever get boring abilities that relate to combat.
People in this thread:I only ever want rules that cover what the fighter can do inside of combat! I don't care about having abilities outside of combat because with crafty skill selection I can use mah smarts to do anything!
4E: Most abilities only ever work in combat (utility being an outlier in that) and skill challenges pretty much covers everything else.
People in this thread: Fuck knowing all the rules! Optimizing is for squares.
4E: You don't have to optimize much at all in 4E because combat is just that nonlethal that even the fighter gets to never be replaced at higher levels.
I'm sure given time I could think of more.
If that's what your interpretation is of the hundreds and hundreds of posts people have made, no wonder you're hopelessly confused.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;568617What you actually said was that 4e had everything a fan of AD&D would want out of D&D. You didn't have a whole lot of qualifiers with that statement. Not until after people started laughing at you did you start to backpedal and shift the goal posts.
The fact that you still think that's the case speaks volumes. You obviously have no clue about AD&D, so please stop trying to act like you do.
Ummm the fact that I asked an honest question, showed why I thought it was so, and never got a response as to what it lacked until I pointed out that this was the case is actually very telling about
YOU sacrosanct since you were probably still hanging around when that statement was made. While your bluster filled offense to the idea of 4E providing the things people in this thread have claimed that they like about 2e is funny it still doesn't eliminate that people in this very thread said they like X and 4e nominally provides X. The fact that other things people
WEREN'T bitching about is not provided about 4E wasn't on the list of parallels I made is only because people
WEREN'T bitching about it at that point in the thread.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;568621If that's what your interpretation is of the hundreds and hundreds of posts people have made, no wonder you're hopelessly confused.
I DO have this thing about being able to read and honestly reading people's posts. So I can see how my being able to do that is something you're not used to considering this board's taboo on reading and all.
Quote from: MGuy;568623I DO have this thing about being able to read and honestly reading people's posts. So I can see how my being able to do that is something you're not used to considering this board's taboo on reading and all.
Really? Then read BV's post
on the first page of this thread. Because it's nothing like what you just bitched about. If you could truly read like you say, then why would you paraphrase people's arguments the way you did? The vast majority of people in this thread arguing with you haven't been making those arguments.
You don't have a fucking clue as to what you're talking about. People were/are mocking you because you said something that in bright neon letters said you didn't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
Grow a pair of onions and deal with it.
People in this thread have said that there was nothing wrong with AD&D.
When another company bought the rights to the D&D brand, they created problems (ie, 3e). These problems were then "fixed" by a group of designers that never liked AD&D (ie, 4e).
Quote from: Sacrosanct;568625Really? Then read BV's post on the first page of this thread. Because it's nothing like what you just bitched about. If you could truly read like you say, then why would you paraphrase people's arguments the way you did? The vast majority of people in this thread arguing with you haven't been making those arguments.
You don't have a fucking clue as to what you're talking about. People were/are mocking you because you said something that in bright neon letters said you didn't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
Grow a pair of onions and deal with it.
Well if BV were the only one posting in this thread and there weren't the shit tonne of posts between then and when I made the claim you'd
ABSOLUTELY have a point in bringing that shit up. Since that first post isn't the only damn post in the thread and there were people ACTUALLY making those arguments AS I was pointing out the fighter's flaws (each one of them being a response to me pointing out why the fighter was lacking) I actually feel VERY comfortable in assuming then that's what people like.
Quote from: Rum Cove;568626People in this thread have said that there was nothing wrong with AD&D.
When another company bought the rights to the D&D brand, they created problems (ie, 3e). These problems were then "fixed" by a group of designers that never liked AD&D (ie, 4e).
This is a common misconception. 4E didn't "fix" shit that was wrong with 3e. It cut 3e off and made a different game..
Quote from: MGuy;568627Well if BV were the only one posting in this thread and there weren't the shit tonne of posts between then and when I made the claim you'd ABSOLUTELY have a point in bringing that shit up. Since that first post isn't the only damn post in the thread and there were people ACTUALLY making those arguments AS I was pointing out the fighter's flaws (each one of them being a response to me pointing out why the fighter was lacking) I actually feel VERY comfortable in assuming then that's what people like.
emphasis mine. That's the point dumbass. His was just on the very first page. The vast majority of people were arguing with you over things not even remotely what you paraphrased above.
You honestly were/are trying to say, "These are the arguments people are making, and I'm just replying to them." Newsflash, only a very, very, very small % of the arguments had someone even remotely saying what you said they were. The vast majority were nothing like that. How convenient for you to ignore 90% of what people were actually saying and instead trying to set up strawmen. And by convenient, I mean disingenuous.
Quote from: Rum Cove;568626When another company bought the rights to the D&D brand, they created problems (ie, 3e).
Some, they also created a lot of opportunities with the D&D brand, so the two go hand-in-hand.
Quote from: Rum Cove;568626These problems were then "fixed" by a group of designers that never liked AD&D (ie, 4e).
And tried fruitlessly to put the 3.x genie back in the bottle.
I anxiously await MGuy to use the word "circlejerk" another 10000 times before having another meltdown tissy fit and starts his "translated" crap again.
Pretty ironic coming form a guy who's has constantly complained in this thread about how people aren't willing to have an actual conversation.
Because "circlejerk" and "translated" is conducive to conversation? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sacrosanct;568634Because "circlejerk" and "translated" is conducive to conversation? :rolleyes:
It's not, and specifically concerning the "translation" spamming, he's been directly warned about it by the Pundit.
He'd better not do it again.
Well, this thread moved along quite a bit while I was gone.
Anyway, on Avatar:
Tai Lee has an at will save or lose minus the save. When exactly do fighters have parity?
Aang pre-badass (when he was just an airbender) could fly (with a hanglider... fucking IRONMAN) and when he finished separating himself from the party he could run and blow people (push/trip at range). Oh and he could blow out fires. That sure came in handy often. I'm sure this build would make a great scout, but the only logical response to a Tai Lee is to run.
I'm sorry, but any comparison between Sokka (who could be beat by the Kyoshi Warriors who could be beat by Azula's friends) and a fully realized avatar, the fire lord, or toph (probably the best earth bender in the world by series' end) is kind of flawed.
It's like saying first level fighters are useless next to wizards because Elminster.
Some things are class. Some things are just level.
Quote from: beejazz;568641Well, this thread moved along quite a bit while I was gone.
Anyway, on Avatar:
Tai Lee has an at will save or lose minus the save. When exactly do fighters have parity?
Aang pre-badass (when he was just an airbender) could fly (with a hanglider... fucking IRONMAN) and when he finished separating himself from the party he could run and blow people (push/trip at range). Oh and he could blow out fires. That sure came in handy often. I'm sure this build would make a great scout, but the only logical response to a Tai Lee is to run.
I'm sorry, but any comparison between Sokka (who could be beat by the Kyoshi Warriors who could be beat by Azula's friends) and a fully realized avatar, the fire lord, or toph (probably the best earth bender in the world by series' end) is kind of flawed.
It's like saying first level fighters are useless next to wizards because Elminster.
Some things are class. Some things are just level.
Again Sokka is more limited than he should be. Sometimes he's competent enough to do something (he was able to use his head to block Tai Lee's attacks, other times he's too inept to even beat another guard). However special cases are THE thing for traveling adventurers. Whenever you play a game of DnD I imagine the PCs are "supposed" to be special case scenarios for people so comparing the best in the fiction with what I assume will be the best in game seems to be pretty straight forward as the avatar characters grew over the course of their adventure as do PCs.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;568630emphasis mine. That's the point dumbass. His was just on the very first page. The vast majority of people were arguing with you over things not even remotely what you paraphrased above.
You honestly were/are trying to say, "These are the arguments people are making, and I'm just replying to them." Newsflash, only a very, very, very small % of the arguments had someone even remotely saying what you said they were. The vast majority were nothing like that. How convenient for you to ignore 90% of what people were actually saying and instead trying to set up strawmen. And by convenient, I mean disingenuous.
Soooo me making a point(an off tangent point at that) about what people argued for during the course of the thread is invalidated because the OP didn't want those things? And you go on to say a small percentage of the posts are actually making those claims? Do you know what percentage of the people were making those claims WHEN I made the comment? Do you even remember the fact that you dredged up a comment that is likely about half this long damn thread back? Do you realize that this is a point that you brought up well after its died and that you pointedly stating the fact that it wasn't valid 1000+ posts before I posted it and that its not valid now, about 1000+ posts after, does not make the point I made not valid? It fit the arguments being made at the time and at no point did anyone back off of prior claims that they've made. If you want to go now and make a claim that fighters are ok because in Ad&D you didn't have to use minis and because combat is fast I'd have to ask you how the fuck does that relate to whether or not fighters are trumped by wizards. It doesn't because those weren't the arguments presented when people were bashing any idea that fighters weren't equal to wizards.
Edit: And no Circlejerking translates to having an off tangent, way off topic circular discussion that doesn't go anywhere . But of course Music choice has so much to do with fighters v wizards right?
Quote from: MGuy;568644Again Sokka is more limited than he should be. Sometimes he's competent enough to do something (he was able to use his head to block Tai Lee's attacks, other times he's too inept to even beat another guard). However special cases are THE thing for traveling adventurers. Whenever you play a game of DnD I imagine the PCs are "supposed" to be special case scenarios for people so comparing the best in the fiction with what I assume will be the best in game seems to be pretty straight forward as the avatar characters grew over the course of their adventure as do PCs.
At first level my Avatar based party wouldn't be going directly against someone on Roku or Ozai's level any more than the characters in the show did. PCs in my games gotta earn any special they get. Not that my games are any more relevant than Avatar, given my tendency to play up the mystery and horror elements.
As I said before, Sokka didn't fail to grow because he was a fighter. He failed to grow because to be a good fighter would have introduced killing and bloodshed into a show aimed at kids. There's a reason incapacitators are the most powerful in that show.
Quote from: beejazz;568647At first level my Avatar based party wouldn't be going directly against someone on Roku or Ozai's level any more than the characters in the show did. PCs in my games gotta earn any special they get. Not that my games are any more relevant than Avatar, given my tendency to play up the mystery and horror elements.
As I said before, Sokka didn't fail to grow because he was a fighter. He failed to grow because to be a good fighter would have introduced killing and bloodshed into a show aimed at kids. There's a reason incapacitators are the most powerful in that show.
That's why I'm not centering my focus around Sokka. I think other characters express the point better. If you've seen Legend of Korra Amon's Lieutenant is an excellent character to base the conversation on along with Tai Lee. They are both effective characters who have shown the capacity to take down benders of equal or lower level. However even they can't do much outside of fighting which fighting is what everyone can do. The thing is that this is really telling. Everyone in the avatar verse bender and non bender can fight so fighting isn't something that can be considered unique since everyone does it. So naturally if everyone can contribute roughly evenly in the arena you naturally expect them to do the same in other tasks to some degree. There are of course some hard limits to what other people can do depending on their powers (Only water can heal, only fire can cook your food) but there should be about an even level of fantastic included with all class choices. I may not be able to swim fast or survive the cold with air bending but I can effectively fly and move rapidly with it. Mundane people in the avatar verse can only learn a special anti bending technique (because benders just don't) and that's about all the uniqueness they can get.
Quote from: MGuy;568648Everyone in the avatar verse bender and non bender can fight so fighting isn't something that can be considered unique since everyone does it.
Is that why Aang has that huge sword with him at all times?
Quote from: MGuy;568646Soooo me making a point(an off tangent point at that) about what people argued for during the course of the thread is invalidated because the OP didn't want those things? And you go on to say a small percentage of the posts are actually making those claims? Do you know what percentage of the people were making those claims WHEN I made the comment? Do you even remember the fact that you dredged up a comment that is likely about half this long damn thread back? Do you realize that this is a point that you brought up well after its died and that you pointedly stating the fact that it wasn't valid 1000+ posts before I posted it and that its not valid now, about 1000+ posts after, does not make the point I made not valid? It fit the arguments being made at the time and at no point did anyone back off of prior claims that they've made. If you want to go now and make a claim that fighters are ok because in Ad&D you didn't have to use minis and because combat is fast I'd have to ask you how the fuck does that relate to whether or not fighters are trumped by wizards. It doesn't because those weren't the arguments presented when people were bashing any idea that fighters weren't equal to wizards.
Edit: And no Circlejerking translates to having an off tangent, way off topic circular discussion that doesn't go anywhere . But of course Music choice has so much to do with fighters v wizards right?
I'll make that claim. My claim is that a 10th level fighter with a +2 Strength +3 Composite longbow and +2 arrows, without any bow feats or specs (meaning 2nd or 3rd edition, yes) would probably smoke an equivalently statted 10th level wizard in a normal combat environment (meaning that there's more going on than just a duel between the two). And god only help the poor wizard if the Fighter gets in close to him.
I've never had a problem either feeling like I'm involved or with feeling like I'm making a significant contribution when playing a fighter. Part of it is that I don't think the class balance is broken. Part of it is that I tend to either have a good GM or I'm running and can balance the encounters.
I saw earlier someone say that the game shouldn't allow for unbalance.. that's baloney. Balance is a subjective concept. Even in computer games, the encounters are at least (generally) balanced against the level of the characters or some kind of calculated combat ability. In a tabletop RPG, the onus for balance is ENTIRELY ON THE GM. Noone else has any excuse or responsibility for balance.
If something seems broken, I fix it. I've had plenty of times in the course of playing where something goes on and I pause and say "Hm. I don't like the way that's working. Let's talk about how to change it so it's not so ridiculous." When you present it like that, and if you have any interpersonal skills and a set of players who aren't hiff-and-snorl charop fiends, they generally react well and you can work something out that doesn't seem as off. (I'm thinking specifically about some limitations I put on a Warlock character. Details aren't important.)
But house ruling aside, even in the basic makeup of the encounter the GM has the responsibility for establishing that there's something for the various characters to do, and reasonable threats to them, built into the encounters. Not through some ridiculous CR system, but through knowing the players, their characters, and their relative abilities. You don't throw flying archers at someone every encounter unless they have the ability to combat them every time.
Balance is in the hands of the GM, and it's their responsibility. You can't keep pointing at ANY system and say it's at fault if the players are either being overwhelmed all the time or if you've let one character get too powerful. If that's the case, FIX IT. Is a player too powerful? Blow up their stuff. Is it a class ability? Level Drain is your friend. They're some obnoxious race exploit? Baleful Polymorph. Or just drop an I beam on them and make them start over so you can keep track of them properly this time. I don't understand why the whole thing merits as much discussion as they put into MMO's where people have to petition to the Dev Gods for changes to their characters. Tabletop is much better than all that.
Next we're going to be seeing Damage Per Round spreadsheets coming out.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568653Next we're going to be seeing Damage Per Round spreadsheets coming out.
Oh you have no idea.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568653I'll make that claim. My claim is that a 10th level fighter with a +2 Strength +3 Composite longbow and +2 arrows, without any bow feats or specs (meaning 2nd or 3rd edition, yes) would probably smoke an equivalently statted 10th level wizard in a normal combat environment (meaning that there's more going on than just a duel between the two).
The only response I could get from my inquiries & assertions along this line was something along the lines of the other guys laughing at him for wasting his magic item gp on his non super-focused-optimized build weapon.
In my experience with playing 3E & 4E I repeatedly ran across optimized types that would play a fighter-type that would only own and carry their signature fullblade/spiked chain/whatever weapon-wise and that was it. No knives, no backup weapon, not even a club for skeletons or a reach weapon for ranked fighting, nevermind any decent ranged weaponry,
you'd be lucky if they carried 3 javelins.
I loved it when archers on a balcony or "flying archers" would fuck their shit up, even if I was on the side getting nailed.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568653I'll make that claim. My claim is that a 10th level fighter with a +2 Strength +3 Composite longbow and +2 arrows, without any bow feats or specs (meaning 2nd or 3rd edition, yes) would probably smoke an equivalently statted 10th level wizard in a normal combat environment (meaning that there's more going on than just a duel between the two). And god only help the poor wizard if the Fighter gets in close to him.
I've never had a problem either feeling like I'm involved or with feeling like I'm making a significant contribution when playing a fighter. Part of it is that I don't think the class balance is broken. Part of it is that I tend to either have a good GM or I'm running and can balance the encounters.
I saw earlier someone say that the game shouldn't allow for unbalance.. that's baloney. Balance is a subjective concept. Even in computer games, the encounters are at least (generally) balanced against the level of the characters or some kind of calculated combat ability. In a tabletop RPG, the onus for balance is ENTIRELY ON THE GM. Noone else has any excuse or responsibility for balance.
If something seems broken, I fix it. I've had plenty of times in the course of playing where something goes on and I pause and say "Hm. I don't like the way that's working. Let's talk about how to change it so it's not so ridiculous." When you present it like that, and if you have any interpersonal skills and a set of players who aren't hiff-and-snorl charop fiends, they generally react well and you can work something out that doesn't seem as off. (I'm thinking specifically about some limitations I put on a Warlock character. Details aren't important.)
But house ruling aside, even in the basic makeup of the encounter the GM has the responsibility for establishing that there's something for the various characters to do, and reasonable threats to them, built into the encounters. Not through some ridiculous CR system, but through knowing the players, their characters, and their relative abilities. You don't throw flying archers at someone every encounter unless they have the ability to combat them every time.
Balance is in the hands of the GM, and it's their responsibility. You can't keep pointing at ANY system and say it's at fault if the players are either being overwhelmed all the time or if you've let one character get too powerful. If that's the case, FIX IT. Is a player too powerful? Blow up their stuff. Is it a class ability? Level Drain is your friend. They're some obnoxious race exploit? Baleful Polymorph. Or just drop an I beam on them and make them start over so you can keep track of them properly this time. I don't understand why the whole thing merits as much discussion as they put into MMO's where people have to petition to the Dev Gods for changes to their characters. Tabletop is much better than all that.
Next we're going to be seeing Damage Per Round spreadsheets coming out.
Well firstly while you probably want to exclude 3rd edition from your claim that a fighter stands on even ground with a wizard in a normal combat situation because a straight fighter can't handle higher level encounters in his CR racket in high level play without perhaps being optimized to do so (I say perhaps because if we're talking Core Fighter he's completely screwed) while a wizard operates fine at all CRs. The fact that you bash charOp when the Fighter in 3rd demonstrably needs Optimization just to survive immediately puts your entire post under suspicion. So you may be able to make the claim for 2nd though there've been some arguments against that by people who know 2nd better than I (or at all) that even in 2nd it may not be true.
Second, any argument that depends on the idea that the "GM can fix it" is inherently flawed (see Oberoni Fallacy). What's more is this argument can be used for any system no matter how woefully poorly made it is (RIFTS).
If your contention is that a game can't ever be "completely balanced" so people shouldn't try then you are sadly beyond help.
I think your argument, most likely, is that you can have "fun" no matter what as long as the GM is good. While that is true, the fact that the fighter is not equal to the wizard (at least power scale or versatility wise) at the higher end, is also true no matter how much fun you can have despite this fact. Anyone can have fun playing ANY game but that is no measure of "balance" unless your definition of "balance" is "fun".
Quote from: MGuy;568660Well firstly while you probably want to exclude 3rd edition from your claim that a fighter stands on even ground with a wizard in a normal combat situation because a straight fighter can't handle higher level encounters in his CR racket in high level play without perhaps being optimized to do so (I say perhaps because if we're talking Core Fighter he's completely screwed) while a wizard operates fine at all CRs.
No, I was actually thinking specifically of 3e. An un-optimized fighter could take a wizard at 10th level using exactly what I said.
QuoteThe fact that you bash charOp when the Fighter in 3rd demonstrably needs Optimization just to survive immediately puts your entire post under suspicion. So you may be able to make the claim for 2nd though there've been some arguments against that by people who know 2nd better than I (or at all) that even in 2nd it may not be true.
What suspicion? A suspicion is a pronoun. What do you suspect? And you didn't demonstrate anything in your response, you only said 'No, he gets owned.' Tell me how.
QuoteSecond, any argument that depends on the idea that the "GM can fix it" is inherently flawed (see Oberoni Fallacy). What's more is this argument can be used for any system no matter how woefully poorly made it is (RIFTS).
The Oberoni Fallacy is directed towards functional system design. Such as leaving out rules governing healing then implying that the people who buy the game can add them themselves. I'm talking about playing a game that has all the requisite portions and making adjustments directly based on your experiences. Also, bringing it up is a horrible cop-out of the discussion on your part, but if tossing around pseudo-intellectual slang helps you feel better, more power.
On Rifts... I could tell stories for days about my old Rifts games. There were a couple house rules, but the system stood fine as it was for our purposes. At least as well as D&D in any form does, or any of the % based systems.
The key to it was knowing how to make a mega-damage world believable without being overpowering. The other key was to completely and utterly ignore everything that C.J. Carella ever wrote. But that was the beauty of Rifts Earth. If someone came to me with an RCC from some bullshit sourcebook, I'd just say 'Nah, this is my Rifts Earth, not that one.' So my basis for 'The GM has ultimate responsibility for balancing the game and the encounters' stands in the face of Rifts.
In fact, it's reinforced by it. Rifts has RCC's for Greater Gods. Because they published that RCC, does that mean that anyone can play it? No. The GM decides "Oh, we're playing a game set in Chi Town. You all have to play human characters." It's intrinsic to this statement that he's not going to have the characters attacked by T-Maxi men in the bar after a hard night patrolling the top of the Arco. Rifts is a perfect example of how balance should be the responsibility of the GM, in some cases right down to telling a player what classes they can and can't play.
QuoteIf your contention is that a game can't ever be "completely balanced" so people shouldn't try then you are sadly beyond help.
I didn't ask for help, I was stating my opinion. You see, I think that what we have here is a failure to communicate. You think I'm arguing with you. You think I'm trying to convert you to some position, and that you have to defend and counter. But actually, you're just a vapor person to me, so I really don't care if you like the discussion at all. You don't matter enough to me to be concerned about.
However, I'll continue to humor you and clarify: It's already balanced enough. There are counters to most, if not all the things that can be done, and some of them are at the behest of the GM. So, my 'argument' is that the GM is responsible for ensuring the enjoyment. If all the arguments for balance are white room arguments, then they're invalid, because no combat takes place that way. It's just not possible.
You remind me of the people on ranges who swear by .45 over 9mm. "Braar! Wound Channel! Knockdown Power Blear!" When all that really matters is that you shot them in the face and they fell over. A .22 would work just as well for that. I prefer 5.56 myself, but I carry a 9mm on my hip.
So, I have this question for you then, how do you 'fix' the balance issue? What do you do to make it work so that the Fighter is on par with the Wizard at level... let's say 20.
You're sitting there naysaying and quoting ps-i stuff, let's see the big brain on brad at work.
QuoteI think your argument, most likely, is that you can have "fun" no matter what as long as the GM is good. While that is true, the fact that the fighter is not equal to the wizard (at least power scale or versatility wise) at the higher end, is also true no matter how much fun you can have despite this fact. Anyone can have fun playing ANY game but that is no measure of "balance" unless your definition of "balance" is "fun".
meh. You don't have anything worth responding to in that last bit. My question was in the one before it.
Quote from: MGuy;568648That's why I'm not centering my focus around Sokka. I think other characters express the point better. If you've seen Legend of Korra Amon's Lieutenant is an excellent character to base the conversation on along with Tai Lee. They are both effective characters who have shown the capacity to take down benders of equal or lower level. However even they can't do much outside of fighting which fighting is what everyone can do. The thing is that this is really telling. Everyone in the avatar verse bender and non bender can fight so fighting isn't something that can be considered unique since everyone does it. So naturally if everyone can contribute roughly evenly in the arena you naturally expect them to do the same in other tasks to some degree. There are of course some hard limits to what other people can do depending on their powers (Only water can heal, only fire can cook your food) but there should be about an even level of fantastic included with all class choices. I may not be able to swim fast or survive the cold with air bending but I can effectively fly and move rapidly with it. Mundane people in the avatar verse can only learn a special anti bending technique (because benders just don't) and that's about all the uniqueness they can get.
In a real game, not everyone wants to have class features for putting out fires, cooking food, or scouting. If given the choice, there's plenty of people who would plain opt out of these things. If you look at the airbender vs Tai Lee comparison, players are actually probably as likely to choose one as the other. Which for me is the whole point of parity when it matters (say, when you're not rolling in order and playing it where it lies, which entails an entirely different approach).
And while anyone can learn fighting techniques, that just means we assume maybe a feat system. Zuko was a more competent fighter than typical firebenders, but was nothing special in the bending arena (except for fire breath and redirecting lightning, the latter of which he could barely manage). There's finite training time from the looks of things.
EDIT: Headed to the beach so that may be the last from me for a while.
Quote from: MGuy;568646Soooo me making a point(an off tangent point at that) about what people argued for during the course of the thread is invalidated because the OP didn't want those things? And you go on to say a small percentage of the posts are actually making those claims? Do you know what percentage of the people were making those claims WHEN I made the comment? Do you even remember the fact that you dredged up a comment that is likely about half this long damn thread back? Do you realize that this is a point that you brought up well after its died and that you pointedly stating the fact that it wasn't valid 1000+ posts before I posted it and that its not valid now, about 1000+ posts after, does not make the point I made not valid? It fit the arguments being made at the time and at no point did anyone back off of prior claims that they've made. If you want to go now and make a claim that fighters are ok because in Ad&D you didn't have to use minis and because combat is fast I'd have to ask you how the fuck does that relate to whether or not fighters are trumped by wizards. It doesn't because those weren't the arguments presented when people were bashing any idea that fighters weren't equal to wizards.
Edit: And no Circlejerking translates to having an off tangent, way off topic circular discussion that doesn't go anywhere . But of course Music choice has so much to do with fighters v wizards right?
It's just as relevant as airbending or specifically the avatar universe has to the question.
Quote from: mguy;568660well firstly while you probably want to exclude 3rd edition from your claim that a fighter stands on even ground with a wizard in a normal combat situation because a straight fighter can't handle higher level encounters in his cr racket in high level play without perhaps being optimized to do so (i say perhaps because if we're talking core fighter he's completely screwed) while a wizard operates fine at all crs.
Quote from: panzerkraken;568663no, i was actually thinking specifically of 3e. An un-optimized fighter could take a wizard at 10th level using exactly what i said.
Thunderdome!
:popcorn:
Quote from: CRKrueger;568702Thunderdome!
:popcorn:
I'm all about it. 3.5e PHB for everything, single classes, elite array for stats, and public acceptance that the characters are based on a playable build.
Who run Bartertown?
Quote from: MGuy;568660I think your argument, most likely, is that you can have "fun" no matter what as long as the GM is good. While that is true, the fact that the fighter is not equal to the wizard (at least power scale or versatility wise) at the higher end, is also true no matter how much fun you can have despite this fact. Anyone can have fun playing ANY game but that is no measure of "balance" unless your definition of "balance" is "fun".
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568663meh. You don't have anything worth responding to in that last bit. My question was in the one before it.
Actually I find that bit of MGuy fascinating because the whole argument that promoted this theoretical idea of game balance in 3rd ed's era was revolving around the notion you had to have equal options for people to have fun with the game. So. If balance isn't about "fun", what is it about, really? "Fairness"? "Fairness" ... why? So people people can have "fun"? If not, then why? Etc.
Quote from: Benoist;568711Actually I find that bit of MGuy fascinating because the whole argument that promoted this theoretical idea of game balance in 3rd ed's era was revolving around the notion you had to have equal options for people to have fun with the game. So. If balance isn't about "fun", what is it about, really? "Fairness"? "Fairness" ... why? So people people can have "fun"? If not, then why? Etc.
Good point. It's as though 'balance' is some kind of first cause.
Quote from: panzerkraken;568703i'm all about it. 3.5e phb for everything, single classes, elite array for stats, and public acceptance that the characters are based on a playable build.
who run bartertown?
panzer kraken!
Panzer kraken!
Panzer kraken!
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568573Your sarcasm is literally right. It wouldn't be fun. Retreating isn't fun because it's not engaging with the game in a meaningful way. Or rather, retreating for no reason but that the DM decided to dick over your underpowered class with a tactically asymmetrical encounter.
Random encounter?
Pre-existing world element?
Entitled attitude expectations...
Random encounters are both annoying and nonsensical. Does a party of monsters simply spring into existence to challenge the PCs? Plus there's a good chance of making it needlessly difficult or so easy it's a waste of time. People have been trying to get rid of random encounters in video-RPGs for twenty years, and in those you at least have a computer doing all the math. Why the hell would I put them in my tabletop game where I have to do all the math myself?
If it's a preexisting world element then the players will presumably know about it and can prepare accordingly. I'm talking about springing an asymetrical encounter on your PCs.
Random encounters are nonsensical? A player should never be annoyed?
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568720Random encounters are both annoying and nonsensical. Does a party of monsters simply spring into existence to challenge the PCs? Plus there's a good chance of making it needlessly difficult or so easy it's a waste of time. People have been trying to get rid of random encounters in video-RPGs for twenty years, and in those you at least have a computer doing all the math. Why the hell would I put them in my tabletop game where I have to do all the math myself?
If it's a preexisting world element then the players will presumably know about it and can prepare accordingly. I'm talking about springing an asymetrical encounter on your PCs.
But without both of the those elements you go from a living breathing setting/environment to a bunch of set pieces like a boardgame.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568720Random encounters are both annoying and nonsensical. Does a party of monsters simply spring into existence to challenge the PCs? Plus there's a good chance of making it needlessly difficult or so easy it's a waste of time. People have been trying to get rid of random encounters in video-RPGs for twenty years, and in those you at least have a computer doing all the math. Why the hell would I put them in my tabletop game where I have to do all the math myself?
If it's a preexisting world element then the players will presumably know about it and can prepare accordingly. I'm talking about springing an asymetrical encounter on your PCs.
The idea is to add some believability and excitement to the setting. Random stuff happens and you cant always be fully prepared. Every group has slitly different expectations and every setting is different so a variety of tables can be handy.
I've done both planned encounters (in the style of ravenloft 2e where all encounters are pretty much pre planned) and I have done random. These days I dont have fun as a gm doing all planned encounters, i really prefer random encounter tables at this point. As i player i prefer it too.
Also, not every random encounter has to result in combat.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568703I'm all about it. 3.5e PHB for everything, single classes, elite array for stats, and public acceptance that the characters are based on a playable build.
Who run Bartertown?
What constitutes a "playable" build?
Quote from: Marleycat;568691It's just as relevant as airbending or specifically the avatar universe has to the question.
Fighter analogue in Avatar universe says something directly relating to the issues brought up in this conversation about the disparity between Fighters and Wizards. I can draw several lines connecting that to this conversation without having to play 6 degrees to connect music to the topic.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568663No, I was actually thinking specifically of 3e. An un-optimized fighter could take a wizard at 10th level using exactly what I said.
What suspicion? A suspicion is a pronoun. What do you suspect? And you didn't demonstrate anything in your response, you only said 'No, he gets owned.' Tell me how.
I'll show you in this "Thunderdome" thing, just lay out the ground rules.
QuoteThe Oberoni Fallacy is directed towards functional system design. Such as leaving out rules governing healing then implying that the people who buy the game can add them themselves. I'm talking about playing a game that has all the requisite portions and making adjustments directly based on your experiences. Also, bringing it up is a horrible cop-out of the discussion on your part, but if tossing around pseudo-intellectual slang helps you feel better, more power.
You literally said "if there's a problem the GM can fix it" that is Oberoni Fallacy. If a class, in general, regularly performs too well (wizard) or too badly (fighter) such that you need to rule 0 it to hell and back to keep things on the rails then that is an indication that something is off.
QuoteI didn't ask for help, I was stating my opinion. You see, I think that what we have here is a failure to communicate. You think I'm arguing with you. You think I'm trying to convert you to some position, and that you have to defend and counter. But actually, you're just a vapor person to me, so I really don't care if you like the discussion at all. You don't matter enough to me to be concerned about.
However, I'll continue to humor you and clarify: It's already balanced enough. There are counters to most, if not all the things that can be done, and some of them are at the behest of the GM. So, my 'argument' is that the GM is responsible for ensuring the enjoyment. If all the arguments for balance are white room arguments, then they're invalid, because no combat takes place that way. It's just not possible.
I know your argument is for enjoyment. I literally said just that about you. I already have you pegged. "Balance" in terms of relative power and versatility in game aren't important to someone like you only "fun" is because for someone like you the other things don't matter. Now while that's an "interesting" take on game balance "fun" can be had in any game and by that reasoning any game can be fun. That is not something I'm arguing against nor is it something worth arguing about. Actual game balance is arguable and actual game balance is something that can be "Fixed" in a reasonable fashion.
QuoteSo, I have this question for you then, how do you 'fix' the balance issue? What do you do to make it work so that the Fighter is on par with the Wizard at level... let's say 20.
You're sitting there naysaying and quoting ps-i stuff, let's see the big brain on brad at work.
Well skipping the stuff about guns or whatever (don't know how that applies to me) I actually delivered my preference several times earlier in this thread. You simply give the fighter an arguably even amount of fantastic, intrinsic to the class, as your wizard, druids, cleric. A wizard can bend the universe to their will, a cleric can call forth the might of their gods, druids can bring forth the full power of nature, fighters get whirlwind attack and can swing a sword at like 2 dudes in one turn. That's the disparity we're talking about. During the course of this conversation I've found people balk too hard at actually giving the fighter anything so first I would get rid of the fighter class but if forced to keep it I would either give the fighter superpowers or batman him up and allow him to get a selection of magic items by virtue of being a fighter. However people in this very thread have poo pooed both solutions because giving the fighter superpowers when he's on the same team as other people with superpowers is apparently heresy and having him just "get" magic items specifically FOR being a fighter is bad for some undetermined reason as well.
Quote from: MGuy;568736I'll show you in this "Thunderdome" thing, just lay out the ground rules.
Put up or shut up.
Kaelik was all talk and no action, which left Spike and the rest of us very disappointed, don't be like Kaelik. Will you be the one to redeem the Denners?
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568720Random encounters are both annoying and nonsensical. Does a party of monsters simply spring into existence to challenge the PCs?
No, dipshit, they were 'wandering' through the area. Get it? Wandering monsters? It's random because the DM can't keep track of several million creatures on a game world, their locations and their motivations all at once. Hence, the party will 'encounter' them 'randomly'. Random Encounters. Do you know exactly who will be there when you go to the grocery store? It's seems like a random assortment of people, doesn't it? That's because for all intents and purposes,
it is. There is no way to predict or plan where a paltry hundred people are going to be over the course of one day, so how do you expect one would do so with several millions or tens of millions over the course of several years? I suppose the DM should just place static encounters and have you believe they were just sitting there for umpteen years waiting for your party to show up.
QuotePlus there's a good chance of making it needlessly difficult or so easy it's a waste of time.
Sure, if you are a shitty DM.
QuotePeople have been trying to get rid of random encounters in video-RPGs for twenty years, and in those you at least have a computer doing all the math. Why the hell would I put them in my tabletop game where I have to do all the math myself?
And CRPGs have gotten more and more boring, until they are no longer much of a category;
Skyrim is more of a first person shooter than an RPG.
QuoteIf it's a preexisting world element then the players will presumably know about it and can prepare accordingly. I'm talking about springing an asymetrical encounter on your PCs.
Guess what? The world isn't full of neat little packages of winnable contests. Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you. That's just how it works. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrhRzxoFH-4) Do you know ahead of time when your tire will blow out, or the train is going to be late? Those are 'pre-existing*' world elements, you just don't know when they will happen. You know... random.
And sometimes they will be wildly asymmetrical. That's when you grab your shit and run away. Your first level party stumbling onto four ogres and a dozen orcs isn't your fault, but trying to fight them to the last is.
*
I hate "pre-existing". It's not a word, stop using corporate-speak. To what, exactly, would it be existing before? Use 'extant' like the grownups, or just 'existing'. That is the meaning you are looking for.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568720Random encounters are both annoying and nonsensical. Does a party of monsters simply spring into existence to challenge the PCs?
That alone tells me you've never played a proper D&D game.
Quote from: jeff37923;568737Put up or shut up.
Kaelik was all talk and no action, which left Spike and the rest of us very disappointed, don't be like Kaelik. Will you be the one to redeem the Denners?
I don't like Kaelik and I'm not going to "redeem" anyone. I need to know what the ground rules are before I can participate in anything though.If this is another one of those "Your wizard spawns next to the fighter with no equipment, running buffs, final destination" encounters people have cooked up on here then I'm going to opt out.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568573Your sarcasm is literally right. It wouldn't be fun. Retreating isn't fun because it's not engaging with the game in a meaningful way. Or rather, retreating for no reason but that the DM decided to dick over your underpowered class with a tactically asymmetrical encounter. A retreat can be made fun, but it depends on the context.
Plus, a party with a marginally competent Wizard in 3E and to a lesser extent in AD&D wouldn't have to retreat just because the Fighter didn't have any ranged ability. The problem is that the fighter wouldn't be able to do anything while the ranger and wizard blasted the archers.
:rotfl:
Poor helpless little fighter.
Pro tip: If you are not on your first adventure, then you should be able to afford a decent bow and arrows, a crossbow, or perhaps some javelins.
If you don't feel like equipping yourself for more than one possible situation (everything will run up to you and melee) then you can always just die like a good little soldier and justify it by saying that you were roleplaying your low INT score.
Quote from: MGuy;568732Fighter analogue in Avatar universe says something directly relating to the issues brought up in this conversation about the disparity between Fighters and Wizards. I can draw several lines connecting that to this conversation without having to play 6 degrees to connect music to the topic.
If you insist it's related it's all good with me. Though to me it's just like insisting WoT D20 is the baseline Dnd experience.
Quote from: MGuy;568731What constitutes a "playable" build?
Ground rules then, itemized:
Stats are 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 place to suit.
Hit points to be rolled by the adjudicator or someone who can show a verified source (I don't play PbP games, so idk what a verifiable source is, but there's some around.)
Everything comes only from the 3.5 PHB and DMG with all errata at the point of last printing. All class and feats as presented in the book, no house rules or common adjustments.
Single class characters only. You = Wizard, Me = Fighter
Level is 10. Experience is 45,001.
Player wealth from the DMG for starting characters at the given level. That means 49,000gp
You receive the baseline spells in your book from the wizard class as well as the automatic 2 spells that you have access to at the point when you level up, per level. If you want more, you can buy them with starting gold. Per the DMG it costs 20g x Spell Level x Caster level (pg 198 and 107 of the DMG). It's fair to assume you can find someone of the absolute minimum caster level for a given spell.
I have to buy anything that I want to have, obviously, with the same starting money. Included in my equipment will be a +2 Composite +3 Strength Longbow and +2 arrows. Archery will NOT be the defined focus of my character's feats.
The builds and magic item purchases are reviewed for being 'playable' by the adjudicator. Playable means that it's not a one shot pony. The character could reasonably be said to be an adventurer, and their selection of feats and skills represents someone who would actually be a functioning member of a party.
If you have any additions?
Edit: It's almost midnight here and I've been up since 4. Expect me back in about 6 hours, don't get too impatient.
Quote from: MGuy;568749I don't like Kaelik and I'm not going to "redeem" anyone. I need to know what the ground rules are before I can participate in anything though.If this is another one of those "Your wizard spawns next to the fighter with no equipment, running buffs, final destination" encounters people have cooked up on here then I'm going to opt out.
The thunderdome hasn't actually been put into practice to my knowledge. Basic idea is both parties identify a neutral person to function as GM, they hash out the ground rules and then play by post the scenario. The specifics are going to largely depend on what you are trying to achieve. Multiple run throughs with each party swapping sides (if sides are important) is probaboy a good idea as well.
The concept of a random encounter is to try and emulate a living world.
In the area the PCs will be in, what things live there, and in what quantities?
If the PCs go through this area, what are the chances that they could run into something that lives there?
If you are told don't go into the forest because there's a giant in there, you don't ignore the warning freely because you're not high enough level to encounter a giant yet, since that would be unfair.
Such a decision is 100% metagame and part-and-parcel of WotC D&D flavors.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;568750:rotfl:
Poor helpless little fighter.
Pro tip: If you are not on your first adventure, then you should be able to afford a decent bow and arrows, a crossbow, or perhaps some javelins.
If you don't feel like equipping yourself for more than one possible situation (everything will run up to you and melee) then you can always just die like a good little soldier and justify it by saying that you were roleplaying your low INT score.
These jackholes seem to possess some sort of gaping mental block when it comes to the above subject.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568573Your sarcasm is literally right. It wouldn't be fun. Retreating isn't fun because it's not engaging with the game in a meaningful way. Or rather, retreating for no reason but that the DM decided to dick over your underpowered class with a tactically asymmetrical encounter. A retreat can be made fun, but it depends on the context.
Discarding the bit about the fighter without ranged weapons, I think that first part is telling as well, in terms of mindset.
Quote from: Planet Algol;568774These jackholes seem to possess some sort of gaping mental block when it comes to the above subject.
OK, using the 3.5 WBL, show us how a Fighter can have level-appropriate melee and ranged equipment from level 1 to level... let's call it level 12, so that people start to notice the difficulties in game.
I doubt a +1 bow and a quiver of +1 arrows is going to break the bank in 3.5.
Quote from: Benoist;568776Discarding the bit about the fighter without ranged weapons, I think that first part is telling as well, in terms of mindset.
Every fight must be won...
Quote from: omegonthesane;568778OK, using the 3.5 WBL, show us how a Fighter can have level-appropriate melee and ranged equipment from level 1 to level... let's call it level 12, so that people start to notice the difficulties in game.
Your first mistake is referring to 3.5 WBL. Can that shit along with the rest of the munchkin rules. Play proper D&D with a fighting man that is actually good at fighting, and equip him with an assortment of weapons.
Level-appropriate can suck my cock. The concept, and the rules that support it make weenies like you cry because you can't have maximum plusses in everything. So you pick one trick, specialize, and cry foul when the situation doesn't revolve around your specialty.
Hey, I put all my feats and gear into 2H sword, you can't attack us with flying monkey archers, I feel deprotagonized!! :rolleyes:
WOTC era D&D has made me weep for our hobby. Like my man Edgar Friendly, I have SEEN the future of D&D.
Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".
Quote from: StormBringer;568743No, dipshit, they were 'wandering' through the area. Get it? Wandering monsters? It's random because the DM can't keep track of several million creatures on a game world, their locations and their motivations all at once. Hence, the party will 'encounter' them 'randomly'. Random Encounters. Do you know exactly who will be there when you go to the grocery store? It's seems like a random assortment of people, doesn't it? That's because for all intents and purposes, it is.
Dipshit! Classy. Point of fact: random encounters are rolled with dice. That makes them actually random. Randomness can be fairly nonsensical. And, well, randomness can be great in some instances, but if you have a tactically impossible encounter come up on the dice then your party is boned--unless they retreat, which may or may not be possible. Moreover, just from a flavor standpoint, random encounters are meaningless. They have no dramatic weight within the game world and are often just pointless busywork that takes up valuable time that could be spent in actual dungeons or on actual quests. Yes, this is less of a problem in older editions where combat is shorter.
I suppose random encounters can be used well; the problem is, there's nothing, in my experience, that a random encounter can do that a solid, thought out encounter can't do better.
QuoteAnd CRPGs have gotten more and more boring, until they are no longer much of a category; Skyrim is more of a first person shooter than an RPG.
Xenoblade Chronicles is a fantastic RPG with plenty of challenge, and not a random encounter one. Dismissing a genre/medium because one particularly popular game doesn't suit your tastes is just stupid.
QuoteGuess what? The world isn't full of neat little packages of winnable contests. Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you. That's just how it works. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrhRzxoFH-4) Do you know ahead of time when your tire will blow out, or the train is going to be late? Those are 'pre-existing*' world elements, you just don't know when they will happen. You know... random.
What does this have to do with anything? I deal with enough bullshit in real life. When I play (or run) a game, I prefer not to have thirty minutes of fun in the course of four hours.
QuoteAnd sometimes they will be wildly asymmetrical. That's when you grab your shit and run away. Your first level party stumbling onto four ogres and a dozen orcs isn't your fault, but trying to fight them to the last is.
Again, retreating is an option, but why would I throw an encounter like that at my players? That just wastes a bunch of goddamn time that they could interacting with NPCs or looting dungeons or building a stronghold out of oversize ice cubes. It adds nothing to the game but a fleeting 'oh shit!' moment that can be just as easily created in other ways.
Caveat: If your party digs that stuff, then sure, have fun with that. But that should not be something expected, something the rules encourage. Unless you have the retreat itself be a challenge, then retreat isn't fun.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;568750:rotfl:
Poor helpless little fighter.
Pro tip: If you are not on your first adventure, then you should be able to afford a decent bow and arrows, a crossbow, or perhaps some javelins.
"You should bring appropriate weapons" is a fair point. If a player fails to, however, through oversight or unfamiliarity with the game, then the player is probably going to sit there board and start texting or browsing the web.... or...
QuoteIf you don't feel like equipping yourself for more than one possible situation (everything will run up to you and melee) then you can always just die like a good little soldier and justify it by saying that you were roleplaying your low INT score.
...you could just be a complete asshole, like you were back at RPG.net. Hey there, 'splody. :rolleyes:
----
My point is simply this: if you want your players to stay engaged, then everyone needs to be able to contribute something to the game. Third edition is damn terrible because most classes can't. Even in the "Advanced" branches, there's still a basic imbalance in the class structure that can make certain combat encounters or non-combat challenges a joyless affair for people who have picked the 'wrong' class. That's why balance is an important thing to get right in the core rules and have the asymmetrical fights or 'fantasy Vietnam' style games an optional rule.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;568820Hey, I put all my feats and gear into 2H sword, you can't attack us with flying monkey archers, I feel deprotagonized!! :rolleyes:
I said it before in this thread but when I played 3E I absolutely
loved it when that situation arose.
"Just quit flouncing and shoot them with your bow"
"But... I don't have a bow."
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568828"You should bring appropriate weapons" is a fair point. If a player fails to, however, through oversight or unfamiliarity with the game, then the player is probably going to sit there board and start texting or browsing the web.... or...
Or they could pay attention and learn from their mistake.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568828Moreover, just from a flavor standpoint, random encounters are meaningless. They have no dramatic weight within the game world...
Oh fuck. Wieners, complete dead-imagination wieners.
Jesus, doesn't anyone have any fire or acid attacks?
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568828Point of fact: random encounters are rolled with dice. That makes them actually random. Randomness can be fairly nonsensical. And, well, randomness can be great in some instances, but if you have a tactically impossible encounter come up on the dice then your party is boned--unless they retreat, which may or may not be possible. Moreover, just from a flavor standpoint, random encounters are meaningless. They have no dramatic weight within the game world and are often just pointless busywork that takes up valuable time that could be spent in actual dungeons or on actual quests. Yes, this is less of a problem in older editions where combat is shorter.
I suppose random encounters can be used well; the problem is, there's nothing, in my experience, that a random encounter can do that a solid, thought out encounter can't do better.
"Random" encounters do not mean just any old thing off a table with no context or meaning. The random possibilities in a given area will be given thought by the DM who creates the table and the chances for such encounters.
4 out of 6 encounters on the King's road might be with traveling merchants, pilgrims, lost circus performers, etc. A random encounter does not always only equal a meaningless fight. As far as "dramatic weight" is concerned, I play to roleplay, not storywank. A traveler might have useful information and be worth interacting with.
One thing random encounters bring to the table is a slice of the unknown for the DM. The DM is a person too and likes the occasional suprise as much as the next person.
Your hatred of random encounter sounds like you have a very narrow understanding of what they can possibly be. Open your mind.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568828What does this have to do with anything? I deal with enough bullshit in real life. When I play (or run) a game, I prefer not to have thirty minutes of fun in the course of four hours.
Some people find actual adversity in a roleplaying adventure game to be a challenging part of the fun.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568828Again, retreating is an option, but why would I throw an encounter like that at my players? That just wastes a bunch of goddamn time that they could interacting with NPCs or looting dungeons or building a stronghold out of oversize ice cubes. It adds nothing to the game but a fleeting 'oh shit!' moment that can be just as easily created in other ways.
Caveat: If your party digs that stuff, then sure, have fun with that. But that should not be something expected, something the rules encourage. Unless you have the retreat itself be a challenge, then retreat isn't fun.
First of all, an encounter like that isn't something "thrown" at the players like a snowball. Certain entities exist, and the players may interact with them in various ways. Not all of these encounters will be violent, and some may be downright lethal to PCs stirring up shit without paying attention to their surroundings.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568828"You should bring appropriate weapons" is a fair point. If a player fails to, however, through oversight or unfamiliarity with the game, then the player is probably going to sit there board and start texting or browsing the web.... or...
....or not get invited back for being so disrepectful to the other players.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568828...you could just be a complete asshole, like you were back at RPG.net. Hey there, 'splody. :rolleyes.
If this is a continuing problem and not just a one time incident then it sounds like a failure to engage in or pay attention to the game rather than the DM not running the "correct" encounters.
Either the player isn't that thrilled to be there in the first place or the DM is boring him/her to tears with strings of expected level-appropriate encounters
.....asshole.
----
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568828My point is simply this: if you want your players to stay engaged, then everyone needs to be able to contribute something to the game. Third edition is damn terrible because most classes can't. Even in the "Advanced" branches, there's still a basic imbalance in the class structure that can make certain combat encounters or non-combat challenges a joyless affair for people who have picked the 'wrong' class. That's why balance is an important thing to get right in the core rules and have the asymmetrical fights or 'fantasy Vietnam' style games an optional rule.
Or perhaps you could encourage players to engage the game world instead of the RAW via their characters . That did the trick for close to 30 years before WOTC cranked out a turd and slapped D&D on it.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568828Dipshit! Classy. Point of fact: random encounters are rolled with dice. That makes them actually random. Randomness can be fairly nonsensical.
No more or less so than your vaunted 'placed encounters', if the DM isn't totally worthless.
QuoteAnd, well, randomness can be great in some instances, but if you have a tactically impossible encounter come up on the dice then your party is boned--unless they retreat, which may or may not be possible.
Yes, denied a chance to be an imaginary super-badass. How do you afford the therapy sessions?
QuoteMoreover, just from a flavor standpoint, random encounters are meaningless. They have no dramatic weight within the game world and are often just pointless busywork that takes up valuable time that could be spent in actual dungeons or on actual quests. Yes, this is less of a problem in older editions where combat is shorter.
Random encounters are conflict and conflict is drama, so how can they have no 'dramatic weight'?
And yes, they are resource sinks. That is why the decision to avoid or engage is so important. Unless you are playing the special snowflake editions.
QuoteI suppose random encounters can be used well; the problem is, there's nothing, in my experience, that a random encounter can do that a solid, thought out encounter can't do better.
Except 'be random'. You know, something the DM and players aren't expecting? The results of which can often be surprising for both. Set encounters are little more than side-quests ("Kill all the goblins in Darkwood, and I will give you the map"), while random encounters will genuinely challenge the players. I understand that many current players don't like to be challenged, though.
QuoteXenoblade Chronicles is a fantastic RPG with plenty of challenge, and not a random encounter one. Dismissing a genre/medium because one particularly popular game doesn't suit your tastes is just stupid.
I provided an example because it was illustrative of the genre as a whole. One counter example doesn't negate an argument; according to IGN: "One of the Wii's first and last epic JRPGs is the best thing to emerge from this troubled genre in the past five years (http://www.ign.com/games/xenoblade-chronicles/wii-14354769)." Taking out things like random encounters removes an element that makes it an RPG. It's a 'troubled genre' because, like table-top designers, CRPG designers are trying to 'fix' things without understanding what they do in the first place. Dancing from mission to mission isn't an RPG, it's a rail shooter.
QuoteWhat does this have to do with anything? I deal with enough bullshit in real life. When I play (or run) a game, I prefer not to have thirty minutes of fun in the course of four hours.
Then stop buying into the utter bullshit hype game companies are selling. There was never a time things were 'thirty minutes of fun packed into four hours'. The only people that holds true for are whiny entitlement wanks that act like they have ADHD and can't stand being out of the 'spotlight' for more than 30secs.
Also, stop gaming with shitty players.
QuoteAgain, retreating is an option, but why would I throw an encounter like that at my players? That just wastes a bunch of goddamn time that they could interacting with NPCs or looting dungeons or building a stronghold out of oversize ice cubes. It adds nothing to the game but a fleeting 'oh shit!' moment that can be just as easily created in other ways.
Oddly, these random encounters could be the opportunity to interact with NPCs. They aren't called 'random combats', they are called 'random encounters'. That means you can talk to them, attack them, avoid them, or any of another million or so options. They only seem like 'random combats' because you have been trained to think like that by playing a shitty version of D&D written by people who didn't much like D&D.
QuoteCaveat: If your party digs that stuff, then sure, have fun with that. But that should not be something expected, something the rules encourage. Unless you have the retreat itself be a challenge, then retreat isn't fun.
Retreat isn't fun
for you. Because it means you have to spend five minutes or so not getting your proxy id stroked. Part of the reason to have these things hard coded is to winnow the shitty players so the good players don't have to deal with them.
Skyrim, which I understand was quite successful, has random encounters.
Quote from: Planet Algol;568852Skyrim, which I understand was quite successful, has random encounters.
There's a lot of talk about it these days. Some people seem to think that Bethesda Software (they're involved in the production) might be looking at doing some other games.
Quote from: Planet Algol;568852Skyrim, which I understand was quite successful, has random encounters.
I have only watched it being played. I wasn't entirely sure if the encounters are actually 'random' or if they are simply triggered by the player.
Quote from: StormBringer;568872I have only watched it being played. I wasn't entirely sure if the encounters are actually 'random' or if they are simply triggered by the player.
As far as I know, there's both triggered and random encounters, of both the combat and "scripted encounter" kind. And when you play you end up sticking to the roads to avoid being dogpiled by monster encounters.
Same with the Fallout 3 games; playing Fallout 3 at High Level was pretty awesome because there would be all these crazy random encounters happening in the wasteland around you with dudes desperately lasering gigantic scorpions in the nightime distance and the like.
Quote from: StormBringer;568872I have only watched it being played. I wasn't entirely sure if the encounters are actually 'random' or if they are simply triggered by the player.
There's some kind of algorithm that gets run when you come near a site in it, and there's a chance that there'll be a hostile creature near any given site. It's kind of like a sandbox game of D&D... the game tracks what's going on at the couple sites near you, but doesn't generate everything in the whole world the entire time.
Quote from: StormBringer;568849No more or less so than your vaunted 'placed encounters', if the DM isn't totally worthless.
New DMs generally are, and New DMs are the ones who need the most help and guidance. "Don't be a dick to your players" is something DMs need to learn early.
QuoteRandom encounters are conflict and conflict is drama, so how can they have no 'dramatic weight'?
Have you never seen a bad action movie that is fight after fight after fight? It becomes monotonous when there are a bunch of fights that mean nothing and don't challenge the hero (or players).
QuoteAnd yes, they are resource sinks. That is why the decision to avoid or engage is so important. Unless you are playing the special snowflake editions.
Ah yes, the 'Special Snowflake' argument, the refuge of bigger grognards across the web who can't comprehend the idea that players might actually want to
do something in their tabletop game. Grow up and try again.
QuoteExcept 'be random'. You know, something the DM and players aren't expecting? The results of which can often be surprising for both. Set encounters are little more than side-quests ("Kill all the goblins in Darkwood, and I will give you the map"), while random encounters will genuinely challenge the players. I understand that many current players don't like to be challenged, though.
Your reading comprehension is pretty awful. Overwhelmingly unbalanced encounters are not a challenge. They're either a boring binary choice (engage or retreat?) or a total party kill, depending on whether there's an avenue for retreat. To have a challenge, you need to have both a possibility of success and a possibility of failure. It's extremely difficult to get that together randomly, especially in some editions where there is no relaible way to compare the strength of a particular fight.
QuoteI provided an example because it was illustrative of the genre as a whole. One counter example doesn't negate an argument; according to IGN: "One of the Wii's first and last epic JRPGs is the best thing to emerge from this troubled genre in the past five years (http://www.ign.com/games/xenoblade-chronicles/wii-14354769)." Taking out things like random encounters removes an element that makes it an RPG. It's a 'troubled genre' because, like table-top designers, CRPG designers are trying to 'fix' things without understanding what they do in the first place. Dancing from mission to mission isn't an RPG, it's a rail shooter.
You don't understand a thing about game design if you honestly believe this.
QuoteThen stop buying into the utter bullshit hype game companies are selling. There was never a time things were 'thirty minutes of fun packed into four hours'. The only people that holds true for are whiny entitlement wanks that act like they have ADHD and can't stand being out of the 'spotlight' for more than 30secs.
Huh, so having to sit out the rest of the night because your character died in round one of a random encounter against an ogre batallion shouldn't bother you at all? You really can't understand why a strong possibility of being completely shut out by your DM's stupidity or shitty rules is not how we should default to running games?
QuoteAlso, stop gaming with shitty players.
I don't.
QuoteOddly, these random encounters could be the opportunity to interact with NPCs. They aren't called 'random combats', they are called 'random encounters'. That means you can talk to them, attack them, avoid them, or any of another million or so options. They only seem like 'random combats' because you have been trained to think like that by playing a shitty version of D&D written by people who didn't much like D&D.
Don't change the subject. I don't object to random encounters with NPCs. We were discussing the tendency of random monster encounters to be a shit mechanic in nearly every game they appear in. Unless, of course, you're an elitist fuck who likes to 'winnow' players who feel that working all week is enough 'earning their fun' and want their games to just be fun.
QuoteRetreat isn't fun for you. Because it means you have to spend five minutes or so not getting your proxy id stroked. Part of the reason to have these things hard coded is to winnow the shitty players so the good players don't have to deal with them.
My proxy id doesn't need stroking. Hell, I want to be pushed to the bring of near defeat in a fight. I'm eager for the DM to go all out on us. But when the basic rules are unbalanced, the DM can't. He has to pull punches or bend the rules.
Plus, I find it pretty hilarious that you think I'm the one who needs my ego stroked. Listen to yourself: players who just want to throw dice and have fun are the whiny entitled bad players who need their egos stroked--but you're the one who seems to think that enduring shitty mechanics and excessive periods of downtime because an ogre pasted you makes you a better, more legitimate gamer. It doesn't, it just makes you a pretentious ass who bases his self-worth on how he plays RPGs.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568892Hell, I want to be pushed to the bring of near defeat in a fight. I'm eager for the DM to go all out on us. But when the basic rules are unbalanced, the DM can't. He has to pull punches or bend the rules.
So.. you're saying that you want to fight Elder Red Dragons at 1st level? Or Gods?
The GM is always 'pulling punches'.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568894So.. you're saying that you want to fight Elder Red Dragons at 1st level? Or Gods?
The GM is always 'pulling punches'.
Well, yeah, on that level certainly. I meant in the sense of changing the behavior or stats of monsters ad hoc because the players had bad luck or the level math was bad. (Hello there, 3E CR)
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568899...I meant in the sense of changing the behavior or stats of monsters ad hoc because the players had bad luck...
But than why roll dice to determine results?
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568892New DMs generally are, and New DMs are the ones who need the most help and guidance. "Don't be a dick to your players" is something DMs need to learn early.
Yeah, because putting in set encounter pieces is soooo much easier than consulting a wandering monster table.
QuoteHave you never seen a bad action movie that is fight after fight after fight? It becomes monotonous when there are a bunch of fights that mean nothing and don't challenge the hero (or players).
Have you ever played with a shitty DM that has a random encounter every five minutes that ends up being fight after fight...
Oh, I guess you have.
QuoteAh yes, the 'Special Snowflake' argument, the refuge of bigger grognards across the web who can't comprehend the idea that players might actually want to do something in their tabletop game. Grow up and try again.
Then stop being a shitty player and actually
do something in your tabletop game instead of waiting for the next 'set encounter' to interface your character sheet with the rule books.
QuoteYour reading comprehension is pretty awful. Overwhelmingly unbalanced encounters are not a challenge.
On the contrary. They can be a highly enjoyable challenge. They simply aren't fun for people who are accustomed to getting a trophy for just showing up.
QuoteThey're either a boring binary choice (engage or retreat?) or a total party kill, depending on whether there's an avenue for retreat. To have a challenge, you need to have both a possibility of success and a possibility of failure. It's extremely difficult to get that together randomly, especially in some editions where there is no relaible way to compare the strength of a particular fight.
Only from the viewpoint of a shitty player who has no idea how to DM properly.
QuoteYou don't understand a thing about game design if you honestly believe this.
I have forgotten more about game design than you will ever know. Wandering monsters didn't seem to be a problem for three decades, until whiny entitlement players came along and demanded to win every encounter.
QuoteHuh, so having to sit out the rest of the night because your character died in round one of a random encounter against an ogre batallion shouldn't bother you at all? You really can't understand why a strong possibility of being completely shut out by your DM's stupidity or shitty rules is not how we should default to running games?
What are you, Blackleaf or something? You are asked to leave the gaming area if your character dies, with no possibility of rolling up a new one? It's not 'shitty rules' that are the problem, it's shitty players. Like you just admitted with your 'DM's stupidity' whinge.
QuoteI don't.
Clearly, you do. Shitty players are generally the only ones that complain about this kind of thing.
QuoteDon't change the subject. I don't object to random encounters with NPCs. We were discussing the tendency of random monster encounters to be a shit mechanic in nearly every game they appear in.
There is zero difference between 'random encounters' and 'random NPC encounters', excepting that the latter is a subset of the former.
And you still fail to understand that 'random encounter' is not 'random combat'.
QuoteUnless, of course, you're an elitist fuck who likes to 'winnow' players who feel that working all week is enough 'earning their fun' and want their games to just be fun.
Unlike the softball leagues, where they just rotate who wins every week. Or painting miniatures, where a solid colour is better than detail. Or... hell, or any other hobby or activity. You know, you have to put some work into it getting better, which increases enjoyment. Except RPGs; those you don't actually have to put any work into your enjoyment because special snowflake.
You know what happens to people in other group activities that ditch practice, perform like shit, then whine about how the game has shitty rules? They get kicked the fuck out. You know who argues for them to stay in the group? Absolutely fucking no one.
QuoteMy proxy id doesn't need stroking. Hell, I want to be pushed to the bring of near defeat in a fight. I'm eager for the DM to go all out on us. But when the basic rules are unbalanced, the DM can't. He has to pull punches or bend the rules.
Except when the opportunity presents itself through a wandering monster. Then you have a hissy fit about the DM being a dick.
QuotePlus, I find it pretty hilarious that you think I'm the one who needs my ego stroked. Listen to yourself: players who just want to throw dice and have fun are the whiny entitled bad players who need their egos stroked
No, just the whiny ones that want to win all the time and can't deal with not winning all the time.
Quote...but you're the one who seems to think that enduring shitty mechanics and excessive periods of downtime because an ogre pasted you makes you a better, more legitimate gamer. It doesn't, it just makes you a pretentious ass who bases his self-worth on how he plays RPGs.
It's something we learn passing into adulthood. You don't always get to be the centre of attention and you don't always get to win. Well, I guess it's something you are
supposed to learn passing into adulthood.
"Bad level math", "changing stats ad hoc [due to] player bad luck", "brink of near defeat"? And yet you want the GM to go all out and pull no punches (until as limited by the beneficence of The Balance)? What ever happened to defeat?
Sounds like you want the illusion of actual risk, like a roller coaster.
Quote from: Opaopajr;568912Sounds like you want the illusion of actual risk, like a roller coaster.
But there isn't even actual risk involved! It's the illusion of pretend risk!
This is a public service announcement.
This is not fucking RPGnet here. I won't intervene here just because somebody called someone else a jackass or a
dickhole. If any one of you doesn't like to be spoken to like he's an asshole, don't be an asshole on this thread in the first place. You don't get to pretend like you got the high ground, take pot shots at people to then run to the moderation if the discussion doesn't go the way you expected it to.
So. If you don't like being treated like a shit, don't behave like one in the first place. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out. Take a look at your own posts and find a way to improve them, and that failing, if you still can't take people disagreeing with you, just walk from the thread. It's that simple really.
Thank you.
Quote from: Imp;568913But there isn't even actual risk involved! It's the illusion of pretend risk!
Whoa... you just blew my mind. It's like cowardice, but like in a different and totally irrelevant dimension! Wow. Wait, would that actually make you brave to whine about the lack of illusion to pretend risk? Like a double negative in English makes a positive?
:confused:
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568763The builds and magic item purchases are reviewed for being 'playable' by the adjudicator. Playable means that it's not a one shot pony. The character could reasonably be said to be an adventurer, and their selection of feats and skills represents someone who would actually be a functioning member of a party.
If you have any additions?
I have a major hate on for rolling HP but I'll let that one slide because I only care about it enough to make the gripe.
Everything else except the no "one shot pony" thing is clear cut for me. I'm a wizard. I can prepare for one encounter or a dozen in a given day and can take steps (especially if I'm a solo adventurer) to make sure I have about as many encounters as I want in a given day. You have to give me conditions for which I'm going to be doing battle. Do I know I'm fighting today? Do I plan on having multiple fights or am I going to skate by fights? Also how many win conditions are there? Do I HAVE to kill the fighter in question or do I have options to end the fight on other terms? IE: Fighter can no longer effectively fight me, becomes my slave, is put out of commission long enough for me to get on with my day, and any assortment of other not particularly lethal fight ending conditions.
Quote from: MGuy;568918I have a major hate on for rolling HP but I'll let that one slide because I only care about it enough to make the gripe.
Everything else except the no "one shot pony" thing is clear cut for me. I'm a wizard. I can prepare for one encounter or a dozen in a given day and can take steps (especially if I'm a solo adventurer) to make sure I have about as many encounters as I want in a given day. You have to give me conditions for which I'm going to be doing battle. Do I know I'm fighting today? Do I plan on having multiple fights or am I going to skate by fights? Also how many win conditions are there? Do I HAVE to kill the fighter in question or do I have options to end the fight on other terms? IE: Fighter can no longer effectively fight me, becomes my slave, is put out of commission long enough for me to get on with my day, and any assortment of other not particularly lethal fight ending conditions.
Rolling for HP is one of the basic concepts of the game, per the PHB. For a fighter, the potential access to higher hp is one of their class advantages, and a limiter for Wizards, so it's part of the overall setup. That's not a snipe, just a clarification.
To me, the question of spell selection seems like one for the adjudicator, but to reasonable defeat sounds fine to me. There's no reason to limit a wizard to pure damage output.
However, in the context of the setup, I think we could say it's at an early point in a day during a battle where we are both clearly defined as being on opposing sides, but where the major units of the combat aren't directly involved. Think Samurai from opposing factions encountering each other.
Neither of us knows that we're going to be specifically fighting the other, it's not a scheduled duel (even though we are doing just that...) and so equipment and spell selection should reflect that (i.e. I won't blow the whole wad on an amulet of spell resistance 19 to give myself ~45% resistance to your spells)
In spell selection terms, it would depend on the base concept that you're working with, even for something like this there has to be some kind of character concept other than 'You're a wizard, Harry' to guide the selection. But even in the scope of a battle it would be kind of silly of a wizard to be rolling with Domination in all his slots using various Metamagic feats. (obtuse example)
Also, who's gonna call this thing? Can we get a David Bowie walk in scene?
(http://www.digitalbusstop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/David-Bowie-in-Zoolander.jpg)
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568923Also, who's gonna call this thing? Can we get a David Bowie walk in scene?
If Bowie is busy, I nominate Panzerkraken.
Quote from: Rum Cove;568924If Bowie is busy, I nominate Panzerkraken.
I'm one of the participants, I can't call it and appear arbitrary.
BedrockBrendan then?
If Bedrock feels comfortable adjudicating (I dunno what his opinion of his handle on 3E is?) I believe that that gentleman would be perfect.
Quote from: TomatoMalone;568892We were discussing the tendency of random monster encounters to be a shit mechanic in nearly every game they appear in.
Revisiting this part of the post for a second:
If your DMs were even a fraction as good as Sacrificial Lamb in making up random encounter tables, we wouldn't have to listen to you whine about it today.
Revel in the brilliance. (http://www.citadelofchaos.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=38)
Sacrificial Lamb should be especially proud of that thread, it has over 18,000 views!
Quote from: Planet Algol;568782I doubt a +1 bow and a quiver of +1 arrows is going to break the bank in 3.5.
So? Demonstrate that it does not. You have made a claim and I am challenging you to prove it. The burden of proof is on you to prove the claim, not me to disprove it.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;568820Your first mistake is referring to 3.5 WBL. Can that shit along with the rest of the munchkin rules. Play proper D&D with a fighting man that is actually good at fighting, and equip him with an assortment of weapons.
Level-appropriate can suck my cock. The concept, and the rules that support it make weenies like you cry because you can't have maximum plusses in everything. So you pick one trick, specialize, and cry foul when the situation doesn't revolve around your specialty.
Hey, I put all my feats and gear into 2H sword, you can't attack us with flying monkey archers, I feel deprotagonized!! :rolleyes:
WOTC era D&D has made me weep for our hobby. Like my man Edgar Friendly, I have SEEN the future of D&D.
Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".
Ad hominems do not make you clever.
What WBL has in fact done is given people a common reference point when discussing how powerful a given character should be. On balance I think it was a mistake, but for very, very different reasons to those you are claiming; and I feel it is vastly, vastly better than the old roll randomly idea.
I assume you are referring to old school D&D?
DM: "You encounter a mob of flying archers."
Player: "I pull out my bow!"
DM: "LOL, you need a +2 weapon to affect these mobs, and it's totally your fault for not bringing a +2 bow, even though nobody in the universe sells or buys magic items, and even though not a single one has dropped for the entire campaign."
Player: "I retreat!"
DM: "OK, you're shot to death while fleeing because this group of flying archers happens to be vicious, so I can't make them only guard their territory without breaking verisimilitude."
Quote from: omegonthesane;568948So? Demonstrate that it does not. You have made a claim and I am challenging you to prove it. The burden of proof is on you to prove the claim, not me to disprove it.
+1 bow and 50x +1 arrows according the the 3.5 DMG: 4725gp
placing them at approximately the halfway point for a 5th level character according to the WBL table (9000gp).
Of course, that price assumes you're buying them, depending on the adventures that lead up to it, you may find them, and if there's noone else that needs them, they come in handy. Honestly, how easy they are to come by depends on the game world.
For the 10th level character that I put together for our little challenge, a +2 Composite Longbow +3 STR and 50 +2 arrows wasn't even hard, money-wise. (~17k gp).
Quote from: Rum Cove;568926BedrockBrendan then?
Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I am too rust with 3E to do it justice.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568923Rolling for HP is one of the basic concepts of the game, per the PHB. For a fighter, the potential access to higher hp is one of their class advantages, and a limiter for Wizards, so it's part of the overall setup. That's not a snipe, just a clarification.
To me, the question of spell selection seems like one for the adjudicator, but to reasonable defeat sounds fine to me. There's no reason to limit a wizard to pure damage output.
However, in the context of the setup, I think we could say it's at an early point in a day during a battle where we are both clearly defined as being on opposing sides, but where the major units of the combat aren't directly involved. Think Samurai from opposing factions encountering each other.
Neither of us knows that we're going to be specifically fighting the other, it's not a scheduled duel (even though we are doing just that...) and so equipment and spell selection should reflect that (i.e. I won't blow the whole wad on an amulet of spell resistance 19 to give myself ~45% resistance to your spells)
In spell selection terms, it would depend on the base concept that you're working with, even for something like this there has to be some kind of character concept other than 'You're a wizard, Harry' to guide the selection. But even in the scope of a battle it would be kind of silly of a wizard to be rolling with Domination in all his slots using various Metamagic feats. (obtuse example)
Also, who's gonna call this thing? Can we get a David Bowie walk in scene?
(http://www.digitalbusstop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/David-Bowie-in-Zoolander.jpg)
Cool, cool, and cool. I will claim now to be a conjurer then because I like summoning stuff. For the benefit of the battle I won't bring preconjured stuff to the table (though I would regularly for the purposes of a big fight I happen to be on because conjuring shit early saves me spells during the day).
Quote from: omegonthesane;568948What WBL has in fact done is given people a common reference point when discussing how powerful a given character should be. On balance I think it was a mistake, but for very, very different reasons to those you are claiming; and I feel it is vastly, vastly better than the old roll randomly idea.
I assume you are referring to old school D&D?
DM: "You encounter a mob of flying archers."
Player: "I pull out my bow!"
DM: "LOL, you need a +2 weapon to affect these mobs, and it's totally your fault for not bringing a +2 bow, even though nobody in the universe sells or buys magic items, and even though not a single one has dropped for the entire campaign."
Player: "I retreat!"
DM: "OK, you're shot to death while fleeing because this group of flying archers happens to be vicious, so I can't make them only guard their territory without breaking verisimilitude."
Your reference to encountered creatures as "mobs", and the discovery of a magical bow as being "dropped" tell me you have no fucking clue about old school D&D and how it was played.
You are just regurgitating the same shitty script of what you think old school play is all about. I swear this shit must be stored away somewhere like stock footage that snotnosed kids can drag out in a failed attempt to look clever.
Quote from: omegonthesane;568948So? Demonstrate that it does not. You have made a claim and I am challenging you to prove it. The burden of proof is on you to prove the claim, not me to disprove it...
So? Keep your cocksucker shut when grown-ups are talking...
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568949+1 bow and 50x +1 arrows according the the 3.5 DMG: 4725gp...
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;568968Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I am too rust with 3E to do it justice.
Anyone who's experienced and current enough with 3.5e that could ref for us?
It's hard to be conclusive without someone to arbitrate.
I propose Justin Alexander, if he's up for it.
Quote from: Benoist;569016I propose Justin Alexander, if he's up for it.
Let's settle this, finally.
Shouldn't Wish/Limited Wish be banned from this? Not all that up to date on 3e, so I don't know if a 10th lvl MU would have it yet, but you'd think this'd be an issue. Oh, what am I saying! There's probably swords out there with wish charges, too. Carry on!
Limited wish is a 7th level spell, so Wizards don't get access until 13th level, though they could probably afford a scroll of it. That said, it's main effect is to duplicate any other wizard spell of 6th level or lower (or non-wizard spell of 5th level or lower), so it's usually worthwhile just to have the spell you actually want.
That said, I've just made an item crafter that relies extensively on limited wish to duplicate spells that are required for item creation - so it's great in some situations.
Quote from: Benoist;569016I propose Justin Alexander, if he's up for it.
And we should get ggroy for statistical/probability commentary!
I'm not even joking, he's the dude that can offer an informed opinion on how it should play out according to the math. "It's seems like an amazing reversal Justin, but according to my calculations this was 82.333% likely to occur"
Quote from: Planet Algol;569108And we should get ggroy for statistical/probability commentary!
I'm not even joking, he's the dude that can offer an informed opinion on how it should play out according to the math. "It's seems like an amazing reversal Justin, but according to my calculations this was 82.333% likely to occur"
If this was done it wouldn't matter about the results, just seeing it done would make the whole show worth it.
Quote from: Marleycat;569109If this was done it wouldn't matter about the results, just seeing it done would make the whole show worth it.
I concur. Now there's a clusterfuck I'd sit back and enjoy watching. :popcorn:
Quote from: deadDMwalking;569107Limited wish is a 7th level spell, so Wizards don't get access until 13th level, though they could probably afford a scroll of it. That said, it's main effect is to duplicate any other wizard spell of 6th level or lower (or non-wizard spell of 5th level or lower), so it's usually worthwhile just to have the spell you actually want.
That said, I've just made an item crafter that relies extensively on limited wish to duplicate spells that are required for item creation - so it's great in some situations.
Not to mention the xp cost for casting it, and the xp value that's been set (45,001) precludes the use of xp cost abilities, because you can't de-level yourself.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;569141Not to mention the xp cost for casting it, and the xp value that's been set (45,001) precludes the use of xp cost abilities, because you can't de-level yourself.
More accurately its just not worth using in a random one off battle against a creature that is about as dangerous to a wizard as a particularly dedicated golem.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;569141Not to mention the xp cost for casting it, and the xp value that's been set (45,001) precludes the use of xp cost abilities, because you can't de-level yourself.
As The Butcher previously said the clusterfuck would be epic to watch. Who in their right mind uses Limited Wish to replace basic spells for item creation besides a "denner" postulating some silly white room theorywank situation? And what DM would be that stupid to allow it to be so cost effective that said "denner" would bring it up seriously?
Maybe it's my bias as a Magegirl but really?
Quote from: MGuy;569154More accurately its just not worth using in a random one off battle against a creature that is about as dangerous to a wizard as a particularly dedicated golem.
Wish spells are far better used as contingency triggers or something outside the actual battle to set the baseline. Wish spells like ANY spell, particularly high level ones have consequences both obvious and hidden. Especially hidden and wish spells even moreso.
That's two more chucklefucks on ignore.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;569141Not to mention the xp cost for casting it, and the xp value that's been set (45,001) precludes the use of xp cost abilities, because you can't de-level yourself.
If you're scrollcasting, the maker of the scroll already paid the XP cost for Limited Wish itself for you, in the construction of the scroll. Any XP cost induced by the effect caused is another matter of course.
Quote from: Marleycat;569156As The Butcher previously said the clusterfuck would be epic to watch. Who in their right mind uses Limited Wish to replace basic spells for item creation besides a "denner" postulating some silly white room theorywank situation? And what DM would be that stupid to allow it to be so cost effective that said "denner" would bring it up seriously?
Maybe it's my bias as a Magegirl but really?
The requirement is that you have access to the spell. If you can cast Limited Wish and use it to cast the spell... you have access to the spell. I could understand making it
harder to craft with Limited Wish than crafting with the actual spell, to make up for the increased versatility, but I cannot see where you get the idea that it should be outright forbidden.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;568949+1 bow and 50x +1 arrows according the the 3.5 DMG: 4725gp
placing them at approximately the halfway point for a 5th level character according to the WBL table (9000gp).
Of course, that price assumes you're buying them, depending on the adventures that lead up to it, you may find them, and if there's noone else that needs them, they come in handy. Honestly, how easy they are to come by depends on the game world.
For the 10th level character that I put together for our little challenge, a +2 Composite Longbow +3 STR and 50 +2 arrows wasn't even hard, money-wise. (~17k gp).
And this is why WBL was a noble experiment - having a common reference point for what the stats assume you have at each level, rather than relying on an unguided DM's whim to decide "how easy they are to come by".
Your lack of 3.5 knowledge is showing - as I said before, the +1 arrows do nothing if you already have a +1 bow, the enhancement bonuses specifically do not stack. So, a +1 composite longbow "only" costs 2400 GP, which at 5th level is reasonably likely if you have access to WBL.
However it's telling that you think "half your disposable income on this one thing" isn't breaking the bank for a fighter's secondary weapon.
Quote from: omegonthesane;569200That's two more chucklefucks on ignore.
15 posts and you have chucklefucks on ignore? As you like, I guess.
QuoteThe requirement is that you have access to the spell. If you can cast Limited Wish and use it to cast the spell... you have access to the spell. I could understand making it harder to craft with Limited Wish than crafting with the actual spell, to make up for the increased versatility, but I cannot see where you get the idea that it should be outright forbidden.
For the purposes of this? For the same reason as I haven't spent 10000gp on a battalion of archers. It breaks the scenario.
QuoteAnd this is why WBL was a noble experiment - having a common reference point for what the stats assume you have at each level, rather than relying on an unguided DM's whim to decide "how easy they are to come by".
I really only consider it useful at all when you're talking about an a) inexperienced DM who needs that sort of guideline or b) making a character at a level higher than 1 where the DM can't be present to hold the player's hand through the whole thing. I guess if you need that sort of thing, you do, but there's no reason to imply that the WBL process is inherently superior to a competent DM making decisions about his game and its power level.
QuoteYour lack of 3.5 knowledge is showing - as I said before, the +1 arrows do nothing if you already have a +1 bow, the enhancement bonuses specifically do not stack. So, a +1 composite longbow "only" costs 2400 GP, which at 5th level is reasonably likely if you have access to WBL.
Honestly, I've played every edition of D&D since 1e, and I never noticed that difference from 2e to 3e before. And everyone I've ever played with has played it the same way; that the enhancement bonus on bows was just to hit and on arrows was just to damage. Bully for you on picking up that glaring oversight on their part. I'll make sure to let everyone that plays with me in the future know that it doesn't run like that in my games, in case they're someone who came into it late like you.
QuoteHowever it's telling that you think "half your disposable income on this one thing" isn't breaking the bank for a fighter's secondary weapon.
And what SHOULD I be spending it on? Stocks? Rental properties in Greyhawk? It's wealth, not starting cash. A fighter's wealth depends on his livelihood, which depends on his weapons. So yeah, I like to splurge a bit on them. Call me crazy.
In my games, even if I'm busy and can't guide someone through what equipment they start with, I insist that if they have a wealth level they're only allowed to start off with the starting cash for a character, everything else has to be spent on 'stuff'. They're adventurers, not investment bankers.
I'm sure that some random exploit of a purchase would have been a much more economical and power capable, but like we discussed in the earlier parts of the challenge, it's designed around making two characters who are adventurer quality, not some set of white-box stats.
Quote from: Marleycat;569156As The Butcher previously said the clusterfuck would be epic to watch. Who in their right mind uses Limited Wish to replace basic spells for item creation besides a "denner" postulating some silly white room theorywank situation? And what DM would be that stupid to allow it to be so cost effective that said "denner" would bring it up seriously?
Maybe it's my bias as a Magegirl but really?
If you're an item maker in D&D, you could make an item for 5,000 gp plus some XP and sell it for 10,000 gp. Even if you had to buy a scroll of
limited wish (cost 3775 gp), you could actually make a profit on the item.
If you're capable of casting Limited Wish yourself, you could make even more money.
I previously mentioned this, but I'm making an NPC capable of creating a number of items in the game. If a random treasure chart indicates that the PCs find
bracers of armor +8, I think it's valuable to have an idea of how feasible that is in the game world.
It's also been interesting from my perspective to see what items can and cannot be manufactured by a 'typical' character. Some items have requirements that include both arcane and divine spells, making the number of people who could cast them in a typical campaign close to zero - unless people gain access to the necessary spells by other means (such as Use Magic Device and a scroll or wand).
For example, did you know that in 3.5, a
Ring of Jumping requires both a spell and that creator have 5 ranks in Jump?
Crazy, huh?
With that being the case, a
ring of jumping should be far less common than you might assume based on the limited utility of said item.
In any case, I understand that not everyone cares about who in the world is capable of making magic items. But if as a DM you're interested in having guidelines for what is and isn't available in your world, consideration of some of these high level item crafters can be invaluable.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;569240If you're an item maker in D&D, you could make an item for 5,000 gp plus some XP and sell it for 10,000 gp. Even if you had to buy a scroll of limited wish (cost 3775 gp), you could actually make a profit on the item.
If you're capable of casting Limited Wish yourself, you could make even more money.
I previously mentioned this, but I'm making an NPC capable of creating a number of items in the game. If a random treasure chart indicates that the PCs find bracers of armor +8, I think it's valuable to have an idea of how feasible that is in the game world.
