Thread 96710360

Redditors can only conceive of balance meaning "every class is equal is power at every moment in time and during every encounter."

Meanwhile AD&D wizards:
>d4 hp
>no armor, no weapons other than dagger and staff
>generally casting toward end of round and taking one hp of damage causes spell to be lost
>need speech and free hands AND material components
>must find spell to know it, don't just pick it. Means every wizard doesn't automatically use the same OP spells
>Vancian is far weaker than the flexibility of at-will spell selection (this is a good thing)
>actual attrition-based play rather than "I rest after every encounter and therefore begin every encounter with all my spells, tee hee!"
>Most importantly, and this rarely gets mentioned even by grognards: MAGIC RESISTANCE among high-level monsters.

Yeah, I'd say it was balanced.

>>96710360 (OP)
You have either lost the plot on your sarcasm, or are a fucking retard who never played AD&D. Magic-users (not Wizards, the title wizard was something you needed to earn) were balanced around their high-level potential, not about their feebleness at lower levels or their one important moment.
Also, Dungeon Masters were expected to hand out wands and scrolls for the magic-users to fill the gap and allow them to be useful outside of their handful of memorized spells.
>Grogs don't mention magic resistance
If your experience with AD&D is /osrg/ you don't have a snapshot of any type of classic D&D. Not how it was played and not how it is discussed by the people who actually like it.

>>96710360 (OP)
>5e babby praises oldfag games without playing them
boring rerun
everything you posted is very easily surmountable, eg
>>Most importantly, and this rarely gets mentioned even by grognards: MAGIC RESISTANCE among high-level monsters.
>>>Most importantly
just don't cast spells directly on them retard (summons, buffs to allies, environment changes, etc)

>>96710424
>You have either lost the plot on your sarcasm, or are a fucking retard who never played AD&D. Magic-users (not Wizards, the title wizard was something you needed to earn) were balanced around their high-level potential, not about their feebleness at lower levels or their one important moment.
You don't have much reading comprehension, do you?

>>96710483
Clearly, I have more than you. But are you sure you have any amount of critical thinking ability?

>>96710360 (OP)
Have you tried not playing D&Dogshit?

>>96710360 (OP)
truthnuke:
dnd was always bad

Retard. Not even worth responding to.

>>96710360 (OP)
Why did you put overpowered spells in your game, moron?
Why did you give the players options if you didn't want them to have access to those options, moron?
Why did you create spells that ruin the game if they get cast more than three times, moron?
Why did you create a game mechanic for which the only reasonable defense is simply negating it, moron?

>>96710360 (OP)
I agree with this. They should bring back 80% MR for high-level monsters.

>>96711463
good question, why did 5e do these things?

>>96711560
5e doesn't have Spell Resistance of the type featured in 3.5 and earlier editions. It's still a horrible game, like every version of D&D. Why did you lie?

>>96710360 (OP)
Yes, my name is Baphomet and I have 75% Spell Resistance, not to mention great saving throws. You used up almost all your spells before now fighting those "useless gay minions" in the prior rooms? I guess they're not so useless after now. LOL, no I won't wait while you take a short rest on my cavern floor. What's that you're trying to cast? AGP Tiny Hut? Sorry, never heard of it and it's not working in any event. Maybe you're thinking about a spell you read in a superhero comic or a manga. Anyway, let's get this over with.

>>96711560
Because it was designed by morons who had a corporate mandate to make money. Luckily these morons knew their fanbase was SO retarded that they would eat the slop anyway, like good little pay-piggies.

>>96711754
Nope, Rope Trick always works and Extended Spell makes it last 8+ hours. Sucks to suck bitch guess you should have read the fucking rules

>>96710360 (OP)
Magic resistance was variable and assumed a 11th level caster, it went up or down 5% for every level above or below that of the caster.

>classes
kek, I didn't know time travel was invented in 1980

>>96710360 (OP)
Are the Redditors in the room with you right now?

>>96711868
>Rope Trick always works and Extended Spell makes it last 8+ hours. Sucks to suck bitch guess you should have read the fucking rules
Have fun when he climbs up that rope behind you, bro.

