Why do DMs/ Game Designers Tamper with Game Mechanics?

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

I read a few posts off of Dragonsfoot forums about how a DM would not allow a Bladesinger to be specailized in Bladesong style and Single Handed Weapon Style, and it got me thinking. Why do I read about so many DMs tampering with game mechanics?

I mean, is the specialization in 2 fighting styles at once overpowered? Does it make players unbeatable? How does the DM know? Meanwhile, I read so many houserules for unarmed combat, grappling, jumping, fighting in close quarters, etc. but I read very little houserules about Sleep or Disintegrate or whatever.

Is there a bias toward physical stuff but magic stuff gets a free pass? Are people blind to overpowered mechanics, and somehow thing that these other mechanics are overpowered? What is the justification that that decision is overpowered? Perhaps, just perhaps, specializing in two styles is exactly what is needed to combat monsters with powerful spells!

This goes with Game Designers as well, which is obvious with the change from 3.0 to 3.5 Exactly why was overrun a bad thing, or mounted combat a bad thing? Meanwhile Druids get more buffs?

Any help would be appreciated,
Bill

[Doom]

Well, to be fair, you seem to be referencing D&D here. The rules for unarmed combat and grappling have always been problematic, so of course they're vulnerable to house rules.

Your observation about 'physical' stuff has some truth to it, but only because it so much easier to say "the house rules make it more realistic", which is something you can't generally say about spells. That said, Sleep and Disintegrate are relatively clearly defined spells. I'm sure there are many house rules tweaking how Polymorph (kind of) works.

[RandomCasualty2]

DMs tend to focus more on fighting styles because believe it or not, fighters probably do tend to be overpowered in their games. This is because their game is low level and the wizards are tossing magic missiles and scorching rays. So the half-orc barbarian with a greatsword seems damn awesome.

Magic would see more nerfs if more people played better casters, but D&D is so disguised with its good low level spells that most people never find them. Because lets face it, glitterdust and color spray just do not sound powerful. 2nd edition did the same "if it sounds lame, it's probably awesome" paradigm with warriors by making darts the best weapon. This was because for whatever reason they decided to give darts multiple attacks.

Fortunately though, we can see the game has evolved and the designers learned their lessons about multiattacks. I mean just take a look at 4th edition and we can see clearly that the balance on multiattacks is....

GOD, ARE THE DESIGNERS THIS FUCKING STUPID?!!

[Lago PARANOIA]

Fortunately though, we can see the game has evolved and the designers learned their lessons about multiattacks. I mean just take a look at 4th edition and we can see clearly that the balance on multiattacks is....

GOD, ARE THE DESIGNERS THIS FUCKING STUPID?!!

To be fair, after the PHB2 came out the number of multi-attack powers went down sharply in future books. Also they're busily nerfing existing multi-attack powers--Storm of Blades, Quicksilver Stance, and Hurricane of Blades got hit pretty hard in the latest update.

Of course, all this is pretty meaningless until they nerf the Ranger's Twin Strike feature and do something about the wizard's autodamaging powers. Until then, all this means is that people who want to do damage will be a ranger or a wizard while all of the other classes get ignored.

[shadzar]

1- Flavor

2- Life emulating magic removes SoD. Magic should always be stronger.

3- Specialization was in a weapon, not just any weapon in a fighting style. Would have to check and see what complete Elves had about the bladesinger...but the sword would be what you could specialize in.

[Maxus]

Shadzar: Magic should...

What?

Ideally, magic would not be stronger. Ideally, a character whose major shtick was using an axe, a sword, or a bow (or whatever non-magic primary method of dealing with obstacles and enemies) would be every bit as good and able to keep up with the wizard throwing around the Disintegrates and Cloudkills and the like.

If I'm playing a level 16 Barbarian (or Fighter, or Paladin, etc), I would be very much pissed if I found out my contribution to the party, the story and the setting would be intentionally and continually overshadowed and made insignificant by the casters who are the same level and are supposed to be equally powerful.

I don't want to hog the show, but I also want my character's role in the party (story, setting, etc.) to be something important and give my character some time to shine. Not... "Stay here and be a meatshield for the wizard until he wins the battle for us."

