Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="n00bdragon" data-source="post: 6070234" data-attributes="member: 6689371">Clearly we have two things here:In 3e casters have this strong fiat ability and mundane classes do not. This much is agreed upon by everyone I think and isn't worth debating. You could put this on a scale of &quot;fiatness&quot; that ranges from say 1 to 10 with 1 being a low level of &quot;fiatness&quot; and 10 being a high level of &quot;fiatness&quot;. Neither side is inherently better though individuals may prefer one level or another in general or for specific classes.You following me so far?The question above can have just one of a few answers:A. Lower everybody to about the same &quot;fiatness&quot;. The game will not allow any player to have much &quot;fiatness&quot; and the majority of classes will find the scope of what they can do using hard-coded mechanics reduced. This will leave everyone carving through HP Tofu and engaging in &quot;Mother May I&quot; with the DM.B. Raise everybody to about the same &quot;fiatness&quot;. The game will allow everyone to have a large degree of &quot;fiatness&quot;. The majority of classes will find the scope of what they can do using hard-coded mechanics increased. Mundane classes will need to gain abilities that could only be described as super powers.C. Determine a level of &quot;fiatness&quot; somewhere in the middle and adjust everyone to that level. Mundane classes will gain a great deal of &quot;unrealistic&quot; abilities while casters will lose a great deal of what makes them special.D. Allow different classes to have different levels of &quot;fiatness&quot;. This is the default assumption of all editions of D&amp;D prior to 4e. The quality of this method has a wide variation and depends greatly on the particular table the game is played at.Clearly, there exist people in this very thread who prefer each of these options. Ostensibly 5e intends to cater to all these needs but there are a few problems with that approach. Methods A, B, and C all risk alienating members of a group who don't prefer the chosen level of &quot;fiatness&quot;. Players who just want to hit things will be swamped in a game of B or C. Players who enjoy complex characters with lots of abilities and a high degree of power will feel restricted in a game of A or B. People who prefer a balanced game will find a game of A too simple and a game of C broken. Players who grew up with games of D dislike A, B, and C because it's not familiar to them. Finally, players who prefer A, B, or C will find D problematic if the default presentation of their chosen class does not correspond to their desired &quot;fiatness&quot;.So, the better question I think, instead of arguing where the slider should be, first it needs to be established whether the slider should be able to move at all and if so should they be independent (necessitating D) or move together (necessitating anything but D)?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="n00bdragon, post: 6070234, member: 6689371"] Clearly we have two things here: In 3e casters have this strong fiat ability and mundane classes do not. This much is agreed upon by everyone I think and isn't worth debating. You could put this on a scale of "fiatness" that ranges from say 1 to 10 with 1 being a low level of "fiatness" and 10 being a high level of "fiatness". Neither side is inherently better though individuals may prefer one level or another in general or for specific classes. You following me so far? The question above can have just one of a few answers: A. Lower everybody to about the same "fiatness". The game will not allow any player to have much "fiatness" and the majority of classes will find the scope of what they can do using hard-coded mechanics reduced. This will leave everyone carving through HP Tofu and engaging in "Mother May I" with the DM. B. Raise everybody to about the same "fiatness". The game will allow everyone to have a large degree of "fiatness". The majority of classes will find the scope of what they can do using hard-coded mechanics increased. Mundane classes will need to gain abilities that could only be described as super powers. C. Determine a level of "fiatness" somewhere in the middle and adjust everyone to that level. Mundane classes will gain a great deal of "unrealistic" abilities while casters will lose a great deal of what makes them special. D. Allow different classes to have different levels of "fiatness". This is the default assumption of all editions of D&D prior to 4e. The quality of this method has a wide variation and depends greatly on the particular table the game is played at. Clearly, there exist people in this very thread who prefer each of these options. Ostensibly 5e intends to cater to all these needs but there are a few problems with that approach. Methods A, B, and C all risk alienating members of a group who don't prefer the chosen level of "fiatness". Players who just want to hit things will be swamped in a game of B or C. Players who enjoy complex characters with lots of abilities and a high degree of power will feel restricted in a game of A or B. People who prefer a balanced game will find a game of A too simple and a game of C broken. Players who grew up with games of D dislike A, B, and C because it's not familiar to them. Finally, players who prefer A, B, or C will find D problematic if the default presentation of their chosen class does not correspond to their desired "fiatness". So, the better question I think, instead of arguing where the slider should be, first it needs to be established whether the slider should be able to move at all and if so should they be independent (necessitating D) or move together (necessitating anything but D)? [/QUOTE]

Verification