>>96712702
>Have fun when he climbs up that rope behind you, bro.
That spell wasn't nicknamed Rape Trick for nothing

>>96710360 (OP)
>[People who I think are the embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect] can only conceive of balance meaning "every class is equal is power at every moment in time and during every encounter.
Not really a FTFY, but I'm operating on this assumption.
>Yeah, I'd say it was balanced.
I'm inclined to agree. Much of "balancing" these days is done in white void scenarios where no factors other than combatants being there in the moment are present. There's little to no consideration for power scaling over time, the longevity of a campaign, or even the interplay of classes or abilities on the game world. It leads to a lot of accidental power creep Sorcerer of the Moon for 5e Dragonlance is a good example of that.
AD&D magic-users began the game as weak little nerds with sticks but had the capacity to ascend to godhood IF they survived and IF the DM handed them scrolls which they were able to successfully copy to their spell books. Sure, they sucked in individual scenarios where they didn't prepare spells that would help them in that moment, but if the player was careful and smart with spell usage overall, his magic-user could go from relying on the fighter to protect him from dying of being sneezed on by a goblin to being so god-like that he could zap the shit out of an avatar of Maglubiyet single-handedly. That being said, most magic-users never made it that far.

>>96712775
>That spell wasn't nicknamed Rape Trick for nothing
Imagine running a convention game and the girl playing the cute little wizard elf casts "Rope Trick, I climb up the rope, Yay!". And so you tell the rest of the party "As Alina scampers up the rope and the extradimensional portal closees, you see the Drow (wink), the Orc (wink wink), and the black torchbearer you hired for 1 gp per day (wink wink wink) race up the rope behind her, as agile as monkeys. The portal is now closed and won't reopen for 4 hours, what do you do?"

>>96710424
Wasn't spell save, wand save, and breath save all different stats?

>>96711560
5e is lower-powered than previous editions starting from about level 10.

>>96713213
>I'm inclined to agree. Much of "balancing" these days is done in white void scenarios where no factors other than combatants being there in the moment are present. There's little to no consideration for power scaling over time, the longevity of a campaign, or even the interplay of classes or abilities on the game world. It leads to a lot of accidental power creep

Starting with 4e they very explicitly did this. They pretend they got rid of the World of Warcraft style in 5e but they didn't, they mostly got rid of the video game nomenclature. Redditor Antifa NEET wants to play a wizard catgirl but he's simply furious he can't do as much damage as the fighter every round? No problem big guy, we'll give you a cantrip that's indistinguishable from shooting an arrow. And how's this for flavor: the archer will use his 20 Dex for a bonus shooting his bow, and you'll use your 20 Int (is that high enough for you at 1st level, btw, don't want you to feel underpowered) for a bonus shooting your fire arrow. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs am i rite, comrade?

>>96712702
Too bad he can't, bro. Read the rules.

>>96713213
If your game isn't balanced in a white room, it isn't balanced. If you have to introduce external factors to prop up the shit classes and nerf the broken ones, you are a shit designer. White room balance is the only metric that matters.

>>96713556
So what? Why shouldn't they both be able to contribute to the game?

>>96714723
he has no argument. he heard of old games and decided that they must be the best becaus they are trad. hence modern games must be bad, but the only accusation he can come up against them is that simply they aren't exactly the same as gaygax's shitty chainmail homebrew rules

>>96710424
>Also, Dungeon Masters were expected to hand out wands and scrolls for the magic-users to fill the gap

No they weren't. Dungeon Masters weren't expected to do anything at all. In fact if a DM didn't like a particular spell, it was standard practice to simply not let the players ever find scrolls for it.
In fact everything you said is fucking retarded and wrong.

>>96710424
Lol the resident bitch troll decides to show back up and cry about people actually playing games that he is incapable of

>>96715251
>Dms aren’t supposed to do stuff, but it was common practice for them to balance the game how they wanted
Idiot

>>96715251
Why did they print spells that have the potential to ruin games?

>>96713556
I will never be able to get over how D&D players complained that non-fighter classes aren't just as capable at combat as the literal fighter class. Of course this meant that while non-fighters became competent at fighting, fighters were never given anything to make them as competent at non-combat as spellcasters and skill monkeys.

>>96716302
>fighters were never given anything to make them as competent at non-combat as spellcasters and skill monkeys.
Yeah they were, it's called a game master dumbass lol

>>96716325
(you)
Did that make you happy?

>>96716342
Hey don't blame me that you got mad and have no arguments. I'm just saying it's objectively true that GMs let fighters get away with way more shit that any caster has to have written down on their sheet and specifically in a spell to even attempt.

