PDA

View Full Version : If it's not magic, don't bother



Cuddly
2007-11-29, 11:14 PM
Wtf is up with this?

I'm running a 3.5 game, and I'm constantly appalled out how screwed non-magic users are. For a fighter to be at all good at levels above 5 or 6, he has to be glowing with magic items. The best a non-magic weapon can get is a +1 to attacks. Alchemy sucks. Epic Alchemy isn't worth it, either. DC 40 for 2d6 fire damage? Yeah, right.

It's ridiculous! And leafing through the Epic Handbook... Pelor on a stick! Cool, a 100 on by balance check lets me do what a wizard does at level 5. And feats... most are totally worthless, especially the epic ones. And epic casting... why bother playing a noncaster past level 20?

Hell, why bother playing a noncaster past level 5?

And the whole world is presented as this backwards, low magic, everyone groveling in huts scenario. Yet somehow the fighter's supposed to have 50 grand of gold (that's a lot of gold!) by level 10, to spend on all the right stuff. If he doesn't he's going to die, hard. Where are all these magic weapons coming from? Is the countryside chalk full of precisely the right magic items for the heros to find? Or maybe ye olde magic vendor is traveling around, selling high level items, despite the fact that the majority of ships presented in the DMG are incapable of sailing on the open sea.

D&D is such a terrible system. I'm really irritated with it. The d20 mechanics are fine as a model for high fantasy and stuff, but the balance and fluff suck! I wouldn't mind a cohesive, monty haul high fantasy. But somehow, with 99% of the world a lvl 1 human dirt farmer, the Drow or Orc or Devils haven't taken over; there are magic items in tombs all over the place; and a worldwide market for these magic items, yet seemingly no one save 4 characters that could afford them.

Alternatively, I'd be ok with a low magic world- teleporting is dangerous and hard and a level 9 spell; clerics fear requesting their deity's intervention; save or dies sometimes backfire and hit the caster; and mundane weapons come in better flavors than masterwork.

I dunno. Maybe I should look for a different system. That no one else plays. And I have to spend money on. :smallfrown:

GoldDragon
2007-11-29, 11:17 PM
No one ever said D&D was realistic.

Crow
2007-11-29, 11:21 PM
Lot of things to address there...good luck. Most of what you cite is only repairable via homebrewing. Here's hoping 4E gets it right, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

One of the houserules I always liked was having 4 grades of mundane weaponry. Inferior, Normal, Superior, and Masterwork.

Cuddly
2007-11-29, 11:24 PM
No one ever said D&D was realistic.

This isn't about realism.

de-trick
2007-11-29, 11:27 PM
calm down, could just be your DM

for playing fighters past 5+ so you have hitpoints, cause a wizard with only 20 hp would die. It would be a 1 hit kill if the enemys won initiative

Solo
2007-11-29, 11:28 PM
ToB is widely considered to have "fixed" the martial classes by giving them a power boost, though perhaps it would have been better to tone down the casters...

Cuddly
2007-11-29, 11:33 PM
Lot of things to address there...good luck. Most of what you cite is only repairable via homebrewing. Here's hoping 4E gets it right, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

One of the houserules I always liked was having 4 grades of mundane weaponry. Inferior, Normal, Superior, and Masterwork.

Yeah, I've been kicking around the idea of homebrewing a low magic world from the ground up, but I just don't have the time.

As I see, several things ought to happen:
Reduce spell power, across the board. Heavily restrict spells, let wizards choose only two schools of magic they can pull from. Get rid of all the ridiculous self buffs clerics have. Maybe make both classes half casters.

Druids get casting OR shifting OR animal companions. Not all 3.

Cut hybrid classes like paladin or ranger. Replace their class abilities with feat chains and class variants for barbarian, druid, fighter, cleric.

Bump up the power of melee characters. Replace feats like weapon focus with stuff that's actually usable.

Make multiclassing have more synergy. As it is, a wizard 20 is vastly more powerful than a wizard10/fighter10. Instead, make it so a wizard is squishy enough, and his spells not so great, that picking up a few levels of fighter would be really attractive. Alternatively, make it so a few levels of wizard or sorc would have some attractive spells that you'd see fighters dip wizard.

Crow
2007-11-29, 11:37 PM
I've actually ran wizards and sorcerers with a single school (but all splatbooks available). It worked pretty damn well.

Cuddly
2007-11-29, 11:41 PM
I'm not a fan of ToB- it does the wrong thing. It escalates the power creep that's been going on for years. As it is, man players just cherry pick the best from a multitude of books, passing up cool stuff for good stuff. It's just... fluff and mechanics are tied together too tightly. Like prestige classes. Just get rid of those.

Oh man, what I find really, really annoying, is when you're reading through a book, and see a place where the designers were like "clearly this ability is too powerful for a fighter; why, he could swing his sword all day with that beneift! We better limit it!" Then they surreptiously slip in some crap like a guy who uses the power of rainbows for the real ultimate power.


calm down, could just be your DM

for playing fighters past 5+ so you have hitpoints, cause a wizard with only 20 hp would die. It would be a 1 hit kill if the enemys won initiative

Or you could be playing a cleric, or druid, which make fighters virtually obsolete. Hitpoints don't do anything vs. invisible opponents, flying opponents, a DC23 will save or become a gibbering idiot, or anything else that you know, is on that high shelf and no one has a ladder (except for the wizard who just conjured one into existence).

Cuddly
2007-11-29, 11:44 PM
I've actually ran wizards and sorcerers with a single school (but all splatbooks available). It worked pretty damn well.

Hmm, I was thinking pigeonholing wiz and sorc into evokers; don't give them nearly as many save or dies, or ridiculous spells like rope trick and knock.

Stam
2007-11-29, 11:57 PM
I agree with the above...if ToB is the answer to the problem here, I think the designers were looking at the wrong question.

Spellcasting needs some serious nerfs. Pehaps melee-stuff needs a boost as well, but ToB? ToB stuff is simply not a realistic balancing factor if you're not going to follow a supernatural theme for the abilities. Some of them work well with a mundane theme, yes...but those ones aren't going to allow you to reach that flying wizard.

Cuddly
2007-11-30, 12:01 AM
I agree with the above...if ToB is the answer to the problem here, I think the designers were looking at the wrong question.

Spellcasting needs some serious nerfs. Pehaps melee-stuff needs a boost as well, but ToB? ToB stuff is simply not a realistic balancing factor if you're not going to follow a supernatural theme for the abilities. Some of them work well with a mundane theme, yes...but those ones aren't going to allow you to reach that flying wizard.

I'd like a more Conan game than a Harry Potter meets WoW. Barbarians should really get good will saves. Why would Mr. He-Man be more afraid of the charging Wyrm than the frail elf who loathes physical combat? Whatever.

Shooting flying wizards with a bow would be great... if it weren't for the fact that archery is pretty bad to spec, and the wizard didn't have a bunch of ways of avoiding arrows.

