Quote from: AlnagThat's part of the equation. The manoeuvres might be good if they wouldn't be all the same. The difference between magic missile and hand crosbow is just the fluff - one is spell and the other is weapon. In its effect you roll attack, you roll damage... WTF?

Um?  There were lots of spells that used an attack roll and damage in 3.X edition -- Acid Arrow, Scorching Ray, Disintegrate, etc.  Just because something uses an attack roll and damage doesn't make it the same.  Would you argue that wizards in 3.X were the same as fighters because they often would use a crossbow?  

Substituting a magical attack for crossbow use seems to minorly add to how wizards differ from fighters, not make them more similar.  Whereas before wizards would use a crossbow or thrown dart in combat (which is very mechanically similar to fighters), now they'll tend to use an attack that is differentiated a little more.

I think the point is that in previous editions you had to choose between a weaker attack than the Fighters, or a more powerful attack that used up limited resources.

Quote from: jhkimWould you argue that wizards in 3.X were the same as fighters because they often would use a crossbow?  

No. Wizards were different in earlier editions because compared to fighters they could deal out higher damage with less frequency. But apparently less frequently (as in 'not every round) = no fun. So Wizards can now cast magic all the time, but at less damage (relative to fighters) than they used to.

Now every PC deals out damage every round, in carefully balanced amounts, and with a mathematically constant increase as they progress in levels. The damage just has different colours, er, qualities. The tyranny of fun indeed.

Quote from: StuartI think the point is that in previous editions you had to choose between a weaker attack than the Fighters, or a more powerful attack that used up limited resources.

Actually, let's be precise about this:

The wizard's attack wasn't weaker, it was less accurate. It could potentially do similar damage.. (1d8 for a crossbow, assuming a 1st level wizard with a lt. crossbow).

So the real issue is, if a player wants to play a wizard.. do you want to make player miss all the time? Sure, he's going to get a tradeoff later in levels. Sure the fighter needs to stand out as a damage dealer.. but.. rolling a 15 and still missing just isn't fun.

Now if the situation is the fighter can hit, the ranger can hit, and the wizard can hit, just using different ways, dealing different types of damage, against different defenses...

hah! Mine crossposted with Haffrung. We said the exact same things, except my take on it was totally positive and his was negative.

Quote from: Abyssal Mawhah! Mine crossposted with Haffrung. We said the exact same things, except my take on it was totally positive and his was negative.

Funny how people prefer different things, ain't it? And funny how different versions of the same darn game will support those preferences to greater of lesser degrees?

Nah..that's just crazy talk...

Quote from: James J SkachFunny how people prefer different things, ain't it? And funny how different versions of the same darn game will support those preferences to greater of lesser degrees?

Nah..that's just crazy talk...

I really do believe there's a game out there for everyone. People like what they like, bottom line. My only real issue is the bizarre resentment and character judgment that happens when people suddenly or continually find themselves out of the mainstream.

Quote from: Abyssal MawActually, let's be precise about this:

The wizard's attack wasn't weaker, it was less accurate. It could potentially do similar damage.. (1d8 for a crossbow, assuming a 1st level wizard with a lt. crossbow).

Depending on what edition you're playing the Magic-User might or might not get access to the crossbow.  The staff and dagger which they get in all versions is not as damaging as a sword of battle axe.  Also depending on the edition the Magic User's % of hitting might be on par or better than the fighter.  But generally across all editions either because of % to hit or amount of damage -- they're not as effective as the fighter most of the time, unless they're using up those limited resources when they become *more* effective.

In most (all?) editions casting Sleep on a room full of goblins is much more effective in one round than what the fighter can do.

Personally I've always liked the house rule that the magic user can replace their crossbow or dart attack with a "Zap" spell that has unlimited uses (and the exact same range and damage :keke: ).  I still like the weak / strong choice though, compared to the fighter's constant medium attack.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI really do believe there's a game out there for everyone. People like what they like, bottom line. My only real issue is the bizarre resentment and character judgment that happens when people suddenly or continually find themselves out of the mainstream.

The previous post was not directed at you, AM. So now I have to ask about the resentment.  It seems to me that in the most bizarre of twists, people who like the game 4e has become get upset when others who do not think it fits their preference point out the areas where they think the changes cause that effect.

Suddenly the firestorms begin - it's the same game it's always been, you don't know how to play, you played wrong, you weren't really playing the game - it's quite amazing.

I try not to make character judgments based on peoples' preferences.  I think there are folks who, in the process of disagreeing, are being ass hats (see the above list of accusations) - but that's a different issue.

