Moderator: Moderators
Point of Order, Conan was a 2nd edition 6th level Fighter, 6th level thief, 3rd level ranger.Ancient History wrote:Point of Order: Conan was a thief.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
That there is no class that represents Conan is half the problem, but he is sure as hell not a fighter or that godawful barbarian class that is supposedly based on him. He definitely has some thieving skills, some knowledge skills, decipher script and several ranks of speak language, climb/jump/swim, and tactics/strategy/leadership skills. He is ridiculously tough, though still within the range of an action hero, and yes, he can fight.sabs wrote:Point of Order, Conan was a 2nd edition 6th level Fighter, 6th level thief, 3rd level ranger.Ancient History wrote:Point of Order: Conan was a thief.
He's supposed to have full bab, and lots of hp. Neither of which is true of thieves.
Sinbad is a fucking thief.
Conan.. is a great weapon ranger with no spells.
Delaying obsolescence is better than leaving things as they are. At any rate most of what Conan does can be represented by the rogue, he just needs a dip in a martial class.Juton wrote:I don't think Conan should be represented as just one class. His activities are varied enough that any one label doesn't fit him. Unless you want mundanes to have access to ridiculously broad classes, but that only delays obsolescence.
I'm not sure it is quite correct to say Conan goes obsolete before level 10. Conan isn't a class, he is a character, and whatever class (or mix of classes) he happens to take should be extensible as far as the system is intended to go, or else they should literally stop at a certain point and tell you to take a prestige class. As for the idea that Conan's (or any mundane hero's) concept just doesn't support that, I don't think that is true. Conan is limited by the fact that the Hyborean age is simply a mythical past, rather than an otherworld, and without magic there are limits to what you can do. If you were to drop Conan into Greyhawk he would notice that the rules of reality have themselves changed, and it is not unreasonable that he would start accumulating some real power, perhaps even spellcasting.Besides grognards don't really want to be Conan. Conan goes obsolete before level 10, they want to stay at the big boy table through level 20. What they want is completely incompatible with characters in the league of 3.5 spellcasters. So you can either make a game that severely gimps spellcasters (Skyrim, Dark Souls) so they don't overshadow mundanes or you make everyone fantastical. I don't think there is a workable middle ground that will make both optimizers and grognards happy.
I don't think I'm buying that. For instance you could have Conan pick up a few levels in Warblade. That extends his usefulness but I'm not sure it makes him viable for higher level play unless you use questionable rules calls on things like IHS. That stays fairly close to his character concept.Drolyt wrote:I'm not sure it is quite correct to say Conan goes obsolete before level 10. Conan isn't a class, he is a character, and whatever class (or mix of classes) he happens to take should be extensible as far as the system is intended to go, or else they should literally stop at a certain point and tell you to take a prestige class. As for the idea that Conan's (or any mundane hero's) concept just doesn't support that, I don't think that is true. Conan is limited by the fact that the Hyborean age is simply a mythical past, rather than an otherworld, and without magic there are limits to what you can do. If you were to drop Conan into Greyhawk he would notice that the rules of reality have themselves changed, and it is not unreasonable that he would start accumulating some real power, perhaps even spellcasting.
DSMatticus wrote:Again, look at this fucking map you moron. Take your finger and trace each country's coast, then trace its claim line. Even you - and I say that as someone who could not think less of your intelligence - should be able to tell that one of these things is not like the other.
Kaelik wrote:I invented saying mean things about Tussock.
In theory this thread should be different, at this point we are assuming that the Fighters are terrible as step one. Step two is getting the rest of playerbase to stop demanding something that ultimately makes the game worse for everyone....You Lost Me wrote:Juton's signature is really apt here. I think this question has been addressed in twenty different threads by now.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
I think what Bo9S attempted was good, what it actually accomplish is a little less stellar. We had 3.5 devs actually try and address martial/caster imbalance, they did so by think up 3 new mechanics, 2 of which are pretty good. The larger problem is that the devs didn't really understand the dimensions of the problem, just that there was a problem.Lago PARANOIA wrote:At this point, I'm about ready to claim that the existence Bo9S was actually more harmful to D&D than printing a book that was nothing but pictures of SKR's kitty cat.
...If only you'd have stopped forever...Dear Midnight, you have actually made me sad. I took a day off of posting yesterday because of actual sadness you made me feel in my heart for you.
If that was the only ramification of the book, it'd be a net positive. But look at the post right below yours.Juton wrote:I think what Bo9S attempted was good, what it actually accomplish is a little less stellar. We had 3.5 devs actually try and address martial/caster imbalance, they did so by think up 3 new mechanics, 2 of which are pretty good. The larger problem is that the devs didn't really understand the dimensions of the problem, just that there was a problem.
Posts like that make me think that the Bo9S has erroneously convinced people that the problem with sword-based characters (not the fighter, sword-based characters in general) is that their narrowly-focused fighting powers don't kick enough ass. Not that the problem isn't that supernatural sword powers becomes an increasingly inappropriate way to advance the plot as the game goes on, but because the numbers weren't configured right and with a little more sneaking of some Sword-based flight here and some sneaking of some Sword-based improved saving throws there everything would be hunky dory.Midnight_v wrote:Which is weird, because, if the TOB handed out melee powers equal to magic it seems like some people (and I mean people here who know better not the "I hate this anime shit" crowd) would still be unhappy with it.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
sabs wrote:And Yes, being Finnish makes you Evil.
virgil wrote:And has been successfully proven with Pathfinder, you can just say you improved the system from 3E without doing so and many will believe you to the bitter end.
