Mearls: Abilities as the core?

[Greg K]

Awesome I'm glad you don't think they do. I think if most people understood what you do, or said this, than a lot of arguments would slide back into a discussion (which is a good thing, in my opinion!).

Yep, Pentius, definitely, comes across as a good and open-minded person in that you can have an actual discussion without it becoming an edition war. He does not jump out like a zealot to defend 4e, overstating his case and ignoring other people's positions. He recognizes that better is simply a difference in preferences and recognizes the the merits of other people's opinions (even if he disagrees) rather than treating the discussion as some universal "Truth" to be defended.

 

[Pentius]

I'd like to note a few opinions of mine:
1) Not everyone has the same views on you do as to what that archetype should always fulfill, under every condition. Mark CMG is pretty much stating that in this thread.

I know that, and have already acknowledged it in this thread. I'm not saying that my vision of the Fighter is the One True Vision. I'm just discussing what I expect from the archetype, why I expect it, and how well each system can give it to me. I find the 3.5 fighter to be lacking, and I have no problem saying so, possibly all day long. Note that these are clearly personal statements, not blanket ones.

2) House rules are embraced by 3.5, at its core. There are a few sections that go into house ruling in both the base PHB and the DMG. Heck, I'd say that house rules are embraced by D&D, at its core. So, many people will have no qualms about house ruling something to better fit what they had in mind.

House rules are great, I like them. I have notepad open right now with notes for a homebrew race and a simple house rule about healing surges. But I still hold that house rules are not as good a solution to a problem as official ones, because I can't reasonably expect a new group to play by my house rules(unless I'm the DM. Then, I totally will). I also hold that the statement "It's not a problem because you can house rule it." is false.

3) It's about preferences. You are not wrong to want the fighter, or any other class, to fulfill a particular archetype. That's your preference. Someone else can prefer a style that gives them the basics, and house rules and homebrews a ton of stuff for their game, and they aren't wrong. Others can stick to RAW, and they aren't wrong if that's what they prefer.

Pretty much, yeah.

Awesome I'm glad you don't think they do. I think if most people understood what you do, or said this, than a lot of arguments would slide back into a discussion (which is a good thing, in my opinion!).

As always, play what you like

And Greg K and I seem to getting more and more "discussion" and less "argument" by the post. Which isn't bad, considering I stepped in somewhat perturbed by a perceived cheap shot at Optimizers.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I know that, and have already acknowledged it in this thread. I'm not saying that my vision of the Fighter is the One True Vision. I'm just discussing what I expect from the archetype, why I expect it, and how well each system can give it to me. I find the 3.5 fighter to be lacking, and I have no problem saying so, possibly all day long. Note that these are clearly personal statements, not blanket ones.

I know that it doesn't mean much, but I really do appreciate your approach to this discussion, and your responses to me. I'm enjoying reading them.

House rules are great, I like them. I have notepad open right now with notes for a homebrew race and a simple house rule about healing surges. But I still hold that house rules are not as good a solution to a problem as official ones, because I can't reasonably expect a new group to play by my house rules(unless I'm the DM. Then, I totally will). I also hold that the statement "It's not a problem because you can house rule it." is false.

Well, I'm glad you like house rules. And though it's a well accepted that "it's not a problem because you can house rule it" is false, I'll actually disagree. If it's a problem for everyone, then I'll agree with you. If it's a problem for most people, I might be inclined to agree with you in general.

However, if it's only a problem with a significant subset of the playerbase, than I'll respectfully disagree. If you give your target audience the Rules, and say "we know that things may not be how you like, so here's how you might go about changing them" than I don't think there's too much of a problem.

You don't like the fighter, and that's a problem for you. My group has some minor issues with it, but nowhere near the issues that other groups have. What "fix" is necessary that'll satisfy us both? The most feasible, in my mind, is house ruling, and good guidance on how to go about it.

Pretty much, yeah.

And Greg K and I seem to getting more and more "discussion" and less "argument" by the post. Which isn't bad, considering I stepped in somewhat perturbed by a perceived cheap shot at Optimizers.

Yeah, it does look that way, and I'm glad to see things segue to that form of communication. It's not thread-wide yet, but maybe we'll get there. Thanks, again, for the time you take to respond to me, and for the civility of your responses.

As always, play what you like

 

[Mark CMG]

It means you get better at things as you adventure.

So, if at any point you choose something as a trained skill, you automatically progress in it regardless of use or actual training. I could choose swimming as a trained skill, for instance, then spend my entire adventuring career in a desert (and otherwise nowhere near water nor swimming) but would automatically progress as a swimmer. Got it.

"But Cirno, (. . .)"

Ah . . . I think I'll just prefer to agree to disagree.

 

[Greg K]

House rules are great, I like them. I have notepad open right now with notes for a homebrew race and a simple house rule about healing surges. But I still hold that house rules are not as good a solution to a problem as official ones, because I can't reasonably expect a new group to play by my house rules(unless I'm the DM. Then, I totally will). I also hold that the statement "It's not a problem because you can house rule it." is false.
Pretty much, yeah.

