I've played it, and it isn't. A role-playing game, that is. It's a tactical wargame.P.S. I play d&d from first edition, AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, and PF (almost 21 years of play). I read the book of 4E but never rolled a dice to play it. Is a board game, has little to do with RPG.Except for, y'know, the whole it-being-a-roleplaying-game part. I mean, you haven't even bothered to play it. The persistent anti-4e trolling is just bad.
I've played it, and it definitely is a roleplaying game, by any reasonable definition of the term - in fact, I'd love to hear your personal definition of "roleplaying game". You're pointlessly edition-warring, here. You don't have a real criticism, just a shell ("It's not a real roleplaying game!") that doesn't actually make sense upon any kind of examination, but which you're happy to throw out there anyway because it's easier than actually trying to figure out why you're not able to enjoy the game.
I've played it, and it definitely is a roleplaying game, by any reasonable definition of the term - in fact, I'd love to hear your personal definition of "roleplaying game". You're pointlessly edition-warring, here. You don't have a real criticism, just a shell ("It's not a real roleplaying game!") that doesn't actually make sense upon any kind of examination, but which you're happy to throw out there anyway because it's easier than actually trying to figure out why you're not able to enjoy the game.I've played it, and it isn't. A role-playing game, that is. It's a tactical wargame.P.S. I play d&d from first edition, AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, and PF (almost 21 years of play). I read the book of 4E but never rolled a dice to play it. Is a board game, has little to do with RPG.Except for, y'know, the whole it-being-a-roleplaying-game part. I mean, you haven't even bothered to play it. The persistent anti-4e trolling is just bad.
There is no discernible difference between classes and the powers of classes; it's all just fluff. Martial, arcane, divine, psionic; no real difference, no separation.
I have YET to see a scenario/adventure/whatever they're calling them over in 4E that actually includes any RP, and the skills certainly don't support RP.
There's no way to be CREATIVE with your power set: it is what it is.
There's no support for any theatre outside of the tactical "here's your map, here's your grid, here's the foe."
So there are my real criticisms. I don't need to figure out why I'm not able to enjoy the game: I know why I don't enjoy it. If I wanted an experience like 4E provides I'd still be playing Battletech. Which at least had the decency not to purport to be a role-playing game.
Ok, Scott, is an RPG. But if people wanted to play it i think that thay would play 4E instead of PF, and this is PF forum.
You can roleplay even with Heroquest, but it's clear what is the purpouse of product. Class and multiclass system, combination class / race, skill points, options for non combat situations, very few freedom of customization... if you like a RPG like this, i got nothing against, but if PF is going to become like 4E i will not buy the new edition like i had for d&d :)
So now can we talk about something else? This is not 4E forum.
Lol i'm in trouble trying to understand what they want to do:) But plz avoid OT.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no discernible difference between classes and the powers of classes; it's all just fluff. Martial, arcane, divine, psionic; no real difference, no separation.
I have YET to see a scenario/adventure/whatever they're calling them over in 4E that actually includes any RP, and the skills certainly don't support RP.
There's no way to be CREATIVE with your power set: it is what it is.
There's no support for any theatre outside of the tactical "here's your map, here's your grid, here's the foe."
So there are my real criticisms. I don't need to figure out why I'm not able to enjoy the game: I know why I don't enjoy it. If I wanted an experience like 4E provides I'd still be playing Battletech. Which at least had the decency not to purport to be a role-playing game.
I am a pretty harsh critic of 4e's class design and pursuit of game balance to the point that it destroyed the "high fantasy" flavor I liked about the game.
But this is more than a bit of hyperbole. Much of the role playing opportunities in Pathfinder are "fluff" based as well.
I play a ranger that has advanced from level 8 to level 20 in 4e. I role play the heck out of him. He has a personality as distinct and recognizable as any PC I've ever played. He interacts with the other party members on a regular basis.
In our last session we were searching for one of a series of Maguffins and he triggered a trap which yanked him into a pool of acid. After barely surviving the acid trap and getting healed back up, he spent several minutes trying to convince the rogue (with whom he has a bit of a rivalry going) that he caught a glimpse of the missing Maguffin at the bottom of the acid pit, but that he was now too injured to go after it.
During most combats he and the rogue have a running dialogue about damage, positioning, tactics, etc. During downtime he is a boozing, womanizing gambler who enjoys nothing so much as a good back massage from a hot elf chick while smoking a huge stinky cigar...
