Well yes, of course I've had under-prepared players. Quite commonly as a matter of fact. However in equal amounts I have hoarder players who will quite literally knock hobos unconscious to steal their fingerless gloves, paperclips and pocket lint in addition to anything of actual utility. In my most recent campaign I recall one player insisting on breaking into the trunk of a stolen cab (which I randomly rolled on the contents of); it turned out to be some cleaning supplies, a stack of old newspapers and a bag of what by all accounts was dirty laundry. Not only did the player nearly give himself a hemorrhage trying to figure out how to actually loot all the crap, he also grew greatly suspicious of the cabby he had stolen the car from and became intent on finding him again for interrogation. That player was a bit of an odd one, but sometimes people do find ingenious uses for the oddest things that aren't of any utility in the normal sense. In this particular case, he ended up mixing some of the cleaning chemicals together to gas a tunnel full of gang members. :eek:

Another example would be my brother, who spent more time creating his custom holdout/reinforced/waterproofed/ruggedized/hidden compartment carrying sack than his actual character (and he spent all his starting wealth on that, and that alone)...

On the larger topic at hand of how to handle gear, I don't really like hand-waving things much. I see more players get attached to the random oddities in their inventory than not. Occasionally I will go "ok, sure, you have a quarter in your pocket with a couple other pieces of loose change" in a modern game for instance where the character has been out and about or whatever; very minor things like that. Similarly, if the character has a decent starting wealth and a job to make a wage I would say "OK, yes, you have an apartment and within it is a washer and dryer and yes you probably have a gallon of milk in the fridge" or whatever is appropriate. Similarly, I would expect the average kitchen to have a knife or several around unless there is a good reason for it not to; in the same way I expect an adventurer's first aid kit to have some gauze.

Generally though I expect what someone is actually carrying/adventuring with is listed on the sheet, particularly for medieval fantasy-type games where it is not infeasible that everything a PC owns might be carried on their back or mule or similar. If it is a pulp genre or something where that sort of thing isn't really as important, I prefer not to "handwave" things but rather to use an actual abstract wealth mechanic. Basically, the rules should cover your ass one way or the other regardless of what method you use, and not rely on the sometimes fickle nature of GM fiat. That's just my preference though.

Quote from: ElBorak;1118207Wow, just wow! Have your ever played D&D? It doesn't seem like you have or you must have played in the lamest games ever.

You have zero evidence of that, and given that I am more aware of this problem than you, no, I compensate for it appropriately. Because I have to. Because D&D has always had this problem.

You fucking twit.

QuoteThe fighter puts on his ring of water breathing  and it lasts longer than the clerics spell too. Or he could put on a polymorph ring and turn into a an appropriate sea creature whether a dolphin or something more deadly. Same for all of these, fighters get to use magic items the same as anyone else. Besides which depending on how deep your bottom of the ocean is that spell could wear off before the cleric even gets to the bottom. Just because the spell users have spells doesn't mean they are automatically a leg up on the other characters.

Ring of water breathing, really? And what level do they get that, exactly? Hasn't been in any fighter progressions I've seen.

Oh, and a ring of polymorph! Wow, this fighter is loaded for bear, tell ya what, with all these magical doodads. What brilliant game designer gave them all these cool toys so that they could participate like a real character?

What's that, you say? The GM gave them to the party? You mean the same dickbag who will give you a crock of shit for not packing a 10-foot-pole?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Fighters do lose a bit of shine in higher level play (when MUs really come into their own), but I haven't experienced a big problem with it. One thing that helps is their ability to make a number of attacks equal to their level when fighting "normal men" (0-level types) and "normal men"-type monsters (1HD or less in original D&D, <1HD in AD&D). So a 10th level Lord fighting goblins or regular soldiers makes ten attacks per round: he's a morale-shattering force of nature on the battlefield. And name level fighters tend to have more/better followers and freeholds than many other classes.

I think single-classed thieves lose out at higher levels way more than fighters do. But I avoid playing single-classed thieves, in any case, and recommend that players choose thief as part of a multi-class combination.

Quote from: Chris24601;1118230meaning, in the poster's opinion, grognards focused just as much on preserving the bad elements of old-school gaming as the good parts.

Hmm, yeah, that mistake is often made by those who do not fully understand old school gaming.

Quote from: Chris24601;1118230meaning they don't just keep the bad stuff, they're prone to killing what's actually enjoyable about playing RPGs.

Another common error made by the ignorant, who themselves are guilty of what they accuse old school gamers of.

Quote from: Chris24601;1118230I will say, at least in old-school games where all the rules get followed the magic user is more equal; tracking every component, declared actions in reverse initiative order with casting times being ruthlessly enforced and disrupted by even a single point of damage, randomly rolling for all spells known and later found, etc.

OD&D dosen't have time wasters like spell components and balance is not some god to be worshiped contrary to new school ideology. You are talking about rigid BTB 1st & 2nd ED AD&D, I don't know anybody that wastes enough gaming time to do that.

Quote from: Chris24601;1118230The thing is I've NEVER played with an old-school DM who didn't handwave one or more of the limiters on old-school casting to make it more fun for those players, but gives NOTHING to the fighters.

You should have a chance to play in a game where that it is not true that "but gives NOTHING to the fighters." Sorry you have only played with alleged "old-school DMs" who "but gives NOTHING to the fighters."

And that Venn diagram does not even live in the same universe as old school gaming and OD&D in particular, at least not with a competent DM and imaginative players.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118291You have zero evidence of that,

Just every post you made and everything you  have said in those posts, pretty compelling evidence really.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118291Because I have to. Because D&D has always had this problem.

