I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
I personally think there can be some little niche things that the fighter gets that takes effect outside of combat but comes at no cost to combat effectiveness. However it should almost always be directed towards fighting in some way. Things like getting a bonus to social interaction checks(Cha check while talking to someone) when the conversation taking place has something to do with fighting. Things like:
That's fine, so long as the wizard's out of combat ability is limited to magic missiling something or fireballing it.
So using spells. Good call. Thats what the Wizard is supposed to do. It might not always be Magic Missle or Fireball but sometimes it just might be.
Sorry, damage only. After all, the fighter only gets to fight. The wizard should only get to deal damage as well. MAYBE there can be a module about using fireball out of combat.
So because I suggested a completely non weapon swinging option that is useful out of combat but still related to the core concept of the class you say people can only ever do damage. You sure a gnome is the creature you should have as your avatar. You sure it isn't supposed to be something a bit bigger, and greener, and susceptible to fire and acid.
Seriously your posts hardly ever add anything useful to a conversation. I can't even have an intelligent discourse based upon your interaction here.
Also considering my suggestion has absolutely nothing to do with the fighter fighting and instead has to do with the fighter talking to people about the things he knows your statement makes 0 sense.
NO, my comment is just to show how frankly stupid the notion is that the fighter cant have any meaningful contribution that doesnt relate to fighting. But because magic gets to do everything, as awesome as we want it to, the wizard gets to contribute in all scenarios. Really? Is magic just THAT friggin easy to learn?
Apparently in D&D land, being a fighter requires a 10 year program and Doctorate of Fighting. And all that lets you know how to swing a sword and to talk to people about swords. But the Wal-mart greeter can bend the laws of physics 50 zillion different ways, and change his superpowers every day....
Because apparently the fighter's study is so incredibly intensive he cant have non-combat utility not related to fighting.
The only way you can have non-combat parity between the fighter and the wizard is either greatly limiting the wizard down to the fighters level of sucking (damage only), or letting the fighter (all non casters really) have plot based contrivances that can largely accomplish the same thing as magic. Take your pick.
Or the fighter has the stats to do a whole bunch of stuff, and then takes themes that will reinforce what he wants to do. In most situations he will always perform better than the wizard at whatever he tries to do because he won't need to roll. My simple suggestion that the wizard must always roll when using a spell means that spellcasting will never be better than having the stats and themes to accomplish the task.
Yes the wizard gets to do everything, or well has systemic access to it with limitations per game such as having to find the spell in the game world. Or the wizard can only personally invent or research a certain number of spells so the list of spells he has access to is controlled partially by him and partially by the DM. Giving the DM a measure of control over the strength and capabilities of the wizard. However even with access to spells that have the capability to accomplish anything the wizard will never be better at something than someone actually trained and capable of doing something. It will always be better for the rogue to pick locks, it will always be better for the fighter to just move the boulder, it will always be better for the bard to talk to the people the group needs to talk to. Because all of those classes are specialized in doing those things, and the wizard can't use spells to be the best at those things. He may luck out and those things might work out, but it's always just a chance with him. Whereas the fighter with an 18 strength and some bonuses to strength based checks (gained from a theme) just says, "I move the boulder", and the DM says, "the boulder is moved" (anyone else hear that in the cartoon voice from avatar).
With him not being able to do it as well as his fellow party members it doesn't matter if the wizard has access to the spells that allow him to accomplish things that others in the party can accomplish because no wizard in their right mind would waste a spell slot on something someone in their party is always going to do better.
This is already a giant middle finger to everyone that likes playing casters. I say that because it means, barring getting lucky on ability score rolls, the wizard will never have the satisfaction of not having to roll to accomplish something, and will more than likely use his precious magic to ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT. See how that is nice and limiting. The rogue could pick the lock no problem if he was here. The wizard just had to use two knocks to get it open because his first attempt failed entirely. The system I suggest, using the things that have been said by the devs thusfar, actually gimps the wizard into near uselessness as compared to everyone else in the party.
Also the other point I make is that by selecting the fighter class you are actively choosing to be the bar none best in an area, namely fighting. You can't be bar none the best in a given area, an entire pillar no less, then be the best in other areas as well. You can totally be at best mediocre in all areas though.
Here is the fun part:
The wizard is a generalist, and is at best mediocre in all areas where his theme and stats don't match up to make him good. The fighter is a specialist, he is the best in his field and that is fighting. By selecting the Fighter you have selected this specialization within your character. By selecting themes you will select other specializations for your character.
yet again try to grasp the main concept that every argument I see ignores:
Fighter only describes a portion of your character, not the entirety of it. Your character will totally have a well rounded skillset, if you want it to. The fighter class isn't where it comes from. It comes from being a knight or a noble or a diplomat or something to that effect. The roundness that you demand for your character does not need to come from just your class. It comes from the combination of class and theme. That is the basis of the entire system so far as they have explained.
That's fine, so long as the wizard's out of combat ability is limited to magic missiling something or fireballing it.[/quote]So using spells. Good call. Thats what the Wizard is supposed to do. It might not always be Magic Missle or Fireball but s
Or the fighter has the stats to do a whole bunch of stuff, and then takes themes that will reinforce what he wants to do. In most situations he will always perform better than the wizard at whatever he tries to do because he won't need to roll. My simple suggestion that the wizard must always roll when using a spell means that spellcasting will never be better than having the stats and themes to accomplish the task.
So wizards will get spells, but not stats or themes? That doesn't make much sense. Everyone has stats. Would you have the fighter roll more dice for his or something?
Fighter only describes a portion of your character, not the entirety of it. Your character will totally have a well rounded skillset, if you want it to. The fighter class isn't where it comes from. It comes from being a knight or a noble or a diplomat or something to that effect. The roundness that you demand for your character does not need to come from just your class. It comes from the combination of class and theme. That is the basis of the entire system so far as they have explained.
So, a Wizard is a complete class, and Fighter just the combat slice? A sort of class fragment that you would add to to create a complete character?
So wizards will get spells, but not stats or themes? That doesn't make much sense. Everyone has stats. Would you have the fighter roll more dice for his or something? So, a Wizard is a complete class, and Fighter just the combat slice? A sort of
I have to say I am curious as to how far the new edition will change up the Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard problem. D&D has never been my rpg of choice(I'm a CWoD/NWoD guy) but lately after getting back into reading stuff like Giants in the Playground and checking out some stuff like Pathfinder,etc I've come around to wanting to try out a D&D game again. While I don't have as much invested in things as long time D&D fans I still hope they aggresively look into it as a design consideration. I checked out 4e but.....well I didn't care for it's mechanics I'll say. So while I don't want to see the new edition address it how they, I've heard, addressed it in 4e. As a fan of rogues I hope they give it due consideration.
I have to say I am curious as to how far the new edition will change up the Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard problem. D&D has never been my rpg of choice(I'm a CWoD/NWoD guy) but lately after getting back into reading stuff like Giants in the Playgrou
Or the fighter has the stats to do a whole bunch of stuff, and then takes themes that will reinforce what he wants to do. In most situations he will always perform better than the wizard at whatever he tries to do because he won't need to roll. My simple suggestion that the wizard must always roll when using a spell means that spellcasting will never be better than having the stats and themes to accomplish the task.
So wizards will get spells, but not stats or themes? That doesn't make much sense. Everyone has stats. Would you have the fighter roll more dice for his or something?
Fighter only describes a portion of your character, not the entirety of it. Your character will totally have a well rounded skillset, if you want it to. The fighter class isn't where it comes from. It comes from being a knight or a noble or a diplomat or something to that effect. The roundness that you demand for your character does not need to come from just your class. It comes from the combination of class and theme. That is the basis of the entire system so far as they have explained.
So, a Wizard is a complete class, and Fighter just the combat slice? A sort of class fragment that you would add to to create a complete character?
No the wizard is also only a character slice because the Wizard class gives absolutely no feature other than spellcasting. The Wizard gets little to no bonus to anything that isn't in some way related to magic, and he will have to chose specific options and wont have access to all of the things a wizard can do. The wizard just gets magic thats all its got. Yeah if he has an 18 strength he can do the stuff someone with an 18 strength can but every class can do that. He doesn't get the bonus to strength based checks that the fighter would get (meaning a fighter with the exact same stat would always be better), or the social interaction bonus the fighter would get when talking about fighting related topics. He would get themes but say he has a theme that gives a bonus to checks for picking locks. Unless he is actually using dex to pick the lock then the bonus goes to his roll and won't let him auto pass ever. He could totally use his dex score if he wants to use his dex score instead of magic but he could do that anyways no matter if he was a fighter, or wizard, or a ranger, so the class affects nothing there. If he has a good dex then he has a good dex you can't complain about that. Yeah if someone has 3 18s they are going to be better at more things than someone that doesn't have any 18s. That's how stats work.
If you go with the a standard array lets say 16, 14, 12, 10, 10, 8 and give it to both people yeah the wizard will have a chance at doing a lot of things by throwing a 16 in int and taking a race and class combo that throw that up to an 18, but for the most part the wizard won't be auto completing many things that aren't knowledge checks, and won't be doing as much damage or be as accurate in combat as the fighter (as the fighter should be bar none the best at combat)
The fighter with an 18 strength will pretty much no matter what auto pass all strength based checks at least for a bulk of the game till you hit high level play. So every single athletics check is just passed no questions asked because at that point he doesn't even need to roll. That might not seem like alot but it is. Think of every strength related action you could take and your fighter just does it. The wizard will have to roll with at most I'm going to guess a +4 bonus to the roll. See where that makes a giant disparity between their capabilities. The fighter just does it, the Wizard gets to roll with a +4. On a check difficulty of 18 that your fighter passes instantly without a check the wizard has a less than 50% chance of accomplishing the same task, the wizard would need to roll a freaking 14 or higher to accomplish the same thing you just did without even needing to roll a check.
I have no idea if this is the way things are actually going to work, but it is the way I would do things to keep it somewhat balanced. Although looking at it some of these spells may need to give a slight bonus to the check value. Mainly because, while I can appreciate people not wanting the wizard being able to do everything instantly, the wizard should be able to have at least a 50/50 shot at getting it done with magic or at least something better than 70/30. Maybe a bonus that follows the prep at higher spell slot values trend. Maybe a +2 per spell level with caps on certain spells. That way preping a knock in a 5th level spell slot gives you a +10 to the check I mean that makes it almost a garunteed success flipping the chances from 70/30 to 15/85 to unlock that DC 18 lock with your 18 int, but you did just sac an entire 5th level spell slot for the knock spell. However 5th level would be the highest level you can put knock at.
Not a perfect idea yet and kinda pure conjecture but I could see it working this way. Also sorry for the horrendous writting I am at work.
So wizards will get spells, but not stats or themes? That doesn't make much sense. Everyone has stats. Would you have the fighter roll more dice for his or something? So, a Wizard is a complete class, and Fighter just the combat slice? A sort of
The only way you can have non-combat parity between the fighter and the wizard is either greatly limiting the wizard down to the fighters level of sucking (damage only), or letting the fighter (all non casters really) have plot based contrivances that can largely accomplish the same thing as magic. Take your pick.
Nice, sums up what I gotta say about the subject pretty nice.
Nice, sums up what I gotta say about the subject pretty nice.
