The question was asked and I will give my opinion...
The big change in the name of "balance" for me was the change in how characters received xps and went up levels.
1e the "power" classes, MUs, the Elf and in AD&D MUs and multiclassed PCs creeped up the levels where as thieves and clerics leveled up quicker.
I assume the rules were written that way to balance the classes in that a (numbers of the top of my head) a 4th level thief would have the same number of xps as a 3rd level MU or 2nd level elf.
|
second edition
fighter classes ibelieve it was about 2000 xps, magic users either 3 or 4... the one many love taking ebcuase it skyrocketed was the rogue 1250, see how not many people complain about the rogue? not in balance, not in spotlight...? right from my mind I don't remember how mcuh did the cleric needed... but i think it was between 1500 & 3000
Presumably you are not counting people who play Chess, Go, Bridge, Poker, or similar games as part of the gaming community. Those games are not balanced between players of different skill levels. Nor are you counting people who play single player video games for which balance is not meaningful.It may be that a game system which is inherently unbalanced appeals to some. For whatever reason - being rewarded for system mastery, enjoying a greater challenge, nostalgia, etc. - there is appeal for some in a system with clearly defined "better" and "worse" choices.
But experience has shown us that does not hold true for a significant portion (probably a majority) of the gaming community.
It's a game.
Of course different skill levels will affect gameplay.
That's part of it being a game.
And no, I'm not counting single player games, because as you said, balance isn't really a consideration there.
Nowadays people no longer want rules that allow them to narrate fantasy tales, they want "fair and balanced", they want all classes to be equal all the time, and they want swords and spells to be direct, 1-1 equivalents, they want things as simple as possible...
In effect, they don't want to play D&D, is what it comes down to. They wanted the (extremely popular and market-leading) game to change to accommodate their playstyle and in 4E they finally succeeded, and are now bemused when vast numbers of fans of the (extremely popular and market-leading) game are cheesed off that the game has gone in this direction.
Essentially it's a total diametric opposition of ideas. People who feel that the game should be 'balanced' and those who feel it shouldn't be if that contravenes setting logic (of COURSE powerful wizards are more powerful than experienced fighters, duh!) essentially can't really come together on the issue and find common ground as there isn't any (aside from going back to the old EXP tables, maybe). Their only option is to sod off together and play something else where the issue doesn't come up (probably a skill-based system).
This is where the STAR WARS analogy comes up again, and you can substiute wizards or clerics for Jedi:
"A 15th level Jedi should be in no way, shape or form more capable or powerful than a 15th level smuggler."
"But...they're Jedi. I've got 70 books, 6 movies and dozens of TV episodes that say that Jedi are fricking unbalanced and more powerful than smugglers. Lack of balance is inherent to the Force."
"Then I must bring BALANCE TO THE FORCE."
"NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"
Essentially it's a total diametric opposition of ideas. People who feel that the game should be 'balanced' and those who feel it shouldn't be if that contravenes setting logic (of COURSE powerful wizards are more powerful than experienced fighters, duh!) essentially can't really come together on the issue and find common ground as there isn't any (aside from going back to the old EXP tables, maybe).
That's only true if your idea of "setting logic" dictates all-powerful casters. Those of us who grew up with R.E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, deCamp and Pratt, and the others from Gygax's famous appendix look for a "setting logic" in which powerful magic is risky, and in which a brave enough warrior can run up and run you through while you're trying to get that death spell under control. For people like that, "setting logic" actually DICTATES a more balanced game, rather than refuting it.
That's only true if your idea of "setting logic" dictates all-powerful casters. Those of us who grew up with R.E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, deCamp and Pratt, and the others from Gygax's famous appendix look for a "setting logic" in which powerful magic is risky, and in which a brave enough warrior can run up and run you through while you're trying to get that death spell under control. For people like that, "setting logic" actually DICTATES a more balanced game, rather than refuting it.
In this case, the balance you'd seek for the encounter, and modeled in a variety of different ways and to differing levels of success in 1e, 2e, and 3e, relies on very different mechanical action issues. Fighters in 1e and 2e can put magic users in check by using faster tools and doing damage early. In 3e, they do so to wizards by holding an action and hoping to do enough damage (could be massive) to overwhelm the concentration check or by grappling. And that gets to the heart of the D&D flavor vs balance debate for me.
I prefer, as part of D&D's flavor, to have a game that achieves balance between character types without fitting them into exactly the same structure and with similar damage schedules. I prefer balance via different sorts of actions taken that are capable of putting each other in check. I think that fits with historic D&D flavor more than build structure balance.
In this case, the balance you'd seek for the encounter, and modeled in a variety of different ways and to differing levels of success in 1e, 2e, and 3e, relies on very different mechanical action issues.
Right. They all maybe fell short of success (3.5 fell FAR short), but at least there were nods in that direction, using a variety of strategems. Constrast that to the sentiment on this thread, which seems to be "ANY kind of balance is a way to make me not be omnipotent anymore and that's no fun for me because my 'flavor' demands that I'm better than everyone else."
Magic is supposed to be very powerful. That goes without saying. From Gandalf to Voldemort, magic being somthing to be feared is a fundamental part of western fantasy, which D&D is a veritable hodgepodge of.
Heroic warriors are also supposed to be very powerful. Cuchulain, Achilles, Hercules, Beowulf, and I do believe St. George used a spear to slay the dragon, rather than casting Magic Missile.
Gandalf going toe-to-toe with the balrog is part of the traditions of western fantasy. So is Isildur standing against Sauron and lopping off his finger. So is Eowyn slaying the king of the Nazgul. So is the mighty wizard Sarumon getting gunned down by a mob of halflings.
It's just not that magic specifically is supposed to be powerful, but that the heroes are supposed to possess heroic power, and that power is supposed to grow as the game goes along.
If I were running a freeform game, no rules, just pure make believe in a fantasy setting with an adventure for very powerful characters, and players were coming to me with their characters, let's think of some of the possibilities.
"I am Sir Geoffry the Dragonslayer. My armor and shield are forged from the scales of the ancient dragon Shooting Star and can endure any heat. My mighty lance can pierce even a dragon's hide." Appropriate. Suitably epic. Approved.
"I am Sienna, the Phantom Fox, thief of legend. I've stolen the crown jewels of three separate kingdoms, and after my next mark, the bounty on my head will finally top a million gold." Appropriate. Suitably epic. Approved.
"I am Yorrick of the Eternal Flame, dreaded Sage of Battle. Nations tremble at the sound of my name. My flames have consumed entire battalions." Appropriate. Suitably epic. Approved.
"I am Archsage Sartu, wielder of the great arcane mysteries. I can control minds, raise undead hordes, create illusions, turn into any creature, turn my enemies into pigs, alter time, teleport across nations, create wards that can fend off archdemons, summon choirs of angels, and consume entire battalions in flames." No. Even in the tone of such incredibly epic characters, this isn't reasonable.
