|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 5:15AM
#511
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
their friggin fighters for cryin out loud! not super-heros!
Funny Gygax used that exact word super-hero to refer to high level fighters and the examples of fighters in the phb from second edition included some characters currently in super hero comic books, shrug.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 7:11AM
#512
|
|
|
their friggin fighters for cryin out loud! not super-heros!
Funny Gygax used that exact word super-hero to refer to high level fighters and the examples of fighters in the phb from second edition included some characters currently in super hero comic books, shrug.
I guess it's a result of people so used to the Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards, Exponential Clerics & Druids thing that the idea that a fighter that starts mundane then transcends it is instantly a violation of the archetype, even though you already had Cleave and Great Cleave allowing any generic warrior to make so many attacks per round during their turn (against mooks especially), as well as warriors that could take so much damage (like being able to fall a hundred feet and still shrug it off) that the "realism" argument gets silly ironic.
We aren't asking for warriors that could shoot lightning bolts out of their eyes or have stinking cloud come out of their orifices. We're asking for warriors that fit the archetype but whose capabilities are level-appropriate:
- level 1 warriors would be a bump better than commoners, skilled in fighting but still risk death like any good soldier, just like how level 1 casters would be a bump better than commoners, skilled in magic but not to the point where he can flick away orcs at a mere thought.
- level 20 warriors would be the equivalent of level 20 creatures, same with level 20 casters. If at this point you see demigods such as Hercules and chosen ones such as Elminster, then level 20 warriors - not casters - should be able to arm-wrestle with Hercules and possibly beat him, while planar teleportation and meteor showers can be left to the level 20 casters and Elminster.
I actually kinda like the houserule that one guy in my Facebook group did (using 2E/3E rules): at 19 STR you already transcend human capability, having the equivalent strength of a Hill Giant, while at 25 STR you have the equivalent strength of a Titan. Does that mean you're already spellcaster magical? No. That means you're still relevant in a magical game by allowing yourself to transcend normal capabilities, because in a world where levels exist, where magic is real and you're fighting dragons and mythical creatures, where you become magical anyway by virtue of magic items, being able to rip Grendel's arm by virtue of being just really, REALLY strong -- beyond what normal people should be capable of -- is still very, very mundane in comparison. My thought is that for the game to be perfectly mundane, yet perfectly magical,
- Levels have to be removed entirely, or the significance of levels be reduced significantly
- Magic in all its forms has to be accessible to anyone who is willing and able to acquire it
- Magic should be rendered dangerous in all aspects
- Hit points should be reduced even more significantly than what was done in the playtest (think Wizard = +1 HP per level, Fighter = +3 HP per level)
Because the existence of levels -- a metagame concept that signifies a difference in what a creature of that level is capable of -- is already a cause for jarring the "warrior must always stick to mundane" concept. Because honestly, if the difference between a level 1 fighter and a level 20 fighter is that the level 20 fighter is MOAR FAITAH!, then there's really no progress to speak of; at least in 0E there was the attempt to make him above the commoner by placing the fighter dab center in political power, as opposed to the wizard being the center of arcane power, and the cleric being the center of divine power (even though the Fighter would likely be ill-equipped for becoming a baron stats-wise [then again rules barely existed anyway]). Compare that to the difference between level 1 wizard and level 20 wizard being the difference between a student of magic and a grand master of reality...
If this gap were to be reflected in D&D 4E, you'd likely have
* Martial characters start at level 5 and not progress beyond level 17
* Non-martial characters (especially spell users) start at level 1 and get to level 30 [give them at least double the EXP martial characters get]
The missing 1-4 and 18-30 of martial characters as presented above is what we really want to happen in D&D Next.
We don't need the uber martial boost at low levels, and we certainly don't want to become luggage carriers and sweep-'em-up guys at high levels, and we especially don't want to get a reply stating "so why not limit the casters and play up to a certain level only?", because some of us want to experience the game in its entire 20+ levels, and while we're willing to give casters more leeway in terms of magical abilities, we are not willing to give casters every piece of ground; they should never be better than what non-casters were designed for.
