Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Fixing the Fighter
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6068661" data-attributes="member: 6668292"><p>Whoa, pages are flying by before I get a chance to respond. Sorry if this seems outdated, but it's been less than 24 hours, so I'll still reply.</p><p></p><p>Well, you mentioned 3.5 explicitly, so that's what I was responding to. It's no surprise to me that the 4e ranged Ranger, designed as a ranged striker, is better at ranged combat than the Fighter, which is designed as a melee Defender. But that's not what I was replying to.</p><p></p><p>This depends, to me, on what kind of classes you want. The three pillars include Combat, Exploration, and Social Interaction. Personally, I'm okay with every class being 3/3/3 across the pillars as a default, but I wouldn't want to play them that way. I'd want the Fighter to be better at Combat (maybe 4/2/2, or even 4/1/3), while classes like the Ranger are more exploration-based (so something like 3/4/1). Why is it okay for the Fighter to theoretically be better at ranged combat than the Ranger? Because I'm <em>okay</em> with some classes being <em>better</em> in one area. It's okay with me.</p><p></p><p>Or, the way I'd prefer, is to design them to certain areas. Give the Fighter some fighting abilities, while the Ranger gets nature-oriented abilities: he can move faster through rough terrain, hide easier, move quietly faster, etc. You end up something very different than if you turned it into a theme (or the like). Same thing for Monks, Thiefs, etc. As always, play what you like <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually, I would say that is actually "fiat" in the way the word is being used by the OP in this thread (and his post one page back seems to back that up). That player just declared that someone else is hurt through his PC; this is potentially "more fiat than normal" if the PCs are viewed as pieces on a board, rather than being used for immersive RPing. Saying "that guy is hurt" because of my PC is just as much fiat as saying "that guy is charmed because of my PC", the consequences are just different.</p><p></p><p>However, I see what Obryn wants, and I know what pemerton is advocating for. The ability to decide what <em>other</em> people are doing through some sort of metagame power. The ability to compete with magic abilities that "people don't question", like Finger of Death or Knock or Blindness/Deafness. And I get that, and I empathize with it. Personally, I think it's fine for a high level Fighter (or warrior in general) to attempt to make killing strikes. It's fine if Knock isn't automatically successful. It's fine if warriors (or rogues, etc.) want to throw sand in someone's eyes.</p><p></p><p>Then we get to other areas. Gate. Wish. Teleport Without Error. Shapechange. Disintegrate. These are naturally hard for mundane warriors to compete with. Walking between worlds, teleportation, changing into a dragon, obliterating a wall in the blink of an eye; these aren't things that people associate with being mundane. So, we get a few different opinions on how to handle things:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Magic is strong.</strong> Wizards are powerful at high level, and that's okay.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Tone down spells.</strong> Wizards can't do these things, so there's no friction.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Longer recharge times.</strong> Wizards spells capable of such feats come back after days or weeks, not overnight.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Permanent cost.</strong> Wizard spells capable of such feats cost permanent resources: money, magical potential, etc.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Mundane is epic.</strong> Wizards are capable of such feats, but so are mundane characters. They can cut a hole between worlds (Gate or Teleport), shatter a wall with a single strike (Disintegrate), and the like.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Meta Resources.</strong> Mundane character gets meta resources. They can say "that guy likes me" and "retroactively change that guy's personality" to make that guy actually like him.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>And on and on.</strong></li> </ol><p></p><p>Personally, I tend to go for options 3 and 4, with a mix of 2. You want to do that? Fine, you can, but you don't get that spell back for a while, and you never know when you might need it (or maybe you do -and that's okay with me, too). Maybe teleporting as a permanent attribute loss (unless you use circles, have an extremely rare component you could quest for, etc.). Maybe you can't just use Divination magic for everything you need to know, or if you do find stuff out, you can't communicate it by any method.</p><p></p><p>But that's more on-topic than the quote I replied to. So maybe I'll chime in more on that later. As always, play what you like <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree; I don't find there to be much productive conversation to be had with certain posters, and this is no exception to that observation. The badwrongfun posts kinda go against how I feel in general: as always, play what you like <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>If this is how you feel, then you should probably stay clear of saying things like this (said one page back):</p><p></p><p>So, your side is simply enabled, but the other side wants your side to be "denounced as heresy and burned as witches"? That statement also "serves no purpose but to mock and make caricature of something we don't like."