Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9176828" data-attributes="member: 87792">This isn't true. Speed changes what may be accomplished in practical ways; if all magic is ritual than there is no such thing as close quarters battle magic that isn't buffs. If the Shield spell took five minutes to cast then it would not meaningfully be the shield spell as it can be used.And 90% of games don't go above level 10. To me the casters only really pull definitively ahead at level 9. Larian cut off Baldur's gate at level 12. Either way the way it becomes sufficient in D&D is by literally cutting off about half the game. A linear formula can approximate a quadratic one over a limited range - but the quadratic one is going to outscale the linear one eventually. And the big question is whether fighters are even better at fighting at high levels. Given that they probably can't catch the wizards by then.What I want is some sort of vision of what tier 3 and tier 4 martial characters should be. I want some sort of justification of why a level 17 muggle (who isn't notably more skilled than a level 9 muggle) should count as level 17.1e did it - you put in a level soft-cap at around level 10 at the point where wizards were pulling away, and you restricted magic. 2e did it - fighters kicked serious amounts of arse in that game between Weapon Specialisation and the best saves in the game and you had the level soft-cap. 4e did it - and the only magical ability fighters got was Come And Get It. It has been done even under your restrictions. The problem is how you can do it while opening up 9th level spells. I disagree. I have never seen any evidence that "disassociated mechanics" are anything other than a pseudointellectual justification someone can use that sounds better than "I don't like and don't understand this way of doing things" - and the very fact that your example was straight up misrepresenting things is to me 100% in line with the way I expect "disassociated mechanics" to be used as a term.And this is the fallacy of the excluded middle. For a lot of people this bar is met at level 1 and is ridiculously far from being met at level 17. Which is part of why 90% of games end by level 10. I'm not asking for the level 1 fighter to be changed. I am asking for either the level 17 fighter or level 17 wizard to be changed - or literally half the game is going to remain vestigial.With 90% of games ending by level 10 it is clear that the high levels do not work. People like the class fantasy of the fighter - but that doesn't mean they like the fantasy of the muggle.The major problem here is that "truth", "genuineness" and "authenticity" are terms that you introduced into the conversation in your OP. And that I copied and pasted from your OP. They were your quote of the definition of versimilitude. But when I point out what that means and that by your own definitions the high level game is broken and the game part of the game lacks what you are now calling internal coherence you claim I'm introducing the terms.I was mostly exasperated at the zombie meme that just won't die about healing.And as a model of injury I find Fate has far far more versimilitude because being injured affects what you can do - and takes a more substantial recovery than even 1e.  And this is why I have problems with both (a) the criticism of narrative games and (b) the idea of disassociated mechanics; Hit points are very explicitly not meat and 100% of the work to make them seem like injuries is being put in by the player.</blockquote>

Verification