Cutting the Gordian Knot

Here is the Gordian Knot of a problem....

Camp #1
For some people a balanced game can only be achieved in one of these two ways
1.  Wizards as a class are reduced in function and flexibility so that they can do nothing a fighter can't do.
2.  Fighters are increased in function and flexibility until they can do everything a wizard can do.

Camp #2
For a different group of people these statements are true...
1.  Fighters are martial and should not have magical spell like abilities as part of their class.
2.  Wizards are magic using and should be able to do magical things unique to magic.


Both parties want balanced fun at minimum.  To some balanced fun necessitates one of Camp#1's options. For others it couldn't be fun unless Camp #2's views are honored.

I will admit in the interest of full disclosure that I'm more in camp #2 than camp #1.  I want balance but not at the expense of the views in Camp #2.  I feel that in 3e fighters were as fun to play as wizards.  I'm not saying there was perfect mechanical balance either.  Fun =/= perfect mechanical balance for plenty of people.  Sufficient balance along with a lot of other things add up to fun for many.

If they make 10 classes in the PHB and 2 break the needs of Camp#1 will that be ok?  

Any ideas on a compatible solution? I think insulting camp #2 is not a good plan.

My personal view is that camp #2 is a bigger market share of the industry (and not just because of Pathfinder.  Look at all the easy D&D knock off games that resemble 1e.)  3 editions of D&D honored camp #2.  1 honored camp #1.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

You have false dichotomies in your false dichotomies.
False. In 4e the fighter and wizard do very different things and the fighter never seemed magical to me and many others. After all it is not shooting blasts of energy, flying, turning invisible, walking on walls, or summoning minions. In previous editions the wizard could do everything the fighter did...but better.
The point of having different classes is so they can do different things.


Anyone in the camp 1 you posit isn't looking for a balanced game; they're looking for a classless game.  These are two completely different desires.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
I'll note that the exact problem with camp 2 is encapsulated within your description of it:

Camp #2
For a different group of people these statements are true...
1.  Fighters are martial and should not have magical spell like abilities as part of their class.
2.  Wizards are magic using and should be able to do magical things unique to magic.



Camp #2 maintains that Wizards should be able to do things fighters can't. But let's flip it on its head:

Camp #3
For a different group of people these statements are true...
1.  Wizards are magical and should not have Martial Technique like abilities as part of their class.
2.  Fighters are Martial Warriors and should be able to do skillfull things unique to the Martially Trained. 



I'm a member of Camp #3. Unfortunately, much of Camp #2 isn't.

And that is why many of us refuse to compromise. You don't get to have Camp #2 without Camp #3. Otherwise, you're playing Wizard and mooks.


Your Camp #1 is asking for a mediocre, but playable, balanced game. Camp #2 without Camp #3= an absolutely terrible game. 
It's all how you define martial techniques.   If you mean powers that are indistinguishable from magic then you are in camp #1.  If you mean realistic fighter moves that don't break any versimilitude then I think no one camp #1 or camp #2 disagrees that those would be fine.



 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

It's all how you define martial techniques.   If you mean powers that are indistinguishable from magic then you are in camp #1.  If you mean realistic fighter moves that don't break any versimilitude then I think no one camp #1 or camp #2 disagrees that those would be fine.
 



That depends how you define "indistinguishable from magic", doesn't it?


If you're going to limit fighters to things that are possible for a real person to do, then you're going to limit fighters out of the game.  Real people can't do any significant damage to a dragon (let's pretend 'dragon' and 'tank' are synonymous; they're pretty close) with a melee weapon.  Real people can't dodge fireballs or survive breathing chlorine gas.


Your camp 2, as written, is synonymous with saying "Non-magic using classes should be worthless past the early levels".  I don't think that's your intent, but that's what you wrote.  Similarly, your camp 1, as written, says "Classes should not exist, everyone should be able to do the same things".  Which I also don't think is your intent.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
It's all how you define martial techniques.   If you mean powers that are indistinguishable from magic then you are in camp #1.  If you mean realistic fighter moves that don't break any versimilitude then I think no one camp #1 or camp #2 disagrees that those would be fine. 


The point, which you have completely missed, is:

Fighters need to have capabilities that wizards don't.