And here, we get into the problem. The scale of any one of this archsage's powers may not be beyond the other three characters I mention, but their vast and diverse nature grants Sartu the unreasonable power to do anything he wants. Yorrick is a case of magic being terrifying yet reasonable; he has immense power over fire, sufficient to evoke the fear of entire countries, but he's not capable of doing everything. Meanwhile, Sartu has all these myriad powers, each as epic as the last, including fire powers on par with Yorrick. The D&D Wizard up through 3.5 is closer to Sartu than Yorrick.
The omnidisciplinary mage of D&D is an inherently unreasonable concept. The level 20 Wizard who, by rights of being a Wizard, is of level 20 caliber at everything from necromancy to scrying to wards to 'splodey, all at vast, cosmic levels. In comparison, take 3.5's Dread Necromancer. That class is legitimately very good at necromancy, has tremendously powerful necromantic abilities available, and at higher levels, can threaten entire countries with zombie hordes, but doesn't get high-end scrying or summons or illusions just by right of existing. The class has a vast, powerful ability, that they do very well, rather than having every vast, powerful ability and doing them all very well.
Meanwhile, it is the knight who traditionally slays the dragon. The mighty warrior is an important archetype in western fantasy as well. A level 20 warrior isn't merely Bob the Militiaman anymore. When we're talking a level 20 warrior, we're talking Gatts (yes, yes, Berserk is a manga, but that manga is still a very western envisioning of fantasy and Gatts is a spectacular example of what a high-level warrior should be).
Swordplay is supposed to be powerful, otherwise what's the point of spending years learning how to use it?
Also, it's important to remember that books and games are two completely different media. In a story where all the major players are mages or Jedi, then it's fine for the wizards to reign supreme, or if it's about the lone muggle overcoming the Almighty Dark Mage of Doomydeath (tm), that's fine because the author's on board and when the underdog needs the equivalent of three consecutive natural twenties to prevail, the author can do that. And if there's a band where the wizard's more powerful than everyone else, that's just fine because there aren't people behind the warrior and the thief who could feel completely useless and overshadowed.
In a game, however, there's the problem of people playing the game. Odds are, the guy playing the Fighter is playing a Fighter because he wants to actually be good at fighting. He wants a warrior who can go toe-to-toe with dragons at higher levels. He wants Gatts, not Bob the Militiaman. He's probably not playing the Fighter because he wants to fall into worthless obscurity while the Wizard ascends to godhood.
Yes, magic and mages are supposed to be powerful. So are mighty warriors, and cunning thieves, and sly hunters, and the mages aren't supposed to be gods. Everyone in the party is supposed to be a mighty hero, capable of doing spectacular and world-changing things, each in their own unique way.
And if your character concept requires you to be a high master of every school of magic simultaneously, or your priest needs instant access to hundreds upon hundreds of spells to function, then your character concept is simply unreasonable.
|
|
But there's really only two major games that have 'em both, and that are ostensibly intended to be equally fun: 4e and Pathfinder.
You forgot Shadowrun. It actually emulates a "1e" feel better than any of WotC's D&D clones do.
Deadly. Check. Frail Wizards who can move the Earth if given a chance by his bodyguards? Check. Martial types who kick ass? Check.
Heck, it even has elves, dwarves, orcs, dragons...
:)
They wanted the (extremely popular and market-leading) game to change to accommodate their playstyle and in 4E they finally succeeded, and are now bemused when vast numbers of fans of the (extremely popular and market-leading) game are cheesed off that the game has gone in this direction.
Heh, indeed 4E is proof that there's just no way to please people. They wanted balance? Well 4E delivers ZEN balance, NIRVANA even, so what's not to like? No, even if the game is everything they ever wanted, they still reject it just because it was conceived by the "odious, evil empire", if they only gave it a try they'd find in 4E all they've been wanting to turn 3.5 into all this time... but no, they prefer to keep deluding themselves. Let them.
This is where the STAR WARS analogy comes up again, and you can substiute wizards or clerics for Jedi:
There are two ways around this problem: Either make non-jedi as cool and fun to play as jedi, or beat jedi down with the biggest nerf bat you can find until no one can tell the difference between mundane skills and force powers. Star Wars Saga did a bit of both actually, and I find it a lot more appealing than old SWd20... then again I won't deny I'm a declared -jedi hater- (roleplay-wise at least) so my opinion is as biased regarding Star Wars as a magic hater's is regarding fantasy roleplay, so I'm not in a condition to pass an objective judgement regarding SW.
You forgot Shadowrun. It actually emulates a "1e" feel better than any of WotC's D&D clones do.
Well, I did specify "major" games (otherwise I'd've given a nod out to Hero System, too). But, on second thought, the various editions of Shadowrun probably top Pathfinder in terms of # of players, so I take it back. You are correct, sir!
This is where the STAR WARS analogy comes up again, and you can substiute wizards or clerics for Jedi:
"A 15th level Jedi should be in no way, shape or form more capable or powerful than a 15th level smuggler."
"But...they're Jedi. I've got 70 books, 6 movies and dozens of TV episodes that say that Jedi are fricking unbalanced and more powerful than smugglers. Lack of balance is inherent to the Force."
"Then I must bring BALANCE TO THE FORCE."
"NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"
That is way too funny for this thread. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're going to make a system where one group/class/whatever is supposed to be totally awesome, and everyone else isn't allowed to be totally awesome, and can only serve as a tertiary support capacity to the awesome group, a la older Star Wars systems and Jedi, then there are precisely two ways to make that fair.
Either everybody is a wizard/Jedi/Orlandu/whatever, or no one is. Or at least have either be an option. If only Jedi are allowed to be awesome, then either have everyone play a Jedi/Sith/rogues and let the NPCs be the mooks and chauffeurs. Or have everyone be a muggle, struggling against one or two mighty Jedi.
However, forcing a system where one, and only one, person is allowed to be awesome, but you need people in the non-awesome roles? If you need that Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard? That's just not fair. "Sorry, Jill, you can't be an almighty cosmic overlord because Jack's already the almighty cosmic overlord and we really need a teamster. But look on the bright side! You get a pair of mules. The almighty cosmic overlord doesn't get any mules." Yeah.
For the vast majority of people, swiftly fading into obscurity as one player amasses ten times as much power as you for the same amount of effort into your swording or thiefing or whatever.
Ars Magica has already been mentioned, but I'm bringing it up again because it's such a spectacular example. You want Magic to be the supreme cosmic force in the universe? Fantastic. The main characters are all mages, and you get a horde of mooks to handle the gruntwork. Need a chef? A bodyguard? A thief? That's a job for your grogs. Need to turn the entire population of a city into pigs permanently? Well, congratulations, your mage can do that at the very start of the game if you have enough skill and the right spell.
Something else it gets right is that, if magic is supposed to be this supreme, almighty force, the greatest power humans could possibly get their hands on, then it ought to be hard. It takes seasons if not years to develop even the most basic spell, but once you develop it, the spell is liable to have vast cosmic power. The cap on the amount of power you can obtain is not generally some arbitrary level cap, but death by old age. Assuming you don't suffer some terrible magic catastrophe first.
