Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Eric V" data-source="post: 6664430" data-attributes="member: 6779717">Some people just want caster supremacy as a preference.&nbsp; For that to happen, non-casters, or martials, have to be less complex/capable/interesting than casters.This is why they are arguing for this.&nbsp; Arguments about &quot;dissociative mechanics&quot; in a game where two of the most universal aspects of the game are hit points (that fully replenish after sleepy time!), and armour class (where armour makes you harder to hit) end up being laughable (no offense).&nbsp; When people point out that the fighter can do things, but ignore that no other class is worse than them (in terms of how they are mechanically put together as a class) at the exploration and social aspects of the game, that's disingenuous. People have given many answer's to the OP's question, but the worldviews are too different; some people like balance across classes for a few reasons ( 1. So no player feels his choice of class will disadvantage him compared to others; 2. To mimic certain fantasy genres; 3. Etc.) and some prefer caster supremacy because magic should out-do everything in that worldview.&nbsp; I honestly don't get a lot of aspects of the latter worldview: When people choose to play fighters in games of that worldview, why do they choose such an inferior class?&nbsp; If magic is so superior, why aren't more people in the game-world wizards?&nbsp; There's more, but at the end of the day, it's just a preference. And that's fine.What isn't fine, is people demanding that their worldview on magic and martial areas of the game necessarily exclude all others.&nbsp; What I have come to understand from this thread, though, is that the answer to the original question is &quot;nothing&quot;...if you come from a caster-supremacy worldview.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Eric V, post: 6664430, member: 6779717"] Some people just want caster supremacy as a preference. For that to happen, non-casters, or martials, have to be less complex/capable/interesting than casters. This is why they are arguing for this. Arguments about "dissociative mechanics" in a game where two of the most universal aspects of the game are hit points (that fully replenish after sleepy time!), and armour class (where armour makes you harder to hit) end up being laughable (no offense). When people point out that the fighter [I]can[/I] do things, but ignore that no other class is worse than them (in terms of how they are mechanically put together as a class) at the exploration and social aspects of the game, that's disingenuous. People have given many answer's to the OP's question, but the worldviews are too different; some people like balance across classes for a few reasons ( 1. So no player feels his choice of class will disadvantage him compared to others; 2. To mimic certain fantasy genres; 3. Etc.) and some prefer caster supremacy because magic should out-do everything in that worldview. I honestly don't get a lot of aspects of the latter worldview: When people choose to play fighters in games of that worldview, why do they choose such an inferior class? If magic is so superior, why aren't more people in the game-world wizards? There's more, but at the end of the day, it's just a preference. And that's fine. What isn't fine, is people demanding that their worldview on magic and martial areas of the game necessarily exclude all others. What I have come to understand from this thread, though, is that the answer to the original question is "nothing"...if you come from a caster-supremacy worldview. [/QUOTE]

Verification