It's also been interesting from my perspective to see what items can and cannot be manufactured by a 'typical' character. Some items have requirements that include both arcane and divine spells, making the number of people who could cast them in a typical campaign close to zero - unless people gain access to the necessary spells by other means (such as Use Magic Device and a scroll or wand).
For example, did you know that in 3.5, a Ring of Jumping requires both a spell and that creator have 5 ranks in Jump?
Crazy, huh?
With that being the case, a ring of jumping should be far less common than you might assume based on the limited utility of said item.
In any case, I understand that not everyone cares about who in the world is capable of making magic items. But if as a DM you're interested in having guidelines for what is and isn't available in your world, consideration of some of these high level item crafters can be invaluable.
I enjoy that thought overall; however I have a hard time with the idea of a senior wizard sitting in his tower thinking "Well, now.. let me just invest a little of my soul into this item and I should be able to sell it for 10000gp, easy!" (In my high end games I established that character experience increased the relative value of souls to Outsiders, expressed in 'Manes', which fit with the whole 'souls as currency' bit. It helped when the players were asking how much favor they garnered with a patron when they would absorb the souls of victims/opponents)
Personally, I always felt that items that required large amounts of xp were generally one-off specific items; I also included the ability for enchanters to use a ritual to transfer the xp required for an enchantment from someone else (willing or not, slightly different ritual....) during the process. It made the party caster more likely to make items for the players if the person who would actually be USING the +4 Chaotic Acid Burst Scythe of Angel Slaying had to pay the xp for it.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;569240If you're an item maker in D&D, you could make an item for 5,000 gp plus some XP and sell it for 10,000 gp. Even if you had to buy a scroll of limited wish (cost 3775 gp), you could actually make a profit on the item.
If you're capable of casting Limited Wish yourself, you could make even more money.
I previously mentioned this, but I'm making an NPC capable of creating a number of items in the game. If a random treasure chart indicates that the PCs find bracers of armor +8, I think it's valuable to have an idea of how feasible that is in the game world.
It's also been interesting from my perspective to see what items can and cannot be manufactured by a 'typical' character. Some items have requirements that include both arcane and divine spells, making the number of people who could cast them in a typical campaign close to zero - unless people gain access to the necessary spells by other means (such as Use Magic Device and a scroll or wand).
For example, did you know that in 3.5, a Ring of Jumping requires both a spell and that creator have 5 ranks in Jump?
Crazy, huh?
With that being the case, a ring of jumping should be far less common than you might assume based on the limited utility of said item.
In any case, I understand that not everyone cares about who in the world is capable of making magic items. But if as a DM you're interested in having guidelines for what is and isn't available in your world, consideration of some of these high level item crafters can be invaluable.
By the rules? Sure but in an actual real environment with an actual real economy and NPC's with actual motivations beyond your theorywank position of having some dude just sitting there in a white room cranking out a million wands of whatever you please? Yeah right, maybe in whatever you call your game but never in any game I have EVER played let alone run. And I do mean ever.
Well, Marleycat, I'll be happy to accept your apology when I make the character available for view.
I'll be posting in on the dndarchive.com, and I'll provide a link.
Usually I don't like the idea of high-level characters spending all their time crafting magic items - I usually figure they have better things to do. But the game assumes that people will find magical items, so they must come from somewhere.
So, without 'theory wanking' or allowing a paradoxical 'items exist but nobody actually makes them', I created a character that effectively has nothing better to do than manufacture magical items for your campaign.
The current document providing his stat block, explaining his motivations, and ways to use him in your campaign runs over 18 pages (9,090 words) so I won't bother trying to summarize the details here - you'll have to wait until it's ready for submission. But despite the length, I think you'll find it worth the read - a nice balance of fluff and crunch.
I expect I'm approximately 3 days from completing it.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;569264Well, Marleycat, I'll be happy to accept your apology when I make the character available for view.
I'll be posting in on the dndarchive.com, and I'll provide a link.
Usually I don't like the idea of high-level characters spending all their time crafting magic items - I usually figure they have better things to do. But the game assumes that people will find magical items, so they must come from somewhere.
So, without 'theory wanking' or allowing a paradoxical 'items exist but nobody actually makes them', I created a character that effectively has nothing better to do than manufacture magical items for your campaign.
The current document providing his stat block, explaining his motivations, and ways to use him in your campaign runs over 18 pages (9,090 words) so I won't bother trying to summarize the details here - you'll have to wait until it's ready for submission. But despite the length, I think you'll find it worth the read - a nice balance of fluff and crunch.
I expect I'm approximately 3 days from completing it.
Thing is they wouldn't be high level in the first place because of the experience costs and other things such as components but I do admit that 3x crafting rules are bull and I gut them like they deserve to stop what you are positing right at the beginning. If you allow such sillyness in your games more power to you but it doesn't fly in my games or any games I have played in end of story.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;569264Well, Marleycat, I'll be happy to accept your apology when I make the character available for view.
I'll be posting in on the dndarchive.com, and I'll provide a link.
Usually I don't like the idea of high-level characters spending all their time crafting magic items - I usually figure they have better things to do. But the game assumes that people will find magical items, so they must come from somewhere.
So, without 'theory wanking' or allowing a paradoxical 'items exist but nobody actually makes them', I created a character that effectively has nothing better to do than manufacture magical items for your campaign.
The current document providing his stat block, explaining his motivations, and ways to use him in your campaign runs over 18 pages (9,090 words) so I won't bother trying to summarize the details here - you'll have to wait until it's ready for submission. But despite the length, I think you'll find it worth the read - a nice balance of fluff and crunch.
I expect I'm approximately 3 days from completing it.
Thing is they wouldn't be high level in the first place because of the experience costs and other things such as components but I do admit that 3x crafting rules are bull and I gut them like they deserve to stop what you are positing right at the beginning. If you allow such sillyness in your games more power to you but it doesn't fly in my games or any games I have played in end of story.
Uninfortunately people like 1989 may be completely correct in their position of 3x not being Dnd at all. I don't agree but it's things like this that force me to rethink that opinion from time to time.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;56920215 posts and you have chucklefucks on ignore? As you like, I guess..
Yeah, that made me raise my eyebrows as well.
You're gonna register just to tell people you're ignoring them? Why don't you just go back to wherever you came from because obviously this forum isn't right for you.
*Edit* As an aside, I'm disappointed that once again this whole "fighter vs mage" thing has gone to just about 3e only. When you only talk about 3e, you've fallen into their trap and validated their preconceived notion that the only edition prior to 4e is 3e. So what's going to happen is these guys will once again start with the whole "Prior to 4e, the magic user was way more powerful than any fighter, we have this whole thread to prove it!" because they managed to only talk about 3e.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;569264The current document providing his stat block, explaining his motivations, and ways to use him in your campaign runs over 18 pages (9,090 words) so I won't bother trying to summarize the details here - you'll have to wait until it's ready for submission. But despite the length, I think you'll find it worth the read - a nice balance of fluff and crunch.
I expect I'm approximately 3 days from completing it.
Whaa.... huh..... 3 days...
Oh my.
Quote from: Planet Algol;569282Whaa.... huh..... 3 days...
Oh my.
No wonder 3e fans have meltdowns if their characters ever die if they spend more time on creating one than I did writing thesis papers.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;569284No wonder 3e fans have meltdowns if their characters ever die if they spend more time on creating one than I did writing thesis papers.
Due tomorrow? Do tomorrow! :)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;569269*Edit* As an aside, I'm disappointed that once again this whole "fighter vs mage" thing has gone to just about 3e only. When you only talk about 3e, you've fallen into their trap and validated their preconceived notion that the only edition prior to 4e is 3e. So what's going to happen is these guys will once again start with the whole "Prior to 4e, the magic user was way more powerful than any fighter, we have this whole thread to prove it!" because they managed to only talk about 3e.
Actually, I only choose 3.5 for our engagement because that's what I have the resources here for. Well.. I have Hackmaster 5 as well, but that just seemed a little obtuse... I would've been just as happy with 1e or 2e for the example.
Speaking of which, we still need a ref. Noone wants to sit in for it?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;569284No wonder 3e fans have meltdowns if their characters ever die if they spend more time on creating one than I did writing thesis papers.
Lol. His writeup for that character is longer than some college papers. 18 pages? That's like a mini-sourcebook just for the guy. I'm interested to read what he's put together though. Source material is always fun.
Just making a character is easy, I had it done the same evening that MGuy accepted the challenge. And all on a character sheet with a mini-BS backstory and some personal heraldry.
Certainly the stat block was time consuming - a high level spellcaster has a lot of options. Figuring out reasonable tactics for a super-genius isn't easy for a retard like myself. But that was relatively straight forward.
In addition, I've decided to write a new prestige class, new feat, and new spell and include them with my submission. The new material is not directly related to the high level caster, but could be used in conjunction with him, if desired.
New material takes a while to work out and polish. When I submit this type of material, I make every effort to make it at least as good as published material.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;569269*Edit* As an aside, I'm disappointed that once again this whole "fighter vs mage" thing has gone to just about 3e only. When you only talk about 3e, you've fallen into their trap and validated their preconceived notion that the only edition prior to 4e is 3e. So what's going to happen is these guys will once again start with the whole "Prior to 4e, the magic user was way more powerful than any fighter, we have this whole thread to prove it!" because they managed to only talk about 3e.
How is it a trap when I specifically said he shouldn't use 3E as a bouncing board for the idea that fighters can keep up with wizards at higher level?
Anyways, I haven't even made the character yet. When and where am I suppose to put his stat block up at? All the notes I have so far is that he's going to be a conjurer, that apparently this is happening on a battlefield of some sort where after the fight my wizard has plans to do other things, and for some reason has it out for this particular fighter.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;569287Speaking of which, we still need a ref. Noone wants to sit in for it?
I offer my services.
Quote from: jeff37923;569303I offer my services.
I'd be willing to accept you if MGuy is.
Quote from: MGuyWhen and where am I suppose to put his stat block up at?
My thought on it was that for review, so that we're not revealing things to each other, we'd send the character sheet to the Ref for review, and he can post them for public display once he's decided if they're acceptable or not.
Like I mentioned above, mine is done already (he's only a Fighter, after all).
Quote from: Panzerkraken;569202Honestly, I've played every edition of D&D since 1e, and I never noticed that difference from 2e to 3e before. And everyone I've ever played with has played it the same way; that the enhancement bonus on bows was just to hit and on arrows was just to damage. Bully for you on picking up that glaring oversight on their part. I'll make sure to let everyone that plays with me in the future know that it doesn't run like that in my games, in case they're someone who came into it late like you.
The bow vs. arrow magic plus thing? I believe that's a change from 3.0 to 3.5.
QuoteThe current document providing his stat block, explaining his motivations, and ways to use him in your campaign runs over 18 pages (9,090 words) so I won't bother trying to summarize the details here - you'll have to wait until it's ready for submission. But despite the length, I think you'll find it worth the read - a nice balance of fluff and crunch.
I expect I'm approximately 3 days from completing it.
(http://i.imgur.com/Tdnt0.jpg)
I'm honestly not trying to be a dick here.
But, the people who spend three days writing up 18 pages for a single NPC?
I would just as soon that their opinions be completely disregarded when it comes to the future of D&D; badwrongfun and all but this is, IMO, some serious next level effete ouroboric navel-gazing.
I can appreciate it as outsider art or as a creative writing exercise or fodder for the people that read modules but don't run them, but in regards to being a resource for a game?
No.... Just No!!! TOO MUCH INFORMATION/Putting the Cart Before the Horse
Different folks, different strokes.
It is a creative writing exercise. And an NPC. And a magic item. And a prestige class. And a handful of feats. And a handful of spells.
That said, high level characters in 3.5 are complex - and a small change can have ripple effects that are hard to track. If you increase a Dex bonus by +1, you need to make sure you address AC, Initiative, Reflex saves and skills. So as I go back and forth working out the details, it becomes somewhat time consuming - particularly with the number of spell options available to a high level caster. But to me, accuracy is important.
And I do enjoy the challenge. But before you rush to a decision, I'll respectfully request that you wait until I've posted the link to the information in question. I think you'll find that you will find it entertaining regardless of your preferred edition.
The main reason I need so much additional time is to format it correctly for a message board. Inserting all the tags is a major pain, but failure to do so will make it difficult or impossible to read. If I'm willing to put work into making it, I'll put work into making it readable to my audience.
Wait, new prestige class, new feat, new magic item, new spells... What's this for?...
Quote from: deadDMwalking;569240I previously mentioned this, but I'm making an NPC capable of creating a number of items in the game. If a random treasure chart indicates that the PCs find bracers of armor +8, I think it's valuable to have an idea of how feasible that is in the game world.
Perfectly worthwhile thought exercise for world buidling. Essentially boils down to DM Setting hand-wave-ium or RAW assuming Lost Glorious NPCs with Ridonkulous Powerz! (which again boils down to DM setting hand-wave-ium). I'm intrigued if you're trying to keep it to just humans ran RAW, but only if this task has sensible limits on your or our time.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;569240It's also been interesting from my perspective to see what items can and cannot be manufactured by a 'typical' character. Some items have requirements that include both arcane and divine spells, making the number of people who could cast them in a typical campaign close to zero - unless people gain access to the necessary spells by other means (such as Use Magic Device and a scroll or wand).
Did they take out Combine as a spell in 3.5, the priest spell that assumes multiple people working together in a ritual for a larger spell effect, or things like it? Again, all of this is readily accomplished by a large organized group, like an empire. Priests and Mages would readily get along if their needs were met and were under the beneficent umbrella of a mighty force (say a fighter's army...). But again this gets back to setting being more important than One-Man-vs.-The-World! char op designs.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;569240In any case, I understand that not everyone cares about who in the world is capable of making magic items. But if as a DM you're interested in having guidelines for what is and isn't available in your world, consideration of some of these high level item crafters can be invaluable.
As a thought exercise only, I do think it's admirable in theory. But I must say this brings me back to your comment of 18 pages and 3 days of your life. And then I must wholly disagree. Honestly, is this really the best use of your time when you could instead just... go back to DM judgment managing the setting? I know it may be a labor of love, but I question whether this is a sensible use of your or our time.
Further, when you have to petition for new feats, new prestige class, new magic items, and new spells to pull this off... well, it's not really RAW anymore is it? Sort of defeats the contention of the latter design on its face. I mean, at this point just accept DM settings and assume mutual cooperation on the scale of an empire. With that everything else rapidly falls into place. You don't need über NPCs builds then, you just need assumed living world NPC cooperation.
I mean not to dissuade you. If this is your idea of fun, carry on. But as already established it is so self-defeating in its premise in relation to the topic that it's rather a vanity exercise than a valid argument.
Quote from: Opaopajr;569528I mean not to dissuade you. If this is your idea of fun, carry on. But as already established it is so self-defeating in its premise in relation to the topic that it's rather a vanity exercise than a valid argument.
Well, I've had a fair amount of time at work, so honestly, this is more fun.
This is for a contest, and the hope with any such contest is that the submissions will be of sufficient quantity and quality that a number of people can pilfer them for their games. Whether it happens or not is immaterial - I intend to put out the best information I can so if anyone DOES use it, it'll be right (by RAW).
The item crafter is built using the 3.5 SRD with no home-brew material. And while that's useful, it doesn't scratch that creative itch. So I'm expanding on the minimum requirements to provide some additional options for a game. The additional options will be clearly delineated as 'non-core', but I'm pretty pleased with how everything is coming out.
Unfortunately, one new spell I created turned out to exactly duplicate another published spell (didn't think to look up by the name it was under, since I was calling it something else) so that was a little disappointing, but at least it confirms that it was 'balanced'. It was virtually the same, word for word... And I'm pretty sure I never came across it before. Such is life.
When putting together gaming material, for my own benefit I would tend to abbreviate a lot of the information. For example, describing a spell effect in a single sentence. But when you intend the material to be used by other people that may not have the chance to ask for clarification, precision is a virtue. I think that while 3.5 has some 'ambiguities', they did a good job of trying to address consistency. I don't particularly like the repetitiveness, but this particular project is small enough in scale that I don't feel that it has become an issue.
At this point, I have to build a stat block that utilizes the new prestige class, punch up one section of the story (a 3.5 spell effect is important for the plot, but the description of its use needs more 'oomph'), and make a few minor updates to reconcile some minor mechanical changes with the 'fluff'.
Then a thorough review and read-through, followed by formatting into bbc code.
It's a little like a 'splurge' for me - I don't commit this kind of time regularly, but when I get an interesting starting point, I like to bring my 'A' game.
This contest is for pride only (and like as not, I'll have the only entry), but I won't do less than my best when pride is on the line.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;569310I'd be willing to accept you if MGuy is.
My thought on it was that for review, so that we're not revealing things to each other, we'd send the character sheet to the Ref for review, and he can post them for public display once he's decided if they're acceptable or not.
Like I mentioned above, mine is done already (he's only a Fighter, after all).
If jeff is it I'll accept. I'll have it done sometime today (Thursday) after I get done running around.
I've created the thread for it then.
Well, that's a different way to enjoy rpg materials. Never knew there was contests for competitive char-op builds. Makes my idea of Powerstone-esque D&D 4e (basically Street Fighter D&D contesting loot in an open battle arena with hazards) with weekly leader boards seem overdue. Vive le différence!
Quote from: Panzerkraken;569202For the purposes of this? For the same reason as I haven't spent 10000gp on a battalion of archers. It breaks the scenario.
For the purposes of a specific thunderdome, I don't care enough to dispute. For the purpose of "all worlds that can be generated by the D&D RAW ever", now, that's a very different matter.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;569202I really only consider it useful at all when you're talking about an a) inexperienced DM who needs that sort of guideline or b) making a character at a level higher than 1 where the DM can't be present to hold the player's hand through the whole thing. I guess if you need that sort of thing, you do, but there's no reason to imply that the WBL process is inherently superior to a competent DM making decisions about his game and its power level.
Emphasis on the "competent". Many DMs, and most especially new DMs, aren't competent, and not in the classic malicious Gygaxian way. For such people it's handy.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;569202And what SHOULD I be spending it on? Stocks? Rental properties in Greyhawk? It's wealth, not starting cash. A fighter's wealth depends on his livelihood, which depends on his weapons. So yeah, I like to splurge a bit on them. Call me crazy.
Your primary weapon and your armour, both of which will set you back at least 2000 GP. Each. The initial postulate was that a +1 bow doesn't break the bank as a
secondary weapon, or at least that was the impression I got.
If that more-than-half-your-money was all going on your primary weapon (i.e. you're playing an archer), it'd be more palatable - not least because you can 5' step and shoot people rather than having to draw a melee weapon, according to the mechanics.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;569202In my games, even if I'm busy and can't guide someone through what equipment they start with, I insist that if they have a wealth level they're only allowed to start off with the starting cash for a character, everything else has to be spent on 'stuff'. They're adventurers, not investment bankers.
That's an... interesting houserule, and I'm not convinced it's necessary if you aren't actively allowing people to investment bank during the actual game (and thus leading them to question why they can't have used the investment banking rules before they start playing). I for one tend to leave as little gold as possible if statting a character, simply on the assumption that gold can't be eaten or give you direct +foo to your attacks or damage.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;569269Yeah, that made me raise my eyebrows as well.
You're gonna register just to tell people you're ignoring them? Why don't you just go back to wherever you came from because obviously this forum isn't right for you.
You asked an actual question, you get an actual answer.
If people give me logic, I can actually reply to that. If people give me politeness, I can at least be bothered to look at their posts. If people give me neither, they're on ignore, instantly, no second chances, because this is an internet forum so nobody is worth my time.
As for informing people publicly, that's not so much a "bawwwwwww" measure, more so that they don't get surprised when I never answer another point they make.
Quote from: omegonthesane;569621For the purposes of a specific thunderdome, I don't care enough to dispute. For the purpose of "all worlds that can be generated by the D&D RAW ever", now, that's a very different matter.
It's a matter of taste. The reason that the WBL table doesn't appear in the SRD is that it's NOT part of the OGL, its specific to the default generic fantasy setting that they wrote in and around the PHB/DMG. So it's just a representation of THEIR opinion, not some carefully crafted balance discussion.
QuoteEmphasis on the "competent". Many DMs, and most especially new DMs, aren't competent, and not in the classic malicious Gygaxian way. For such people it's handy.
I don't contend its usefulness, I just don't feel that it's superior to the competent GM. It's a fallback for me.
QuoteYour primary weapon and your armour, both of which will set you back at least 2000 GP. Each. The initial postulate was that a +1 bow doesn't break the bank as a secondary weapon, or at least that was the impression I got.
If that more-than-half-your-money was all going on your primary weapon (i.e. you're playing an archer), it'd be more palatable - not least because you can 5' step and shoot people rather than having to draw a melee weapon, according to the mechanics.
It boils down to what the power level of the magic items in the game are. If a +2 weapon is the kind of thing that kings commission as rewards for valorous deeds, then even though it's only 8k+weapon cost, less than 1/6 of a 10th level character's starting wealth, that's what they should have.
I personally use a +1 per 3 levels rule for my games, which I think keeps things fairly balanced; a 10th level character might be reasonably expected to have a +2 flaming weapon. In other games, it's been common for 4HD thugs to be running around with weapons with stat damage secondary effects on them. (The d6 DEX damage rapiers were some of my favorites.)
Now, that's just for the norm; if the players want to invest their savings and xp into making a more powerful weapon, that's fine. Remembering that I allow players who aren't the specific weapon crafter to be part of the creation process, thereby spending their own xp instead of the enchanter's.
QuoteThat's an... interesting houserule, and I'm not convinced it's necessary if you aren't actively allowing people to investment bank during the actual game (and thus leading them to question why they can't have used the investment banking rules before they start playing). I for one tend to leave as little gold as possible if statting a character, simply on the assumption that gold can't be eaten or give you direct +foo to your attacks or damage.
It's a bit oversimplified the way I presented it there, honestly. There's room for adjustment in the way I implement it, it's mostly to stop people from starting out with a bag of gold, if they want to put it into something that makes it non accessible, like shares of a merchant house or something, I don't have any problem with that, but I didn't like the idea of someone just showing up with a vast amount of spendable cash in the game.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;569632It's a matter of taste. The reason that the WBL table doesn't appear in the SRD is that it's NOT part of the OGL, its specific to the default generic fantasy setting that they wrote in and around the PHB/DMG. So it's just a representation of THEIR opinion, not some carefully crafted balance discussion.
The only reason it's not carefully crafted is WotC's legendary incompetence. The impression strongly given by the WBL table was "if items cost what they cost in the purchase tables, then players should have approximately this much moneys in treasures and such to be considered powerful enough to defeat CR-equal opponents with the expected difficulty".
Quote from: Panzerkraken;569632I don't contend its usefulness, I just don't feel that it's superior to the competent GM. It's a fallback for me.
We're pretty much in agreement then. I was disputing the people who raged at the very concept that acknowledging you are expected to have certain magic items by certain levels is a good idea.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;569632It boils down to what the power level of the magic items in the game are. If a +2 weapon is the kind of thing that kings commission as rewards for valorous deeds, then even though it's only 8k+weapon cost, less than 1/6 of a 10th level character's starting wealth, that's what they should have.
Nitpick: the fact that 10th level characters care about temporal kings rather implies they aren't pulling the kind of plane-hopping weirdness that high level play enables, which is arguably sad. Though admittedly people are going to need a bigger text dump to get minimal explanation of "we are planewalkers who bind the souls of powerful Evil beings so we can go to the city of Finality in the Nine Hells and swap them for the souls of Good beings that we can then return to Celestia" than "we are murdering hobos... I mean adventurers for hire in a feudal state where magi are presumably not trusted enough to revolutionise the world with applied magic".
Nonetheless, point taken - provided that the person running such a game then makes quite certain that no more than a +2 sword is ever needed just for its +X.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;569632I personally use a +1 per 3 levels rule for my games, which I think keeps things fairly balanced; a 10th level character might be reasonably expected to have a +2 flaming weapon. In other games, it's been common for 4HD thugs to be running around with weapons with stat damage secondary effects on them. (The d6 DEX damage rapiers were some of my favorites.)
Now, that's just for the norm; if the players want to invest their savings and xp into making a more powerful weapon, that's fine. Remembering that I allow players who aren't the specific weapon crafter to be part of the creation process, thereby spending their own xp instead of the enchanter's.
Honestly if it were up to me, the only magic weapons and armour available would be ones with actual magic effects - so, you wouldn't get a +5 flaming keen rapier, you'd just get a flaming keen rapier - and the +X/level that people are "meant" to have from whatever loot they "should" have by level Y... they'd get inherently instead, so e.g. a 6th level character would have a +2 enhancement bonus to all weapons he picked up in addition to their actually interesting magic properties.
Though, this does leave potential for level-inappropriate artefacts to be things people actually make a bid for - Excalibur the +5 sword might be boring at level 15, but it's hilarious at level 6, or even in an E6 game.
Quote from: TrueGygaxFan;570090I don't think the Wizard and Fighter have a balance problem. The reason we have these classes is because E. Gary Gygax designed them to be fun and cool. Wizards are balanced because they get to be powerful but not all the time, and Fighters are balanced because they get magic swords and unlike Wizards they can Cleave or Combat Expertise as many times as they want.
Gygax era D&D didn't muck about with cleave or expertise. A true Gygax fan should know that.
Quote from: TrueGygaxFan;570096Every version of Dungeons and Dragons exists because of E. Gary Gygax, since he invented it. Even versions that he did not personally design are part of the "Gygax era," which will last as long as D&D does!
Will you share some of what you're smoking?
It is done.
As promised, here is the link to the competition (and my entry):
http://dndarchive.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=13&id=30918&Itemid=50
If any of you are interested, feel free to join in. Sometimes people are discouraged by the length and/or effort to post in 'official style', but those things are not required, nor are they necessarily better.
A short entry that better encapsulates the theme of the competition will easily defeat mine.
Damn I'm impressed! Good work dude!
Indeed, that was an impressive read.
This should be fun! Good deal DeadDM.:)
B/X Blackrazor blog: Magic-users are too weak! (http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2012/08/killing-vancian-magic-part-1.html)
:rolleyes:
@TrueGygaxFan:Gygax once mentioned in a The Strategic Review article that balance between magic-users and other classes was a design goal, but that it didn't work out as planned:
QuoteMagic-use was thereby to be powerful enough to enable its followers to compete with any other type of player-character, and yet the use of magic would not be so great as to make those using it overshadow all others. This was the conception, but in practice it did not work out as planned. Primarily at fault is the game itself which does not carefully explain the reasoning behind the magic system. Also, the various magic items for employment by magic-users tend to make them too powerful in relation to other classes (although the GREYHAWK supplement took steps to correct this somewhat).
...
The logic behind it all was drawn from game balance as much as from anything else. Fighters have their strength, weapons, and armor to aid them in their competition. Magic-users must rely upon their spells, as they have virtually no weaponry or armor to protect them. Clerics combine some of the advantages of the other two classes. The new class, thieves, have the basic advantage of stealthful actions with some additions in order for them to successfully operate on a plane with other character types. If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D & D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly, or the referee is forced to change the game into a new framework which will accommodate what he has created by way of player-characters. It is the opinion of this writer that the most desirable game is one in which the various character types are able to compete with each other as relative equals
Gary Gygax, Strategic Review 2.2 1976
Quote from: Libertad;570310@TrueGygaxFan:
Gygax once mentioned in a The Strategic Review article that balance between magic-users and other classes was a design goal, but that it didn't work out as planned:
I just loved how that man wrote.
Quote from: Marleycat;570314I just loved how that man wrote.
Reading the AD&D reprints was really interesting; it's the first time I've really been exposed to his writing. He never used one word when five would do. It's certainly... distinctive.
Even with the excess wordage, those are very content-rich books.
Quote from: Ladybird;570317Reading the AD&D reprints was really interesting; it's the first time I've really been exposed to his writing. He never used one word when five would do. It's certainly... distinctive.
Even with the excess wordage, those are very content-rich books.
Definitely. His style had an academic feel to it. Best of all he never talked down to people.
It's like a word salad....
Bwahaha! You're all under the thrall of my Hypno-Gygax! The RPG Site is mine!
Quote from: Marleycat;570321Definitely. His style had an academic feel to it. Best of all he never talked down to people.
To be honest, I think that the wordiness obscures what is actually a very simple set of core mechanics - think things through, roll some dice, high is good, too low is bad. It doesn't need to be
Spot Goes Spelunking, but I think it could be toned down a bit.
But hey, I'm under no illusions about anyone even looking at something I wrote thirty years in the future, let alone producing special edition reprints of it to pay for a memorial to me.
I've read most of this thread and since I'm a glutton for punishment I've decided to contribute
So almost everyone agrees that there is a problem with fighters in 3.5e. The thing is as far as I've seen noone has fixed written a fix that satisfies everyone. This isn't a problem for me or my group because noone in my group plays the fighter and that because the fighter/wizard problem has always been a fighter problem.
Except at very low levels D&D has always been a casters game. That's because caster actually get to play D&D. What defines D&D across editions is the characters advance as they level from clearing rats out of the tavern basement to clearing Demon Lords from their thrones because the game radically transforms every 5 levels. The Wizard's spell list follows that progression from sleep and magic missile at level 1 to Time Stop and Wail of the Banshee at level 9 the cleric list is pretty similar in that regard.
Monsters follow this progression as well generally cr10+ monsters have special powers and/or spell like ability's or even some times spells of their own that are genraly in line with what a PC spellcaster of the that level is capable. The Iconic CR 13 beholders eye rays are similar to spells cast by a 13th level caster (rare exceptions exist like the CR 9 Adamantine horror with its at-will implosion).
Stacked up against monster meant to challenge the party with their physical might alone the fighter is increasingly outclassed after level 6. Compared to PC fighters melee type monster have more hit dice, better stats, better bab, natural armor and damage reduction, and do horrible things like pounce, rend, or improved grab you with their absurd grapple modifiers.
A 13th level wizard can win against a caster monster like a beholder on his own even at low op close to 50% of the time and an 8th level wizard is actually a better caster than the cr 8 Dark Naga. Against the cr 8 Behier a level 8 fighter is lunch unless he's ludicrously over wealth by level and a level 10 Fighter facing a fire giant has the soul-crushing experience of being beaten at the at his own game (if he badly built the giant may be able to beat him to death with it's bear hands) without the giant even touching a magic item
wow that went on longer than expected TL:DR wizards and clerics keep up with level appropriate challenges fighters don't
Quote from: Black Vulmea;570296B/X Blackrazor blog: Magic-users are too weak! (http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2012/08/killing-vancian-magic-part-1.html)
Untimately blog: Magic-users rule! (http://untimately.blogspot.com/2012/08/magic-users-are-awesome.html)
Quote from: Black Vulmea;570296B/X Blackrazor blog: Magic-users are too weak! (http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2012/08/killing-vancian-magic-part-1.html)
:rolleyes:
The only way I can reconcile that assessment is from a perspective where combat is the primary source of XP. Which is odd because 1e states gold gives XP. And 2e gives out class bonus XP, and 2e DMG has class specific XP (using a spell to solve a problem, using a priest spell to further ethos, etc.), along with GM option of various XP awards for good playing, clever solutions, etc. With that many XP options you don't have to constantly fight to get XP. But perhaps B/X is a very different system?
And this speaks of nothing about being in a support role (might use your intelligence for improved dungeon cartography, item or area identification, or just being extra set of hands to shuffle vital gear around, etc.). And then there is the oft overlooked hirelings. Is combat spotlight that crucial to the sensibilities of a player class?
I dunno, maybe I'm mischaracterizing his argument. But I'm having difficulty seeing his viewpoint outside of a narrow playstyle that ignores other sections of the game. Maybe he'll be nice enough to come here and clarify where he's finding dissatisfaction.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;570370Untimately blog: Magic-users rule! (http://untimately.blogspot.com/2012/08/magic-users-are-awesome.html)
B/X Blackrazor: Blarglblarglblarglblargh! (http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2012/08/killing-vancian-magic-part-2.html)
Seriously, I haven't read so many stupid things written about
D&D since the denners started trolling this site.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;570395B/X Blackrazor: Blarglblarglblarglblargh! (http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2012/08/killing-vancian-magic-part-2.html)
Seriously, I haven't read so many stupid things written about D&D since the denners started trolling this site.
This thread inches ever nearer to my ultimate goal please don't chase the "Denners" off, they entertain me.:D
Besides if I can make it to 1000 posts at TBP without being banned, it means I must help you get 1000 here. Even if it means you have to be disgusted.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;570395B/X Blackrazor: Blarglblarglblarglblargh! (http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2012/08/killing-vancian-magic-part-2.html)
Seriously, I haven't read so many stupid things written about D&D since the denners started trolling this site.
This dude is trapped into his own perspective, probably poisoned by a variety of bullshit influences, including the Forge, since he cites its Glossary in the blog post linked. He doesn't grok playing wizards, ergo wizards suck, ergo they're badly designed, ergo let's redesign them.
While it's by no means a balance problem but I can see people being dissadisfied with the wizard at low levels. Sleep, Color Spray, Gliterdust, and Web are good spells but casting them always made me feel kind of lame.
also everyone sucks at 1st level once my group wiped to a 1st level orc barbarian true story
The pitiful existence of the first level magic user comes from the view that the end-all of what is possible comes from the character sheet. These same people see the early edition fighter as just a boring machine that with only one option "I attack".
Its what happens when a game all about the imagination is approached and played without any.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;570471The pitiful existence of the first level magic user comes from the view that the end-all of what is possible comes from the character sheet. These same people see the early edition fighter as just a boring machine that with only one option "I attack".
Its what happens when a game all about the imagination is approached and played without any.
Everyone can bullshit the DM and poke things with the 10ft pole. The wizard has 3-4 skillpoints/level over the fighter.
The fighter has oposeable thumbs and Str 18 the wizard has
Silent Image
Quote from: Exploderwizard;570471Its what happens when a game all about the imagination is approached and played without any.
Yeah, the most deadly weapon in any arsenal is imagination. One of the best examples I've seen is this:
QuoteOK, here's a story of the time I ran the Haunted Halls of Eveningstar back in 2e.
I stocked the dungeon with a cleric of Bane, and evil illusionist, his dimwitted ogre sidekick, and a bunch of orcs and bugbears. As the characters battled the monsters, the illusionist kept tricking them with well timed phantasmal forces, ventriloquism, and so on.
Finally, after a series of running battles, the PCs took down the humanoids but let the cleric, illusionist, and ogre slip away. The bad guys ran for a long passage that sloped upward to a cave leading to the outside.
At the top of the slope a boulder closed off the exit. With the PCs close behind them, the bad guys reached the boulder. I looked at my notes and saw that the illusionist was out of spells and the cleric still had a silence memorized.
If you played AD&D, it's worth reminding you that the key weakness to many visual illusions was that they made no noise.
The cleric slapped silence on the boulder and the ogre pulled it from the passage and rolled it down the slope.
The characters were all running up the slope when I described the giant, but utterly silent, rock rolling down at them.
Without missing a beat, one of the players said, "It's an illusion! I keep running forward!"
That was my first TPK.
-Mike Mearls
Clever git :D
After reading so much of this thread it seems that some contributors don't understand a fundamental fact of D&D. D&D scales with level and fighters are a problem because after a certain point they stop keeping up with the game.
What defines D&D across editions is the characters advance as they level from clearing rats out of the tavern basement to clearing Demon Lords from their thrones because the game radically transforms every 5 levels. The Wizard's spell list follows that progression from sleep and magic missile at level 1 to Time Stop and Wail of the Banshee at level 9. The cleric list is pretty similar in that regard.
Monsters follow this progression as well. Generally cr10+ monsters have special powers and/or spell like ability's or even some times spells of their own that are in line with what a PC spellcaster of the that level is capable. The Iconic CR 13 beholders eye rays are similar to spells cast by a 13th level caster.
What purely physical threat to the PC's means follow a similar progression. Fighters do not keep up with what team monster starts bring after level 6. Compared to PC fighters melee-type monsters have more hit dice, better ability scores, better bab, natural armor and damage reduction, and do horrible things like pounce, rend, or improved grab you with their absurd grapple modifiers.
A 13th level wizard can win against a caster monster like a beholder on his own even at low op close to 50% of the time and an 8th level wizard is actually a better caster than the cr 8 Dark Naga. Against the cr 8 Behir a level 8 fighter is lunch unless he's ludicrously over wealth by level and a level 10 Fighter facing a Fire Giant has the soul-crushing experience of being beaten at the at his own game (if he badly built the giant may be able to beat him to death with it's bear hands) without the giant even touching a magic item
wow that went on longer than expected TL:DR wizards and clerics keep up with level appropriate challenges fighters don't
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570477Everyone can bullshit the DM and poke things with the 10ft pole.
And another denner joins the ranks.
Welcome to the adult swim.
There's another post up at B/X Blackrazor, but I'm not going to link this drivel any further; it's just a recap of complaints about magic-users I heard in the Eighties.
What's so ridiculous is that the solutions to JB's 'issues' led to . . . wait for it . . . 3e.
It's like fucking Groundhog Day.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570477Everyone can bullshit the DM and poke things with the 10ft pole. The wizard has 3-4 skillpoints/level over the fighter.
The fighter has oposeable thumbs and Str 18 the wizard has Silent Image
D&D didn't start with Third Edition, though.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;570522And another denner joins the ranks.
Welcome to the adult swim.
Not actualy a denner I'm a vetren of the old wizards CharOP boards pre 4e
But I agree with the Denners on this point.
Your character sheet is the bridge between you and the game world.
If want the DM to magical tea party up a sucess when you have no abilities then pat you on the head and say your the prettiest princess thats fine for you. I'd like a game to give me rules that work.
Don't think Mistborn is a regular poster at the Den. I don't recognize the name but it was also noted earlier by Marley that "Denner" is a catch all derogatory term for people that disagree with the OP that haven't posted here before.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570530Your character sheet is the bridge between you and the game world.
If want the DM to magical tea party up a sucess when you have no abilities then pat you on the head and say your the prettiest princess thats fine for you. I'd like a game to give me rules that work.
:rotfl:
You guys are so cute.
And by cute, I mean so utterly fucking ridiculous that mocking you is about as challenging and satisfying as clubbing blindfolded baby seals.
A clever referee - that is, a referee with three or four neurons to rub together - can hose your characters anytime she pleases. The rules cannot save your character if the referee wants them to fail.
By your definition, virtually ALL ROLEPLAYING GAMES are magical tea parties.
Maybe you should just stick with
Skyrim.
Fuck. It's like a never-stopping stream of complete bullshit. There's just no end to it. How can gamers play a game of your imagination and become so hopelessly crippled by rules lawyering the game's design to death?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;570525There's another post up at B/X Blackrazor, but I'm not going to link this drivel any further; it's just a recap of complaints about magic-users I heard in the Eighties.
What's so ridiculous is that the solutions to JB's 'issues' led to . . . wait for it . . . 3e.
It's like fucking Groundhog Day.
If this is the direction my hobby is taking, I am just going to go back to playing cribbage.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570530Not actualy a denner I'm a vetren of the old wizards CharOP boards pre 4e
But I agree with the Denners on this point.
There's your problem. You have Denner Induced OCD (Optimal Character Disorder). I prescribe playing an actual game with real people, the symptoms will subside after three or four sessions.
Quote from: Benoist;570545Fuck. It's like a never-stopping stream of complete bullshit. There's just no end to it. How can gamers play a game of your imagination and become so hopelessly crippled by rules lawyering the game's design to death?
I blame Blizzard.
But seriously, I gave up for the most part at the derisive statement
QuoteAnyone can have fun playing ANY game but that is no measure of "balance" unless your definition of "balance" is "fun".
Magical tea party, mother may I, etc. Call it whatever you want. All that matters to me is I have a good time. I don't need a rule for everything to enjoy myself and often find having a rule for everything dampens my enjoyment.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;570554I blame Blizzard.
Don't.
Even Blizzard is trying to put some distance between themselves and the Guess The One True Build school of character building.
WoW is going through a major rehaul of the character building (Talents) subsystem, consonant with patch 5.0 and the upcoming expansion (Mists of Pandaria). Long story short, building your character's suite of special abilities is going to be considerably simpler.
This is what Greg Street (aka Ghostcrawler, WoW systems design big kahuna) had to say on the matter, in a recent post:
Quote from: GhostcrawlerFundamentally, taking into account what we’ve learned about talent trees over the years, we’ve come to the conclusion that the talent tree model where you pick up tiny performance increases here and there (and where there’s, mathematically, nearly always a ‘right’ answer and a ‘wrong’ answer) is not a great model. The Mists talent design is a major revamp that should fix this problem once and for all. Talents should be meaningful game-changers. At absolute worst a given talent may be the right one only situationally, and at best, players will have a lot more customization to make their play-style stand out.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;570554But seriously, I gave up for the most part at the derisive statement
Gave up on what? No one can argue about what is and isn't "fun" because "fun" is immeasurable. It's pointless to argue using something inarguable as a standpoint and you trotting that out as an arument immediately ends any pretext of a debate because such a thing is not logically debateable. If your point is you can have "fun" no matter what, I can't argue with you because there's no way I can prove/disporve that or et any measurable or consistent reading on what you think is "fun".
It literally doesn't matter if I don't think "something" is/n't fun. It doesn't matter if you don't think "something" is/n't fun, Someone somewhere can find enjoyment in just about everything there is up to, including, and beyond getting punched in the face. That makes arguments that hinge on "but I had fun", "I enjoyed it anyway", or "I do this to make it more fun" pointless to debate about. What can be debated on are more concrete things such as numbers, facts, theory, etc.
Quote from: The Butcher;570558Don't.
Even Blizzard is trying to put some distance between themselves and the Guess The One True Build school of character building.
WoW is going through a major rehaul of the character building (Talents) subsystem, consonant with patch 5.0 and the upcoming expansion (Mists of Pandaria). Long story short, building your character's suite of special abilities is going to be considerably simpler.
This is what Greg Street (aka Ghostcrawler, WoW systems design big kahuna) had to say on the matter, in a recent post:
Nice full circle they've come there. Maybe they'll bring back the 40 man raids too :D
That already sounds like a setup for bringing back Shockadins and Fury tanking, and they already simplified the talent system with the LAST changeover. I don't think we need to blather about it in here, but it doesn't sound like anything that's going to bring me crawling back to them anytime soon.
In any case, it wasn't blaming them for their current actions, but more for affecting the culture (and there is a huge overlap) in the first place with the task-specific build system, going back 10 years.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;570556Magical tea party, mother may I, etc. Call it whatever you want. All that matters to me is I have a good time. I don't need a rule for everything to enjoy myself and often find having a rule for everything dampens my enjoyment.
Then why are you posting in a thread about problems with the rules
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570569Then why are you posting in a thread about problems with the rules
As the OP, I can honestly say that this thread is more about
imagined problems with the rules.
Quote from: MGuy;570562Yarp Yarp Yarp.
You keep coming up with "Argue" and "Debate". My argument will continue to be:
1) Argument with vapor people is pointless.
2)From my perspective, and in my experience, you're wrong. Games that I've played in have had no problem with the Wizards being too powerful, or the Fighter feeling like they were underutilized. You've had it explained to you by multiple people that the viewpoint you're championing isn't the norm, and that it was probably due to a failure on the part of an inexperienced or incapable GM.
They've also recommended, and in some cases even offered that you should go game with a better group.
I think that you should try it. You might have more "fun" instead of being so concerned about the numbers.
You're 100% correct that fun is subjective. That's exactly WHY all my statements are qualified with "I had fun with...". There's plenty of people out there who don't share our hobby. They wouldn't have fun no matter if the game was so balanced that you couldn't run a dps spreadsheet blind and have any idea what class you were looking at.
Getting punched in the face may be fun for some folks. And I'm sure that they have a board where they go and talk about different ways to punch each other that will make it more fun for them. But I came here because, on the average, RPG players tend to find the same general sorts of things "fun". And so I share my "fun" stories and concepts with them, and read theirs. It's "fun"
Also, I've noticed something else about this board; they have "fun" in a couple other ways too, one of which is by listening to the trillings of combative assholes who can't accept that this hobby involves a fucking participatory illusion where things don't have to work out perfectly in the numbers and where they don't have to be balanced for us to enjoy it.
But I'm new, so I stay out of that particular gang. I'd watch out for Benoist though, he seems like a slick one to me. It's always the quiet types.
Why do I keep talking, you might be asking yourself? Because I feel sorry for you, to some degree. I don't feel like you're having any fun. Why so serious?
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570569Then why are you posting in a thread about problems with the rules
I don't feel my contribution was off topic.
Quote from: StormBringer;570552You have Denner Induced OCD (Optimal Character Disorder).
:worship:
Quote from: Panzerkraken;570571You keep coming up with "Argue" and "Debate". My argument will continue to be:
1) Argument with vapor people is pointless.
2)From my perspective, and in my experience, you're wrong. Games that I've played in have had no problem with the Wizards being too powerful, or the Fighter feeling like they were underutilized. You've had it explained to you by multiple people that the viewpoint you're championing isn't the norm, and that it was probably due to a failure on the part of an inexperienced or incapable GM.
They've also recommended, and in some cases even offered that you should go game with a better group.
I think that you should try it. You might have more "fun" instead of being so concerned about the numbers.
You're 100% correct that fun is subjective. That's exactly WHY all my statements are qualified with "I had fun with...". There's plenty of people out there who don't share our hobby. They wouldn't have fun no matter if the game was so balanced that you couldn't run a dps spreadsheet blind and have any idea what class you were looking at.
Getting punched in the face may be fun for some folks. And I'm sure that they have a board where they go and talk about different ways to punch each other that will make it more fun for them. But I came here because, on the average, RPG players tend to find the same general sorts of things "fun". And so I share my "fun" stories and concepts with them, and read theirs. It's "fun"
Also, I've noticed something else about this board; they have "fun" in a couple other ways too, one of which is by listening to the trillings of combative assholes who can't accept that this hobby involves a fucking participatory illusion where things don't have to work out perfectly in the numbers and where they don't have to be balanced for us to enjoy it.
But I'm new, so I stay out of that particular gang. I'd watch out for Benoist though, he seems like a slick one to me. It's always the quiet types.
Why do I keep talking, you might be asking yourself? Because I feel sorry for you, to some degree. I don't feel like you're having any fun. Why so serious?
I know your argument is all about fun. I said as much. remember:
Quote from: meI think your argument, most likely, is that you can have "fun" no matter what as long as the GM is good. While that is true, the fact that the fighter is not equal to the wizard (at least power scale or versatility wise) at the higher end, is also true no matter how much fun you can have despite this fact. Anyone can have fun playing ANY game but that is no measure of "balance" unless your definition of "balance" is "fun".
You say I can't accept that people have fun because you seem to think I have a problem with people havin fun in a way I don't. You say this while clipping my posts that I'm startin to think you aren't actually reading for understanding.
Here's the shorthand:
Me: these options are balanced because A, B, C. Where "balance" is when the options available are close to or approaching equality and where A, B, C are some variations of numbers, theory, and concept to show how D&D's rules are in fact not close enough to being balanced to not warrant some discussion.
You: The game is perfectly balanced because X, Y, Z. Where "balance" is equated to fun (something not worth arguing about) and X, Y, Z is the GM's ability to make fundamental rules changes in order to patch up obvious slips in the rules (Fallacy: OB), how you've never encountered a problem (where as there are long essays, play experiences, and other counters where people did run into the problems mentioned), how other people are mean/stupid/not doin it right when they complain about the rules.
Me: Fun is not worth arguin about because you can't argue it.
You: You just can't accept other people havin fun so I ive up on you!
Quote from: StormBringer;570551If this is the direction my hobby is taking, I am just going to go back to playing cribbage.
Just let the loons do their thing, and we'll do ours. They'll redo the 90s all over again, while we'll just keep on enjoying the Classics.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;570574I don't feel my contribution was off topic.
Bedrock actually has a solid slice of reasoning behind his views despite the fact that I disagree with his premise.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;570578:worship:
:hatsoff:
If I might for a moment interupt your circle-jerk
Have we yet discused the fact that fighters are crushingly inferior to "melee-type" monsters after level 6
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570591If I might for a moment interupt your circle-jerk
Have we yet discused the fact that fighters are crushingly inferior to "melee-type" monsters after level 6
We were just waiting for you to mention it so we could go on another 300 pages on this topic.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570591If I might for a moment interupt your circle-jerk
Have we yet discused the fact that fighters are crushingly inferior to "melee-type" monsters after level 6
Yup. That view has been discussed. Find another topic to start an argument over.
Quote from: Benoist;570593We were just waiting for you to mention it so we could go on another 300 pages on this topic.
No, it's only another 215 posts and you can close it down :)
Quote from: Benoist;570593We were just waiting for you to mention it so we could go on another 300 pages on this topic.
^_^ Glad to be of service, might I also bring up the Book of Weaboo Fightan Magic for maximum grognard rage
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570591If I might for a moment interupt your circle-jerk
Have we yet discused the fact that fighters are crushingly inferior to "melee-type" monsters after level 6
This issue probably has been discussed in all liklihood, as the thread is over three hundred pages now.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570597^_^ Glad to be of service, might I also bring up the Book of Weaboo Fightan Magic for maximum grognard rage
You can do whatever you want to, but not sure what a third edition book has to do with grognards.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570591If I might for a moment interupt your circle-jerk
Have we yet discused the fact that fighters are crushingly inferior to "melee-type" monsters after level 6
Interestingly enouh I did point that out. Someone threw golems out and it was shown that fighters (unless they are equipped to kill golems and even then its a coin toss) can't handle them in 3rd. Panzerkin and I right now in a Thunderdome duel with a level 10 fighter v a level 10 wizard where right now where I (a conjurer with no save or die spells) have to beat him (a fighter with a leadership: cohort pegasus) in combat to show why wizards are superior. It has to be combat because fighters fail too hard everywhere else without caster assistance or specific and targeted magical assistance.
What's more is I brought up the fact that a lot of higher level foes (in fact all of them after a certain level) are inherently magical by way of existing and posited that logically fighters should be the same. That also was shot down.
For the most part though people have used the "Older Editions were impervious to these allegations" defense despite people who like and play 2nd ed (IE not me) claiming that the disparity exists even then.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;570599You can do whatever you want to, but not sure what a third edition book has to do with grognards.
The Tome of Battles: Book of Nine Sword is genraly regarded by the CharOp comunity as one of the best sourcebooks WotC ever printed. It contains the shattered pieces of what 4th edition could have been before Mearls tuned to fail. The Book of Weaboo Fightan Magic was give to it by It's detractors who are mostly grognard. It Contains the Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade, the "Martial Adept" Classes. I thing I'll let the Warblad take it from here.
Warblade "Hello gamers, look at your melee class, now back to me, back at your class, now back to me, sadly it isn't me but if you switch to playing a martial adept you could contribute after level 6 like me, what's on my character sheet it's manuvers that contribute to combat in an interesting way, look again the manuvers are now Diamond Mind, Anything is possible if you stop playing lame melee classes and switch to playing martial adepts
I'm on a Manticore"
Quote from: MGuy;570580Wakka Wakka Wakka
Restating someone's point to suit your needs isn't a valid means of 'winning teh boardz'. I think someone must have lied to you about it, and honestly, I don't like it. So don't 'shorthand' words into my mouth. Quote if you like, but don't go back to your old habits.
I didn't say the game is balanced, I said that balance isn't important, other than in the hands of the GM, whose responsibility it is to provide and ensure the balance. It is, however true that I've never encountered a problem with balance in any game that I've run, because I'm the GM in them, so I can balance anything in those games. In fact, I have to, it's my JOB.
You've adjusted my words again in your 'summary' to make your claim that I'm posting under the Oberoni Fallacy. I didn't say rules. I said balance. The balance issue you're claiming isn't an issue of a rules oversight or loophole, it's the result of the Fighter simply not putting out as much damage/being as versatile as the Wizard.
Also, once again I'll remind you that the OB Fallacy is directed toward system rules and design, not balance. You have to use your prowords properly.
Quote from: OberoniThis my my take on the issue. Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion: "There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X." Several correct replies can be given:
"I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
"I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."
"I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
Okay, I hope you're with me so far. There is, however, an incorrect reply:
"There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form. It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem." It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used. Simple enough.
Balance isn't something you use Rule 0 on, it's something that is inherently and unconditionally done by the GM. You're providing challenges and tasks to keep everyone involved throughout the game, or you're failing in your job.
The only setting where balance is considered that much of an issue is in computer games where there's a competition between players. "NO FAIR! HE'S PLAYING X, MY Y CHARACTER SUCKS. THIS GAME IS STUPID I QUIT" is the kind of call you used to hear from PVP'ers in MMO's. But MMO's have to be autonomous, RPG's aren't. RPG's are based around recreating the worlds of fiction or our imaginations, and in most of those worlds, the individual abilities aren't balanced. In fact, most of the time we expect there to be a distinct slant in one direction, usually away from the protagonist. After all, people love an underdog.
Lets look at the characters from Abercrombie's First Law.
Logen Nine-Fingers: Fighter/Barbarian
Collem West: Fighter
Ferro Maljinn: Tiefling Fighter/Rogue
Dogman: Fighter (Maybe Fighter/Scout)
Bayaz: Wizard
Sand dan Glokta: Former Fighter, now Inquisitor
Ask anyone who's read the book who their favorite character was and who accomplished most of the events, and I'm pretty sure that for the most part noone will answer Bayaz to either question, but he's unquestionably the most raw-powerful character there. (My favorite is Glokta, hands down. He even gets the girl in the end!) Bayaz has influence, access, spells, the whole shebang, but because the GM (that's the Author in this case) decided that the way his adventure (that's the story) was going, it wasn't possible for him to accomplish his goals on his own, he had to drag along those pathetic fighter types. By pretty much all indications once you get to the end of it all, Bayaz should have been able to summon a couple demons, do a little necromancy, have a couple bites of someone's leg, and stepped all over the opposition to his restoring order to the world as he saw fit, but instead we got the amusing interplay between all the Fighters.
So, in conclusion to this one, I'll say again: Balance is not some mathematical constant that needs to be tweaked into a set place. Trying to apply those concepts to it cheapens the whole experience. Save that for computer games.
Quote from: MGuy;570602For the most part though people have used the "Older Editions were impervious to these allegations" defense despite people who like and play 2nd ed (IE not me) claiming that the disparity exists even then.
Lets be clear though only myself and jibba jibba were among the 2E players who believe there is a disparity there in 2e and both of us still have very different views on this. Jibba felt the disparity between caster and non caster was significant but acceptable because it makes the game more fun and interesting. I felt the disparity was there but overblown, and was part of the balance over campaign approach of the game ( a type of balance I enjoy and am fine with). Not interested in rehashing this discussion, but just wanted to clarify this pointl several other 2e players felt, when you account for casting time, weapon speed, spell interuption, consequences of spell use, chance to know spells and resource management, the disparity was more of an illusion than anything else.
My advice, is play 2E and decide for yourself. If you find it broken, I wont try to convince you otherwise. I happen to think it works well, supports interesting flavor and is pretty well balanced.
I get that you think fighters should be a bit more wushu or quasi magical. That is fine. It is a totally acceptable opinion and a perfectly fine style play. What I find a bit odd is your seeming insistance that others ought to want that as well. For me that is just the opposite of the kind of character I want the fighter to be.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570606The Tome of Battles: Book of Nine Sword is genraly regarded by the CharOp comunity as one of the best sourcebooks WotC ever printed. It contains the shatter pieces of what 4th edition could have been before Mearls tuned to fail. The Book of Weaboo Fightan Magic was give to it by It's detractors who are mostly grognard. It Contains the Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade, the "Martial Adept" Classes. I thing I'll let the Warblad take it from here.
Warblade "Hello gamers look at your melee class, now back to me, back at your class, now back to me, sadly it isn't me but if you switch to playing a martial adept you could contribute after level 6 like me, what's on my character sheet it's manuvers that contribute to combat in an interesting way, look again the manuvers are now Diamond Mind, Anything is possible if you stop playing lame melee classes and switch to playing martial adepts
I'm on a Manticore
I know what it is, having run optimized campaigns before for 3E. I just don't know why mentioning it is going to usher in the grognard rage yu are expecting, since, for the most part grognards don't play much 3E.
Stuff like that appeals to some people and not to others. My own feeling is I wouldn't mind that kind of stuff in a wushu style campaign, but if I am playing a more standard fantasy games, it kind of detracts from the setting for me. To each his own.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570606The Tome of Battles: Book of Nine Sword is genraly regarded by the CharOp comunity as one of the best sourcebooks WotC ever printed.
The thing is, I don't allow CharOp specialists or rules lawyers in my games -- nor will I play in games with them -- so what they like isn't of much concern to me. This allows them to do what they consider fun without me raining on their parade and allows me (and others in my games like me) to do what we consider fun without excessive charop and rules lawyering raining on our parade. To each their own.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;570608I get that you think fighters should be a bit more wushu or quasi magical. That is fine. It is a totally acceptable opinion and a perfectly fine style play. What I find a bit odd is your seeming insistance that others ought to want that as well. For me that is just the opposite of the kind of character I want the fighter to be.
I don't see why there wouldn't be room in a class-based system for (Mechanically) simple fighters, complex mages, complex fighters and simple mages. Everyone could get the varying style they want; surely that's one of the strengths of classes.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570606The Tome of Battles: Book of Nine Sword is genraly regarded by the CharOp comunity as one of the best sourcebooks WotC ever printed. It contains the shattered pieces of what 4th edition could have been before Mearls tuned to fail. The Book of Weaboo Fightan Magic was give to it by It's detractors who are mostly grognard. It Contains the Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade, the "Martial Adept" Classes. I thing I'll let the Warblad take it from here.
Warblade "Hello gamers, look at your melee class, now back to me, back at your class, now back to me, sadly it isn't me but if you switch to playing a martial adept you could contribute after level 6 like me, what's on my character sheet it's manuvers that contribute to combat in an interesting way, look again the manuvers are now Diamond Mind, Anything is possible if you stop playing lame melee classes and switch to playing martial adepts
I'm on a Manticore"
Maybe you should play the character instead of playing the character sheet.
Quote from: RandallS;570610The thing is, I don't allow CharOp specialists or rules lawyers in my games -- nor will I play in games with them -- so what they like isn't of much concern to me. This allows them to do what they consider fun without me raining on their parade and allows me (and others in my games like me) to do what we consider fun without excessive charop and rules lawyering raining on our parade. To each their own.
I've never understood this aditude everyone CharOp's be it taking Power Attack so you can actualy hurt the monsters or not filling wizard slots entirely with hold portal and arcane lock.
As for Martial Adepts if you allow caster they should be fine though even warblades struggle to keep up after level 12
Quote from: Ladybird;570614I don't see why there wouldn't be room in a class-based system for (Mechanically) simple fighters, complex mages, complex fighters and simple mages. Everyone could get the varying style they want; surely that's one of the strengths of classes.
That would be one approach. Some wouldn't want all those options at the same table. It isn't always an issue of the kind of character I want to play, but the kind of campaign/setting I want to run or play in. Some of the more over-the-top fighter classes from 3E are a bit disruptive to that for me. One of the reasons my interest in that edition declined over time. Clearly there is an appetitite in some quarters for it. So I am not saying others shouldn't enjoy that kind of fair. But there is a reason I went back to 2E and that is because it offered more of what I wanted in terms of setting and gameplay.
Quote from: StormBringer;570615Maybe you should play the character instead of playing the character sheet.
OK then you are a 8th level fighter and their is a behir gaurding the pass between where you are and where you need to be. you character sheet gives you no solution to this problem .
How do your "character" get past the behir given that your "character sheet" can't
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570620OK then you are a 8th level fighter and their is a behir gaurding the pass between where you are and where you need to be. you character sheet gives you no solution to this problem .
Then you have to think outside the box. Some options off the top of my head: go a different way; drive some food into the pass and sneak through while the behir is dealing with catching that meal; if you play in a campaign where reaction checks (instead of everything attacks on sight) are used try dealing with the behir (they often speak common); find someone else who can beat the behir and pay them to deal with it (or trick them into dealing with it), lurk the behir away, etc. As a last resort, you can change objectives and do something else entirely that does not involve the behir.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;570608Lets be clear though only myself and jibba jibba were among the 2E players who believe there is a disparity there in 2e and both of us still have very different views on this.
I can think of at least two others: Frank I know and Sacrificial Lamb I believe. As for playing it that's a nonstarter even if I were interested in doing so. What's more is I don't have many problems playing games with systems I don't like. I don't like 7th Sea's system but I like the setting enough to stomach it, I don't like Shadow Run's system though there aren't many balance issues I know of (note I do not know how Matrices work at all) but I'll play it. I'm suure given a good GM and group I can play the game and enjoy it. I have been pointing out issues with third edition here for a while and its STILL the only game I run and play with any regularity at all and it's my favorite system.
As for Panzer:
Quote from: Panzerkraken;570607Stuff about how you didn't say things you did say.
Skippin this because I'll just quote you from now on so you can just adjust your statements personal like into something you didn't actually say.
QuoteI didn't say the game is balanced, I said that balance isn't important, other than in the hands of the GM, whose responsibility it is to provide and ensure the balance. It is, however true that I've never encountered a problem with balance in any game that I've run, because I'm the GM in them, so I can balance anything in those games. In fact, I have to, it's my JOB.
So you don't believe balance is important but believe that GMs should be balancin the game. This is what you are actually saying to be sure that I'm not just reshaping your argument. So if you believe that balance isn't important why do you then believe its important for the GM to balance the game?
QuoteYou've adjusted my words again in your 'summary' to make your claim that I'm posting under the Oberoni Fallacy. I didn't say rules. I said balance. The balance issue you're claiming isn't an issue of a rules oversight or loophole, it's the result of the Fighter simply not putting out as much damage/being as versatile as the Wizard.
Name of the thread "Wiz v Fighter Balance is bullshit". So just to be clear yes I'm talking about how the rules screw over the fighter from being a level appropriate challenge mostof the time (without CharOp that is). By the rules the fighter is supposed to equal or near equal to the wizard/druic/cleric. He's not save for the first few levels. Thus there is a rules oversight which is why I claim Oberoni when you act like there is no problem.
QuoteBalance isn't something you use Rule 0 on, it's something that is inherently and unconditionally done by the GM. You're providing challenges and tasks to keep everyone involved throughout the game, or you're failing in your job.
Once again you said balance didn't matter but are vehemently pushin for the GM to balance things.
Quotestuff about books
Strawman.
QuoteSo, in conclusion to this one, I'll say again: Balance is not some mathematical constant that needs to be tweaked into a set place. Trying to apply those concepts to it cheapens the whole experience. Save that for computer games.
I wanna take this time to point out that THIS is something different from what you said at the top of your post. But just to be sure I'm reading right, attempting to balance the game and talking about balancing the game cheapens the experience of everything but computer games? If that is so why are you talking about it here? My concept is simply that there should be an equal (ideally) or close to equal amount of awesome in every class. Why wouldn't I want to apply it to the game? Why is it good for the game that some people get awesome powers by virtue of training super hard but another person who has trained just as/almost as hard can't do the same? You got a paladin (which is almost a fihter) and HE gets super powers (not enouh to put him on the same level as druid but still some). You ot Monk who's based around fihting and (thouh he sucks in core) he still gets super powers. There is no good reason a fighter shouldn't get the ability to do something awesome of his own volition. Hell I've never seen ANYONE play a fighter 1st to 20th without prestiging into something that has some sort of superpower.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;570619That would be one approach. Some wouldn't want all those options at the same table. It isn't always an issue of the kind of character I want to play, but the kind of campaign/setting I want to run or play in. Some of the more over-the-top fighter classes from 3E are a bit disruptive to that for me. One of the reasons my interest in that edition declined over time. Clearly there is an appetitite in some quarters for it. So I am not saying others shouldn't enjoy that kind of fair. But there is a reason I went back to 2E and that is because it offered more of what I wanted in terms of setting and gameplay.
Wouldn't it be better that if people don't like over the top classes that the game be balanced so that there aren't any? I'm fine with low powered games, I'm fine with hih powered games. I don't see why one group of classses being delibetrately sealed from awesome while other classes can get it is a good thing for any game.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570620OK then you are a 8th level fighter and their is a behir gaurding the pass between where you are and where you need to be. you character sheet gives you no solution to this problem .
How do your "character" get past the behir given that your "character sheet" can't
Manage to lure the Behir out of its lair to get past the area. Wait until the Behir gets away to feed itself. Feed the Behir with the corpses of the enemies you just slew earlier in the dungeon. Organize a diversion (getting some other dungeon occupant to do the job for you, or getting the Behir interested in them somehow) while you run past the busy Behir. Go back to town, come up with a plan and then come back to face the Behir problem on equal footing. You know. Play the actual game?
Quote from: MGuy;570644Wouldn't it be better that if people don't like over the top classes that the game be balanced so that there aren't any? I'm fine with low powered games, I'm fine with hih powered games. I don't see why one group of classses being delibetrately sealed from awesome while other classes can get it is a good thing for any game.
Not for what I want in a game. Magic should be over the top and interesting but i want my fighters to be mundane martial warriors. That doesn't mean they have to be imbalanced. We have already discussed this endlessly and not going to indulge you on the subject again. You know my arguments. Over the top and over powered are not the same thing.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;570649Not for what I want in a game. Magic should be over the top and interesting but i want my fighters to be mundane martial warriors. That doesn't mean they have to be imbalanced. We have already discussed this endlessly and not going to indulge you on the subject again. You know my arguments. Over the top and over powered are not the same thing.
Ok but even still, wouldn't it be better that all classes then had little to no magic? Wouldn't that keep everybody from bein the same, provide some magic, AND keep everybody roughly even contribution wise throughout the game? I mean I can sew your point at lower levels but come on, at higher levels you might as well keep everyone somewhat cemented to the ground if that's the feel you like. I mean, as I said, the paladin and monk both get super powers but have both feet firmly planted on the ground.
Quote from: MGuy;570652Ok but even still, wouldn't it be better that all classes then had little to no magic? Wouldn't that keep everybody from bein the same, provide some magic, AND keep everybody roughly even contribution wise throughout the game?
First, the last point isn't really something I think is important. I'm fine with classes that start weaker than most and end up more powerful than most. I'm fine with classes that cannot contribute equally to all likely adventurer activities. In fact, I consider worlds where everyone is that equal unrealistic and boring.
Second, none of the homebrew worlds I use would work with only classes that have little to no magic. Rules set up that way are pretty much going to be rejected unless they are so much better than what I have now that completely rewriting the system to work with more magic is worth my effort.
Quote from: RandallS;570658First, the last point isn't really something I think is important. I'm fine with classes that start weaker than most and end up more powerful than most. I'm fine with classes that cannot contribute equally to all likely adventurer activities. In fact, I consider worlds where everyone is that equal unrealistic and boring.
This is sort of where I'm at too, and it seems to be a point that too many people keep forgetting all too often.
Quote from: RandallS;570658First, the last point isn't really something I think is important. I'm fine with classes that start weaker than most and end up more powerful than most. I'm fine with classes that cannot contribute equally to all likely adventurer activities. In fact, I consider worlds where everyone is that equal unrealistic and boring.
Second, none of the homebrew worlds I use would work with only classes that have little to no magic. Rules set up that way are pretty much going to be rejected unless they are so much better than what I have now that completely rewriting the system to work with more magic is worth my effort.
Consider the sorcerer. This class cannot contribute to everyt part of the adventure equally because they have to have spells for offence, defense, exploration, socializin, etc. They literally can't use their abilities to do ALL of that. What they CAN do is aim to do something or be a generalist. However, unless the spell selection is REALLY bad, they are able to not be forgotten in all parts of the advvenuture.
I have a conjurer in the Thunderdome right now. I specifically made a conjurer because I like summoning in general. The only thing better is a diplomancer which is my favorite thing to be (I like minions/henchmen/lackeys/etc in general). Now I as a summoner with just core rules can only do so much with just conjuration. I cannot heal myself, participate in social encounters well enough to not have someone else on the team do it and I had to dip into other schools just to cover more general bases like self defense. What I CAN do is summon. This allows me to teleport, pick and choose monsters to help bypass obstacles, and participate in combat in several unique and interesting ways. However I cannot participate in all parts of the game "equally" as well as some other classes would be able to. If I had a bard on my team he is a better healer and rocks the social minigame's face off. If I had a cleric of war he's a big time healer and can serve to hold off monsters while I summon in some more melee help. If I had a druid on my team it could be ranged or melee either way that druid is not only brining in terrain shifting, possible blasting, possible wildshaped animal rage but he also brings along an animal companion that can do all that. And that Druid and Cleric would be better at searchin for stuff than me because they get access to all their spells.Cleric can summon too if he wanted but an't shape the battlefield like I do. Druid can summon stufff to but probably won't because wildhaping and terrain shifting are better options since they already have an animal companion.
There's no reason to think that just because you are given some level of awesome nobody can have shine moments.If we're in the wilderness the Druid is taking the lead. When I et in trouble with religious leaders for summoning evil creatures the cleric and bard will jump to my defense and talk thins out. When it comes to dungeon navigation, securing our escape, capturing foes, teleporting, arcane shennanians that's my conjurer all over. What's the point of a class that can only swing a sword when compared to a group like that?
Quote from: MGuy;570652Ok but even still, wouldn't it be better that all classes then had little to no magic? Wouldn't that keep everybody from bein the same, provide some magic, AND keep everybody roughly even contribution wise throughout the game? I mean I can sew your point at lower levels but come on, at higher levels you might as well keep everyone somewhat cemented to the ground if that's the feel you like. I mean, as I said, the paladin and monk both get super powers but have both feet firmly planted on the ground.
No. Because that isn't the feel i want. I want mundane characters like thieves and fighters to be mundane, but I want magical characters to he magical. Monks and paladins are quasi magical classes, the fighter is not. I like having fighters as non magical. If you want every one to have magic or everyone not to have it, that is fine....but not the game I want to play. Once again mcguy, not going to indulge you further on this. We have already had this debate. I get your preference, i dont get your insistance that i ought to share it.
Quote from: RandallS;570658First, the last point isn't really something I think is important. I'm fine with classes that start weaker than most and end up more powerful than most. I'm fine with classes that cannot contribute equally to all likely adventurer activities. In fact, I consider worlds where everyone is that equal unrealistic and boring.
Total agreement I want asymmetric character classes, I want classes that aren't suited to combat in the classic martial sense. I'm completely fine with some classes being flat out better or worse in specific areas than others. It's like that in the real world and
I want that to be modeled as closely as possible in any games I use.
Quote from: Marleycat;570666Total agreement I want asymmetric character classes, I want classes that aren't suited to combat in the classic martial sense. I'm completely fine with some classes being flat out better or worse in specific areas than others. It's like that in the real world and
I want that to be modeled as closely as possible in any games I use.
This is something I like as well.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;570664No. Because that isn't the feel i want. I want mundane characters like thieves and fighters to be mundane, but I want magical characters to he magical. Monks and paladins are quasi magical classes, the fighter is not. I like having fighters as non magical. If you want every one to have magic or everyone not to have it, that is fine....but not the game I want to play. Once again mcguy, not going to indulge you further on this. We have already had this debate. I get your preference, i dont get your insistance that i ought to share it.
I haven't suggested that you conform to my tastes.Tastes are something that can't be argued. Your tastes do confuse me as I can't see why intentionally gimping a select class is a good thing but I suppose I was confusin you saying that you like it as "it's ood for the game".
Quote from: MGuy;570669I haven't suggested that you conform to my tastes.Tastes are something that can't be argued. Your tastes do confuse me as I can't see why intentionally gimping a select class is a good thing but I suppose I was confusin you saying that you like it as "it's ood for the game".
McGuy we have been at this spot before. There are two different concepts being discussed: class flavor and class power levels. Wanting fighters to be mundane is a flavor consideration, not a power consideration. So it doesn't require gimping. As i have said many times, bake in a high enough bonus to their attack and damage, give them enough attacks and you can easily have a mundane fighter that keeps up with your over the top magical wizard just fine. No gimping.
I have also said I am fine with power disparity at different stages of the campaign or in different circumstances, but that was a seperate point.
I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt mcguy because you are making an impresdive effort in the design thread...but everytime you say you are confused and drag up a discussion we have had multiple times over it is very hard not to think, on this thread at least, you are just trolling.
Quote from: MGuy;570652Ok but even still, wouldn't it be better that all classes then had little to no magic? Wouldn't that keep everybody from bein the same, provide some magic, AND keep everybody roughly even contribution wise throughout the game? I mean I can sew your point at lower levels but come on, at higher levels you might as well keep everyone somewhat cemented to the ground if that's the feel you like. I mean, as I said, the paladin and monk both get super powers but have both feet firmly planted on the ground.
That's completely up to the GM managing the setting. Your interpretation the core rules' function seems to be far more calcified than what was printed in older books.
TSR DMGs repeatedly talked about this sort of setting management, asking GMs to think about the play ramifications. Hell, multiple TSR setting lines explicitly recommended altered or capped magic items and spell lists.
Why do you sound like you need permission printed in the books?
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570620OK then you are a 8th level fighter and their is a behir gaurding the pass between where you are and where you need to be. you character sheet gives you no solution to this problem .
How do your "character" get past the behir given that your "character sheet" can't
Quote from: RandallS;570640Then you have to think outside the box. Some options off the top of my head: go a different way; drive some food into the pass and sneak through while the behir is dealing with catching that meal; if you play in a campaign where reaction checks (instead of everything attacks on sight) are used try dealing with the behir (they often speak common); find someone else who can beat the behir and pay them to deal with it (or trick them into dealing with it), lurk the behir away, etc. As a last resort, you can change objectives and do something else entirely that does not involve the behir.
Quote from: Benoist;570645Manage to lure the Behir out of its lair to get past the area. Wait until the Behir gets away to feed itself. Feed the Behir with the corpses of the enemies you just slew earlier in the dungeon. Organize a diversion (getting some other dungeon occupant to do the job for you, or getting the Behir interested in them somehow) while you run past the busy Behir. Go back to town, come up with a plan and then come back to face the Behir problem on equal footing. You know. Play the actual game?
Exactly right on both responses.
Doesn't it suck to think you have this really great gotcha all lined up, then you realize you didn't see the utterly predictable non-character sheet based responses because you are so thoroughly mired in your 3.x paradigm of character sheet
über alles?
So, again, stop playing the CharOp minigame like it is the
whole game and everyone else plays that way too. Put away your character
sheet and play your
character.
Quote from: Opaopajr;570673That's completely up to the GM managing the setting. Your interpretation the core rules' function seems to be far more calcified than what was printed in older books.
TSR DMGs repeatedly talked about this sort of setting management, asking GMs to think about the play ramifications. Hell, multiple TSR setting lines explicitly recommended altered or capped magic items and spell lists.
Why do you sound like you need permission printed in the books?
I don't know why it sounds that way to you but I made the point (aain way earlier in the thread) that you have fihter who at lower levels is an equal participating member of the group. He is good at fighting and things are grounded enough where him being an extra pair of hands and some lucky rolls on untrained skills can keep him relevant. At higher levels his usefulness wanes to the point he might as well be an NPC the other players with better classes drag along with him because he can't do anything that someone else can't do but better. Casters at higher levels can end combats at about the same rate or faster than fighters can. They get abilities that allow them to find, bypass, research, trick, charm, scare, trap, and run and recover from monsters all better than the fighter. The only hope a fighter ever has is that no one decides to be the, "end combat with stuff" guy and that he gets magic items, cohorts, or special considerations to keep him relevant.
Brendan (and I'm paraphrasing) doesn't mind the disparity because he claims as long as a fighter can fight (and fight means swing a sword and et punched in the face becuase other ways of fighting do not count) then he remains relevant at all levels. That is despite the other castin class's ability to requisition better fighters, summon, avoid fights, kill things in one spell, trick thins, bind things, etc etc. Otherwise he's fine with the fihter bein an extra pair of hands in everything else. I'm sayin that that kind of thing should either be an option (like you can choose to be a blaster wizard or healbot cleric) but not make it the rule.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570530Not actualy a denner I'm a vetren of the old wizards CharOP boards pre 4e
But I agree with the Denners on this point.
Your character sheet is the bridge between you and the game world.
If want the DM to magical tea party up a sucess when you have no abilities then pat you on the head and say your the prettiest princess thats fine for you. I'd like a game to give me rules that work.
That's funny, for someone who's 'not a denner' you've already internalized all of their jargon.
Quote from: MGuy;570681Brendan (and I'm paraphrasing) doesn't mind the disparity because he claims as long as a fighter can fight (and fight means swing a sword and et punched in the face becuase other ways of fighting do not count) then he remains relevant at all levels. That is despite the other castin class's ability to requisition better fighters, summon, avoid fights, kill things in one spell, trick thins, bind things, etc etc. Otherwise he's fine with the fihter bein an extra pair of hands in everything else. I'm sayin that that kind of thing should either be an option (like you can choose to be a blaster wizard or healbot cleric) but not make it the rule.
again you mischaracterize my position by fusing two entirely seperate points I have been making through the thread.
Point one: I am personally okay with actual power disparity at various points in the campaign. For instance the fighters power waning if he starts out strong and the wizard starts out weak. That is fine with me.
Point two: however you can make a balanced game, without this kind of disparity, that preserves the flavor of D&D by baking the numbers into the fighter class so he doesn't become irrelevent and balancing the wizard appropriately. There may be a spike here or there because of the nature of wizards and resource management but balance here can be achieved. You just need to keep an eye on the math at every step. This allows you to have awe inspiring wizards but make sure fighters dont fall behind. Here I am really talking in general design terms for future editions of D&D. So I don't see how you are reaching the conclusion that the fighter would be sidelined by spells the wizard may or maybnot have, since i haven't even said what those might be and how they might be balanced.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570620OK then you are a 8th level fighter and their is a behir gaurding the pass between where you are and where you need to be. you character sheet gives you no solution to this problem .
How do your "character" get past the behir given that your "character sheet" can't
???
You'll have to explain to me exactly why a typical 8th level fighter can't 'get past' a behir, a CR8 monster (which, technically is meant to be a challenge to FOUR 8th level characters... so simply saying its too tough is more than a little disingenious).
What specific abilities does the Behir have that makes the fighter useless against it?
Because honestly: I'd give a normal* 8th level fighter, all by his widdle lonesome self, decent odds against a lone behir even without getting into oddly specific things like miscellanious flying items, potions and whatnot.
* by normal I do mean a fighter that has been played, not the amusingly limited 'thunderdome' fighters we see a lot of here. Not that I think one of the thunderdome fighters we've been seeing around here is necessarily 'helpless' against the awe inspiring might of the unstoppable, indestructable behir that Mistborn seems to have in his MM, but he's more likely to have some sort of glaring gaping hole in his character sheet (like a lack of a dagger or something simple like that...).
More, as I've pointed out before: organically played characters are naturally more optimized to fight the monsters/tactics the DM tends to use frequently. If behirs and similar beasts are common, players will probably have 'anti-grapple' tactics high on their design priorties.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;570684again you mischaracterize my position by fusing two entirely seperate points I have been making through the thread.
Point one: I am personally okay with actual power disparity at various points in the campaign. For instance the fighters power waning if he starts out strong and the wizard starts out weak. That is fine with me.
No comment on this.
QuotePoint two: however you can make a balanced game, without this kind of disparity, that preserves the flavor of D&D by baking the numbers into the fighter class so he doesn't become irrelevent and balancing the wizard appropriately. There may be a spike here or there because of the nature of wizards and resource management but balance here can be achieved. You just need to keep an eye on the math at every step. This allows you to have awe inspiring wizards but make sure fighters dont fall behind. Here I am really talking in general design terms for future editions of D&D. So I don't see how you are reaching the conclusion that the fighter would be sidelined by spells the wizard may or maybnot have, since i haven't even said what those might be and how they might be balanced.
Now this is interesting in that this reads as if we agree. If you're suggesting nerfing wizards down while tuning fighters up then we agree. However, all this time our contention has been whether to give fighters magic powers. Let me clarify something:
I believe things should be balanced not in a way where all fighters are wizards or all wizards are fighters but I believe things should be balanced where everybody has about the same level of awesome. Since the conversation focuses so much on fighters I haven't made this point enough times: I also believe that the wizard should be scaled back. I don't think magic shouldn't be fanstastic but the higher end stuff can get a bit ridiculous. I believe that a more balanced approach meeting somewhere in the middle (not the top or bottom) is how DnD would be best. I'm designing my own game to be just that.
Hire lots of guys with bows, and a low level cleric to follow along and cast protection from lighting on you, and a few other piddly buffs. Have them wait a ways away and support with archery in an anchored line while the cleric runs even further away.If the thing is guarding a pass, someone somewhere would prefer it not to be guarding it, I bet the character could get a little support even if low on funds.
Challenge the behir to come out of its lair and fight you. Without the breath weapon, and all the arrows, a modestly buff level 8 fighter would have at least a slim chance, and hope the thing doesn't roll a 20.
A crappy plan, but there it is. In AD&D, it'd be dubious, but possible.
Or, hell, just walk around the damn lair and avoid the thing. So there's a pass...take the looong way around. In 3e, a potion of Fly or the like is hardly going to break the bank. The whole "kill everything that moves, must clear every square inch" mentality is decent enough in computer games, but for tabletop RPGs, it's a big world, not everything is to met head on, slaughtered, and looted.
Let me doubly clerify. If in a game we have a wizard who at best can produce effects that anyone else can produce but faster then I don't mind the fighter not having magic. If at best the wizard can do is use a fireball and there are explosives available or a fighter can do the something similar with ultra cleave then that's satisfying. If a wizard can warp the mind of a target and make them their slave while your diplomancer has to talk them into it over a few days, that's cool. But higher end dnd is worse than that (especially in third). Wizards can invade people's dreams, steal souls, change the weather, and create unbreakable walls of force. So naturally i believe all class should have a similar level of power or that level should be drawn back.
Quote from: RandallS;570640Then you have to think outside the box. Some options off the top of my head: go a different way;
And gain nothing from the experience besides an Attaboy from the DM
Quote from: RandallS;570640drive some food into the pass and sneak through while the behir is dealing with catching that meal;
And how is a fighter going to do this? Ever try to herd animals into a place where they know that something
bad lives? Didn't think so, That idea is out.
Quote from: RandallS;570640if you play in a campaign where reaction checks (instead of everything attacks on sight) are used try dealing with the behir (they often speak common);
They often speak common? my 1e MM2 says nothing about them speaking common. nor my 2e MC, Only the 3e entry says it speaks common.
Quote from: RandallS;570640find someone else who can beat the behir and pay them to deal with it (or trick them into dealing with it), lurk the behir away, etc. As a last resort, you can change objectives and do something else entirely that does not involve the behir.
Hope the current objective isn't timed or as last resort, quit and go home.
Quote from: Spike;570686but he's more likely to have some sort of glaring gaping hole in his character sheet (like a lack of a dagger or something simple like that...)
Sadly far too true.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570620OK then you are a 8th level fighter and their is a behir gaurding the pass between where you are and where you need to be. you character sheet gives you no solution to this problem .
