|
seebs posted:I think that gap is at least somewhat intentional. Mendrian posted:I'm a Wizard. I buy a cart.
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
The fact that we have to have this drat skeleton conversation in the first place, ignoring everything else about it, the mechanics, whatever, but just the fact that it's being had, is a huge problem. I do hope everyone realizes this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
moths posted:So here's a thing. If you're a necromancer with a transmuter buddy and lots of time on your hands (which of course you do because you'll both live forever) he can transmute the kingdom's garbage into skeletons, which you animate into an army of heroic dragon genocide. "Before I die, I want you to know I regret I couldn't do more for you in life!" "It's okay, friend Fighter, you've given me the most valuable thing you had to give." "My love and friendship?!" "Your skeleton."
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
LFK posted:"Before I die, I want you to know I regret I couldn't do more for you in life!" "You sure, those things kind of suck and I think the party would have liked you to use that spell slot for fireball on the the 10 trolls we were about to fight. Seriously the Trolls are going mess up your skeleton gang man." MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Ah yes, because evocation has always been the most effective form of magic in Dungeons and Drahahahahahaha I almost finished that sentence
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:Ah yes, because evocation has always been the most effective form of magic in Dungeons and Drahahahahahaha I almost finished that sentence In the case of trolls in 5e yes it is more effective.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Remember you can get some spells back with a short rest once per day, so you can easily afford to maintain your army of skelliebros and still have all your fireballs at the ready. Do you really think the designers of 5e would force the wizard to make actual trade offs in exchange for game warping power?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
goldjas posted:The fact that we have to have this drat skeleton conversation in the first place, ignoring everything else about it, the mechanics, whatever, but just the fact that it's being had, is a huge problem. I do hope everyone realizes this. Talking about skeletons is never a problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Some people like a thing? Guess nobody csn ever complain! It suggests that perhaps in actual play they are not as weak as people seem to think they are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Talking about skeletons is never a problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:Remember you can get some spells back with a short rest once per day, so you can easily afford to maintain your army of skelliebros and still have all your fireballs at the ready. Do you really think the designers of 5e would force the wizard to make actual trade offs in exchange for game warping power? They get half of their level in spell slots back but no slots above 5. At lets say level 11 that gives them 1 uses of a level 3 or 4 spell back along with a few weaker ones. If Wizard spent all of his spell slots making skeletons he does not have a lot to work with and the Trolls in the next room will rip those skels apart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
jigokuman posted:Okay. In my opinion, that is poor design by design. This is not the D&D for me. Thank you for making that clear. I guess I don't see the problem. Some people like playing a character who does lots of magic and obviously impossible stuff, some people like playing a character whose options are pretty plausible. As long as they're both reasonably viable, I don't think it's bad at all for the game to let people get fundamentally different play styles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
seebs posted:I guess I don't see the problem. Some people like playing a character who does lots of magic and obviously impossible stuff, some people like playing a character whose options are pretty plausible. As long as they're both reasonably viable, I don't think it's bad at all for the game to let people get fundamentally different play styles. ...and you totally heard that they are, so it's all good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
