Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Hussar]

Wow, that's pretty different from the 3.5 Diplomacy. Good thing to know the PF team was aware of Diplomancer abuse.

One wonders though, why these changes were made, since, according to those in this thread, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the rules in the first place. Seems like an awful lot of wasted effort for no effect.

 

[pemerton]

Wow, that's pretty different from the 3.5 Diplomacy. Good thing to know the PF team was aware of Diplomancer abuse.

So Paizo can (implicitly) criticise 3E as originally published without simply being inept GMs?

EDIT: Apparently I'm [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s sock puppet!

 

[Ahnehnois]

So Paizo can (implicitly) criticise 3E as originally published without simply being inept GMs?

As long as their criticisms make sense and they make the rules better rather than worse, sure.

 

[Hussar]

Alright, so, you ban wizards and clerics and druids, because you don't like them, I ban paladins because I don't like them, the next DM bans monks because he doesn't like them, and so on and so forth. Everyone's happy. The game's fine.

Ummm, yes?

You do realize that I posted EXACTLY this fix, IN THIS THREAD, about forty or so pages ago.

To be honest, I rarely had any issues with the caster disparity for exactly this reason. My players chose to play non-core casters in most of the campaigns I ran. And, in the campaigns where they did play core casters, we generally only played into the high single digit levels. Again, not a problem.

IOW, we fixed the problem of the disparity years ago.

The issue for me, in these threads, is that we have to bash our heads against the wall just to get anyone to admit that the problem actually exists AT ALL.

 

[pemerton]

They're mechanisms for allowing one character to control another character's behavior. Which is mind control.

I can't remember exactly how many times today I controlled my children's behaviour, but I did it all without deploying any mind control.

I don't understand this notion that the only way for one human being to influence or control another is via mind control. It doesn't mesh very well with my everyday experiences of human sociality.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The DM "allowed" the characters to get close enough? Really? How is this not DM Force?

What is the alternative? That the players just say "I talk to the king?". Like he's out in public and willing to have a conversation? Seems to me like that's skipping a few steps.

Look, you run a DM heavy game. And that's perfectly fine. There's nothing, absolutely, nothing, wrong with that.

It's just not for me.

I do run a DM heavy game. It's called D&D. It has a "Dungeon Master's Guide". Whether it's for you is your decision.

 

[Wicht]

One wonders though, why these changes were made, since, according to those in this thread, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the rules in the first place. Seems like an awful lot of wasted effort for no effect.

Urm, there is some small amount of wiggle room between, "the language could use some clarification," "the rules could be tighter," and "the games is inherently flawed and needs to be totally scrapped."

 

[TwoSix]

Alright, so, you ban wizards and clerics and druids, because you don't like them, I ban paladins because I don't like them, the next DM bans monks because he doesn't like them, and so on and so forth. Everyone's happy. The game's fine.

Pretty much. I don't think there's anything drastically wrong with the game's kernel. Iterative attacks aren't great, but that's easy to streamline to produce more dynamic fights. Skip MM/Bestiary entries that reference spells or effects you aren't familiar with.

I would say the core of the D&D identity is bound up with its spell lists and its magic items, so I would try to make sure they could be leveraged as much as possible. Use Unearthed Arcana and alternative class features to bring in archetypal abilities that you'd like in game but belong to a banned class.

 

[Ahnehnois]

To be honest, I rarely had any issues with the caster disparity for exactly this reason.

Surprise!

The issue for me, in these threads, is that we have to bash our heads against the wall just to get anyone to admit that the problem actually exists AT ALL.

The only issue is whether it's "the" problem, or "a" problem.

For me, the paladin is obviously the most game-breaking class because it mandates antisocial behavior and explicitly encourages the DM to (wait for it) forcefully discipline the player based on the code. So I ban it. It's "a" problem that I have (which also is not rare, by the way). Does that mean that it should be written out of the game? Changed into something completely different? That the entire game should be redesigned specifically to fix "a" problem? Not necessarily.

That's all.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Pretty much. I don't think there's anything drastically wrong with the game's kernel. Iterative attacks aren't great, but that's easy to streamline to produce more dynamic fights. Skip MM/Bestiary entries that reference spells or effects you aren't familiar with.

Hey I'm with you in the iterative attacks thing. Trailblazer's take was a marked improvement to me.

I would say the core of the D&D identity is bound up with its spell lists and its magic items

An odd, but possibly true statement. How a Flame Tongue works is negotiable, but it seems kind of important to have.