MrNexx
2007-11-30, 12:03 AM
Tome of Battle fixes the caster/tank thing by making tanks into casters.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-11-30, 12:13 AM
One of the more interesting points- I saw it brought up some time ago- was a rumor/story that the original testers for the present edition focused on dealing damage with Wizards and Sorcerers.

Under this model, they actually work fine, and Sorcerers make considerably more sense.

However; fundamentally, the best way to solve this problem is limiting access to magic items, and adjusting the CR and capabilities of opponents to match. Take a leaf from Conan; magic is inhuman, but can be defeated by human thew. That's the theme to take.

I generally disallow Druids, Clerics, Wizards, and Sorcerers altogether, actually.

Cuddly
2007-11-30, 12:17 AM
While changing the CR is definitely an option, I don't like the idea of limiting adventure possibilities due to a lack of magic items. That just seems... counter productive. Why not come up with a system where we can still have fun fighting dragons, rather than getting stuck with kobolds and goblins for 12 levels?

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-11-30, 12:21 AM
While changing the CR is definitely an option, I don't like the idea of limiting adventure possibilities due to a lack of magic items. That just seems... counter productive. Why not come up with a system where we can still have fun fighting dragons, rather than getting stuck with kobolds and goblins for 12 levels?
Invent an environment with:
A. Non-flying dragons
B. A built-in negation of the flight advantage.

A cave, a very traditional dragon encounter, fits B quite nicely.
Remove the dragon's spellcasting; no one has it, why should he?
Twiddle it a bit more.
You should be able to build a dragon characters without full casting can combat.

Mojo_Rat
2007-11-30, 12:42 AM
To be honest? I get the impression that alot of the balance problems come from the playstyle of players. This isnt to say I disagree with the idea that casters ar strong but the types of opponents you present your players with and how those opponents fight matters a great deal.

Alot of the time when i hear people talk about how weak non castes are they present a situation where the non caster is made totally useless in every encounter like time and effort has been put in to make this deliberately the case as if every encounter challenges every weakness non casting Pc's have.

Yet apparently Less time and effort seems to be put into the oposite. If Flying encounters are such a big deal for non casting pc's then simply /present less flying opponents/ as an example.

Instead of having every BBEG as a flying greater invisble wizard withe veyr possible anyi melee spell memorised make it an on the ground oponent with an anti magic field.

These are just examples off the top of my head. Also if you adhere to the game design of multiple encounters rather than single large encounters it affects the balance alot.

horseboy
2007-11-30, 12:47 AM
One of the more interesting points- I saw it brought up some time ago- was a rumor/story that the original testers for the present edition focused on dealing damage with Wizards and Sorcerers.

Under this model, they actually work fine, and Sorcerers make considerably more sense.

Was this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49378) your card?

To the OP, yeah, that's why I play Rolemaster.

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-11-30, 12:50 AM
Was this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49378) your card?

To the OP, yeah, that's why I play Rolemaster.

Correct, though I don't want to open the can of worms said thread represents.

Cuddly
2007-11-30, 12:58 AM
To be honest? I get the impression that alot of the balance problems come from the playstyle of players. This isnt to say I disagree with the idea that casters ar strong but the types of opponents you present your players with and how those opponents fight matters a great deal.

Alot of the time when i hear people talk about how weak non castes are they present a situation where the non caster is made totally useless in every encounter like time and effort has been put in to make this deliberately the case as if every encounter challenges every weakness non casting Pc's have.

Yet apparently Less time and effort seems to be put into the oposite. If Flying encounters are such a big deal for non casting pc's then simply /present less flying opponents/ as an example.

Instead of having every BBEG as a flying greater invisble wizard withe veyr possible anyi melee spell memorised make it an on the ground oponent with an anti magic field.

These are just examples off the top of my head. Also if you adhere to the game design of multiple encounters rather than single large encounters it affects the balance alot.

There are a great many monsters that naturally fly. Most demons and devils can fly and spam really vicious stuff that a fighter is totally dependent on his caster buddies for.

Sure, if the DM wanted to limit the monsters to medium sized bipeds that weren't Outsiders, then yeah, a fighter without magical help/gear could do well.

Leon
2007-11-30, 01:30 AM
Wtf is up with this?

I'm running a 3.5 game, and I'm constantly appalled out how screwed non-magic users are. For a fighter to be at all good at levels above 5 or 6, he has to be glowing with magic items. The best a non-magic weapon can get is a +1 to attacks. Alchemy sucks. Epic Alchemy isn't worth it, either. DC 40 for 2d6 fire damage? Yeah, right.

Dunno ive not had a problem with fighters over those levels not decked to the nines in gear, core alchemy is not given much thought - look beyond the core



It's ridiculous! And leafing through the Epic Handbook... Pelor on a stick! Cool, a 100 on by balance check lets me do what a wizard does at level 5. And feats... most are totally worthless, especially the epic ones. And epic casting... why bother playing a noncaster past level 20?

Why indeed, if its bad then dont play it.


Hell, why bother playing a noncaster past level 5?

Why bother playing a Caster, a non caster, a Hybrid?



And the whole world is presented as this backwards, low magic, everyone groveling in huts scenario. Yet somehow the fighter's supposed to have 50 grand of gold (that's a lot of gold!) by level 10, to spend on all the right stuff. If he doesn't he's going to die, hard. Where are all these magic weapons coming from? Is the countryside chalk full of precisely the right magic items for the heros to find? Or maybe ye olde magic vendor is traveling around, selling high level items, despite the fact that the majority of ships presented in the DMG are incapable of sailing on the open sea.

D&D is such a terrible system. I'm really irritated with it. The d20 mechanics are fine as a model for high fantasy and stuff, but the balance and fluff suck! I wouldn't mind a cohesive, monty haul high fantasy. But somehow, with 99% of the world a lvl 1 human dirt farmer, the Drow or Orc or Devils haven't taken over; there are magic items in tombs all over the place; and a worldwide market for these magic items, yet seemingly no one save 4 characters that could afford them.

The World is what the DM makes it - if he chooses to use that model then so be it but it is but one facet of what is possible with the infomation that is provided




Alternatively, I'd be ok with a low magic world- teleporting is dangerous and hard and a level 9 spell; clerics fear requesting their deity's intervention; save or dies sometimes backfire and hit the caster; and mundane weapons come in better flavors than masterwork.

Aside from the Low magic (which its not) Try Iron Kingdoms on for size



I dunno. Maybe I should look for a different system. That no one else plays. And I have to spend money on. :smallfrown:
If you hate this one so much then yes, try another Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is a one that i'd recomend.

Pronounceable
2007-11-30, 02:13 AM
OP has hit the nail on head for so many times it broke.

The "standard default generic DnD setting" is ridiculously offending to common sense and logic. "But it can be fixed." is not a valid defense. It should come "fixed" out of the package, since it costs money. People who like DnD as is, and don't care about the flaws play the game, but those of us who DO care about them are better off not playing DnD AT ALL.