But then again, I can role play my Monopoly "character"... and I do.
There is no discernible difference between classes and the powers of classes; it's all just fluff. Martial, arcane, divine, psionic; no real difference, no separation.
That's not true. Divine characters, for instance, have access to the Channel Divinity mechanic, a special, unique ability tied to their deity or religion that no other power source (martial, arcane, etc.) has access to.
I have YET to see a scenario/adventure/whatever they're calling them over in 4E that actually includes any RP, and the skills certainly don't support RP.
Then you haven't looked very hard. I would be happy to provide you with links to adventures that include substantial opportunities for what you think is roleplaying, and I will be happy to point out the relevant sections of those adventures. Is this something you would like?
And the skills support roleplaying plenty. Speaking as someone who has run a number of Pathfinder adventure paths in 4e, I've never had any problem using the skill system from 4e to support the roleplaying scenarios from Pathfinder adventures.
There's no way to be CREATIVE with your power set: it is what it is.
There are plenty of ways to be creative, not just with your power set, but with your skills, rituals, abilities, and the on-the-fly DC table from page 42 of the DMG.
There's no support for any theatre outside of the tactical "here's your map, here's your grid, here's the foe."
That's not true. The biggest example is, of course, the skill challenge system, which is the most robust non-combat challenge resolution support that D&D has ever been given.
So there are my real criticisms.
Your criticisms are, in every instance, based on falsehoods or misunderstandings. Every instance. Everything that you said about 4e was demonstrably false. Everything.
This is not uncommon. This is the sort of stuff 4e players are used to hearing. The same baseless criticisms from people who are convinced they know the game. I'm not sure why their distaste for the game blossoms into spreading falsehoods, but it does.
I don't need to figure out why I'm not able to enjoy the game: I know why I don't enjoy it. If I wanted an experience like 4E provides I'd still be playing Battletech. Which at least had the decency not to purport to be a role-playing game.
Again, 4e is a roleplaying game. It's silly to believe otherwise. It is a game in which you roleplay. And if you truly believe that it isn't, please give us your personal definition of "roleplaying game".
Ok, Scott, is an RPG. But if people wanted to play it i think that thay would play 4E instead of PF, and this is PF forum.
You can roleplay even with Heroquest, but it's clear what is the purpouse of product. Class and multiclass system, combination class / race, skill points, options for non combat situations, very few freedom of customization... if you like a RPG like this, i got nothing against, but if PF is going to become like 4E i will not buy the new edition like i had for d&d :)
So now can we talk about something else? This is not 4E forum.
That didn't stop you from senselessly bashing 4e earlier in this very thread, without any prompting. If you decide to attack something because you hate it, you should expect it to be defended by those who like it. You opened this can of worms. Next time, leave it closed.
Ok, Scott, is an RPG. But if people wanted to play it i think that thay would play 4E instead of PF, and this is PF forum.
You can roleplay even with Heroquest, but it's clear what is the purpouse of product. Class and multiclass system, combination class / race, skill points, options for non combat situations, very few freedom of customization... if you like a RPG like this, i got nothing against, but if PF is going to become like 4E i will not buy the new edition like i had for d&d :)
So now can we talk about something else? This is not 4E forum.
Anytime you make negative comments about another system people will say something so it is better to not use 4E or any other system as an example of a problem or at least try to be aware of what you are saying.
Saying 4E is not a RPG did not help at all, and you were the one to bring 4E into this conversation. I don't play 4E either, but I also don't tell others that it is not an RPG.
I said i don't like it, and i'm in PF from d&d because i like a different game. Ok, is an RPG, now stop being offended and stop advertise 4E in PF forum and expecially in this thread.
This complaining is becoming ridicolous and it's OT.
So there are my real criticisms.Your criticisms are, in every instance, based on falsehoods or misunderstandings. Every instance. Everything that you said about 4e was demonstrably false. Everything.
This is not uncommon. This is the sort of stuff 4e players are used to hearing. The same baseless criticisms from people who are convinced they...
My criticisms are based on my EXPERIENCES with the 4E game. It's possible I've had rotten luck with GMs.
I will grant you that 4E may, in fact, qualify as a role-playing game. My experience of it has been RESOUNDINGLY horrible, however, so in my opinion, it's a lousy one.
Too late, the thread has Scott firing on full cylinders and he won't stop. You might as well start a new one :)
Actually, I'm done. He's promised to stop and that's good enough for me.
|
@Diego a few things to consider . . .
