Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5957083" data-attributes="member: 95493">I took a couple days away from this thread to think and calm down. It is funny how all these replies came from a simple premise on my part. That Hercules is a fighter but not all fighters are Hercules.The attitude being that 4e reduced wizards more than a notch or that they were then in line with fighters? Either way, I can be reasoned with. I don't really see what requires further reasoning but perhaps I'm missing something.I'm not opposed with reducing the wizards. Never was. It wasn't MY objection with 4e's wizards. I had a number of others that I found much more pressing. Not least of which is using the same power structure for all classes, getting AEDU at the same amounts at the same levels. This, I suppose, can't really be reasoned with as it is preference more than anything.Not really where I would have gone with it, but at least we are closer on this thought now.I didn't explain myself well in most respects. Everything I said, however, comes from a non-steampunk setting. Steampunk settings takes the entire assumption of steampunk into existence. Outside of steampunk, having tin and steam powered brains usually makes for a poor scifi answer because it doesn't articulate well how a brain actually works.My point was that the best scifi SAYS something is an assumption or gives VERY different basics for reality and then follows only those assumptions or basics while using realistic means for everything else. The problems with scifi in such cases often come when there are inconsistencies in how the new assumptions, rules or technologies work in the setting (the star trek series often makes the biggest mistakes here) or when it completely violates normal rules when these alternate assumptions Don't apply.Base on what I just said, it kind of does. Think about fantasy shows, or movies, or (certain) games. When magic suddenly works alternate to how it is supposed to then it breaks the suspension, when races act contrary to how they are established to act, the same.Similarly, when dragons are supposed to be invulnerable to fire but suddenly melt from a random magical fire then this is true too. When someone falls off a cliff, is in free-fall without anything to break his landing, without a vision of his elven girlfriend and without any form of healing - he should probably die. Unfortunately in DnD these last two examples happen all too often. They are flaws, or cracks in the system that are not appropriately dealt with. They are HOW a fighter can manage to live through an attack that should cause 3rd degree burns. When such things happen, regardless of edition, they are errors needing to be addressed. They can also be features to those who exploit them. They can be something that people ADORE and prefer about a game, this is relevant to edition. But they are also a crack that should be examined when looking to make a NEW version of the game as well, instead of just taken as the base assumption of how the game should work.Okay, "I don't want an underpowered fighter."My "demand" as you put it is pretty simple, and straight forward. For fun I'll also outline how I think 4e dropped the ball on this. I will admit that this is entirely my preference on how the game Should be. It no longer has anything to do with the Hercules fight from before.- All classes should should have limitations. For martial characters this means certain creatures can be immune (or resistant) to certain types of attacks, be that disarm, trip, or damage reduction, or simply failing to "hit". For casters this means that strong magic should be difficult, dangerous, time consuming or cost consuming. Both types of characters should have ways around these limitations, to a point. They can learn to deal extra damage to certain creatures, or get better at certain attacks. For casters especially, the might be able to counter entire limitations through combinations of magic. They can make it less difficult or less dangerous, or maybe both at the same time, but they shouldn't be able to remove all the limitations all or even most of the time.I think 4e fell down on this aspect because they didn't want to give casters limitations again. They instead wanted to remove the limitations (except through rare immunities) for ALL classes and make them ALL combat effective. If done correctly a lot of these limitations should almost never come up in combat, casters should always fear casting large and powerful effects in combat for fear of it going wrong or being disrupted.- They should give everyone an avenue to great power. That is, anyone who seeks it out or has it bestowed upon them. The wizards should be able to find powerful scrolls or tomes locked away deep in catacombs and the rogues be able to sneak into a labyrinth and steal it and the fighter be able to get an item, or discover their divine blood, and reach it on their own - or any combination of any of the above for any class. Not just that there should be dozens of ways of getting these impressive powers and dozens more about how these powers manifest.This is similar to how 4e does it with their tiers, and expressly resembles how epic level play looks on paper. Once again, I think they fell flat that this shouldn't be imposed. It should be something that a character strives for, not something simply given for reaching high level. Especially since it is expected that you reach high level over the course of the campaign. If every single epic destiny was something the character had to work towards and strive towards instead of something given fairly easily then it would change how this is done immensely. It would change from a gamist way of doing it to a narrative way.