The only way you can have non-combat parity between the fighter and the wizard is either greatly limiting the wizard down to the fighters level of sucking (damage only), or letting the fighter (all non casters really) have plot based contrivances that can largely accomplish the same thing as magic. Take your pick.
Nice, sums up what I gotta say about the subject pretty nice.
except if you read my suggestion where thats shown to be false. Especially given the way stats will work in 5e.
Nice, sums up what I gotta say about the subject pretty nice.[/quote]except if you read my suggestion where thats shown to be false. Especially given the way stats will work in 5e.
Sleeps, your suggestion is full of more "IFs" than a metlife commercial. And also ignores the spellcaster's entire list of, well, spells.
Historically, the fighter has always had the best stats to lift a portcullis or smash open a door. The point is that the spellcaster doesn't need stats, they have a spell for that. So all your suggestion does is make fighters the best as smashing through doors again, assuming the spellcaster doesn't have a better option already on tap. And don't respond by quoting your knock example, because a spellcaster has much more imaginitive ways to get around that door without resorting to a spell that gives bonuses to a skill check.
Sleeps, your suggestion is full of more "IFs" than a metlife commercial. And also ignores the spellcaster's entire list of, well, spells. Historically, the fighter has always had the best stats to lift a portcullis or smash open a door. The point
@ sleeps - where are you getting this info? even if it dropped from a devs mouth the system is a bit too young for anything to be proven. You even admit that your not sure that is how things work. did i miss something?
the game your desribing (got the stat make it happen) is a pretty big departure from prior dnd and frankly pretty dull and limited to dm generousity in social scenarios nor does it allow for real player flexibility or improvisation. in short if that mess of proof were the rules DNDN has bigger problems.
In any case youve only proven what i think otto was getting at in the first place-
when classes are too limited in scope or too good at too many different things the game suffers. that a wizard is "limited" to some of the most historically broken features (spells) while entire classes remains that limited and only good at the 1 thing you end up with a game that is more dull than it could be.
@ sleeps - where are you getting this info? even if it dropped from a devs mouth the system is a bit too young for anything to be proven. You even admit that your not sure that is how things work. did i miss something? the game your desribing (got th
I think the problem can be describe differently by looking at Dave Arneson's original vision of the adventuring party as a fire team (the following descriptions are paraphrased memories of 3rd hand accounts of intent):
The thief was supposed to be the point man, scouting ahead, disabling booby traps and spotting ambushes;
The Fighter was your basic rifleman, handling mundane combat tasks and securing his allies while they did their jobs;
The Cleric was the Medic or Corpsman, responsible for keeping his allies 'in the game'; and
The Wizard was the machinegunner/grenadier/RTO calling for firesupport, spreading death and destruction on the enemy.
What ended up happening was the Wizard (and eventually the cleric when players wised up/more options became available) ended up with Q branch from James Bond living in their back pockets ready to give them everything they needed while the fighter found himself under equipped for his mission specific tasking (protecting his allies).
I just feel that Q branch needs to support everyone equally, not just allow the special weapons and medic to have all the cool toys.
(I hope the metaphor is clear enough).
I think the problem can be describe differently by looking at Dave Arneson's original vision of the adventuring party as a fire team (the following descriptions are paraphrased memories of 3rd hand accounts of intent):The thief was supposed to be the
Sleeps, your suggestion is full of more "IFs" than a metlife commercial. And also ignores the spellcaster's entire list of, well, spells.
Historically, the fighter has always had the best stats to lift a portcullis or smash open a door. The point is that the spellcaster doesn't need stats, they have a spell for that. So all your suggestion does is make fighters the best as smashing through doors again, assuming the spellcaster doesn't have a better option already on tap. And don't respond by quoting your knock example, because a spellcaster has much more imaginitive ways to get around that door without resorting to a spell that gives bonuses to a skill check.
Yes that is what the fighter class makes the character good at. It makes him so good in fact he doesn't even need help from a theme to be better at it, and anyone else would be hard pressed to be as good at it as the fighter.
here is the problem with all of your arguments:
The Fighter Fights. That is the definition of the class. The fighter is a specialized class. They are specialists in the art of fighting. It needs no further definition or expansion because that is what you are elcting to do by selecting fighter as the class for your character. The fighter is not a skill box class. The fighter is a combat class.(everything you guys come up with as an example to the contrary is of a full character that doesn't fit that ideal unfortunately those characters are made up of class/theme combinations)
The wizard is a skill box. Much like the rogue is a skill box. They just do it in different ways. That is the defining feature of those classes. The rogue has a bit more into the combat areas (sneak attack or something similar) than the wizard so the wizard has a little bit more capabilities in the skillbox areas. However that is what the classes are.
What you are all complaining about is that you feel the fighter class produces unrounded characters. you are right. That's what themes were invented for and what their implementation is for. You want a well rounded character. So do I, for the most part (sometimes I like making characters that are extreme specialists). The combination of class and themes will give you those well rounded characters.
The wizard I have represented wouldn't even produce a well rounded character on its own because it will more often than not fail to do anythig with the magic it wields. That's why it needs to add themes. So that it can up it's chances of getting things done. To help accomplish the job of being a skill box. I feel the wizard should be able to specialize into areas if the player should wish to do so, but if that is done large swaths of utility should be removed from them.
and @Marcotic yeah, "got the stat make it happen", is a design feature they have been touting since around the first announcement of D&DN. It's kinda core to how the proposed system would work. I don't actually see them changing that base feature of the new system any time soon. Although I will say that listening to the way they talk about it they might in fact have alternative rules that say how to play without that base feature. Although I don't see why you would get rid of it. It only helps to make the game go back to it's shared narative roots. The rogue can't be cheated out of being good at something because of a bad night on the dice.
I think my main problem is that all of you are complaining that a specialist isn't a generalist, and that the generalist is a generalist. Yeah in my suggestion the wizard gets to be mediocre at everything. thats his shtick. The fighter gets to be the best at something. Thats his shtick. While I can submit that the wizard shouldn't be the best at everything. The wizard class should at least have access to being mediocre at everything. Thrown on top of that the fact that the DM should be able to systematically reduce the wizard character's options on what he can accomplish with magic by limiting his spell list (A feature of every edition), and really I can't see a valid complaint here, other than the fact that this would be a hard nerf to wizards (considering that in my suggestion they can get cheated out of the ability of being good at anything by a bad night on the dice). In my suggestion the wizard wouldn't be able to instantly accomplish everything with magic. In fact in my suggestion the wizard can't instantly accomplish anything with magic.
Yes that is what the fighter class makes the character good at. It makes him so good in fact he doesn't even need help from a theme to be better at it, and anyone else would be hard pressed to be as good at it as the fighter.here is the problem with
I think the problem can be describe differently by looking at Dave Arneson's original vision of the adventuring party as a fire team (the following descriptions are paraphrased memories of 3rd hand accounts of intent):
The thief was supposed to be the point man, scouting ahead, disabling booby traps and spotting ambushes;
The Fighter was your basic rifleman, handling mundane combat tasks and securing his allies while they did their jobs;
The Cleric was the Medic or Corpsman, responsible for keeping his allies 'in the game'; and
The Wizard was the machinegunner/grenadier/RTO calling for firesupport, spreading death and destruction on the enemy.
What ended up happening was the Wizard (and eventually the cleric when players wised up/more options became available) ended up with Q branch from James Bond living in their back pockets ready to give them everything they needed while the fighter found himself under equipped for his mission specific tasking (protecting his allies).
I just feel that Q branch needs to support everyone equally, not just allow the special weapons and medic to have all the cool toys.
(I hope the metaphor is clear enough).
Actually I totally get that metaphore and I like it. I also totally agree that the fighter should totally have all the tools needed to cover his specialized tasking, not just protecting his allies but in addition to that harming his enemies as well. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. At least that's what I often hear being said. I say the fighter should be bar none (although luck will always screw with this) the best combatant.
As soon as combat starts everyone should look to the guy playing the fighter and say okay what's the fighter's plan because he is going to really be the best on the field. The controller should send everything to you and the support should be buffing/healing you up to keep you going as long as you can. You're also a big enough distraction that the rogue can get in the hits he needs to get in to help drop the few guys you aren't planning on dropping yet. I'm not trying to say the fighter is the only class that should add this style of facet to the character, but it should be the best at it.
Actually I totally get that metaphore and I like it. I also totally agree that the fighter should totally have all the tools needed to cover his specialized tasking, not just protecting his allies but in addition to that harming his enemies as well.
Yup we're just complaining because we want a different play style then you do . Awesome.
I guess instant win stats aren't that much different then "take 20" so that's fine. But my question is, how does moving a boulder compare with moving to another plain?
OR to put it better, if a fighters OoC utility is limited to knowing a good sword when he sees one and being able to do what 2 dudes in a truck could do, and grunting unintellgently he isn't really contributing in a manner in line with stories involving hero's deeds of renown. Just because the classes name is fighter, that doesn't mean that he's SOL in the other 2 pillars. And considering all the archtypes that have been given to fighters (the noble fencer, the daring swashbuckler, the army veteran and so on) it isn't difficult to see where there may be room for supporting the other pillars just as well.
But no, feel free to try to shackle us in your porchial views.
@ SleepsYup we're just complaining because we want a different play style then you do . Awesome. I guess instant win stats aren't that much different then "take 20" so that's fine. But my question is, how does moving a boulder compare with moving to
I guess instant win stats aren't that much different then "take 20" so that's fine. But my question is, how does moving a boulder compare with moving to another plain?
the move to another plane thing. I hadn't thought about that. It is a good point, but that's also something I would list under plot magic. In an older thread concerning magic I definitely support that some things should be put into a certain category that the DM is warned not go give easy access to. The wizard while it should be able to cast the magic shouldn't be able to figure that tidbit out until HIGH level if at all, and even still it should require some sort of check or minimum intelligence or something of that nature. However it should also be in an area of magic that could be a magic blade that cuts dimensions for someone with the strength to make it happen. That type of magic is going to exist if crossing planes is a thing they make rules for. However it's a type of magic everyone should have some kind of access to so the DM doesn't have to have a caster in the group in order to have his adventure go that way.
and so on) it isn't difficult to see where there may be room for supporting the other pillars just as well.
THEMES. Your character will totally be those things and will be able to operate in other pillars fairly well given that you have the ability scores to support that. Fighter doesn't need to waste its time and energies on it because themes will do it. The class need not be muddied and made confusing with out of combat modifiers beyond some strength based bonuses and possibly a social modifier or two. Fight should instead be chock full of options and abilities and awesome stuff that make you a combat monster. Themes will then help to make your character the swashbuckler, the vetran, the noble(a theme they have already said is in the game) or any other archetype you can think of. Your complaint that the fighter will suck because it won't let you make the character you want is incorrect because that isn't the fighter class's job anymore. THEMES will round out your character, and give you everything you are asking for, and it won't force every single fighter to also have those things. It will in fact make it so your characters are even more unique.
the move to another plane thing. I hadn't thought about that. It is a good point, but that's also something I would list under plot magic. In an older thread concerning magic I definitely support that some things should be put into a certain categor
SO why des the Fighter require a theme to be useful while a Wizard can assist with everything frm the word Go?
