Best Version of DnD?

[Unruly]

Re: Alexander the great - the sample Alexander has 19 HP at level 3. A CR2 Centaur does 21 damage on a charge. Is that a playable HP count for a front line warrior? 

 

Actually, in 5e, the Centaur charge does an average of 19. Still enough to take out my Alexander, however, on turn 2 it can land an additional 18 damage, which totals enough to take out ANYONE at level 2, and almost anyone at level 3. A level 2 barbarian with 18 Con and fixed value HP(7+Con) like I did for Alexander is only going to have 27hp. At level 3 he's going to have 38, just barely enough to stay standing if the centaur charges and lands both hits in round 2. And in neither case is either character going to be able to do the requisite 45 damage to kill the centaur, barring critical hits, before the centaur just wrecks their world. The barbarian, even if it's a Berserker using frenzied rage and getting that extra attack each turn can only pull off a max of 36 damage with its starting equipment. And all the centaur has to do is kite the barbarian, because the centaur has a speed of 50 and can make 2 longbow attacks per turn. So yea, that level 3 barbarian must be totally useless too, because it dies to a CR2 monster all the time because it can't stop the monster from running away and just using a bow. And the wizard must REALLY suck, because even at level 5 it's going to die to that centaur in about 2 rounds since it's probably only got between 25-30hp. And that's in 5e where wizards have a d6 HD instead of a d4 like in 3.5. With a d4 HD they're going down even easier, since they've probably only got about 20-25hp at level 5.

 

Guess we might as well just scrap D&D completely because no one can survive a centaur solo at level 2, especially not those god-casters. Guess I'd better burn all my books because nothing in them is worth playing anymore...

 

It's obvious that there's no convincing you that fighter's aren't the useless, wimpy, garbage characters that are outperformed in every way by every other class like you think they are, regardless of what edition you're playing. You've got your mind set, and that's all that matters to you. So I'm just going to stop trying.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Unruly

[CthulhuDreams]

 

It's obvious that there's no convincing you that fighter's aren't the useless, wimpy, garbage characters that are outperformed in every way by every other class like you think they are, regardless of what edition you're playing. You've got your mind set, and that's all that matters to you. So I'm just going to stop trying.

 

Fighters in 4E are really well designed. That is the high water mark of what a fighter can be, and it's a tremendous disservice to good design that someone looked at the 4E fighter and then said 'let's make the Champion fighter!' in 5E. I would strongly recommend 4E if you wanted a balanced tactical combat game. 

 

Similarly, the 2E fighter is well designed and a very playable character.

 

A B/X fighter is well designed and is a very playable character. I would strongly recommend B/X or a derivative OSR game if you wanted a dungeon crrawl. 

 

You're putting words in my mouth here. The problem with fighters is *specific* to 3.5E and it's derivatives (5E) because it removed the limitations on spell casters and never rebaselined the other classes to compensation. This discussion started with my position that 3.5E was a bad game because caster supremacy is such a problem, whereas B/X and 4E are good games with a strong central structure that works as a game. 

 

So I find this argument in bad faith. To convince me, you'd have to show me some sort of logical framework by which fighters are good (in 3.5). I've laid down a couple of different frameworks (spotlight sharing, straight combat challenges), but the response is 'play-styles don't match that test' 'I don't like the specific construction of your test because it uses 3.5 rules and not pathfinder' But then someone actually posted how they'd see some sample encounters resolve according their play style, and fighters.. didn't rate a mention in their response which I think proved my point?

 

Set a benchmark and show me how 3.5 fighters meet that benchmark. Then show me that other classes built with the same level of optimization don't blow out that benchmark. 

 

I agree that you're unlikely to convince me that 3.5 fighters are not wimpy, garbage characters that are outperformed in every way by other classes - but that is because when you go through the process of some simple encounters, then run the numbers against a benchmark you'll discover that that is the case. Simulcrum is just one spell that is literally better than the entire class features available to a champion fighter! 

