Fighters didn't matter after 11th level?

[Lord Zardoz]

Why all this hate against Wizards becoming too powerful? Flavor wise, it's supposed to work out that way!!!!

Chocolate tastes pretty damn good with cake and ice cream. That does not mean I want to put some on my steak.

Dropping the metaphor, there are instances where the narrative trope of all powerful spell casters who bend time and space to their will are pretty damn awesome. However, what works reliably in fantasy fiction does not always work out so well in a pen and paper RPG game. If I am playing as a wizard in a game where that is the kind of story the DM is basing his game in, than I am going to have a good time. But if I am trying to play Thog the brutal barbarian, I am not going to enjoy the game as much.

Perhaps your familiar with the 'Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit video clip?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw]YouTube - Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit[/ame]

It is not about the wizard being too powerful. It is about having a character classes that have absolutely no way to maintain parity over the long run with other character classes. A well designed RPG game will do its best to avoid providing choices that end up being obviously sub-par over the long run while promoting both choices as being equally viable. This applies not only to character classes, but also to feats, and spell selection. There is a reason why Haste and Harm got nerfed between 3.0 and 3.5.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[ProfessorPain]

It is not about the wizard being too powerful. It is about having a character classes that have absolutely no way to maintain parity over the long run with other character classes. A well designed RPG game will do its best to avoid providing choices that end up being obviously sub-par over the long run while promoting both choices as being equally viable. This applies not only to character classes, but also to feats, and spell selection. There is a reason why Haste and Harm got nerfed between 3.0 and 3.5.

END COMMUNICATION

I disagree. This is a valid approach to RPG design. It is the one 4E took and succesfully achieved. But it isn't the only consideration when designing an RPG. Many gamers prefer the possibility of sub optimal choices, because they want their character creation choices to matter and have an impact on the power level in the game. This isn't for everyone. But it doesn't mean the presence of sub optimal choices in a game, mean its a design flaw. Different games take different approaches, and have different levels of balance. That doesn't mean 3E is a bad game, because wizards can become very powerful. And for many, the ability of wizards to bend space and time, is very important to having a fun adventure. Even for those of us that prefer fighters. We want the spellcraft that surrounds us, both at the player and NPC level, to have this kind of power.

 

[Remathilis]

I disagree. This is a valid approach to RPG design. It is the one 4E took and successfully achieved. But it isn't the only consideration when designing an RPG. Many gamers prefer the possibility of sub optimal choices, because they want their character creation choices to matter and have an impact on the power level in the game. This isn't for everyone. But it doesn't mean the presence of sub optimal choices in a game, mean its a design flaw. Different games take different approaches, and have different levels of balance. That doesn't mean 3E is a bad game, because wizards can become very powerful. And for many, the ability of wizards to bend space and time, is very important to having a fun adventure. Even for those of us that prefer fighters. We want the spellcraft that surrounds us, both at the player and NPC level, to have this kind of power.

Effectively then, the game becomes about one class then.

In Revised d20 Star Wars (pre Saga), there were 9 classes; 6 non-Force using classes (soldier, scoundrel, scout, noble, fringer, tech-specialist*) and three Force-using classes (Jedi Guardian, Jedi Consular, Force Adept). In theory, each class had a niche in the Universe be it combat, skills, social ability, survival skills, crafting, or Force use.

In reality, there was really two classes: Jedi Guardian and Jedi Consular. (Force Adept pulls a distant 3rd, the other six don't even register, though solider was the best of the last six). A Jedi (either one, actually) could out-fight a fighter (lightsabers deal a ridiculous amount of damage, ignore armor, and deflect lazer-beams. Plus, they were three-feats from the best AC in the game), consulars had every diplomatic trick a noble could pull (save for cash) and with a few spread ranks, a Jedi could pilot, camp in the wilderness, build a weapon, and do anything the other classes could.

Oh yeah, and he had The Force. He was the only class to Heal, Buff, Move at great speed, Read Minds, See the Future, Talk Long Distances without Tech, Move Objects, and (if darkly inclined) attack for stupid amounts of damage at range, followed by igniting his lightsaber.

