RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I agree with kyrt-ryder, Scott. There's all manner of changes in 4th Edition. It's a different game.
The way I see it, by framing class-balance questions in terms of the Edition Wars ("3rd Edition is irreparably broken! The only fix is to switch to 4th Edition!") you're trying to short-circuit the discussion.
Lastly, and this is a deadly sober, absolutely serious question: what's your proposed fix? I'll admit my pet peeve in all of these discussions: somebody who says "X is broken" or "X is wrong" instead of "X is broken and here's how I think we can make it work." or "X is wrong and here's my proposal for setting it right."I don't need to propose one. 4e did a fantastic job of making martial characters just as interesting and fun to play at all levels as spellcasters are. Someone else already fixed the problem better than I ever could.Except that's not a fix of the system your discussing, it's a very different system.
In essence, that's cheating on the question of "what is your fix" lol.
It's certainly a fix from my perspective.
D&D had flaws. These flaws were identified. A new edition of D&D came out. Those flaws were fixed.
How is this not a fix?
Isn't that what editions are supposed to do? Make the game better?
My fix is to release a new, better edition of the game. WotC did so. How in the world is that cheating?
Also, the excellent balance of 4e makes for some blandness, the only real differences between the classes is flavor, and the more you play, the more similar everything seems, trust me, I played it extensively.
Clearly not extensively enough.
There are loads of "real differences" between classes, feats, powers, paragon paths, epic destinies, items, races and rituals, and those differences become pretty clear with only a little exposure to the game. If you've "played it extensively" and are unable to see these differences clearly, the only conclusion I can come to is that you weren't paying attention.
I agree with kyrt-ryder, Scott. There's all manner of changes in 4th Edition. It's a different game.
The way I see it, by framing class-balance questions in terms of the Edition Wars ("3rd Edition is irreparably broken! The only fix is to switch to 4th Edition!") you're trying to short-circuit the discussion.
Not at all. You were the one that demanded that I produce a solution for the problems I identified, as though that's an onus on the critic. And I agree, to a certain extent, that someone who criticizes should be able to present a better option. I have. 4e fixes the problems I had with 3e. Just because it changes a number of things that you don't like doesn't suddenly mean that you get to call the fix I favor "not-a-fix", especially by voicing agreement with someone else who called it "cheating".
Allowing magic items to flow like an avalanche for the fighter will boost his versatility and strength. There is some merit to this argument, as a "wall of force"-aphile wizard can do little to a fighter with a supply of Rods of Cancellation. I don't think this is the optimal solution, but it could be the easiest solution to not change rules or class abilities.Maybe rules for "magic cross-interference" such that mages can't benefit from as many magic items and/or buff spells as non-mages.
My entire point was that mages don't need magic items to be awesome, though. They are awesome just by virtue of being full spellcasters. Preventing them from using magic items a) does very little to curtail their relative power, since the vast majority of it is just their class features anyway, and b) is a potentially substantial restriction on the options of spellcasters. Restricting fun options should always have a solid justification, and in this case there isn't one.
Heck, they don't even need buff spells. All things considered, self-buffing wizards are less powerful than those who focus on battlefield manipulation, so you're removing a moderate-sized problem, sure, but in the process you're forcing all those self-buffing wizards to instead go the battlefield manipulation route. You'd just be making the problem worse.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
D&D had flaws. These flaws were identified. A new edition of D&D came out. Those flaws were fixed.How is this not a fix? Isn't that what editions are supposed to do? Make the game better?
My fix is to release a new, better edition of the game. WotC did so. How in the world is that cheating?
Scott, I understand that 4th Edition is, from your perspective, a better game than 3rd Edition / Pathfinder. But it's really a different system, not merely a new edition. When you say "4th Edition is my solution", I'm hearing the same kind of declaration as if CourtFool would say "GURPS is my solution" or Stefan Hill dismissing the argument with "Just throw away D&D and play Savage Worlds."
So, do I understand that your position is, within the context of 3rd Edition mechanics, you can't imagine any way to balance warrior classes against spellcasters?
Not at all. You were the one that demanded that I produce a solution for the problems I identified, as though that's an onus on the critic. And I agree, to a certain extent, that someone who criticizes should be able to present a better option. I have. 4e fixes the problems I had with 3e. Just because it changes a number of things that you don't like doesn't suddenly mean that you get to call the fix I favor "not-a-fix", especially by voicing agreement with someone else who called it "cheating".I agree with kyrt-ryder, Scott. There's all manner of changes in 4th Edition. It's a different game.
The way I see it, by framing class-balance questions in terms of the Edition Wars ("3rd Edition is irreparably broken! The only fix is to switch to 4th Edition!") you're trying to short-circuit the discussion.
Then let's ask the question more directly.
"We want to play 3.5. How would you fix it without changing the entire system?"
If the only solution you have is to switch to 4E, then an honest answer would be "You can't", and you have nothing further to contribute to the discussion. If you can answer it in any other way, though, that's what they're looking for.
