|
5 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2008 - 10:01AM
#421
|
|
|
And your point is in error. The commoner does reduce the party's capability....by a whole lot.
The Fighter ALSO reduces the party's capability when you take away a cleric for him.
A commoner in the party does not actively harm the party, can you explain what you mean by 'harm'?
"A whole lot" is subjective.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal. Rule that I would change: 204.1b
Show
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update"
We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better. Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2008 - 10:11AM
#422
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
The Fighter ALSO reduces the party's capability when you take away a cleric for him.
A commoner in the party does not actively harm the party, can you explain what you mean by 'harm'?
If you replace a cleric with a fighter, the fighter can still hold his own and contribute meaningfully in a fight.
If you replace the cleric with a commoner, you've taken out someone who can actually contribute, and replaced him with a nose picker. Someone with the hit points and base attack of a wizard, no spells, and the skill ability of a fighter is not going to be holding his own anywhere, yet he's taking a limited player spot and draining exp. That is a detriment(harm) to the party.
Note: I'm assuming a typical 4-5 man party. If you're under 4, then class becomes far more important.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2008 - 10:15AM
#423
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2008
|
I don't have to. It is utterly impossible for WoTC to be wrong on this. They determine with absolute authority what roles are available in their game, and who fills them. YOU can only determine that the fighter isn't good enough for you to want to take on his role, not that he doesn't have a role. You didn't design the game. Another thing that you can do, is make a house rule that fighters have no role in your game, but your houserule doesn't affect D&D as a whole.
WotC had no idea what the heck they were doing, because they were listening to playtesters that had no idea what they were doing such as human form druids meleeing with WF: Scimitar and of course elf wizards with Toughness.
So they can say what they intended all they want. It does not change what is. In summary, you are wrong. Again.
Replacing any other character with a fighter lowers the capabilities of the group as a whole.
Rogue? Can't handle out of combat stuff via mundane means.
Cleric? Cannot deal with the many issues only solvable with divine magic.
Wizard? Same, except arcane magic.
And what do you get? Some guy who you have to babysit to keep alive two consecutive combat rounds, and who might moderately annoy the enemy while it ignores him and goes after the real threats. That's at best. More likely you get an active foil in the form of Dominate bait and stuff.
You'd be better off with a Commoner than a Fighter, as at least the Commoner can keep a watch (Listen/Spot as class skills). Of course you'd be still better off with no fourth person at all. Even if it were an actual inconvenience to lack a beatstick, the fact everyone is getting a third more XP and loot now is more than good enough to compensate. Also, since you don't have to babysit anymore you can actually do the stuff you want and need to do.
It also forces the DM to babysit as anything remotely threatening is going to be kicking that Fighter all over the battlefield while everyone else might be breaking out in a light sweat.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2008 - 10:18AM
#424
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2008
|
If you replace a cleric with a fighter, the fighter can still hold his own and contribute meaningfully in a fight.
If you replace the cleric with a commoner, you've taken out someone who can actually contribute, and replaced him with a nose picker. Someone with the hit points and base attack of a wizard, no spells, and the skill ability of a fighter is not going to be holding his own anywhere, yet he's taking a limited player spot and draining exp. That is a detriment(harm) to the party.
Note: I'm assuming a typical 4-5 man party. If you're under 4, then class becomes far more important.
Commoners get Listen and Spot. Still better than a Fighter. Beatstick isn't valid, therefore Commoner > Fighter. QED.
If you replace the Cleric with a Fighter, you trade essential must haves for an incompetent dolt.
Personally I'd take a Bard if I had to bring a fourth man. +14 attack and damage to everyone, various buffs including ones that grant real defenses, thereby letting him actually soak damage which is more than good enough to account for a 42 HP differential, and Arcane Strike + Snowflake Wardance means that if he really cares, the Bard can be a better beatstick than the Fighter while being able to do other things ever period. Yup, Fighters even get beaten by the spoony Bard. That's pathetic.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2008 - 10:22AM
#425
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
WotC had no idea what the heck they were doing, because they were listening to playtesters that had no idea what they were doing such as human form druids meleeing with WF: Scimitar and of course elf wizards with Toughness.
Maybe so, but it doesn't matter for this convesation. They had the sole ability to choose that fighters get a role in 3ed, and they made it.
So they can say what they intended all they want. It does not change what is. In summary, you are wrong. Again.
Your argument basically comes down to "The facts don't matter, you're wrong because my opinion is supreme over the facts." 
You won't convince many with illogic like that.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2008 - 11:31AM
#426
|
|
|
If you replace a cleric with a fighter, the fighter can still hold his own and contribute meaningfully in a fight.