Honestly, where did you get that idea that "Magic should always be stronger?"

edit: corrected a bit

[Ice9]

Probably from stuff like LotR. The thing is that in most books/movies, the party is not all the same level. Some members, often the magic-user, are significantly higher. But people misinterpret that as everyone being the same level, and magic-users being stronger at a given level, which is stupid but apparently a popular conception.

Now if you want to have a setting where physical prowess is limited to what's possible in the real world, and magic can sink islands and turn armies into stone, that's fine. You just have to clarify that being high level means being a magic user. For instance, let's say:
1) A third level spell is equal to the strongest stuff a non magic-user can muster.
2) Magic users get 3rd level spells at 10th level.
3) Therefore, non-magic classes should only be 10 levels long, by which point they should be at their peak.
4) In games above 10th level, everyone is a pure MU or multiclassed with MU (the multiclassing system would have to not suck, of course).
5) If you want to have a Gandalf/Hobbits dynamic, better find some players who are willing to be much lower level than the others.

[Judging__Eagle]

Most DMs are people
Most people are idiots
Most DMs are idiots

Addendum: most Game Designers are usually DMs. You can figure out what that means.

Really, it's that they have no fucking clue what they are doing.

Back in 2e I wrote up class kits for players to use in my groups on-going "
"mercenary warlords" campaign. I had no idea what I was doing, and even then I knew that I wasn't writing something good. I just wasn't sure what I was doing, and allowed myself to make very small changes at first, and give myself room to tweak things as the game progressed.

In 3e I was seriously unsure about how to go about "making new stuff up".

When I rolled up a ranger for a 3e game.... it was pathetic. I made them a dual punching daggers user, that didn't use ranged weapons. The DM used poorly masked powerful NPCs that represented themselves, and other shenanigans.

When I started running a game again, I got the 3.5 core books. I read the prestige classes in the DMG, and saw stuff that looked.... well, it looked like shit. Blackguard? Assassin? Mystic Theurge? I hadn't even read the CO opinion on how MT's were ass and thought that something was off with them. I just didn't know what was wrong with the classes.

I looked at the WoTC boards, and saw... CO builds; useless RP bullshit, and people's custom stuff, also bullshit.

I saw someone in my group write bullshit classes; that were either underpowered, or overpowered.

It wasn't until I came across Races of War; then Tome of Necromancy and Dungenomicon and Tome of Fiends; that I got a much better understanding of what you need to do to even have a chance of writing something even remotely good.

Seriously, it's taken me about 14 years since I started "making" my own stuff for D&D till I got to the point where I know that what I'm making is both balanced, and well written. People can bitch all that they want about the Races of War stuff all that they want, but those same morons can't show me a level 20 fighter build/class /whatever. that can face a Balor and not get ass-raped in five rounds.

[Josh_Kablack]

I can't speak for other DM's but as for me I tweak the mechanics just to piss off Brian. He's really funny when he's frustrated - plus he's really easy to frustrate.

[Koumei]

A noble goal, Josh.

And yeah, when I think of awesome, I don't think of throwing a rainbow at someone - that's the carebears. I think of explosions. The fact that I know that Carebear Stare > Howitzer in D&D doesn't change the fact that I know which is more awesome. So many people play it by winging it, and are happy to deal shitty damage (and in their games, complain that Evasion is overpowered - and in those games, it probably is). So suddenly, wandering up to someone and performing an autopsy on them with a greataxe* does seem too good.

As for magic, it's possible to have a balanced game where spells are more powerful. You just balance it in other ways: casting a spell requires several actions beforehand (or requires a forced cool-down as you're left exhausted), or physically damages you in a non-trivial way so that if you don't just pull out the rare spell, you actually burn out and explode, etc.

Likewise you can make magic weaker and still have it balanced by doing the inverse, where using magic powers you up with the flow of arcane energies and you become stronger over the course of the battle, or where it's so trivial that it takes less time to cast than it does to stab someone in the face. Or whatever.

The only problem arises when the caster class is just flat-out better than the non-caster class - where you can start every encounter by saying "I win".

