The reason why fighters will never have nice things.

[souran]

seriously you are missing fuck-tons of the game if that is all you are about and should try a video game instead, because they can do level grinding a whole lot better. pick a final fantasy game and you can hear the chocobo tune when a battle starts.

THIS is the reason why the 4th edition roles, have only to do with combat. because the morons Bill Slavesik and Richard Baker and others at WotC are just trying to make a minis game.

Gary didnt give a rat's ass about the theatrics, but he moved away from the heavy minis game attempt of D&D for whatever reason. Even his later systems werent solely based on playing minis games.

Read Gary's novels and they arent all just combat. the game isnt all just combat. so if it isnt all just combat, then it isnt all just killing shit and taking its shit.

when you realize that James Wyatt is a giant fucking retard and his idea of what the game is is wrong, then you might find other things to do in the game.

Ok I can't keep reading shads walls of garbage.

However, this I cannot stand.

Combat IS the most important part of an rpg system.

Thats just the way it is. There are numerous reasons why. There are reasons relating to story - combat/fighting is inherently dramatic. There is a reason why it attracts human interest no matter who the combatants are.

There are game reasons: Its the subsystem that will get the most use in most every game. At some point fists will fly, swords will be drawn, guns will fire etc.

Sure there are games where there is reletevely little combat. However those games are both rare and often NOT GOOD. Also, if you really don't care about combat, and you want to remove the more gamey aspects of roleplaynig what you really want to do is WRITE.

So fairly or unfairly, like it or not, MOST rpgs will be judged based heavily on how fun their combat system is to play. So if the games characters can interact with that sub system in more meaningful ways you have made a superior game.

If they are limited to mostly boring ass shit in combat you have made a boring ass game.

Thats just the freaking facts of roleplaying. So D&D, the standard bearer for rpgs, should have a knock your socks off combat system and it should have characters who totally voltron together and are able to play off each others options and abilities.

[souran]

Teehee. People are talking to shadzar? Isn't that what the Ignore function was made to deal with?

Also, I wanted to see if I'd made Kaelik's list.

Yeah me too!

[Lago PARANOIA]

souran, in that long rant you did not once offer a single proposal of how to make the fighter helpful aside from 'nerf the wizard'.

Even if you had a combination of fair/mediocre characters like fighter/bard/healer/warblade/psychic warrior, the fighter and other VAHs STILL brings nothing helpful to the table. souran, I cannot emphasize this point enough. Even if we implemented your fixes, the VAH archetype would have nothing to contribute outside of the combat minigame.

We've been over this earlier in the thread. While the idea of the do-anything caster needs to die, it will not advance an inch towards making high-level VAHs valuable. The basic problem is that no one will identify a basic VAH schtick that works at high level that isn't:

A) Non-helpful towards solving non-powered plots.

B) Falls into the category of 'you have learned to walk backwards!' non-abilities. Such as tunneling under a wall of force or being able to command a large army. In addition to being lame and stupid and often still woefully unhelpful, this begs an explanation as to why the paladin and swordmage couldn't do these things on their own.

C) Requires you to reserve a significant proportion (probably a plurality) of magical items in the book just for them. While the idea of class-only items is fine in the abstract, this falls into two traps:

C1) The proposed magical items would just reinforce one schtick (close-range fighting) because people always propose stupid bullshit like better swords and armors.

C2) When this is pointed out, they backtrack and say that only VAHs should have the ability to wear Rings of the Ram and Darkskulls. They get real, helpful superpowers at the cost of screwing everyone else; that is, if you ban VAHs then suddenly all of these items are available and balanced for 90% of the non-VAHs to use. If there aren't any fighters or barbarians, no one cares if druids can use Deck of Illusions or that sorcerers can wield the Sword of Omens, because non-VAHs have non-item based superpowers and they won't get overshadowed by other members having them.

[Krakatoa]

4E is a good start when it comes to fixing fighters.

My personal opinion is that skills in general should be detached from class. There's no reason a Fighter can't know the basics of Arcana or that a Wizard can't be skilled at jumping across chasms. Ability scores will still make physical classes generally better at physical stuff and vice versa.