In comparison, a 3.5 Wizard who goes off adventuring and has her four combat encounters per level, and shuffles through her notes every night will be an epic-level Wizard complete with epic spellcasting within three months without setting foot inside a library. All it takes to learn how to transform into every creature in the cosmos is 280 gold, a Sunday afternoon, a cup of tea, and some easy skill checks. And casting that Polymorph spell carries no risks at all.
Magic is not hard in D&D. No harder than thiefing or swording. It's just another tool by their side.
Magic is not hard in D&D. No harder than thiefing or swording. It's just another tool by their side.
Which is as it should be.
Your logic is still very vaid though. If magic is not harder or more dangerous to use then a sword, then it really should not be significantly "better" then a sword.
|
That should read "" ;)
I'll just chime in on the original discussion. I feel a part of the pull of game balance is because of a lack of emphasis on roleplay rewards in the system. Used to be that non-stat/non-combat rewards were just as much a goal of gaining levels as anything, in fact usually they were the only rewards aside from THAC0, saves, and hit points. Fighters got entire armies (but had to work for them too), assassins took over guilds (but had to work for that too), etc.
How many pure roleplay rewards do we see in the game? On a basic level, familiars are a roleplaying reward, and the Leadership feat. There're a few others, but not every class and not uniform. 3rd Edition made the assumption that roleplaying rewards would happen in game (which is not a bad idea) because not all assassins want to head a guild (kill all 13th level assassins immediately!) etc, etc.
The sad fact is, even in the Pathfinder APs, the rapid progression from 1st-20th level gives the players very little time to "learn" their character and to do rewarding activities besides adventuring. People who want to earn roleplaying rewards wand to work for them, and use them in meaningful ways. Too often 3rd Edition forced players on to the next dungeon with little to no advice on how to build that down time into something useful and memorable.
And for the record, while I love fighters, at the end of the day the wizard or the cleric should be the one lording their power over everyone else. But I do miss the fact that as they lorded, they would have to look over their shoulder to make sure that 6ft. piece of steel wasn't cleaving down on their skull.
A final point, the overabundance of multi-HD creatures seriously hinders the warrior. The wizard still kept his auto-win spells (though Pathfinder may swing this element away from the spellcaster) but the fighter can't keep up with the hit points. 4th Edition is the worst example of this bloat, where even wizards have to chip away.
Here's my sense of how things should balance:
Warriors - I kill anything but the most powerful monsters in one or two hits, because if one gets hit by a sharp metal object one usually dies or dies soon. Other warrios have the training to make such blows less lethal (the hit points = effort rule).
Spellcasters - I can mildly influence people in my early training, occasionally crippling a deadly opponent. At higher levels existence itself is at my beck and call. But see above. I still die with the whack of one sword. Better hope the fighter doesn't send in his goons first to wear me down.
Others - Wow, I sure wish I could use awesome weapons but my training/ethos won't allow it, therefore I must rely on my special training to grant me the ability to win.
LOL this is so true
He who looks exclusively to rules for flavor will routinely find disappointment.
Just play the games, any one of them, and stop worrying about the rules so much.
LOL this is so true
No, it's not.
"Elmunster eyes his goblin opponent and raises his hands before him. With an arcane word, bolts of pure force spring from his fingertips in a constant barrage. The goblin shrieks as its body is pounded by eldritch energy time and time again. It struggles to fight on, but eventually succumbs to the magical assault, its broken body collapsed in a heap before Elmunster.
Meanwhile, Wulfgar deals with his own threat. As the surprisingly burly goblin nears for another attack, Wulfgar takes a wide swing. The goblin brings up his blade to take the lion's share of the blow, but is sent stumbling to the side anyway - right where Wulfgar wants him.
Elmunster catches the predator's gleam in Wulfgar's eyes. He's seen it many times before, and it serves as the inevitable herald of a monstrous foe's demise. Heartened by this sign of impending victory, Elmunster redoubles his efforts, readying another spell from his repertoire."
Yes, you can make a narrative account of a game sound like an account of a game if you want. Or you can make it sound like any other fantasy story.
Essentially, if you want to make it sound like a terrible, narrative-breaking experience, you're certainly able to.
Is that an honest way of portraying something in order to make it look bad? No.
Is it disingenuous to portray it that way and pretend that any other edition is better? Yes.
Someone may have trod near this point above, but consider these thoughts:
Perfect balance means nothing interesting is happening. Everything is so evenly distributed and countered such that action by one side is immediately countered by action on the other, producing no net effect beyond rearranging the furniture.
Drama comes from situations that are decidedly out of balance, usually in reaction to a force that is overwhelming, requiring great effort to develop a suitable response. The drama is in the development of the response required to counter the imbalance and the ultimate settling of things back into equilibrium.
The imbalance is usually provided by the opponent, the bad guy or beast. The counter is the acquisition of unusual power or extension of great effort by the heroes. A balanced approach seldom is sufficient to overcome the opponent who is upsetting thing. If the characters are balanced, they must possess an item or key power that imparts the balancing force. In the case of the first sorcerer introduced into the Forgotten Realms saga, the incredible energy that could be channeled by the character was the key power.
So, if a balanced party has nothing to rely upon but their perfectly proportioned abilities, and they face a well-matched opponent, the outcome is a coin-toss, and about as dramatic. However, if the party is unbalanced, or possesses an item or power that can be wielded only by one of the party, and the opponent is significantly stronger, things get a little more interesting. How much does the wielder depend on the others to set the stage for the final conflict? Does the wielder suffer any balancing repercussions from the act of wielding the item or power? Is the opponent capable of nuking the party unless they use the key item or power in the right manner, at the right time? If the unbalanced party fails, is the fate of their village, country or world at stake?
Remember, the drama of the Death Star was not that it could wipe out a fleet of ships, but that it could easily destroy a planet - considerably out of balance with anything else to the point that it took many heroes to make sure the one with the key power was delivered to the final conflict that resulted in the destruction of the Death Star. Without the impetus of extreme imbalance of power on both sides, Star Wars would have been no more exciting than a game of checkers.
Balance, in the long term, is nothing worth writing home about. Imbalance leads to heroic struggle and (hopefully) triumph.
He who looks exclusively to rules for flavor will routinely find disappointment.
Unless you play the right games, that is (or the right games for you at least).
There are multiple definitions of balance at work here. Michael, the one you seem to be working off of is one of everyone being identical.
Now, picture a party in a modern setting consisting of a USMC sniper, a chopper pilot, a demolitions expert, and a field surgeon. Who's the most powerful? Overall, the ultimate answer is none of them. There are situations that call for a sniper, a chopper pilot, a demolitions expert, and a field surgeon. They all have their own separate, legitimately useful abilities. In terms of overarching power, it is a more or less balanced team. It doesn't necessarily have all its bases covered, and different situations will favor one member over the other, but overall, it's fairly well-balanced and a decent GM can easily play to any one of their strengths.
The problem with the D&D Wizard (or Archivist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, or Erudite) is that it doesn't bring a legitimately useful ability to the table, it brings every legitimately useful ability to the table, and have abilities that can outright replace entire party members just as a side-note, rendering abilities that ought to be legitimately useful... ultimately downright worthless.
