|
1 year ago ::
Jan 30, 2012 - 7:52PM
#131
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
So anti-magic shell will rander the fighter useless? Interesting. I imagine it is the same for dispel magic or silence. Snipers? Lurkers? How about playing with the battle terrain?
Freakishly, yeah, at times. Enemies 'hit only by magic weapons?' good luck to the fighter who's magic sword is out of commission. Trying to use your extensive trip-based feat-tree against the huge creatures showing up at high level? Not when your enlarge potion gets auto-dispelled. Being a really good archer takes a lot of feat and stat choices from 1st level on, if you're not heavily invested in archery, snipers are bitch - if you are, melee is a bitch - if you try to generalize, everything's a bitch. Lurkers are tough on anyone who doesn't have excellent perception or some sort of magical senses - like, well Fighters.
Playing with the battle terrain is pretty vague. In general, terrain only helps a fighter when it drops a natural choke point in his lap. Asside from that, terrain factors tend to favor the many mobility and ranged-attack options of casters over the plodding-along in heavy armor fighter.
when one class can totally obviate the need for another class?
Hyperbole. Does not reflectt reality of game play.
Out of the lowest levels a self-buffing cleric or animal companion was a good substitute for a fighter - and brought a full caster with it. Hard to argue there's much need for the fighter - or no need for another full caster.
I usually DM in my groups. I don't have the time, patience, or energy to patch broken mechanics.
Patch? Building encounters is patching now? But if spells are just evil, why not say "Hey, guys. Those spells just make it hard for me. Please don'T learn them. Thank you."
Fixing a broken game is an option. Asking for player restraint is an option. Playing a game that isn't broken in the first place is also an option - a better option.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 30, 2012 - 8:51PM
#132
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2010
|
Excellent post Professor, I had not though of a way to eloquently explain a lot of the effects of the early DnD rules as you did. Kudos on a thoughtful and well reasoned post.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 30, 2012 - 9:30PM
#133
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
Dont start the edition bashing again. That's what got this topic closed in he first place.
Moderated by
ORC_Narada
on Jan 31, 2012 - 05:55AM
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:26PM
#134
|
|
|
Meh. They can't adress any counter argument I raised, so they just go on an off-topic tangent. "Teleport and charm are teh ebil", I explain why its not, and then the counter argument is well magic is not really what it seems... At least I have some stimulation this way.
Moderated by
ORC_Narada
on Jan 31, 2012 - 05:59AM
République du Plateau, Montréal, Québec
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 30, 2012 - 10:40PM
#135
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
Meh. They can't adress any counter argument I raised, so they just go on an off-topic tangent. "Teleport and charm are teh ebil", I explain why its not, and then the counter argument is well magic is not really what it seems...
At least I have some stimulation this way.
I think the argument was that the Wizard is more powerful than other classes and should be balanced. People are mentioning how a Wizard's spells tend to force the game to revolve around the Wizard and counters against him. All your arguments seem to boil down to "It's not a problem at my game, you guys are doing it wrong."
You didn't provide a counter argument against Professor Cirno's point, you just said he was wrong because a bunch of people didn't like 4th. He had a fair point, the dominance of Magic as the only supernatural element in this game is arbitrary and supported only by tradition. Argue his actual point instead of side stepping and saying "Nope, lots of people apparently agree with me so that's obviously not true."
There was also talk of Fighters and skills, but I guess most of that was deleted. I still say they should get access to more skills, and that declaring they should get fewer skills because they have class abilities is terrible design.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 30, 2012 - 11:33PM
#136
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
They can't adress any counter argument I raised,
"That was never and argument, that was just contradiction, that was..."
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 31, 2012 - 12:23AM
#137
|
Date Joined:
Jan 17, 2012
|
I think the argument was that the Wizard is more powerful than other classes and should be balanced. People are mentioning how a Wizard's spells tend to force the game to revolve around the Wizard and counters against him.
The wizard can be challenged, but it doesn't mean he will be the only one. I've challenges groups composed of wizards, rogues, fighter, etc and they it didn't feel like it was wizocentric.
