Community

Feb 2, 2013 -- 9:18AM, arderkrag wrote:

Feb 2, 2013 -- 9:04AM, ShinQuickMan wrote:

Arderkrag, I am having a hard time discerning your sincerity. If you're being honest, then I really must say that for the good of the game, I hope your opinions are not even close to that of the majority's. There's no nicer way to put it.

I'm sure the feeling would be mutual.

I'm being perfectly sincere. There are mechanical traditions associated with the game that should be maintained. Every game having the same level of balance, the same balanced-guided philosophy, leads to a boring situation.

Every game doesn't need to avoid dead levels.
Every game doesn't need to avoid any disparity between classes and races.
Every game doesn't need simplification.

When I play D&D, I want certain things mechanically. I want linear fighters. I want Armor Class. I want saving throws, rolled hit points, rolled ability scores, and so forth. i want certain things from the flavor of it, too - nonsensical dungeons, dragons that exist primarily to be killed, monsters that are just gloriofied sets of numbers, random wilderness encounters, and so forth.

When I play WOD, or Alternity, or Faerytale, I want none of those things.

I'm tired of seeing every game go in the same direction and make essentially the same adaptations - more balance, fewer negative modifiers, less of this, less of that, but  - a ton more options, so many we have to publish 10 books to cover them all. That's fine for some games, but every game should not employ those changes. I want each game to pick mechanical and flavorful ideas unique to it and stick to them.

Would I love to have a game where all the characters are built on the same chassis without the bloat? Sure, that's why I'm building one to serve that purpose. I enjoy games like that. I just don't enjoy D&D like that.

I'm with you on 1/2 of that. I like AC, saving throws, nonsensical dungeons. D&D to me IS nothing but a dungeon crawl. Or a swamp crawl for when you need to get out of the dungeon. 

Feb 2, 2013 -- 10:09AM, arderkrag wrote:

Feb 2, 2013 -- 9:56AM, malcapricornis wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />You need to educate yourself on the history of D&D. The classes in AD&D were not strictly balanced, yet there was an attempt at balancing magic with restrictions and penalties such as aging for casting a spell, pitiful hps, material components, long cast times, fireball destroying all the non-metal, non-mineral treasures etc. 4th also had a semblance of balance between classes. The historical evidence is that, yes indeed, an attempt at balance IS part of D&D. Just like tactical, mini combat is part of D&D. So before you talk about tradition, learn it.

It also took casters longer to level. They had less henchcreatures (if you are lurking Crimson). Smaller strongholds. Monsters with high magic resistance. Spells had to be found and learned and there was a chance a found spell may never be learned (based on intelligence) etc. etc.

I already know all of that, and i know plenty about the history of the game. Educate yourself.

I am not the one posting falsehoods about how the game was/is to justify poor design that existed for the middle part of the game's history with regard to relative power. So your advocation about casters being of much greater power without advocating for their historic weaknesses is disingenuous.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 10:09AM, arderkrag wrote:

Feb 2, 2013 -- 9:56AM, malcapricornis wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />You need to educate yourself on the history of D&D. The classes in AD&D were not strictly balanced, yet there was an attempt at balancing magic with restrictions and penalties such as aging for casting a spell, pitiful hps, material components, long cast times, fireball destroying all the non-metal, non-mineral treasures etc. 4th also had a semblance of balance between classes. The historical evidence is that, yes indeed, an attempt at balance IS part of D&D. Just like tactical, mini combat is part of D&D. So before you talk about tradition, learn it.

It also took casters longer to level. They had less henchcreatures (if you are lurking Crimson). Smaller strongholds. Monsters with high magic resistance. Spells had to be found and learned and there was a chance a found spell may never be learned (based on intelligence) etc. etc.

I already know all of that, and i know plenty about the history of the game. Educate yourself.

Condesdending and patronizing.  Again.

Feb 2, 2013 -- 10:27AM, arderkrag wrote:

Feb 2, 2013 -- 10:25AM, EnglishLanguage wrote:

Feb 2, 2013 -- 7:32AM, arderkrag wrote:

And one of those traditions is linear melees/quadratic casters. It needs to remain

You were saying arder?

Linear fighters/quadratic wizards is not a difference in power scale. This a myth. A lie that's been told often enough that most of you have bought it hook, line, and sinker.

....What?

It's exactly a difference in power scale, specifically the rate at which power scales as each of the two classes level.  It's not a myth, it's a mathematical fact.

At this point I've lost patience with your disruption of my thread.  This thread is about the conceptual failing of the Fighter class as it currently stands and how to fix it.  If you want to go put your head in the sand and pretend it's not a problem that's fine, but you can do it somewhere else.