Meanwhile, conventional Fighters falls so far behind the enemies they're supposed to face at higher levels that they don't bring their own legitimately useful abilities to the table.
The definition of balance as, "Every member has the exact same amount of power in all cases," is just absurd and impossible, and no one's going to argue for that. The definition of balance as, "Every party member contributes something legitimately useful to the team with no one member being useless or universally overpowering," is considerably more important. As for imbalance between the party and their enemies? That's not even a point of discussion, and has little bearing on the topic at all. If the enemy isn't more powerful than you are, it's not much of a game. But everyone's supposed to have tools that legitimately help take down the enemy.
He who looks exclusively to rules for flavor will routinely find disappointment.
Just play the games, any one of them, and stop worrying about the rules so much.
The rules don't bring flavor. I do. Give me the same Bard and five minutes and I can bring you a wizard, a priest, a professor, ye olde minstrel, and an archeologist with almost the exact same ability set.
I can roleplay without rules. In fact, freeform's how I got my start. However the rules are there as fair arbitration tools for the game and the narrative. If the rules are garbage, they only serve to detract from the narrative and should therefore be either fixed or discarded, either in favor of a different set of rules or freeform.
The rules matter. If they didn't, there would be no reason to use them as roleplay does not require rules. Because the rules are unnecessary, they should be looked at with great scrutiny to determine what they actually contribute to the game, and more importantly, if they contribute at all.
Yes, you can make a narrative account of a game sound like an account of a game if you want. Or you can make it sound like any other fantasy story. Essentially, if you want to make it sound like a terrible, narrative-breaking experience, you're certainly able to. Is that an honest way of portraying something in order to make it look bad? No. Is it disingenuous to portray it that way and pretend that any other edition is better? Yes.
Yes, you can see the humor in a joke and chuckle at it if you want. Or you can make it sound like it's an attack on your favorite game. Essentially, if you want to be terribly offended, you're certainly able to. Is that honestly the way it was intended? No. Is that the way a person with no sense of humor might have disinginuously taken it? Yes.
Yes, you can see the humor in a joke and chuckle at it if you want. Or you can make it sound like it's an attack on your favorite game. Essentially, if you want to be terribly offended, you're certainly able to. Is that honestly the way it was intended? No. Is that the way a person with no sense of humor might have disinginuously taken it? Yes.
Of course, you could take it as an insult to your game (and play style) and then have watch your comments about it get summarily dismissed because others thought it was funny or that it was clear that it was intended in jest, not laughing at you, and that your take on it is clearly wrong. I've never seen any thing like that before, but it could happen.
Of course, you could take it as an insult to your game (and play style) and then have watch your comments about it get summarily dismissed because others thought it was funny or that it was clear that it was intended in jest, not laughing at you, and that your take on it is clearly wrong. I've never seen any thing like that before, but it could happen.
Although I failed to address them (which is my fault), I'm not dismissing Scott's other comments at all, actually. I have no issue with 4e (and don't particularly like Pathfinder), and yes, I can easily see how his example fits the narritive equally well.
|
|
Viletta: I agree whole-heartedly with the bulk of your post. In fact, you've given me an idea for spellcasters to adjust caster level based on their skill in various schools (I already have a core class of my own that is similar to this idea). Thanks.
For example, Tim the Wizard chooses to be an Enchanter. He retains his normal caster level and progression for transmutation spells, can cast 2 other schools at 3rd level, 2 more at 5th level, 2 more at 7th level and 1 he may never cast.
By contrast, Wizzo the Wizard chooses to be a Universalist. He gains two schools at 1st level, 2 at 3rd, 2 at 5th, and the final 2 at 7th level.
You only prepare spells for your schools as if you had started a new spell progression for each, so at 3rd level Tim can prepare Enchantment schools for 1st and 2nd level and 2 other schools for 1st level.
This system would work for sorcerers (probably unnecessary for 3.5 but it works) if you treat them as Universalists.
So is the mighty wizard Sarumon getting gunned down by a mob of halflings.
Just needed to point out that Saruman was killed by Grima, who was then killed by the hobbits. But still applies, since Grima is basically a rogue.
|
You forgot Shadowrun. It actually emulates a "1e" feel better than any of WotC's D&D clones do.
Deadly. Check. Frail Wizards who can move the Earth if given a chance by his bodyguards? Check. Martial types who kick ass? Check.
Heck, it even has elves, dwarves, orcs, dragons...
:)
Does that mean that we should be playing Earthdawn then? I think I'd be up for that honestly.
|
|
You forgot Shadowrun. It actually emulates a "1e" feel better than any of WotC's D&D clones do.
Deadly. Check. Frail Wizards who can move the Earth if given a chance by his bodyguards? Check. Martial types who kick ass? Check.
Heck, it even has elves, dwarves, orcs, dragons...
:)
Does that mean that we should be playing Earthdawn then? I think I'd be up for that honestly.
Earthdawn works for me, as does several other settings/systems etc.
My point was mostly that "balance" is a game-y concept, not anything that exists in the inspirational lit, cinema, television, etc.
I think the game experience should be balanced (i.e. everyone has fun), but I'm not particularly enamored with systems where the components are "balanced".
I talk up 1e constantly, but I see that game as not one of balance in the system, but balance in the experience. Magic users kick serious butt, but they do so at the expense of having to a) survive long enough to do so, and b) having to either have or create ideal situations in which to do so. A game system where a kobold with a noise maker can conceivably screw up Mordenkainen's most powerful spell appeals to me, a system (in this case 3x) that makes it nearly impossible for anyone to disrupt a spell except under ideal circumstances doesn't. Fighters weren't as powerful as magic users at high levels, but the game wasn't really meant to be played at high levels. Gygax understood (as illustrated by the linear and bell chart in the beginning of the DMG) that the d20 didn't work well in his system past 12th level or so, so he wrote the end game much lower than 3x does, and he made progression to that point a creep rather than a sprint.
Neither 1e nor 3x are particularly balanced, mechanically, but imo, 1e (and, to nearly the same degree, 2e) had a much more "balanced" game experience for the participants. Everyone can have fun and contribute to the expected end of the character's career. Ever notice that none of the modules published in the "golden age" went past level 14? AD&D understood that past that point magic reigned supreme, so it never really explored those levels, Bloodstone Pass stuff excepted...
4e is an interesting case here. The game addresses the problem of the d20 by scaling down everything so the roll isn't just made to see if a "1" pops up (a flaw in high level 3x, imo), but it does so at the expense of some of the flexibility of concepts 3x allowed. The game is easier to DM, apparently, and characters are a bit more homogenous, so, in a respect, it tips its hat to BECMI (and, in fact, to me, the Heroic/Paragon/Epic progression reminds me of Mentzer's version of the game) which isn't a bad thing, but, in being as "balanced" as it is, I think it does make a clean break with the AD&D progression of the game. Whether this is good or bad probably depends on your opinion of AD&D, and is, frankly, irrelevant, but any objective look at 4e should accept this departure.