*I know you're meant to do autopsies on the dead, but they're dead by the time it finishes, so that's okay, right?

[shadzar]

Honestly, where did you get that idea that "Magic should always be stronger?"

Swing your axe and create water out of thin air. Swing your axe and summon a creature. Swing your axe and call down lightning, or conjure up a massive ball of fire.

Gee....I wonder...

[Lago PARANOIA]

Honestly, where did you get that idea that "Magic should always be stronger?"

Phlebtonium'd actions should always be stronger than non-phlebtonium'd actions. I mean, that's the definition of phlebtonium.

I guess what you're asking is why martial phlebtonium should be weaker than arcane phlebtonium? Good question. The first thing I should mention is that this isn't always the case. In Dragonball, if you do enough chinups you gain the ability to fly.

But in abstract, I think the reason why people have trouble separating non-phlebtonium martial stuff from phlebtonium'd martial stuff is just a matter of degree. For example, anyone can swing a sword. But we also know that real people swinging swords can't do things like cut portals to another dimension or deflect lasers or cut through buildings in one sword stroke. So when we introduce characters whose superpower is 'swings a sword really hard' we apply the sucky standard of our real-world sword-swinging to what our Super Swordsman does. That's when people bust out the whole 'that's weeaboo fightan magic' or 'swordsmen shouldn't be able to do that!' bullshit when our Super Swordsman insists that they're not bound by the same limitations as the real-world swordsman. Because they're too dog-rapingly stupid to have the minimal brains required to separate the tropes of 'simulation of highly-skilled but real-world plausible swordsman' from 'swordsman with explicit superpowers'. Like our charming friend shadzar there, who just engaged in Strawman #403.

Now magic doesn't have this limitation. While anyone in the real world can swing a sword, no one can actually do magic. So when someone introduces magic to a story they're not subject to our prejudices. You can see that right now with 4th Edition--there are honestly two meaningful power sources. Martial source and non-Martial sources. Martial sources are extremely limited in their special effects. Psionics, Shadow, Primal, Arcane, and Divine are not. There is no martial power that will ever let someone teleport or start flying while you can see examples from every other power source which do allow people to teleport or fly. Which makes the Martial power source inherently suckier than the other ones unless you take major steps to snip the coolness off of the other power sources.

I personally think that the Martial power source should just be removed completely from D&D, or kept completely restricted to low level. If you have the Martial Power source after a certain point you should be forced to drop the source and get another one (primal, psionic, divine, etc.) or retire your character. None of this 'I swing a sword with twice the strength of mortal men!' shit at level 14. It just leads to situations like in 3E where sword-based characters can't do anything to the setting or in 4E where no-one can do anything to the setting because it makes sword-based characters feel bad.

This means that 6th-level and beyond fighters suddenly become Arcane-sourced. Rangers become Primal-sourced. Warlords become Psionic-sourced. Rogues become Shadow-sourced.

[shadzar]

Or better yet, you are fucked in the head, probably never visited DF, and probably don't know they are about 10 tens as anti-3rd as I am.

So the whole conversation is based on 1st edition, which Bill has recenetly gone into playing.

The ideals of the system are built on the concept that anyone can be a fighter and swing a sword. So why then isn't everyone in the game a ranked class/level NPC? Well they are technically, but the big difference is they don't go adventuring. Also depending on the game they had no training in an "adventurer class". So common people can do normal things.

Adding in what little 2nd edition DF used to allow, you could get wild talents in magic, or even psionic powers under the right circumstances from 1st.

So why isn't the sword swinger some magical superhero? Because he never was intended to be.

Merlin could do things Arthur could not.

Not knowing which bladesinger version is being used I can only use the Elves splat to pull it, and will also pull rules from 2nd on WEAPON specializtion.

The Bladesinger chooses one weapon and practices with it extensively, to the exclusion of most other weapons.

~~

If the player is using The Complete Fighter's Handbook, he may not allow his character to specialize in weapon groups. The Bladesinger focuses on a single weapon only.


Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

Here we are told one weapon only, not weapon groups. Only the fighter can specialize anyway so....

