Quote from: Christopher Brady;863366I agree with most of your statement, except this.



That's a problem with heavy armour being an AC bonus (and because of Magic a scaling bonus) as opposed to what it really does, and that's block, rather than avoid, damage.

Well I'd agree that's a problem, but what I'm trying to get at is I think people wanted permanent character differentiation. It was part of what was driving e.g. "kit" development in 2E, but something that particularly stuck in my mind was this here, from circa 2000:

QuoteThis is precisely what I have been trying to argue for some time, just said much more clearly and concisely. Basically, it comes to this: if I look at your 2e character sheet and you tell me your character is "no-talk all-action axe-slashing barbarian guy" I can copy that character sheet, move it to another campaign, and make exact same character into "smooth-talking lady-killing rapier-wielding swashbuckler-guy." The rules don't favor the character being one or the other - it's entirely in the hands of my roleplaying but there are no game mechanics to back up my claims.

If I take a 3e character sheet of a character with Axe Specialization, Great Cleave, and Toughness, my character's statistics actually reflect "no-talk all-action axe-slashing barbarian guy." The character literally is more effective with an axe than a rapier.

Similarly, a character with the Weapon Specialization: Rapier, Dodge, and Weapon Expertise feats will be considerably more effective with a rapier than with an axe.

Can't link to that exact point in the stream sorry...my takeout from it is that people actually wanted there to be specialized characters. I don't know if it would've been enough to just have Dex and armour be different mechanics, if the same character could still switch between the two whenever they felt like it.

With Weapon Specialization rules, I wonder how much people really appreciate being handicapped by not having their favored piece of equipment, or finding a wondrous enchanted weapon that would do no more than compensate for their lack of competence?

If the situation does not arise, then it's only the illusion of a trade-off. You'd get the same results skipping all that rigmarole and simply using all the time whichever weapon you'll end up using all the time after all the work! You could just act as if that labor had been done, simply giving everyone across the board the jacked-up stats.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;863395Well I'd agree that's a problem, but what I'm trying to get at is I think people wanted permanent character differentiation. It was part of what was driving e.g. "kit" development in 2E, but something that particularly stuck in my mind was this here, from circa 2000:

Can't link to that exact point in the stream sorry...my takeout from it is that people actually wanted there to be specialized characters. I don't know if it would've been enough to just have Dex and armour be different mechanics, if the same character could still switch between the two whenever they felt like it.

Can't get that link to load, but whatever...

That was a great example of CHA being treated as a dump stat. Makes me miss reaction rolls. Even if they had the same CHA, by sheer attitude the barbarian would seem more appearance than leadership compared to the swashbuckler.

This argument assumes gear is a non-entity. But then you could say the same thing about magic users and their spells (spells as gear) if you swapped them out as blithely. Wizards in 2e had access to the 8 schools and was differentiated by their acquired spells and arcane gear. Same argument works on both core classes.

By 2e Illusionists, and their school specialist analogs for the remaining schools, were mechanically differentiated as examples of optional classes. But then so were the ranger and paladin for the fighter. Both traded restrictions for bennies, wizards traded future spell "gear" for bonuses, fighters traded social/play restrictions for "powahs." Yet these were optional examples to DIY (as they explicitly said repeatedly over the core rules). They were suggestions on how to change things mechanically to suit setting, how to alter the generalist into a specialist.

If you're not putting in the work to fashion your own mechanically different optional classes, yet are still expecting the generalist model to magically morph engines, chassis, and drivetrain on contact with new terrain, you're doing it wrong. They made kits as a bolt-on, but really, that's more players asking to be spoonfed while the company was torn about letting us learn to feed ourselves (see: Complete Fighter, first in the Complete series and more about roleplaying kits than mechanizing kits). Too bad the money gravytrain decided that debate in the end, see: 3e OGL glut.

Quote from: Phillip;863455With Weapon Specialization rules, I wonder how much people really appreciate being handicapped by not having their favored piece of equipment, or finding a wondrous enchanted weapon that would do no more than compensate for their lack of competence?

If the situation does not arise, then it's only the illusion of a trade-off. You'd get the same results skipping all that rigmarole and simply using all the time whichever weapon you'll end up using all the time after all the work! You could just act as if that labor had been done, simply giving everyone across the board the jacked-up stats.

Someone might be gratified when their choices actually do work, in a way they wouldn't if they just had +3 hit, +3 damage all the time.
'Ah skeletons. Good thing I specialized in nunchuks.'
'Flying monsters...good thing I double-specialized in bows.'

But yes, enchanted doodads do lose much of their shine when you realize that you will need more proficiencies (or new feat chains) to make them work. 3E was big on 'magic item mega marts' because a random item is probably not going to be useful. Or late 3E/early 4E 'retraining' was also a thing

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;863351Then of course you write a bunch of feats, and the feats to do anything have to operate as an 'exception' to the ordinary rules. Consequently you need a shipload of feats to actually do anything. The actual fighter-wizard game balance benefit of limiting, say, TWF or Ride-by Attack to fighters is very marginal since a wizard would be using their action to cast a spell, not stab you with two weapons or charge on horseback with a lance- you actually could give TWF for free to wizards just randomly and it'd have a very marginal effect on game balance.

Right. Because of the 3.x/PF proclivity of being so insanely granular with their Feats in terms of power - they lose sight of the purpose of them altogether. These are things that a Fighter should be able to do with far less focus than they mechanically make it. Arguably you could make these "packages" that the Fighter can choose as he levels up. In other words package all the TWF feats, Horse-combat Feats, and say every other level the Fighter gets the whole package. Or whatever.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;863351Meanwhile, most fighter 'fixes' in 3.x end up being 1-2 pages of lots of detailed, miscellaneous stuff because they're an attempt to add in a diverse bunch of powers  -  just due to the fiddly nature of 3.5 rules.

I would say they're not fixes at all. They merely window dressing for an under-thought class. But I get what your'e saying. I merely want to call the dog a dog. In 3.x/PF the Fighter is a pointless class as written.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;863351In a sense I think 5E got this bit right; the rules are looser so don't need as much messing around. Though I guess people are still arguing about how good the 5E fighter actually is.

Yeah I still think it (5e) is missing the mark, but it's pretty close. I think *everything* this class needs could be fixed with a heavy emphasis that Feats can be granted by Factioning rules (which is in the book - but not talked about very much). It's a powerful thing for GM's whose campaigns might have a slant that the PC's are not necessarily in their element. Do some adventuring for a Faction and they might train you up in a Feat for free. boom. This removes the Feat-acquistion issue that's been dogging the fighter since 3e from the Leveling mechanic. It remains one of the best under-appreciated rules in 5e.

Quote from: Arminius;860576And having done that, I'm wondering if Feats in 3e had any clearer precedent than Advantages.

I read through all of the responses but feel like I probably lost the thread somewhere along the way. In any case, I think the original precedent is magic items. In my experience (from 1980), higher level D&D characters always had these special abilities and powers, but they came from potions, rings and miscellaneous magic items. It seems a small and natural step from there to say, "What if heroism, invulnerability or speed are abilities you can choose for your character at appropriate levels, rather than being determined by which potions you have in your pack?"

The irony, of course, is that 3E built out the feats right alongside "wealth by level" and magic item assumptions baked into the design, so you got the shift from develop in play to character "builds" and the Christmas tree effect all in one not-so-tidy package.