Doing Wrong Part 2: Fighters, Wizards and Balance Oh My!

[Remathilis]

The fact of the matter is nobody likes for their argument to be debunked and some people can handle it better than others.

At the OP request, I will not discuss this line further. Still, your point is noted.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think the key thing is for fighters and wizards to be mechanically distinct and distinct in terms of flavor. I have no problem with a more complicated fighter to reflect advnced techniques, but I dont want o achieve that by simply taking the core wizard mechanics and reskinning as a fighter. Not a fan of having identical mechanics across all classes. Mechanics produce a feel andfor me that is important part of making them different.

 

[Obryn]

Again, your responses show your lack of experience playing Pathfinder when you mention stuff about them being obsolete at high levels. You really shouldn't jump into an argument that you lack experience in.

....Really?

Look, if you want to argue Fighters in a 3.5 retro-clone are just dandy at higher levels because of a few feats, I'm not going to stop you, but I can't take your arguments seriously in this vein. This is not something that only 4e dudes say; this is widely acknowledged among 3.5 and PF players as well as being one of the fundamental issues with the system.

Even up-thread, there's mention that simple classes simply can't keep up with complex ones.

I don't doubt that the PF Fighter is marginally better off than the base 3.5 one. That's not the baseline of comparison I'm using, however, so it's hardly a selling point for me.

So - sell me on it. Convince me that at 18th level, a PF Fighter has contributions equal to the Wizard's and Cleric's vast array of spells. Start another thread if you want, to keep this thread cleaner per the OP.

The fact of the matter is nobody likes for their argument to be debunked and some people can handle it better than others.

I know you don't like being debunked. So like I said, convince me.

-O

 

[Remathilis]

....Really?

Look, if you want to argue Fighters in a 3.5 retro-clone are just dandy at higher levels because of a few feats, I'm not going to stop you, but I can't take your arguments seriously in this vein. This is not something that only 4e dudes say; this is widely acknowledged among 3.5 and PF players as well as being one of the fundamental issues with the system.

Even up-thread, there's mention that simple classes simply can't keep up with complex ones.

I don't doubt that the PF Fighter is marginally better off than the base 3.5 one. That's not the baseline of comparison I'm using, however, so it's hardly a selling point for me.

So - sell me on it. Convince me that at 18th level, a PF Fighter has contributions equal to the Wizard's and Cleric's vast array of spells. Start another thread if you want, to keep this thread cleaner per the OP.

-O

Not, FS, but I think its not relevant nor practical. You're in your camp and nothing will convince you otherwise.

Lets move onto D&D Next, because CLEARLY neither 3e nor 4e answered this question sufficently.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Not, FS, but I think its not relevant nor practical. You're in your camp and nothing will convince you otherwise.

Lets move onto D&D Next, because CLEARLY neither 3e nor 4e answered this question sufficently.

Exactly!

 

[Obryn]

Not, FS, but I think its not relevant nor practical. You're in your camp and nothing will convince you otherwise.

Lets move onto D&D Next, because CLEARLY neither 3e nor 4e answered this question sufficently.

So ... I'm "in my camp", and you and FS are completely rational and neutral observers and I'm just being obstinate for refusing to see the error of my ways? Is that the implication here?

-O

 

[Remathilis]

So ... I'm "in my camp", and you and FS are completely rational and neutral observers and I'm just being obstinate for refusing to see the error of my ways? Is that the implication here?

-O

No, I'm in my camp too (AD&D 2nd Edition). Its just not practical to continue to argue PF vs. 4e when the topic is about D&D Next, the role of "simple" classes vs. "complex" ones.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

So ... I'm "in my camp", and you and FS are completely rational and neutral observers and I'm just being obstinate for refusing to see the error of my ways? Is that the implication here?

-O

Actually you have proven that you ignore proof when it's right there in your face so there is no point in arguing about it any further.

 

[Obryn]

Actually you have proven that you ignore proof when it's right there in your face so there is no point in arguing about it any further.

You haven't provided proof. You've provided feats which are definitely more options than 3.5 but fall short of the mark. You admitted up above that you hate being proven wrong, and that's fine - but if you'd like to continue this conversation and convince me, here's the new thread.

-O

 

[keterys]

The fact of the matter is nobody likes for their argument to be debunked and some people can handle it better than others.

That is terribly true.

In other news, the PF/4E headbutting should go to its own thread, or simply cease. Ground well tread, salted, and plowed again, and by many of the same folks.

Ack! Kill it with fire!

I never want to see D&D combat full of feints, ripostes, circles, and parry choices every round.

Oh, that's fair enough. I don't think the armor vs damage type table in 1e or unarmed combat table in 2e are good examples of design, but the key point is that spellcasting has no need to be more complex than martial.

So you offer simple and complex options for both types, and everyone wins.

Except for the blowhards who just like to complain about rules existing for other people they don't have to use in their games, but at a certain point you have to concede you can't win everyone. Or maybe they do win, cause the complaining is what _they_ enjoy.