But, ultimately, 4e is going to create its own flavor, and it does appeal to people who desire system balance (which, it seems, based on my own anecdotal evidence, are quite a few in the younger gaming population, and not a few older gamers).
"Ruined" is too negative a work to use in the OP's query. It hasn't "ruined" anything, it just changed it. My 1e books aren't going to self destruct, none of their flavor has been ruined, 3x and 4e cannot change the flavor D&D has for me.
Anyway, "flavor" is something the DM and players add to the game, not the rules. I play in Kirth's houseruled Pathfinder(esque) game, but in my head, it's pure old school, it holds the same "flavor" my experiences in the '80s had. I'm sure if we were playing 4e, and Kirth were DMing, that same "flavor" would be there, regardless of what the wizard's at wills were or the fighter's dailies.
Yes, you can make a narrative account of a game sound like an account of a game if you want. Or you can make it sound like any other fantasy story. Essentially, if you want to make it sound like a terrible, narrative-breaking experience, you're certainly able to. Is that an honest way of portraying something in order to make it look bad? No. Is it disingenuous to portray it that way and pretend that any other edition is better? Yes.Yes, you can see the humor in a joke and chuckle at it if you want. Or you can make it sound like it's an attack on your favorite game. Essentially, if you want to be terribly offended, you're certainly able to. Is that honestly the way it was intended? No. Is that the way a person with no sense of humor might have disinginuously taken it? Yes.
I wasn't taking issue with your illustration, Kirth. I realized that was meant in jest.
I was taking issue with Ernest Mueller's vocal agreement which I'm pretty sure was not in jest.
For example, Tim the Wizard chooses to be an Enchanter. He retains his normal caster level and progression for transmutation spells, can cast 2 other schools at 3rd level, 2 more at 5th level, 2 more at 7th level and 1 he may never cast.
By contrast, Wizzo the Wizard chooses to be a Universalist. He gains two schools at 1st level, 2 at 3rd, 2 at 5th, and the final 2 at 7th level.
You only prepare spells for your schools as if you had started a new spell progression for each, so at 3rd level Tim can prepare Enchantment schools for 1st and 2nd level and 2 other schools for 1st level.This system would work for sorcerers (probably unnecessary for 3.5 but it works) if you treat them as Universalists.
That would ultimately be more sensible, but the biggest problem I can see here (other than the fact that a larger delay might be wise) is that the schools aren't balanced against themselves. Almost everything a mage can do can be found in one form or another as a transmutation spell or a conjuration spell, so transmuters and conjurers are hardly hindered. Particularly since you can give up some entire schools, most notably enchantment and necromancy, without actually losing very much due to their narrow focus (a dozen flavors of mind control for one, and a combination of minions and save-or-dies in the other, which both conjuration and transmutation can replicate).
...
Yeah, you know a class is crazy when giving up a dozen kinds of mind control is a small sacrifice. ^^U
Just needed to point out that Saruman was killed by Grima, who was then killed by the hobbits. But still applies, since Grima is basically a rogue.
Have mercy. It's been years since I've read the books, and the scouring of the Shire didn't make it into the movies (which I found rather disappointing, but it does make sense in the context of a movie).
|
|
I think houstonderek pointed out something that I touched on but was not explicit about. We all have different concepts of balance, and sometimes those concepts clash.
Some (Kirth, Derek, Myself, and others) view balance as each potential character getting a fighting chance to do something to influence the outcome of a challenge. Call us storytellers, or power-mad Rule 0 lovers, whatever. Having classes excel in certain areas, and having the DM arbitrate decisions on the fly, is a feature. This type of balance could be called experiental balance.
Others think that in order for everyone to have fun, each class must be balanced mathematically so that no one character can out-perform another in a challenge. This is the process that 4th Edition attempted (some extremists feel it failed in this attempt anyway). Extreme class-niche and DM power is a bug. The rules must cover all cases equally and with minimum input from the player.
In my opinion, the game can NEVER be balanced mathematically, but it does require some balance. But the mathematical balance that already exists can be tied into storytelling reasons (which is how the OGs created the game). Fireball is a third-level spell not because that is the mathematically-balanced time to get it, but because in-game a mage must develop his skills enough to be able to cast a spell that could wipe out an entire army unit. It isn't balanced against the fighter, it's balanced against itself.
In equal parts mathematical and experiential balance are a matter of opinion. Each detracts from the other when taken to extremes. But it is important to note that for a LONG time D&D was tilted in favour of experiental balance. 3rd Edition changed that somewhat, perhaps aiming for the middle. 4th Edition shifted the other way.
For the people who are OBSESSED with mathematical balance, I just don't understand what they see in D&D.
Viletta, that's some great stuff. Good on you, sir.
Mam. And thank you.
Now, since the fell fiends of the interwebz have seen fit to destroy and devour my post, I'm gonna have to recap.
A roleplaying game is not a novel. It's a game. A novel has a single author who controls the entire world and everything in it. A roleplaying game has one person presenting the world and scenarios and four others responding to them. The result may ultimately become a story, but the DM's job is fundamentally not storytelling.
As a game, that which works for a novel does not necessarily work for an RPG. Fireball taking three years of training to master for a mage, without outside considerations works just fine in a novel. If there's an outside group of fireslingers running around who are eclipsed by the mage's Fireball, that's fine in a novel, if it's coherent to the setting.
However, if you do the same thing in a roleplaying game, and have the mage learn Fireball as an aside to all the other things she can do at three years of training, eclipsing the fireslinger's only ability, then the person playing the fireslinger has every right to be fuming, because that's just plain not fair. If everyone is supposed to be a heroic character with heroic power, then the spells and abilities have to be chosen with a nod to balance within the game itself. If a warrior, a thief, and a mage are all supposed to be valid heroic characters, and are all supposed to be allowed to be awesome, then the mechanics should be such that they can all do awesome things without any one of them making the others look like useless lumps.
Jal, you say notions of balance are opinions, but not all opinions are created equal. If you have two people who don't like a video game and ask them both why, then the first says, "It sucks," while the second says, "The graphics are great but the gameplay is lackluster and tedious," the second is a more valid and better opinion, despite being the same conclusion, because it has an (presumably) honest and rational basis. Likewise, yes, matters of game balance are generally opinions, but those opinions are subject to logic and you can get some conclusions that are functionally on par with fact.
Also, math is important. It's not the end-all, be-all, but it's one tool of analysis, and math is a major part of the system. It's also the ultimate reason the Fighter is such a failure. If you put together a level 10 Fighter and pit it against a fire giant, odds are the Fighter will be down within two or three rounds without dealing a great deal of damage to the fire giant, because the giant has strength, HD, HP, size, damage, BAB, and AB all so much higher than the Fighter. You're not allowed to be an awesome warrior in a system that's supposed to let warriors be awesome because the math won't let you. A Fighter cannot fight in a level-appropriate manner against level-appropriate foes that are supposed to be her equals, and this can be proven mathematically. If the Fighter had other, noncombat abilities, you could go on to try and judge whether or not their noncombat abilities compensate for a lack of fighting abilities, but the fact that they don't makes it a fairly objective assessment to say Fighters are hideously underpowered and fail at their attempts to mechanically represent a heroic-caliber warrior.