HBing a system more suiting one's taste is only a little bit harder than making DnD work for you, and that's free of charge. Plus, there are others systems out there.

Main problem is one of marketing. DnD is the most well known (just like Windows), so most people play it. So when you say: "No, I don't want DnD." you don't find people to play with.

If WotC policies until now are any indication (ELH, ToB), the problems will not be solved by 4E. So I'd encourage people dissatisfied with DnD to use other systems or make their own, not try to fix DnD.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-11-30, 02:48 AM
Wtf is up with this?

I'm running a 3.5 game, and I'm constantly appalled out how screwed non-magic users are. For a fighter to be at all good at levels above 5 or 6, he has to be glowing with magic items. The best a non-magic weapon can get is a +1 to attacks. Alchemy sucks. Epic Alchemy isn't worth it, either. DC 40 for 2d6 fire damage? Yeah, right.

It's ridiculous! And leafing through the Epic Handbook... Pelor on a stick! Cool, a 100 on by balance check lets me do what a wizard does at level 5. And feats... most are totally worthless, especially the epic ones. And epic casting... why bother playing a noncaster past level 20?

Hell, why bother playing a noncaster past level 5?

And the whole world is presented as this backwards, low magic, everyone groveling in huts scenario. Yet somehow the fighter's supposed to have 50 grand of gold (that's a lot of gold!) by level 10, to spend on all the right stuff. If he doesn't he's going to die, hard. Where are all these magic weapons coming from? Is the countryside chalk full of precisely the right magic items for the heros to find? Or maybe ye olde magic vendor is traveling around, selling high level items, despite the fact that the majority of ships presented in the DMG are incapable of sailing on the open sea.

D&D is such a terrible system. I'm really irritated with it. The d20 mechanics are fine as a model for high fantasy and stuff, but the balance and fluff suck! I wouldn't mind a cohesive, monty haul high fantasy. But somehow, with 99% of the world a lvl 1 human dirt farmer, the Drow or Orc or Devils haven't taken over; there are magic items in tombs all over the place; and a worldwide market for these magic items, yet seemingly no one save 4 characters that could afford them.

Alternatively, I'd be ok with a low magic world- teleporting is dangerous and hard and a level 9 spell; clerics fear requesting their deity's intervention; save or dies sometimes backfire and hit the caster; and mundane weapons come in better flavors than masterwork.

I dunno. Maybe I should look for a different system. That no one else plays. And I have to spend money on. :smallfrown:

Congratulations! You too have discovered the might of magic and suckitude of everything else in D&D, as well as its general lack of balance!

Feralgeist
2007-11-30, 03:05 AM
If you like lower magic, or fighters being badass, play iron heroes

Nowhere Girl
2007-11-30, 03:32 AM
ToB is widely considered to have "fixed" the martial classes by giving them a power boost, though and perhaps it would have been better to also tone down the casters...

Fixed. :smallwink:

Charles Phipps
2007-11-30, 03:42 AM
It depends really on where you're adventuring. D&D's "generic world" is Greyhawk, at least until 4E, and that means that it's a world where you have the Circle of Eight along with Iuz the Omnipotent with Vecna amongst god knows how many other ancient Wizard/Demigods lying around.

D&D presumes, essentially, that magic is something that is found in abundance like Tolkien's Middle Earth. The irony is that, while Tolkien was low key about his spells, the place was littered with the assumption that your average Elvish Soldier was wielding a +1 blade and +1 armor. Likewise, Dwarf Craft is expected to be SOOOooooo ridiculously good that it's able to work legendary things.

Plus, the Gods work like Clash of the Titans by sending down their champions to get Helmets of Invisibility, Sandals of Flying, and Swords +5.

And frankly, the irony of D&D is that the generic worlds tend to actually be more advanced than the actual Renaissance. Most of the towns that you encounter in D&D seem to be composed of freemen with Serfdom relatively rare plus VAST hordes of Castles along with fortified ruins.

You rarely see the Thatched Hut in my games.

But yes, in my games, you never "commission" magic items really. Instead, the majority of them are gifts from the gods or things created by Generic Super Racial Craftsmanship.

Nowhere Girl
2007-11-30, 03:48 AM
I'm not a fan of ToB- it does the wrong thing. It escalates the power creep that's been going on for years. As it is, man players just cherry pick the best from a multitude of books, passing up cool stuff for good stuff. It's just... fluff and mechanics are tied together too tightly. Like prestige classes. Just get rid of those.

I agree about the cherry-picking (especially with the tons of feats, which are oddly often total crap sometimes, and at other times so ridiculously powerful when used in certain ways that they become must-haves in various "builds") and even the prestige classes, but I disagree about the ToB classes. I think, rather, that they're the one thing with meleers that WOTC has done right.

Look -- ToB finally makes fantasy warriors look like fantasy warriors. Okay, yes, real-life warriors couldn't leap 20 feet into the air, slash you nine times in the blink of an eye, and cut through solid concrete as though it were butter, but this is fantasy. Maybe it's just that I'm an anime fan and can appreciate over-the-top swordplay, but if I'm going to believe for one minute that any warrior can remotely stand up to the likes of a dragon, he/she had better be able to do the impossible. And look good doing it!

ToB maneuvers are flashy and exciting, the kinds of things that inspire me to go into great detail about my combat action. They're fun. They keep combat interesting and more tactical, because each round is very different from the last, rather than being more of "I swing my sword. Again." Whereas Leap-Attacking, Shock-Troopering, Pounce-Charging Barbarian Chargy McCharger and his spiked chain-using friend Trippy O'Trip are both boring, petty and one-dimensional, ToB fighters are exciting, cinematic and, at times, surprising.

Cuddly
2007-11-30, 04:24 AM
...it's just that I'm an anime fan....

Well that explains why you like quasimagical displays of swordsmanship named floating lotus blossom and iron chef julep. Me... not so much. I would be completely fine with feats that scaled with a fighter's level. So improved grapple gives you +4 grapple now. In another 4 levels, it will give you another +4 grapple. And so on. That way, you can tear a gargantuan beasts arm of, Beowulf style.

The real problem is magic- Freedom of Movement means never worrying about getting held down, ever. It totally negates anything control-wise a fighter could do. Things that provide bonuses tend to be fine. Things that let you fly, become undetectable, avoid confrontation, are all vastly stacked in the caster's favor. Rather than come up with depleted uranium spin kick or kidney explosion lunge, just keep the magic a caster does within the sphere of what a fighter can do.

So sure, you're up there and flying and stuff. Oh, no wait, you're getting shot full of holes. Or the barbarian threw a tree at you. And none of that windwall crap- it shouldn't flat out deny attacks. A penalty, sure (that could be negated if the ftr decided to take the feat "shoot this bow in a hurricane"), but not a "ranged characters are screwed."