Smart players (meaning, anyone who played for more than 5 sessions with a Jedi PC) knew the Jedi WAS the game. As PCs died and or were early retired (both common in Revised SW) Jedi replaced them. In fact, barring a few corner-cases, there was NO reason NOT to be a Jedi, since you stood head-and-shoulders over non-Force uses to the point a non-Force User was simply a liability or often treated like a sidekick (making them almost PC cohorts).

Canonically, this fits the SW universe. Luke was as good a pilot as Han, a strong a warrior as Chewie, and as competent a diplomat as Leia (ask Jabba about Luke's negotiation skills) AND could stand toe-to-toe with Vader, something Han, Leia and Chewie all failed at (together!) Jedi ARE supposed to be better than normal people in the SW universe, that's why they're held in awe and suspicion.

But that makes for lousy party dynamics, esp if your the guy whose playing Han, Leia or Chewie. (For the record, Han & co. only shine when Luke is off at Dagobah or on DS2 in Empire and Jedi, when he multiclasses from mundane to Jedi).

Saga fixes the problem (somewhat) by giving those non-Force classes something interesting to do. A solider now matches a Jedi in damage output, a scoundrel has many more skills than a Jedi could hope for. A noble is the only class capable of buffing. Jedi have weaker skills, less combat prowess, but still the Force to balance it out. They are still stronger than a non Force, but No longer the Black Hole of Awesome that sucks away the spotlight from anyone less awesome then them (which was, of course, eveyone else).

Is it as true to the tone of Star Wars as Revised was? Who cares! Jedi needed a power-crippling and the non-Force classes needed a boost to make the game fun.

Its always ok to blow off "balance" when your not the class being drowned out of the light.

* I never, ever saw a Tech-Spec in play. They were the true "sub-optimal choice" of the game. Weak HD, poor attack and saves, not even proficient in a pistol, but they could craft masterwork gear! Woo Hoo! Why was this a PC class when you couldn't contribute anything of value outside your garage?

 

[Gimby]

True, some players like having much lower powered characters than the rest of the party, and some players/groups like having the powerful wizard trope.

Thing is, these are both possible in a balanced game, you can even do it in 4e. All you have to do is make the less powerful character lower level and the more powerful one higher level. And this can be done without making characters relatively obsolete in the default game.

 

[ProfessorPain]

True, some players like having much lower powered characters than the rest of the party, and some players/groups like having the powerful wizard trope.

Actually I am not talking about players who gimp for role play reasons. I am talking about people who come to the table with a more competitve spirit. Or who simply want to be rewarded for creating good builds. I am not saying this is for everyone. But my point is, a perfectly balanced game isn't the only correct goal in game design. It is a good goal for many types of players. Not all.

Then there is the flavor factor, which I care about. And the star wars example is a key point. If I am playing star wars, I am sorry but jedis are the stars. I would rather have over powered Jedis, that fit the star wars concept, and have the DM be the balancing factor. In games like this I always use the following rule of thumb. Players that take an optimal class like Jedi, are balanced out by how they can behave out of combat and the first to be targeted in most combat encounters. And this is in keeping with the genre. The advantage of playing someone like han solo, isn't what he can do in combat, it is what he can do outside of it. I am not denying the value of streamlined balanced mechanics like you have in 4E, but since its release, everyone seems to think that is the only valid kind of game. There is nothing wrong with people who like a little imbalance in their game, getting it. And just because combat mechanics favor one class, or character path, that doesn't mean it can't be balanced out in other ways.

Thing is, these are both possible in a balanced game, you can even do it in 4e. All you have to do is make the less powerful character lower level and the more powerful one higher level. And this can be done without making characters relatively obsolete in the default game.

Not really. You aren't rewarding character choice. You are just dictating that this character is higher level than that character--which is just as possible in a game like 3E. Sure this might work for somethings. But it doesn't restore the versatility of spells, their ability to bend reality. And it doesn't reward good character design.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Effectively then, the game becomes about one class then.

No. 3E is about builds and multiclassing. Players are rewarded for mastery of the system and clever use of resources. Some abilities are objectively better than others in certain sistuations for this reason. My point is, this is one approach and for some of us, it is fun.