Edited February 28, 2017 by CthulhuDreams

[Unruly]

I showed you a fighter that had the knowledge skills you wanted, you said he was useless because he couldn't survive a solo encounter with a centaur. I show you that neither could any class, not even the god-wizards, and you've ignored it by saying the argument was in bad faith. You flat out said my fighter was unable to climb a rope and survive because he didn't have a skill that doesn't even exist in the edition he was built in. I actually mentioned the edition I was talking about, and it would have been easy enough to look up the SRD to see that Use Rope doesn't exist and that climbing is covered by Athletics. You've got your idea of a fighter built solely on the 3.5 version, and if anyone uses anything other than the 3.5 fighter you disregard it and immediately jump to the 3.5 conclusion.

 

I agreed with you that 3.x handled fighter skills poorly. Previously in this thread I've said that 3.x really screwed fighters over in general. Especially because of how 3.x, and by extension PF, doesn't allow a fighter to actually use his full attacks if he has to move more than 5 feet in a round and that's almost the fighter's whole shtick. But 5e took some huge steps to fixing a lot of the fighter's problems, and from personal experience they've succeeded. The fighter gets all its attacks regardless of movement. Feat trees are entirely gone, meaning that weapon specialization took a huge hit. The fighting style bonuses aren't so great that it becomes completely detrimental to fight with something that isn't affected by it, despite how you argue that 5e forces you to specialize because of them. Fighters can even cast a handful of spells in 5e if you want them to, and it's part of the base class and not some stupid multiclass prestige build. Magical items are much less important, and much rarer, so you don't have to worry about that nearly as much either. A lot of the more powerful spells are concentration now, so you can't just fire them off one after the other to boost someone massively. Color Spray, one of the most broken spells in 3.x, now only blinds and it works off of an HP limit that affects from lowest to highest HP, detracting from the HP limit as it goes. It fixes a LOT of things that worked against the fighter.

 

And that was my argument. That 5e fixed basically everything you complained about with fighters. And you essentially said "Nope. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're wrong, I'm right.  La-la-la." because a fighter wasn't able to succeed in literally every situation while you're of the belief that a wizard can. So yea, you've got a bias against fighters, regardless of evidence presented.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Unruly

[CthulhuDreams]

I showed you a fighter that had the knowledge skills you wanted, you said he was useless because he couldn't survive a solo encounter with a centaur. I show you that neither could any class, not even the god-wizards, and you've ignored it by saying the argument was in bad faith. You flat out said my fighter was unable to climb a rope and survive because he didn't have a skill that doesn't even exist in the edition he was built in. I actually mentioned the edition I was talking about, and it would have been easy enough to look up the SRD to see that Use Rope doesn't exist and that climbing is covered by Athletics. You've got your idea of a fighter built solely on the 3.5 version, and if anyone uses anything other than the 3.5 fighter you disregard it and immediately jump to the 3.5 conclusion.

 

I agreed with you that 3.x handled fighter skills poorly. Previously in this thread I've said that 3.x really screwed fighters over in general. Especially because of how 3.x, and by extension PF, doesn't allow a fighter to actually use his full attacks if he has to move more than 5 feet in a round and that's almost the fighter's whole shtick. But 5e took some huge steps to fixing a lot of the fighter's problems, and from personal experience they've succeeded. The fighter gets all its attacks regardless of movement. Feat trees are entirely gone, meaning that weapon specialization took a huge hit. The fighting style bonuses aren't so great that it becomes completely detrimental to fight with something that isn't affected by it, despite how you argue that 5e forces you to specialize because of them. Fighters can even cast a handful of spells in 5e if you want them to, and it's part of the base class and not some stupid multiclass prestige build. Magical items are much less important, and much rarer, so you don't have to worry about that nearly as much either. A lot of the more powerful spells are concentration now, so you can't just fire them off one after the other to boost someone massively. Color Spray, one of the most broken spells in 3.x, now only blinds and it works off of an HP limit that affects from lowest to highest HP, detracting from the HP limit as it goes. It fixes a LOT of things that worked against the fighter.

 

And that was my argument. That 5e fixed basically everything you complained about with fighters. And you essentially said "Nope. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're wrong, I'm right.  La-la-la." because a fighter wasn't able to succeed in literally every situation while you're of the belief that a wizard can. So yea, you've got a bias against fighters, regardless of evidence presented.