If you say "Fighters aren't magic, so they're limited" you need to also say "Wizards aren't martial, so they're limited"

And a lot of the supporters of old-style casters aren't willing to accept that.

True Strike, granting nigh perfect accuracy:
How on earth is that appropriate for someone who isn't martial?

Mage armor, wearing armour so well that it doesn't hinder you at all:
How on earth is that appropriate for someone who isn't martial? 

If you want to have Wizards who can achieve things impossible for Fighters, you need to have Fighters who can achieve things (like True Strike) that're impossible for Wizards.
Well Camp #1 is fully satisfied with 4e.  All the classes essentially work the same.  AEDU.  Fighters have powers that to me are very much spell like in *some* cases.  NOT ALL.

I don't think the limitation is what a real person can do.  It's rather what you can swallow from a cinematic perspective.  For example I wouldn't mind if a rogue tumbled past or flipped over an enemy.  I wouldn't mind a fighter that hid behind his tower shield as the dragon's breath swept over him.  I think the mechanics operating in a way that screams magic (dailies) is what we are talking about.  Encounters as they are written are also problematic but I could fix those pretty easily without losing much.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Well Camp #1 is fully satisfied with 4e.
 


That's complete bull, and you should know it by now.

Camp #1, as you described it, wants there to be nothing a wizard can do that a fighter can't.

In 4e a wizard can:

Teleport across the battlefield

Summon a succubus to aid her in combat, which takes actions on its own.

Create a zone of burning ground, dealing damage over time in an area.

Cause a massive explosion dealing damage in a massive area at a distance

etc. etc.

Show me how fighters can do ANY of those things.


You're either wrong, or lying.
Which is it? 
You have false dichotomies in your false dichotomies.

This. You're inventing distinctions that don't exist.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Simple (simplistic) solution:  Two different arcane classes (e.g. wizard and mage) - one balanced according to the wishes of Camp #1, the other balanced according to the wishes of Camp #2.  Two different martial classes (e.g. fighter and knight) - one balanced according to the wishes of Camp #1, the other balanced according to the wishes of Camp #2.  The DM chooses the ones that he feels are appropriate. 


The existence of a class that is not being used in your game has no effect on the balance of your game. 

Carl
Here is the Gordian Knot of a problem....

Camp #1
For some people a balanced game can only be achieved in one of these two ways
1.  Wizards as a class are reduced in function and flexibility so that they can do nothing a fighter can't do.
2.  Fighters are increased in function and flexibility until they can do everything a wizard can do.


 



Amazingly, there's the third option of camp 1, which you conveniently ignore. Fighters get buffed up a bit, and are given a few narrative overrides, while wizards lose some of their plot breaking superpowers that they swap out every morning. Wizards still get to do some effects which cannot be achieved through mortal means, they just pay a premium for them in other areas.

Kind of like a slightly better realized 4th edition.

You're either wrong, or lying.
Which is it? 



Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
Well Camp #1 is fully satisfied with 4e.  All the classes essentially work the same.  AEDU.  Fighters have powers that to me are very much spell like in *some* cases.  NOT ALL.

I don't think the limitation is what a real person can do.  It's rather what you can swallow from a cinematic perspective.  For example I wouldn't mind if a rogue tumbled past or flipped over an enemy.  I wouldn't mind a fighter that hid behind his tower shield as the dragon's breath swept over him.  I think the mechanics operating in a way that screams magic (dailies) is what we are talking about.  Encounters as they are written are also problematic but I could fix those pretty easily without losing much.
 


Your description of camp 1 is very far from 4e. The point of 4e/those that want balanced games is not to have a fighter that can do everything a caster can do (I don't need a fighter that teleports or shoots fireballs), it's to have a fighter that is on par with the caster in terms of power and a caster that doesn't overshadow other classes. So really, 4e fans wants the opposite of what you suggested, they want each class to have its own niche and unique capabilities.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
Actually, if I was to simplify the problem to two camps (and I should stress that this is never all that accurate; people are too varied), then it'd be like so:

- One camp wants to play characters that are always fun, and for everyone to be able to play characters that are always fun. This camp thinks that the way to accomplish this is to make sure that characters are not inherently more capable than others, which usually results in less-capable players feeling overshadowed and jealous. According to this camp.