1 the fighter is a specialist and the wizard is a generalist. Sorry if you don't like it but that's the truth. Wizards dabble everywhere and Fighters specialize in one area. Thats what they are. In reward the fighter is bar none the best at fighting. No one will outdo him in that theater. The wizard is never the best anywhere at anything. The Wizard can be at best okay in an area. Performing at a level similar to someone capable of something that has put no effort into being better at it.
2 The Fighter doesn't need a theme to be usefull. I consider it pretty usefull to be the best in combat(one shotting things left and right) from the word go. The wizard will not have near that ability in combat or even near that ability in any area. They will both need themes to be well rounded characters. Even still the fighter will be better at all things he selects to be good at than the wizard will be able to be good at(baring intelligence based checks I can't nerf that out of the wizard for you, although someone else in the party might be able to invalidate the wizard in the int area)
I would also like to take this moment to point something out:
You are all ridiculous. I have given an example and suggestion for a wizard that, in essence, would be the worst choice. You would only choose to be the wizard if you rolled only one good stat in your entire array, and your DM was making you do one rolled array for your character. Mainly because having a well rounded party would be infinitely better than having a wizard in the party. I say having a well rounded party would be infinitely better because you would be able to accomplish everything the wizard could maybe try to get done without really trying. There is absolutely no way to guarantee the wizard I propose would ever do anything useful in an entire multi year campaign. He could be unlucky through the entire thing and never do anything but let the party know what things are, and if someone else has an int score as good as his the wizard wouldn't even get that. All the while the fighter would be talking to people about things pertaining to fighting (his life's calling) and the rogue would be opening doors instantly, and the bard would be charming people into giving the information your party needed, and the barbarian would be breaking down walls, and etc etc. You guys are just too blinded by hatred of the wizard to see that he would essentially be the worst class saved for people that only have 1 good stat. I have essentially suggested the complete opposite of the sorcerers and sidekicks situation you all fear, a place where the wizard is the useless sidekick and all other characters are far better because they can accomplish more in the areas they are aimed at being good in. However because the wizard could try to do things, and mostly fail, that everyone can do you all freak out. Seriously what did wizards do to you guys that makes you hate them and the idea of magic on a whole.
1 the fighter is a specialist and the wizard is a generalist. Sorry if you don't like it but that's the truth. Wizards dabble everywhere and Fighters specialize in one area. Thats what they are. In reward the fighter is bar none the best at fight
Sleeps, are you just typing at this point because you like the sound of the keys?
I want parity. Parity. Not to make spellcasters a trap choice. Your suggestion, by your own admittance, makes casters a trap choice. So stop trying to defend it. And definitely stop trying to fabricate arguments for other people just so you can argue with them.
To reiterate, I am not arguing against making casters generalists. I AM arguing that your idea for doing so is bad.
Sleeps, are you just typing at this point because you like the sound of the keys?I want parity. Parity. Not to make spellcasters a trap choice. Your suggestion, by your own admittance, makes casters a trap choice. So stop trying to defend it. And
And the reason the Fighter can't be a genralist is....
Seriously, WHy can't we just do...
Wizard(generalist) that branches off into more specialized areas if the player wishes to with themes and the liek(pYromancer, Necromancer, Summoner, Cryomancer, etc)
Fighter(generalist) that brnaches off into more specialized area if the player wishes to with themes and the like(Brawlign FIghter, Cambat Veteran[that uses his fomer combat experience to intimidate/diplomacize/athletics/etc, but can still hold his own in a fight], Knight, Cavalry, etc)
Thing is, Fighter is a game title for the player's convenience. No one in the game world calls themselves "Fighter". They call themselves Knights, or Wrestlers, or "I was in the army man, I saw some things, and some stuff." Fighter as a title is, as I said, for the player's convenience, NOT what they do while doing nothing else.
And the reason the Fighter can't be a genralist is....Seriously, WHy can't we just do...Wizard(generalist) that branches off into more specialized areas if the player wishes to with themes and the liek(pYromancer, Necromancer, Summoner, Cryomancer, e
Sorry but no, the reason we continued to argue for the fighter is because of the loads of exp. we have with fighters being regulated in editions past via spells. The spells you were suggesting were so off-base that they were worth arguing about.
Oh so sleep suggests rank spells? Won't happen no big deal, but when someone loudly admonishes the idea of equal class power across all pillars, that's a problem worth discussing. It happened in the past, even in 4e that some classes ble OoC, we finally have a discusion on that matter, and it is that matter that is important. Spells blowing not so much worth my time.
Oh snap Sleeps, you sure got us! Sorry but no, the reason we continued to argue for the fighter is because of the loads of exp. we have with fighters being regulated in editions past via spells. The spells you were suggesting were so off-base that th
And the reason the Fighter can't be a genralist is....
Duh, because they're not magic!
Sleeps, you insist that the Wizard is a generallist. My problem is that in the past, the Wizard has been a generallist....that can do the job better than a specialist. The fact that the 3.x Wizard can do the job better than a specialist is a fact that, to use your own words, "Sorry if you don't like it but that's the truth."
I'm also curious, why do you insist on the Wizard being mediocre at everything? If you've covered this in an earlier post, just give me the post number and I'll read it.
This.Duh, because they're not magic!Sleeps, you insist that the Wizard is a generallist. My problem is that in the past, the Wizard has been a generallist....that can do the job better than a specialist. The fact that the 3.x Wizard can do the job be
I for one wouldn't mind the option of a generalist Wizard build that could fill in for anything the party is missing, as long as he can't completely overshadow them without a significant cost to himself and his ability to fill in at other roles.
I for one wouldn't mind the option of a generalist Wizard build that could fill in for anything the party is missing, as long as he can't completely overshadow them without a significant cost to himself and his ability to fill in at other roles.
Sleeps, are you just typing at this point because you like the sound of the keys?
I want parity. Parity. Not to make spellcasters a trap choice. Your suggestion, by your own admittance, makes casters a trap choice. So stop trying to defend it. And definitely stop trying to fabricate arguments for other people just so you can argue with them.
To reiterate, I am not arguing against making casters generalists. I AM arguing that your idea for doing so is bad.
You are exactly right. My idea was terrible.
EDIT: I clipped a bunch because I wrote a whole bunch of stuff in frustration that doesn't actually matter how about moving on to a more abstracted and different aproach:
Now I know rituals are actually a big step on this because something like knock can be a short ritual instead of a spell slot spell. Here is an idea following the idea of higher level slot preperation for greater effect. Make "ritual" a spell level of sorts. The wizard can always do certain spells as a ritual but it costs a little bit of money and it takes some time, and could never be used in a combat. Make certain spells only castable at ritual level, but also have some spells that can be cast at ritual level or prepared in a daily spell slot (also greatly reduce the number of those slots to make the prep choice mean something) for quicker and better effects. I could use knock as a ritual and it will work slowly and will only be almost as good as having a rogue, or I can prep it as a level 1 spell and it will work as quick as but not as well as having a rogue. Preping it at level 2 makes it as good as having a rogue, preping knock at 3rd (possibly make it so this level gives no increases) makes it like having a partially specialized rogue, prep at level 4 and it is like having specialized rogue. However 4th would be the spell slot cap on knock. This makes being good with a certain utility an active decision to limit other potentially more powerful options. Another thing that could be done is to make it so not only does it follow the suggestion i just gave but ther would be minimum prep levels. I could do knock as a ritual or prep it in a spell slot. However I would have to prep it at minimum in a level 2 spell slot. then just add 1 to my previous numbers and your specialized if you prep at level 5. Level 5 being the minimum prep level of a spell like Teleport(which I am thinking should have it's distance highly reduced unless it also was prepared at a higher spell slot or if you multiplied the length of time you spend on the ritual by the slot levels worth of power you wish to use). How is this idea sounding right here.
You are exactly right. My idea was terrible. EDIT: I clipped a bunch because I wrote a whole bunch of stuff in frustration that doesn't actually matter how about moving on to a more abstracted and different aproach:Now I know rituals are actually a
I for one wouldn't mind the option of a generalist Wizard build that could fill in for anything the party is missing, as long as he can't completely overshadow them without a significant cost to himself and his ability to fill in at other roles.
That is in fact what I am aiming for a wizard that can do that without ever over shadowing. I want the guy who says nothing other than, "I want to play a skill box", to have to choose between a couple of classes.
I don't want it to instantly be, "Okay so you want to play a wizard."
I want it to be, "you should check out bard, rogue, or wizard. They are all excelent skill boxes it's really question of flavor for which one you pick. There are slight differences in how they are a skill box but they can all pretty much accomplish things at a similar level of competence."
I'm just trying to come up with ideas on how to do it.
That is in fact what I am aiming for a wizard that can do that without ever over shadowing. I want the guy who says nothing other than, "I want to play a skill box", to have to choose between a couple of classes. I don't want it to instantly be, "O
To reiterate, I am not arguing against making casters generalists. I AM arguing that your idea for doing so is bad.
If you have both generalists and specialists, the generalists can either be inferior to the specialists, and act only as a back-up, covering those specialities no one else in the party was interested in and often doing so inadequately and thus failing to contribute, or they can be as good as the specialilsts and overshadow them. Specialists, on the other hand, can either be very good at a very focused mission, and bored with how easy their challenges in that area are, while being bored to tears whenever their speciality isn't called for, or they can be just a bit better in their speciality and not really feel like specialists.
Generalist vs specialist just doesn't seem like a very good starting point. A team of specialists makes some sense, each contributing in his own field. A team of generalists, each contributing to all endeavors, but each in his own unique way, might also make some sene.
I never quite understood what it was you were getting at, anyway.
If you have both generalists and specialists, the generalists can either be inferior to the specialists, and act only as a back-up, covering those specialities no one else in the party was interested in and often doing so inadequately and thus failin
To reiterate, I am not arguing against making casters generalists. I AM arguing that your idea for doing so is bad.
If you have both generalists and specialists, the generalists can either be inferior to the specialists, and act only as a back-up, covering those specialities no one else in the party was interested in and often doing so inadequately and thus failing to contribute, or they can be as good as the specialilsts and overshadow them. Specialists, on the other hand, can either be very good at a very focused mission, and bored with how easy their challenges in that area are, while being bored to tears whenever their speciality isn't called for, or they can be just a bit better in their speciality and not really feel like specialists.
Generalist vs specialist just doesn't seem like a very good starting point. A team of specialists makes some sense, each contributing in his own field. A team of generalists, each contributing to all endeavors, but each in his own unique way, might also make some sene.
I never quite understood what it was you were getting at, anyway.
I totally agree we shouldn't be comparing generalists and specialists. Although I think the two of them should exist. Mainly because I like playing both styles of character.
In my previous idea, with the always having to roll wizard, I was reaching for some kind of wizard that can do eveything but isn't the best at everything. One of the other major limits on the wizard would be spell list, and spells per day. I think the former should be a bit more controlled. I also believe that the latter, spells per day, should be reduced in number from previous incarnations. Given my current example (the one with ritual existing as a slotted level and the degree of a spells capability being based on the slot level you prep into) you should be losing out on something if you choose to prep knock at 5th level. It shouldn't just be a throwaway that you always have 1 knock prepped in 5th level because you should need that slot for something else. It should be an active character defining decision to prep knock into that spell slot.