If we were friends I would grieve for your stubborn ignorance, but as it is, it is completely your problem, but if you ever want help with that just go back, read and pay attention.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1118291You fucking twit.

You say things like that a lot, are you sitting in front of a mirror talking to yourself?

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1118325So a 10th level Lord fighting goblins or regular soldiers makes ten attacks per round: he's a morale-shattering force of nature on the battlefield. And name level fighters tend to have more/better followers and freeholds than many other classes.

Am I wrong in thinking that Fighters get followers?  So, when you say "Fighter" you actually mean them and their squad?

---
The rules for followers were found in the AD&D Dungeon Master Guide, pg.16.
Dragon #99 – Tables and Tables of Troops (Fighters)

Later editions say 3E of D&D later just hurt the Fighter imo. At least in earlier edition they were the best at hitting and killing stuff while also having interesting options like being able to get a keep at a certain level. 3.5. then Pathfinder made it so that everything required a feat. Fighter Xyz wants to trip someone it can be done yet it requires two feats. One to trip someone and another to make sure no attacks of opportunity occur. The Fighter class at least for PF is a major letdown at least in 1E. Nothing really stands out and some like Bravery are a joke. I began making one for an upcoming campaign, stopped and switched over to a Barbarian. I may get less feats and slightly less to hit chances. Yet I can do as much if not more damage and get some interesting class abilites to boot.

If the only defence for the Fighter class beyond being able to hit and do damage is that they can compete with other caster classes at high level because they can get magic items is not really much of a defence at all. First off the other caster classes can get the same magic items and build them. If the items get stolen most players can compensate with spells. Tghe player with the Fighter class is pretty screwed.

Anyway 3, 2, 1, expecting to be told I can't play Fighter or never played D&D or some other stupid nonsense because one dare to criticize a favored class or D&D.

If the rule system screws a specific profession, maybe there is something wrong with the rules?

One nice thing about "Beyond the Wall" is how magic works.  Powerful magic takes TIME and can be interrupted.
It is still powerful but it is more balanced (IMO).
Most magic systems require the magic user to rest to get their spells back. Do they also the Fighter to rest for extended periods?

Quote from: Greentongue;1118384Most magic systems require the magic user to rest to get their spells back. Do they also the Fighter to rest for extended periods?

Many systems (every one I've ever read) require rest to recover from damage or fatigue. Absent some form of magical healing that rest period can extend to weeks or even months in some game systems. Take a bunch of damage in a game of Pendragon or Call of Cthulhu and your character is spending days or even longer healing up.

My point was that Fighters should be able to continue long after a magic user has been drained.  So, where endurance is required, a Fighter has the advantage.
It is up to the GM to take that into account.

Quote from: Greentongue;1118371Am I wrong in thinking that Fighters get followers?

Fighters get followers at name level (as do most other classes, but fighters tend to get more -- and arguably better -- followers). That's separate from henchmen and hirelings, which can potentially be recruited by any PC at any level.

QuoteSo, when you say "Fighter" you actually mean them and their squad?

Possibly, but not necessarily. I'm looking at the classes (and their class-related resources and roles) as a whole within the campaign, not necessarily considering a single encounter or combat. At high levels, Fighters tend to have freeholds or domains of some sort, and are important in that respect. And they tend to have a lot of good quality followers (as well as henchmen, et cetera). That is, in my experience, they still have a lot of importance in high level play. They tend to be "movers and shakers" in the campaign world.

That said, if a campaign approaches higher level play exactly like low-level play, just with tougher/scaled-up obstacles, then I could definitely understand complaints about fighters being relatively weaker at those levels. The fighters freehold/followers/influence-in-the-setting/etc wouldn't matter as much, and if the fighter is only encountering "high level" monsters that are "level appropriate" then it makes things like his many attacks per round (i.e., equal to his level) against "normal enemies" pretty useless in play.

So, again it is how the rules are being adjudicated or ignored that is in effect weakening the Fighter in respect to magic using characters?

Quote from: Greentongue;1118400So, again it is how the rules are being adjudicated or ignored that is in effect weakening the Fighter in respect to magic using characters?

Depends on the system. You're making a lot of presumptions that everyone here is playing TSR-era D&D (or retroclones thereof) when there are multiple editions of D&D and other systems entirely where presumptions of character benefits like a fighter's name-level followers simply aren't present.

Quote from: Greentongue;1118400So, again it is how the rules are being adjudicated or ignored that is in effect weakening the Fighter in respect to magic using characters?

I don't think it's any one thing, and I'm sure it varies from table to table. Some of it is the actual difference in the way Fighters and MUs (especially) scale up in individual power as levels advance. Some of it may be the way the game is approached by a given group (i.e., not focusing on things where the Fighter's benefits at higher levels shine). And if we start talking about differences in editions, well, all bets are off because of the variables involved.

I figure the DM for a given campaign knows his game and how he runs it or approaches it. Some DMs may want to tweak the rules or give fighters more power/benefits. Others may find the rules as written work fine. Personally, I find that the rules I use work fine, at least for the way I approach and run the game. YMMV, of course.

My personal experience of mid to high level AD&D (up to about 9th level) is that, as far as combat goes, the magic users generally hang back and watch the fighters doing their thing, saving their spells for critical junctures or when things get desperate. You don't waste spells on enemies that can be cleaned up without them.

Fighters are constantly involved, and essential, as they clear a path through weak and moderately powerful foes. Their efforts then mean that, when the party stumbles across something unexpectedly powerful, or the enemy has finally had time to muster up a response, and the group finds fifty orcs, an illithid and a mage arrayed to defend their lair, the magic users are fresh and ready to to play their part; thinning the horde, countering enemy elites or facilitating a withdrawal.