|
7 months ago ::
Oct 23, 2012 - 5:50PM
#81
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
All the crap in this thread about Fighters not being allowed to have more options is exactly why I am despairing I will see a new edition of D&D that even vaguely looks like something I want to play. Seriously the double standard against martially focused classes is as wide as the grand canyon, and most of these people won't even admit there is a double standard there.
I will openly admit there is a double standard between martial characters and magic characters. I am 100% Ok with that as magic characters by their nature are able to break the laws of physics by taking advantage of another supernatural set of rules. Martial characters are stuck inthe natural world. If it makes a double standard I can live with that. Double standards are bad in a social context involving equality in society, not in a table top role playing game. In games, the terrible double standard is not so terrible.
At least your honest about wanting martial characters to suck. The problem is, when you are providing such a blatant double standard so that noncaster characters aren't allowed to compete on the same level as their casting counterparts, then those non-casters shouldn't be available as PC options. Players have a reasonable expectation to be able to contribute roughly equally in play, if you're going to tell one group they can't contribute equally, they should not be options alongside the others.
If someone wanted to play a 'Fighter' they could play a real (caster) character, instead, but use the optional companion module to have a fighter bodyguard.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 23, 2012 - 7:25PM
#82
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
4E did offer the same amount of options to each class, but it also offered a diverse set of choices for each class since each one could attack different defenses, offer different utilities, etc. So from a 5E approach the amount of options will change, because you are comparing heavy at-will classes, versus ones based on daily resources. But the important aspect is offering similar choices.
Skills are determined with backgrounds, and you have the extra flexibility of specialites, but I want fighters being able to attack AC and also have abilities that require saves (like grab to immoblize, trip, etc. The marital classes may not have the same depth of choices as spell casters, but there is definitely room. Just like wizards have traditions to gain encounter or extra at-wills.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 23, 2012 - 9:35PM
#83
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2012
|
Every character has as much flexibility as the player has imagination. The only difference is that casters have their options written down in front of them. Earlier posts have already covered the ideas of a fighter throwing sand, cleaving through a crowd of enemies, or poisoning a well. The limitations of a character just force the player to be imaginitive in how they go about doing things.
The number of options isn't essential to game balance because the number of options is completely situational, abstract, and player dependent. What matters is that from most of what I've read, number to number, fighters and wizards seems to be fairly balanced in doing what the rules spell out for them, number for number taking into account accuracy and damage. The fighter's player having to think a little harder doesn't make it a worse character. Can a fighter cast dominate person? No, but he can certainly kidnap someone's loved ones or steal their most beloved treasure and blackmail them. Fireball? No. Chuck an oil lamp? Uh, yeah. The difference is that while the oil lamp might not be as powerful or as dependable, the fighter can chuck an oil lamp at them and then charge in swinging a huge sword getting pelted with arrows and taking no damage through his shiny plate armor.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 23, 2012 - 10:40PM
#84
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
Every character has as much flexibility as the player has imagination. The only difference is that casters have their options written down in front of them. Earlier posts have already covered the ideas of a fighter throwing sand, cleaving through a crowd of enemies, or poisoning a well. The limitations of a character just force the player to be imaginitive in how they go about doing things.
At best, this line of reasoning is invalid. At worse, it's consciously disengenuous. So a fighter, because he can't do anything within the rules is liberated to try 'creative' things, and the wizard, with rules that make him vastly more versatile than the fighter is somehow less able to 'get creative? Blatantly false. A fighter can do what anyone might do when he 'gets creative' he might be a little stronger than the wizard, but he's also probably a little dumber, too - he's got two hands and some muscle power. You can get creative with that and the environment. OTOH, the Wizard might be able to shrink objects down to 1/1728th their normal size (that's just feet to inches, the old Shrink Item) and restore them to normal size with a command word. Think you can't get rediculously 'creative' with that spell and an anvil, or a cast of oil (never mind a lantern)? No, the casters' spells are just a wildly more varied set of starting points for creativity, not a limitation on it.
I've run this game and many others, since the early 80s. I've seen a lot of 'creative solutions' 'outside the box' - the vast majority of them are players having their casters abuse spells. Coming in second would be players trying to abuse magic item functions. A distant third, exploiting terrain features (again, especially magical ones). Sure, there will be the guy who asks to do a 'called shot' and either the DM will have a house rule for it (or an obscure rule from somewhere) or he'll disallow it - because it's not 'creative' to try to hit someone in the head, if it can be done, everyone'll be doing it. Same goes for tossing lanterns of molotov cocktails or sand in the eyes - it's not improvisation, it's asking the DM to add a rule that anyone and everyone will use from then on (especially if it's too effective).
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 23, 2012 - 11:07PM
#85
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
Soooo people disagree why or what or whatever. Kay. The fundamental problem remains for fighters (and rogues too, really) of the stuff you do as a fighter is mundane, and mundane things are things that people assume Everyman can do in the context of an rpg. How does CS not provide us with a reasonable solution to the problem? Most I can tell, the OP asks for more CS powers and we can say with nearly 100% certainty that there will be. It also asks for a kind of unified structure that we can say with nearly 100% certainty won't happen. In view of those things, what are we trying to prove? People who want a unified structure for all classes: Not going to happen here. It's a moot point, the playtest's present structure will almost certainly stand, and it's pointless trying to persuade people who don't want it because it's entirely subjective and based on nothing but personal taste. Move on. People who want to expand CS so fighters can feel like they've got as many options as mages: Yup, that's gonna happen. No worries. People like CS, Mearls is satisfied with it. The playtest is a fraction of the core, which means CS will almost certainly be expanded to include more. There's no need to argue for it because it's going to happen.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 23, 2012 - 11:53PM
#86
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
The fundamental problem remains for fighters (and rogues too, really) of the stuff you do as a fighter is mundane, and mundane things are things that people assume Everyman can do in the context of an rpg.