Not to disparage your watermelon carp song stuff, I feel that the flavor is a little off. I'd rather have a mechanic that was "here are the bare essentials- now apply your own fluff." So a monk's grapple could be a judo arm bar or a WWE bear hug, depending on what sort of monk you wanted. For instance, stunning fist could be described as a vulcan neck pinch, or Indiana Jones punch a Nazi in the face without shattering his handbones on the Kraut's teeth.

Swordguy
2007-11-30, 04:52 AM
I agree about the cherry-picking (especially with the tons of feats, which are oddly often total crap sometimes, and at other times so ridiculously powerful when used in certain ways that they become must-haves in various "builds") and even the prestige classes, but I disagree about the ToB classes. I think, rather, that they're the one thing with meleers that WOTC has done right.

Look -- ToB finally makes fantasy warriors look like fantasy warriors. Okay, yes, real-life warriors couldn't leap 20 feet into the air, slash you nine times in the blink of an eye, and cut through solid concrete as though it were butter, but this is fantasy. Maybe it's just that I'm an anime fan and can appreciate over-the-top swordplay, but if I'm going to believe for one minute that any warrior can remotely stand up to the likes of a dragon, he/she had better be able to do the impossible. And look good doing it!

ToB maneuvers are flashy and exciting, the kinds of things that inspire me to go into great detail about my combat action. They're fun. They keep combat interesting and more tactical, because each round is very different from the last, rather than being more of "I swing my sword. Again." Whereas Leap-Attacking, Shock-Troopering, Pounce-Charging Barbarian Chargy McCharger and his spiked chain-using friend Trippy O'Trip are both boring, petty and one-dimensional, ToB fighters are exciting, cinematic and, at times, surprising.

For what definition of "Fantasy" though? That seems to be the crux of the argument. I'd postulate that a lot of people who want to play a "Fantasy Fighter" want to play Boromir, Thorin, Beowulf, Sigurd or Sigmund, Roland, Brynhildr or other such melee'ers considered to be "fantasy". None of these guys does really, really superhuman feats with any real degree of regularity. They have a few superhuman things under their belts which give them the status of epic heroes, but even Beowulf mentions that the "swimming in full armor for 5 days" wasn't a cakewalk, and wasn't something he'd do every day.

You don't see these guys leaping 20 feet in the air and cutting through solid rock as though it were butter a bunch of times an encounter. If they do something like this, it's a big climatic one-time thing.

In fact, I can't think of a major Western fantasy epic offhand where characters routinely DO do the stuff we see in ToB. I can name a half-hundred references in Eastern-themed media (of which anime is a part, to be true).

Somebody mentioned earlier about heroes facing down a dragon. Aside from Saint George, can anyone name a major Western epic fantasy or mythological protagonist who does face down a dragon in melee and live to tell about it in anything more than a death monologue? Beowulf dies. Neither Bilbo, Sigurd , nor Bard face one in melee. The Dragon of Wawel Hill died from a water overdose after being poisoned. Y Ddraig Goch gets buried alive after being induced into a drunken stupor. Python was killed only by a god (Apollo). Frotho I kils a dragon in the Gesta Danorum through the expedient of sneaking up on it and stabbing it through the back of the skull. Saint Martha tamed the tarasque (originally a dragon) by means of hymns and prayers and it is then killed.

This leads me to think that walking up the dragon and telling it to leave before it gets hurt (and to leave all the gold as well) may not be what people are supposed to be able to do...

Yami
2007-11-30, 04:54 AM
Hell, why bother playing a noncaster past level 5?


Because someone has to clean up, unless you don't mind wasting your spell slots on hunting down everything. And sometimes, every now and then, you even run across a golem!

Think about it. The fighters and skillmonkies save you precious spell slots. Without them you'd be resting far more often. And then there are the few occasions where the DM cries "Epic Battle!" up ends a bag of M&Ms on the battlemap for mooks. At times like that a properly cared for Barbarian is a must to mop up those pesky survivors your all powerful magic misses. Or usually misses, (There are some builds out there, considered subpar but outthere none-the-less, who excell in such situations. Most don't consider them though.)

As has been noted, every system has it's faults. I'd suggest giving Warhammer a try for a few campaigns until you learn to hate it, perhaps switching to a Mechwarrior later for gameworld change and that need to find that elusive perfect system. You can then proceed to bounce around trying new and wonderous games, all with thier own perks and flaws, until in the end, some years down the road, your friends run up to you all starry-eyed with a shiny new copy of 4E D&D in thier hands.

Cuddly
2007-11-30, 04:59 AM
Dragons-
Didn't the elves slay a bunch of dragons and balrogs in the first and second ages of middle earth?

I don't know much of western dragon mythology, though.


Because someone has to clean up, unless you don't mind wasting your spell slots on hunting down everything. And sometimes, every now and then, you even run across a golem!

Think about it. The fighters and skillmonkies save you precious spell slots. Without them you'd be resting far more often. And then there are the few occasions where the DM cries "Epic Battle!" up ends a bag of M&Ms on the battlemap for mooks. At times like that a properly cared for Barbarian is a must to mop up those pesky survivors your all powerful magic misses. Or usually misses, (There are some builds out there, considered subpar but outthere none-the-less, who excell in such situations. Most don't consider them though.)

As has been noted, every system has it's faults. I'd suggest giving Warhammer a try for a few campaigns until you learn to hate it, perhaps switching to a Mechwarrior later for gameworld change and that need to find that elusive perfect system. You can then proceed to bounce around trying new and wonderous games, all with thier own perks and flaws, until in the end, some years down the road, your friends run up to you all starry-eyed with a shiny new copy of 4E D&D in thier hands.

You've given solid reasons to get leadership, or pick up NPCs. But why should I saddle myself as "caster's lackey"?

Attilargh
2007-11-30, 05:06 AM
I think the problem with Dungeons and Dragons is that when you have people who essentially perform like modern-day jet fighters and people who perform like, well, competent medieval warriors, the latter kind get slaughtered. While this is logical enough, it doesn't quite lend itself to fun gameplay.

Also, I'm so going to steal the term "watermelon carp song stuff".

Swordguy
2007-11-30, 05:27 AM
Dragons-
Didn't the elves slay a bunch of dragons and balrogs in the first and second ages of middle earth?


Not really. The biggest and bad-ass dragon, Glaurung, had 5 appearances in the Simarilion (and darn you for making me dig it out and double-check the first one).

He appeared during the Siege of Angbad (think of the spiritual precurssor to Mordor), but was driven back by massed bowfire, because he was young and his hide was not fully formed.

He appeared during the Battle of Sudden Flame (which ended the Siege) and pretty much wiped out everything he got near.

During the Battle of Unnumbered Tears he leads the force that routs Feanor's forces and thus sunders the Union of Maedhros. In this battle he gets stabbed in the vulnerable belly by a Dwarf-king (can't recall the name, it's A-something) and retreats home to recuperate. This is partially where Bilbo got the idea that "dragons are soft, underneath. Especially in the region of the chest."

