Community

Oct 12, 2012 -- 9:35AM, Emerikol wrote:

Oct 12, 2012 -- 8:31AM, Garthanos wrote:

I have suggesting methods and competancy such that the melee martial types dont have to "fly".
AND spell casters can along side them without the martial types being comparably incompetant in an arena I consider a forte of said martial types. battlefield mobility.

The issue is an othrogonal one.  I rate believability highly and have only modest concerns about power spread.   You are highly desirous of power spread and are only modestly concerned with believability.   

In theory, we should be able to find mechanics that cover both bases.  Practically I haven't seen them yet.

I believe this is patently false.  Aside from a few problem powers there is nothing the 4e fighter does that is "unbelievable".  If the AEDU structure was changed to some fate/endurance structure the 4e fighter would be entirely in the realm of mundane possibilities.  But you have argued constantly against fighters having any capabilities that require any degree of resource management or tactical impact.  You have even gone so far as to say you will not by the game if the Fighter class has such abilities.  I call that the least inclusive attitude of all.  

I am perfectly fine with the mundane swing a blade fighter over and over playing alongside the many optioned tactical resource management fighter.  I believe both are possible.  But arguing that believability is high on your list of necessary things in order to purchase the game that is made to be inclusive is hilarious.  Do you really believe a mundane strength warrior would 'believably" be able to take down a iron golem, a giant, a dragon?  No that is far beyond the bounds of physics.  You choose to use a very narrow view of "realistic" then complain when anyone else suggests giving fighters equaly unrealistic capabilities.  

Why is it not possible to have abilities for the fighter that your narrow view of realism may not hold, alongside more realistic abilites? Would you really fall back on your "I won't buy the game" argument if fighters have the option to choose unrealistic capabilities? If a fighter can choose an ability where he can jump 50 feet at higher levels, would that ruin all of D&D for you, even though your particular fighter can simply choose to not pick that ability?  If so I suggest looking deep down within yourself and your "inclusive" attitude...

Oct 12, 2012 -- 10:43AM, Lawolf wrote:

I believe this is patently false.  Aside from a few problem powers there is nothing the 4e fighter does that is "unbelievable".  If the AEDU structure was changed to some fate/endurance structure the 4e fighter would be entirely in the realm of mundane possibilities.  But you have argued constantly against fighters having any capabilities that require any degree of resource management or tactical impact.  You have even gone so far as to say you will not by the game if the Fighter class has such abilities.  I call that the least inclusive attitude of all.  

This starts out addressed to me and switches midway to seem to be addressed to Emerikol. Am I misreading this?

Anyway, while yes, 4e Fighters managed to stay balanced and within the realm of believability, the 4e Fighter had one major advantage: Its competition was a crippled Wizard, who for the most part had his combat spells restricted to spells that did some damage plus some status effect. Put the 4e Fighter in a 3.5 or even AD&D game, and while the 4e fighter is better off than the AD&D/3e Fighter, it's still way behind the respective casters.

The 4e Fighter works within the parameters of the 4e system. As many have noted and complained about, those parameters are very narrow. This was probably the biggest complaint with 4e (as those narrow parameters led to the same-feeling classes, and video-gamey/boardgame feel in gameplay, both of which were major concerns). Given 5e is leaving those narrow parameters, it means a Fighter who can do what a 4e fighter could do will not be sufficient to keep pace in the long haul. As other classes gain access to more options, more varied options, and more unique/dynamic/story altering options, so to must the Fighter. Otherwise you may have lessened the gap, but there's still a gaping canyon between where you are, and where you could/should be.

I am perfectly fine with the mundane swing a blade fighter over and over playing alongside the many optioned tactical resource management fighter.

Except the Mundane swing a blade fighter is inherently less versatile, and thus restricted to helping in a reduced number of situations. This is the sort of balance that works at low levels when a good majority of situations can be handled by swinging a sword at guys in melee. At higher levels when facing more intelligent opponents with greater capability, that tactic stops working, and any class who is restricted to it entirely stops working along with it. If people still want to play like that, it's their choice, but it should be an educated choice, not something offered up as an effective option alongside something that is clearly better. 

Oct 12, 2012 -- 10:57AM, Seerow wrote:

Oct 12, 2012 -- 10:43AM, Lawolf wrote:

I believe this is patently false.  Aside from a few problem powers there is nothing the 4e fighter does that is "unbelievable".  If the AEDU structure was changed to some fate/endurance structure the 4e fighter would be entirely in the realm of mundane possibilities.  But you have argued constantly against fighters having any capabilities that require any degree of resource management or tactical impact.  You have even gone so far as to say you will not by the game if the Fighter class has such abilities.  I call that the least inclusive attitude of all.  

This starts out addressed to me and switches midway to seem to be addressed to Emerikol. Am I misreading this?

