Quote from: Sacrosanct;580452No you're not.  You're insisting on using inflammatory hyperbole while in the same breath trying to call for "rational" discussion?

And you wonder why no one but your echo chamber brother takes you seriously.

I have to agree with sacrosanct. Like I said it is hard to take your calls for robust and serious debate seriously when every other thing you say is an insult about grognards. I also have to say when people try to declare themselves "winners of debate and masters of logic" it gives the impression that they are neither (a bit like bragging how studly one is). If your arguments ae strong it should be obvious without the bravado.

Having an answer to flight =/= having flight.

Ranged attacks allow non-flyers to contribute to combats with flight. As long as these dragons don't have range greater than arrows they can be killed by characters of mundane capability (so long as they have sufficient combat stats). This is more of a monster design thing than a class design thing anyway, though if you expect PvP or PC-built-NPCs, limiting the range on flying class capabilities would work well.

"Everyone needs flight past level x" is just kind of stupid and narrows the band of classes the game can handle pretty severely.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580446Not sure what you mean exactly by respeccing class but judging by ocntext here I dont see why this forces the conclusion there is no reason to choose the other two classes. Just because class a can mimix their abilities on a limited basis, that doesn't mean it preferable. There is a substantial difference between having an ability to use all day versus having that same ability with limited uses per day.

However we are also talking very abstractly so a little hard to know what you have specifically in mind here.

Mind you, i am not saying you have to agree with me that this produces more enjyable or balanced play. But I think balancing a game in this way is entirely valid.

I'm not talking in spells per day limits. That has it's own argument around it. Specifically I don't want to go down the "five minute workday" line of discussion, both because it's been done to death and because I'm interested in something else.

I'm constructing a situation where Teusday you can be a rogue all day and Wednesday you can be a fighter all day. Why would you choose to be a rogue or a fighter if you could take this hypothetical class and have the option of being either?

Conversely, if you can be a slightly sub-par rogue all day Wednesday and a slightly sub-par fighter all day Thursday, there is a use for this class (plugging holes in a small party) but there remains the risk that this player is a bit miffed by constantly being sub-par.

The point is to talk about casters' ability to re-specialize on a day by day basis without taking into account the resource management. I'm not trying to make a point about the game the way it is so much as trying to disentangle that aspect from resource management and see what it looks like afterwards.

Quote from: beejazz;580460I'm not talking in spells per day limits. That has it's own argument around it. Specifically I don't want to go down the "five minute workday" line of discussion, both because it's been done to death and because I'm interested in something else.

I'm constructing a situation where Teusday you can be a rogue all day and Wednesday you can be a fighter all day. Why would you choose to be a rogue or a fighter if you could take this hypothetical class and have the option of being either?

So you can be a fighter (or a thief) on both tuesday and wednesday.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580449I'm just asking the grognards stop hedging.

Either the mundane classes are not limited by "what's realistically within human capability" which if this is the case all the anti-weeaboo arguments are just kvetching about personal taste or they are intended to be so limited and that means the game has to be radically redesigned.

::Snort::

So what you want us to do is to either agree that fighters can have supernatural abilities or if we don't want that agree that the entire game has to be radically redesigned? Just to choose which way we surrender?  

My answer? NUTS. Translation: Neither, as some editions of the game work just fine for a large percentage of their players with at most a bit of tweaking, no supernatural fighter abilities and no radical redesign needed. If you want to design a variant version with supernatural abilities for fighters or radically redesigned to meet your personal desires for balance, go for it, but don't it to replace the standard editions of D&D for the majority of D&D fans.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580463So you can be a fighter (or a thief) on both tuesday and wednesday.

Point is you get to choose any given day which you are, while the other two don't get to re-choose their skill set.

It's a hypothetical to get the conversation about respeccing going without bringing time-based resource management into it.

Sorry if I'm not being clear.

Quote from: beejazz;580466Point is you get to choose any given day which you are, while the other two don't get to re-choose their skill set.