* No caster should be a better fighter than a fighter (one suggestion I made before was have Stoneskin be based on hit dice, so a fighter gets to benefit from it far more than a wizard, as well as the removal of Tenser's Transformation)
* No caster should be a better lockpicker, trap finder or sneakster than a rogue (no to auto-unlock, at worst make it an Intelligence check with bonuses; no to auto-invisible, at worst make it superior concealment that allows the character to make a Dexterity check to become invisible and silent)
Again:
Fully mundane warriors at levels 1-8 I'm fine with, but at level 9-15 he should be gaining abilities that are slightly (not fully) superhuman, and by 16-20 he should be superhuman, with 21-30 as a separate module for being a godlike warrior like Thor.
Casters with few significant spells and a slew of cantrips at level 1-8 I'm alright with, but at level 9-15 he should be able to have more spells with greater variety in effects, and by 16-20 he should be a master of the Art, with 21-30 as a separate module for being a godlike caster like Loki.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 7:32AM
#513
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Attacking a single target in melee for consistent damage is not enough to make a class. If ANY PC class, Fighter or otherwise, was as limited as what you describe in your post, I would not buy the game.
And this is the problem I have with a lot of people in your camp. I am expected to put up with or ban the warlord class but you are unable to put up with or ban a class you dislike. If you had said "if the only martial class option I have is a X then I won't buy the game" then sure I can buy that. But saying you won't buy a game that offers something someone might want that you can ignore thats pretty close minded. Even though I hate the warlord class, I can tolerate it's existance in a book with lots of options. As DM I will ban it. What's the problem?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 9:11AM
#514
|
|
|
Attacking a single target in melee for consistent damage is not enough to make a class. If ANY PC class, Fighter or otherwise, was as limited as what you describe in your post, I would not buy the game.
And this is the problem I have with a lot of people in your camp. I am expected to put up with or ban the warlord class but you are unable to put up with or ban a class you dislike. If you had said "if the only martial class option I have is a X then I won't buy the game" then sure I can buy that. But saying you won't buy a game that offers something someone might want that you can ignore thats pretty close minded. Even though I hate the warlord class, I can tolerate it's existance in a book with lots of options. As DM I will ban it. What's the problem?
The problem is, the mere existence of a class with only one option is an admission that the game isn't even pretending to be balanced. A character with a single option is going to be terrible (excluding options that in actuallity allow many options. For example Shapechange is a single option, but in effect gives you thousands or more options by itself). People generally expect the options they are provided with to be close in effectiveness, and it can really turn people away when they feel like the game has lied to them in providing an equal option that isn't actually equal.
Now if you want to give a stupid simple class that does nothing but hit stuff hard in melee, you can do so, just label it appropriately. It's an NPC class. Taking this class is an explicit downgrade from taking a 'real' PC class. Now if the player chooses, he can go take the NPC class, but he knows ahead of time doing so is likely going to make him weaker than his companions, but the player can make that choice if he really wants simplicity. But if a DM decides "I don't like martial characters having nice things, if you want to play a mundane character, play the Warrior", then the players deserve the right to know that they are getting gimped out of actual abilities in doing so. A bad DM can do anything he wants, but players who don't know better might go along with it if things are not well labeled.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 9:25AM
#515
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
The problem is, the mere existence of a class with only one option is an admission that the game isn't even pretending to be balanced.
By your standards of balance though, they will be unable to avoid alienating a lot of other people. The whole balance argument is a lot of the edition war. I'm sure if they balance the game to your satisfaction, I won't want it. And a lot of people will feel the same way. And of course I don't concede in any way that your notion of balance is in fact really related to balance as I see it. Everyone says yes if asked if they want balance. But if asked if they want a 4e style balance a lot of those same people will say no.
I really don't think D&D players are stupid. They can look at a class and what it does and decide if they want that class. And if they try it and don't like it they can switch next time. This is not the end of the world. Designing a game without options for everyone... that is what is important.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 9:32AM
#516
|
|
|
The problem is, the mere existence of a class with only one option is an admission that the game isn't even pretending to be balanced.