Not at all. You were the one that demanded that I produce a solution for the problems I identified, as though that's an onus on the critic. And I agree, to a certain extent, that someone who criticizes should be able to present a better option. I have. 4e fixes the problems I had with 3e. Just because it changes a number of things that you don't like doesn't suddenly mean that you get to call the fix I favor "not-a-fix", especially by voicing agreement with someone else who called it "cheating".I agree with kyrt-ryder, Scott. There's all manner of changes in 4th Edition. It's a different game.
The way I see it, by framing class-balance questions in terms of the Edition Wars ("3rd Edition is irreparably broken! The only fix is to switch to 4th Edition!") you're trying to short-circuit the discussion.
Just so we're clear Scott, I wasn't trying to make any accusations by calling it cheating. It's cool if you prefer 4E as your game of choice, as your... model of D&D.
But just because you prefer the 2007 Corvette, with all it's new bells and whistles and it's personal touches doesn't mean some of us don't prefer the older cars for various reasons, and would rather fix them than throw it away and buy the new model.
It's only cheating in the context of the question. "How would you fix 3E" Isn't answered by "Play 4E" because the two are entirely different entities. It's like answering "How do you bake a better apple pie" with "I buy a pumpkin pie instead"
If I were to fix 3e, I would seriously tone back the power of spellcasters. I would then give all classes interesting choices to make at every level, including thematic abilities that are on-par with the new, toned-back spellcasting. I would make combat more dynamic by building ways for each class to be effective into the class features themselves - fighters should have class features that allow them to fulfill their role in the party, for example.
In short, I would make a number of changes that were core to the design process behind 4e. Ignoring for the moment that the idea of an imaginary, arbitrary "line" at which point a new edition of a game ceases to be a new edition and becomes a new game entirely is simply ridiculous, if I were setting out to fix the problems with 3e, the first place I'd go to for inspiration on what fixes to use would be 4e.
And if you think about it, that makes sense, doesn't it?
Not at all. You were the one that demanded that I produce a solution for the problems I identified, as though that's an onus on the critic. And I agree, to a certain extent, that someone who criticizes should be able to present a better option. I have. 4e fixes the problems I had with 3e. Just because it changes a number of things that you don't like doesn't suddenly mean that you get to call the fix I favor "not-a-fix", especially by voicing agreement with someone else who called it "cheating".I agree with kyrt-ryder, Scott. There's all manner of changes in 4th Edition. It's a different game.
The way I see it, by framing class-balance questions in terms of the Edition Wars ("3rd Edition is irreparably broken! The only fix is to switch to 4th Edition!") you're trying to short-circuit the discussion.
Then let's ask the question more directly.
"We want to play 3.5. How would you fix it without changing the entire system?"
If the only solution you have is to switch to 4E, then an honest answer would be "You can't", and you have nothing further to contribute to the discussion. If you can answer it in any other way, though, that's what they're looking for.
Oh, 4e isn't the only solution, certainly.
I'm sure you could design a different game that accomplishes the goal of fixing these problems without being identical to another game that already exists.
But the problems that have been identified with 3.5 are significant ones. If you really do want to fix them, you're going to have to make changes. The fixed game will be significantly different from 3.5. There's no way to avoid this.
The issue here is that you're saying "3.5 has problems. We want to play 3.5, but we don't want to play with the problems 3.5 has." Well, that's nice, but unfortunately you can't really do that. You can either play 3.5, and put up with its problems (and maybe make a few rules tweaks to make things a bit more tolerable), or you can change the game and accept that what you are playing is no longer 3.5.
Then thank you for your contributions, and have a nice day.
Disclaimer: I *don't* think that 3.5 has all that many problems, the massive disparity between classes *doesn't* bother me, etc. etc. etc. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.
D&D had flaws. These flaws were identified. A new edition of D&D came out. Those flaws were fixed.How is this not a fix? Isn't that what editions are supposed to do? Make the game better?
My fix is to release a new, better edition of the game. WotC did so. How in the world is that cheating?
Scott, I understand that 4th Edition is, from your perspective, a better game than 3rd Edition / Pathfinder. But it's really a different system, not merely a new edition. When you say "4th Edition is my solution", I'm hearing the same kind of declaration as if CourtFool would say "GURPS is my solution" or Stefan Hill dismissing the argument with "Just throw away D&D and play Savage Worlds."
So, do I understand that your position is, within the context of 3rd Edition mechanics, you can't imagine any way to balance warrior classes against spellcasters?
Again, you cannot make the changes necessary to fix 3.5 without changing the mechanics of 3.5. Really, 4e isn't anywhere near as large a change as people make it out to be. Let's go over the major differences:
- Epic is core, so there are now 30 levels.
- Prestige classes have been replaced with paragon paths and epic destinies. They serve the same purpose (diversifying characters at higher levels), but work slightly differently (you can't freely switch between them).
- The spells concept has been renamed "powers", and their inherently magical nature is no longer a basic assumption. Every class has its own "spell" list.
- PCs get more feats.
- Each class has hard-coded ways of helping them do their job, and these benefits allow them to remain useful and contribute and all levels.
There are lots of other minor changes, but many of those are either cosmetic or simply explicitly state something that has become part of the design assumption of D&D for some time now.
Then thank you for your contributions, and have a nice day.