I agree. Official solutions are best provided they fix this issue in a manner satisfactory for a given group. However, since individual players and groups have different tastes and preferences, house rules are often necessary for many groups- especially, since for many gamers there is no perfect system out of the box. The issue becomes which game requires the least amount of work or which areas are you most comfortable changing to make it close to your ideal game.

And Greg K and I seem to getting more and more "discussion" and less "argument" by the post. Which isn't bad, considering I stepped in somewhat perturbed by a perceived cheap shot at Optimizers.

I have no problem with optimization when it is done for a concept that fits within a given campaign/setting. When it is taken too the extreme and done to try and game the system rather than to best suit a concept and background to develop a character that is setting/campaign appropriate (my definition of min/max) is when I have issues, but only in games I am running or in as a player. If I am the DM,I can address it. If I am a player, my choice is to discuss the issue and then decide to play or leave.
And the reason, we can discuss it is that we each recognize that we are dealing with preferences and, thus, the other person's position is valid for them rather than trying to label it irrational or otherwise dismissing it. This is not the case with Nineball and one or two other people that frequent these forums.

 

[Pentius]

I agree. Official solutions are best provided they fix this issue in a manner satisfactory for a given group. However, since individual players and groups have different tastes and preferences, house rules are often necessary for many groups- especially, since for many gamers there is no perfect system out of the box. The issue becomes which game requires the least amount of work or which areas are you most comfortable changing to make it close to your ideal game.

I agree.

I have no problem with optimization when it is done for a concept that fits within a given campaign/setting. When it is taken too the extreme and done to try and game the system rather than to best suit a concept and background to develop a character that is setting/campaign appropriate (my definition of min/max) is when I have issues, but only in games I am running or in as a player. If I am the DM,I can address it. If I am a player, my choice is to discuss the issue and then decide to play or leave.

Ah, see as long as there is good roleplay, I don't care if the player made the build to fit the concept or the concept to fit the build. I've done both plenty of times. I even want a certain level of optimization from my fellow players. As someone on these boards put it, "Save me from 8 con fighters and 12 cha bards."

And the reason, we can discuss it is that we each recognize that we are dealing with preferences and, thus, the other person's position is valid for them rather than trying to label it irrational or otherwise dismissing it. This is not the case with Nineball and one or two other people that frequent these forums.

Yeah, there is never any shortage of people willing to speak in absolutes or to just plain be inflammatory in any online discussion. Especially about edition differences.

 

[Greg K]

I even want a certain level of optimization from my fellow players. As someone on these boards put it, "Save me from 8 con fighters and 12 cha bards."

My position is that once you are assigning points to meet a concept, you are optimizing. You can optimize to best represent the greatest underwater basket weaver, an apprentice mystic warrior that grew up a farm boy and has a knack for horseback riding, or a super strong barbarian that escaped slavery as a pit fighter.

Then again, in my opinion, optimization exists on a continuum

The 8 con fighter might not bother me depending upon the other aspects of the character. Then again, I have no problem envisioning a fighter with a strength of 12 or 13 and think many fighters of media fall in that range.

I am , however, trying to picture a bard with only 12 Cha and having difficulty.

 

[Mark CMG]

I am , however, trying to picture a bard with only 12 Cha and having difficulty.

Search YouTube using the keyword "cover" and you'll find a few.


(You'll also find some incredibly talented individuals!)

 

[Sammael]

Good grief, we're not back to the old swimming argument, are we?

In 3.x, everyone can swim, since the Swim skill can be used untrained; the basic DC is fairly low - DC 10 for calm water - and you can take 10 on a Swim check.

In 4E, everyone can also swim. Same rules apply, except you get better (every even level) at swimming, along with all other physical activities.

So, neither system is good at modelling someone who cannot swim at all. Let's move on...

Humans have an inborn instinct for swimming, just like all other animals. We just need to overcome our fear of water/drowning (which doesn't take much time), and the basic motions of swimming come naturally. Sure, practicing to be a world-class swimmer is not the same as paddling along in the water, but that is not the issue (since D&D is not about setting athletics records).

Incidentally, I am personally really overweight and out of shape. I spent last summer going to the gym thrice a week for 2 hours (a lot less exercise than a typical adventurer gets). Guess what? Even though I spent no time practicing swimming at all, when I went to the pool in the fall, I was much, much better at swimming than I was in spring prior to the gym. So, practicing one type of physical activity can obviously make you better at other physical activities.

The only thing I will support here is that 4E's 1/2 level bonus is too good. But some sort of bonus needs to be there, for both gamist reasons and verisimilitude.

 

[Greg K]

Good grief, we're not back to the old swimming argument, are we?

In 3.x, everyone can swim, since the Swim skill can be used untrained; the basic DC is fairly low - DC 10 for calm water - and you can take 10 on a Swim check..

I can't speak for 3.5, but in 3.0, to take 10, you must be a trained swimmer. Without training, you are fine provided you are in relatively calm water that is not over your head (3.0 DMG p. 85)