The fundamental problem is that last assumption, because in the context of the fantasy genre it's false. An heroic warrior of myth, legend, literature, cinema - even action movies, TV, and pulp fiction - can do things Everyman /can't/.
How does CS not provide us with a reasonable solution to the problem? Most I can tell, the OP asks for more CS powers and we can say with nearly 100% certainty that there will be. It also asks for a kind of unified structure that we can say with nearly 100% certainty won't happen. In view of those things, what are we trying to prove?
CS is a fine mechanic, in a vacuum. The underlying mechanic - dice pools that players can distribute to different functions each round - is a potentially powerful one that could make a fine core mechanic. Other games have met with some success doing similar things. But, compared to Vancian casting, it's re-arranging deck chairs on a battleship in the age of air power.
People who want a unified structure for all classes: Not going to happen here. It's a moot point, the playtest's present structure will almost certainly stand, and it's pointless trying to persuade people who don't want it ... Move on.
5e is supposed to be this 'something for everyone edition.' Well, 'everyone' includes 4e fans and 4e had a common structure which delivered class balance to a degree undreamed of in D&D's history.
That's a lot to give up for a little nostalgia. And, it doesn't have to be given up. A core system could use a common structure, with all the crazy-broken sub-systems bolted-on at the whim of those DMs who don't care to run a balanced game, and/or the insistence of those player who can't stand to play in a balanced game.
But, you're right, that's not what we're getting. 5e has failed in it's 'inclusiveness' mandate, already.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 24, 2012 - 5:59AM
#87
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
The fundamental problem remains for fighters (and rogues too, really) of the stuff you do as a fighter is mundane, and mundane things are things that people assume Everyman can do in the context of an rpg.
The fundamental problem is that last assumption, because in the context of the fantasy genre it's false. An heroic warrior of myth, legend, literature, cinema - even action movies, TV, and pulp fiction - can do things Everyman /can't/.
Oh yes, totally understand that. It's a common perception that anyone walking into an rpg can do certain things that actually take a huge amount of training and skill to pull off, but perceptions of this kind don't have to actually be true or have any basis in anything and they often guide decsions intractibly toward an end that may or may not have anything to do with what's sensible. I wasn't trying to justify the easy figher; I was trying to explain why it happens. That's a lot to give up for a little nostalgia. And, it doesn't have to be given up. A core system could use a common structure, with all the crazy-broken sub-systems bolted-on at the whim of those DMs who don't care to run a balanced game, and/or the insistence of those player who can't stand to play in a balanced game.
But, you're right, that's not what we're getting. 5e has failed in it's 'inclusiveness' mandate, already.
Well one thing that is certain is the fact that "something for everyone" could mean that my "something" might not be the "something" I wanted. It's just a vague marketing promise that is purposefully vague so people automatically think of the things they want to keep and associate it with the project. The kinds of decisions needed to make a coherent game coudln't include everything from everywhere, so someone had to lose. That doesn't mean one group will be disappointed about all of it, and if they don't carry baggage with them they won't be disappointed with any of it. If you've got a chip on your shoulder, prepare to duck 'cause 5e will hit like a ton of bricks if you're not prepared to just take it as it is.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 24, 2012 - 7:14AM
#88
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2012
|
I don't think there's a way to do a unified system for all classes that make sense. There is no way CS will have as many options as a caster on a daily basis.
It doesn't matter.
Do you know what happens when the caster is out of spells? They are stuck to their at will and encounter spells. A fighter still had ALL his CS options EVERY round.
This is what they are designing. Not only unique classes, but they are shining at different things.
THIS is what D&D needs. This is what they are designing. It's working.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 24, 2012 - 7:31AM
#89
|
|
|
I don't think there's a way to do a unified system for all classes that make sense. There is no way CS will have as many options as a caster on a daily basis. It doesn't matter. Do you know what happens when the caster is out of spells? They are stuck to their at will and encounter spells. A fighter still had ALL his CS options EVERY round. This is what they are designing. Not only unique classes, but they are shining at different things. THIS is what D&D needs. This is what they are designing. It's working.
Yeah man, being able to knock that guy down all day every day is equivalent to being able to rewrite reality.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 24, 2012 - 7:41AM
#90
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
Yeah man, being able to knock that guy down all day every day is equivalent to being able to rewrite reality.
You didn't finish your sentence there. Being able to knock that guy down all day every day is equivalent to being able to rewrite reality once or twice daily. But you also didn't actually phrase it in terms that are equal. "Rewrite reality" is a really vague term but "knock that guy down" is really specific. Naturally, that's totally imbalanced. So really, being able to knock that guy down all day every day is equivalent to being able to push many people with your mind once or twice daily. That's much more balanced.
|
|
|