All your arguments seem to boil down to "It's not a problem at my game, you guys are doing it wrong."
I am sorry, but this is true of both side. One groups say they didn't have a problem with 3.5 and another say they are wrong and that 3.5 was broken because it was at their games. Both sides are using the same arguments.
You didn't provide a counter argument against Professor Cirno's point, you just said he was wrong because a bunch of people didn't like 4th
But he did bring arguments. Teleport is a good thing at higher levels. It makes travelling faster. Cirno didn't explain why teleport was bad. He just said it was. Same for a lot of his arguments. They seem to be self-evident truth, but apparently a lot of people disagree. Me included. 
He had a fair point, the dominance of Magic as the only supernatural element in this game is arbitrary and supported only by tradition.
Except it wasn't the only supernatural. 3.5 had arcane magic, psionic magic, divine magic, vestige magic, truename magic... It is still the only supernatural element in 4e. Martial is not magical. At least not until epic when you can be a demi-god.
Argue his actual point instead of side stepping and saying "Nope, lots of people apparently agree with me so that's obviously not true."
I am doing better? Cause your side uses the same argument, that everyone agrees 3.5 was broken. Obviously two opinions are clashing.
There was also talk of Fighters and skills, but I guess most of that was deleted. I still say they should get access to more skills, and that declaring they should get fewer skills because they have class abilities is terrible design.
I agree and Pathfinder has given the fighter more skills. But with a 3.5 fighter, why not ask your DM for more skills because you have a concept in your head? What skills do you need? I remember the warrior poet mentioned a lot. Why not just say your fighter writes poetry? Is a skill necessary? Why not boost int or cha? Solutions exist.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 31, 2012 - 1:26AM
#138
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
The wizard can be challenged, but it doesn't mean he will be the only one. I've challenges groups composed of wizards, rogues, fighter, etc and they it didn't feel like it was wizocentric.
That's good and I won't say it's unplayable, but when there are Wizards in my group they play their spells to the hilt to bend the encounter in their favor. As well as circumventing many plot devices.
It's just so much easier to challenge a Fighter, by comparison. His only outlet is damage, and there are many ways to prevent him from achieving that. Wizards have a much wider variety of options to consider and take planning on a DM's part far in excess as compared to the Fighter. Or atleast that has been my experience with it. Clones and scrying and metamagic wands and teleporting in to the lair of the Daughters of Sora Kell and killing of Sora Maenya some six levels before they were supposed to.
I am sorry, but this is true of both side. One groups say they didn't have a problem with 3.5 and another say they are wrong and that 3.5 was broken because it was at their games. Both sides are using the same arguments.
I'm probably biased but I see the 3.5 was broken side as giving more logical reasons why the system itself fails on several levels, whereas the 3.5 is fine side seems to rely on the idea that the DM can fix it. Whether the DM can make it fun or not isn't important when judging the value of the system itself, because adding a good DM to anything can make it work. Or that's how I understand that argument.
But he did bring arguments. Teleport is a good thing at higher levels. It makes travelling faster. Cirno didn't explain why teleport was bad. He just said it was. Same for a lot of his arguments. They seem to be self-evident truth, but apparently a lot of people disagree. Me included.
His post responding to Cirno didn't mention that, it was just saying that a bunch of people didn't buy 4th so they must not have agreed. Maybe that's true, but the debatable nature of how and why 4th failed makes the claim suspect.
As for Teleport, dunno, I don't really have an issue with that specifically. If Cirno or one of the others has an objection to raise I'm sure they can give that argument far more justice than I can.
Except it wasn't the only supernatural. 3.5 had arcane magic, psionic magic, divine magic, vestige magic, truename magic... It is still the only supernatural element in 4e. Martial is not magical. At least not until epic when you can be a demi-god.
I think I explained that poorly, my fault. If I'm reading it correctly, the crux of his argument is that Magic supercedes other Supernatural forces and ideals. Magic has taken all the Supernatural plot coupons and converted them into spells. Do you need to resist magic? You need Magic. Do you want to travel the planes? You need Magic. Dominate the mind of another, that's Magic. Want to be super strong, well, you can argue for Rage mechanics, but Magic does it much better. Really, any effect that isn't mundane is assumed to be accomplished with Magic.