1) I was referring to area there not cubes i.e. 400 10 foot cubes = 4,000 cubic feet.
400 10'*10'*10' cubes, are 400,000 cubic foot. And that is what I used in my post.
2) Actually you don't need 8 hours rest, see the ring of sustanence thread. You can still only recover spells every 24 hours but you only need 2 hours of sleep + 1 to recover spells the rest can be spent casting. So 3 castings of it per day 18 hours worth, 2 hours sleep, 1 hour rememorizing and 3 hours free time. If you want to take the time moving 2* (note I said I didn't because of visitors) that give us an effective 12-24 hour day. 3 castings each 12 hour period since your operating on subjective time as per the game mastery guide for 6 castings per day. Which doesn't even consider hiring another mage or two to cast the spell alongside you if you could find another high enough level one.
Oh joy, now I am spending 18 hours day casting the same spell (note that I need to have at least 4 9th level spell slot as a spellcaster can't re-memorize a spell he has cast in the last 8 hours) for about 70 years.
3) That life expectancy is based on a human lifespan, more importantly a human lifespan which assumes the 20th level mage doesn't have spells/potions/items to keep them young and healthy. For an elf, dwarf, life extended lich, potion of youth using mage or house ruled (as in my game) mages live longer (depending on power 2, 5 or 10 times the norm for their race) even 100 odd years isn't that big a deal. An elf isn't even mature till their around that age.
Assuming your in my game with its house rules (elder races live longer than in the core book e.g. elves can get a couple of millenia naturally). An elf could live over 2,000 years, if its a powerful mage you multiply that by 10 and your looking at 20,000+ in that time you spend a century to get the palace of versaille to live in for the next 18 thousand years. After 2 millenia you decide you want some more room and spend another century doubling the area to 1,600 hectares its not such a burden really. If your an evil lich with eternity to live in as long as some do-gooder adventurer doesn't kill you spending a few centuries making your own private island paradise with plenty of bolt holes could well be worth the investment. "You want my phylactary? Good luck its in a vault, buried in the heart of a maze, in the middle of that mountain which responds to my will.
Independently from my lifespan, spending 100 years doing the same, identical thing, with practically no time to interact with other beings, study and so on I would go insane well before the end of the century.
The problem isn't "you need 100 years to get there", it is "you need 100 year of total drudgery to get there".
4) You can't call it slavery unless I make you do it, if you do it because you want to create your perfect home then its a lifestyle choice. Internal vs External forces.
The life of most slaves would still be better than the live of your 20th spellcasters.
Even a slave don't work 18 hours every day for 100 years straight.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No no no, you're all totally wrong.
"Caster / non-caster problem. OK, but why?"
Because when the game of AD&D was designed back in the day, there were several ideas that seemed real cool at the time. One was the idea that some classes (monks, magic-users) started out really weak, but after a dozen or so levels, ruled the world. Also, classes advanced at different rates, although generally slower then currently. Most of the classes stopped advancing when they hit about 10th level or so. Another concept was that casters had a VERY limited number of spells, but those spells were supposed to be very powerful.
These concepts died out in the 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder era, yet the spell lists remained almost identical to AD&D.
In a few cases, the spell ends up fairly balanced. Take the often whined about fireball for example. While everyone points out the 1d6/level damage used to be great when Demogorgon had 200hp, they forget that an AD&D caster might also nuke his friends if his volume calculations were off. Most importantly, it was a 5th level casters ONLY 3rd level spell. These days a 5th level caster is going to have 3-4 3rd level spell slots, plus a few scrolls (which an AD&D MU couldn't scribe until 11th level). The spell isn't as powerful as it used to be, but you can cast it four times more then you once could.
There are several ways to fix the current problem, but most involve taking away things, which would cause every player of a caster to throw a fit. Also, many of the spells are what makes it the same game it has been since the late 70's. Now that the system has been changed where all classes march hand and had up to level 20, something has to give. Honestly, things like Wish, Maze, Time Stop, etc. are silly, and you just can't give martial characters anything similar without the game getting more preposterous then it already is at high level.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not true. The biggest example is, of course, the skill challenge system, which is the most robust non-combat challenge resolution support that D&D has ever been given.
The one problem I do have with your post and defense of 4E this time, is this statement you've made.
