Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dualazi" data-source="post: 7110683" data-attributes="member: 6855537">A couple multi-generational problems spring to mind.First, is the over-abundance of magic, and the resulting lack of meaningful non-magic options. Two sides of the same coin, but definitely a problem and one remarked on even in this edition when you look at how many non-magical options are present in the PHB. In the early days fighter types were reliant on magic items, particularly once the implementation of enhancement gates kicked off, and while they aren’t quite as married to them now they still rely on magical knick-knacks for even a fraction of the utility of magical characters. Oddly enough for all its multitudes of faults 3.x did this better by noting certain abilities as Extraordinary, allowing them to be non-magical ways of accomplishing cool stuff. Even that though wasn’t enough to fix the logic issues of a character that can survive a 200ft fall and yet underperform real-world athletes.Second is the gradual easing of non-damage related threats from monsters and environments. While I loathe save-or-die effects with a passion, the loss of things like level drain, disease, stat damage, item destruction, and curses leads to a loss of flavor in my opinion. Many classic monsters were feared even when they were significantly under the party’s level due to their innate effects, such as vampires and rust monsters. People are happier because the fewer spells slots (especially at high level) and concentration limits have made the wizard less of a one man army. There are still people like me who deeply wish for more fighter utility, but 5e is a good series of first steps in the right direction.Can’t speak to BCEMI but 2e wizards didn’t care about hitpoints if they had a brain, by high level spell sequencers, contingencies, and scrying spells could see a wizard going into combat rocking a layer of buffs that let them ignore anything not a rival wizard. Note that both of these problems (copious spell slots and layering buffs) were neatly removed in 5e. These problems only became more amplified in 3.x/PF due to option bloat, greater base toughness and spells being more resistant to disruption.This is hilarious to me because I have yet to see any forum, even paizo’s, not fully acknowledge that magic users are worlds ahead of martials in terms of effectiveness in 3.x and no “builds” will save you from that. I’ve seen PF builds for barbs capable of hitting for over 1000 damage and IIRC their general usefulness was described as “decent”, because casters have such a greater degree of warping effect on the campaign as a whole and may not need to deal damage at all to kill/win a fight.So F.A.T.A.L. is a good system because the DM can fix it, right? Or maybe there comes a point where fixing a system is such a tiring element of running it that it ceases to be worth it and people move on to systems that can be run without needing to rewrite half the material. "The DM can fix it" is in my experience mostly commonly used to deflect criticism without addressing any arguments because it can be blithely stated about any system ever printed. I think there was even a name given to that fallacy but I can't remember it offhand at the moment.</blockquote>

Verification