Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5957396" data-attributes="member: 95493">Just thought I'd clarify a few points with which you seem to be confused.If dragons are supposed to be invulnerable to fire but suddenly start melting with random magical fire (for no reason) then it is an issue. If they aren't then it is a non-issue. The problem arises when we get into conversations about creatures that should be immune to one thing or another and are suddenly getting hurt because the power says so without any explanation of why. I could of course come up with an explanation but I don't feel the game should require me to come up with a reason to explain the mechanic.Complexity doesn't necessarily scale with power. I have seen this to be true but I have seen equally simplistic characters to be just as powerful.Compare this to 3e wizards. They could search high and low to find the perfect arrange of spells from a dozen different books. They'll be more complex, but they may not necessarily be more fun (less boring). In drawing from so many sources they will likely have a spell to bypass any and all resistances should they come up. But that also means they may have 4 forms of the same spell to bypass everything necessary. They could instead use those same slots to diversify from the PHB or even take a simple, pregen character who will be equally as effective Most of the time. They may not have that perfect spell needed to defeat the exact situation but it is unlikely they won't have something they can do. All of the following is the same with fighters, though fighters start at a lower power level.Interesting but not routinely supported by the rules of any edition that I am familiar with. 3e handed out resistances like candy, which was a mistake but 4e took all but the most direly needed resistances out which is equally a problem. At least 3e's were reasonably easy to get around with foreknowledge they were coming. Or even without knowledge - golfbag of weapons anyone?How does a simple rule saying "zombies can be decapitated but are otherwise immune to crits and precision damage" not solve that problem?Actually this is where I partially disagree with you, because it is a fringe case. I have read and seen any number of stories where ghosts can touch and affect the world of the living, without the living being able to do the same to ghosts. Typically it requires a level of focus or rage to achieve it - some form of training - but that is fine the basic assumption is there. If 4e allows them to be struck by common means too easily then this breaks immersion. That might not be a problem for you but it is one for me. Not even 3e satisfied me on this count, by the way.Again, fringe case for the zombie, which can be easily remedied with the existing framework so I do not see what your point is.And to my knowledge the fire elemental thing with fire has not really occurred either. Though I can be wrong on this count, I am not widely read on all of DnD. Oh fire elemental would have been better for the whole fire immunity thing from above, but not so well on the attacking it as I can find remarkably few good examples of fire elementals from wider fiction - unlike dragons.No, I liked matrix 2, matrix 3 was terrible but that existed too. Friends of mine will tell you exactly which movie I refuse to acknowledge was ever made. I would tell you myself but that would violate my previous comment.Okay, here we moved onto a completely different part of the post. I was talking about the feel of the game and about play-preferences. I think 3e does not do a particularly good job at reproducing LotR but from my actual experiences - 4e is worse.Funny, I do not recall saying Batman, Superman or JLA in my post. I was very careful NOT to use any of those terms because they did not represent what I meant. I used bat only to point out that I want something a little less magicy instead of the magic only options, as Tony seemed to suggest.So you are going to take non-magic fighters away from me... because they are unrealistic? Because they are underpowered (or rather underpowered compared to the over powered wizard)?To the first - who do I see about unrealisticness in DnD?To the second - who do I see about OP wizards?I know you are not trying to tell me again that I am proposing only low powered fighters or that I am propsing a level cap for them. I gave outlines of exactly how I would handle high powered fighters. I gave examples of how I would have high powered EVERYONE.A. I would love to see more options like this for all classes. Especially in order to make up that power gap that is talked about.B. When I talk about fighters vs. wizards I am usually talking about martial vs. casters, so rogues would of course get some love too.C. Iron man is a number of things, and we can discuss which superheroes from marvel and DC are made by which classes all day if you want - on another thread.At least here we can get together on something. I certainly want some way for the fighter to be able to survive battling a dragon on the front lines. I think a minor power boost to defense along with a major power boost to attack and damage would probably get me there. What would you need?What in DnD routinely punches the tops off of mountains? What in DnD is even capable of doing that?I told you, I am not going to do this Hercules stuff again.I am NOT proposing a level cap. I am proposing more sane limits on wizards. How are those the same to you? I am also giving avenues to get MORE power but setting the foundation that such power is extra. Extra as in not necessarily needed, as in bonus on top of, as in what 5e says they are trying to do.Sigh, this was me talking about how I was able to level the playing field and the consequences of what happened. The mindsets of the players and the mindsets of the characters involved. It has nothing to do with 3e or 4e or any E.The wizard going first does not pertain to winning due to the opening round of combat. It has to do with who is going to get more rounds in the combat before the other side falls. In the calculation the fight was over between 3-6 rounds depending on rolls and damage. At low levels the wizard had a chance if they had a trick up their sleeve and(or) if they went first. At higher levels this was reversed. I apologize I did not actually say there was more than one round. I DID say it had to do with my rules and system so that is entirely on you.The fighters is and was bullying the wizard because of power. The fighter has more right now and is throwing his weight around. The wizard will have more (options and power) later. When it will reverse I cannot say but with my rules (and the assumptions I posed earlier) the gap will be the difference of a couple levels not the difference of quadratic levels.Haters gunna hate, but my system is working well and you can not tell me otherwise. Nor are you going to convince me I am wrong on this count or what I have seen it not happening. Good luck.</blockquote>

Verification