Weapon specialization is an optional rule that enables a fighter (only) to choose a single weapon and specialize in its use. Any weapon may be chosen. Specialization is normally announced (and paid for with weapon proficiency slots) when the character is created. But even after a player character earns experience, he can still choose to specialize in a weapon, provided he has the weapon proficiency slots available.
In one way, a weapon specialist is like a wizard specialist. The specialization requires a single-minded dedication and training. Thus, multi-class characters cannot use weapon specialization; it is available only to single-class fighters.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

Being a bladesinger does not violate the fighter weapon specialization even though they can use spells...

3. Bladesingers have been taught from an early age to grasp the flow of magic around them and to turn it to their advantage. They can cast spells even while in the front lines. Although they cannot actually attack while casting their spells, they may defend themselves against incoming melee attacks.


Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

Bladesingers are a special elf kit that makes elves a magical fighter. This is fine, and one of the kits that was hardly ever turned away. It basically made an easy to use F/MU.

So while you want to bitch about people not liking anime style fighting, of which you are wrong about DBZ and the chinups shit; the fact is the system was built on regular people had real world people skills. It isn't a land of fairies, but humans represent real world humans, otherwise they would name them Krynnians, Torilians, Athasians, etc rather than humans.

Magic on the other hand was the opposite of the line. It could do anything, but at a great cost. While vancian might not have been the best method, it was one to keep it in check.

None of this really answers the question as to why bladesingers couldn't specialize, or why it may appear that magic in any way was the cause for the not being able to specialize in fighting styles. It simply is you could specialize in weapons, or group of them: long sword, or all swords; depending on specific weapon or weapon groups.

So if you go into 1st or even 2nd trying to play with your eBook, and using your iDice, thinking theirs a feat for that just like the current 3G systems have, you won't find your sim-card connecting, because frankly not everything is backwards compatible.

Whatever feat that may exist that allows fighting style choice for monks, or warlords, or whatever; never existed in past versions, they specialized in weapons, and used whatever style the player chose.

Where were there unarmed rolls? Because you could lose your weapon or disarm an enemy, so you didn't always want to run when it happened, and have to slug it out.

So drop your anime-angst shit and realize that current style of RPGs don't translate back to older versions where fighters weren't using magic, because if they did it they would be considered wizards, not fighters. Back when a word had meaning rather than people being too confused to understand what it meant like "role" or "core" are so confused today even by the makers of the game.

Now excuse me while I go watch Ninja Scroll, where the fighter Jubei in no way shape or form uses magic but rips a few new holes in peoples asses at the blink of an eye, including magic users and demons. Of course he couldn't even hurt some of those that used magic until after other magic had made them where they could be hurt with a normal sword.

[Caedrus]

It isn't a land of fairies, but humans represent real world humans, otherwise they would name them Krynnians, Torilians, Athasians, etc rather than humans.

What a load of crap. Go read some fucking mythology or something.

[shadzar]

It isn't a land of fairies, but humans represent real world humans, otherwise they would name them Krynnians, Torilians, Athasians, etc rather than humans.

What a load of crap. Go read some fucking mythology or something.

Go read the fucking game.

Before they begin, players must decide what role they will play in the campaign, human or otherwise, fighter, cleric, or magic-user.

Humans have real world human traits, otherwise you wouldn't call them humans. That is where the name humanoid

Character Classes

Most D&D characters will be humans. A human can be a Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, or Thief. Humans are the most widespread of all intelligent beings.
A character may also be a non-human: a Dwarf, Elf, or Halfling. Each of these classes is also a separate race of beings.

The game was built human-centric. The game came from wargames based on humans fighting other humans. This is what AD&D 1st edition is.

If you don't like it then don't play it and go play your WoW version minotaur that reminds you the internet is for porn.

1st edition revolves around humans, and other races are lesser as such was the idea created with the world of man taking over in LotR combined with the games that Castle and Crusade Society played.

Learn your fucking roots!

Hercules, wasn't magic, but a demigod. Read your own European mythology where D&D, the Medieval Wargames Campaigns game, came from.

And people wonder why so many and the entire DF community can't stand 3rd, this is one reason, the idiots starting with it that think nothing existed before or in any way other than what was in it. So get some education about the game and where it came from before spouting your load of bullshit!

