The Myth of the Bo9S's Popularity

[Brother MacLaren]

How exactly is this balanced by the non-magic user STILL doing the same damage AS they were at first level with a weapon (without magic weapons/buffs, a fighter at 13th level does the same damage per swing as 1st level)

If you knew the system I was referring to, you'd know that the high-level fighter had the option of multiple attacks and three different means of doing extra damage (Smash, the asterisked numbers on the hit rolls chart, and Weapon Mastery). And yet he would never be stronger than the strongest "ordinary" human.

 

[The Little Raven]

A first level Saga Soldier can get hit 3 or 4 times by blaster pistol fire (with Second Wind) and still be standing.

Yeah... that's "don't-die-from-a-single-shot-from-a-one-eyed-goblin" heroic. That's the ability to take a couple wounds before succumbing. Heroes that die from a single hit from a weak goblin aren't really heroes... they're just pretending.

A first level Saga Scoundrel can hack a secure computer (at a level of science that would be about 30th+ century on our world, and if you hadn't noticed, it is getting more difficult for people in the real world to hack secure systems these days, not easier). This is pure fantasy at that level of technology.

A first-level character being able to manipulate technology in a highly technological world is proof of what, exactly? That first-level characters are overpowered? Or that maybe realism isn't the focus of the game?

A first level Saga Noble can make an ally act faster than the ally could ever do on his own.

Oh, you're talking about the ability to help an ally go from using a standard action to using a move action for a skill check. You shave maybe a second or two off the actual time it takes them to do it. Oh noes, someone could actually feint (normally a standard action) and attack in the same round! Obviously over-the-top.

A first level Saga Scout can avoid damage from an explosion that targets his area, regardless of whether there is anything to hide behind. Do you know how fast high tech explosions are? How devastating?

Oh snap, a first level character of any class can avoid damage from an explosion that targets his area, regardless of whether there is anything to hide behind. That's so obviously overpowered compared to having to wait until 2nd level (like the rogue) that it's over-the-top.

but it is more fantastical than DND ever was at first level.

If it's more fantastical than the premier fantasy game, then there's something wrong with that fantasy game in my mind.

PCs in SWSE do not need Force powers to do non-plausible things at first level.

Neither do D&D characters. Oh snap, I'm angry, so I suddenly am stronger and have more hit points. Oh yeah, and living in the wild makes me all fast. The barbarian does totally implausible things at first level... except if you take into account that you're playing a heroic fantasy game, and realized that the implausible is what heroes do.

The natural (i.e. non-force user) SWSE first level PCs can do some non-natural abilities.

Same with the barbarian... unless you're going to tell me that Rage and Fast Movement are real-life natural abilities.

Most first level historical natural (i.e. non-spell caster) DND PCs could not.

Until non-weapon proficiencies were introduced, most characters couldn't do much aside from the narrow focus of their class. Until 3e, searching was limited to a single class (and maybe a few kits that used thief skills). If this "well, non-magical D&D characters couldn't do this before" is your support for not putting new abilities in, then we should just go back to the time when fighters couldn't notice things (no perception skills... hell... no skills at all), and only thieves could steal things.

Every first level Saga PC can change the probability of the Universe with Force Points and Destiny Points. Bad roll? Reroll with your feats. Not high enough? Throw some mystical bonus on it. About to die? Prevent it and just fall unconscious. Every PC can use the Force that much.

Giving players the ability to boost themselves at appropriate times makes the game over-the-top? Uh, well, the descriptions I would use would be flexible and rewarding. You're right, Action Points made d20 Modern way over-the-top... err.. wait... no, actually, it didn't.

More space opera and less dangerous sword and sorcery.

Have you ever read any Conan, where he is in fights where he's bleeding, wounded, hurting, fighting some demon thing, and somehow reaches into himself, overcomes his wounds and kicks it's ass? That's Second Wind.

DND fun is now equated to "powers for everyone" and entitlement to things like "strong protection against death", instead of reward for effort.

Well, if your idea of D&D fun is "some classes should be overshadowed by other classes in the core rules," then I'm glad you're not designing it.

Have you even played the game?

Yeah, I have. Which is why I scoff at claims of the minor bonuses that players get at 1st level being over-the-top.

1st level Saga PCs are pretty much immune to death in SWSE. Sounds pretty over the top to me.

Sounds like you had a carebear GM. I'll admit that SWSE 1st-level characters are tougher than D&D ones, but that's because D&D characters at 1st-level are weak... hell, the toughest Barbarian you can make with the core rules is merely a crit away from being wormfood.

