NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sheadunne" data-source="post: 6193873" data-attributes="member: 27570">There are several issues at play here, very few, if any, that are about fighter/wizard disparity. Assuming we're not dealing with a Character v Character situation, but rather a Character v Encounter situation, then the issues areFighter - targets DM encounter. The fighter is limited to the fictional narrative. He does not challenge the narrative, but rather attempts to engage it.Wizard - targets the narrative. The wizard isn't limited to the fictional narrative. He does not challenge the encounter, but rather attempts to shape it.Based on these two premises we're seeing the DM challenge the Wizard on the narrative and not the encounter, which often comes across as "screwing the wizard." Technically the DM is simply challenging the wizard character on the same field of battle the wizard chose to engage him on. This creates the semblance of imbalance between the fighter and wizard. Take for instance the age old issue of Save or Die (SoD) spells. Clearly there is no difference between the fighter hitting the monster for damage equal to the monster's HP (however long that may take) and between the wizard casting a save or die spell. The monster is dead regardless of which method is used. However, the methods are done on different playing fields. The fighter is engaging the encounter and dealing damage to the monster. The wizard is engaging the narrative and suggesting that the monster is dead instead of alive. The two different methods need to be handled differently. However, the wizard player often wants the playing field the same and wants the results of the spell handled on the encounter field instead of the narrative field; and when it is, the wizard shines brighter than a newly minted star, since at the encounter level, there isn't much to challenge the wizard. With regards to teleport, let's say we have a fighter and a wizard, each attempting to make it to the town that's miles down the road. The fighter rides in a straight line down the road, since this action is purely in the realm of encounter, there's no need to roll to determine whether the fighter gets lost walking down that road. Now the wizard character attempts to teleport, taking him out of the realm of the encounter and into narrative (I'm not really here, I'm there instead). Since this action can't be handled at the encounter level, there needs to be another method to resolve it on the narrative level. You have a 3% chance of missing your location. You have to know where you're going. Etc. Or there's a teleportation block on the town. Wizard players tend to have more issue with the last one only because there's no roll involved. It's a flat out no. However, it is a no within the realm of the narrative which is where the Wizard is playing. Personally I think there needs to be consensus on whether there should be one path (either encounter or narrative) or better rules for narrative. I think that 4e took the encounter path (but also allowed for some narrative with things like rituals). I think they should stay a bit more in the middle but create good rules to handle the casters in the narrative realm. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that into the mix. The method of resolution the fighter and wizard are different and have to be in order for the game to function.</blockquote>

Verification