Your argument about "access to all magic" is only valid under 1E rules, in 2E a character needs only be a mage (or perhaps wild mage) to access virtually all arcane magic. Another flaw: unless the character has superhuman (19+) INT score, or he intends to spend many centuries researching every possible spell formulae (like Elminster), there is a cap on the maximum number of spells he can actually learn/use.
Those XP comparisons don't seem especially meaningful, Fighters and Mages bounce around, sometimes one needs higher XP, sometimes the other, and Thief/Cleric classes aren't even relevant in this discussion. Again, these values only apply to 1E; in 2E the charts consistently indicate that Fighters require more XP than Mages at all the higher levels. In 3E they were changed again, and almost all characters deliberately became multiclasses anyhow.
I was only talking about AD&D Ayrik...and yes, I mentioned that a caster with 18 Int can only have a certain number of spells. I think I'm really confused on whether you are arguing against me or with me on how the power of Magic-Users was really limited in several ways compared to newer versions of wizards.
As for the XP, it is specifically important. The experience matches the relative power of the classes at the levels...Wizards require more experience at low levels because spells such as Sleep can allow a wizard to put to sleep several first level characters (as an example). At mid levels, the other classes won't succumb to such magics, and the wizard can't affect them as easily, and so his needed experience wanes somewhat. Then as the levels increase, the required experience again begins to increase because the sheer power of the caster's magic needs to be balanced.
I'm not sure how that isn't clear?
I mean, I'll gladly try to explain in another way.
Yes, AD&D 1E Magic-Users and Illusionists were very limited. AD&D 2E Mages and Specialist Mages a little less limited. D&D 3E Wizards enjoyed all the inflated benefits that were available to every other class, and Sorcerers flatly defied the traditionally established Vancian order central to early D&D spellcasting.
I understand your arguments about XP comparisons; two characters with equal XP and different classes will often have different levels, and in the case of spellcasters one level can mean access to an entirely new collection of more powerful spells. My point is that the specific examples you list don't really apply unless people play AD&D 1E. Sure, 1E Magic-Users and Fighters with equal XP alternate while racing to high levels, and the Magic-Users need much more XP to finish, and the results in 2E are very different. But that still doesn't actually say anything about which class is stronger; while it matters little whether the Fighter is level 17 or 18 or 19, it matters a lot whether the Magic-User is 17 or 18. Carried to extremes, with characters both at, say, level 100, the Magic-User will clearly have much more power because in 1E there were no caps on the number of per-level damage dice or modifiers applied to certain spells; it could become so wildly unbalanced and wobbly that it's just basically a game of luck (roll dice, player with higher roll kills opponent first) or of who's equipped with better gear (does Fighter die when automatically hit by magic missiles for 49d4+49 damage, or is he wearing a brooch of shielding?). 1E Fighter/Magic-User multi-classes were restricted to certain demihumans and maximum level caps, while dual-classes required phenomenal attributes and suffered penalties while switching classes; both combinations stacked the XP requirements, so they were also always a few levels behind the curve.
Thats something I never got, and agreed with 3e's philosophy - why should different classes level at different rates?
Doesn't the math work-out exactly the same if you just dialed-back the wizard's abilities, or pushed the better spells outward (Monty Cook came up with a 20-level spell progression system, which I would think flows better with levels).
In other words, instead of making it harder for a mage to reach level 15 (or whatever), push whatever power he was getting up to level 16. Why nerf the level itself? That was counter-intuitive.
If they would just make spells take wind/fatigue, then a mage gets nerfed by his stamina - its fairly easy to place controlling-factors on classes, without making them all equal. That way, when the wizard exhausts himself (and possibly passes out), his friend the fighter is there to pick up the slack, and protect him.
Half of me hates 4e's 'self-heal' of all classes, and half of me loves it. It goes against the grain, but it does help round-out the cleric into something more then a walking first-aid kit. I've played the healer, and it sucked.
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
The differing rates of level progression are (ideally) calculated in a scalar way which makes classes with more abilities progress slower than classes with fewer abilities.