- One camp wants to play characters that are always fun, and for everyone to be able to play characters that are always fun. This camp thinks that the way to accomplish this is to make sure that characters accurately portray the historical archetypes of Dungeons & Dragons, resulting in a varied experience that has kept people passionate for decades. According to this camp.

I don't fit into either camp firmly, nor would the rest of you, likely. I think the best answer is a middle ground, where the old ways of D&D are revived as closely as possible when you're also keeping in mind that lots of people don't want to be glorified meatshields for the wizard.
I don't use emoticons, and I'm also pretty pleasant. So if I say something that's rude or insulting, it's probably a joke.
Actually, if I was to simplify the problem to two camps (and I should stress that this is never all that accurate; people are too varied), then it'd be like so:

- One camp wants to play characters that are always fun, and for everyone to be able to play characters that are always fun. This camp thinks that the way to accomplish this is to make sure that characters are not inherently more capable than others, which usually results in less-capable players feeling overshadowed and jealous. According to this camp.

- One camp wants to play characters that are always fun, and for everyone to be able to play characters that are always fun. This camp thinks that the way to accomplish this is to make sure that characters accurately portray the historical archetypes of Dungeons & Dragons, resulting in a varied experience that has kept people passionate for decades. According to this camp.

I don't fit into either camp firmly, nor would the rest of you, likely. I think the best answer is a middle ground, where the old ways of D&D are revived as closely as possible when you're also keeping in mind that lots of people don't want to be glorified meatshields for the wizard.


Yes I think you summed up the camps much better. And as you pointed out, despite the fact that two different approaches have been taken to appease those two camps, the end goals are not mutually exclusive.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
"There's always a third way, and it's not a combination of the other two ways. It's a different way."

Here is the Gordian Knot of a problem....

Camp #1
For some people a balanced game can only be achieved in one of these two ways
1.  Wizards as a class are reduced in function and flexibility so that they can do nothing a fighter can't do.
2.  Fighters are increased in function and flexibility until they can do everything a wizard can do.

Camp #2
For a different group of people these statements are true...
1.  Fighters are martial and should not have magical spell like abilities as part of their class.
2.  Wizards are magic using and should be able to do magical things unique to magic.


Both parties want balanced fun at minimum.  To some balanced fun necessitates one of Camp#1's options. For others it couldn't be fun unless Camp #2's views are honored.

I will admit in the interest of full disclosure that I'm more in camp #2 than camp #1.  I want balance but not at the expense of the views in Camp #2.  I feel that in 3e fighters were as fun to play as wizards.  I'm not saying there was perfect mechanical balance either.  Fun =/= perfect mechanical balance for plenty of people.  Sufficient balance along with a lot of other things add up to fun for many.

If they make 10 classes in the PHB and 2 break the needs of Camp#1 will that be ok?  

Any ideas on a compatible solution? I think insulting camp #2 is not a good plan.

My personal view is that camp #2 is a bigger market share of the industry (and not just because of Pathfinder.  Look at all the easy D&D knock off games that resemble 1e.)  3 editions of D&D honored camp #2.  1 honored camp #1.

 



About Wizards:
I think wizards should have the flexibility to do anything a fighter does, but just

1) Not as well or
2) For a limited time only 

About Fighters:
On the other hand we can't honestly think that 100% non-magic using fighters can be on par with wizards any day, because magic is so much more than just brute strength or even strength+tactics. 

Luckily, it's a magical world, so it's not crazy for fighters to have some magical ability channeled through martial prowess and magical items, so let's use those to keep things balanced.

However, I would never wish for fighters to be able to be as flexible as a Wizard, and I think it is completely unecessary for them to be so.
IMAGE(http://www.forum-signatures.com/wizard/Sigs/2010/final1329876348159.jpg)
No one's actually asked for the fighter to be as versatile as the wizard.

They've just asked that the wizard not completely invalidate the need for other classes past level 6. 
No one's actually asked for the fighter to be as versatile as the wizard.

They've just asked that the wizard not completely invalidate the need for other classes past level 6. 



