Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Neonchameleon]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], when continuing the argument over a lot of pages leads you to makie clear counter-factual and nonsensical statements like the idea that you get Fate Points for failing to swim through a sandstorm, having been involved in the argument for pages doesn't give you a privileged position so much as shows that you can't see the wood for the trees right now.

I'm missing something here.

This is far from the first time in this thread you have railed against (perceived or real) *A* attempts by DMs to restrict what wizards can do in the game. Yet you also have several times in here brought up the *B* notion that wizards can do all kinds of things that fighters cannot and are thus out of balance.

Given that *A* to some extent helps to correct *B*, why complain about it?

Lanefan

Because it's blatant double standards. "Play favourites by always be nice to the fighter and screw the wizard" is not a DMing principle I want to have to worry about from either side of the screen.

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro, when continuing the argument over a lot of pages leads you to makie clear counter-factual and nonsensical statements like the idea that you get Fate Points for failing to swim through a sandstorm, having been involved in the argument for pages doesn't give you a privileged position so much as shows that you can't see the wood for the trees right now.

You do realize I never said this... again READ the previous posts and who actually posted them...

I try to swim through the sandstorm – give me a Fate point!

I am not N'raac, I am Imaro...
EDIT: You know what don't bother, if you can't take the time to actually understand the discussion as well as who actually said what... I don't have the time to continue a discussion with you.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You do realize I never said this... again READ the previous posts and who actually posted them...

My apologies, that was N'raac. Your blatant untruth was that "encounter based play actually started with 3.x" when a large chunk of the 2e DMG is about encounters.

 

[Imaro]

My apologies, that was N'raac. Your blatant untruth was that "encounter based play actually started with 3.x" when a large chunk of the 2e DMG is about encounters.

A chunk of every DMG is about "encounters" I'm talking about specifically designing adventures as discrete encounters... ala the delve format... My bigger point was that it didn't start with 4e but like many things in the post was a continuation, refinement, etc. of something already existing in D&D and not necessarily attributable specifically to indie design... again, context is everything...

 

[Wicht]

But that fighter has a race. Perhaps a theme. An alignment and god that establish conflict from the start in a way that is not the case with (say) the default 3E gods.

Huh?

That does not make any sense. 3e fighters have a race, an alignment, and, if the player chooses, a deity; all of which speak to the inherent conflicts of the character. I fail to see how these things do not exist? In fact, they have existed in every edition of Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Y'know, this thread has made me realize just how narrow a play style we would have to adopt to get the results that Wicht, N'raac and Ahn are talking about. You need the following:

• Strong DM ruling where mechanical elements are strictly enforced.
• Groups willing to allow the DM to dictate the results of actions, rather than resorting to the mechanics.
• Heroic fantasy games where the players can only play Good, heroic characters.

Good grief, how narrow do you think D&D is?

I may have been out for a week, but don't lump me in with this. I don't care whether the players play good characters or not. Of course, the other two criteria are pretty broad.

 

[Wicht]

Because it's blatant double standards. "Play favourites by always be nice to the fighter and screw the wizard" is not a DMing principle I want to have to worry about from either side of the screen.

Well then, its a good thing nobody has actually argued for either one of those recently.


Edit: Just to be clear, what we have ongoing is a false equivalence which equates giving the wizard challenges which must be overcome, even in things such as bargaining with a demon, with not giving the fighter challenges which must be overcome. But nobody has suggested that the road for the fighter must be well greased and the path of the wizards covered with tacks just so they have some sort of equivalency in play. For myself, I have said that while the wizard is able to shine brightly a few times per play, the fighter performs consistently. Or to return to another analogy, Wizard's are home-run hitters, fighters are the batters with the best overall performance, pounding out the singles and doubles everytime. They work best when they work together (as in baseball where homeruns are always more powerful when the bases are loaded - a homerun hitter on a team with lousy bats is going to still lose more games than he wins). In said analogy, the DM is the pitcher and the pitcher's job is to pitch consistently well to ALL the opposing batters, even as he keeps in mind their individual strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well then, its a good thing nobody has actually argued for either one of those recently.

OTOH, "let the wizard run wild and screw the fighter over at every opportunity" seems to be the default for some people.

 

[Imaro]

Huh?

That does not make any sense. 3e fighters have a race, an alignment, and, if the player chooses, a deity; all of which speak to the inherent conflicts of the character. I fail to see how these things do not exist? In fact, they have existed in every edition of Dungeons and Dragons.

Welcome to my world... and why I asked if [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] had actually played 3.x...

 

[Wicht]

and why I asked if [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] had actually played 3.x...

Well, I almost asked that myself, even though I knew you already had...

The statement is just, well, bizarre.