In his next appearance, he basically wipes out Turin's army and sacks Nargothrond, creating his treasure-bed.

Finally, Turin kills him by digging a pit underneath where he will pass and stabbing upwards with all his might (which is considerable - we're talking Beowulf-level here). This is a blatant ripoff, by the way, of how Sigurd kills Fafnir.

It also must be considered that Elves in Middle-Earth are seriously, seriously badass. We're talking a power level that a GM would have to be clinically insane to allow in a game. Fingolfin went mano-a-mano with Morgoth himself (yup, melee with a GOD), and wounded him eight times (most people say 7 - the eighth was a dying stroke to the foot of Morgoth) before being killed. Fingolfin was not at all the greatest elf-lord - Feanor was.

Throughout LotR, other, lesser drakes (described more like D&D wyverns) are killed, but we don't really hear how. In general, it seems to take a lot of:
1) bowfire
2) trickery
3) luck
4) all of the above in double measure.

In fact, these are the general rules of thumb for dealing with dragons throughout Western literature, with the sole exception of St. George. That should tell us something.

The Professor
2007-11-30, 05:27 AM
See, this has never really been an issue with my group. I mean, sure, anyone who knows how to play a caster (and that's everyone, because I've told everyone how in my group), can break them so hard it's earth-shattering. Thing is, unless it's vitally important ICly to be that powerful, nobody does it. Of course we take measures to 'fix' some of the classes (I'm rather fond of BWL's Fighter), but most of it really shouldn't be necessary if you have reasonable people in your group.

As a player, don't overdo it as a wizard, don't make everyone else feel like baggage. As a DM, create scenarios that have the wizards hindered, and the fighter types shining.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-30, 05:43 AM
As a player, don't overdo it as a wizard, don't make everyone else feel like baggage. As a DM, create scenarios that have the wizards hindered, and the fighter types shining.

That you have to do that really sucks though.

The Professor
2007-11-30, 05:47 AM
That you have to do that really sucks though.

Not always. If you can tie things like that seamlessly into the story, everyone wins.

... That is, however, difficult sometimes, depending on the campaign...

Crow
2007-11-30, 08:50 AM
To the OP: Try the Conan RPG. It gets a lot of things "right" if you're not interested in D&D's brand of high fantasy.

mostlyharmful
2007-11-30, 09:05 AM
Not always. If you can tie things like that seamlessly into the story, everyone wins.

... That is, however, difficult sometimes, depending on the campaign...

And doing it every time gets ridiculous, even if a PC can use non-optimum tactics and spells to have every caster they'll meet playing at half strengh undermines versimilitude. It's the problem of running high fantasy without building a world like Faerun where the PCs aren't the biggest baddest around. And no-one really enjoys the role of understudy for their entire lives. If you want magic without major world redefinition in DnD you need to just filter out some of the ramifications, I know it's the equivilent of hiding your head unde r the blanket and going "LA LA LA CAN'T SEE YOU!!!! but there you go.

Satyr
2007-11-30, 09:10 AM
The problem I have with the often very strng magic is the lack of heroics. I want my fantasy games feel heroic - a small group of adventurers going through extremely hazardous threats and beat the odds somehow, by being heroes. Being a hero means also " act in a heroic way" and this contradicts the use of magic regularly. Let's face it, throwing fireballs at a goblin squad is as heroic as running over peaceful demonstrants with a tank and there is no difference between using nerve gas and a cloudkill spell.
It's powerful, but it's not the way a hero should behave.

Crow
2007-11-30, 09:14 AM
*straps on his k-pot*

JadedDM
2007-11-30, 09:26 AM
The reason, I think, that magic is everywhere in 3E mechanically, but flavor-wise it's supposed to be rare...is probably due to the fact that earlier editions really were low-magic.

That's why a lot of people will claim Eberron is more 'realistic' a setting, as it incorporates the Christmas Tree effect much better than others, but this is because Eberron was made specifically for 3E. Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms were originally created for 1E. (The whole 'everyone can use magic' thing really conflicts with Dragonlance, in particular, with the whole 'Conclave of Wizards' thing).

The necessary high level of magic is one of the things that turned me off from 3E in the first place.

Dausuul
2007-11-30, 09:55 AM
I agree with the above...if ToB is the answer to the problem here, I think the designers were looking at the wrong question.

Spellcasting needs some serious nerfs. Pehaps melee-stuff needs a boost as well, but ToB? ToB stuff is simply not a realistic balancing factor if you're not going to follow a supernatural theme for the abilities. Some of them work well with a mundane theme, yes...but those ones aren't going to allow you to reach that flying wizard.

Then what would you propose WotC do?

They could use errata to nerf casters, but a) many gamers don't actually read/use the published errata, and b) the nerfs required go far beyond what can be done in an errata sheet.

They could publish lower-powered caster classes and call them, I don't know, truenamers, or shadowcasters, or warlocks. Oh, wait, they did that.

They could create a whole new edition and rebalance everything. Oh, wait, they're doing that too.

ToB is a short-term fix for those who aren't willing to get rid of the old caster classes, don't want to rebalance everything themselves, and don't want to have to wait for 4E. If you don't like it, don't use it, but it does address the caster balance issue, at least to some extent.

Crow
2007-11-30, 10:53 AM
edit: Reading Comprehension. I need some.

KoDT69
2007-11-30, 10:57 AM
And doing it every time gets ridiculous, even if a PC can use non-optimum tactics and spells to have every caster they'll meet playing at half strengh undermines versimilitude.

Likewise, if every caster they meet are uber-optimized batman types, that defies verisimilitude just as much or more. We all know in every class or archtype, there will be players and NPC's that are just plain better or worse than others within the same guidelines. It would not be realistic in the slightest if every wizard you run into is all-knowing and infallible.

You don't have to nerf every caster to make a non-caster shine, especially not every time. Just because something happens to have spell resistance or an immunity your casters didn't plan on, does not mean they're being nerfed. It's the same if your party encounters a flying creature (or other alternative movement methods) and the fighter has a hard time with it. It's a challenge. Let's repeat it, challenge, not a nerf. And they can be useful out of combat as long as you don't have a DM that forces a Diplomacy check for every interaction with an NPC. I ignore it altogether. I only use RP and what they choose to say and do as a basis for reaction. If the fighter is highly renowned and a known town savior, why would the local barwench have a bad reaction to him based on a Diplomacy roll? Unless he instigates a negative interaction to start, or the NPC is a particularly insociable one, it should be fine on RP alone.

One of the main problems is spells that have NO SAVING THROW. That's complete crap, and unbalanced. There should ALWAYS be a saving throw. Not trying to be a prick or a 2nd edition fanboi, but at least there were not 200 spells with no save like in 3rd edition. Stuff like forcecage... yeah right. If it is solid enough to hold you in, then it's solid enough to be broken with force. Freedom of Movement is crap too. If a barbarian bear-hugs your frail butt, I don't see how that spell CAN work logistically. I homebrewed feats to represent this type of stuff (one to grapple against Freedom, one to break force effects, and even one to help against flyers). The other main thing, METAMAGIC feats! Now you can cast more than 1 spell per round which previous editions didn't allows, and on top of that, add Swift and Immediate Action spells, and other cheese like Celerity. WotC favor casters too much.

