| Darkill |
For starters: Thanx for replying in such a serious manner, Flamewarrior.
I was expecting munchin-talk complaining...and you proved me wrong :)
Now, I believe that the effort to make all classes balanced and thus advancing with equal exp was kind of unsuccesfull, I can't say about this alpha release because we have just started and have played through 2 lvls (3-4). I think that you cannot compare a 20th lvl fighter with a 20th lvl wizard, because they fight in different ways and in high lvls almost everycombat lasts a few rnds because of too increased damages in both spells and fighting.
Also the wizard became a lot weaker, everyone of equal lvl can bypass his spells if made with his good S.T. and has a 50-50 chance with his bad S.T. I never said that warriors are useless suckers, I meant that they already are VERY good at combat (and i didn't expect them to be any worse in it) and thus there is no need for them to be any better! I don't think that they need to be able to complete any otherworldly tasks (like "driving" a dragon ect.). And I never said that fighters should not kill PEOPLE with the favor of the gods, they should not be able to kill GODS just because they are lvl 20+ because with the current exp system (3.5 I mean) and the ease of high lvl characters to get true resurrection there are not just a few chosen mortals that reach lvl 20 but many adventurers.
About those two different standarts you were talking about: I did not mean that fighters are only mortal and wizards aren't, but as wizards are bound by some standards so should fighters be. And the game is not totally about being fair as you mean it, it is about having fun, and a game can be fair even if players have different lvls or powers. It isn't fair that all the players don't get the same stats when they get to roll them because some are luckier than others, but advancement in lvls almost eliminates these bonuses. Difference in lvls (even 5 to 6 lvls) is also challenging, it is about protecting the weaker one and him also trying to prove himself, not to mention that the exp he would get would be much higher than the other players that he would reach them very fast (I started 1st lvl with 6-9lvl players and was 7th when they were 8-10). But the point is about fairness about the abilities and not scores and lvl. If a player has more abilities (like in a custom race of the dm) but still advances in the same rate as other races (no lvl adj) it could be a problem and it could not be a problem if this ability is not making the character able to kill or persuade or create ect. anything and anyone. (these special abilities could be talking to trees, breathing water, teleporting in a random direction 1mile once per day when in grave danger but controlled by the dm,telepathy with loved ones, being able to cast mage hand at will,augury once per day, confirmation of all threats after a companion has died... and I can keep going)
About D&D being realistic: no it's not. But it's nicer if a little reality is added to the game and ability scores being limited to racial+2 with lvl progression, this creates more balanced characters and a fighter can get wise and smart and charismatic after 8th lvl wich I think he would be after a lot of adventuring and not just stronger and stronger.
About mortals wrestling immortals: an organized and prepared party can do that, a fighter alone should not do that just because of his high lvl, it's not epic to say "that all you got" to the balor, it's epic if the balor almost kills him and the fighter barely manages to kill it at the last moment after a long fight. And it is definitely not epic to fall from the sky to the ground and then just stand up, if by accident he does fall then the epicly approriate movement of the dm would be (if he did not wish to kill him that way) to conjure up someone riding an eagle to come to his resque or a random flying ship passing by 60ft lower to catch him. Unless the fighter is stupid enough to test his HP by jumping...
When Hercules fought the Lernea Ydra (I don't know how it's written in english, I 'm greek, but you get the point, it's the monster with the 9 heads) he did it with his brains by burning the cut necks of the fallen heads and not with his strength, and in our mythology (and not hollywood's) Hercules possesed great strength but he was known for his cunningness. In no mythology except tolkien's (which doesn't count as mythology anyway) did a mortal beat a god in fight alone, even in Troia when a mortal (you won't find him in the movie and I don't remember his name) fought the god of war Mars (Aris in greek), Aris asked him which god he was, he said he was none and still challenged him, but he died in the end. Aris then said that had he himself not been a god he would have been beaten. If you read the description of the battle it's epic enough and the fighter should be at least 20th lvl to mess with a god, but he died. I don't know much about Norse mythology, I have only read the ring of Nibelungen (wich is German anyway) but mortals and demigods die there too when they mess with gods. Then comes the question, is an ancient dragon or a balrog the equivalent of a god? DM's choice I say, but by the description they sound godlike...
And there is no fact that the fighter is any weaker or any stronger in 3.5 than in 2nd and I cannot say about Pathfinder yet, because of our limited experience with it, by lvl 4th he seems stronger in our party compared to the rest of us than before the conversion.
You are totally right about the email... my bad :D ... worst case scenario I let the email "die" . When I commended to "email me if you have something important to say" I thought of the case that someone blahblablahs as much as I do and doesn't want to bore you with details.(It's my idiom, see, I got carried away again...said the fighter killing all the guests and dancers in the yard at that wedding in that castle in the quest of the holy grail)