>>96716394
>I'm just saying it's objectively true that GMs let fighters get away with way more shit that any caster has to have written down on their sheet and specifically in a spell to even attempt.
Where does it say that in the ruleset?

>>96716406
>Where does it say that in the ruleset?
See what I mean?

>>96716491
Concession accepted.

>>96716723
Concession accepted.

>>96710360 (OP)
>misses THE most important part of it all
XP TRACKS, MOTHERFUCKER! THE balancing point of Wizards was making them take forever to level.

>>96716933
Concession accepted.

I like the hackmaster wizard where you get things like spelljacking to memorize spells outside of your book and holding spells to multicast. The vancian casters are overpowered myth is wack. i want to see what wizards can do when unshackled from this prejudice.

The best thing AD&D could have done was separate illusionist, conjurer, necromancer, etc. into mutually exclusive spell lists. It's idiocy to have 500 possible spells. It always devolves into everyone picking the same 20 or so OP choices, and also creates the "wizard is better at everything because he has a spell that replicates every other class". Separating the mages would be 10x more flavorful and encourage 10x more creative play. Now it matters a lot if your enemy is an enchanter while you're a transmuter.

>>96717989
I'm fine with this if we're improving wizards in a general sense while narrowing their spell capabilities. Otherwise, no one is ever going to play the guy who can make an image of Elvis to keep the rumor he's alive going versus IMPERIAL DOOMBLAST MCSOLVES ENCOUNTER. Well, someone will. Then complain about how bad it is except for the one time something funny happened. That wizards have magic and only magic and can't really do anything else is part of their entire balance issue. It's what forces the issue of the one thing they do being VERY GOOD. It has to be, or you've made a walking talking millstone you put around your neck to drag the group down.

This might be why editions after 3.5 tried to lean in to at will stuff for wizards. Trying to maintain this SUPER SPESHUL balance point of a guy with 4 hit points but infinite cosmic power but only 5 times a day is full of headaches and problems you can't really solve in a clean or permanent manner. Except in the transition from 4e to 5e, we lost balanced magic but kept at will magic on top of it. Woopsie.

This is also why warlocks have secretly always been based. Mechanically speaking.

>>96718189
Why are you only creating encounters that can be solved by attack spells?

>>96718195
Is this a real question, or are you feigning ignorance?

>>96718203
So then, either you aren't actually doing that, in which case "Guy with blast spell" wouldn't be a problem, or you are doing that, and you genuinely believe that there isn't any other way you could possibly design encounters. So which is it? Are you a liar, or an incompetent idiot?

>>96717989
god wizards are a feature, not a bug. Be grateful you got to table with such a talented wizard

>>96718189
warlock (4e) is cool.Warlock (3.5, 5e) is bad and so is spheres of power..Eldritch blast is wack.

>>96718211
Is hostility always what you jump to when challenged?

The issue of combat is THE issue because, unfortunately, violence tends to supersede other solutions in games. As well as being a sheer inevitability. You need to be sure the option to survive it exists unless a player forgoes that intentionally. At which point it's on their own head. By the same note, noncombat solutions can often be kludged together. A lack of truly appropriate skills can be worked around the long way. On the opposite side of this, there's no cleverly dismantling an encounter with a powerful orc when his sword is already through your spine.

I'll put this another way if all of that was a bit cluttered. A player who rolls a gardener will be unwell unless the entire campaign takes place in a garden. A player who rolls up a fighter will be fine in a campaign that only takes place in a garden.

>>96718320
It supersedes other solutions if you design the game in such a way that allows it to do so, and under no other circumstances.

So I was right. You really do think that it's impossible to design a game in such a way that fighting isn't always the best way to solve problems, or even always a possible way. So you really are an idiot.

I want to step aside a moment and submit to the court. Old DnD makes more sense when you consider you were expected to roll your stats at random. Usually in order. What you could even play, and how well, is determined by that. You can't even select some things if the stat is too low, and having low stats in other stuff will be a long walk off a short pier.

If you roll an 18 in dex, con, and int? Welcome to being a wizard megachad. It's obligatory. Roll an 8 in dex, 8 in con, and bare minimum int? Your life as a wizard will be short and upsetting. Something like fighter is easier to qualify for and the dumping ground for badly rolled characters too. Which may have shaped some perceptions. Since if you rolled anything particular, you probably played some other class that needs those stats. Why waste the chance on a rare stat block?