If you have both generalists and specialists, the generalists can either be inferior to the specialists, and act only as a back-up, covering those specialities no one else in the party was interested in and often doing so inadequately and thus failin
It should be an active character defining decision to prep knock into that spell slot.
My rogues skill choice cant be swapped out when I would rather be better at conniving the judge ... but Mr Wizards Charm and Knock sure can be.
Which is more "defining"
My rogues skill choice cant be swapped out when I would rather be better at conniving the judge ... but Mr Wizards Charm and Knock sure can be.Which is more "defining"
Because casters can possibly be able to do anything with the right spell they need to be less good at everything. So maybe magic just needs to be weaker.
Thats the whole Jack of all trades master of none theory anyways.
Because casters can possibly be able to do anything with the right spell they need to be less good at everything. So maybe magic just needs to be weaker.Thats the whole Jack of all trades master of none theory anyways.
Because casters can possibly be able to do anything with the right spell they need to be less good at everything. So maybe magic just needs to be weaker.
Thats the whole Jack of all trades master of none theory anyways.
Yep, and it didn't work out too well for the 3.x Bard.
The other way for 'magic to do everything,' while casters remain balanced is to limit each caster to a very small slice of the 'do everything' magic pie. So, a school-specialist this time around would /just/ have access to his school, no other, and with that school would master a small number of spells that he uses at full potential (or perhaps have a small number of full-power 'high level slots,' or whatever).
There's also a question of what constitues 'everything' - having something to contribute in each of the 3 pillars isn't 'able to do everything,' it's just, well, 'well rounded.' A school-specialist or fighter who's "not able to do everything" should still participate usefully in each of the 3 pillars.
Yep, and it didn't work out too well for the 3.x Bard. The other way for 'magic to do everything,' while casters remain balanced is to limit each caster to a very small slice of the 'do everything' magic pie. So, a school-specialist this time around
I'd like them to keep the option for a generalist wizard, who can potentially learn any spell in the game - but he doesn't get to pick which ones he learns.
This was probably my absolute favorite type of character to play. With a big enough list of possibilities, it's like you're getting a new character every time you play a new wizard.
I'd like them to keep the option for a generalist wizard, who can potentially learn any spell in the game - but he doesn't get to pick which ones he learns.This was probably my absolute favorite type of character to play. With a big enough list of po
Don't generalize on the 3 pillars. Focus on ensuring that all classes contribute evenly throughout, but not in the same way!
Its not so difficult to see that people, by and large don't want to "wait there turn" if they do want to suck at something, let them make the choice to gimp there charcter, don't toss it on everyone.
Otherwise you get into the situation wherein a player decides that Feature X is just too awesome to be without, but also wants to be a generalist. (say its a fighters "X-treeeeme strike") He/she can't do it since the fighters lobbed into specialist pillar-combat. No matter what choice the player makes he-she is dissastified. THe only way to get what he-she wants is for the deves to support it, or to make it so that people can cherry pick there favorite features from classes. (read: op multiclassing)
Or at least that's the flaw I see in it.
Don't generalize on the 3 pillars. Focus on ensuring that all classes contribute evenly throughout, but not in the same way!Its not so difficult to see that people, by and large don't want to "wait there turn" if they do want to suck at something, le
I'd like them to keep the option for a generalist wizard, who can potentially learn any spell in the game - but he doesn't get to pick which ones he learns.
DM design my character for me and balance the whole system while you are at it because the designers are sloppy.. and dont care.
DM design my character for me and balance the whole system while you are at it because the designers are sloppy.. and dont care.
Don't generalize on the 3 pillars. Focus on ensuring that all classes contribute evenly throughout, but not in the same way!
Classes need not contribute to all three pillars equally. Some Classes can contribut to individual pillars more than they contribute to other pillars. Much like the Fighter Class contributes to combat more than any other pillar possibly to the extent of not contributing to the other pillars because the Class will make you the best in that combat pillar. Characters however should be able to contribute to all pillars, via the selection of themes and backgrounds, but should not be required to. If I want to make a character that is nothing but a combat monster then I should be able to make that. Some Classes will be able to contribute equally to all pillars, however that will come at the cost of not being the best in any of those pillars. However the Character with that class can then become the best in one of those pillars by expending his thems and backgrounds to do so. Effectively the Specialist could remain a specialist or build out to generalist with it's options. At that same time the generalist can build to be a better generalist or it can build to a specialization. Effectively you could build characters to the same parity of usefullness you just do it in different directions. One character starts with a generalist class and specializes by choosing stacking themes and backgrounds, or continues to be a generalist character by selecting non stacking themes and backgrounds. The other character starts with a specialist class and grabs differentiated themes to make them cover more ground, or selects themes to stack with its specialization to make it even more specialized in the area to which you are stacking.
Classes need not contribute to all three pillars equally. Some Classes can contribut to individual pillars more than they contribute to other pillars. Much like the Fighter Class contributes to combat more than any other pillar possibly to the exten
Maybe characters should have three options within each pillar:
A) Specialist, you're marginally better than most other characters at some aspect of this pillar. When those things come up, you shine. When they don't, others are marginally better than you.
B) Contributing, you're able to make meaningful contributions to the party's success in all aspects of this pillar.
C) Comic relief: You're laughably bad within this pillar, and a positive obstruction to the party's success in some aspect(s) of it. When this pillar comes up, the DM takes you into account as part of the opposition. Overcoming your disability is part of the challenge to the party, and the fun of roleplaying your character. You still add to the drama and story.
Before you all shoot that down, let me point out that (C) is something you see in fiction all the time. The 'goody two shoes' character who gets in the way of the cunning, amoral plan until the other PCs get him pointed in some other direction and out of their hair. The plucky side-kick who gets used as a hostage half the time.
Maybe characters should have three options within each pillar:A) Specialist, you're marginally better than most other characters at some aspect of this pillar. When those things come up, you shine. When they don't, others are marginally better than
Characters however should be able to contribute to all pillars, via the selection of themes and backgrounds, but should not be required to.
While I think the way you go about it is pretty non-sensical I think I can agree that all characters should contribut ~ evenly to all pillars and at the end of the day thats' all that really matters. I would prefer maybe Class defining what you do in combat and theme taking care of both the Exploration and Social pillars. But that's just me.
Apr 30, 2012 -- 12:13PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:Characters however should be able to contribute to all pillars, via the selection of themes and backgrounds, but should not be required to.Apr 30, 2012 -- 12:13PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:Characters howeve
I have to disagree with the original poster (and haven't the time to read 57 pages of replies).
Yes, a mage that knows Knock can automatically get through the locked door... but here's why it SHOULD be that way. IF a rogue fails the lock pick roll, he can try again.... and keep trying until he succeeds. A mage that fails to open a door with a spell, doesn't get his spell back to try again.
A mage that takes a fly spell, knock, fireball, gaseous form, teleport, wall of stone, magic missile, etc. Can only do each of those ONCE, and if in a situation that doesn't call for any of those, is at a huge disadvantage. It only seems that a wizard can do everything better than everyone else, but it simply isn't true.
I do agree that a wizard's abilities grew more powerful at a greater rate than everyone else (so let's slow it down and / or speed up everyone else's progression) - but it doesn't mean that the wizard itself is broken. It just needs tweaking.
A wizard may have powerful spells, but if the fighter gets near the wizard before the wizard gets those spells cast, he's turned into goo.
I saw someone playing a wizard who thought they were invincible. They flew up to the front of every fight, convinced that they had the right combination of spells always in effect to make them invlunerable... Until one fight, on the third round they got hit by a dart... and died. An assassin was hiding nearby, and assassinated the mighty 10th level mage with one adamantine tipped dart from a hand crossbow. The dart did 1pt of damage, and killed the mage. So much for the mighty invincible mage.
No one class is an island, they are all useless without the others to back them up.
I have to disagree with the original poster (and haven't the time to read 57 pages of replies).Yes, a mage that knows Knock can automatically get through the locked door... but here's why it SHOULD be that way. IF a rogue fails the lock pick roll, he
I have to disagree with the original poster (and haven't the time to read 57 pages of replies).
Yes, a mage that knows Knock can automatically get through the locked door... but here's why it SHOULD be that way. IF a rogue fails the lock pick roll, he can try again.... and keep trying until he succeeds. A mage that fails to open a door with a spell, doesn't get his spell back to try again.
A mage that takes a fly spell, knock, fireball, gaseous form, teleport, wall of stone, magic missile, etc. Can only do each of those ONCE, and if in a situation that doesn't call for any of those, is at a huge disadvantage. It only seems that a wizard can do everything better than everyone else, but it simply isn't true.
I do agree that a wizard's abilities grew more powerful at a greater rate than everyone else (so let's slow it down and / or speed up everyone else's progression) - but it doesn't mean that the wizard itself is broken. It just needs tweaking.
A wizard may have powerful spells, but if the fighter gets near the wizard before the wizard gets those spells cast, he's turned into goo.
I saw someone playing a wizard who thought they were invincible. They flew up to the front of every fight, convinced that they had the right combination of spells always in effect to make them invlunerable... Until one fight, on the third round they got hit by a dart... and died. An assassin was hiding nearby, and assassinated the mighty 10th level mage with one adamantine tipped dart from a hand crossbow. The dart did 1pt of damage, and killed the mage. So much for the mighty invincible mage.
No one class is an island, they are all useless without the others to back them up.
Why does Knock exist? When it comes to locks there should be two general scenarios: either the Rogue takes care of it because that's supposed to be his thing, or there is no Rogue so the DM had the foresight to not put a lock in the room.
Why does the Wizard need to have the ability to eclipse another party member. The argument that a good Wizard wouldn't prepare the spell doesn't hold water, because that suggests that played correctly Wizards don't take that spell anyway.
So why does it exist?
Why does Knock exist? When it comes to locks there should be two general scenarios: either the Rogue takes care of it because that's supposed to be his thing, or there is no Rogue so the DM had the foresight to not put a lock in the room.Why does the
How is the mage eclipsing the rogue... even if the wizard took 4 knock spells, at the fifth lock he's done. The rogue meanwhile can pick his way through every lock in the castle and still be just as good in a fight as he was before picking all the locks?
Meanwhile, the mage has to deal with having 4 of his spells being knock (that's 4 less fireballs, etc) meaning he's less effective in the final fight because he's out of spells.>
It sounds to me that those who complain that wizards are overpowered (can do everything better than everyone else) haven't played under DMs that actually prepare adventures based on the abilities of the players to provide an adequate challenge.
It makes sense for the wizard to at least have a chance of having a knock spell, or the party is SOL if they encounter the 10 foot thick adamantine door that's locked and the thief couldn't be at the game (good luck bashing down that door).
The wizard doesn't replace other characters. Every try to play any published adventure with a group of nothing but mages? Good luck with that.
How is the mage eclipsing the rogue... even if the wizard took 4 knock spells, at the fifth lock he's done. The rogue meanwhile can pick his way through every lock in the castle and still be just as good in a fight as he was before picking all the lo
How is the mage eclipsing the rogue... even if the wizard took 4 knock spells, at the fifth lock he's done. The rogue meanwhile can pick his way through every lock in the castle and still be just as good in a fight as he was before picking all the locks?
