|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 7:16AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2012
|
I realize that 3.0 and 3.5 have their merits, as well as the other editions, but I cannot fathom this. Why would people want to see this return? It makes martial characters complete deadweights at high levels, and spellcasters become demigods themselves. It's just bad game design. Now, I can understand we didn't have 4e and all we knew were these archetypes, but we do have 4e, and it worked. I'm not saying that I didn't like the older editions, but they had some serious problems with the power curve of several classes. 4e fixed most of this, and while it had a whole new set of problems on it's own, this seems to me like something that should be included in D&D 5e, not subtracted because people miss fighters and rogues sucking. And heck, it's not even as if wizards got a downgrade in 4e! 4e just made it so martial characters can do multitudes of things that can make them compete with what tools the wizard could bring to the table.
Please, for anyone who is in favor of this regression, could you give me a decent reason why this should be implemented in 5e?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 7:31AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2008
|
I realize that 3.0 and 3.5 have their merits, as well as the other editions, but I cannot fathom this. Why would people want to see this return? It makes martial characters complete deadweights at high levels, and spellcasters become demigods themselves. It's just bad game design. Now, I can understand we didn't have 4e and all we knew were these archetypes, but we do have 4e, and it worked. I'm not saying that I didn't like the older editions, but they had some serious problems with the power curve of several classes. 4e fixed most of this, and while it had a whole new set of problems on it's own, this seems to me like something that should be included in D&D 5e, not subtracted because people miss fighters and rogues sucking. And heck, it's not even as if wizards got a downgrade in 4e! 4e just made it so martial characters can do multitudes of things that can make them compete with what tools the wizard could bring to the table.
Please, for anyone who is in favor of this regression, could you give me a decent reason why this should be implemented in 5e?
Because it's MAGIC
Having spellcasters and non-spellcasters be equivalent in power/options and fun is not realistic
Having fighters be equivalent to wizards is not fun
I dunno I've seen a lot of reasons based on the above theories and all of them are hogwash imo.
If you want a game where some of the people are heroes (wizards) and some are henchmen (fighters) play ars magica or mage the ascension
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 7:32AM
#3
|
|
|
Personal taste.
It's the game they want to play.
And it really only breaks the game at the high levels few groups get to or play at.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 7:38AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2007
|
i think the reason being, and one of my players paraphrases this very often, is that wizards in 4e did not feel like wizards at all.
classical wizard players liked having spell books and choices EVERY day to make.
they liked their choices to be important. and thus, they expected to be rewarded for good choices made in the morning, and punished for bad ones. (well, some of them, anyway). it has less to do with how much you can cast at level advancement, than rather getting more and more options to choose from - on a daily basis, not on level up.
i guess most wizards could live with other classes having other mechanics and getting more than linear options, or at least getting choices and options - but that their casting was so greatly nerfed, damaged the game most for them.
in contrast, many players would not like having to choose every day, or even choose that much at level up. i believe the big mistake of older editions was to force this kind of play on fighters, and the difficult one on spellcasters, tome of battle adressed this pretty well.
in my experience, players do not choose classes on how complicated they are, but on what they want to play. thus, there needs to be a difficult and easy class for every "fluff" a player might like to play.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 7:40AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2007
|
Most people seem to want wizards and fighters to be relatively balanced at all levels of play. Honestly I don't think there's much argument on that point. Even people who don't mind wizards being overpowered at high levels will usually admit that they also don't mind if wizards and fighters are on a more equal footing at high levels.
Mind you, this is entirely independent of the Vancian magic/spell slot thing. DDN can use spell slots and not make wizards overpowered at high levels, they just need to place appropriate limits on how powerful spells can be at various stages, how many spell slots are available and appropriate limits on how much (if any) automatic scaling occurs on spells by experience level. It's not the idea of spell slots that's broken, it's how its implemented in 3e and earlier editions.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 7:49AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Sep 16, 2007
|
Where to begin.
For one. 4th ed took it way to far in the opposite direction. I found mages had become the least powerful character and that my armour wearing divine Invoker was better in every single way.
Moreso, the lore of almost every fantasy book written suggests that mages are the go-to guys for power plays. The fighters have their role and are quite often pivotal for cleaning up the lesser threats so the mage can save his spells, but then they are the most needed characters for the end of session bad guy.
They are weak and easy to hit which is why the fighters remain important. It should become a team effort with the fighters defending and the mages striking. Also, it is a roleplaying game. Why does your character need to do the same damage to the same amount of enemies as everyone else? Fighters are effective for the 1st half of the game and mages begin to shine later on. Quite often most campaigns tend to stop around level 7-10 so by in large the super powerful mages are a rare comodity around the DnD table anyway.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 7:49AM
#7
|
|
|
And it really only breaks the game at the high levels few groups get to or play at.