You too! :)
I'd say, only in 4e has balance threatened to ruin flavor, IMO:)
Also, the excellent balance of 4e makes for some blandness, the only real differences between the classes is flavor, and the more you play, the more similar everything seems, trust me, I played it extensively.
That's not an inherent problem with balance, but a problem with the specific implementation. A Psion, a Beguiler, a Shugenja, and a Warblade are a fairly balanced team, but they don't feel bland, identical, and preprocessed.
If I were to fix 3e, I would seriously tone back the power of spellcasters. I would then give all classes interesting choices to make at every level, including thematic abilities that are on-par with the new, toned-back spellcasting. I would make combat more dynamic by building ways for each class to be effective into the class features themselves - fighters should have class features that allow them to fulfill their role in the party, for example.
Except none of that is a "fix" in any respect; that's a design policy. Policies aren't fixes. A lot of people want to tone down spellcasting in 3.5, but actually doing it is far more difficult, and most attempts fall flat on their face. There have been many attempts to bring the Fighter class up to snuff that just didn't pan out.
But the problems that have been identified with 3.5 are significant ones. If you really do want to fix them, you're going to have to make changes. The fixed game will be significantly different from 3.5. There's no way to avoid this.
My, I feel amazing now, having done the impossible in five seconds.
Ban the Big Five, make Tome of Battle the standard for melee. Game fixed.
My, I feel amazing now, having done the impossible in five seconds. Ban the Big Five, make Tome of Battle the standard for melee. Game fixed.
... and you're playing a game that scarecely resembles the one that Dungeon published all those 3.5e adventures for, and indeed you aren't really compatible with that game. So I'd say that you've hardly "done the impossible," unnecessary snark notwithstanding.
... and you're playing a game that scarecely resembles the one that Dungeon published all those 3.5e adventures for, and indeed you aren't really compatible with that game. So I'd say that you've hardly "done the impossible," unnecessary snark notwithstanding.
Tome of Battle is every bit as much a part of D&D 3.5 as the Player's Handbook. That Tome of Battle is more balanced and of higher quality is secondary, as it's still a part of the same system. The game may have grown doesn't make the growth any less a part of the system.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
... and you're playing a game that scarecely resembles the one that Dungeon published all those 3.5e adventures for, and indeed you aren't really compatible with that game. So I'd say that you've hardly "done the impossible," unnecessary snark notwithstanding.
Hi, Kirth. I see where you're coming from, as the Fighter and Wizard (under the names "fighting man" and "magic-user") have been a part of the game since its inception.
But I can run through any adventure in Dungeon with a Barbarian, Sorcerer, Rogue, Psion, and Bard, (or, heck, Warblade, Warmage, Spellthief, Favored Soul, and Factotem) and it will still feel like 3rd Edition D&D.
(In a discussion of the Big Five, by the way, I admit to being at a loss as to why Archivist gets mentioned. I've played an Archivist, and she didn't feel overpowered at all. Indeed, finding divine scrolls was a real pain-in-the-butt.)
But I can run through any adventure in Dungeon with a Barbarian, Sorcerer, Rogue, Psion, and Bard, (or, heck, Warblade, Warmage, Spellthief, Favored Soul, and Factotem) and it will still feel like 3rd Edition D&D.
Hi, Chris. Your rejoinder is a solid one, and I'm happy to concede the point to you. I must admit, though, that the "feel" of the game, while being the main thing that lot of people I talk to are most interested in, has an unfortunate tendency to vary wildly from person to person. One of my players loves Bo9S, and says it "feels" perfectly "D&D." Another player refuses to play in games that allow it, claiming that it "feels" "like a first draft for 4e."
Same game, same book, two totally divergent "feelings." I suspect that's part of the reason there's no clear resolution of any of the discussion here.
(In a discussion of the Big Five, by the way, I admit to being at a loss as to why Archivist gets mentioned. I've played an Archivist, and she didn't feel overpowered at all. Indeed, finding divine scrolls was a real pain-in-the-butt.)
Finding divine scrolls is no more difficult within the confines of the rules than finding arcane scrolls. They're standard goods, available in any given market like any other. That your DM gave you a hard time in finding them does not change their status within the confines of rules.
Also, that the DM has to regulate their scroll supply rather than allowing you to shop normally is a sign of their broken status.
Archivists would be on the list even if they only got access to the base Cleric and Druid lists. Thing is, they have access to every divine spell. Every class, every domain, every PrC, all at the lowest level possible, all available on the standard market unless the DM usurps the market (which is a case of the DM seizing control of a major aspect of character creation, and in this case relies on the DM systematically refusing a character access to a basic good they need to function).
(which is a case of the DM seizing control of a major aspect of character creation, and in this case relies on the DM systematically refusing a character access to a basic good they need to function).
At the end of the day, though, there's no real difference between (a) a game designer limiting the spells list of the Dread Necromancer (for example) in the class description; and (b) a DM limiting scroll access for the archivist (for example) to "approved" spells (assuming that list is provided up front, before character creation). Yet you seem to be strongly in favor of case (a), and yet against case (b). Is it that case (a) is published by WotC, and therefore "official"? Or some other reason?