- This ties into the last point but, powers should be mortal with heightened to godly. Not heroic for everyone. When designing something it should be the expectation that fighters can lift their bodyweight (on average let's say) but in those rare moments they can lift a car. It shouldn't be a power, it should just be something that happens when it needs to instead of the player using a daily power to achieve. When powers are built with a lower basis, with limitations and options for greatness, then they can be truly unique. They can have a base combat prowess that resembles an actual fight, instead of one resembling minis on a air hockey table. This would allow everyone to be balanced at the start, but then allow everyone to become much much more if they work towards it, instead of being handed it while they level.I think it is clear why I think 4e fell down here. It has to do with the mindset and guidelines of how 4e was built. Inside and especially OUTSIDE combat.- Go back and look at the source material. Go look at the fighters from fiction and myth that we should be using as a basis for fighters. Then, if necessary, build acts that they could perform but using the rules of DnD. If knights are supposed to be able to ride up to the dragon on horseback and slay them with a single vicious blow then allow us to do that. Don't force us to play one certain and specific build of only one class either that is just annoying. Give any class that is close the chance to do it nearly as well, even if one class is ultimately the best at it. If most fighters in story are able to shrug off magical effects (will saves) more easily then give a bonus to that. It doesn't need to be a new power that disrupts the spell, or breaks it as an immediate action or even one that gives an immunity. A simple bonus (or strong save) to that trait would be an excellent place to start. A lot of fighters, especially in fiction, are VERY knowledgeable and skillsy. That is a simple fix, give them more skills. Instead of 2+int (for 3.5) give them 6+int. Some people might say this treads on the toes of rogues, but rogues have a number of other things that make them what they are.I see this 2+int fallacy come up all the time and it is the easiest fix. So is giving perception (spot/listen) to guards. Give the fighter strong will saves too. What does it matter? If that is all that is actually wrong with the class then I fail to see the problem. I've never experienced those specific problems myself, because I'm playing fighter looking for VERY different things out of it. I've always had issue with the wizards who are able to cast will saves with DCs WELL over what a fighter can match, even with a strong will. 4e didn't remedy this problem, it changed how it was done entirely. 4e's solution was more balanced but it also created a new host of problems with a lot of areas it tried to fix. Simplified skill lists created new problems, changing saves to DC's the same. I'm not going to get into all my issues with 4e but instead I'm just trying to show that I think that 4e took the problem and went far too far in trying to change an entire system for a poor outlier.These are all just my view, not fact and certainly not where 5e is going. I just wanted to let you know my thoughts and why I was saying what I was the way that I was. That is how I say fighters should be both limited and powerful. Because wizards should be the same.It isn't a matter of not wanting fighters to have good things while letting wizards have godly powers. I don't think either should. I don't find reasoning for either, except in rare circumstances. And while I think that 4e had good ideas and identified big issues with 3e, they didn't address them. And in not addressing them they created new issues for me and others to complain about all these years after.See my above comments on feature vs bug about 3rd degree burns. The point I'm still making is that simple fighters and complex ones are both (or both should I guess) be as capable as each other when fighting a dragon. You seem to equate complex with more power, where I don't think that necessarily tracks. I have seen simple and complex fighters in 3e and both have the same relative level of power. The complex character might have different variations on how they attack but both are basically the same and both basically equal at taking down the dragon or surviving a burn. Which is why I said I didn't give great examples. I did have two different points though.First is preference, which is that if you are training in trip and something is flying that training isn't going to work for you. It isn't going to be tripped, so much as it is going to be knocked out of the sky and stepped on.Second is that things should be immune to certain attacks. I focused on trip when I should have focused on disarm. How are you disarming a creature without weapons. If it is a matter of disabling their next round of attacks then how is that happening? That is clearly more than just the equivalent of knocking a weapon from someone's hand if they have no weapons. If you are slicing at a creatures claws and causing it to spend a turn to recover then why is it only a turn? How is that a disarm? What about a monk, or a fighter with locked gauntlets? At least in 3e a monk was always armed even if he lacked arms, and cutting off appendages clearly isn't the same as a disarm. If it is a locked gauntlet how is that not just immunity, since the weapon is attached and not going anywhere.I think if you get further from the definition in a hope to make it work against everyone you are going to encounter more problems than if you just let creatures be immune and have it not work against them. Sorry if you specialized and now it doesn't work. The same thing happens to creatures who are immune to sneak attacks, or fire damage (from a fire user) or whatever else. It is an immunity, it doesn't happen all the time. If it is happening all the time then you need to have a discussion with your DM. How is it a strawman exactly? I gave an example that is perfectly within the definition of what we are talking about, it isn't even an edge case as creatures are about as likely to show up armed and unarmed (with weapons)?Next, yes there are immune creatures in 4e - got that a couple days ago - but few creatures seem to be immune to forced shifting of squares, and far