[Lago PARANOIA]

So why isn't the sword swinger some magical superhero? Because he never was intended to be.

Merlin could do things Arthur could not.

Then if you're embracing this paradigm Arthur should stop being a character people get to play after a certain point. Seriously, if you're running a game of 16th level characters and someone wants to be higher-levelled Arthur or Conan, you should tell them to get a new character sheet.

Otherwise you end up with the 3E shit where high-level non-magical people were a waste of time or you end up with the 4E shit where high-level characters can't do anything interesting because it makes the non-magical people feel short in the pants.

[Ice9]

Merlin could do things Arthur could not.

Then Merlin is fucking higher level than Arthur!


I have a theory on why people arrange to think this way:
A: Hey, let's play an RPG. I'll be the mage with world-shaking powers, and you can be my bodyguard, who keeps watch while I'm sleeping or studying spells.
B: So would I get world-shaking powers?
A: No, you're the body guard, you're not the world-shaker.
B: Doesn't sound so great, let's play something else.

...

A: I've got a new idea. I'll be the mage and you be a warrior, but we'll both be the same level.
B: Ok, so we have the same kinds of abilities.
A: Sure - well, not exactly the same, but we both have great abilities. Once we hit 20th level, you'll be like the greatest warrior who ever lived, and I'll be the greatest archmage who ever - well, fictionally lived. That seems fair, right?
B: Alright, let's play. I can almost taste the world-shaking power.
A: Warriors don't get that, it isn't realistic
B: What?
A: Nothing important.

[shadzar]

So why isn't the sword swinger some magical superhero? Because he never was intended to be.

Merlin could do things Arthur could not.

Then if you're embracing this paradigm Arthur should stop being a character people get to play after a certain point. Seriously, if you're running a game of 16th level characters and someone wants to be higher-levelled Arthur or Conan, you should tell them to get a new character sheet.

Otherwise you end up with the 3E shit where high-level non-magical people were a waste of time or you end up with the 4E shit where high-level characters can't do anything interesting because it makes the non-magical people feel short in the pants.

But strangely enough high level non-magic people weren't a waste of time. Only those people trying to compete with other players that really don't understand the game and how it is cooperative rather than just something so that everyone can amuse the pathetic little crybaby that needs all the attention.

Maybe rather than playing the game to feel better about your small penis, you should play it for the story. When you exit puberty you should be over your masturbation obsession both sexually and your ego masturbation as well.

Then maybe you will understand the game.

Only pathetic litle shits sit and think. they cannot do something because someone else can do more. The fact that another person int he game, or in real life, can do more than you, does not diminish the fact that you can do things as well.

Seriously, many of the gamers of today need some professional help to get over their inferiority complexes that is ruining gaming.

You don't understand why the game was built as it was, nor do you understand how it still had the underlying focus of humans and real world, because you are caught up in your children's books, rather than think about what D&D was built for. You don't really want to play D&D, but want to say you do. All you want to do is play the name brand game, and bitch because it doesn't offer things that other games offer.

Quit trying to jump on the bandwagon before it runs your dumb ass over, and go play the game that offers what you want.

D&D represented on thing up and until they royally fucked it up with 4th edition into some Marvel/DC super powers game.

You want other things, then try GURPs that lets you do all the other shit, but you have no right to bitch about a game you play just to say you are playing it when you don't actually like anything about it when you want shit the game was never intended to offer.

Make your own game rather than fuck up other peoples with your fucked up ideas, thinking everyone plays to compete with each other to see who can land the hardest hit.

Better yet go toss running chainsaws with your retard friends, so you can be placed in the next Darwin Awards running since competing with another person is the only way you can justify your own pathetic existence.

GROW THE FUCK UP!

Learn to work WITH other people, and remove your childish attitude about being able to do nothing after level X, because you are no longer the center of fucking attention. Better yet go get a babysitter that can give oyu the attention your lazy ass parents never did, so you can gain some self-esteem.

FUCK!

people still running their mouths on this stupid shit about can't do X in the game because they are too dumb to think.

I am most happy playing a fighter. They are a hell of a lot more fun than a rapid-fire nuker because they actually give me something to do rather than load-aim-fireball-repeat.