This is fine for a space opera setting or a superhero setting, but it will be totally lame for DND.

Maybe you never noticed, but the barbarian class is just a copy of the Incredible Hulk ("You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."). Nor does it appear you've noticed that a lot of people skip first level because a single crit can spell doom for even the hardiest first-level characters.

 

[Henry]

Have you seen the Mythbusters where they address the myth of being thrown through windows? The whole walking away from that was a busted myth.

Again, "cut to ribbons in real life," got it. But if you personally saw someone get thrown through a plate glass window in real life with only minor scratches, would you treat them like a god incarnate, or Bruce Willis' character from unbreakable? Or would you just think they were one lucky son of a gun?

Same question, different miracle: You've just watched someone swat away a swarm of arrows so thick they blocked out the sun. Do you think them lucky, or they've got some trick up their sleeve (like being a god in human form, for instance)? In my opinion, They're both miracles, but they're two completely different levels of miracle.

While that makes for good stories, it makes for poor game design when you start with the premise that certain classes become obsolete because of other classes, especially in the core rules.

Agreed, but it doesn't have to be that way. For one thing, wizards don't have to be that powerful; just because they are now doesn't mean they have to be for future versions of the game. In fact, I'd rather they powered down some of the Wizard's reality-bending. It could also be more taxing for a wizard to do his thing, meaning the wizard who just created a 50-foot demon from nothing should be ready to keel over. The Fighter who just killed ten guys with a whirlwind attack should be just getting warmed up, however.

How many times has Rambo died? How about King Arthur? How vulnerable was Achilles? How fragile was Beowulf? How unrealistic are Bilbo and Sam's exploits? How much does Conan fear death?

While true, I've always preferred that stage of D&D's life cycle where the PCs weren't those guys; they were more like the guys from The Black Company instead, where occasionally the main characters died, but were replaced and the Company still went on. That's the D&D I grew up with, and it has definitely gradually left the building (to many cheers, I might add).

How exactly is this balanced by the non-magic user STILL doing the same damage AS they were at first level with a weapon (without magic weapons/buffs, a fighter at 13th level does the same damage per swing as 1st level)

Quite a few ways, to me: Increased damage through training, special abilities to hamper an enemy (that hamstring feat they gave rogues in Song and Silence would work pretty well for all martial characters), giving them abilities against mooks specifically that wizards or clerics couldn't get (feng shui, I can't believe I'm using this, actually had abilities that made gunslingers get BETTER the weaker the mooks they faced were), etc. Just because the fighter has to break out or improvise a rope and grapple instead of flying someplace I can't believe it makes him useless any more than a wizard facing an iron golem. Everybody's going to have weaknesses, not just fighters.

I'm not expecting to convert anyone, I'm just saying that it's not unreasonable to have different expectations on the "plausiblity" of magical vs. non-magical-based characters. Mine are more based in western fantasy and cinema, and may be why I simply cannot run a campaign of Super-heroes or Feng Shui to save my life, though I can always do one-shots. It's just not my cup of tea.

 

[The Little Raven]

If you knew the system I was referring to, you'd know that the high-level fighter had the option of multiple attacks and three different means of doing extra damage (Smash, the asterisked numbers on the hit rolls chart, and Weapon Mastery). And yet he would never be stronger than the strongest "ordinary" human.

What version of D&D are you talking about? I've never seen an edition where fighters deal anywhere near the damage that a wizard does at higher levels. Nor have I seen an edition where the rogue's core abilities aren't overshadowed by the wizard at some point, as well.

 

[The Little Raven]

Again, "cut to ribbons in real life," got it. But if you personally saw someone get thrown through a plate glass window in real life with only minor scratches, would you treat them like a god incarnate, or Bruce Willis' character from unbreakable? Or would you just think they were one lucky son of a gun?

Same question, different miracle: You've just watched someone swat away a swarm of arrows so thick they blocked out the sun. Do you think them lucky, or they've got some trick up their sleeve (like being a god in human form, for instance)? In my opinion, They're both miracles, but they're two completely different levels of miracle.

Both of those examples, to me, depend on the genre. Gritty realism? None of those mesh. Heroic fantasy? All of those mesh.

Agreed, but it doesn't have to be that way. For one thing, wizards don't have to be that powerful; just because they are now doesn't mean they have to be for future versions of the game. In fact, I'd rather they powered down some of the Wizard's reality-bending. It could also be more taxing for a wizard to do his thing, meaning the wizard who just created a 50-foot demon from nothing should be ready to keel over. The Fighter who just killed ten guys with a whirlwind attack should be just getting warmed up, however.

