Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Ahnehnois]

True, but don't most active abilities require lines like range, targeting, saves, etc.? Or, at least, it's helpful to have commonly accessed parameters necessary for adjudication at your fingertips, rather than buried within the text?

Even reserve feats that have such parameters for their active abilities seem to convey that information in less space.

And it's a tangent, but I think that not a lot of detail is really required in these areas. I think it would be fine to simply definer short, medium, and long range somewhere else and have a standard rule for what they mean. If they're meaningfully different, you'll rarely ask the question of whether an enemy is within medium range or not.

 

[TwoSix]

Even reserve feats that have such parameters for their active abilities seem to convey that information in less space.

And it's a tangent, but I think that not a lot of detail is really required in these areas. I think it would be fine to simply definer short, medium, and long range somewhere else and have a standard rule for what they mean. If they're meaningfully different, you'll rarely ask the question of whether an enemy is within medium range or not.

<Thinks> That's fair. So what would you use from current 3.5/Pathfinder as an ideal class setup? Sounds like Fighters and Scouts would work, Warlocks are close to the ideal (since Invocations are very much like feats). Maybe a cleaned-up Truenamer that doesn't suck?

 

[Ahnehnois]

<Thinks> That's fair. So what would you use from current 3.5/Pathfinder as an ideal class setup? Sounds like Fighters and Scouts would work, Warlocks are close to the ideal (since Invocations are very much like feats). Maybe a cleaned-up Truenamer that doesn't suck?

To me the fighter is pretty close to the ideal way of setting up a class. It's thematic; you're clearly not playing a rogue or a druid, but it's also enormously customizable.

I would set up all classes (assuming classes exist for the moment), with rhythmic progressions of bonus feats. PF did a much better job of leveraging feat descriptors, and that's something that can be carried over from spells. Each class would get bonus feats with specific descriptors (as a fighter does), but would still have a regular progression of feats that can be chosen freely. I would have medium saves and establish a progression of saves and BAB and HD for each class (i.e. I would keep that the way it is for the moment), while allowing archetypes to rearrange those spine numbers. Each class would also have a small number of "limit breaking" abilities that aren't feats (like the armor and weapon mastery a fighter gets) just to ensure that they are the best at what they do and that some direction is provided, again in a rhythmic progression with no dead levels. Each class would have a capstone ability at level 20 that introduced fairly radical new capabilities, and provides an incentive to reach the pinnacle of one's career and a jump-off point for epic play.

This is pretty much the philosophy I used in creating de novo classes based on the GR Psychic's Handbook (a skill and feat based system), and to a slightly lesser extent is what I used when revising some of the core classes.

***

To extend the format issue, there's a lot of information in a spell you don't need. An instantaneous duration is often implied; I think only longer durations need to be stated. Range information could be simplified. Component information could be noted in an exception-based fashion (i.e. all spells require V and S by default, and there is only a notation if one of those is excluded or a special component is added). Casting time could be assumed to be a standard action unless otherwise noted. Targets can be stated once in the text and are usually clear. Spell resistance notation is completely pointless. All spells should apply resistance, and exceptions (like summoned creatures being able to attack) should be spelled out only in the summoning rules.

This is pretty much how the reserve feat text works.

Feats are just a much simpler and more intuitive way of presenting information than spells/powers.

 

[MJS]

Amusingly, in Dragonsfoot is a recent thread stating 1st level B/X mu's are "outrageously powerful".
in addition to a style difference, I think this is all inherent to fantasy RPG.

 

[Hussar]

Surprise!

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.

Considering the HUGE variation in paladins across editions, I'd say that rewriting paladins, at the very least, has been a big element of changes in edition. But, the nice thing about paladins is that it's a single class and doesn't have any knock on effects. Remove paladins has no real effect on the game as a whole since it's a pretty discrete element.

Reining in casters, OTOH, affects virtually every class and a great many monsters. Hardly a fair comparison.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Considering the HUGE variation in paladins across editions, I'd say that rewriting paladins, at the very least, has been a big element of changes in edition. But, the nice thing about paladins is that it's a single class and doesn't have any knock on effects. Remove paladins has no real effect on the game as a whole since it's a pretty discrete element.

Reining in casters, OTOH, affects virtually every class and a great many monsters. Hardly a fair comparison.

IIRC from a few posts above, you don't even have issues with all primary casters, just the memorizing ones. If the sorcerer is fine, I don't see why most monsters wouldn't be too, as well as the lesser spellcasting classes.

And these things are pretty discrete. The DMG and Unearthed Arcana provided a variety of simple ways to completely change how spellcasting classes play without changing very much at all.

 

[pemerton]

the games is inherently flawed and needs to be totally scrapped.

Who said that D&D is totally flawed and needs to be totally scrapped? I mean, I'm playing a version of D&D (4e) that is at least as close to Moldvay Basic or AD&D as the d20 game that Ahnehnois seems to prefer (which has heavily house-rules classes, WP/VP rather than hit points, would use skills based on skill points and feats in place of spells, etc).

Iterative attacks aren't great, but that's easy to streamline to produce more dynamic fights.

Isn't the main issue with iterative attacks that they put fighters on a different action economy from casters? (I learned that from @Manbearact.)

the most distinctive and possibly best feature of D&D is the spells

And magic items. And (some of the) monsters. D&D is a game of lists. It's a very distinctive combination of a gameplay model (choose effects from lists) and publishing model (sell players long books full of lists).