 

Yeah, I'd agree 5E was a big step in the right direction, and the quadratic wizards isn't as bad - but I've played the game to a high level as a couple of times now. Twinned Polymorph into a Giant Ape is better than anything a champion warrior can do and that kicks off level 8. Like, the game literally snapped in-front of us. You add 272 HP to the encounter! A 8th level warrior with a positive con score has, what, 70? Because I'm not a tool I'd cast it on other people (e.g. the battlemaster fighter which also makes the concentration issue mootish) but yeah, I don't think it fixes the game. 

 

(Also, I disagree with the magic items are so much less important. They still matter because there are still a bunch of things that need magic weapons to hit)

Edited February 28, 2017 by CthulhuDreams

[TGP]

[TheAuldGrump]

 

I'm getting the impression you either don't grasp that, or you're not actually absorbing anything anyone has said.

I've said what I have to say. Good day, sir.

 

Yup. Same here. I've said what I intended to say in this part of the discussion. Further writing is unlikely to add anything substantive.

 

You held on longer than I did....

 

The party is now in Hell - and facing one of those things that can be a problem for the paladin - do they close the gates to Hell, or do they open another one in the lands held by the scary, scary evil spider elves?

 

It appears that the scary, scary evil spider elves are under the impression that they will somehow be able to control what comes out - the PCs now know otherwise....

 

The Auld Grump

[Darkmeer]

I ran my Pathfinder game last Thursday.  I ran only a single encounter, as the Dice Gods were not with my players.  Horrible rolls across the board.

 

Our party alchemist was poisoned for 2 rounds (2 strength damage), our Dwarven Fighter (with a net +8 to his save vs. poison) lost 4 points of strength over 3 rounds. Our elven Ranger lost 5 points of strength over 5 rounds...  and our cleric went untouched (I tried to get him, I really did!).  A swarm of spiders PLUS 4 normal monstrous spiders versus 4 level one characters.  I looked at the HP and thought, oh, the fighter will kill them one every other round.  The DC for the save... 14. 

 

The party, over the next TWO HOURS, rolled more 1's, 2's, and 3's than I have seen in a VERY LONG TIME.  Towards the end, I was offering rerolls because the combat became a grind that was intended to use up a couple of resources, not ALL the resources.

 

The group and I all agreed the poison was brutal, but it fit where they were going.  They prepared for it, but they didn't take their antitoxin until AFTER the spiders.  Ugh.  Had the Fighter taken it before the combat, he NEVER would have been poisoned.  Not once.  The ranger on the other hand, would definitely have been poisoned, while the Alchemist also would not have been.

 

Party rested a short ways away, then made it to the MacGuffin's cabin, missed ALL of their perception rolls (seriously, after modifiers, the high roll was 9...), which exploded when they got there.  They spent some time putting out fires, and the party was ambushed by a faerie and a human who doesn't look quite right for some reason.  I love Unseelie fey. 

 

The group is about to find out what kind of fey they are going to learn to fear.  One player with a lot of experience, while the others are not exactly up to speed on D&D/Pathfinder fey.

[Unruly]

Swarms in PF are a pain in the butt though. I learned that the hard way once when I basically threw my players into the castle assault from Beauty and the Beast and had them go up against a swarm of living silverware, which was just a rat swarm without disease, and a single swarm almost killed 5 level 2 PCs. They may not have much health, but the immunity to weapon damage(or at best half damage) and single-target spells makes them much more threatening than their other stats would imply. Add to that the unpreventable damage and you've got a recipe for a low-level TPK if they get on the caster and the party doesn't have something like alchemists fire to kill it with.

[TheAuldGrump]

My players love alchemist's fire....

 

Megan has toyed with an idea for a halfling alchemist/pyromaniac more than once. (I picture her cackling madly as she swings from a chandelier, raining fire bombs down indiscriminately. It is disturbing just how easy that is to picture. (And how much that halfling in my mind resembles real life Megan...))

 

The Auld Grump

[TheAuldGrump]

 

Still wonder why it took him until Unearthed Arcana to plug barbarians in there. Gary LOVED Conan the Barbarian.