Anyway, while yes, 4e Fighters managed to stay balanced and within the realm of believability, the 4e Fighter had one major advantage: Its competition was a crippled Wizard, who for the most part had his combat spells restricted to spells that did some damage plus some status effect. Put the 4e Fighter in a 3.5 or even AD&D game, and while the 4e fighter is better off than the AD&D/3e Fighter, it's still way behind the respective casters.

The 4e Fighter works within the parameters of the 4e system. As many have noted and complained about, those parameters are very narrow. This was probably the biggest complaint with 4e (as those narrow parameters led to the same-feeling classes, and video-gamey/boardgame feel in gameplay, both of which were major concerns). Given 5e is leaving those narrow parameters, it means a Fighter who can do what a 4e fighter could do will not be sufficient to keep pace in the long haul. As other classes gain access to more options, more varied options, and more unique/dynamic/story altering options, so to must the Fighter. Otherwise you may have lessened the gap, but there's still a gaping canyon between where you are, and where you could/should be.

I am perfectly fine with the mundane swing a blade fighter over and over playing alongside the many optioned tactical resource management fighter.

Except the Mundane swing a blade fighter is inherently less versatile, and thus restricted to helping in a reduced number of situations. This is the sort of balance that works at low levels when a good majority of situations can be handled by swinging a sword at guys in melee. At higher levels when facing more intelligent opponents with greater capability, that tactic stops working, and any class who is restricted to it entirely stops working along with it. If people still want to play like that, it's their choice, but it should be an educated choice, not something offered up as an effective option alongside something that is clearly better. 

Misquote there.  I was addressing Emerikol.  I agree with you in regards to this issue and it is part of the reason I am unhappy wih the at-will nature of the CS mechanic.  Although from what we have seen of the playtest balance does not seem to be a priority.  If we can accept and live with his fact than (which is quite sad) then we can live with the fact that the simple fighter will be less potent than the complex one.  

For everyone the four people clamoring for a simple fighter on the internet, I have never once encountered someone who wanted less options for their class when they had the ability to have more.

Oct 12, 2012 -- 10:43AM, Lawolf wrote:

I believe this is patently false.  Aside from a few problem powers there is nothing the 4e fighter does that is "unbelievable".  If the AEDU structure was changed to some fate/endurance structure the 4e fighter would be entirely in the realm of mundane possibilities.  But you have argued constantly against fighters having any capabilities that require any degree of resource management or tactical impact.  You have even gone so far as to say you will not by the game if the Fighter class has such abilities.  I call that the least inclusive attitude of all.  

I have argued for fighters that fall within certain limits for me.  And if such a class does not exist it is hard to play the game without a workable fighter.  I can live without a lot of classes but fighter is not one of them.  I've NEVER argued that other options can't exist.  If just rolling over and accepting what others want without getting anything I want is inclusive I don't see it.  Inclusive is both of us getting what we want.  I keep reiterating what I want.  I do not say I am against anything you want.

Saying that I am not inclusive is a patent LIE.  You can say I have views about gaming you don't agree with.  Thats true.  But I am one of the most inclusive guys on these forums.  I constantly keep running into folks though that want it their way and no other way.  That want my playstyle quashed out of existance.  So yeah.  I'm not feeling like those people are inclusive. 

@LadyBlackwell
Yeah we can just agree to disagree about the numbers.

If you feel the way you do about the fighter then obviously there is no changing how you feel.  

Just understand that 3e fighters in my 3e campaign felt very uber.   They contributed in a serious way to the game.  We argued and belabored why through many threads.  It is a fact though that they did.  And it is also a fact that I didn't do anything outside the rules to balance the game and my players did not hold back in anyway at playing their characters.  And we all are pretty smart guys.  110 to 140 IQs all.  

A lot of people in your camp just cannot bring themselves to believe that the above is all true.  

People who like traditional D&D just want options to play the game they grew up with and loved.  Of course they want improvements but they don't want the fundamental game to be drastically changed.  I liked the addition of feats and a skill system.  Some didn't.  It wouldn't have been too hard to provide a means to avoid those things though.  

All we have ever asked for is to be included in the game design.  For means to be provided so we can keep playing the D&D we love.  I at least have never said I'm against some new features that make other playstyle interests happy.  We are not a monolithic community.  I am very much DM empowerment playstyle but I still liked the skill system.   So 5e's goal of providing components that we can plug and play or not is a good idea.   I just don't get the vitriol from some of the players against other peoples styles.

My theory is that they were forced to play due to being out voted in games they disliked.  They are actually fool enough to believe a rules system can "force" their friends to do what they want.   Why they played despite their complaints is anyone's guess.  My guess is they lived remotely and had few gaming options or possible they were attached to friends socially and wanted their D&D to be with that group.   I would never let the latter rule the day with me.  The former either really I probably just wouldn't play.  I guess I take my D&D pretty seriously.