Meanwhile, the mage has to deal with having 4 of his spells being knock (that's 4 less fireballs, etc) meaning he's less effective in the final fight because he's out of spells.>
It sounds to me that those who complain that wizards are overpowered (can do everything better than everyone else) haven't played under DMs that actually prepare adventures based on the abilities of the players to provide an adequate challenge.
It makes sense for the wizard to at least have a chance of having a knock spell, or the party is SOL if they encounter the 10 foot thick adamantine door that's locked and the thief couldn't be at the game (good luck bashing down that door).
That's not the point, the point is that the spell exists in the first place, and is specifically meant to accomplish what is supposed to be a specialized challenge for another class. I'm asking why. Why does the Wizard need to have that ability. The DM controls the presence or absence of locks impeding the progress of the players. If there is no Rogue to pick the lock then there shouldn't be a lock there in the first place, unless the party is supposed to locate a key to that lock.
And, good sir, if your DM has your party encounter a 10 foot thick adamantine door when he knows the Rogue isn't there to open it, then I would say that you are the one who has yet to play under a DM that actually prepares adventures based on the abilities of the players. Even if the Rogue isn't there that evening and the door has plot significance, keys exist for a reason, and more importantly aren't class-specific.
So again, why does the spell 'Knock' exist?
That's not the point, the point is that the spell exists in the first place, and is specifically meant to accomplish what is supposed to be a specialized challenge for another class. I'm asking why. Why does the Wizard need to have that ability. The
If you don't like the knock spell... don't use it. If you are a DM and don't like it, don't give it out.
The spell exists to allow variety. Some mages may take nothing but damage spells (specializing in combat), others may choose nothing but non-combat abilities (knock), still others may decide a good mix of all of the above. (In Middle Earth, Gandolf didn't just use attack spells; Merlin didn't just use attack spells - he also used knowledge spells and buffs).
They aren't stealing the show from the rogue or fighter. A challenge was presented to the players (locked door) who cares how they get through it as long as they do. A smart mage won't use his knock, until they encounter the door that the thief can't pick. A mage won't use their levitate until they find a cliff or wall that the rogue can't climb. The mage is the rogue's backup (if the mage takes those spells). If in your example, the "challenge" (4th edition term) was meant for the rogue, put it in an anti-magic zone - now the rogue has to do it, cause the mage can't.
A mage (that has the appropriate spell and chose to memorize that spell) can fly, open doors, teleport, levitate, blast enemies, charm monsters, etc. But they are limited by the number of spells they have each day (whereas the rogue and fighter can do what they do all day long).
Mages should have an arcane spell that allows them to do everything, but a limited number of spell slots to make sure that they can't do everything all the time. They are also limited by having to pick their spells in advance (not knowing what they'll be encountering).
Clerics are the masters of healing - other classes can do some healing, but not nearly as much as the cleric. Rogues are the masters of skills - sneaking, picking locks, climbing, escaping, setting traps, etc. - other classes can do these, but nearly as often as the rogue. Fighters are the masters of (or should be) fighting with weapons - other classes can do so in a pinch, but not as well or for as long as a fighter (mages eventually run out of spells). Mages cast the spells that do the most damage or allow fantastical abilities (fly) - but they can't do them forever, are limited in how often they can do it, have to decide in advance what to memorize, and are still pretty squishy.
That's the last I'll say on the matter. If you don't like the knock spell... don't use it.
If you don't like the knock spell... don't use it.If you are a DM and don't like it, don't give it out.The spell exists to allow variety. Some mages may take nothing but damage spells (specializing in combat), others may choose nothing but non-combat
Why does Knock exist? When it comes to locks there should be two general scenarios: either the Rogue takes care of it because that's supposed to be his thing, or there is no Rogue so the DM had the foresight to not put a lock in the room.
The NPC's of my world put locks on their doors to stop people from stealing their stuff. The world doesn't exist to be "solved" by the PCs. The PC's adventure in a world and try to make it their own. The NPC's may not cooperate.
The NPC's of my world put locks on their doors to stop people from stealing their stuff. The world doesn't exist to be "solved" by the PCs. The PC's adventure in a world and try to make it their own. The NPC's may not cooperate.
If you don't like the knock spell... don't use it. If you are a DM and don't like it, don't give it out.
The spell exists to allow variety. Some mages may take nothing but damage spells (specializing in combat), others may choose nothing but non-combat abilities (knock), still others may decide a good mix of all of the above. (In Middle Earth, Gandolf didn't just use attack spells; Merlin didn't just use attack spells - he also used knowledge spells and buffs).
They aren't stealing the show from the rogue or fighter. A challenge was presented to the players (locked door) who cares how they get through it as long as they do. A smart mage won't use his knock, until they encounter the door that the thief can't pick. A mage won't use their levitate until they find a cliff or wall that the rogue can't climb. The mage is the rogue's backup (if the mage takes those spells). If in your example, the "challenge" (4th edition term) was meant for the rogue, put it in an anti-magic zone - now the rogue has to do it, cause the mage can't.
A mage (that has the appropriate spell and chose to memorize that spell) can fly, open doors, teleport, levitate, blast enemies, charm monsters, etc. But they are limited by the number of spells they have each day (whereas the rogue and fighter can do what they do all day long).
Mages should have an arcane spell that allows them to do everything, but a limited number of spell slots to make sure that they can't do everything all the time. They are also limited by having to pick their spells in advance (not knowing what they'll be encountering).
Clerics are the masters of healing - other classes can do some healing, but not nearly as much as the cleric. Rogues are the masters of skills - sneaking, picking locks, climbing, escaping, setting traps, etc. - other classes can do these, but nearly as often as the rogue. Fighters are the masters of (or should be) fighting with weapons - other classes can do so in a pinch, but not as well or for as long as a fighter (mages eventually run out of spells). Mages cast the spells that do the most damage or allow fantastical abilities (fly) - but they can't do them forever, are limited in how often they can do it, have to decide in advance what to memorize, and are still pretty squishy.
That's the last I'll say on the matter. If you don't like the knock spell... don't use it.
This isn't about using the spell, this is about the spell existing to begin with. The Wizard has a spell that was created so he could do the Rogue's job. It doesn't matter how many times a day he can, the issue here is that someone thought 'The Wizard should be able to open locks.', something that was supposed to be the duty of the Rogue/Thief, and apparently no one asked themselves 'Why?' Everyone just thinks 'Why not.'
The Wizard can stop time, open portals to other planes, and shapeshift into a dragon, but that's not enough. He needs to be able to open locks, he needs Tenser's Transformation so he can play Fighter if he wants. The effectivness of those options isn't the point, its that no matter how much a Wizard can already do there's always someone thinking 'How much more could we give him.' Yet that's hardly ever a concern for the non-casters. I've never known anyone to suggest that the Fighter should be able to stop time, or the Rogue needs to be able to open portals to other planes, or the Ranger needs to be able to turn into a dragon.
Each class has their own little sandbox to play in, but the Wizard gets to play in his and everyone else's too. Except healing, because that would be a terrible blow to the Cleric, I guess. I'd like to know why the Wizard gets to play in everyone's sandbox, while the other classes can't. The only answer I ever get essentially amounts to 'Because', and that isn't good enough for me. If you want to design the Wizard that way then fine, but if he has Knock then the Rogue should have Plane Shift. There's no reason for the Rogue to be able to shift through planes, but then there's no reason for the spell Knock to exist so I think it balances out.
This isn't about using the spell, this is about the spell existing to begin with. The Wizard has a spell that was created so he could do the Rogue's job. It doesn't matter how many times a day he can, the issue here is that someone thought 'The Wizar
Why does Knock exist? When it comes to locks there should be two general scenarios: either the Rogue takes care of it because that's supposed to be his thing, or there is no Rogue so the DM had the foresight to not put a lock in the room.
The NPC's of my world put locks on their doors to stop people from stealing their stuff. The world doesn't exist to be "solved" by the PCs. The PC's adventure in a world and try to make it their own. The NPC's may not cooperate.
The NPC's of my world use keys to access containers and rooms with locking mechanisms. If the PCs need to enter a locked room but there is no Rogue present, locating the necessary key is a common action. If I, as the DM, put nothing behind the locked door that is necessary to their progress in the storyline, then it is rather inconsequential whether they can bypass it or not. Knock need not exist, except to let the Wizard bypass the Rogue's challenges. If we would like to open up challenges of specific classes to the other classes (which I'm honestly not really against) then I anxiously await the Fighter who can stop time and travel through dimensions without any help from a Wizard.
It will be a most glorious day indeed.
The NPC's of my world put locks on their doors to stop people from stealing their stuff. The world doesn't exist to be "solved" by the PCs. The PC's adventure in a world and try to make it their own. The NPC's may not cooperate.[/quote]The NPC's o
Why does Knock exist? When it comes to locks there should be two general scenarios: either the Rogue takes care of it because that's supposed to be his thing, or there is no Rogue so the DM had the foresight to not put a lock in the room.
The NPC's of my world put locks on their doors to stop people from stealing their stuff. The world doesn't exist to be "solved" by the PCs. The PC's adventure in a world and try to make it their own. The NPC's may not cooperate.
The NPC's of my world use keys to access containers and rooms with locking mechanisms. If the PCs need to enter a locked room but there is no Rogue present, locating the necessary key is a common action. If I, as the DM, put nothing behind the locked door that is necessary to their progress in the storyline, then it is rather inconsequential whether they can bypass it or not. Knock need not exist, except to let the Wizard bypass the Rogue's challenges. If we would like to open up challenges of specific classes to the other classes (which I'm honestly not really against) then I anxiously await the Fighter who can stop time and travel through dimensions without any help from a Wizard.
It will be a most glorious day indeed.
I wouldn't mind a Fighter so epic and with such a powerful will he just tells the laws of reality to shove it.
The NPC's of my world put locks on their doors to stop people from stealing their stuff. The world doesn't exist to be "solved" by the PCs. The PC's adventure in a world and try to make it their own. The NPC's may not cooperate.[/quote]The NPC's o
I wouldn't mind a Fighter so epic and with such a powerful will he just tells the laws of reality to shove it.
A surefire way to get my money for this edition would be offering martial characters who can do the impossible because reality is afraid to try and stop them.
A surefire way to get my money for this edition would be offering martial characters who can do the impossible because reality is afraid to try and stop them.
Why does Knock exist? When it comes to locks there should be two general scenarios: either the Rogue takes care of it because that's supposed to be his thing, or there is no Rogue so the DM had the foresight to not put a lock in the room.
Because some of us feel that a world without locks is just plain silly and would never stoop to making an adventuring world were there were no locked doors.
Why does the Wizard need to have the ability to eclipse another party member.
The wizard doesn't. If there is a rogue, the player of the wizard is playing the wizard wrong if he prepares for locks, since he has limited spell slots and resources and there are a bazillion other utility spells and possible scenerios to prepare for.
The argument that a good Wizard wouldn't prepare the spell doesn't hold water, because that suggests that played correctly Wizards don't take that spell anyway.
Unless you play in a game that actually makes sense and you encounter locks even if there is no rogue in the group. The spell exists for those situations.
Because some of us feel that a world without locks is just plain silly and would never stoop to making an adventuring world were there were no locked doors. The wizard doesn't. If there is a rogue, the player of the wizard is playing the wizard wro
How is the mage eclipsing the rogue... even if the wizard took 4 knock spells, at the fifth lock he's done. The rogue meanwhile can pick his way through every lock in the castle and still be just as good in a fight as he was before picking all the locks?
