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="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6194393" data-attributes="member: 17106">True, but I was referring to the current top rpg. To say that it was widely disseminated is kind of my point. It was, and a version of 3e is still the top game on the market. And I think the flaws in playtesting and the design process are pretty well chronicled. So yes, I'm implying that.I don't understand how you don't see that this is a contradiction.Yes there is. There are many different styles of DMing, but all of them are still styles of DMing.I hate to break it to you, but that is a pretty significant aspect. The only aspect? No. But real-world terms, concepts, and outcomes still form the basis for most  of the rules.I should hope so. However, this expectation of equal contribution, and the idea of having the fighters copy the spellcasters' mechanics, are new.Again, I should hope so. Which is not concordant with the expectations and methods we're discussing here.It's the difference between two neighbors doing a little landscaping and each one saying "Gee, I think I should match up with that guy's aesthetic next door so we both look decent" and two neighbors being required to make every visible component of their property virtually the same. (I hate homeowners associations). In the former case, both individuals are still independent, they make different choices for different reasons, and may have wildly different resources and goals.Back in D&D, there's a very big difference between revising the fighter and replacing it with a spellcaster.For example, I could take the 3e baseline, and revise the fighter so that it gets +2 base attack per level, double hit points, and a feat every level. This would change the balance of the fighter. In most people's eyes I suspect that would make it very overpowered. However, that would not grant the fighter any new roles or capabilities, and even a level 20 fighter would still be helpless to break through a wall of force or control his opponents' minds.A rational approach to fixing the fighter is simply doing a less extreme version of that, and this is what PF does: boost the numbers, not replace them with spells.So they don't include fighters having plot coupons or anything. He's basically saying the same thing I'm saying.In other words, it was balanced using a different baseline than what you're suggesting (everyone being equal all the time), and it was done so purposefully to create an aesthetic particular to D&D, and it was basically successful.So basically you're saying that these people are using the game for something it wasn't designed for, setting goals and expectations on their own, and more than that, refuse to make any accommodations or changes to either their approach or the (eminently changeable) game itself, and if it does not work the way the want, it's...the game's fault.</blockquote>

Verification