An extreme example is the 1E barbarian class, a decidedly dominant class at level 1 which needs some 50,000xp to progress to level 2. 1E/2E Greyhawk Adventures provided an optional system where characters could start at 0-level and earn their level 1 class skills, possibly ending up missing a few minor abilities normal for their class or possessing a few normal to another class - future progression was in their chosen class with some XP modifier, for example a fighter who could Move Silently and Hide in Shadows as a thief of half his level would have to earn about +10% XP to advance in levels.
The 2E DMG provided a rough rules system for creating or modifying classes ... not perfect and generally a poor choice for creating new classes, but reasonably well-suited for making minor adjustments for unique class variants. For example, a thief might have limited spellcasting (similar to the bard matrix) within the schools of illusion ... and the increased "multiplier" on his XP matrix would mean about +750XP to hit level 2, although perhaps it could be offset if some limits (like inability to wear any armor and losing thief backstab ability) were chosen to balance it out.
The "2.5E" Options books basically used point-buy systems for each race and class. Players could choose to let their wizard become specialized with a 2-handed sword, again at the cost of trading off other abilities (like a few schools of magic) or paying an increased XP advancement cost.
I personally feel these systems are better than the interchangeable "one size fits all" of 3E onwards. Perhaps not better mechanically, but better in the sense that they appeal to my grognard sensibilities. At least 3E didn't need to introduce similar class-building point-buy rules; players already had far too many options to overcustomize every minute facet of their builds. In older AD&D you had to work within the framework given by the premade build designed into your class, and the most important "build" was actually interaction of specially-fit roles in the party instead of interchangeable parts.
I think they should take a page from Pathfinder and throw in 3 different XP tables: a slow rate, a moderate rate, and a fast rate so the DM can decide how fast his group is going to level based on the campaign he wants.
As for differentiating XP charts that change class by class, sorry but I think that's a bit convoluted sub-system and I can see why it hasn't been around for the last two editions.
quote:Originally posted by Markustay
Half of me hates 4e's 'self-heal' of all classes, and half of me loves it. It goes against the grain, but it does help round-out the cleric into something more then a walking first-aid kit. I've played the healer, and it sucked.
Funny you mention this because on Monday night we were playing 4E and the groups leader (my Genasi Warlord) was dropped to -8 HP in two rounds, thus stopping anyone from receiving some decent healing. They were all stuck with their Once per encounter Second Wind. At the end of the battle, everyone had to use it up and the Berserker had 1/46 hp left, the Bladesinger had 8/38 left, and the other two were both down to approx 1/4 their total HP. Had they NOT had that capability, the Berserker would've went down as well as the Bladesinger. Suffice to say, that was a balanced encounter of monsters equal to our approprite level and one or two lucky blows from them almost saw 3 PCs to their deaths.
In other words, instead of making it harder for a mage to reach level 15 (or whatever), push whatever power he was getting up to level 16. Why nerf the level itself? That was counter-intuitive.
How is taking away the benefits of a level not nerfing it?
Thats something I never got, and agreed with 3e's philosophy - why should different classes level at different rates?
-A pain in the ass, I would assume.
-These things are like the tides, I am guessing, and back when 2e existed, people were complaining about the complexity of experience points, and were wishing that everyone just leveled up the same.
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
To me it made sense really. A College Education takes more time for sure than Graduating from Highschool...
While I don't think the idea will be implemented into D&D:Next, I don't see why there can't be a variant rule to allow this sort of style. Like I said earlier, Pathfinder had 3 different tables that progressed XP and I don't see why you can't assign each table to a specific set of classes with level caps. A Fighter, Barbarian, or other semi-easy class to play and learn gets a very quick XP table yet only caps out at X level. The Cleric, Rogue, and/or Bard gets the middle-ground XP table but gets a few levels more while the Wizard/Sorcerer, Warlock gets the least speedy XP table but can achieve the highest level you can and gets some good power to boot.
Can't say I'd ever be fond of this personally, but it could be a variant rule to use.
To me it made sense really. A College Education takes more time for sure than Graduating from Highschool...