Are wizards better at higher levels than a straight fighter or rogue, sure. But the game isn't effectively about the wizard. Wizards get rewarded in the long haul, but pay a price in the short term. For the last few levels of a campaign, they tend to shine. Though if the non-casters made good builds, they can shine as well.

In Revised d20 Star Wars (pre Saga), there were 9 classes; 6 non-Force using classes (soldier, scoundrel, scout, noble, fringer, tech-specialist*) and three Force-using classes (Jedi Guardian, Jedi Consular, Force Adept). In theory, each class had a niche in the Universe be it combat, skills, social ability, survival skills, crafting, or Force use.

In reality, there was really two classes: Jedi Guardian and Jedi Consular. (Force Adept pulls a distant 3rd, the other six don't even register, though solider was the best of the last six). A Jedi (either one, actually) could out-fight a fighter (lightsabers deal a ridiculous amount of damage, ignore armor, and deflect lazer-beams. Plus, they were three-feats from the best AC in the game), consulars had every diplomatic trick a noble could pull (save for cash) and with a few spread ranks, a Jedi could pilot, camp in the wilderness, build a weapon, and do anything the other classes could.

And in Star Wars this is how Jedis are. If I am playing the game, I want Jedi to outperform the other characters. I remember in pre-saga days, everyone knew the Jedi was the best class, but if you were going to play a jedi you had to bring your A game. The DM expected a good story around your character, and he expected you to do some heavy lifting. And we were all fine with this, because we played Han Solo, with the understanding that we were playing han solo and not luke skywalker.

Smart players (meaning, anyone who played for more than 5 sessions with a Jedi PC) knew the Jedi WAS the game. As PCs died and or were early retired (both common in Revised SW) Jedi replaced them. In fact, barring a few corner-cases, there was NO reason NOT to be a Jedi, since you stood head-and-shoulders over non-Force uses to the point a non-Force User was simply a liability or often treated like a sidekick (making them almost PC cohorts).

The answer here is simply to expect more from the players who select Jedi. I played a ton of this game, and we never had a problem with everyone wanting to be a Jedi. At most we had two Jedi in a group. But mostly just one. And no one had a problem with their power level.

That said, you could take the 4E approach and go more for balance. There is nothing wrong with that either. But there is a trade off with it. Me, I would rather have the full flavor of star wars. And if a game comes out that blatantly favors Jedi, I am fine with that design approach.

Canonically, this fits the SW universe. Luke was as good a pilot as Han, a strong a warrior as Chewie, and as competent a diplomat as Leia (ask Jabba about Luke's negotiation skills) AND could stand toe-to-toe with Vader, something Han, Leia and Chewie all failed at (together!) Jedi ARE supposed to be better than normal people in the SW universe, that's why they're held in awe and suspicion.

And this is the balancing factor. Non Jedi characters have an easier time moving through the plot outside of combat. And for us, that was a good junk of the game. Again, you can do it either way. And it is a trade off.

But that makes for lousy party dynamics, esp if your the guy whose playing Han, Leia or Chewie. (For the record, Han & co. only shine when Luke is off at Dagobah or on DS2 in Empire and Jedi, when he multiclasses from mundane to Jedi).

I was never that worried about party dynamics. So the Jedi is a Jedi, and do some impressive stuff like he is supposed to do. I never got bored with a han solo like character. And I expected the Jedi to shine a bit.

Saga fixes the problem (somewhat) by giving those non-Force classes something interesting to do. A solider now matches a Jedi in damage output, a scoundrel has many more skills than a Jedi could hope for. A noble is the only class capable of buffing. Jedi have weaker skills, less combat prowess, but still the Force to balance it out. They are still stronger than a non Force, but No longer the Black Hole of Awesome that sucks away the spotlight from anyone less awesome then them (which owas, of course, eveyone else).

But I don't like saga. And this is my point. Game design is about making games people want to play. You and I want to play different kinds of games. So there is nothing wrong with having one game design approach geared toward you, and another geared toward me. And neither of us is playing the game wrong, or being bad roleplayers. We just prefer different things be focused on in our systems.