Likewise, if you assess a Wizard's abilities, they can oftentimes cripple enemies several levels beyond them with low-level spells to the point where they pretty much lose the fight.
And the thing is, the gap cannot be bridged within the confines of fair DMing. While it's perfectly logical for there to be traps for the Rogue to find and disable, and it's easy to play to their strengths. But how, while remaining fair, does a DM balance a combat encounter when one character struggles against enemies three levels below her, and the other can take out enemies three levels above, with both playing in a manner consistent with intelligent beings with a strong self-preservation instinct? How do you play to the strengths of a character whose greatest strength is the ability to fail to fight in a level-appropriate manner? Can you come up with a flexible solution that isn't blatantly giving the more powerful character the finger, or obviously cheating in favor of the hideously underpowered one?
I think houstonderek pointed out something that I touched on but was not explicit about. We all have different concepts of balance, and sometimes those concepts clash.
Some (Kirth, Derek, Myself, and others) view balance as each potential character getting a fighting chance to do something to influence the outcome of a challenge. Call us storytellers, or power-mad Rule 0 lovers, whatever. Having classes excel in certain areas, and having the DM arbitrate decisions on the fly, is a feature. This type of balance could be called experiental balance.
Others think that in order for everyone to have fun, each class must be balanced mathematically so that no one character can out-perform another in a challenge. This is the process that 4th Edition attempted (some extremists feel it failed in this attempt anyway). Extreme class-niche and DM power is a bug. The rules must cover all cases equally and with minimum input from the player.
In my opinion, the game can NEVER be balanced mathematically, but it does require some balance. But the mathematical balance that already exists can be tied into storytelling reasons (which is how the OGs created the game). Fireball is a third-level spell not because that is the mathematically-balanced time to get it, but because in-game a mage must develop his skills enough to be able to cast a spell that could wipe out an entire army unit. It isn't balanced against the fighter, it's balanced against itself.
In equal parts mathematical and experiential balance are a matter of opinion. Each detracts from the other when taken to extremes. But it is important to note that for a LONG time D&D was tilted in favour of experiental balance. 3rd Edition changed that somewhat, perhaps aiming for the middle. 4th Edition shifted the other way.
For the people who are OBSESSED with mathematical balance, I just don't understand what they see in D&D.
A fine statement.... We really need emotcons or whatever they are on this site. You deserve a cookie, but in the absence of that take this.. +1
Viletta makes excellent points. I don't want fighters who can cast spells or jump 100-ft. chasms, but I DO want fighters who can kill equal-CR brute monsters with even odds of success, and who can reliably anticipate threats and counter them: move and attack and block enemies and disrupt casting. You know, do their job.
Here is how I look at it. Every class has a job to do. As long as every class can do its job reasonably well there should not be any issues.
The fighter(melee types) could have been better represented, and casters could have been less powerful, but I an not for equality across the board. Doing so takes to much away from the game. A guy with a sword being equal to someone with magic is to close to the edge of my suspension of belief.
One issue is that some people make theoretical arguments, while others are using arguments from experience.
Can the wizard prepare spells that allow him to fight or do the rogue's job, sure, but I have never seen it in practice because every spell that is used to do someone else's job is a spell he does not have to do what he wants to do. The other issue is that the rogue can make skill checks all day long. The wizard can only cast knock so many time. If the wizard insist on doing something that can be done mundanely he might as well not play a wizard. A wizard has to cast a spell to polymorph/shapechange. The fighter can just start fighting assuming no buff time was available.
Viletta makes excellent points. I don't want fighters who can cast spells or jump 100-ft. chasms, but I DO want fighters who can kill equal-CR brute monsters with even odds of success, and who can reliably anticipate threats and counter them: move and attack and block enemies and disrupt casting. You know, do their job.
Fighters can kill CR equivalent brutes, but it takes a high level of character building skill to make such a fighter. The learning curve is low, but the mastery curve is steep. I do wish they had ways to block enemies from getting to the other party members, but they dont, at least not naturally anyway.
As far as disrupting casters, they have so many ways to stay out of trouble that if someone gets to them at higher level, most likely they did something wrong.
The fighter(melee types) could have been better represented, and casters could have been less powerful, but I an not for equality across the board. Doing so takes to much away from the game. A guy with a sword being equal to someone with magic is to close to the edge of my suspension of belief.
Why does it break suspension of disbelief? In a world where throwing bat dung while singing "I'm a little teapot" makes fireballs, and where orcs and fairies can produce viable offspring, why is it so difficult to accept a warrior of tremendous power?
In fact, why is it difficult to accept that a standard high-level warrior is superhuman? After all, pure humans in D&D don't exist; all humans have some trace of dragon blood and the like running through their veins, which is the stock explanation for sorcerers. Who's to say that same dragon blood doesn't grant the standard warrior hero tremendous, outright superhuman strength and endurance fit for a heroic-caliber warrior? Who's to say pure grit and determination, the resolve to force your body far beyond its limits to take down your foe, is not, itself, a powerful and very real wellspring of magic, of a rather subtler breed? And why is it so hard to believe that hocus pocus might not be not so almighty that this power of flesh, muscle, and will shall certainly pale in comparison?
One issue is that some people make theoretical arguments, while others are using arguments from experience.
Can the wizard prepare spells that allow him to fight or do the rogue's job, sure, but I have never seen it in practice because every spell that is used to do someone else's job is a spell he does not have to do what he wants to do. The other issue is that the rogue can make skill checks all day long. The wizard can only cast knock so many time. If the wizard insist on doing something that can be done mundanely he might as well not play a wizard. A wizard has to cast a spell to polymorph/shapechange. The fighter can just start fighting assuming no buff time was available.
In the immortal words of the Fire Emblem fandom, "Personal experience means nothing."
I can go out and find you a group that thinks half-orc Barbarians are hideously overpowered and that Great Cleave is the most broken feat in the game, while Wizards are frail little useless nothings, and their gaming experiences reflect that. That doesn't mean they're right. Personal experience can lie, in a big way.
Social constructs, unspoken rules, general tendencies unique to each group, these all muddy the waters to the point where personal experience is meaningless.
Now, yes, directly replacing the Rogue is going to be extremely difficult for the Wizard, and outright using a spell to replace every skill check with a spell, she'll run out of spells in short order. If she instead scries for the object, teleports in, gets it, teleports out, she's replaced the need to overcome all those skill checks without ever looking at them. At higher levels, all of the most dangerous traps are magical. A permanent Detect Magic can find them without even making a Search check. Yes, the Rogue will still have some territory left in the end, but the Wizard's abilities muscle in tremendously.
And in combat? Past early levels, a savvy Wizard can always have the right spell to shut the enemy down, simply due to tremendous overlap in what shuts enemies down and some low-level spells that retain value, without even considering buffs. A Fighter without buffs is less dangerous than a Wizard without buffs, as the Wizard still has the capacity to shoot the rockets that end the fight.