How do your "character" get past the behir given that your "character sheet" can't
Hire a mountaineer/guide to take you over the mountains instead of the pass?
Find some giant eagles or owls and perform some task for them in exchange for a lift over the mountains?
Lure the behir into a trap and drop a rockslide on it?
Baboons I tell you, baboons...
Quote from: Sommerjon;570707Hope the current objective isn't timed
I would certainly like to think that if I was playing a game with a "race against time aspect" that there would be the possibility of me failing the race against time.
Quote from: Sommerjon;570707And how is a fighter going to do this? Ever try to herd animals into a place where they know that something bad lives? Didn't think so, That idea is out.
So now we have some sort of expert on how herd animals react to behirs in real life?
"As a real-life cow rancher in monster county let me tell you a thing or two about your ridiculous plan."
Good grief.
Quote from: Sommerjon;570707And gain nothing from the experience besides an Attaboy from the DM
Whereas "fighting" the "behir" is a deeply moving spiritual moment.
Quote from: Planet Algol;570715So now we have some sort of expert on how herd animals react to behirs in real life?
DO YOU SERIOUSLY NEED RULES TO TELL YOU ABOUT HOW A DOMESTICATED COW IS GOING TO REACT TO BEING CONFRONTED WITH A 40FT LONG, TWO TON LIGHTNING BREATHING SNAKE MONSTER?
As the
DUNGEON MASTER, I'd adjucate that all that mooing from a cow being dragged towards the territory of a giant, adventurer-killing lightning snake monster would alert the Behir (who has ranks in SPOT, LISTEN, and SURVIVAL, and WIS 14). Do you know what Behir piss smells like? No of course not you don't even know that 'cows are afraid of gigantic lightning snake monsters', so you won't notice it, but the cow's instincts will tell it "THERE IS SOMETHING HORRIBLE AHEAD". Maybe the Behir's Intelligence 7 will allow it to laugh at you in common before he shoots a cone of lightning at you and the cow.
Or maybe you just plain run into its MATE that was somewhere else (behirs often come in mated pairs)
Behirs are also known to be kept as
guardians by wizards in Faerun. It turns out that Behir is guarding something, and it's that same something in the plot that you're trying to get. You think the guardian Behir is going to fall for such a lame trick?
Luck willing, you die and the cow survives and wanders out (because the Behir cannot swallow anything larger than 'medium', he is busy eating you), so everyone at the table has a hilarious story to tell.
Sorry, no goddamn giant eagles are roosting here for you to ride around on like a bicycle. Or if they were, they tell you to bugger off because, who the hell are you to tell them what to do? You're
not fucking Gandalf. Or they have a taste for man-flesh, congrats on jumping from the ass onto the dick.
Hey that goatherd, did you check to see his intentions? Or do you just blindly trust everyone you meet in strange towns because you're a heavily armored professional killer that demands cows? A dead adventurer's gear is a real fortune for a goatherd you know, so all he's gotta do is lead you to where his buddy wile E. Coyote painted a big X to drop a rockslide on your gullible, clueless head.
You're not playing a real time strategy videogame where the cow unit goes whereever your mouse clicks, this isn't Mario Bros where the warp pipe takes you to World 8 without a sweat. You're playing
Dungeons & Dragons, where t
he monsters have brains too (
and if they don't because they're undead there's a goddamn huge evil wizard/cleric brain telling the monster brain what to do.)
I hope you're playing AD&D, it's going to be much faster to roll up a replacement character.
Quote from: OgreBattle;570723DO YOU SERIOUSLY NEED RULES TO TELL YOU ABOUT HOW A DOMESTICATED COW IS GOING TO REACT TO BEING CONFRONTED WITH A 40FT LONG, TWO TON LIGHTNING BREATHING SNAKE MONSTER?
If I was the DM, I'd adjucate that all that mooing from a cow being dragged into a den of evil and death would alert the behir.
I didn't see anything about dragging it down a hole here, just using it as a distraction...
QuoteOriginally Posted by RandallS
drive some food into the pass and sneak through while the behir is dealing with catching that meal;
Quote from: MGuy;570681I don't know why it sounds that way to you but I made the point (aain way earlier in the thread) that you have fihter who at lower levels is an equal participating member of the group. He is good at fighting and things are grounded enough where him being an extra pair of hands and some lucky rolls on untrained skills can keep him relevant. At higher levels his usefulness wanes to the point he might as well be an NPC the other players with better classes drag along with him because he can't do anything that someone else can't do but better.
Still baffling as from the start of this topic. The fighter only wanes if you ignore fighter class features and forget that fighters can keep laying out firepower repeatedly. This is about as relevant that Wizards and Priests are a drag because they are replaceable by potions and scrolls.
The game is not a singular encounter reliant on tactics upon forewarned knowledge. It is playing a role in a setting that requires strategic management of resources through various (expected and not) encounters. By this a spell caster will not have every spell resource available to perfectly counter every problem. Further, a strong character, flexibly proficient in keeping a strong offense/defense without having to tap resource trumps early, helps the party conserve resources strategically.
Quote from: MGuy;570681Casters at higher levels can end combats at about the same rate or faster than fighters can. They get abilities that allow them to find, bypass, research, trick, charm, scare, trap, and run and recover from monsters all better than the fighter. The only hope a fighter ever has is that no one decides to be the, "end combat with stuff" guy and that he gets magic items, cohorts, or special considerations to keep him relevant.
This is only possible if you hand Wizards everything they want magically whenever they want it. This would be similarly trivially easy for the fighter if they got whatever magic items, cohorts, gear, whenever they wanted it too (y'know, the class stuff you deny the fighter, but the class stuff you habitually assume the Wizard always has?). Countering examples of wizard strength this way is ridiculous as people could spam the ludicrous all day.
Your wizard who has everything they ever need for every example all the time every time is something that does not occur during actual play.
So sure, your meteor storm Wizard, comfortably isolated and unmolested while amid warfare, is strong. So is my pegasus mount fighter wielding a magic ballista +1 that removes encumbrance and fires homing spirit arrows of love, along with his mercenary squad of aarakokra flying grenadiers with proto-MERVs. Whee... What does this prove?
Quote from: MGuy;570692I believe things should be balanced not in a way where all fighters are wizards or all wizards are fighters but I believe things should be balanced where everybody has about the same level of awesome. Since the conversation focuses so much on fighters I haven't made this point enough times: I also believe that the wizard should be scaled back. I don't think magic shouldn't be fanstastic but the higher end stuff can get a bit ridiculous. I believe that a more balanced approach meeting somewhere in the middle (not the top or bottom) is how DnD would be best. I'm designing my own game to be just that.
I think we are not that far off but there is a key difference in how we view things. My approach to balance includes raising up the fighter by boosting the numbers behind his attack, damage, etc. But to nerf the wizard I am less inclined to water down spells and more inclined to just focus on the stuff like casting times, making mages weaker physically, risks inherent in casting spells, etc. I want spells to be cool and interesting. But I am fine having to wait 2-3 rounds for a spell if there is a concern about the wizard dominating combat.
In fact, i recently made a game where i balanced out magic entirely through casting times and consequences and it worked perfectly. Martial characters dominated combat but wizard characters still were doing all kinds of cool things with spells.
Quote from: MGuy;570695Let me doubly clerify. If in a game we have a wizard who at best can produce effects that anyone else can produce but faster then I don't mind the fighter not having magic. If at best the wizard can do is use a fireball and there are explosives available or a fighter can do the something similar with ultra cleave then that's satisfying. If a wizard can warp the mind of a target and make them their slave while your diplomancer has to talk them into it over a few days, that's cool. But higher end dnd is worse than that (especially in third). Wizards can invade people's dreams, steal souls, change the weather, and create unbreakable walls of force. So naturally i believe all class should have a similar level of power or that level should be drawn back.
I think the problem here in terms of next is you want a fundamentally different game than many people. Nothing wrong with your preference though.
I do want wizards who can ben reality, but i dont want fighters who can. By all means make bending reality dangerous and time consuming if need be, but it is a very key feature of the wizard class for me.
"So, again, stop playing the CharOp minigame like it is the whole game and everyone else plays that way too. Put away your character sheet and play your character.[/QUOTE]"
I personally agree; I loathe the builds and character optimization stuff.
But, there are people that enjoy that, and it is possible to optimize and roleplay. However, my experience is that for every 'optimizing roleplayer' there are 10 'powergamer asshats' Gee...did I 'Win' yet?
Optimizing a build is trivial. Its easy.
Playing a character with weaknesses, that's at least somewhat challenging.
Quote from: RandallS;570640Then you have to think outside the box. Some options off the top of my head: go a different way; drive some food into the pass and sneak through while the behir is dealing with catching that meal; if you play in a campaign where reaction checks (instead of everything attacks on sight) are used try dealing with the behir (they often speak common); find someone else who can beat the behir and pay them to deal with it (or trick them into dealing with it), lurk the behir away, etc. As a last resort, you can change objectives and do something else entirely that does not involve the behir.
Quote from: Benoist;570645Manage to lure the Behir out of its lair to get past the area. Wait until the Behir gets away to feed itself. Feed the Behir with the corpses of the enemies you just slew earlier in the dungeon. Organize a diversion (getting some other dungeon occupant to do the job for you, or getting the Behir interested in them somehow) while you run past the busy Behir. Go back to town, come up with a plan and then come back to face the Behir problem on equal footing. You know. Play the actual game?
Your solutions are all contigent on the DM taking pitty on you and sayin yes to your hairbrained sceme
This Behir scenario is from a campain. The Electric Death lizard is first in a series of gaurds around the McGuffin that you need to defeat the BBEG. his army is on the march so this mission is time sensitive. The behir is a big fuck you form the BBEG's pet wizard so the pass has been burned clear of any cover by fireballs and is layered with Permanet Alarm spell's. Each one makes a difrent tone so if your trip any of them the Lizard knows where you are. I Don't know who feeds it (probably the wizards pet Bearded Devils).
The Beheir is alot like Franks Dragon. It has the same CR as you so you should go 50/50 with but the truth is you have no chance. It's dosen't even fly it's just better than you at fighting. Which is all you can do as a fighter.
Also Diplomancy (talking to it) Cross-class skill and it's probably Dominated anyway. Pay somone to Deal with it then why are you an adventurer then.
Haldle Animal is a class skill but did you realy invest skill ponits in it. In the original campain I was a wizard (flying solo because my party was doing something else) so I ended up rushing it with summons, the Behir was hardcore it killed almost all of them
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570751Your solutions are all contigent on the DM taking pitty on you and sayin yes to your hairbrained sceme
Why? Because as a player you can't use the RAW to force the GM to allow it? I am not interested in playing the rules -- I walk out of games where I discover too late that "playing the rules on the GM" is most of what the campaign consists of.
By the way, what is "harebrained" about finding another way that does not encounter the behir? Or simply deciding "the behir" is too dangerous so will not try to get to the other side of the pass and just go do something else on this side? No GM agreement is really needed for those, especially the second as even if there is NO other way to the other side of the mountain other than walkng through the pass, there's no sensible reason (or even logical way) for the GM to say "no" to just going elsewhere and doing something else.
In fact, the type of D&D I enjoy -- skill involves knowing when a fight is too much for the character or group and not engaging in such fights. I'm uninterested in playing in campaigns where PCs are expected to fight everything they run into. I's rather walk where I want rather than ride the rails.
QuoteThe Beheir is alot like Franks Dragon. It has the same CR as you so you should go 50/50 with but the truth is you have no chance. It's dosen't even fly it's just better than you at fighting. Which is all you can do as a fighter.
No win situations DO happen in real life. Military missions do fail because objectives are too well-defended for what is left of the force that set out to take. Battles (and probably wars) have been decided by failed missions. There is no reason why they cannot happen in a RPG if the players make poor choices or just have a run of bad luck at the wrong time.
QuoteAlso Diplomancy (talking to it) Cross-class skill and it's probably Dominated anyway. Pay somone to Deal with it then why are you an adventurer then. Haldle Animal is a class skill but did you realy invest skill ponits in it. In the original campain I was a wizard (flying solo because my party was doing something else) so I ended up rushing it with summons, the Behir was hardcore it killed almost all of them
I try not to play WOTC D&D so these aren't nearly the issue for me as they are for 3.x players. Of course, this is just another reason why parties of characters with a variety of abilities are almost always better than one character. D&D was never meant to be a sole character game and WOTC editions are generally even worse at this.
Quote from: Opaopajr;570727This is about as relevant that Wizards and Priests are a drag because they are replaceable by potions and scrolls.
I thought this was worth responding to.
First off, potions only cover spells up to 3rd level. It's possible with enough potions and scrolls, you could cover most of the 'magical' aspects of play through 5th level.
But beyond that point, more powerful spells come online to dedicated casters. While scrolls MIGHT work, you run into the problem of 'action economy'. Since the people that are best at using scrolls are the people that can cast spells WITHOUT scrolls, this wouldn't work.
A fighter can be replaced by a summoned monster. A wizard can't really be duplicated with scrolls or potions - at least not for long and not with tremendous expense.
Quote from: RandallS;570759.
No win situations DO happen in real life. Military missions do fail because objectives are too well-defended for what is left of the force that set out to take. Battles (and probably wars) have been decided by failed missions. There is no reason why they cannot happen in a RPG if the players make poor choices or just have a run of bad luck at the wrong time.
A Behir should not be a no win situation. It's CR 8. You are also CR 8 you are both suposed to be melee type threats. It's suposed to be an even fight per the CR guidelines. This is why this is a thing that is important in real games. A level 8 party encountering a fighter 8 is just getting free xp. If insted you encounter a wizard 8 that's a real encounter you can actualy lose, or maybe the group wipes because everyone is playing fighters.
Quote from: Opaopajr;570727This is about as relevant that Wizards and Priests are a drag because they are replaceable by potions and scrolls.
I thought this was worth responding to.
First off, potions only cover spells up to 3rd level. It's possible with enough potions and scrolls, you could cover most of the 'magical' aspects of play through 5th level.
But beyond that point, more powerful spells come online to dedicated casters. While scrolls MIGHT work, you run into the problem of 'action economy'. Since the people that are best at using scrolls are the people that can cast spells WITHOUT scrolls, this wouldn't work.
A fighter can be replaced by a summoned monster, at least for a short time. A fighter can be replaced by a bound or dominated monster basically indefinitely. A wizard can't really be duplicated with scrolls or potions - at least not for long and not with tremendous expense.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570773It's suposed to be an even fight per the CR guidelines. This is why this is a thing that is important in real games. A level 8 party encountering a fighter 8 is just getting free xp. If insted you encounter a wizard 8 that's a real encounter you can actualy lose, or maybe the group wipes because everyone is playing fighters.
This is worth repeating. I've brought it up before, but it may have been lost in the shuffle.
The CR system is a 'fundamental' rule about how the game is supposed to work. It presupposed that two creatures of the same CR, while their abilities may be different, should pose a relatively equal challenge in a variety of situations. There are some situations where a particular CR is much less effective than it ought to be; there are some where it might be more effective (for example, if it is working in conjunction with another creature that has abilities that synergize well).
But when you compare to two creatures that are supposed to be 'roughly equal', and you find that one is NOT, you actually have a fairly significant issue. You can ignore it, but it throws all kinds of expectations out of whack.
Even if a Fighter does not get 'weaboo' powers, he needs to be able to stand toe-to-toe with a melee threat and at least have a chance of winning using his abilities versus the opponent's abilities.
Monsters are often stronger, smarter, tougher, and more difficult to hit than a Fighter PC. Good armor is often no better than a tough hide; good weapons are often no better than a claw or bite; good magical items often are no better than a creature's supernatural or spell-like abilities. In practical terms, Fighters require more 'help' from other team members than other classes.
Not everyone will recognize that the contribution of the fighter is 'smaller' (and old-school thinking trains us to ignore it. We're advised that the thief that guarded the rear and took no action to defeat the opponents may still have contributed - perhaps a lurking monster did not attack from behind because of the thief's presence). If your players don't mind not making a measurable contribution MOST OF THE TIME, then it may not be an issue, but most players want to play a fantasy game to do awesome things.
At low levels, the Fighter is pretty awesome compared to the types of challenges appropriate to those low-levels. Beginning around 5th level, he starts falling behind, fast.
Most people seem to realize this and address it in their games in a variety of ways. Most notably, seeing a single-fighter at high levels (in 3.5) is rare - people will prestige class out of the role to pick up some more useful abilities. Players are forced to 'char-op' just to remain viable. Considering the widespread disparagement cast upon 'char-opers', it seems strange that there is so much resistance to making it 'easier' to make the Fighter effective.
A Fighter is expected to use his feats to prepare against a wide range of threats. A wizard uses his spells to accomplish the same goal. If the wizard has a sufficiently large range of spells in his spellbook (something that seems pretty common from an 'organic' character), he can repurpose his spells to make himself effective against a particular known threat. For example, a wizard can choose spells that are effective against people (like
charm) or against undead (like
command undead), or generally useful against anything with hit points (like
fireball.
On boards like these,
fireball is usually considered a weak option - it does hit point damage, so multiple castings may be required to defeat an enemy. A 'save or suck' spell has a chance to end the encounter with a single blow.
The Fighter can compete and/or contribute with a wizard doing hit point damage. But he lacks the kind of abilities that can 'end' a fight instantly. That's why a Wizard is often considered a more capable combatant.
If the fight lasts only a single round, the monster is severely limited in its ability to render the party useless for future encounters. Hit point damage, ability damage, etc, all increase with the number of rounds that the fight lasts. Ending fights quickly is more of a contribution to group success than whittling down hit points. Only if a Fighter can do the kind of damage necessary to 'one-shot' level-appropriate foes (the way a wizard has a chance to) does he remain relevant - which encourages specific 'cheesy' builds - like the Spirited Charge Lancer. Instead of making a character along the lines of what you WANT to play, you're subtly encouraged to play a specific character based on their effectiveness in combat.
The two pull a player in different directions. If Fighters are more effective by default, the player doesn't have to do as much 'char-op', and can build an effective character that doesn't rely on multi-classing, or one or two specific 'tricks' that he must use in all situations.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;570747I think the problem here in terms of next is you want a fundamentally different game than many people. Nothing wrong with your preference though.
I do want wizards who can ben reality, but i dont want fighters who can. By all means make bending reality dangerous and time consuming if need be, but it is a very key feature of the wizard class for me.
I don't think I want a game too far from what other people want. I don't know of anybody who doesn't supplement their fighter with magic in any game where its available. In fact it's a common expectation that fighters are literally walking magic coat hangers. You seem to think people are likely to sit back an accept other people being way more awesome than the figher when the vast majority of people who play fighters always want their artifact sword and magic pants, their awesome mounts, expect party buffs, or cross class into something with actually interesting class features.
Only thing is I just think you might as well give the fighter the awesome from the class since people expect you to hand it to them anyway.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570773A Behir should not be a no win situation. It's CR 8. You are also CR 8 you are both suposed to be melee type threats. It's suposed to be an even fight per the CR guidelines. This is why this is a thing that is important in real games. A level 8 party encountering a fighter 8 is just getting free xp. If insted you encounter a wizard 8 that's a real encounter you can actualy lose, or maybe the group wipes because everyone is playing fighters.
As I understand 3.x CRs, a CR 8 encounter is theoretically level appropriate for a average sized party of the appropriate level, not a single 8th level character.
Second, the CRs assigned officially by the 3.x rules often just don't seem to work out in practice. Of course, they are from reading the rules they appear to be GUIDELINES for the GM to help him work out what is
likely to be a push-over, a good challenge, overwhelming, etc. (if he is planning encounters for a specific party for a specific session and not running a sandbox), not guarantees of equal challenge. I also believe I read that CLs were designed around an "average party" with a fighter, a magic-user, a cleric, and a rogue.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570784The CR system is a 'fundamental' rule about how the game is supposed to work. It presupposed that two creatures of the same CR, while their abilities may be different, should pose a relatively equal challenge in a variety of situations.
As far as I can tell from reading the 3.0 and 3.5 rulebooks, CR is not so much a "'fundamental' rule about how the game is supposed to work" as it is a guideline for GMs who design encounters to challenge specific parties (as opposed to encounters for anyone who runs into them in a sandbox environment).
A certain style of play grew up around treating CR in encounter design as a fundamental design rule of the game, but I (and many others) really don't see from the RAW that it was originally intended to be anything more that a guideline for the GM.
Quote from: RandallS;570793As far as I can tell from reading the 3.0 and 3.5 rulebooks, CR is not so much a "'fundamental' rule about how the game is supposed to work" as it is a guideline for GMs who design encounters to challenge specific parties (as opposed to encounters for anyone who runs into them in a sandbox environment).
A certain style of play grew up around treating CR in encounter design as a fundamental design rule of the game, but I (and many others) really don't see from the RAW that it was originally intended to be anything more that a guideline for the GM.
Like any rule it is just supposed to a guideline not holy writ but like many things it has gotten misconstrued. Fact is the rule doesn't work that well but that's another issue.
Quote from: Opaopajr;570727Still baffling as from the start of this topic. The fighter only wanes if you ignore fighter class features and forget that fighters can keep laying out firepower repeatedly. This is about as relevant that Wizards and Priests are a drag because they are replaceable by potions and scrolls.
I'm not sure what games you're playing where a caster is replaceable by caster made scrolls and potions but unless you're bending Use Maic Device over your knee really hard and basically turn yourself into a caster (at considerably higher cost) then you're not replacing a caster. What's more you only help to illustrate my point. Magic is so far and away better than mundane fihters that if you get rid of casters you have to then have a character dedicated to spending heeps of money and eating up way more actions to keep mundane character from losing the magic that keeps them going. Replacing mundane characters on the other hand is considerably less costly for casters who can summon, charm, raise, build better melee fighters with features from their class.
QuoteThe game is not a singular encounter reliant on tactics upon forewarned knowledge. It is playing a role in a setting that requires strategic management of resources through various (expected and not) encounters. By this a spell caster will not have every spell resource available to perfectly counter every problem. Further, a strong character, flexibly proficient in keeping a strong offense/defense without having to tap resource trumps early, helps the party conserve resources strategically.
Fihters don't avoid tapping resources. HP is a resource and the fighter can't heal himself. He can't recover from ability damage he's likely to take from higher level threats, often times he needs a buff or 3 to fight hiher level threats at all. You need to scout for him so he doesn't fall into traps, you need to provide him with transportation TO a fight. A caster on the other hand is much more self reliant and flexible. I mentioned before my caster in the thunderdome now (Conji) is just a summoner. He is made specifically for this sinle encounter but you know what? He'd be MUCH more powerful if he were an organic character in a REAL campaign. He's built right now as a mage who, while having a bunch of options for how to tackle various situations, still is just an arena mage. Were he from an actual campain I'd have more spells, more options, and I wouldn't be fihtin some nobody fihter who's very presence is beneath my concern since he can't really DO anything to stop any schemes I might have.
QuoteThis is only possible if you hand Wizards everything they want magically whenever they want it. This would be similarly trivially easy for the fighter if they got whatever magic items, cohorts, gear, whenever they wanted it too (y'know, the class stuff you deny the fighter, but the class stuff you habitually assume the Wizard always has?). Countering examples of wizard strength this way is ridiculous as people could spam the ludicrous all day.
A wizard doesn't need "every spell" for every situation in order to out perorm a fihter at just about everything. If I am a necromancer I can raise a field of fighter analogues at low cost. If I'm an Enchanter I can charm/seduce a better fighter. If I'm an evoker I can bomb the fighter before he gets in decent range to try to stop me, if I'm an illussionist I ave all kinds of shennanigans I can pull to run circles around the fighter. A fihter on his best day can only shoot a bow or swin a sword. That is the cutting edge of what his abilities can ever do for him ever.
QuoteYour wizard who has everything they ever need for every example all the time every time is something that does not occur during actual play.
all but the silliest wizards I can make up can do way more than the fihter and has access to the spells and abilities that would enable him to find out about obstacles before hand and set his spell list appropriately. A fighter can' even try to gain that.
QuoteSo sure, your meteor storm Wizard, comfortably isolated and unmolested while amid warfare, is strong. So is my pegasus mount fighter wielding a magic ballista +1 that removes encumbrance and fires homing spirit arrows of love, along with his mercenary squad of aarakokra flying grenadiers with proto-MERVs. Whee... What does this prove?
Meteor is for evokers. I like conjuring. I can conjure stuff. So let me first point out that none of the stuff in your Special Fighter Hugbox Example is something the fighter has from fihter abilities and everythin he has is more interestin than his actual class abilities. Special mount? That's a paladin thing. If you were a paladin that would be granted to you by virtue of being a good boy. On a fighter? well that's just an extra piece of equipment my conjurer can fucking summon. Your magical weightless balista with homing arrows of love? I bet you a caster built that contraption. That and it doesn't necessarily even require the fihter to operate since the caster made the arrows homing. So so far your imagined fighter is about as relevant as a horse rriding commoner. Those mercenaries? All paid to hang out with you since you're not charming enouh to have actual badasses on your team. I can summon an interdimensional mercenary that is, by itself, better than your band. So yes, while I'm in my extrad dimensional, fully stocked, mansion with unseen servants you're stuck on a battlefield with equipment that is better than your actual class abilities and mercenaries who are collectively worse than something I can spend a bit of my time and effort to summon and send to kill you. Ahh but at least your fighter has enough GM pitty to be handed a bunch of stuff so he can FEEL pretty next to my caster who actually had to have the forethought to collect and develop his abilities.
Quote from: RandallS;570789As I understand 3.x CRs, a CR 8 encounter is theoretically level appropriate for a average sized party of the appropriate level, not a single 8th level character.
Second, the CRs assigned officially by the 3.x rules often just don't seem to work out in practice. Of course, they are from reading the rules they appear to be GUIDELINES for the GM to help him work out what is likely to be a push-over, a good challenge, overwhelming, etc. (if he is planning encounters for a specific party for a specific session and not running a sandbox), not guarantees of equal challenge. I also believe I read that CLs were designed around an "average party" with a fighter, a magic-user, a cleric, and a rogue.
So you have nothin to say about the fact that a caster can actually take the challenge where a fighter cannot unless the GM hands the idiot ball to the behir's owner or the fighter just quits trying?
Quote from: RandallS;570789As I understand 3.x CRs, a CR 8 encounter is theoretically level appropriate for a average sized party of the appropriate level, not a single 8th level character.
CR is defined in a couple of different ways. A CR of 8 is supposed to be a 'good challenge' for a party of four 8th level characters, requiring them to expend roughly 25% of their daily resources to overcome the challenge. Thus, a party should be able to handle four such encounters in a day, but only barely.
CR is also defined in relation to other characters and monsters. For example, two identical creatures have the same CR. In a mirror-match, you'd expect them to be roughly equal, so there's no way to predict who will win. Each has a 50% chance of defeating their opposite.
When two creatures are not identical, but share the same CR, they're supposed to be 'roughly equal'. In this case, as in the mirror match, you'd roughly expect each one to win half of the time.
There are some exceptions. For example, dragons are well-known for being 'tougher' than the CR would suggest. Ie, a CR 12 dragon is likely to be able to defeat any other CR 12 creature (an outsider, aberration, or what have you). In that sense, CR is a range, and the dragon was designed to be on the high end of that range (and, depending on who you ask, actually 1 or 2 CR higher than their given value).
An 8th level Fighter is supposed to be able to go against a CR 8 monster with roughly 50% chance of winning. An 8th level Wizard is supposed to be able to go against a CR 8 monster with roughly a 50% chance of winning. A fighter and a wizard of equal level are supposed to be able to win against each other roughly 50% of the time.
Unfortunately, some classes are clearly superior to other (and consequently, some are inferior). The Fighter cannot fight in his 'weight-class' effectively. By about 5th level, he's no longer able to go 50% with opposition of his CR. As the CR gets higher, his chances of succeeding against his opponents decreases markedly. Even against a 'melee-basher' that lacks magical attacks, he usually ends up with a roughly equal chance of hitting; but lower damage per attack, fewer hit points, lower armor class, worse saves, etc.
This is largely because CR does not directly equate to Hit Dice. While a Fire Giant is not a particularly difficult CR 10 (the way a dragon or outsider might be), he's a good benchmark against which to compare a 10th level Fighter. The giant lacks any particular special abilities (definitely no magical attacks), so essentially, they overalp in theme in a pretty straight-forward way.
Because the Fighter has only 10 HD, compared to the Giant's 15, the Giant ends up much more 'competent'. His attack routine is +20/+15/+10, which would not be bad for a Fighter of 10th level (+10 BAB, +7 Strength, +2 Weapon Focus/Greater Weapon Focus, +1 Weapon). Using a two-handed weapon, the Fighter might expect 2d6+15 plus 1d6 fire and 1d6 frost. That assumes a +3 equivalent weapon (+1 with flaming/frost, since stacking of damage is usually better than an other +1); the giant has 3d6+15.
Further, the giant is using only mundane armor and mundane weapons; the 'base giant' compares very favorably with an 'optimized' Fighter.
Quote from: RandallS;570789Second, the CRs assigned officially by the 3.x rules often just don't seem to work out in practice. Of course, they are from reading the rules they appear to be GUIDELINES for the GM to help him work out what is likely to be a push-over, a good challenge, overwhelming, etc. (if he is planning encounters for a specific party for a specific session and not running a sandbox), not guarantees of equal challenge. I also believe I read that CLs were designed around an "average party" with a fighter, a magic-user, a cleric, and a rogue.
This is true. The CR guidelines, while they're a real improvement in my opinion over earlier editions, are not perfect. Further, the Level Adjustment guidelines are even worse.
The Fire Giant, although it supposed to be a 'good challenge' for a Level 10 Party, there is concern that it's abilities (which we've already covered the fact that it doesn't have anything particularly special) make it the equivalent of a 19th level character in play.
Even compared to a 19th level Fighter, it really is much worse. As a 15th level character, it might actually be equivalent, but even then, I'd have my concerns. Giants aren't a great 'class' compared to PC classes on a Hit Die to Hit Die comparison. Outsiders and Dragons compare much more favorably.
Ideally, a CR 10 creature without tons of special abilities would be roughly equivalent to a 10th level character if it were included in the party. While the Fire Giant is better than a 10th level Fighter, it's probably about where to aim for relative power if you include the wealth expected of a 10th level character (ie, give the giant a magic sword, magic armor, and a few utility items). Clearly that pushes it well ahead of the Fighter at 10th level (since without equipment it is at least as good and probably better)
Quote from: MGuy;570796all but the silliest wizards I can make up can do way more than the fihter and has access to the spells and abilities that would enable him to find out about obstacles before hand and set his spell list appropriately. A fighter can' even try to gain that.
So, a Fighter can't hire a scout or uncover some rumours and information about the area ahead of time? Sounds like you are playing magical tea party with the Magic-Users. They get to do anything they want because spells, and no one else can ever possibly do anything.
Again, clearly, you need to stop gaming with douchebag DMs and asshole players.
Roughly only 150 more posts to go. Can we close the thread then?
Please.
As long as one side approaches the table expecting a game of successive, fair and mathematically balanced combat encounters, and another side shows up to explore a fantasy world which exists independent of their characters, well... you fuckers aren't going to agree on anything, ever.
Good thing we have games -- different editions of the same game, even -- that cater to both crowds.
Quote from: StormBringer;570806So, a Fighter can't hire a scout or uncover some rumours and information about the area ahead of time? Sounds like you are playing magical tea party with the Magic-Users. They get to do anything they want because spells, and no one else can ever possibly do anything.
Again, clearly, you need to stop gaming with douchebag DMs and asshole players.
Scry is a spell. If it's in your book then you can cast it. Prying Eyes, Locate Object, Locate Creature, and dozens of Divinations are also spells. Gather Information (ths skill that only gives you what npcs know, and thus does whatever the DM want's it to.
Spellcasters have
spells which
do things as defined by the rules what part of this do you not understand
Quote from: MGuy;570788I don't think I want a game too far from what other people want. I don't know of anybody who doesn't supplement their fighter with magic in any game where its available. In fact it's a common expectation that fighters are literally walking magic coat hangers. You seem to think people are likely to sit back an accept other people being way more awesome than the figher when the vast majority of people who play fighters always want their artifact sword and magic pants, their awesome mounts, expect party buffs, or cross class into something with actually interesting class features.
Only thing is I just think you might as well give the fighter the awesome from the class since people expect you to hand it to them anyway.
It depends on the campaign frankly. One thing is for sure though, while many people are fine with magic being external to the fighter, such as through a magic sword he finds, lots of people do not want that baked into the fighter itself. To me, that just feels far too much like a video game, where the mechanics are designed for convenience of play without much consideration of the flavor itself. This is a very important distinction for many people. Also once you start putting mechanical abilities into the fighter that require things like resource management or managing buttons, I think you have a class that feels very different from the original, and one I am not terribly interested in playing. A sword +5 of life drinking and a couple of wonderous items is one thing, giving fighters the equivalent of wizard spells that is baked into their bones, something very different. I think you are trying to advance your position by arguing magic items=wushu fighters. I don't believe they do.
Certainly you are free to disagree and I don't expect to sway you either way. Like I have said we have discussed this issue a bunch of times and I really don't have the enthusiasm to re-address it with you (that and I am working on a 115 page module that requires more of my available game muscle than debates about the ideal D&D fighter).
Quote from: The Butcher;570808As long as one side approaches the table expecting a game of successive, fair and mathematically balanced combat encounters, and another side shows up to explore a fantasy world which exists independent of their characters, well... you fuckers aren't going to agree on anything, ever.
Good thing we have games -- different editions of the same game, even -- that cater to both crowds.
"Confrontations" for you must mean any event that allows a class to use abilities to indepently explore, navigate, bypass obstacles, charm/trick/trap/deceive creatures, do research, spy, sneak, or do anything of relevance up to and including combat.
Quote from: MGuy;570815"Confrontations" for you must mean any event that allows a class to use abilities to indepently explore, navigate, bypass obstacles, charm/trick/trap/deceive creatures, do research, spy, sneak, or do anything of relevance up to and including combat.
Yeah, because every AD&D 1e Magic-User ever always memorizes
spider climb and
read languages instead of
web and
magic missile, and magicks the Thief out of his job. :rolleyes:
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570801This is true. The CR guidelines, while they're a real improvement in my opinion over earlier editions, are not perfect. Further, the Level Adjustment guidelines are even worse.
Using them to support an argument would then be flawed to the degree CRs are flawed, correct? In other words, I have heard very few people say that CRs provide more than a rudimentary guideline, let alone work
well. Therefore, using CRs as a measure of party ability is moderately to wildly inaccurate and totally inappropriate for individual ability. Hence, claiming that a CR 8 monster is easily defeated by an 8th level
or that a CR 8 monster can easily defeat an 8th level are both no better than guessing, really. Claiming that is a "real improvement" over earlier editions seems disingenuous, to say the least. Using CRs to bolster an argument would be even more disingenuous, as it would be an appeal to an authourity that no one really thinks is authouritative.
A thought:
According to my fiancee, a woman who knows a bit about the d20 system, yes, a high-level wizard is more powerful than an equivalent fighter, but the fighter can (theoretically) dodge or deflect the spells. So there is a balance.
Plus good tactics count for a lot ... when you can pull 'em off (we've both been in games where anyone who thinks tactically gets overruled and trod on).
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570809Scry is a spell. If it's in your book then you can cast it. Prying Eyes, Locate Object, Locate Creature, and dozens of Divinations are also spells. Gather Information (ths skill that only gives you what npcs know, and thus does whatever the DM want's it to.
Spellcasters have spells which do things as defined by the rules what part of this do you not understand
So, Fighters can't hire scouts, then. Because there is no game outside of the rules.
Have you considered board games instead?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;570811It depends on the campaign frankly. One thing is for sure though, while many people are fine with magic being external to the fighter, such as through a magic sword he finds, lots of people do not want that baked into the fighter itself. To me, that just feels far too much like a video game, where the mechanics are designed for convenience of play without much consideration of the flavor itself. This is a very important distinction for many people. Also once you start putting mechanical abilities into the fighter that require things like resource management or managing buttons, I think you have a class that feels very different from the original, and one I am not terribly interested in playing. A sword +5 of life drinking and a couple of wonderous items is one thing, giving fighters the equivalent of wizard spells that is baked into their bones, something very different. I think you are trying to advance your position by arguing magic items=wushu fighters. I don't believe they do.
Certainly you are free to disagree and I don't expect to sway you either way. Like I have said we have discussed this issue a bunch of times and I really don't have the enthusiasm to re-address it with you (that and I am working on a 115 page module that requires more of my available game muscle than debates about the ideal D&D fighter).
The mechanics of DnD are where a lot of videogames got the idea that you pick up magic items to hang from your character like a christmas tree. I'm not sure why you think people will think that magic fighters are too videogamey when characters in Skyrim, every final fantasy, dragonage etc do the magic item on fighter thing. Again, I don't know of any campaign or people, or stories where anybody played in a game where a fighter didn't get his magic bling to stay interesting, Having predisposed access to magic bling is something people already want because the minute I said (earlier in this thread) let's look at the fighter without his magic bling people lost their shit. Your response to that, at that point in time, was that you can't seperate magic items from the fighter because its an expectation of the game. Your response now is that people don't want it as an expectation (or baked in). I'm saying that since people expect it, want it, and will lose their shit when they are denied it that people DO seek the sort of balance I've laid out.
Quote from: StormBringer;570806So, a Fighter can't hire a scout or uncover some rumours and information about the area ahead of time? Sounds like you are playing magical tea party with the Magic-Users. They get to do anything they want because spells, and no one else can ever possibly do anything.
Again, clearly, you need to stop gaming with douchebag DMs and asshole players.
You're still missing the point. Sure, a Fighter can hire a scout. In fact, the more a Fighter hires people that can actually provide a useful function to the group, the more useful his contribution.
But a Wizard could also hire a scout, or take care of scouting using magic.
It's a situation where whatever the Fighter CAN do, someone else CAN do BETTER.
Rather than bring a Fighter along in the party, why not bring someone who can scout and handle front-line duties nearly as well as a Fighter (like a Ranger)? Or why not bring another wizard who is capable of casting spells that allow to scout or summon a monster to go ahead and 'flush out' any opposition.
There are cerainly two issues. 1) Wizards (and other spellcasters) have lots of options that make them effective in a large number of situations. 2) Fighters lack 'free abilities' the way other classes get them that allow them to do interesting things.
Compare, for a moment, a Paladin and a Fighter. The Paladin gets the ability to heal himself (and others); to Turn Undead, to smite evil, and to cast a small number of divine spells. He also gains a bonus to his saving throws, and a loyal mount.
I hardly think of a Paladin as a 'powerful class' - certainly not a 'tier 1' like a cleric, but the class features a Paladin gets makes it easy to make an effective character without crazy char-op.
Further, the Fighter's main benefit is 'lots of feats'. At a certain point (usually by high levels) the Fighter has acquired all the 'cool feats' necessary for his build. He then can pick things that address some of his weaknesses, but basically he's back to picking up Feats he COULD have chosen at level 1, but didn't care for them enough at the time to pick them up.
So at the same time the wizard is getting his 8th level spells (hello
limited wish), the Fighter is getting 'Lighting Reflexes' or 'Iron Will'.
Beyond the failure of the Fighter to contribute at high level play, the class itself is a major let-down because you stop gaining useful or interesting abilities - or if you get something interesting, it's hardly 'level-appropriate'. The best feats are hardly more impressive than 2nd level spells. The very best feats might be equivalent to a 3rd level spell. So a Fighter can take Improved Critical at 8th level to gain an increased threat range with a single weapon.
A 5th level wizard can increase the threat range of any weapon in the same manner (ie, he could apply it to a dagger one day, and a longsword the next). In the case that he selects a weapon and then changes to a different weapon, he's not penalized at all. If a Fighter decides to switch from a longsword to a bastard sword (say, after finding a more powerful weapon) he loses one of his 'major' class features...
Further, rather than committing a feat to a single weapon (that he may or may not end up switching from) he can replace his feat slection entirely with an item that costs 16,000 gold pieces.
Now, at 8th level when suggested guidelines indicate the Fighter should have approximately 27,000 gp in gear, he's not likely to have a
scabbard of keen edges. But if he DOES find one later, it basically invalidates his need to have selected a feat.
So, even if Fighters weren't mostly useless at high levels, the game itself renders their choices meaningless or stupid retroactively by requiring them to commit to an unchangeable class feature and then providing items and/or spells that duplicate those class features like candy.
So, even if you are playing a Fighter, and you feel good about your contributions, you have to reconcile yourself to the fact that you're likely to run into a situation where your abilites are rendered meaningless by the ability of the rest of the party to duplicate those abilities - sometimes better than you can.
Again, since keen edge comes online at 5th level for a Wizard, but not until 8th level for a Fighter, you end up in a situation where beginning at about that time, the Fighter really needs to rely on other party members to help him contriubte; the other classes can contribute with or without a fighter in the group.
Not every group cares about having a 'useless member', but it's hardly something most groups encourage. The rules claim that a Fighter is a equal member of the team, but they happen to be wrong.
Personally, I wish they weren't. I'd like to see Fighters made an equal member of the team. I don't want one player as 'Hawkeye' while I have the Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Iron Man actually doing things. It's not usually fun for the player, and it's not fun for me as DM to 'throw them a bone' and give them a chance to contribute when any other member of the party could address that issue WITHOUT relying on the weakest team member.
Now, if everyone's having fun, it's not a problem. It's just in my experience, that's not the case. And really, I don't want players deciding to 'retire' a character they've invested a lot of time and effort into developing, just because it's not 'fun anymore'. But I don't want to make a player keep using a character that they're tired of. I've seen people get tired of Fighters, but that's really about it. I've had a few 'retcon' a few other characters that they made a bad choices about, but that's a much smaller issue.
Quote from: The Butcher;570816Yeah, because every AD&D 1e Magic-User ever always memorizes spider climb and read languages instead of web and magic missile, and magicks the Thief out of his job. :rolleyes:
Yes, things are fairly even at low level. You want a medal for pushing something everyone pretty much agrees on?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570822It's a situation where whatever the Fighter CAN do, someone else CAN do BETTER.
Ok, put your Wizard in plate armour, hand them a long sword, and let's see how they do.
Quote from: Jame Rowe;570818A thought:
According to my fiancee, a woman who knows a bit about the d20 system, yes, a high-level wizard is more powerful than an equivalent fighter, but the fighter can (theoretically) dodge or deflect the spells. So there is a balance.
Plus good tactics count for a lot ... when you can pull 'em off (we've both been in games where anyone who thinks tactically gets overruled and trod on).
A whole subsection of the conversation was made where I and others have pointed out that even if the fighter were balanced for all battles across all levels (they are not in d20 without prestige classing or that charop stuff people hate) that they still can't contribute effectively to anything else.
Quote from: MGuy;570823Yes, things are fairly even at low level. You want a medal for pushing something everyone pretty much agrees on?
???
How is what he said "even at low level"?
The MU burns his one slot on spider climb. Great job, you climbed the wall better than the thief this one time. Now what? How do you get down? How do you pick the window lock now that you're there?
The problem with your assumptions (a common one among the MU are so uber! crowd) is that you're assuming the MU can cast any spell in the book at any time, an infinite amount of times.
Sorry, the MU is quite often the weakest of the classes at low level. There's nothing even about it. They're a one or two shot pony that hopes to hell they don't get their spell interrupted and hides behind the fighter.
Quote from: MGuy;570827A whole subsection of the conversation was made where I and others have pointed out that even if the fighter were balanced for all battles across all levels (they are not in d20 without prestige classing or that charop stuff people hate) that they still can't contribute effectively to anything else.
"Sorry, you can't role-play this scenario because you're a fighter, and everyone knows fighters can't contribute effectively to anything else besides battles."
:banghead:
Seriously, what fucking game are you playing man?
Quote from: MGuy;570827A whole subsection of the conversation was made where I and others have pointed out that even if the fighter were balanced for all battles across all levels (they are not in d20 without prestige classing or that charop stuff people hate) that they still can't contribute effectively to anything else.
You made the argument, but most people didn't agree with your conclusions (some did, but most didn't). Referencing an assertion you made earlier in the conversation as a form of proof is a very weak kind of evidence.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;570829???
How is what he said "even at low level"?
The MU burns his one slot on spider climb. Great job, you climbed the wall better than the thief this one time. Now what? How do you get down? How do you pick the window lock now that you're there?
The problem with your assumptions (a common one among the MU are so uber! crowd) is that you're assuming the MU can cast any spell in the book at any time, an infinite amount of times.
Sorry, the MU is quite often the weakest of the classes at low level. There's nothing even about it. They're a one or two shot pony that hopes to hell they don't get their spell interrupted and hides behind the fighter.
Web and magic missile are low level spells. The fear of running out of spells or using spider climb when i can fly for the entirety of the day are low level tactics exclusively. That's why its low level bullshit instead of getting to you know, actual high level play. But of course you don't play high level with a fighter unless he's a walking magic item christmas tree. Yup, roleplaying right there.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;570832You made the argument, but most people didn't agree with your conclusions (some did, but most didn't). Referencing an assertion you made earlier in the conversation as a form of proof is a very weak kind of evidence.
It's not "proof" its a part of the argument he's missing. People can "disagree" all they want but if he asks his fiance about what fighter abilities allow you to do vs wizard abilities at higher levels then he can find out himself from a trusted source.
Quote from: StormBringer;570826Ok, put your Wizard in plate armour, hand them a long sword, and let's see how they do.
Why would I do that?
I don't usually play wizards in D&D, since usually if I'm not a DM, I'm playing with a friend that really likes being a wizard. But in one game, I am playing a 3rd level wizard who uses a longsword and a longbow (he's an elf). At this level of play, the fact that I have a +1 BAB compared to a Fighter's +3 isn't insigificicant, but it's hardly devestating. I can shoot well enough into melee (took feats for that) that I can contribute meaningfully to combat without getting into melee range.
If I do get into melee range, I have spells like
Mage Armor that give me a benefit equvalent to a Mithril Chain Shirt; not a bad choice for most Fighters who don't want to give up their full movement. Once they're walking around at 20-ft./round, they're pretty easy to avoid.
People assert that being able to use magical swords and having the best magical armor is some kind of major benefit to the Fighter class.
I point that the cleric can use those weapons and armor just as effectively, and they can get pretty good casting, too.
A wizard wouldn't use the same armor and weapons, but they don't have to. Spells, since the could conceivably do anything, exist to do anything. That includes make armor of force that's better than real armor. Full Plate +5 might be nice, but I don't really see it in most games. Bracers of Armor +8 are pricier, but they're a better deal for most classes (including Fighters) because they don't make you more likely to drown or fail to jump across a chasm, and you can wear them to the king's ball discretely.
Since spells allow wizards to duplicate any mundane effect as well or better than Fighters, they poach the 'niche protection' constantly. They also can poach the niche protection of the rogue if they want to. Maybe they can't do both each day, but in 'real games' they turn out to be more effective in large part because they have a ton of flexibility baked in.
As for CR, I find it mostly works. The place where it is most broken is when comparing certain PC classes against a group of PCs. First off, an NPC Fighter has less money to spend on enquipment than a PC Fighter, so they're already weaker by comparison. Secondly, Fighters are a very weak challenge by their nature. Rogues, too, without a partner (except at low-levels, where they can feint without giving up multiple attacks). Wizards, clerics, and druids, often make good villains in part because they can be a good challenge at the PCs level; with a few levels higher, they can be extremely challenging without totally dominating.
That said, the CR guidelines do suffer issues when an 'expected outcome' is not actually used. A team of monks might find themselves completely useless against foes with a DR they can't beat - and monks aren't known for carrying around a golf-bag of weapons. Rather than saying the CR system is worthless, it's worth pointing out that it doesn't work perfectly. Using a standard party, it's pretty good. Dragons end up a little tougher than you might expect, NPCs with PC classes usually end up a little weaker, but the range is usually still a fairly satisfying challenge.
Quote from: MGuy;570821The mechanics of DnD are where a lot of videogames got the idea that you pick up magic items to hang from your character like a christmas tree. I'm not sure why you think people will think that magic fighters are too videogamey when characters in Skyrim, every final fantasy, dragonage etc do the magic item on fighter thing. Again, I don't know of any campaign or people, or stories where anybody played in a game where a fighter didn't get his magic bling to stay interesting, Having predisposed access to magic bling is something people already want because the minute I said (earlier in this thread) let's look at the fighter without his magic bling people lost their shit. Your response to that, at that point in time, was that you can't seperate magic items from the fighter because its an expectation of the game. Your response now is that people don't want it as an expectation (or baked in). I'm saying that since people expect it, want it, and will lose their shit when they are denied it that people DO seek the sort of balance I've laid out.
McGuy, i am not going to keep arguing with you down an endless spiral. Lie i said i have other game design stuff going on , so i cannot give the time to looking up posts or rules to really get back into this discussion (which we have had multiple times). I know your position and I dont find it at all convincing. You dont think people will find magic fighter too videogamey? Fair enough. You think peple are clamoring for and demanding quasi-magical fighters? Okay, that is fine. I feel baking magic items into the fighter is going to ruin the feel of the game for lots of people. I dont think it has the kind of popular suppport you believe it does and the impression i get from my own campaigns are very different from yours. We disagree and will have to wait for an edition of wushu D&D to see how pakatable it is.
I also think, as i stated before, that a plus 5 sword and some magical armor is very different from giving fighters stuff like a full list of spell like powers. Not only are they mechanically different but when you have to rely on an eternal source for that kind of thing, it greatly alters feel of play. I just do not want my fighters to have innate magical resources. If you want it fine.
Again, i am trying very hard not to see as a troll here, but your posting style is really leaving me to conclude otherwise. enjoying your posts on the design forum. But here you just keep banging away at the same points over and over again, and continue to rephrae my positions in a way to suit your argument.
Quote from: MGuy;570835Web and magic missile are low level spells.
And?
QuoteThe fear of running out of spells or using spider climb when i can fly for the entirety of the day are low level tactics exclusively. That's why its low level bullshit instead of getting to you know, actual high level play.
What spell low level spell lets you fly all day long? And then once you do spend your slot on that spell, what then? Are you going to throw your poop at the enemies?
Once again, you are assuming that the MU has access to every spell that can be cast at any time, and never seem to run out of them.
QuoteBut of course you don't play high level with a fighter unless he's a walking magic item christmas tree. Yup, roleplaying right there.
1) Item possession has nothing to do with role-playing. This is a very odd statement to make
2) The game assumes
all classes would have appropriate level magic items,and for a high level fighter, that's going to be some good ones. Just like it's assumed that a high level magic user would have found spellbooks that had high level spells inscribed upon them at some point in his or her adventure. If you take away the fighters magical weapons and armor, then you have to take away the MUs spellbooks that he found as well. Whoah! Watch out for the 15th level MU that only has a few 1st level spells in his spellbook!
I'ma say it again: A single CR8 Behir is only slightly more powerful than a single level 8 fighter.
This doesn't make the Behir an unstoppable juggernaut, because if we work backwards on the CR chart, a CR 8 monster is an even challenge for a lone level 10 fighter, more or less.
At level 8 the only advantage the behir has over an ordinary fighter is really grappling and straight HP. Maybe. A level 8 fighter should have higher AC and should be about equal, if not superior at hitting by some margin. Damage per hit may edge towards the behir most of the time.
The tactical question comes down to swallowing vs raking. Even an impressive half orc with gauntlets and belts of strength at level 8 (and maybe even a grapple feat) is still gonna get grabbed more often than not, and that means raked and swallowed. If he fights with a small blade in hand and doesn't get raked he can easily out damage the behir for one quarter of its HP during the 'cutting myself out phase' of the fight, whereas if he gets raked it straight up pain time.
Each level the fighter gets edges advantages his way. By level ten he's still likely to be grappled more than not, but now he gets 'bit' less, a necessary first step. He probably has more HP than the behir now, and hits a bit more often/harder. At this point it is a more or less straight up coin toss.
If you put two level 8 fighters against the behir, meaning they are STILL a level behind the challenge curve, the fight is almost garaunteed to go to the fighters, regardless of the behir's choices during grappling. As a straight up ballpark, I'd say there is a 75% chance that neither fighter dies and a 90% chance the behir dies unless the fighters are just that fucking stupid.
This, of course, is entirely predicated on the fighters walking straight up to the behir and starting with the choppity chop, no real attempt at tactical thinking. A lone fighter vs Behir on open ground (From the 'campaign, everything was chopped down and alarmed to hell and back), the fighter walks to, oh, 1100 feet for a composite longbow (no feats, no magic) and starts pumping the behir full of arrows for the 12 rounds (80 feet at full move, plus one and a half rounds to swap weapons) of movement it takes to get close to him, switching to choppity-chop weapons before it gets there for maximum swingage. Knowing a behir is a big swallow monster, the offhand weapon, provided you don't go with a cheap magic sheild for that extra round or two before the grab, should be a short sword so you don't have to waste a move action drawing it to cut your way out (thus, full attack from teh round of the swallow). This means a good twenty or thirty HP advantage for the fighter with moderate rolls. Per fighter, thus the two fighter group raises their ballpark odds of surivival to close to 90% for both, and makes two level seven fighters just a bit more likely to succeed (say 50% that neither dies.)
So, one more time: How is a single Behir guarding a mountain pass an insurmountable obstacle for a fighter? With good dice rolls and a cheap ass magic bow , who knows: twelve rounds of bow shooting from extreme range might just end the fight before it 'begins'.
God forbid the fighter spent all his money on a candy ass flying carpet and a sack full of arrows.
Hopefully this long ass post will get the 'fighters are helpless against the awe inspiring might of the behir without GM pity fucks' crowd to, at a fucking minimum, retract the behir example as simply, moronically, wrong.
Quote from: MGuy;570835Web and magic missile are low level spells. The fear of running out of spells or using spider climb when i can fly for the entirety of the day are low level tactics exclusively. That's why its low level bullshi instead of getting to you know, actual high level play.
Did you mean this
fly spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fly.htm)?
QuoteFly
Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 3, Travel 3
Components: V, S, F/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)
The subject can fly at a speed of 60 feet (or 40 feet if it wears medium or heavy armor, or if it carries a medium or heavy load). It can ascend at half speed and descend at double speed, and its maneuverability is good. Using a fly spell requires only as much concentration as walking, so the subject can attack or cast spells normally. The subject of a fly spell can charge but not run, and it cannot carry aloft more weight than its maximum load, plus any armor it wears.
Should the spell duration expire while the subject is still aloft, the magic fails slowly. The subject floats downward 60 feet per round for 1d6 rounds. If it reaches the ground in that amount of time, it lands safely. If not, it falls the rest of the distance, taking 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet of fall. Since dispelling a spell effectively ends it, the subject also descends in this way if the fly spell is dispelled, but not if it is negated by an antimagic field.
Arcane Focus
A wing feather from any bird.
Because the caster would need to be 1440th level to use that "for the entirety of the day". At 11th level, 3rd level spells max out at 4, so the caster could be as low as 360th level if all the 3rd level slots are used. The only metamagic feat that would apply is Extend Spell, which doubles the duration. Using that feat, the caster would only have to be 720th or 180th level, respectively, in order to have the ability to fly "for the entirety of the day". Unless "for the entirety of the day" is 8hrs. Which only requires a caster of 480th level if they cast it once, or 120th level if all four spell slots are taken up with
fly. 18 Intelligence provides an extra 3rd level spell, which drops the level requirements to 288th level in the first instance, 144th level with the Extend feat, or 96th level if five castings are used over the span of 8hrs. Hardly seems like 'low level bullshit'.
Now, I am sure there is some ridiculous feat somewhere that allows for greater spell durations, but that only proves the point that using every feat ever published will mess up your game. Which is one of the points people have been trying to explain since pretty early on in the thread.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570837Why would I do that?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570822It's a situation where whatever the Fighter CAN do, someone else CAN do BETTER.
The Fighter CAN wear plate armour, and the Fighter CAN wield a long sword. So, how CAN the Wizard do those things BETTER?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;570840What spell low level spell lets you fly all day long? And then once you do spend your slot on that spell, what then? Are you going to throw your poop at the enemies?
Mguy points out that at high level play, you can fly all day and still have plenty of spells. At low-levels, Wizards and Fighters are much more balanced. If a wizard has 6 or 10 spells, that's pretty limited. When they have 50 or so, the only way they're running out of spells is if they've been forced into a life-or-death struggle with no way to escape. Wizards continue to gain additional spells every level, so at some point (referred to nebulously as 'high level'), the risk of running out of spells is pretty minor
OR, if the wizard is in danger of running out of spells, the odds that they can't retreat safely and regain spells is very minor.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;570840Once again, you are assuming that the MU has access to every spell that can be cast at any time, and never seem to run out of them.
This is not a required assumption. That said, if a wizard has a spellbook with a large number of available spells, they
might have prepared the right spell for the situation. They might also have left a spell slot empty, and prepare a spell as needed (this is great for utility spells when a ticking clock is not an issue). Thirdly, they might have scrolls or other spell devices that allow them to cast ANY spell in their spellbook as needed. In 3.5,
EVERY wizard has access to scribe scroll. If they keep one copy of every spell they can cast for 'emergencies', they literally would always be preapred at least once per day. Restocking the scrolls is a bit of a pain, but not particularly difficult, expensive, or time-consuming - as long as they don't use them frivolously.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;5708402) The game assumes all classes would have appropriate level magic items,and for a high level fighter, that's going to be some good ones. Just like it's assumed that a high level magic user would have found spellbooks that had high level spells inscribed upon them at some point in his or her adventure. If you take away the fighters magical weapons and armor, then you have to take away the MUs spellbooks that he found as well. Whoah! Watch out for the 15th level MU that only has a few 1st level spells in his spellbook!
In 3.5, the Wizard gains free spells every time he gains a level. At high level play, he may be limited to a very small number of spells, each of which he can cast several time (ie, if I only have four 4th level spells in my spellbook, but I can cast 7/day, I'll probably have most of them prepared twice), I'm giving up versatility, but I'm still powerful. Since these free spells are 'player's choice', you don't even end up in the situation where one wizard got 'arcane mark' and the other got 'magic missile'.
But once you compare the classes without magic items, you can see that the Wizard still has some useful 'innate' abilities - the Fighter relies entirely on access to tools to accomplish his goals. A Fighter, no matter how high a level, is virtually useless with his bare fists. I posit that a high level Fighter
should be able to take on a giant of around equal CR in fisticuffs and have a chance to come out ahead. That would indicate he had an innate ability to fight someone he's supposed to be able to fight.
If the Fighter requires magical toys to be effective, it would be necessarily true that someone as effective as the Fighter without toys would be more effective than the Fighter if given the fighter's toys. Thus, while a kitted up Fighter might be a challenge for a giant, a kitted up giant is far superior.
In this way, magical items are used to obscure the deficiency of the class by providing abilities that the class does not already have. If the items are assigned to a class that already useful abilities, parity can never be achieved.
Lots of people address it by giving Fighters weapons well beyond the anticipated Wealth by Level guidelines - they recognize that they need to do something to make the Fighter useful. If the Fighter were useful BEFORE adding the magic weapons and such, it wouldn't be necessary to the degree that it is.
No, no Stormbringer, look at his Thunderdome entry: His wizard can totally fly all day because he has an Ebony Fly as a luxury item (whatever the fuck he means by that... I suppose in comparison to 'leadership cheese'?).
Cause only wizards can do that! D'oh!
QuoteNow, I am sure there is some ridiculous feat somewhere that allows for greater spell durations, but that only proves the point that using every feat ever published will mess up your game. Which is one of the points people have been trying to explain since pretty early on in the thread.
This is why yoo explicitly set what is allowed and not in any game but it's absolutely neccessary for any variation of WotC 3x game.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;570840And?
You said he didn't specify low level. My statements were to show he might as well have.
QuoteWhat spell low level spell lets you fly all day long?
Considering that I'm not speaking on low level matters it's strange that you would keep bringing low level shenanigans up.
QuoteOnce again, you are assuming that the MU has access to every spell that can be cast at any time, and never seem to run out of them.
1) Item possession has nothing to do with role-playing. This is a very odd statement to make
2) The game assumes all classes would have appropriate level magic items,and for a high level fighter, that's going to be some good ones. Just like it's assumed that a high level magic user would have found spellbooks that had high level spells inscribed upon them at some point in his or her adventure. If you take away the fighters magical weapons and armor, then you have to take away the MUs spellbooks that he found as well. Whoah! Watch out for the 15th level MU that only has a few 1st level spells in his spellbook!
First part, no. I'm assuming an MU will get the spells necessary to do something as adveture relevent at high levels such as fly. If he doesn't straight up just get Overland Flight at some point I will readily assume he will craft an item that allows him to fly, charm a lower level flying monster that will allow him to do so, or mitigate the need for flight by being able to teleport.
As for the rest:
1) Strawman
2)From what I understand of the older games: Wizard can do research as a class ability and it's not that hard or unlikely that even if he doesn't successfully research every spell he "wants" he can get all the spells he "needs". A fighter on the other hand is not super likely to get all the combat gear he needs to flourish. So while the wizard will have to spend more time off screen doing research without his found spell books (which I believe were supposed to be rare or something anyway) he can at least do his own research by virute of his class while a fighter is 100% hosed.
Quote from: Spike;570849No, no Stormbringer, look at his Thunderdome entry: His wizard can totally fly all day because he has an Ebony Fly as a luxury item (whatever the fuck he means by that... I suppose in comparison to 'leadership cheese'?).
Cause only wizards can do that! D'oh!
He can if he casts overland flight. He can't because I didn't give him overland flight. Instead he teleports where he needs to or just uses the figurine if for some odd reason (such as this battle) he has to travel to get to where he wants.
Quote from: StormBringer;570845The Fighter CAN wear plate armour, and the Fighter CAN wield a long sword. So, how CAN the Wizard do those things BETTER?
Given plate armor and a longsword, I'd probably sell them and use the proceeds to purchase a useful item for a bearded devil bound to my service by
lesser planar binding. He comes with a respectable AC and a weapon already, so the equipment is superfluous. If I were smart, I'd purchase an item that I might use when it's time to release my servant from my service.
If that weren't an option, or I were hell-bent on using the weapon and armor, I'd probably
dominate a Fighter and use him.
A wizard can add a Fighter to his 'tool box' - with relative ease, all things considered. A fighter cannot easily force or compel a wizard to serve him in the same or similar manner.
Since a Wizard can add the services of a Fighter, but a Fighter cannot do the same, a Wizard + Fighter is more powerful than a Fighter alone.
While this is all 'abstact', the point is that these things can happen in a game. If they do happen, it's pretty clear where the power lies.
I've mentioned before, in a real game that I was playing, there was concern about the Fighter getting dominated. To avoid it from happening, the Wizard dominated the Fighter and told him to 'do whatever you would normally do'. The whole purpose was not to make the 'fighter player his bitch' - but it was to prevent him from being dominated by the enchanter they were facing. But once it was done, the Wizard could tell the Fighter to do anything if he had wanted to.
Of course, we had to decide what happens if two people dominate the same person, but we agreed that opposed charisma checks would be used.
Just because not every player won't abuse that power doesn't mean that it makes for a healthy game.
I've pointed out before that giving the Fighter some extra resistance to magic would go a long way toward addressing the disparity.
I'm supremely honored that you have chosen to make me the sole topic of your signature. :D
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570846Mguy points out that at high level play, you can fly all day and still have plenty of spells.
Except he was wrong, because you can't "fly all day and still have plenty of spells". Primarily because you can't "fly all day" unless you are at least 96th level.
QuoteThirdly, they might have scrolls or other spell devices that allow them to cast ANY spell in their spellbook as needed.
"Magical toys"
QuoteIn 3.5, the Wizard gains free spells every time he gains a level.
Innate or not, "magical toys".
QuoteAt high level play, he may be limited to a very small number of spells, each of which he can cast several time (ie, if I only have four 4th level spells in my spellbook, but I can cast 7/day, I'll probably have most of them prepared twice)
How do you cast seven spells per day? At 11th level, casting the standard 4/day requires a bonus of three third level spells, which is a minimum Intelligence of 32. Casting seven 9th level spells per day requires 20th level and a minimum Intelligence of 44.
QuoteBut once you compare the classes without magic items, you can see that the Wizard still has some useful 'innate' abilities...
They aren't even scare quote innate. Spellbook = magical toy.
QuoteIf the Fighter requires magical toys to be effective, it would be necessarily true that someone as effective as the Fighter without toys would be more effective than the Fighter if given the fighter's toys.
Ok, give your Wizard a +5 long sword and +5 plate, and let's see how they do.
QuoteThus, while a kitted up Fighter might be a challenge for a giant, a kitted up giant is far superior.
Against what? A naked Fighter with a rusty dagger? A wheel of cheese? Thor?
And you haven't even slightly demonstrated that a Fighter is not a challenge for a giant of unknown type. Ogre? Hill Giant? Storm Giant? Adamantine Giant?
QuoteIn this way, magical items are used to obscure the deficiency of the class by providing abilities that the class does not already have. If the items are assigned to a class that already useful abilities, parity can never be achieved.
Then you will be happy to know that Wizards are almost completely helpless without their primary 'magical toy', the spellbook.
QuoteLots of people address it by giving Fighters weapons well beyond the anticipated Wealth by Level guidelines - they recognize that they need to do something to make the Fighter useful. If the Fighter were useful BEFORE adding the magic weapons and such, it wouldn't be necessary to the degree that it is.
And lots of other people address it by giving the Wizard unlimited uses of any spell ever written.
Quote from: Spike;570857I'm supremely honored that you have chosen to make me the sole topic of your signature. :D
Awww you noticed? I'd had it up for a little while now and I was just hoping you'd give it a look. I mean you talk a big game but basically don't know shit about the how the game you're talking about works. I just thought that the empty challenge you left was good fodder for showing your lack of actual insight,
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570855Given plate armor and a longsword, I'd probably sell them and use the proceeds to purchase a useful item for a bearded devil bound to my service by lesser planar binding.
Hey, genius, that isn't something a Fighter CAN do. That is something a Wizard CAN do.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570822It's a situation where whatever the Fighter CAN do, someone else CAN do BETTER.
The Fighter CAN use a long sword. The Fighter CAN use armour. Your claim is that the Wizard CAN do those things better. So show me the Wizard that CAN do those two things better than a Fighter.
Quote from: MGuy;570852You said he didn't specify low level. My statements were to show he might as well have.
Considering that I'm not speaking on low level matters it's strange that you would keep bringing low level shenanigans up. .
Uh, dude?
You said that that at low level they were pretty even. Look at
your quote I was responding to.
That's why I was talking about low level comparisons because that's what
you brought up. :rolleyes:
And my point was, at low levels, they are NOT even as you claim. Not even really close unless you...wait for it....
assume that MUs can cast any spell they want as many times as they want. But hey, who cares about memorizing spells, right? Who cares if the party has to rest after every single encounter just to appease the magic user so he can rememorize spells, right? Certainly the DM should halt the universe for the MU to do this.
Good lord...
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570855.Stuff to Stormbringer
So now its a "fighter can wear pants!" argument? I'm fairly sure that this ranks down there with Rum Cove's "fighters can open doors and push rocks" argument.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;570861Uh, dude? You said that that at low level they were pretty even. Look at your quote I was responding to.
That's why I was talking about low level comparisons because that's what you brought up. :rolleyes:
And my point was, at low levels, they are NOT even as you claim. Not even really close unless you...wait for it....
assume that MUs can cast any spell they want as many times as they want. But hey, who cares about memorizing spells, right? Who cares if the party has to rest after every single encounter just to appease the magic user so he can rememorize spells, right? Certainly the DM should halt the universe for the MU to do this.
Good lord...
Ummm yea, he brought up low level shit. My statement was pretty much admonishing him for bringing it up when "at higher levels" has been the main thrust of the conversation. So, try to keep up.
Your point about casters at lower levels is equally puzzling. Low level characters can't survive too many encounters because they are low level. A fighter can only survive a number of combats where he can be healed and have status conditions removed as you climb up in level. So yes, if we're ignoring resources outside of spell slot allotment then yea, I suppose the MU would be a drag but since I'm not ignoring those other details your argument falls pretty flat. That's before getting to the part where I'm talking about higher level dnd anyway.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570855Given plate armor and a longsword, I'd probably sell them and use the proceeds to purchase a useful item for a bearded devil bound to my service by lesser planar binding. He comes with a respectable AC and a weapon already, so the equipment is superfluous. If I were smart, I'd purchase an item that I might use when it's time to release my servant from my service.
.
Quote from: lesser planar bindingThe creature can escape from the trap with by successfully pitting its spell resistance against your caster level check, by dimensional travel, or with a successful Charisma check (DC 15 + ½ your caster level + your Cha modifier).
Better hope it doesn't win one of those checks because I'm reasonably certain a pissed off bearded devil will fuck up a mage's day pretty god damn quick, and even if it just sorta messes up your day, it's attacks are wounding, and mages bleed out quick. Now, quick math check: Beardy has SR 17. Assuming a 9th level wizard casts this, there is a 40% chance that day that beardy just says 'fuck you wizard' and eats your face. Assuming spell pen feat is in play, it drops to 30%. Meaning that one in three wizards get eaten the first time they try to lesser planar bind a bearded devil. The remaining two thirds of wizards better get that suck dealing quick, because he's checking every day. Bullshit statistics means you got three days to make a deal.
Quote from: Lesser Planar Binding, cont.You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature’s Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward. If the creature wins the opposed check, it refuses service. New offers, bribes, and the like can be made or the old ones reoffered every 24 hours. *snip*. If you roll a 1 on the Charisma check, the creature breaks free of the binding and can escape or attack you.
Ironically the sorcerer is better off here. Whats the average charisma of the typical wizard? lets say that, since he's been eagerly grinding nine fucking levels just to have the chance to make the fighter feel like a bitch, he's got a decent Cha of 14. So he has a wopping 60% chance of convincing the devil to take the deal the first day. Of course, there is a 5% chance that the devil gets out and eats his fucking face. So, of our 70% survivors, we can write off another 4% of wizards just from the 'roll a one clause'. Now, since 40% of the devils will essentially skip the deal on day one, and 30% (+5%!) of those will escape tomorrow to eat face, well, we'll just say that another 10% of wizards get faces eaten on day two. So we're up to 44% of wizards get face eaten within two days, and generously, we'll round to 50% for day three and any idiots still trying after that.
No, I don't think 'be my personal combat bitch for the next X number of years' is a deal any devil is going to be eager to take, no bonus for long term servitude (unless you want a GM pity-fuck for you conjure wizard...).
So, 50% of first time planar binders looking for a bearded devil bitch die horribly in the attempt. God forbid they have to replace him before they level again, because the odds don't change (and really, they don't swing that hard until you've stacked a few extra levels on...).
Quote from: lpb, stillOnce the requested service is completed, the creature need only so inform you to be instantly sent back whence it came. The creature might later seek revenge.
Its a fucking devil. Chances are, after being ground up and spat out by some dragon or what have you that you sacrificed it to, it'll be back the first chance it gets to eat your face. Luckily, you'll probably have a bit better chance surviving it than if you just tried to bind it.
What? Your DM doesn't actually keep track of powerful plane hopping enemies you rack up? For shame. This is in the fucking rules, telling him he probably SHOULD be doing this. RAW baby.
QuoteNote that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions.
Yeah. Again: The GM still gets to control the monster. Its a fucking Devil, its supposed to use legalisms to fuck with your head. God forbid you say something dumb like 'watch my back'. The GM is legally authorized to have the Devil follow you everywhere just... watching your back. Oh, look, something is trying to eat your face? Yeah, well the devil is totally looking at your back the whole time, just like you told him too.
What? You mean you think that is a cruel and unnecessary interpretation of the rules?
I dunno: Seems clear to me that long term servitude is a cruel and unnecessary interpretation of the rules of the spell TOO. It says 'a service'. 'Be my combat bitch' is stretching it. A lot. As usual.
Pull that shit at my table and I'll tell you there is a perfectly good rule for having a powerful beast at your beck and call: Cohort from leadership.
Summon the Devil to do A thing for you (like: Kill that stupid behir guarding the pass... A Single Task.), take him as a cohort if you want him as a pet.
You only think my argument falls flat because the only D&D you know is 3e and 4e. I really, really wish you'd stop with these blanket assumptions about classes and their abilities when you have no clue how the first 25+ years of D&D was played and how those classes compared to each other.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;570869You only think my argument falls flat because the only D&D you know is 3e and 4e. I really, really wish you'd stop with these blanket assumptions about classes and their abilities when you have no clue how the first 25+ years of D&D was played and how those classes compared to each other.
Let's say you are right and the mysterious world of 0,1,2 a fighter can just fight all day at lower levels (I don't believe it because that sounds retarded just thinking it in my head). Let's say I grant you that. What the fuck does that have to do with high level DnD?
Quote from: MGuy;570859Awww you noticed? I'd had it up for a little while now and I was just hoping you'd give it a look. I mean you talk a big game but basically don't know shit about the how the game you're talking about works. I just thought that the empty challenge you left was good fodder for showing your lack of actual insight,
Yeah, totally, right?
I mean, I should have totally noticed it seeing as how I wasn't even on the forum for the all that time...
Shit, I should get my eyes checked! Thanks for pointing out my blindness!
Quote from: Spike;570873Yeah, totally, right?
I mean, I should have totally noticed it seeing as how I wasn't even on the forum for the all that time...
Shit, I should get my eyes checked! Thanks for pointing out my blindness!
Actually I made it my sig after Kaelik called you out on it.
Quote from: MGuy;570863Ummm yea, he brought up low level shit. My statement was pretty much admonishing him for bringing it up when "at higher levels" has been the main thrust of the conversation. So, try to keep up.
That actually wasn't my point, so try to keep up. Your definition of 'high level' would have to include something between 96th and 1440th in order to use a
fly spell "for the entirety of the day". Allow me to re-iterate:
Because the caster would need to be 1440th level to use that "for the entirety of the day". At 11th level, 3rd level spells max out at 4, so the caster could be as low as 360th level if all the 3rd level slots are used. The only metamagic feat that would apply is Extend Spell, which doubles the duration. Using that feat, the caster would only have to be 720th or 180th level, respectively, in order to have the ability to fly "for the entirety of the day". Unless "for the entirety of the day" is 8hrs. Which only requires a caster of 480th level if they cast it once, or 120th level if all four spell slots are taken up with
fly. 18 Intelligence provides an extra 3rd level spell, which drops the level requirements to 288th level in the first instance, 144th level with the Extend feat, or 96th level if five castings are used over the span of 8hrs. Hardly seems like 'low level bullshit'.
QuoteYour point about casters at lower levels is equally puzzling. Low level characters can't survive too many encounters because they are low level. A fighter can only survive a number of combats where he can be healed and have status conditions removed as you climb up in level.
And a Magic-User can only survive a number of combats where they don't actually get hit. And they aren't immune to status conditions. Which means your endless barrage of "Wizards are better than Fighters" absolutely doesn't apply to low levels, and you haven't demonstrated anything remotely like "Wizards are better than every other class because spells".
I will even make it easy for you this first go-round. Give me a spell load-out for a 15th level Wizard that obviates the need for
just the Thief. 18 Intelligence, so you have a boost in spells. You even get to know ahead of time that there are ten traps of various kinds (locate
and disable), ten locked doors, ten climbs of various heights, and ten guards to sneak past. All of these are scattered around, so you can't just
fireball a group of guards, for example.
Charming or Diplomancing an actual Thief doesn't count, because that means the Thief is actually doing those things.
QuoteSo yes, if we're ignoring resources outside of spell slot allotment then yea, I suppose the MU would be a drag but since I'm not ignoring those other details your argument falls pretty flat. That's before getting to the part where I'm talking about higher level dnd anyway.
If the Wizard gets spells, the Fighter gets equipment. You can't have it both ways. A spellbook is equipment, so your argument is automatically incorrect if you are allowing equipment for Wizards but not Fighters.
Quote from: MGuy;570872Let's say you are right and the mysterious world of 0,1,2 a fighter can just fight all day at lower levels (I don't believe it because that sounds retarded just thinking it in my head). Let's say I grant you that. What the fuck does that have to do with high level DnD?
Nothing. But that doesn't matter because I was addressing your comments that they are even at low levels.
And they aren't.
Oh, and in AD&D, 2e, B/X, BECMI, and OD&D? A low level fighter (up to level 5 or so),
could fight a long time and didn't need to have rest after every battle. Especially if played smart.
Stormbringer,
My intention is not to make you feel like an idiot. Let's see how it goes.
First, overland flight is a spell. Following the general rule of thumb that an 'improved version' of a spell should be at least two-levels higher (I remember that from my 2nd edition DMG, I'm pretty sure) it is a 5th level spell. It allows for a caster to fly for 1 hour/level (compared to 1 min/level for fly. Since a Wizard gains his first 5th-level spell at 9th level, he could use the spell to fly for nine hours.
While that's far short of 24 hours, I usually refer to 8-9 hours of work as 'a full day's work'. I don't know how long the adventuring day is supposed to be, but this spell seems long enough to potentially qualify as 'all day' unless someone is being particularly pedantic.
Second, I did not say a wizard might have seven 9th level spells per day. I indicated that he might have 7 4th level spells per day. At 13th level, a Wizard has their maximum of four base spells per day. A specialist gets a bonus spell for a total of 5 spells per day before adjustments for Intelligence.
In order to get 2 bonus spells at 4th level, you must have an Intelligence of 26.
Assuming you started with an 18 intelligence at 1st level, you'd have a 21 at 13th level. Depending on how you define 'magical toys', getting that extra +5 could be difficult. You could be venerable (+3 to Int), or you could have read a Tome of Intellect (depending on whether you count that as a current magical item or not), or you could use a Headband of Intellect +6 (either making it or using it). Because even if you start both sides with 'no magical items', you can use wizard spells to acquire them more easily and quickly than a Fighter could alone.
Regarding spell books as magical items, I just don't know where you're going here. A wizard doesn't need a spellbook to cast spells, just to prepare them. If he has a full complement of spells, even naked, he has powerful abilities that dwarf what a naked Fighter could hope to do. The lack of spell components might be a problem, but quite a few spells don't require them, and Eschew Components is a core feat that obviates the need for them.
However, discussing naked characters isn't particularly useful since it doesn't happen much in game. It is revealing about what capabilitise a character has innately versus derived from equipment.
Finally, while I say there is nothing that a Fighter can do that a Wizard can't do better, wearing full plate and wielding a particular weapon doesn't help you DO anything. My point is that a wizard can accomplish any GOAL more effectively than a Fighter - not by doing it in the same way. If a Wizard comes to a cliff and he wants to cross, he flies across. He does not jump. He does not climb. He uses magic to overcome the obstacle and he does it better than the Fighter.
If he doesn't have fly prepared, he uses spider climb. He scurries down one side and up the other, again, faster and more effectively than the Fighter. Failing that, he drops down using feather fall, then gets up to the other side using dimension door - or some other combination. Meanwhile, the Fighter strips off his heavy armor, puts it in a sack, climbs down, climbs back up, and puts his armor back on.
If you give a wizard a suit of full plate and a longsword, I have no doubt that he could use it more effectively than a Fighter, but not necessarily by using it himself. The fact that he can spurn such 'good weapons and armor' and still be effective is part of the point. If he doesn't want to use them himself he can sell them, give them to a charmed/summoned/dominated minion capable of using them, or perhaps he could add the dancing property to the sword to allow it to wield itself.
And if he doesn't want to permanently enchant it, he could research a unique spell that gives the dancing property to a weapon for a short time (the way greater magic weapon gives a bonus to attack and damage for a limited amount of time.
Being a wizard means having magic at your disposal. Magic can do anything that you can imagine doing. Thus, if D&D is truly a game of imagination, a powerful magical character can truly accomplish anything. A smart player without magic might be able to do some very impressive things, but it certainly can't compare to the possibility of doing ANYTHING.
Quote from: MGuy;570875Actually I made it my sig after Kaelik called you out on it.
The one where he declared victory? Because that one happened like... I dunno, the day after I stopped coming by to deal with real life for a while.
The one last night in that other thread? Cause I totally brought the thunderdome back up the same night, which would make you twice a liar: First because you claimed you made it 'some time ago'... which last night isn't, and two, because by the time you posted it, I brought back up the thunderdome.
Losing interest some two weeks after starting the thread with no real progress (and the ref dropping out) is hardly the same as blowing hot air, but you go ahead and tell yourself whatever you like.
Quote from: MGuy;570875Actually I made it my sig after Kaelik called you out on it.
You guys are really desperate. It's really funny. :D
Quote from: StormBringer;570860The Fighter CAN use a long sword. The Fighter CAN use armour. Your claim is that the Wizard CAN do those things better. So show me the Wizard that CAN do those two things better than a Fighter.
Why not just ask the wizard to roll a d10 for hitpoints?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570879Stormbringer,
My intention is not to make you feel like an idiot. Let's see how it goes.
First, overland flight is a spell. Following the general rule of thumb that an 'improved version' of a spell should be at least two-levels higher (I remember that from my 2nd edition DMG, I'm pretty sure) it is a 5th level spell. It allows for a caster to fly for 1 hour/level (compared to 1 min/level for fly. Since a Wizard gains his first 5th-level spell at 9th level, he could use the spell to fly for nine hours.
While that's far short of 24 hours, I usually refer to 8-9 hours of work as 'a full day's work'. I don't know how long the adventuring day is supposed to be, but this spell seems long enough to potentially qualify as 'all day' unless someone is being particularly pedantic.
Wow, yeah,
overland flight does sound pretty powerful. You get all that plus average manoeuvrability... Hmmm... You know, that almost sounds like a keyword of some kind... Ah, yes. There it is.
Ooops. Average manoeuvrability: You can't hover, move backwards, or reverse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#movingInThreeDimensions). Which is pretty much what I assume you overlooked. Also, you can only turn 45°/5 ft, which means you had better plan well in advance for all those sharp turns in the dungeon. Oh, and you have to maintain a minimum forward speed of at least 20ft/round (half speed). So no slowing down to a 'near hover' of less than a foot per round or something. So, it allows for flight, but it isn't "extended
fly" like you thought it was. I am kind of surprised you didn't notice that, being all about the rules like you are.
Fly has good manoeuvrability, meaning you can do all three of those things.
Fly is like a helicopter,
overland flight is like a 747. It gets you between two points much faster, but that is about all it does.
QuoteSecond, I did not say a wizard might have seven 9th level spells per day. I indicated that he might have 7 4th level spells per day. At 13th level, a Wizard has their maximum of four base spells per day. A specialist gets a bonus spell for a total of 5 spells per day before adjustments for Intelligence.
I covered that. I went on to demonstrate that having seven 9th level spells required an even more ridiculous Intelligence ability.
But let's go with yours. Specialist starting out with 18 Intelligence has five spells (one of which must be from the specialist school). The two bonus spells to bring that up to seven requires a minimum 26 Intelligence. You get one point to add every four levels (level divisible by four), so the eight points needed would mean you don't get seven 4th level spells until 32th level.