seebs posted:I guess I don't see the problem. Some people like playing a character who does lots of magic and obviously impossible stuff, some people like playing a character whose options are pretty plausible. As long as they're both reasonably viable, I don't think it's bad at all for the game to let people get fundamentally different play styles. Why does "lots of impossible stuff" always get to be the sole province of magic while "stuff that's pretty plausible (judged by the standards of middle-aged nerds with an office job)" is exclusively the province of martial characters though? I mean I know that the answer to this is "because it's traditional" (in the sense that 3E has become "traditional" D&D) but it's still a thing that undercuts your something-for-everybody stance because the way Next is set up if you want to be a W+1 Wizard then fine, you can just load up on fireballs and lightning bolts, if you want to be the guy who warps encounters around his own capabilities then great, you've got skeleton armies and all kinds of poo poo. Meanwhile if I want to be a fighter whose martial prowess is so great that he can regularly perform impossible feats (that is to say, things with as much narrative agency as wizards get to exert when they feel like it) then I guess my option is to gently caress off and play another game because Next doesn't actually cater to that very well at all. The level of choice in how much "implausibility" I want to play is slanted towards spellcasters and no, I don't think that's a good game design decision. It's lazy and it's lovely and it speaks of a lack of imagination on behalf of both designers and players who can't conceive of a fantasy game fighter that does more than swing their sword harder and faster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Why does "lots of impossible stuff" always get to be the sole province of magic while "stuff that's pretty plausible (judged by the standards of middle-aged nerds with an office job)" is exclusively the province of martial characters though? I am not entirely sure I comprehend the question. If it's not impossible, why is it magic? quote:Meanwhile if I want to be a fighter whose martial prowess is so great that he can regularly perform impossible feats (that is to say, things with as much narrative agency as wizards get to exert when they feel like it) then I guess my option is to gently caress off and play another game because Next doesn't actually cater to that very well at all. The level of choice in how much "implausibility" I want to play is slanted towards spellcasters and no, I don't think that's a good game design decision. It's lazy and it's lovely and it speaks of a lack of imagination on behalf of both designers and players who can't conceive of a fantasy game fighter that does more than swing their sword harder and faster. I think the problem I'm running into is that if I can conceive of an "impossible" thing, I tend to think of it as being somehow-magical. I mean, monks can do things that are Clearly Impossible, but that's described as a kind-of-magic. Could you give an example of what you're thinking of?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
seebs posted:I think the problem I'm running into is that if I can conceive of an "impossible" thing, I tend to think of it as being somehow-magical. I mean, monks can do things that are Clearly Impossible, but that's described as a kind-of-magic. Everything Beowulf or Cúchulainn does. Piell fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:They get half of their level in spell slots back but no slots above 5. At lets say level 11 that gives them 1 uses of a level 3 or 4 spell back along with a few weaker ones. If Wizard spent all of his spell slots making skeletons he does not have a lot to work with and the Trolls in the next room will rip those skels apart. Why bother wasting all your spell slots when, as per the post that started this whole discussion, it only takes 4 spell slots per day to create enough skeletons to easily outdamage a fighter, who would also get ripped apart by a pack of trolls. When your entire class is worth less then 4 spell slots per day I think you have a problem with your game design. edit: seebs posted:I think the problem I'm running into is that if I can conceive of an "impossible" thing, I tend to think of it as being somehow-magical. I mean, monks can do things that are Clearly Impossible, but that's described as a kind-of-magic. One of my favorate things about 4th edition was classifying monks as a psionic power source. Also separating out Arcane Divine and Primal as entirely separate things instead of just "magic". DnD has a bad habit of confusing "things which are magical" with "things wizards can do" when in almost every myth and story that inspired it the second is an extremely small subset of the first. Vorpal Cat fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
Piell posted:Everything Beowulf or Cúchulainn does. Why don't we have a paulbomb.txt-style dump of 'awesome martial poo poo'?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
seebs posted:I am not entirely sure I comprehend the question. If it's not impossible, why is it magic? Here are some classics: * Go sleepness from Samain, when the summer goes to its rest, until Imbolc, when the ewes are milked at spring's beginning; from Imbolc to Beltine at the summer's beginning and from Beltine to Bron Trogain, earth's sorrowing autumn (ie, one year). * Strike down three groups of nine men with a single stroke, leaving the middle man of each nine unharmed. * Perform the feat of the Salmon-Leap carrying twice your weight in gold (meaning to leap over the shield of your opponent, I think?). * Throw your spear so that it disembowels 3 men and returns to your hand. e: Or should we go with some of the stuff from the Edda, or Beowulf, or maybe some Chinese or Japanese legends? Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