At the end of the day, though, there's no real difference between (a) a game designer limiting the spells list of the Dread Necromancer (for example) in the class description; and (b) a DM limiting scroll access for the archivist (for example) to "approved" spells (assuming that list is provided up front, before character creation). Yet you seem to be strongly in favor of case (a), and yet against case (b). Is it that case (a) is published by WotC, and therefore "official"? Or some other reason?
Except that has absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed at all. Creating a constrained, defined spell list for the Archivist beforehand is wildly different from arbitrarily denying the Archivist fair access to scrolls based on whim. The (a) v (b) dichotomy has nothing to do with my point whatsoever.
Except that has absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed at all. Creating a constrained, defined spell list for the Archivist beforehand is wildly different from arbitrarily denying the Archivist fair access to scrolls based on whim.
I'm not saying "on a whim." I'm saying, "in advance, with agreement" -- and what you call "constrained, defined."
And that has everything to do with the dicussion, because if that's a workable solution, there's no need to jettison the cleric, wizard, et al. as classes -- all one needs to do is limit their spell access to well-defined lists approved in advance. On the other hand, if it's not a workable solution, then the "just use the dread necromancer, et al." isn't workable either, by the same token.
I'm not saying "on a whim." I'm saying, "in advance, with agreement." And that has everything to do with the dicussion, because if that's a workable solution, there's no need to jettison the cleric, wizard, et al. as classes. And if it's not a workable solution, then the "just use the dread necromancer, et al." isn't workable either, by the same token.
Except "in advance, with agreement," was not a part of the scenario presented; all Chris said was that it was hard to get divine scrolls, which has no basis in the rules and only stems from the DM usurping the rules entirely and without advanced warning of the precise constraints.
If there is a constrained spell list worked out, that's a completely different issue outside the scenario entirely. Working up balanced spell lists whole cloth and making sure they're balanced is a pretty big deal if you don't have a base to work off of. It can work, yes, but it's no mean feat you're proposing. What's more, Psion, Warmage, Sorcerer, Favored Soul? These are far more reasonable and balanced bases to work off of to begin with, which have predefined limits proven to work and work well. Give the Archivist Int-based Favored Soul casting and you don't have to worry about the inherent obstructionism that often arises with market-axing, and you have an inherent, proven limiter on spells known that is considerably more fair and can be adapted to many, many character types.
Working up balanced spell lists whole cloth and making sure they're balanced is a pretty big deal if you don't have a base to work off of. It can work, yes, but it's no mean feat you're proposing.
Agreed, and I'm not so sure that the beguiler, for example, got the kind of careful treatment you're describing (honestly, I haven't tried to break one yet, so maybe it did, maybe not). But, yes, I agree that sticking to spontaneous casters with very limited "spells known" is an easier fix -- just not that it's the only viable one.
|
Working up balanced spell lists whole cloth and making sure they're balanced is a pretty big deal if you don't have a base to work off of. It can work, yes, but it's no mean feat you're proposing.Agreed, and I'm not so sure that the beguiler, for example, got the kind of careful treatment you're describing (honestly, I haven't tried to break one yet, so maybe it did, maybe not). But, yes, I agree that sticking to spontaneous casters with very limited "spells known" is an easier fix -- just not that it's the only viable one.
I'd be afraid of hearing that this is the one-trick pony argument waiting to happen from my group. We've got some who complain that Sorcerers are useless because "they have hammers when you need a screw driver". Not sure I buy that, but I hear it an awful lot.
|
|
I wish I had called the thread "Changed the flavor of D&D" now... Whihch is actually what I meant, but at the time I posted I was reading Spellfire (recoving nicely now thank you). At the time it seemed to me that such a "novel" would be impossible to translate into "newer" (meaning 3e or 4e) D&D due to the huge shift in spell casting "rules/mechanics". The exact part of the book that got me thinking this was the part about when meeting a wizard throw rocks at them. Now unless you are a giant under 3.x/4e rules this tactic fails completely. The fighter has a very good chance having a sword - which let's face it is better than a rock. Some would then argue that having a d6 initiative system meant equal odds caster verses combatant. BUT if I put my self in a wizards shoes - I have trained for years, would I really risk my life on a 50:50 chance of going before the fighter before me who has nothing to lose by attacking me? Answer is either run or surrender unless no other options are open. The Symbil (an archmage, level 18+) was stopped casting by a single rock. This mechanically was possible under 1e and 2e (initiative system was different of course) but not under 3.x/4e. That was the point of the post. Not to divine which D&D in better and fairest - just that stories such as Spellfire make little to no sense in terms of modern game mechanics.
S.
|
|
I have nothing against fighters. They are cool. I like the fact that I can roll up a fighter quickly and get to it and not have to keep a ledger like when I play a caster. It is a fresh change of pace. Fighters are not useless in high level against golems, beholders, dragons, demons, devils, mind flayers and other creatures that have either magic immunities, magic resistance or just a ton of hit points.Beholders are not threats, even to casters. Fighters are useless against level-appropriate dragons and the like, because they're so much bigger and tougher and so much more easily done in by spells. Fighters are useless against golems. Fighters are especially useless against monsters with tons of hit points, precisely because they have lots of hit points; those are monsters best rendered irrelevant by a spell. If a Wizard blinds a giant and then kicks back while the Fighter cuts the harmless sod to...