Meanwhile, the mage has to deal with having 4 of his spells being knock (that's 4 less fireballs, etc) meaning he's less effective in the final fight because he's out of spells.>
The mage never prepared 4 knock spells for the day. He spent the week of downtime to make a knock scroll every day or just one wand.
The problem wasn't a wizard invalidates a rogue. It's the wand of knock made by the party mage invalidates the whole class. Also remember where a rogue can try to unlock a lock, knock there is no try, it's just automatically undone.
The problem was the wizards summoned whatever with bull's strength invalidates the fighter. The wizard flies out of combat, puts up a shield, uses a summoned "fighter" and has his wand of "rogue" in his pocket. The problem isn't the wizard invalidates the rogue. The wizard invalidates the entire party. And notice we've only used 3 or 4 spells.
The mage never prepared 4 knock spells for the day. He spent the week of downtime to make a knock scroll every day or just one wand.The problem wasn't a wizard invalidates a rogue. It's the wand of knock made by the party mage invalidates the whole c
The DM controls the presence or absence of locks impeding the progress of the players. If there is no Rogue to pick the lock then there shouldn't be a lock there in the first place, unless the party is supposed to locate a key to that lock.
This is a shining example of what is wrong with the entitlement era. You are not entitled to doors with no locks if you don't have a rogue. You are not entitled to a key to every locked door. When you encounter a locked door and have no rogue or key, you either go around it, leave it, or get through it another way. Knock and physically bashing/breaking the door are options at that point.
This is a shining example of what is wrong with the entitlement era. You are not entitled to doors with no locks if you don't have a rogue. You are not entitled to a key to every locked door. When you encounter a locked door and have no rogue or k
How is the mage eclipsing the rogue... even if the wizard took 4 knock spells, at the fifth lock he's done. The rogue meanwhile can pick his way through every lock in the castle and still be just as good in a fight as he was before picking all the locks?
Meanwhile, the mage has to deal with having 4 of his spells being knock (that's 4 less fireballs, etc) meaning he's less effective in the final fight because he's out of spells.>
The mage never prepared 4 knock spells for the day. He spent the week of downtime to make a knock scroll every day or just one wand.
Which was just a stupid as taking 4 knock spells. The wizard had 20 other good 2nd level spells to use his limited resources and time on.
The problem was the wizards summoned whatever with bull's strength invalidates the fighter.
This never occured. The fighter was never invalidated.
The mage never prepared 4 knock spells for the day. He spent the week of downtime to make a knock scroll every day or just one wand.[/quote]Which was just a stupid as taking 4 knock spells. The wizard had 20 other good 2nd level spells to use his li
I know it was a sidenote. I wasn't defending the spell knock as it is. I agree with EnglishLanguage that wands are a big problem. I'd get rid of those as they are defined in 3e.
What I was criticizing (and that's why it was a sidenote) was the notion that locks are put on doors to be picked by Rogues. I realize that is probably a narrativist way of thinking and I was giving the simulationist response. Locks are put on doors to keep people out.
I know it was a sidenote. I wasn't defending the spell knock as it is. I agree with EnglishLanguage that wands are a big problem. I'd get rid of those as they are defined in 3e.What I was criticizing (and that's why it was a sidenote) was the noti
I know it was a sidenote. I wasn't defending the spell knock as it is. I agree with EnglishLanguage that wands are a big problem. I'd get rid of those as they are defined in 3e.
What I was criticizing (and that's why it was a sidenote) was the notion that locks are put on doors to be picked by Rogues. I realize that is probably a narrativist way of thinking and I was giving the simulationist response. Locks are put on doors to keep people out.
And keys are not always available to be found, even though they exist somewhere.
And keys are not always available to be found, even though they exist somewhere.
Unless you play in a game that actually makes sense and you encounter locks even if there is no rogue in the group. The spell exists for those situations.
Great, then make a knock spell that lets you roll three "open lock" skill rolls and use the best or gives a +x to the roll, so if you make a mage/thief it makes sense for him to have the spell instead of negating his reason to take thief at all.
A knock spell should make you almost as good or maybe even as good as a thief, not better.
Great, then make a knock spell that lets you roll three "open lock" skill rolls and use the best or gives a +x to the roll, so if you make a mage/thief it makes sense for him to have the spell instead of negating his reason to take thief at all.A kno
Because some of us feel that a world without locks is just plain silly and would never stoop to making an adventuring world were there were no locked doors.
So there are no keys in your world? The only way to get anywhere is to have a Rogue or a Wizard?
The wizard doesn't. If there is a rogue, the player of the wizard is playing the wizard wrong if he prepares for locks, since he has limited spell slots and resources and there are a bazillion other utility spells and possible scenerios to prepare for.
The Wizard doesn't need to have the spell at all. As stated, keys exist and are often employed to unlock doors and containers. Throwing in an obstacle you know the party can't get around seems like more of an issue on the DM side.
Unless you play in a game that actually makes sense and you encounter locks even if there is no rogue in the group. The spell exists for those situations.
Keys exist for those situations. As the DM I control where these keys are located. If you're in an area where locks are employed, then the chances are very high that someone you just killed had the key to open that door or container. Unless the people who locked everything to begin with destroyed the necessary keys and only picks or knocks their way through the given location.
So there are no keys in your world? The only way to get anywhere is to have a Rogue or a Wizard?The Wizard doesn't need to have the spell at all. As stated, keys exist and are often employed to unlock doors and containers. Throwing in an obstacle you
The problem was the wizards summoned whatever with bull's strength invalidates the fighter.
This never occured. The fighter was never invalidated.
I'm glad you never encountered tables like some of the Living Greyhawk tables I played at.
This never occured. The fighter was never invalidated.[/quote]I'm glad you never encountered tables like some of the Living Greyhawk tables I played at.
This is a shining example of what is wrong with the entitlement era. You are not entitled to doors with no locks if you don't have a rogue. You are not entitled to a key to every locked door. When you encounter a locked door and have no rogue or key, you either go around it, leave it, or get through it another way. Knock and physically bashing/breaking the door are options at that point.
As a DM I craft adventures for the PCs to use their abilities to go through. If I know that there isn't a Rogue in the party then I don't make a challenge for that Rogue.
Besides that, didn't I mention that if I didn't put anything behind that lock that the party needs to continue the adventure then it doesn't matter if they open it or not? My PCs don't get into every locked container, but if I'm going to put something important in it then I'm going to give them a method to access it, with or without a Rogue/Wizard in the party.
As a DM I craft adventures for the PCs to use their abilities to go through. If I know that there isn't a Rogue in the party then I don't make a challenge for that Rogue. Besides that, didn't I mention that if I didn't put anything behind that lock
How is the mage eclipsing the rogue... even if the wizard took 4 knock spells, at the fifth lock he's done. The rogue meanwhile can pick his way through every lock in the castle and still be just as good in a fight as he was before picking all the locks?
Meanwhile, the mage has to deal with having 4 of his spells being knock (that's 4 less fireballs, etc) meaning he's less effective in the final fight because he's out of spells.>
The mage never prepared 4 knock spells for the day. He spent the week of downtime to make a knock scroll every day or just one wand.
The problem wasn't a wizard invalidates a rogue. It's the wand of knock made by the party mage invalidates the whole class. Also remember where a rogue can try to unlock a lock, knock there is no try, it's just automatically undone.
The problem was the wizards summoned whatever with bull's strength invalidates the fighter. The wizard flies out of combat, puts up a shield, uses a summoned "fighter" and has his wand of "rogue" in his pocket. The problem isn't the wizard invalidates the rogue. The wizard invalidates the entire party. And notice we've only used 3 or 4 spells.
If you have a rogue why make a wand of knock when you could spend the time, xp, and money on making a wand of enfeeblemnt or magic missle? or sleep? It might be a good idea to have some scrolls of knock handy for the odd case when the rogue fails to pick a lock and the obsticle can't be bashed open by the fighter or, if you need to escape a room quickly. Lets say party walks into room and iron door shuts behind party and locks, and powerful monster is summoned. The knock spell is handy cause it works fast where as picking is slow. But otherwise, you will allways let rogue pick locks first, other wise mage is wasting resources.
Oh, and shild gives a +4 ac bonus, giving a wizard an AC of 14-15, whoopdy doooo!!! and flying into the air? that makes the wizard a great target for any archers or other wizards or other types of ranged attacks (you almost allways want a fighter between you and your enemies, even if it means staying on the ground). Summon monster is ok, you can never really summon anythin gthat is very stonger than what you are already fighting. Bull strength? why wast it on a summoned monster that starts off weaker than the party's fighter? Cast bull stregth on the fighter, Duh!
Oh, and, lets see, shield, fly, summon, bull stregnth, so, yeah, you think you can cast 4 spells for four rounds with nothing attacking you? and you think you can do this fight after fight after fight? Give me a break!
The mage never prepared 4 knock spells for the day. He spent the week of downtime to make a knock scroll every day or just one wand.The problem wasn't a wizard invalidates a rogue. It's the wand of knock made by the party mage invalidates the whole c
Unlimetd find traps, unlimetd disarm traps, unlimited pick locks, unlimited stealth (if built right it makes things like rings of invisibiliy pointless), and massive amounts of sneak attack damage. plus a whole bunch of toher stuff like trap sense, improved dodge, climbe, forge, disguise, again, all unlimited uses, but balanced against the wizards limited uses of such abilities because rogue has to make a check. BUt, get the DCs high enough and its not a problem (I had a halfing rouge, around 9th level, with a +28 or 29 to hide, and I could do it all day long unlike mr wizards 2 times per day invsibility spell with limited duration and vulnerability to anti magic zones, and spells like true sight)
edit: Oh, and rogue will have a higher AC then the wizard, even if the wizard casts shield, again, all day long. Plus more hit points, higher attack bonus, better initiative bonus....
Unlimetd find traps, unlimetd disarm traps, unlimited pick locks, unlimited stealth (if built right it makes things like rings of invisibiliy pointless), and massive amounts of sneak attack damage. plus a whole bunch of toher stuff like trap sense, i
Unless you play in a game that actually makes sense and you encounter locks even if there is no rogue in the group. The spell exists for those situations.
Great, then make a knock spell that lets you roll three "open lock" skill rolls and use the best or gives a +x to the roll, so if you make a mage/thief it makes sense for him to have the spell instead of negating his reason to take thief at all.
A knock spell should make you almost as good or maybe even as good as a thief, not better.
I'm okay with that. I was just saying that there is a valid reason for the spell to exist. Oh, and knock doesn't disarm any traps, so there is risk to a wizard that wouldn't be there for a rogue who has already found and disarmed the trap
Great, then make a knock spell that lets you roll three "open lock" skill rolls and use the best or gives a +x to the roll, so if you make a mage/thief it makes sense for him to have the spell instead of negating his reason to take thief at all.A kno
The Wizard doesn't need to have the spell at all. As stated, keys exist and are often employed to unlock doors and containers. Throwing in an obstacle you know the party can't get around seems like more of an issue on the DM side.
Forgive me. My players actually like challenges. I sometimes forget that there are players who feel entitled to everything handed to them on silver platters.