So, as I've said numerous times in the past - it sounds like a game you will love, AM.  Congrats and have fun. And if you're ever in Illinois, you can try to win me over

Quote from: James J SkachSo, as I've said numerous times in the past - it sounds like a game you will love, AM.  Congrats and have fun. And if you're ever in Illinois, you can try to win me over

Dude, it's just a game! That's what kills me... nobody has to be "won over", for anything, ever, at any time. Come to Gen Con this year and I will be running events.

Quote from: Abyssal MawDude, it's just a game! That's what kills me... nobody has to be "won over", for anything, ever, at any time. Come to Gen Con this year and I will be running events.

Ya know what, AM - then don't.  No skin off my nose.  Or did you miss the smilie?

Quote from: James J SkachThe previous post was not directed at you, AM. So now I have to ask about the resentment.  It seems to me that in the most bizarre of twists, people who like the game 4e has become get upset when others who do not think it fits their preference point out the areas where they think the changes cause that effect.

Suddenly the firestorms begin - it's the same game it's always been, you don't know how to play, you played wrong, you weren't really playing the game - it's quite amazing.

I try not to make character judgments based on peoples' preferences.  I think there are folks who, in the process of disagreeing, are being ass hats (see the above list of accusations) - but that's a different issue.

Well, if you think *I'm* upset, you'd be wrong. I just see a lot of these comments as completely silly and in some cases outright dishonest. If one guy says "man, my group couldn't stand the 3e rules" and two sentences later says "and we never used miniatures. ever.", I have to throw up my hands in frustration. If we are discussing tactical combat systems, how can I take that guy seriously? The same goes for people who do not understand or like 3e who want to criticize explicitly defined tactical maneuvers in 4e which are directly related. If your'e still playing Basic and Expert (or more likely you *own* Basic and Expert and look at it from time to time), how in the hell can I take that person's opinion seriously on whether a given tactical rule is good or not?

Dude, this would be like weighing in about whether or not it's cool that Gurps has a 'recover weapon' rule when swinging two-handed. I have no idea. I don't play Gurps. How could my opinion matter? This would be like me complaining bitterly that orcs are allowed in Shadowrun and are spelled with a K. (OrKs). I Don't play Shadowrun. I'm not a fan. But I could pretend that I do, and I could add my negative comments and be taken seriously right? Well, Obviously.

But it's still wrong, it's intellectually dishonest, and it's... just fucking weird. In the real world you can't show up at the Chess club and talk about how castling sucks if you don't even play chess.

READ THIS ESSAY RIGHT NOW.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIf one guy says "man, my group couldn't stand the 3e rules" and two sentences later says "and we never used miniatures. ever.", I have to throw up my hands in frustration.

I'd just think: "They don't like using minis.  Game rules that rely on using minis (like 3e) probably won't appeal to them much."

Quote from: Abyssal MawIf we are discussing tactical combat systems, how can I take that guy seriously?

Are we discussing tactical combat systems?  Or a roleplaying game?  I'd bet the confusion is people trying to discuss different things at the same time.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe same goes for people who do not understand or like 3e who want to criticize explicitly defined tactical maneuvers in 4e which are directly related. If your'e still playing Basic and Expert (or more likely you *own* Basic and Expert and look at it from time to time), how in the hell can I take that person's opinion seriously on whether a given tactical rule is good or not?

WotC is largely to blame here.  They've been marketing both 3e and 4e with "same as it ever was" when in fact they're quite different games -- especially if you think of 3e/4e in terms of being tactical combat games.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut it's still wrong, it's intellectually dishonest, and it's... just fucking weird. In the real world you can't show up at the Chess club and talk about how castling sucks if you don't even play chess.

In fairness, nobody on this site is playing 4e.  A few people have played some basic demo games of some of the combat system, and we all have access to some of the rules.  

Again if WotC hadn't used the "same as it ever was" marketing, and were more clear about the changes in both 3e and 4e, you wouldn't see the confusion.

If I stop thinking of 4e as "same as it ever was" D&D, and instead think of it as "Advanced D&D Miniature Battles" (and non-collectible as well!!!) then it's a game I can appreciate differently from how I appreciate other kinds of RPGs that don't rely on minis, battlemaps, etc.

It's that bloody french guys fault. :mad:

Quote from: jhkimSubstituting a magical attack for crossbow use seems to minorly add to how wizards differ from fighters, not make them more similar.  Whereas before wizards would use a crossbow or thrown dart in combat (which is very mechanically similar to fighters), now they'll tend to use an attack that is differentiated a little more.

Yar, magical attack, crossbow, or Crackers the deadly attack parrot. 'Tis all the same!

Quote from: Abyssal MawMy only real issue is the bizarre resentment and character judgment that happens when people suddenly or continually find themselves out of the mainstream.

Personally, I quite enjoy being a renegade.