I think the problem is that those are different people. I hate fighters, my solution is to not allow fighters and to not make fighters.icyshadowlord wrote:I find it kinda funny when people cry about how much their Fighter sucks, but then refuse to take any options that fix it, regardless of flavor.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
If they got different styles of fighting with abilities that have non combat based maybe.Whipstitch wrote:It's rather akin to how some people will tell you with a straight face that Fighters are versatile because they can fight with different styles of fighting.
I didn't say he'd become a full caster. My issue is that just because he is normal in his own setting, which is a mostly mundane setting where magic is much rarer and less powerful than in D&D, it doesn't make terrible sense for him to remain completely mundane if he were to be dropped into the Forgotten Realms. It would be like dropping him into a modern setting and having him eschew guns, it doesn't make sense.Juton wrote:I don't think I'm buying that. For instance you could have Conan pick up a few levels in Warblade. That extends his usefulness but I'm not sure it makes him viable for higher level play unless you use questionable rules calls on things like IHS. That stays fairly close to his character concept.Drolyt wrote:I'm not sure it is quite correct to say Conan goes obsolete before level 10. Conan isn't a class, he is a character, and whatever class (or mix of classes) he happens to take should be extensible as far as the system is intended to go, or else they should literally stop at a certain point and tell you to take a prestige class. As for the idea that Conan's (or any mundane hero's) concept just doesn't support that, I don't think that is true. Conan is limited by the fact that the Hyborean age is simply a mythical past, rather than an otherworld, and without magic there are limits to what you can do. If you were to drop Conan into Greyhawk he would notice that the rules of reality have themselves changed, and it is not unreasonable that he would start accumulating some real power, perhaps even spellcasting.
But to give Conan honest to goodness casting changes his concept enough that he wouldn't be recognizable as the same character. Do you make him studious (Wizard), devout (Cleric), contemplative (Druid) or get him possessed by some demon (Sorcerer)? Each one of those potential avenues overshadows his wandering and slaying. It would be a change of character large enough that it would break your suspension of disbelief if you read it in a book.
To be fair, I think a lot of people are fine with games where the casters do all the out of combat stuff as long as the martials contribute in combat, and ToB totally allows them to do that, at least if the casters aren't too optimized. More generally there are a lot of people who don't want to play a character who magics away all their problems, even at high levels.Lago PARANOIA wrote:Posts like that make me think that the Bo9S has erroneously convinced people that the problem with sword-based characters (not the fighter, sword-based characters in general) is that their narrowly-focused fighting powers don't kick enough ass. Not that the problem isn't that supernatural sword powers becomes an increasingly inappropriate way to advance the plot as the game goes on, but because the numbers weren't configured right and with a little more sneaking of some Sword-based flight here and some sneaking of some Sword-based improved saving throws there everything would be hunky dory.Midnight_v wrote:Which is weird, because, if the TOB handed out melee powers equal to magic it seems like some people (and I mean people here who know better not the "I hate this anime shit" crowd) would still be unhappy with it.
That mentality is why I think the Bo9S was a net harm to the game. It encourages peoples' uselessness addiction by tempting them to go chaining after rainbows.
I agree with this. I think this is a good idea and could make for a really good game. Unfortunately I think the majority of grognards, heck even casual D&D players would complain that it doesn't feel like D&D. But you know what? 4e seems like a moderate financial success and it sure as shit didn't feel like D&D. Maybe when it's time for 6e they should just give everyone and everything fantastic powers because that's the world they live in.Drolyt wrote:I think this ties into another rant I've been thinking on for a while, and which I won't give in full here, but the basic idea is that D&D needs to stop treating magic apart from nature. Because it isn't, not in the old legends. Only in the past century have we got this idea that in fantasy things work exactly like the real world, except when a guy in a robe and a pointy hat waves his arms around. Tolkien made a point in On Fairy Stories that humans are in fact more supernatural than all sorts of magical creatures like dragons and the aos si because those creatures are completely natural in their own setting. If you really think about it, it isn't at reasonable that a wizard can cast a spell that gives super strength, but a fighter can't just have super strength, because clearly in this setting the laws of physics preventing super strength don't apply to begin with. I blame the stupid "magic as technology" metaphor.
It took years for my old group to accept that there even was a problem. Bo9S is one of the things that led them to say, hey, my monk character isn't measuring up even though I spent a lot of time and dumpster dived like crazy. That's why I think Bo9S was a good thing.Lago PARANOIA wrote:Posts like that make me think that the Bo9S has erroneously convinced people that the problem with sword-based characters (not the fighter, sword-based characters in general) is that their narrowly-focused fighting powers don't kick enough ass. Not that the problem isn't that supernatural sword powers becomes an increasingly inappropriate way to advance the plot as the game goes on, but because the numbers weren't configured right and with a little more sneaking of some Sword-based flight here and some sneaking of some Sword-based improved saving throws there everything would be hunky dory.
That mentality is why I think the Bo9S was a net harm to the game. It encourages peoples' uselessness addiction by tempting them to go chaining after rainbows.