seebs posted:I think the problem I'm running into is that if I can conceive of an "impossible" thing, I tend to think of it as being somehow-magical. Yeah, you and a lot of other people. There are copious essays on the subject of how martial characters in myth and legend can do incredible poo poo that D&D rarely, if ever, emulates very well, designers citing "realism" and "plausibility" as though those have any sort of place in a game where their wizard pal turns into a literal superhero because magic is the universal handwave. Beowulf didn't need magic to rip a monster's arm clean off and beat him to death with it. Cú Chulainn singlehandedly held off the armies of Queen Medb when he was 17, also not magic. Orlando in Orlando Furioso rampages across two entire continents, still not magic. This isn't taking into account filthy anime sources like Outlaws of the Water Margin or the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, full of non-magical people performing astonishing and legendary feats without needing levels in a caster class. I'm not even talking at level 1 straight out of the gate either. A level 1 Fighter shouldn't be cutting mountains in half? Yeah man, I'm totally down with that. But at the point that a Wizard gets the ability to go "I make reality my bitch because I'm magical" a similarly leveled martial character should ostensibly get to do the same because they're just that good. Plausibility, as dumb nerds envision it, can go gently caress itself because fantasy literature is full of warriors and thieves and leaders of men doing things that are obviously impossible without a sidebar explaining that no, see, actually this is a spell-like ability because
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
So the Tarrasque is 50 feet tall, but moves as fast as... a regular human? Now I'm picturing this enormous horror shuffling and mincing about as if its colossal ankles are tied together.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
seebs posted:I am not entirely sure I comprehend the question. If it's not impossible, why is it magic? Okay. Here we go. Time to retread this path again. First of all a lot of this boils down to a groggy and illiterate definition of Magic. Magic is clearly 'impossible' in the real world - it is literally defined as things happening without apparent or appropriate causation. Magic also comes with a bunch of literary and cultural baggage that mostly involves chanting and old men and sacrifices, but pretty much all cultures tag their magic differently. Magic is stuff that it's impossible, but it isn't the summation of all things that are impossible. Take Superman. Superman isn't magic. His power is magic as far as we in the real world are concerned, because he has powers that offer no apparent causation, but in his universe he operates off of some bullshit science analog. It isn't magic because it isn't arcane - it's inherent, it follows laws separate from what DC considers 'magic' and is some kind of super-humanity thing that makes him inherently awesome. It is a kind of Impossible that is not Magic. Take Hercules. He exists in a universe with people who can do literal magic. He is not Hermes. He is not Apollo, but his strength would be considered Impossible but it is not Arcane, it does not require ritual or utterance to use, nor does it require any special effort of Will to use. It is an inherent part of his demigod status. Take Beowulf. He's a lot like the above examples except there's not even an attempt to explain the source of his power - it's just sorta of there, an innate part of him being a Hero. Ancient Heroes were often just normal people who were so awesome that what they did was clearly Impossible. But it is not Magic, it is not Arcane. A further problem exists wherein people assume that since Wizards are Magic and can do the Impossible, they can therefore do Anything. That is not necessarily a clear line of thinking. The writers of the DnD universe have license to define the rules and limitations of magic - it isn't just a box that says, "All the poo poo that's Impossible". Magic in DnD is basically a very specific kind of science. There's really no reason all the Impossible poo poo needs to be Magic. Which brings us back to the Fighter. I think part of the problem is this inherent need to source where all power comes from. I don't see any reason why you couldn't give Fighters a few background/origin things to explain why they're so awesome, if that's what people need so badly. Mendrian fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