This may have something to do with it. I know that the vast majority of games I've played since 1990 have ended before level 15, and only a few of those actually made it past level 10. So I never really saw a whole lot of the LFQW problem, except for at the low end where mages are slow burners.
My personal thought is that the issue should be handled(and I may house rule this regardless) by two parallel actions:
1) There is no "general" wizard. Specialists only, and with much more restricted lists than 3E and prior. Make them work differently. For example, an evoker might seem more effective than a diviner at first glance, but the diviner has more out of combat utility, while maintaining viablity in combat through precognition. He would be able to manipulate advantage/disadvantage states when forced into personal combat. Additionally, you could use themes to facilitate these limitations while giving the character additional flair.
2) This will be unpopular for 4E fans, but I think the fighter needs to kill the warlord and take his stuff. A combat specialist that can engage enemies in single combat, utilize various combat maneuvers, and lead groups to victory through his superior grasp of tactics would be a better match for a wizard that "my guy in the heavy armor attacks... again."
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 7:59AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Sep 23, 2009
|
@Bodyknock I agree
I am a strong supporter of 3.0/3.5, and I will admit the class balance on that game was super broken, and aside from all the things that 4th edition did that I didn't like, they did get balance right, but in a very lazy way imo. I would like it if all the classes were equally good to play in their own way. I think the fighter should be the best or nearly the best in combat, particularly one on one melee combat (ranger might be better at range, and caster might be better on mass on one). I would like a fighter that deals out buckets of damages with a sword, and can really take a hit and keep coming. I would like them to have access to some thing like ToB with stances and something like maneuvers. The one thing I do not want for the fighter is the daily powers that are any thing like spell slots, and they shouldn't have mystical powers like desert wind school by default (unless its like a theme or background that gives them access to it to make a sword-mage, then by all means have at it), they should have real world-esque abilities, it would also be cool if their weapon choice could give them different abilities, but I digress. Ideally I think one on one at 20th level, a wizard and a fighter should be a tough fight, unless the wizard had planning on his side or the other way around.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 8:02AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
They don't see it as a problem, and the steps taken to fix that problem they didn't have made for an edition they didn't like. Where to begin.
For one. 4th ed took it way to far in the opposite direction. I found mages had become the least powerful character and that my armour wearing divine Invoker was better in every single way.
Moreso, the lore of almost every fantasy book written suggests that mages are the go-to guys for power plays. The fighters have their role and are quite often pivotal for cleaning up the lesser threats so the mage can save his spells, but then they are the most needed characters for the end of session bad guy.
They are weak and easy to hit which is why the fighters remain important. It should become a team effort with the fighters defending and the mages striking. Also, it is a roleplaying game. Why does your character need to do the same damage to the same amount of enemies as everyone else? Fighters are effective for the 1st half of the game and mages begin to shine later on. Quite often most campaigns tend to stop around level 7-10 so by in large the super powerful mages are a rare comodity around the DnD table anyway.
Plus, this guy exists. I have an endless well of hatred for this reasoning and approach to balance, and I'll sooner put my head in a car door and slam it until I can't feel the pain than play a game with these assumptions, but he probably feels the same way about how I play. Possibly sans the hyperbole about what he'd rather be doing.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
Jun 02, 2012 - 8:08AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
They don't see it as a problem, and the steps taken to fix that problem they didn't have made for an edition they didn't like.
Where to begin.
For one. 4th ed took it way to far in the opposite direction. I found mages had become the least powerful character and that my armour wearing divine Invoker was better in every single way.
Moreso, the lore of almost every fantasy book written suggests that mages are the go-to guys for power plays. The fighters have their role and are quite often pivotal for cleaning up the lesser threats so the mage can save his spells, but then they are the most needed characters for the end of session bad guy.
They are weak and easy to hit which is why the fighters remain important. It should become a team effort with the fighters defending and the mages striking. Also, it is a roleplaying game. Why does your character need to do the same damage to the same amount of enemies as everyone else? Fighters are effective for the 1st half of the game and mages begin to shine later on. Quite often most campaigns tend to stop around level 7-10 so by in large the super powerful mages are a rare comodity around the DnD table anyway.
Plus, this guy exists. I have an endless well of hatred for this reasoning and approach to balance, and I'll sooner put my head in a car door and slam it until I can't feel the pain than play a game with these assumptions, but he probably feels the same way about how I play. Possibly sans the hyperbole about what he'd rather be doing.
Same. It's the "fighter is ok until the mage actually decides to do something" approach. Which is the complete opposite of balance.
|
|
|