Who cares if the wizard blinded the giant. The fighter still has to kill the creature. A blinded giant may not be optimal but it is far from helpless. I find it funny that you brought this up as a bone of contention. In the game I played we were fighting a frost giant and I used shatter to destroy it's battle-axe. Neither the fighters or rogue in the party grumbled about me making the combat "too easy". They said "Thanks for getting rid of that axe. The battle was much easier with an unarmed giant." Fighters worthless against golems? Really? Maybe you play in drastically different games then me but I never went into meele against a golem when I played a wizard or a sorcerer.
|
|
I have nothing against fighters. They are cool. I like the fact that I can roll up a fighter quickly and get to it and not have to keep a ledger like when I play a caster. It is a fresh change of pace. Fighters are not useless in high level against golems, beholders, dragons, demons, devils, mind flayers and other creatures that have either magic immunities, magic resistance or just a ton of hit points.
Beholders are not threats, even to casters. Fighters are useless against level-appropriate dragons and the like, because they're so much bigger and tougher and so much more easily done in by spells. Fighters are useless against golems. Fighters are especially useless against monsters with tons of hit points, precisely because they have lots of hit points; those are monsters best rendered irrelevant by a spell. If a Wizard blinds a giant and then kicks back while the Fighter cuts the harmless sod to...Who cares if the wizard blinded the giant. The fighter still has to kill the creature. A blinded giant may not be optimal but it is far from helpless. I find it funny that you brought this up as a bone of contention. In the game I played we were fighting a frost giant and I used shatter to destroy it's battle-axe. Neither the fighters or rogue in the party grumbled about me making the combat "too easy". They said "Thanks for getting rid of that axe. The battle was much easier with an unarmed giant." Fighters worthless against golems? Really? Maybe you play in drastically different games then me but I never went into meele against a golem when I played a wizard or a sorcerer.
The point of contention isn't that the Fighter has nothing to do pal, it's that the Fighter has nothing MEANINGFUL to do.
A hireling, or a summon, or a trained pet bear could do the Fighter's job.
That's the problem, the Fighter class is forgettable. (somewhat Less so in Pathfinder of course, though whether or not they've completely...
Eh, you know you made a lot of the same design decisions we did with fighters. Fighters are far from useless in our homebrew, and Kirth and Jess managed to use ToB stuff in a way that doesn't annoy me at all. :)
Filter the ToB stuff through a 1e prism and amazing stuff happens...
|
|
Yeah, I do know, but we're discussing 3E and Pathfinder here, not Kirth and Kyrt's independent PF redesigns lol.
Eh, you know you made a lot of the same design decisions we did with fighters. Fighters are far from useless in our homebrew, and Kirth and Jess managed to use ToB stuff in a way that doesn't annoy me at all. :)
Filter the ToB stuff through a 1e prism and amazing stuff happens...
As far as I'm concerned, houseruling is like breathing (or should be to a roleplaying game enthusiast).
Yes, the 3x fighter was a caddy past level 12 or so. Yes, the PF fighter is a bit better off, but more like a really popular and influential caddy. Spell nerfs helped a bit (but, god, I hate spell nerfs), but the underlying reason why 3x/PF fighters lag wasn't really addressed.
|
|
All character classes are valuable at all levels unless the DM goes Montey Haul and gives out too many powerful magic items that are inappropriate for the characters based on their level. Every class needs to be useful but NOT every class neeeds to be OPTIMAL at every single level.No.
First, the DM handing out magic items like candy is one of the only ways to increase the power of martial characters compared to spellcasters. A spellcaster without a magic weapon or armor still has an entire arsenal of spells at their disposal, but the fighter is out of luck. In this sense, more magic items actually improves balance.
Come on Scott. Play fair. I said there is a problem with high powered magic items being given at an inappropriate level. I never stated that magic items do not provide balance. Please reread my quote.
Second, no, not all character classes are valuable at all levels. A fighter at 15th level might as well be a hireling half the time, for all the good he does the party compared to the vast utility and power of a spellcaster.
I am sorry that you have such a self loathing for your fighters because they don't have the "flashy, sparkly powers" of spellcasters. I never treat my martial companions like hired help. They are invaluable allies. That would be like the QB dissing his offensive line in football. Who cares how great you are if no on blocks for you.Classes are not overshadowed by each other. The problem is that designers have stretched the meaning of what each class is as tastes have changed. Rogues were not initally designed to be in meele unless it was for a backstab. Because so many DM's used metagame knowledge(Hey that guy is in leather armor, he must be a rogue!), the game had to make up for it by making flanking and tumbling rules.
Yes, they are. Without question. If you really don't think the wizard overshadows the fighter, or the cleric overshadows the paladin, or the druid overshadows everyone, I'm not sure there's much point to continuing the discussion. There's a reason the CoDzilla moniker exists.The rest of that point is completely lost on me. I'm not sure at all what flanking and tumbling rules have to do with classes not overshadowing each other.