Forgive me. My players actually like challenges. I sometimes forget that there are players who feel entitled to everything handed to them on silver platters.
This thread has finally become... pointless. Moderator, please lock it.
Pretty much this. We are talking in circles. The exact thing I responded to weeks ago in this very thread are being said again. I'm done here solid in the knowledge that classes will be different and good at different things, and that sometimes those things will in fact overlap with other characters to some extent, and that when they overlap someone will be better in some way or at some different time, and that I will be able to have a round character no matter my class. Because I will be able to round it out to do exactly what I want it to do using themes and backgrounds. I may respond back to things but if I tried to respond to the same thing once before in this thread or any others I'm not even touching the post. You can look in the history of the thread for your answer, and let me know if it isn't there.
Mainly I want to know about this right here: How can people complain about being able to make the exact character they want to make with the complaint that I can make an equally but differently useful character.
Pretty much this. We are talking in circles. The exact thing I responded to weeks ago in this very thread are being said again. I'm done here solid in the knowledge that classes will be different and good at different things, and that sometimes tho
Forgive me. My players actually like challenges. I sometimes forget that there are players who feel entitled to everything handed to them on silver platters.
You mean like the Wizard who couldn't figure his way past a lock and had the game give him a spell instead?
You mean like the Wizard who couldn't figure his way past a lock and had the game give him a spell instead?
Forgive me. My players actually like challenges. I sometimes forget that there are players who feel entitled to everything handed to them on silver platters.
You mean like the Wizard who couldn't figure his way past a lock and had the game give him a spell instead?
You mean like the Wizard who couldn't figure his way past a lock and had the game give him a spell instead?[/quote]:rofl:
The wizard doesn't replace other characters. Every try to play any published adventure with a group of nothing but mages? Good luck with that.
Maybe not quite the encounter-kicker that the infamous all-archer-ranger party was, but it'd certainly be able to do a lot, even in 4e.
In 3.x, the only reason not to go all-wizard was CoDzilla. As all-powerful as the wizard could be, rounding the party out with the other two top-tier classes was never a bad idea.
In AD&D the all-magic-user party was doomed at low level, awesome at high level. And, correspondingly non-existant at low level and not un-heard of at really high levels.
Maybe not quite the encounter-kicker that the infamous all-archer-ranger party was, but it'd certainly be able to do a lot, even in 4e. In 3.x, the only reason not to go all-wizard was CoDzilla. As all-powerful as the wizard could be, rounding the
This isn't about using the spell, this is about the spell existing to begin with. The Wizard has a spell that was created so he could do the Rogue's job. It doesn't matter how many times a day he can, the issue here is that someone thought 'The Wizard should be able to open locks.', something that was supposed to be the duty of the Rogue/Thief, and apparently no one asked themselves 'Why?' Everyone just thinks 'Why not.'
There's a pretty simple reason, really, why no one asked themselves 'Why?'. It's because the Knock spell was published before the Thief class was created. Opening locks was a Wizard ability first. It's not a Rogue ability Wizards stole.
Opening locks is a Wizard ability that Rogues stole, if you're looking at it as classes stealing from each other.
There's a pretty simple reason, really, why no one asked themselves 'Why?'. It's because the Knock spell was published before the Thief class was created. Opening locks was a Wizard ability first. It's not a Rogue ability Wizards stole.Opening locks
There's a pretty simple reason, really, why no one asked themselves 'Why?'. It's because the Knock spell was published before the Thief class was created. Opening locks was a Wizard ability first. It's not a Rogue ability Wizards stole.
Opening locks is a Wizard ability that Rogues stole, if you're looking at it as classes stealing from each other.
Ah, fair enough. I retract my assertion that it was an attempt to have the Wizard do the Rogue/Thief's work.
Ah, fair enough. I retract my assertion that it was an attempt to have the Wizard do the Rogue/Thief's work.
'sokay. There's been a decades-long discussion over what the point of the thief class was really supposed to even be. It's a list of things that anybody should be able to learn to do - why do you need a class for it? Before they created the thief class, fighters, clerics, and magic-users just climbed walls, picked locks, listened at doors, and snuck up and backstabbed people as necessary.
Personally, I'd rather they make the thief a fighter subclass. No way that will happen, but I can dream.
'sokay. There's been a decades-long discussion over what the point of the thief class was really supposed to even be. It's a list of things that anybody should be able to learn to do - why do you need a class for it? Before they created the thief cla
'sokay. There's been a decades-long discussion over what the point of the thief class was really supposed to even be. It's a list of things that anybody should be able to learn to do - why do you need a class for it?
4e pretty much made that true... any class can be the thief, with background and skill investment (ok any class who can exploit Dex nicelly).. admittedlly they are permanent investment and you have relatively few of that resource to invest with and the character who took rogue could almost be seen as getting this free.... except the he invested obvious concept space in it.
4e pretty much made that true... any class can be the thief, with background and skill investment (ok any class who can exploit Dex nicelly).. admittedlly they are permanent investment and you have relatively few of that resource to invest with and t
Heck, let me revise. It's a list of things any adventurer should just be able to do, without investment. Want to climb a cliff? What level are you, what equipment are you using, what's your ability score, and what's your roll? Off you go then.
Heck, let me revise. It's a list of things any adventurer should just be able to do, without investment. Want to climb a cliff? What level are you, what equipment are you using, what's your ability score, and what's your roll? Off you go then.
Heck, let me revise. It's a list of things any adventurer should just be able to do, without investment. Want to climb a cliff? What level are you, what equipment are you using, what's your ability score, and what's your roll? Off you go then.
Oh I do agree a chunk of the thiefs capabilities stepped on the generalized adventurer space.
Specialization in skills now still makes the guy who did so enough better at climbing and enough better at sneaking that one might mistakenly think if you didnt specialize? you really cant do them, possibly exacerbated by the skills being overly front loadable.
Oh I do agree a chunk of the thiefs capabilities stepped on the generalized adventurer space. Specialization in skills now still makes the guy who did so enough better at climbing and enough better at sneaking that one might mistakenly think if you d
'sokay. There's been a decades-long discussion over what the point of the thief class was really supposed to even be. It's a list of things that anybody should be able to learn to do - why do you need a class for it?
4e pretty much made that true... any class can be the thief, with background and skill investment (ok any class who can exploit Dex nicelly).. admittedlly they are permanent investment and you have relatively few of that resource to invest with and the character who took rogue could almost be seen as getting this free.... except the he invested obvious concept space in it.
This was one of the things about 4e I liked. I think anybody should be able to get any skills they want.
I liked a lot of the details of 4e. Not all of course. I didn't like the structure and I didn't like the martial stuff but otherwise there were many good things.
4e pretty much made that true... any class can be the thief, with background and skill investment (ok any class who can exploit Dex nicelly).. admittedlly they are permanent investment and you have relatively few of that resource to invest with and t
Heck, let me revise. It's a list of things any adventurer should just be able to do, without investment. Want to climb a cliff? What level are you, what equipment are you using, what's your ability score, and what's your roll? Off you go then.
Oh I do agree a chunk of the thiefs capabilities stepped on the generalized adventurer space.
Specialization in skills now still makes the guy who did so enough better at climbing and enough better at sneaking that one might mistakenly think if you didnt specialize? you really cant do them, possibly exacerbated by the skills being overly front loadable.
If you think about it, every class steps on generalized adventurer space. Why have a fighter class when adventurers can pick up a weapon and fight? Why have wizards when anyone can learn a spell/magic? The answer is specialization.
Anyone can be a thief. Rogues are the specialists that make the generalized thieves look like amateurs. Anyone can climb, but rogues are the specialists that make the generalized adventurer look slow as he scales a wall with a rope, being passed by the rogue who isn't using one. Fighters are the maestros of weaponry, making the cleric, who though competent with his weapon, look like a child with a butter knife.
Oh I do agree a chunk of the thiefs capabilities stepped on the generalized adventurer space. Specialization in skills now still makes the guy who did so enough better at climbing and enough better at sneaking that one might mistakenly think if you d
I like that vision. I think D&D has always strived for that to be the case, but has generally fallen short. If Next can do that, much rejoicing will be had.
I like that vision. I think D&D has always strived for that to be the case, but has generally fallen short. If Next can do that, much rejoicing will be had.
Maxperson: I just think the Rogue is a list of very basic adventuring tasks that all the other adventurers suddenly got worse at when the Thief showed up, so that the Thief could be given a 'niche' as the guy who did them better.
Maxperson: I just think the Rogue is a list of very basic adventuring tasks that all the other adventurers suddenly got worse at when the Thief showed up, so that the Thief could be given a 'niche' as the guy who did them better.
Heck, let me revise. It's a list of things any adventurer should just be able to do, without investment. Want to climb a cliff? What level are you, what equipment are you using, what's your ability score, and what's your roll? Off you go then.
Oh I do agree a chunk of the thiefs capabilities stepped on the generalized adventurer space.
Specialization in skills now still makes the guy who did so enough better at climbing and enough better at sneaking that one might mistakenly think if you didnt specialize? you really cant do them, possibly exacerbated by the skills being overly front loadable.
If you think about it, every class steps on generalized adventurer space. Why have a fighter class when adventurers can pick up a weapon and fight? Why have wizards when anyone can learn a spell/magic? The answer is specialization.
There are many reasons someone might be very good climber ... or very good at stealth.... not just being a "thief" back in my experience in 1e land you were wired to the class and all its baggage.
In more recent times that is not as true, and once I start investing enough either by chosing background or spending feats etc, at some level I am really multiclassing, but there is quite a bit of space before that.
Oh I do agree a chunk of the thiefs capabilities stepped on the generalized adventurer space. Specialization in skills now still makes the guy who did so enough better at climbing and enough better at sneaking that one might mistakenly think if you d
Maxperson: I just think the Rogue is a list of very basic adventuring tasks that all the other adventurers suddenly got worse at when the Thief showed up, so that the Thief could be given a 'niche' as the guy who did them better.
The same could be said of fighters losing all that social mojo because bards or somebody showed up.
The same could be said of fighters losing all that social mojo because bards or somebody showed up.
The Thief was created so someone could play a pallid imitation of the Grey Mouser.
Just like the Ranger was an imitation of Aragorn and the Monk an imitation of Caine from "Kung Fu."
It was just Gygax riffing off of the pop culture and fantasy literature of the day.
"Caster Supremacy" is related, now that I think of it.
When they went to add a new non-caster character to game, they created a new class, and as someone said, below, took abilities away from everyone else to give that new class some unique stuff. You want to make an Aragorn, you create the Ranger and take tracking and woodcraft away from everyone else. You want to make a Grey Mouser, you take sneaking and climbing and code-breaking away from everyone else. You want to make a Caine, you take unarmed combat away from everyone else.
But when they saw a new caster character and wanted to add it to the game, they just gave the magic-user or cleric more spells. So the Cleric can perform every miracle from the Bible, plus anything a priestly character inspired Gygax to add to the game, and the wizard can perform all the feats of Merlin, Gandalf, Mazirian the Magician, and every other wizard or sorcerer that might have been an inspiration to anyone writing spells for D&D.
The Thief was created so someone could play a pallid imitation of the Grey Mouser. Just like the Ranger was an imitation of Aragorn and the Monk an imitation of Caine from "Kung Fu." It was just Gygax riffing off of the pop culture and fantasy litera
The Thief was created so someone could play a pallid imitation of the Grey Mouser.