Read again Camp#1, point 2. That's exactly what is stated. Honestly, when I read it, it did sound quite weird...so I guess it's not what it's meant.
IMAGE(http://www.forum-signatures.com/wizard/Sigs/2010/final1329876348159.jpg)
No one's actually asked for the fighter to be as versatile as the wizard.

They've just asked that the wizard not completely invalidate the need for other classes past level 6. 


Read again Camp#1, point 2. That's exactly what is stated.


If you read the OP's version of camp #1, then yes. Strangely enough, I don't know of anyone that is actually in that camp. Not anyone I personally know, anyone I've casually met and discussed gaming with, and no one I've talked to on these forums. I think the OP is attempting to described camp #1 as 4e players, but I would disagree with the accuracy of that statement.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
No one's actually asked for the fighter to be as versatile as the wizard.

They've just asked that the wizard not completely invalidate the need for other classes past level 6. 



Read again Camp#1, point 2. That's exactly what is stated.


Yes, but that's a statement from Emerikol, who isn't a member of his, quite possibly imaginary, camp 1.

The simple fact is,  Emerikol seems to think his Camp #1 is catered to by 4e. As he described it, Camp #1 would hate 4e.

So, taking Emerikol's claims as gospel seems a little misguided. 
Which is why camp #1 does not actually exist and is merely a figment of the op's imagination.
Camp #1 is not equivalent to all 4e players.  There are 4e players that have no concerns about any of this.  I have ran into *some* 4e players though that represent this view.

I am not lying nor wrong in answer to a previous comment.  Here is why...
1.  A wizard or a cleric both have spells that do exotic magical things at all levels.  They do NOT have (in most cases) the same spell list.  
2.  Camp #1 wants to give to fighters magical-like abilities of their own that while uniquely named still seem caster like in nature.  For example they have dailies and encounters that get fired off independently of other encounters.  All this smacks of a spellcaster and not a martial person.  

I was not impugning camp #1 either.  Just asking for dialog on how to appease both camps and still have a fun game given they both hold their beliefs so firmly.

Edit:  I name the thread a Gordian Knot because it seems like with all the animosity and disrespect flowing back and forth that the problem is going to be very tough.   Obviously separate classes is a start but I get the feeling that some can't bear the sight of the other anywhere in "their" rulebooks.

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Camp #1 is not equivalent to all 4e players.  There are 4e players that have no concerns about any of this.  I have ran into *some* 4e players though that represent this view.

I am not lying nor wrong in answer to a previous comment.  Here is why....


I'm sorry, but that doesn't explain how D&D 4e supposedly has fighters and wizards be identical.


In fact, it seems like you were wrong in your claims about what camp #1 is. Subtly changing away from your claim that Camp #1 wants fighters and wizards to have identical capabilities, to a completely different claim (that camp #1 wants fighters to have magical abilities that are different from wizards)


It would help your image a lot if you would ADMIT that you were wrong, rather than lying about it.
Then you need to redefine camp 1. Wanting characters that have a roughly equal number of abilities is not the same as wanting characters that do the same things. Your post suggests that 4e players want fighters that charm people and teleport all over the battlefield.

Your perception is that AEDU powers are spellcastery. Obviously that is not a universal opinion or many if not most 4e players probably would not enjoy the game. Now that's your opinion and that's fine, but your perception that they feel the same does not equate to 4e players wanting classes that do the same things.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
If you read the OP's version of camp #1, then yes. Strangely enough, I don't know of anyone that is actually in that camp. Not anyone I personally know, anyone I've casually met and discussed gaming with, and no one I've talked to on these forums. I think the OP is attempting to described camp #1 as 4e players, but I would disagree with the accuracy of that statement.

It is the 3E fanboi's stereotype of 4E players.

People who want all classes to be identical do not like 4E.

People who want all classes to be *similarly powerful* like 4E.

That doesn't mean that, just because a wizard can throw a fireball to cover a 25-foot-square area centered 50 feet away from himself (4E: "area burst 2 within 10"), a fighter has to be able to do the same. It means that a fighter has to be able to do something *about as powerful* as throwing that fireball.

