Search results

What, generally, would you leave wizards able to do? From what I can tell from your example powers, everything is combat-oriented. (I'm not real clear on the summon, since you don't indicate what the outsider can do for you. I assume it can fight, if nothing else?) So a wizard can turn an...

Who? Just to be clear, you seem to insist -- as do many other people -- on equating "balance" with "power." I disagree with that, but if that is your metric, I concede that the wizard can bring more power to bear. I'm with Diamond Cross, though: IMO, the classes are balanced fairly well for...

Now this is interesting. How about giving me an example 9th-level spell (of your invention) juxtaposed against a balanced ability a fighter might acquire at 17th level?

That's awesome. Don't you already have that in 4E? Why do you insist that I agree with you and that I must want that, too? Because all I want is for wizards and fighters to be balanced in their ability to be cool, and I've got that in 3E. And 4E's approach actually damages that balance for...

And you still don't get it. How about you try reading it as, "My friends and I play the game in a way in which fighters are as cool as wizards"? Do you and your friends play the game that way? If not, why not? Is there something inherent to the game that is preventing you?

3E didn't fail at that task, because 3E didn't attempt that task. What 3E attempted to do was make a game in which a DM and a number of players could cooperatively create and play through situations in which playing a fighter was just as "useful" and just as much "fun" as playing a wizard, all...

If you cannot think of reasonable situations in which a single marine is more useful than a nuclear carrier, it explains a lot. And D&D is all about those situational disparities.

There's so much wrong with this (not the least of which is an apparent misunderstanding of the word "explicit") that I'll just point out one: You are equating "game mechanical balance" with "power." This is problematic because, while I agree that the wizard can bring more power to bear...

And I'm absolutely good with that. My objections began because certain posters specifically started saying that 3.5/PF sucked because the wizard makes the fighter useless and stupid. If those posters hadn't brought 3.5/PF into it, I wouldn't even be in this discussion.

Nobody has convinced me that the "problem" is the rules set. The problem is deliberate misuse of the rules set, apparently combined with permissiveness from the other players and GM. You can be a douchebag player as a wizard. You can be a douchebag player as a fighter. The solution isn't to...

Where? I, for one, think that wizards are capable of bringing far more power to bear than fighters. I'm not sure anyone in this thread would dispute that. I don't remember D&D saying that wizards and fighters are equally powerful, explicitly or by implication. I may have missed it. (Really...

No, he's thinking of Earthsea. Ged doesn't understand why Ogion is so slow at teaching him magic ... why Ogion just lets it rain on them, instead of casting a spell and making it go away.

I played on those!

My housemate and I alternate GMing on Sundays -- he's my Pathfinder GM, and I'm his M&M GM -- so I'm "scheduled" for 26 sessions a year. Realistically, we play 18 to 20. Add in the sessions I run at GenCon, and the one-shots I occasionally run at home, and I'm back into the 21-30 bracket. I...

You have successfully puzzled out, despite what I thought were heroic efforts to maintain secrecy, that I think 4E isn't as good as 3E. Congratulations. And, once again, I made that clear after being asked why the 4E "solution" didn't work for me. I did not bring up 4E. Someone else did...

I didn't call it dumbed down. I called it "equalized" -- recognized it, actually, as I was responding to a post that pointed out its equalized nature -- and used a literary allusion to why I feel that "equalized" is not always a good thing. Personally speaking, I think there's only one thing...

Dude, I wasn't the one that even brought up 4E. I didn't even mention it, until I was asked to explain why I didn't like the "solution" it provided. I do not like 4E, but I have not been an edition warrior for a long, long time. You don't get to ask me why I dislike 4E and then feign...

See, not so much. In our current Pathfinder game, we have two core players, one player who has been playing M&M with us for about a year (but no D&D), and three players who are new to the group. (They've been around less than three months.) No problems so far. (One of the new guys might end...

No, it becomes "not much of a conversation" when the other side refuses to even consider the possibility that I'm correct. Uh, they are all about me. Can you find a post from me in the last year advocating that those folks who play 4E must make changes to the game that I insist on, because the...

See, what I keep seeing is descriptions of the "problem" that assume absolutely unfettered access to every possible spell. That's simply not how we have always played the game. I can see how, if you play the game that way, things could become imbalanced. I can also see that it would then be...