seebs posted:I guess I don't see the problem. Some people like playing a character who does lots of magic and obviously impossible stuff, some people like playing a character whose options are pretty plausible. As long as they're both reasonably viable, I don't think it's bad at all for the game to let people get fundamentally different play styles. But consider this: At-will spells basically give wizards infinite arrows. You think about how an adult blue dragon would react to an army of skeletons marching on his lair, but have you considered a society where some people had infinite projectiles? How would it develop? Would swords an armor even be a thing anymore? If you decide magic users are very rare, that gives them that much more spotlight in the party. So is the game about fantasy Vietnam and deadly traps and disease? Then why is character creation invested with so much detail? Is it high-powered adventure through a world of wonder? Then why do some characters get to interact with the wonder and some don't? I feel D&D is poorly communicated because it tries to be everything, while being very much its own thing. This edition relies heavily on the skill of the DM rather than the robustness of its own rules. That isn't a bad thing, but if you're going to go rules-lite, go rules-lite. If you want to be crunchy and tactical, you need to take a closer look at balance. 5E sits in an awkward middle ground on almost every level. Back to Animate Dead, it isn't going to be an issue for a long time, but a player may have planned around it. It may be the player's goal to have an army of minions to order about. Saying there aren't enough bones or whatever takes a lot of fun away from that player. In the same way, one player may want to be a mighty Conan, but be in a party full of Weird Wizards who take care of every problem before he can draw his sword. Clever DMing and group communication will alleviate these problems, but they are not guaranteed. Designers should be searching for issues like this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
seebs posted:Is it really a serious "GM fiat" thing to observe that, most of the time, you just don't have enough sets of bones to hand to animate 40+ skeletons?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
jigokuman posted:I think we share similar tastes. We could play a fairly down-to-earth game of fantasy and have a good time. Honestly, I don't really want Cuchulain or Hercules powers on fighters, or whirlwinds of particle effects whenever a barbarian starts raging. I could still play that and have a good time, too, though. And here's the kicker; in a better designed version of D&D Next you could totally have this and people who want Cuchulain and Hercules could also have this in the same game thanks to the magic of a little thing I like to call "levels." The tool for adjusting how fantastical your fantasy game gets is right there. People into low-level, down-to-earth fantasy could have that by sticking to, just spitballing, 1-6 or maybe even 1-10 with 10 being the upper bounds of "plausible," then levels after that open up more and more fantastical poo poo. For everyone. That's the sticking point though, Fighters and Wizards in this "traditional D&D" that Next is supposed to be aping aren't playing the same game. I mean dang, this is even explicitly spelled out in Next itself, that thing where it talks about "as magical characters rise in level they gain the ability to perform many feats that people would consider impossible, as martial characters rise in level they can attack more." That is literally a thing someone wrote and put in Next. Wizards and other assorted characters in the same mold have the full breadth of the plausibility/fantastical scale while martial classes remain stuck on the "plausible" side all the way through to level 20.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
jigokuman posted:I think we share similar tastes. We could play a fairly down-to-earth game of fantasy and have a good time. Honestly, I don't really want Cuchulain or Hercules powers on fighters, or whirlwinds of particle effects whenever a barbarian starts raging. I could still play that and have a good time, too, though. I agree with you. And this is what I consider to be the biggest issue with the fighter/wizard thing. I don't need Beowulf or Hercules in my game, and I'd honestly prefer Conan to either of them. Thing is, if you've got Conan-esque fighters (which D&D does pretty well - they're tough and dangerous, but not superhuman) you need Conan-esque wizards too. D&D is very bad at Conan-esque wizards. D&D wizards do everything every fictional wizard can do plus some stuff that's unique to D&D. Thing is, Cuchulain-lite and "A totally mundane dude with 200 soldiers" are probably about equivalent to each other and to (earlier) D&D wizards. We could have all these things in the same game if the game had modules, but apparently 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