By your standards of balance though, they will be unable to avoid alienating a lot of other people. The whole balance argument is a lot of the edition war. I'm sure if they balance the game to your satisfaction, I won't want it. And a lot of people will feel the same way. And of course I don't concede in any way that your notion of balance is in fact really related to balance as I see it. Everyone says yes if asked if they want balance. But if asked if they want a 4e style balance a lot of those same people will say no.
I really don't think D&D players are stupid. They can look at a class and what it does and decide if they want that class. And if they try it and don't like it they can switch next time. This is not the end of the world. Designing a game without options for everyone... that is what is important.
Luckily I have not said here or anywhere anything about wanting 4e style balance. I want classes that are all capable of doing a variety of things in different ways. Which is a pretty large step up from 4e's refusal to let anyone do anything too far from the norm because it breaks balance, and also from 3e's inability to provide martial characters with a meaningful way to maintain parity. What I want is the middle road, where people are capable of doing outrageous things; everyone may not be capable of doing the same outrageous things, but everyone can do something because when one guy has all the toys and the other guy has none, you're killing the game.
And frankly, a lot of D&D players really are stupid. The fact that to this day there are people arguing that the 3.5 Fighter is not objectively weaker and less versatile than other classes is proof of that.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 9:38AM
#517
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2012
|
And frankly, a lot of D&D players really are stupid. The fact that to this day there are people arguing that the 3.5 Fighter is not objectively weaker and less versatile than other classes is proof of that.
But they've got all those extra feats! How could they be less powerful or versitile with all those bonus feats? 
I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 9:39AM
#518
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Luckily I have not said here or anywhere anything about wanting 4e style balance. I want classes that are all capable of doing a variety of things in different ways. Which is a pretty large step up from 4e's refusal to let anyone do anything too far from the norm because it breaks balance, and also from 3e's inability to provide martial characters with a meaningful way to maintain parity. What I want is the middle road, where people are capable of doing outrageous things; everyone may not be capable of doing the same outrageous things, but everyone can do something because when one guy has all the toys and the other guy has none, you're killing the game.
These comments basically prove my earlier point. If they make your game alone I don't want it.
And frankly, a lot of D&D players really are stupid. The fact that to this day there are people arguing that the 3.5 Fighter is not objectively weaker and less versatile than other classes is proof of that.
So you just insulted all the Pathfinder players who play fighters (a lot of people by the way) and those still playing 3.5. WOTC is really lucky you don't represent them. And even though I have a genius IQ, I guess I'm just stupid too by your standards. Anybody can get a result they want by rigging the test. My only test has been player involvement and fun. Fighters have always passed that test with flying colors.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 9:43AM
#519
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
And frankly, a lot of D&D players really are stupid. The fact that to this day there are people arguing that the 3.5 Fighter is not objectively weaker and less versatile than other classes is proof of that.
But they've got all those extra feats! How could they be less powerful or versitile with all those bonus feats?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 9:48AM
#520
|
|
|
And frankly, a lot of D&D players really are stupid. The fact that to this day there are people arguing that the 3.5 Fighter is not objectively weaker and less versatile than other classes is proof of that.
So you just insulted all the Pathfinder players who play fighters (a lot of people by the way) and those still playing 3.5. WOTC is really lucky you don't represent them. And even though I have a genius IQ, I guess I'm just stupid too by your standards. Anybody can get a result they want by rigging the test. My only test has been player involvement and fun. Fighters have always passed that test with flying colors.
If I represented WotC I'd probably be forced to moderate my views. That's a part of working in a position where what you say can be used for PR one way or the other. In my case, I'm just some guy on the forums, so yes I can say things that are on the more extreme end.
Even so, it is not true I insulted every person who plays Fighters in 3.5 or Pathfinder. Many people will play those classes even while acknowledging they are weaker. For some, it's an optimization challenge. For others, they simply don't care. The number of people who genuinely think you can line up a Fighter and Wizard side by side and have two equivalent characters is relatively small, and I have no problem insulting this people no matter what their alleged IQ is.
|
|
|