-In four years, with two 15-credit semesters a year (from late August/early September to late May/early June) it actually doesn't. But, that's neither here nor there. What I would ask is: Does a physicist study harder to excel in his profession than a plumber? A statistician as compared to teacher? It's all relatively apples and oranges- aspects of learning to cast magic are more difficult than, say, mastering how to expertly shoot a bow and arrow, but aspects of learning to cast magic are also less difficult than mastering how to expertly shoot a bow and arrow.
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
To me it made sense really. A College Education takes more time for sure than Graduating from Highschool...
-In four years, with two 15-credit semesters a year (from late August/early September to late May/early June) it actually doesn't. But, that's neither here nor there. What I would ask is: Does a physicist study harder to excel in his profession than a plumber? A statistician as compared to teacher? It's all relatively apples and oranges- aspects of learning to cast magic are more difficult than, say, mastering how to expertly shoot a bow and arrow, but aspects of learning to cast magic are also less difficult than mastering how to expertly shoot a bow and arrow.
How in the Nine Hells can ya say that "aspects of learning to cast magic are also less difficult than mastering how to expertly shoot a bow and arrow"?
I can't even comprehend the process required to literally create something from nothing...hell, by waving their hands and speaking words these folks defy logic and reason. I don't see that there is ANY comparison to any craft that mankind currently knows that can equal what an imaginary wizard can do!
Furthermore, I'm a decent shot with a bow; and I can tell you that "learning" to shoot a bow took FAR LESS time than learning the intricate details of the human psyche!
quote:Furthermore, I'm a decent shot with a bow; and I can tell you that "learning" to shoot a bow took FAR LESS time than learning the intricate details of the human psyche!
I would imagine that shooting arrows at a target on a shooting range is slightly easier than shooting at mobile armored opponents who are trying to kill you.
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
quote:Furthermore, I'm a decent shot with a bow; and I can tell you that "learning" to shoot a bow took FAR LESS time than learning the intricate details of the human psyche!
I would imagine that shooting arrows at a target on a shooting range is slightly easier than shooting at mobile armored opponents who are trying to kill you.
Not any harder than shooting a deer...
And not to be nit-picky; but archers in medieval warfare were not aiming at targets as much as locations...despite what we see in the various incarnations of the Robin Hood movies.
How in the Nine Hells can ya say that "aspects of learning to cast magic are also less difficult than mastering how to expertly shoot a bow and arrow"?
I can't even comprehend the process required to literally create something from nothing...hell, by waving their hands and speaking words these folks defy logic and reason. I don't see that there is ANY comparison to any craft that mankind currently knows that can equal what an imaginary wizard can do!
Furthermore, I'm a decent shot with a bow; and I can tell you that "learning" to shoot a bow took FAR LESS time than learning the intricate details of the human psyche!
Probably because we have absoutley no measure of how hard it would be to cast magic. For all we know, it could just require some simple gestures with your hand in conjunction with words and the right component and *poof*....Magic. Seems to me that it would take some measure of one's self in the process such as lifting weights takes a toll on your body, physically. But we're talking about a game that really isn't supposed to deal with realism. Despite what some people might belive, D&D never did simulation well and to expect one (or a few) classes to be extreamly based on realism and falling prey to the aspects of what we believe to be reality while completley turning away from aspects that defy what we know as reality will create a game that will have magic ultimately rule all.
As such, we have classes that defy logic, draw on physical reserves unknown to most mortal men/women, and defy the basic logic as we understand it. So Fighters who jump 15 ft. into the air with their full-plate on, Cleaving through people's bodies (with full-armor on), shooting 4 people in the face within a 6-second peroid are all at the furthest end of human capability.
Very true...I can concede that as you have described it.
However, we also have (in the games, novels, etc) the fact that magic is described as "Beyond the mortal ken..." and such. That is the basis of what I'm saying: Even in a world where fighters can do as you have described (which is beyond anything I'VE ever seen), wizards are still described as doing things beyond the comprehension of mortal men and women.
So with that, I still say Wizards (or more what they do) should be considered beyond the understanding and ability of "mere mortals" and such.
Very true...I can concede that as you have described it.
