Can we stop the Angel Summoner BMX Bandit comparisons

[Wiseblood]

I'll agree that players with similar levels of System Mastery will tend to create characters that don't overshadow each other... but in part that's because they will skip 'underpowered' options entirely, so they might not have to worry about Fighter vs. Wizard because none of them ever take more than 2 levels of Fighter.

Cheers, -- N

I have seen players that often visit char-op boards and come up with characters, that should be broken but altogether fail when introduced to actual adventuring. There is a difference between system mastery and alleged system mastery.

 

[SteveC]

I'll agree that players with similar levels of System Mastery will tend to create characters that don't overshadow each other... but in part that's because they will skip 'underpowered' options entirely, so they might not have to worry about Fighter vs. Wizard because none of them ever take more than 2 levels of Fighter.

Cheers, -- N

Pretty much this: if you have experience with a system, you avoid trap options and don't make bad decisions. What I have objected to when it was the case, and hope we don't return to now, is when entire classes become trap options without extremely specific builds.

Players who are experienced, and are excellent roleplayers can do a good job with whatever kind of character they're given, but the core of good game design is to reduce the instances of material you're writing not being used by anyone who has experience with the game.

Just a quick edit: I agree with the sentiment that BMX Bandit versus Angel Summoner isn't all that productive, but that's because I tend to play the Angel Summoner character. I'm looking for a situation where no one has to feel like the BMX Bandit by the rules.

 

[Nifft]

IMO it's only an issue in 3e (and derivatives of 3e). Fighter types stood up well vs M-Us in my 1e-2e AD&D games, at any level.

What levels were those?

In my recollection, 1e games fell apart before 10th level, while 3e was a robust enough system to see us through the teens. (Never played 2e.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

I have seen players that often visit char-op boards and come up with characters, that should be broken but altogether fail when introduced to actual adventuring. There is a difference between system mastery and alleged system mastery.

Sure, like the Druid character who has the awesome ability to turn into any animal the player researches and writes down stats for, but he's limited by the lazy player who never writes down stats after the first two animals ("wolf" and "bear").

Yes, it's possible to limit a strong character through bad play by the player, but "bad play" isn't something that any system should rely upon.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

FWIW, I've played every edition of the game except 4Ed into "Epic" levels, and I still don't care if I'm playing BMX Bandit in a party of Angel Summoners.

 

[S'mon]

What levels were those?

In my recollection, 1e games fell apart before 10th level, while 3e was a robust enough system to see us through the teens. (Never played 2e.)

Cheers, -- N

1st through 117th.

 

[S'mon]

It just befuddles me that so many people have such different experiences playing with the same rule set.

Which is why I doubt they will ever make a game that satisfies all of us.

I've had different experiences in different campaigns - I remember one 3.5e PBEM where my 5th level Fighter in non-magical studded leather, power-attacking with a mundane greatsword, was the most powerful PC in the group. But I've also played a 5th level Fighter in a Midnight 3e/d20 game where the Channeler (spellcaster) PC totally, totally dominated all the non-casters, and just laughed at me.

 

[Crothian]

I still have no idea what the BMX Bandit is and I'm not sure I care about that.

I do know that with a good group these problems don't manifest as often as without a good group. As a DM I feel I can manage the issues of casters verse non casters. Casters are great when they are prepared and have the proper spells ready and items. But the second encounter of the day they are more limited and by the 10th they can be in real trouble. But the non caster is still using his awesome skills and combat ability.

 

[Elf Witch]

The system works fine if everyone in the group (DM included) has a good social contract and similar levels of system mastery. While house rules and such can alter a game greatly; the idea is that even when you follow the rules to the letter, the wizards will render the fighter impotent. It really occurs only above level 12 or so though (IMO).

If improved evasion can stop a magic user, then that magic user sucks
A real magic user would have spells that target will, reflex, touch AC, and a whole bunch of other options.

Maybe this is true except for the system mastery. I have played with many a newbie and casual player who didn't have system mastery and the game didn't have the issue people seem to post about.

In 30 years of playing I have never once seen the fighter rendered impotent by a wizard.

I have seen fighters do a tremendous deal of damage while going toe to toe with a BBEG. Now maybe their damage does not equal the out put of a wizard who has the ability to get all his area effect spells off. And a DM worth his salt knows how to set things up so that everyone gets a chance to shine during combat.

You know I have one rule in my game don't be a jerk. This is a game about being a team and working together if you are not going to do that then no rule system will ever work because rules can't prevent jerks behaving badly at the table.

 

[Elf Witch]

Speaking as a moderator I'd be happy to never see a 'BMX bandit vs Angel Summoner' comparison used in a D&D thread ever again.

Why?

Because it is hyperbole used to shut down discussion. Hyperbole is fun as humour on occasion, but hyperbole used to shut down discussions just irritates people.

Bottom line? D&D has over 35 years of history which says that some people have fun playing fighters, some people have fun playing wizards etc. etc. Thus grand statements of the troof about relative power of classes (which typically ignore the whole magic item dimension which has been core to D&D since its inception) are, in my mind, somewhat lacking. It says more about the prejudices of individuals than the game as played by most of the players over most of its history. Somebody's bad experience in a game doesn't translate into the experience of everyone, everywhere.

There are some people who ended up banned from ENworld because they couldn't get the bit out of their teeth on this issue, and it became the basis of argument for every discussion they had. I'd hope to not see that again.

Regards

When I read posts that use this trope as well as the other pithy ones it makes me grind my teeth.

Sometimes I will post but a lot of times I feel why bother the person using this is not interested in any form of discussion he just looking validation that he is right.