As the furor dies down I find myself contemplating recent events and discussion on this forum.  The very first thing I note, as I look back with a dispassionate eye, is that for all their general rudeness, the Denners did bring with them an interesting perspective, spurring thoughts and discussion that should have enriched both forums.

I rather suspect, however, that in time they will retreat back to their own place no wiser. I should hope, however, that some here... aside from myself.. will have given additional thought to the topic at hand.

Ultimately the point of contention falls around play styles, and if you approach your gaming as if your play style was the only valid one, then what discussion can be had?  

Let us not be mistaken about this. While the long debate has been about the relative merits of 'mundanes' vs 'Wizards', ultimately it is a playstyle issue.  There are hundreds, if not thousands of rules in D&D, and even still relatively simple decisions about where to fight monsters can grostesquely alter the game. It is not proper D&D to fight in the skies any more than it is proper D&D to fight only in cramped dungeons. Ultimately, the players, to include the DM, make those calls... and the fundamentally alter the way the game plays.

In the open air, on mounts, the game does favor the Ranger above all else, with his excellent archer skills 'baked in', and the high wisdom and high spot skills he can set engagement ranges that make a mockery of every other class. In dark cramped spaces the Rogue might prove superior, able to hide from the sharpest wizard and able to end the fight with a single act... depending too on which rules the DM enforces most stringently.  The wizard may be the most powerful in the widest variety of circumstances, but then too the GM might include a number of ant-magic enemies (Golems, silencing critters, lots of SR monsters) that makes a mockery of his abilities as well.

So we are back to Playstyles. And ultimately, the Den Invasion brought with them a singular view of How The Game Is Played, one which confirmed their Biases about wizards.

Ultimately, they should have noted that most people agreed with them that Fighters got the short end of the stick in 3.X.  I, for example, learned that the Fighter's Saves had gotten much worse than in previous editions, creating the trope that fighters were a charm bitch in 3E that wasn't true previously.  For the first time I seriously looked at range combat (and for that matter, ranged perceptions), and realized that the limitations of a battle mat had given an unnatural advantage to Wizards over archers (who are generally forced into bow-fights at melee ranges).  But, sadly, it seems that in their obsessive NEED to be proven right that they were unable to concede any point, any rebuttal, or for that matter even acknowledge that a few simple changes to fighter classes would be more paletable to players and nearly (if not totally) as effective as the drastic magification they demanded.

I find the greatest strength in an argument is the willingness to admit you might be wrong. On the internet it often seems that any admission of error, technical or philosophical, is viewed as some sort of great weakness. Too often it seems that the way to 'win' arguments is by simply being too stubborn or stupid to ever concede any ground at all.  Aristotle wept.  With this one invention we have single handedly destroyed two and a half millenia of persuasion.  But that is neither here nor there.

I, personally, have been aware that Fighters in specific, and mundanes in general, got a short, smelly, stick in 3E for almost 12 years. I became aware of it when I got a look at the skill list for fighters, and their skill points. I got a second look when I saw the unique fighting abilities given to the barbarian, and yet another when I saw how brutal a rogue could be with the more permissive rules for Sneak Attack (never mind the special melee abilities they get at mid levels, like Strength damage with every SA). Suddenly the expert in Melee felt a little less like an expert than an unloved bastard child allowed outside only when the neighbors were at church.

But I never looked at the fighter and thought the solution was... magic. Not magic items, not spells, not magic abilities. The solution, to me, was to give the fighters back their melee mojo, which it seemed had been farmed out to these other classes.  It seemed to me that fighters should be more able to shrug off spells, via good saves or gaining some sort of resistance... realizing only slowly just how badly their saves stacked up to classes like the Cleric (a spell casting powerhouse, with HP) and even the pathetic Monk.

But I have learned, by this discussion. I've learned how much harder 3.x makes it to disrupt spells, for example, or how many ways that made it easier to gain those 'game breaking combos' of spells that seem to drive discussion here. I have learned, by argumentation, that even via magic item it is nearly impossible to avoid certain spells (find me the magic item in core that make you immune to mind control spells. Find me the magic item that you can permanently use to see invisible that doesn't cost 100k...).

Sadly, I feel that the Denners, and perhaps a few of my fellows here, haven't learned anything.  Of course they haven't. THis is the internet, if you learn ANYTHING from the guy you're arguing with, he won!  They haven't learned that much of what they assume about the power of Wizards comes from permissive DMing, from lax interpretation of charm rules or planar binding.  Just from observing the two thunderdome threads I've seen how magical fact finding can play out depending on the GM!  It is of supreme irony, to me, that for all the Dens talk about 'scry and die' tactics, a Den GM refused to give up any information at all to the half dozen or so spells I used. Maybe I did it wrong, maybe I compartmentalized too well by deliberately avoiding questions about demons. Maybe it was just my infamous luck (80% chance of getting something from Divination, the GM rolls an 89...  who knows what I would have learned? Seriously, though, I roll like that in real life too! I recently rolled a 3d6 statline and got all single digit stats!).  Of course, it is the spell casters who gain from that sort of fact finding, not the mundanes, not really.

