Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Ahnehnois]

Heh, here I feel young at 24.

Yeah. Tell me about it.

Even with a heavy-handed DM, I do see some problems with the game. The swashbuckler, for example, has rather poor class features past about 7th level.

No kidding.

 

[Dandu]

Even with a heavy-handed DM, I do see some problems with the game. The swashbuckler, for example, has rather poor class features past about 7th level.

What do you think about the Rogue capstone ability?

 

[Jackinthegreen]

What do you think about the Rogue capstone ability?

Haha. The standard rogue doesn't have a capstone. The dead level abilities are underwhelming at that level considering the epic disable device checks can already reduce the time and, while difficult, aren't impossible if the character really has gone full-bore into disabling stuff.

 

[Aenghus]

I'm 48 and ran my first game of D&D basic in 1981, though it took me a while to find a proper group subsequently.

 

[Manbearcat]

Hmmm. Shrodinger's sblock? I dunno about clicking that button...

Sblock text isn't showing up? Hrmmm. Here is the link to the original post if you're interested.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Done!

Use the Pathfinder Core deities to pick domains from, if you would.

PM me when you get the thread set up and character creation rules established. I think this thread may be nearing its end. Especially now that we are discussing our ages! (35, FWIW.)

 

[N'raac]

Given the age discussion, perhaps we should recap:

- the correct term is "seasoned veteran", not "geezer" - anything referencing flatulence is definitely out!

- snow on the roof in no way indicates a lack of fire in the belly

- that's not music, it's just noise

- GET OFF MY LAWN!

Now back to the topic which hijacked the thread just before that one...

 

[ImperatorK]

No, it really isn’t. It is a problem with the mechanics, in my view, only if the game explicitly promises to support a specific playstyle and fails to deliver.

That's the thing. It doesn't say what playstyle it supports. It's only common sense to assume that my playstyle is equally supported than your playstyle.

But we are asserting that making the Chamberlain let you in to see the King is about changing his attitude. Maybe you’re better off not seeing the King, as he is in a bad mood and of volatile temper, so a Hostile Chamberlain will send you right in:

“Sorry, Your Majesty, I tried to dissuade them but they insisted and, after all, Law and Tradition demands you receive them if they invoke their rights in that regard, just as Law and Tradition permits you, in your sole discretion, to have them torn to shreds by the Palace Hyenas. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, commoners!”

Whereas a Friendly Chamberlain might deny entry to the King precisely because he knows what will happen – but speaking ill of the King’s decisions is treason punishable by death, so he can’t just TELL the PC’s or it’s he who will be feeding the hyenas, so he summarily dismisses them, knowing it’s for their own good – “Lucky Commoners, not having to deal with this. They will never know how close they came to death this day. If I must be though of as an ill-mannered officious clod, then so be it – better that than more pointless deaths at the King’s hands.”

So the player fails even when he succeeds. And you wonder why we don't like your DMing style.

So is it, or isn’t it, possible using diplomacy to convert the Pope to a different religion (be it atheism, Buddhism or whatever? And is it always open to the PC’s to try with a chance of success, or is it not?

Already addressed.

Is the GM prohibited from applying the specific rule that says not every task can be accomplished in a minute, or is that rule to be ignored?

I don't see any such rule.

And, once again, what rule says that the target is required to listen to the PC’s for however long it will take for them to get their Diplomacy check?

No rule. But it would be weird for a Pope to refuse discussing a religious matter, because it's kinda his specialty. Similarly it would be weird for a chamberlain to refuse talking with people who have some affair with the king, because that's kinda his job.

Emphasis added. An appropriate and reasonable number to the GM which is a number the PC’s are not capable of rolling may be perceived as inappropriate and unreasonable for that reason, which is exactly why we are having this lengthy debate.

In my games convincing a chamberlain to do his job wouldn't have an unreasonable DC, otherwise why even allow them to talk with the chamberlain in the first place?

Where does it say that a Friendly or Helpful Chamberlain will admit PC’s to see the King?

Nowhere. But the chamberlain can advice them to wait some time until the king is free and call them in out of turn. Or, if he's Helpful, he'll risk punishment but will let the PCs see the king, as per the Diplomacy rules.

Is a commoner seeking an audience with the king with no appointment, no noble blood, no connection to the King’s Court and no legal right to see the King, not dressed in appropriate Court attire and clearly bearing arms, using the right tools, or operating under conditions that hamper performance?

PCs aren't commoners.

And others would be less happy.

You're clearly such a superb DM that you don't have any problems with the game, so why would you be less happy? Unless you mean that our happiness would cost you your happiness. Schadenfreude?

There is a balancing act here.

Wait a minute. Aren't you arguing that there's no balance problem in the game?

Frankly, if a game designer picks the exact mechanics that I think best, making me a rabid supporter of his game, and for every gamer like me that he impresses, he loses 100 other sales because way more people hate those mechanics, he’s not making a very sharp business choice.

Enough people wanted balance for WoTC to make 4ed the way it is (I could have sworn I said that already).

 

[TwoSix]

You're clearly such a superb DM that you don't have any problems with the game, so why would you be less happy? Unless you mean that our happiness would cost you your happiness. Schadenfreude?

That's always kind of been my thing. I totally get the strong-DM as a valid technique, and employ myself in games where it's warranted. But what is lost in your game by bringing spellcasters back into something that a larger population would consider balanced? Is there that much attachment to some mechanical minutiae that I'm missing? Even if you have ways around it, are your games improved by spells like rope trick, fly, polymorph, assay spell resistance, astral projection, and forcecage?

 

[Wicht]

Even if you have ways around it, are your games improved by spells like rope trick, fly, polymorph, assay spell resistance, astral projection, and forcecage?

Yes.

Have no tricks around any of those, and I have not had any problems with them.