Fighters can kill CR equivalent brutes, but it takes a high level of character building skill to make such a fighter. The learning curve is low, but the mastery curve is steep. I do wish they had ways to block enemies from getting to the other party members, but they dont, at least not naturally anyway.
In core? No, they can't. In the expanded game? There are pretty much three effective paths for a Fighter. Spiked chain tripper, counter whore, and ubercharger. For the ubercharger in particular, you can get pretty much all the requisite abilities for it by level 8, and beyond that you pretty much stop growing. Heck, an NPC Warrior can pick up charging abilities and gain the ability to kill foes at level. In those cases, it's not the Fighter class that's doing the heavy lifting. And you have to lock yourself into an extremely specific fighting style that's oftentimes not consistent with the traditional warrior archetype to do, or at least, not consistent with your vision of the character, meaning the Fighter once again fails outright as a mechanism for representing the warrior archetype.
Good job Pathfinder boosted the Fighter then; in 3.5 a level 10 fighter would never have taken down a fire giant, but in Pathfinder there's a halfway decent chance that he might (the 3.5 version at least). The new feats and the weapon and armour training class features will certainly help. The Fire Giant does more damage per hit and more potential attacks while the fighter has a greater chance of hitting. The Fire Giant has a lot more HP, but with a little bit of luck, the right equipment and a few critical hits, it's possible.
Pathfinder only grants a total of +4/5 in various bonuses to the class itself across twenty levels while simultaneously downgrading the few feats that were actually any good for melee and introducing new feats that aren't much better (or sometimes are actually provide options that are even worse than the default full attack), and then make the chance of success with combat maneuvers even worse as an added bonus, with the end result of whether or not Fighters got any sort of boost at all highly debatable. And then Pathfinder upgrades Wizards.
Edit: Sudden thought; isn't CR supposed to represent what a group of 4 should have a moderately decent chance against?
A level 10 melee Fighter is a CR 10 melee creature. A fire giant is a CR 10 melee creature. As melee creatures, they should wield comparable melee ability. They don't. Nor do they pose an equal threat.
Also, a creature at CR is supposed to be pretty easy, the equivalent of dogpiling on a single party member.
Why does it break suspension of disbelief? In a world where throwing bat dung while singing "I'm a little teapot" makes fireballs, and where orcs and fairies can produce viable offspring, why is it so difficult to accept a warrior of tremendous power?
One breaks the laws of physics and warps reality. The other can not. I am not betting on the guy with the sword.
In fact, why is it difficult to accept that a standard high-level warrior is superhuman? After all, pure humans in D&D don't exist; all humans have some trace of dragon blood and the like running through their veins, which is the stock explanation for sorcerers.
Where is it stated that there are no pure humans?
Who's to say that same dragon blood doesn't grant the standard warrior hero tremendous, outright superhuman strength and endurance fit for a heroic-caliber warrior? Who's to say pure grit and determination, the resolve to force your body far beyond its limits to take down your foe, is not, itself, a powerful and very real wellspring of magic, of a rather subtler breed? And why is it so hard to believe that hocus pocus might not be not so almighty that this power of flesh, muscle, and will shall certainly pale in comparison?
[/quote/
It has yet to be seen, assuming the caster had the powers of a D&D caster anyway.
In the immortal words of the Fire Emblem fandom, "Personal experience means nothing."I can go out and find you a group that thinks half-orc Barbarians are hideously overpowered and that Great Cleave is the most broken feat in the game, while Wizards are frail little useless nothings, and their gaming experiences reflect that. That doesn't mean they're right. Personal experience can lie, in a big way.
In every instance such as the one above they that tried to argue that nonsense has been proven wrong. Soemtimes they accept it, and sometimes they make excuses, but denial of the truth does not make it a lie.
PS: What is Fire Eblem?
Social constructs, unspoken rules, general tendencies unique to each group, these all muddy the waters to the point where personal experience is meaningless.That is nothing but nonsense. If you take people with different experiences and they discuss an issue the truth more often than not comes to light, and it only came to light due to personal experiences.
Now, yes, directly replacing the Rogue is going to be extremely difficult for the Wizard, and outright using a spell to replace every skill check with a spell, she'll run out of spells in short order. If she instead scries for the object, teleports in, gets it, teleports out, she's replaced the need to overcome all those skill checks without ever looking at them.It would take greater teleport(formerly known as teleport with error) to pull that off with a gaurantee, and by that time scry denying spells are not an issue. Now it is possible to do it with the 5ht level spell, but to think the item wont have any guards, most likely the BBEG itself speaks of ignorance on the wizard's part, or a noob DM.
At higher levels, all of the most dangerous traps are magical. A permanent Detect Magic can find them without even making a Search check. Yes, the Rogue will still have some territory left in the end, but the Wizard's abilities muscle in tremendously.Detect Magic only detects auras. It does nothing to tell you what the trap is or how to bypass it. If may not even be possible to bypass it without a disable device check.
And in combat? Past early levels, a savvy Wizard can always have the right spell to shut the enemy down, simply due to tremendous overlap in what shuts enemies down and some low-level spells that retain value, without even considering buffs. A Fighter without buffs is less dangerous than a Wizard without buffs, as the Wizard still has the capacity to shoot the rockets that end the fight.But he can't do it as a meleer without buffing, which was my point.
In core? No, they can't. In the expanded game? There are pretty much three effective paths for a Fighter. Spiked chain tripper, counter whore, and ubercharger. For the ubercharger in particular, you can get pretty much all the requisite abilities for it by level 8, and beyond that you pretty much stop growing. Heck, an NPC Warrior can pick up charging abilities and gain the ability to kill foes at level. In those cases, it's not the Fighter class that's doing the heavy lifting. And you have to lock yourself into an extremely specific fighting style that's oftentimes not consistent with the traditional warrior archetype to do, or at least, not consistent with your vision of the character, meaning the Fighter once again fails outright as a mechanism for representing the warrior archetype.A commoner can actually charge and kill, with a mount. As to the statement of the fighter having to use splat books, yeah thats true, but I dont know anyone that plays core only.
One breaks the laws of physics and warps reality. The other can not. I am not betting on the guy with the sword.
Where does it say the laws of physics even apply? We're talking about a world where a normal person with enough HP can tap dance on lava and fully recover within a couple days, without using magic. Assuming the warrior is an ordinary human subject to ordinary rules is blatantly and demonstrably absurd.
Where is it stated that there are no pure humans?
Couldn't tell you where. Though in a world where magic is everywhere and affects everything, and with all the other ridiculous things people can do, confining humans to conventional limits of what humans in our world are capable of is just silly. After all, this is a place where a level 4 human can be as strong as a minotaur, and where a little old lady can beat said human with minotauric strength at arm wrestling (opposed d20 strength check, 1d20-3 versus 1d20+4, the old lady can win an appreciable percentage of the time).
PS: What is Fire Eblem?