Probably because Conan himself, in the Howard tales, was more of a Fighter than a Barbarian. The Barbarian in D&D terms was closer to a viking raider/berserker.

 

Fighter, rogue, and pirate - while the recent Conan movie did not garner much by good reviews, it was pretty obvious that the people making the movie had actually read the books - which is more than I can say for the Schwarzenegger version.

 

The Auld Grump

[Dr.Bedlam]

My players love alchemist's fire....

 

Megan has toyed with an idea for a halfling alchemist/pyromaniac more than once. (I picture her cackling madly as she swings from a chandelier, raining fire bombs down indiscriminately. It is disturbing just how easy that is to picture. (And how much that halfling in my mind resembles real life Megan...))

 

The Auld Grump

"When in doubt, set something on fire."

 

===Steve the Rogue, Doc's old campaign

[BlazingTornado]

 

 

Still wonder why it took him until Unearthed Arcana to plug barbarians in there. Gary LOVED Conan the Barbarian.

Probably because Conan himself, in the Howard tales, was more of a Fighter than a Barbarian. The Barbarian in D&D terms was closer to a viking raider/berserker.

 

Fighter, rogue, and pirate - while the recent Conan movie did not garner much by good reviews, it was pretty obvious that the people making the movie had actually read the books - which is more than I can say for the Schwarzenegger version.

It's basically a nice proof that just because you're familiar with the lore doesn't mean you can make a good movie with it.

 

I love the classic Conan tales, but I also love the Arnie flick. The Momoa Conan.... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[TheAuldGrump]

I will take the Mamoa flick over the [BLEEP!] that was the Dino deLaurentis version.
 

'Cause, you know, walkin' around in circles, drivin' a pump aintin't the best practice for sword fighting. (And, in the first battle Conan dies. The end. Thank you so much for coming.)

 

Then again, I had read the original Howard stories, and those by deCamp, more than a decade before seeing the Arnie movie - so my expectations might have been for something that implied that the screenwriter had read the danged books.

 

Ah, well - in any event, the game is taking a pizza break, and the paladin is trying to explain why Nobody Left Behind is so important when the party is in freakin' Hell!

 

That he has to explain this is discouraging....

 

The witch, on the other hand, thinks that as soon as they get the danged sword, they should also grab the body of the fallen paladin that was wielding the sword, 'cause, ya know, devils can do bad things with the souls lost in Hell, eh?

 

The Auld Grump - I really did not much like the Arnie Conan - he looked good, but  the script was awful.

[Mad Jack]

56 minutes ago, TheAuldGrump said:

The Auld Grump - I really did not much like the Arnie Conan - he looked good, but  the script was awful.

 

 It got a little bit better in the extended version when they put the deleted scene before the big fight against Doom's two lieutenants back into the film - it at least gave Arnie some small additional depth of character.

In and of itself, the original Conan was a decent fantasy film. The issue most people have with it is the cognitive dissonance caused by not being much in sync with the the original source material.

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Mad Jack

[BlazingTornado]

To be fair, the Momoa flick takes more than its fair share of liberties. The entire opening is basically a more dragged-out, bloodier version of the original's, dead blacksmith father at the hands of an evil sorcerer and all.

And sure it's a bit bloodier, but it's so much less raw and brutal, and feels so much more choreographed.

 

4 hours ago, TheAuldGrump said:

'Cause, you know, walkin' around in circles, drivin' a pump aintin't the best practice for sword fighting. (And, in the first battle Conan dies. The end. Thank you so much for coming.)

 

His first battles in the gladiator pits WEREN'T sword fights, though. He got thrown in against a guy with sharpened teeth and barely overpowered him. And then he gets a few more victories in crude battles, then we get a montage of him being taught proper swordfighting, getting to read... and to bone...

 

I dunno, maybe I'm more lenient because the Conan I grew up with was Conan The Adventurer, a terrible cartoon that basically involves a black-haired He-Man hanging around with the new Masters of the Universe and fighting King Hiss and his Snake Men with their magic weapons that, instead of maiming, just banish the snakes to the touch.