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="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6068834" data-attributes="member: 87792">Believe it or not, a lot of the fans of 4e have been playing D&D for a loooooong time and are fans of other editions.  And are fans of every other edition as well.  What you can't bridge is the 4e/refuseniks gap.  The gap between people who think that level should reflect a character's power and influence and those that think that magic should.  The problem here isn't 4e but 3e.  3e removed or nerfed literally every advantage the non-casters got.  In 2e the fighter was genuinely powerful with weapon specialisation, was almost immune to magic at high level, and got an army when their relevance was starting to fade.  This is a way that works for 4e fans (it's very different from the 4e way but it's another way that works).  In 2e the thief had almost unique stealth abilities (they needed beefing up a bit) and the thief got Non-Weapon Proficiencies on top of that.  In 3e the thief's stealth abilities became mundane skills anyone could take and their versatility went down as they were restricted to 8+Int skills to replace the 8 skills the thief skills had become - when everyone else got more skills.  The rogue lost their fiat abilities - and they were intended to be implemented as fiat abilities.  You initially rolled the Thief's Scale Sheer Surface for surfaces no one else could climb - and if someone else could hide the thief didn't bother to roll.  Also in 1e and 2e levels were soft-capped (and the highest level character in Greyhawk was L14) - and the demihumans had started leaving long before that in 1e.  The game changed at level 10 because of things like the army.  Rather than continued as if there was no problem with the wizard doubling in power every two levels and the fighter continuing linearly.1e and 2e have most of what the 4e fans are demanding - but implemented very differently.  The problem here is 3.X fans who aren't even willing to contemplate putting this sort of class ability back into the game.  It's either magic or mundane. Yet such things existed in 2e - see the thief skills.  You are illustrating where the actual problem bridging the gap lies.You can call them the opposite of what they are all you like.  But it doesn't make it so.  Acting ludicrously stupidly for a monster is not turning the wizard into strawberry jam unless there is a good reason not to.  He's both the most dangerous thing on the battlefield and the squishiest.  There are three ways of preventing this - and 3e uses none of them.  The first is to make it dangerous to leave combat - 3e is the only edition where your AoOs are limited - have you ever tried to leave combat in AD&D?  4e defenders are less sticky than ordinary 2e warriors.  The second is a full scale shield wall so you can't physically reach the wizards (done in the earliest editions).  The third is close the gap in toughness a bit so the relative advantage of splatting them mage is less.  4e doesn't force monsters to behave stupidly.  It makes breaking the mark into stupid play.The problem, as usual, is that 3e is a massive outlier.Plenty of monsters have forced movement powers and lure powers.  People don't object.  Your point?This much is true.Agreed.  And the answer is "Because WotC want money."3.X fans have Pathfinder.  Going after Paizo fans is a recipie for disaster.  WotC is not as good as Paizo at what Paizo does.  Which means what you have to appeal to under your route is disaffected 2e fans who rejected 3e.  And who are still playing.  And who are suddenly going to start to play.You do know that "If everyone is special then no one is" was the villain of The Incredibles?Then I guess they just don't want those hit points.Because most fighters can create fire by snapping their fingers.You are laying out the other problem.  Some people want the wizard to shatter the power level structure and be the most powerful class in the game.  Other people want level to be a measure of power because that's what it presents itself as.  If you want to play Ars Magica in which wizards are explicitely the strongest that's fine.  But don't try to present the classes as equal when you don't want them to be equal.Replace the fighter with the Warblade and the wizard with the bard.  Then we're talking.Merlin in most myths is an NPC.  Like Gandalf in Lord of the Rings.The Lady of the Lake was another NPC.The attempt to make Merlin into a PC is a problem.Then make the fighters and the rogues the star of the show.  Stop the party from being a team up between Odysseus and Circe and return her to her rightful place.  As an NPC.The obvious one is to make the level structure mean something.  To keep the fighter mundane say that the highest level mundane fighter is level 7.  The fighter class stops there.  There are other solutions.  All save or die effects belong to the fighter.  You can survive a spell much better than you can a sword through the eye.  Or fighters are fast, magic takes time.  If fighters act in 6 second rounds, and non-quickened spells take a minute to cast most of our problems vanish.That isn't a conclusion.  It's a third premise.  Last time I checked in this world mundane beats magic. How about Premise 3: Whereever they can directly come into conflict, Mundane > MagicThe trick mages have to do is to change the battlefield so they don't.  They become like the classic thieves - and the masters of combat are the fighters.This is a "Magic belongs to NPCs" approach.  (And yes, I know about Castiel).  Magic belongs to NPCs is fine.  What isn't fine is to mix the party and the power levels.We can indeed.  What we can't have is mundane fighters, mundane-immune monsters and wizards who can handle the mundane-immune monsters.  Kill the wizard as a PC class (or just shred their power to 3.5 Bard standard or below) and the problem vanishes.  Mundane immune monsters with mundane fighters are interesting for the challenge.  Mundane immune monsters with all wizards are there to make the wizards look cool.  Mundane immune monsters with mundane fighters and non-mundane wizards are a "You must be this magical to play" sign.Or the party wizard.  And that is the problem.Making magic users into NPCs works.  The problem is the wizard class and the style you espouse.  Kill the wizard and the game works.  But "Increasing the fighter, and all non-casters, to be parallel and equal to casters muddied the concept of magic is special." as you said.  And yet 4e fighters still aren't in the league of CuChulain or Hercules.  But people object.</blockquote>

Verification