This is what it appears they're doing: toning down spellcasters and toning up other characters. Your Fighter example isn't something you really see in D&D now (aside from the technicality of only 8 people being susceptible to a Whirlwind without reach), and he certainly isn't maintaining his place as a high-damage dealer when the wizard is outclassing, especially at the higher levels when most of his effectiveness in terms of damage (iterative attacks) are lost when he has to move, while the wizard moves and still maintains that effectiveness.

While true, I've always preferred that stage of D&D's life cycle where the PCs weren't those guys; they were more like the guys from The Black Company instead, where occasionally the main characters died, but were replaced and the Company still went on. That's the D&D I grew up with, and it has definitely gradually left the building (to many cheers, I might add).

The problem is that in it's life cycle, it never addressed the problem with 1st-level: it's pretty likely to stop the campaign in it's tracks, because one good roll for an NPC equals dead PCs. One-shot the cleric and you're talking TPK. That's the number one reason why people skip 1st-level to opt to start at 3rd or 4th.

Quite a few ways, to me: Increased damage through training, special abilities to hamper an enemy (that hamstring feat they gave rogues in Song and Silence would work pretty well for all martial characters), giving them abilities against mooks specifically that wizards or clerics couldn't get (feng shui, I can't believe I'm using this, actually had abilities that made gunslingers get BETTER the weaker the mooks they faced were), etc.

These things you're talking about is exactly what they've been lacking up until now... more options that fit their theme and role. And this is exactly what they're putting in the game. Abilities that let a fighter knock someone down with a successful blow, or slow their movement, or stun them (all adds on the Defender role).

 

[Henry]

Have you even played the game?

KD, I don't know if you meant it that way, but that came off a bit antagonistic. Let's try not to go that route, all. Thanks.

 

[The Little Raven]

KD, I don't know if you meant it that way, but that came off a bit antagonistic. Let's try not to go that route, all. Thanks.

Well, since it was sparked by the post I quoted from you...

What is it about Saga PCs that you think is over-the-top for D&D characters to have? Second Wind (do remember that HP is an abstract system for combat endurance, not a direct reflection of physical punishment capacity)? Triple HP at first level?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

What version of D&D are you talking about? I've never seen an edition where fighters deal anywhere near the damage that a wizard does at higher levels.

Did I say that?
No.
I was responding to the assertion that putting a hard cap on ability scores would mean that the fighter's damage remained the same as it was at first level. And, in BECMI, it didn't remain the same.

There was a clearly defined human maximum for all ability scores -- 18. The fighter's Strength never increased to superhuman levels (nor the wizard's Intelligence). Never.

Now, if you want to run the numbers, go look up the Master's Set and see what kind of damage a Grandmaster would do with a Two-Handed Sword. I think it was about 20 per hit. Now add +3 Str, +5 magic, and 4 attacks. That's 112 damage per round. A 36th-level wizard with Magic Missile would do (4.5*15) = 67.5 damage. Fireball would do 20d6 (about 70), save for half. Meteor Swarm would do more, I think, but again it has a save.

 

[MerricB]

What version of D&D are you talking about? I've never seen an edition where fighters deal anywhere near the damage that a wizard does at higher levels. Nor have I seen an edition where the rogue's core abilities aren't overshadowed by the wizard at some point, as well.

In 3.5e, the 20th level fighter of the group was dealing circa 200 points of damage (or more) per round against a lone enemy. The Wizard was doing nowhere near that much damage. Sure, the Wizard had "save or die" type effects, but the fighter was more reliable.

PH2 tilted the balance a lot more back to the fighter, btw.

Not perfect, but it was better than (say) 1e.

Cheers!

 

[The Little Raven]

Now, if you want to run the numbers, go look up the Master's Set and see what kind of damage a Grandmaster would do with a Two-Handed Sword. I think it was about 20 per hit. Now add +3 Str, +5 magic, and 4 attacks. That's 112 damage per round.

Be a dear and break this down for me. I didn't play BECMI.

20 per hit... 2d6 + 8 without factoring in Strength or anything like that? A Grandmaster got a +8 to damage automatically?

And 4 attacks? Really? 1e/2e had stuff like 5/2 for high level characters, maybe 3/1 at the top end, but 4/1?

A 36th-level wizard with Magic Missile would do (4.5*15) = 67.5 damage. Fireball would do 20d6 (about 70), save for half. Meteor Swarm would do more, I think, but again it has a save.

A 36th-level wizard would probably be using "save or die" spells and be outclassing that Grandmaster with his insta-kills.