Just like the Ranger was an imitation of Aragorn and the Monk an imitation of Caine from "Kung Fu."
It was just Gygax riffing off of the pop culture and fantasy literature of the day.
"Caster Supremacy" is related, now that I think of it.
When they went to add a new non-caster character to game, they created a new class, and as someone said, below, took abilities away from everyone else to give that new class some unique stuff. You want to make an Aragorn, you create the Ranger and take tracking and woodcraft away from everyone else. You want to make a Grey Mouser, you take sneaking and climbing and code-breaking away from everyone else. You want to make a Caine, you take unarmed combat away from everyone else.
But when they saw a new caster character and wanted to add it to the game, they just gave the magic-user or cleric more spells. So the Cleric can perform every miracle from the Bible, plus anything a priestly character inspired Gygax to add to the game, and the wizard can perform all the feats of Merlin, Gandalf, Mazirian the Magician, and every other wizard or sorcerer that might have been an inspiration to anyone writing spells for D&D.
Which is the problem with earlier casters. There not any one casting archtype there several all rolled into one, changable per day, heavily reliant on the DM to balance out.
Which is the problem with earlier casters. There not any one casting archtype there several all rolled into one, changable per day, heavily reliant on the DM to balance out.
Which is the problem with earlier casters. There not any one casting archtype there several all rolled into one, changable per day, heavily reliant on the DM to balance out.
This, I think, is the key. I'm a DM. I have a berjillion other things to think about other than how the casters can circumvent the story, obviate other characters, and otherwise turn the game into Yahtzee.
This, I think, is the key. I'm a DM. I have a berjillion other things to think about other than how the casters can circumvent the story, obviate other characters, and otherwise turn the game into Yahtzee.
The damage caused by fire in the game is inflated. Especially flashes of fire like fireball is supposed to ceate. I have friends that have survived being in a house when a gas explosion occured ; people rarely survive a sharp 15 pound peice of steel planted in their necks.
The damage caused by fire in the game is inflated. Especially flashes of fire like fireball is supposed to ceate. I have friends that have survived being in a house when a gas explosion occured ; people rarely survive a sharp 15 pound peice of steel
@Whisspered Since we don't know the details of how magic works in reality (since we have no analog) it is hard to say what magic would do. A fireball for all we know could be the equivalent of getting hit by a flame thrower. (Not saying thats it either just giving an example on the other end.)
@WhissperedSince we don't know the details of how magic works in reality (since we have no analog) it is hard to say what magic would do. A fireball for all we know could be the equivalent of getting hit by a flame thrower. (Not saying thats it ei
Yes I realize that I was just making a point that spells that can target multiple targets would and should be weaker (for the most part)as it pertains to caster supremacy.
I've always imagined a fireball kind of like a dragonball fireball that erupts in a 25 ft radius circle upon impact. Of course thats just one impression of a fictional thing.
Yes I realize that I was just making a point that spells that can target multiple targets would and should be weaker (for the most part)as it pertains to caster supremacy. I've always imagined a fireball kind of like a dragonball fireball that erupts
Yes I realize that I was just making a point that spells that can target multiple targets would and should be weaker (for the most part)as it pertains to caster supremacy.
I've always imagined a fireball kind of like a dragonball fireball that erupts in a 25 ft radius circle upon impact. Of course thats just one impression of a fictional thing.
Lightning bolts directish hits are survived 80 percent of the time (not sure where I got that stat )
Lightning bolts directish hits are survived 80 percent of the time (not sure where I got that stat )
Yes I realize that I was just making a point that spells that can target multiple targets would and should be weaker (for the most part)as it pertains to caster supremacy.
I've always imagined a fireball kind of like a dragonball fireball that erupts in a 25 ft radius circle upon impact. Of course thats just one impression of a fictional thing.
Lightning bolts directish hits are survived 80 percent of the time (not sure where I got that stat )
Really? 1.21 Gigiwatts? You actually heard that somwhere? I would have thought it would be way lower. Anyways in regards to spells I like the idea of conservation of energy.
Lightning bolts directish hits are survived 80 percent of the time (not sure where I got that stat )[/quote]Really?1.21 Gigiwatts? You actually heard that somwhere? I would have thought it would be way lower.Anyways in regards to spells I like the id
Yes I realize that I was just making a point that spells that can target multiple targets would and should be weaker (for the most part)as it pertains to caster supremacy.
I've always imagined a fireball kind of like a dragonball fireball that erupts in a 25 ft radius circle upon impact. Of course thats just one impression of a fictional thing.
Lightning bolts directish hits are survived 80 percent of the time (not sure where I got that stat )
Really? 1.21 Gigiwatts? You actually heard that somwhere? I would have thought it would be way lower. Anyways in regards to spells I like the idea of conservation of energy.
It was attributed to modern CPR and the fact that biology is rather conductive ... If I recall.
Lightning bolts directish hits are survived 80 percent of the time (not sure where I got that stat )[/quote]Really?1.21 Gigiwatts? You actually heard that somwhere? I would have thought it would be way lower.Anyways in regards to spells I like the id
@Whisspered Since we don't know the details of how magic works in reality (since we have no analog) it is hard to say what magic would do.
Actually, that makes it very easy to say what magic would do. The rules for magic can be completely arbitrary, since there's nothing to simulate. Arbitrarily make them what works best for the game.
That could mean magic spells only working once per day, or it could mean large-area spells always been less damaging than single-target attacks.
Actually, that makes it very easy to say what magic would do. The rules for magic can be completely arbitrary, since there's nothing to simulate. Arbitrarily make them what works best for the game.That could mean magic spells only working once per
@Whisspered Since we don't know the details of how magic works in reality (since we have no analog) it is hard to say what magic would do.
Actually, that makes it very easy to say what magic would do. The rules for magic can be completely arbitrary, since there's nothing to simulate. Arbitrarily make them what works best for the game.
That could mean magic spells only working once per day, or it could mean large-area spells always been less damaging than single-target attacks.
Then you are agreeing with me. My point to the original poster was that saying magic was unrealistic was silly. No such thing as unrealistic magic. Magic does not exist in our world so we have no analog. It is made up and can be made up to be anything. I've been saying this for some time on many threads (many of which I'm sure you have been reading too based upon your postings) so thanks for misinterpreting me.
Actually, that makes it very easy to say what magic would do. The rules for magic can be completely arbitrary, since there's nothing to simulate. Arbitrarily make them what works best for the game.That could mean magic spells only working once per
We do have an analog for magic. Sorry, but we do. We have nearly 40 years of text where we can look back and see what magic is expected to do in D&D. We have something like 4,000 years of texts that tell us what magic is expected to do, in the rest of the world.
Yeah - magic isn't real. But we have expectations as to what it does, all the same.
We do have an analog for magic. Sorry, but we do. We have nearly 40 years of text where we can look back and see what magic is expected to do in D&D. We have something like 4,000 years of texts that tell us what magic is expected to do, in the rest o
@Kaldric I don't disagree that magic has a tradition in D&D. I'd be for at least somewhat of a return to it in 5e.
I still disagree that we have any analogy for "real" magic in this world. When you are ready to demonstrate you fireball or lightning bolt let me know. As has been said elsewhere Magic is the flexible material you figure out to fit everything else.
@KaldricI don't disagree that magic has a tradition in D&D. I'd be for at least somewhat of a return to it in 5e. I still disagree that we have any analogy for "real" magic in this world. When you are ready to demonstrate you fireball or lightning
Actually, that makes it very easy to say what magic would do. The rules for magic can be completely arbitrary, since there's nothing to simulate. Arbitrarily make them what works best for the game.
That could mean magic spells only working once per day, or it could mean large-area spells always been less damaging than single-target attacks.
This seems spot-on, btw. Every system of D&D magic has spells based almost solely on adventuring arranged into levels that become available as you progress as an adventurer. In other words, it is primarily focused on what works well in a level-based RPG. Otherwise we'd not see a focus on facilitating raids on subterranean monster lairs - magic would center on overcoming the problems of survival in a pseudo-medieval world, and there would be all kinds of oddities inconsistent with creating a balanced game. For example, magic missile could be a 5th level spell, because techniques for working with force are inherently difficult, while fireball could be a 1st level spell, because fire is an easily controlled natural force. Why not? It's magic and the rules need not suit a balanced game at all
This seems spot-on, btw. Every system of D&D magic has spells based almost solely on adventuring arranged into levels that become available as you progress as an adventurer. In other words, it is primarily focused on what works well in a level-based
Yes I realize that I was just making a point that spells that can target multiple targets would and should be weaker (for the most part)as it pertains to caster supremacy.
I've always imagined a fireball kind of like a dragonball fireball that erupts in a 25 ft radius circle upon impact. Of course thats just one impression of a fictional thing.
Damage is easy to balance. Non-combat isnt. That magic can do things that non-casters cant hope to accomplish is a fair argument for magic generally being crappy at what it can do, due to versatility (vancian rotating super-powers), and scope (things mortals cant hope to achieve). When magic users give up one, they can gain baseline competence. So a limited vancian caster can be as effective as a non-caster a few times per day, or crappily do something no one else can do a few times per day. This is balanced by the fact that he can re-shape his character each day (through memorization) and do stuff no one else can. What's the heald check required to bring someone back from the dead again?
Damage is easy to balance. Non-combat isnt. That magic can do things that non-casters cant hope to accomplish is a fair argument for magic generally being crappy at what it can do, due to versatility (vancian rotating super-powers), and scope (things
Yes I realize that I was just making a point that spells that can target multiple targets would and should be weaker (for the most part)as it pertains to caster supremacy.
I've always imagined a fireball kind of like a dragonball fireball that erupts in a 25 ft radius circle upon impact. Of course thats just one impression of a fictional thing.
Lightning bolts directish hits are survived 80 percent of the time (not sure where I got that stat )
Really? 1.21 Gigiwatts? You actually heard that somwhere? I would have thought it would be way lower. Anyways in regards to spells I like the idea of conservation of energy.
Its true. Ive been pelted by a dork in a bathrobe with a beanbag many times and lived.
Lightning bolts directish hits are survived 80 percent of the time (not sure where I got that stat )[/quote]Really?1.21 Gigiwatts? You actually heard that somwhere? I would have thought it would be way lower.Anyways in regards to spells I like the id
Yes I realize that I was just making a point that spells that can target multiple targets would and should be weaker (for the most part)as it pertains to caster supremacy.
I've always imagined a fireball kind of like a dragonball fireball that erupts in a 25 ft radius circle upon impact. Of course thats just one impression of a fictional thing.
Lightning bolts directish hits are survived 80 percent of the time (not sure where I got that stat )
Really? 1.21 Gigiwatts? You actually heard that somwhere? I would have thought it would be way lower. Anyways in regards to spells I like the idea of conservation of energy.
Its true. Ive been pelted by a dork in a bathrobe with a beanbag many times and lived.
And dorks with bean bags are more reliable than the american heart association.
Lightning bolts directish hits are survived 80 percent of the time (not sure where I got that stat )[/quote]Really?1.21 Gigiwatts? You actually heard that somwhere? I would have thought it would be way lower.Anyways in regards to spells I like the id