There are lots of ways to create the thing the fighter does, the simplest being an ordinary "I hit it with my weapon" type power that is usable just as often as the wizard can use his fireball, targets one creature the fighter could target with his routine every-round power (4E: "melee weapon"), and does a LOT of damage. Probably between two and four times as much damage as any one target of the fireball suffers. If the fireball leaves ongoing damage, the fighter's power probably should prone or daze the target, or maybe do some forced movement.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
Hello,

Ignoring the argument about point 1 which will not end well . . .

I think Kingreapers camp 3 approach is valid. Why should all Wizards have martial or even rogue like spells.

Adding my own spin to the idea the magic user classes should be reimagined. The clasic wizard brings knowledge and cleverness to the stituation at hand. Gandolf doesn't cast detect SDs or knock, he knows the answer to the riddle. Dumbeldoor is powerful, but his real power is his insight into the heart of other and their motivations. Even Dresden's real value is not his ability to blast things, but rather to ask the right questions as a detective. In Dances with Dragons it is the red priestess ability to see the future that is her most valueated feature.

So while their might be a limited martial wizard who uses a sword and aguments it with magic instead of feat, the bread and butter wizard could be knowledge based. In 4e parlence he would be a leader making the classes around him better by predicting where attacks would be comming from, altering probably outcomes, and having the insight to turn the tide of battle.
I'm trying to present the two sides.  The snarky comments are why we can't get anywhere.  In the perception of many many players (lots now playing a competitors product) the AEDU system seemed too much like spells to a lot of people.  

Instead of addressing the issue you harp on the definitions.  I didn't think the two camps were that hard to define.  

@bone_naga
It's not equality in the sense of equal power.  It's fighters using what seems to *some* people is a caster mechanical system.  Camp #1 doesn't see this at all and sees the uniformity of the system as a strength.  Camp #2 sees it very clearly and it is one of the major issues with 4e.  In fact I'd say it is the #1 issue and reason players fled to Pathfinder.  There are others of course but it's up there.  If not first at least in the top three.

If we could come up with some good ideas for a fun option for all parties then camp #1 could be happy.  I'm sure whatever 5e does the camp #2 people will be happy because it is a business imperative for D&D to recapture a ton of lost players.  So if we want to stick our heads in the sand and just wait for 5e without comment then fine.  I'm positive Monte Cook will produce a game I can play.   I just thought addressing the issues constructively might just produce a game we all want to play and the D&D franchise would be even better off.

Instead all I get is condescension, snark, and elitism.  Good luck and good night.

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.

Camp #1
For some people a balanced game can only be achieved in one of these two ways
1.  Wizards as a class are reduced in function and flexibility so that they can do nothing a fighter can't do.
2.  Fighters are increased in function and flexibility until they can do everything a wizard can do.

Camp #2
For a different group of people these statements are true...
1.  Fighters are martial and should not have magical spell like abilities as part of their class.
2.  Wizards are magic using and should be able to do magical things unique to magic.

This is a false dichotomy.  In addition, I've never actually met anyone who has expressed the view presented in Camp #1, nor have I ever read a post that shares that view.  If you can provide a link to such a post...

In my experience, 4E wizards can do many things that fighters can't do, and I've never seen anyone complain about this.

For example, in 4E, wizards can: take no damage from a fall (or allow a comrade to take no damage from a fall), magically block an attack, jump a huge distance (or allow a comrade to jump), shift up to twice their speed, change their appearance, levitate, teleport, create a wall of fog, dispel magic, turn invisible (or turn a comrade invisible), gain elemental resistance (or grant a comrade resistance), open an arcane gate allowing the entire party to teleport, and create duplicate images of himself (or herself).  And that is just up to level 10 from the PHB, utility powers only!  The fighter can't do any of those things.

I have never seen a fighter that can do the things a wizard can do, nor have I ever seen a wizard who can only do the things a fighter can do.  In addition, every fighter I have seen has been martial, and does not have any magical spell-like abilities.  Every wizard I have seen has used magic and has been able to do magical things unique to magic.

I might be wrong, but your post smells like a vieled stab at the fact that 4E fighters (and other martial classes) got powers just like the wizard.  While it is fine to dislike this, the powers did not, in any way, give the Fighter magical powers.  Fighters can't teleport, levitate, conjure, etc.  In addition, while the Wizard in 4E is on par, power-wise, with the fighter, they can still do many, many things that the fighter can't ever do.