So do plenty of other people I know like playing a fighter. So why the fuck should I tell them to quit playing, when they are happy playing at X level just because Lago is a childish moron that can only think about games all things as competition with other people, and doesn't now how to work WITH other people to achieve a common goal?

Me: Sorry Jason, you suck at D&D because you don't play the one true way to play sent down from on high by Lago.

[Username17]

I kind of respect Ars Magica for literally having one player play an archmage while another player played a bodyguard of that archmage. I respect them even more for explicitly having the players rotate which they were being.

If only the mechanics made any sense.

-Username17

[shadzar]

Merlin could do things Arthur could not.

Then Merlin is fucking higher level than Arthur!


I have a theory on why people arrange to think this way:
A: Hey, let's play an RPG. I'll be the mage with world-shaking powers, and you can be my bodyguard, who keeps watch while I'm sleeping or studying spells.
B: So would I get world-shaking powers?
A: No, you're the body guard, you're not the world-shaker.
B: Doesn't sound so great, let's play something else.

...

A: I've got a new idea. I'll be the mage and you be a warrior, but we'll both be the same level.
B: Ok, so we have the same kinds of abilities.
A: Sure - well, not exactly the same, but we both have great abilities. Once we hit 20th level, you'll be like the greatest warrior who ever lived, and I'll be the greatest archmage who ever - well, fictionally lived. That seems fair, right?
B: Alright, let's play. I can almost taste the world-shaking power.
A: Warriors don't get that, it isn't realistic
B: What?
A: Nothing important.

Oh great another retard that doesn't get it. Take Lagos penis out of your mouth before speaking next time, because you are spewing his waste out.

Why the fuck should magic not work different than fighting with your bare hands.

I guess technology should be as equal to bare hands as well. So give two kids weapons..

We will give one a sword and explain how to use it, and the other an AK-47 and explain how to use it.

Now tell them to fight each other to the death. I am so sure the sword wielder will be on equal terms with the mother fucker with a gun right?

"Never take a knife to a gun fight."

Better yet, forget I told you that, and YOU and Lago PLEASE take knives to your next gun fights.

[Lago PARANOIA]

But strangely enough high level non-magic people weren't a waste of time.

Yes, they were. It has been extensively documented on this board about how much non-magic people suck in 3rd Edition D&D.

Only those people trying to compete with other players that really don't understand the game and how it is cooperative rather than just something so that everyone can amuse the pathetic little crybaby that needs all the attention.

Now tell them to fight each other to the death. I am so sure the sword wielder will be on equal terms with the mother fucker with a gun right?

So if you're playing a game called Action War Squad, why would you want the guy who wields a sword taking up a spot on your team when you could just have a team of all-AK-47 people?

Do you know anything about team-based games? The only reason why you would ever intentionally want someone on your squad who sucked more than you would be to have a sense of superiority over that person. Which means that you're more concerned about stroking your own ego than about the group's goal.

The flipside, when someone plays an intentionally underpowered character, is still ugly but no less ego-stroking.

I am most happy playing a fighter. They are a hell of a lot more fun than a rapid-fire nuker because they actually give me something to do rather than load-aim-fireball-repeat.

So do plenty of other people I know like playing a fighter. So why the fuck should I tell them to quit playing,

Why do you enjoy artificially upping the difficulty for the other people at the table just so you can indulge in your own ego? Having someone say that they intentionally enjoy playing underpowered classes is like saying that 'I like to play a Heavy, but I only like to use the secondary weapon.'

[shadzar]

But strangely enough high level non-magic people weren't a waste of time.

Yes, they were. It has been extensively documented on this board about how much non-magic people suck in 3rd Edition D&D.

Only those people trying to compete with other players that really don't understand the game and how it is cooperative rather than just something so that everyone can amuse the pathetic little crybaby that needs all the attention.

Now tell them to fight each other to the death. I am so sure the sword wielder will be on equal terms with the mother fucker with a gun right?

So if you're playing a game called Action War Squad, why would you want the guy who wields a sword taking up a spot on your team when you could just have a team of all-AK-47 people?