The problem is that most people are willing to say D&D sucks or it's unbalanced, and for the most part is true. But the fact remains that even if it was perfectly balanced to some, others would still complain that it's not and homebrew stuff anyway. I don't understand why it's so hard to just homebrew the little things and have fun? I homebrew a lot and have normal wizard players willing to play the fighter. Why? Because I spent a few hours here and there reworking some stuff that did in fact, suck eggs IMO, and it resulted in more fun and productive game sessions. No you shouldn't HAVE to homebrew to get balance, but every player is different so a lot will homebrew anyway.

Leadfeathermcc
2007-11-30, 11:03 AM
One of the houserules I always liked was having 4 grades of mundane weaponry. Inferior, Normal, Superior, and Masterwork.

Can you give the crunch for that houserule. It sounds like what I am looking for.

Serenity
2007-11-30, 11:33 AM
Ah, the ever present accusation that ToB turns fighters into casters and is all unbelievable anime moves. Look, yes, ToB has anime and wuxia influence. It admits as much. But Asians weren't the only ones who had martial arts schools with funny names. They were plenty prevalent in Europe too. There are two, arguably three, supernatural disciplines out of the nine in the book. These are available only to the monk (and in the third case, only to the paladin replacement) without the expenditure of a feat. And in a world where characters are expected to be acquiring magic items, and it's a simple matter to take a level in Wizard, it seems to me only sensible that even mundanes can learn to access abilities beyond the norm. As for the rest? We have the Art of Hitting Things Really Hard, the Art of Fighting with Intelligence and Perception, The Art of Being Really Good With a Blade, The Art of Pouncing on Enemies and Ripping Them Apart, The Art of Tactics and Teamwork, and the Art of Throwing and Tripping Enemies.

The purely extraordinary disciplines don't let you reach flying enemies, true. But it's OK to need the Wizard to cast fly on you to achieve that. The problem with that for Fighters is that they can't do anything once they get up there,since they can't get a full attack. Tome of Battle characters have tricks that only need a standard action to put significant hurt on their enemies. Their skill and power also makes them dangerous that mobile enemies have a believable reason to focus on them instead of going straight for the squishy casters. And, of course, there's the Bloodstorm Blade.

Maelstrom
2007-11-30, 11:45 AM
How fix Casters....two words.

Casting Time.

elliott20
2007-11-30, 12:24 PM
casters have taken on a very very different feel since it's mythological roots. For starters, the powerful mage archetypes were always used more as a plot device rather than an actual hero of the story. In conan, the wizards were enemies. In Arthurian legends, Merlin was more sage of odd facts than fireball slinger. (Tim of Monty Python's Holy Grail fame, on the other hand....)

The problem comes when you want to PLAY one of these characters. These characters were not meant to be on the same level of power as the mortals and what not. They were supposed to be people who born with strange powers far beyond the understanding of man. They were not meant to be the active force that changes the world, but something that subtly manipulates but seems almost as if it is above the world itself. They were never meant to be the players. When you make it possible for players to play as this archetype to it's logical conclusion, you have 3E.

For one thing, players don't like playing just a plot device. A wise, mysterious wizard doesn't become so wise and mysterious when you see powers on display on a daily basis. Instead of treating magic like some kind of precious commodity that takes thought and planning, magic is now this resource that you get lots and lots of and is the same as just mental stamina for the day.

And hey, even if the mage has easy access to magic, if he was one of the few very very rare chosen few to ever get it, that would have been fine too. I mean, one man could potentially change the world but it's gonna take a hell of a lot of work.

But then again, this is where putting a price tag on magic completely destroys that. By slapping a price on the DMG, the book is almost saying "yep, all you need to get magic now is money." It is not an explicit assumption, but the way it is written, it is almost implied.

This implicit assumption changes the world dramatically as it changes one of the fundamental natures of a world shaping force. Magic is not just something a mage can do because of how special his genetic make-up/education/circumstances were, it's now something everyone can get at Walmart for 29.99 if you buy a shotgun at the sporting goods store first.

Well, in that case, why WOULDN'T you want to know how to use magic? Why wouldn't you want to be a mage if you can afford it? Why shouldn't every person on the planet learn how to use magical devices? (If not at least have a basic understanding of them) I mean, think of our own society. We have technology readily available to us as long as we're willing to spend a small amount of time learning how to use it and the money to buy it with. Shotgun? sure, it can take a lot to be skilled with it but the basic idea is simple. Point and shoot.

Can you honestly tell me that someone is going to actually want to learn how to swing a sword or throw a javelin after this? Well, yes, people certain still do these things today. but you can bet they aren't doing it because they find it a more effective means of killing someone. It's recreation now.

You know what the equivalent a fighter would be in our world? It would be that martial artist guy who insists that martial arts is still a viable form of combat in a battlefield filled with tanks, fighter jets, landminds, sniper rifles, and other modern marvels. that's who he is. a man who takes his hobby far too seriously.

streakster
2007-11-30, 12:24 PM
There's a house rule I always liked that fixes this - change Sorcerors and Wizards to only get one spell school, which is treated as their specialized school. Their name is changed as well - Evokers, Necromancers, Conjurers, Abjurers, etc. If you have access to a lot of spells (Spell Compendium, Old Dragon Magazine Issues, The Homebrew Forum), this works great.

[Edit: Ah, already suggested. Oh well.]

horseboy
2007-11-30, 12:38 PM
The problem is that most people are willing to say D&D sucks or it's unbalanced, and for the most part is true. But the fact remains that even if it was perfectly balanced to some, others would still complain that it's not and homebrew stuff anyway. I don't understand why it's so hard to just homebrew the little things and have fun? I homebrew a lot and have normal wizard players willing to play the fighter. Why? Because I spent a few hours here and there reworking some stuff that did in fact, suck eggs IMO, and it resulted in more fun and productive game sessions. No you shouldn't HAVE to homebrew to get balance, but every player is different so a lot will homebrew anyway.

Well, for starters, as you pointed out there's so many spells alone that need fixing. I really don't see that as a "little something". Because it undermines the faith you can have in a system that you have to stop every time you get a new book and figure out what WotC screwed, just let slide, or straight didn't play test. Then you've got to fix it. Which brings up the next point. With the few exceptions of oh, Nexx, Fax, VT, and I think Swordguy and a few others none of us are paid to write games. We're all amateurs. If as an amateur can do better than this professional, why am I giving this professional ANY money?

Roderick_BR
2007-11-30, 12:52 PM
This leads me to think that walking up the dragon and telling it to leave before it gets hurt (and to leave all the gold as well) may not be what people are supposed to be able to do...
QFT. Unfortunately, casters in D&D can "kill one dragon a day", without breaking a sweat.