Unfortunately, experience in playing 4E showed me that the "skill challenge system" by the 4E RAW is detrimental to role=playing, since it makes non-combat resolution just like combat-- pick a skill, roll the dice, assess the result; continue with each character contributing one skill or another, until the conditions for success or failure have been met. As written, it doesn't lend itself to good PC/NPC role-playing interaction, but rather lends itself to rolling dice and some semblance of tactics (in choosing the best skills to apply, from among the group and from each character who can reasonably contribute).
Not saying 4E isn't a role-playing game, but this particular system within the game was one of the things that IMO took away, not added to, role-playing, when they explicitly wrote up the rules for applying skill challenges to social situations.
I have to concur with Finn K on the 4e skill challenge thing.
What a travesty that is...
GM: "OK, what skill do you think might apply"
Player: "Um.... could I apply acrobatics?"
GM: "Hmm... well, I suppose so, sure. Make a roll."
Player: *rolls dice" "A 15?
GM: "Yay, you succeed, that's three wins and a loss so far... next up..."
What. A. Friggin. Joke.
|
|
3 not 4 slots, I don't recall that 8 hours memorizing thing I do know the ring of sustanence specifies you can't rememorize for 24 hours but there's nothing in there about a spell being cast in the last 8 hours. Could you give me a page number with this rule as I've seen people state if before but never been able to find it.
Arcane Spells
....
Preparing Wizard Spells
.....
Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions: If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on his resources reduces his capacity to prepare new spells. When he prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells he has cast within the last 8 hours count against his daily limit.
So, as the third Greater Create Demiplane he has cast in a day can't be replaced after sleeping 2 hours. If the caster has 4+ slots he can cycle them, so he can cast 3 spells each day.
|
|
3 not 4 slots, I don't recall that 8 hours memorizing thing I do know the ring of sustanence specifies you can't rememorize for 24 hours but there's nothing in there about a spell being cast in the last 8 hours. Could you give me a page number with this rule as I've seen people state if before but never been able to find it.
Arcane Spells
....
Preparing Wizard Spells
.....
Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions: If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on his resources reduces his capacity to prepare new spells. When he prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells he has cast within the last 8 hours count against his daily limit.So, as the third Greater Create Demiplane he has cast in a day can't be replaced after sleeping 2 hours. If the caster has 4+ slots he can cycle them, so he can cast 3 spells each day.
Lot's of people make the same mistake that Liam does with regards to spell preparation and a Ring of Sustenance. People need to understand that even if you sleep for two hours you still cannot prepare spells again until the next day.
I don't need to figure out why I'm not able to enjoy the game: I know why I don't enjoy it. If I wanted an experience like 4E provides I'd still be playing Battletech. Which at least had the decency not to purport to be a role-playing game.
I have to stop you there. Battletech is an excellent RPG. Just listen to the last dozen Fear the Boot podcasts to see how much RP is in a Battletech campaign. (Certainly if you run a one off battle it is just a combat sim. But so is every version of D&D.)
I don't need to figure out why I'm not able to enjoy the game: I know why I don't enjoy it. If I wanted an experience like 4E provides I'd still be playing Battletech. Which at least had the decency not to purport to be a role-playing game.I have to stop you there. Battletech is an excellent RPG. Just listen to the last dozen Fear the Boot podcasts to see how much RP is in a Battletech campaign. (Certainly if you run a one off battle it is just a combat sim. But so is every version of D&D.)
Sorry, I actually enjoyed playing Battletech, but when I played it (long, long ago, in a galaxy... oh, nevermind) there really wasn't any more to it than mechwarriors shouting insults over unscrambled comm frequencies... and blowing each other up.
|
|
@Liam
But RAW you are wrong.
General rule:
Rest:
To prepare his daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but he must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If his rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time he has to rest in order to clear his mind, and he must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing his spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, he still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells.Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions: If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on his resources reduces his capacity to prepare new spells. When he prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells he has cast within the last 8 hours count against his daily limit.
Ring of sustenance:
This ring continually provides its wearer with life-sustaining nourishment. The ring also refreshes the body and mind, so that its wearer needs only sleep 2 hours per day to gain the benefit of 8 hours of sleep. This allows a spellcaster that requires rest to prepare spells to do so after only 2 hours, but this does not allow a spellcaster to prepare spells more than once per day.
The ring affect the rest rule, not the Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions.
He thinks you are skirting the rules to get it, and by RAW he is right. The rules for resting to prepare spells, and the ones about counting which ones go against your daily limit are two separate things. The ring only bypass one of them.