And the spells gained (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/arcaneSpells.htm#addingSpellstoaWizardsSpellbook) aren't exactly "free":
QuoteWizards can add new spells to their spellbooks through several methods. If a wizard has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, she can learn spells only from schools whose spells she can cast.
Spells Gained at a New Level
Wizards perform a certain amount of spell research between adventures. Each time a character attains a new wizard level, she gains two spells of her choice to add to her spellbook. The two free spells must be of spell levels she can cast. If she has chosen to specialize in a school of magic, one of the two free spells must be from her specialty school.
Spells Copied from Another's Spellbook or a Scroll
A wizard can also add a spell to her book whenever she encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard's spellbook. No matter what the spell's source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings, above). Next, she must spend a day studying the spell. At the end of the day, she must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell's level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from her specialty school. She cannot, however, learn any spells from her prohibited schools. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into her spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook, below). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.
If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. She cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until she gains another rank in Spellcraft. A spell that was being copied from a scroll does not vanish from the scroll.
In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to the spell's level × 50 gp.
Independent Research
A wizard also can research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one.
Dang, those are some limitations, huh? Your clever trick to gain an extra spell for specializing means you don't get to learn a pile of oppositional school spells at all, and of the two 'free' spells at each level, one of then has to be from that school.
Should I wait to go on until you have your books in front of you? I have linked to the SRD online several times now, is that site not loading properly?
QuoteAssuming you started with an 18 intelligence at 1st level, you'd have a 21 at 13th level. Depending on how you define 'magical toys', getting that extra +5 could be difficult. You could be venerable (+3 to Int), or you could have read a Tome of Intellect (depending on whether you count that as a current magical item or not), or you could use a Headband of Intellect +6 (either making it or using it). Because even if you start both sides with 'no magical items', you can use wizard spells to acquire them more easily and quickly than a Fighter could alone.
Tome of
Clear Thought = magical toy = DM may I? (Maybe you should get your books out.)
Headband of Intellect = magical toy = DM may I?
Also, the headband does not allow additional skill points upon attaining a new level, it would be reasonable to assume it does not allow additional spells, either. The bonus is an enhancement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#enhancementBonus) (there's another keyword!), which indicates a temporary condition. "... a general bonus to an ability score." and "...enhancement bonuses to armor... don't apply against touch attacks." also strongly indicate enhancement bonuses are very limited in scope and gaining extra spells from their use is clearly not intended.
QuoteRegarding spell books as magical items, I just don't know where you're going here. A wizard doesn't need a spellbook to cast spells, just to prepare them. If he has a full complement of spells, even naked, he has powerful abilities that dwarf what a naked Fighter could hope to do. The lack of spell components might be a problem, but quite a few spells don't require them, and Eschew Components is a core feat that obviates the need for them.
Which would be fine for a day or two, but what happens when they run out of spells?
QuoteHowever, discussing naked characters isn't particularly useful since it doesn't happen much in game. It is revealing about what capabilitise a character has innately versus derived from equipment.
And a Wizard's spells are very much derived from equipment. How did they memorize them in the first place?
QuoteFinally, while I say there is nothing that a Fighter can do that a Wizard can't do better, wearing full plate and wielding a particular weapon doesn't help you DO anything.
What's that noise? Is it a goalpost being shifted?
QuoteMy point is that a wizard can accomplish any GOAL more effectively than a Fighter - not by doing it in the same way. If a Wizard comes to a cliff and he wants to cross, he flies across. He does not jump. He does not climb. He uses magic to overcome the obstacle and he does it better than the Fighter.
Why is flying across 'better' than another option?
QuoteIf he doesn't have fly prepared, he uses spider climb. He scurries down one side and up the other, again, faster and more effectively than the Fighter. Failing that, he drops down using feather fall, then gets up to the other side using dimension door - or some other combination.
Assuming the Wizard has any of those spells, let alone all of them. Remember your specialist from before? Gotta give up two schools of spells. And even if it is planned out so none of those spells are in the two schools, one spell per level has to be in your speciality. And let's face it, if that is the only spell in your school, that isn't much of a specialist.
QuoteIf you give a wizard a suit of full plate and a longsword, I have no doubt that he could use it more effectively than a Fighter, but not necessarily by using it himself.
Well, then you just undermined your own argument that
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570822It's a situation where whatever the Fighter CAN do, someone else CAN do BETTER.
A Fighter CAN do these two things, among others: Wield a sword, and wear plate armour. Your claim is that the Wizard (well, any other class, really) can do whatever a fighter can do, only better. Giving them to a henchmen isn't the same as what a Fighter CAN do. Selling them for a scroll or a wand isn't the same as what a Fighter CAN do. A Fighter CAN wear the armour and a Fighter CAN swing the sword. If the Wizard CANNOT do those two things, then your statement is incorrect.
QuoteThe fact that he can spurn such 'good weapons and armor' and still be effective is part of the point.
But the Wizard can't spurn 'spellbooks' and still be effective. So if you want to take away the Fighter's equipment, we also have to take away the Wizard's. Not after they have spells memorized. From the beginning.
QuoteBeing a wizard means having magic at your disposal. Magic can do anything that you can imagine doing.
No, it can't. There are very precise limitations that you simply choose to ignore to make your argument seem valid. I refer you back to the basic errors in understanding you display with
fly and
overland flight. You are certainly free to ignore those limitations, if that is how you prefer to play. But you don't get to then whinge on endlessly about how 'weak' the Fighter is, or how no other class is needed because spells.
QuoteThus, if D&D is truly a game of imagination, a powerful magical character can truly accomplish anything. A smart player without magic might be able to do some very impressive things, but it certainly can't compare to the possibility of doing ANYTHING.
No, they can't. It's a good thing AD&D and D&D magic don't allow the possibility of doing ANYTHING. In fact, I can't think of a single system of magic in any game that allows that. That is why it is a role-playing
game, and not a round-robin session of one upmanship.
I mean, shit, I don't even
like 3.x, and I found the gaping holes in your ridiculous arguments within seconds.
Quote from: Sommerjon;570887Why not just ask the wizard to roll a d10 for hitpoints?
I don't know. Why not?
QuoteTome of Clear Thought = magical toy = DM may I? (Maybe you should get your books out.)
Headband of Intellect = magical toy = DM may I?
Also, the headband does not allow additional skill points upon attaining a new level, it would be reasonable to assume it does not allow additional spells, either. The bonus is an enhancement (there's another keyword!), which indicates a temporary condition. "... a general bonus to an ability score." and "...enhancement bonuses to armor... don't apply against touch attacks." also strongly indicate enhancement bonuses are very limited in scope and gaining extra spells from their use is clearly not intended.
Actually is does allow for bonus spells and the rest EXCEPT for additional skill points. And yes it is temporary in the fact that if you lose it you do lose everything. Problem is they aren't very clear about it and it did cause alot of argument back in the day.
Quote from: StormBringer;570899Wow, yeah, overland flight does sound pretty powerful. You get all that plus average manoeuvrability... Hmmm... You know, that almost sounds like a keyword of some kind... Ah, yes. There it is.
Ooops. Average manoeuvrability: You can't hover, move backwards, or reverse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#movingInThreeDimensions). Which is pretty much what I assume you overlooked. Also, you can only turn 45°/5 ft, which means you had better plan well in advance for all those sharp turns in the dungeon. Oh, and you have to maintain a minimum forward speed of at least 20ft/round (half speed). So no slowing down to a 'near hover' of less than a foot per round or something. So, it allows for flight, but it isn't "extended fly" like you thought it was. I am kind of surprised you didn't notice that, being all about the rules like you are.
Hush you! You can't expect people to actually follow the rules when espousing their positions can you? Just like those people who say that a cleric with
locate traps makes the thief obsolete, despite the fact that even in 3e (gasp!) the spell is not an automatic success and requires a skill check (which will be MUCH lower than a rogue's skill of the same name) and is only for a short duration.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;570904Hush you! You can't expect people to actually follow the rules when espousing their positions can you? Just like those people who say that a cleric with locate traps makes the thief obsolete, despite the fact that even in 3e (gasp!) the spell is not an automatic success and requires a skill check (which will be MUCH lower than a rogue's skill of the same name) and is only for a short duration.
You leave Stormie alone he is my best shot at fulfilling my goal for this thread.:)
Quote from: Marleycat;570903Actually is does allow for bonus spells and the rest EXCEPT for additional skill points. And yes it is temporary in the fact that if you lose it you do lose everything. Problem is they aren't very clear about it and it did cause alot of argument back in the day.
I still wouldn't allow bonus spells using the headband. Bonuses to skill
checks using Intelligence? Sure. Not bonus spells, though, that's just too powerful. And it is still a magic item, meaning the Wizard is dependant on equipment, just like the complaint about the Fighter.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;570904Hush you! You can't expect people to actually follow the rules when espousing their positions can you? Just like those people who say that a cleric with locate traps makes the thief obsolete, despite the fact that even in 3e (gasp!) the spell is not an automatic success and requires a skill check (which will be MUCH lower than a rogue's skill of the same name) and is only for a short duration.
I know, what was I thinking? A
fireball clearly means the entire world is engulfed in flames so the Wizard gets all the xp. Who needs Fighters?
Quote from: StormBringer;570913I know, what was I thinking? A fireball clearly means the entire world is engulfed in flames so the Wizard gets all the xp. Who needs Fighters?
Given that all the fire-resistant creatures of the world are awed by the wizard's might and commit suicide before he can cast an ice storm on them, he gets their combined XP values as well. Defeated by the mere knowledge of his existence.
Quote from: Benoist;570914Given that all the fire-resistant creatures of the world are awed by the wizard's might and commit suicide before he can cast an ice storm on them, he gets their combined XP values as well. Defeated by the mere knowledge of his existence.
Wizards are
awesome!
Quote from: StormBringer;570912I still wouldn't allow bonus spells using the headband. Bonuses to skill checks using Intelligence? Sure. Not bonus spells, though, that's just too powerful. And it is still a magic item, meaning the Wizard is dependant on equipment, just like the complaint about the Fighter.
It's cool, all I would ever want as a player is to know what interpretations are being used in the game and go from there. As you know I would play it differently but that's why just having a set of rules without human interpretation will never work (something that Mguy and other denners seem to want from what I am getting).
Quote from: StormBringer;570915Wizards are awesome!
So awesome the only thing that can kill them is a cat. So, obviously the most powerful creature EVAR is this
(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b371/K0modoDragon/ICHC-Lv30WizardCatAnimated.gif)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;570920So awesome the only thing that can kill them is a cat. So, obviously the most powerful creature EVAR is this
(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b371/K0modoDragon/ICHC-Lv30WizardCatAnimated.gif)
EXACTLY! (see my sig).:D
Quote from: StormBringer;570899Wow, yeah, overland flight does sound pretty powerful. You get all that plus average manoeuvrability... Hmmm... You know, that almost sounds like a keyword of some kind... Ah, yes. There it is.
Ooops. Average manoeuvrability: You can't hover, move backwards, or reverse (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#movingInThreeDimensions). Which is pretty much what I assume you overlooked. Also, you can only turn 45°/5 ft, which means you had better plan well in advance for all those sharp turns in the dungeon. Oh, and you have to maintain a minimum forward speed of at least 20ft/round (half speed). So no slowing down to a 'near hover' of less than a foot per round or something. So, it allows for flight, but it isn't "extended fly" like you thought it was. I am kind of surprised you didn't notice that, being all about the rules like you are.
Fly has good manoeuvrability, meaning you can do all three of those things. Fly is like a helicopter, overland flight is like a 747. It gets you between two points much faster, but that is about all it does.
Ah Manuverability Grades it's been a long time since I last gazed on them they mean exactly jack and squat if the monsters are on the ground and you have a ranged attack (but since when to wizards attack at range). Flight is a big deal only if you have alot of outdoor encounters. If all the fights are in closets like in 4e then flight is less of an advantage. If you have the space to float out of melee range genraly you can circle you're not using that move action for anything anyway
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570855If that weren't an option, or I were hell-bent on using the weapon and armor, I'd probably dominate a Fighter and use him.
A wizard can add a Fighter to his 'tool box' - with relative ease, all things considered. A fighter cannot easily force or compel a wizard to serve him in the same or similar manner.
Since a Wizard can add the services of a Fighter, but a Fighter cannot do the same, a Wizard + Fighter is more powerful than a Fighter alone.
Wow... really?
What in-game explanation do you offer to the 10th-level fighter who wants to hire a 6th-level magic-user henchman as his personal twice-a-day
fireball battery and/or
fly jetpack?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570855While this is all 'abstact', the point is that these things can happen in a game. If they do happen, it's pretty clear where the power lies.
By the same token, you and some others seem glad to ignore everything that's not hard-coded into the rules. Guess what? Things that aren't on the rules show up in real games. And these things can and do shift the balance of power away from some of the more obvious implications of the ruleset. They make games less predictable and less vulnerable to dick players looking for loopholes to exploit.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570855I've mentioned before, in a real game that I was playing, there was concern about the Fighter getting dominated. To avoid it from happening, the Wizard dominated the Fighter and told him to 'do whatever you would normally do'. The whole purpose was not to make the 'fighter player his bitch' - but it was to prevent him from being dominated by the enchanter they were facing. But once it was done, the Wizard could tell the Fighter to do anything if he had wanted to.
And the wizard PC
didn't take advantage of the fighter PC
in any way? Wow, your players are
boring. :D
Seriously, though. That's silly. It might be clever, in myopic rules-lawyery way, but it's silly. In a living, breathing game world, no fighter in his right mind would surrender freely and of his will to a wizard, no matter how friendly, using the hollow-my-skull-out-and-drive-me-around-like-an-old-Beetle spell.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570855Just because not every player won't abuse that power doesn't mean that it makes for a healthy game.
One of the reasons I default to TSR-era editions is that the modular design makes it very easy to houserule things. Last time I played D&D, my fighter go
polymorphed into a turtle and only narrowly escaped permanent transformation; it made me realize that
polymorph other is too good (or rather, that the %chance of permanency is too high), so next time I run D&D I'm nerfing it accordingly.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570855I've pointed out before that giving the Fighter some extra resistance to magic would go a long way toward addressing the disparity.
That's what I'd do if fighters were getting spell-blasted with too much frequency in my games.
Quote from: MGuy;570823Yes, things are fairly even at low level. You want a medal for pushing something everyone pretty much agrees on?
I don't think anyone is agreeing on anything in this clusterfuck of a thread, and I have a particularly hard time keeping up with your positions as you move the goalposts all over the field. What I'm trying to point out, in as polite a way as possible, the sheer disconnect between your discourse and what actually goes on at the game table. All of your rules examples are about as relevant to my gaming experience, as a high school Physics problem (you know, zero-dimensional material bodies moving at uniform speeds in perfect vacuum without attrition) are to the practice of Civil Engineering.
You sound like someone who knows the 3.5e books by heart, but has had limited experience playing anything prior to it; several of the problems you mention aren't quite edition-specific but have certainly been exacerbated in post-WotC iterations. If you increase the number of spell slots for a 1st-level wizard, the balance tilts towards him much sooner in the game, and there's a real chance he'll outshine (e.g.) the rogue because, with 6 spell slots, memorizing
read languages at 1st level doesn't sound that far-fetched.
By the same token, if you increase starting HPs, the cleric's
cure light wounds isn't so hot anymore, and with increasing bonuses from feats and proficiency and whatnot,
bless or
aid don't make such a difference either.
Frail starting characters, spell memorization, material components, dreadfully limited spells for magic users, and other things that have been historically decried as "lame" (including by people I've gamed with) play huge and often unexpected roles in niche protection. You can't dismantle the engine, throw away important pieces and complain that it's "broken" afterwards.
On the non-edition-specific front, I'm more inclined to agree that there's a real problem with the Fighter at high levels (e.g. magic-user one-shots the bastard in the first round while the fighter looks on, sword in hand, his bloodthirst frustrated by chancy application of wizardry). In fact, when it comes to TSR-era D&D (the only version(s) of D&D I usually run) I'm increasingly partial to capping spell magic at level 6, and making all spells at levels 7-9 a ritual, like ACKS does -- but you seem to abhor the idea of the Fighter doing anything other than swinging a sword. Clever players circumvent the limitations imposed by the rules and use the living, breatyhing, dynamic game world in their favor.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;570934Ah Manuverability Grades it's been a long time since I last gazed on them they mean exactly jack and squat if the monsters are on the ground and you have a ranged attack (but since when to wizards attack at range). Flight is a big deal only if you have alot of outdoor encounters. If all the fights are in closets like in 4e then flight is less of an advantage. If you have the space to float out of melee range genraly you can circle you're not using that move action for anything anyway
Pssst... You might want to go back and read the entire post.
An enhancement bonus to Intelligence gives you bonus spells. That's in the rules. But I understand why you'd nerf that in your games. Your prerogative. I don't blame you for doing it, either, since I contend wizards are too powerful, and that's just another way they can be more powerful.
As for overland flight versus fly, I don't know why you're bringing up the maneuverability of each spell. I didn't say that fly doesn't let you fly with better maneuverability. I said that overland flight does let you fly all day. If you don't want to fly all day, you land. What happens if you land? Nothing (unless you decide to stop moving forward before getting within 10' of the ground). Then, since you're still under the spell effect, you can take off if you want to. How is that a problem?
Sure, I wouldn't use overland flight in a dungeon. I wouldn't usually use fly in a dungeon either. Was your theoretical discussion supposed to be in a dungeon?
As for why is fly better for crossing a chasm - it's faster. Much faster. With magic, obstacles cease to be obstacles. The wizard exists in a special place. He can pretend to be confined by mortal limitations, climbing down ropes with the rest of the party, but he doesn't have to. He could use magic to solve most of his problems directly. Now, he usually doesn't. In a group game, it's usually considered polite to stick with the group. But if you choose not to recognize that the wizard does so to be polite rather than because his limitations force him to do so, that's your deal.
As for the wizard using full plate and a longsword, I don't know what you're trying to prove. Yes, a fighter can wear armor and use a sword. Even a specific type of armor (plate mail) and a specific sword (longsword). The wizard could use them, too. But he wouldn't. Whatever the Fighter hopes to do by wearing the armor and holding the sword, the wizard can do more effectively without doing so. I don't mean to shift goal posts, so I'm sorry if I didn't explain myself well, but it was implicit. Wizards do things differently than fighters. Any goal a Fighter can accomplish, a Wizard (using different means) can accomplish more easily. Usually faster, with less personal risk.
As far as specialist wizards, you'll find that forbidden schools aren't much of a limitation. Most wizards give up two of the three following: enchantment, illusion, necromancy. Some will give up evocation, instead. In any case, there is enough in the schools you're left with to cover just about any situation one way or another. If you give up Illusion, you miss out on invisibility, but that's the only spell you'll really miss. The fact is, wizards tend to have more options than they have spell slots available, so specializing just makes sense.
As for equipment, again, I don't know why insisting that the wizard can't have a spellbook is supposed to prove. The rules say a wizard starts out with a spellbook. It even says how many spells he starts out with. It doesn't say a Wizard must spend x amount of his starting gold with a spellbook. It's just a class feature. He gets it.
The fighter doesn't automatically get to start with a sword and the rogue doesn't automatically start with thieve's tools. Why it's different, I don't know, but it is.
So, when you accept that we're specifically comparing a Fighter with no 'purchased' equipment with a wizard with no 'purchased' equipment, you'll see that wizards do still have abilities (spell casting).
But of course, in a real campaign, the wizard and the fighter both get magical items. Since we've looked at how useless the Fighter is without additional magical items, and how relatively useful the wizard is without additional magical items, we are forced to conclude, if we're being at all honest with ourselves, that the magical items the wizard gets increases his power beyond the benefit the Fighter gets with equal wealth. If the Fighter's wealth were instead spent on a charmed/bound/dominated minion, it'd be even more one-sided.
Wizards are too powerful. Fighters are too weak. If the players aren't being nice to each other, they're playing totally separate games, and the one the wizard plays is a lot more exciting.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570952As for overland flight versus fly, I don't know why you're bringing up the maneuverability of each spell. I didn't say that fly doesn't let you fly with better maneuverability. I said that overland flight does let you fly all day. If you don't want to fly all day, you land. What happens if you land? Nothing (unless you decide to stop moving forward before getting within 10' of the ground). Then, since you're still under the spell effect, you can take off if you want to. How is that a problem?
Sure, I wouldn't use overland flight in a dungeon. I wouldn't usually use fly in a dungeon either. Was your theoretical discussion supposed to be in a dungeon?
It's not
my theoretical discussion. Now that you have cast
overland flight, what happens? The Wizard just hauls ass for eight hours (or until they miss a Con check) until they are 64 miles ahead of the rest of the party and...? Delivers a pizza? Gets hit by a flying party in the small of the back? Waits two or three days while everyone else catches up on foot?
You pissed and moaned about the Wizard needing a reason to have a sword and armour, so now you get to explain the practical reason for using
overland flight. The Wizard can fly all day, whoop-de-shit. Pixies can fly all day, too. I am assuming this spell was the foundation of your 'Wizard as floating weapons platform' idea, because you didn't realize the spell doesn't allow for hovering.
QuoteAs for why is fly better for crossing a chasm - it's faster. Much faster. With magic, obstacles cease to be obstacles. The wizard exists in a special place. He can pretend to be confined by mortal limitations, climbing down ropes with the rest of the party, but he doesn't have to. He could use magic to solve most of his problems directly. Now, he usually doesn't. In a group game, it's usually considered polite to stick with the group. But if you choose not to recognize that the wizard does so to be polite rather than because his limitations force him to do so, that's your deal.
Ah, doubling down on the "MaHjIcK can does ANYTHINGZ!!one!!" I see.
So, fly across the chasm, only to find the army of orcs on the other side. Now what? Fly back across and leave everyone else? That would require two 3rd level slots for the one spell, so the Wizard clearly wasn't concentrating on combat. One trip across and one trip back would be something like two rounds, and it better not be a very wide chasm if someone else is being ferried across. But of course, there wouldn't be anyone else there, because the Wizard can handle any and all problems without help, right?
QuoteAs for the wizard using full plate and a longsword, I don't know what you're trying to prove. Yes, a fighter can wear armor and use a sword. Even a specific type of armor (plate mail) and a specific sword (longsword). The wizard could use them, too. But he wouldn't.
Why not? According to you, the Wizard would be BETTER at it than the Fighter.
QuoteWhatever the Fighter hopes to do by wearing the armor and holding the sword, the wizard can do more effectively without doing so. I don't mean to shift goal posts, so I'm sorry if I didn't explain myself well, but it was implicit. Wizards do things differently than fighters. Any goal a Fighter can accomplish, a Wizard (using different means) can accomplish more easily. Usually faster, with less personal risk.
What means are those?
Overland flight doesn't work the way you thought it did, are you sure those means aren't just your wild (or intentional) misreading of other spells?
QuoteAs far as specialist wizards, you'll find that forbidden schools aren't much of a limitation. Most wizards give up two of the three following: enchantment, illusion, necromancy. Some will give up evocation, instead. In any case, there is enough in the schools you're left with to cover just about any situation one way or another. If you give up Illusion, you miss out on invisibility, but that's the only spell you'll really miss. The fact is, wizards tend to have more options than they have spell slots available, so specializing just makes sense.
Really? So the base five spells per level covers
every contingency? Ok, I am going to have to insist that you show me a spell load out for a 15th level Wizard with 18 Intelligence now.
EDIT: And how does this Fighter-negating Wizard raise armies of skeletons without Necromancy? How do they
charm those frost giant minions without enchantment? Illusion has more than
invisibility going for it, even though that is the primary spell for overshadowing Thieves.
QuoteAs for equipment, again, I don't know why insisting that the wizard can't have a spellbook is supposed to prove. The rules say a wizard starts out with a spellbook. It even says how many spells he starts out with. It doesn't say a Wizard must spend x amount of his starting gold with a spellbook. It's just a class feature. He gets it.
Uh huh. But it's still 'equipment'. It's not inherent to the Wizard, like you seem to think. You scream about the Fighter 'relying' on equipment like it is some twink manoeuvre while ignoring that the Wizard is even more dependant on their equipment.
QuoteThe fighter doesn't automatically get to start with a sword and the rogue doesn't automatically start with thieve's tools. Why it's different, I don't know, but it is.
Because the Wizard is wholly and entirely dependant on that piece of equipment.
QuoteSo, when you accept that we're specifically comparing a Fighter with no 'purchased' equipment with a wizard with no 'purchased' equipment, you'll see that wizards do still have abilities (spell casting).
Are those goalposts getting heavy? I can probably get someone to help you move them around.
QuoteBut of course, in a real campaign, the wizard and the fighter both get magical items. Since we've looked at how useless the Fighter is without additional magical items, and how relatively useful the wizard is without additional magical items, we are forced to conclude, if we're being at all honest with ourselves, that the magical items the wizard gets increases his power beyond the benefit the Fighter gets with equal wealth. If the Fighter's wealth were instead spent on a charmed/bound/dominated minion, it'd be even more one-sided.
Spellbook = magic item. The Wizard is useless without it. Spells aren't tattooed on their arms or something. If the spellbook is lost, the Wizard is unable to memorize spells. Useless. A Fighter can get another sword, a Thief can get a new set of tools. In the meantime, they both have skills and abilities to fall back on.
Let me guess, spellbooks disappear into some extra-dimensional space waiting to be recalled when needed, and even then are impervious to any kind of damage, right?
QuoteWizards are too powerful. Fighters are too weak. If the players aren't being nice to each other, they're playing totally separate games, and the one the wizard plays is a lot more exciting.
Only after you cripple the Fighter and remove all the restrictions from Wizards while simultaneously misreading spells in the most beneficial possible light for Wizards.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570952But of course, in a real campaign, the wizard and the fighter both get magical items. Since we've looked at how useless the Fighter is without additional magical items, and how relatively useful the wizard is without additional magical items, we are forced to conclude, if we're being at all honest with ourselves, that the magical items the wizard gets increases his power beyond the benefit the Fighter gets with equal wealth. If the Fighter's wealth were instead spent on a charmed/bound/dominated minion, it'd be even more one-sided.
Wizards are too powerful. Fighters are too weak. If the players aren't being nice to each other, they're playing totally separate games, and the one the wizard plays is a lot more exciting.
You and those playing the way (style) you do may be forced to conclude all that you say in this post and many others, but a lot of us do not come to the same conclusions you do -- and it is not because we do not understand your arguments. We just do not see the problems you do in actual play in our games. Our games matter more than theory, especially when changing the game to match the needs of your design theory makes it less of a game we want to play.
Yes, D&D 3.x has problems but the people not coming to your conclusions either: a) don't play WOTC editions; or b) have a ply style where the issues do not come up often or at all (e.g. a lot of problems that the CharOp boards discover never occur if none of the players in a group aren't into CharOp, CharOp bioard style); or c) have modified 3.x to fix the problems that actually occur in our games (often by returning to most of the casting restrictions of AD&D and changing some of the spells back to the way they worked in AD&D. Fixing saving throws so they no longer get harder as the caster's level climbs also fixes many 3.x era caster/non-caster issues. This solves what problems the groups actually have and does not do things they do not want like giving fighters "wuxia/magical" powers.
A wizard with necromancy can raise an army of undead minions. A wizard with enchantment can charm/dominate an army of minions. A wizard with conjuration can bind an army of elementals or outsiders. You choose which two of the three to get rid of, and you're still left with at least one method of making yourself effective at 'force multiplying'.
@Stormbringer
As for the differences between flight and overland flight, I'm guessing you think I said something I didn't say. Mguy pointed out that a wizard can fly all day. You pointed out that he'd have to be Level 4000 or something. I pointed out that you were wrong. Overland Flight allows a wizard to fly all day. Meaning he can take to the air whenever and wherever he wants. Presumably over LAND, but surely you could take short flights in the dungeon. As long as you're not more than 10' off the ground, you don't even need to worry about crashing. How is that confusing? What part of overland flight do you think I don't understand?
I don't want wizards reduced to total uselessness, and personally I like capable fighters without magical powers. But the longer this discussion continues, the more I'm forced to conclude that Kaelik and Mguy are right - the very word 'Fighter' implies such 'mundane things' that the class isn't really appropriate for PCs. It should replace the Warrior as an NPC class, and a 'real' class can fill the role. Something like a Paladin (Fighter + Divine Power Source). The Shadow Lord is starting to sound like the best option.
But Stormbringer, everybody knows that spell-books are totally indestructible and can absolutely never be lost or stolen.
Why Wotc ever made that useless "spell mastery" feat is a mistery.
I'm gettIng the sense there are a lot of armchair gamers in this thread. I've gamed a lot of 3.5/PF and in actual play the fighter and wizard types seemed to balance just fine. Sure a wizard with a full spell book can do pretty much anything with the right combos but how often do they have all the right ones memorized and even if they do what happens in the next encounter?
In our games no-one exceeds the fighter in pure damage dealing. Wizards are good against multiple weaker opponents fighters are great against large tough opponents
The biggest gripe I have found is that by hanging at the back of the fight the wizard exposes himself to less risk...
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570967@Stormbringer
As for the differences between flight and overland flight, I'm guessing you think I said something I didn't say. Mguy pointed out that a wizard can fly all day. You pointed out that he'd have to be Level 4000 or something. I pointed out that you were wrong. Overland Flight allows a wizard to fly all day. Meaning he can take to the air whenever and wherever he wants. Presumably over LAND, but surely you could take short flights in the dungeon. As long as you're not more than 10' off the ground, you don't even need to worry about crashing. How is that confusing? What part of overland flight do you think I don't understand?
I'd have to agree with DDW on this part, although overland flight won't allow you to hover, it still functions as a fly spell, so even if you don't make the minimum movement you would just descend at 60' per round for 1d6 rounds, landing safely if you reach the ground within that time, so as long as you're 60' or less from the ground there's no chance that you're going to take falling damage, and landing with either spell doesn't cancel the spell.
As far as getting rid of fighters... why not get rid of Rogues too then? It's not as though they have a supernatural power source, and they're just as mundane. They have some skill points, sure, and a couple extra abilities related to their profession, but nothing that a wizard can't do. So get rid of them and just dedicate a couple extra spell slots for open locks and such.
Quote from: Fiasco;570981I'm gettIng the sense there are a lot of armchair gamers in this thread. I've gamed a lot of 3.5/PF and in actual play the fighter and wizard types seemed to balance just fine. Sure a wizard with a full spell book can do pretty much anything with the right combos but how often do they have all the right ones memorized and even if they do what happens in the next encounter?
In our games no-one exceeds the fighter in pure damage dealing. Wizards are good against multiple weaker opponents fighters are great against large tough opponents
The biggest gripe I have found is that by hanging at the back of the fight the wizard exposes himself to less risk...
Shhh.. your 'Experience with how it worked out in actual games' doesn't count here. That would imply that you were making 'pitty' (sic) decisions to help the 'Fihter' (sic) be effective, while being mean and gimping the wizard. The only valid arguments here are white box theory examples where the wizard enters the day with a full compliment of spells and full access to learn whatever is best for him.
Actually, experiences from play are discounted because no matter what you did, if a player who was a Fighter found that they weren't contributing in a meaningful way, either the DM did something wrong or they're a 'special snowflake' who can't stand not having the spotlight. And if it's not either one, than it must be both.
The fact is, most campaigns don't spend a lot of time at high levels. Usually, people point out that 'wizards break the game'. There's a lot of truth to that, and really, they need some reigning back. But if you still want them to do cool things, you have to bring up Fighters a fair degree, as well.
For example, Wizards are notorious for 'scry and die' tactics. Teleporting into the inner sanctum of a heavily guarded fortress is annoying for the DM, and really does make the game world less 'fun'. Mundane blocks on teleport (like, you can't teleport through more than 10 feet of solid stone) would instantly justify why there are so many dungeons, and ensure that wizards teleport to the entrance rather than the last room - you know, giving them a reason to participate in the adventure and not just 'win'.
Rogues have some major advantages over Fighters. The first is, they actually have some pretty significant damage. It doesn't work on everybody, but at 10th level, they get +10d6 per attack if they're blinking; with two-weapon fighting and haste, they can get 6 attacks per round. Now they may not hit on all of them, but that's still pretty respectable, and better than most Fighters can manage. Fighters using Spirited Charge and a Lance can probably do better damage in a single blow, but there's advantages to the rogue build.
Further, and more importantly, a rogue has more skills and better skills. A rogue can be a 'face', or have pretty good 'scouting' skills, find/remove traps - and a smart rogue can do all of those. Plus they can get the skill 'use magic device', so with enough ranks, they can do a lot of wizardly stuff without too much difficulty. Rogues have better access to magic than Fighters, and they have a host of actually useful abilities (you know, like completely dodging a fireball) so their lower hit points doesn't hurt them TOO much. Bump them up to a d8 hit die, and you'd probably never see a fighter again.
Yeah that makes sense lets discount actual play experience for white room bullshit theorecticals. At least that way you have a tiny chance to almost make your inane arguments look reasonable, I did say almost.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570967A wizard with necromancy can raise an army of undead minions. A wizard with enchantment can charm/dominate an army of minions. A wizard with conjuration can bind an army of elementals or outsiders. You choose which two of the three to get rid of, and you're still left with at least one method of making yourself effective at 'force multiplying'.
Are you sure about that? Let's take a look at
just Necromancy for a second.
Animate Dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateDead.htm):
QuoteRegardless of the type of undead you create with this spell, you can't create more HD of undead than twice your caster level with a single casting of animate dead. (The desecrate spell doubles this limit)
The undead you create remain under your control indefinitely. No matter how many times you use this spell, however, you can control only 4 HD worth of undead creatures per caster level. If you exceed this number, all the newly created creatures fall under your control, and any excess undead from previous castings become uncontrolled. (You choose which creatures are released.) If you are a cleric, any undead you might command by virtue of your power to command or rebuke undead do not count toward the limit.
At 7th level, this spell can be cast once, for a maximum of 14HD of skeletons, which is 14 Medium sized. All of them will be under the Wizard's control. At 8th level, it can be cast twice, for 16 Medium Skeletons per casting, equalling the 32HD that can be controlled. At 10th level, it can be cast three times for 60 Medium Skeletons, but only 40 of them will be controlled. And at 13th level, it can be cast four times for 104 Medium Skeletons, 52 of which will be controllable. At the very top, 20th level, the Wizard can create 160 Medium Skeletons, but can only control 80 of them. I am guessing you didn't realize there was this limitation.
How about this one? You have to already have the corpses. They don't just spring up out of the dirt wherever you are standing. I don't know how you think the Wizard is going to have 100+ corpses available whenever they need them. Bag of Holding, maybe?
Also: "Targets: One or more corpses touched". So you have to find a way to touch over an hundred corpses more or less all at the same time. The casting time is one standard action, so that doesn't give a lot of time to dance around touching corpses. In other words, it isn't an area effect spell.
Create Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createUndead.htm):
QuoteTarget: One corpse
Create Greater Undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/createGreaterUndead.htm):
QuoteThis spell functions like create undead...
It's hard to raise an army one soldier at a time.
That's really odd. It's almost as though these spells aren't quite as powerful as you seem to think they are. There are limitations and everything.
I could do the same treatment with
mass charm monster, but I think you already know where that would be headed.
QuoteAs for the differences between flight and overland flight, I'm guessing you think I said something I didn't say.
Nope, I am using exactly what you did say:
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570879First, overland flight is a spell. Following the general rule of thumb that an 'improved version' of a spell should be at least two-levels higher (I remember that from my 2nd edition DMG, I'm pretty sure) it is a 5th level spell. It allows for a caster to fly for 1 hour/level (compared to 1 min/level for fly. Since a Wizard gains his first 5th-level spell at 9th level, he could use the spell to fly for nine hours.
See that bolded part right there? That's where you thought
overland flight was just an improved version of
fly. The very next sentence demonstrates your misunderstanding: "It allows for a caster to fly for 1 hour/level (compared to 1 min/level for
fly." It actually doesn't do that, because it isn't '
improved fly'. It's actually a different spell that has different mechanics than
fly. Speed and manoeuvrability being the major differences.
I am not guessing you said something. I am not misreading your posts. You are demonstrating an increasing scope to your lack of understanding about the very rules you claim place Wizards at the very zenith of character classes, rendering all others of only marginal utility at best.
QuoteMguy pointed out that a wizard can fly all day. You pointed out that he'd have to be Level 4000 or something. I pointed out that you were wrong. Overland Flight allows a wizard to fly all day.
Which, as I have already demonstrated, you thought to mean that the Wizard could
fly (as in the spell) all day. That is incorrect.
QuoteMeaning he can take to the air whenever and wherever he wants. Presumably over LAND, but surely you could take short flights in the dungeon. As long as you're not more than 10' off the ground, you don't even need to worry about crashing. How is that confusing? What part of overland flight do you think I don't understand?
The part where it isn't dormant while you are not in the air (so the eight hours you are wandering around the dungeon leaves only one hour of flight to use). The part where you have to be moving forward at a minimum of 20ft/rd. The part where you can't hover or fly backwards. You know, the parts that make
fly pretty useful, but
overland flight doesn't have. But most importantly, the part of
overland flight where it isn't actually 'improved
fly'.
QuoteI don't want wizards reduced to total uselessness, and personally I like capable fighters without magical powers. But the longer this discussion continues, the more I'm forced to conclude that Kaelik and Mguy are right - the very word 'Fighter' implies such 'mundane things' that the class isn't really appropriate for PCs. It should replace the Warrior as an NPC class, and a 'real' class can fill the role. Something like a Paladin (Fighter + Divine Power Source). The Shadow Lord is starting to sound like the best option.
Let's take out that dross in the middle for a second:
QuoteI don't want wizards reduced to total uselessness, and personally I like capable fighters without magical powers. It should replace the Warrior as an NPC class, and a 'real' class can fill the role. Something like a Paladin (Fighter + Divine Power Source).
So, the example you come up with of a 'capable Fighter without magical powers' is the "Paladin (Fighter + Divine Power Source)". A Fighter with magical powers.
You are going to need to pick one or the other and stick to it. Magical Fighter, or non-magical Fighter.
Forgive me for bringing in actual play once more but in our games we enforce expensive material components. Doesn't Animate Dead require a 25gp onyx per HD? Animating up 80 dudes costs 2000gp plus the inconvenience of sourcing a shit load of rare gems...
Quote from: Panzerkraken;570983I'd have to agree with DDW on this part, although overland flight won't allow you to hover, it still functions as a fly spell, so even if you don't make the minimum movement you would just descend at 60' per round for 1d6 rounds, landing safely if you reach the ground within that time, so as long as you're 60' or less from the ground there's no chance that you're going to take falling damage, and landing with either spell doesn't cancel the spell.
I don't think I mentioned that in my response post above, but that would be an entirely reasonable interpretation. It would be totally sensible for the higher level spell to provide
at least the safety protections of the lower level spell. I might even allow it to work from any height whatsoever. You simply float to the ground at... I dunno, 30ft/rd? It might take a while to get there, but you will make it safely.
The point still stands, however: it's not useful for the same things
fly is useful for. At even one minute per level,
fly gives way, waaaay more time than an average combat should take. The first opportunity for casting it is 5th level, which is five minutes of flight time, or 50 rounds(!). Sure, a high level combat can take a lot of time, both at the table and round-wise, but 50 rounds is well beyond a 5th level combat instance.
Therefore, I have to ask myself: what's the point of dragging
overland flight into the discussion in the first place? What I have been able to determine is that it was considered an 'improved
fly' spell, when it is really not like that at all. Sure, it will keep the Wizard in the air for nine, ten, twelve hours or whatever. But what then? It's really only useful for getting from Point A to Point B really quickly. Maybe ferrying the party across a chasm and having to get back across in a hurry. As a longer duration replacement for
fly? It just doesn't work that way.
QuoteAs far as getting rid of fighters... why not get rid of Rogues too then? It's not as though they have a supernatural power source, and they're just as mundane. They have some skill points, sure, and a couple extra abilities related to their profession, but nothing that a wizard can't do. So get rid of them and just dedicate a couple extra spell slots for open locks and such.
Exactly. I am still waiting for this spell load out that obviates having a Thief in the party.
Quote from: Fiasco;571006Forgive me for bringing in actual play once more but in our games we enforce expensive material components. Doesn't Animate Dead require a 50gp onyx per corpse? Animating up 80 dudes costs 4000gp plus the inconvenience of sourcing a shit load of rare gems...
You are correct, sir.
Quote from: StormBringer;571005See that bolded part right there? That's where you thought overland flight was just an improved version of fly. The very next sentence demonstrates your misunderstanding: "It allows for a caster to fly for 1 hour/level (compared to 1 min/level for fly." It actually doesn't do that, because it isn't 'improved fly'. It's actually a different spell that has different mechanics than fly. Speed and manoeuvrability being the major differences.
I dunno, at least in the SRD version it seems open to interpretation - "This spell functions like a fly spell," it says about
overland flight - but, given the apparent intent of the two spells, I had
fly allow takeoffs and landings for the duration of the spell, while
overland flight went away on touchdown, for more than an instant, anyway.
Quote from: Imp;571009I dunno, at least in the SRD version it seems open to interpretation - "This spell functions like a fly spell," it says about overland flight - but, given the apparent intent of the two spells, I had fly allow takeoffs and landings for the duration of the spell, while overland flight went away on touchdown, for more than an instant, anyway.
That would seem to follow the intent of the spell, certainly. I might allow for 15 minutes or so being on the ground, because it would probably be pretty messy to eat and or 'take care of business' at 40ft/rd a couple of hundred feet in the air. :)
Hike up your wizards robes, bring your knees up, spread your buns and you're good to go.
Quote from: Fiasco;571006Forgive me for bringing in actual play once more but in our games we enforce expensive material components. Doesn't Animate Dead require a 25gp onyx per HD? Animating up 80 dudes costs 2000gp plus the inconvenience of sourcing a shit load of rare gems...
Get out of here with the teminity to be using logic and realism in a "denner" argument. The utter gall of it! It's like bringing a gun to a knife fight, it's just not fair.:)
Quote from: Marleycat;571014Get out of here with the teminity to be using logic and realism in a "denner" argument. The utter gall of it! It's like bringing a gun to a knife fight, it's just not fair.:)
Shhhhh, only 70 to go!
Quote from: Panzerkraken;571015Shhhhh, only 70 to go!
I was going to mention that but we have Stormie here so I'm confident the goal shall be reached much like a Monte Cook kickstarter. :p
Quote from: Marleycat;571014Get out of here with the teminity to be using logic and realism in a "denner" argument. The utter gall of it! It's like bringing a gun to a knife fight, it's just not fair.:)
The denners deny your reality and substitute their own.
Quote from: Benoist;571018The denners deny your reality and substitute their own.
So you're saying it's like MtAw or Kult for real and they are the Seers or the gatekeepers. Or just Marauders in their own little reality bubbles?
Quote from: Marleycat;571017I was going to mention that but we have Stormie here so I'm confident the goal shall be reached much like a Monte Cook kickstarter. :p
You know, it would be really vicious of Ben or Pundit or one of the others to just post 'Locked' as #3999 :)
It's definitely bubbles. Even the 19th century has been successfully denied at The Den.
You know, when I reflect upon certain gentlemen and their weird belligerence and apparent lack of mental flexibility on the subject of D&D, one turn of phrase keeps coming to mind...
Spoiler
...brain damage. (http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Brain_damage)
:D
Quote from: Planet Algol;571054You know, when I reflect upon certain gentlemen and their weird belligerence and apparent lack of mental flexibility on the subject of D&D, one turn of phrase keeps coming to mind...
Spoiler
...brain damage. (http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Brain_damage)
Ouchie Mama!
@Panzerkracken, don't you even think that way! Believe it or not this thread is mostly on topic. It may be an irrelevant topic for those that actually PLAY the game, but it's on topic. :D
Quote from: Marleycat;571057@Panzerkracken, don't you even think that way! Believe it or not this thread is mostly on topic. It may be an irrelevant topic for those that actually PLAY the game, but it's on topic. :D
Yes. That's the reason why it remains open, because, as weird as it sounds, it mostly remains on topic, in no small part thanks to the denners that keep working at it, actually.
Quote from: Benoist;571063Yes. That's the reason why it remains open, because, as weird as it sounds, it mostly remains on topic, in no small part thanks to the denners that keep working at it, actually.
I was just saying it would be funny to lock it right there to crush Marley's hopes for the thread :D You could unlock it soon after
Quote from: Benoist;571063Yes. That's the reason why it remains open, because, as weird as it sounds, it mostly remains on topic, in no small part thanks to the denners that keep working at it, actually.
True, which is why I have no issue with them personally. I may not agree with them and they won't ever convince me of the validity of their view. But it's interesting to me and I'm open to discussion of the topic.
@Panzerkracken, at least I see you like me. I have been VERY up front about my intentions.:)
Let's get back on topic and this particular gentleman who is an expert on True Scientific Reaslism re. herd animal & cow behavior
Quote from: OgreBattle;570723DO YOU SERIOUSLY NEED RULES TO TELL YOU ABOUT HOW A DOMESTICATED COW IS GOING TO REACT TO BEING CONFRONTED WITH A 40FT LONG, TWO TON LIGHTNING BREATHING SNAKE MONSTER?
As the DUNGEON MASTER, I'd adjucate that all that mooing from a cow being dragged towards the territory of a giant, adventurer-killing lightning snake monster would alert the Behir (who has ranks in SPOT, LISTEN, and SURVIVAL, and WIS 14). Do you know what Behir piss smells like? No of course not you don't even know that 'cows are afraid of gigantic lightning snake monsters', so you won't notice it, but the cow's instincts will tell it "THERE IS SOMETHING HORRIBLE AHEAD".
A) Carnosaurs
&
B)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m__ECOcaCTw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m__ECOcaCTw)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGPb8AUC_s8&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGPb8AUC_s8&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_YnYf_s9zM&playnext=1&list=PLDDDA1F81BD11F00F&feature=results_video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_YnYf_s9zM&playnext=1&list=PLDDDA1F81BD11F00F&feature=results_video)
:D
Stormbringer: Technically 3X does allow wizards to tattoo spells right on their fucking arms. Complete... mage? Arcane?
You'll never have a full spell book, but your favoritest bestest spells, certainly.
Scry and Die isn't an instant win for the Wizard. The round he arrives he, personally, has just used his action for the round by casting teleport, and while we don't have any canonical rules for how loud a teleport actually is, he's not rolling stealth that round, making him easy to detect by even dullard fighters.
Sure: he'll probably bring in a bunch of minions to the fight, and he's aiming for the absolute best moment his scrying can find (limited by how long he can keep casting scry waiting for the perfect opportunity, etc), but the wizard, the 'most dangerous person on the field' is.... standing there like a chump that entire first round, not casting.
Since the target is most vulnerable while sleeping alone (no awake companions or pets), he just sleeps somewhere where he can't be scry'd, forcing the wizard to 'jump in' against an awake target and hope for the best. By the time scry and die becomes practical, anyone with potential wizard assassins gunning for him is probably using mundane countermeasures (like... bodyguards), and might spring for another wizard to help out (by casting dimensional anchor on the home or something. Stronghold builder's guide actually covers this extensively actually...)
Also, previously:
@Today, 12:25 AMQuoteOriginally Posted by OgreBattle
DO YOU SERIOUSLY NEED RULES TO TELL YOU ABOUT HOW A DOMESTICATED COW IS GOING TO REACT TO BEING CONFRONTED WITH A 40FT LONG, TWO TON LIGHTNING BREATHING SNAKE MONSTER?
If I was the DM, I'd adjucate that all that mooing from a cow being dragged into a den of evil and death would alert the behir.
I didn't see anything about dragging it down a hole here, just using it as a distraction...[/COLOR]
vs.
QuoteLast edited by OgreBattle; Today at 12:51 AM.
As the DUNGEON MASTER, I'd adjucate that all that mooing from a cow being dragged towards the territory of a giant, adventurer-killing lightning snake monster would alert the Behir
[/COLOR][/COLOR]Naughty bit of intellectual dishonesty there ogrebattle.
Tsk tsk!
Quote from: Spike;571085Stormbringer: Technically 3X does allow wizards to tattoo spells right on their fucking arms. Complete... mage? Arcane?
You'll never have a full spell book, but your favoritest bestest spells, certainly.
I recall reading about that in Dragon, perhaps. I don't have either of those books, but it does sound like a fairly neat backup plan.
Still, that does re-inforce my statement that spellbooks are equipment that can be damaged or lost, at which point the Wizard is screwed.
Quote from: Spike;571085Stormbringer: Technically 3X does allow wizards to tattoo spells right on their fucking arms. Complete... mage? Arcane?
You'll never have a full spell book, but your favoritest bestest spells, certainly.
Scry and Die isn't an instant win for the Wizard. The round he arrives he, personally, has just used his action for the round by casting teleport, and while we don't have any canonical rules for how loud a teleport actually is, he's not rolling stealth that round, making him easy to detect by even dullard fighters.
Sure: he'll probably bring in a bunch of minions to the fight, and he's aiminiog for the absolute best moment his scrying can find (limited by how long he can keep casting scry waiting for the perfect opportunity, etc), but the wizard, the 'most dangerous person on the field' is.... standing there like a chump that entire first round, not casting.
Since the target is most vulnerable while sleeping alone (no awake companions or pets), he just sleeps somewhere where he can't be scry'd, forcing the wizard to 'jump in' against an awake target and hope for the best. By the time scry and die becomes practical, anyone with potential wizard assassins gunning for him is probably using mundane countermeasures (like... bodyguards), and might spring for another wizard to help out (by casting dimensional anchor on the home or something. Stronghold builder's guide actually covers this extensively actually...)
No! Really? Fighters aren't that smart doncha know? Wizzards are the bestas evar!
Seriously these guys need to play Mage or Ars Magica or Shadowrun or even GURPS to help disabuse them of this "white room" silliness.
The keyword (for you 4e fans) is, wait for it....PLAY.
Quote from: StormBringer;571090I recall reading about that in Dragon, perhaps. I don't have either of those books, but it does sound like a fairly neat backup plan.
Still, that does re-inforce my statement that spellbooks are equipment that can be damaged or lost, at which point the Wizard is screwed.
There are tattoo mages but it's not cheap and it does have limits on top. But it's a feat best used if you don't like or ban some or all metamagic feats. The issue with Dnd baseline is that there are no actual risks to magic. It too reliable. Hopefully like Fantasy Craft campaign traits are central to 5e. If so it's a whole new ballgame.
Quote from: Marleycat;571094No! Really? Fighters aren't that smart doncha know? Wizzards are the bestas evar!
Seriously these guys need to play Mage or Ars Magica or Shadowrun or even GURPS to help disabuse them of this "white room" silliness.
Well, I've recently pointed out that wizards have one disadvantage over mundane ranged combat: range. The wizards best spells are usually cast well within charge range even at high levels, and their mid-tier spells are EASILY outranged by even a low-level mundane bowman, leaving only a few long range spells (usually with direct damage effects) that actually work far enough out to provide a challenge to archers.
Pointing this out, however, puts them in the uncomfortable circumstance of trying to find excuses to keep archers from fucking merking them from two-three hundred feet.
And since it is core rules, and therefore not cheese: A tenth level fighter with a 10 charisma can have five first level warrior followers (with c.longbows) all shooting +1 arrows (50 for 2000gp) at a wizard from three range bands (330 feet), scattered over the battlefield so they can't be fireballed. Total cost is about 5k. Against the AC 14 wizard they hit somewhere around a 17 or 18 until the wizard closes, and are still outside of most spells (including summons), and aren't actually worth the bother of picking off individually, but also are too dangerous in aggregate to the low HP wizard to out and out ignore. This also provides a 7th level cohort (but we're assuming a bought griffon), which can be a seventh level mongol archer on a second bought griffon (meaning probably a leadership boost from 'generosity' or some shit). Its not actually hard to postulate a 9th level mongol cohort under leadership (+1 bonus for generosity, +2 from 'great reknown' or, at worst Charisma, and you're there... this also raises the number of followers to 10 and adds a second level archer to the mix... which may necessitate buying a second batch of +1 arrows to ensure they have enough to go around...oh, the humanity!)
At tenth level MOST wizard spells are limited to 50 feet or less (touch/self), with the vast bulk of the rest hitting 200 feet (medium range band), and only a few spells (fireball) hitting 'long' range of 800. Blow that fireball to kill a single lowly follower, dare ya!
One feat, a tiny, tiny portion of the very limited WBL gold pile, and an open field roughly the size of a football or soccor field and 99% of wizards are proper fucked. Flying wizards have giant fucking targets painted on them. Flying wizards with a rep for summoning devils and demons are actively hunted down by low level NPCs.
Cloudkill (commmonly mentioned as a 'hordes of npc killer') has a shorter range than a c.longbow at two range bands (much less heavy crossbows!), and can be virtually negated by simply keeping forty feet spread between archers. A non-trivial number of warrior NPCs will pass their fort saves (and thus merely suffer d4 con damage, losing their move action to move out of the crowd), making it actually worse than the lower level fireball, which will kill level 1 warriors even if they save! (Also: fireball has 4 times the range)
If the wiz is foolish enough NOT to have protection from arrows available (or up, really: Ten hours) is in even worse shape, as he is then vulnerable to mundane arrows, saving a tiny pile of gold on magic arrows.
I would postulate that circumstances were a few hundred feet of mostly open ground are not available are actually the MINORITY in a reasonably complex world, particularly in places where agriculture has been developed... which pretty much covers 'fantasylandia'.
I love you Spike it's nice to see you have a bit of time to post. We're in agreement but as usual it takes me far less words to say EXACTLY what you said.:D
I hate typing and I am so flighty or more exactly too many thoughts run through my mind to type them out fast enough. I am way better face to face where I get speak as fast as my mind moves. Which is good given I'm the GM most times. :)
I'm supposed to be out in the heat working on equippment right now... I'd dragging my feet. :)
I do notice that MGuy has accused me (in this very thread) of somehow 'not understanding how the game works', yet he never really rebutts my mundane fighter tactics or my grasp of the basics of the rules.
Tell me again why fighter types can't shoot longbows and crossbows from outside spell range according to RAW?
The hard part is opening that range. Distance encounter is atrocious in 3.x, given the spot check at -1 per 10 ft.
At least, that's what I've heard other people complain about. I dunno...don't like 3.x too awful much.
Quote from: Spike;571109Tell me again why fighter types can't shoot longbows and crossbows from outside spell range according to RAW?
Because spells. Haven't you been reading the thread?
Quote from: Spike;571109I'm supposed to be out in the heat working on equippment right now... I'd dragging my feet. :)
I do notice that MGuy has accused me (in this very thread) of somehow 'not understanding how the game works', yet he never really rebutts my mundane fighter tactics or my grasp of the basics of the rules.
Tell me again why fighter types can't shoot longbows and crossbows from outside spell range according to RAW?
So you accuse me of not rebutting you on some random shit about shooting crossbows? You know I gave a rebuttal to that in the thunderdome thread right? You know wizards can make themselves invisible right? THat they can repel missiles right? That they can fucking leave well before you deal enough damage to them come back and steal your soul whenever they want right? You know wizards aren't going to stand still and LET you kill them because that's really the only way your dumbass tactic would work on any high level wizard ever.
Quote from: MGuy;571120So you accuse me of not rebutting you on some random shit about shooting crossbows? You know I gave a rebuttal to that in the thunderdome thread right? You know wizards can make themselves invisible right? THat they can repel missiles right? That they can fucking leave well before you deal enough damage to them come back and steal your soul whenever they want right? You know wizards aren't going to stand still and LET you kill them because that's really the only way your dumbass tactic would work on any high level wizard ever.
Let me see your spell list and what you have memorized. This isn't Mage so quit the bullshit. I was entertained but your stupidity is breathtaking.
Quote from: Marleycat;571121Let me see your spell list and what you have memorized. This isn't Mage so quit the bullshit. I was entertained but your stupidity is breathtaking.
See my spell list? For which wizard? The one I'm using now in the thunderdome thread? The one who is a conjurer and likely has spells off the conjuration list with only lip service given to other schools? The one who's spell list is arbitrarily reduced, and spell selection had to be stunted because he can't fucking do spell research because he wasn't made in a campaign? The one that has both teleport (conjuration) and wall of stone (also conjuration) spells on his spell list?
So you somehow don't understand that a conjuration specialist would likely have conjuration spells on his list but you can fully except some simpleton's plan of beating a reality warping supergenius by hopping on a horse and plucking him with a bow? I see how you would find my thought processes breathtaking,
Quote from: MGuy;571122you can fully except some simpleton's plan of beating a reality warping supergenius
Obviously any fighters' mount would smell the wizards' piss and start mooing and fleeing.
Quote from: MGuy;571122See my spell list? For which wizard? The one I'm using now in the thunderdome thread? The one who is a conjurer and likely has spells off the conjuration list with only lip service given to other schools? The one who's spell list is arbitrarily reduced, and spell selection had to be stunted because he can't fucking do spell research because he wasn't made in a campaign? The one that has both teleport (conjuration) and wall of stone (also conjuration) spells on his spell list?
So you somehow don't understand that a conjuration specialist would likely have conjuration spells on his list but you can fully except some simpleton's plan of beating a reality warping supergenius by hopping on a horse and plucking him with a bow? I see how you would find my thought processes breathtaking,
Actually the one using all those high level spells in your previous post Forest. It's not as hard as your trying to make it. I'm just a girl as Gwen says so humour me.
Wait a minute, MGuy is implying that professional soldiers are simpletons?
Quote from: Planet Algol;571123Obviously any fighters' mount would smell the wizards' piss and start mooing and fleeing.
Now that is just foul! (I have a request, if I ever get to Canada would you be willing to run a game for me? Only of course if Ben doesn't kill me first).:D
Quote from: Planet Algol;571125Wait a minute, MGuy is implying that professional soldiers are simpletons?
Actually that's me accussing him of such given he is talking with an active US Army Cav Sargent. (He's in a tank platoon which is combined arms by nature) and myself who worked as a DOD explosives deposal officer right after the Gulf War.......Dnd is a game but real combat, battle and the rest is not and only the smart survive. Smart is open to personal definition.
Quote from: Marleycat;571126Now that is just foul! (I have a request, if I ever get to Canada would you be willing to run a game for me? Only of course if Ben doesn't kill me first).:D
Of course, but I have to warn you, I run a meat grinder-ish game!
Quote from: Marleycat;571127active US Army Cav Sargent. (He's in a tank platoon which is combined arms by nature)
I already have some people pegged as being too inflexible for dirty fighting, but this makes things way more interesting.
Quote from: Marleycat;571127Actually that's me accussing him of such given he is talking with an active US Army Cav Sargent. (He's in a tank platoon which is combined arms by nature) and myself who worked as a DOD explosives deposal officer right after the Gulf War.......Dnd is a game but real combat, battle and the rest is not and only the smart survive. Smart is open to personal definition.
Cool, if this conversation were about disposing explosives maybe you'd know how to make a point. Shame that we aren't talking about that. Too bad in this imaginary game we're talking about people can't seem to grasp why mongol tactics don't work against reality bending wizards.
Quote from: Planet Algol;571129Of course, but I have to warn you, I run a meat grinder-ish game!
Whatever my character is ALWAYS named "Earl" unless she actually doesn't die some horrible death. If she survives to 2nd level she actually gets a female name.:D
Quote from: MGuy;571131Cool, if this conversation were about disposing explosives maybe you'd know how to make a point. Shame that we aren't talking about that. Too bad in this imaginary game we're talking about people can't seem to grasp why mongol tactics don't work against reality bending wizards.
Dude? Seriously? Reality bending? Dnd isn't it. Come try a "real" magic game like Ars Magica or Mage then come with your stupid excuses about magic being the "ultimate solution". You seriously need to get outside that 3x box.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;570764I thought this was worth responding to.
First off, potions only cover spells up to 3rd level. It's possible with enough potions and scrolls, you could cover most of the 'magical' aspects of play through 5th level.
But beyond that point, more powerful spells come online to dedicated casters. While scrolls MIGHT work, you run into the problem of 'action economy'. Since the people that are best at using scrolls are the people that can cast spells WITHOUT scrolls, this wouldn't work.
A fighter can be replaced by a summoned monster. A wizard can't really be duplicated with scrolls or potions - at least not for long and not with tremendous expense.
3e must be a whole bag of... something else, because that's not what goes on in 2e. Potions are not only up to 3rd lvl. Further, magic items and their availability is still wholly the purview of GM managing the setting. Just like GM letting the Wizard get any spell (a magic item), GM could let players get any scroll/potion/item.
And your monster summoning and "action economy" of scrolls v. casters comment highlights the inverse argument about fighters. Fighters are there because they spare resources, just like Magic Users are there. Wizards using their spell slots instead of the party using scrolls saves cost on scrolls. Fighters dealing reliable damage throughout the day spares spell slots with Monster Summoning and the like. Further Monster Summoning is a spell in 2e whose utility is easily winnowed by kiting and random encounters. It's generally Rounds = (#<10) + 1 rd/Caster lvl, which gives it a utility well under 30 minutes even at lvls 10 and above.
If 3e lets you summon pets indefinitely that speaks more about the beginning of the topic where another poster said 3e fucked up the game by removing Caster restrictions. But it's
not a viable argument about TSR editions allowing players to ignore the value of a fighter. However, just like in this topic was the awkward reading of Charm Monster assuming to charm Frost Giants into mindless pets, color me skeptical about this assumption of Monster Summoning as well.
Quote from: Planet Algol;571130I already have some people pegged as being too inflexible for dirty fighting, but this makes things way more interesting.
True, given "dirty" fighting is basically how I keep up IRL. Not cheating or lying just using my knowledge and out performing.
Opaopajr, the key to 3x is DM limits. It works fine with those. With decent limits it works like 2e deluxe. The thing is "denner" arguments aren't about limits or actual game play. It's all "white room" silliness.
Quote from: Planet Algol;571123Obviously any fighters' mount would smell the wizards' piss and start mooing and fleeing.
This is true. Wizards do pee arcane energy and it does frighten mounts. Just like we know Behirs scare farm animals by their scent, just like snakes. That and fighters tend to be melee purists, never deigning off-specialization weapons, let alone carrying better than average gear.
The more you know!
(http://nerdmeltla.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/the-more-you-know.jpg)
Quote from: MGuy;571122See my spell list? For which wizard? The one I'm using now in the thunderdome thread? The one who is a conjurer and likely has spells off the conjuration list with only lip service given to other schools? The one who's spell list is arbitrarily reduced, and spell selection had to be stunted because he can't fucking do spell research because he wasn't made in a campaign? The one that has both teleport (conjuration) and wall of stone (also conjuration) spells on his spell list?
So you somehow don't understand that a conjuration specialist would likely have conjuration spells on his list but you can fully except some simpleton's plan of beating a reality warping supergenius by hopping on a horse and plucking him with a bow? I see how you would find my thought processes breathtaking,
Actually, last I checked the only people in that thread that saw your spell list are you and Jeff.
Also, I'm not sure who said a tenth level mage was beaten by a HORSE archer. More like a Griffon Archer... you know, one that can also fly, can out run or out range your entire spell list, can wait out your conjurations and combat buffs, and can maul your face twice over if you're foolish enough to teleport within your medium range spell list?
Of course, unlike you, I am not honestly claiming garaunteed victory in every matchup. I'm just pointing out how a 5k mount and a 2k bow/crossbow can make a willing mounted archer a massive threat for any wizard (much less the 8-18k bow).
I'd really like a simple round by round breakdown of how you think teleporting is the ultimate solution. The way I see it, it works like this:
Invisible mage casts teleport and lands somewhere in spell casting range for spell X.
Fighter on mount... flies, altering the range (since the griffon has scent it can make a reasonable call which direction the mage is... Fighter may have a magic item that allows him to see invisible).
Round 2: Mage hopes griffon is still in range of spell X (depending on how close he landed, the griffon has moved probably 160 feet away from wizard direction, eliminating all short range spells and possibly medium range spells as well.)
Quote from: Spike;571139Actually, last I checked the only people in that thread that saw your spell list are you and Jeff.
Also, I'm not sure who said a tenth level mage was beaten by a HORSE archer. More like a Griffon Archer... you know, one that can also fly, can out run or out range your entire spell list, can wait out your conjurations and combat buffs, and can maul your face twice over if you're foolish enough to teleport within your medium range spell list?
Of course, unlike you, I am not honestly claiming garaunteed victory in every matchup. I'm just pointing out how a 5k mount and a 2k bow/crossbow can make a willing mounted archer a massive threat for any wizard (much less the 8-18k bow). Io
I'd really like a simple round by round breakdown of how you think teleporting is the ultimate solution. The way I see it, it works like this:
Invisible mage casts teleport and lands somewhere in spell casting range for spell X.
Fighter on mount... flies, altering the range (since the griffon has scent it can make a reasonable call which direction the mage is... Fighter may have a magic item that allows him to see invisible).
Round 2: Mage hopes griffon is still in range of spell X (depending on how close he landed, the griffon has moved probably 160 feet away from wizard direction, eliminating all short range spells and possibly medium range spells as well.)
Would you please stop with this new Vulcan thing called logic? I am human dammit and get confused by something that makes sense. :) Bah, use your modern stuff I will just continue using common sense and running my game ......
I would love to be an elven mage princess, is that wrong?
Quote from: Marleycat;571143I would love to be an elven mage princess, is that wrong?
And ruin the lovely catgirl Gwen Stefani image we have of you?
:D
Quote from: jeff37923;571146And ruin the lovely catgirl Gwen Stefani image we have of you?
:D
You don't like Rhona? She is the Doomsday girl. But yes Gwen is an idol of mine. She is "just a girl" and that is just awesome and tells me I am all good. :D
Edit: My next thing is to come up with a Halloween avatar. I'm thinking my black cartoon Kitty.
Quote from: Marleycat;571143I would love to be an elven mage princess, is that wrong?
Well, GMs haven't let me be a gelatinous cube thief yet, so I guess some things just are wrong.
:(
Quote from: Opaopajr;571153Well, GMs haven't let me be a gelatinous cube thief yet, so I guess some things just are wrong.
:(
I'm sorry, but I wouldn't either and I run Mage mostly. We all have limits I guess. :)
Quote from: Marleycat;571141Would you please stop with this new Vulcan thing called logic? I am human dammit and get confused by something that makes sense. :) Bah, use your modern stuff I will just continue using common sense and running my game ......
To me the irony lies in the simple fact that I'm doing all this from stray thoughts and the SRD. Unlike the Denners, I get an idea and I try to verify every part of the process. They, on the other hand, have a chronic tendency to toss off spells like mad-libs word salad without double checking the details.
Well, actually the Irony is that I'm not particularly interested in the debate. I prefer Runequest and Traveller. To me 3X D&D is vanilla ice cream. Its what you pull out when you got a random buncha assholes over and don't know what they'll want. Everyone eats vanilla, but only the cool kids like rocky road or Mint choco-chunk sorbet (or some other artisnal mashup you might have lying around the house. Me? I like the cookie dough and coffee flavor ice cream... or chocolate. Can't go wrong with chocolate....
damnit! now I got a craving for coffee icecream!
NOOOOOO!!!!!!!
Durian ice cream cures your cravings, whether you like it or not.
That's my profound mystery elucidated for the evening. I accept fillips (finger snaps) for applause. :cool:
Quote from: Opaopajr;571173Durian ice cream cures your cravings, whether you like it or not.
:
I am pretty adventurous and still cannot bring myself to eat durian.
I like the fruit frozen myself. Then it has the texture of ice cream. Also tamps down the smell a bit.
Sorta smells like blooming rotten onion and garlic -- I once had roommates who forgot where they placed the tubers and bulbs. Reminds me of garlic ice cream with Maui onion finish. Pleasant, but not for everyone.
Oh, and it cures your cravings, by the way. Good for the stomach if you eat it, bad for the stomach if you only smell it.
Actually, now that I think about it, a kender with a staff sling and rotten onions would be an unbearable character... But could it do what the fighter "can't" and take out a wizard? Perhaps?
Quote from: StormBringer;571007What I have been able to determine is that it was considered an 'improved fly' spell, when it is really not like that at all.
You're clearly grasping at straws. I understand that
overland flight is not just like
fly but with a longer duration. I'm sorry if I confused you by referring to it as an 'improved' version of a spell. In my opinion, it is a more powerful spell because it lasts longer. If a spell that lets you fly for 5 minutes is a 3rd level spell, a spell that lets you fly for 9 hours should be a 5th level spell (because it's better). The spells don't have to be identical to be improved. But you could make the argument that
overland flight isn't a big enough improvement to justify the 5th level spell slot, making it 4th. But that's really tangential to the conversation.
Fly lets you fly.
Overland Flight lets you fly, too. Notice I didn't italicize the word 'fly'. You can go back to my original post and notice the same thing. I meant, and I continue to mean, that both of them let you move through the air. You know, flying. If your point was that 'you can't fly using the
fly spell all day by casting the spell over and over', you're right. But you can fly all day (with different limitations) by casting
overland flight. I don't think you really don't understand that I know the difference. I think you didn't realize there was a spell called
overland flight until I pointed it out to you, so instead of admitting that you're being an idiot, you're furiously building up strawmen and beating them up to cover the fact that you were wrong. Absolutely, demonstrably wrong. A wizard can fly all day (not
fly all day) with the spell
overland flight. At 9th level. Not at 1440th level.
Quote from: Spike;571102Well, I've recently pointed out that wizards have one disadvantage over mundane ranged combat: range. The wizards best spells are usually cast well within charge range even at high levels, and their mid-tier spells are EASILY outranged by even a low-level mundane bowman, leaving only a few long range spells (usually with direct damage effects) that actually work far enough out to provide a challenge to archers.
Still catching up on the rest of the conversation, but
fireball is a long-range spell, giving it a range of 400 ft. + 40 ft/level. At 10th level it has a range of 800 ft.
That's still in bow range of a composite longbow. At 8 range increments, the archers have a -16 to their attack rolls, but they could technically still hit.
Quote from: Marleycat;571151You don't like Rhona? She is the Doomsday girl.
I haven't seen Doomsday or Rise of the Lycans, but Rhona Mitra is hella hot. I remember her from Gideon's Crossing and The Practice. I think she moved from there to Boston Legal, but I never watched that show for some reason, going to have to grab it at some point.
Ironically: I remember Rhona Mitra from Get Carter and, notionally, that Kevin Bacon Invisible Man movie (which I did not actually watch), then Doomsday and Rise of the Lycans.
So, pretty much the opposite of you.
Nyah, nyah, butter and glue, because I ran out of rubber.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571181A wizard can fly all day (not fly all day) with the spell overland flight. At 9th level. Not at 1440th level.
And a sixth level fighter-archer can kill him with a bow from outside of spell range.
So being able to fly all day long is kinda... pointless... by itself.
Though it was kinda funny to watch SB go on and on and on with risibly pointless math.
Oh! Did this thread shift to Rhona Mitra? God I hope so. I can't think of a better person to make this go off topic and have the thread closed at 3999 posts.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571190Oh! Did this thread shift to Rhona Mitra? God I hope so. I can't think of a better person to make this go off topic and have the thread closed at 9999 posts.
I'm hoping for some style ......6666 has such a ring to it.
And yes, Stormie's ridiculous numbers were hilarious and encapsulates this thread perfectly.
Quote from: MGuy;571120So you accuse me of not rebutting you on some random shit about shooting crossbows? You know I gave a rebuttal to that in the thunderdome thread right? You know wizards can make themselves invisible right? THat they can repel missiles right? That they can fucking leave well before you deal enough damage to them come back and steal your soul whenever they want right? You know wizards aren't going to stand still and LET you kill them because that's really the only way your dumbass tactic would work on any high level wizard ever.
So basically your whole argument is reliant upon one of the two:
1) In a one-on-one battle, the wizard wins because he runs away
2) Wizards can use tactics and long term pre-planning, but the fighter cannot
Well then...
It's because they've simpletons!
Quote from: Planet Algol;571216It's because they've simpletons!
Yeah, yet another thing MGuy has shown he knows nothing about. As a veteran myself, even the infantry guys needed to be pretty smart. Sure, there were some dumb ones, but we're talking about higher level here, right? So that's the equivalent of a senior NCO or officer? No way you make it there unless you're pretty smart. No way you make E-5 unless you're fairly smart, even for an 11B.
I was a Blackhawk crewchief, and by the time I got out (6 years), not only did I have to be skilled at repairing a helicopter, but also things like calculating sling loads, fuel usage, etc, but I also had the following that a lot 11Bs would have had as well by the time they reached an NCO:
Combat Medic (2 week school, way beyond basic first aid)
Nuclear, Biological, Chemical school (10 days long and pretty math heavy)
PLDC (30 days, including things like navigation and effective leadership and communication skills)
Mountaineering and Rappelling school (10 days)
None of those could a simpleton pass. Not to mention basic ballistics knowledge, which is very math heavy.
The assumption that a soldier must be some kind of simpleton tells you everything you need to know about the guy, IMO.
Quote from: Benoist;571219The assumption that a soldier must be some kind of simpleton tells you everything you need to know about the guy, IMO.
or the fact that all magic users must be super geniuses who make all the right decisions. Book smart, yes. But wisdom plays a big part. I've met plenty of book smart people who couldn't make a good decision if their life depended on it.
*Edit* All right bitches, I just broke this thread into page 400. We're on the home stretch. 9 more posts to go and close this bitch.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571222or the fact that all magic users must be super geniuses who make all the right decisions. Book smart, yes. But wisdom plays a big part. I've met plenty of book smart people who couldn't make a good decision if their life depended on it.
He wasn't talking about the character, he meant himself as the 'reality warping super genius'.
I'm not going to argue with him though, since he's clearly doing just that all around himself to keep these viewpoints.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571218Yeah, yet another thing MGuy has shown he knows nothing about. As a veteran myself, even the infantry guys needed to be pretty smart. Sure, there were some dumb ones, but we're talking about higher level here, right? So that's the equivalent of a senior NCO or officer? No way you make it there unless you're pretty smart. No way you make E-5 unless you're fairly smart, even for an 11B.
I have never understood "fighters must be dumb!".
Learning how to fight? That's fucking hard work. That's an intensive skill in and of itself, it's not just "waving a sword around and hoping you don't die". Expecting the fighter to be a leader of men, as well? That's just more training. Sure, it's not telling the universe to go do one, but it's still not a simple thing. Everything you add on just makes the fighter more learned.
I suspect that, for some people (And I'm not referring to anyone here), it falls back to high school "tough people must be dumb, that's the only reason they pick on smart people like me", nerd/jock mentality.
Quote from: Opaopajr;571153Well, GMs haven't let me be a gelatinous cube thief yet, so I guess some things just are wrong.
:(
I'd be tempted to let you get away with it for one session just to see what would happen.
I imagine these charop guys as the sorts that play through video games following the strategy guide and walkthroughs instead of trying stuff.
And yes, as a nerd, I'm seeing lots of nerd inferiority complex with this whole wizards=geniuses / fighters=simpletons logic.
If we assume that the vast majority of nameless NPCs have randomly rolled stats (with 'arrays' used for convinence of game important npcs and monsters... some of the time) than all we can really say is that the fighter had to roll something close to average strength and con, but could have any fucking intelligence score at all (even *gasp* an 18!), and that the dumbest wizard has at least an 11 in INT...
So while any given wizard will be smarter than the dumbest fighters, against any given randomly generated fighter, any given randomly generated (but legal) lacks a clear and obvious advantage. All he knows for sure is that his minimum bar for entry is higher than the fighter's.
That PC fighters tend to be of average intelligence is an artifact of more choice, leading to increased specialization, and does not reflect stat distribution in the broader game world.
Notable exception: In 3X we CAN say that starting around level 4 (and every four levels after) Wizards will have increasingly select intelligence vs fighters. By level twenty the 'dumb' wizards (not counting the truly, egregiously stupid wizards that secretly want to be fighters but never actually go cross class...) will have a minimum intelligence of 16 and a maximum of 23, vs the Fighter, who is still distributed between 3 and 18 in all probability.
Magic hats of genius may help further.
However: As Edison famously stated: Genius is 10% persparation and 10% inspiration.
Thus, even a super maxed out human wizard with a godly 28 INT, vs 'average guy fighter' with 10 Int, only has a 7% advantage from innate intelligence (rounded from 2/3 of ten percent...) ;)
Since we know Edison was, in fact, a genius before you rebut my mathematical proof that Wizard Intelligence is not the absolute game changer, prove you are at least as smart as Thomas Alva Edison (for bonus points: Edison was, famously, a Wizard.)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571222or the fact that all magic users must be super geniuses who make all the right decisions. Book smart, yes. But wisdom plays a big part. I've met plenty of book smart people who couldn't make a good decision if their life depended on it.
Ex-Navy Nuke Machinist Mate of 6 years (E-5) here and you just described a lot of guys who washed out of the training program. Had one dude who could memorize a phone book and aced all his tests, but could not turn a wrench to save his life - we barely trusted him to change a light bulb.
Quote from: Planet Algol;571238I imagine these charop guys as the sorts that play through video games following the strategy guide and walkthroughs instead of trying stuff.
And yes, as a nerd, I'm seeing lots of nerd inferiority complex with this whole wizards=geniuses / fighters=simpletons logic.
On a related note, as a kid, I was definitely in the nerd camp. My kids are not. My oldest is currently playing basketball on a full ride in college. He was a total jock growing up. 1st team all-state in football, super popular, ripped, etc. He's a really nice and respectful kid though. Anyway, as he grew up, I was around the high school jock crowd a lot more than I was when I was in school, naturally. All of his friends were jocks, etc.
What I found out? Jocks are really no different than nerds as far as personalities go. You've got the jock who thinks he's the best thing since sliced bread and elevates himself as the alpha dog, and you've got the nerd who tries to intimate other nerds and establish himself as superior because he happens to have read Atlas Shrugged by 6th grade. No difference in personality.
The only difference is that in school, physical presence was an easy way to intimidate, and once we graduated, it shifted to backstabbing and politics. A jock might spend 4-5 years of his life being the bully because his size is the only advantage he has in school, but the nerd can spend 40-50 years being the bully once everyone is an adult. Assholes will be assholes.
And anecdotal, but more bullies when I grew up were stoners and skaters than jocks. It was usually the bigger kids who had really shitty home lives that tried to take it out on smaller kids at school. Not so much the jocks.
Not only did this thread reach 4000 posts, but it created multiple spin off threads that are equally healthy.
4,000 posts.
Quote from: Rum Cove;571254Not only did this thread reach 4000 posts, but it created multiple spin off threads that are equally healthy.
I'm a proud papa.
Quote from: jeff37923;571258I'm a proud papa.
I should have locked the thread at 3,999 posts to make Marleycat cry. :D
Quote from: Benoist;571259I should have locked the thread at 3,999 posts to make Marleycat cry. :D
You could still delete posts and do it while she's not looking :)
It's weird that no one even disputes that a fighter can't win vs equal leveled opposition
Lets say little Timmy is playing his first 3rd edition campain he make a Fighter the best Fighter he can make in core.
Orc Fighter 8/ Str 26 Dex 13 Con 18 Int 6 Wis 7 Cha 6 AC 22 HP 87 Bab +8/ Gpr +16
Feats Wepon Focus (Greatsword), Wepon Specialization (Greatsword), Improved Initiative, Dodge, Toughness, Power Attack, Greater Weapon Focus Improved Bullrush, Cleave.
Items +2 Flaming Greatsword, +2 Full Plate, Gauntlets of Oger Power, Amulet of Health +2 Ring of Protection +1 (about 10% over wealth By Level)
He atacks with his Greatsword at +21/+16 for 2d6+16+1d6 fire.
Lets see how he stacks up to the opposition
Vs Earth Elemental (CR 7) his full attack (power attacking for 4) is about 55 damage per round
so it takes about 2.7 full attacks to drop the rock pile which takes and average of 2.4 full attacks to do the same to him. Ruh-roh
Vs Dragon (A Young Adult White CR 8) His full attack is 44 points per round taking an adverage of 3.2 round to drop the beast which kills him over 2.6 rounds unless the dragon remembers that it's a fvcking dragon and instead breath weapons him to death from the air.
Little Timmy is beginning to wonder if he should have rolled a wizard
Vs Stone Giant (CR 8) 38 damage from the full attack taking 3.1 rounds vs the stone giant taking him down in 3.4 well 1 out of 3 isn't too bad
Even with all of the optimization little Timmy can't match monster that the DMG says should be his equal even if he's tricked out with his magic items. That's sad.
The cold math is that fighters are not performing as they should
Quote from: Panzerkraken;571260You could still delete posts and do it while she's not looking :)
Too late.:D
I have reached my goal!!!!!
Quote from: Marleycat;571267Too late.:D
I have reached my goal!!!!!
Congratulations!
Your new goal is 5000 posts.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;571265Vs Earth Elemental (CR 7) his full attack (power attacking for 4) is about 55 damage per round
so it takes about 2.7 full attacks to drop the rock pile which takes and average of 2.4 full attacks to do the same to him. Ruh-roh
Vs Dragon (A Young Adult White CR 8) His full attack is 44 points per round taking an adverage of 3.2 round to drop the beast which kills him over 2.6 rounds unless the dragon remembers that it's a fvcking dragon and instead breath weapons him to death from the air.
Little Timmy is beginning to wonder if he should have rolled a wizard
Vs Stone Giant (CR 8) 38 damage from the full attack taking 3.1 rounds vs the stone giant taking him down in 3.4 well 1 out of 3 isn't too bad
Even with all of the optimization little Timmy can't match monster that the DMG says should be his equal even if he's tricked out with his magic items. That's sad.
The cold math is that fighters are not performing as they should
I guess Lord Moron missed the part earlier where CRs were designed for a party of that level, and not an equal level individual. But then again, these "3e experts" have been getting the rules wrong a lot in this thread. I'd be curious to see how an 8th level magic user would do against all of those.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;571261It's weird that no one even disputes that a fighter can't win vs equal leveled opposition
No... It's not weird at all. They would rather talk about unrelate topics, like being in the army. Because as we all know being in the army and having special ranks and titles keeps you from saying/doing anything stupid. Considering a number of people in my family/I've met who were or are military (father was a naval officer but fuck him I don't remember his rank, 4 of my uncles were in the military. 2 of them retired with no problem 2 of them retired got good jobs then turned to drugs, An older cousin of mine is currently serving and trying to climb the ladder and has made several stupid decisions about what to do with his money despite the family trying to give him advice, work with a guy who had to take a break because he was shot, work with another guy who was some kind of engineer in the navy) obviously I'm talking out of my ass because as we all know being in the military makes you impervious to stupidity at all times right? Not that military experience is even the topic. Not that mages have to have high intelligence to cast their highest level spells so that means they have combat and exploration experience behind them and are good at keeping themselves alive.
I mean the fact that wizards of different power sets and spell loadouts can take on equal level challenges (for the most part because things like dragons break CR) while fighters need charop builds and a good deal of magic behind them to do the same does not in anyway highlight the fact that they are incapable of doing the very fighting they are supposed to do.
QuoteIt's weird that no one even disputes that a fighter can't win vs equal leveled opposition
A) CRs are rated for a party as folks have been repeatedly pointing out.
