Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[ImperatorK]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...r-fighters-)&p=6190664&viewfull=1#post6190664

 

[TwoSix]

A nice explanation of the interaction between mechanics, default table expectations, and the issue of GM force. I'd XP if I could.

Got it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Why am I being ignored?

I wasn't referring to a particular book, just any book of game rules. There isn't really a meaningful answer to the question, and I don't see that line of conversation going anywhere.

 

[ImperatorK]

So you had no real point. Gotcha.

 

[N'raac]

The point posted, as I see it, was that you had indicated "How I run my games says nothing about the system's/spellcaster's balance.", to which the response was "But some book of guidelines written by someone you've never met does?"

That would be whatever book suggests that there is, or is not, balance and/or how to achieve balance.

If there is imbalance in your games and none in Ahnehnois' games, then I have to question how that happens, using the same set of rules. Either the unbalanced game reflects poor/inept GMing, or the balanced game reflects players not leveraging the rules. With some GM's claiming they are not experiencing a problem, and others reporting they are, one of the two must be true, and there doesn't seem an objective means of determining which is correct.

From other comments, the question seems to revolve, in part, over how a good GM will inperpret spells where there are multiple possible interpretations. Those suggesting the power disparity is vast seem also to favour interpretations which grant the wizard greater power and flexibility, while those reporting better balance between warriors and casters seem to favor interpretations that restrict the power of spells. Is it possible the designers intended greater balance, and the more restrictive interpretations?

 

[ImperatorK]

My point was, even if my games are perfectly balanced, that doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with the system I'm using. In 3.X/PF classes are not balanced. Requiring the DM to be not inept for the game to work properly is a failure of the game design.

 

[N'raac]

My point was, even if my games are perfectly balanced, that doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with the system I'm using. In 3.X/PF classes are not balanced. Requiring the DM to be not inept for the game to work properly is a failure of the game design.

It's always tough to make analogies as the role of the GM is a bit unique, but let's consider:

- How well does football work if the referee or the quarterback is inept?

- How well does baseball work if the referee or the pitcher is inept?

I think most games rely on players, especially key players, NOT being inept.

 

[Wicht]

My point was, even if my games are perfectly balanced, that doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with the system I'm using. In 3.X/PF classes are not balanced. Requiring the DM to be not inept for the game to work properly is a failure of the game design.

Assertion is not proof. The Wizards and the Fighters in my games seem to compliment each other nicely. Even more so in Pathfinder than in 3x with the fighter getting more feats. The fighter finishes off some monsters the wizard might have trouble with, and magic missile has made the difference on more than one occasion.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In 3.X/PF classes are not balanced.

Actually, they are.

Balanced the way you would like? Perhaps not.

My point was, even if my games are perfectly balanced, that doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with the system I'm using.

It doesn't mean that, no. However, it does not follow that introducing game elements with known and profound flaws* and using those mechanics in inappropriate ways is going to make the system any better.

*Which includes all the Bo9S stuff, the rage powers, the whole grit debacle, etc. etc.

Requiring the DM to be not inept for the game to work properly is a failure of the game design.

Assuming the game is designed to cater to the inept, this is true.

I don't share that assumption.

***
[MENTION=6681948]N'raac[/MENTION]
Stole my idea. But it's still a good one. Football works a lot better when you have Peyton Manning then it does when you have, say, Blaine Gabbert. You can apply the same logic to coaches and referees. The game goes better when the people involved in it know what they're doing. Doesn't mean the game itself is not balanced.

In general, games of skill rely on the operators being skilled.

 

[ImperatorK]

- How well does football work if the referee or the quarterback is inept?

- How well does baseball work if the referee or the pitcher is inept?

These analogies aren't very good. D&D is a cooperative game, football/baseball is competitive.

I think most games rely on players, especially key players, NOT being inept.

Sure they do. But when you need system mastery to fix the game's flaws, then something is not right.

Assertion is not proof.

Have you lived under a rock with no internet for the past few years?

Actually, they are.

Balanced the way you would like? Perhaps not.

Lol at the self-contradiction.
Are my wishes somehow less important than yours? Not to mention that I'm not alone on that.

It doesn't mean that, no. However, it does not follow that introducing game elements with known and profound flaws* and using those mechanics in inappropriate ways is going to make the system any better.

I'm not entirely sure what your point here is...
And ToB, Rage Powers, Grit have "profound flaws"? What?

Assuming the game is designed to cater to the inept, this is true.

I don't share that assumption.

So then your assumption is that it is catered to people who not only can, but also don't mind fixing the game's flaws?
I find what you are saying to be very elitist. You're such a good DM, having no problems with your games. But when someone has trouble with the game's balance? Well, tough cookies, he should stop being such an inept DM!

In general, games of skill rely on the operators being skilled.

Sure, when the goal is to win. In D&D the goal is to have fun.