Ok, well, I think some people are probably exaggerating and being idiots on both sides.  

Also, fighters ARE gimped in 3e.  Its a stupid thing to argue against.

The problem is that Fighters are gimped not because they don't have superpowers, but because they're not allowed to do even normal acts of daring do unless they have the right chain of feats.  Something that in old school would have been a reasonable thing for a fighter to try to do in combat (and would have been resolved with "ok, do it but you have -2 to hit") now requires a specific charop build of 4 different feats to accomplish.

What's more, as others have pointed out, 3e wizards are more like a ridiculous hyperendowed mockery of what earlier-edition wizards were.  You no longer have any chance of failing to learn a spell, you no longer have a chance of failing to cast a spell, you now do have a chance to even manage to cast a spell while someone is stabbing you multiple times, you have no limits to how many spells you can learn per level, you  can create all the magic items you want, and you start with more spells and gain spells like crazy.

So yes, I would say anyone who was trying to honestly argue that fighters are just peachy-keen and not in any way comparatively gimped in 3e are probably being stupid.

So the answer to the problem, as far as 5e is concerned, is to stop handicapping fighters with an exclusive system of feats where not having the feat prevents you from even attempting something that, say, I could probably at least "attempt"; and to make fighters better at killing things compared to the other classes, without making them wuxia magical snowflakes or something.

And the answer to the denner's complaints is: PLAY OLD SCHOOL, MOTHERFUCKERS.  You'll be surprised how much more fun it is.

RPGPundit

The problem on the fighter V. wizards debate is people have been arguing about multiple editions at the same time. The new posters mostly seem to be talking about 3E, but many of us were saying things like "this wasn't really a problem in AD&D and there are ways to manage the issue in 3E". As far as i could tell only a very select number of posters were arguing 3E didn't have balance issues. But anything said about 1E or 2E was largely interpreted by the newcomers as a statement about 3E. The vitriol on the threads just clouded things more.

Quote from: RPGPundit;575304So the answer to the problem, as far as 5e is concerned, is to stop handicapping fighters with an exclusive system of feats where not having the feat prevents you from even attempting something that, say, I could probably at least "attempt";

Based on what I saw in the latest playtest, they have already failed on this.  Parry is a selected combat maneuver for a specific style of fighter?

Please put some sense into them!

Quote from: RPGPundit;575304Ok, well, I think some people are probably exaggerating and being idiots on both sides.  

Also, fighters ARE gimped in 3e.  Its a stupid thing to argue against.

The problem is that Fighters are gimped not because they don't have superpowers, but because they're not allowed to do even normal acts of daring do unless they have the right chain of feats.  Something that in old school would have been a reasonable thing for a fighter to try to do in combat (and would have been resolved with "ok, do it but you have -2 to hit") now requires a specific charop build of 4 different feats to accomplish.

What's more, as others have pointed out, 3e wizards are more like a ridiculous hyperendowed mockery of what earlier-edition wizards were.  You no longer have any chance of failing to learn a spell, you no longer have a chance of failing to cast a spell, you now do have a chance to even manage to cast a spell while someone is stabbing you multiple times, you have no limits to how many spells you can learn per level, you  can create all the magic items you want, and you start with more spells and gain spells like crazy.

So yes, I would say anyone who was trying to honestly argue that fighters are just peachy-keen and not in any way comparatively gimped in 3e are probably being stupid.

Wisdom.

Quote from: Rum Cove;575313Based on what I saw in the latest playtest, they have already failed on this.  Parry is a selected combat maneuver for a specific style of fighter?

Please put some sense into them!

I didn't get that impression.  Any class can go defensive for their action to increase AC.  For Parry, any fighter can use it, and can spend their expertise dice to reduce damage.

So every fighter can do it.  Additionally, with ability checks, any class can also attempt other skills (like trap detection, etc).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;575333For Parry, any fighter can use it, and can spend their expertise dice to reduce damage.

Are you sure?  I thought it said that there were four styles of combat, and the Fighter selects one which gives Combat Maneuvers at specific levels (ie.  predetermined Feats).  Parry was a Combat Maneuver on a list, for a specific type of Fighter.

I stopped reading once I saw that.

Quote from: Rum Cove;575349Are you sure?  I thought it said that there were four styles of combat, and the Fighter selects one which gives Combat Maneuvers at specific levels (ie.  predetermined Feats).  Parry was a Combat Maneuver on a list, for a specific type of Fighter.

I stopped reading once I saw that.

You're right that certain specialties have their own maneuvers.  However, all fighters get deadly strike and parry as part of combat superiority.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;575398You're right that certain specialties have their own maneuvers.  However, all fighters get deadly strike and parry as part of combat superiority.

All right, I'll give it another look.  Thanks.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575319Wisdom.

I am saddened by my own total lack of surprise that you left off the most important part:

Quote from: RPGPundit;575304And the answer to the denner's complaints is:  PLAY OLD SCHOOL, MOTHERFUCKERS.  You'll be surprised how much more fun  it is.