D&D spells are defined by per-time use restrictions.

They don't have to be. Both AD&D psionic powers and 3E psionic powers are essentially spells in terms of their formatting in the rulebook and mechanical working at the table, and many AD&D items could be written up in similar terms. But the useage can be put on other bases, from power points (psionics, wands and staves) to at will (some AD&D rods, some 4e powers) to conditional triggering (like 4e immediate actions and many 13th Age powers).

 

[pemerton]

Double post deleted.

 

[pemerton]

I think that for any statement that the GM is not the final arbitrator of events within the game to be true, even with what you're calling Gygaxian play, you have to be relying on a definition of arbitrate that is so nuanced that it is functionally useless.

I don't agree. Here's an illustration (borrowed in general outline from Ronald Dworkin's well known essay on "The Model of Rules").

In an election, citizens cast votes. The electoral official then count the votes and declare the outcome. In some tolerable sense of "arbitrate" the electoral officials are the final arbiters of the outcome of the vote. But it would be wildly misleading to suggest that this means that they, rather than the voters, have subtantive responsibility for deciding the outcome of the election. They are mere procedural gatekeepers.

If your candidate loses, it makes no sense in this situation to complain to the electoral officials. Go out and remonstrate with your fellow citizens!

Now consider the Florida count in the Bush vs Gore presidential election. In determining whether or not the Florida count was violating Bush's 14th Amendment rights. Whatever one's theory of constitutional decision-making, it's hard to argue that there is a mechanical resolution of the legal question that was before the court. The Supreme Court were therefore the final arbiters of the outcome of that election in a far more substantive sense.

In this sort of case, if your candidate loses it makes perfect sense to remonstrate with the Supreme Court.

Now consider an election in Stalin's Soviet Union. Stalin is the final arbiter of the outcome of that election in an entirely straightforward way - he just makes up the result! If your candidate loses, I'm sorry but that means you took political action against Stalin and are on your way to a gulag.

Is the role of the GM in Gygaxian play closer to that of the electoral officials, closer to that of the Supreme Court, or closer to that of Stalin? I think it's mostly like the role of the electoral officials - a type of procedural role - and occasionally like that of the Supreme Court - an interpretive and robustly adjudicative role. It should never be like Stalin.

Of course the GM is the final arbitrator of events within the game.

<snip>

To assert that the GM is not the final arbiter strikes me as either a fundamental misunderstanding or an attempt to bamboozle the reader about what is going on in favor of some polemical position.

Well, to me, asserting that "of course the GM is the final arbitrator of events within the game", without considering the range of other ways the game can be and has been played, strikes me as projection of one's own approach onto the game in general.

I have one player, in particular, whose expectations for play seem to have been shaped by playing with a GM like [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] who (judging from the exchange above with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]) requires GM approval of any deployment of resources or abilites by a player (eg a player in Ahehnois's game cannot initiate a Diplomacy action without GM authorisation). That player always asks me, "Can I make a Diplomacy check?" or "Can I make a Perception check?". Whereas my expectation is that, once I've framed the situation, it is the players who simply declare what it is that their PCs are doing. Hence they decide, in those moments of play, what events are happening in the game. They don't need my permission to change or contribute to the fiction.

 

[Manbearcat]

Originally Posted by TwoSix
Iterative attacks aren't great, but that's easy to streamline to produce more dynamic fights.

Isn't the main issue with iterative attacks that they put fighters on a different action economy from casters? (I learned that from @Manbearact.)

They're both correct for different reasons.

To TwoSix's point:

- Martial characters' (except those built around specific, niche builds) max payload being premised upon deployment of a Full Attack Action creates a progressive (scaling with level; BAB + knock on effects like Haste/Speed, extra d6 through feats/features/magic items) scenario where mobility (dynamism) is crowded out for the sake of potency. If 3.x had a robust forced movement and terrain interaction (with big damage riders and effects by forcing foes into hazards and hindering terrain), this situation would be mitigated. Alas, it does not. So, as the paradigm goes, as you get more powerful, the greater the impetus to get in melee range, stay in melee range and deploy a Full Attack Action.

To your point:

- You're already working with lack of unity in PC resource scheduling (steady, At-Will deployment versus nova, spikey, Dailies). The disunity of the max payload:action economy twixt Martial PCs and spellcaster PCs adds another lair of balance incoherence that must be navigated. Whats more, it creates a sort of disjointed rocket tag scenario where Martial characters are trying to win initiative, get in melee range with a Standard Action and then deploy a nova Full Attack Action on the next, and subsequent, round(s)...whereas spellcasters can nova based off of their primary engagement with the action economy and they still have their movement action to boot. Thus, the general engagement of the 3.x action economy by spellcasters yields Spellcaster as Skirmisher while Martial characters (who should be the Skirmishers) turn into Rock-em, Sock-em Robots...entering melee and hacking away...possibly fishing for crits or trip check riders...until one side is dead. Furthering the problem are effects/conditions (such as Slow), that disallow Full Round Actions but still allow Standards. I'm pretty sure you can extrapolate how loss of Full Round Actions affects Martial characters versus Spellcasters. Outside of a few obscure, single-use, obnoxiously expensive poisons, guess who has primary access to such effects...