You may be right in that our opinions are just different. In the current 3.5 game I am playing we have a huge group. Our group consists of a two-wpn fighter, figther/knight of the crown, paladin/cleric, rogue, favored soul, cleric(healbot) and me as the wizard. At no point in time has any of the marital characters felt overwhelmed by the casters and just plain old useless. Yes there are class differences, not everyone is OPTIMAL or Super KEWEL at every level and they should not be IMHO because then you don't have options.The point I was trying to make with the rogue was that the class was never envisioned as a combat class and it was a specialist you needed to get through doors, traps, for scouting,etc.
|
|
Who cares if the wizard blinded the giant. The fighter still has to kill the creature. A blinded giant may not be optimal but it is far from helpless. I find it funny that you brought this up as a bone of contention. In the game I played we were fighting a frost giant and I used shatter to destroy it's battle-axe. Neither the fighters or rogue in the party grumbled about me making the combat "too easy". They said "Thanks for getting rid of that axe. The battle was much easier with an unarmed giant." Fighters worthless against golems? Really? Maybe you play in drastically different games then me but I never went into meele against a golem when I played a wizard or a sorcerer.
The point of contention isn't that the Fighter has nothing to do pal, it's that the Fighter has nothing MEANINGFUL to do.
A hireling, or a summon, or a trained pet bear could do the Fighter's job.
That's the problem, the Fighter class is forgettable. (somewhat Less so in Pathfinder of course, though whether or...
Fighting is not something meaningful to do? You like just getting crushed for damage and then the cleric has to waste valuable resources to heal you back up because you got mauled by the giant because you would throw a hissy fit if I took the axe out if it's hand? That sounds like selfish play to me rather than teamwork.
|
The point, is in 3.X, you could hire any old Warrior class NPC, or buy and train a few pets, or summon some creatures to do that.
This is partly because the martial characters are unable to relearn their feats/talents/class abilities, to prepare for upcoming battles.
If you're a non-human Fighter, or a Human non-Fighter, who wants to be good at say, disarming, you have to blow every feat you have at level 1.
You then find out you're needed to go up against Bonzo the Beastmaster, and all your fancy tricks are irrelevant. You reduce the PC to Billy-Bob McNoFeats, the NPC Warrior.
Same with Improved Trip vs Valley of the Snakes.
Improved Crit vs Pit of the Slime Lord.
The other PCs would be quite forgiven for wondering 'Why did we bring this guy, with his slightly above-average Int that makes zero impact on any of his expected role?'
'We could have brought Mighty Moronic Mongo, the town drunk, who at least has some strength, doesn't question us when we tell him to hit things, and would come for five silver pieces, not thinking to ask for a share in the loot.'
Meanwhile, the Wizard, upon hearing that Boris the Beastmaster is an elf, decides not to prepare his usual repertoire of Sleep and Charm Person, and picks something that targets the guy's presumably rotten Con/Fort/hp.
When you play a caster, you can rebuild your character every single day.
When you play a martial character, the choices you make, you are stuck with for the rest of your life.
That is why martial feats/talents/class abilities need to be better than spells, either by by being applicable to more situations, or having more bang for the buck (when applying to niche maneuvers).
I am sorry that you have such a self loathing for your fighters because they don't have the "flashy, sparkly powers" of spellcasters. I never treat my martial companions like hired help. They are invaluable allies. That would be like the QB dissing his offensive line in football. Who cares how great you are if no on blocks for you.
Fighters in 3.5 were given no way to "block" anyone. In that respect they are worth little more than a peasant with a sword and shield. Furthermore, no spellcaster worth his salt needs blocking. Past 7th level, the spellcaster is flying, is invisible most of the time, and has any number of magical protections that completely obviate the need for a meatshield to stand in front of him.
Monsters don't care about fighters. Why should the spellcasters rely on them when not even the monsters view them as a real threat?
|
|
(In a discussion of the Big Five, by the way, I admit to being at a loss as to why Archivist gets mentioned. I've played an Archivist, and she didn't feel overpowered at all. Indeed, finding divine scrolls was a real pain-in-the-butt.)
He doesn't need to find them, or buy them. He simply needs the Scribe Scroll feat (or a friend with that feat), and a friendly divine caster, to have automatic access to all spells on that list.
Craft Scroll.
Learn spell from scroll.
Add spell to book.
Use book to prepare spell/create items for rest of career.
Even if the DM decides that the magic item market doesn't exist, he has a far harder time justifying why the High Priest who's sending the PCs on a life-threatening mission won't let one of them learn a few (or a lot) of spells, when those spells could ensure the success of this mission that apparently threatens the town/city/all life as we know it.
And if the DM does decide that there's no magic market, AND all divine NPCs you meet are all jerky tightwads, he still can't stop players making these arrangements between themselves.
Unless he forces the pace of the campaign, so there's no downtime between character creation and the final showdown.
Which is why 3.5 gameworlds are full of 18-year old Epic Archmages.
|
|
Kirth and Jess managed to use ToB stuff in a way that doesn't annoy me at all. :)
I'd love to hear about that.
Is that in their list of 'class abilities transformed to feat chains'?Or something else?