You could buy scrolls to try to get around this however.
|
If you played 3.5 and liked parts of it then consider checking out green ronins thieves world adaptation for 3.5 .The magic rules in there might suit your style of dming.The setting is based on a series of novels but the magic rules should adapt to pf fairly easily.I thought the rules were kind of klunky,but my players said they liked it quite a bit.
The one problem I do have with your post and defense of 4E this time, is this statement you've made.
Unfortunately, experience in playing 4E showed me that the "skill challenge system" by the 4E RAW is detrimental to role=playing, since it makes non-combat resolution just like combat-- pick a skill, roll the dice, assess the result; continue with each character contributing one skill or another, until the conditions for success or failure have been met. As written, it doesn't lend itself to good PC/NPC role-playing interaction, but rather lends itself to rolling dice and some semblance of tactics (in choosing the best skills to apply, from among the group and from each character who can reasonably contribute).
Not saying 4E isn't a role-playing game, but this particular system within the game was one of the things that IMO took away, not added to, role-playing, when they explicitly wrote up the rules for applying skill challenges to social situations.
I didn't cite skill challenges as an example of something that added to the roleplaying aspect of the game. I cited them as an example of support for a theater of action that the game provided that was separate from the tactical combat theater.
Skill challenges are not easy to run well. They are, in my experience, the soundest test of some of the most important DM traits.
Remember, the skill challenge system is not a substitute for the roleplaying that you typically do in D&D. Rather, it is a framework that allows you, as the DM, to adjudicate the party's success or failure at a group effort by using the results of their skill checks. It is designed to be tacked onto the roleplaying portions of the game (and other portions of the game, too!) and when done best the players may not even realize they've been in a skill challenge.
I'd be happy to dive deeper into skill challenges, but not in this thread. If anyone wants to discuss them, just start a thread in the 4e subforum and I'll pop in.
He is not opposed to it. He thinks it is not likely if the GM follows the book closely. Everything I saw him post was rules related unless I missed something, and everything is a GM's call, but the rules, especially magic items have a specific intention when written. You can only bypass what the item says you can bypass.
All the rings allows you to do is get the same amount of rest in two hours that you would get in eight hours.
The opportunity to cast "new" spells is not limited so much by sleep as it is by how much time has passed in game. That is a completely different issue than sleeping for X amount of hours.
The one problem I do have with your post and defense of 4E this time, is this statement you've made.
Unfortunately, experience in playing 4E showed me that the "skill challenge system" by the 4E RAW is detrimental to role=playing, since it makes non-combat resolution just like combat-- pick a skill, roll the dice, assess the result; continue with each character contributing one skill or another, until the conditions for success or failure have been met. As written, it doesn't lend itself to good PC/NPC role-playing interaction, but rather lends itself to rolling dice and some semblance of tactics (in choosing the best skills to apply, from among the group and from each character who can reasonably contribute).
Not saying 4E isn't a role-playing game, but this particular system within the game was one of the things that IMO took away, not added to, role-playing, when they explicitly wrote up the rules for applying skill challenges to social situations.
I didn't cite skill challenges as an example of something that added to the roleplaying aspect of the game. I cited them as an example of support for a theater of action that the game provided that was separate from the tactical combat theater.
Skill challenges are not easy to run well. They are, in my experience, the soundest test of some of the most important DM traits.
Remember, the skill challenge system is not a substitute for the roleplaying that you typically do in D&D. Rather, it is a framework that allows you, as the DM, to adjudicate the party's success or failure at a group effort by using the results of their skill checks. It is designed to be tacked onto the roleplaying portions of the game (and other portions of the game, too!) and when done best the players may not even realize they've been in a skill challenge.
I'd be happy to dive deeper into skill challenges, but not in this thread. If anyone wants to discuss them, just start a thread in the 4e subforum and I'll...
I don't agree with this. Skill system (and special ability, and so on) like all your character features is a script, and you have to interpret it. If you can't do a 4th level character that is a rogue 2 / wizard 2 with specific skills you will not roleplay it.
This is the same reason for i started this thread: PF rules RAW support only some type of campaign, and i'd like that players work togheter to find a way to use better the rules system (and not to change at all).|
|
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this as its just a matter of interpretation and neither of us works for Paizo.
I have to ask though why are you so determined to deny me my small island demiplane?
You want to stay outside of a campaign for 100 years? Fine.