However, we also have (in the games, novels, etc) the fact that magic is described as "Beyond the mortal ken..." and such. That is the basis of what I'm saying: Even in a world where fighters can do as you have described (which is beyond anything I'VE ever seen), wizards are still described as doing things beyond the comprehension of mortal men and women.
So with that, I still say Wizards (or more what they do) should be considered beyond the understanding and ability of "mere mortals" and such.
Right, but without a litmus test for us to go by, no one really knows how hard magic is to use. Which begs the question, are Wizards "magical" in nature of their being or is it just a learned practice one might obtain like...math?
Very true...I can concede that as you have described it.
However, we also have (in the games, novels, etc) the fact that magic is described as "Beyond the mortal ken..." and such. That is the basis of what I'm saying: Even in a world where fighters can do as you have described (which is beyond anything I'VE ever seen), wizards are still described as doing things beyond the comprehension of mortal men and women.
So with that, I still say Wizards (or more what they do) should be considered beyond the understanding and ability of "mere mortals" and such.
Right, but without a litmus test for us to go by, no one really knows how hard magic is to use. Which begs the question, are Wizards "magical" in nature of their being or is it just a learned practice one might obtain like...math?
I don't think we need a test Diffan...it is told to us as fact.
Magic is sometimes even described as "impossible" for those that don't have a "talent" for the Art!
Though you could also say I just shot myself in the foot...because that could be taken to say that some evolutionary quirk (or Mutation) makes it possible for some to learn magic and others not.
I think pre-3e it was assumed that Wizards were 'special'.
In 3e, anyone could learn magic, so long as they took a dip in a mage-class, and Sorcerers became the special ones.
quote:Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:Originally posted by Markustay
In other words, instead of making it harder for a mage to reach level 15 (or whatever), push whatever power he was getting up to level 16. Why nerf the level itself? That was counter-intuitive.
How is taking away the benefits of a level not nerfing it?
My point is this - if a Warrior needs 100,000 EP for level 12, and a mage 120,000 EP for level 12 (when he gets some new ability/spell), then make level 13 cost 120,000 points and give him his goodies then.
The Experience Points needed to gain the spell remains the same. You don't need to adjust level costs, you need to adjust what you get at certain levels (so they work-out pretty damn close to what it would have been under a more convoluted system). In fact, you can just ignore levels altogether and create a system that gives abilities at certain EP totals (its almost as if you have to buy feats, abilities, and spells with Experience). That way, a Mage gets a certain level spell at 250,000 EP, regardless of what his actual level may be (this would also allow for gaining abilities at half-levels, and what-not).
So you can take the 1e/2e systems, disassemble them, and put them back together with an equalized character leveling system, and still give the same perks at the exact same EP plateaus. Character level affects many of the game mechanics, otherwise I would say just get rid of them completely.
*I had more here about game math, but it was going way off-topic.
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
Why does there need to be a chart printed for the varying XP progressions? I would rather see that space better utilized. If you guys really want an XP progression chart for 4e, just say the word. I'll post it here :p
A high-level fighter should basically be a wizard with a sword. He can't do flashy things like slinging fireballs or putting all his enemies to sleep, but the tricks and stunts he can pull off with that blade should be just short of actually magical. We've all seen Troy (discussion of that movie's quality tabled!)--Achilles wasn't magical, and there was nothing about his fighting that was enhanced by mysticism. He was just that crazy-good, and he looked like nothing human when he fought.
I'm a firm believer, in the case of D&D mechanics, in separate but equal. High level fighters and high level wizards should both have a place on the battlefield. For the wizard, it's taking down massive hordes of enemies with awesome, titanic spells. For the fighter, it's mopping up tough foes one by one. A powerful fighter should be able to wade through some of a wizard's best tricks--look at Conan, for example, from Howard's original stories. This doesn't make the wizard useless--far from it--but it does limit him from being all powerful. Fighters are best suited to fighting other fighters, wizards to fighting other wizards.
A fight between a PC wizard and a PC fighter should be like all fights between PCs--situational. The winner is determined more by the context of the fight than by raw power.