B) Shut your cocksucker when grown ups are talking.
Quote from: MGuy;571275No... It's not weird at all. They would rather talk about unrelate topics, like being in the army. Because as we all know being in the army and having special ranks and titles keeps you from saying/doing anything stupid.
Holy shit man, you just created a strawman that L. Frank Baum would be jealous of.
Honest question. Do you actually believe the bullshit you're saying? Because no one else is. I'm just trying to gauge the level of retard we're dealing with here.
Quote from: Marleycat;571267Too late.:D
I have reached my goal!!!!!
WOO-HOO !!! This kickstarter is fully funded. What are some of our bonus goals and what special incentives should contributors get?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571280Holy shit man, you just created a strawman that L. Frank Baum would be jealous of.
Honest question. Do you actually believe the bullshit you're saying? Because no one else is. I'm just trying to gauge the level of retard we're dealing with here.
I
created this strawman? Right...
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;571265Vs Earth Elemental (CR 7) his full attack (power attacking for 4) is about 55 damage per round
so it takes about 2.7 full attacks to drop the rock pile which takes and average of 2.4 full attacks to do the same to him. Ruh-roh
Vs Dragon (A Young Adult White CR 8) His full attack is 44 points per round taking an adverage of 3.2 round to drop the beast which kills him over 2.6 rounds unless the dragon remembers that it's a fvcking dragon and instead breath weapons him to death from the air.
Little Timmy is beginning to wonder if he should have rolled a wizard
Vs Stone Giant (CR 8) 38 damage from the full attack taking 3.1 rounds vs the stone giant taking him down in 3.4 well 1 out of 3 isn't too bad
Even with all of the optimization little Timmy can't match monster that the DMG says should be his equal even if he's tricked out with his magic items. That's sad.
The cold math is that fighters are not performing as they should
As I understand it, BTB an equal opponent for an 8th level PC is a single (1) CR 4 creature such as a brown bear or gargoyle YOU FUCKING HALFHEAD.
Quote from: MGuy;571283I created this strawman? Right...
So full retard then? SMH
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120527032761/happywheels/images/8/8d/Never-Go-Full-Retard.jpg)
Quote from: MGuy;571275I mean the fact that wizards of different power sets and spell loadouts can take on equal level challenges (for the most part because things like dragons break CR) while fighters need charop builds and a good deal of magic behind them to do the same does not in anyway highlight the fact that they are incapable of doing the very fighting they are supposed to do.
Yeah because a wizard can choose just the perfect mix of spells when he knows exactly what the opposition is ahead of time. Load up your level 8 wizard THEN let someone else choose the opposition.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;571289Yeah because a wizard can choose just the perfect mix of spells when he knows exactly what the opposition is ahead of time. Load up your level 8 wizard THEN let someone else choose the opposition.
It is on. Makin a wizard core only y/n
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;571261It's weird that no one even disputes that a fighter can't win vs equal leveled opposition
Perhaps everyone acknowledges that D&D has more than one edition, outside of 3e.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;571294It is on. Makin a wizard core only y/n
No point. It's already been stated by people in this thread that theorycraft, personal experience, running the numbers, or any other attempt to call for reasoning will be rejected. I mean just called me a retard twice because Sancrosanct hates retarded people despite because Sancro is trolling.
The fact that you admit you're a CharOp guy just makes them even
LESS likely for them to bite on any example you give AND they will believe that you don't have fun playing the game as jeff laid out earlier.
Quote from: MGuy;571314No point. It's already been stated by people in this thread that theorycraft, personal experience, running the numbers, or any other attempt to call for reasoning will be rejected. I mean Marley just called me a retard twice once for not understanding that she was calling for a spell list from a character that was never made, and again for not having been the person to bring up people's military background (with a side shot for pointing out that military titles and shit were off topic).
That was me, not Marleycat. This is why you continue to fail. You can't seem to get anything right, and instead blame everyone else for your failures.
Great job.
Also love the DPS count that goes into the OCD-the-rules-are-the-game thinking, assuming full attacks and therefore contact from the get-go. I mean. It is so ridiculously divorced from actual play scenarios that I'm wondering if these people actually play the game at a real game table like... ever.
Quote from: Benoist;571316Also love the DPS count that goes into the OCD-the-rules-are-the-game thinking, assuming full attacks and therefore contact from the get-go. I mean. It is so ridiculously divorced from actual play scenarios that I'm wondering if these people actually play the game at a real game table like... ever.
Who cares how the game is actually played at game tables when you have
theorycraft man!
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571315That was me, not Marleycat. This is why you continue to fail. You can't seem to get anything right, and instead blame everyone else for your failures.
Great job.
Edited it already but its nice to know that you accept your dickheadedness in stride.
Quote from: Benoist;571316Also love the DPS count that goes into the OCD-the-rules-are-the-game thinking, assuming full attacks and therefore contact from the get-go. I mean. It is so ridiculously divorced from actual play scenarios that I'm wondering if these people actually play the game at a real game table like... ever.
And I thought I was exaggerating when I talked about DPS spreadsheets coming out earlier in the thread :D
Hey LM, calculate how much my Hunter could do against a Boss and what my optimal rotation would be in 4e!
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571315That was me, not Marleycat. This is why you continue to fail. You can't seem to get anything right, and instead blame everyone else for your failures.
Great job.
It's the avatar. I'm having trouble telling you apart, too, because it looks like a Marley avatar.
Hey, so Iron Heroes, or "World of Fighting Styles". Outside of the rule set (It's proto-D&D4, fine, move on), how do people feel about the way it introduced variant fighters without going to magiKal powaz land? Could that be back-ported to provide mechanically complex fighters (For players who want that) at the same table as players who want the fighters to be all martial, all the time?
Quote from: Ladybird;571323It's the avatar. I'm having trouble telling you apart, too, because it looks like a Marley avatar.
A Marleytar? What about a Marleytaur, would that be like a Minocat?
QuoteHey, so Iron Heroes, or "World of Fighting Styles". Outside of the rule set (It's proto-D&D4, fine, move on), how do people feel about the way it introduced variant fighters without going to magiKal powaz land? Could that be back-ported to provide mechanically complex fighters (For players who want that) at the same table as players who want the fighters to be all martial, all the time?
I'm not familiar with that, what're the expanded fighting styles like?
Quote from: Ladybird;571323It's the avatar. I'm having trouble telling you apart, too, because it looks like a Marley avatar.
For the past couple weeks or so, I've had my avatar representative of someone who was...influential during my formative years.
But more to my point, the mistake illustrated how MGuy can't pay attention to detail, and seems to make (incorrect) assumptions based on a glance. The whole thread has gone that way. I haven't seen someone resort to so many strawmen and red herrings before.
Quote from: Benoist;571316Also love the DPS count that goes into the OCD-the-rules-are-the-game thinking, assuming full attacks and therefore contact from the get-go. I mean. It is so ridiculously divorced from actual play scenarios that I'm wondering if these people actually play the game at a real game table like... ever.
I've always noticed that melee-type Fighters like to close in to melee distance as soon as possible. Usually that means charging, which may mean that the opponent opens up with the first full-attack.
But you know, if you think it's more heroic to stand around and hoping your opponents charge you (you know, instead of the wizard or something), hey, whatever works for your games.
Quote from: Benoist;571316Also love the DPS count that goes into the OCD-the-rules-are-the-game thinking, assuming full attacks and therefore contact from the get-go. I mean. It is so ridiculously divorced from actual play scenarios that I'm wondering if these people actually play the game at a real game table like... ever.
In a "real game" Timmy's Orc fighter is even more pathetic since his saves are crap and If he can't full attack his damage is worse. What that little excercise shows is that that monsters have better numbers than you if you have the best stats and Items for your level.
After over 4000 post you still haven't solved the problem of the fvcking dragon. Even if it lands you still can't beat the lizard without DM pitty
Quote from: Panzerkraken;571326I'm not familiar with that, what're the expanded fighting styles like?
Wiki page! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Heroes)
Each fighting type is it's own class, so it's not strictly "fighting style", but they're all quite distinct and extreme examples of fighters.
Quote from: deadDMwalkingBut you know, if you think it's more heroic to stand around and hoping your opponents charge you (you know, instead of the wizard or something), hey, whatever works for your games.
I'll take alive over heroic, thanks. There's more to a fight than melee.
Quote from: Benoist;571316Also love the DPS count that goes into the OCD-the-rules-are-the-game thinking, assuming full attacks and therefore contact from the get-go. I mean. It is so ridiculously divorced from actual play scenarios that I'm wondering if these people actually play the game at a real game table like... ever.
I have some players that perform those calculations, but in their defense, they are great roleplayers and are agreeable when I suggest they tone down the optimization.
And yea, I have been amazed at players that think they can always flank, and or always full attack.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571330I've always noticed that melee-type Fighters like to close in to melee distance as soon as possible. Usually that means charging, which may mean that the opponent opens up with the first full-attack.
A fighter stupid enough to charge a giant full-on expecting to live deserves to die with a hammer the size of a car across his face.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571330But you know, if you think it's more heroic to stand around and hoping your opponents charge you (you know, instead of the wizard or something), hey, whatever works for your games.
Yeah, that Perseus dude wasn't heroic at all. He should have charged in melee right away God dammit! What the fuck is this game where you have to think before you act??!!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Firenze.Loggia.Perseus02.JPG/450px-Firenze.Loggia.Perseus02.JPG)
Dude, you're the guy who defines "heroic" as throwing kamehamehas at baddies otherwise the game sucks. You're a moron who needs the game to catter to your systematic imagination failure. Whatever works for your game, right?
Quote from: Ladybird;571332Wiki page! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Heroes)
Each fighting type is it's own class, so it's not strictly "fighting style", but they're all quite distinct and extreme examples of fighters.
I'll take alive over heroic, thanks. There's more to a fight than melee.
Iron heroes was ok. It was helped a lot because I believe (if memory serves) that it was made for a low magic setting so your fighters didn't have to worry about spell casting demons, ghosts and shit. If you power everything down so that all the classes are fighter analogues and half the higher level monster manual aren't spell casting monstrocities with the other half being things that explicitly out fight fighters then the game would be workable.
As for there being more to a fight than melee I whole heartedly agree. But melee or bow are the fighters two options for confrontation because at higher levels, outside of the arena, they need stuff that their class does not give them.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;571331In a "real game" Timmy's Orc fighter is even more pathetic since his saves are crap and If he can't full attack his damage is worse. What that little excercise shows is that that monsters have better numbers than you if you have the best stats and Items for your level.
After over 4000 post you still haven't solved the problem of the fvcking dragon. Even if it lands you still can't beat the lizard without DM pitty
I'm sorry. I can't do anything for you. Your brain cancer has spread too far.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;571322And I thought I was exaggerating when I talked about DPS spreadsheets coming out earlier in the thread :D
Hey LM, calculate how much my Hunter could do against a Boss and what my optimal rotation would be in 4e!
4e isn't my specialy but I'll try. You want to be a Ranger I think max your main stat and take Twin Strike, for your other stuff load up on imediate action powers. Use your rad damage output to make fights end quicker that way everyone is happy because they're playing less 4e ^_^.
Quote from: Benoist;571336Dude, you're the guy who defines "heroic" as throwing kamehamehas otherwise the game sucks. You're a moron who needs the game to catter to your systematic imagination failure. Whatever works for your game, right?
Not having been able to stand Dragonball-Z for more then 15 seconds at a time, I can't tell you how odd that above phrase seemed without the help of Google. Thank god the Hawaiian King was still first on the list. :D
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;571331After over 4000 post you still haven't solved the problem of the fvcking dragon. Even if it lands you still can't beat the lizard without DM pitty
There's no language filter here, and your mom isn't listening, you can talk like the rest of the fucking adults, we won't tell on you. Also, I've made dragons NASTIER (given them two handed damage bonus on their power bite) and still seen them killed by parties without having to resort to hiding while the mage pewpews at it. You just have to think a little bit.
and it's "P-I-T-Y". As in what most of us have for you. You've used the wrong spelling so many times it's not possible it's just you typing too fast.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;5713414e isn't my specialy but I'll try. You want to be a Ranger I think max your main stat and take Twin Strike, for your other stuff load up on imediate action powers. Use your rad damage output to make fights end quicker that way everyone is happy because they're playing less 4e ^_^.
Noob. The best Archer in 4E is a Ranger with muticlass seeker feat, and the feat that allows you to add dex bonus twice to ranged attacks. duh!
But seriously, I hate builds and powergaming. Just because I know how to optimize a character does not mean I actually DO it when I play.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;571343There's no language filter here, and your mom isn't listening, you can talk like the rest of the fucking adults, we won't tell on you. Also, I've made dragons NASTIER (given them two handed damage bonus on their power bite) and still seen them killed by parties without having to resort to hiding while the mage pewpews at it. You just have to think a little bit.
and it's "P-I-T-Y". As in what most of us have for you. You've used the wrong spelling so many times it's not possible it's just you typing too fast.
If you have a full party obviously you can kill the dragon before It mauls somone to bad since you outnumber it 3+ to one. It's just that a lone fighter is boned if the dragon wants to eat him
Quote from: CRKrueger;571342Not having been able to stand Dragonball-Z for more then 15 seconds at a time, I can't tell you how odd that above phrase seemed without the help of Google. Thank god the Hawaiian King was still first on the list. :D
Dragon ball z combat:
Posture and brag about your personal power for one or more hours.
Grunt and scream as you gather energy for several minutes in an obvious manner while the enemy justs stands there.
Release an uber blast that incinerates the enemy, and any mountains behind them.
Become twice as powerful each time you enter combat.
Repeat.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;571354If you have a full party obviously you can kill the dragon before It mauls somone to bad since you outnumber it 3+ to one. It's just that a lone fighter is boned if the dragon wants to eat him
alone..
Against a dragon?
Does anyone do that? That's just stupid. Even wizards know better than that.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;571331In a "real game" Timmy's Orc fighter is even more pathetic since his saves are crap and If he can't full attack his damage is worse. What that little excercise shows is that that monsters have better numbers than you if you have the best stats and Items for your level.
After over 4000 post you still haven't solved the problem of the fvcking dragon. Even if it lands you still can't beat the lizard without DM pitty
If D&D were real life, there's no way you'd qualify as a magic user.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;571357alone..
Against a dragon?
Does anyone do that? That's just stupid. Even wizards know better than that.
Everyone knows that only Druids solo dragons.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;57133?
But you know, if you think it's more heroic to stand around and hoping your opponents charge you (you know, instead of the wizard or something), hey, whatever works for your games.
Displaying your deep grasp of tactics agsin I see...
Quote from: Benoist;571336Yeah, that Perseus dude wasn't heroic at all. He should have charged in melee right away God dammit! What the fuck is this game where you have to think before you act??!!
You think Perseus was a fighter? What a dumbass. Everyone knows he was a magic user who just acted like a fighter to show everyone that a magic user can do everything, even fighting, better than anyone else.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571318Who cares how the game is actually played at game tables when you have theorycraft man!
Quote from: Benoist;571316Also love the DPS count that goes into the OCD-the-rules-are-the-game thinking, assuming full attacks and therefore contact from the get-go. I mean. It is so ridiculously divorced from actual play scenarios that I'm wondering if these people actually play the game at a real game table like... ever.
Um cuz that is how a game is designed by, Theorycraft?
All I see is two people getting so bent out of shape because other people have had different experiences at the table than they. For some reason their experiences are bullshit and can't possibly be right, they were playing the game wrong.
Why don't you two videotape a session of yours so we can see the awesomeness?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571368You think Perseus was a fighter? What a dumbass. Everyone knows he was a magic user who just acted like a fighter to show everyone that a magic user can do everything, even fighting, better than anyone else.
Humorously, I happen to be playing a Wizard in a pathfinder game that wears metal armor and fights with a greatsword. He is much stronger than he is Intelligent. Quite a fun character, and he THINKS he is better than a fighter at fighting.
Quote from: Sommerjon;571373Um cuz that is how a game is designed by, Theorycraft?
All I see is two people getting so bent out of shape because other people have had different experiences at the table than they. For some reason their experiences are bullshit and can't possibly be right, they were playing the game wrong.
Why don't you two videotape a session of yours so we can see the awesomeness?
I don't know about Benoist, but that isn't my position at all. I'm simply point out how basing your position solely on theorycraft when actual implementation is much different, is retarded. They aren't talking about their experiences. They're talking about theorycraft, which by very definition is not actual play.
You did know what that word means, right?
Quote from: Bill;571355Dragon ball z combat:
Posture and brag about your personal power for one or more hours.
Is that a Skill Challenge? I wonder.
Quote from: Ladybird;571225I have never understood "fighters must be dumb!".
Learning how to fight? That's fucking hard work. That's an intensive skill in and of itself, it's not just "waving a sword around and hoping you don't die". Expecting the fighter to be a leader of men, as well? That's just more training. Sure, it's not telling the universe to go do one, but it's still not a simple thing. Everything you add on just makes the fighter more learned.
I suspect that, for some people (And I'm not referring to anyone here), it falls back to high school "tough people must be dumb, that's the only reason they pick on smart people like me", nerd/jock mentality.
I think it has more to do with the regulars here who have this unwholesome attachment to Fighters ARE mundane motherfuckers!!!!!#!!@!!@!
Why?
Why do fighters have to be "norms" in a magical world?
Why is it so wrong for a fighter to have special abilities?
Quote from: Sommerjon;571373Why don't you two videotape a session of yours so we can see the awesomeness?
Just don't videotape yours, okay? My stomach is kind of fragile, see...
Quote from: Spike;571185Though it was kinda funny to watch SB go on and on and on with risibly pointless math.
:hatsoff:
It did demonstrate that the Denners aren't terribly familiar with the rules they are so keen to re-write. I will bet dollars to doughnuts
overland flight has been relentlessly misused since day one.
Quote from: Sommerjon;571379I think it has more to do with the regulars here who have this unwholesome attachment to Fighters ARE mundane motherfuckers!!!!!#!!@!!@!
Why?
Why do fighters have to be "norms" in a magical world?
Why is it so wrong for a fighter to have special abilities?
What does fighters = mundane have shit all to do with intelligence?
"How many pancakes does it take to build a doghouse?"
"None. Ice cream has no bones."
I guess I'm confused.
If you're a melee type character and you want to enter into melee combat (you know, because that's where you're most effective) it seems that you have two options.
1) Move to your opponent so you can engage them in melee
2) Wait for your opponent to move close to you so you can engage them in melee
If your opponent doesn't move close to you, you're reduced to option 1.
Or, you know, not fighting them in melee. You can start driving cattle into their lair to distract them or some of the other things I've seen suggested on these boards. But then, if your goal is to get into melee, that still doesn't help.
If a character is most effective in melee, and getting into melee with the opponents they're supposed to be fighting is considered retarded, I think you've just proven that the game doesn't work like it should for the Fighter.
Quote from: Sommerjon;571379I think it has more to do with the regulars here who have this unwholesome attachment to Fighters ARE mundane motherfuckers!!!!!#!!@!!@!
Why?
Why do fighters have to be "norms" in a magical world?
Why is it so wrong for a fighter to have special abilities?
Because Wizards were originally called Magic-Users.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571386If a character is most effective in melee, and getting into melee with the opponents they're supposed to be fighting is considered retarded, I think you've just proven that the game doesn't work like it should for the Fighter.
Going into melee as a first option IS retarded. Those who live long enough to become good at it will tell you as much.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571377I don't know about Benoist, but that isn't my position at all. I'm simply point out how basing your position solely on theorycraft when actual implementation is much different, is retarded. They aren't talking about their experiences. They're talking about theorycraft, which by very definition is not actual play.
You did know what that word means, right?
Actual play doesn't mean shit when the concepts behind the actual play is fucked up.
Why you cannot fathom that idea shows more about you than all of your sophomoric smack talk.
It's a no-win situation for anyone here who doesn't genuflect towards 1e or has a major hate-on towards 4e when they log in(bonus points if it's both).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571386If you're a melee type character and you want to enter into melee combat (you know, because that's where you're most effective) it seems that you have two options.
1) Move to your opponent so you can engage them in melee
2) Wait for your opponent to move close to you so you can engage them in melee
Hey dude! Dude? You listening? OK.
Get your head out of your World of Warcraft MMO theoretical ass for a second.
Done? Don't know, can't see. In any case. The fighter is not "a melee type". He's a "fighter". He fights. He can fight in melee, or not. He can use a bow and stay out of range if getting in CQC is too dangerous. He can tip boulders on top of his enemies down below. He can grab some oil and drop it on his enemies riding his winged mount (see Thunderdome thread). He can do a shitload of stuff besides "getting close to hit stuff because... that's the best stuff he does on the rules book page!". That's the part where you're supposed to go "Oh okay... you're talking about an actual role playing game, right?" And I'd say "Darn it you got it!" But we both know that's not gonna happen. That's kinda sad, when I think about it.
Quote from: Benoist;571392Hey dude! Dude? You listening? OK.
Get your head out of your World of Warcraft MMO theoretical ass for a second.
Done? Don't know, can't see. In any case. The fighter is not "a melee type". He's a "fighter". He fights. He can fight in melee, or not. He can use a bow and stay out of range if getting in CQC is too dangerous. He can tip boulders on top of his enemies down below. He can do a shitload of stuff besides "getting close to hit stuff because... that's the best stuff he does on the rules book page!". That's the part where you're supposed to go "Oh okay... you're talking about an actual role playing game, right?" And I'd say "Darn it you got it!" But we both don't know that's gonna happen. That's kinda sad, when I think about it.
Some stick figure illustrations.
(http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/zUobOoLlnhiezduOEEg.gif)
Quote from: Benoist;571381Just don't videotape yours, okay? My stomach is kind of fragile, see...
Oh, what a surprise.
For all of your delusional superiority when the talk comes to proof, you bail.
This coming the ass who always wants people to post their 'actual play' so he can shit on it.
Amazing when it gets asked of you...evade, evade, evade.
Since Fighter's Intelligence seems to be an issue that won't die, let's talk about it...
If you have two people, one with Intelligence 16 and one with Intelligence 11, they could both become Wizards. But one of them has the 'natural aptitude' and one of them will really struggle (and won't be able to cast spells beyond level 1). At least, not until their sudoku book starts making them smarter. Now, while they both can become wizards, you'd expect the one with the higher Intelligence to be more likely to gravitate toward that profession. It's not a sure thing, but it's reasonable. Most people choose 'careers' that play to their strengths. Most professional athletes are athletic, most mathmaticians are intelligent, and most artists are creative.
It the event that someone is significantly above average (both smart and brawny, for instance), they get the option to do something that plays to all their strengths, or they can focus on just one.
There are surely Intelligent Fighters. But Intelligence and Charisma have reputations as 'dump stats' for Fighters.
So in game terms, Intelligent Fighters (while probably not rare) are certainly not the norm.
However, in a play style that challenges the player rather than the character, it doesn't matter. You can have a Fighter with 3 Intelligence, and the player is constantly coming up with brilliant plans.
I don't like those kinds of situations, but again, that's a valid play style, too.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571386If a character is most effective in melee, and getting into melee with the opponents they're supposed to be fighting is considered retarded, I think you've just proven that the game doesn't work like it should for the Fighter.
A Fighter is not designed to be the
most effective only in melee, they are designed to be the
most effective at
fighting. It's kind of in the name. Sometimes that means melee. Sometimes that means missile weapons. Rarely, it can mean siege weapons. But it always means "fighting". Speccing for melee only is your problem, not the rules.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571386I guess I'm confused.
If you're a melee type character and you want to enter into melee combat (you know, because that's where you're most effective) it seems that you have two options.
1) Move to your opponent so you can engage them in melee
2) Wait for your opponent to move close to you so you can engage them in melee
If your opponent doesn't move close to you, you're reduced to option 1.
Or, you know, not fighting them in melee. You can start driving cattle into their lair to distract them or some of the other things I've seen suggested on these boards. But then, if your goal is to get into melee, that still doesn't help.
If a character is most effective in melee, and getting into melee with the opponents they're supposed to be fighting is considered retarded, I think you've just proven that the game doesn't work like it should for the Fighter.
If your fighter is able to win every fight with a frontal assualt, that sure sounds like a boring campaign. He darn well better send in the cattle when he needs a distraction to survive.
Sure, you can play a fighter that always charges into battle and never backs down, but he WILL die, and fairly early in his career.
A fighters full attack dps is meaningless, as the dm will scale the enemies to the capabilities of the characters.
I suppose there are a few dm's out there that populate the world with level 1 orcs and let level 12 fighters execute orcs all the time.
Quote from: Sommerjon;571398Oh, what a surprise.
For all of your delusional superiority when the talk comes to proof, you bail.
This coming the ass who always wants people to post their 'actual play' so he can shit on it.
Amazing when it gets asked of you...evade, evade, evade.
What the fuck? Were you seriously under the delusion I would even consider anything you say seriously? Blimey. I guess I made the mistake of thinking you could understand that at least. Guess I was wrong.
I still don't see how NOT FIGHTING is supposed to be better than FIGHTING.
Okay, the Fighter, afraid of getting hurt, sits back and uses a bow, while the creature charges forward and eats the wizard or the rogue.
It's fun to be the Fighter!
I've been hearing that it's the Fighter's job to go stand toe-to-toe, absorb the hits, and keep on fighting.
The second I suggest that he does his job (as the regulars here suggested) I'm told that the Fighter is being retarded, and he's not supposed to do that job.
So which is it?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571405I still don't see how NOT FIGHTING is supposed to be better than FIGHTING.
OK. I guess the "taking your ass out of the MMO theory wank" thing just didn't happen.
Can't say I'm surprised.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571400Since Fighter's Intelligence seems to be an issue that won't die, let's talk about it...
If you have two people, one with Intelligence 16 and one with Intelligence 11, they could both become Wizards. But one of them has the 'natural aptitude' and one of them will really struggle (and won't be able to cast spells beyond level 1). At least, not until their sudoku book starts making them smarter. Now, while they both can become wizards, you'd expect the one with the higher Intelligence to be more likely to gravitate toward that profession. It's not a sure thing, but it's reasonable. Most people choose 'careers' that play to their strengths. Most professional athletes are athletic, most mathmaticians are intelligent, and most artists are creative.
It the event that someone is significantly above average (both smart and brawny, for instance), they get the option to do something that plays to all their strengths, or they can focus on just one.
There are surely Intelligent Fighters. But Intelligence and Charisma have reputations as 'dump stats' for Fighters.
So in game terms, Intelligent Fighters (while probably not rare) are certainly not the norm.
However, in a play style that challenges the player rather than the character, it doesn't matter. You can have a Fighter with 3 Intelligence, and the player is constantly coming up with brilliant plans.
I don't like those kinds of situations, but again, that's a valid play style, too.
When I run a game I try to make all stats important. If you bring a half ork monk to my game with a 18 STR 18 Dex 18 Wisdom 8 CON 8 INT 8 CHA, he will discover that low int,cha, and con actually matters when he interacts with the world.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571405I still don't see how NOT FIGHTING is supposed to be better than FIGHTING.
Okay, the Fighter, afraid of getting hurt, sits back and uses a bow, while the creature charges forward and eats the wizard or the rogue.
It's fun to be the Fighter!
I've been hearing that it's the Fighter's job to go stand toe-to-toe, absorb the hits, and keep on fighting.
The second I suggest that he does his job (as the regulars here suggested) I'm told that the Fighter is being retarded, and he's not supposed to do that job.
So which is it?
Don't you see you're playing the rules not the game, obviously one of the mythical "good DMs" will let you MTP it then pat you on the head and say you're a good boy and never let those mean wizards use their actual abilities to make you feel smal in the pants
This is the best thread ever! 5000 should be a piece of cake.:)
Quote from: Sommerjon;571391Actual play doesn't mean shit when the concepts behind the actual play is fucked up.
Why you cannot fathom that idea shows more about you than all of your sophomoric smack talk.
It's a no-win situation for anyone here who doesn't genuflect towards 1e or has a major hate-on towards 4e when they log in(bonus points if it's both).
Are you seriously this fucking stupid? This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. One one side you've got a group of people who are saying, "If you manipulate the rules this way, you could possible have a build like this." and another group saying, "that's not how it's actually played though, because you keep ignoring x, and y, and z."
Who the fuck cares how it
could be. How it's used in actual implementation is what's important. For example, who cares that you
could build a magic user with X specific spells and items if during actual play that never happens with any statistical import.
It's like saying "Product Asschap is so awesome because you can do this with it, and this with it, and this with it." but end up finding out that in actual use, no one does any of those things. How people use your product is what's important. Everything else is just theorycraft bullshit that amounts to literally nothing.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571405I still don't see how NOT FIGHTING is supposed to be better than FIGHTING.
Okay, the Fighter, afraid of getting hurt, sits back and uses a bow, while the creature charges forward and eats the wizard or the rogue.
It's fun to be the Fighter!
Yeah! You just sit back, let your opponent come to you, all the while putting damage on them. When they get close enough, you brace for melee, but you're going in fresh against their injuries.
If you put the right force, in the right place, at the right time, you will win.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;571261It's weird that no one even disputes that a fighter can't win vs equal leveled opposition
Actually: We DO dispute that, you just don't pay attention. Further, your conception of equal opponents is terrible. A solo fighter's 'equal' opposition is actually two CR's LESS than the fighter's level (using backwards math: CR +1 for ever doubling on number of monsters, so every halving of the party from four should reverse it...) so for an eighth level fighter its CR 6.
QuoteLets say little Timmy is playing his first 3rd edition campain he make a Fighter the best Fighter he can make in core.
Orc Fighter 8/ Str 26 Dex 13 Con 18 Int 6 Wis 7 Cha 6 AC 22 HP 87 Bab +8/ Gpr +16
Feats Wepon Focus (Greatsword), Wepon Specialization (Greatsword), Improved Initiative, Dodge, Toughness, Power Attack, Greater Weapon Focus Improved Bullrush, Cleave.
Items +2 Flaming Greatsword, +2 Full Plate, Gauntlets of Oger Power, Amulet of Health +2 Ring of Protection +1 (about 10% over wealth By Level)
Then Little Timmy (is that you Lord Mistborn?) is a fucking idiot. You have dodge, toughness and improved bullrush in your feats, which is almost half your feats wasted on nonsense. I'm assuming you mean a half orc not a full blooded orc. And your magic items are frankly a little... underwhelming, though honestly it was the least bad part of your sheet. Seriously though: Flaming on your greatsword? Should I point out that fire resistance is THE most common resistance? Amulet of health is sort of meh. Your spending 4k gold for 8 whole hp and a +1 bonus to your strongest save. Its a crap tradeoff.
I'll also point out that Cleave is utterly useless for the senarios you posit. Throw up a CR 6 encounter with some gnolls or something or you really DID waste half your feats.
Quote from: TrueGygaxFan;571422I think they should balance the Wizard with the Fighter by giving the Fighter cool swords but the Wizard gets spells. Then they should just make swords and spells equally good.
You're a wizard, Harry!
(http://www.stormbringer.net/images/elric/elric7.jpg)
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;571265Vs Earth Elemental (CR 7) his full attack (power attacking for 4) is about 55 damage per round
so it takes about 2.7 full attacks to drop the rock pile which takes and average of 2.4 full attacks to do the same to him. Ruh-roh
Vs Dragon (A Young Adult White CR 8) His full attack is 44 points per round taking an adverage of 3.2 round to drop the beast which kills him over 2.6 rounds unless the dragon remembers that it's a fvcking dragon and instead breath weapons him to death from the air.
Little Timmy is beginning to wonder if he should have rolled a wizard
Vs Stone Giant (CR 8) 38 damage from the full attack taking 3.1 rounds vs the stone giant taking him down in 3.4 well 1 out of 3 isn't too bad
Even with all of the optimization little Timmy can't match monster that the DMG says should be his equal even if he's tricked out with his magic items. That's sad.
The cold math is that fighters are not performing as they should
Aside from you utterly failing to show your work, and presumably picking fights that were designed around stand and deliver combat (versus, say, a CR 8 melee critter that did less damage but had poison? Or maybe something like a ghoul type critter? Seeing that A: Little Timmy can't design a fighter for shit and B: he is actually out matched by CR that is a pretty fucking awesome job by Little Timmy's wind-up orc (with the universally accepted, but also universally agreed-is-crap elite array...).
Lesse: Little Timmy is actually REVERSE optimized. Your Pure DPS numbers don't account for initiative (So if TImmy wins in 3.1 and loses in 3.4, if he wins initiative, he wins the fight. He has to lose initiative OR lose the matchup by a full round to fail. Oh, look, you have Improved Init on your fail -sheet!) Likewise, with your FOUR wasted feats you could easily have squeezed in improved crits, but I doubt you bothered to work out crits as part of your DPS spreadsheet calculations, just as you failed to account for the fact that 'Little Timmy fail-fighter' actually wins most of those matches due to initiative. Hey-O!
Re: Dragon: That's what flying mounts and bows are for. Little Timmy CAN afford a bow and some arrows, right?
Anyway: Elemental: Timmy wins because of Initiative against a monster 'twice as tough' as he is.
Dragon: Since Little Timmy can't even hit it because he is fighting it on open ground, whatever, he loses. Its FOUR FUCKING TIMES AS TOUGH AS HE IS!!!!
Giant: TImmy wins even without my pointing out how bad you suck. Stone giant is ALSO four times as tough as timmy.
So two out of three for little timmy fail-fighter, when he is the clear underdog and only has four good feats (or roughly the same as an NPC warrior, I guess...).
Way to prove your case, moron.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571405I still don't see how NOT FIGHTING is supposed to be better than FIGHTING.
Okay, the Fighter, afraid of getting hurt, sits back and uses a bow, while the creature charges forward and eats the wizard or the rogue.
It's fun to be the Fighter!
I've been hearing that it's the Fighter's job to go stand toe-to-toe, absorb the hits, and keep on fighting.
The second I suggest that he does his job (as the regulars here suggested) I'm told that the Fighter is being retarded, and he's not supposed to do that job.
So which is it?
Wait, wasn't the example that of a solo fighter against a dragon? From where that rogue and wizard come from? Don't your arms ever get tired at moving the goalposts so much?
Quote from: Spike;571428Anyway: Elemental: Timmy wins because of Initiative against a monster 'twice as tough' as he is.
Dragon: Since Little Timmy can't even hit it because he is fighting it on open ground, whatever, he loses. Its FOUR FUCKING TIMES AS TOUGH AS HE IS!!!!
Giant: TImmy wins even without my pointing out how bad you suck. Stone giant is ALSO four times as tough as timmy.
Bweh. All those monsters are suposed to be exactly as tough a the fighter they're CR 8 he's CR 8. So grat's to Timmy he can win against monsters in melee. To bad his character is a drooling moron that noone wants to be friends with and fails hard any time he has to make a will save.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;571436Bweh. All those monsters are suposed to be exactly as tough a the fighter they're CR 8 he's CR 8. So grat's to Timmy he can win against monsters in melee. To bad his character is a drooling moron that noone wants to be friends with and fails hard any time he has to make a will save.
For the Eighth fucking time (From me alone!!!)
A CR 8 monster is a 'fair fight' for a party of FOUR ADVENTURERS.
NOT ONE!.Besides: Timmy wins two out of three, not one out of three, despite being gimped four ways from sunday.
Which, as I said, proves the OPPOSITE of what you claim it does.
You really are special, you know that?
A CR 8 creature is supposed to be a 'challenge' for a party of 4 adventurers of Level 8. It is supposed to use 25% of their resources.
Two creatures of CR 8 are supposed to be equally matched.
If you take a CR 8 monster, and you want to find out if it is equally matched, you can put it against itself - a mirror match, CR 8 versus CR 8.
An 8th level Figther is also CR 8. Instead of a mirror match, you should be able to plug in the Fighter and get approximately the same result.
If you use an 8th level Fighter as a 'monster', the party gets the same experience as if they defeated any other CR 8 monster.
Trying to insist that CR 8 versus CR 6 is the definition of an 'equal' match is clearly ludicrous. Please feel free to review the CR guidelines if you're not convinced.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571438A CR 8 creature is supposed to be a 'challenge' for a party of 4 adventurers of Level 8. It is supposed to use 25% of their resources.
Two creatures of CR 8 are supposed to be equally matched.
If you take a CR 8 monster, and you want to find out if it is equally matched, you can put it against itself - a mirror match, CR 8 versus CR 8.
An 8th level Figther is also CR 8. Instead of a mirror match, you should be able to plug in the Fighter and get approximately the same result.
If you use an 8th level Fighter as a 'monster', the party gets the same experience as if they defeated any other CR 8 monster.
Trying to insist that CR 8 versus CR 6 is the definition of an 'equal' match is clearly ludicrous. Please feel free to review the CR guidelines if you're not convinced.
Huh. We're playing Forge of Fury right now. I suppose this explains why Karghaaz (a level 4 sorcerer) is a CR5. Didn't you just get done saying class level = CR? Or why CR1 creatures like the large skeleton has 2d12 hp or the trogs have 2d8+4 hp. If they are CR1, they're 1st level right? Don't 1st level characters only roll 1 die for hit points?
Or Nightscale is a CR 4. With 10d12+20 hp, +4 init, AC: 19, Atk: +12/+7/+7/+7, +9 fort, +7 ref, +7 will saving throws.
Yep that sounds like a 4th level character right there.
But either way, I noticed that no one answered my question. How would an 8th level magic user fare in those same scenarios?
You're stretching, quite a bit actually. One level 8 character will consume quite a bit less than 25% of the resources of a level 8 party of adventurers. Levels and CR don't equilibrate that smoothly, so no: Not an even match.
Not that, you know, it matters because even Little Timmy Fail-fighter, operating under massive gimpage as a wind-up DPS machine still wins two out of three matchups, failing only against the wildcard dragon.
As everyone agrees that Dragons are not properly balanced by CR, and Little-Timmy-Failstick is just flat out BAD, that's actually an impressive showing.
But it's one in the morning here, so I'll leave one of the half dozen OTHER people who agree with me to delve into hard core readings of the CR mechanics for now.
tl;dr version:
mistborn's fighter is running somewhere around 50% of his potential based on bad feats, sorta bad magic items, and an utter lack of anything resembling tactics or strategy. Literally: A five year old could do a better job that 'run up and windmill at this guy until you drop', which is offset (I suppose) by the monsters doing the exact same thing.
And he Still won two out of three.
Quote from: Ladybird;571416Yeah! You just sit back, let your opponent come to you, all the while putting damage on them. When they get close enough, you brace for melee, but you're going in fresh against their injuries.
If you put the right force, in the right place, at the right time, you will win.
DDW needs courses of actual tactics, and a serious helping of common sense.
That mumbo jumbo thing about actually thinking before acting in combat... that doesn't register with him yet.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571415Are you seriously this fucking stupid? This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. One one side you've got a group of people who are saying, "If you manipulate the rules this way, you could possible have a build like this." and another group saying, "that's not how it's actually played though, because you keep ignoring x, and y, and z."
Because
actual play is a bullshit response. It means nothing. It is 1000000000000000000000000% personal playstyle.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571415Who the fuck cares how it could be. How it's used in actual implementation is what's important. For example, who cares that you could build a magic user with X specific spells and items if during actual play that never happens with any statistical import.
Well because dipshit, you don't know how every group plays.
What we see here is some people with(omg how could this be?) a different experience with the game. So instead of listening with any modicum of civility you just attack, attack, attack the person. They somehow pissed on your precious game and made it not your game and that is sooo fucking wrong on sooo many levels you are gonna sooo show them the errors of their ways.
Quote from: Sommerjon;571454Because actual play is a bullshit response. It means nothing. It is 1000000000000000000000000% personal playstyle.
Well because dipshit, you don't know how every group plays..
I know that people don't play the game where the wizard has access to every spell that they can cast any time and be fully at 100% casting ability before every encounter. Not only that, but just so happens to have the perfect spells for the specific scenario already memorized. Because
that's what is being posited in the theorycrafting here, you blind dumbass.
Quote from: Benoist;571404What the fuck? Were you seriously under the delusion I would even consider anything you say seriously? Blimey. I guess I made the mistake of thinking you could understand that at least. Guess I was wrong.
Danger! Danger! Evasive maneuvers! Dive! Dive!
Quote from: Sommerjon;571454Because actual play is a bullshit response. It means nothing. It is 1000000000000000000000000% personal playstyle.
Those rules you keep talking about? They mean nothing if they do not come up at my actual gaming table, and when they do, all that matters is the precise circumstances in which they come into play, not some theoretical bullshit on a forum that's 100000000000000000000000% entitlement wank.
Quote from: Sommerjon;571454Well because dipshit, you don't know how every group plays.
Hey, dipshit! I know how I play the game. I can talk to you about it. What I don't care about is you making sweeping generalizations based on complete, 10000000000000000000000000000% entitlement wank.
Quote from: Sommerjon;571454What we see here is some people with(omg how could this be?) a different experience with the game. So instead of listening with any modicum of civility you just attack, attack, attack the person.
Kind of like what you've EVER done on this board, right?
Quote from: Sommerjon;571454They somehow pissed on your precious game and made it not your game and that is sooo fucking wrong on sooo many levels you are gonna sooo show them the errors of their ways.
We don't need to. You are ridiculing yourself well enough. Just keep going at it. Dance, monkey. Dance!
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571455I know that people don't play the game where the wizard has access to every spell that they can cast any time and be fully at 100% casting ability before every encounter. Not only that, but just so happens to have the perfect spells for the specific scenario already memorized. Because that's what is being posited in the theorycrafting here, you blind dumbass.
You make it sound like there are far too many spells that
need to be memorized to make the wizard awesome.
You're wrong.
Of course you don't see that because you're too busy whining and bitching about
theorycrafting to actually stop and think for a couple minutes.
I love the
disgust that archery and actual tactics elicits in these brain-damaged baboons.
"You Fucking Idiots Why WOULDN'T Any Fighter Immediately Charge An Opponent?!?!?!"
Spoiler
(http://steelandstone.wdfiles.com/local--files/warfare/pikes.jpg)
Quote from: Sommerjon;571459You make it sound like there are far too many spells that need to be memorized to make the wizard awesome.
You're wrong.
I'm not making it sound like anything you colossal fuckwit. Read what
they wrote. It's always presented as, "I can do this and that and that with spell this and that and that." It's
always under the assumption that the magic user has access to whatever spell fits that scenario perfectly.
QuoteOf course you don't see that because you're too busy whining and bitching about theorycrafting to actually stop and think for a couple minutes.
Thanks. You just broke my irony meter.
Quote from: Benoist;571457Those rules you keep talking about? They mean nothing if they do not come up at my actual gaming table, and when they do, all that matters is the precise circumstances in which they come into play, not some theoretical bullshit on a forum that's 100000000000000000000000% entitlement wank.
It's called expectation of play dumbass.
Quote from: Benoist;571457Hey, dipshit! I know how I play the game. I can talk to you about it. What I don't care about is you making sweeping generalizations based on complete, 10000000000000000000000000000% entitlement wank.
Hey, dipshit! I know how I play the game. I can talk to you about it. What I don't care about is you making sweeping generalizations based on complete, 10000000000000000000000000000% your playing the game wrong
Quote from: Benoist;571457Kind of like what you've EVER done on this board, right?
That is the way this board operates.
Quote from: Benoist;571457We don't need to. You are ridiculing yourself well enough. Just keep going at it. Dance, monkey. Dance!
So hows the game tape coming? Let us watch your
actual play.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;571426(http://www.stormbringer.net/images/elric/elric7.jpg)
Ok, look... This albino guy said he needed a few 'artful' pictures taken, it would be very tasteful, nothing to be ashamed of. I was young, the money was good... I'm not proud of the whole thing. I swear he had more clothes on than that at the beginning of the shoot.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571463I'm not making it sound like anything you colossal fuckwit. Read what they wrote. It's always presented as, "I can do this and that and that with spell this and that and that." It's always under the assumption that the magic user has access to whatever spell fits that scenario perfectly.
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHA. Ha. whew. Thanks needed that. You just broke my irony meter.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571463I'm not making it sound like anything you colossal fuckwit. Read what they wrote. It's always presented as, "I can do this and that and that with spell this and that and that." It's always under the assumption that the magic user has access to whatever spell fits that scenario perfectly.
And even then, the odds that they have wildly misinterpreted the spell is pretty high.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571443Huh. We're playing Forge of Fury right now. I suppose this explains why Karghaaz (a level 4 sorcerer) is a CR5.
Karghaaz is a Troglodyte Sorcerer 4. As a Troglodyte, he has 2 HD, and he is a CR 1 creature. If he had 1 HD, he would replace his humanoid Hit Die with his first class level (like a human or dwarf), but because he has 2 or more HD, he adds his class levels to them. He is CR 1 because he is a Troglodyte and +4 CR because of his four class levels for a total CR of 5.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571443Didn't you just get done saying class level = CR?
Mostly. But if you want the more nuanced explanation, I'm happy to oblige. CR is generally equal to Class Level for PCs, because usually they're non-ECL adjusted humanoid races. But it is possible to play a creature other than a human or demi-human. A centaur, for example. And a centaur, being more powerful than a human BEFORE class levels, is a higher CR than a human with the same levels. Ie, a 5th level human Fighter is a CR 5. A 5th level centaur Fighter is a CR 8 (CR 3 + 5 class levels). You can also increase the CR by adding templates. For example, a vampire is +2 CR.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571443Or why CR1 creatures like the large skeleton has 2d12 hp or the trogs have 2d8+4 hp. If they are CR1, they're 1st level right? Don't 1st level characters only roll 1 die for hit points?
If you allowed a player to be a skeleton (I don't know, maybe you have a spell called
awaken undead in your game and that's what your player wants). If that's the case, his ECL (effective character level) is equal to his total Hit Dice plus any level adjustment. It's theoretically possible to have a negative Level Adjustment for a template or a race, but I can't think of any examples. Assuming that a skeleton gets a +0 level adjustment (and we're just guessing here because there are no published guidelines) than a skeletal PC with 2 HD would count as a 2nd level character - so he could play as a skeleton with no class levels. I'm not sure which skeleton you're looking at with large size and 2 HD, but that'd be the way it would work.
PC levels are designed to equal +1 CR per level. Monster HD are not designed to work that way. The CR of an individual monster is calculated by both a combination of its HD and special abilities. There's information about calculating HD in the DMG if you'd like to study up on the issue.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571443Or Nightscale is a CR 4. With 10d12+20 hp, +4 init, AC: 19, Atk: +12/+7/+7/+7, +9 fort, +7 ref, +7 will saving throws.
Yep that sounds like a 4th level character right there.
You're just a little confused. With 10 HD, a young black dragon is a CR 5. The CR 4 (very young) black dragon has 7 HD. Dragons are known to be the most challenging within their CR range, sort of the way a wizard is known to be more challenging than a Fighter.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571443But either way, I noticed that no one answered my question. How would an 8th level magic user fare in those same scenarios?
I don't know what answer you want people to provide. There's enough Thunderdome happening right now that it doesn't seem a 'impartial validation' would be wise. But regardless of the outcome, I contend that the issue is about 'contributing in a meaningful way' because that's fun for me.
If you're saying that a Fighter shouldn't go and fight things, I'm saying a Fighter isn't fun. If you're expecting a novice player to play the Fighter because it doesn't have the kind of complicated options that a Wizard has, I think you should make it so it's good at using 'simple tactics'. I fail to see how 'not fighting' is supposed to be contributing, while everyone else in the party gets to 'fight' the monster. The other classes have an excuse for fighting at range, but the Fighter is expected to absorb some damage, so unless it's just standing there, someone is supposed to get close. If the Fighter doesn't volunteer, then the monster gets to pick. If the monster gets to pick anyone else, than it doesn't sound like the Fighter is doing 'his job' as defined by this group - that is, fighting. Swinging a sword (all day if necessary) and absorbing attacks.
So, feel free to explain what tactic the Fighter is supposed to be using against, say, a Behir other than going into melee (again, assuming a melee build), without letting it massacre the rest of the party. And then explain to me why that's retarded that the Fighter be expected to be able to do his job?
Quote from: Sommerjon;571466It's called expectation of play dumbass.
You're just forgetting a little something: the point at which the actual rubber hits the road. The real life testing of your "expectation of play". You know, the thing that's supposed to be the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT OF YOUR GAME DESIGN: ACTUAL PLAY.
You're welcome. :)
Quote from: Sommerjon;571466Hey, dipshit! I know how I play the game. I can talk to you about it. What I don't care about is you making sweeping generalizations based on complete, 10000000000000000000000000000% your playing the game wrong
You're under the delusion I want to correct your play style. You want to enjoy the fuck out of gaming-the-numbers and white-room scenarios? Be my fucking guest! NO. REALLY. Go ahead and play your game to your HEART'S CONTENT. Have fun! I mean it!
Just don't fucking come here to tell me the game must somehow be "fixed" and "the math is broken" bullshit just because you think you are the fucking center of the world, stare at your buddy's character sheet the whole game and cry because he can do 2 more points of damage than you each round. OH MY GOD HE IS MORE POWERFUL THAN ME MY FUN IS RUIIIINED. Are you done with the three year old entitlement now? No really. You can unplug the bullshit machine and actually play the fucking game for a minute? Thanks.
Quote from: Sommerjon;571466That is the way this board operates.
You sure seem to enjoy it that way and want to keep it going. Got to find some quotes for SA, I suppose.
Quote from: Sommerjon;571466So hows the game tape coming? Let us watch your actual play.
Hey, not a tape, but knock yourself out:
http://praemal.blogspot.com
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571472You're just a little confused. With 10 HD, a young black dragon is a CR 5. The CR 4 (very young) black dragon has 7 HD.
I pulled those #s directly from the module...
Must be a misprint. The module is also 3.0, so maybe I'm mistaken. You can refer to the d20 SRD if you'd like to verify the numbers.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dragonTrue.htm#blackDragon
Quote from: StormBringer;571471And even then, the odds that they have wildly misinterpreted the spell is pretty high.
Based on my real-life experience with a 3E powergamer and the thunderdome display of mastery of multiple spells, I have to agree.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571472The other classes have an excuse for fighting at range, but the Fighter is expected to absorb some damage...
...that is, fighting. Swinging a sword (all day if necessary) and absorbing attacks.
You've already racked up about $400 in tutoring fees from me already, so here is your free lesson:
Neither of the above statements encompass the entirety of a Fighter's role, despite what you think.
QuoteSo, feel free to explain what tactic the Fighter is supposed to be using against, say, a Behir other than going into melee (again, assuming a melee build)...
a) Missile weapons.
b) Assuming a melee build is your problem, not an issue with the rules. There is more to fighting than 'melee'. Stop speccing all the characters for ridiculously narrow situations, then bitching that they aren't contributing.
Ahem...
...why are Fighters allowed to pick missile weapon bonus feats in 3E?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571472If you're saying that a Fighter shouldn't go and fight things, I'm saying a Fighter isn't fun. If you're expecting a novice player to play the Fighter because it doesn't have the kind of complicated options that a Wizard has, I think you should make it so it's good at using 'simple tactics'. I fail to see how 'not fighting' is supposed to be contributing, while everyone else in the party gets to 'fight' the monster. The other classes have an excuse for fighting at range, but the Fighter is expected to absorb some damage, so unless it's just standing there, someone is supposed to get close. If the Fighter doesn't volunteer, then the monster gets to pick. If the monster gets to pick anyone else, than it doesn't sound like the Fighter is doing 'his job' as defined by this group - that is, fighting. Swinging a sword (all day if necessary) and absorbing attacks.
Are you... are you even reading what you write? Are you a sane poster? The fighter has more options than "suicidal charge!" or "read a magazine".
Read Magazine, level 1 at-will linguistic ability. HIT: Read a magazine. Gain 1d6 XP. Note that fighters are unable to complete crosswords, because they r dum, however please see "Complete Deconundrumiser" for the Crossword, Word Search, Picross and Join-The-Dots rule systems.
Quote from: Planet Algol;571480Based on my real-life experience with a 3E powergamer and the thunderdome display of mastery of multiple spells, I have to agree.
I need to go back through the Thunderdome threads and see how those are shaping up.
Quote from: Ladybird;571484Are you... are you even reading what you write? Are you a sane poster? The fighter has more options than "suicidal charge!" or "read a magazine".
It's awesome when players with that mentality encounter, say, a manticore and get their asses fucking handed to them while it emerges that
they don't even have a ranged weapon (not even a dagger) on their character sheet.
Apparently the D&D Fighter character class is based upon
Charge of the Light Brigade...
Spoiler
Ahem...
...3E Fighters may select missile weapon feats for their bonus feats.
Quote from: Planet Algol;571486It's awesome when players with that mentality encounter, say, a manticore and get their asses fucking handed to them while it emerges that they don't even have a ranged weapon (not even a dagger) on their character sheet.
From what I've seen, the 3.x/melee/fighters-suck kind expect that to happen and then use it as proof that the wizard is better 'cuz Fly.
Oh, it's a total mouth-to-your-own-anus shit ouroborous phenomenon.
I've been told that if a melee character invests resources in a ranged weapon that they're being stupid because it's important to specialize.
I've been told that if a melee character doesn't invest resources in a ranged weapon that they're being stupid because it's important to be prepared for all different types of encounters.
I've been told that if a Fighter engages a monster (like a Behir), he should be able to engage it in melee to keep it occupied so it doesn't, I don't know, swallow one of his team mates whole.
But then I've been told that if the Fighter engages the monster (you know, because he's supposed to be able to hold his own against monsters of the world) that he's being retarded.
My point is that the Fighter should be able to go toe-to-toe. An 8th (or 10th) level Fighter should be able to hold off a Behir long enough to help his party take it out.
But that's not what I see happening.
A high level fighter should be able to fight a troll with his bare hands.
But that's not what I see happening.
High level fighters don't make high level contributions. Other classes do. It may not bother you, but it sure bothers me. It's hard to like a class when they're effectively useless.
A summoned monster, even a weak one, can engage the Behir, and if it gets swallowed, you're not looking at purchasing a Resurrection. If you want Fighters that hide from enemies like a Rogue, well, you're playing a different type of game than I am.
"I've been told..."
(http://reeelapse.com/images/smilies/wank.gif)
Every version of D&D except 4th expects that the fighter classes should be able to lay down missile fire when the situation calls for it. Up until Unearthed Arcana fighter classes were the only ones who could even be proficient in bows (I may be excluding the 1e assassin). In 3e they're still the only classes who can use the best bows without taking a feat, and they only have to bring a bow along to be able to add that to their repertoire, so why not unless you are role-playing a fighter who considers missiles dishonorable? But that's a willful handicap of a very obvious non-lawyerly sort.
Quote from: Planet Algol;571494"I've been told..."
(http://reeelapse.com/images/smilies/wank.gif)
You want to look through 4000 posts to see where this comes up?
I mean, maybe you think those assertions are stupid. Would have been nice if someone who thinks the Fighter performs 'level-appropriately' would step in and tell the people who agree with them when they're being stupid.
But I'm very serious in my question.
The party is going to fight a Behir. The party is spread out. The monster is not going to stand there. He's going to move up and attack someone. He's got the movement to do it. If it's the wizard, the rogue, or the cleric, he's going to have an easy time swallowing them whole. His grapple modifier is +25. I leave it to you to compare what other classes might reasonably have at 8th level.
So, our erstwhile Fighter, the defender of the party, the one expected to take the blows so the rest of the team doesn't have to, what does he do? What should he do?
If he uses ranged weapons, the monster can go up and attack someone else. The Fighter doesn't have any abilities that keep the monster 'pinned down', so considering the Behir has 'dumb human' equivalent Intelligence, it probably is smart enough to start swallowing the weakest people first...
What option does he have that's better than 'go hit it with a sword and hope he distracts it long enough for everyone else to kill it'? You tell me.
Because that kind of situation comes up in games
all the time. And if you don't think it happens, I'd like to know why.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571492I've been told that if a melee character invests resources in a ranged weapon that they're being stupid because it's important to specialize.
I've been told that if a melee character doesn't invest resources in a ranged weapon that they're being stupid because it's important to be prepared for all different types of encounters.
I've been told that if a Fighter engages a monster (like a Behir), he should be able to engage it in melee to keep it occupied so it doesn't, I don't know, swallow one of his team mates whole.
But then I've been told that if the Fighter engages the monster (you know, because he's supposed to be able to hold his own against monsters of the world) that he's being retarded.
My point is that the Fighter should be able to go toe-to-toe. An 8th (or 10th) level Fighter should be able to hold off a Behir long enough to help his party take it out.
But that's not what I see happening.
A high level fighter should be able to fight a troll with his bare hands.
But that's not what I see happening.
High level fighters don't make high level contributions. Other classes do. It may not bother you, but it sure bothers me. It's hard to like a class when they're effectively useless.
A summoned monster, even a weak one, can engage the Behir, and if it gets swallowed, you're not looking at purchasing a Resurrection. If you want Fighters that hide from enemies like a Rogue, well, you're playing a different type of game than I am.
All of these confusing woes and worries can melt away if you play in a game where engaging the world is rewarded rather than engaging the rules.
From a character perspective, do you realize how fucked up it is to believe that your "job" involves taking hideous wounds from monsters. If encounters are approached with the characters as people rather than rules constructs with pre-set response programs then they will play out quite differently.
Not doing a suicidal charge into melee is not the same as cowering or doing nothing. From a common sense standpoint, a straight up fight is what you have left when everything else fails. It is perfectly sane and natural to want to kill something dangerous at range instead of giving it a chance to hurt you.
The kind of crying and bitching I see online led to the 4E flight rules, a sorry state of affairs. We regret to inform DMs of the world that flying monsters can no longer maintain their flight and chew gum at the same time because some melee build entitled idiot declared flying threats to be unfair. WTF? Really? Some fucking wanker can't be arsed to carry a bow so every flight capable monster has to land and hop now?
Basically, D&D needs to move away from builds and back to generate and play.
Man, I swear. It's like talking to a rainman.
DDW, you are aware that the idea that a fighter of 8th level "should be able to take on a Behir CR 8 solo" is based on the idea that... there are no "other party members" the Behir is targeting potentially, right? That you are actually fucking LYING to your teeth because you know damn well it's been the case from the very start of that side conversation?
I'm wondering sometimes if you actually believe in all that fucking bullshit that comes out of your fingertips like digital verbal diarrhea... but my bet is that you know exactly what it is you are doing.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;571500You want to look through 4000 posts to see where this comes up?
I mean, maybe you think those assertions are stupid. Would have been nice if someone who thinks the Fighter performs 'level-appropriately' would step in and tell the people who agree with them when they're being stupid.
But I'm very serious in my question.
The party is going to fight a Behir. The party is spread out. The monster is not going to stand there. He's going to move up and attack someone. He's got the movement to do it. If it's the wizard, the rogue, or the cleric, he's going to have an easy time swallowing them whole. His grapple modifier is +25. I leave it to you to compare what other classes might reasonably have at 8th level.
So, our erstwhile Fighter, the defender of the party, the one expected to take the blows so the rest of the team doesn't have to, what does he do? What should he do?
If he uses ranged weapons, the monster can go up and attack someone else. The Fighter doesn't have any abilities that keep the monster 'pinned down', so considering the Behir has 'dumb human' equivalent Intelligence, it probably is smart enough to start swallowing the weakest people first...
What option does he have that's better than 'go hit it with a sword and hope he distracts it long enough for everyone else to kill it'? You tell me.
Because that kind of situation comes up in games all the time. And if you don't think it happens, I'd like to know why.
If I was playing I would choose to attempt to avoid being anywhere near a Behir. They're freaking huge and spit lightning, no way I'm willingly getting into a scrimmage with one.
If my party encountered one in the wilderness we would spur our horses bloody trying to get the fuck away from it. If a party member's horse was killed or something else and they fell behind, well, what we do then would depend on A) What's the relationship between that PC and the other PCs & B) What magic items does that PC have on them.
Yes, when I've played we've had to abandon PCs to their fate multiple times. Shit happens, it happens in Sinbad movies and Jack Vance stories as well, so we have the perspective to appreciate it. It's one of the consequences of engaging in "capers."
"I'm sorry that your character died, but when the Tyrannosaur-Centaur threw a spear that killed your horse and than scooped up and swallowed your character I totally imagined it like something out of a Harryhausen movie. That was an awesome character death!"
Quote from: Planet Algol;571486It's awesome when players with that mentality encounter, say, a manticore and get their asses fucking handed to them while it emerges that they don't even have a ranged weapon (not even a dagger) on their character sheet.
The manticore was the monster that taught me AWAYS have a longbow whenever I play a fighter type. They can nasty for the unprepared.
...even worse is the mile-highticore, which, apart from it's lascivious anatomy (possessing two backs and combining the aspects of a manticore and a womanticore in a most inappropriate fashion) is also renowned for just dropping it's spikes from "mile-high."
A fighter adventuring without a range weapon is a complete idiot. And I'm not just talking about how it relates to actual fighting. A bow, a spear, even a dagger... those things come in handy during dungeon exploration. Very handy.
In AD&D spears are awesome for starting characters.
Even if your PC is a cleric, if your PC doesn't have a dagger among their possession they are an idiot.
"You have been swallowed by a giant fish..." "There is a noose strangling you" "If you win this pumpkin carving contest using only what you are carrying you can marry the princess and get a castle made of gold. If you lose you will be thrown, naked and bound, into the skin-eating weasel pit."
Eh. I was wrong, DeadDM was right: A level 8 character with player classes is a CR 8. That's what I get for not checking specific rules.
However, he and Lord Mistborn are still incorrect about their assertions to what that means (the Fighter should be able to win), because an equal challenge of level 8 party to CR 8 encounter should (in DeadDM's own words) drain 25% of the party's resources. In other words it has a damn good chance of killing at least one PC, or at least sucking enough attack and/or healing spells and other limited resources to reduce the party's capability as if they had lost that player.
So a direct match for one level 8 vs one CR 8 is a 100% fight. Which means the player is expected to lose roughly half the time, and to win by margins. Done for the day.
Thus, if out of three fights Little Timmy the Gimp wins one fight or two fights he is well within the margin of error for the small sample size.
In other words, once again: Even a badly made fighter with no more (useful) feats than an NPC warrior and mediocre magic item picks and no attempts at tactics can fight more or less exactly as expected against most level appropriate monsters at level 8.
Regardless of the side show about terminology and converting levels to CR...
I eagerly await Lord Timmy's next attempt to prove his case.
Quote from: Planet Algol;571573Even if your PC is a cleric, if your PC doesn't have a dagger among their possession they are an idiot.
"You have been swallowed by a giant fish..." "There is a noose strangling you" "If you win this pumpkin carving contest using only what you are carrying you can marry the princess and get a castle made of gold. If you lose you will be thrown, naked and bound, into the skin-eating weasel pit."
Daggers make awesome general purpose tools and everyone can be at least proficient in the (except the cleric maybe depending how the no edged weapon rule is interpreted).
Quote from: Spike;571575So a direct match for one level 8 vs one CR 8 is a 100% fight. Which means the player is expected to lose roughly half the time, and to win by margins. Done for the day.
The Same Game Test is very useful for this kind of thing. (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki:The_Same_Game_Test)
The Fighter class was run through the SGT by many players, and it overall lost more than 50% of the time. A Wizard, by contrast, overall won more than 50% of the time.
Quote from: Libertad;571607The Same Game Test is very useful for this kind of thing. (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki:The_Same_Game_Test)
The Fighter class was run through the SGT by many players, and it overall lost more than 50% of the time. A Wizard, by contrast, overall won more than 50% of the time.
I would have a good deal more confidence in that test if it were automated.
Quote from: StormBringer;571613I would have a good deal more confidence in that test if it were automated.
Really?
More confident if it were constrained by rigid judgements because a computer program isn't capable of considering the 'situational tactics' that a Fighter could use?
What a fucked up twilight world I've stumbled into, here.
I'd feel better about it if it weren't a list of random and occasionally vague 'encounter'.
I'm sure that if I really cared to I could set up a list of encounters, similarly defined, that would push the 'wizard balance' much lower. Or the 'Rogue balance'.
Its arbitrary and, if I understand the history of it, created by a biased observer to 'prove' his observation ex post facto. *
It isn't complex enough to be an actual test mechanism, and the arbitrary nature of the encounter lists is highly subjective and inclined to bias by simple alteration. At best it can serve to highlight the 'balance' of the list creators GMing style.
And, as I recall from reading it earlier, it also posits the 'never happens in real life ever' situation of not actually using a full character, just a class. Which is nonsense.
Quote from: Spike;571642I'd feel better about it if it weren't a list of random and occasionally vague 'encounter'.
I'm sure that if I really cared to I could set up a list of encounters, similarly defined, that would push the 'wizard balance' much lower. Or the 'Rogue balance'.
Its arbitrary and, if I understand the history of it, created by a biased observer to 'prove' his observation ex post facto. *
It isn't complex enough to be an actual test mechanism, and the arbitrary nature of the encounter lists is highly subjective and inclined to bias by simple alteration. At best it can serve to highlight the 'balance' of the list creators GMing style.
And, as I recall from reading it earlier, it also posits the 'never happens in real life ever' situation of not actually using a full character, just a class. Which is nonsense.
Those are the major problems with it in my view, as well. It's a good idea, don't get me wrong, but the implementation is susceptible to all kinds of bias and skewing.
Quote from: Marleycat;571137Opaopajr, the key to 3x is DM limits. It works fine with those. With decent limits it works like 2e deluxe. The thing is "denner" arguments aren't about limits or actual game play. It's all "white room" silliness.
It's not necessarily silliness. While the Gaming Den often takes the most extreme arguments of gaming the system in the most extreme of examples (such as elven children PCs taking Professsion and working for 100 years before the start of the game to get thousands of gp), 3rd Edition's magic system is a lot more powerful and versatile in comparison to other magic systems. It's very easy for a Druid PC, through no fault of his own or any attempts at deliberate min-maxing, can become more powerful than the party Fighter or Bard.
The game was specifically designed (http://montecook.mulehill.com/line-of-sight/ivory-tower-game-design) to reward "system mastery" by making certain options deliberately better than others without spelling it out to readers. The problem with this is that many DMs and players may not have a lot of time to comb through sourcebooks to find out what options and combinations suck/rock. DM judgment and judgment is overall a good thing to have, but an obtuse rules system doesn't help matters.
Quote from: Libertad;571755The game was specifically designed (http://montecook.mulehill.com/line-of-sight/ivory-tower-game-design) to reward "system mastery" by making certain options deliberately better than others without spelling it out to readers. The problem with this is that many DMs and players may not have a lot of time to comb through sourcebooks to find out what options and combinations suck/rock. DM judgment and judgment is overall a good thing to have, but an obtuse rules system doesn't help matters.
My (albeit limited) gaming experience in 3e backs this up. When we, as newer players, posted our characters, it was immediately clear that those people who memorized the dozens of splat books mentioned how unoptimized our characters were. For someone how knows all the splat books, he or she would have a huge advantage at the gaming table because the character would be so much more powerful. The 3e system totally rewards system mastery.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;571758My (albeit limited) gaming experience in 3e backs this up. When we, as newer players, posted our characters, it was immediately clear that those people who memorized the dozens of splat books mentioned how unoptimized our characters were. For someone how knows all the splat books, he or she would have a huge advantage at the gaming table because the character would be so much more powerful. The 3e system totally rewards system mastery.
It's not just splatbooks. It's also present in the Core Rules as well. And it's pretty easy to optimize a Core-only spellcaster, but not so much with non-spellcasters (you can optimize a Fighter, it just takes a lot more gold, resources, work, and sourcebooks). Spellcasters can switch out their spells through resting if they accidentally memorize crappy spells, but a Fighter, Rogue, or other noncaster is stuck with his options. This is last part another reason why these Fighter vs. Wizard threads arise so much on message boards. There's less room for error when you're a Fighter picking his bonus feats.
QuoteThe game was specifically designed to reward "system mastery" by making certain options deliberately better than others without spelling it out to readers. The problem with this is that many DMs and players may not have a lot of time to comb through sourcebooks to find out what options and combinations suck/rock. DM judgment and judgment is overall a good thing to have, but an obtuse rules system doesn't help matters.
This definitely is the truth hence why I said "limits" must be in place much like 2e but worse. A GM must say this is the list of sources you get and end of story no pass go or there will be issues. The sad thing is the worst offenders (Druid/Cleric) are in the corebook as core classes.
The other no go book is Divine Power and especially divine metamagic.
Quote from: Marleycat;571775This definitely is the truth hence why I said "limits" must be in place much like 2e but worse. A GM must say this is the list of sources you get and end of story no pass go or there will be issues. The sad thing is the worst offenders (Druid/Cleric) are in the corebook as core classes.
The other no go book is Divine Power and especially divine metamagic.
Divine Metamagic (Persist) is fine unless you let Nightsticks stack, which you shouldn't, Having Divine Power and Divine Favor up 24/7 only means you're keeping up with full bab classes (If they don't suck) at the cost of all your feats.
I play with min-maxers and all I've found need the banhammer is Leadership, Polymorph and associates, Greenbound Summoning, Planar Binding (lesser and greater) the Celerity line of spells, The Plannar Shepard and Frenzied Berzerker Prestige Class, and Shivering Touch
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;571823Divine Metamagic (Persist) is fine unless you let Nightsticks stack, which you shouldn't, Having Divine Power and Divine Favor up 24/7 only means you're keeping up with full bab classes (If they don't suck) at the cost of all your feats.
I play with min-maxers and all I've found need the banhammer is Leadership, Polymorph and associates, Greenbound Summoning, Planar Binding (lesser and greater) the Celerity line of spells, The Plannar Shepard and Frenzied Berzerker Prestige Class, and Shivering Touch
That's ALL? ha! As a dm I hate having to micromanage broken game systems. The more you need to ban, the more broken the game is.
I tend to only allow the uber splat book elements to boost an otherwise 'weak' character. I don't let 'strong' characters pile on broken crap in addition.
It's not 'fair' but does preserve some semblence of balance.
What amazes me, is that some players actualy enjoy having an overpowered character. Seems boring to me.
I was going to point out that there is nothing broken about Leadership. Its a flavor thing, some Gms and groups won't want to deal with it.
Others like it because that's how D&D used to get played, with henchmen settign off traps and shit.
Since its available to everyone, and Cohorts and followers are pretty hard coded to be weaker than the main characters, I'm not sure why its a game breaker.
Then Again, Lord Mistborn doesn't seem to operate on teh same level as the rest of us.
Quote from: Spike;571967I was going to point out that there is nothing broken about Leadership. Its a flavor thing, some Gms and groups won't want to deal with it.
Others like it because that's how D&D used to get played, with henchmen settign off traps and shit.
Since its available to everyone, and Cohorts and followers are pretty hard coded to be weaker than the main characters, I'm not sure why its a game breaker.
Then Again, Lord Mistborn doesn't seem to operate on teh same level as the rest of us.
Leadership SHOULD be a great tool to enhance roleplay, and many use it for that purpose.
However, SOME players use it in a very lame manner. For example, A rogue that has a sorceror cohort that essentially does nothing but cast invisibility on the rogue and the cohort. Must...have...sneak attack damage!!!
In regards to available to everyone, sure, but, as a dm, I don't really think a party of 5 characters, each with a cohort and lower level followers, and animal companions, plus summoned creatures is much fun.
Indeed, that's a lot of extra work. As a GM I'd probably group the followers of all the players and let the players just worry about their character and cohort (easier if they pick something like a pet or mount, both valid options for a cohort...), obviously.
Paring off members of the follower mob is the next step. A follower who serves as a librarian at the party's stronghold (and if you're playing a leadership game, why not have a stronghold) is still a follower, but now he's easier to handle administratively. If they insist every follower is a front line combatant (and loosing follower/cohorts damages your leadership rep so why?)... I'd just 'block em'. This group of followers is 8 level 1 warrior archers. They're all gonna shoot together (roll 8 d20 at once). This group of followers are sword and sheild guys, so they're gonna stand shoulder to shoulder like trained soldiers.* If the Players object, point out that their control over their followers is limited, and trying to get 30 collected level 1 npcs to run around, individually is both wasteful AND foolish, while letting them function in groups makes the game run smoother AND makes the followers more effective/durable.
If that doesn't work, send in the aura monsters and wipe them out a few times.
Quote from: Spike;571973Indeed, that's a lot of extra work. As a GM I'd probably group the followers of all the players and let the players just worry about their character and cohort (easier if they pick something like a pet or mount, both valid options for a cohort...), obviously.
Paring off members of the follower mob is the next step. A follower who serves as a librarian at the party's stronghold (and if you're playing a leadership game, why not have a stronghold) is still a follower, but now he's easier to handle administratively. If they insist every follower is a front line combatant (and loosing follower/cohorts damages your leadership rep so why?)... I'd just 'block em'. This group of followers is 8 level 1 warrior archers. They're all gonna shoot together (roll 8 d20 at once). This group of followers are sword and sheild guys, so they're gonna stand shoulder to shoulder like trained soldiers.* If the Players object, point out that their control over their followers is limited, and trying to get 30 collected level 1 npcs to run around, individually is both wasteful AND foolish, while letting them function in groups makes the game run smoother AND makes the followers more effective/durable.
If that doesn't work, send in the aura monsters and wipe them out a few times.
Mmmmm...Fireball.
Quote from: Bill;571976Mmmmm...Fireball.
mmmm...
yes, which is why 'combat followers' is generally a poor idea in D&D, at least without very careful thought.
Like Horses....
Quote from: Marleycat;572054Like Horses....
oooo....Poor Horses.
In the last Pathfinder game I played in, the characters were mostly samurai, and all had mounts.
Keeping the horses alive was a challenge.
Who needs a horse when I have a BMX bike.
Quote from: Bill;571964That's ALL? ha! As a dm I hate having to micromanage broken game systems. The more you need to ban, the more broken the game is.
That's all the broken shit over the entire print run of 3.5 and the most egregious offenders on that list are in core. I really don't get people who are still banging on the core only drum, if PC having a fuckload of options bothers you why are you playing 3rd edition.
Let me let you all in on a little minmaxer secret. The problem of 3.5 is not the broken options it's that the vast majority of options are shit. We in the CharOp comunity sifted though the dross to find the gems and we did not horde them for ourselves. We seved them up on a silver platter for all to enjoy. Yet we're shunned.
Congratulations though, you guys have won this round. You can have all the magical tea you want
Quote from: D&D NEXT DM guidelinesHere’s another secret: You don’t actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result.You’ll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player’s) squares pretty well with the set DCs
presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the middle teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls
a 16 or better, there’s usually little question that the character succeeds.
Your players will never know.
;_;
Quote from: D&D NEXT DM guidelinesHere's another secret: You don't actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result. You'll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player's) squares pretty well with the set DCs presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the middle teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls a 16 or better, there's usually little question that the character succeeds. Your players will never know.
Lolwut.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572108That's all the broken shit over the entire print run of 3.5 and the most egregious offenders on that list are in core. I really don't get people who are still banging on the core only drum, if PC having a fuckload of options bothers you why are you playing 3rd edition.
Let me let you all in on a little minmaxer secret. The problem of 3.5 is not the broken options it's that the vast majority of options are shit. We in the CharOp comunity sifted though the dross to find the gems and we did not horde them for ourselves. We seved them up on a silver platter for all to enjoy. Yet we're shunned.
Congratulations though, you guys have won this round. You can have all the magical tea you want
;_;
In concept I agree that the 'lame' options are the problem.
I would prefer a game to be somewhat balanced out of the box. The fact that a game has 'overly useless' options and 'overly effective' options is not good, in my opinion.
As for options, I want lots of options. What I don't enjoy, is having charcaters of such gross disparity in effectiveness that one player feels useless. Or one player steals the show. Its simply not fun.
Finding the gems is trivial; easy. Powergaming a build is simple.
But once those builds are in the game, they ruin the fun.
I have yet to see even once in all my years of dnd gaming, a single campaign where powergamed characters did not ruin the fun.
I am sure someone out there enjoys that style of play, but It does not really work for me.
3E would be my last choice of dnd versions to play. All versions have powergamer builds though.
Quote from: D&D NEXT DM guidelinesHere’s another secret: You don’t actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result.You’ll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player’s) squares pretty well with the set DCs presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the middle teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls a 16 or better, there’s usually little question that the character succeeds. Your players will never know.
Mein Gott in Himmel! If you're gonna just decide off the top of your head that it's a 15, why not just say 15? If you were thinking it needs a 15, why would you allow a 14 to succeed or 16 to fail? If you actually have no idea and choose the number randomly after the roll based on some intangible like if the gamer is a hot chick with a thin shirt, then you should masturbate more and get another hobby.
This idea comes from someone who knows absolutely NOTHING about the older versions of D&D listening to ignorant fucks going on about MTP and decided that since that's what older D&D apparently was, we should "bring it back".
Gotta love self-fulfilling prophecies.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572060Who needs a horse when I have a BMX bike.
Too bad your partner overshadows
everything you do.
Quote from: CRKrueger;572127Mein Gott in Himmel! If you're gonna just decide off the top of your head that it's a 15, why not just say 15? If you were thinking it needs a 15, why would you allow a 14 to succeed or 16 to fail? If you actually have no idea and choose the number randomly after the roll based on some intangible like if the gamer is a hot chick with a thin shirt, then you should masturbate more and get another hobby.
This idea comes from someone who knows absolutely NOTHING about the older versions of D&D listening to ignorant fucks going on about MTP and decided that since that's what older D&D apparently was, we should "bring it back".
Gotta love self-fulfilling prophecies.
No shit. I can see the barest glimmer of what they are trying to say here: you don't need ten thousand pages of every possible DC for every possible action. Make it up on the fly, you won't bring down the wrath of the RNG.
Deciding the DC after they roll? Dumb, dumb,
dumb. This is one of the hallmarks of douchebag DMs. I am having a hard time coming up with a
worse piece of advice than this.
Quote from: StormBringer;572128Too bad your partner overshadows everything you do.
The funniest thing about Angel Summoner/BMX bandit is that, and why doesn't this surprise anyone, it completely ignores any restrictions on power or even the role-playing element. If I can summon Angels all day long to do my bidding, I had better make sure there's nothing I'm doing that the Angel (or his boss) doesn't like. You want to keep your character in line with the version of L/G as practiced by Angels? Good luck. :D
I guess AS/BB is the perfect representation of 3rd Edition. :p ;)
Quote from: CRKrueger;572131The funniest thing about Angel Summoner/BMX bandit is that, and why doesn't this surprise anyone, it completely ignores any restrictions on power or even the role-playing element. If I can summon Angels all day long to do my bidding, I had better make sure there's nothing I'm doing that the Angel (or his boss) doesn't like. You want to keep your character in line with the version of L/G as practiced by Angels? Good luck. :D
I guess AS/BB is the perfect representation of 3rd Edition. :p ;)
3.x fans do seem to bring it up with predictable regularity, almost like some kind of lost etiquette. Doff your hat, bow to the ladies individually, remove your gloves one at a time, bring up Angel Summoner.
Quote from: StormBringer;5721323.x fans do seem to bring it up with predictable regularity, almost like some kind of lost etiquette. Doff your hat, bow to the ladies individually, remove your gloves one at a time, bring up Angel Summoner.
But, to be fair, with 3.5e in "Full-Splat" mode using RAW, a Caster can curbstomp a non-caster pretty hard.
I never had an argument with that contention, my argument was the contention that BMX was endemic to all forms of D&D. IMO/IME, it didn't become a game-breaking problem until WotC.
Also I agree with Ben that with a good GM, you can prevent 3.5e from becoming BMX.
However, I also agree with Gleichman and others who say that doesn't excuse the poor design to begin with.
Quote from: CRKrueger;572138But, to be fair, with 3.5e in "Full-Splat" mode using RAW, a Caster can curbstomp a non-caster pretty hard.
I never had an argument with that contention, my argument was the contention that BMX was endemic to all forms of D&D. IMO/IME, it didn't become a game-breaking problem until WotC.
Also I agree with Ben that with a good GM, you can prevent 3.5e from becoming BMX.
However, I also agree with Gleichman and others who say that doesn't excuse the poor design to begin with.
No arguments.
What's BMX stand for (beyond the bike of course).
Quote from: Marleycat;572160What's BMX stand for (beyond the bike of course).
I always thought it was shorthand for Angel Summoner / BMX Bandit...
Quote from: Marleycat;572160What's BMX stand for (beyond the bike of course).
Shorthand for "Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit" a youtube video spoof meant to highlight the overpowered nature of Wizards compared to Fighters in 3e. So, I guess literally, the bike. :D
Totally off topic, but CRK, have you by chance seen the entire image of your avatar? Most people never saw the pencil outline of the bottom half that was never included on the back of the module because it was deemed too sexist.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;572164Totally off topic, but CRK, have you by chance seen the entire image of your avatar? Most people never saw the pencil outline of the bottom half that was never included on the back of the module because it was deemed too sexist.
What, does it have a player fellating the guy with a sign that says "Can I have a ShadowDancer oh GodLikeGM?"
So I guess, no, I haven't seen it, just the back of the module. :D
Aha found it. Big Picture, Page-Breaking NSFW warning.
Spoiler
(https://nvwuhq.blu.livefilestore.com/y1puQdx1bsCXIjfGaWWyGbFKz3_iwOwVSAq9Ndz81Ql5aoppap_Nn01dh26DLS7WWClAAM4nJF9ImVSDknme0-DK8lD01sXakh5/Whiteplumeorig.jpg?psid=1)
BlackRazor was a C/N sword as I recall, Bitch better be naked and crawling. Seriously though, pretty sure he would have tossed on a chainmail bikini if they wanted the whole thing.
BTW: I love people who are stupid enough to lock Flickr so you can't download pictures not realizing you can download the whole goddamn page and get them all.
Quote from: Bill;572112What I don't enjoy, is having charcaters of such gross disparity in effectiveness that one player feels useless. Or one player steals the show. Its simply not fun.
Finding the gems is trivial; easy. Powergaming a build is simple.
But once those builds are in the game, they ruin the fun.
I have yet to see even once in all my years of dnd gaming, a single campaign where powergamed characters did not ruin the fun.
I am sure someone out there enjoys that style of play, but It does not really work for me.
3E would be my last choice of dnd versions to play. All versions have powergamer builds though.
Powergaming can be done well if all the players are in on it, and the DM ups the challenges appropriately. The real problems in 3.X with powergaming are poor communication and selfish behavior between players, and accidental gimping/gamebreakers.
Quote from: Marleycat;572160What's BMX stand for (beyond the bike of course).
Bicycle motocross.
Quote from: D&D NEXT DM guidelinesHere's another secret: You don't actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result.You'll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player's) squares pretty well with the set DCs presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the middle teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls a 16 or better, there's usually little question that the character succeeds. Your players will never know.
Are you fucking kidding me?!
Quote from: Black Vulmea;572283Are you fucking kidding me?!
This is the only reasonable response.
QuoteYour players will never know.
Well, they would now. Christ.
Quote from: Planet Algol;572300Well, they would now. Christ.
This shit can't go unchallenged.
Also, word from GenCon playtests by guys like Matt Colville is that the current playtest build plays "...like 2.5".
