Wicht
Hero
Yep. Some people actually like a class that does little more than swing a sword and swing it well.
D&D 5E cancelled 5e announcement at Gencon??? Anyone know anything about this?
Yep. Some people actually like a class that does little more than swing a sword and swing it well.
Yep. Some people actually like a class that does little more than swing a sword and swing it well.
Well, considering that 99% of the fighter's powers boild down to "swinging his sword really well" I'm not sure I can see your point, TBH...
Mournblade94
Adventurer
There are courses you can take that will aid you in seeing that YOU are arguing from a fallacious position. You certainly have no water tight case. Perhaps you should explore philosophy more.
I am certainly not going to take the time to engage in your circular arguments. I am sure there are online courses that would suit your needs.
Simply the fact that caster fighter disparity did not lead to the end of the game or form its demise, or make it unplayable makes any CLAIM a logical fallacy. The post above relating that disparity to disease does not follow because the disease leads to teh end of the organism.
Clearly with Pathfinder taking off so well, the caster fighter disparity is not unplayable. I agree they did not drastically fix the disparity and that is my point. They did not need to, as is proven by the following Pathfinder currently exhibits.
Last edited:
Wicht
Hero
That's alright. I can try to explain. (I'm really tired and may not make much sense - its hard for me to tell) The fighter has traditionally been a class where you don't have to allocate resources other than hit-points. By giving the fighter daily powers, etc, there is a bit of a change to the flavor and complexity of the class. On the other hand, the wizard's spells were also changed and these changes were also, for some of us, undesireable. So its a bit of half of one and half of the other.
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
Of course not, its was not intended to be a drastic change, more of a continuation of the no longer existing 3.5 rules set. Pathfinder was created to support the ongoing AP business that Paizo's core products are based. However, since an existing rules set had to be made available the designers felt some changes should exist to better balance the game, or provide new options for players and GMs alike.
Its slightly different than 3.5, not a drastic fix. Those who think otherwise have probably never played PF to truly judge. "Its not my game, so its wrong" seems to be the underlying justification for most arguments against it - leading to obvious fallacy.
BryonD
Hero
BLINK BLINK
You REALLY see that as equivalent?
I mean, first, you are comparing smoking and cancer to gaming, so, SEESH.
But, even with that aside, you are saying that not having the problem is simply a matter of LUCK?
I am a 42 year old non-smoker. I've never smoked in my life. If I start smoking today I might get cancer from it and I might not. Other than simply not smoking there isn't much I can do to control the outcome.
If I continue to play 3E for the rest of my life, I can prevent the problem from happening. It is under my control.
There is zero equivalence. Your analogy is completely defective.
I can see it
He was not really comparing gaming and cancer, and even said he hated to use the analogy.
His comparison, was he doesn't understand why people make the comment.
Your last statement is an example of an understand statement. By using the word "problem" you are acknowledging the issue, and then are stating how it is not a big deal. You could go on to explain to someone who is having the problem how to avoid it.
But saying "It has never happened to me." well, that almost just begs the response "How nice for you." It does not really keep the door open for further discussion.
R K
He was not really comparing gaming and cancer, and even said he hated to use the analogy.
His comparison, was he doesn't understand why people make the comment.
Your last statement is an example of an understand statement. By using the word "problem" you are acknowledging the issue, and then are stating how it is not a big deal. You could go on to explain to someone who is having the problem how to avoid it.
But saying "It has never happened to me." well, that almost just begs the response "How nice for you." It does not really keep the door open for further discussion.
R K
Pentius
First Post
I think I understand where you're coming from, but I do think the fault is on the game, here. Let me explain. The 15mwd isn't created by playstyle. It's created by characters having many per-day abilities, and being capable of using them all in a short period of time. Sans that capability, 15mwd won't happen, whether or not the characters need to press on, or if they can take their time. Now, it's an issue that can be avoided by use of certain playstyles, and if you already played by those styles, it's easy to see how the problem would never crop up for you. It could also be a non-issue, balance-wise, if either all or no classes could do it. If the Fighter or Monk could nova just as hard in a single encounter per day, the balance issue lessens a lot.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Not in a subjective matter - there is neither a right nor a wrong.