I guess this makes me an advocate of the 4e direction of making the classes separate-but-equal (and Pathfinder is doing that a little too).
Re: XP: From my earliest days of gaming, I never bothered much with experience points. Characters advanced when I thought it was appropriate for the story/game. Now that I run a 4e game, I've done away with experience altogether except as a measure of how tough an encounter is, and the PCs just advance at the end of each adventure.
For me, having different characters with different levels in the party at the same time was often more trouble than it was worth, in terms of player jealousy and introducing new characters who are supposed to be the "average" level of the characters in the party. For instance, we'd have a party of mostly fighters and thieves who shot up to 10th level or so, and then someone brought in a wizard who suddenly has more experience than everyone else even though he's only the average level.
Staggered XP progression is not a very effective balancing tool--to my mind, the only way to balance one PC class against another is to monkey with the abilities they get at the same levels.
True story: In 2e we used to play with the rule that in order to derive XP from a monster, you had to cause damage to it. You didn't have to kill it yourself, but you had to contribute to reducing its hit points. This rule most broke down this time we were in the Underdark, we turned a corner and surprised a deep dragon. My thief won initiative, shot it with her hand crossbow for 1 point of damage, then ran away. The dragon went next, breathed on the rest of the party for massive damage, and a huge fight ensued. Meanwhile, my thief helped herself to the dragon's hoard, thus also getting extra XP for every GP gained, plus the XP for helping to kill the dragon. The other players were FURIOUS with me. Good times.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars"
I have a similar experience when I retro-fitted the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief into my Forgotten Realms Campaign.
When the party went into the Main Hall of the steading (ya know...the place where the DOZENS of giants and such were!), the melee types waded in heavy, with the clerics and thief backing them up...meanwhile, the party wizard didn't even go into the room. She stayed outside and shaped the battlefield with spells like Wall of Ice, Wall of Force, Wall of Iron...she played crowd control.
She didn't get a single hit in if I recall...but without her, the party couldn't have finished the fight at all. When it was time to award experience after that battle, I actually had a player complain that the wizard hadn't helped kill anything and shouldn't get a split of the experience. His name was Malik "the Freed" of Calimshan; and never was there a more greedy fella.
I've kinda wandered off the trail with that, but it was important to say because the wizard (called Myste) deserved perhaps more xp than Malik because she had actually saved several lives!
I guess everything is relative regarding experience awards.
Getting back to the question at hand that I have...it is just hard for me to deal with levels I suppose in regards to a powerful wizard. All through fantasy literature you find reference to the fact that a powerful wizard is too much to handle without certain help.
I mean, is everyone comfortable saying that a fighter that is the same "level" as Elminster should be able to go toe to toe with the fella on ANY playing field?
How that Lich Tam...should a similar level fighter be able to equally take him on?
Why is there so much emphasis on all the powerful wizards in the Forgotten Realms...and yet only a select few warriors are given the same fame?
To me, perhaps the level system itself is to blame...but we need it for the game.
I just think all those power-hungry evil wizards wouldn't have bothered to spend their ENTIRE LIFE studying magic to gain "Ultimate Power" if they could be simply equal to someone who spent their life cutting foes to ribbons with a sword.
Yeah...I know "Well, if they were a weakling, they did it to be strong!"...but that doesn't explain away the likes of wizards who are physically powerful and genius who could probably master the sword just as easily as magic...but chose magic over the blade because it gave them access to accomplish feats that no "mere mortal" could EVER dream of doing.
I think it's difficult to get this "right" in a way that's satisfactory to everyone because the discussion conflates two things, game balance and our sense of what makes sense on a non-rules story kind of level.
If you tell me that fighters and wizards of equal level should be equally powerful and fun to play in the game, I'm likely to say that sounds like a great approach.
But suppose you tell me, "Here's Sir Brawny. He's the best swordsman in Southeastern Lower Middle-Earth. And over there's Magister Hoodoo. He can stop time, cause earthquakes, command devils, and make fire rain down on his enemies from the sky. The two of them are equally powerful." That's going to sound crazy to me.
I think it's difficult to get this "right" in a way that's satisfactory to everyone because the discussion conflates two things, game balance and our sense of what makes sense on a non-rules story kind of level.