A strategy game, highly subject to the whims of the random number god. Its fans gave rise to the highly useful axiom, "Personal experience means nothing."
That is nothing but nonsense. If you take people with different experiences and they discuss an issue the truth more often than not comes to light, and it only came to light due to personal experiences.
For a group of people to discuss the gaming system meaningfully, they must first strip away the trappings of their own social structures, personal quirks, and the like to reach the common ground they all share; the system. They must strip away personal experience for it to be of any value to the conversation.
Personal experience being used as a frame of analysis for a system is like a magnifying glass being used as a tool to study a butterfly. Yes, the magnifying glass is a useful tool for studying the butterfly, but discussing my magnifying glass has nothing to do with the butterfly, and if my magnifying glass is cracked and smudged, that does not mean the butterfly is cracked and smudged.
Likewise, personal experience can help diagnose problems within the system, but you still have to go back to the system itself to locate, assess, and analyze what is actually there. The personal experience itself means nothing.
But he can't do it as a meleer without buffing, which was my point.
Yes he can. If the Wizard summons a bison, the Wizard is serving as a melee presence, with the added bonus that the Wizard has no vested interest in the bison's survival.
A commoner can actually charge and kill, with a mount. As to the statement of the fighter having to use splat books, yeah thats true, but I dont know anyone that plays core only.
There seem to be a great many here who consider splats to be The Enemy and core to be balanced.
PS: What is Fire Eblem?
A strategy game, highly subject to the whims of the random number god. Its fans gave rise to the highly useful axiom, "Personal experience means nothing."
And How! Good to meet someone else who loves the various warts of Fire Emblem.
Getting back on topic, I can see I've missed a lot while at the wedding I attended this weekend(and recovering from the subsequent hangover). I agree with the general trend that this is a game, and that while mathematics CAN be applied to it, it generally shouldn't as that was never meant to be a feature of the game, while rule adjucation was. I think the biggest problem editions have had since 3.0 was the removal of "DM's Option" from a lot of tables that appeared in the PHB. To me it was always a subtle reminder that this was not a game of Player VS. DM, but one that encouraged cooperation between the player and the DM.
Fight:
Giant throws rock, wounding dwarf.
Dwarf throws axe, wounding giant, as he moves closer.
Giant chucks another rock.
Dwarf moves and attacks using Vital Strike.
Dwarf is clocked by giant's attack of opportunity as he closes.
Giant takes full attack, kills dwarf.
Also, picking Dwarf as the fighter's race specifically to skew his hit probability upward is just plain misleading at best, and dishonest at worst.
That's only true if your idea of "setting logic" dictates all-powerful casters. Those of us who grew up with R.E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, deCamp and Pratt, and the others from Gygax's famous appendix look for a "setting logic" in which powerful magic is risky, and in which a brave enough warrior can run up and run you through while you're trying to get that death spell under control. For people like that, "setting logic" actually DICTATES a more balanced game, rather than refuting it.
I note you strategically neglect to mention Vance, who is far more important because D&D's magic system and its descendants right through to PF is based on his DYING EARTH magic system. And the DE magic system is more powerful than anything in D&D (at least I don't know of any D&D/PF spells that can artificially extend the life of the Sun by several million years).
Well, I did specify "major" games (otherwise I'd've given a nod out to Hero System, too).
"I sensed something, like a hundred thousand SHADOWRUN plays screaming out in rage and reaching for their keyboards..."
But, on second thought, the various editions of Shadowrun probably top Pathfinder in terms of # of players, so I take it back. You are correct, sir!
"...but they were then silenced by some nifty argumentative footwork." :-)
Just needed to point out that Saruman was killed by Grima, who was then killed by the hobbits. But still applies, since Grima is basically a rogue.
And he killed Saruman with a backstab (would that be x4 damage or higher do you think?) as well, IIRC.
I think the film went a bit too far by having him then drop 500 feet drop down the side of a tower onto a spiked wheel which then drowned him and crushed his corpse. Less is more sometimes, y'know Pete?
Where does it say the laws of physics even apply? We're talking about a world where a normal person with enough HP can tap dance on lava and fully recover within a couple days, without using magic. Assuming the warrior is an ordinary human subject to ordinary rules is blatantly and demonstrably absurd.
Fine I will rephrase it. One does things that no person could do without training in magic.
I was assuming we were not going into epic levels with this discussion but if you want to use above 20 examples let me know.
Couldn't tell you where. Though in a world where magic is everywhere and affects everything, and with all the other ridiculous things people can do, confining humans to conventional limits of what humans in our world are capable of is just silly. After all, this is a place where a level 4 human can be as strong as a minotaur, and where a little old lady can beat said human with minotauric strength at arm wrestling (opposed d20 strength check, 1d20-3 versus 1d20+4, the old lady can win an appreciable percentage of the time).
You have to separate the math from what is realistically possible. A little old lady can not realistically win that contest. The numbers are put that way to allow the PCs, and some NPCs the chance to do heroic things. I think this conversation is not going to go well because we have to much a difference of the view of what is possible, and why. Our fluff and mechanics dont meet and end at the same spot
to the highly useful axiom, "Personal experience means nothing."
For a group of people to discuss the gaming system meaningfully, they must first strip away the trappings of their own social structures, personal quirks, and the like to reach the common ground they all share; the system. They must strip away personal experience for it to be of any value to the conversation.
I disagree. To discuss the system meaningfully you must be able to accept what is possible under normal circumstance. Defining "normal" may take a while to be agreed upon, but using extraordinary(excessive or inadequate) means to prove what is valid is a terrible way to reach any conclusion.
Repeating that axiom means nothing. For every axiom/parable/quote there is one that runs counter to it.
Yes he can. If the Wizard summons a bison, the Wizard is serving as a melee presence, with the added bonus that the Wizard has no vested interest in the bison's survival.
Are you arguing semantics are actually trying to debate? A buffalo takes full round to summon if it can be done at all, and it does not equal a fighter. The fighter is not great, but unless the builder has no idea what is going on the buffalo should not be able to take his spot.
There seem to be a great many here who consider splats to be The Enemy and core to be balanced
I am not arguing the balance of splat material. There is no way I am going to try to defend that. I am saying the majority use splat books so I figured that was valid, but if you only allow core then the fighter is even more pitiful.
PS: Ready to be read.
Edit: You want to argue potential when speaking of no human being pure and fighters having some powerful inner force that lets them go against casters, but then you wants to use in game mathematics for the little old lady to overpower a minotaur.
Which is it going to be?
A level 10 Pathfinder fighter (arguably worse than the 3.5 fighter, I believe you said) can't kill a 3.5 fire giant, can he? I beg to differ. I didn't bother working out skill totals; I only listed the taken skills for completeness.
Edit: Forgot to mention; the giant requires a 13+ to hit when the fighter uses combat expertise. The fighter only requires 8 to hit. Imagine what the difference would have been if I'd given the fighter magic equipment...
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
Whenever you are debating on a board the common rationale is to use 10 on the dice for everything. We know upsets happen, but on average can the fighter win?