Generally speaking, even if I agree with someone's observations, the prescription may not be right for all 'patients'.  

Older editions of D&D are not for me, other than in a nostalgic collect the books and compare editions stuff.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575487Generally speaking, even if I agree with someone's observations, the prescription may not be right for all 'patients'.  

Older editions of D&D are not for me, other than in a nostalgic collect the books and compare editions stuff.

This is an honest question. What's your experience with pre-3e D&D? Not "I have played X years with Y edition", but -- have you ever played any older edition? And if so, how did you like it?

I ask not to qualify your opinions or anything, but as a sincere enthusiast of older editions who's only recently (in the last 3 or 4 years) rediscovered them.

Also, sticklers for mechanical consistency will find that some retro-clones and simulacra smooth over some of the old wrinkles; a turn-off for the grognards, but a selling point for the odd newcomer.

(I wish I could invite you over for a D&D RC or ACKS game, that would sound less dickish.)

We've had D&D books in my house as long as I can remember.  I started playing 'for real' with my older brother.  He was born in 1977 and I was born in 1979, so this was probably early- to mid-eighties.  My older brother is significantly more intelligent than I am, and he was the DM.  He made an effort to generally follow the rules, and he only occasionally was a dick.  We also played Orc Wars (a free game included in Dragon magazine) quite a lot.  

I have a lot of typical 1st edition memories, like rolling a character and finding the only thing I was qualified to do was be a Fighter.  I once had a character with psionics.  When he was eating my characters foot I was able to use telekinesis to shove my boot down his throat and choke him to death.  

All the games were set in Mystara, so that was the first setting I was exposed to.  

Beginning in junior high, I started playing 2nd edition.  Let's say 1992?  I ran some games as a DM, some of my friends ran some games, too.  The longest running DM was a friend of mine who is also much smarter than I am.  He scored 1600 on his SAT and went to Harvard and Yale and became a computer scientist dealing with AI, among other things.  In any case, that campaign wasn't my comprehensive experience with 2nd edition, but it was my longest experience with a single campaign.  Magic: The Gathering nearly disrupted it, which was sad.  I'd show up to play D&D and then everyone would decide to play Magic instead - I played, but didn't care for the game much.  

Edit - I'm actually pretty sure I played 2nd edition before Junior High - I know one of the people I played with was a good friend from when I was in Kindergarten, but he didn't go to the same school from 4th-6th grade, and I think we reconnected during that time.  

In 2nd edition we played with some kits.  I liked the Complete Fighters Handbook and the Complete Book of Humanoids.  I spent tons of money buying Character Sheets (they came on green paper, and it wasn't as easy to erase hit points as if you made a photocopy - but photocopies were pretty high tech at the time).  I never could afford all the supplements I wanted.  

I made tons of mistakes as a DM.  Lots of railroading and Gods enforcing alignment (but I had some immature friends who would do stupid things like cut off the head of the NPC they were supposed to be saving and rape the body), but we had fun, anyways.  I liked it better than button-mashing Street Fighter II (we never had a console more advanced than the Nintendo).  

When I graduated High School in 1997, I pretty much took a break from gaming.  In 1999, my future wife was studying abroad, so I got back into gaming with the release of 3rd edition.  I really had fun with it, but we also played some other games, like Deadlands.  When my future wife moved to Iowa in 2001, I moved out there too.  We didn't have family, and gaming was a great way to make some social connections.  It was a college town, so we really had no trouble finding lots of players - usually too many.  We did have problems with different styles of game, and trying to accommodate too many people at once.  But again, by and large, that was a good time.  

I moved to Tennessee in 2009 and I've only been doing 'real' gaming with my Iowa group since then.  We play most every week using video conferencing.  It means I never get to break my minis anymore.    But I've also played and tried to run play-by-post games online.  

I try to make sure that every character is different as far as personality goes, though there are a few similar archetypes I haven't had a chance to explore fully, but if characters have similar personalities, they tend to have very different mechanics.  For example, I've played two 'womanizing' characters.  One was a 'musketeer' character (Fighter build) while the other is a bard/cleric in a more traditional Forgotten Realms campaign.  

So I've been gaming pretty much all my life, usually some version of D&D.  I have extensive experience with prior editions, but it's all very dated.  I do have more of the books than I did when I was younger, and I do review them, refer to them, and treasure them, but I wouldn't want to run it; or particularly eager to play in it.  I really like some of the customization of 3.x; I just wish the implementation had been a little better for some of the stuff.

@DeadDMwalking

Good post, kudos. Just based on your age I would suspect most of your early edition gaming was 2E but that is neither here nor there.

It's amazing how many people 3E brought back.

DeadDM:

I'm not going to go over all the recent arguing and reread the back and forths,

But if I was a dick to you (EDIT: Strike, my previous caveat, that was a shitty copout for me to say and I'm sure you didn't engage in any dishonest OTT hyperbole), I sincerely apologize. And if I acted as if you were arguing in bad faith and you weren't I apologize for tht as well.

There. Something good came of this thread after all!

RPGPundit