If you tell me that fighters and wizards of equal level should be equally powerful and fun to play in the game, I'm likely to say that sounds like a great approach.
But suppose you tell me, "Here's Sir Brawny. He's the best swordsman in Southeastern Lower Middle-Earth. And over there's Magister Hoodoo. He can stop time, cause earthquakes, command devils, and make fire rain down on his enemies from the sky. The two of them are equally powerful." That's going to sound crazy to me.
Thank you for describing my emotions better than I could express them!
How in the Nine Hells can ya say that "aspects of learning to cast magic are also less difficult than mastering how to expertly shoot a bow and arrow"?
-Because they are. Aspects of being a linguist are easier than aspects of being, say, a janitor. In terms of magic and archery, memorizing specific arcane phrases that trigger a spell is easier as compared to properly drawing, notching, and firing a bow while on horseback, in the rain, in the dark.
-Again, saying that magic is harder than physical studies, carte blanche, is apples and oranges. A physicist doesn't study any more or less hard in order to excel in his profession than a plumber does.
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
How in the Nine Hells can ya say that "aspects of learning to cast magic are also less difficult than mastering how to expertly shoot a bow and arrow"?
-Because they are. Aspects of being a linguist are easier than aspects of being, say, a janitor. In terms of magic and archery, memorizing specific arcane phrases that trigger a spell is easier as compared to properly drawing, notching, and firing a bow while on horseback, in the rain, in the dark.
-Again, saying that magic is harder than physical studies, carte blanche, is apples and oranges. A physicist doesn't study any more or less hard in order to excel in his profession than a plumber does.
First, I disagree with your last statement completely. Having learned plumbing when helping to build houses, I can say it was FAR easier than learning the advanced mathematics that I had to study when trying to learn a bit about physics...and I began to study psychology SPECIFICALLY because it was easier than Physics. Things are easier in certain areas...period.
Regarding firing an arrow from horseback...at night...in the rain...
I haven't tried that, but archery has more to do with muscle memory and matters of repetitive action/instinct...just like Martial Arts in general. When I'm going through the motions of Kenpo Kata created by my hero Ed Parker, I'm not applying thought...it is action that comes from muscle memory and instinct. By continuing to practice this it becomes more intuitive and not intellectual.
On the other hand, when I'm applying what I've learned in Psychology, there are methods and procedures that I must apply to various situations. There is no "instinct" to it, but strict measures and means that are allowed.
I know the learning of something...anything really...includes short term memory and constantly "re-doing" of it to learn it; but certain things are stored differently in our brains.
Standing across from someone in a competition of a martial skill is NOT the same as simply applying procedure to gain the end that you desire. In my personal views, it is not something that can be measured when considering mastery. Just because someone can physically demonstrate mastery of Kata, doesn't make them a true martial arts master if they can't instinctively USE what they have learned. I dare say that there are many "fighters" in the world that would lay a serious can of whoop-ass on me, despite my abilities in Kenpo!
I'm rambling...I do that...
What I'm trying to get at is that since we really can't say for certain what it takes to know how to master magical abilities...we can't argue one way or another about the difficulty involved.
What we CAN do is take the words of authors...the creators of those who use magic...and take their words as "law" when they say it is more difficult to do than anything else in the world the wizard lives within!
First, I disagree with your last statement completely. Having learned plumbing when helping to build houses, I can say it was FAR easier than learning the advanced mathematics that I had to study when trying to learn a bit about physics...and I began to study psychology SPECIFICALLY because it was easier than Physics. Things are easier in certain areas...period.
-Agreed. I dropped my physics class because, while I like the concept of studying physics, I am bad at mathematics and extremely lazy, to the point that I don't study ever, period, even if I have to. That doesn't change the fact that because of one's profession, they have to study any more or less to become proficient in what they do, though. That depends on the person, not the profession. The amount of time and effort a five-year old prodigy takes to play Beethoven's 5th Symphony on the piano flawlessly is going to be considerably less than the amount of time and effort it takes me to do the same thing. Likewise, the amount of time and effort I have to put into something as simple as cleaning a room until it's sparking will be considerably less so than the amount of time and effort that five-year old prodigy will put into it. We're both doing the same things, but in both cases, I have to put more effort into achieving the same level as the kid, and he/she needs to put in more effort into achieving the same level as me, doing the same exact activities.
quote:Originally posted by Dalor Darden
By continuing to practice this it becomes more intuitive and not intellectual.