too many creatures are affected by abilities that (prior to 4e) they wouldn't have been effected by in the past. I also don't see what immunities have to do with that specific comment. It also seems like certain creatures are immune to attacks based solely on type or category - bosses being more likely to be immune than grunts - which smacks as a game mechanic and not a story mechanic. Just saying, YMMV. Well yes, unfortunately DnD - all of it not just 3e and 4e - has had this problem of not describing fights as how they should be but I don't think that's the main issue.I think the issue lies when fighter's using disarm are attempted to be balanced against wizards using sleep. That simple act isn't going to balance things at all. I don't expect it to and haven't been disappointed. Perhaps you have and that is why 3e doesn't suit you. I can understand that entirely. If disarm and the like are used to give the fighter more options, to help themselves out in a fight against the enemy. Then this is more like real life. When they are used as battlefield control like in the matrix then it starts to become a little silly. Most of the time, unless the enemy isn't ready, you aren't going to simply pull the weapon from their hand. Most of the time unless the enemy has no other options, you aren't going to get him to take several steps back and fall off a cliff. 4e does both of these things easily, and more than that it does both while giving the guy damage. Now that is fine if you want a matrix (mostly matrix 2 now that I think about it) type fight. But if you want something more in line with LotR then 4e fails to provide, 3e does better but you probably need to go earlier in DnD to get something more in that feel. 5e seems to be at least partially reviving these aspects so we will have to see. Once again, it isn't about being non-viable (as I have always found the fighter viable) it has to do with wanting to play a fighter. Instead of a fighter with wings. If all classes do super-human stuff, which class do I play if I want to be bat-human? That is to say if all classes are "magical" what class do I play if I want to be non-magic? Fighter is the class for me because he is just a guy swinging a sword and not a guy throwing fireballs. Why do you want to take that away from me? To be taken seriously when battling the medusa then I would say they need a mirrored shield and possibly blindfolds.  When fighting the hydra they need fire in order to cauterize the stumps. To be taken seriously when battling a dragon they need a polearm capable of reaching the dragons chest, or maybe a bow if the dragon is flying. How does any of this equate to needing the power to punch mountain tops off?Wizards should be able to produce the fire for the hydra. Or maybe some lightning in place of the arrows for the dragon. I don't understand why the wizard needs wish. Nor do I understand why the wizard needs to be able to summon all form of terrible and terrifying creatures which serve him perfectly without fail. All of this is in terms of 3e of course. Give the wizard a chance to botch it up. Have the summoned demon turn on the wizard, have the summoned lions attack whomever is nearest. Have give the lightning a chance to strike the wizard if he rolls poorly. Limitations (as discussed above) would reduce the wizards tendency to dominate the fight, by going back to a time when they could die from just simply using the magic itself. Okay, good for you?I shouldn't have actually posted that comment at all. Not because it is untrue but because I'm not one of those who care about wizards being decreased in power.More to the point though is that even if they are reduced by more than a notch, it doesn't mean that the game can't be broken. Nor does it mean you DM can't feel overwhelmed at 4th level. If anything it means that wizards were too powerful to start with and that 4e did two things. It made ALL classes powerful enough to break the game. And two, it didn't address the issue of wizards being too powerful in the first place. As I tried posting earlier, it wasn't just the fact that mages were reduced. The complaints come from HOW they were reduced. They changed everything about the wizard and forced them to conform to the same process as everyone else, AEDU and all. It took away ALL their options and gave them very little in return. 4e advocates will say that all the classes feel different, but I think that people who dislike 4e will say is that they aren't different enough.Let me put it this way. And I know this example isn't going to be accurate but I think it partially resembles what people who dislike 4e feel. Let's assume you are playing 3.5 and the only classes you are allowed to play are specialist wizard and clerics. No other classes. If everyone picks different specialties and domains for the clerics then those classes are going to feel very different. They are going to play differently and going to have different spell lists, and spells available. The problem is that you can no longer play a druid, or a fighter or a barbarian. You can rage, but only if you have the spell and even then it isn't the same kind of rage. It is sort of like that.Ultimately, the complaining has very little to do with the reduced power. As you yourself have said, you can still make a DM not want to have a 4th level caster in the game. It has to do with reduced functionality, reduced options and reduced versatility. All three of which are true. The sameness is a completely different factor. It is a true factor but it really doesn't matter for this part. All I propose is that we reduce wizards. We can do it a number of ways. Be it giving them less spells, changing how they learn them, changing the functionality of the spells, the power, the options. Or as I personally would prefer, give them BACK limitations. Real limits, not the ones in 3e. If the wizard can bypass the limits sometimes that is great, if they can do it on every spell then the limits don't really exist.I don't know many people who play 3e (outside of powergamers who