I don't believe that.
"Your players will never know" is now my catchphrase for railroading/t-ball exercises in D&D drag. "It's not fun for the players when they fail, and if you, the DM, can make the game fun your players will never know."
Do you think it is too soon for starting to hope that they do thing right in 6th edition?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;572283Are you fucking kidding me?!
I haven't got to the DMs guidelines yet but this is hilarious.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;572283Are you fucking kidding me?!
That doesgive me some bad flashbacks to the old fudging rules for storyline stuff they used to put in many of the 2E books.
Quote from: Libertad;572263Powergaming can be done well if all the players are in on it, and the DM ups the challenges appropriately. The real problems in 3.X with powergaming are poor communication and selfish behavior between players, and accidental gimping/gamebreakers.
Exactly.
"Originally Posted by D&D NEXT DM guidelines
Here's another secret: You don't actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result.You'll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player's) squares pretty well with the set DCs presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the middle teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls a 16 or better, there's usually little question that the character succeeds. Your players will never know."
Ok, I disagree with this, and think setting DC's before an action is the way to go.
The only defemse of the above I can make, is that a DM should not feel bound by the skill roll results if the results make no sense
Limited, well thought out tweaking of the results is good.
Constant tweaking will negatively impact a game in most cases.
Why even have a skill rating if the number is rarely used?
Quote from: Bill;572356Why even have a skill rating if the number is rarely used?
Two reasons.
Benchmark for checks.
Gives people who like numbers something to see.
Quote from: Bill;572356"Originally Posted by D&D NEXT DM guidelines
Here’s another secret: You don’t actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the check. Decide whether the character succeeds based on the check result.You’ll probably find that your gut feeling (and the player’s) squares pretty well with the set DCs presented here. A number below 10 is never going to make it. A number in the low teens is good enough for an easy task. A number in the middle teens will succeed at a moderate task. And when a player rolls a 16 or better, there’s usually little question that the character succeeds. Your players will never know."
This is the sort of passage that makes me wonder if these guys actually played any role playing game prior to 2000. That smacks of complete incompetence, like taking all the wrong cues from the experiences of other gamers and coming up with completely fucked up conclusions about their play styles. This gives me a headache, like I'd have to give a role playing 101 course to the so-called pros who are supposed to design the new iteration of the game of all things. I just ... I don't know what these guys think they are doing.
Quote from: Benoist;572557This is the sort of passage that makes me wonder if these guys actually played any role playing game prior to 2000. That smacks of complete incompetence, like taking all the wrong cues from the experiences of other gamers and coming up with completely fucked up conclusions about their play styles. This gives me a headache, like I'd have to give a role playing 101 course to the so-called pros who are supposed to design the new iteration of the game of all things. I just ... I don't know what these guys think they are doing.
you're the guys banging on about playing the game not the rules.
Quote from: D&D Next DM guidelinesAs a DM, you could memorize these guidelines, apply them flawlessly, and still miss out on the point of D&D. Unlike other games, D&D is a flexible set of guidelines, not a rigid set of laws.
Quote from: D&D Next DM guidelinesChecks: When a player makes a check, invite him or her to describe the character’s action. If the player makes clever use of the situation in the description, consider either granting an automatic success or advantage on the check.
Quote from: D&D Next DM guidelinesAs a DM, remember that the dice are like the rules. They’re a tool to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player’s action is automatically successful, even if the DC would normally be somewhere above 20. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform even the easiest task into an impossibility.
The dice are neutral arbiters. They come into play when success and failure are far from clear. Think of them as impartial judges, ready to dispense a yes or no answer based on a character’s bonus and the DC you have selected. The dice don’t run the game. You do.
This is what you have wrought grognards, enjoy it.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572643you're the guys banging on about playing the game not the rules.
This is what you have wrought grognards, enjoy it.
There is a difference between knowing when to use the dice, and fudging to get what you want. My problem with the passage originally posted is it appears to be an endorsement of fudging. That is something I have never been a fan of. Rules light, I love. Systems where the GM can cobble together an easy mechanical resolution on the fly, also appeals to me. But I do think rolls are an important part of the game and when you make them, you ought to stick to the result (barring those rare instances where the dice would produce something that simply makes no sense). To me fairness to the players is important. So when I do something like set a TN, I do have a specific number in mind the players are supposed to meet.
Now I haven't seen the new playtest document, so all I going by is that one passage. The ones you added do seem to provide some needed context. But I do think it is important not to paint all of us with a broad brush here. While I don't push for intricate procedures for everything, when I do employ a procedure, I follow it pretty consistently in order to be fair. And when I alter a procedure or make one up on the fly, I typically explain it to my players, stating what consitutes success and failure. I hate being in games where I might as well not be rolling.
Quote from: D&D Next DM guidelinesAs a DM, you could memorize these guidelines, apply them flawlessly, and still miss out on the point of D&D. Unlike other games, D&D is a flexible set of guidelines, not a rigid set of laws.
Quote from: D&D Next DM guidelinesChecks: When a player makes a check, invite him or her to describe the character's action. If the player makes clever use of the situation in the description, consider either granting an automatic success or advantage on the check.
Quote from: D&D Next DM guidelinesAs a DM, remember that the dice are like the rules. They're a tool to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful, even if the DC would normally be somewhere above 20. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform even the easiest task into an impossibility.
The dice are neutral arbiters. They come into play when success and failure are far from clear. Think of them as impartial judges, ready to dispense a yes or no answer based on a character's bonus and the DC you have selected. The dice don't run the game. You do.
I have no problem with these quotes.
If you don't see the difference, I can't do much for you.
Quote from: Benoist;572656I have no problem with these quotes.
If you don't see the difference, I can't do much for you.
K says it best.
Quote from: KThe problem with Magic Tea Party is that it disempowers players. For a role-playing game, being empowered is the least I expect from the experience.
Crunchy rule sets create reproducible results, and that equals player involvement. Knowing when you can do a thing without having to ask the MC gives the players the feeling that the game world is real and that they have the power to do things in that world. That's good for an RPG.
The rules will always be incomplete for many reasons, not the least is that too many rules are just as disempowering as too many. MTP fills those gaps and allows the players the freedom to go off-book with cool ideas, but they are at no point the ideal that any game system should strive for.
None of us object people to playing Magic Tea Party, some of us just object to people trying to sell it to us for money.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572678K says it best.
It's funny you'd say that after he was shown why that comment is flat out wrong.
Funny, but not surprising.
Only 828 to go! It's looking really good Black Vulmea.:D
What?!?
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572678K says it best.
None of us object people to playing Magic Tea Party, some of us just object to people trying to sell it to us for money.
I guess you're all good with WoW because what you want isn't an rpg . That is ok you have your basement and some KY jelly so have at it boy. I do mean boy in the most serious terms also, no joke. Unless you mean yourself of course? I can't figure out who is the most retarded between you Three Musketeers . DeadDm isn't there yet but sometimes I wonder if I am wrong ....you three? No question, you make it too easy FYI.
Quote from: Marleycat;572714II can't figure out who is the most retarded between you Three Musketeers . DeadDm isn't there yet but sometimes I wonder if I am wrong ....you three? No question, you make it too easy FYI.
I can't figure out if not thinking I'm retarded (yet) is supposed to be a compliment or an insult.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;572716I can't figure out if not thinking I'm retarded (yet) is supposed to be a compliment or an insult.
Don't worry she's working on her AKP.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;572678K says it best.
.
Didn't you say, in your very first post that you weren't a Denner?
I mean, you followed that by pretty much using five or six phrases that are major Denner jargon.
But now quoting K? Innit he like the number two guy on The Den?
You SURE you're not a denner?
I mean... you wouldn't... LIE to us, would you? :eek:
Quote from: Spike;572858Didn't you say, in your very first post that you weren't a Denner?
...
You SURE you're not a denner?
Not sure what constitutes a Denner, but he is new to TGD, joining there after here.
Could always be one of the people we banned before trying to come back under a new name of course.
In practice, I think it's just that we come up with a greater variety of cool sayings and fun names for shit per capita than most places, so people want to use them. I actually think that's not very productive when dealing with people who have a fundamental ignorance of the base assumptions that we operate on, such as here.
As for quoting K... so, K's a smart guy, smart guys often say things that are right and well phrased. If you want to adequately address an issue, quoting K might very well be a good way of doing so.
Yeah, that's what I do when I join a couple of forums, immediately pick the jargon of one place and take it to another, and even quote people and move that quote to another forum.
That's what all newbies do, actually.
Quote from: Kaelik;572867As for quoting K... so, K's a smart guy, smart guys often say things that are right and well phrased. If you want to adequately address an issue, quoting K might very well be a good way of doing so.
Oh, sure. I wasn't trying to mock him for his choice of quotes. I'm not sure I agree 100% with K there, maybe 50-60%... maybe more...
No, it was the loud protestation of... innocence?... he started his posting career with followed by not just full throated agreement with the entire Den philosophy (which would be natural as a Charop) but his heavy use of Den Jargon in the very same post... and then quoting K.
Its the false flag thing that I was mocking.
As for his posting history, well that like saying "I'm a Republican, but I've voted for a democrat in the last five elections."
Doesn't really matter how you registered, then, does it? You're a democrat, why be ashamed?
Well, it's not being a democrat here...more like a NAMBLA officer.
So yeah, it's not something you wanna advertise. Even when people point out all the odd pictures of boys on your walls and notice Sandusky has been on your speed-dial for years...you still just wanna deny.
Hmmm, deny. Den-y. Might be something in that.
Quote from: Doom;572900Well, it's not being a democrat here...more like a NAMBLA officer.
So yeah, it's not something you wanna advertise. Even when people point out all the odd pictures of boys on your walls and notice Sandusky has been on your speed-dial for years...you still just wanna deny.
Hmmm, deny. Den-y. Might be something in that.
Hilarious coming from you Doom.
So does that make you over 150 times as attracted to children as Mistborn?
After all, you have more than 150 times as many posts on TGD than he does.
Quote from: Kaelik;572909Hilarious coming from you Doom.
So does that make you over 150 times as attracted to children as Mistborn?
After all, you have more than 150 times as many posts on TGD than he does.
Thanks Kaelik, you just confirmed what I thought. As fact even. Thank you for letting me not have to check out the Den is case my hunch was wrong.:)
Quote from: Marleycat;572706Only 828 to go!
It's people like you wot cause unrest.
;)
Quote from: Sommerjon;572720Don't worry she's working on her AKP.
You should explain the joke so that I might actually understand the punchline. Much like yourself in fact.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;572933It's people like you wot cause unrest.
;)
You wound me! Should I take you at your word? Nay, I understand humor sorry. :D
Edit: You know what the best thing about this thread and the 3e asshole one is? They finally use "her" in their responses to call me stupid. That was some hard work to make clear.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;572716I can't figure out if not thinking I'm retarded (yet) is supposed to be a compliment or an insult.
Compliment of course. I have hope for you still. Your mindset is way too rulesy but you are open to other points of view.
Quote from: Marleycat;572941Compliment of course. I have hope for you still.
*snort*
You'll be sorely disappointed.
Quote from: Benoist;572944*snort*
You'll be sorely disappointed.
Probably but let him do it.
Quote from: Marleycat;572941Compliment of course. I have hope for you still. Your mindset is way too rulesy but you are open to other points of view.
Let me take a moment amidst the shit-flinging to point out that, while I haven't read his every single post, deadDMwalking seems to be a fairly polite guys who appears to be argüing his POV in perfect good faith, as objectively as possible (for something mired in subjective impressions and experiences), and for the most part steering clear of blanket assumptions about other people's playstyles. I salute you, sir, and hope your fellows take a page from your posting style. The Internet would be a finer place if everyone argüed like you do.
:hatsoff:
Credit where credit is due.
You know, you actually have to have an open mind in order to give people a chance. Even if you think they will fail.
Quote from: Marleycat;572932Thanks Kaelik, you just confirmed what I thought. As fact even. Thank you for letting me not have to check out the Den is case my hunch was wrong.:)
Frank does have some fairly awesome things to say at times, so it's not a complete write-off....although he doesn't post there that much any more.
On the other hand, there are so many posters there that give responses so far removed from what the known humans type that it's reasonable to guess they're some type of software, a troll-bot or something. Not that that explains when they go to other forums to post, oblivious to everyone pointing at them and laughing.
Quote from: jeff37923;572987You know, you actually have to have an open mind in order to give people a chance. Even if you think they will fail.
I'm Catholic. There is ALWAYS an open door for me to change my mind about somebody initially acting like a jerk.
Now I must be living in an alternate reality compared to the Butcher, because I do not remember the DDMW ever engaging in an argument in good faith on this board. Shifting goal posts, rewriting other people's arguments to fit his premises, obfuscation, play on words, sure, that I remember clearly. An argument in good faith? Nope. Haven't seen it yet on his part.
Given that experience, I'm led to believe that any peace offering to DDMW and his pals will just be exploited in future arguments. It's a rhetorical tool. No good faith involved. I would of course love to be proven wrong. Time will tell I suppose.
Quote from: Benoist;573044Now I must be living in an alternate reality compared to the Butcher, because I do not remember the DDMW ever engaging in an argument in good faith on this board. Shifting goal posts, rewriting other people's arguments to fit his premises, obfuscation, play on words, sure, that I remember clearly. An argument in good faith? Nope. Haven't seen it yet on his part.
Given that experience, I'm led to believe that any peace offering to DDMW and his pals will just be exploited in future arguments. It's a rhetorical tool. No good faith involved. I would of course love to be proven wrong. Time will tell I suppose.
Exactly. And that is why those jackasses can go back to the kid's table and shut the hell up.
The Butcher must have missed the part where I called Stormbringer a dumbass over and over again. I haven't done it in awhile, but I certainly haven't changed my mind on that.
In the 4000+ posts in this thread, I've been trying to clarify my position. To recap: I like Fighters. If Fighters could be effective, I'd be pretty happy. I don't think they need to be 'super-powered' to be effective, but they need more than they have to contribute in a level-appropriate away to a broad range of challenges. They fail to effectively deal with 'combat' encounters, which is the area where it seems primary effort has been put into making them competent. Effectiveness in combat is supposed to justify not being effective anywhere else. While that itself is pretty stupid, since they're not particularly effective in combat it's doubly unfair.
There are people that think that 'mundane fighters' need to be removed from the game because any time someone suggests making them effective, people call it 'weaboo' or if it is 'mundane' ask, 'why can't anyone else do that' or at least, try to do it.
Basically, anything cool that the Fighter might hope to do is hardly unique. A +4 to damage from Specialization plus Improved Specialization isn't enough - especially if you want your Fighters to use a variety of weapons and tactics.
I don't have any peace offerings to make. And I have no plans to 'go to the kids table'. It's a topic I care about, so I'll keep trying to make my point. I'll keep listening to other people's opinions, but so far, there hasn't been anything presented that fundamentally challenges my position.
If balance is good, and Fighters aren't balanced, than balancing fighters is good.
I have not seen anyone provide a good explanation for why balance (reasonable balance - not everyone doing the exact same thing) would be a bad thing. I have not seen anyone provide any explanation for why the Fighter is actually balanced. Claiming that he can do things that aren't on his character sheet (which everyone else can ALSO do) just means that other characters can do that plus 'hit the buttons on their sheet'.
I certainly understand that not everyone accepts my position. Quite the contrary. But I fail to understand how they think they've advanced an argument that addresses my points or clearly rebuts them. The closest I've seen is an appeal to the masses 'everyone here disagrees with you - you must be wrong, and an idiot to boot'. But whatever, those who have eyes to see will see. Those who have ears to hear will hear.
Quote from: Doom;573017Frank does have some fairly awesome things to say at times, so it's not a complete write-off....although he doesn't post there that much any more.
On the other hand, there are so many posters that give responses so far removed from what the known humans type that it's reasonable to guess they're some type of software, a troll-bot or something. Not that that explains when they go to other forums to post, oblivious to everyone pointing at them and laughing.
I do agree that Frank does say good things most times but even he can be horribly wrong at times. But he is a good read for all of that.
I have said many times, I am fine with baking in math within the fighter's attacks to make sure they keep up in most peoples' minds. All I am against is giving them special powers or quasi spells to make them function more like wizards.
My feeling is do something like the following:
Only give fighters multiple attacks (preferably two). Give them a built in damage bonus that goes up with level. Make sure their attack bonus is sufficiently high. Give them a large quantity of hp (by the same token make sure the wizard doesn't have many). Give them stuff like DR as they level.
Other thinggs that help balance out spell casters is setting appropriate casting times, having things like spell interupts, making some of the more powerful spells dangerous for the caster and not 100% accurate.
I happen to think an edition like 2E does a pretty decent job of this sort of thing (though I have said time and again, it isn't meant to be balanced at each step of the game). You could easily balance it more and tighten some of this.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573067I have said many times, I am fine with baking in math within the fighter's attacks to make sure they keep up in most peoples' minds. All I am against is giving them special powers or quasi spells to make them function more like wizards.
And I don't really disagree with you. Specific prescriptions may be different, but the diagnosis is largely the same.
Also, you've made it clear that you're okay with the Wizard being weaker at low-levels and stronger at high-levels. That's not an opinion that I share, but I can respect it. One reason I consider it an issue is that not all campaigns progress through all levels. Heck, even if you're doing the 'start as 1 level lower than your last character' you could advance to 12th level Fighter, then come back as an 11th level Wizard - skipping all the 'I suck at 1st level' stuff and just getting straight to the 'I'm a godling and can rule the world'.
While I think an effective Fighter would be a big improvement, I do see Kaelik's point as well.
If a Fighter is 'really good' at hitting something with a sword, but everyone else ALSO hits things with a sword (or can) then while the Fighter might have a BETTER chance to do something to the target, everyone should reasonably have SOME chance, right?
So, let's say I wanted to give the Fighter a chance to hit an opponent and stun him. First off, people might say that makes the monk useless, and it probably does. But if we're okay with that, then comes the question - why can't a rogue also stun by hitting an opponent?
These same people seem okay with a rogue getting sneak attack, and nobody else getting it (not even the fighter) but it is really just as mundane a schtick. If a rogue can stab someone for extra damage, why can't a Fighter?
Largely, people seem to be unwilling to allow the Fighter to have 'special abilities' because he is 'totally mundane'. Other 'mundane classes' aren't given as hard of a time, and I don't really understand why not.
So, if nobody is willing to let the Fighter do anything neat, it might be sensible to abandon the Fighter and replace him with a Shadow Lord.
That's not what I want, but I can't seem to convince other people that like the idea of a Fighter that he underperforms at high levels and that he lacks abilities, particularly level-appropriate abilities at high levels.
That part surprises me, but basically these 4000+ posts have served to make Kaelik's point of view sound more reasonable and Stormbringer's point of view less reasonable. The possibility of a middle-ground solution seems remote, at best.
But the reason this thread was so worthwhile was for the possible influence it might have on D&D Next. That's looking like such a clusterfuck right now that this issue may be small potatoes.
A fighter who does a lot of damage in a single hit or can attack two foes when others can't, is doing something "neat" in my opinion. That is his schtick. Now I don't expect kailik to share my view. Clearly he wants something very different than I do from the fighter, but what he wants is just as unnatractive to me as the old school fighter is to him.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573091A fighter who does a lot of damage in a single hit or can attack two foes when others can't, is doing something "neat" in my opinion. That is his schtick. Now I don't expect kailik to share my view. Clearly he wants something very different than I do from the fighter, but what he wants is just as unnatractive to me as the old school fighter is to him.
Sure, but compare to a rogue with sneak attack. I don't see many Fighters dealing anything like +5d6 per hit at 10th level (in addition to normal base damage).
But others have pointed out that evocation is a less powerful school in 3rd than in 2nd (I mean people that are referred to as the OSR mafia in fun) because of hit point bloat.
A Fighter that does some pretty significant damage in 3.5 still may not compare to a Wizard that can turn a powerful opponent into toast with a single spell.
For example, there's not really any reason a Fighter couldn't have a DEATHSTRIKE (like the Assassin) around the same time that a Wizard has
finger of death.
The reason that hasn't happened is:
1) The designers haven't really figured out a non-gamist reason why a 9th level Fighter should be able to deathstrike someone with a sword blow but a 1st level Fighter can't.
2) If the Fighter doesn't rely on a limited resource (like spell slots) there's no reason he couldn't deathstrike everyone all the time.
But there are ways to do that...
For example, to deal a deathstrike (which would allow a save) you might have to use a full action - so instead of 3 attacks at +11/+6/+1, maybe you have to do a single attack. Then you'd only use it against opponents that you begin your turn adjacent to and that you have a reasonable chance of dropping faster by forcing saves than by just chopping them multiple times...
That kind of thing is just one kind of possibility - but it's the kind of thing that even though it is 'totally mundane' and available to other classes without relying on 'magic', people don't feel comfortable giving to the Fighter.
I don't understand why the Fighter can't do anything other classes can do, even if it doesn't involve magic and it does involve using a weapon (the area a Fighter is supposed to be best at) but people think that other classes should be able to do what Fighters do.
Maybe it comes from so many gamers having experience with 'real martial arts' like fencing. If you can imagine doing something in real life that a Fighter ought to be able to do, it's easy to imagine anyone else doing it. But if you can't imagine yourself doing it, it's hard to imagine the Fighter doing it. So Fighters don't get sneak attack, but Rogue's are just as good at getting critical hits.
DeadDM: I think there are all kinds of problems with the 3E rogue. I was thinking more of the difference in 2e where rogues are not terribly good in combat.
But in future editions the math can be set quite easily I think. I prefer an approach to rogues that makes backstabbing easier to arrange in non combat situations but very hard to pull off once the fight gets going. Then I think whatever that bonus happens to be it doesn't tred on the fighter so much.
Also how much of an issue that even ends depends greatly on what the bonus to damage is at fighters get. Since I am proposing a big damage bonus and multiple attacks for fighters, they should be doing a heck of a lot more damage than the rogue in an average combat round.
Agreed. They should be, but are not.
In the sense that you agree that Fighters should be good at fighting, and that in 3.5 they pretty much aren't, we don't really have a point of dispute.
My impression is that most of the people watching and/or participating in this thread still insist that Fighters are able to hold their own.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573105Agreed. They should be, but are not.
In the sense that you agree that Fighters should be good at fighting, and that in 3.5 they pretty much aren't, we don't really have a point of dispute.
My impression is that most of the people watching and/or participating in this thread still insist that Fighters are able to hold their own.
Again, most people on this thread are not 3E fans, so they are talking about older editions for the most part. I haven't played 3e in years, mostly been playing 2E, and as I have said before, I think the 2e fighter does hold his own pretty well in that edition (keeping in mind what I said about balance over the course of a campaign however). Numbers can always be refined though, so in Next, I have no problem with then trying to get the math tighter---sibkong as it doesn't mean the kind of uniformity and symetry we got with 4e (give a choice between a unbalanced but interesting system, like 3e, and a balanced but dull (ImO) system, like 4e, I would pick 3e any day).
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573055I certainly understand that not everyone accepts my position. Quite the contrary. But I fail to understand how they think they've advanced an argument that addresses my points or clearly rebuts them. The closest I've seen is an appeal to the masses 'everyone here disagrees with you - you must be wrong, and an idiot to boot'. But whatever, those who have eyes to see will see. Those who have ears to hear will hear.
You fail to understand because you haven't the eyes to see nor the ears to hear. It has been explained to you, with the patience of saints, that the problems you have are entirely because sensible limitations have been removed, and the solution is to re-implement those limitations. You refuse to even consider this as a solution because it changes your precious Wizards and closes a fuck-ton of exploitable loopholes for them.
So you drone on endlessly about how Fighters are gimped, and Wizards can do absolutely anything and everything whenever they want. And you will never understand the problem, because you are under the utterly backwards delusion that people with experience are somehow
less likely to understand a problem. You seem to think that your own lack of experience with anything prior to the introduction of 3.0 in 2000 is somehow a bulwark against these ideas infecting your perfect solipsistic understanding.
Fuck off back to the Den if you don't like it. But don't pretend that your lack of knowledge is equal to or superior to a wealth of knowledge.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573105Agreed. They should be, but are not.
In the sense that you agree that Fighters should be good at fighting, and that in 3.5 they pretty much aren't, we don't really have a point of dispute.
My impression is that most of the people watching and/or participating in this thread still insist that Fighters are able to hold their own.
Well, then for the people who don't like the fighter as written (in 3.x), it's pretty easy to come up with a class option to allow for improved damage output for the fighter that parallels the other classes' damage:
Mighty Blow(Ex):
Replaces: Fighter Bonus Feat
Effect: As a standard action, a Fighter may make a powerful blow against an opponent who has attacked him. This blow is assessed as a Melee Touch Attack, and does increased damage (+2d6 at 2nd level and +1d6 on every even level). The Mighty Blow can only be used against an opponent who has attacked the Fighter on the current or previous round, regardless of if that opponent's attack hit the Fighter or not. This damage is not affected by critical hits, but unlike the Rogue's Sneak Attack, may affect targets who do not have a discernible anatomy or who are normally immune to critical damage (such as undead, constructs, etc).
It fits with the general guidelines for added damage, and works as an extraordinary ability. The MTA part might be a bit excessive, but that would have to be worked out in play.
I think that for TSR D&D that the fighter's ability to get multiple attacks, while other classes don't is plenty of extra bonus for the higher levels.
Edit: I declare this a Rule. And as it is also Written, it's now part of the RAW.
Eh, he goes back and forth between "fighters need a bump in power to be better balanced in 3e" and "laser eyebeams or GTFO" and that's why I don't usually want to engage him.
But, re rogues, I've seen multiple statistical breakdowns (this was a long time ago, or I'd have links ready) showing rogues roughly at par or trailing normal (that is, not TWF) fighters at dishing out damage once you take BAB, strength bonuses, feat bonuses etc. into account – and of course, sneak attack is normally situational. I've never felt that fighter vs. rogue balance was a huge problem myself.
DeadDM, instead of constantly trying to do nothing more then prove a problem exists, simply move on to fixing it. I made a thread just for it.
For myself, I've suggested several fixes. That has value, and is worth discussing.
But awareness of the issue is also important - at least in context of how it impacts the release of future games.
For my sit-down game, we play something that is basically unrecognizable as D&D (any edition). We've been honing our ruleset for over three years, but we're still grappling with these issues.
But whether I play with a new group or always play with my same group, I think there is a major advantage to having rules that are sufficiently good so that they are used by a majority of gamers with little to no modification.
It's great that some people have been convinced to homebrew solutions to make the Fighter more capable. If most groups end up seeing it as a problem and address it, that's even better. But if enough people agree that it's a problem and the designers actually address it in the next version of the game, that'd be best.
Again, D&D Next doesn't look like it is aware of any of the problems of 3.x, 4th or earlier editions. They're borked in a whole lot of new ways, too. But again, it's possible that they'll fix it before release.
In 2009 I moved from Iowa to Tennessee. While I play with 'real people' every week, I currently play by Video Conference. One person is in Iowa, one in Wisconsin, one in Pennsylvania, and one in Virginia. Now, I like all these people, and it's fun to play. But what about recruiting new players?
A new system raises the bar to entry. Asking someone to come to my house and play a game that they've never even heard of would make someone more wary than asking them to play a game that they can review at a local bookstore first. Homebrew games have a deservedly poor reputation - not everyone is a top tier designer. So even if my game is the best thing since sliced bread, playing it with relative strangers is difficult.
D&D's had a vaunted position in the hobby - as the easiest game to get people playing with. Most people have heard of D&D, even if they haven't heard of Shadowrun or RIFTs or Vampire or whatever.
Every hobbyist gamer benefits from having a good rules system to introduce new players into the hobby. D&D SHOULD be that game. But that only works if the version of the game is sufficiently compelling that people are willing to run the game for new people.
3.x was close. The biggest problem they had is that they decided not to support the Open Gaming License. They wanted to put that genie back into the bottle, and they couldn't. But they kept releasing new supplements that COULD NOT be supported by 3rd parties. It wasn't supplement bloat that waylaid 3.x. It was a lack of comprehensive support FOR that bloat.
My ideal version of the game will look a lot like 3.5 (including the Open Gaming License). There will be some tweaks, for sure. They'll go a little further down the character customization path (like getting rid of class skills and/or variable numbers of skill points depending on what order you took the class - a Rogue 1/Fighter 1 should be the same as a Fighter 1/Rogue 1) without increasing the need for optimization. As people have noted, needing to optimize penalizes organic characters - and the example above is a great one. Nobody ever takes their first level as fighter and their second level as rogue. That's a difference of 32 skill points versus rogue first.
I do think that casters need restrictions. But I haven't really seen anything that's particularly a GOOD restriction.
For example, some people think it's a good restriction that some powerful spells are only available a certain percentage of the time. Ie, if you only have a 10% chance of getting that spell when you advance a level, it's not really broken. I'd point out that it is if you succeed. Once you put a broken spell into the game, it breaks the game, even if there was only a small percentage chance of it.
As for increasing the likelihood of spell failure, that's not a particularly good option, either. if it's too easy, casters are useless. Too hard and it doesn't have any purpose. In 3.x you have concentration checks and the five-foot-step to avoid disruption. Changing AoO and movement rules has far-reaching consequences, as does changing casting times.
For myself, what would fix wizards is not major restrictions on HOW they cast, but on WHAT they cast. I think that the Wizard class is too broadly defined. Even a specialist is only required to prepare one spell of his chosen school for each level per day - and that's a BONUS spell if he weren't a specialist. So he basically gets all the spells he'd get if he weren't a specialist PLUS another one in his specialty.
I'm not familiar with the Beguiler, but from what I've heard about it, that's more what I think wizards should be like - tied more firmly to a theme. Necromancer could be a good base class. Enchanter could be a good base class. But wizard that can do EVERYTHING (even if not all on the same day) is where it breaks. It's not that wizards don't have issues with casting spells, or that spells are 'too reliable' - it's that a default wizard has the ability to learn any spell on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list, and they can put together some god-awful combinations that are totally off-theme.
Theme wizards fixes them as far as I'm concerned. But that still doesn't bring the fighter up to parity with the monsters of his CR. THAT'S my major concern.
There's a lot of things that I think 3.x does better than any other versions of D&D and/or retro clone. But I think they need to bake a few more bonuses into the math so the Fighter does a little better.
As for earlier editions, Mguy has very little experience with 2nd edition. For myself, I have quite a lot. It's old experience. I stopped playing after graduating High School in 1997. I have a fondness for 2nd edition, but I really like having the additional options in 3.x. Maybe it makes me an asshole, but I like that it's not super-difficult to make a character that fits a theme pretty well. We've had far more interesting characters in 3.x campaigns than in earlier versions - the crunch can support the fluff - and if it doesn't, it's not too hard to whip out something that isn't totally unbalanced but does.
3.x really put some tools in the hands of DMs and players to work together to do game design. Unfortunately, the designers have also been really afraid of letting Fighters shine.
Someone was pointing out today that in the Epic Level Handbook, a feat that gives you a +1 to your attack roll is equivalent to a feat that gives you a new Epic Spell. You know - like Weapon Focus at 1st level compared to a 10th level spell (or better). That kind of lack of awareness through the design process has left the Fighter far behind 'top tier' classes in 3.x, and that would be a real tragedy if they repeated it in further editions of the game.
This is where I disagree. I think 3E s much to complicated as an introductory game. I have seen first hand how someone with a spark of interest in D&D loses interest by bing shown third edition. While you may enjoy the concreteness and consistency of a robust and comprehensive system not every potential gamer wants something so complex. Most of them come to the table to play a knight and wizard, not to memorize an involved system. I think if the goal is to make D&D the most accessible game for new gamers to help grow the hobby (and fankly I dont think it needs to be) then simple and interesting is the way to go. But you have to do it in a way that doesn't lose the players the game already has.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573174This is where I disagree. I think 3E s much to complicated as an introductory game. I have seen first hand how someone with a spark of interest in D&D loses interest by bing shown third edition. While you may enjoy the concreteness and consistency of a robust and comprehensive system not every potential gamer wants something so complex. Most of them come to the table to play a knight and wizard, not to memorize an involved system. I think if the goal is to make D&D the most accessible game for new gamers to help grow the hobby (and fankly I dont think it needs to be) then simple and interesting is the way to go. But you have to do it in a way that doesn't lose the players the game already has.
I think an rpg with too many rules turns into 'gamespeak' too often.
Simpler rules allow more focus on roleplay and the actual events in the plot.
I know a few players that love crunch and complexity in an rpg, but most don't.
Quote from: Bill;573226I think an rpg with too many rules turns into 'gamespeak' too often.
Simpler rules allow more focus on roleplay and the actual events in the plot.
I know a few players that love crunch and complexity in an rpg, but most don't.
And crunch is totally fine. I used to like crunch quite a bit. But my experience matches yours, most new players I meet are a bit turned off by lots of crunch. But to be fair here, 3E is pretty crunchy, yet was one of the more popular editions in recent memory.
Either way though, I am interested in D&D being the kind of game I want to play, not being tailored as the entry point to the hobby.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573174This is where I disagree. I think 3E s much to complicated as an introductory game. I have seen first hand how someone with a spark of interest in D&D loses interest by bing shown third edition. While you may enjoy the concreteness and consistency of a robust and comprehensive system not every potential gamer wants something so complex. Most of them come to the table to play a knight and wizard, not to memorize an involved system. I think if the goal is to make D&D the most accessible game for new gamers to help grow the hobby (and fankly I dont think it needs to be) then simple and interesting is the way to go. But you have to do it in a way that doesn't lose the players the game already has.
Damn straight!
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;573174This is where I disagree. I think 3E s much to complicated as an introductory game. I have seen first hand how someone with a spark of interest in D&D loses interest by bing shown third edition. While you may enjoy the concreteness and consistency of a robust and comprehensive system not every potential gamer wants something so complex. Most of them come to the table to play a knight and wizard, not to memorize an involved system. I think if the goal is to make D&D the most accessible game for new gamers to help grow the hobby (and fankly I dont think it needs to be) then simple and interesting is the way to go. But you have to do it in a way that doesn't lose the players the game already has.
I have to agree with this as well.
Right now I have a group of three coworkers who are in a
Labyrinth Lord campaign I am running. One is a long time gamer who is a 3.5/
Pathfinder fan while the other two have never played a tabletop RPG before. When we were first discussing this, the 3.5 fan loaned out his 3.5 PHB to one of the newbies as a way of introduction and it paralyzed him with the amount of information he would have had to absorb. I took a copy of the Moldvay Basic D&D and loaned it to him and he immediately began to get the nature of the game after reading it.
Got to keep it simple with new Players or else you will lose them before the game even starts.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573167I do think that casters need restrictions. But I haven't really seen anything that's particularly a GOOD restriction.
Herein lies the problem.
That's what you, the GM, are there for. If you never met a restriction you liked, invent one.
And, interestingly enough, the inverse applies to fighters. If you haven't met a restriction you liked for fighters, remove them.
Keep doing this until you have a version of the game you want -- for your homebrew setting.
But for the rest of us, besides borked 3e with those filming "Empowered PCs with the Cult of RAW vs. the Milquetoast GM!", the wizard v. fighter balance issue has been, and will continue to be, bullshit.
This topic is discussing where people have been extrapolating a self-made problem from one edition and applying it to all editions as if it is fact. It is not fact. Do not claim this as fact. You look silly for stating so, especially if you run your own games.
Because unless you and yours enjoy slavishly running RAW and seeking to abdicate GM responsibility,
allowing these judgments in the first place is the problem. You are free to correct your own problems. Whining to everyone to foment a movement to change the rules is a
passive aggressive way to solve your problems.
Quote from: Opaopajr;573460Because unless you and yours enjoy slavishly running RAW and seeking to abdicate GM responsibility, allowing these judgments in the first place is the problem. You are free to correct your own problems. Whining to everyone to foment a movement to change the rules is a passive aggressive way to solve your problems.
Well thats the heart of everything isn't it. For these people, the cult of 'official' means a great deal because all these problems stem from the inability to trust each other to have a good time in the first place. The DM is out to get you and your fellow players will seek each and every opportunity legally allowed to steal your thunder and dominate the game. Only the written code by the almighty professional game designers and your own clever ability to parse it, will save you from the ravaging pack of fucking hyenas that you hang out with and call your friends.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;573500Well thats the heart of everything isn't it. For these people, the cult of 'official' means a great deal because all these problems stem from the inability to trust each other to have a good time in the first place. The DM is out to get you and your fellow players will seek each and every opportunity legally allowed to steal your thunder and dominate the game. Only the written code by the almighty professional game designers and your own clever ability to parse it, will save you from the ravaging pack of fucking hyenas that you hang out with and call your friends.
No.
In addition to my weekly sit-down game, I'm playing on four different play-by-post games. Consistent rules between games is helpful because if you want to play in multiple games, but you think 'rules mastery' is too high a demand, than four or more different rulesets compounds the problems exponentially.
Further, if one rule set is far and away superior to another, it would be good if the superior ruleset were used in all games - it would contribute to fun in those other games as well.
Regardless of whether I'm subjectively right about the advantages of one ruleset or another; even if EVERYONE comparing them has the same reaction, trying to get people to try new things involves overcoming inertia.
An 'official' ruleset helps overcome inertia effectively. It's like a giant lever. I'd like to have a giant lever to make gaming more fun for as many people as possible.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573501No.
In addition to my weekly sit-down game, I'm playing on four different play-by-post games. Consistent rules between games is helpful because if you want to play in multiple games, but you think 'rules mastery' is too high a demand, than four or more different rulesets compounds the problems exponentially.
Further, if one rule set is far and away superior to another, it would be good if the superior ruleset were used in all games - it would contribute to fun in those other games as well.
Regardless of whether I'm subjectively right about the advantages of one ruleset or another; even if EVERYONE comparing them has the same reaction, trying to get people to try new things involves overcoming inertia.
An 'official' ruleset helps overcome inertia effectively. It's like a giant lever. I'd like to have a giant lever to make gaming more fun for as many people as possible.
What a load of bullshit you one don't trust anybody to be a neutral arbiter then two you don't trust your fellow players not to completely screw you any chance they get. So you whine that it's too hard to know different typesets because your issue is you but you obfuscate and blame on rules.
Quote from: Marleycat;573512What a load of bullshit you one don't trust anybody to be a neutral arbiter then two you don't trust your fellow players not to completely screw you any chance they get. So you whine that it's too hard to know different typesets because your issue is you but you obfuscate and blame on rules.
First off, I'm often the 'neutral arbiter'. I'm the DM for the weekly 'live' game. I've also run play-by-posts, so I'm not always a player.
Even if everyone uses 'common sense rules' that I agree with, if anyone chooses NOT to use those rules, it can cause confusion. You know, like what happens when people start comparing different editions without specifying what version you're using.
The more you change from the core rules, the more difficult it is to highlight the differences in advance (important to avoid a 'gotcha' on players later) or to provide a comprehensive reference with the 'actual rules'. Rules matter. Knowing the rules can matter for a player. Too many different rules between too many tables can cause confusion.
A good ruleset tends to minimize different rules between tables.
It makes it easier to move from one table to another simply and easily.
I don't think any of the above is controversial.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573519First off, I'm often the 'neutral arbiter'. I'm the DM for the weekly 'live' game. I've also run play-by-posts, so I'm not always a player.
Even if everyone uses 'common sense rules' that I agree with, if anyone chooses NOT to use those rules, it can cause confusion. You know, like what happens when people start comparing different editions without specifying what version you're using.
The more you change from the core rules, the more difficult it is to highlight the differences in advance (important to avoid a 'gotcha' on players later) or to provide a comprehensive reference with the 'actual rules'. Rules matter. Knowing the rules can matter for a player. Too many different rules between too many tables can cause confusion.
A good ruleset tends to minimize different rules between tables.
It makes it easier to move from one table to another simply and easily.
I don't think any of the above is controversial.
That sentiment is nothing new. Indeed it is with that type of intent in mind that AD&D was written, to present a codified standard ruleset that would be recognized from table to table.
Because of the very nature of roleplaying games, things didn't work out that way. Games featuring meaningful creative input by the players cannot be so tightly codified, pure and simple. AD&D is proof of that.
As much talk is given to player empowerment with WOTC rulesets, the opposite is true. The tighter and more detailed the rules, the LESS creative input the players have to shape the game. More input comes from pre-defined constructs that attempt to ration fun as if it were some precious resource.
Codified standard rules often start out with the purest and best intentions, then often end up killing the spirit of the experience they were meant to improve.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573519First off, I'm often the 'neutral arbiter'. I'm the DM for the weekly 'live' game. I've also run play-by-posts, so I'm not always a player.
Even if everyone uses 'common sense rules' that I agree with, if anyone chooses NOT to use those rules, it can cause confusion. You know, like what happens when people start comparing different editions without specifying what version you're using.
The more you change from the core rules, the more difficult it is to highlight the differences in advance (important to avoid a 'gotcha' on players later) or to provide a comprehensive reference with the 'actual rules'. Rules matter. Knowing the rules can matter for a player. Too many different rules between too many tables can cause confusion.
A good ruleset tends to minimize different rules between tables.
It makes it easier to move from one table to another simply and easily.
I don't think any of the above is controversial.
This is why you talk all the time with each other whether as DM or player. Also what ExploderWizard said.
That argument was ridiculous.
First off, people in the past played at more than one D&D table before. And home rules were rather normal. They even played at tables that ran wholly different systems. And those games too had home rules as the norm. Imagine that.
The only whiners to this multifaceted diversity were the RPGA crowd (in my experience a joyless group of rules lawyering jackasses I've only ever had superseded by anal retentive armchair general historical war gamers at a con). There was no overwhelming onus to adjusting to different tables, in fact it was wonderful because really cool settings birthed forth from people trying to do new things with a basic rule set. And lot of those cool new things ended up as Dragon or Dungeon magazine fodder making for richer play options.
Second, "superior rulesets" is wholly subjective. Further, rulesets are only as relevant to their setting application. So instead of being just subjective, they're super-subjective! Leveraging people with the "Official Rules crowbar" is a futile notion. If Official Rules could be successfully used as such WotC would have had great success converting players to 4e en masse.
People have different visions on how to use rules for their settings. And where the rules fail to suffice or don't exist, voilà, creativity enters. This is a good thing as judgment calls remain discreetly pertinent to those already playing within the world. This only becomes an issue when PCs cross-tables. And TSR DMG already warned about the issues of crossing-tables PCs; it's a GM judgment call, and char-sheets must be looked at and edited/not allowed according to setting priorities.
The only way you can argue for this sort of primacy of RAW over interpretation, like one accent of English to rule them all, is by making cross-table PCs a necessity. That's what RPGA and Living games are for. That's a club where people willingly submit to tourney style regulations. Fine, happy with that, go ahead. However that calcified shit doesn't need to be in my core rulebooks! This is a hobby, not a game aspiring towards ESPN2 coverage.
If many people in this thread upset me it is because I have had people like them as my DM. DMs who froth at the mouth over minmaxing have at least one universal trait, they don't know jack shit about minmaxing. All the complaints in this thread have been about Fighters (and similar classes). Who dips into other classes? Fighters, that's who, they need to grab stuff from other classes the most. Who plans their feats out in advanced? Fighters, they're the ones that have long convoluted feat trees. Everyone (save druids) likes PrCs but for casters they're a fine dessert to go with a tasty meal, For non-casters all to often no PrCs means taking away their main course and leaving them with only the bread-sticks. I don't mind losing non-core and PrCs all that much I can just sigh and hope that my Gish will see the light of day in some other game, it's just nerfing Fighters is unforgivable.
One the DM is done nerfing non-casters and going ape on some poor kid with a freshly bought splatbook it falls to me to put on my wizard hat keep the party alive. I don't know why I do this, is it for the challenge, is it out of some warped loyalty to my party members, is it because I enjoy the bitter irony of the DM going off on the poor shlub who multiclassed fighter and barbarian while a wizard player like me stealth minmaxes next to him (or maybe I'm just a masochist I did join this forum).
Exactly, all this call for some mythical unified ruleset says to me is that anal rules lawyers like a typical "denner" is wanting a sanctioned way to force your playstyle down my throat. Pre 3x Dnd celebrated the fact each table is different it's part of what makes the game the most popular even now. It was expected, heck I demand it because it let's me steal what I like easily and with support to make MY version of the game without being told "you're not playing the game right" by some little rules twit. The rules are my bitch not the other way around, if you don't like it don't sit at my table simple as that.
That is why Rule 1 is be up front. Rule 0 is woman's pergorative but that's a different issue.:)
You know, some of us 3.x/Pathfinder gamers celebrate tabletop RPGs because each DM is different and thus games are mutable.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573501In addition to my weekly sit-down game, I'm playing on four different play-by-post games. Consistent rules between games is helpful because if you want to play in multiple games, but you think 'rules mastery' is too high a demand, than four or more different rulesets compounds the problems exponentially.
I'm sure consistent rules are helpful to you! But how many people are playing five distinct campaigns of the same game at once? You're kind of an edge case here.
QuotePre 3x Dnd celebrated the fact each table is different it's part of what makes the game the most popular even now.
Eh, 3e's cool with that too, that's why we are even having this fight.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;573519A good ruleset tends to minimize different rules between tables.
It makes it easier to move from one table to another simply and easily.
I don't think any of the above is controversial.
It probably isn't controversial. However, it doesn't matter to me because I'm not running a game limited by the needs of those who want to play in multiple campaigns but don't want to have to deal with different rules for each one. I change the rules as needed to provide the best gaming experience for my setting and my table's style of play.
I see no reason to care that this might make it harder for someone who wants to play in my campaign and 3 or 4 others. If the differences in rules between my table and the other tables are too much for him or her to deal with, the person will just have to decide if he/she likes my campaign enough to deal with the problems. If the answer is no, then the person with have to choose whether to quit my campaign or the other campaigns. If he quits mine, the person currently at the top of the wait list will be happy.
Quote from: Imp;573652I'm sure consistent rules are helpful to you! But how many people are playing five distinct campaigns of the same game at once? You're kind of an edge case here.
Eh, 3e's cool with that too, that's why we are even having this fight.[
I wasn't precise. I knew that but I was being anal for the penny gallery, I apologize.
Quote from: Marleycat;573614That is why Rule 1 is be up front. Rule 0 is woman's pergorative but that's a different issue.:)
Rule 0 is "Don't be a dick".
Quote from: jeff37923;576553Rule 0 is "Don't be a dick".
That's rule -1.
Was this mentioned here?
Quote from: RandallS;576790I think it is more not everyone defines "contributing in a meaningful way" in the same way. Many players (out of the entire set of all players) are there to play their character and neither they or their character may care about being able contribute equally in all (or even most) situations. They may also limit their character based on their character's personality. In some styles of play such is the normal way to play. Those playing this way may never encounter the problems you do with 3.x.
I've heard that the reason those playtesters D&D 3 did not encounter all the problems discovered later is that most were AD&D players (of the min-maxing/rules lawyering/munchkining is poor play variety) who simply played 3.0 the way they always had played D&D. If you play 3.x the way you played AD&D/BECMI (and you don't allow min-maxer, rules lawyers, etc. in your game), you simply seldom (if ever) encounter many of the problems in 3.x.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;576555That's rule -1.
No, that's Wil Wheaton's Law. (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wheatons-law)
Civility Libertad don't you know where you are.
Since this thread has invaded my totally legit PF thread Imma repost the points I've made that are more D&D universal.
-You're playing the numbers game while casters transcend the numbers. the fighter class has always gotten a raw deal from the game system. As a Fighter goes up in level he gains better numbers and only numbers. Casters get not only numbers but things that can not be translated into numbers. Invisibility, Fly, Wall of Stone, and Teleport are all things that expand the scope and alter the way the game plays as such powers proliferate eventually the game becomes something that Fighters just can't play in.
-You're losing the numbers game against the monsters. Monsters in most editions of D&D are the clear superiors with respect to what fighter classes can do. This is especially noticeable in 3e/3.5/PF due to CR and how monsters a built.
-The fundamental resource in D&D is the spell. Having a fighter in the party who is needs spells from other people is a net minus. Having another caster is a net plus. It's not like you need a fighter in the party anyway. As a wizard I would like to have someone to finish off the mobs after I've crippled them but that need not be a fighter it could be a cleric or summoned monster.
-The real threat to the fighter's viability as a class is not the wizard but the cleric. For the fighter's entire career the cleric will never be more that 1-2 spells from matching him and 3 spells from exceeding him
When the issue is ignored in games it creates one of the following problems
EZ Modo- the DM dosen't play the monsters to the fullest of his abilities, only uses classed humanoid non-casters, and/or fudges rolls like crazy to keep the party alive.
Lunatic Mode- the party loses people in every fight/ wipes to mobs all times everytime
The Wizard was pulling your weight all along- One player fail's to show up/ goes on a solo mission/ character is killed or incapacitated. The players the realize he was not needed (usually fighter) or they can't do anything without him (usually wizard)
LordMistborn. Those arguments have all been made, responded to, made again, responded to, numerous times on this 4,000 post thread. Numbers baked into the fighter class are not enough for you and mcGuy, got it. Weeaboo fighters in D&D are unsatisfying to posters like myself. I can no more convince you to embrace my preferences than you can convince me to embrace yours. If a version of D&D doesn't produce a satisfactory experience for you, then you really ought to design some house rules that work for your style or find a game that achieves what you desire. The great thing about d20, is you can change it and publish a new version of the game if you have identified a fix that has a market. While I am not a fan of weeaboo D&D, i dont have a problem with it fo certain rpg settings and systems. In fact I am designing a game with a bit of weeaboo right now. Just isn't what I look for in D&D.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;577169LordMistborn. Those arguments have all been made, responded to, made again, responded to, numerous times on this 4,000 post thread. Numbers baked into the fighter class are not enough for you and mcGuy, got it. Weeaboo fighters in D&D are unsatisfying to posters like myself.
The solution to this need not be the weeaboo fighter. The thing is that people need to understand that "is Conan" is a low level concept. If the design space of the fighter class precludes the fighter getting any high level abilities that they should not be playable at high level.
This could take a number of forms.
-
Play E6 cap the players at a level where "normal dude" is still a viable concept.
-
Take the magic out of the hands of the players. It's totally possible to make caster classes that never evolve out of a playspace that fighters can play in. This is what they did in 4e it creates a diffrent game though
-
When your class gives you lemons find a new class. Have the "Fighter" class end at 5th level and after that the fighter starts taking levels in "Chaos Knight" or "Dragon Warrior" and gets his own source of Pletobium.
all of these are options that involve 0% weeaboo fightan' magic.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577171The solution to this need not be the weeaboo fighter. The thing is that people need to understand that "is Conan" is a low level concept. If the design space of the fighter class precludes the fighter getting any high level abilities that they should not be playable at high level.
This could take a number of forms.
-Play E6 cap the players at a level where "normal dude" is still a viable concept.
-Take the magic out of the hands of the players. It's totally possible to make caster classes that never evolve out of a playspace that fighters can play in. This is what they did in 4e
-When your class gives you lemons find a new class. Have the "Fighter" class end at 5th level and after that the fighter starts taking levels in "Chaos Knight" or "Dragon Warrior" and gets his own source of Pletobium.
all of these are options that involve 0% weeaboo fightan' magic.
Not going to redebate my this stuff as I already responded in good faith to mcguy when he made the exact same points. Basically, noy everyone sees it the way you do. Some of us are fine with how fighters and wizards work in AD&D for example and feel the checks and balances are pretty good there. If it doesn't work for you, by all means design the system you propose here and see of people like it. You may be on to something and find an audience for it.
Edit: just to comment on your proposed solutions. Those are fine ways to design a game, but dont offer a style of D&D i am interested in playing.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;577173Edit: just to comment on your proposed solutions. Those are fine ways to design a game, but dont offer a style of D&D i am interested in playing.
What sort of D&D are you interested in playing. I'm not going to debate a phantom here.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577174What sort of D&D are you interested in playing. I'm not going to debate a phantom here.
I like 2E personally these days. And like I said, i am not interested in debating this again. By all means continue. But that I didn't post my remarks to redebate this issue.
Quote from: Opaopajr;573460That's what you, the GM, are there for. If you never met a restriction you liked, invent one.
And, interestingly enough, the inverse applies to fighters. If you haven't met a restriction you liked for fighters, remove them.
Keep doing this until you have a version of the game you want -- for your homebrew setting.
But for the rest of us, besides borked 3e with those filming "Empowered PCs with the Cult of RAW vs. the Milquetoast GM!", the wizard v. fighter balance issue has been, and will continue to be, bullshit.
This topic is discussing where people have been extrapolating a self-made problem from one edition and applying it to all editions as if it is fact. It is not fact. Do not claim this as fact. You look silly for stating so, especially if you run your own games.
Because unless you and yours enjoy slavishly running RAW and seeking to abdicate GM responsibility, allowing these judgments in the first place is the problem. You are free to correct your own problems. Whining to everyone to foment a movement to change the rules is a passive aggressive way to solve your problems.
You can't say that the problem can be fixed with a massive amount of houseruling and fiat and then say that therefore that problem doesn't exist. That doesn't follow. You can say that it is solvable, maybe, but not that it doesn't exist. Especially when the text of the game itself does not really offer any solutions or explanations.
I agree it is much less of an issue in 2e. It's still there, but nowhere near as bad. In 2e, yeah, it's probably small enough to be solved with a reasonable amount of houseruling/fiat. To fix it at high level 3e, you would either be writing your own game or effectively binning the whole system and playing freeform.
Quote from: soviet;577234You can't say that the problem can be fixed with a massive amount of houseruling and fiat and then say that therefore that problem doesn't exist. That doesn't follow.
Oh hell yes I can. Because I have stated that
the problem is actually just
your problem.
Why? Because others
do not share your usage needs or problems. Since you don't share needs, then you don't share problems. Therefore any assumed problem from one group is not
inherent to the product.
Once you share a similar need, and come with a similar problem, then yes your shared problem becomes
the product's problem.
Welcome to the "it's a feature, not a bug," truism.
Quote from: Opaopajr;577238Oh hell yes I can. Because I have stated that the problem is actually just your problem.
Why? Because others do not share your usage needs or problems. Since you don't share needs, then you don't share problems. Therefore any assumed problem from one group is not inherent to the product.
Once you share a similar need, and come with a similar problem, then yes your shared problem becomes the product's problem.
Welcome to the "it's a feature, not a bug," truism.
Nooo this is oberoni fallacy.
Issue: Problem with the rules. Rules don't do what they say/supposed to do.
Your solution: Change the rules
Your conclusion: No problem exists
That's pretty cut and dry.
That's not what he said at all.
On a side note, I'm wondering how long it will be before you notice your sig. It's been a week or so and counting so far.
I figured he had put that one in himself.
Quote from: MGuy;577259Nooo this is oberoni fallacy.
Issue: Problem with the rules. Rules don't do what they say/supposed to do.
Your solution: Change the rules
Your conclusion: No problem exists
That's pretty cut and dry.
Not in the least. Nice try.
Lets start with the beginning.
Issue: The rules don't do what they say? Prove it. Show me where in the rules you are guaranteed to have equal power in a strictly mechanical/numeric sense between class A and class B or between set of options A or B.
Supposed to do? Thats subjective bullshit. I can say the the rules are SUPPOSED to suck my cock and make me feel like a superhero each and every time I pick up the dice but they might not deliver. Unless I was promised such an experience by the rules why the fuck would I assume such a thing.
So prove an objective problem that ISN'T based on your personal expectations and we can talk.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;577271Not in the least. Nice try.
Lets start with the beginning.
Issue: The rules don't do what they say? Prove it. Show me where in the rules you are guaranteed to have equal power in a strictly mechanical/numeric sense between class A and class B or between set of options A or B.
Supposed to do? Thats subjective bullshit. I can say the the rules are SUPPOSED to suck my cock and make me feel like a superhero each and every time I pick up the dice but they might not deliver. Unless I was promised such an experience by the rules why the fuck would I assume such a thing.
So prove an objective problem that ISN'T based on your personal expectations and we can talk.
Wow, I thought you might at least have
some kind of argument to put forward. Come on man, this here is just desperate.
Quote from: soviet;577274Wow, I thought you might at least have some kind of argument to put forward. Come on man, this here is just desperate.
Desperate? Who is the one claiming that the rules don't do what they say?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;577271Not in the least. Nice try.
Lets start with the beginning.
Issue: The rules don't do what they say? Prove it. Show me where in the rules you are guaranteed to have equal power in a strictly mechanical/numeric sense between class A and class B or between set of options A or B.
Supposed to do? Thats subjective bullshit. I can say the the rules are SUPPOSED to suck my cock and make me feel like a superhero each and every time I pick up the dice but they might not deliver. Unless I was promised such an experience by the rules why the fuck would I assume such a thing.
So prove an objective problem that ISN'T based on your personal expectations and we can talk.
1) Holy christ! Are you suggesting that characters of equal level aren't supposed to be equal or close to equal in power? If you need a mechanic that ties in explicitly with power level it's CR. That's what the whole idea of the CR system in the first place.
2) Yes I can say that by the rules things of equal level are "supposed" to be of equal or close to equal power. You can say that the rules are meant to suck your cock just like you can potentially say anything you want.
3) I can easily prove that it isn't based on my personal experiences by making a tenth level fighter and making a tenth level wizard then run them both through tenth level situations and seeing how they do. I also can ask other people, look at all the material aimed at powering up fighters/powering down casters, read what the designers have to say about it, essays, gameplay examples, take your pick and I can link it here.
Quote from: MGuy;5772881) Holy christ! Are you suggesting that characters of equal level aren't supposed to be equal or close to equal in power? If you need a mechanic that ties in explicitly with power level it's CR. That's what the whole idea of the CR system in the first place.
2) Yes I can say that by the rules things of equal level are "supposed" to be of equal or close to equal power. You can say that the rules are meant to suck your cock just like you can potentially say anything you want.
3) I can easily prove that it isn't based on my personal experiences by making a tenth level fighter and making a tenth level wizard then run them both through tenth level situations and seeing how they do. I also can ask other people, look at all the material aimed at powering up fighters/powering down casters, read what the designers have to say about it, essays, gameplay examples, take your pick and I can link it here.
So you are saying that it is the rules that mandate penis measuring, and there is nothing that can be done about it?
Where does it state that characters are all designed to compete with each other?
The CR system is a crock of shit that never worked as intended anyhow.
Forget about casters for a moment. What about an optimized fighter vs one built with "loser" options? The same class should be equal to itself at the very least right?
I somehow doubt it.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;577292So you are saying that it is the rules that mandate penis measuring, and there is nothing that can be done about it?
Where does it state that characters are all designed to compete with each other?
The CR system is a crock of shit that never worked as intended anyhow.
Forget about casters for a moment. What about an optimized fighter vs one built with "loser" options? The same class should be equal to itself at the very least right?
I somehow doubt it.
Soo you're saying CR doesn't work and CR is a rule correct? Consider my point proven.
Forgetting about Casters I wouldn't mind fighters so much if they could at least take on the monsters in the monster manual.
However that aside I ALSO think that indeed a class should be able to reasonably compete with itself. I don't think that "trap" options are a good thing. I don't think that you should have to sacrifice your character being interesting for power and vice versa. There are a lot of things I have to house rule in 3rd but again, as I said before, my capacity to change/ignore the rules does not mean that there aren't problems with the rules.
If the problems were just setting specific, or minor things I would have to switch just to keep the story going along that wouldn't be a problem. If the rules tell you one thing and don't live up to it then that's a rules issue.
Quote from: MGuy;577300Soo you're saying CR doesn't work and CR is a rule correct? Consider my point proven.
As far as I can tell from reading the 3.5 DMG, CR isn't a RULE so much as it is a rough guideline for the GM who wants to be able to design level appropriate encounters as opposed to just placing monsters about the map (what the 3.5 DMG calls "status quo" encounters) .
I say it is a guideline and not a rule because when describing how to use the system the DMG keeps qualifying things with phrases like "in general". There are also seem to be a lot of assumptions built into the CR system (like the party will generally be diverse class-wise and near full strength) which might not be true in all campaigns.
Quote from: RandallS;577304As far as I can tell from reading the 3.5 DMG, CR isn't a RULE so much as it is a rough guideline for the GM who wants to be able to design level appropriate encounters as opposed to just placing monsters about the map (what the 3.5 DMG calls "status quo" encounters) .
I say it is a guideline and not a rule because when describing how to use the system the DMG keeps qualifying things with phrases like "in general". There are also seem to be a lot of assumptions built into the CR system (like the party will generally be diverse class-wise and near full strength) which might not be true in all campaigns.
I recall the WotC D&D developers saying that they "wing it" instead of using the CR system for finding appropriately challenging monsters for parties.
The CR system is built on the assumption that a single monster of CR X will deplete 25% of the resources of a 4-person party of level X.
In practice, this doesn't really work, which is why the CR system's heavily criticized.
Quote from: MGuy;577300Soo you're saying CR doesn't work and CR is a rule correct? Consider my point proven.
CR "works" when considering Tordek, Jozan, Mialee, and Lidda vs X.
Add a party member, it stops working.
Substitute an optimized monster for one or more of the iconics, it stops working.
So CR works in "theory land" , but not so much under actual conditions.
Quote from: MGuy;577300Forgetting about Casters I wouldn't mind fighters so much if they could at least take on the monsters in the monster manual.
The CR for monsters assumes an iconic party. Substitute a fighter for the iconic party and we have found the problem.
Quote from: MGuy;577300However that aside I ALSO think that indeed a class should be able to reasonably compete with itself. I don't think that "trap" options are a good thing. I don't think that you should have to sacrifice your character being interesting for power and vice versa. There are a lot of things I have to house rule in 3rd but again, as I said before, my capacity to change/ignore the rules does not mean that there aren't problems with the rules.
The kind of problem you have, there is no rules solution for. If a game features all options mechanically equal, but flavors all the options differently then you can't make your character 'mechanically' different in ways that 'matter'. If lots of mechanical options are in play then some will be better than others thus there will be 'trap' options.
There isn't a 'fix' for this 'problem' from a rules standpoint.
CR is nearly useless. There are simply too many variables for it to work.
I suppose if you lined up simple fighter types and had them melle it might be somewhat accurate.
But once you add the randomeness of initiative, saves, tactics, terrain, etc...
CR is of no use.
I know players that freak out if I use enemies of higher CR than them; despite the fact the same players will own the enemies :)
Dur....
Quote from: Libertad;577305The CR system is built on the assumption that a single monster of CR X will deplete 25% of the resources of a 4-person party of level X.
In practice, this doesn't really work, which is why the CR system's heavily criticized.
The CR system cannot be anything other then a ridiculously vague guideline, because one party, based on equipment, decisions, dice luck and existing resources, might blow through an encounter with no real expenditure of resources, others might nearly get TPK'd.
Just save time and answer every post with this:
Denner: "Absolute!"
Reality: "Conditional!"
Then you can move on to threads that matter.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;577306CR "works" when considering Tordek, Jozan, Mialee, and Lidda vs X.
Add a party member, it stops working.
Substitute an optimized monster for one or more of the iconics, it stops working.
Actually no, there are "guidelines" for bigger parties. For the optimization, yes that IS a problem.
QuoteSo CR works in "theory land" , but not so much under actual conditions.
And thus a rule doesn't work very well. It should be "fixed" should it not?
QuoteThe CR for monsters assumes an iconic party. Substitute a fighter for the iconic party and we have found the problem.
A fighter (at higher levels) doesn't meaningfully contribute to the party. Tordek and eventually Lidda fall behind Jozann and Mialee after a while just as they fall behind the monsters they actually fight.
QuoteThe kind of problem you have, there is no rules solution for. If a game features all options mechanically equal, but flavors all the options differently then you can't make your character 'mechanically' different in ways that 'matter'. If lots of mechanical options are in play then some will be better than others thus there will be 'trap' options.
There isn't a 'fix' for this 'problem' from a rules standpoint.
What do you mean by mechanically equal? Because depending on what you mean by it that can be true or not true. If you specifically make a game where there is no mechanical difference between on class and another than yes differentiations in fluff would be the only way you can differentiate characters. I believe people were making the claim that AD&D had that as a feature since apparently you can't build fighters so every fighter is just a carbon copy of every other fighter.
However that is not my solution nor something I want or am advocating. If you have a bunch of different options you don't have to have "trap" options. In the game I'm creating right now each class has three archetypes. For example: Soldier (the closes t to the "fighter")
A Soldier has 3 archetypes as mentioned: Commando, Interceptor, Skirmisher.
A Commando gets abilities that lock down opponents or specifically forces them to concentrate on the soldier. Interceptor concentrates on negating actions via Opportunity Actions and counters. Skirmishers can move around more effectively (gaining bonus move actions and higher move speed).
Each archetype has its strengths and weaknesses. Commando doesn't work well on large groups of weak enemies. Interceptors aren't good against opponents they can't reach/see. Skirmishers don't do well in tight situations. Having weaknesses doesn't mean the options aren't equal or close to equal with other options. A fighter straight up cannot go toe to toe with equal level opposition while casters can. That is a serious issue with the game. Fighting is supposed to be the fighter's strength but it seriously cannot function well at higher levels and other classes out do it.
Quote from: CRKrueger;577308The CR system cannot be anything other then a ridiculously vague guideline, because one party, based on equipment, decisions, dice luck and existing resources, might blow through an encounter with no real expenditure of resources, others might nearly get TPK'd.
Just save time and answer every post with this:
Denner: "Absolute!"
Reality: "Conditional!"
Then you can move on to threads that matter.
Aren't you one of the people who think all rules are just guidelines?
Quote from: Bill;577307I suppose if you lined up simple fighter types and had them melle it might be somewhat accurate.
Even if you put the fighters on magic horses, gave them magic bows, and set them a thousand feet from any thing at all, casters (andby casters I don't just mean casting classes I also mean casting monsters) still out perform them.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;577306The kind of problem you have, there is no rules solution for. If a game features all options mechanically equal, but flavors all the options differently then you can't make your character 'mechanically' different in ways that 'matter'. If lots of mechanical options are in play then some will be better than others thus there will be 'trap' options.
There isn't a 'fix' for this 'problem' from a rules standpoint.
I agree that when you have a whole bunch of options in a game as complex as any edition of D&D, some are going to be better than others. But that doesn't mean that it's impossible to have a broad level of balance. We're not talking about 'Is Improved Initiative better than Toughness?' stuff here, we're talking about 'My whole character is overshadowed by another character's class feature' stuff.
Quote from: MGuy;577315Aren't you one of the people who think all rules are just guidelines?
In all fairness, even if one happens to be a RAW purist, CR's don't work.
CR is useless regardless of how closely one follows RAW.
Quote from: CRKrueger;577308The CR system cannot be anything other then a ridiculously vague guideline, because one party, based on equipment, decisions, dice luck and existing resources, might blow through an encounter with no real expenditure of resources, others might nearly get TPK'd.
Just save time and answer every post with this:
Denner: "Absolute!"
Reality: "Conditional!"
Then you can move on to threads that matter.
It's not just the Gaming Den who's criticizing the CR System; many casual and new players look to it as an accurate source despite the fact that the 3.X developers eventually stopped using it.
Quote from: Bill;577319In all fairness, even if one happens to be a RAW purist, CR's don't work.
CR is useless regardless of how closely one follows RAW.
But CR is a problem. Frank and K dedicated part of their Tomes to talking about CR. I don't think CR works. I think that it, and the fact that things are straight up unbalanced is a problem with rules. Remember, I'm not arguing that there aren't problems. I am arguing that they are and my capacity to bypass those issues does not mean those issues don't exist.
Quote from: MGuy;577326But CR is a problem. Frank and K dedicated part of their Tomes to talking about CR. I don't think CR works. I think that it, and the fact that things are straight up unbalanced is a problem with rules. Remember, I'm not arguing that there aren't problems. I am arguing that they are and my capacity to bypass those issues does not mean those issues don't exist.
I think what bill is saying is attempts at CR systems by their very nature tend to fail. Especially the way they did it 3E. As a rough guideline with a huge asterisk next to it, i suppose it has its uses, but I always found it far more productive to look at a foe's potential damage, ac, powers, etc on a case by case basis than use CR. Also scenario specifics are so important. The same opponent can be a cake walk or a challenge depending on how much room he has to breath int he scenario. Add to that may D&D encounters are more aobut having the right weapon or right set of weapons than having the right level party and it gets more fuzzy.
Quote from: MGuy;577326But CR is a problem. Frank and K dedicated part of their Tomes to talking about CR. I don't think CR works. I think that it, and the fact that things are straight up unbalanced is a problem with rules. Remember, I'm not arguing that there aren't problems. I am arguing that they are and my capacity to bypass those issues does not mean those issues don't exist.
I think you're confusing the point he's making.
The CR system is so broken that it shouldn't even be considered. Instead, a GM should look at a monster and go 'hmm. it's 9 hit dice, but it's got a decent AC and a bunch of supernatural abilities that are really going to fuck this party up. Maybe it's too hard for them right now.'
I pretty much started ignoring CR as well, and went to a system more like the Star Wars R/X used, where the xp award was based on how hard it was for the party to overcome the threat, not set beforehand. So a really well-laid out plan that worked perfectly and the mountain fell on the dragon as planned didn't net as much xp as the straight up fight against the much younger dragon that almost TPK'd them. (There was an extra reward for originality on the first example though).
Quote from: Panzerkraken;577330I think you're confusing the point he's making.
The CR system is so broken that it shouldn't even be considered. Instead, a GM should look at a monster and go 'hmm. it's 9 hit dice, but it's got a decent AC and a bunch of supernatural abilities that are really going to fuck this party up. Maybe it's too hard for them right now.'
I pretty much started ignoring CR as well, and went to a system more like the Star Wars R/X used, where the xp award was based on how hard it was for the party to overcome the threat, not set beforehand. So a really well-laid out plan that worked perfectly and the mountain fell on the dragon as planned didn't net as much xp as the straight up fight against the much younger dragon that almost TPK'd them. (There was an extra reward for originality on the first example though).
CR works reasonably at lower levels. It breaks as you go higher in level as does the game's balance. That's an issue. If the game (theoretically) were more balanced then CR would work. Sure sometimes there would be some weaknesses (not accounting for ambushes, poor dice rolling, poor decision making, etc) but if you can get a baseline that works then you could build a playable game off of that. The fact that the CR system breaks at about the same time balance breaks in the game is only more indicative of the balance problems in the game.
However even if we ignore the monster manual for a while you still have the problem of certain classes being far and away better in every conceivable fashion than other classes. It also has now been brought up that classes can be unbalanced even with itself.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;577327I think what bill is saying is attempts at CR systems by their very nature tend to fail. Especially the way they did it 3E. As a rough guideline with a huge asterisk next to it, i suppose it has its uses, but I always found it far more productive to look at a foe's potential damage, ac, powers, etc on a case by case basis than use CR. Also scenario specifics are so important. The same opponent can be a cake walk or a challenge depending on how much room he has to breath int he scenario. Add to that may D&D encounters are more aobut having the right weapon or right set of weapons than having the right level party and it gets more fuzzy.
Ambushes, poor rolling, poor resource management, poor ability selection, environmental condtions, etc can all effect the ability of a group to handle "stuff" at all. CR as a concept indeed cannot cover every feasible scenario that you might run into. However, feasibly, in a well built/balanced system you would be able to comfortably know that regularly facing a CR X encounter uses Y resources so when building a dungeon/bunch of encounters you know that at base the players should~ be able to handle it. If later the PCs run into a situations where shit starts going downhill then it is up to them to decide to retreat (also assuming your system can handle retreat as a valid option).
Quote from: MGuy;577337Ambushes, poor rolling, poor resource management, poor ability selection, environmental condtions, etc can all effect the ability of a group to handle "stuff" at all. CR as a concept indeed cannot cover every feasible scenario that you might run into. However, feasibly, in a well built/balanced system you would be able to comfortably know that regularly facing a CR X encounter uses Y resources so when building a dungeon/bunch of encounters you know that at base the players should~ be able to handle it. If later the PCs run into a situations where shit starts going downhill then it is up to them to decide to retreat (also assuming your system can handle retreat as a valid option).
Again, i have yet to see a cr system that achieves this. Actually i think cr is generally a bad idea. You really ought to be thinking about your monster's specific capabilities rather than a number that supposedly indicates their challenge level. You can always eyeball it too when you become familiar enough with the system. I was never a fan of the 3E approach to rationing out encounters over the adventure or structuring your adventure around encounters. Was never my cup of tea. The DM basically needs to be able know what monsters can kill what party and what kinds of things individual monsters can do in an encounter. You gain that knowledge by studying the monster entries not by looking to a CR. At least that is my opinion on it.
Quote from: MGuy;577314Actually no, there are "guidelines" for bigger parties. For the optimization, yes that IS a problem.
So long as rules mastery is considered a feature of the system this is what you get. When you market to players, selling them ever more powerful cards for their magic decks, can the challenges designed for core only options really be expected to hold up?
Quote from: MGuy;577314And thus a rule doesn't work very well. It should be "fixed" should it not?
Agreed. CR is so useless it should never have been made a part of the system.
Quote from: MGuy;577314A fighter (at higher levels) doesn't meaningfully contribute to the party. Tordek and eventually Lidda fall behind Jozann and Mialee after a while just as they fall behind the monsters they actually fight.
I believe that a wizard or cleric who is out of spells can still meaningfully contribute, so why not a fighter?
Quote from: MGuy;577314What do you mean by mechanically equal? Because depending on what you mean by it that can be true or not true. If you specifically make a game where there is no mechanical difference between on class and another than yes differentiations in fluff would be the only way you can differentiate characters. I believe people were making the claim that AD&D had that as a feature since apparently you can't build fighters so every fighter is just a carbon copy of every other fighter.
This is not the case. I have played many AD&D fighters and they were very different.
Quote from: MGuy;577314However that is not my solution nor something I want or am advocating. If you have a bunch of different options you don't have to have "trap" options. In the game I'm creating right now each class has three archetypes. For example: Soldier (the closes t to the "fighter")
A Soldier has 3 archetypes as mentioned: Commando, Interceptor, Skirmisher.
A Commando gets abilities that lock down opponents or specifically forces them to concentrate on the soldier. Interceptor concentrates on negating actions via Opportunity Actions and counters. Skirmishers can move around more effectively (gaining bonus move actions and higher move speed).
Each archetype has its strengths and weaknesses. Commando doesn't work well on large groups of weak enemies. Interceptors aren't good against opponents they can't reach/see. Skirmishers don't do well in tight situations. Having weaknesses doesn't mean the options aren't equal or close to equal with other options. A fighter straight up cannot go toe to toe with equal level opposition while casters can. That is a serious issue with the game. Fighting is supposed to be the fighter's strength but it seriously cannot function well at higher levels and other classes out do it.
Good for you. How do these guys fare compared to spellcasters? If they are equal then how 'magical' do the casters abilities really seem from a flavor standpoint? This is the problem 4E ran into while overly worrying that each child had an equal slice of birthday cake. The magical felt mundane and the mundane felt like weak magic.
Quote from: MGuy;577337Ambushes, poor rolling, poor resource management, poor ability selection, environmental condtions, etc can all effect the ability of a group to handle "stuff" at all. CR as a concept indeed cannot cover every feasible scenario that you might run into. However, feasibly, in a well built/balanced system you would be able to comfortably know that regularly facing a CR X encounter uses Y resources so when building a dungeon/bunch of encounters you know that at base the players should~ be able to handle it. If later the PCs run into a situations where shit starts going downhill then it is up to them to decide to retreat (also assuming your system can handle retreat as a valid option).
CR fails to do that. The problem is that the variables are unknown. A CR 10 threat is not actually 10. it fluctuates based on many factors.
The only way CR can work, is if your 'well built system' is TOO balanced (all characters nearly the same) and there are no variables like surprise, or terrain.
Retreat is also not really the problem either. Its more a problem of one side getting an early edge from random variables and from strategy thet the other side is unlikely to recover from.
Quote from: Bill;577347CR fails to do that. The problem is that the variables are unknown. A CR 10 threat is not actually 10. it fluctuates based on many factors.
The only way CR can work, is if your 'well built system' is TOO balanced (all characters nearly the same) and there are no variables like surprise, or terrain.
Retreat is also not really the problem either. Its more a problem of one side getting an early edge from random variables and from strategy thet the other side is unlikely to recover from.
Those are exactly the kind of factors that play into our planning considerations for infantry assaults; if you don't have 3:1 odds against another equally functional(ie trained and equipped) opponent, you have two options: Avoid Contact or Ambush and Break Contact. A direct attack without overwhelming odds in your favor is just a good way to take unacceptable (ie ANY that you're sure to take) casualties.
I admit I have limited experience with CRs and 3e in general. That being said, anyone who says CR works will have me break out Forge of Fury and the CR4 dragon at the end.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577354I admit I have limited experience with CRs and 3e in general. That being said, anyone who says CR works will have me break out Forge of Fury and the CR4 dragon at the end.
How about the juvenile blue in Return to the TOEE? I had a party of almost 6th level characters nearly get wiped on that one.
Of course, now you've simply opened up to 'Oh, but CR for dragons is broken anyway!' which they've gone over in depth before.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;577353Those are exactly the kind of factors that play into our planning considerations for infantry assaults; if you don't have 3:1 odds against another equally functional(ie trained and equipped) opponent, you have two options: Avoid Contact or Ambush and Break Contact. A direct attack without overwhelming odds in your favor is just a good way to take unacceptable (ie ANY that you're sure to take) casualties.
Had a funny thought;
Real combat is all about 'get every advantage you can, and kill the enemy before they kill you' combined with 'don't engage if you are not certain of said advantage'
DND combat is sometimes that, but often "I frontal assault the evil army for Glory!"
Quote from: Panzerkraken;577356Of course, now you've simply opened up to 'Oh, but CR for dragons is broken anyway!' which they've gone over in depth before.
Which means it's broken, right?
Someone saying, "CR isn't broken, except with this creature, and that creature, and ...." will probably cause my eyes to roll.
"My car works, except when I have to drive on the highway or brake." Well, then it doesn't work very well, does it?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;577346I believe that a wizard or cleric who is out of spells can still meaningfully contribute, so why not a fighter?
Well first let's make things even. A cleric is out of spells (one of his resources) so a fighter is out of hp, is dominated, has some debilitating condition on him he can't get rid of, etc. So if we're talking about both being out of resources they are about equally useless. However even at full the fighter still can't contribute compare to the cleric who literrally has a bunch of shit he can do while he has his resources and has actionable methods of retreat while the fighter will be unlikely to be able to retreat when things go bad.
QuoteThis is not the case. I have played many AD&D fighters and they were very different.
How were they significantly different from one another?
QuoteGood for you. How do these guys fare compared to spellcasters? If they are equal then how 'magical' do the casters abilities really seem from a flavor standpoint? This is the problem 4E ran into while overly worrying that each child had an equal slice of birthday cake. The magical felt mundane and the mundane felt like weak magic.
Simple. Magic cannot do as much in my game as it can in 3rd. In other words I approached the problem from the bottom and the top. Casters get less spells over all. Spells depend on skills to work. Spells are available to everyone via feats (casting classes just can get them as a class feature and have special casting/mana generation methods that promote using spells). Spells that are unbalancing (wish, time stop, etc) don't exist. Spells that are necessary to adventure at all (Plane Shift, Breathe Water, etc) are either rituals or unnecessary.
For example the Mage (Wizard) has 3 archetypes: Illussionist, Diviner, Transmuter.
Illussionists specialize in darkness and illusions. They gain abilities that allow them to have more illussions (usually you have to craft an illusion instead of adjusting it on the spot), their illussions are harder to spot, and they can cast silently.
Diviners gain abilities that allow them to find things, detect stuff, sense danger, see things from afar.
Transmuters are adept at morphing themselves and other stuff. At lower levels they can just make minor changes, later on they can change themselves wholesale into other stuff or they can morph others.
Illussionist stuff lacks actual damaging effects and really only helps in stealthy situations or disabling enemy perception. In croded rooms or surprise situations they are at a disadvantage. Diviners are mostly for recon, investigations, keeping you out of ambushes. They, again, are weak in direct conflict. Transmuter's abilities are limited at first, allowing more for deception, stealth, perhaps granting natural weapons. At higher levels they can merely take on the aspects of lower level threats which means while they can rapidly adjust to a situation they are not particularly as capable as people who are actually geared towards handling a given situation.
That is how I am balancing the abilities in my game.
Quote from: Bill;577347CR fails to do that. The problem is that the variables are unknown. A CR 10 threat is not actually 10. it fluctuates based on many factors.
The only way CR can work, is if your 'well built system' is TOO balanced (all characters nearly the same) and there are no variables like surprise, or terrain.
Retreat is also not really the problem either. Its more a problem of one side getting an early edge from random variables and from strategy thet the other side is unlikely to recover from.
I don't think you have to go to the point of making every the same to achieve some semblance of balance. You'd have to do that only if you want to eliminate the rewards of optimization.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;577306So CR works in "theory land" , but not so much under actual conditions.
I agree with what you mean, but it's actually the reverse: if you consider CR as a hardline rule that must be true in every case in theoryland, it fails miserably. If it is used for what it was explicitly intended to accomplish (cf. encounter design discussion in the 3e DMG), that is, as a guideline allowing the DM to eyeball the relative difficulty of a particular encounter and what it is generally expected to expand in terms of resources of the party, then it works really well.
Considering CRs and ELs as hardline rules was one of the MAJOR shifts in perception in the fandom that led to stale modules, encountardization and the overall culture of uber-game-balance which led to 3.5, Bo9S and ultimately, 4e.
The point isn't whether or not CRs are broken, of course they're broken.
The point is, they can't be anything but broken, because situations are too conditional to rely on CRs as anything more then a ballpark guess - the ballpark being the size of California. It's like expecting a piece of driftwood to be a sliderule.
They were never meant to be GM Handcuffs to give the players My Personal Encounter.
It's one thing to realize that CRs are not a perfect mathematical function.
It's another to realize that they never can be and never will be.
Quote from: CRKrueger;577395The point isn't whether or not CRs are broken, of course they're broken.
The point is, they can't be anything but broken, because situations are too conditional to rely on CRs as anything more then a ballpark guess - the ballpark being the size of California. It's like expecting a piece of driftwood to be a sliderule.
They were never meant to be GM Handcuffs to give the players My Personal Encounter.
Better to have a ballpark guess then be given no clue at all.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577354I admit I have limited experience with CRs and 3e in general. That being said, anyone who says CR works will have me break out Forge of Fury and the CR4 dragon at the end.
Dragons are an especially bad case, because Sean K. Reynolds pretty much admitted "we made dragons tougher than their CR indicated because players will be plan more and mean to them" or something like that.
Like I'd be taking any fewer chances with a beholder or a demon than I would a dragon.
Quote from: MGuy;577396Better to have a ballpark guess then be given no clue at all.
Indeed.
I don't think CRs are useless. I do think that they are no substitute for DM judgement.
If considering what to face your level 10 party with, you could reasonably flip through the book and look for CR 8-12 creatures. But then, you'd have to look at them and decide how the creature will respond to your group's particular capabilities and weaknesses.