Those who do not think that it needs a drastic fix also do not want a drastic fix, and feel that the drastic 'fixes' of 4e are far worse than the problems that they purport to fix.
In my personal experience - 4e was the first game of D&D that I ever played where I would have had more fun playing Clue, or even Monopoly. It just plain was not much fun for me. (Not singling out board games as a bit of snark - more that they are games played around a table, ones that I typically consider less fun than playing an RPG. I have not played a professional RPG that I have liked less than 4e, otherwise I would have used that for comparison. Also, I roleplay something fierce while playing Clue.
)If that was 'fixing the problem' then why the Hell would I want the problem fixed? The reason to play a game, be it Clue, D&D, or Kill Dr. Lucky is to have fun.
You have had more fun with 4e, so for you the repair was better than leaving the problem - but that is by no means true for everyone.
Trying to say that not wanting the 'problem' 'fixed' is a fallacy is, in fact, a fallacy.
Part of my 'problem' with 4e was that I kind of expected to dislike it, but the rest was the game itself. It lived up to my expectations.
Feeling exhausted, just finished running two days of Pathfinder for two groups of twelve players each.
The Auld Grump
Hussar
Legend
Again, here's the claim you made (which didn't mention playstyle):
And here's how I responded:
You've then said that people have said it's not a problem for a certain playstyle. That in no way answers my question, nor does it align with your original claim. People have claimed that it's not a problem for them or for their group, not that the problem doesn't exist for others. Additionally, the posts you did link me about playstyle both implied that the problem was present for others ("the people who keep claiming this should realize that this problem did not occur for everybody"; "If the GM allows the so called '15 minute adventuring day' then it can be that the wizard is over powered"; "It is more commonly bandied about than experienced").
Again, if I missed several different posters who have said that this problem is nonexistent for every group, point me to those posts. I've never made a single claim about playstyle yet, so I'm not sure why you're trying to prove something to me about it. I've simply asked you to back up your initial claim (linked above, for your convenience).
As always, play what you like
Ahh, I see. You're cherry picking a single line out of the quote. Never mind the rest of the quote which places everything in context - that the issue is only a playstyle issue (something that becomes even more clear given the context of the quotes I provided) and not a systemic one.
Sure, if I actually said what you claim I'm saying, you'd be right. However, given the context in which I said it, the quotes I provided to show proof of what I stated, and the fact that you have to truncate my post to a single line and ignore everything else I've posted to make your point kinda points to being taken out of context. For example, my immedietely previous post Post 410 which possibly misattributes arguments to Imaro (sorry about that, got the names confused) talks about exactly what I'm saying:
Which, for those keeping score would be best said as such:
For some people the issue is not systemic, but playstyle. For some people, the issue doesn't exist at all, leading them to presume that anyone who has these issues could fix said issues simply by changing their playstyle. I further point out that if the problem wasn't systemic, then why did Paizo ALSO address the issue?
For those who claim that their playstyle resolves the issue, shouldn't Paizo be equally a problem?
---------------
As to the "static" world model - come on. Unless your world has drastic changes on a DAILY basis, spending an extra day or three resolving an adventure will not make a huge difference to your game world.
However, I look at it like this: In 3e I MUST use a non-static world. I have no choice. If I use a static world, then I run into the caster issues. Thus, the mechanics are dictating my playstyle.
In 4e, I don't have to use a static world. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. If the players want to spend three months looting the dungeon, go right ahead. Maybe there will be consequences, maybe not. It's 100% up to the DM. In other words, the mechanics are not dictating my playstyle.
Whether or not I happen to LIKE that playstyle is irrelevant.
Similar Threads
