5e isnt even D&D....

[Username17]

Mob Enforcer? They represent an Authority (the mob).

You've been pretty fucking retarded on this thread, but that was also retarded. The mob enforcer is not an authority figure. They don't represent an authority figure. They are a fucking thug who is going to fucking break your merchandise if you don't pay. In this example, the person being intimidated is a store owner and represents actual authority.

-Username17

[FatR]

[
Curiously enough, there's no reason to implement this solution at the same time as 'give Fighters and Rogues more magical item slots'. Or vice versa. One takes care of the other. Note that the Barbarian gimmick isn't narrow at low levels -- it's that the game makes their original gimmicks irrelevant or narrow without giving them new ones to compensate.

I've spent a bit of time to formulate better why I find the existence of Fighter is more tolerable than of other mundane warrior classes, as currently implemented in DnD.

First "Fighting Man who got where he is by pure skill" is an actual very common archetype. It is more often than not a self-deceiving archetype, true, because even if such charactes are allowed to do superhuman things (without calling them "magic"), like Roronoa Zoro, they tend to be at least partially dependent on items they didn't make. But in general, I don't think that I myself actually want it to stop existing. Because becoming superhuman by transcending your limitations by sheer effort and willpower is cool.

Second, "Fighting" does not have to be a narrow shtick (even though in actual DnD implementation it is narrow and restricting). If we assume that our Fighting Man has a broad access to the ways of killing people with sharp things, like 3.X Wizard's access to magic, then Fighting Man is actually a reasonably valid archetype (not next to Wizard, but next to reasonable magic classes like Beguiler or Dread Necro), because he can switch from swording, to shooting bows, to charging on a flying creature, to assassinating people with his toothpick or something, as the situation demands. Add training to superhuman strength and abilties like "can instantly master any implement or device meant for hurting people, no matter how arcane or complex", and I think it can work.

But if we start to create classes that are explicitly or implicitly based around one single way of fighting, like "running up to them and beating them with a big stick"... not only we dive headfirst into thematic narrowness with these classes themselves, we automatically make our Fighting Man more narrow, because some of his possible gimmicks now are given to another class. I don't like this. "Barbarian" or "Samurai" or "Knight" or "Swashbucler" really should be, like, feats - build options that our Fighting Man picks to define himself - as opposed to whole classes.

[Wrathzog]

You've been pretty fucking retarded on this thread, but that was also retarded. The mob enforcer is not an authority figure. They don't represent an authority figure. They are a fucking thug who is going to fucking break your merchandise if you don't pay. In this example, the person being intimidated is a store owner and represents actual authority.
-Username17

Generally, you'd be right. Authority is usually associated in terms of a Lawful Authority (and if you go to dictionary.com, that's exactly how they define it. If you go to Wikipedia, they acknowledge that my definition is some radical new way of thinking about the word. I use what comes up in Google when I ask it to define Authority.).
I'm using it in a more general sense, which basically comes down to who has the power or the control in a relationship.

If you want to nitpick my use of language, then that's cool. We can do that. We can go back to third grade, break out some dictionaries, and have some fun with that. If you want to address my actual points and go about this like grown adults, I'm cool with that too.

-e-
Bibliographies are a damn pain.

[Winnah]

Dominance.

Can mean authority, but has a lot of other connotations, all related to power, control or determination.

[shadzar]

D&D Next chat transcript
http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/32323 ... wford.html

hmmmm.

[Username17]

Wrathzog, now you're just being doubly retarded. You just made the argument:

• Rather than referring to any actual authority when using the word "authority", I am using it to mean "has relative power".
• So when I say that people don't intimidate "authority figures" I don't actually mean that people don't intimidate authority figures, I actually mean that people don't attempt to intimidate people who have more relative power in the appropriate axis.

Here, I'll shorten that for you:

"Non-credible threats are not credible."

Now even within this context of making up definitions of words so that you're pronouncing empty tautologies, you're still fucking wrong. Lions are not confused about the fact that they could kill you, because they weigh like four times as much as you do and have giant teeth and claws. They are, by your fucking stupid personal definitions an "authority" figure, with their authority granted by the Law of the Jungle or some shit.

But you can still stare them down. It's not even hard. Lions are a predator, they don't pick fights that have a serious chance of injuring them. Because of course, if they end up with a limp, they likely won't be able to chase down any more antelopes and then they could starve to death. So to face down a lion you don't have to convince them that they will lose if you throw down, you have to convince them that crossing the line will give them enough of a Pyrrhic Victory that it won't be worth it.

-Username17

[CapnTthePirateG]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/32323 ... wford.html

Mearls speaks more. Apparently it's not a crossbow at-will, it's still useful outside of combat. For destroying the scenery. Ok, thats, erm, different than 4e I guess.

Also, fighters only get nice things if they take the right feats. But they're balanced, because, Mearls said so, and he'd never lie to us.

Lastly, NDA for something freely available on the internet, WTF?

EDIT: I couldn't resist. 4e powers, Vancian spell slots, and spell points will all be in different classes, because there's no way this could go wrong! Yay balance!

[Username17]

I couldn't resist. 4e powers, Vancian spell slots, and spell points will all be in different classes, because there's no way this could go wrong! Yay balance!

Remember the "leak" back on BG, which deeply offended people and got denounced as a hoax by WotC staffers? I can't help noticing that they still haven't actually released any previews that are inconsistent with that particular "joke". Pre-arranged "test balloon" conspiracy theories are actually sounding better, as are dissident voices in WotC trying to change the direction of the fail train conspiracy theories.