CR is not a perfect system, but in general I find it works for most groups. When I play with minmaxers and or in a high caster group we generally don't have a problem dealing with stuff the CR system says they should be handling.
Thinking a little tactics helps with how CRs work. If a monster relies primarily on melee attacks will be easy to defeat if the party can stay out of melee range. Encounters with multiple monsters are easier if the wizard is a battlefield control type. In general a good wizard can carry a group of weak PCs through a lot of encounters
Since I feel like giving an example this is a spell list from a the last time I played a wizard with non-optimized characters
4th- Evard's Black Tentacles. Solid Fog (2) Summon Monster IV
3rd- Fly (2) Empowered Ray of Enfeeblement, Sleet Storm, Slow
2nd- Glitterdust (2), Web, Extended Mage Armor, See Invisibility
1st- Obscuring Mist, Silent Image (3), Ray of Enfeeblement (2) Expeditious Retreat
I think the party lost 2-3 PCs that campaign
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;577345You really ought to be thinking about your monster's specific capabilities rather than a number that supposedly indicates their challenge level. You can always eyeball it too when you become familiar enough with the system.
That's what CR is. It's someone having gone through and ROUGHLY eyeballed the different encounters considering a variety of different situations. A giant scorpion can be pretty tough, unless the PCs are flying (it doesn't have ranged attacks).
Once monsters were eyeballed, formulas were derived that are roughly true (ie, add +x HD to creature type Y, results in +z CR). Again, this is just eyeballing.
But used in that context, it works pretty well.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;577346I believe that a wizard or cleric who is out of spells can still meaningfully contribute, so why not a fighter?
You're right. A cleric without spells is about as useful as a Fighter. The difference is, he did a bunch of things with spells, first. All the time he was casting spells, the Fighter was pretty useless. Once all the classes are out of spells, Fighters are alright. But how often does that happen? And even if it does happen, why can't the Fighter actually SHINE? Being 'about as good' as a cleric is small consolation when you're supposed to be the PREEMINENT combat class.
So let's talk about CR for a minute - considering it is only a 'guideline'.
First off, we know that two creatures that are identical are equally likely to kill each other, right? Obviously whoever rolls better will win, right? So two identical creatures should have the same Challenge Rating, right?
If you take one hundred different creatures, and you had them fight each other in solo encounters, eventually you'd come up with which ones won against their opponents roughly 50% of the time in a variety of settings, right?
That's roughly how CR works. Two creatures of the same CR should ROUGHLY be able to kill each other half the time. A group of 4 characters of that CR should be able to kill a particular monster of their CR using roughly 25% of their resources.
Thus, a Level 10 Party should be able to fight 4 CR 10 opponents a day and be 'close' to defeat.
Assuming 4 members of the party, the Party is EL 14. That is, a party of four characters has an EL 4 higher than their average level. That means they should be able to go against a CR 14 creature and roughly face a 50% chance of death. Again, that involves an average - sometimes the party is really lucky, sometimes they're not; this is eyeballing and making a lot of assumptions about what 'average' means.
But what becomes clear when you play with the makeup of the party is that some classes don't contribute as meaningfully as others. A group of 4 clerics is NIGH UNSTOPPABLE. They combine most of the best features of the Fighter plus lots of spell-casting, and they can heal each other pretty easily; so keeping each other in the fight is pretty easy. Combined with good Fortitude and Will saves, and it's hard to take them out with a 'save or die'.
A cleric is more powerful than a fighter of equivalent level. A group of 4 clerics is better than a group of 4 Fighters. They are capable of standing up to much more challenging foes (ie, higher CR) while expending fewer resources.
That's only a problem because the rules indicate that creatures or PCs of roughly equal CR should be roughly equal in combat prowess and because a large segment of the gaming population wants characters that can contribute in a meaningful fashion.
I like Fighters, but unless the DM allows the character to do things he SHOULDN'T be able to do (for lack of skills or abilities), the Fighter is ultimately unrewarding for me. Since I like fighters, that makes me sad. And if I play with new people, I have to go through explaining why Fighters need a boost over and over again; and people don't seem to see because they want what I want - for Fighters to be cool. They just assume that they must be because they SHOULD be, but they're not... Once you look at the evidence objectively, that fact becomes clear.
Even RPGPundit has weighed in on how obvious it is.
Just can't stop yourselves, can you? Can't just say Wizards are OP in 3e. Nope, have to always go FULL.RETARD. with nuggets of shit like this.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;577412A cleric without spells is about as useful as a Fighter.
Long as you keep your patented Gaming Den "tossing out obviously bullshit one-liners as supposed facts" thing going, you're never going to more then a running joke on this site.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;577412That's only a problem because the rules indicate that creatures or PCs of roughly equal CR should be roughly equal in combat prowess and because a large segment of the gaming population wants characters that can contribute in a meaningful fashion.
I like Fighters, but unless the DM allows the character to do things he SHOULDN'T be able to do (for lack of skills or abilities), the Fighter is ultimately unrewarding for me. Since I like fighters, that makes me sad. And if I play with new people, I have to go through explaining why Fighters need a boost over and over again; and people don't seem to see because they want what I want - for Fighters to be cool. They just assume that they must be because they SHOULD be, but they're not... Once you look at the evidence objectively, that fact becomes clear.
What I don't get is why people on this forum are so resistant to this point of view. I always thought that wizard/cleric>fighter was just something people knew or was the first thing they learned while discussing D&D on the internet. The fact that this thread is probably going to hit 5000 posts is kinda discoraging
Quote from: CRKrueger;577416Long as you keep your patented Gaming Den "tossing out obviously bullshit one-liners as supposed facts" thing going, you're never going to more then a running joke on this site.
If DMM is in than it's basically true. but the point is irrelevant because people tend not to run out of spells after 5th level or so.
Quote from: CRKrueger;577416Long as you keep your patented Gaming Den "tossing out obviously bullshit one-liners as supposed facts" thing going, you're never going to more then a running joke on this site.
If you disagree provide some evidence to the contrary. Would it have made you feel better if he said Druid instead?
So just for all the non-Denners here that are still engaging these useless pieces of shit in honest communication...
Quote from: deadDMwalkingA cleric without spells is about as useful as a Fighter.
Quote from: MGuy;577259Nooo this is oberoni fallacy.
Issue: Problem with the rules. Rules don't do what they say/supposed to do.
Your solution: Change the rules
Your conclusion: No problem exists
That's pretty cut and dry.
I prefer it when people actually discuss what I said than their imagined fantasies. It makes for genuine conversation instead of, y'know, fallacies...
Quote from: CRKrueger;577423So just for all the non-Denners here that are still engaging these useless pieces of shit in honest communication...
I understand now, the balance of trolling and discussion is always zero. When wishing for a troll to be banned someone else must become equally a trollish. That what it means to post on theRPGsite. I've been such a fool.
Moving on from that.
Like I said before the gulf between the cleric and fighter isn't that wide before spells are taken into account, there is a reason why I said that the gap is often closed with one spell.
Fighter 10 vs Cleric 10 no buffs
-the fighter has 3 points of bab and probably 2-4 points of str over the cleric.
Fighter 10 vs Cleric 10 with Divine Favor.
-Divine favor closes the the bab gap and damage gap the fighter has 1-2 points of attack bonus the fighter could have more if he has weapon focus feats.
Fighter 10 vs Cleric 10 with Divine Power and Divine Favor
-Cleric has full bab and close to equal str with the fighter even if the fighter has weapon focus/specialization Divine Favor is giving the cleric more of a bonus.
-If DMM:Persist is in but no stacking nightsticks clerics in general walk around like this all day.
Fighter 10 vs Cleric 10 with Divine Power Divine Favor and Righteous Might
-Cleric is now the fighters clear superior due to large size and size bonuses to str and con.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577476I understand now, the balance of trolling and discussion is always zero. When wishing for a troll to be banned someone else must become equally a trollish. That what it means to post on theRPGsite. I've been such a fool.
Moving on from that.
Like I said before the gulf between the cleric and fighter isn't that wide before spells are taken into account, there is a reason why I said that the gap is often closed with one spell.
Fighter 10 vs Cleric 10 no buffs
-the fighter has 3 points of bab and probably 2-4 points of str over the cleric.
Fighter 10 vs Cleric 10 with Divine Favor.
-Divine favor closes the the bab gap and damage gap the fighter has 1-2 points of attack bonus the fighter could have more if he has weapon focus feats.
Fighter 10 vs Cleric 10 with Divine Power and Divine Favor
-Cleric has full bab and close to equal str with the fighter even if the fighter has weapon focus/specialization Divine Favor is giving the cleric more of a bonus.
-If DMM:Persist is in but no stacking nightsticks clerics in general walk around like this all day.
Fighter 10 vs Cleric 10 with Divine Power Divine Favor and Righteous Might
-Cleric is now the fighters clear superior due to large size and size bonuses to str and con.
I still have no idea what the fuck were they smoking when they made those spells target the caster.
This is my honest bewilderment. What the fuck Wizards?
Quote from: vytzka;577477I still have no idea what the fuck were they smoking when they made those spells target the caster.
This is my honest bewilderment. What the fuck Wizards?
Problem- people did not want to play Clerics in previous editions
Solution- Power up Clerics
All the 3e designers have admitted that the Cleric was given a power up but one the other hand they could just be covering their asses.
Fighters wouldn't get much of a benifit from Divine Power anyway
Cleric buffs in 3E got pretty annoying in my opinion. I am not going to argue that 3E is balanced in that respect. I think it is an edition that definitelt becomes unbalanced as time goes on. However I do think it can be managed if the GM plugs up some of the problems and makes it a bit harder to pull off buffs all the time. Also throwing creatures with magic resistance at the party helps. If i ran 3E again, i would seriously bring back many of the caster limitationsfrom previous eitions and add in a few new ones myself. The system does some things well, but the 3E campaigns never achieved the feel of my 2E sessions.
But I dont think the problems of 3E are really noticeable problems in earlier editions. Not saying 1E and 2E are perfect, but i never really encountered these kinds of issues until I made the switch to 3E. Certainly they could take what worked in those editions and fine tune the math for next since not everyone is satisfied with caster-fighter balance in AD&D. We have discussed this already and it seems that while you can get a good number of people on board for keeping fighters as is but with higher numbers baked in, there remains a very deep divide over mundane versus weeabo fighters. I dont see how you design a fighter class that can satisfy both these preferences. The only way is to make two optional fighters (mundane and weeabo).
That said, i do think when you talk strictly about rules without dealing with actual play and specific scenarios, you will tend to exagerate issues that crop up and the problems will be less universal than intetnet discussion may suggest.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;577482But I dont think the problems of 3E are really noticeable problems in earlier editions.
I'm willing to bet that casters still eventually took over in 2E
The main problem in older editions I'm betting are magic items there is no guidelines for how many you get or at what level you get them. WBL is sort of wonky but it's better than nothing. Not only that but 2E characters need their Items even more since they're the main path of advancement for the fighter class.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577485I'm willing to bet that casters still eventually took over in 2E
The main problem in older editions I'm betting are magic items there is no guidelines for how many you get or at what level you get them. WBL is sort of wonky but it's better than nothing. Not only that but 2E characters need their Items even more since they're the main path of advancement for the fighter class.
We have already had this discussion and people reached different conclusions. I think 2E is basically balanced but designed so wizards start weak and get powerful, so there is some disparity at later levels (though nothing like in 3E). I am fine with that, to me it adds to the game...but it could easily be fixed by baking in more damage bonuses and stuff for the fighter at higher levels. Fighters get a lot of advantages like multiple attacks and specialization (which gives more multiple attacks). Classes advance at different rates. Wizards are physically pretty feeble. Spells have more built in limitations and generally it is just a harder system to min/max. My guess is you still would consider it imbalanced because you have stated that having spells versus not having them always creates disparity.
But try it for yourself and decide. I must say I was pretty amazed at how much more balanced it was when i went back to it after years of 3E.
Magic items do matter. Campaign events matter. Either the gm hands them out for balance purposes or he rolls and places them logically and lets things pan out however they may. Luck of the draw is considered okay in 2e. We used to roll stats straight down and how powerful you character became (regardless of class) was often a product of luck and in game events. To me this is a more enjoyable way to game then an approach where every level five fighter is expected to have items x,y and z. If you dont have the right weapon for the specific challenge, half the fun is questing for the item.
Quote from: MGuy;577363How were they significantly different from one another?
Backgrounds, preferred weapons & tactics, personality. Mechanical manipulations on a character sheet are not the beginning and end of differences in character. If you believe they are then you know jack and shit about roleplaying.
Quote from: MGuy;577363Simple. Magic cannot do as much in my game as it can in 3rd. In other words I approached the problem from the bottom and the top. Casters get less spells over all. Spells depend on skills to work. Spells are available to everyone via feats (casting classes just can get them as a class feature and have special casting/mana generation methods that promote using spells). Spells that are unbalancing (wish, time stop, etc) don't exist. Spells that are necessary to adventure at all (Plane Shift, Breathe Water, etc) are either rituals or unnecessary.
For example the Mage (Wizard) has 3 archetypes: Illussionist, Diviner, Transmuter.
Illussionists specialize in darkness and illusions. They gain abilities that allow them to have more illussions (usually you have to craft an illusion instead of adjusting it on the spot), their illussions are harder to spot, and they can cast silently.
Diviners gain abilities that allow them to find things, detect stuff, sense danger, see things from afar.
Transmuters are adept at morphing themselves and other stuff. At lower levels they can just make minor changes, later on they can change themselves wholesale into other stuff or they can morph others.
Illussionist stuff lacks actual damaging effects and really only helps in stealthy situations or disabling enemy perception. In croded rooms or surprise situations they are at a disadvantage. Diviners are mostly for recon, investigations, keeping you out of ambushes. They, again, are weak in direct conflict. Transmuter's abilities are limited at first, allowing more for deception, stealth, perhaps granting natural weapons. At higher levels they can merely take on the aspects of lower level threats which means while they can rapidly adjust to a situation they are not particularly as capable as people who are actually geared towards handling a given situation.
That is how I am balancing the abilities in my game.
So the answer is that everyone is pretty much a caster of some type. Thats fine for a personal fantasy heartbreaker but the flavor is all wrong for D&D or the sword & sorcery genre in general.
4E went that route, with every character being just another superhero of a different flavor. It produced a sort of balance but at the expense of atmosphere.
In regards to 'Buffs' what I find annoying as a dm and as a player, is the sheer foolishness of casting a dozen spells with varying durations, then only risking danger while glowing like a christmas tree.
I have met players that literally will not set foot from teir stronghold unless they cast every buff spell they have, teleport to the target, ninja'nova them, and then teleport home to rest.
To me, that's a wargame, not an rpg.
Even if the mega buffing fit the setting, its still mechanically cumbersome.
Quote from: Bill;577493In regards to 'Buffs' what I find annoying as a dm and as a player, is the sheer foolishness of casting a dozen spells with varying durations, then only risking danger while glowing like a christmas tree.
I have met players that literally will not set foot from teir stronghold unless they cast every buff spell they have, teleport to the target, ninja'nova them, and then teleport home to rest.
To me, that's a wargame, not an rpg.
Even if the mega buffing fit the setting, its still mechanically cumbersome.
Agreed. Its ponderous, and boring as shit too.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577485I'm willing to bet that casters still eventually took over in 2E
Wizards did. They were balanced across the campaign, their weakness at low levels was made up for by their strength at higher levels. This was by design and it worked pretty much as designed. Yes, if you want all characters equal at all levels, this is bad design -- but not everyone wants this. Non-casters were still powerful even against wizards at high level because saving throws were easier to make as they were not modified by caster level, casting was much easier to interrupt (any hit even for zero damage ruined the spell), spell selection was more limited, wizards could not easily make magic items, etc. Monsters have relatively few hit points, many fewer than in WOTC D&D, so weapon damage could still take monsters down quickly, etc.
Quote from: RandallS;577505Wizards did. They were balanced across the campaign, their weakness at low levels was made up for by their strength at higher levels. This was by design and it worked pretty much as designed. Yes, if you want all characters equal at all levels, this is bad design -- but not everyone wants this. Non-casters were still powerful even against wizards at high level because saving throws were easier to make as they were not modified by caster level, casting was much easier to interrupt (any hit even for zero damage ruined the spell), spell selection was more limited, wizards could not easily make magic items, etc. Monsters have relatively few hit points, many fewer than in WOTC D&D, so weapon damage could still take monsters down quickly, etc.
I would agree with everything but the monster HP. 2E started the jacking up of hp totals, especially giants & dragons.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577480Problem- people did not want to play Clerics in previous editions
Again, not true. The people who didn't like playing Clerics are the same people that whine about 'spotlight time' today. My guess is that it is another RPGA phenomenon where gaining xp the fastest was the order of the day, so playing even a partial support role impinged on that.
Quote from: CRKrueger;577416Just can't stop yourselves, can you? Can't just say Wizards are OP in 3e. Nope, have to always go FULL.RETARD. with nuggets of shit like this.
Quote from: deadDMwalkingOriginally Posted by deadDMwalking
A cleric without spells is about as useful as a Fighter.
Quote from: CRKrueger;577416Long as you keep your patented Gaming Den "tossing out obviously bullshit one-liners as supposed facts" thing going, you're never going to more then a running joke on this site.
I don't mind defending my comment. It's pretty easy, really.
First off, a Cleric without spells has roughly 80% of the hit points, usually the same AC (he can wear the same armor as a Fighter), and usually has a roughly similar to hit bonus. He's unlikely to deal as much damage as a Fighter, but in toe-to-toe melee, the cleric is roughly as effective as a non-optimized Fighter.
Throw in the fact that even without spells he may have the ability to Turn Undead and he can use scrolls and wands (unlike the Fighter) and I think the point that he is ROUGHLY equal is fairly self-evident.
And again, this assumes that the Cleric already used every single one of his prepared spells, so before he ran out of spells, he was CLEARLY more useful than the Fighter.
Personally, I think an all-cleric party is the most powerful (better than an all-druid party, even, and more thematically acceptable). I don't think the game should reward optimization over role-play; therefore, a cleric should not be the optimal choice over a Fighter.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577485I'm willing to bet that casters still eventually took over in 2E
Who cares? 95% of actual time spent playing 2e was before the teen levels, so these scenarios of high level MUs slinging around limited wished and whatnot were so infrequent as to make it statistically irrelevant on how the game was played.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577525Who cares? 95% of actual time spent playing 2e was before the teen levels, so these scenarios of high level MUs slinging around limited wished and whatnot were so infrequent as to make it statistically irrelevant on how the game was played.
Another detail is that dm's allowing casters to rest fully any time they please makes casters far more powerful. Casters are, by design, frontloaded.
Quote from: Bill;577533Another detail is that dm's allowing casters to rest fully any time they please makes casters far more powerful. Casters are, by design, frontloaded.
Which is why thunderdome style fighter v wizard matches are so dumb. The classes are designed with two completely different goals. The wizard: lots of power but only for a limited amount of time. the fighter: effective all day long. So putting them against each other does the fighter a huge disservice. If you wanted an accurate battle, you'd have half a dozen or more combats in a row with the wizard not able to rememorize spells in between each battle.
And no, you can't disallow the fighter to regain hit points while at the same time allowing the MU to heal up to full after every battle. I think it was actually Lord Moron who said that hit points were resources for a fighter and thus shouldn't be healed and didn't apply the same rule to MUs. HP are a resource for every class. That's the whole point of the fighter class: able to perform all day long without worrying about resource management.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577549Which is why thunderdome style fighter v wizard matches are so dumb. The classes are designed with two completely different goals. The wizard: lots of power but only for a limited amount of time. the fighter: effective all day long. So putting them against each other does the fighter a huge disservice. If you wanted an accurate battle, you'd have half a dozen or more combats in a row with the wizard not able to rememorize spells in between each battle.
And no, you can't disallow the fighter to regain hit points while at the same time allowing the MU to heal up to full after every battle. I think it was actually Lord Moron who said that hit points were resources for a fighter and thus shouldn't be healed and didn't apply the same rule to MUs. HP are a resource for every class. That's the whole point of the fighter class: able to perform all day long without worrying about resource management.
True. I would add that by design, Fighters are intended to get spell support incuding healing. That resourse, comes from the CASTERS. By design.
Just like a caster might expect a fighter to take hits for them while the caster unleashes powerful magic.
They really are not designed with a duel in mind.
Now, it is fair to say a well prepared caster can usually outshine a fighter, but an unprepared caster may not.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;577513I don't mind defending my comment. It's pretty easy, really.
First off, a Cleric without spells has roughly 80% of the hit points, usually the same AC (he can wear the same armor as a Fighter), and usually has a roughly similar to hit bonus. He's unlikely to deal as much damage as a Fighter, but in toe-to-toe melee, the cleric is roughly as effective as a non-optimized Fighter.
Throw in the fact that even without spells he may have the ability to Turn Undead and he can use scrolls and wands (unlike the Fighter) and I think the point that he is ROUGHLY equal is fairly self-evident.
And again, this assumes that the Cleric already used every single one of his prepared spells, so before he ran out of spells, he was CLEARLY more useful than the Fighter.
Personally, I think an all-cleric party is the most powerful (better than an all-druid party, even, and more thematically acceptable). I don't think the game should reward optimization over role-play; therefore, a cleric should not be the optimal choice over a Fighter.
I said this back in post 200 or something .... The only weakness of the older Cleric version is a lack of ranged attacks.
Quote from: Bill;577556True. I would add that by design, Fighters are intended to get spell support incuding healing. That resourse, comes from the CASTERS. By design.
Unfortunately, the design assumes that casters will use spells to support Fighters. Some players have realized that they're more effective when they DON'T buff the Fighter. If combat is difficult, survival for the team dictates playing smart. If playing smart means letting the Fighter sit out and do the best he can with his bow while other characters try to take out the monster with Save or Die or buff the easiest person to reach (usually themselves), that's what happens.
So the Fighter is SUPPOSED to get spell support, but nothing ensures that he will.
It's great to say people shouldn't play with assholes, but it's hardly being a dick to try to use your character effectively and expect others to do the same.
The fighter is kind of a mooch in high level play. While other characters are effective all by themselves, the Fighter needs them to spend time and actions ensuring he can contribute. Like many parties, the mooch isn't welcome for long.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577549Which is why thunderdome style fighter v wizard matches are so dumb. The classes are designed with two completely different goals. The wizard: lots of power but only for a limited amount of time. the fighter: effective all day long. So putting them against each other does the fighter a huge disservice. If you wanted an accurate battle, you'd have half a dozen or more combats in a row with the wizard not able to rememorize spells in between each battle.
And no, you can't disallow the fighter to regain hit points while at the same time allowing the MU to heal up to full after every battle. I think it was actually Lord Moron who said that hit points were resources for a fighter and thus shouldn't be healed and didn't apply the same rule to MUs. HP are a resource for every class. That's the whole point of the fighter class: able to perform all day long without worrying about resource management.
But on a macro level a caster can hit a fighter then retreat and then do the same thing the next day and the next and the next. In old editions of D&D (2e and prior) HP heal so slowly that the unsupported fighter will wear down as they have no way to recover that key resource HP. Whereas the caster can go and recover their 3 , 4, 5 ,6 spell combo every day.
So my Wizard telports in invisible hits the figther with a fireball then teleports out. Costs 4 spells, invisibility, teleport, fireball, teleport. Chuck in a scry spell for luck.
The wizard can turn up smack the fighter, who may save for 50%, then gone. Then do the same tomorrow as all spells recovery every day... the fighter however will recover 1 HP per day, 2 if he rests all day. Overtime the fighter in this scenario is doomed.....
Now I think its a good claim for a faster healing mechanism like the HD mechanism in 5e.
Also in earlier editions Fighters effectively heal slower than everyone else. If a Fighter has 20 HP at 3rd level he heals 5% of hits per day. a wizard with 8 HP at 3rd level heals 12.5% of HP per day a recovery rate 2.5 times faster ....
Quote from: jibbajibba;577565But on a macro level a caster can hit a fighter then retreat and then do the same thing the next day and the next and the next. In old editions of D&D (2e and prior) HP heal so slowly that the unsupported fighter will wear down as they have no way to recover that key resource HP. Whereas the caster can go and recover their 3 , 4, 5 ,6 spell combo every day.
So my Wizard telports in invisible hits the figther with a fireball then teleports out. Costs 4 spells, invisibility, teleport, fireball, teleport. Chuck in a scry spell for luck.
The wizard can turn up smack the fighter, who may save for 50%, then gone. Then do the same tomorrow as all spells recovery every day... the fighter however will recover 1 HP per day, 2 if he rests all day. Overtime the fighter in this scenario is doomed.....
Now I think its a good claim for a faster healing mechanism like the HD mechanism in 5e.
Also in earlier editions Fighters effectively heal slower than everyone else. If a Fighter has 20 HP at 3rd level he heals 5% of hits per day. a wizard with 8 HP at 3rd level heals 12.5% of HP per day a recovery rate 2.5 times faster ....
But that's not how the classes were designed to be played. In TSR D&D, the classes were designed under the assumption that you've had several encounters or combats before you were able to rest up. Casters couldn't blow their load in the first encounter unless they expected to be worthless for the rest of the day. And I don't know any players who played a MU that was part of a party who would pop in, launch some spells, and then disappear for the rest of the day while their party members continued to explore the dungeon.
Fighters were designed to keep going, regardless of how may encounters they might have. Their abilities didn't expire. They weren't limited. So a fighter in his 13th combat is just as effective as his 1st. A MU cannot do that unless you do some serious resource management. And if you do resource management, then there is no way the MU can blow all his spells in the first encounter.
That's what I'm getting at. If you allow the MU to rest up in between each encounter (which never happened in AD&D that I ever played), then that's on you as a group and not evidence that there are balance issues in the rules. Just like ignoring rules like spell interruptions, spell learning, and spell components.
Quote from: RandallS;577505Wizards did. They were balanced across the campaign, their weakness at low levels was made up for by their strength at higher levels.
This is a bad way to balance a game and you should feel bad for suggesting it.
Quote from: RandallS;577505This was by design and it worked pretty much as designed. Yes, if you want all characters equal at all levels, this is bad design -- but not everyone wants this.
-_- No comment
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577549The wizard: lots of power but only for a limited amount of time. the fighter: effective all day long. So putting them against each other does the fighter a huge disservice.
Sweet Byakuren it's night of the living dead talking points here. Someone get me a cleric. No matter what edition we are talking about fighters have a resource, their hp. They are going to have a hard time replenishing that resource by themselves.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577549And no, you can't disallow the fighter to regain hit points while at the same time allowing the MU to heal up to full after every battle. I think it was actually Lord Moron who said that hit points were resources for a fighter and thus shouldn't be healed and didn't apply the same rule to MUs. HP are a resource for every class.
Spellcasters reset their spells every day, If I'm remembering correctly barring magical stuff you regain 1 hp/level for a night of rest so you're comparing apples to oranges.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577549That's the whole point of the fighter class: able to perform all day long without worrying about resource management.
No the point of the fighter class is to be an entitled jackass apparently.
Quote from: Bill;577556True. I would add that by design, Fighters are intended to get spell support incuding healing. That resourse, comes from the CASTERS. By design.
because you're sponging spells of the party casters without contributing any of your own.
As a caster your job is to stretch those limited spells as far as they go but if spells run out then spells run out and it's time to find a safe place to rest. If you have more spellcasters than the adventuring day is longer not shorter.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577567Sweet Byakuren it's night of the living dead talking points here someone get me a cleric. No matter what edition we are talking about fighters have a resource, their hp. They are going to have a hard time replenishing that resource by themselves.
So do magic users. Every class has hp. It's extremely disingenuous to say the fighter can't heal after every versus battle but the MU does.
QuoteSpellcasters reset their spells every day, If I'm remembering correctly barring magical stuff you regain 1 hp/level for a night of rest so you're comparing apples to oranges.
Did you intentionally miss the part about several encounters per day, or are you just stupid? Or are you one of those people who let a MU re-memorize every spell after every combat?
QuoteNo the point of the fighter class is to be an entitled jackass apparently.
How do you come to this conclusion? By holding different standards to the fighter? Yeah, that's an intellectually honest position to have...
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577567This is a bad way to balance a game and you should feel bad for suggesting it.
-_-
lots of people prefer this style of balance. I prefer it, so does Randall. I could be wrong but my sense is Jibba does as well (that or he simply accepts thi as a feature of 2E whether he personally prefers it or not). Nothing wrong with advocating for the kind of design that produces games we like. Different pele want different kinds if balance. Assuming that your preference is shared by all, or the best because you happen to like it or have built a good argument in its favor, is misguided in my opinion. It may be this sort of balance isnt the best approach for D&D because of its broad appeal as a game (which is why I have saud you can easily fix this balance over the campaign issue by beefing up the fighter). But not a thing wrong with balance over the campaign as a design goal.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577566But that's not how the classes were designed to be played. In TSR D&D, the classes were designed under the assumption that you've had several encounters or combats before you were able to rest up. Casters couldn't blow their load in the first encounter unless they expected to be worthless for the rest of the day. And I don't know any players who played a MU that was part of a party who would pop in, launch some spells, and then disappear for the rest of the day while their party members continued to explore the dungeon.
Fighters were designed to keep going, regardless of how may encounters they might have. Their abilities didn't expire. They weren't limited. So a fighter in his 13th combat is just as effective as his 1st. A MU cannot do that unless you do some serious resource management. And if you do resource management, then there is no way the MU can blow all his spells in the first encounter.
That's what I'm getting at. If you allow the MU to rest up in between each encounter (which never happened in AD&D that I ever played), then that's on you as a group and not evidence that there are balance issues in the rules. Just like ignoring rules like spell interruptions, spell learning, and spell components.
Not how they designed I agree but how they can be played.
I actualy think that figthers do use HP as a resource that does not naturally replenish which is why I favour systems that treat HP like cuts and scrapes that quickly recover as opposed to wounds.
So in his 1st combat he has 30 HP in his 13th he will have 4... so no not so very effective unless someone else is healing him which uses up a resource.
And its not ignoring the rules at all. The rules do not state 'do not let a wizard rest between combats'. You are conflating play style with rules.
Bad NPC wizards act just like this of course even in old school D&D.
Interestingly I am reading some Dying Earth and you know what in Dying Earth the wizards get prepped and buffed show up blow their load and kill their opponents then get the fuck out of Dodge back to their manse and rest up and relearn their spells.
So the Source of the magic system amusingly replicates the obvious abuse of the magic system.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577568Did you intentionally miss the part about several encounters per day, or are you just stupid? Or are you one of those people who let a MU re-memorize every spell after every combat?
My argument is all about several enconters per day. If you have more spellcasters in the party than you can face more encounters because you have more spells.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577568How do you come to this conclusion? By holding different standards to the fighter? Yeah, that's an intellectually honest position to have...
People are here are at the same time arguing that fighters are fine because they receive buffs from the casters, while at the same time arguing casters are fine because they run out of spells. Yeah, that's an intellectually honest position to have...
I am not seeing why it is an issue that fighters get healing from the cleric. In my experience most of the cleric healing goes to the fighters in a game like 2E because the fighters are good at fighting and you want to keep them in the game. Clerics in AD&D are not like their 3E counterparts imo. The fighter gets more attacks, has better attacks does more damage and stays in the game longer.
It's awesome this thread still lives, who cares that everything you guys are talking about has been discussed about 10 times already in this very thread.;)
Quote from: Marleycat;577576It's awesome this thread still lives, who cares that everything you guys are talking about has be discussed about 10 times already.;)
Somehow I let myself get suckered back into posting on thing :)
It is true these points have already been debated here.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;577570lots of people prefer this style of balance. I prefer it, so does Randall. I could be wrong but my sense is Jibba does as well (that or he simply accepts thi as a feature of 2E whether he personally prefers it or not). Nothing wrong with advocating for the kind of design that produces games we like. Different pele want different kinds if balance. Assuming that your preference is shared by all, or the best because you happen to like it or have built a good argument in its favor, is misguided in my opinion. It may be this sort of balance isnt the best approach for D&D because of its broad appeal as a game (which is why I have saud you can easily fix this balance over the campaign issue by beefing up the fighter). But not a thing wrong with balance over the campaign as a design goal.
I treat the balance as a part of D&D. However, I think it should be eased.
By making HP recover faster you help the Combat classes.
By rebalancing spell slots or using spell points you can allow the wizard to do more at low level and restrict their power at high levels.
This isn't a radical shift its a minor change that helps to make the game more fun for more players for longer. To me that is always a good thing.
Quote from: jibbajibba;577579I treat the balance as a part of D&D. However, I think it should be eased.
By making HP recover faster you help the Combat classes.
By rebalancing spell slots or using spell points you can allow the wizard to do more at low level and restrict their power at high levels.
This isn't a radical shift its a minor change that helps to make the game more fun for more players for longer. To me that is always a good thing.
I agree but I for one am not interested or want the kind of balance 4e strives for.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;577578Somehow I let myself get suckered back into posting on thing :)
It is true these points have already been debated here.
I was just thinking the same thing :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;577579I treat the balance as a part of D&D. However, I think it should be eased.
By making HP recover faster you help the Combat classes.
By rebalancing spell slots or using spell points you can allow the wizard to do more at low level and restrict their power at high levels.
This isn't a radical shift its a minor change that helps to make the game more fun for more players for longer. To me that is always a good thing.
I can see how you like this, but since I treat HP as physical damage, faster healing rates irk me quite a bit. I have no problem with doing something like making healing rates more proportional, so a fighter is getting his HP back faster. But really this has never been much of a problem in my campaigns either way. Sometimes the events within a campaign do give one class advantages over another (for example when magic healing isn't available, the fighter sudde ly has to be very careful). But for me that kind of stuff is just part of a believable campaign setting. 2E hits the right spot for me. To fix any issues with balance over time, my solution would just be to strnegthen the fiter a bit. But I really like how it plays out as is, and the solutions I am seeing from many here, just have no appeal to me.
Quote from: jibbajibba;577582I was just thinking the same thing :)
What can you, it is the internet.
Quote from: Marleycat;577580I agree but I for one am not interested or want the kind of balance 4e strives for.
This is not the balance that 4e strives for.
4e Strives for balance where each class can on average produce X damage per round versus an opponent of CR XX.
I am merely saying tweaking a couple of rules so that the sweet spot of play runs from 3rd -10th level rather than from 5-8 is a good thing.
Wizards will still be weak in combat, fighters will still have more HP and deal more damage etc etc ...
Other house rules for balance and playability I recommend would be
i) give all 1st level PCs +1d6hp representing their human normal before they became a class (it makes no sense that adventuring wizards are weaker than milkmen or scribes)
ii) give Clerics d6 HP and Thieves d8 and switch their combat tables/THACO - I am in favour of 2e Priests with varied balance of spells/combat/HP but this is a simpler method that just serves to balance the classes very simply.
Quote from: Marleycat;577576It's awesome this thread still lives, who cares that everything you guys are talking about has been discussed about 10 times already in this very thread.;)
We can't sleep. Someone is wrong on the internet!
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;577575I am not seeing why it is an issue that fighters get healing from the cleric. In my experience most of the cleric healing goes to the fighters in a game like 2E because the fighters are good at fighting and you want to keep them in the game. Clerics in AD&D are not like their 3E counterparts imo. The fighter gets more attacks, has better attacks does more damage and stays in the game longer.
I don't see how the 2e fighter is that much more duable than the 2e cleric they use the same armor and on adverage the fighter get on 1 more hp/level
the fighter may have 1/2-1 more attacks but the cleric has spells.
I find it hard to find anything worth keeping about a class that never brings anything but bigger numbers to the table.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;577583I can see how you like this, but since I treat HP as physical damage, faster healing rates irk me quite a bit. I have no problem with doing something like making healing rates more proportional, so a fighter is getting his HP back faster. But really this has never been much of a problem in my campaigns either way. Sometimes the events within a campaign do give one class advantages over another (for example when magic healing isn't available, the fighter sudde ly has to be very careful). But for me that kind of stuff is just part of a believable campaign setting. 2E hits the right spot for me. To fix any issues with balance over time, my solution would just be to strnegthen the fiter a bit. But I really like how it plays out as is, and the solutions I am seeing from many here, just have no appeal to me.
A modification of the HD cure rate in Next might be a good 1/2 way house.
A fighter regains 1d10 + con bonus per day, a Wizard 1d4 + con bonus etc
Also removes the issue that a 20th level fighter takes 31 days to heal (remember all extra points heal on the 31st day after 2hp/day up to that point) but a 2nd level figther can heal up to maximum after a fortnight after both of them were at death's door.
It will take the wizard 13 hours just to memorize those 4 spells. Meanwhile, the fighter is just sitting on his ass having a cappuccino, I suppose? After a couple fireballs, the fighter will take precautions. And he has a minimum of 13 hours to prepare.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577587I don't see how the 2e fighter is that much more duable than the 2e cleric they use the same armor and on adverage the fighter get on 1 more hp/level
the fighter may have 1/2-1 more attacks but the cleric has spells.
I find it hard to find anything worth keeping about a class that never brings anything but bigger numbers to the table.
Fighters also got extra hp for high con that clerics didn't
Quote from: jibbajibba;577573And its not ignoring the rules at all. The rules do not state 'do not let a wizard rest between combats'. You are conflating play style with rules.
Not really. With rules like wandering monsters, and the way most dungeons were laid out, it was really impossible for a party to rest fully in between each encounter unless the DM was doing the players a favor.
I also find it pretty funny that Lord Moron makes a comment that fighters must be entitled, and in the very same post makes a comment that the party is expected to cater to the wizards every whim and rest whenever the wizard needs to recharge spells.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577574My argument is all about several enconters per day. If you have more spellcasters in the party than you can face more encounters because you have more spells.
.
Try to keep up. My whole context was around the wizard vs fighter in a thunderdome, and how it was flawed because the game was designed around several encounters per day, which the tunderdome doesn't emulate because it allows the wizard to re-mem every spell again after each round.
Quote from: Marleycat;577576It's awesome this thread still lives, who cares that everything you guys are talking about has been discussed about 10 times already in this very thread.;)
Its all about post # 5000 don'tcha know?
Quote from: JRR;577595It will take the wizard 13 hours just to memorize those 4 spells. Meanwhile, the fighter is just sitting on his ass having a cappuccino, I suppose? After a couple fireballs, the fighter will take precautions. And he has a minimum of 13 hours to prepare.
No the wizard is having a cappuccino in his manse whilst the fighter is battling his way over the barren Moors of Mulgabin.
What precautions will he take?
What is he going to do?
Build a castle perhaps?
Bury himself in a bog?
Since the wizard can scry him arrive invisible and artillery him what options do we have ?
I am not saying its a level playing field I am not saying its a fair and reasonable fight. I am saying its what an Evil NPC wizard would do to a fighter/non-magical party he wants to fuck up with no risk to himself.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577599Try to keep up. My whole context was around the wizard vs fighter in a thunderdome, and how it was flawed because the game was designed around several encounters per day, which the tunderdome doesn't emulate because it allows the wizard to re-mem every spell again after each round.
You are right the thunder dome assumes that all combatants are rested but that is not the real reason its not fair.
Its not fair because the wizard can do many more things in many more situations than the fighter.
That is just how the game is designed.
Quote from: jibbajibba;577611You are right the thunder dome assumes that all combatants are rested but that is not the real reason its not fair.
Its not fair because the wizard can do many more things in many more situations than the fighter.
That is just how the game is designed.
We're just going to have to disagree then, because the above is only true under the assumption that the wizard has access to all of his spells for each encounter and doesn't have to worry about things like spell interruptions and components.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577597Not really. With rules like wandering monsters, and the way most dungeons were laid out, it was really impossible for a party to rest fully in between each encounter unless the DM was doing the players a favor.
I also find it pretty funny that Lord Moron makes a comment that fighters must be entitled, and in the very same post makes a comment that the party is expected to cater to the wizards every whim and rest whenever the wizard needs to recharge spells.
Again not true. The layout of dungeons is not in the rules. Its a play style.
You can find a room use iron spikes to jamb the door, or a spell if you like, and rest up.
People don't do it because its boring and dull and tedious.
The same reason a group of PCs trying to take down a garison in a modern war RPG wouldn't just sit in their base 50 miles away and pound the shit out of the place for 2 weeks with air assaults and cruise missiles.
You are forgetting as well that the fighter needs his HP to be fully operational and he can only get them if the cleric can heal him.
In my experience the party stopping to allow the cleric to relearn Cures because the Fighter is at 10hp from 50 is a more common occurance than stopping because the wizard runs out of spells at that sort of level (c 7ish ) the wizard has a ring and a wand that they use most of the time and they drip feed the spells as needed.
There are a few spells in particular that have a big bang for the buck.
Heal, Haste, Teleport, Charm Monster, etc...
Casters that are heavy with the best spells are many times more effective than a caster without those particular spells.
Its difficult to pin down the overall power of a caster. Some are 'feeble' and others are 'gods'
Fighters have the same issue but it is usually less severe. Strength score, Magic weapon, etc...
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577615We're just going to have to disagree then, because the above is only true under the assumption that the wizard has access to all of his spells for each encounter and doesn't have to worry about things like spell interruptions and components.
Again no I just said the wizard can do more things in more situations. I didn't say if they have their full complement of spells etc ...
If a 10th level wizard has 13 spells that means they can so 13 things a day that the fighter can't do, if they only have 5 left they can only do 5 things the fighter can't do.
The fighter is better at hitting stuff and taking damage. Sure he's always better at the first and usually better at the second if someone can keep on pumping him full of magic asprin.
I don't mind this its how the game is built. It's like saying How come I get to play Captain America but your Iron man character can do loads of extra stuff. Its just the way it works.
Wizards have flexibility and options. Fighters are good at hitting stuff.
If you don't like it play Rune Quest :)
And my point is that it's not always true.
For example, you have a 5th level MU with 3 1st, 2 2nd, and 1 3rd level spell.
combat 1 the MU is more effective, but has cast his 3rd level and 1 of his first level spells
combat 2 the MU still manages to be more effective, but has cast his 2nd level and another 1st level spell
combat 3 the MU is not nearly as effective as his remaining 2 spells are useless for that particular combat scenario
combat 4 the MU is still not effective. Sure, an opportunity to cast his last remaining 2nd level spell arises, but he took an arrow and the spell is ruined.
Combat 5-10 the MU is not really effective at all, because the fighter is still pushing out as much damage as he did in combat 1 while the MU is flinging rocks.
the group can finally rest and the MU can re-mem his spells. But out of 10 combats, he was only more effective for 2 of them.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577567This is a bad way to balance a game and you should feel bad for suggesting it.
I don't feel bad at all as this method has worked well for years in my campaigns and in those of other people. It does not provide the balanced at all times/all levels design you want, but all games are not required to satisfy you and not me (or vice-versa).
Quote from: Bill;577619There are a few spells in particular that have a big bang for the buck.
Heal, Haste, Teleport, Charm Monster, etc...
Casters that are heavy with the best spells are many times more effective than a caster without those particular spells.
Its difficult to pin down the overall power of a caster. Some are 'feeble' and others are 'gods'
Fighters have the same issue but it is usually less severe. Strength score, Magic weapon, etc...
You are correct.
However, I can take a seemingly feeble spell like randomly opens book - "there not there" from the Tome of Magic 2e to bypass a trap , free a prisoner, make a fortune in a circus, trick a sultan into giving me the magic code that secures his magic unicorn, stealing a grimoire, etc etc etc ....
if you are smart and have a good imagination even a seemingly trivial magical spell can acomplish miracles, shit I mean it is a miracle so what would you expect.
if you pack the common stuff you merely exceed in those common situations.
Give me a spell and I'll test the hypothesis.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577625And my point is that it's not always true.
For example, you have a 5th level MU with 3 1st, 2 2nd, and 1 3rd level spell.
combat 1 the MU is more effective, but has cast his 3rd level and 1 of his first level spells
combat 2 the MU still manages to be more effective, but has cast his 2nd level and another 1st level spell
combat 3 the MU is not nearly as effective as his remaining 2 spells are useless for that particular combat scenario
combat 4 the MU is still not effective. Sure, an opportunity to cast his last remaining 2nd level spell arises, but he took an arrow and the spell is ruined.
Combat 5-10 the MU is not really effective at all, because the fighter is still pushing out as much damage as he did in combat 1 while the MU is flinging rocks.
the group can finally rest and the MU can re-mem his spells. But out of 10 combats, he was only more effective for 2 of them.
possibly ... but I am confused. At 5th level the fighter has on average 27HP. if he takes a single hit in each combat from a longsword by the 6th fight he is dead..... so .... not so effective.
In reality the fighter will be pushing to rest after fight 3 or 4 when the cleric has used all his cures and the fighter is on 15 Hp and sees him self dropping to a lucky crit.
I think a party that pushed through 10 consecutive fights at 5th level and when the first two of those fights caused the MU to blow his best spells is unlikey to ever reach 6th level....in fact how did they get to 4th?
Quote from: jibbajibba;577631possibly ... but I am confused. At 5th level the fighter has on average 27HP. if he takes a single hit in each combat from a longsword by the 6th fight he is dead..... so .... not so effective.
You can make the same argument for the MU, or even say they would die first. Or do MUs never take any damage in your scenarios?
Again, this is a disingenuous argument to count hp against the fighter but not the MU. We're talking about resources here unique to each class. I.e., a MUs spells vs a fighters fighting ability.
QuoteIn reality the fighter will be pushing to rest after fight 3 or 4 when the cleric has used all his cures and the fighter is on 15 Hp and sees him self dropping to a lucky crit.
Not really. Up to 6-10 combats before finding a place where you could rest isn't that uncommon in AD&D. Ever hear of wandering monsters or healing potions?
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577587I don't see how the 2e fighter is that much more duable than the 2e cleric they use the same armor and on adverage the fighter get on 1 more hp/level
the fighter may have 1/2-1 more attacks but the cleric has spells.
I find it hard to find anything worth keeping about a class that never brings anything but bigger numbers to the table.
I had typed up a whole response to this, but it occured to me it has already been discussed at length (particularly between me and Jibba earlier in the thread). I suggest you review the specialization chart that gives the attacks per round for different weapons (keeping in mind clerics are only getting one attack each round). Look at the 2E cleric spell list. Take a look at how stats work in 2E (particularly CON and STR). Then examine the THAC0 chart. Fighters in 2E hold their own pretty well. There are plenty of reasons to pick a fighter over a cleric in that edition of the game.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577625And my point is that it's not always true.
Oh no, it is true, it's mathematically provable (although you'll never see the proof) and applicable in 100% of cases. Without exception. PERIOD.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577632You can make the same argument for the MU, or even say they would die first. Or do MUs never take any damage in your scenarios?
Wait... you mean
not isolate every single character unto itself so it can be picked apart completely divorced from what is actually occurring in the setting and highly conditional? :eek:
The saddest thing here is seeing Mr. Improv Murder Mystery shed all intellectual integrity backing the pointwhores because Benoist and Vulmea made him ragequit once for a few weeks.
Sorry, did I say sad, I meant hilarious. :rotfl:
Maybe it's time to break out my Core Rules CD ROM again and whip up a couple level 7 fighter and cleric NPCs. Have to wait until I get home first though.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577632You can make the same argument for the MU, or even say they would die first. Or do MUs never take any damage in your scenarios?
Again, this is a disingenuous argument to count hp against the fighter but not the MU. We're talking about resources here unique to each class. I.e., a MUs spells vs a fighters fighting ability.
Not really. Up to 6-10 combats before finding a place where you could rest isn't that uncommon in AD&D. Ever hear of wandering monsters or healing potions?
Okay for me 10 consecutive combats with no rest is a shit load. Typically as a party we just never fought that much. A fight avoided means resources spared until you can't avoid it any more.
You keep using wandering monsters as some great panacea of balance. In 1e if I recall you made a check once every 3 to 6 turns for an encounter with an encounter occuring 1 in 6 times so lets say you went for 1 every 3 turns that means typically you will have a single wandering monster encounter every 3 hours of play or 3 in a 9 hour adventuring day. Of those 3 encounters some will need to be avoided becuase they will be a great threat and some will be a minor annoyance others will be oportunities to trade or learn information. I would postuate that only 1 in 3 encounters results in combat. Thus we have on average 1 random encounter per day..... which acts as the ultimate balancer on those pesky wizards.....
Magic potions are like I said the magic asprin that keeps the fighter going. If you can find them great but in my games there are no magic poitions in Ye old adventurer stores or any of that palava.
Of course the MU can take damage obviously but he isn't taking the same level of damage as the fighter because that is the fighter's job, at 5th level at least. The wizard is artillery.
I know this has been said several times before, but what the hell.
In AD&D, casters could overpower fighters, but not until well after name level. A period where only a small % of gameplay was actually done, so it's hardly a gamebreaker of imbalance.
If the balance was as bad as some people claim, don't you think it would have been addressed at some point in the 25 years of D&D being played? And if caster superiority was such a problem in TSR D&D, why would WotC put out an edition that made it worse?
Or maybe, just maybe, it wasn't a big problem. Maybe, just maybe, people had fun playing D&D for 25 years with rules that weren't in fact, horribly broken.
I know, I know...it might be hard for some people to understand that other people had fun playing D&D before they were potty trained. But it did happen. It wasn't a myth.
Quote from: jibbajibba;577644You keep using wandering monsters as some great panacea of balance. In 1e if I recall you made a check once every 3 to 6 turns for an encounter with an encounter occuring 1 in 6 times so lets say you went for 1 every 3 turns that means typically you will have a single wandering monster encounter every 3 hours of play or 3 in a 9 hour adventuring day. Of those 3 encounters some will need to be avoided becuase they will be a great threat and some will be a minor annoyance others will be oportunities to trade or learn information. I would postuate that only 1 in 3 encounters results in combat. Thus we have on average 1 random encounter per day..... which acts as the ultimate balancer on those pesky wizards.....
I also said how the adventures were designed. Or when you played AD&D, did you just have the group of bugbears across the hall ignore the party fighting orcs, and just have them wait statically for the party to rest up and enter their room?
And I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure random encounters were a lot more frequent than that.
Quote from: CRKrueger;577639Oh no, it is true, it's mathematically provable (although you'll never see the proof) and applicable in 100% of cases. Without exception. PERIOD.
Wait... you mean not isolate every single character unto itself so it can be picked apart completely divorced from what is actually occurring in the setting and highly conditional? :eek:
The saddest thing here is seeing Mr. Improv Murder Mystery shed all intellectual integrity backing the pointwhores because Benoist and Vulmea made him ragequit once for a few weeks.
Sorry, did I say sad, I meant hilarious. :rotfl:
hello.... I am actually trying to put everything that might happen in a game into the pot.
just trying to help....
As I said from the start there is no balance at low levels MUs are shit and high levels they are gods.
I have no issue with it its the game its how its supposed to work, but here we get this idea that a 5th level fighter can run through 10 fights no impact on them at all, or that a 5th level fighter is as flexible as a wizard.
These are the points of intellectual dishonesty. I think smoothing the curve making low level wizards tougher, by having more spells, and high level ones weaker, less spells, and making HP recover faster balances play out a bit.
But as Brendan pointed out this is a done discussion and I am really just a bit bored at work so meh....
Ragequit was due to Ben's continued reference to "aspies" etc which I found distateful.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577625And my point is that it's not always true.
For example, you have a 5th level MU with 3 1st, 2 2nd, and 1 3rd level spell.
combat 1 the MU is more effective, but has cast his 3rd level and 1 of his first level spells
combat 2 the MU still manages to be more effective, but has cast his 2nd level and another 1st level spell
combat 3 the MU is not nearly as effective as his remaining 2 spells are useless for that particular combat scenario
combat 4 the MU is still not effective. Sure, an opportunity to cast his last remaining 2nd level spell arises, but he took an arrow and the spell is ruined.
Combat 5-10 the MU is not really effective at all, because the fighter is still pushing out as much damage as he did in combat 1 while the MU is flinging rocks.
the group can finally rest and the MU can re-mem his spells. But out of 10 combats, he was only more effective for 2 of them.
bweh, everyone is dead by combat 7 at the latest because the Cleric ran out of healing around combat 5. unless these are all weak encounters at which point than yes the fighter gets to shine. If these are actually challenging encounters 3e style the the party is dead almost for sure after encounter 5 or 6 because the just used up 100% of their resources inc. hp.
It sucks hard to be a 2e Mage on an endurance run but if the mage's player is someone like me then I'm keeping my spells in reserve only using what is absolutely necessary to win the encounter. The party is still going to rest once the cleric is out of healing. Either that or the DM's makin' it rain with the consumables.
Why don't you come back when you finally understand that there was D&D before 3e, Lord Moron. Until then, let the adults talk.
Quote from: jibbajibba;577585This is not the balance that 4e strives for.
4e Strives for balance where each class can on average produce X damage per round versus an opponent of CR XX.
I am merely saying tweaking a couple of rules so that the sweet spot of play runs from 3rd -10th level rather than from 5-8 is a good thing.
Wizards will still be weak in combat, fighters will still have more HP and deal more damage etc etc ...
Other house rules for balance and playability I recommend would be
i) give all 1st level PCs +1d6hp representing their human normal before they became a class (it makes no sense that adventuring wizards are weaker than milkmen or scribes)
ii) give Clerics d6 HP and Thieves d8 and switch their combat tables/THACO - I am in favour of 2e Priests with varied balance of spells/combat/HP but this is a simpler method that just serves to balance the classes very simply.
I am with you as I said I am no fan of "virtual" balance like the "denners" seem to advocate. Only 654 to go!:)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577646I also said how the adventures were designed. Or when you played AD&D, did you just have the group of bugbears across the hall ignore the party fighting orcs, and just have them wait statically for the party to rest up and enter their room?
And I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure random encounters were a lot more frequent than that.
That is the rate for Wandering monsters and I tend to imagine that the bugbears would hide, wait for the orcs or the party to win then kill whoever was left and take their stuff.
I don't really think a dungeon where there is a tribe of orcs in this room and over the corridor there are a dozen bugbears and the two groups just sit there waiting for a bunch of PCs to turn up at random one day is my thing. The party would show up all the orcs would be dead and the bugbears would probably already have all their stuff and some more space to spread out.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577651Why don't you come back when you finally understand that there was D&D before 3e, Lord Moron. Until then, let the adults talk.
-_- I'm using 3e logic here but it is applicable to all editions. If the fighter can handle the encounter without my spells then I'm not casting any spell especially if this is 2e an I have like 5 spells tops, these are 2e spells so often they do more but that's very limited resources.
You have posited a 10 encounter workday to put spellcasters at a disadvantage. If these encounters are a real threat to the party than people will take damage or have other bad things happen to them that the cleric will need to take care of. If these 10 encounters are not a strain on party healing than they probably are not challenging. Now I think a game where the wizard is playing smash bros while the fighter grinds on kobalds might by kinda boring.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577632You can make the same argument for the MU, or even say they would die first. Or do MUs never take any damage in your scenarios?
In your games, does the Wizard take damage in every fight? How about the Fighter?
If the Fighter is going toe-to-toe with melee bruisers, he's going to take hit point damage. If the Wizard is hiding in the back away from most of the action, he may take a hit or two infrequently (either if a melee bruiser makes it to the back rank or more likely because of missile fire).
But you can't posit the Fighter always has full hit points when you have the
expectation that he trade blows with melee combatants.
Consider a troll versus party encounter - that's almost a cliche encounter. The troll has some nasty melee attacks, but it doesn't have any missile attacks. In that fight, if it's challenging, we'd expect the Fighter to take some damage and the Wizard to probably avoid taking any damage.
But the funny thing is that people who have observed this
in play are accused of 'white-room theory wanking', while the people that don't think it happens are trying to use 'theory' to prove it doesn't happen...
Quote from: deadDMwalking;577666But you can't posit the Fighter always has full hit points when you have the expectation that he trade blows with melee combatants.
That expectation replaces any that he may have about surviving to 2nd level.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577625And my point is that it's not always true.
For example, you have a 5th level MU with 3 1st, 2 2nd, and 1 3rd level spell.
combat 1 the MU is more effective, but has cast his 3rd level and 1 of his first level spells
combat 2 the MU still manages to be more effective, but has cast his 2nd level and another 1st level spell
combat 3 the MU is not nearly as effective as his remaining 2 spells are useless for that particular combat scenario
combat 4 the MU is still not effective. Sure, an opportunity to cast his last remaining 2nd level spell arises, but he took an arrow and the spell is ruined.
Combat 5-10 the MU is not really effective at all, because the fighter is still pushing out as much damage as he did in combat 1 while the MU is flinging rocks.
the group can finally rest and the MU can re-mem his spells. But out of 10 combats, he was only more effective for 2 of them.
Fighters don't have infinite hit points. The nature of melee combat in particular is that you have to put yourself into harms way. Do you really think that a fighter can stay upright for 10 consecutive combat encounters? Especially when in 8 of those combats at least one of the PCs apparently made no meaningful contribution?
Fighters may not have infinite hp, but in 1E/2E they have twice the hp of a wizard; in most cases. (and a horrid save ve magic)
in 3X-4E the hp gap narrows for various reasons.
I suspect that if Fighters had good saves and literally three to five times the hp of a wizard, the wizards would not look as all powerful.
Quote from: Bill;577675Fighters may not have infinite hp, but in 1E/2E they have twice the hp of a wizard; in most cases. (and a horrid save ve magic)
in 3X-4E the hp gap narrows for various reasons.
I suspect that if Fighters had good saves and literally three to five times the hp of a wizard, the wizards would not look as all powerful.
It's not the level of hit points in 3.X that's the problem.
One of the reasons is that spellcasters can bypass hit points entirely and go for save or lose spells. This article has an in-depth explanation about how this makes the classes grossly imbalanced. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1533.0)
Quote from: soviet;577673Fighters don't have infinite hit points. The nature of melee combat in particular is that you have to put yourself into harms way. Do you really think that a fighter can stay upright for 10 consecutive combat encounters? Especially when in 8 of those combats at least one of the PCs apparently made no meaningful contribution?
Once again, are you assuming MUs never get attacked?
Seriously folks, if you really want to bring in hp as a limited resource, then the MU gets screwed even further because he's probably the #1 target by an intelligent enemy, and a 5th level MU at 13 hp won't make it long enough to use his spells in the first place.
that's why hp are irrelevant to this discussion.
If the MU happened to memorize the proper spells for the particular scenario at hand, then they are probably more effective than a fighter for just a limited amount of time while the fighter has no such limitations on attacks per round, damage output, etc.
It's like saying that a car going 100mph for up to an hour racing against a car going 75mph for 4 hours is the best. Yeah, if your races are all under 100 miles.
Quote from: Libertad;577679It's not the level of hit points in 3.X that's the problem.
One of the reasons is that spellcasters can bypass hit points entirely and go for save or lose spells. This article has an in-depth explanation about how this makes the classes grossly imbalanced. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1533.0)
Save or dies spells do not make HP unimportant.
Many of those spells simply do not effect many enemies as well.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577682Once again, are you assuming MUs never get attacked?
No, but I'm assuming fighters get attacked
more.
Unless he's just plinking away with a longbow, the fighter needs to get into melee before he can really do his thing. That means potentially crossing the battlefield in the face of missile fire. It means negotiating potential reach attacks, auras, and attacks of opportunity. And above all else it probably means that the other monsters can now get to him and smack him around at the same time. Further, 'run in and one-shot the monster' is rarely a viable strategy due to HP totals. So even if the fighter carefully positions himself against a single target, he's still got a few more rounds of toe-to-toe exchanges before he wins. Each exchange, there's a good chance he loses some more hit points. This is much worse in 3e and 4e due to HP inflation, but it's still there in 2e and earlier.
The wizard, by contrast, is a ranged skirmisher. In 3e he can move and cast a spell against a foe some distance away. If it works, that spell can very easily take out the monster in one hit. 2e and earlier casters don't have the mobility but they still have the firepower. If their plan works, they could very easily be in no danger of taking a hit at all. And because they have a range of spell levels, they can modulate this by pulling out the big guns for the scary encounters and sticking to the basics for the easy-looking ones. They also potentially have 'get out of jail free' cards like teleport or invisibility. Fighters have none of these options. They operate at the same basic level of ability in all fights, they have no way of escalating things due to perceived danger, and they have no easy way of escaping the shitstorm if things go bad.
Ultimately, for a caster, HP loss is punishment for making a mistake. For a fighter, HP loss is simply a natural part of doing business.
Ah, so you are taking the "wizards have access to all of the potential spells all the time" approach, with a dash of "opponents never have ranged attacks".
Good to know.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577695Ah, so you are taking the "wizards have access to all of the potential spells all the time" approach, with a dash of "opponents never have ranged attacks".
Good to know.
Ah, so you're taking the 'don't read posts' approach, with a dash of 'reality is inconvenient so I shall ignore it'.
Good to know.
Quote from: soviet;577703Ah, so you're taking the 'don't read posts' approach, with a dash of 'reality is inconvenient so I shall ignore it'.
Good to know.
I read your post. And in your post, you started off with "wizards have this spell and that spell" (i.e., assuming they have access to all these spells all the time) and you said if a MU takes hp damage, it's a mistake (i.e., monsters must have no way to damage them...like ranged weapons for example)
In other words, your reasoning only holds true if you a) assume that MUs can cast any spell at any time, or b) opponents have no way of attacking a MU at distance.
Neither of those are actually true as constants in gameplay, of course. Not to mention, a MU has to be 9th level just to cast teleport, which takes a long time to get to. And then you have this:
MU: "Woot! Level 9, now I can cast teleport!"
Party leader: "Great, how is that going to help us clear this dungeon?"
MU: "I can totally teleport to the idol and grab it without needing to cross the lava and trapped floor!"
Party Leader: "How will you get back?"
MU: "Nevermind that. I can teleport out of the dungeon!"
Party Leader: "How is that going to help?"
MU: "Um....well....I guess when you all die, I can teleport back and notify next of kin."
Quote from: Bill;577685Save or dies spells do not make HP unimportant.
Many of those spells simply do not effect many enemies as well.
Save vs Death comes up less often that save vs lose which is more broad.
Color Spray is a save or lose if you fail your save and have less than 2hd you're unconscious for 2d4 rounds but you might as well be dead though because people can CDG you with impunity.
Stone to Flesh/Salt/Ice/whatever is also basicly a save or die because getting unpertriyed is about as hard a coming back from the dead. Those spells work on almost anything made of meat (so most things you will be fighting.)
I've always considered save or die spells to be a little extravagant, my prefered style is to cripple encounters and then let the peons with melee classes finish up. (If I'm not playing a Gish and thus a melee peon myself.)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577711I read your post. And in your post, you started off with "wizards have this spell and that spell" (i.e., assuming they have access to all these spells all the time)
No I didn't:
Quote from: soviet;577691No, but I'm assuming fighters get attacked more.
Unless he's just plinking away with a longbow, the fighter needs to get into melee before he can really do his thing. That means potentially crossing the battlefield in the face of missile fire. It means negotiating potential reach attacks, auras, and attacks of opportunity. And above all else it probably means that the other monsters can now get to him and smack him around at the same time. Further, 'run in and one-shot the monster' is rarely a viable strategy due to HP totals. So even if the fighter carefully positions himself against a single target, he's still got a few more rounds of toe-to-toe exchanges before he wins. Each exchange, there's a good chance he loses some more hit points. This is much worse in 3e and 4e due to HP inflation, but it's still there in 2e and earlier.
The wizard, by contrast, is a ranged skirmisher. In 3e he can move and cast a spell against a foe some distance away. If it works, that spell can very easily take out the monster in one hit. 2e and earlier casters don't have the mobility but they still have the firepower. If their plan works, they could very easily be in no danger of taking a hit at all. And because they have a range of spell levels, they can modulate this by pulling out the big guns for the scary encounters and sticking to the basics for the easy-looking ones. They also potentially have 'get out of jail free' cards like teleport or invisibility. Fighters have none of these options. They operate at the same basic level of ability in all fights, they have no way of escalating things due to perceived danger, and they have no easy way of escaping the shitstorm if things go bad.
Ultimately, for a caster, HP loss is punishment for making a mistake. For a fighter, HP loss is simply a natural part of doing business.
See?
There are lots of wizard ranged attack spells at each spell level. I'm not assuming he has access to any particular ones. But I am assuming he has access to at least some of them.
And there are several wizard 'escape from a bad situation' spells, at least one per level with the exception of first (unless you count stuff like sleep or colour spray, which I'm not). Again, I am not assuming that the wizard has access to teleport or invisibility or whatever specifically. But I am assuming that he has access to at least something along those lines.
Are either of these assumptions unfair?
Quote from: soviet;577691The wizard, by contrast, is a ranged skirmisher. In 3e he can move and cast a spell against a foe some distance away. If it works, that spell can very easily take out the monster in one hit. 2e and earlier casters don't have the mobility but they still have the firepower. If their plan works, they could very easily be in no danger of taking a hit at all. And because they have a range of spell levels, they can modulate this by pulling out the big guns for the scary encounters and sticking to the basics for the easy-looking ones. They also potentially have 'get out of jail free' cards like teleport or invisibility. Fighters have none of these options. They operate at the same basic level of ability in all fights, they have no way of escalating things due to perceived danger, and they have no easy way of escaping the shitstorm if things go bad.
Ultimately, for a caster, HP loss is punishment for making a mistake. For a fighter, HP loss is simply a natural part of doing business.
Uh..yeah you did. Bolded by me. Although, at this point I'm beginning to wonder if reading comprehension is a struggle for you.
Firstly, you're assuming the MU has learned and memorized specific spells ahead of time to avoid combat (invisibility and teleport were your specific examples. In actual play, if you memorize those spells, what ones are you bypassing? The ones you were using earlier (the "big guns')? You do realize that MUs have limited spell slots, right? This is you assuming the MU would have access to all spells in order for your logic to work
Secondly, you said taking damage for caster is punishment for a mistake. How exactly is it a mistake for the party to come across a band of bugbears who launch a volley of crossbow bolts at the caster, knowing he is the #1 target? Or a group of giants who hurl boulders?
A 5th level MU is going to have an AC around 7-9 with about 14 hit points, compared to a fighter around AC 0-2 with 33 hp. An equal 5th level monster is going to hit the MU about 70% of the time, compared to only about 30% to the fighter. If averaging 5 points of damage per hit, that's 4 rounds to kill the MU and 22 rounds to kill the fighter.
If that wasn't bad enough, you're also assuming that when the MU is casting a spell, he doesn't get interrupted while doing so, which is easily done at a 70% hit rate the monsters have against him.
Quote from: soviet;577716There are lots of wizard ranged attack spells at each spell level. I'm not assuming he has access to any particular ones. But I am assuming he has access to at least some of them.
And there are several wizard 'escape from a bad situation' spells, at least one per level with the exception of first (unless you count stuff like sleep or colour spray, which I'm not). Again, I am not assuming that the wizard has access to teleport or invisibility or whatever specifically. But I am assuming that he has access to at least something along those lines.
Are either of these assumptions unfair?
Separately no, but what you're doing is assuming the MU has access to both of them ad hoc. Which ones are you memorizing? A 5th level Mu has 3/2/1 spells. Go ahead and list what spells those are being spent on, and then explain how that is going to last a half dozen encounters before they can find an area to rest.
No, neither of those assumptions are unfair.
Neither is it unfair to assume that Fighters lose more hit points on average than wizards do. Everyone in this thread, if posting in good faith, would remark that it is a feature of their game that Fighters take more hit point damage than Wizards do. They'll also admit that Fighters take hit point damage more often than Wizards do.
But there is a fear that admitting something that is true, even in their own game, will provide you some kind of advantage that you're going to use to change the way they play.
If they were being honest, they'd admit that Fighters take more damage, and the system is DESIGNED for that, which is one reason that Fighters get more hit points than Wizards.
If they really wanted to make their point, they could say 'in my games, fighters have 2.5x as many hit points as wizards, on average, but they take only twice the damage, on average, so Fighters actually take a lower percentage of their total hit points in damage each fight than wizards. But they won't say that because it's not true, and if it was, it would involve tracking numbers that they don't care to track (because it's D&D not OCD).
Or something to that effect.
But I think it's fun to continue pointing out that their points range from stupid to pointless. It makes me feel smart to post on the right side of an obvious argument.
Not every encounter has ranged attacks.
Trolls are a common encounter. Trolls don't usually use crossbows. Giant scorpions don't usually use crossbows.
Even if you posit that 100% of the encounters with ranged attacks do their BEST to lock down the Wizard (which is fine - if they all know who the wizard is and they all agree that's the best strategy) unless 100% of encounters have that as an option, the Fighter is still likely to take more hit point damage. Melee bruisers (like, say, a Fire Giant) do more damage in a single hit than a large number of bugbears with crossbows.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577719Separately no, but what you're doing is assuming the MU has access to both of them ad hoc. Which ones are you memorizing? A 5th level Mu has 3/2/1 spells. Go ahead and list what spells those are being spent on, and then explain how that is going to last a half dozen encounters before they can find an area to rest.
Why do you keep trying to narrow the focus to second edition?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577718Uh..yeah you did. Bolded by me. Although, at this point I'm beginning to wonder if reading comprehension is a struggle for you.
Seriously,
you're wondering that about
me? Priceless.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577718Firstly, you're assuming the MU has learned and memorized specific spells ahead of time to avoid combat (invisibility and teleport were your specific examples. In actual play, if you memorize those spells, what ones are you bypassing? The ones you were using earlier (the "big guns')? You do realize that MUs have limited spell slots, right? This is you assuming the MU would have access to all spells in order for your logic to work
Secondly, you said taking damage for caster is punishment for a mistake. How exactly is it a mistake for the party to come across a band of bugbears who launch a volley of crossbow bolts at the caster, knowing he is the #1 target? Or a group of giants who hurl boulders?
A 5th level MU is going to have an AC around 7-9 with about 14 hit points, compared to a fighter around AC 0-2 with 33 hp. An equal 5th level monster is going to hit the MU about 70% of the time, compared to only about 30% to the fighter. If averaging 5 points of damage per hit, that's 4 rounds to kill the MU and 22 rounds to kill the fighter.
If that wasn't bad enough, you're also assuming that when the MU is casting a spell, he doesn't get interrupted while doing so, which is easily done at a 70% hit rate the monsters have against him.
Again with the narrowing to 2e.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;577726Trolls are a common encounter. .
Says who? I don't think I'm going out on a limb here when I say the most common opponents in D&D are monstrous humanoids (orcs, goblins, kobolds, bugbears, ogres, gnolls, etc).
Quote from: soviet;577727Why do you keep trying to narrow the focus to second edition?
Because that was the context of what I was talking about in the first place. Well, technically AD&D, not just 2e. I believe my exact words were, "25 years of D&D before 3e ever came out".
Quote from: deadDMwalking;577726Not every encounter has ranged attacks.
Trolls are a common encounter. Trolls don't usually use crossbows. Giant scorpions don't usually use crossbows.
Even if you posit that 100% of the encounters with ranged attacks do their BEST to lock down the Wizard (which is fine - if they all know who the wizard is and they all agree that's the best strategy) unless 100% of encounters have that as an option, the Fighter is still likely to take more hit point damage. Melee bruisers (like, say, a Fire Giant) do more damage in a single hit than a large number of bugbears with crossbows.
Ideally this is the case for the party. You want the wizard in back taking fewer hits because their hp are so low. The issue is you cant always do this (even in melee battles) so Hp is a significant weakness for the wizard because he is so much more vulnerable when he does get hit. Depending on the scenario, inlcuding terrain and monsters this can vary. Obviously the party usually works to get those wizards in back and far from the line where they can safely launch spells. But sometimes they are forced into closer quarters with stuff like trolls. Generally speaking the fighter will take more damage if the party is followin standard D&D tactics. But the wizard has very few hp to mess with and doesn't have the benefit of armor, so i do see a lot of wizards proportionally get about as low as the fighter over the course of battles.
Either way both characters are useless when they reach zero Hp. So saying hp is a resource for the fighter but not the wizard seems a bit odd. The point people are making is the fighter's attack resources don't go down (unless he is firing arrows or something). He still has the same number of attacks and potential damage at the beginning of the battle as at the end, but the wizard depletes his spell resources and his attack effectiveness goes down as this occurs.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;577733The point people are making is the fighter's attack resources don't go down (unless he is firing arrows or something). He still has the same number of attacks and potential damage at the beginning of the battle as at the end, but the wizard depletes his spell resources and his attack effectiveness goes down as this occurs.
I'm glad someone gets it.
Quote from: soviet;577728Again with the narrowing to 2e.
that is because the discussion moved to 2e when this came up. We have been talking about 2e for a while now I believe.
Quote from: jibbajibba;577644In 1e if I recall you made a check once every 3 to 6 turns for an encounter with an encounter occuring 1 in 6 times
Do you have a page reference on that one?
Quote from: Benoist;577738Do you have a page reference on that one?
probably not, because each module was different and each module had it's own wandering monster table.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577718Uh..yeah you did. Bolded by me. Although, at this point I'm beginning to wonder if reading comprehension is a struggle for you.
Firstly, you're assuming the MU has learned and memorized specific spells ahead of time to avoid combat (invisibility and teleport were your specific examples. In actual play, if you memorize those spells, what ones are you bypassing? The ones you were using earlier (the "big guns')? You do realize that MUs have limited spell slots, right? This is you assuming the MU would have access to all spells in order for your logic to work
Secondly, you said taking damage for caster is punishment for a mistake. How exactly is it a mistake for the party to come across a band of bugbears who launch a volley of crossbow bolts at the caster, knowing he is the #1 target? Or a group of giants who hurl boulders?
A 5th level MU is going to have an AC around 7-9 with about 14 hit points, compared to a fighter around AC 0-2 with 33 hp. An equal 5th level monster is going to hit the MU about 70% of the time, compared to only about 30% to the fighter. If averaging 5 points of damage per hit, that's 4 rounds to kill the MU and 22 rounds to kill the fighter.
If that wasn't bad enough, you're also assuming that when the MU is casting a spell, he doesn't get interrupted while doing so, which is easily done at a 70% hit rate the monsters have against him.
How do the bugbears know who the caster is? Is he wearing a hat with Wizzard on it?
And I thought you have established that in a typical game day from 10 fights the wizard is only tough in 2 of them and in the rest he is useless so if these super bright bugbears know all about casters and relative strength in combat surely they would target the super tough fighter who is on average much more effective ? by your own logic.....
If the party come across a band of bugbears and get caught cold and suffer a round of unanswered bow missile fire its a mistake. Just like a bunch of marines walking into a crossfire.
The party should be scouting, identifying threats before they are encountered and either countering them with no combat if possible, to save resources, or engaing in combat on their own terms.
Most casters have some sort of defense spell. Invisibility, teleport, mirror image, shield, protection from normal missiles etc etc it is a typical spell for a wizard to select out of a range of spells. I think we are asuming that the Wizard has selected some spells from their selection of spells. Say he was 5th (1e so 4/2/1) and carryied the typical if rather dull combo of Unseen Servant, Sleep, Enlarge, Charm Person, Invisibility, Mirror Image, Fireball ... a reasonably normal spell selction, 3 agressive, 2 defensive and 2 multiuse a fairly standard adventurer.
Generally the tactics would be to stand with the torch bearers/hirelings and in combat look for the opportunity to hit massed groups with sleep or Fireball, individuals with Charm Person. They generally will only use these 3 biggies when they have to. They will cast invisibility probably on themselves when things look dicey but maybe on the thief for a backstab opportunity. If it comes to a toe to toe battle they will cast Mirror Image and hurl in one of the biggies or if things are truely desperate chuck daggers. The other two spells are utility but you coudl swap them for say Sheild and Friends, or Hold Portal, or Protection from Evil etc... All depends on how you distribute spells in your games.
If he has Read Magic, Comp Lang, Erase, Nystyls Magic Aura, continual Light, Fools Gold, Leomund's tiny Hut.... then he is not preped for a combat adventure and would be better staying in town and running a Long con or similar.
But you know all this its just D&D 101 it just doesn't suit your arguement.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577739probably not, because each module was different and each module had it's own wandering monster table.
I was wondering about that. I checked out and all I could find as a relevant reference in the DMG was the example of play (cf. "the first adventure") where the DM rolls for a wandering monster because 3 turns passed, but that's just an example - I couldn't find a specific guideline on the actual frequency of the rolls in the text itself.
Quote from: jibbajibba;577742But you know all this its just D&D 101 it just doesn't suit your arguement.
Except for the fact that you've just described the MU blowing his wad in one encounter.
Great job proving my point for me. I guess we've got another "rest after every battle" guy here.
Quote from: Benoist;577738Do you have a page reference on that one?
Was doig it from memory, looking at the 1e DMG page 47 exterior encounters
Unihabited wilderness is a 1in 10 chance and you make up to 6 checks a day depending on the terrain. either Morning, Noon, Evening, Night, Midnight, Predawn. So take forest which is a check at each you have 6 checks at 1in 10 for a check so a 60% chance per day roughly of encountering a random monster.. who of course might be a group of merchants or whatever.
Lookign through the DMG, man what a badly organised book..., it actually makes no reference to a standard to use, just refering to periodic checks, so I can only assume its something I took from the Blue book that became a folk memory :). If someone has the Blue book, mine has long since vanished can they take a look and confirm?
In 2e though its a bit better page 101 A modifed version of the wilderness encounter table with higher chances of encounters up to 4 in 10 for Swamps... but the same 6 encounter slots and a statement for Dungeons which is check once per hour with a 1in 10 chance. You can up that for highly populated areas.
That sounds like a typical 2e update to a old rule usd to be d6 now d10 just like Initiative.
Hope that helps.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577747I guess we've got another "rest after every battle" guy here.
No, you've got a guy white knighting anybody saying anything challenging 1e because a bunch of people here made fun of 2e for like 4 years. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577747Except for the fact that you've just described the MU blowing his wad in one encounter.
Great job proving my point for me. I guess we've got another "rest after every battle" guy here.
What are you talkig about ?
I described a differnt number of encounters against a group, an individual or a desperate battle to save the party.... all different encounters.....
In encounter 1 the Wizard stands around holding his Torch the Fighter and the Cleric bully the pair of goblins into submission , not combat occurs.
In combat 2 suddenly another 8 goblins turn up and the would be guides attack to, the wizard has no choice but to reveal himself and use sleep.
In combat 3 they find out the goblins were working for an Ogre, the Ogre is dealing with the party who are trying to see if they can get past but he betrays then and attacks the party get suprised and the fighter take a hit, the Ogre does not automatically attack the wizzard because he has fuck all idea who is is whereas there is a bloke in front of him with armour and a sword. The wizard casts invisibility on the thief who gets a backstab on the ogre and finishes him.
In Combat 4 they face 3 ogres the Wizz hard to go for the fireball so reveals himself and FBs the ogre group
In combat 5 etc etc ......
Sorry If I suggested it was all in one combat me bad. I was doign it quick whilst watching telly.
Quote from: jibbajibba;577753Was doig it from memory, looking at the 1e DMG page 47 exterior encounters
Unihabited wilderness is a 1in 10 chance and you make up to 6 checks a day depending on the terrain. either Morning, Noon, Evening, Night, Midnight, Predawn. So take forest which is a check at each you have 6 checks at 1in 10 for a check so a 60% chance per day roughly of encountering a random monster.. who of course might be a group of merchants or whatever.
Lookign through the DMG, (...), it actually makes no reference to a standard to use, just refering to periodic checks, so I can only assume its something I took from the Blue book that became a folk memory :). If someone has the Blue book, mine has long since vanished can they take a look and confirm?
It's extremely helpful yes, thanks. You're right it doesn't provide an explicit answer but it does a context, no doubt. Interesting variation of randomizers on the base chance of encounters here. Also notice the part in the Procedure paragraph that says "where only 1 or 2 chances for encounter exist, you may vary the time as you see fit in order to avoid player reliance on information which they should not be privy to." Which seems to implicitly state that, if you are using a d6 randomizer in the dungeon instead of a d10, d12 or d20, you'd also follow the same basic idea that there shouldn't be a strictly regular-as-clockwork roll to avoid the PCs playing on information their characters are not privy to. Seems logical, right? Still, it's interesting to see all this information implied indirectly rather than being clearly spelled out in the case of the dungeon.
PS: I'm sorry to have pissed you off earlier. It was not intentional.
Found an onliene reference to Basic D&D
@ http://strangemagic.robertsongames.com/2011/02/dungeon-design-wandering-monsteres.html
After looking at dungeon design and how light works in the game, I thought I'd spend some time looking at how Wandering Monsters actually work in the Moldvay edition of Basic D&D (which isn't completely how I *thought* they did).
First we see how often Wandering Monsters appear:
At the end of every 2 turns, the DM should check for Wandering Monsters. To do so, roll 1d6: a result of 1 indicates that the party will encounter a Wandering Monster on the next turn."
So rather than once a turn (which is what I thought the rule is) it's actually once every THREE turns, since I wouldn't check during the turn the Wandering Monster is appearing. This is less often than I thought.
However in some areas you would check more often:
The dungeon may have certain areas where Wandering Monsters are encountered more often (such as on a roll of 1 or 2).
The dungeon may have areas where the DM checks for Wandering Monsters every turn, or where a monster will appear when a corridor is entered.
I think it's important that players somehow be able to make choices about whether to remain in a high-traffic area or not, and for that they need to be able to predict which areas will have more wandering monsters than others.
In addition to this Wandering Monster frequency will be affected by the choices the behaviour of the adventuring party:
Wandering Monsters should appear more often if the party is making a lot of noise or light, but should not be frequent if the party spends a long time in one out-of-the-way place (if they stop in a room for the nigh, for example).
The rules don't say how infrequently to check for Wandering Monsters if the party is quietly waiting in an out-of-the-way place but it would need to be less than once every 30 minutes. Perhaps a check once an hour? Maybe once every 1-3 hours?
So Roughly ballpark with the 1 in 6 chance every 3 turns I recalled...
That is Moldvay though and I moved to 1e after Blue Book so I wouldn't have gotten it from there.
I agree. Even though Holmes (Blue book) isn't strictly speaking AD&D itself, it's a lot closer, since it was originally intended as an introductory set to AD&D itself, than Moldvay which was stand-alone. It'd be like referencing Mentzer to AD&D2 and the like. I have Holmes here. Let me have a look.
Yes.
Quote from: Holmes D&D, p.10At the end of each three turns the Dungeon Master can roll a die to see if a wandering monster has come down the corridor. A roll of 6 means that something has come "strolling" along. If the party has someone watching they will see or hear the monster up to 120 feet away unless it is coming around a corner, very quiet, etc. If it is uncertain how far away the monster is, roll two six-sided die and multiply by 10. The result is the distance in feet (i.e. a roll of 5 + 2 = 7 or 70 feet). The referee could then place a figure representing the monster or monsters on the table at the appropriate distance from the adventurers, if figures are being used.
The wandering monsters may be pre-selected by the Dungeon Master, such as a guard of skeletons or goblins that walks up and down the main corridor every five turns, or the wandering creatures may be selected from a table by random number generation.
Now it's Holmes, not AD&D stricto sensu, but that gives an additional piece of context.
