|
In service to the thread title: My lingering question about all of this idle theory is "Where are the GMs exactly?"
I'm not talking about GMs who deliberately rule to subvert well-designed characters. I'm talking about GMs who do what I do: apply the basic concerns of time, wealth distribution, lack-of-preparedness and NPC unreliability to limit the infinite power-grab of the proposed builds. These are concepts written into the game. When applied, the classes need each other. If you leave them out and give the wizard a blank check — or let someone hop from game to game with no consideration to the passage of time, then yes, amazing power is attainable (but childish).
With a posted build, I can take one look at that build, imagine how I would run for said character, and then decide for myself if it is broken or even superior to any other. Some of the numbers put forward as "reachable" results make me think the GM in these cases is either Santa Claus, unconscious, drunk, or most probably non-existent.
I am not putting forth the GM as a "fix" to some "broken" aspect of the game. I am saying a GM who has is awake and has read the rules will have a modicum of control over the power available to certain PCs, who are dependent on CASH and TIME to reach their full potential.
Most people's games work because of these simple, immortal elements of GMing. Whither the basic GMing?
Well said. Although I have a hard time imagining some of our posters getting along with GMs who actually enforce rules.
|
|
Funny, the only time I ever did an in-game arena battle, it was between my 12th level fighter, and a 12th level wizard. I got initiative, changed up and whaled him so hard he took massive damage and that was it. And it proved... nothing.
I think fighting types start more powerful, mid levels are kind of a sweet spot, then by the teens casters are pulling ahead. To maintain balance between the classes at higher levels, all you need to do is gather everyone around, and say, "hey, we know casters can get a little crazy, so how about playing like a team, not boosting your stat into the 30's and saving your best tricks for an emergency. If none of us try to exploit the rules, we can all have more fun". Problem solved.
But as someone once said, "A build or your a sock puppet."
Let's see what these farcical wizards can do.
I don't think Arena proves much, per say. But I think posting a full build shows a potential playable character, with all it's strengths and weaknesses available for discussion.
Some characters are all win or all fail and Some are mediocre but always helpful. The later won't arena well, but will be welcome in any party.
Perfect example of the later would be most Bards that I have seen played. Always useful, rarely dominant.
Perfect example of the former is a transmuter red wizard specialist my friend plays. Tons of kill or die spells that either end the battle or do nothing and leave him completely exposed.
It's a team game for a reason, I agree. But I think a build is needed to discuss what you traded for whatever super power you got.
It seems like all of this is boiling down to the classic conflict of gaming styles, the roleplayer, vs the rollplayer. I have been in both types of games, though my personal preference leans towards roleplaying. An important point that seems to get missed in all of these arguments, threadjacks, and nonsense is this:
They are both valid styles of play!
Now specifically to respond to the OP, posting a build may not solve a problem. Because honestly builds are dependent on the style of game being ran. In my game a wizard who starts with a 17 int, 10 con, and 14 cha might be very playable and a lot of fun because the game is set in a city with a lot of political intrigue, and the combats are designed to be closer to a swashbuckling action flick. In other people's campaigns a wizard with those stats would be laughed at, and considered a terrible waste of time.
The bottom line is that each game is played in a different fashion none of which are any more or less valid than any other fashion. At least in my experience the true key to any game is to have a DM who lets players know what style of game they are planning on running, and then feels comfortable enough to take a player aside and work out any differences in play styles like adults. Players also need to listen and create characters that fit into the style of game being ran. This is a team game folks.
Funny, the only time I ever did an in-game arena battle, it was between my 12th level fighter, and a 12th level wizard. I got initiative, changed up and whaled him so hard he took massive damage and that was it. And it proved... nothing.
I think fighting types start more powerful, mid levels are kind of a sweet spot, then by the teens casters are pulling ahead. To maintain balance between the classes at higher levels, all you need to do is gather everyone around, and say, "hey, we know casters can get a little crazy, so how about playing like a team, not boosting your stat into the 30's and saving your best tricks for an emergency. If none of us try to exploit the rules, we can all have more fun". Problem solved.
But as someone once said, "A build or your a sock puppet."
Let's see what these farcical wizards can do.I don't think Arena proves much, per say. But I think posting a full build shows a potential playable character, with all it's strengths and weaknesses available for discussion.
Some characters are all win or all fail and Some are mediocre but always helpful. The later won't arena well, but will be welcome in any party.
Perfect example of the later would be most Bards that I have seen played. Always useful, rarely dominant.
Perfect example of the former is a transmuter red wizard specialist my friend plays. Tons of kill or die spells that either end the battle or do nothing and leave him completely exposed.
It's a team game for a reason, I agree. But I think a build is needed to discuss what you traded for whatever super power you got.
I agree. Then one of the observers of the thread can pick 1 or 2 encounters from an AP, preferably boss level encounters to see how the build would do.
|
|
I agree. Then one of the observers of the thread can pick 1 or 2 encounters from an AP, preferably boss level encounters to see how the build would do.Funny, the only time I ever did an in-game arena battle, it was between my 12th level fighter, and a 12th level wizard. I got initiative, changed up and whaled him so hard he took massive damage and that was it. And it proved... nothing.
I think fighting types start more powerful, mid levels are kind of a sweet spot, then by the teens casters are pulling ahead. To maintain balance between the classes at higher levels, all you need to do is gather everyone around, and say, "hey, we know casters can get a little crazy, so how about playing like a team, not boosting your stat into the 30's and saving your best tricks for an emergency. If none of us try to exploit the rules, we can all have more fun". Problem solved.
But as someone once said, "A build or your a sock puppet."
Let's see what these farcical wizards can do.I don't think Arena proves much, per say. But I think posting a full build shows a potential playable character, with all it's strengths and weaknesses available for discussion.
Some characters are all win or all fail and Some are mediocre but always helpful. The later won't arena well, but will be welcome in any party.
Perfect example of the later would be most Bards that I have seen played. Always useful, rarely dominant.
Perfect example of the former is a transmuter red wizard specialist my friend plays. Tons of kill or die spells that either end the battle or do nothing and leave him completely exposed.
It's a team game for a reason, I agree. But I think a build is needed to discuss what you traded for whatever super power you got.
A party vs party battle would be fun.
|
|
er..how would you handle illusions? or charms (eg. previously having charmed a monster to follow you around for the next couple of days)? or planer binding?
Without getting into the whole monk vs. wizard thing again - as that would force me into a discussion with a troll - an arena battle might be fun, but you'd have to make allowances for sorcerers to use their best abilities or gimp them.
I think you would need to be able to instant message a GM arbiter things like that. They could keep track of the board and post "what you see"
I think you would need to be able to instant message a GM arbiter things like that. They could keep track of the board and post "what you see"er..how would you handle illusions? or charms (eg. previously having charmed a monster to follow you around for the next couple of days)? or planer binding?
Without getting into the whole monk vs. wizard thing again - as that would force me into a discussion with a troll - an arena battle might be fun, but you'd have to make allowances for sorcerers to use their best abilities or gimp them.
If you cast an illusion in combat it can be spellcrafted. In a game you can use illusion to set things up. There are things that can be represented in a pvp battle.