If you want to use handwavium and say "I live forever, so I have done that, let's resume the campaign next week" not fine at all.This is not aimed specifically at you, but, as the issue here is caster/non caster power levels, the caster get much more from the use of handwavium than non casters, so I have problems when someone use that debate technique to say that casters are more powerful. You post was a fine example of claiming that a caster can do something and dismissing the problems related to that something.
"My caster can get a small island kingdom with Create Demiplane" is really different from "My caster, casting non stop for 70 years and spending above 450 millions gp can get a small island kingdom with Create Demiplane".
With the same time and money a non caster would have brought enough Sun Orchid elixir to live a few millennium, got some awfully powerful magic items (enough stuff that he would be immune by most spellcasters attempt to enslave or kill him), a large army and captured a kingdom with that army.
Several other comments claim that Create demiplane is too powerful, always forgetting the problems in creating it. Your post had a a few more information on what was the aim at creating a demiplane and so was useful as a reference.
Personally? My wizard, if he had the money and time, would be the first to create magic item that open a door to a permanent Magnificent mansion. Smaller than the demiplane but, oh, so convenient.
You would even had your invisible servants keeping it tidy and keeping all in order.
Cost? Ouch, I haven't done the math, but I think it will be very high.
Edit:
Minimum cost: level 7 spell, CL 13, constant 7*13*2,000=182.000
I would add a special increase as the original spell is linked to a fixed location while my version would be linked to a movable item:
+50% movable
Final price 270.000 gp, 270 days to make it.
With a 135.000 gp crafting cost it will burn almost all the money of a 13th level character and be really affordable for a 18+ level character.
Seem approximately right.
|
|
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this as its just a matter of interpretation and neither of us works for Paizo.
I have to ask though why are you so determined to deny me my small island demiplane?
Liam: I am going to try and explain this to you as easy as possible.
Pretty much all a Ring of Sustenance does is make it where you don't have to rest as long so there is less of a chance you are interrupted. You pretty much have 6 hours to twiddle your thumbs or do something else but you can't re memorize those spells again until the next day. All the ring does is lesson your rest time.
Liam what you are trying to do is say the ring allows you 2 hours of rest so you think that every two hours you can re memorize your spells that you have already cast and you can't do that. You are still limited to the "Per Day" rule.
yeah, a martial caster disparity thread that turned into edition wars!
I think the OP's original intent was something more akin to making campaign setting rules that fit either low, mid, or high fantasy with the assumption that a fighter type class through 20 levels represents low, and a wizard-type class through 20 levels represents high. Then, for the various campaign types you either add or subtract abilities as appropriate.
Personally, I think the biggest problem is with the fighter class. The key feature of the fighter class is getting a feat every other level which makes it the same as every other class over 20 levels. So, every class essentially gets the most defining features of the fighter for FREE. The only way to remove disparity is if every other class could learn spells provided they met the ability score and some other related requirements.
You see the problem is if every character has what the fighter gets, then fighters aren't "fighter-y" they are just "character-y". They are generic because every ability you give them can be had by everyone else. In 3.x, Wizards tried to fix this with ToB:Bo9S by making martial characters who had unique abilities. It was IMHO, a complete failure (for so many other reasons I will not litter this thread with, but) mainly because it went too far, and it ended up making classes that were considered a joke.
Still, Book of Nine Swords does actually provide the best solution to removing the problem of fighter/caster disparity which is to just remove the fighter. Then, replace the fighter with a martial class that has its own unique mechanic (like every other class in the game).
I agree with all. Maybe this could be fixed with some new feats made for fighters?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think the biggest problem is with the fighter class. The key feature of the fighter class is getting a feat every other level which makes it the same as every other class over 20 levels. So, every class essentially gets the most defining features of the fighter for FREE. The only way to remove disparity is if every other class could learn spells provided they met the ability score and some other related requirements.
This is an incorrect assessment though. The fighter not only has 11 more feats than everyone else (some are fighter only), it also has a few other class features that only the fighter can have. With the addition of archetypes, the fighter becomes even more unique. There are some feats that many other classes will never be able to use (base attack bonus higher than +15).
Many spellcasting classes share similar or the same spells and it isn't seen as a problem. Why would sharing feats be seen as a problem?
I don't know why everyone's solution is to give the fighter more feats which often take away from what the fighter could do inherently with a creative player and a lenient GM. Let's make the fighter more epic by making them spend their resources to roleplay.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand the fallacy. "Rules design can be poor, because there's always the rule-0-wielding GM to fix any problems".