Any chance of mailing it?
I want to see more options for martial characters, but I don't want to imagine I'm witnessing a 2-minute Sailor Moon/Team Rocket transformation scene before every swing.
I wish I had called the thread "Changed the flavor of D&D" now... Whihch is actually what I meant, but at the time I posted I was reading Spellfire (recoving nicely now thank you). At the time it seemed to me that such a "novel" would be impossible to translate into "newer" (meaning 3e or 4e) D&D due to the huge shift in spell casting "rules/mechanics". The exact part of the book that got me thinking this was the part about when meeting a wizard throw rocks at them. Now unless you are a giant under 3.x/4e rules this tactic fails completely. The fighter has a very good chance having a sword - which let's face it is better than a rock. Some would then argue that having a d6 initiative system meant equal odds caster verses combatant. BUT if I put my self in a wizards shoes - I have trained for years, would I really risk my life on a 50:50 chance of going before the fighter before me who has nothing to lose by attacking me? Answer is either run or surrender unless no other options are open. The Symbil (an archmage, level 18+) was stopped casting by a single rock. This mechanically was possible under 1e and 2e (initiative system was different of course) but not under 3.x/4e. That was the point of the post. Not to divine which D&D in better and fairest - just that stories such as Spellfire make little to no sense in terms of modern game mechanics.
S.
Which is a pretty reasonable stand point. Changes to mechanics change feel and flavour. Hardly what you'd call controversial, you'd never think that, based on the responce through, would you ;).
|
|
I am sorry that you have such a self loathing for your fighters because they don't have the "flashy, sparkly powers" of spellcasters. I never treat my martial companions like hired help. They are invaluable allies. That would be like the QB dissing his offensive line in football. Who cares how great you are if no on blocks for you.Fighters in 3.5 were given no way to "block" anyone. In that respect they are worth little more than a peasant with a sword and shield. Furthermore, no spellcaster worth his salt needs blocking. Past 7th level, the spellcaster is flying, is invisible most of the time, and has any number of magical protections that completely obviate the need for a meatshield to stand in front of him.
Monsters don't care about fighters. Why should the spellcasters rely on them when not even the monsters view them as a real threat?
They do block monsters because moving past a fighter porvokes AOO'S. I don't think most monsters appreciate 2D6+6 damage at low levels and I don't think they appreciate it at high levels. Plus monsters that just run by fighters tend to set them up for flansk and sneak attacks from other party memebr.
In addition to that most dungeons do not have ridiculously large rooms that allow for mobility every single time. Even when they do that monster is spending it's time moving around the fighter, thus the fighter is a problem for it.
|
|
Fighting is not something meaningful to do? You like just getting crushed for damage and then the cleric has to waste valuable resources to heal you back up because you got mauled by the giant because you would throw a hissy fit if I took the axe out if it's hand? That sounds like selfish play to me rather than teamwork.No, beating the helpless to death is not a meaningful thing to do, nor is running in to get punched in the face because (unlike casters) the fighter lacks the ability to do anything else.
You can play a game where everyone gets in punch-ups all the way to level 20, but it requires that those playing casters do not do the things that prevent that, be it because of will or ignorance.
A blinded monster is NOT helpless. It is just not OPTIMAL. If every arcane or divine spell had a save vs helpless condition I could see your point.
Again, I don't understand your arguement. By helping my friends I am ruining their fun? I could see your point of view if I just had finger of death and power word kill memorized and used them in salvo every single time there was an encounter. I do not do that and if you choose not to believe me, than oh well. A wizard or sorcerer is not going to pawn every fight for the group. Every memeber contributes and does their share. If your group allows your casters to unload all their spells in the first 10 moinutes of the game and then demand that everyone rests, I believe that is the group's faulty for codddling poor play.
Talek. Mind your tags. If you're having trouble, please preview your posts before submitting them, so that the rest of us don't have to go digging through to decipher the code.
Who cares if the wizard blinded the giant. The fighter still has to kill the creature. A blinded giant may not be optimal but it is far from helpless. I find it funny that you brought this up as a bone of contention. In the game I played we were fighting a frost giant and I used shatter to destroy it's battle-axe. Neither the fighters or rogue in the party grumbled about me making the combat "too easy". They said "Thanks for getting rid of that axe. The battle was much easier with an unarmed giant." Fighters worthless against golems? Really? Maybe you play in drastically different games then me but I never went into meele against a golem when I played a wizard or a sorcerer.
Actually, the giant is pretty much helpless. Pretty much one twelfth normal chance to hit anything, or worse.
And the problem is, when the Fighter is killing a blind giant, his abilities don't matter. The giant really is defenseless; pretty much anyone could do the job. The Cleric, the Ranger, especially the Rogue, and even the Wizard herself, via summons. Just because the Fighter got the glory shot does not mean that the Fighter made a meaningful contribution. And in fact, that the Fighter gets the glory shot anyways propagates the myth that Fighters stay useful when, in fact, their abilities aren't being brought to bear and aren't what's winning fights.