-Username17

[OgreBattle]

>>EDIT: I couldn't resist. 4e powers, Vancian spell slots, and spell points will all be in different classes, because there's no way this could go wrong! Yay balance!


well how is that much different from Tome of Battle + some magic users and psychics

[Koumei]

well how is that much different from Tome of Battle + some magic users and psychics

And how well did that work out?

[...You Lost Me]

well how is that much different from Tome of Battle + some magic users and psychics

And how well did that work out?

A wilder, a warblade, and a beguiler actually make a pretty decent group.

[koz]

Because the beguiler is so amazing that the other two aren't even needed? Yeah, I hear that works well.

[...You Lost Me]

Sorry, a wilder, warblade, and dread necromancer make a decent team as well.

That any better for you?

[Kaelik]

Sorry, a wilder, warblade, and dread necromancer make a decent team as well.

That any better for you?

I fail to see how that changed anything at all.

[...You Lost Me]

Sorry, a wilder, warblade, and dread necromancer make a decent team as well.

That any better for you?

I fail to see how that changed anything at all.

I think you play a little bit too many optimized casters and tome. Dread Necromancers have good single-target SoL abilities, warblades deal pretty successful damage, and wilders can do either. You have lockdown and damage, and the dread necro can't actually carry the weight of the party.

[Username17]

Sorry, a wilder, warblade, and dread necromancer make a decent team as well.

That any better for you?

I fail to see how that changed anything at all.

I think you play a little bit too many optimized casters and tome. Dread Necromancers have good single-target SoL abilities, warblades deal pretty successful damage, and wilders can do either. You have lockdown and damage, and the dread necro can't actually carry the weight of the party.

After level 8, and certainly after level 12, the Dread Necromancer actually can. But sure, at levels 1-7, the Dread Necro/Wilder/Warblade/Rogue party is doing fairly OK on the balance part. Once the Dread Necromancer gets his explosion of minions, he can invalidate the Warblade at pretty much any time.

-Username17

[...You Lost Me]

EBT, cloudkill, and acid fog are the ones that really end the trend. Where is this minion explosion?

[Ice9]

The part where he can have a big horde of controlled undead.

[...You Lost Me]

Ohhh, I thought he meant he could make his minions explode. That makes a lot more sense--yes, I agree with that.

[Koumei]

Though with the right pair of feats, he totally can do that, too. And they heal each other when they explode.

[CapnTthePirateG]

I would like to submit that while that particular group works, warlock, truenamer, wizard, psion, and incarnate aren't even close to the same power level.

[RobbyPants]

Sorry, a wilder, warblade, and dread necromancer make a decent team as well.

That any better for you?

I fail to see how that changed anything at all.

Dread Necromancer does better against undead.

[Wrathzog]

making up definitions of words

Google, Define Authority

1.The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience
2.The right to act in a specified way, delegated from one person or organization to another
3.Official permission; sanction
4.A person or organization having power or control in a particular, typically political or administrative, sphere
5.The power to influence others, esp. because of one's commanding manner or one's recognized knowledge about something
6.The confidence resulting from personal expertise
7.A person with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject; an expert
8.A book or other source able to supply reliable information or evidence, typically to settle a dispute

I already admitted that the way I'm using the word isn't the commonly accepted definition, but that doesn't mean that I'm just making shit up when you're the one with the narrow perspective.

And I'm going to quote myself as to when I think Intimidate actually works (outside of the scope of this authority nonsense) because you were kind enough to ignore it the first time I brought it up:

I do support the existence of Intimidation as a social option. I just want the rules to be clear that it only works in very specific situations.
Primarily you need to possess the perception of having the Power and the Intent to make your target's life miserable if they don't do what you want.
The second aspect comes down to your target's personality type. Alpha-Types aren't likely to bow down without an obvious and considerable show of force. A Beta-Type, on the other hand, is going to be far easier to impress.

If I'm missing something here, the please tell me.

[Username17]

If I'm missing something here, the please tell me.

You're "missing" the part where you are a fucking idiot. Remember, you're doing all this to defend sight unseen automagic failure of intimidation attempts in social challenges.

I do support the existence of Intimidation as a social option. I just want the rules to be clear that it only works in very specific situations.
Primarily you need to possess the perception of having the Power and the Intent to make your target's life miserable if they don't do what you want.

Fucking everyone in the whole world has that ability. They could go on FOX News and accuse you of rape. They could hit you right in the teeth with a brick. They could take a shit in your morning cereal. They could slash your car's tires. This isn't "specific situations", it's every situation! Sure, they might ultimately be made an international pariah or go to jail for the rest of their life or something, but they certainly would have made things shitty for you.

All someone has to do to convince you that they could make your life miserable is to convince you that they are willing to accept the consequences of doing that. They don't have to assure you that they believe they can defeat you or that they can win against the repercussions that society might fling back at them - they just have to assure you that they are willing to take that risk.

-Username17

[hogarth]

well how is that much different from Tome of Battle + some magic users and psychics

And how well did that work out?

Well enough. I was in a party that included a warlock, a cleric and a psion and it was no worse than any other 3E campaign.

--

By the way, I like the idea that a wizard can take out a crowd of enemies in any situation and a fighter can take out a crowd of enemies if he has a doorway handy. So the fighter just has to carry a portable doorway around with him and then he's as good as a wizard. Sheer genius!