Is it as true to the tone of Star Wars as Revised was? Who cares! Jedi needed a power-crippling and the non-Force classes needed a boost to make the game fun.

For you. Not for me. That is my point. What is fun for you, isn't fun for everybody. For me this is frankly a little boring. I am not saying you are playing a bad game. It is just not the game I want to play.

Its always ok to blow off "balance" when your not the class being drowned out of the light.

But you can play any class you want. If you hate being the weaker class don't play. I actually don't mind having the mundane classes be a little more mundane, and playing them. I love being han solo in star wars, or the fighter in 3E. And I love having a wizard in my party that isn't toned down. I love having a Jedi that is just like in the movies. For me this is fun. If you don't like it, there are plenty of games designed for your taste. But don't tell me my taste is wrong, or the design behind them is flawed, if me and my group is having a blast. Play the game you like by all means. Its all good.

 

[S'mon]

Re readied actions - in 3.5 you can ready to 5' step & attack, if you didn't move on your turn. In 3.0 you could ready a partial charge (move & attack)! - according to Forge of Fury, anyway.

It's certainly possible to ready "I hit him if he starts to cast, 5' stepping if necessary", although I've never actually seen this done. Since it doesn't require an AoO it will work vs combat casting, and require a concentration roll if the target is hit.

Of course a competent spellcaster won't stick around long enough for this tactic to be used, or will have spells to prevent getting hit for damage.

 

[Remathilis]

No. 3E is about builds and multiclassing. Players are rewarded for mastery of the system and clever use of resources. Some abilities are objectively better than others in certain situations for this reason. My point is, this is one approach and for some of us, it is fun.

Of course, every group is different and everyone has a different level of tolerance for BS, but 3e being about "builds & multiclassing" and "rewarded mastery" are anathema to what I want out of an RPG. And as a life-long favored player of the sneaky-types, I rue any system (be it D&D or Star Wars, or anything else) where the "cool" option (wizard, Jedi, etc) is vastly superior to other options. Unless you don't mind being a second-fiddle character (and I don't, I want my moments to shine and my moments I'm not so great in so someone else can shine). There is a big difference between "Rogue, you're the only one of us who can do this." and "Well, we COULD blow magic on solving the problem, but hey, you played the rogue, we'll give this one to you so you have something to do. If you fail, we'll blow the spell anyway. Nothing to lose, right?"

I think we'll agree to disagree on this one. Unless I'm playing the Jedi and you're the Scoundrel, kay?

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Then there is the flavor factor, which I care about. And the star wars example is a key point. If I am playing star wars, I am sorry but jedis are the stars. I would rather have over powered Jedis, that fit the star wars concept, and have the DM be the balancing factor.

This is an absolutely valid view point, and there is nothing wrong with wanting to play a game under these circumstances. However, there are also very valid reasons for disagreeing with it.

- Not all DM's want to be saddled with the responsibility of balancing out a power disparity to keep their players fully engaged.

- Not all players will agree that Wizards ought to be the stars of D&D. Some players may have been drawn to this genre wanting to play Conan based archetypes.

Anyway, I think this thread has drifted pretty far from Bullgrits original question regarding specific examples of fighters not mattering beyond 11th level. We may want to consider returning to the original topic or forking the thread to a topic regarding the pros and cons of trading game balance for flavor.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[ProfessorPain]

- Not all DM's want to be saddled with the responsibility of balancing out a power disparity to keep their players fully engaged.

- Not all players will agree that Wizards ought to be the stars of D&D. Some players may have been drawn to this genre wanting to play Conan based archetypes.


END COMMUNICATION

these are totally understandable concerns. And one of the reasons why I think the desire of the gaming group is paramount, and the needs of the genre style equally important. 3E doesn't work well with low magic without serious modifications. A toned down system that has weaker magic would work much better for a Conan style campaign. Don't get me wrong. I like 3E. But I also love savage worlds, and independant game systems. I would much rather cycle through a bunch of campaigns with different systems, with about 3 month length for each, than stick to a single game system for a prolonged period.