I know they won't learn, perhaps can't, because they keep trotting out the same tired arguments over and over again, never once acknowledging that people have even responded to them, as if they want to fail the Turing test. They can't objectively show that a fighter built under even the most restrictive, most universally acceptable, standards will objectively fall behind an equivilent Melee Monster (see Lord Mistborn's Timmy the Lame vs random CR8 monsters, where he hit par in two of three encounters... and this was meant as proof the fighter failed), they can't ever acknowledge, for example, that if the wizard fails to attack the fighter first that it could be a short fight... for the wizard.  These are obvious cases, ones that don't actually weaken their core argument... that wizards are stronger at end-game, yet they can't keep from recycling them like faceless extras in an action movie.  

So, at the end of the day I, for one, am comfortable in saying that, for all the annoyance they've brought, that we have gained far more from their silly little forum invasion than they have.

So thank you MGuy and Kaelik, thank you Lord Mistborn (you poor dumb bastard), and DeadDM (who at least seems like a nice and fair minded fellow).

Thank you for provoking interesting discussion here. Thank you for being too blind to your own failings to actually learn anything yourselves... to be reasonable facsimilies of human beings instead of repetitive response generators.  

And Ultimately: Thank you for entertaining me these last few months.

Now get back out there and, as always:

Entertain me, Motherfuckers!

tl;dr

I be verbose.

I took another look at Prestige Classes and worked out how to use them like Greyhawk Paladins or the Companion set Avengers/Druids/Paladins/etc.

Spoiler

The Esoteric Assassin

"Some legendary abilities purported to be in the province of ninja training include invisibility, walking on water, and control over the natural elements..."

The Esoteric Assassin’s training in the dark arts allows them to carry out missions of death, for with their spells they can infiltrate and slay with impunity. Esoteric Assassins belong to secret societies hidden in cities or based in remote fortresses in the wilderness.  

Requirements: Assassin (or Thug) of 5th level with an Intelligence of 15 or higher and a Dexterity of 16 or higher who has assassinated or challenged to a duel and slain an Esoteric Assassin of higher level for the purpose of joining their society.

Esoteric Assassins progress as an Assassin but gain the benefits of an improved Saving Throw versus Poison and the ability to cast spells. They may progress to a maximum of the 14 level, and must assassinate or challenge to the duel and slay a 14th level Esoteric Assassin to advance to that level.

Level XP  Poison Save Spells:1st/2nd/3rd/4th
6         65,000     11   1
7       110,000 10    2
8       190,000 10   3 1
9       335,000 9   3 2
10       550,000 9   3 3 1
11       800,000 5   3 3 2
12    1,325,000 5   3 3 3 1
13    1,875,000 4   3 3 3 2
14    2,125,000 4   3 3 3 3

Spells are prepared and cast the same as a Magic-User, and cannot be cast while the Esoteric Assassin is wearing any armor.

1st Level Spells
Audible Glamer (2)
Change Self (Illusionist, 2e 1)
Detect Poison (UA Druid 1, 2e Cleric 1)
Feather Fall
Fog Cloud (Illusionist 2, 2e 2)
Jump
Sleep
Ventriloquism

2nd Level Spells
Alter Self (2e)
Darkness 15’ Radius
Illusionary Script (Illusionist 3, 2e 3)
Invisibility
Pass Without A Trace (Druid 1, 2e Priest 1)
Spider Climb (1)
Unknowable Alignment (Cleric 1, Reversed)

3rd Level Spells
Misdirection (Illusionist 2, 2e 2)
Non-Detection (Illusionist 3, 2e 3)
Protection From Good 10’ Radius (Reversed)

4th Level Spells
Clairaudience (3)
Clairvoyance (3)
Dimension Door
Improved Invisibility (Illusionist 4, 2e 4)
Poison (reversed Cleric 4)

What I realize from looking at the Greyhawk Paladin as the original "Prestige Class" is that how much the CHA 17 requirement served as a "rarity"; if you were lucky you could play a Paladin but you couldn't plan on it.

Something about Fighters getting the short end of the stick in 3.X, and how people dismiss others.

Quote from: Spike;573383I be verbose.

I think one post out of the (literally) thousands of others in these threads sums things up for me.

Quote from: MGuy;558024I've never played older editions like 1E, 0E, and I'm not sure what edition Ad&D is.

While I appreciate the honesty in that admission, it doesn't change the fact that there's some profound ignorance about the history of the game which colors the arguments advanced.

Sure, thats personally damning insofar as it goes.

I personally don't feel that someone who started with 3X and doesn't know anything prior is disadvantaged in identifying problems, and only slightly disadvantaged at coming up with solutions due to a lack of depth in their understanding.

It is the inability to overcome that, however, that singles out MGuy for mockery. He doesn't know, and doesn't WANT to know... possibly because it would risk making him look like he was admitting he was wrong... which he wrongly conflates with... I dunno... losing.