It's a hypothetical to get the conversation about respeccing going without bringing time-based resource management into it.

Sorry if I'm not being clear.

I get it. Under the hypothetical you can only be a fighter one of those days right? So then a fighter is still valuable because many people will want to be a fighter both those days. If you are proposing a class that can mimic the abilities of all other classes but they are only able to do so once per week (so seven classes a week or something), that is interesting but also a serious limitation. So on tuesday they can do what the thief can do, but not the other days of the week. Since you are going to want a thief every day of the week, the thief is still important.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580468I get it. Under the hypothetical you can only be a fighter one of those days right? So then a fighter is still valuable because many people will want to be a fighter both those days. If you are proposing a class that can mimic the abilities of all other classes but they are only able to do so once per week (so seven classes a week or something), that is interesting but also a serious limitation. So on tuesday they can do what the thief can do, but not the other days of the week. Since you are going to want a thief every day of the week, the thief is still important.

I shouldn't have given specific days of the week.

The hypothetical is that you can choose your class every morning, while other classes can not. You could choose to fill the rogue's niche every day. You could choose to fill the fighter's niche every day. I wouldn't say that there was no point to rogue and fighter in this hypothetical if you couldn't be one or the other every day, because as you point out that is really obviously wrong.

So if a class can respec every morning (before we get into resource management) it should be less good than a dedicated expert in any given field it can respec into. Or at least you can see an argument for this mindset. Right?

Quote from: beejazz;580472I shouldn't have given specific days of the week.

The hypothetical is that you can choose your class every morning, while other classes can not. You could choose to fill the rogue's niche every day. You could choose to fill the fighter's niche every day. I wouldn't say that there was no point to rogue and fighter in this hypothetical if you couldn't be one or the other every day, because as you point out that is really obviously wrong.

So if a class can respec every morning (before we get into resource management) it should be less good than a dedicated expert in any given field it can respec into. Or at least you can see an argument for this mindset. Right?

I would have to see it in action. But i still dont think it would be a problem. Once you pick a class you are stuck with it that day. It is no different than having another rogue or another fighter in the party that day. I think given the classes flexibility you would want to build in a downside (but it doesnt neccesarily have to be less effective at the class abilities). But to decide what the downside ought to be I will really need to playtest the class in some actual adventures and campaigns.

Quote from: RandallS;580465::Snort::

So what you want us to do is to either agree that fighters can have supernatural abilities or if we don't want that agree that the entire game has to be radically redesigned? Just to choose which way we surrender?  

My answer? NUTS. Translation: Neither, as some editions of the game work just fine for a large percentage of their players with at most a bit of tweaking, no supernatural fighter abilities and no radical redesign needed. If you want to design a variant version with supernatural abilities for fighters or radically redesigned to meet your personal desires for balance, go for it, but don't it to replace the standard editions of D&D for the majority of D&D fans.

Let me give an example. Like I've said before If a 10th level fighter can beat an insect the size of a short buss to death with his bear hands then he's clearly outside the bounds of what a normal human can do. This isn't the fighter steeping out of his conceptual space it's just a natural result of him accumulating levels. I never said fighters needed anything (Su) but at least let them have (Ex) abilities. The fighter being able to jump good or wall run isn't any more (Su) than being able to kill a flying armored lizard the size of an SUV with a longbow or hack to death a 12ft tall 5'000 pound iron statue animated by magic with your sword. If your playing D&D at high level characters are already doing the impossible just via damage and hp abstraction.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;580477I would have to see it in action. But i still dont think it would be a problem. Once you pick a class you are stuck with it that day. It is no different than having another rogue or another fighter in the party that day. I think given the classes flexibility you would want to build in a downside (but it doesnt neccesarily have to be less effective at the class abilities). But to decide what the downside ought to be I will really need to playtest the class in some actual adventures and campaigns.

Historical Note: This is similar to how elves worked in pre-Greyhawk OD&D. Each time they went on an adventure they had to pick if they would be a fighter for that adventure or a magic-user for that adventure.