Quote from: Benoist;577769Yes.
Now it's Holmes, not AD&D stricto sensu, but that gives an additional piece of context.
Thanks Ben knew I got that from somewhere, been stuck in my head for 32 years with no where to go :)
Heh, it's funny. I love me my AD&D 2e and SJG In Nomine, two games that aren't all that popular here. However, the games I like need no defense to people who don't enjoy it. That and white knighting is rather pointless.
And, on a further tangent, I too can recognize the interpretive differences within a material -- and not be gullible (or belligerent) to extrapolate my interpretation upon everything to exclusion. Learning to disagree gracefully is an art, apparently.
But fuck that noise! We got a record to achieve -- to 5000 posts and beyond! All y'all are wankers and wrong and wizards are paper tigers covered in tinsel! Flame on!
Quote from: Opaopajr;577773But fuck that noise! We got a record to achieve -- to 5000 posts and beyond! All y'all are wankers and wrong and wizards are paper tigers covered in tinsel! Flame on!
Yeah!
Quote from: JRR TolkienFighters are the best class and anyone who disagrees is a fucking prick.
Quote from: jibbajibba;577565But on a macro level a caster can hit a fighter then retreat and then do the same thing the next day and the next and the next. In old editions of D&D (2e and prior) HP heal so slowly that the unsupported fighter will wear down as they have no way to recover that key resource HP. Whereas the caster can go and recover their 3 , 4, 5 ,6 spell combo every day.
So my Wizard telports in invisible hits the figther with a fireball then teleports out. Costs 4 spells, invisibility, teleport, fireball, teleport. Chuck in a scry spell for luck.
The wizard can turn up smack the fighter, who may save for 50%, then gone. Then do the same tomorrow as all spells recovery every day... the fighter however will recover 1 HP per day, 2 if he rests all day. Overtime the fighter in this scenario is doomed.....
Now I think its a good claim for a faster healing mechanism like the HD mechanism in 5e.
Also in earlier editions Fighters effectively heal slower than everyone else. If a Fighter has 20 HP at 3rd level he heals 5% of hits per day. a wizard with 8 HP at 3rd level heals 12.5% of HP per day a recovery rate 2.5 times faster ....
some consideration. (based on 2nd edition rules)
every teleport have a chance to teleport the wizard into the ground, from 1 to 15% depending on how familiar he is with the place.
and the mission is far from safe, after he cast the fireball is visible, if the fighter have a ranged weapon (like a bow) he can attack back, and if he hit the wizard can't cast for the rest of the round, the next round the fighter can get near and attack again, it is not a certain death for the wizard but the fighter is not exactly defenseless. the wizard could use a scroll to teleport but in previous editions scrolls are less common than in 3e, and the wizard must repeat the trick an half dozen time if he want to kill the fighter.
And this is some example of why, while the wizard-fighter gap was still present, especially at high level, it was less relevant in older editions
Quote from: jibbajibba;577756What are you talkig about ?
I described a differnt number of encounters against a group, an individual or a desperate battle to save the party.... all different encounters.....
In encounter 1 the Wizard stands around holding his Torch the Fighter and the Cleric bully the pair of goblins into submission , not combat occurs.
In combat 2 suddenly another 8 goblins turn up and the would be guides attack to, the wizard has no choice but to reveal himself and use sleep.
In combat 3 they find out the goblins were working for an Ogre, the Ogre is dealing with the party who are trying to see if they can get past but he betrays then and attacks the party get suprised and the fighter take a hit, the Ogre does not automatically attack the wizzard because he has fuck all idea who is is whereas there is a bloke in front of him with armour and a sword. The wizard casts invisibility on the thief who gets a backstab on the ogre and finishes him.
In Combat 4 they face 3 ogres the Wizz hard to go for the fireball so reveals himself and FBs the ogre group
In combat 5 etc etc ......
Sorry If I suggested it was all in one combat me bad. I was doign it quick whilst watching telly.
In your game a typical 5th level party encounters a few goblins as a typical encounter? Combat 4 is about the only example you have of a common encounter a 5th level party would face. If you're only going to use goblins, the fighter would mow through them anyway without breaking a sweat.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577798In your game a typical 5th level party encounters a few goblins as a typical encounter? Combat 4 is about the only example you have of a common encounter a 5th level party would face. If you're only going to use goblins, the fighter would mow through them anyway without breaking a sweat.
Given how tight 2e is with spells (and thus with healing) I don't think that a 2e party can face 4 common encounters much less the 10 you implied earlier.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577803Given how tight 2e is with spells (and thus with healing) I don't think that a 2e party can face 4 common encounters much less the 10 you implied earlier.
That's what you get for thinking.
I'm not talking about just 2e, but AD&D as well.
Secondly, I've been playing AD&D continuous for over 30 years, and going through 6-10 encounters before being able to find a suitable place for 8 hours of rest is not uncommon. Seriously, this world would be a much better place if people who never played TSR D&D would stop assuming what was or wasn't possible.
Indeed, been playing lots of AD&D/2e the last year or so. It's amazing how swingy combat is.
When hill giants have 35ish hp and level six fighters can hit them for over 30 a round, a fight can be a bloodbath or a slaughter.
I remember in 4e, the players met a green slime. Just one, way below the characters' level, but I was fiddling with wandering monster charts. Everyone freaked out because, hey, if there's an encounter budget, then every encounter is gonna cost something.
The effect is only slightly less in 3e, but encourage DMs for 3e to try it sometime, throw in an obvious fight, with something way too low, and watch the metagamers try to figure out where the invisible dragon or whatever must be.
So far, it seems the Denner's position is this:
Denner: MUs are way overpowered. They have this, and that, and this, and that.
Grog: Uh, not in AD&D they weren't. They were limited by only a few spell slots, had to worry about spell interruptions, spell components, hoped you memorized the right spell for this scenario, and often you went through 6-10 encounters before being able to rest long enough to re memorize your spells.
Denner: That's impossible and could never happen. So they are overpowered even in AD&D as well.
:jaw-dropping:
Now that I'm home, here are some wandering monster tables from popular AD&D modules:
A1 Slave pits
Encounter occurs 1 in 6 (d6), check each turn
C1 Hidden Shrine
These monsters are encountered 1 chance in 12, check
each turn.
C2 Ghost Tower
Chance of encounter is 1 in 6
I1 Forbidden City
The chance for an encounter is 1 in 8, rolled every 3
turns.
I2 Tomb of the Lizard king
The DM should roll for random encounters six times per day: morning, noon, evening, night, midnight, and
pre-dawn. If the party has a planned encounter during the time period in question, no random encounter
will occur. A random encounter is indicated on a roll of 1 on d8.
S2 White Plume Mountain
1 in 12, every turn
S4 Lost Caverns
Daytime encounters occur whenever the
party stops in or passes through a hex with a dot (every 10 miles or so)
If the party is near a lettered encounter area and making
a great deal of noise, or merely waiting quietly for more than one turn,
there is a 1 in 6 chance that the monster nearby will come and
investigate -inside the dungeon
For those keeping track at home, a turn is 10 minutes. So odds are that you would be encountering a wandering monster every hour or every 2 hours (depending on the module)
Very cool info, Sacrosanct. Thanks for gathering it all.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577849So far, it seems the Denner's position is this:
Denner: MUs are way overpowered. They have this, and that, and this, and that.
Grog: Uh, not in AD&D they weren't. They were limited by only a few spell slots, had to worry about spell interruptions, spell components, hoped you memorized the right spell for this scenario, and often you went through 6-10 encounters before being able to rest long enough to re memorize your spells.
Denner: That's impossible and could never happen. So they are overpowered even in AD&D as well.
:jaw-dropping:
Sacro, if you think this is an accurate breakdown of the last few pages I have figured out why you are not worth talking to. You are not actually reading the same conversation everyone else is. This is especially true if you consider that actual regular Den regulars haven't made any posts in the last few pages.
However since you're going to clog up the thread and attempt to make the point that wizards just run out of juice in an 8 encounter day how about you make up actual higher level fighter and a wizard (appropriate to whatever system you want to use) and actually show how a fighter outpaces a wizard over the course of the day.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577803Given how tight 2e is with spells (and thus with healing) I don't think that a 2e party can face 4 common encounters much less the 10 you implied earlier.
It's obvious you never played a version of Dnd not made by Wotc and very few around here beyond myself are even fans of 3x and less still consider it real Dnd. My advice to you is sit down, shut up, and listen hard.
I'd help more Sacrosanct but I have Wilsonmania!!!:D
I'd marry the man right now problem is he is already married, too young, and way too intelligent for the likes of me. GO SEAHAWKS!!!
Quote from: MGuy;577868Sacro, if you think this is an accurate breakdown of the last few pages I have figured out why you are not worth talking to. You are not actually reading the same conversation everyone else is.
This^ This is what we call irony folks. As always, MGuy never fails to do the exact thing he just got done accusing others of. For example, this:
QuoteHowever since you're going to clog up the thread and attempt to make the point that wizards just run out of juice in an 8 encounter day how about you make up actual higher level fighter and a wizard (appropriate to whatever system you want to use) and actually show how a fighter outpaces a wizard over the course of the day.
Shows that he hasn't been reading the posts because I'm pretty sure I've said more than once that who cares about end game levels because 90% of game play never occurs there. Most game play, especially in AD&D was at level 10 and below.
To recap: MGuy just accuses me of not following the same conversation as everyone else and immediately says something that shows he's not following the same conversation as everyone else.
I have to wonder if you do this on purpose for the lulz.
Quote from: Marleycat;577869I'd help more Sacrosanct but I have Wilsonmania!!!!!:D
:D Word!
Quote from: Marleycat;577869I have Wilsonmania!!! GO SEAHAWKS!!!
:teehee:
Also, as earlier promised, a comparison between a 7th level fighter and cleric using the Core Rules CD ROM (2e core)
Dwarf Fighter
HP: 56
AC: -2 (Magical plate&shield--cleric will have the same for equity)
Weapon: Axe+2 (THACO 10, Dmg: 1d8+6, 2 attacks per round)
Dwarf Cleric
Spells: 5/5/2/1
HP: 30
AC: -2 (same armor as above)
Weapon: Footman's mace+2 (THAC0: 17, Dmg: 1d6+2, 1 attack per round)
I hope that puts to bed the comment that a cleric, even after spells, is almost as good as a fighter. If you want the math:
Assuming attacking an AC -1 creature, 10 rounds of combat
Fighter: 50% hit rate, 20 attacks. Avg dmg = 4.5+6=10.5 per hit. 105 total points inflicted
Cleric: 15% hit rate. Avg dmg = 3.5+2 or 5.5 points, 1 attack per round, 10 attacks. 8.5 points dealt.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577871This^ This is what we call irony folks. As always, MGuy never fails to do the exact thing he just got done accusing others of. For example, this:
Shows that he hasn't been reading the posts because I'm pretty sure I've said more than once that who cares about end game levels because 90% of game play never occurs there. Most game play, especially in AD&D was at level 10 and below.
To recap: MGuy just accuses me of not following the same conversation as everyone else and immediately says something that shows he's not following the same conversation as everyone else.
I have to wonder if you do this on purpose for the lulz.
I have read that
YOU refuse to talk about the time where the fighter's uselessness actually occurs despite people like me remarking about higher levels being the place where the problems exist in abundance. I pointed out pages ago that you were doing that and how stupid it was.
Second yes, your summary is a completely false portrayal of the last few pages.
Quote from: sovietNo, but I'm assuming fighters get attacked more.
Unless he's just plinking away with a longbow, the fighter needs to get into melee before he can really do his thing. That means potentially crossing the battlefield in the face of missile fire. It means negotiating potential reach attacks, auras, and attacks of opportunity. And above all else it probably means that the other monsters can now get to him and smack him around at the same time. Further, 'run in and one-shot the monster' is rarely a viable strategy due to HP totals. So even if the fighter carefully positions himself against a single target, he's still got a few more rounds of toe-to-toe exchanges before he wins. Each exchange, there's a good chance he loses some more hit points. This is much worse in 3e and 4e due to HP inflation, but it's still there in 2e and earlier.
The wizard, by contrast, is a ranged skirmisher. In 3e he can move and cast a spell against a foe some distance away. If it works, that spell can very easily take out the monster in one hit. 2e and earlier casters don't have the mobility but they still have the firepower. If their plan works, they could very easily be in no danger of taking a hit at all. And because they have a range of spell levels, they can modulate this by pulling out the big guns for the scary encounters and sticking to the basics for the easy-looking ones. They also potentially have 'get out of jail free' cards like teleport or invisibility. Fighters have none of these options. They operate at the same basic level of ability in all fights, they have no way of escalating things due to perceived danger, and they have no easy way of escaping the shitstorm if things go bad.
Ultimately, for a caster, HP loss is punishment for making a mistake. For a fighter, HP loss is simply a natural part of doing business.
Quote from: SacroUh..yeah you did. Bolded by me. Although, at this point I'm beginning to wonder if reading comprehension is a struggle for you.
Firstly, you're assuming the MU has learned and memorized specific spells ahead of time to avoid combat (invisibility and teleport were your specific examples. In actual play, if you memorize those spells, what ones are you bypassing? The ones you were using earlier (the "big guns')? You do realize that MUs have limited spell slots, right? This is you assuming the MU would have access to all spells in order for your logic to work
Secondly, you said taking damage for caster is punishment for a mistake. How exactly is it a mistake for the party to come across a band of bugbears who launch a volley of crossbow bolts at the caster, knowing he is the #1 target? Or a group of giants who hurl boulders?
A 5th level MU is going to have an AC around 7-9 with about 14 hit points, compared to a fighter around AC 0-2 with 33 hp. An equal 5th level monster is going to hit the MU about 70% of the time, compared to only about 30% to the fighter. If averaging 5 points of damage per hit, that's 4 rounds to kill the MU and 22 rounds to kill the fighter.
If that wasn't bad enough, you're also assuming that when the MU is casting a spell, he doesn't get interrupted while doing so, which is easily done at a 70% hit rate the monsters have against him.
Quote from: DeadDMNo, neither of those assumptions are unfair.
Neither is it unfair to assume that Fighters lose more hit points on average than wizards do. Everyone in this thread, if posting in good faith, would remark that it is a feature of their game that Fighters take more hit point damage than Wizards do. They'll also admit that Fighters take hit point damage more often than Wizards do.
But there is a fear that admitting something that is true, even in their own game, will provide you some kind of advantage that you're going to use to change the way they play.
If they were being honest, they'd admit that Fighters take more damage, and the system is DESIGNED for that, which is one reason that Fighters get more hit points than Wizards.
If they really wanted to make their point, they could say 'in my games, fighters have 2.5x as many hit points as wizards, on average, but they take only twice the damage, on average, so Fighters actually take a lower percentage of their total hit points in damage each fight than wizards. But they won't say that because it's not true, and if it was, it would involve tracking numbers that they don't care to track (because it's D&D not OCD).
Or something to that effect.
But I think it's fun to continue pointing out that their points range from stupid to pointless. It makes me feel smart to post on the right side of an obvious argument.
Quote from: jibbaAfter looking at dungeon design and how light works in the game, I thought I'd spend some time looking at how Wandering Monsters actually work in the Moldvay edition of Basic D&D (which isn't completely how I *thought* they did).
First we see how often Wandering Monsters appear:
At the end of every 2 turns, the DM should check for Wandering Monsters. To do so, roll 1d6: a result of 1 indicates that the party will encounter a Wandering Monster on the next turn."
So rather than once a turn (which is what I thought the rule is) it's actually once every THREE turns, since I wouldn't check during the turn the Wandering Monster is appearing. This is less often than I thought.
However in some areas you would check more often:
The dungeon may have certain areas where Wandering Monsters are encountered more often (such as on a roll of 1 or 2).
The dungeon may have areas where the DM checks for Wandering Monsters every turn, or where a monster will appear when a corridor is entered.
I think it's important that players somehow be able to make choices about whether to remain in a high-traffic area or not, and for that they need to be able to predict which areas will have more wandering monsters than others.
In addition to this Wandering Monster frequency will be affected by the choices the behaviour of the adventuring party:
Wandering Monsters should appear more often if the party is making a lot of noise or light, but should not be frequent if the party spends a long time in one out-of-the-way place (if they stop in a room for the nigh, for example).
The rules don't say how infrequently to check for Wandering Monsters if the party is quietly waiting in an out-of-the-way place but it would need to be less than once every 30 minutes. Perhaps a check once an hour? Maybe once every 1-3 hours?
So Roughly ballpark with the 1 in 6 chance every 3 turns I recalled...
That is Moldvay though and I moved to 1e after Blue Book so I wouldn't have gotten it from there.
Your response:
Quote from: SacIn your game a typical 5th level party encounters a few goblins as a typical encounter? Combat 4 is about the only example you have of a common encounter a 5th level party would face. If you're only going to use goblins, the fighter would mow through them anyway without breaking a sweat.
Quote from: MistbornGiven how tight 2e is with spells (and thus with healing) I don't think that a 2e party can face 4 common encounters much less the 10 you implied earlier.
Your reply:
Quote from: SacThat's what you get for thinking.
I'm not talking about just 2e, but AD&D as well.
Secondly, I've been playing AD&D continuous for over 30 years, and going through 6-10 encounters before being able to find a suitable place for 8 hours of rest is not uncommon. Seriously, this world would be a much better place if people who never played TSR D&D would stop assuming what was or wasn't possible.
So yea, you're still an asshole. Not only is your conversation analysis far from what actually happened but the people you're arguing against aren't from the place you said they were.
Also still ignoring the fact that because the fighter takes damage and accrues status conditions that he can't get rid of on his own makes the fighter have to rest as well.
Quote from: Rum Cove;577875:teehee:
Who's your team Rum Cove?
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577877Also, as earlier promised, a comparison between a 7th level fighter and cleric using the Core Rules CD ROM (2e core)
Dwarf Fighter
HP: 56
AC: -2 (Magical plate&shield--cleric will have the same for equity)
Weapon: Axe+2 (THACO 10, Dmg: 1d8+6, 2 attacks per round)
I hope that puts to bed the comment that a cleric, even after spells, is almost as good as a fighter. If you want the math:
Assuming attacking an AC -1 creature, 10 rounds of combat
Fighter: 50% hit rate, 20 attacks. Avg dmg = 4.5+6=10.5 per hit. 105 total points inflicted
Please add Fighter's Bow and dual wield Dagger as well here, please! Even w/o WP/NWP it's pretty hoss, and range is niiice. Throw in weapon specialization -- also core -- and there's not much to compare.
Quote from: Marleycat;577891Who's your team Rum Cove?
:cheerleader: Baltimore Ravens! :cheerleader:
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577877Also, as earlier promised, a comparison between a 7th level fighter and cleric using the Core Rules CD ROM (2e core)
Dwarf Fighter
HP: 56
AC: -2 (Magical plate&shield--cleric will have the same for equity)
Weapon: Axe+2 (THACO 10, Dmg: 1d8+6, 2 attacks per round)
Dwarf Cleric
Spells: 5/5/2/1
HP: 30
AC: -2 (same armor as above)
Weapon: Footman's mace+2 (THAC0: 17, Dmg: 1d6+2, 1 attack per round)
I hope that puts to bed the comment that a cleric, even after spells, is almost as good as a fighter. If you want the math:
Assuming attacking an AC -1 creature, 10 rounds of combat
Fighter: 50% hit rate, 20 attacks. Avg dmg = 4.5+6=10.5 per hit. 105 total points inflicted
Cleric: 15% hit rate. Avg dmg = 3.5+2 or 5.5 points, 1 attack per round, 10 attacks. 8.5 points dealt.
When people where talking about clerics we were talking about 3e clerics. So congrats you've proven that 2e fighters have better numbers to decrease the monsters numbers and all the other class groups bow before your greatest numbers in the land. What surprises me is your hypothetical fighter is out damaged by a wizard casting magic missile. That's a really sad thing that never happens in 3rd.
But that doesn’t matter apparently because you grind on mobs 10 encounters per day. Have fun with that.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577923When people where talking about clerics we were talking about 3e clerics. So congrats you've proven that 2e fighters have better numbers to decrease the monsters numbers and all the other class groups bow before your greatest numbers in the land. What surprises me is your hypothetical fighter is out damaged by a wizard casting magic missile. That's a really sad thing that never happens in 3rd.
But that doesn’t matter apparently because you grind on mobs 10 encounters per day. Have fun with that.
No, they weren't. Maybe you thought you were, but no one else was.
Also, show me how a level 7 2e magic user would be able to deal damage with a magic missile for 10 rounds.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;577736that is because the discussion moved to 2e when this came up. We have been talking about 2e for a while now I believe.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577645I know this has been said several times before, but what the hell.
In AD&D, casters could overpower fighters, but not until well after name level. A period where only a small % of gameplay was actually done, so it's hardly a gamebreaker of imbalance.
If the balance was as bad as some people claim, don't you think it would have been addressed at some point in the 25 years of D&D being played? And if caster superiority was such a problem in TSR D&D, why would WotC put out an edition that made it worse?
Or maybe, just maybe, it wasn't a big problem. Maybe, just maybe, people had fun playing D&D for 25 years with rules that weren't in fact, horribly broken.
I know, I know...it might be hard for some people to understand that other people had fun playing D&D before they were potty trained. But it did happen. It wasn't a myth.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577877Also, as earlier promised, a comparison between a 7th level fighter and cleric using the Core Rules CD ROM (2e core)
Dwarf Fighter
HP: 56
AC: -2 (Magical plate&shield--cleric will have the same for equity)
Weapon: Axe+2 (THACO 10, Dmg: 1d8+6, 2 attacks per round)
Dwarf Cleric
Spells: 5/5/2/1
HP: 30
AC: -2 (same armor as above)
Weapon: Footman's mace+2 (THAC0: 17, Dmg: 1d6+2, 1 attack per round)
I hope that puts to bed the comment that a cleric, even after spells, is almost as good as a fighter. If you want the math:
Assuming attacking an AC -1 creature, 10 rounds of combat
Fighter: 50% hit rate, 20 attacks. Avg dmg = 4.5+6=10.5 per hit. 105 total points inflicted
Cleric: 15% hit rate. Avg dmg = 3.5+2 or 5.5 points, 1 attack per round, 10 attacks. 8.5 points dealt.
You are right :)
You can see my 1e compare up post.
Of course beyond 2e Core with 2e Complete Priest the numbers all switch but as a core yes you are correct.
Intrigues about the HP varaiance.
You have the Dwarf on 56 HP so I am assuming based on an average (which would be 38 HP) you gave him 16 CON.
But the Cleric you left with No CON bonus any reason for that ? Its a secondary stat for both so just curious.
I also notice that you gave the Dwarf + 6 damage so I assume he has a +2 axe and +4 from Strength and Spec. that confused me a bit as he either has 18 Strength and you didn't give him exceptional Strength roll or he is double specialised (+3/+3) and you haven't given him enough attacks. I can't recall if Double Spec is in the Compelte Fighter though or if its core.
Likewise the fighter's THACO of 10 which is +6 for level and +4, 2 from the axe and I guess, 1 Strength and 1 Spec - this indicates single Specialation so I think you gave him 18 Strength but didn't give him the % roll.
Also a footman's mace is 1d6+1 damage so a +2 is 1d6 +3
Generally I don't know any 2e players that didn't use Completes for the base classes but if you choose not to then this is a fair comparison apart from the Con Bonus which I think is a wee bit sly.
Up post you will also see how my example of how a Cleric in 2e and previous can easliy defeat a fighter in a "Thunderdome" using the Command spell for which a fighter under 5th level gets no save at all (assuming less than 13 Int which is reasonably safe bet).
Quote from: Panzerkraken;577926No, they weren't. Maybe you thought you were, but no one else was.
Also, show me how a level 7 2e magic user would be able to deal damage with a magic missile for 10 rounds.
Depending on spell selection I thing MU 7 can bring the damage for 10 rounds
precombat Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer get 3 extra magic missiles
rounds 1-2 Fireball or Lighting Bolt
rounds 3-9Magic Missile
If you can prepare lower level spell in higher level slots or any good blasting spells exist at 2nd level then the Mu can keep going for even longer. Thats all your spells so you might want to save this for a major encounter.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577798In your game a typical 5th level party encounters a few goblins as a typical encounter? Combat 4 is about the only example you have of a common encounter a 5th level party would face. If you're only going to use goblins, the fighter would mow through them anyway without breaking a sweat.
You are right about goblins make them gnolls sorry as I said I was watching the telly so wasn't very focused.
But again in my games the PCs encounter stuff that is there rather than stuff that is level appropriate, world in motion and all that. But you are right I should have siad so
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577933Depending on spell selection I thing MU 7 can bring the damage for 10 rounds
precombat Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer get 3 extra magic missiles
rounds 1-2 Fireball or Lighting Bolt
rounds 3-9Magic Missile
If you can prepare lower level spell in higher level slots or any good blasting spells exist at 2nd level then the Mu can keep going for even longer. Thats all your spells so you might want to save this for a major encounter.
So, by not following with what you said, you can out-damage the Fighter by blowing your entire load on one combat, provided you prepare beforehand for exactly and only that.
And your average damage across the entire 10 rounds is 106.25, so you've exceeded the fighter by 1.25 points. Congratulations on your overpowering dps.
Spoiler
Average damage from fireball or lightning bolt at 7th level is 24.5. I assumed one of the two spells was saved against for 12.25 average damage.
Average damage from a 7th level magic missile is 10 points.
24.5+12.25+10x7 = 106.25
Except that he can do it again the next 10 rounds.
And the 10 rounds after that.
Where's your sustained damage? It sounds more like a half-assed glass cannon that can't keep up in the long haul. In fact, the fighter could keep that rate of damage up (since we're whiteboxing) until the wizard has a chance to rest and prepare all his spells to be able to do it again. In about 10 hours.
The magic user might be better off memorizing some utility spells and letting the professionals do the damage.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;577936So, by not following with what you said, you can out-damage the Fighter by blowing your entire load on one combat, provided you prepare beforehand for exactly and only that.
And your average damage across the entire 10 rounds is 106.25, so you've exceeded the fighter by 1.25 points. Congratulations on your overpowering dps.
Spoiler
Average damage from fireball or lightning bolt at 7th level is 24.5. I assumed one of the two spells was saved against for 12.25 average damage.
Average damage from a 7th level magic missile is 10 points.
24.5+12.25+10x7 = 106.25
And the 10 rounds after that.
Where's your sustained damage? It sounds more like a half-assed glass cannon that can't keep up in the long haul. In fact, the fighter could keep that rate of damage up (since we're whiteboxing) until the wizard has a chance to rest and prepare all his spells to be able to do it again. In about 10 hours.
The magic user might be better off memorizing some utility spells and letting the professionals do the damage.
Wrong. Your math is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Magic Missile is 1 missile per odd level for 1d4+1 that's and average of 14 damage per casting at 7th. The fireballs do an averaged of 24.5 damage weighted for 50% save success rate that’s 18.375 damage per attack on the other hand saves vs spell that are that good I'm guessing are rare at that level. So lets sum that up. That's roughly 135 damage and that's assuming those fireballs are only hitting one thing. The wizard is doing his damage at range possibly protected by one of the 2nd level slots that good blasting spell don't seem to fit into.
Now if you're a smart wizard you save those big guns for encounters that matter. Now there is no way you are going to keep up with 3e level challenges with those spellslots. If Sac is telling the truth then you're facing 10 waves of orcs or kobald or some bullshit like that. that sample fighter has 56 hp. the sample cleric can heal 40.5 hp and you're facing 10 encounters. With those numbers I can tell for sure none them are 3e level challenges because a CR 7 monster can and will remove 50% or more of someones hp in one go.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577940Wrong. Your math is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Magic Missile is 1 missile per odd level for 1d4+1 that's and average of 14 damage per casting at 7th. The fireballs do an averaged of 24.5 damage weighted for 50% save success rate that’s 18.375 damage per attack on the other hand saves vs spell that are that good I'm guessing are rare at that level. So lets sum that up. That's roughly 135 damage and that's assuming those fireballs are only hitting one thing. The wizard is doing his damage at range possibly protected by one of the 2nd level slots that good blasting spell don't seem to fit into.
Now if you're a smart wizard you save those big guns for encounters that matter. Now there is no way you are going to keep up with 3e level challenges with those spellslots. If Sac is telling the truth then you're facing 10 waves of orcs or kobald or some bullshit like that. that sample fighter has 56 hp. the sample cleric can heal 40.5 hp and you're facing 10 encounters. With those numbers I can tell for sure none them are 3e level challenges because a CR 7 monster can and will remove 50% or more of someones hp in one go.
The discussion was totally centered on damage output to a single target, not a set of encounters. Try to keep up.
And you responded:
QuoteWhat surprises me is your hypothetical fighter is out damaged by a wizard casting magic missile.
Again, you're missing the point that we're talking about 2e, so saves are completely dependent on the target, not the caster. I assumed one save out of the two. And you said you would out damage the fighter with Magic Missile, not with fireballs. I did muss my math and forgot to add the extra 4 points per casting of MM though, so fair enough, but it still doesn't change the fact that in order to keep up with the fighter, you have to blow your entire spell selection in one sitting. 96 becomes the average damage for firing off magic missiles for 7 rounds. We could add another 2.5 per round for a dagger for the other 3 rounds if you like?
Also, don't strawman us into the CR argument that got your precious thunderdome shut down.
Quote from: Doom;577842Indeed, been playing lots of AD&D/2e the last year or so. It's amazing how swingy combat is.
When hill giants have 35ish hp and level six fighters can hit them for over 30 a round, a fight can be a bloodbath or a slaughter.
I remember in 4e, the players met a green slime. Just one, way below the characters' level, but I was fiddling with wandering monster charts. Everyone freaked out because, hey, if there's an encounter budget, then every encounter is gonna cost something.
The effect is only slightly less in 3e, but encourage DMs for 3e to try it sometime, throw in an obvious fight, with something way too low, and watch the metagamers try to figure out where the invisible dragon or whatever must be.
Encounter budget? Man I hate the concept. Playuers should never be distracted by metagame stuff like that, and the dm should never be constrained by a budget.
Ok, now that my biased rant is over, how does using encounter budgets work for you? I am curious, as I never have used that game element.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;577941Again, you're missing the point that we're talking about 2e, so saves are completely dependent on the target, not the caster. I assumed one save out of the two. And you said you would out damage the fighter with Magic Missile, not with fireballs. I did muss my math and forgot to add the extra 4 points per casting of MM though, so fair enough, but it still doesn't change the fact that in order to keep up with the fighter, you have to blow your entire spell selection in one sitting. 96 becomes the average damage for firing off magic missiles for 7 rounds. We could add another 2.5 per round for a dagger for the other 3 rounds if you like?
I was thinking on a more per turn basis with the magic missile comment. 14 magic missile>10.5 fighter damage weighted for AC. my hypothetical 2e blaster is casting damage spells for 9/rounds per day. Now I can't be 100% on what that means in 2e. Most 3e combats tend to be over in 3-4 rounds and you're supposed to face 4 encounters per day. So under 3e encounter paradigm he's contributing to 3 out of 4 encounters possibly contributing a lot more if their are groups of enemies to fireball. One more level and I think he gets another 4th slot and can cast magic missile 10/day which is enough to have stuff to cast about every encounter under the paradigm.
Sac has proposed an alternate paradigm of 10 encounters per day. I find it hard to believe that these are hard encounters given that the Cleric can as I have said only heal 40.5 If the fighter alone is taking any more than 10 damage each encounter he's going to be a corpse at the end of encounter 10even if he get's all of the cleric healing. Given those numbers I have to assume that these encounters are not mostly challenging, The wizard due to nova potential, is still contributing more to major encounters. Ya know the ones that the party care about beating.
The number of encounters 'per day' varies greatly by playstyle.
Many gm's do not even think about that.
Considering a particular combat might be easy of difficult depending on countless variables....
Not sure its a useful concept.
Even as a person that dm's and plays 4E, I think one of 4E biggest mistakes was the '10 encounter a day' foolishness.
2e encounters per day can vary considerably depending on setting, Gm style and encounter tables. It doesn't have anything like 3E where there is an expected pattern of encounters. How many you can reasonably survive will depend entirely on what you encounter. If you are doing dungeon crawl style campaign, you could have quite a few encounters per day. . But if you are running a setting like ravenloft you can go a long time between encounters (but then in that setting may of the spells are altered, magic items and treasure are rare and some spells prompt powers checks).
But most of these points were already discussed in the first four thousand posts of this thread. One thing it taught me is not to waste time sifting through my game books to prove a point to someone on the internet. I would seriously advise anyone spending portions of their day on this debate to consider doing something more productive like opening a thread about their campaign or posting gameable material. This is a troll thread.
Quote from: Bill;577953The number of encounters 'per day' varies greatly by playstyle.
Many gm's do not even think about that.
Considering a particular combat might be easy of difficult depending on countless variables....
Not sure its a useful concept.
Even as a person that dm's and plays 4E, I think one of 4E biggest mistakes was the '10 encounter a day' foolishness.
I think it's a good thing to think about. I don't know how many encounters you're supposed to do a day in 4e. I know that It is possible to do endurance stuff in 3e. I still remeber playing the Red Hand of Doom module. The Battle of Brindol is a pretty brutal endurance match. It's like 5-6 tough encounters back to back and one of them is a hold the line scenario. I was playing a wizard and by the end of it I was totally out of spells.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577712Save vs Death comes up less often that save vs lose which is more broad.
Color Spray is a save or lose if you fail your save and have less than 2hd you're unconscious for 2d4 rounds but you might as well be dead though because people can CDG you with impunity.
Stone to Flesh/Salt/Ice/whatever is also basicly a save or die because getting unpertriyed is about as hard a coming back from the dead. Those spells work on almost anything made of meat (so most things you will be fighting.)
I've always considered save or die spells to be a little extravagant, my prefered style is to cripple encounters and then let the peons with melee classes finish up. (If I'm not playing a Gish and thus a melee peon myself.)
Save or die or save or lose is the same thing as far as I am concerned.
In a short duel, those spells have the biggest impact.
But in party vs monster encounters, those spells are required just to keep the monsters from steamrolling the party.
As gm, if a party has a ton of uber spells, I just make the encounters more difficult.
The save or lose spells are not a problem in my experience. I should point out though, that players murdering players is something I don't generally allow.
I only allow that if all the players want that type of game.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577957I think it's a good thing to think about. I don't know how many encounters you're supposed to do a day in 4e. I know that It is possible to do endurance stuff in 3e. I still remeber playing the Red Hand of Doom module. The Battle of Brindol is a pretty brutal endurance match. It's like 5-6 tough encounters back to back and one of them is a hold the line scenario. I was playing a wizard and by the end of it I was totally out of spells.
Why is it important? What matters is how 'weak' the pc's are from loss of resources. An abstract number of encounters in meaningless.
I never once in 30 years of rpgs ever thought about 'encounters per day' until I read the 4E books that say '10 per day'
Never mattered.
Battle of Brindol rules! I love the red hand of doom module!
Quote from: Bill;577959Save or die or save or lose is the same thing as far as I am concerned.
The save or lose spells are not a problem in my experience. I should point out though, that players murdering players is something I don't generally allow.
I don't think I disputed any of this. On the other hand sometimes you fight npcs with spellcaster levels, or monsters with SLAs and then the players have to worry about save or X spells.
Quote from: Bill;577961Battle of Brindol rules! I love the red hand of doom module!
Another man of refined taste, did your party lose anyone to the Half-Fiendish Behir.
Quote from: Bill;577961Why is it important? What matters is how 'weak' the pc's are from loss of resources. An abstract number of encounters in meaningless.
I never once in 30 years of rpgs ever thought about 'encounters per day' until I read the 4E books that say '10 per day'
Never mattered.
I think it's imporant to know the PC's limts else how are you going to test them
Quote from: Panzerkraken;577936So, by not following with what you said, you can out-damage the Fighter by blowing your entire load on one combat, provided you prepare beforehand for exactly and only that.
And your average damage across the entire 10 rounds is 106.25, so you've exceeded the fighter by 1.25 points. Congratulations on your overpowering dps.
Spoiler
Average damage from fireball or lightning bolt at 7th level is 24.5. I assumed one of the two spells was saved against for 12.25 average damage.
Average damage from a 7th level magic missile is 10 points.
24.5+12.25+10x7 = 106.25
And the 10 rounds after that.
Where's your sustained damage? It sounds more like a half-assed glass cannon that can't keep up in the long haul. In fact, the fighter could keep that rate of damage up (since we're whiteboxing) until the wizard has a chance to rest and prepare all his spells to be able to do it again. In about 10 hours.
The magic user might be better off memorizing some utility spells and letting the professionals do the damage.
But you are assuming that the Fighter takes no damage. Or that someone else will heal him. Left to his own devices the fighter will not recover to maximum efficieny after a combat for weeks.
Whilst the wizard will take damage there are more ways for them to avoid that because that is the design. The wizard has their own ways of doing it.
The fighter has more Hit points and in a magic rich game a higher AC to avoid damage. They have no way of themselves to avoid taking that damage.
Quote from: jibbajibba;577970But you are assuming that the Fighter takes no damage.
Yes, that is correct, we were. The original comparison was between a cleric and a fighter in AD&D/2e. The question was if the Cleric without spells was as capable as a fighter. Sanc put out an outline of their respective damages based on 10 rounds of whacking at a target that wasn't hitting back.
LM said 'pshaw. A wizard could out damage them with magic missile!' (paraphrased)
I asked him to show his math on that, and he brought out fireballs and 4th level spells. Then he changed his detail to mean that his average damage from a single casting of magic missile was higher than the fighter's average damage per round, then started bringing up taking damage as a means to detract from the results.
The point stands though, in order for a magic user in 2e to put out the same or better damage as a fighter, he has to expend his entire spell capability in one shot.
Now, fair enough, there's lots of secondary effects that a magic user can use to help deal with encounters quickly; sleep on clusters of low hd monsters or web is fine, but those work best in conjunction with the rest of the party. And a Fighter is good for holding attention at the front lines to give the magic user time to cast. And the cleric is good for healing up the fighter after, so that he can continue to do just that. And the Thief is good at making sure the party doesn't get ambushed and doesn't need to heal up from traps. All of the classes are designed to work together.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;577981LM said 'pshaw. A wizard could out damage them with magic missile!' (paraphrased)
what happend is I looked at the Sac's fighters damge wighted against AC and thought wow that's less than magic missile damage.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;577981I asked him to show his math on that, and he brought out fireballs and 4th level spells. Then he changed his detail to mean that his average damage from a single casting of magic missile was higher than the fighter's average damage per round, then started bringing up taking damage as a means to detract from the results.
I wasn't bringing up damage to detarct from your point I was argueing aginst Sac's 10 encounters per day.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;577981The point stands though, in order for a magic user in 2e to put out the same or better damage as a fighter, he has to expend his entire spell capability in one shot.
If a MU is running his spells for damage then RME is the logical choice, My hypothtical is doing more damge than the hypothtical fighter over 7 rounds on magic missile alone. If for some reason he has no fireballs to cast than only then can the fighter out damage him over 10 rounds. Oviously their are
more efficient ways to use spells but is 9 rounds using up all of your spell capcity in ones shot
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577965Another man of refined taste, did your party lose anyone to the Half-Fiendish Behir.
No one died, and the party managed to evacuate brindol except for one stubborn local man that refused to leave.
The party took a beating though, and fled!
Quote from: jibbajibba;577932You are right :)
You can see my 1e compare up post.
Of course beyond 2e Core with 2e Complete Priest the numbers all switch but as a core yes you are correct.
Intrigues about the HP varaiance.
You have the Dwarf on 56 HP so I am assuming based on an average (which would be 38 HP) you gave him 16 CON.
But the Cleric you left with No CON bonus any reason for that ? Its a secondary stat for both so just curious.
I also notice that you gave the Dwarf + 6 damage so I assume he has a +2 axe and +4 from Strength and Spec. that confused me a bit as he either has 18 Strength and you didn't give him exceptional Strength roll or he is double specialised (+3/+3) and you haven't given him enough attacks. I can't recall if Double Spec is in the Compelte Fighter though or if its core.
Likewise the fighter's THACO of 10 which is +6 for level and +4, 2 from the axe and I guess, 1 Strength and 1 Spec - this indicates single Specialation so I think you gave him 18 Strength but didn't give him the % roll.
Also a footman's mace is 1d6+1 damage so a +2 is 1d6 +3
.
Fighter had 16 str and 16 con. Cleric has 15 Con and 17 Wis. These were just quick NPCs the Core rules spit out. Same with weapon damage. The only thing I manually put into the build was giving the cleric the same armor as the dwarf.
Lord Mistborn, with the cleric v fighter, I wasn't talking about 10 encounters. I was talking about 10 rounds of combat. Are you now going to say that that's too high?
And congrats, your MM does 14 points of damage. Did you forget you only have 4 1st level spells. Woot! Yep, you're right! Way outpaces the fighter in damage. That also assumes that the MU memorized all of his 1st level spells on MM, which is probably not true because you keep arguing that the MM has stuff like sleep, color spray, enlarge, etc memorized in order to be better than the rest of the classes.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;577981Yes, that is correct, we were. The original comparison was between a cleric and a fighter in AD&D/2e. The question was if the Cleric without spells was as capable as a fighter. Sanc put out an outline of their respective damages based on 10 rounds of whacking at a target that wasn't hitting back.
LM said 'pshaw. A wizard could out damage them with magic missile!' (paraphrased)
I asked him to show his math on that, and he brought out fireballs and 4th level spells. Then he changed his detail to mean that his average damage from a single casting of magic missile was higher than the fighter's average damage per round, then started bringing up taking damage as a means to detract from the results.
The point stands though, in order for a magic user in 2e to put out the same or better damage as a fighter, he has to expend his entire spell capability in one shot.
Now, fair enough, there's lots of secondary effects that a magic user can use to help deal with encounters quickly; sleep on clusters of low hd monsters or web is fine, but those work best in conjunction with the rest of the party. And a Fighter is good for holding attention at the front lines to give the magic user time to cast. And the cleric is good for healing up the fighter after, so that he can continue to do just that. And the Thief is good at making sure the party doesn't get ambushed and doesn't need to heal up from traps. All of the classes are designed to work together.
I agree with Sac's 2 e Cleric /FIghter compare, I have a few niggles with it but basically acurate. I have always maintained that gap between casters and clerics is at its lowest in 2e, and that 2e is the best iteration of the game.
You can compare the 2e comparison with my 1e comparison (which also included Saving throws, the fact that clerics in 1e build cheaper castles and get more troops etc etc ) and you can see immediately that the 2e one has far better balance.
Of course once 2e allowed Priests to have a focus weapon (Trident for Neptune, Bow for Artemis etc etc ) and in it to get Fighter THACO and specialise it broken even worse but meh :)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;578013Lord Mistborn, with the cleric v fighter, I wasn't talking about 10 encounters. I was talking about 10 rounds of combat. Are you now going to say that that's too high?
And congrats, your MM does 14 points of damage. Did you forget you only have 4 1st level spells. Woot! Yep, you're right! Way outpaces the fighter in damage. That also assumes that the MU memorized all of his 1st level spells on MM, which is probably not true because you keep arguing that the MM has stuff like sleep, color spray, enlarge, etc memorized in order to be better than the rest of the classes.
He did say he cast Rary's Memonic Enhancer .....
Quote from: Sacrosanct;578006Fighter had 16 str and 16 con. Cleric has 15 Con and 17 Wis. These were just quick NPCs the Core rules spit out. Same with weapon damage. The only thing I manually put into the build was giving the cleric the same armor as the dwarf.
Hmm.... I prefer to go with averages than rolled HP for these examples ... with 15 Con the Cleric ought to get (4.5 x 7) + 7 = 38 HP
Like wise I can't see how a 16 Str Fighter (+0/+1) gets +4 +6 with a +2 Axe.
I can see single Spec giving +3/+5 2 attacks per round at 7th level.
I can see double Spec giving +5/+6 with 5/2 at 7th level.
Maybe I am just misrembering.
Like I say I think 2e gets the best balance between the classes. It is after all my favoured edition. I do think the wizard spell slots could do with a realignment. maybe allow a wizard to cast 3 first level spells at first level but restict them at 9th...
Look at my 1e cleric to fighter balance and you will see how 2e has improved it with Specialisation.
I still think swaping cleric and rogue Thaco and HP is good for game balance.
You meant
10 rounds of combat? Because that's not what you said here:
Quote from: Sacrosanct;577625And my point is that it's not always true.
For example, you have a 5th level MU with 3 1st, 2 2nd, and 1 3rd level spell.
combat 1 the MU is more effective, but has cast his 3rd level and 1 of his first level spells
combat 2 the MU still manages to be more effective, but has cast his 2nd level and another 1st level spell
combat 3 the MU is not nearly as effective as his remaining 2 spells are useless for that particular combat scenario
combat 4 the MU is still not effective. Sure, an opportunity to cast his last remaining 2nd level spell arises, but he took an arrow and the spell is ruined.
Combat 5-10 the MU is not really effective at all, because the fighter is still pushing out as much damage as he did in combat 1 while the MU is flinging rocks.
the group can finally rest and the MU can re-mem his spells. But out of 10 combats, he was only more effective for 2 of them.
Considering it was quoted about a half dozen times, and you have the Wizard casting two spells in
combat #1 (which, if you meant rounds, I find difficult to comprehend), I'd think that if you had meant rounds of combat you would have addressed it before now.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;578031You meant 10 rounds of combat? Because that's not what you said here:
.
Yeah, and in that conversation, it was 10 encounters. But like I said, in the fighter v cleric scenario, it was 10 rounds. Different conversations.
It's not that hard folks.
Quote from: Bill;577961Battle of Brindol rules! I love the red hand of doom module!
Red Hand of Doom is really cool. :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;578030Hmm.... I prefer to go with averages than rolled HP for these examples ... with 15 Con the Cleric ought to get (4.5 x 7) + 7 = 38 HP
Like wise I can't see how a 16 Str Fighter (+0/+1) gets +4 +6 with a +2 Axe.
I can see single Spec giving +3/+5 2 attacks per round at 7th level.
I can see double Spec giving +5/+6 with 5/2 at 7th level.
Maybe I am just misrembering.
.
The HP really aren't that important in this context. I can't recall who said it (I think Lord Mistborn) that said even after spells, a 2e cleric was still a comparable fighter to the fighter. It's not even close. Even if you throw in the complete books and give the cleric weapon spec, that would bring his THAC0 from 17 to 16, compared to the fighter's 10 or 11 (depending on how he's specc'd), and still would do less than half of the damage output.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;578038The HP really aren't that important in this context. I can't recall who said it (I think Lord Mistborn) that said even after spells, a 2e cleric was still a comparable fighter to the fighter. It's not even close. Even if you throw in the complete books and give the cleric weapon spec, that would bring his THAC0 from 17 to 16, compared to the fighter's 10 or 11 (depending on how he's specc'd), and still would do less than half of the damage output.
No he gets figther THACO as well so ... he is basically a figther with d8 HP and spells.
The suggested balance for this is to have 3 classes of Priests. Martial / Average/ Weak (roughly) . The midle ones get 1/3 THACO D8 HP and All armour they are the standard Cleric equiv. The weak guys get more spells d6 HP and 1/4 THACO . The tough ones get less spells or less Spheres d8 HP and 1/1 thaco and specialisation which means extra attacks. This only applied to his 'focus' weapon.
The odd thing of course is that it never occurs to them that if you make the Priest as good as the figther and fighting and only a little worse at casting spells, he may be roughly equal to the average combat priest but he is way better than the figther because he can fight like a fighter and cast spells.... in exchange for topping off at 16 CON, not having exceptional Strength and gettign D8 HP rather than D10. Since two are stat related at the top end they can statisitcally be pulled so it comes down to d10HP vs D8 HP and spell casting....
But like you say 2e is much better balanced than 1e or earlier
7th level characters aren't particularly germane to the conversation. In 3.x the problems as advanced by the 'denners' are just becoming apparent at this level of play, and everyone has agreed (or at least has not argued against) the proposition that 3.x is the least balanced of the various editions. In 3.x, it's pretty clear by 10th level, and exceedingly clear by 15th.
In earlier versions of D&D, the issues are still apparent, but at higher levels of play. I would say by 15th level it's very clear in 2ed. Of course, others have recognized and admitted that the disparity exists - remember, it's a bug, not a feature. Wizards are 'relatively weak' at low levels, so it's okay that they're really strong at high levels - because in the course of a campaign they're balanced (weaker at first, stronger later).
That doesn't really work if the game starts at high levels, and it's not as fun for me, personally, as generally 'equally matched' characters at all levels of play.
I don't understand why people would try to claim that Fighters are equal in power to Wizards at high levels, even in earlier editions of the game, and at the same time claim that it's okay that they're not even since wizards are weaker at the beginning.
A lot of ink has been spilled describing an observation that was made by Gygax himself and reaffirmed by lots of observations from actual play in various editions of the game. I don't understand why there are still people trying to claim with a straight face that Fighters aren't less powerful than Wizards at high levels. The claim is pretty easily disproven.
Quote from: jibbajibba;578042No he gets figther THACO as well so ... he is basically a figther with d8 HP and spells.
They do? I'll have to check. I swear they "only" got weapon spec. 2e kits weren't all that balance altering, and usually only gave a +1 bonus and that was it to something. Well, except Bladesingers ;) They were more for flavor. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I don't recall that.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;578045They do? I'll have to check. I swear they "only" got weapon spec. 2e kits weren't all that balance altering, and usually only gave a +1 bonus and that was it to something. Well, except Bladesingers ;) They were more for flavor. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I don't recall that.
I might be wrong.
The kits were fine but the class changes, specialist theives, Specialisation, martial Clerics, were pretty major changes.
I like them on the whole I limit Clerics through as I think they are ruinous. Most obvious when S&P kick ina nd they realise to replicate a 1e/2e cleric they need to give them 200 points compared to 10 for a fighter :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;578047I might be worng.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think your numbers for spec/double spec weren't right. I remember them as being (at first level if your DM let you drop your WP's into them) +1Hit +2Dmg 3/2Atk for spec and +3/+3 2/1 Atk for double. And the Fighter's resident bonus attacks would put you at 3/1 Atk at 7th level.
But I dont have any books here and it's been years for me too, so maybe I'm off on that.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;578043In earlier versions of D&D, the issues are still apparent, but at higher levels of play. I would say by 15th level it's very clear in 2ed. Of course, others have recognized and admitted that the disparity exists - remember, it's a bug, not a feature. Wizards are 'relatively weak' at low levels, so it's okay that they're really strong at high levels - because in the course of a campaign they're balanced (weaker at first, stronger later).
The issues may be apparent, but they aren't nearly as game-ruining as in 3.x. Fighters are not as effective damage-wise as MUs are very high levels, but they are not anywhere near totally useless in combat. This is especially true for people still playing TSR editions, chances are they are playing them because the LIKE the way the game works -- including most of the "scared cows" that people who don't like TSR D&D say need to be slain before they could even think about liking the game - like MUs that start out very weak at very low levels but end up being very strong at very high levels.
QuoteThat doesn't really work if the game starts at high levels, and it's not as fun for me, personally, as generally 'equally matched' characters at all levels of play.
Most people playing TSR D&D do not start the game at high levels and the way they play it can take years of weekly play to get to your 15th level mark. By the time the game gets to those levels (if it ever does), the focus of the campaign has likely shifted to domain management and adventures where PC group vs monsters combat is even less likely to be the best solution to most problems the party encounters. Therefore the problem is minimized and often not even noticed in play.
While you may prefer "generally 'equally matched' characters at all levels of play," TSR D&D has never really been about that. Those who still play TSR D&D generally like the way TSR D&D handles this, however, and -- like other "sacred cows" do not want to see it changed to satisfy people who do not like it.
QuoteI don't understand why there are still people trying to claim with a straight face that Fighters aren't less powerful than Wizards at high levels. The claim is pretty easily disproven.
It's only "easily disprovable" if you measure "power" mainly as combat damage. Combat damage/combat control isn't a very good measure of power for most TSR D&D campaigns that have worked up to very high levels through play. Political power in the game world, military power in the game world, etc. are often much more important in such campaigns than how much damage each character can spam per round in a party vs monsters encounter. So unless you clearly limit "power" to that in your statement about how fighters are less powerful than magic-users even in TSR D&D, people who actually play the games with characters that have worked up to those levels may disagree because they have a much broader view the power of high characters.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;578049Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think your numbers for spec/double spec weren't right. I remember them as being (at first level if your DM let you drop your WP's into them) +1Hit +2Dmg 3/2Atk for spec and +3/+3 2/1 Atk for double. And the Fighter's resident bonus attacks would put you at 3/1 Atk at 7th level.
But I dont have any books here and it's been years for me too, so maybe I'm off on that.
The specialisation rules override the base fighter attacks .
You don't get additional attacks for specialisation and for being a fighter.
Spec at 7th would get you +1/+2 and 2/1 (upto 7th its +1/+2 and 3/2)
Double Spec at 7th gets you +3/+3 and 5/2 (upto 7th its +3/+3 2/1)
So you are correct except you do not stack multiple attacks.
Its another reason Specialising Clerics is to me a step too far.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;578013Lord Mistborn, with the cleric v fighter, I wasn't talking about 10 encounters. I was talking about 10 rounds of combat. Are you now going to say that that's too high?
Gah, I've been trying to respond to two points at once.
I just thought It was amusing that your hypothetical fighter's damage weighted against AC was less than Magic Missile damage because 3e magic missile is the exact same an noone uses it.
Let me go back to my main point. You claimed that partys are going to face 10 encounters before they rest in 2e. So what I did is see how much healing a party has access to per day. I found that if those encounters do more than 10 points to your hypothetical fighter then the fighter will be a corpse at the end of the day even if he gets all the cleric's healing. Given this observation I have to assume that these encounters are not a threat to the party. A game where in most encounter are the wizard sitting out while the fighter grinds on mobs, except in important encounters where the wizard novas off and reduces the monsters to quivering lumps of flesh.
Quote from: Bill;577986No one died, and the party managed to evacuate brindol except for one stubborn local man that refused to leave.
The party took a beating though, and fled!
We ran the through the battle about as intended and faced the General on the steps of the church. Over the course of the day we had completely run out of consumables and by the end of the battle I didn't have any spells over 1st level. So it was basically one of the most epic battles I've ever played in.
Edit
Quote from: RandallS;578058It's only "easily disprovable" if you measure "power" mainly as combat damage. Combat damage/combat control isn't a very good measure of power for most TSR D&D campaigns that have worked up to very high levels through play. Political power in the game world, military power in the game world, etc. are often much more important in such campaigns than how much damage each character can spam per round in a party vs monsters encounter. So unless you clearly limit "power" to that in your statement about how fighters are less powerful than magic-users even in TSR D&D, people who actually play the games with characters that have worked up to those levels may disagree because they have a much broader view the power of high characters.
Oh yeah are we going to do this because I think we're going to do this
Charm Person, All the Illusion spells, Clairvoyance, Animate Dead, Domination, Teleport, Stone Shape, Wall of Stone. These spells give you options out of combat that some chump with a sword will never have.
Quote from: jibbajibba;577932I also notice that you gave the Dwarf + 6 damage so I assume he has a +2 axe and +4 from Strength and Spec. that confused me a bit as he either has 18 Strength and you didn't give him exceptional Strength roll or he is double specialised (+3/+3) and you haven't given him enough attacks. I can't recall if Double Spec is in the Compelte Fighter though or if its core.
Has to be the former. By the way, PO:S&P terms "double specialized" Weapon Mastery. And no, it is in neither PHB core or Complete: Fighter. Further, you're (later on) right, Weapon Mastery does not give an increase to weapon attacks. However Weapon Spec moves you one step up on the #atk progression table.
The THAC0 answers the riddle. It's THAC0 14 at 7th lvl. To get 10 add +2 for the Axe+2. That's THAC0 12. THAC0 11 if Axe Weapon Spec (also +2 dmg), and 10 if STR of flat 18 (gives +1atk/+2dmg). Total comes to THAC0 10, 1d8+6, and 2/1 atks/rd.
Quote from: jibbajibba;577932Likewise the fighter's THACO of 10 which is +6 for level and +4, 2 from the axe and I guess, 1 Strength and 1 Spec - this indicates single Specialation so I think you gave him 18 Strength but didn't give him the % roll.
Also a footman's mace is 1d6+1 damage so a +2 is 1d6 +3
See, you already knew it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;577932Up post you will also see how my example of how a Cleric in 2e and previous can easliy defeat a fighter in a "Thunderdome" using the Command spell for which a fighter under 5th level gets no save at all (assuming less than 13 Int which is reasonably safe bet).
PHB pg. 199.
Command
Range: 30 yds (aka: just 3 if outside)
Component: V
Duration: 1 round (aka: one minute)Casting Time: 1
AoE: 1 Creature
Save: None (unless INT 13+ or HD/lvl 6+, then save v. spell, adj. for WIS)
A minute is nothing. The thunderdome is big. Besides, that's trading your action for nulling one of theirs that round -- that's a push. That and the range, unless indoors, is far too dangerous. Oh, and you have to win initiative to avoid being hit anyway for spell disruption.
Let's just say I disagree here. ;)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;578013That also assumes that the MU memorized all of his 1st level spells on MM, which is probably not true because you keep arguing that the MM has stuff like sleep, color spray, enlarge, etc memorized in order to be better than the rest of the classes.
Would it be worthwhile to again request they come up with the spell load-out they are using to make all these claims?
Quote from: StormBringer;578201Would it be worthwhile to again request they come up with the spell load-out they are using to make all these claims?
All spells at all times! Scrolls, wands and infinite magical items for sale in the multiverse!
Quote from: Rum Cove;578205All spells at all times! Scrolls, wands and infinite magical items for sale in the multiverse!
I think that is the graduation present for all apprentice Magic-Users. :)
A lot of these posts remind me of a player that came to a new 2e campaign with an unarmored character that had a negative Armor Class (that would be a ridiculously high AC for you later gamers) AT FIRST LEVEL.
He thought there was nothing wrong with having a Sacred Bundle from the Legends & Lore book.
Since I never got Sac's Dwarf Fighter w/ a bow or dual wield daggers, I'll just do it myself, assuming the stat is STR 18 and no +/- from Dex or other stat. I'll also not use magic equipment because that gets ridiculous arms races where Fighter & MUer are assumed to always get what they want, whenever they want it (*cough* 7th lvl Wizard w/ Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer *cough*).
(Side note: it's also funny as Wizard only gets 4/3/2/1 slots, thus only 7 Magic Missiles. At 7th it's 4 missiles/spell, at 1d4+1 each -- or 4d4+4, which averages to 14 dmg per spell, then 14 dmg x 7 spells = 98 dmg average for a 7th lvl Wizard to blow his only 4th lvl spell & ALL 7 of his 1st lvl spells, in just 7 rounds. He now only has 3 2nd and 2 3rd spells left for the rest of the adventure until he finds a safe spot (8 hrs of uninterrupted rest, y'know?).
Further Rary's spell requires a piece of string, ivory plaque of at least 100 gp value, and squid ink mixed with either black dragon's blood or giant slug digestive juice -- all of which disappear with casting. Which means he needs to visit the ivory merchant for an exquisite piece and then the local black dragon phlebotomist or the giant slugs "vomitorium" (<-- /snicker). Kind of a waste overall for just 3 extra Magic Missiles, nu?)
But let's look at this 2e 7th fighter with just regular daggers and a short bow -- and assumed proficiency (he did have 2 WP slots left from 1st lvl, and never spent his further 2 WP for being 7th lvl). This is with no addt'l weapon spec, style spec, ambidexterity, magic loot, etc.!
Short Bow + Flight Arrows (dmg 1d6)
THAC0 = 14 (for 7th lvl) +1atk (for STR 18--) = THAC0 13
#atk ranged: RoF 2/1 rd. RNG 5/10/15 (x ten feet indoors or ten yards outdoors).
Daggers (dmg 1d4+2 (for STR 18)), two-weapon (grants an extra atk each round. no mention of 'melee atk only' in PHB, Comp: Fighter, or PO:S&P)
THAC0 = 14 (for 7th lvl) +1atk (for STR 18--) = THAC0 13
Two-Weapon THAC0 15/17 (-2/-4 atk)
#atk melee: 3/2 rds +1/rd (for two-weapon) = 5/2 rd.
# atk ranged: RoF 3/1 rd (goes up a step for 7th lvl; if Weap Spec would've been 4/1, PHB p.52) + 1/rd (for two-weapon) = RoF 4/1 rd. RNG 1/2/3.
STR damage carries through for thrown weapons (so dmg 1d4+2).
Priests cannot two-weapons wield or use bows. Priests can use slings, but that's 1d4+1 at best w/ sling bullet, retains similar RNG to Short Bow (5/10/20), but RoF is 1 atk/rd. (However, Priest THAC0 is 16 at 7th lvl. Therefore Sac's example Priest: Footman's Mace+2 makes that THAC0 14, base dmg 1d6+1 then +2 for magic weapon, thus 1d6+3. Still #atk = 1/rd.)
Fighter has consistent damage through-put with just with basic proficiency. =)
And now my nerd credentials are complete... I must sanctify this with an offering of cheetos and mountain dew. To post 5000 and beyond!
Quote from: Sacrosanct;578006Fighter had 16 str and 16 con. Cleric has 15 Con and 17 Wis. These were just quick NPCs the Core rules spit out. Same with weapon damage. The only thing I manually put into the build was giving the cleric the same armor as the dwarf.
Noooo! Thwarted by the ridiculously large post count progression! Well, that changes STR 18 calculations by -1atk/-1dmg, leaving just +1dmg for STR 16.
Well now I'm confused and I sure as hell am not going to dig up my old Win 95 system to check out my D&D Core CD... I'll just have to *gasp* trust you. ;)
Quote from: Opaopajr;578223Noooo! Thwarted by the ridiculously large post count progression! Well, that changes STR 18 calculations by -1atk/-1dmg, leaving just +1dmg for STR 16.
Well now I'm confused and I sure as hell am not going to dig up my old Win 95 system to check out my D&D Core CD... I'll just have to *gasp* trust you. ;)
If it makes you feel better, when I generated a 2e dwarf fighter using the S&P add on options, his THAC0 with the axe became a 6, with damage 1d8+9.
S&P for you right there.
Ok, so I re did another level 7 dwarf fighter in case I misread a # somewhere. This time he had 17 str and 15 Con.
AC: -1
HP: 60
Battle axe +2 (THAC0: 10, Dmg: 1d8+5, AT: 2/1)
Comp short bow +1 (THAC0: 13, AT: 2/1, Dmg: by arrow)
Same cleric (Wis 17, Con 15)
AC: -1
HP: 40
Footman's mace +2 (THAC0: 14, Dmg: 1d6+3, At: 1/1)
Actually, that's not in S&P either (which I'm looking at right now). Neither is Priest THAC0 progression being the same as Fighters. So all of that must be lost in some other AD&D 2e book I don't have right now.
FYI THAC0 progressions by Point/Level:
Priest = 2 pts /3 lvls
Rogue = 1 pt / 2 lvls
Warrior = 1 pt / 1 lvl
Wizard = 1 pt / 3 lvls
PO:S&P also rapidly increases cost, so Weapon Spec for priests is really costly. That and priests need 5 lvl minimum. Let me break the PO:S&P CP cost down.
Fighter Weapon Spec, Sword: Class - Weapon Spec 5 cp (Multi Weapon Spec 10 cp and only fighter has it); WPs - Sword Prof 2 cp, Sword Spec 2 cp = 1st lvl and 9 CP (or 14 CP for access to more than one Specialization).
Cleric Weapon Spec, Sword: Class - Weapon Allowance 'God of Sword' 5 cp, Weapon Spec 15 cp; WPs - Sword Prof 3 +1 for outside normal class restriction, Sword Spec 6 cp = 5th lvl and 30 CP.
(FYI, WP CP = WP Slots at 2 CP:1 slot)
Doable, but takes too long if starting at 1st lvl, costs a lot of CP, and is limited to only one weapon. Fighters are just really good at kicking ass over the long haul. Also, if you don't use the optional WP/NWP or CP system, you can still give Fighters Weapon Specialization at one for 1st lvl and one for each lvl divisible by 3 (3rd, 6th, 9th, etc.).
And I wanna try keep raising #atk progression beyond 13+. Considering it's 1/2 atk every 6 lvls that'd make 19th lvl = 5/2 melee atk/rounds, and so on.
That S&P build had things in it like getting CP for things like greed, and spending them on extra weapon expertise, d12 hit points, and shield and weapon style. There were some other fidgety things there too, but it was totally min-maxed.
Quote from: Opaopajr;578186Has to be the former. By the way, PO:S&P terms "double specialized" Weapon Mastery. And no, it is in neither PHB core or Complete: Fighter. Further, you're (later on) right, Weapon Mastery does not give an increase to weapon attacks. However Weapon Spec moves you one step up on the #atk progression table.
The THAC0 answers the riddle. It's THAC0 14 at 7th lvl. To get 10 add +2 for the Axe+2. That's THAC0 12. THAC0 11 if Axe Weapon Spec (also +2 dmg), and 10 if STR of flat 18 (gives +1atk/+2dmg). Total comes to THAC0 10, 1d8+6, and 2/1 atks/rd.
See, you already knew it.
PHB pg. 199.
Command
Range: 30 yds (aka: just 3 if outside)
Component: V
Duration: 1 round (aka: one minute)
Casting Time: 1
AoE: 1 Creature
Save: None (unless INT 13+ or HD/lvl 6+, then save v. spell, adj. for WIS)
A minute is nothing. The thunderdome is big. Besides, that's trading your action for nulling one of theirs that round -- that's a push. That and the range, unless indoors, is far too dangerous. Oh, and you have to win initiative to avoid being hit anyway for spell disruption.
Let's just say I disagree here. ;)
You mistake the spell Casting time 1 so you will generally win as a sword has weapons speed 5 so you are effectively getting a +4 on your int roll.
If you issue the command sleep they fall asleep. They are now asleep, not for 1 round they are asleep. If you say strip they take off all their armour.... etc .... so you aren't being very creative with the spell:)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;578226If it makes you feel better, when I generated a 2e dwarf fighter using the S&P add on options, his THAC0 with the axe became a 6, with damage 1d8+9.
S&P for you right there.
Ok, so I re did another level 7 dwarf fighter in case I misread a # somewhere. This time he had 17 str and 15 Con.
AC: -1
HP: 60
Battle axe +2 (THAC0: 10, Dmg: 1d8+5, AT: 2/1)
Comp short bow +1 (THAC0: 13, AT: 2/1, Dmg: by arrow)
Same cleric (Wis 17, Con 15)
AC: -1
HP: 40
Footman's mace +2 (THAC0: 14, Dmg: 1d6+3, At: 1/1)
Again I agree with you 2e is by far the more balanced system. Again I would say use average HP as in this example the guy got lucky and rolled 53/70 which is statistically as likely as him getting 24/70 and ending up with 31 HP.
So use Figther HP = (5.5 x 7) + 7 = 46hp & Cleric = (4.5 x 7) + 7 = 38hp
Look at 1e is you want to see how much better a cleric can be than a fighter.
A 7th level Cleric in 1e has the same base stats as in 2e. The fighter though
has a base thaco of 14 and 3/2 attacks at Magic + Strength Bonus damage.
I definitely think that specialisation was a Good Thing to even up the disparity. Which is of course why they added it.
I will grab my books when I get home and grab the bit from the Complete Priest re combat options.
I was wrong about Priests able to get fighter THACO with their chosen weapon. You can do it with the build new classes optiona nd you can do it with Skills and powers but not in 2e Care. Not sure where I got that from but at some point we ruled against allowing it and so I have been explicitly been not allowing a rule that doesn't exist for 20 years :)
Something that is appropos to our discussion though is in the complete Priest page 122. It gives advice here on how to tone down the Cleric class from 1e D&D which it regards as too powerful. It recommends narrowing the spell spheres they have access as one method of doing this.
Also on the same page if a Priest gives up being a priest if they had 'good' combat abilites (ie use any armour and a fair range of weapons) then they can become a fighter of 1 level lower and loose their clerical powers without having to start at again. The impication of course ebeing that a cleric is as good a fighter as a fighter one level lower :)
the CPH also lets you swap round priestly powers so if you like you could swap turn undead for shapechange, charm or cause fear etc .
I really liek the CHP I think 2e Priests are great but there is a big onus on the DM owing the processes and balancing them becuase they are a min maxers dream class (a fact whcih gets worse in 3e by all accounts)
Quote from: jibbajibba;578305You mistake the spell Casting time 1 so you will generally win as a sword has weapons speed 5 so you are effectively getting a +4 on your int roll.
If you issue the command sleep they fall asleep. They are now asleep, not for 1 round they are asleep. If you say strip they take off all their armour.... etc .... so you aren't being very creative with the spell:)
Wrong.
PHB p. 199
Command
This spell enables the priest to command another creature with a single word. The command must be uttered in a language understood by the creature. The subject will obey to the best of his/its ability only as long as the command is absolutely clear and unequivocal; hence, a command of "Suicide!" is ignored.
A command to "Die!" causes the creature to fall in a faint or cataleptic state for one round, but thereafter the creature revives and is alive and well. Typical commands are back, halt, flee, run, stop, fall, go, leave, surrender, sleep, rest, etc.
No command affects a creature for more than one round; undead are not affected at all. Creatures with Intelligence of 13 (high) or more, or those with 6 or more Hit Dice (or experience levels) are entitled to a saving throw vs. spell, adjusted for Wisdom. (Creatures with 13 or higher Intelligence
and 6 Hit Dice/levels get only one saving throw!)
Further, Casting Time 1 is nice, but Daggers go at Speed 2. And, more importantly, that's only pertinent if the GM is using the optional Individual Initiative+Individual Modifier method of determining initiative.
But Command is a nice spell otherwise; just not Thunderdome worthy.
Yeah, Priests are really shaped by their Spheres. That and GMs should really be paying attention to a Priest's alignment and actions. Just because they pray after rest to get their spells instead of finding each one the hard way like a Wizard doesn't mean they should just hand over a spell list and get it gratis.
In fact, due to GMs granting Priest spells on a day by day basis, it's one of the stronger areas where hooks can be imbedded. Besides denying bad Priests some (or if really bad, all!) spells that day for breaking their ethos, you can instead throw them a curve ball spell and let them figure out how best to use it. Gods are oft portrayed as fickle or inscrutable, so having one that perpetually grants your every spell desired isn't very God-like. That's more like a fairy godmother, or God serves you instead of vice-versa.
(And I still don't see that info in my PO:S&P about Priest alternate THAC0. It's not in the Classes section. Might be in CH:P, or maybe a subsequent PO:S&P printing I've never seen. Not gonna go digging for more books, however. But perhaps it exists somewhere?)
Quote from: Opaopajr;578384But Command is a nice spell otherwise; just not Thunderdome worthy.
Command is awesome!
Here are some favorites: abide, assuage, burgeon,dissemble, gainsay, hearken, prognosticate, transmogrify.
Nothing better than a temporary mental stun why the victim figures out how to comply. :D
I know you're kidding, but single word commands for verbs that require objects are the very definition of equivocal. :D
Quote from: Exploderwizard;578409Command is awesome!
Here are some favorites: abide, assuage, burgeon,dissemble, gainsay, hearken, prognosticate, transmogrify.
Nothing better than a temporary mental stun why the victim figures out how to comply. :D
OK that made me laugh. I already can envision a god of performing arts with a circle of priests using this as an exercise in interpretive dance and method acting. And it's all fun and games until someone says something problematic, like 'defenestrate' or 'excrete'. Then it's even more fun!
Quote from: CRKrueger;578411I know you're kidding, but single word commands for verbs that require objects are the very definition of equivocal. :D
The victim need not comply, just spend a round thinking about how and the spell ends.;)
Quote from: jibbajibba;578357I was wrong about Priests able to get fighter THACO with their chosen weapon.
:rotfl:
It just never ends, does it, jj?
Quote from: jibbajibba;578357I was wrong about Priests able to get fighter THACO with their chosen weapon.
Thief can do that. The 'swashbuckler' get Fighter THAC0 with his chosen weapon. Perhaps you were confusing the two?
Quote from: Opaopajr;578391Yeah, Priests are really shaped by their Spheres. That and GMs should really be paying attention to a Priest's alignment and actions. Just because they pray after rest to get their spells instead of finding each one the hard way like a Wizard doesn't mean they should just hand over a spell list and get it gratis.
Absolutely. Withholding spells is the best way to enforce behaviour, but the DM can simulate the 'mysterious ways' of a deity by dicing spells for the day, taking the player's requests into account. That would probably work better as a punishment for some minor transgression than SOP; it would get tedious and require a bunch more work for the DM.
Quote from: StormBringer;578433Absolutely. Withholding spells is the best way to enforce behaviour, but the DM can simulate the 'mysterious ways' of a deity by dicing spells for the day, taking the player's requests into account. That would probably work better as a punishment for some minor transgression than SOP; it would get tedious and require a bunch more work for the DM.
Wow, I keep thinking you guys can't be worse DMs but you keep surprising me.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578448Wow, I keep thinking you guys can't be worse DMs but you keep surprising me.
Clerics who do not toe their deity's lines are supposed to have trouble getting the spells they want. At least in 1e, it's in the RAW. I realize that this can upset player plans, but that's the price for playing a cleric. You know, one of those things that limits the power of spell-casters in older versions of D&D. DMs who enforce such things are GOOD DMs -- at least in the styles of play I enjoy. Personally, I consider players who complain about such things poor players.
Quote from: RandallS;578457Clerics who do not toe their deity's lines are supposed to have trouble getting the spells they want. At least in 1e, it's in the RAW. I realize that this can upset player plans, but that's the price for playing a cleric. You know, one of those things that limits the power of spell-casters in older versions of D&D. DMs who enforce such things are GOOD DMs -- at least in the styles of play I enjoy. Personally, I consider players who complain about such things poor players.
If a cleric is violating his gods comands maybe.
Quote from: StormBringer;578433Absolutely. Withholding spells is the best way to enforce behaviour, but the DM can simulate the 'mysterious ways' of a deity by dicing spells for the day, taking the player's requests into account. That would probably work better as a punishment for some minor transgression than SOP; it would get tedious and require a bunch more work for the DM.
What Storm was saying is only giving clerics random spells, because fuck you caster that's why. Classes should not be balanced by encoraging the DM to fuck players over.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578448Wow, I keep thinking you guys can't be worse DMs but you keep surprising me.
Oh, you prefer lack of consequences and restrictions in your games. And yet you complain about balance. Fascinating.
Well, I like consequences and restrictions in my games. Helps me role play the setting like it's a living world. Different strokes and all that, I guess.
Quote from: StormBringer;578433Withholding spells is the best way to enforce behaviour, but the DM can simulate the 'mysterious ways' of a deity by dicing spells for the day, taking the player's requests into account. That would probably work better as a punishment for some minor transgression than SOP; it would get tedious and require a bunch more work for the DM.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578460If a cleric is violating his gods comands maybe.
What Storm was saying is only giving clerics random spells, because fuck you caster that's why. Classes should not be balanced by encoraging the DM to fuck players over.
"Only" is a pretty extreme declaration, and reading is oh so fundamental. You're being disingenuous. Sadly this is unsurprising as well.
Quote from: Opaopajr;578464Oh, you prefer lack of consequences and restrictions in your games. And yet you complain about balance. Fascinating.
Well, I like consequences and restrictions in my games. Helps me role play the setting like it's a living world. Different strokes and all that, I guess.
Consequences is the Paladin falling after a murder spree.
If the DM is using a thin excuse to rip spells off your character sheet he's just being a huge dick
guess which one Storm was advocating
Quote from: StormBringer;578433by dicing spells for the day.
This is not a defensible statement stop defending it
Please do catch up. Our conversation was talking about consequences of bad behavior and the occasional curve ball spell emulating Deity ineffability. There is a distinct difference between these three:
100% automatic granting priest spell requests,
100% random priest spells, and
GM taking player's requests and behavior into account while adding some ineffability.
You are creating a strawman and looking foolish in the process.
Quote from: Opaopajr;578473Please do catch up. Our conversation was talking about consequences of bad behavior and the occasional curve ball spell emulating Deity ineffability. There is a distinct difference between these three:
100% automatic granting priest spell requests,
100% random priest spells, and
GM taking player's requests and behavior into account while adding some ineffability.
You are creating a strawman and looking foolish in the process.
no their are two possible positions
-The priest gets the spells from his class level and Wis score unless he is egregiously violating his god's commands, which is are things he should know about in advanced.
-The DM is a dick and withholds spells from him.
Disconnect from the grognard hivemind for a second and look at what Storm said.
Or another option. One that's actually in the books (based on your posting history, I'm not surprised you know nothing of it):
Clerical spells, including the druidic, are bestowed by the gods, so that the
cleric need but pray for a few hours and the desired verbal and somatic
spell components will be placed properly in his or her mind. First, second,
third, and even fourth level spells are granted to the cleric through
meditation and devout prayer. This spell giving is accomplished by the
lesser servants of the cleric's deity. Fifth, sixth, and seventh level spells can
be given to the cleric ONLY by the cleric's deity directly, not through some
intermediary source. Note that the cleric might well be judged by his or
her deity at such time, as the clerk must supplicate the deity for the
granting of these spells. While the deity may grant such spells full
willingly, a deed, or sacrifice, atonement or abasement may be required.
The deity might also ignore a specific spell request and give the cleric
some other spell (or none at all). Your Dungeon Master will handle this
considering a cleric's alignment and faithfulness to it and his or her deity.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;578487Or another option. One that's actually in the books (based on your posting history, I'm not surprised you know nothing of it):
Clerical spells, including the druidic, are bestowed by the gods, so that the
cleric need but pray for a few hours and the desired verbal and somatic
spell components will be placed properly in his or her mind. First, second,
third, and even fourth level spells are granted to the cleric through
meditation and devout prayer. This spell giving is accomplished by the
lesser servants of the cleric's deity. Fifth, sixth, and seventh level spells can
be given to the cleric ONLY by the cleric's deity directly, not through some
intermediary source. Note that the cleric might well be judged by his or
her deity at such time, as the clerk must supplicate the deity for the
granting of these spells. While the deity may grant such spells full
willingly, a deed, or sacrifice, atonement or abasement may be required.
The deity might also ignore a specific spell request and give the cleric
some other spell (or none at all). Your Dungeon Master will handle this
considering a cleric's alignment and faithfulness to it and his or her deity.
2e DMing advice is to be an asshole apparently, somehow I'm not surprised.
Newsflash: The DM not catering to your every whim, no matter how fucked up it is, doesn't make him or her a shit DM. It makes you a spoiled brat with entitlement issues.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;578492Newsflash: The DM not catering to your every whim, no matter how fucked up it is, doesn't make him or her a shit DM. It makes you a spoiled brat with entitlement issues.
When the chart next to my class and level says I get x spells of y level.
I expect x spells of y level. I expect the DM not to fuck with my character sheet just because the game says he can.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578496When the chart next to my class and level says I get x spells of y level. I expect x spells of y level. I expect the DM not to fuck with my character sheet just because the game says he can.
And as the DM,
I expect you to be familiar with the class you're playing, and if the book says that if you're doing questionable things not in accordance with your faith, then it's perfectly reasonable for your deity to withhold spells. I certainly expect you to have read that passage at some point.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;578498And as the DM, I expect you to be familiar with the class you're playing, and if the book says that if you're doing questionable things not in accordance with your faith, then it's perfectly reasonable for your deity to withhold spells. I certainly expect you to have read that passage at some point.
ahem
Quote from: StormBringer;578433the DM can simulate the 'mysterious ways' of a deity by dicing spells for the day
This was the post I was responding to originally.
The DM has the power in theory to strip clerics and paladins of their stuff at any time, The players expect that power be used responsibly.
random spells trololol is not using that power responsibly.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578502ahem
This was the post I was responding to originally.
The DM has the power in theory to strip clerics and paladins of their stuff at any time, The players expect that power be used responsibly.
random spells trololol is not using that power responsibly.
Where did he say the DM should just randomly remove spells for no reason? Or is this another example of you creating a strawman? Wait, you never do those...
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;578496When the chart next to my class and level says I get x spells of y level. I expect x spells of y level. I expect the DM not to fuck with my character sheet just because the game says he can.
But that was as much a part of thd game as the spell chart. Your spells come from your god or his lesser servants and so the gm is expected to grant spell requests with that in mind. It actually adds a good deal of flavor to the game. It isn't about being a jerk to the player, it is about the way divine casting is meant to function in the game. The way we always played is the player would right down the spells he was praying for and the gm would hand him a list back. Sometimes it had all of what you asked for, sometimes you got things you asked but things you didn't as well, sometimes the entire list was stuff you hadnt asked for at all. The gm didn't just do it "because". There was supposed to be a reason. Some GMs made the decision on balance issues, some on setting (i.e. What would the god give this particular cleric based on his receng behavior). Personally i like this approach a lot.
Yeah, this was never really useful and for the last 4 thousand posts it's been retarded.
Go find somewhere else to rub alpha-male bumps.
Closed.
Quote from: Lord Mistborn;577161Civility Libertad don't you know where you are.
Since this thread has invaded my totally legit PF thread Imma repost the points I've made that are more D&D universal.
-You're playing the numbers game while casters transcend the numbers.
This only matters if a) the fighter's numbers don't constitute a significant advantage over the other classes (which you can certainly argue in 3.x but is much harder to argue in any older edition).
Quote-You're losing the numbers game against the monsters. Monsters in most editions of D&D are the clear superiors with respect to what fighter classes can do. This is especially noticeable in 3e/3.5/PF due to CR and how monsters a built.
Again, not my experience in old-school D&D.
Quote-The fundamental resource in D&D is the spell.
The statement itself makes some sense, in that spells are a "limited resource" and in most versions of D&D what a fighter or rogue do are not limited resources, they can do them all the time.
However, your conclusions you noted with this point are pretty silly in old-school D&D. Particularly at lower-levels, a party that has more wizards than fighters is pretty screwed. Well into mid-levels, a rogue or fighter is more important to the survival of the PC group than a wizard; and even into high levels, a cleric is more absolutely essential to the party than a wizard.
Again, in great part your arguments are far more viable in 3.x; because of the ways they removed certain niche protections of fighters and rogues (suddenly, anyone can try to find or disarm traps in theory, and everyone can become a pretty decent fighter by a certain level), while simultaneously removing a lot of the features that limited wizards or clerics (chances to learn spells, lower numbers of spells per day, chances of spell failure, the difficulty in constructing magic items). So this threw the game out of whack.
Quote-The real threat to the fighter's viability as a class is not the wizard but the cleric. For the fighter's entire career the cleric will never be more that 1-2 spells from matching him and 3 spells from exceeding him
In old-school D&D, the cleric is a class that fights pretty well but doesn't match a fighter, and has some very useful spells but has to take up a lot of his spell slots to healing.
In closing, I would point you to Lamentations of the Flame Princess, which very handily resolves the vast bulk of your issues in how it changes both fighters and spellcasters.
RPGPundit