Charles Phipps
2007-11-30, 01:24 PM
In fact, I can't think of a major Western fantasy epic offhand where characters routinely DO do the stuff we see in ToB. I can name a half-hundred references in Eastern-themed media (of which anime is a part, to be true).


Conan. He slays ridiculously powerful bad guys all of the time.

Actually, super-human quality possessing heroes aren't exactly uncommon in Western stories to be honest. I'll just start rattling off some heroes for example....

Gilgamesh, Samson, and Hercules all have a tradition of massive monster slaying. Lancelot faced down a Dragon in mano-a-mano battle and emerged triumphant as well.


Can you honestly tell me that someone is going to actually want to learn how to swing a sword or throw a javelin after this?

I had a military leader talk about the "Dagger Rule." Basically, the Dagger rule was the fact that if a wizard ever was closed in by a competent swordsmen then he was doomed even if he was a powerful one.

Theoretically, being, that a wizard could be stabbed before he could get off a spell every time.

Also, Adventuring Wizard is like "Adventuring Scientist." Basically, few people in the Real World are inclined to spend the 20 years with books they need to master magic only to go into the middle of danger.

Given how ridiculously ineffective magic is (A 12th level wizard casting Fireballs to 12 guys with arrows inflicting 12d6 damage) by comparison to soldiers, most don't bother.

Attilargh
2007-11-30, 02:20 PM
In fact, I can't think of a major Western fantasy epic offhand where characters routinely DO do the stuff we see in ToB.
Pro wrestling pretty much handles Setting Sun, and is definitely fantasy enough to count. :smallwink:

Crow
2007-11-30, 04:59 PM
There's a house rule I always liked that fixes this - change Sorcerors and Wizards to only get one spell school, which is treated as their specialized school. Their name is changed as well - Evokers, Necromancers, Conjurers, Abjurers, etc. If you have access to a lot of spells (Spell Compendium, Old Dragon Magazine Issues, The Homebrew Forum), this works great.

[Edit: Ah, already suggested. Oh well.]

That's because it works!

Crow
2007-11-30, 05:13 PM
Conan. He slays ridiculously powerful bad guys all of the time.

The only dudes that conan kills that compare with the monsters of D&D are demons from the outer dark. And he does this through the help of ancient and very powerful magics that he doesn't know himself. If you have read any of Howard's stuff, you find that Conan outthinks or flees from the ridiculously powerful bad guys.


Actually, super-human quality possessing heroes aren't exactly uncommon in Western stories to be honest. I'll just start rattling off some heroes for example....

Gilgamesh, Samson, and Hercules all have a tradition of massive monster slaying. Lancelot faced down a Dragon in mano-a-mano battle and emerged triumphant as well.

I'm not too familiar with Gilgamesh, and I know Samson had his strength going for him. Hercules, while having great strength used cunning and lateral thinking to overcome the challenges presented to him rather than pure strength. I don't even know where you are getting the Lancelot story from though. Since you can rattle off so many examples, please keep going.




I had a military leader talk about the "Dagger Rule." Basically, the Dagger rule was the fact that if a wizard ever was closed in by a competent swordsmen then he was doomed even if he was a powerful one.

Theoretically, being, that a wizard could be stabbed before he could get off a spell every time. Not sure where you were going here...I think you need to explain this some more. A guy armed with a knife can strike from 21 feet away, closing with and stabbing a ploice officer before he can reliably draw his weapon and fire. This is real life. Maybe it had something to do with that?


Also, Adventuring Wizard is like "Adventuring Scientist." Basically, few people in the Real World are inclined to spend the 20 years with books they need to master magic only to go into the middle of danger.

Except maybe the ones that don't live down the street from the magic emporium. Maybe D&D should move to a more "quest for knowledge" based feel. I know there are stories of wizards exploring the far reaches of the earth looking for lost magical secrets.

Adventuring Scientists are more real than you think. Expeditions are mounted by these guys to all sorts of locales. You can only learn in a library what someone else learned before you did. To discover something new, you need to look where nobody has looked before, or in a way which they hadn't thought of.


Given how ridiculously ineffective magic is (A 12th level wizard casting Fireballs to 12 guys with arrows inflicting 12d6 damage) by comparison to soldiers, most don't bother.

Except at least in the context of D&D, you can't really miss with the fireball. Surviving is solely the responsibility of the target (reflex saves and other stuff).

Charles Phipps
2007-11-30, 07:52 PM
Except at least in the context of D&D, you can't really miss with the fireball. Surviving is solely the responsibility of the target (reflex saves and other stuff).

Honestly, I House-Ruled this a long time ago. Unless descriptors say otherwise (i.e. Magic Missile), you have to roll a ranged targeting roll with your spells in addition to Touch attacks. It means that Low Level Wizards are about as screwed as normal but High Levels still have the problem of needing to face foes with high armor class.

It also lead to things like feats that allow bonuses for spell lobbing.


The only dudes that conan kills that compare with the monsters of D&D are demons from the outer dark. And he does this through the help of ancient and very powerful magics that he doesn't know himself. If you have read any of Howard's stuff, you find that Conan outthinks or flees from the ridiculously powerful bad guys.

Yet he's still slain mummies and more.

Most D&D monsters aren't all that powerful to begin with. Dragons, Illithids, Beholders, and Demons are really the only ones that you're supposed to worry about. Things like the Tarrasque are meant to be run away from.


I'm not too familiar with Gilgamesh, and I know Samson had his strength going for him. Hercules, while having great strength used cunning and lateral thinking to overcome the challenges presented to him rather than pure strength. I don't even know where you are getting the Lancelot story from though.

I think D&D heroes tend to take the role of epic heroes because they go up in strength as they enter level. However, I don't get your point about Hercules. Since when has high level not represented going up in fighting SKILL as opposed to pure strength?


Not sure where you were going here...I think you need to explain this some more. A guy armed with a knife can strike from 21 feet away, closing with and stabbing a ploice officer before he can reliably draw his weapon and fire. This is real life. Maybe it had something to do with that?

It's a point that if you can win initiative with a wizard and get into close melee range with him then effectively he's not really a problem anymore. Disrupting any spells that he casts is going to be the end of him.


Since you can rattle off so many examples, please keep going.

Elric of Melbione and his world destroying adventures, Gandalf the Gray goes one on one with The Balrog, Dracula is killed by Quincy Morris, David defeats the Giant Goliath, Perseus defeats Medusa (admittedly using strategy), Theasus slays the Minotaur, Talos the Iron Giant is put down by Medea's magic, Jason also slew a Dragon after he destroyed an Army of Skeletons plus helmed in the Fire Breathing oxen, Gwydion slew the Horned King in Prydain Saga.

Tristam of Tristan and Isolde is also a Dragonslayer.

Depending on how you want to count the adventures of the gods. Technically Thor and Lugh the Long arm join the ranks of the heroes here.