You'll have to explain "hold his own" for me.
If you replace the cleric with a commoner, you've taken out someone who can actually contribute, and replaced him with a nose picker.
Right. Except, unlike the fighter, he can be good a good guard (spot and listen are class skills). He can't fight as well as the cleric can, but the fighter cannot do so either.
[he] is not going to be holding his own anywhere, yet he's taking a limited player spot and draining exp. That is a detriment(harm) to the party.
Again, you'll have to explain "hold his own". A fighter cannot be expected to defeat a monster of equal challenge rating, and a cleric can. I'll accept that the commoner might be more of a detriment than a fighter, but you admit the fighter contributes less than the cleric.
Maybe so, but it doesn't matter for this convesation. They had the sole ability to choose that fighters get a role in 3ed, and they made it.
Being designed for a role is not the same as being good at a role.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal. Rule that I would change: 204.1b
Show
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update"
We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better. Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2008 - 11:33AM
#427
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
You'll have to explain "hold his own" for me.
Right. Except, unlike the fighter, he can be good a good guard (spot and listen are class skills). He can't fight as well as the cleric can, but the fighter cannot do so either.
Again, you'll have to explain "hold his own". A fighter cannot be expected to defeat a monster of equal challenge rating, and a cleric can. I'll accept that the commoner might be more of a detriment than a fighter, but you admit the fighter contributes less than the cleric.
I don't think I will bother to explain it. There are people on these boards who I would go through that effort for, but you've never struck me as being very reasonable, so there's no point in making that effort for you.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2008 - 11:45AM
#428
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2008
|
Maybe so, but it doesn't matter for this convesation. They had the sole ability to choose that fighters get a role in 3ed, and they made it.
Your argument basically comes down to "The facts don't matter, you're wrong because my opinion is supreme over the facts."
You won't convince many with illogic like that.
Your statement is still wrong, no matter how many times you repeat it. They did not give beatsticks the tools to actually fill the role they said they had. Therefore, they fail to meet the employment criteria and must seek work elsewhere. Opinions never enter into it, be they mine or anyone else's. Your statements fly in the face of solid fact again and again.
To put this into perspective... you are a contractor. Your manager tells you to build a wall, but you cannot do so because you lack fasteners such as screws or nails. The correct answer is to obtain these fasteners because without them the best you can hope for is that the wall will appear to be holding together until any degree of pressure is applied to it, at which point it will promptly fall apart around you.
That's the Fighter. You either get a big pile of unassembled wood (ineffective character), or you get something that looks like a constructed wall until you lean on it, then it falls apart (character that appears effective, until it comes time to do the things it is supposed to do). Want to make it work? You get some fasteners (characters that can actually do the melee thing) or you find other ways of putting a wall up. Whatever works.
I still find it hilarious even that foppish Bard can do the beatstick thing better and more.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2008 - 11:50AM
#429
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2002
|
Hey everyone, This topic has been getting a little too heated, and we've already had to delete quite a few posts. Just a gentle reminder: Please try to make your responses both polite and constructive, no matter how much you disagree. Even if someone's opinions on the game are 180 degrees out of sync with yours, we're all still gamers!  Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 11, 2008 - 11:58AM
#430
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
Your statement is still wrong, no matter how many times you repeat it. They did not give beatsticks the tools to actually fill the role they said they had. Therefore, they fail to meet the employment criteria and must seek work elsewhere. Opinions never enter into it, be they mine or anyone else's. Your statements fly in the face of solid fact again and again.
To put this into perspective... you are a contractor. Your manager tells you to build a wall, but you cannot do so because you lack fasteners such as screws or nails. The correct answer is to obtain these fasteners because without them the best you can hope for is that the wall will appear to be holding together until any degree of pressure is applied to it, at which point it will promptly fall apart around you.
That's the Fighter. You either get a big pile of unassembled wood (ineffective character), or you get something that looks like a constructed wall until you lean on it, then it falls apart (character that appears effective, until it comes time to do the things it is supposed to do). Want to make it work? You get some fasteners (characters that can actually do the melee thing) or you find other ways of putting a wall up. Whatever works.
I still find it hilarious even that foppish Bard can do the beatstick thing better and more.
You know, of course, that some people disagree with you? And that some people managed to have fun with a fighter character in 3rd edition, despite his deficiencies, right? And that your example simply doesn't work? The fighter can do the beatstick thing fine. He just can't do it as well as an equal level (insert desired class here).
And that the whole discussion is largely pointless? Most would agree that the fighter is a sub-optimal choice in 3e. Many would disagree that this automatically means a player can't have fun playing one.
What does the above have to do with the thread topic?
|
|
|