Do you know anything about team-based games? The only reason why you would ever intentionally want someone on your squad who sucked more than you would be to have a sense of superiority over that person. Which means that you're more concerned about stroking your own ego than about the group's goal.

The flipside, when someone plays an intentionally underpowered character, is still ugly but no less ego-stroking.

I am most happy playing a fighter. They are a hell of a lot more fun than a rapid-fire nuker because they actually give me something to do rather than load-aim-fireball-repeat.

So do plenty of other people I know like playing a fighter. So why the fuck should I tell them to quit playing,

Why do you enjoy artificially upping the difficulty for the other people at the table just so you can indulge in your own ego? Having someone say that they intentionally enjoy playing underpowered classes is like saying that 'I like to play a Heavy, but I only like to use the secondary weapon.'

1- Must have just been shitty players, or the fact 3rd edition sucks.

2- You are failing to understand the nature of D&D. How much magic was used in LotR. This is what, while not the direct source for D&D, the game strove to produce. High fantasy with some magic. Not everyone went around wielding magic. You seem to not understand that, and want to think some Wolfenstien type team game, where everyone has the same thing. No. D&D was about variety for the players. You built characters and worked as a team, you didn't build a team and then act independently. You are trying to play computer co-op with D&D< and it wasn't made for that. Probably why people that didn't read much never got anything out of it in past editions. D&D isn't action war squad, it is olden times with magic splashed in. Most people were humans to relate to the gamers, and most other things added in to break into fantasy other than just medieval. So most people were fighters. You didn't just play the movie Dragonslayer, and call on a wizard to do everything for you.

Play an all wizard party if you want, but that is your choice. You have no right to force it on others.

3- They game was made for intelligent people. It wasn't amde by Fisher-Price for a reason. There is no upping the difficulty level, it is just how the game is made.

You seem to have so many problems in real life, that you think everyone is out to get you, so you seek this shit everywhere, and blaming the game for your real life problems.

The game was made for wargamers to try something new. Then it moved to get away form wargamers after the first 1000 copies and the death of one of the partners, when they found an interest in something else. That way they could have their wargames and the new thing too.

You seem to think in Highlander methods, that there can be only one, just like WotC. I still play MtG, but pre-7th before they fucked it up.

You don't get what it was, so maybe it just wasn't made for you. Like those new running shoes aren't made for the guy with no legs. Do you think he sits in his wheelchair bitching at Nike to provide something he has the ability to use? No, because he is more education and intelligent to know not everything in the world is made for everyone in the world, such as you want to think as D&D as.

You were spoiled by the 3rd edition bullshit spat out by WotC and the d20 system and its OGL and SRD.

IF there was such a thing as the OGL for AD&D, or earlier editions...3rd edition would not have as strong a following. But you probably wouldn't believe that.

But think about it. Had LW not been the horse humping thundercunt she was and gave people something like an OGL, they would have likely sold all that backstock Dancey found in warehouses, because the game would have had more support, from the people who liked it rather than needing WotC to come in and make it for the people that didn't like or understand it like yourself.

So stop trying to attribute malice in design, when the game was designed for those who would enjoy it best, that way it would meet the needs of the players best.

Why doesn't Apple have open-source for easier access to all people since 1987? Because they didn't want that. Likewise D&D didn't want to be My Little Ponies. It wanted to be on thing, and the people that oculd handle that thing were welcome to it. For those that oculdn't...maybe it just wasn't for them.

That is a big problem with the whole player empowerment argument, because gamers think they deserve everything for nothing. Boo-hoo, a game/thing was not made specifically for you.

Then go make your own like the guy who made the left-handed ice cream scoop, and other left-handed devices.

What's the problem? Too lazy to make your own, so have to bitch that everything was not made for you?

I guess porn should be made at a level that children could understand next right? All cartoons are meant for children also right?

You are thinking about it all wrong.

[RobbyPants]

Merlin could do things Arthur could not.

Then Merlin is fucking higher level than Arthur!

No, Shadzar, Ice is right. This is a good way to set things up. You can have your cake and eat it too.

Want powerful wizard NPCs? Make them high level.

Want balanced classes for players? Have them played at the same level.