If you want many stories where the heroes just wade up and attack people from round to round, oddly I don't know many D&D games where that's the case. Most of my players have always used a great deal of strategy when dealing with foes like Dragons.

Crow
2007-11-30, 08:59 PM
I think D&D heroes tend to take the role of epic heroes because they go up in strength as they enter level. However, I don't get your point about Hercules. Since when has high level not represented going up in fighting SKILL as opposed to pure strength?



It's a point that if you can win initiative with a wizard and get into close melee range with him then effectively he's not really a problem anymore. Disrupting any spells that he casts is going to be the end of him.



Elric of Melbione and his world destroying adventures, Gandalf the Gray goes one on one with The Balrog, Dracula is killed by Quincy Morris, David defeats the Giant Goliath, Perseus defeats Medusa (admittedly using strategy), Theasus slays the Minotaur, Talos the Iron Giant is put down by Medea's magic, Jason also slew a Dragon after he destroyed an Army of Skeletons plus helmed in the Fire Breathing oxen, Gwydion slew the Horned King in Prydain Saga.

Tristam of Tristan and Isolde is also a Dragonslayer.

Depending on how you want to count the adventures of the gods. Technically Thor and Lugh the Long arm join the ranks of the heroes here.

If you want many stories where the heroes just wade up and attack people from round to round, oddly I don't know many D&D games where that's the case. Most of my players have always used a great deal of strategy when dealing with foes like Dragons.


The problem with many of these references though is that Hercules, Theseus, Perseus, Gilgamesh, Medea, and Jason are all the direct offspring of Gods. Gwydion was claimed to be as well, and Gandalf was a type of "lesser god" himself (Maiar...or something like that). There are some games where you can play gods, and you can in D&D too, but I'd say a good proportion of most players aren't playing Achilles, but more like Boromir.

Some of the names I am just not familiar with, so can't comment on. As for David and Goliath, that one isn't too far outside the realm of believing. The sling is a fearsome, accurate weapon. A sling in real life can absolutely destroy a fleshy target, even if he is wearing armor that would be considered quite good at the time slings were commonly used. When you really look at it, Goliath didn't stand a chance.

Quincy Morris on the other hand, much like many others, died in the attempt to take down his vampire.

My point with Hercules is that he wasn't slogging it out. He was outsmarting his enemies in most cases...It sucks to say, but most D&D characters slog it out. Our group uses a good amount of strategy unless they get surprised, but in the end it always ends up being just a different flavor of slogfest. The only difference is you have a swordsage teleporting around (or shadowalking or whatever), and a warblade that is whipping out some crazy move every time his turn comes up. Maybe someone will adopt a special "stance" as well. The strategy in D&D, aside from some exceptions, comes down to "How do you want to slog this bad guy?"

I see what you are saying about the initiative and the stabbing. This works if you can catch the wizard unprepared. But that's theory mostly, and down to individual DM's and their story arcs.

I have totally lost sight of what we were debating here, so I am just rambling on with useless information. I guess that's a good point at which to wrap up.

Alex12
2007-11-30, 09:23 PM
One idea I've heard is to cap the level that wizards automatically gain spells. Think about it-that's supposed to be from things like research. Realistically, spells that warp the fabric of time and space should not be freely available. It would be like putting designs and instructions on exactly how to construct, say, a modern fighter jet.

Charles Phipps
2007-11-30, 09:37 PM
The problem with many of these references though is that Hercules, Theseus, Perseus, Gilgamesh, Medea, and Jason are all the direct offspring of Gods.

I guess it's a point of what style game you run. In my opinion, the average D&D character should be able to defeat Hercules in hand-to-hand combat because despite Hercules pedigree, the PCs are THE heroes of the world. Divinely mandated or not.

I can understand how someone whose game is more low key would not be so successful.

Everyone ends up Superman rather than Batman.

And really, game style may vary. My player characters flee behind cover whenever they spot a wizard.

Anteros
2007-11-30, 10:17 PM
I'm not too familiar with Gilgamesh, and I know Samson had his strength going for him. Hercules, while having great strength used cunning and lateral thinking to overcome the challenges presented to him rather than pure strength. I don't even know where you are getting the Lancelot story from though. Since you can rattle off so many examples, please keep going.



I just felt like responding to this. Completely ignoring the fact that Dragons are much, much less common in western literature...Tristram, Lancelot, I think Arthur may have but it probably depends on which set of legends you read, Smaug gets killed by one fricking arrow, about 10 different Catholic saints...Sigurd of course, Beowulf only died because he was an old man at the time, there is of course the classic idea of a knight slaying a dragon in order to rescue a princess which recurs countless times. There are also numerous accounts of dragon slaying in western poetry, but I can't be bothered to search for specific examples.

I'm sure there are a million more, but I was trying to go with a more historic view of Western literature.

Hagentai
2007-12-01, 05:46 AM
Lot of things to address there...good luck. Most of what you cite is only repairable via homebrewing. Here's hoping 4E gets it right, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

One of the houserules I always liked was having 4 grades of mundane weaponry. Inferior, Normal, Superior, and Masterwork.

That's a good idea.

But to the O. Poster.

Here's an idea. Don't be a tight ass dm with magical gear. If a fighter needs to be a christmas tree.. let him be.

Leadfeathermcc
2007-12-01, 07:41 AM
That's a good idea.


It is a good idea, I will be using it. Crow was kind enough to give me the details.



Inferior : -1 to hit and -1 damage
Normal : (normal)
Fine : +1 to hit
Superior : +1 to hit and +1 to damage
Masterwork : +2 to hit and +1 to damage

Optional rule for Inferior weapons : Breaks on a critical failure.

Optional rule for all weapons : If a blade is commissioned as a custom piece (rather than picked up from a treasure hoard or something), it gets an additional +1 to hit (on top of all other bonuses). This is because the piece can be specifically sized and balanced for the intended wielder. This bonus only applies to the intended wielder, but can apply to another person if they are of close to the same height/build as the original owner.

The damage bonuses are small because it is hard to make a weapon actually do more damage (that is up to the wielder). It is possible however to make a weapon easier to use, which is why the highest grade gets the +2 to hit.

Crafting modifiers (add to base DC for weapon):

Inferior : -3
Normal : +0
Fine : +4
Superior : +8
Masterwork : +12



But to the O. Poster.
Here's an idea. Don't be a tight ass dm with magical gear. If a fighter needs to be a christmas tree.. let him be.

If you set the ground rules properly at the beginning, a fighter does not need to be a Christmas tree. For example, I am running an E6 game, and the balance between caster and smasher is much more even at an extended 6th level.

Swordguy
2007-12-01, 10:55 AM
But to the O. Poster.

Here's an idea. Don't be a tight ass dm with magical gear. If a fighter needs to be a christmas tree.. let him be.

Absolutely...assuming you want to play a high-magic game.

Which, judging by the OP, he doesn't.