What I learned from the "debate" here:

Frank, Kaelik, and others from the Den were indeed right in that people can and will gripe endlessly at the mere suggestion that the fighter have "nice things". Before the conversation here I hel that people, and probably most people would, consider that a "fighter" can and should be able to do what the rules said. That actually changing the fighter would not bring about that much turmoil. The Fight v Wiz thread, and its attendees have taught me that I was quite wrong.

I am surprised that there are people who play 3e and don't realize the power disparity there or why that isn't good for the game. It had always been so accepted for me that when pathfinder announced they would attend to the problem I was actually excited especially after 4e went in a direction I didn't want it to go (making everybody about as effective as the fighter). Only on this board have I ever, in any discussion about any 3e or prior edition, heard the suggestion that fighters stood on equal ground with casters. I had always heard of it as just being accepted or even desired by the fan base that fighters suck and wizards rule in the end game. This is the only place where I've actually seen any argument to the contrary and considering that most people with this stance change the rules to make it fit I'm not surprised.

This place has reaffirmed the value of the Den for me. I lurked on the Den as a guest for a while before posting and got lambasted for not knowin anything about how actual game desin worked. I whined of course and demanded proof, numbers, some kind of evidence to back up the insults. It was given to me. In fact it was an argument with Frank that made me spend actual time learning about game design and how it worked. So out of the discourse there I learn something. The discourse here on the other hand has been lacking in substance. Instead of getting yelled at for makin illogical arguments, presenting falacies to support unsteady assertions I get people insulting me (and others) for being able to read, follow rules, and do math. I've had more intelligible disagreements with Kaelik over the fiddly bits of Diplomacy than the "Play the rules not the game!" or "3rd is gfor assholes!" mantra I've found here.

Yes I've never played Ad+d, 1e or 0e but none of those games are of any interest to me because 3e is about as close to what I want as most RPGs get. Why would I want to o backwards to editions which spawn people with ideas like Benoist's or Storm's? If I'm to be enticed into even being curious about prior editions then you'd at least have to produce people who don't openly state that they are contentious of people who don't think like them. Even when these editions are brought up as "solutions" to my problem when expanded upon I find them highly lacking. I'm to be impressed by older editions because they had less rules? Because they are older? I've been given no reason, in any of the aruments the one thread spawned, to CARE about them. The sum total of the attitudes and views of the people who bring them up read as a giant "DON'T PLAY THESE EDITIONS BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT YOU'LL TURN INTO" sign for me. Any curiousity I may have held about 2e or prior editions ahs been thoroughly murdered by the people here who play them.

TL: DR: This place has taught me to never put fighters into any game I play, there are people out there who hate rules and don't follow them, and the best reason to not play older editions of DnD are the very people who play them.

If you care about design, then you should care at least a little bit about the history of the game, since all the things we have now are built on things that came before.  Understanding why certain things were changed and how it affected the game over the years gives you a better understanding of the games we have now.  

You say you don't want to go "backwards", but modern D&D is so different from classic D&D that its evolution isn't founded upon "this is more elegant" principles, it's founded upon changing the core of the game significantly (producing, IMO, both cool and not-so-cool things).  You're going sideways, not back, and so there's real value in analyzing those older editions, especially because there are few, if any, modern RPGs that emulate that experience.  You might nitpick about things here or there you think are clunky, but the core of the game still has value in it.

So really, either you care about games and how they work and are willing to play and learn about them in good faith, or you're not.  If you're going to take a tiny sampling of the community you don't get along with and use that to color your perceptions, then how much do you really care about the design and finding about how it works in actual play?

Not to mention utterly failing to grasp that there are certain definitions of "Nice Things" that utterly go against people conception of Fighters.

As a note, I'll point out that I've never seen a game were "everyone is a wizard"... explicitly or not-so-explicitly... was popular.

True: the Dark Sword RPG was always going to be a marginal property (what with it being sold in a paperback novel format), but even in that setting the main character, the HERO of the trilogy it was based off of... was the guy with no magic at all.

Me? I want fighters with nice things. I still don't want fighters with moar magick powerz, or whatever... as, it seems, do most people.

Quote from: SpikeNot to mention utterly failing to grasp that there are certain definitions of "Nice Things" that utterly go against people conception of Fighters.

There are lots of things that don't aesthetically please me, I just don't play those games.

D&D has been put in the unfortunate position of being what RPGs are about to a lot of people, and with that the expectation it will be all things to all fans, or even just most things to most fans.  That's not going to happen, and the reasons for it almost happening with 3e I don't think had much to do with the design as it did the alignment of the stars regarding other things.

Oh, I agree.  The point here is that the move to give Fighters "Nice THings" as defined by, essentially, making them "Not Fighters" is an attempt to cater to a minority viewpoint.

And, as if that weren't enough to be offensive, insofar as anything in a fandom is truly ever offensive, its being done out of a misguided and willfully under-informed view of the game.

What the hell is "The Den"?

Quote from: Piestrio;573446What the hell is "The Den"?

The Gaming Den, forum home of Frank Trollman.

Quote from: jeff37923;573447The Gaming Den, forum home of Frank Trollman.

I see.


And there was an invasion?