Ohhh. Okay, I get it now. So, basically, the kind of stuff Exalted was good at. I think that's probably, and this may sound odd, higher-fantasy than D&D normally is. I mean, yeah, you could have epic fighters doing that, but then they'd probably be up against wizards who were moving mountains rather than just throwing a few meteors. Also, I started doing some back-of-the-envelope numbers, and I'm not sure I believe that, in actual combat, the skeletons are going to beat the fighter so easily. They can't use meaningful tactics, the necromancer can only give one order at a time (although they can give that order to any number of skeletons within 60 feet of them at once). And actually looking at the dragon's options, I think it has a pretty good shot at destroying the skeletons. The breath weapon range is long enough that the skeletons won't be under active control unless the necromancer is in range. The skeletons have about a 30% chance to hit it, but only a few can try per turn, and then it just takes its wing attack after one of their turns and pretty much instantly kills most of the nearby skeletons; they're vulnerable to bludgeoning, and only have about a 15% chance of making that dex save. I also don't see anything making skeletons immune to fear, although that might be in the monster manual. If they aren't, I'm not even sure more than a few at a time can even approach it. So, yeah, if the dragon lies there waiting until the skeletons fully surround it, then has 16 of them attacking at once, it might take ~5 hits per round for d6+8, which is about 1/4 of its hit points per round... But it's going to be able to kill a whole lot of them very quickly, and be airborne, then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
It occurs to me that 5e could have had it both ways, by bringing back a classic feature of the old game. Imagine if the game had adnd style non-uniform xp requirements. Now imagine if the classes were balanced by level, but some classes such as wizards, gained level far more quickly. Then put an optional rule in the game saying 'you can ignore xp and just have everyone level up at the end of a storyline'. Everyone could get what they wanted! People playing Wizards in old school games, would be far more powerful than people who picked classes like fighter. And fans of 4e could have their balanced classes, and do away with finnicky XP totals in the bargain. Alas, a key part of the grog psychosis is their denial that what they really want is to play a character with a much higher level than everyone else at the table. A Catastrophe fucked around with this message at 08:44 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
seebs posted:I think that's probably, and this may sound odd, higher-fantasy than D&D normally is. I mean, yeah, you could have epic fighters doing that, but then they'd probably be up against wizards who were moving mountains rather than just throwing a few meteors. Yep, throwing a spear so that it kills 3 dudes and then comes back to you is more fantastic than shooting fire out of your hands and then raising the dead to fight for you 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
jigokuman posted:I think we share similar tastes. We could play a fairly down-to-earth game of fantasy and have a good time. Honestly, I don't really want Cuchulain or Hercules powers on fighters, or whirlwinds of particle effects whenever a barbarian starts raging. I could still play that and have a good time, too, though. Hmm. Wizard has infinite castings of 4d10. 4d10+something for evoker. 120' range. Fighter has to use ammunition, but that's four attacks per attack action, 1d6+dex each, probably +1 because I bet you've got a magic bow by that level. Range is 80/320, and the fighter had better have stuff by 20th level to give him advantage so he's not at disadvantage at long range. And the fighter can also just swing a sword, forever, 4 attacks every round or more. It's not totally one-sided. quote:Back to Animate Dead, it isn't going to be an issue for a long time, but a player may have planned around it. It may be the player's goal to have an army of minions to order about. Saying there aren't enough bones or whatever takes a lot of fun away from that player. In the same way, one player may want to be a mighty Conan, but be in a party full of Weird Wizards who take care of every problem before he can draw his sword. Clever DMing and group communication will alleviate these problems, but they are not guaranteed. Designers should be searching for issues like this. If I were trying to do undead armies, as long as I had the option of going and finding bones, that would be a fun thing. But I would totally not expect to just automatically always have access to 50+ piles of bones. That'd be silly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
It's not silly at all, you're just being disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Yep, throwing a spear so that it kills 3 dudes and then comes back to you is more fantastic than shooting fire out of your hands and then raising the dead to fight for you It's not that it's "more fantastic". It's that it contradicts things we know, rather than obviously being completely outside our experience. We know how "throwing objects" works. We have no idea at all how magic works. So the suspension of disbelief is harder; we have to simultaneously think about things we know about how physical objects work and completely disregard them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