Fixing caster-martial disparity by having a GM who's constantly trying to shove a pointy stick up the caster's rear is not a good way to handle the problem.
|
|
I understand the fallacy. "Rules design can be poor, because there's always the rule-0-wielding GM to fix any problems".
Fixing caster-martial disparity by having a GM who's constantly trying to shove a pointy stick up the caster's rear is not a good way to handle the problem.
A DM doesn't have to do this. All the DM needs to do is actually follow the rules and actually enforce them then the problem actually shrinks a lot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since there are no precise rules for spell availability (so, it's up to GM), by following the (hey, rules-regulated) WBL there's more than enough money for spells, and since 15-minute-adventuring-day is perfectly legit by the RAW, I'm not sure what "following and enforcing" are you actually referring to.
|
|
Since there are no precise rules for spell availability (so, it's up to GM), by following the (hey, rules-regulated) WBL there's more than enough money for spells, and since 15-minute-adventuring-day is perfectly legit by the RAW, I'm not sure what "following and enforcing" are you actually referring to.
There are rules for spell availability. Let's take the Wizard for example: You are only guaranteed a certain number of spells to add to your spellbook at each level. Now if you happen to find more or you are able to buy more is all depended on the campaign. This has nothing to do with the fallacy and I think you maybe confused a bit as to how it fits here. If you want to get technical, it's actually the fallacy that enables spellcasters such as Wizards to be powerful. If you handwave everything such as costs, giving the 15 minute workday and enable the wizard to have and buy any spell he wants then the fallacy comes into play because you are in essence enacting Rule 0.
The rules work fine. The problem is that balance is upset unless a certain playstyle is enforced which understandably can upset a number of GMs especially those who are not fans of 4 to 5 combats per day. This gets even worse at high levels where combats tend to take longer or PCs have more means to just avoid combat altogether. Actual adventuring progress lags in order to keep the casters balanced. Therefore casters tend to be stronger through the more story driven playstyle.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dependent on campaign = dependent on GM. So it's down to "how anal the GM is". You like being an anal person? Fine, not everybody does! BTW, if you use magic item availablity rules from GMG you're pretty much sure to find scrolls for all Wizard spells for purchase without much trouble.
Costs - again, there's WBL for spell purchase... unless you're trying to tell me that Wizards should be verboten to spend their gp on spells or maybe they should get a small share in party treasure to compensate for their uberness? Analville again.
|
|
Since there are no precise rules for spell availability (so, it's up to GM), by following the (hey, rules-regulated) WBL there's more than enough money for spells, and since 15-minute-adventuring-day is perfectly legit by the RAW, I'm not sure what "following and enforcing" are you actually referring to.
Gorbacz--
Most of what you have to say in these last several posts makes sense, IMO, except the "15-minute adventuring day"-- yes, it's allowed by RAW, but adventurers are (at least in the games I've played over many many years) quite often stuck with time critical situations, which do not allow you to engage in one or two quick fights, then stop and rest for another 24 hours; and are also often in situations (such as delving deep into the underdark, engaging in operations in hostile territory, and/or any other situation where you can't just stop where you are and be safe and secure for a long stretch of time) where stopping and resting after one fight will only mean the enemies continue coming to you for the rest of a long work-day; and where stopping for a nice long rest after 1 fight, means the "next day" the enemy will have prepared a nice, warm much more dangerous welcome since they're now well aware that you're coming.
I don't think it's "GM dickishness" to have the party regularly face situations that do not allow for a "15-minute workday" for the adventurers... in fact, I think the GM is giving away far too much when he/she regularly allows adventurers to get away with the "1 fight and rest" pattern most of the time, unless the party does have special tricks to ensure their safety for the extended breaks and there are compelling reasons why the situation isn't going to change for the worse while the party's wasting all that time.
|
|
Since there are no precise rules for spell availability (so, it's up to GM), by following the (hey, rules-regulated) WBL there's more than enough money for spells, and since 15-minute-adventuring-day is perfectly legit by the RAW, I'm not sure what "following and enforcing" are you actually referring to.Gorbacz--
Most of what you have to say in these last several posts makes sense, IMO.
There are rules for spell availability. Wizards get 2 per level after 1st level. That is 100% by the rules, anything after that is all a part of the campaign and not by the rules per say.