[shadzar]

Combat IS the most important part of an rpg system.

no you have shown me your full retardation and will be added to the list with those other peoples posts i cannot read...

combat is the least important part of an RPG system, and that can be proven simply by flipping a coin to see which side wins in an opposition.

combat is the most important part of a miniature wargame.

and i laugh at your "subsytem we get the most use out of"...for 3rd and 4th that would be because most of the game playing time is having to fuck wiht all the shit it takes to do combat in those systems...too much bullshit in them...that is why you might think it the most important part of an RPG system. because you have had to spend the most time fucking with it. but it really is the least important part of an RPG system. that is proven by Munchkin card game selling so well because people bought it because it wa what D&D was advertised as "killing shit and taking its stuff" and it does the combat much much better, and quicker.

[Lago PARANOIA]

4E is a good start when it comes to fixing fighters.

No, it doesn't.

Linear Warriors / Linear Wizards, while removing class imbalance, completely gimps the ability of anyone to contribute to high level plots. So everyone sucks and is unable to contribute, but everyone sucks equally!

... this would have been the case if 4E actually put people on high-level adventures, but they don't. Instead, they pretend that their low-level LotR bullshit is actually 'epic', make levels 1-7 in 3E stretch out for 30 levels and then claim fighters are fixed because they're able to contribute at high levels.

When we said 'fighters are unable to contribute at high levels', we meant 'fighters are unable to contribute in high-powered plots, which tend to be seen at high levels in a level-based advancement system'. You can have a game have 50 discrete units of advancement and have a character be viable at all of them very easily if level 50 puts you at the same power level as Batman. That's so easy to balance and even make Basket Weavers contribute that I am contemptuous of anyone trying to parade that as an achievement. It's like, way to miss the fucking point.

[tzor]

Combat IS the most important part of an rpg system.

Yes, but not for the reasons you cite. There has always been a "war" within the gaming community between "realism" and "fantasy." (The irony is that realism isn't always realistic.) The battle often gets drawn on combat as opposed to other areas.

This was especially true in AD&D (1E) where the combat system was designed for minis (with facing rules) on either a hex or a square mapping system. There were tables that detailed differences between different weapons and different armors. There were completely different rules for non weapon combat.

Each class has their own niche and basically sucked at all the others.

What wasn't obvious was that this niche mentality extended to other areas as well. In a game where bending bars, lifting gates, and bashing doors was important, having exceptional strength (a fighter ability) was critical.

1E wasn't all about killing stuff and getting their treasure. It was about overcomming obstacles and getting the obstacle's treasure. That consisted evenly of solving stupid things, surviving traps and killing stuff.

But back to the rules. The AD&D DMG had a whole frigging section of the construction, care, and maintenance of a cleric's holy water font. It had a very complex saving throw system that was mostly designed for surviving traps. It had a lot of rules on wildernes survival.

People tend to forget all that, as they tend to forget Gygax's save and die anyway traps, leaving only combat in their memories.

"What do you mean we have to talk to that thing? The last thing we 'talked' to ate half the party!"

[Roy]

im dizzy and lost my train of thought...will try to find it again later and edit back into here...

*points at sig*

[sabs]

Are you guys really arguing that D&D in any of the versions isn't about killing stuff and taking their loot?

This is the game that invented
Dungeon Crawls.
Random Encounter Tables
Random Loot tables

I mean, D&D was never high roleplaying. It was get together and play homocidal maniacs who pretend to be good guys.

[Roy]

Are you guys really arguing that D&D in any of the versions isn't about killing stuff and taking their loot?

This is the game that invented
Dungeon Crawls.
Random Encounter Tables
Random Loot tables

I mean, D&D was never high roleplaying. It was get together and play murdering hobos who pretend to be good guys.

Fixed.

[RobbyPants]

Ok I can't keep reading shads walls of garbage.

Quit quoting them, then.

[souran]

Ok I can't keep reading shads walls of garbage.

Quit quoting them, then.

Gladly

[tzor]

Are you guys really arguing that D&D in any of the versions isn't about killing stuff and taking their loot?

Well I'm arguing that it was about doing stuff and taking back loot. One of the things of doing stuff was in fact killing things. But it wasn't the only thing. Sometimes you just skipped the middle man and just took the loot. The AD&D iconic image of the thief stealing the fat icon's gem eye comes to mind.

Then again, a lot of AD&D tended to be mind numbingly boring sessions to map dungeons the size of Manhattan. We did this accurately because there was always a secret hidden room with THE LOOT! We actually liked it.