And Wizards don't counter golems by melee'ing. They counter golems by casting spells. Y'see, golems absolutely, positively are not immune to spells. If you read the ability, they only have effectively infinite spell resistance. But a lot of spells don't offer spell resistance. All the SR in the world won't save you from being mauled by an alligator from Hell, or from the grease under your feet.
I want to see more options for martial characters, but I don't want to imagine I'm witnessing a 2-minute Sailor Moon/Team Rocket transformation scene before every swing.
... Which ToB isn't remotely close to. Steel Wind is no different from Cleave as far as named attacks go. It seems a lot of the issues with Tome of Battle with regards to flavor are strictly user error.
They do block monsters because moving past a fighter porvokes AOO'S. I don't think most monsters appreciate 2D6+6 damage at low levels and I don't think they appreciate it at high levels. Plus monsters that just run by fighters tend to set them up for flansk and sneak attacks from other party memebr.
When you have over a hundred hit points, a 65% chance of 13 damage doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot, and isn't about to discourage you from charging at an actual threat, like the Wizard. And in the flanking scenario, it's not the Fighter that's the threat, but the Rogue, which the monster would then try to eat since that is the threat of the moment. Flanking could be done by the Cleric, the Druid, the Druid's animal companion, a hireling, a summon, a cat from the bag of tricks, a 1 HD kobold; it's not a meaningful contribution from the Fighter. Certainly not enough to earn an even cut of the loot.
In addition to that most dungeons do not have ridiculously large rooms that allow for mobility every single time. Even when they do that monster is spending it's time moving around the fighter, thus the fighter is a problem for it.
"Speed bump" isn't a meaningful contribution, either. And choke points are a rare commodity. That the Fighter is incapable of blocking without one is a major blow to their usefulness, particularly since 1d3 summoned celestial bison bring a lot more meat to the field, create a much bigger wall of flesh, are completely expendable, and don't demand a cut of the loot.
A blinded monster is NOT helpless. It is just not OPTIMAL.
There is a line between less than optimal and helpless. Blindness leaves the target effectively helpless. Hit the guy, take a five foot step. Now, he has to guess where you are at maybe a 1/6 chance of being correct, and then has a 50% miss chance on top, for less than 10% accuracy, all while flat-footed. That's helpless. And that's assuming the worst case of melee against the blind giant, rather than the Rogue plucking it off with shortbow sneak attacks.
If every arcane or divine spell had a save vs helpless condition I could see your point.
Why on Earth would it have to be every spell? You only need one rocket at every spell level. There are a lot of spells that amount to "save or die" or "save or lose." Just because Dispel Magic isn't instant death doesn't change the fact that if you're hit with Hold Person, you're dead. Or if you fail your save against Stinking Sloud, or Deep Slumber, or Ray of Exhaustion, or Slow, or Halt Undead, and Suggestion ain't gonna do you any favors either, while Sleet Storm pretty much removes you from the fight completely for a couple rounds, no save, while your friends get decked.
Again, I don't understand your arguement. By helping my friends I am ruining their fun? I could see your point of view if I just had finger of death and power word kill memorized and used them in salvo every single time there was an encounter. I do not do that and if you choose not to believe me, than oh well. A wizard or sorcerer is not going to pawn every fight for the group. Every memeber contributes and does their share. If your group allows your casters to unload all their spells in the first 10 moinutes of the game and then demand that everyone rests, I believe that is the group's faulty for codddling poor play.
The point has nothing to do with fun. Set fun aside completely. This is about critical analysis of the system.
The problem is that Fighters are not useful at higher levels unless they're lavished with huge amounts of buffs and gear to the detriment of the rest of the party. The problem is that they cannot contribute their share. And novaing has nothing to do with it.
In fact, I'm gonna address the nova issue here. A fight in D&D lasts three rounds. That does not mean every enemy is dead by round three, but that they are all beaten by round three. A typical day has four encounters at CR. Casting a spell every round that matters for an entire day takes twelve spells (which is the high end of what's actually necessary). They have that by level 5, considering bonus and domain spells. Even before that, one spell a fight can oftentimes wrap things up.
A typical fight. Level five party, Druid/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard. Mob of orcs, some with class levels. There's a pack of archers, a pack of warriors, and the chief. Party gets the surprise round.
The Wizard casts Glitterdust on the archers. Most of them are now blind and hence useless as archers.
The Druid casts Sleet Storm on the warriors. They're now removed from the fight entirely for at least a couple rounds, no save.
The Rogue deals severe damage to the chief with sneak attacks.
The Druid's puppy mauls the chief, too, for normal damage.
The Fighter mauls the chief, too, for damage on par with the puppy. The Fighter has nothing to really block, since Glitterdust and Sleet Storm did a better job of tanking than he ever could, reducing the Fighter to the same level as the Druid's sidekick.
The chief dies, and the fight is over. All that remains is to mop up the crippled dregs and pluck off the warriors one-by-one as they get out of the storm. The Fighter was ultimately useless, only serving mop-up duty, which could have been done just as well by a summoned lion or bison. The Fighter's standard meat shield duty was done far better than the Fighter could ever hope by a single casting of Sleet Storm, no save. This ain't a nova. This is one or two choice spells used wisely to wrap up a fight in one round.