Both can exist in the same game and the game will work.

However, if you think that the player should get a more powerful character just because he rolled a wizard, then you're a dick.

[Mask_De_H]

Honestly, where did you get that idea that "Magic should always be stronger?"

Swing your axe and create water out of thin air. Swing your axe and summon a creature. Swing your axe and call down lightning, or conjure up a massive ball of fire.

Gee....I wonder...

Hey Shad, how 'bout you swing your axe and go fuck yourself, eh love?

You consistently fail to address anybody's point in a way that isn't ego-stroking hooker ramble, you employ an astounding unlogic after many threads telling you proper decorum and things people have sussed out months or even years ago, and you haven't grasped things that have almost literally been beaten into your thick skull.

We weren't even talking about Weeaboo Fightan Magic, or any martial magic at all. We were discussing how it's shitty how magic-users get their phlebotinum no charge and melee classes get kicked in the balls for theirs, if they get any at all. Seriously man, where the fuck do you get off?

[shadzar]

No the point is not about what elvel anyone is at. Initially here we are talking about a kit that bypasses weapon specialization to allow a multi-class character gain it. (Assuming this is the 1st edition bladesinger since we are talking about DF, and they have a hatred to 3rd that would rival Republicans hatred for spending money on someone other than themselves.)

The bladesinger gains weapon specialization while becoming a F/MU.

I don't recall about 3rd edition, or if it had a version of the bladesinger, or how the feats within work to allow for fighting styles.

The crux of the matter is like previously mentioned. All in all there will be things magic can do, that a simple sword wielded by someone without knowledge to use magic cannot.

On that basis magic will always be stronger, be it arcane or divine. This isn't InuYasha's brother that can swing his sword, and it brings people back to life form the dead, such as a cleric can borrow the power of a God to do so.

If such exists in D&D, then it is not the fighter doing it, but the magic of the sword. Ergo, the magic is stronger than a fighter.

Levels mean nothing. Bill does not mention that his fighter was "full of suck" because he and a wizard of the same level were not doing comparable damage.

Bill is asking about a bladesinger Optional rule about the bladesong fighting style.

There are two types of bladesingers: those who learn it as an additional skill (described below), and those who have made it their lives. Those in this second category are known as Bladesingers, and they are described in Chapter Ten.
Bladesong is so named for several reasons. The first and most obvious is because of the whistling of the blade as it slices through the air when this style of fighting is used. The second is for the haunting, wordless tune many of its practitioners sing as they fight.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

Bladesingers have made the use of the bladesong their lives.

The thing I think, IIRC that is happening here is a mix of MANY optional rules that some want to use versus others.

Splatbooks are all optional at DM discretion. Ergo bladesingers are lucky to be in by allowing Complete Elves PHBR. Then we go into bladesong itself which is optional within the optional book.....then to specialize in ANY fighting style requires playing under 2.5 rules using Combat and Tactics or S&P.

C&T was a book of trash and wish I could find a way to get rid of my copy. I didn't really care for the 2.5 books, so don't recall much of S&P either, but it had a few, and I mean very few things that were interesting as well as you dumper the rest.

So it would also depend on if you are using C&T or S&P as to what the fighting style specialization says.

Odds are it sounds like too many optionals and something had to go to maintain game cohesion.

I for one might give a single splat option to a game. Meaning a player could pick stuff form one splat and use it to make sure the character didn't fall apart by being created using contradicting splats.

Elves and Fighters splats may have nice things, but you weren't really meant to use them together as the elves book has things for fighters.

Elves book was focused on being for the player that wanted to be an elf within the world so followed it.

You wouldn't for example be able to grab two kits if you were multi-class.

Kits were where PrCs came from. They were a multi-classed class made for people that didn't want the flavorless F/MU to fill in the background for.

So levels of Merlin and Arthur don't matter when you consider the fact that like PrCs and kits, they were follwing different rules than each other through the world.

Arthur could use the powers of his magical swords when he had them, but Merlin could use the power of Avalon by just using it.

You might as well say only higher level people can use ranged weapons rather than swords, because they are more powerful. So at level X you may no longer use swords. That doesn't make much sense does it?