want to squeeze every ounce of power they can from every character they ever play - wizard or not) who wouldn't mind reducing the wizard's power. They may disagree HOW it is done. But very few I know would be opposed to it happening in some form. The trick is doing it enough that it brings people back in line, without changing everything about them - like 4e did. Actually I don't have any issues at the table. All of what I was talking about was character to character, not player to player. I have implemented a number of suggestions I have given here and that I have seen elsewhere into my games. Because of them the wizard's power has been reduced but he still LOVES playing AND the fighter's power has been increased but still within the realm of where he should be.The wizard currently resembles a toned down psion with a slightly different power list. The fighter is basically the same as in 3.5/PF with some modifications to the combat system that anyone can use but which the fighter excels at.The fighter adores charging at the BBEG, he's done it 3/3 so far. The wizard realizes he CAN take out the BBEG or he can take out the minions. He is a cautious player and plays his character accordingly. The wizard sits back and picks off whatever won't draw too much attention to himself. Once or twice the fighter has fallen, and the wizard has had to deal with the BBEG himself. I have put limitations and stakes into the equation and 2/3 times the wizard has gone running scared, while firing magic missiles at the BBEG.The fighter is able to bully the wizard, because we actually ran the math and unless the wizard goes first and/or has a trick up his sleeve he is going to run out of HP before the fighter does in a straight up fight. That is including things like running away, playing position and any number of skill checks. That being said, right now the wizard has THE arsenal if they want to damage anything and this will only increase as time progresses. I don't know exactly at what point the roles will be reduced but if they progress how they have so far even when the wizard is on top the fighter won't be far behind. Likely it will be something along the lines of the fighter needing to go first and/or have a trick up his sleeve to take down the wizard at high levels.Either way, with simple limits on what the wizard can do - will still giving him full access to all the utility and versatility he can handle - I have managed to keep them "balanced" without making them both as effective as each other during combat. Outside of combat the wizard has a greater chance to do practically anything skill wise (because of his INT more than anything) and especially magic-wise.I have also introduced a few minor aspects which give fighters a competitive bonus out of combat as well, but that is really a discussion for another time. I'm telling you all of this to let you know it can work. In fact it engenders RP more than using their skills, because the wizard knows that in a head to head battle he is going to lose. That has kept an otherwise combative party together. I'm not really going to answer this because I think I covered it further up in a number of places. I am going to say that I never did say that fighters should just be "hit them with a sword" and the wizard "summon gale-force winds to yadda yadda yadda". That is something you are reading into what I'm saying far more than what I'm actually saying. Read the line again. I didn't say the effects were like each other. I said there was a perception that they were the same. The perception and subsequent complain is that it doesn't really matter which class you choose because they all knock you back 4 squares and deal damage. And to a certain extent this is true. It also has no baring on what I'm trying to say, I just though I'd clarify.I clarified the whole "problem wasn't wizards were reduced" thing further up. Right, 4e is lower, as we BOTH covered earlier. Also, the whole 6 second no failure thing is something they should re-examine, as I said too.They should do that (or have done that) instead of just making everyone higher to compensate. This is a problem that is just as apparent with later 3.5 material as it is with 4e.It's like the speed limit, if everyone is going 60 in a 50 zone. They COULD change the limit to 60 to compensate. OR they could start giving people tickets. (And since they can't give people tickets) instead passively reduce the speed limit to 40 and assume that everyone will go 10 over and end up at 50 instead. Since the 60 limit option only hopes that people will stick at 60 instead of adjusting up to 65 or 70 it doesn't really solve the problem - it masks it. [Oh, I am Canadian, so adjust the speed and expectations from KmPH to MPH accordingly.] It balances it by giving fighters the power to heave cinder blocks 30 yards. And then wonders why people have a problem stretching their belief at this new norm. Some people clearly don't question that, but a lot of us do. Minor nitpick that is separate from the rest of the discussion: Encounter and Daily <s>spells</s>, oops sorry, powers aren't derived from a source? That is news to me.It is a description that has fiction attached to it. Unless you want to spend your time rewriting the fiction that goes along with the description it is a problem. Why fighters suddenly have a martial power source, draw their powers from there, like wizards have an arcane source? Was it always there or is this just a new level of different to get accustomed to. Where does it come from, what IS the source except something the martial characters tap into? Where does it come from, how does it replenish? Why are classes that used to have no limits suddenly reduced? I realize that encounter and daily powers are ones above what the fighter used to have but they are something that was poorly explained and executed throughout the 4e run. Essentials completely changed how fighters worked to address this problem, or so I've heard. (I refuse to shell out more money on products I won't use.)</blockquote>

Verification