</p><p></p><p>You probably shouldn't say stuff like that if you don't want others to, as well. Just a thought. As always, play what you like <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 6068661, member: 6668292"] Whoa, pages are flying by before I get a chance to respond. Sorry if this seems outdated, but it's been less than 24 hours, so I'll still reply. Well, you mentioned 3.5 explicitly, so that's what I was responding to. It's no surprise to me that the 4e ranged Ranger, designed as a ranged striker, is better at ranged combat than the Fighter, which is designed as a melee Defender. But that's not what I was replying to. This depends, to me, on what kind of classes you want. The three pillars include Combat, Exploration, and Social Interaction. Personally, I'm okay with every class being 3/3/3 across the pillars as a default, but I wouldn't want to play them that way. I'd want the Fighter to be better at Combat (maybe 4/2/2, or even 4/1/3), while classes like the Ranger are more exploration-based (so something like 3/4/1). Why is it okay for the Fighter to theoretically be better at ranged combat than the Ranger? Because I'm [I]okay[/I] with some classes being [I]better[/I] in one area. It's okay with me. Or, the way I'd prefer, is to design them to certain areas. Give the Fighter some fighting abilities, while the Ranger gets nature-oriented abilities: he can move faster through rough terrain, hide easier, move quietly faster, etc. You end up something very different than if you turned it into a theme (or the like). Same thing for Monks, Thiefs, etc. As always, play what you like :) Actually, I would say that is actually "fiat" in the way the word is being used by the OP in this thread (and his post one page back seems to back that up). That player just declared that someone else is hurt through his PC; this is potentially "more fiat than normal" if the PCs are viewed as pieces on a board, rather than being used for immersive RPing. Saying "that guy is hurt" because of my PC is just as much fiat as saying "that guy is charmed because of my PC", the consequences are just different. However, I see what Obryn wants, and I know what pemerton is advocating for. The ability to decide what [I]other[/I] people are doing through some sort of metagame power. The ability to compete with magic abilities that "people don't question", like Finger of Death or Knock or Blindness/Deafness. And I get that, and I empathize with it. Personally, I think it's fine for a high level Fighter (or warrior in general) to attempt to make killing strikes. It's fine if Knock isn't automatically successful. It's fine if warriors (or rogues, etc.) want to throw sand in someone's eyes. Then we get to other areas. Gate. Wish. Teleport Without Error. Shapechange. Disintegrate. These are naturally hard for mundane warriors to compete with. Walking between worlds, teleportation, changing into a dragon, obliterating a wall in the blink of an eye; these aren't things that people associate with being mundane. So, we get a few different opinions on how to handle things: [LIST=1] [*][B]Magic is strong.[/B] Wizards are powerful at high level, and that's okay. [*][B]Tone down spells.[/B] Wizards can't do these things, so there's no friction. [*][B]Longer recharge times.[/B] Wizards spells capable of such feats come back after days or weeks, not overnight. [*][B]Permanent cost.[/B] Wizard spells capable of such feats cost permanent resources: money, magical potential, etc. [*][B]Mundane is epic.[/B] Wizards are capable of such feats, but so are mundane characters. They can cut a hole between worlds (Gate or Teleport), shatter a wall with a single strike (Disintegrate), and the like. [*][B]Meta Resources.[/B] Mundane character gets meta resources. They can say "that guy likes me" and "retroactively change that guy's personality" to make that guy actually like him. [*][B]And on and on.[/B] [/LIST] Personally, I tend to go for options 3 and 4, with a mix of 2. You want to do that? Fine, you can, but you don't get that spell back for a while, and you never know when you might need it (or maybe you do -and that's okay with me, too). Maybe teleporting as a permanent attribute loss (unless you use circles, have an extremely rare component you could quest for, etc.). Maybe you can't just use Divination magic for everything you need to know, or if you do find stuff out, you can't communicate it by any method. But that's more on-topic than the quote I replied to. So maybe I'll chime in more on that later. As always, play what you like :) I agree; I don't find there to be much productive conversation to be had with certain posters, and this is no exception to that observation. The badwrongfun posts kinda go against how I feel in general: as always, play what you like :) If this is how you feel, then you should probably stay clear of saying things like this (said one page back): So, your side is simply enabled, but the other side wants your side to be "denounced as heresy and burned as witches"? That statement also "serves no purpose but to mock and make caricature of something we don't like." You probably shouldn't say stuff like that if you don't want others to, as well. Just a thought. As always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Fixing the Fighter
Top