[shadzar]

Are you guys really arguing that D&D in any of the versions isn't about killing stuff and taking their loot?

This is the game that invented
Dungeon Crawls.
Random Encounter Tables
Random Loot tables

I mean, D&D was never high roleplaying. It was get together and play homocidal maniacs who pretend to be good guys.

it isnt as James Wyatt said JUST killing stuff and taking its loot.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

It's great that Shadzar can show up and tell us that we're doing it wrong.

Makes me want to run next game as a game where monsters are killed, stuff is taken, and nothing else happens.

[Kaelik]

Also, I wanted to see if I'd made Kaelik's list.

The list was only people who lots of people have on ignore. Is there any reason you would think lots of people have you on ignore?

I mean, I've had Hicks on ignore ever since it became apparent that his balance point for all material is "infinite scrolls every existing spell are available for free to everyone" because nothing he is ever going to say is useful, but that doesn't mean he's so bad that he could make it on the Super TGD list. Even people like Phone Lobster and myself, who specialize in pissing off half of everybody like a dick don't make that list, because another good chunck actually respect us. (Information note: Neither PL nor I respect the other one.)

[PoliteNewb]

Combat IS the most important part of an rpg system.

Yes, but not for the reasons you cite. There has always been a "war" within the gaming community between "realism" and "fantasy." (The irony is that realism isn't always realistic.) The battle often gets drawn on combat as opposed to other areas.

This was especially true in AD&D (1E) where the combat system was designed for minis (with facing rules) on either a hex or a square mapping system. There were tables that detailed differences between different weapons and different armors. There were completely different rules for non weapon combat.

Each class has their own niche and basically sucked at all the others.

What wasn't obvious was that this niche mentality extended to other areas as well. In a game where bending bars, lifting gates, and bashing doors was important, having exceptional strength (a fighter ability) was critical.

1E wasn't all about killing stuff and getting their treasure. It was about overcomming obstacles and getting the obstacle's treasure. That consisted evenly of solving stupid things, surviving traps and killing stuff.

But back to the rules. The AD&D DMG had a whole frigging section of the construction, care, and maintenance of a cleric's holy water font. It had a very complex saving throw system that was mostly designed for surviving traps. It had a lot of rules on wildernes survival.

People tend to forget all that, as they tend to forget Gygax's save and die anyway traps, leaving only combat in their memories.

"What do you mean we have to talk to that thing? The last thing we 'talked' to ate half the party!"

Yeah, but let's face facts: a lot of the noncombat stuff either had rules that were complete bullshit (often arbitrary, and usually amounting to DM handwaving) or didn't even pretend to have rules. The only place were the rules were in any way coherent was on combat, and that was really the vast majority of the 3 core books. Not suprisingly, a lot of games revolved heavily around combat. The second most consuming thing was spellcasting (something else people liked to do a lot, but where the noncombat applications seldom--if ever--had rules), and the third was treasure (especially magical goodies, something else people really liked). So the game was about combat, spellcasting (which did whatever you convinced the DM it did), and loot. Ta da.

And since there were almost no rules for noncombat challenges, these either tended to get ignored or abused (depending on how much of a dick your DM was). I mean, "a trap" could be literally ANYTHING, and that's how the book describes it. There are no guidelines for how traps should work, how one should get around them, or anything. It was straight ass-pulling from the DM.

A final reminder: earlier editions placed a much higher premium on metagaming than later. It wasn't a crime or anything back then, it's how you were supposed to play the game. The PLAYER was supposed to discover that basilisks turned people to stone (usually by having it happen to a character), and then they'd know better next time. If you wanted to play a wizard, you had to read the spell descriptions and figure out how to abuse them...that was good gaming. And a lot of the traps/puzzles or whatever didn't care what your character's skills or INT score were...you, the player, were supposed to figure out a way past them.

In a game where bending bars, lifting gates, and bashing doors was important, having exceptional strength (a fighter ability) was critical.

I wanted to speak to this separately, because I'm sure someone's going to chime in "until you have knock/passwall/teleport/etc. etc.", thus claiming that wizards render fighters/thieves irrelevant.

The thing is, with no bonus spells and most characters under 9th level and no cheap scrolls, the wizard couldn't "autowin" more than a couple of these each day...and they were supposed to be EVERYWHERE. You'd encounter an asston of locked/stuck doors, and most of them were supposed to be bashed open or picked, because the wizard needed his spell slots for important stuff. And at lower levels, when you couldn't even reliably do this, the main answer to "how do we get past the door?" was "find the key".