Quote from: Lord Mistborn;580483Let me give an example. Like I've said before If a 10th level fighter can beat an insect the size of a short buss to death with his bear hands then he's clearly outside the bounds of what a normal human can do. This isn't the fighter steeping out of his conceptual space it's just a natural result of him accumulating levels. I never said fighters needed anything (Su) but at least let them have (Ex) abilities. The fighter being able to jump good or wall run isn't any more (Su) than being able to kill a flying armored lizard the size of an SUV with a longbow or hack to death a 12ft tall 5'000 pound iron statue animated by magic with your sword. If your playing D&D at high level characters are already doing the impossible just via damage and hp abstraction.

The example doesn't change my answer. It's still neither supernatural abilities or a radical redesign is really needed -- at least not for TSR D&D. Perhaps the redesign is needed for WOTC editions, but I really have my doubts for 3.x given the number of people who play(ed) and enjoy(ed) it without having supernatural fighters or the radical redesign.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;580394You're being ignored because you're using false premises.  

How are they false?

QuoteI don't care about your home-brew.  I've never played in a game where a magic-user can use any spell at any given time.

Also not the point.  Are you saying that Magic Users are limited in their ability to use spells?

QuoteThe magic-user doesn't need access to any particular spell at any given time to have more options than a similar level fighter.  

So, wait, now a Magic User doesn't need spells at all to be more powerful than the Fighter?  If a certain Magic User only had Feather Fall spells for all their first level slots, they still have more options than the Fighter?

QuoteBut in any case, if you have something you want to discuss, maybe you should bring it up.  There's plenty of room for logic in this discussion, but you're not bringing it.

Not the simple to dismantle kind I am sure you are looking for, because you have likely already realized that any moderately rigorous examination of your position will show how ridiculous your whole argument is from the beginning.

I offered another argument in the response to BeeJazz, perhaps you would care to address that one instead?

Quote from: beejazz;580436Since we're talking generally, #1 depends on edition, spell level, party level and a bunch of other things. Never mind that this isn't just about D&D.

Premise #2 doesn't necessarily follow from premise #1, and again isn't necessarily true depending on the method of resource management.

Even premise #4 is somewhat circumstantial (a class-based game can have dabbling).

And without premise #2 in working order the conclusion is shot.

Sure, and I posted that in your response as an example of one direction the previous argument could take.  I don't mind discussing it with you, but I largely agree with your assessment.  I was hoping one of the people who piss and moan about 'logical' discussions could take a look at it, though.

QuoteUm... or they could be compulsive homebrewers interested in discussing  balance for their own nefarious purposes of tinkering on their  homebrews.

For most people, I would certainly agree, and I would have taken a different tack in addressing their concerns or ideas.  The Denners have made it plainly clear they have just about zero interest in any other game besides D&D 3.x

QuoteRelative power arguments are common regardless of the class pair (in  circles that commonly have these arguments). Clerics bloat more with  splats than wizards (since they have access to their entire spell list)  and the monk is even more bitched about online than the fighter.

And they certainly can be useful discussions.  When the starting point is 'it's a fact that class A is wildly more powerful than class B', then not so much.

Quote from: RandallS;580485The example doesn't change my answer. It's still neither supernatural abilities or a radical redesign is really needed -- at least not for TSR D&D. Perhaps the redesign is needed for WOTC editions, but I really have my doubts for 3.x given the number of people who play(ed) and enjoy(ed) it without having supernatural fighters or the radical redesign.

The fighters are already superhuman.

An Iron Golem is 5'000 lbs. of solid iron given motion, purpose and imunity to magic by a spellcaster. This is supposed to be the encounter in which the fighter shines btw. The fighter is then supposed to kill 2 1/2 tons of malevolent metal with sharpened pieces of steel, likely while it punches him in the face. There is no way in hell you're going to do that while "remaining within the bounds of a normal human."