@ Emerikol: Very few of the people who like 4e like it because it is uniform.  We just don't see the uniformity you speak of.  As someone who enjoys 4e I say the fault is with you and your inability to see past the packaging and into the content.   The way I see it blenders and toasters often come in boxes that looks really similar, both are used in the kitchen and both need to be plugged into a wall however a blender and a toaster are not the same machine.

4e powers aren't the same it is your perception of them that is wrong. 
Maybe this statement is a truism about 4e:

"In 4e, no choice of class will make a character any more or less effective than any other character both inside and outside of all situations"


I would posit that this is in fact a true statement.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
Maybe this statement is a truism about 4e:

"In 4e, no choice of class will make a character any more or less effective than any other character both inside and outside of all situations"

I would posit that this is in fact a true statement.

What?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Ditto
Maybe this statement is a truism about 4e:

"In 4e, no choice of class will make a character any more or less effective than any other character both inside and outside of all situations"


I would posit that this is in fact a true statement.



Way off. Fighters still suck horribly in most or all social situations. Rogues and wizards would generally die within 3 rounds if they attempt a melee duel 1-on-1 unassisted against at-level non-minion enemies. Clerics have very few ways to keep up as strikers.

So no, not true.

Maybe this statement is a truism about 4e:

"In 4e, no choice of class will make a character any more or less effective than any other character both inside and outside of all situations"


I would posit that this is in fact a true statement.



Way off. Fighters still suck horribly in most or all social situations. Rogues and wizards would generally die within 2 rounds if they attempt a melee duel 1-on-1 unassisted against at-level non-minion enemies. Clerics have very few ways to keep up as strikers.

So no, not true.




Why do fighters suck in social situations? All classes get the exact same skills, there is not one single skill in 4e that all classes do not have. All classes can choose to be trained in social skills or not. All classes are equally effective in combat situations.

"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic. it?" -anon "Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson

Why do fighters suck in social situations? All classes get the exact same skills


I take it you've never played 4e then?
Because they don't all get the same skills. Each class has a skill list, and a number of trained skills. 


Maybe this statement is a truism about 4e:

"In 4e, no choice of class will make a character any more or less effective than any other character both inside and outside of all situations"


I would posit that this is in fact a true statement.

Seriously????

Please read this again:
For example, in 4E, wizards can: take no damage from a fall (or allow a comrade to take no damage from a fall), magically block an attack, jump a huge distance (or allow a comrade to jump), shift up to twice their speed, change their appearance, levitate, teleport, create a wall of fog, dispel magic, turn invisible (or turn a comrade invisible), gain elemental resistance (or grant a comrade resistance), open an arcane gate allowing the entire party to teleport, and create duplicate images of himself (or herself).  And that is just up to level 10 from the PHB, utility powers only!  The fighter can't do any of those things.

Can you not think of any situation where any of these abilities will make the wizard more effective than a fighter? Really?

Come on - you're not as stupid as your statement makes you look. Please rethink and rephrase. Thank you.

Test your PC builds' combat prowess and pit them against other builds at the Core Coliseum - the online D&D arena.
Maybe this statement is a truism about 4e:

"In 4e, no choice of class will make a character any more or less effective than any other character both inside and outside of all situations"


I would posit that this is in fact a true statement.



Way off. Fighters still suck horribly in most or all social situations. Rogues and wizards would generally die within 2 rounds if they attempt a melee duel 1-on-1 unassisted against at-level non-minion enemies. Clerics have very few ways to keep up as strikers.

So no, not true.




Why do fighters suck in social situations? All classes get the exact same skills, there is not one single skill in 4e that all classes do not have. All classes can choose to be trained in social skills or not. All classes are equally effective in combat situations.




You have clearly never played nor even read the rules for 4e then because not all classes have access to training in all skills (outside of feats), this is really really basic.  I mean come on.

Technically, every class does have access to every skill via backgrounds, but this still doesn't change the fact that some classes get more skills and better ability score modifiers for social skills. A warlock is going to be better at Diplo than a fighter, even if they both have it trained.

Also, some classes get free rituals while others have to spend 1 to 2 feats and gold to replicate the same benefit. Not all classes are created equal in 4e in terms of out-of-combat utility
Sign In to post comments