-That it's instinct or intellectual (and intellectual pursuits become repeatable through repetitive use as well; an accountant doing people's taxes isn't searching his memory for the basic formula for lines. He knows what formula gets used wherever through repetition of use) makes no difference. You're agreeing that, whatever the profession, or hobby is, a deal of energy and effort needs to be expended to become proficient in it. A martial artist dedicates hours and hours of his life to perfecting any one particular move. A computer programmer dedicates hours and hours of his life to writing a program that has no obvious flaws/exploitables/crashes/etc. A cook spends hours and hours of his life to perfecting his ability to cook any random meal without flaw. A writer spends hours and hours of his life writing and perfecting his "mind's voice". A baseball player spends hours and hours of his life perfecting his swing or developing his pitches. A teacher spends hours and hours of his life becoming familiar with the materials he is going to teach his students (as well as how to best teach them). A surgeon spends hours and hours of his life practicing his craft. And on it goes, regardless of the profession. That someone is becoming a surgeon instead of a baseball player, or vice-versa, that means that they need to try harder, or less hard to become considered good at what they do? No.
quote:Originally posted by Dalor Darden
What we CAN do is take the words of authors...the creators of those who use magic...and take their words as "law" when they say it is more difficult to do than anything else in the world the wizard lives within!
-Indeed. All classes gain EXP equally, so there is no inherent handicap between the difficulty of becoming a proficient magician and a proficient warrior.
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Seriously though, it really does just come down to two things:
One is the game we play. I'll concede that everything should be equal.
Second is the novel we read. In it, Wizard's should be more powerful than a sword swinger. Not too powerful to be defeated somehow...but still more powerful.
Seriously though, it really does just come down to two things:
One is the game we play. I'll concede that everything should be equal.
Second is the novel we read. In it, Wizard's should be more powerful than a sword swinger. Not too powerful to be defeated somehow...but still more powerful.
My I ask what one (or yourself, in particular) construes as "Powerful"? I ask because becuase I think this really varies from player to player. When we look at D&D there is often times this competitive level of what my player can do and show off in light of other players. Now, please don't take this to mean that one lords his abilities over another player, or "wins" at D&D by being the best, or doing everything on his own so that he's the star or has all the spotlight. What I mean is we all like to contribute and we all like to have fun and part of that is being REALLY good at something or a few things. My fighter might not be able to sling a ball of fire all day long, scorching his enemies from 50 feet away BUT I can hold off a Balor, keeping him in place and sometimes, when the timing's right, knock him straight on his butt.
So when Powerful is brought up or is questioned with D&D:Next, how does one factor power? Is it dominance in one or more particular areas, be it magical might, social grace, or physical stamina? Is it "winning" battles with a few key, well placed spells? Is it kicking in the teeth of a Lich and shoving your shield into his grille as you paste him over some cobblestone steps? Or is it ALL of these and each one is obtainable depening on what class you play?
Again...within the mechanics of the game I can easily concede that things should be "fair" or "even" for each class at each level.
It is within a novel that we most often find that the constraints of the game simply don't make as much sense...if at all.
How can ANYONE without magical power compare to someone who can manipulate time and space...someone who can make Wishes come true, or cast a single spell that destroys all magic within the spells bounds...or chain the mind of a dragon, chain the mind of a demon...or (as we talk about Karsus) literally steal divinity?
To me, how in the hell can anyone even argue that such a BEING as one who can do these things can be compared to a fighter...how can someone who can BECOME the very God that the "mere mortal" worships be compared to that mortal?
EDIT: sleepy mind forgot to type the entire thought.
High Level Fighter Equal to High Level Wizard?
Posted - 02 May 2012 : 00:43:31
