|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 1:28PM
#711
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Just understand that 3e fighters in my 3e campaign felt very uber.
Which likely required numerous house-rules or the casters purposely holding back.
Problem is, unless you specifically built the campaign speciically so casters wouldn't snap it like a twig, then any caster>Fighter. This is fact.
Also, the fact campaigns have to be designed so they can't be snapped like a twig by casters should already speak volumes.
You really should read the whole post. *rolls eyes*. I answered each of these asserts. I didn't change the game. I may be guilty of following the rules and guidelines more than most of you but I didn't require any houserules. You can keep saying it but my campaign stands as proof that you are wrong.
All we have ever asked for is to be included in the game design.
And that other playstyles be completely removed.
LIAR!!!!! Now prove me wrong. If you can't then STOP MISREPRESENTING ME.
I at least have never said I'm against some new features that make other playstyle interests happy.
You made an entire topic threatening to ragequit DnDNext if they didn't completely overhaul the Combat Dice system for the Fighter.
I made a thread about how I could not accept the fighter as written for my games. That had nothing to do with other people's games. And you really need to learn what a ragequit is before you false attribute it to someone. I merely questioned if the devs were listening at the rather large group out there that hates plot couponish mechanics.
My theory is that they were forced to play due to being out voted in games they disliked.
Yes, the only possible reason is that they can't force everyone to play something else. That's obviously it. *rolls eyes*
I really can't understand the vitriol otherwise. What does anyone care if some group in another house plays different? I think reasonably, your own game is what's important. So why the desire to stamp certain playstyles out of existance. You don't have to use those styles or do you? Are there a bunch of Pathfinder sympathizers in your life that would insist on those types of mechanics if they were available? I find you and others like you to be the exclusionary types. They can't abide even the existance of my playstyle. And whats sad is my playstyle is here to stay. Whether it's being done in D&D or Pathfinder though is still up in the air.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 1:35PM
#712
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
I may be guilty of following the rules and guidelines more than most of you but I didn't require any houserules.
Ok, so it was the casters held back then.
You can keep saying it but my campaign stands as proof that you are wrong.
And years of CharOp proving the Wizard is flat-out superior to the Fighter stands as proof you are wrong.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 1:43PM
#713
|
- VCL Emeritus
- The Inquisitor
|
Howdy folks, Playstyle varies from table to table. Some playstyles don't have a problem with 3rd edition or prior balance issues between fighters and wizards because, for them, character optimization doesn't enter the equation. As an example, my group doesn't optimize. They take class levels, feats, spells, etc that fit the story with game effectiness a distant second (or third). However, that doesn't mean the balance issues didn't exist at more optimized tables. They did and, for more CharOp minded tables, it was a real problem. My point here is that everyone's experiences are different and, here's the kicker, don't invalidate each other. Please remember that as the discussion continues. One of the goals of D&D Next is to embrace multiple playstyles. Please don't try to exclude anyone's opinion or viewpoint based on either "feel" or "logic," CharOp math or anecdotal experience at your table. And, as always, remember that edition warring is against the Code of Conduct. Thanks.
Quentin Small
WotC Online Community Coordinator
All around helpful simian
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 1:46PM
#714
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
However, that doesn't mean the balance issues didn't exist at more optimized tables. They did and, for more CharOp minded tables, it was a real problem.
The problem is, it didn't even have to be CharOp focused tables. Both on here and many times with the people I play with, I've heard numerous stories of how Wizards and/or Druids completely snapped a campaign over their knee by complete accident. Playstyle has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 1:49PM
#715
|
- VCL Emeritus
- The Inquisitor
|
Again, talking about "I've heard numerous stories" is entirely anecdotal and used by both sides to "prove" their points.
Please remember that such discussion styles almost always end up turning into flame wars because you can't disprove or prove "I've heard or experienced this." Everyone's experiences are differerent.
Thanks.
Quentin Small
WotC Online Community Coordinator
All around helpful simian
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 1:53PM
#716
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
Again, talking about "I've heard numerous stories" is entirely anecdotal and used by both sides to "prove" their points.
Bingo.
That's the equivalent to "My sister's best friend's aunt's baby-daddy said he saw it, so it must be true".
In the long run they mean nothing. If all you can reference is anecdotal evidence, then why bother?
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 1:55PM
#717
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
The fact that a game CAN be ruined by a single class by accident by itself should speak volumes.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 2:07PM
#718
|
|
|
If all it takes is anecdotal evidence from one table to disprove cold hard math regarding class balance then perhaps my anecdotal evidence will come in handy here.
I was a fighter and I felt useless by level 4. By the time the sorcerer had scorching ray and rope trick I served no other purpose than "meatshield". Sadly, my role was usurped by the wizard's grease, web, and summon spells.
Did being useless prevent me from having fun? No it did not. I enjoyed my gaming group and our weekly games. Nobody is arguing that you cannot both be useless and have fun. We are arguing that at a certain level, non casters became caddies when compared to casters (even unoptimized ones).
Our group was far from optimized, but the ones who stole all the spotlight time were the casters. I played that fighter until level 13, and by that point I just could not cope with level appropriate challenges. Challenges the casters could dispatch with a single spell.
I do not want this to happen again, but it looks like this is the type of D&D we are heading too. Especially with a very vocal few posters who absolutely loathe giving fighters anywhere near parity to casters in terms of scope and versatility.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 2:10PM
#719
|
- VCL Emeritus
- The Inquisitor
|
Let's try a different tack...
Rather than arguing (and potentially edition warring) about how prior editions handled things, lets refocus the thread on the Fighter in D&D Next...without attacking others or their playstyle preferences.
Quentin Small
WotC Online Community Coordinator
All around helpful simian
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 12, 2012 - 2:16PM
#720
|
|
|
Let's try a different tack...
Rather than arguing (and potentially edition warring) about how prior editions handled things, lets refocus the thread on the Fighter in D&D Next...without attacking others or their playstyle preferences.
Pretty much all I seem to do is go from thread to thread saying this. People tend to argue over, and try and rehash older editions instead of sticking to 5e and what 5e is.
3e fighter has nothing to do with 5e fighter, same goes for every other class. Compare the 5e fighter to the 5e wizard if you are going to make comparisons. Else, go argue on ENworld or something 
My two copper.
|
|
|