[Midnight_v]

Again... I think the tome fighter really fixes the rubric. Some of you're discussing. It can forge its own magic items so you're not relying on duex ex machina to give you the things you need to contribute.
Nor do you have to suck the wizards dick to get a plane shifting item/magic sword/ whatever. . .
Further, I'm starting to think that in "high level play" people just argue the "fighter can't" because they won't let him.
I"m like if outside of Kill the dragon, marry the princess, rule the kingdom... the fighter can't play, and if the tome fighter doesn't fix what you want him to do make a list of the things you want him to do
and let him do that.
There was some talk earlier about some guy in dc comics who could use his sword to cut gravity or cut through dimensional barriers, so if your thing is "We want the fighter to be able to go to other planes as a class abilitiy "fine" its high level let him do that. You can totally re-write the class to be whatever you want at this point.
However, since there are fighters in any story ANYWHERE that do shit like that... the whole "Doesn't fit the narrative" argument is pretty much shit.
The narrative is what one makes it.
Ultimately, more and more it seems like this thread points to the idea that "The fighter can't have nice things because once it has nice things it no longer counts as a fighter" or... "because idiots just don't believe a fighter should HAVE nice things" well bad news is there's going to be fucktards arguing shit like "no anime fighters" and "Wsod violation!" if you have a semblance of balance with non casters and casters. You're just going to have to say "no" to bullshit and get those dumbfucks off the table. If you have a table full of said dumbfucks, leave that table.
I just have such a problem with the premise behind all this being a self fufling sort of thing. Most of all though, i'm having real trouble pinning down what the fuck the high level adventure standard really is? I mean what? Kill the Githyanki lich queen? Go to hell, build a castle? I mean wtf are we talking about exactly?

[Parthenon]

OD&D was first 1 XP for 1 gp and more for monsters (100XP per monster "level"), and quickly changed to be almost all gold (~12 XP for an Orc by 1975).

basic, 1st/2nd AD&D....anything BEFORE WotC was levelling through defeating...

You have just directly contradicted tussock about levelling and experience in OD&D. I am willing to try and dig apart the gibberish because you are on medication, but when you contradict the very history you say I should read you look like a complete idiot.

Once again: you are rewarded for killing monsters and taking their stuff. Now you could have an excellent DM who goes outside of the rules to reward XP for plot or for roleplaying, or who magical tea parties the game to have fun, but that is not part of OD&D.

You could argue that 3e onwards is in fact better because you no longer get rewarded for stealing as much as possible.

Now you could argue (as you are trying to do) that the game rewarding you for killing monsters and taking their stuff didn't matter because you didn't care about the game. But thats a no-true-scotsman thing of everyone who played 1e or 2e and cared at all about getting items wasn't really playing D&D.

---

the fact that magic becomes so much more powerful is what MAKES fighters seem weaker, when in fact fighters continue to progress on the same level as they did...but others progress and change differently.

No. The fact that magic becomes so much more powerful means that fighters ARE weaker compared to the rest of the party. Others progress and change differently while the fighter stays much the same.

[virgil]

Who here actually makes the anti-anime argument anyway? it feels like it's a boogey-man that people keep invoking.

[Midnight_v]

Who here actually makes the anti-anime argument anyway? it feels like it's a boogey-man that people keep invoking.

Honestly on these boards, no one that I'm aware of, however that doesn't mean that you're not going to run into that IRL and surely on any other board you might happen to stumble into. Really though this is a higher classs of boards Imho, but that doesn't imply that such discussion is made up.

[Prak]

combat is the least important part of an RPG system, and that can be proven simply by flipping a coin to see which side wins in an opposition.

combat is the most important part of a miniature wargame.

Shad, stop being a retard. By this reasoning, there is no point behind any contest, because you "can just flip a coin *herp*"

[TOZ]

"We attempt to convince the king to give us the McGuffin."

"Okay, the coin came up heads, so the king gives it to you."

Look, roleplaying is the least important part of an RPG system!

[DragonChild]

You guys need to let up. There are people on this message board significantly stupider than shadzar.

Namely, anyone who talks to him, and even so much as acknowledges his worthless, grognard, trolling, thread-derailing ways.

[Prak]

His point needed being called stupid.