Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6320437" data-attributes="member: 95493">Sorry Manbearcat, I didn't see this reply until after I wrote the one to Crothian or else I would have added this in there. You certainly aren't blocked. I reserve that for those who are flagrantly wrong and unabashedly antagonistic. It is probable that if I wasn't on DDNFan's side that he would be on my ignore list by now, given his extreme views. But disagreeing with me doesn't get you on my ignore list - or again I would have to say that pemerton goes there FAR earlier.As for your post: Yes I did start with 3e. I realize that 3e fighters are underpowered compared to wizards. I also recognize that problem almost certainly lies with the wizard, less so with the fighter (they could still be better but wizards can do TOO many things is the real issue). I haven't had a chance to look at AD&D. The books are too rare/expensive. I find the math hard to adjust to after 3e. I've been in a brief 4e game. Watched/listened to MANY games of many other systems than just 3e. I'm trying to get up to date on everything the Strand Gamers have podcasted. I really enjoy WOD but I find it lacks certain things. Burning Wheel seemed really simple, sturdy and well built. And so on. So, while I personally have very limited experience I know a lot more than I have played.By all accounts I think that it is possible that AD&D might be the best edition of the set. I really wish I had the chance to play it. But I also think it is rife with math problems too which for me may make it unplayable. I see that as a frequent concern from many who have upgraded from AD&D to later Eds.With that said, I'm all for fighters being good at fighting. I want them to have nice things. I just don't want those things for them to have to be magical. I've built my system predicated on that premise and it is playtesting very well so I know it can be done.Beyond that, I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me. Certainly every edition works differently. I'm not saying 5e should work a certain way simply because 3e did. I'm saying that 5e already seems to work a certain way and I would like it if the entire game worked that way, instead of one particular ability being the exception that ruins the batch.On the issue of balance: I recall someone doing a pure numbers crunch and them saying that it isn't unbalanced compared to the other abilities the fighter can take. Actually if I recall correctly it is the weakest or one of the weakest of the set (a real question of why people WANT it then, but whatever). My concern is partially of balance but that isn't the biggest one I have. I have many larger concerns and I've covered them at length. Certainly there is a measure of it it being unbalanced, or stupid, or broken as a general rule; but my main concern doesn't stem from there so much as it is a side effect of being poorly written.I hope I've covered all posts from last night. My mind is melting. I had to take multiple breaks during my previous reply and so I think I'm done for the night. Please let me know if I failed to recognize and address your central point but I am simply checked out at the moment. It is times like these that I miss the old fluff threads on the WotC forum before/around the start of 4e that had a rule of nothing but "fluff this piece." Wow. I'm getting off-topic. Mind melting. I'm giving up now, I'll check the replies tomorrow.</blockquote>

Verification