I'm going to write a big post later but seriously what the hell is this skeleton availability thing. You go to a battlefield. Done. Easy. Simple. Thousands of skeletons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
A Catastrophe posted:It's not silly at all, you're just being disingenuous. I'm mostly used to quasi-simulationist GMing, where the answer to the question "are there a lot of bones here" is primarily determined by where you are and what the GM thinks the world should be like there, not whether or not the GM loves or hates the necromancer idea. Go to a small town, kill everyone? You have a lot of corpses. Out in the wilderness? There may not be any usable corpses in range.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:I'm going to write a big post later but seriously what the hell is this skeleton availability thing. You go to a battlefield. Done. Easy. Simple. Thousands of skeletons. Okay, so how do you keep these thousands of skeletons around while you are adventuring not precisely at the battlefield? I guess a demiplane or something could be a starting point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
seebs posted:It's not that it's "more fantastic". It's that it contradicts things we know, rather than obviously being completely outside our experience. We know how "throwing objects" works. We have no idea at all how magic works. So the suspension of disbelief is harder; we have to simultaneously think about things we know about how physical objects work and completely disregard them. Ok, let me rephrase. Yep, throwing a spear so that it kills 3 dudes and then comes back to you is .You don't have to think about how physical objects actually work, because you're imagining it. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Aug 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
Wizard power was always supposedly limited by how much diamond dust and batshit and rose scrotums they have in their pockets, but no one ever tracks that poo poo. Suddenly dead bodies are supposed to be a limiting factor? There is literally only one thing that murderhobos contribute to the economy, and that's corpses. Requiring that the necromancer actually track where all the skeletons come from just means that now the fighter has to push around a wagon to carry all the orcs you've killed so far.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
seebs posted:Hmm. Wizard has infinite castings of 4d10. 4d10+something for evoker. 120' range. On top of graveyards existing, adventurers generate skeletons by being adventures through the process of killing things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
seebs posted:Ohhh. Okay, I get it now. I would hesitate to say that Exalted was necessarily good at anything but something you really ought to be taking away from what I'm telling you is that Beowulf didn't have a bunch of nerds ginning up a background full of essence shards and charms to explain why he could rip a monster's arm off and club it to death singlehandedly or how he could swim an ocean in full armor then have a furious battle underwater that raged for hours, he just did it. There was no need to "plausibly frame" Beowulf's incredible prowess in the context of some kind of chi or "martial magic" or whatever, he did it because he was an incredible badass warrior hero and that's what badass warrior heroes do. seebs posted:I think that's probably, and this may sound odd, higher-fantasy than D&D normally is. I mean, yeah, you could have epic fighters doing that, but then they'd probably be up against wizards who were moving mountains rather than just throwing a few meteors. "Just throwing a few meteors, no big deal. Y'know, low fantasy stuff." Seriously, look at the things you're saying here. Do you not see the dissonance in it, like, even a little bit? What is a "Level 20 Fighter," that is to say the peak pinnacle of fighterness, supposed to be then in a game where level 20 Wizards are throwing meteors and casting Wish? Why is it that one set of characters have to abide by your imaginatively-stunted conception of what a legendary warrior should "plausibly" be while Wizards can just toss around "a few meteors" and it's no big deal? This is something that comes into play even before you hit level 20 as well by the way as handily illustrated by the fact that a Fighter in Next is never going to be the cause of the sorts of GM hoop-jumping and "common sensing" necessary in the wake of summoning you own private undead army. All the ways you can fiat someone's skeleton army into irrelevance misses the forest for the trees, which is that it's only spellcasters that cause this sort of issue in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 07:03 |
|
|
It'd be easy to balance evocation magic and martial class features (they haven't really done it, but it would be easy). But when you get outside of combat, or even into unconventional applications of "fantasy physics" powers into combat situations, it becomes harder to come up with ways to translate feats of strength into narrative power. This is not insurmountable, but it is limiting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 08:53
|
|