I think, and I could be wrong, but I think Cirno is advocating a division of labor into multiple Supernatural sources. So, as an example, you'd need Arcane Magic to travel the planes, Psionics to Fly, Druidic magic to deal with plants, Divine to heal, Incarnum to do... I dunno, Vestiges to summon, Martial (or whatever) to enhance physical attributes.
Essentially, we stop assuming that Magic is the ultimate answer to everything. Magic has the solution for some problems, Incarnum has it's own unique effects, Psionic, Martial, so on. Could definitely have completely missed his point though.
I am doing better? Cause your side uses the same argument, that everyone agrees 3.5 was broken. Obviously two opinions are clashing.
Indeed, not everyone agrees. But the 'Broken' side seems to provide evidence that the game breaks down without severe DM intervention, and that makes the system broken. Even if you don't agree with that, Hipster_Cat still didn't actually respond to any of the points in his post. I'm just saying that Professor Cirno gave a well thought out explanation of what he saw as a flaw in the system, and responding "Well not everyone agrees." isn't an actual argument. Or maybe I'm quibbling with semantics on the notion of an argument, but he's not adressing what Cirno said and that's the issue I have.
And I'd say you're doing better.
I agree and Pathfinder has given the fighter more skills. But with a 3.5 fighter, why not ask your DM for more skills because you have a concept in your head? What skills do you need? I remember the warrior poet mentioned a lot. Why not just say your fighter writes poetry? Is a skill necessary? Why not boost int or cha? Solutions exist.
Well that would be suggesting that the system is broken and a DM has to fix it. My contention was to give all classes more control over what skills they would decide to take. I know I can change the game to suit myself, but I believe a good system would not require me to make such changes to play what I see as a basic character concept.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 31, 2012 - 6:01AM
#139
|
|
|
I've removed content from this thread because room disruption/edition warring is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 31, 2012 - 9:16AM
#140
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
I am an unapologetic 3.x lover and even worse: a player of wizards! Maybe its just because that is the time when I came of age as a role-player so all of my good memories fall within those years. I started playing in AD&D and had tons off fun with my Minotaur Ninja created with the complete book of Ninja who had something like 11 attacks for every 2 rounds. It was insane but fun as hell.
Yes, the very best part about playing a wizard in 3.x was the reality that I could, assuming I chose the right spells for the day, be able to come up with a possible soultion to a problem the group faced be it combat in nature or otherwise. The draw of the wizard to me was having max flexibility, not GODLY POWER!
Even 0 level spells like create water offered up a 101 possible uses to any creative caster and it is that type of creative flexibility I would like to see some back.
In 4e rituals were never used at my table. The DM tried to modify rules, tweak things but it just never happened except when I occasionally rode around on a tensor's disk to keep my feet out of the muck. I played a wizard straight from the release and realized I had zero flexibility. Why did every power do damage? Why did rituals take so much in the way of resources and time?
Not sure if this needs to be said but what the hell: It is without a doubt clear that if someone spends all there time focusing on 1 skill they cannot possible be equally good at other skills. But thats ok. And someone who spreads out knowledge inseveral areas is NOT going to be as good at a topic than the singly focused person. that too is OK.
I have always hated that certain classes have access to certain skills though. Every class should be able to take any skill they want without penalty. In fact I would like to see a classless system like Shadowrun. Sure you need the street mage, combat decker, sammy, adept etc but feel free to build them any way you want.
the flip of that is because you get to build your character anyway you want, there should no longer be any whining over class superiority right? You chose your options. you chose to be a diplomat. That works at the embassy but not as much here in the gutter with bullets flying. No one can be good at everything. there has to be a some sense of sacrificing for the group. You need to allow others their moments to shine even me as a wizard knows that. If you have players that refuse to allow others their moment you might want to find others more willing to do so. this makes both the players and DM's life easier.
|
|
|