>>96718363
Yes, that's idiotic and it doesn't balance the game. We know. If an option breaks the game, it isn't any better if it breaks the game 10% of the time. What you should actually do is design the game so that it doesn't have any broken options. It's not difficult.

>>96718338
Explain how to prevent it then, anon. In detail. Point by point. What brilliant TTRPG have you hand designed that you have not graced the public with that prevents this from ever happening? Do you simply ban combat encounters and rolling for initiative? I'm curious.

>>96718376
Why would I need to design one? There are already RPGs that have no combat at all. Is your experience really that limited? lol

>>96718369
You miss the point entirely.

Early DND didn't care about balance. It cared about luck of the draw. If you got a bad hand, you dealt with it. Ride or die. In reality this is fucking miserable, but pretending it wasn't is removing it from it's context and makes for a dishonest, manipulative, argument. Anyone making it has the simple goal of forcing others to their viewpoint. Not finding truth among the mess. Nor having a discussion.

As example, the OP leaves it out.

>>96718388
So your answer is yes. You do simply ban combat and rolling initiative. Okay.

>>96718434
It's funny how you don't realize how hard this tips your hand. Why do you assume that concepts like "combat encounters" and "rolling initiative" exist by default in every game, and have to be actively removed? Explain in detail.

>>96716243
Because one writer saying "I have a great idea for a spell" and then writing it up is all that is really needed for a spell to get printed and it could take a very long time, a bunch of other writers revising it for various reasons, the addition of other spells, abilities and rules, and someone reading it in just the right or wrong way for it to ruin things decades and editions later.

>>96718443
Violence is an ordinary part of life, anon. It's not exactly exceptional. Equally, the thread has a specific context. A context you are ignoring in hopes I can't spot the shift and allow you to manipulate me. Which, yes, I am blatantly accusing you of knowingly manipulating me.

>>96710360 (OP)
Yea, the real "casters are broken" meme became a problem with 3rd.

In 1st and 2nd, they were powerful, but only around like level 10 or 12. By the time they got to level 20, they were generally one of the strongest classes, but they didn't shit all over everyone all the time.

>>96718467
No, I'm not ignoring anything. Your first sentence is a non sequitur. Games aren't necessarily or even usually simulations of real life. There's no reason to expect any particular aspect of life to be represented by a game mechanic in any particular game. For any possible part of life, whether to include it is a game design decision. Try again.

And since I know you'll think you're clever, yes, I can in fact prove that what I just said is true, with examples.

>>96718493
> Equally, the thread has a specific context. A context you are ignoring in hopes I can't spot the shift and allow you to manipulate me. Which, yes, I am blatantly accusing you of knowingly manipulating me.

>>96718517
Like I said, I haven't ignored it. Be specific and prove me wrong, if you can. You won't be able to.

>>96718524
Anon, read the OP. This thread is about DnD, and particularly ADnD. That is a very specific context already, and the major feature of DnD is combat. You could simply never have combat to 'fix' it, and when challenged on that you simply admitted that was your solution. I'm not sure what you are even trying to bicker about now.

>>96718573
Okay, if you want to lie and pretend that the discussion is not in fact about game design in general, since everyone knows D&D is a lost cause, including you, we can play pretend. One of my first replies asked why you don't design encounters in which other methods of problem solving are equally viable alongside combat. You never explained why you don't do that. So? Why don't you?

>>96718477
Well, other classes could also be incredibly jacked. The transition to 3rd really shat all over that in particular while Wizards were either the same or even improved. Fighter, for example, was the only one who could really to full tilt in to weapon specialization. Which was a lot better in 2E too. In addition to simply losing a bunch of mechanics wholesale, such things were vastly toned down. Formerly, a fighter could easily be a BBEG just from how stupidly strong they could be after a specific level. Not being blended by the living blender class was it's own thing.

In 3rd it's more like martials have to politely ask if they can hit you a few times, please. But not too hard! That's rude.

>>96718596
Ah, I see your tactic now.

The presence of noncombat solutions does not remove the need for combat potency to be designed unless one is simply banning combat from the game. Which you could, but that's it's own game entirely.

>>96718631
You didn't answer my question.

>>96718640
I just did?

Noncombat solutions are fine and valid, but the point is balancing combat mechanics. I genuinely do not understand what your issue with this is. Unless you are trying to just, I don't know, force me to submit to your will.

>>96710360 (OP)
RETVRN to making up your own game with rules that actually work for you.

>>96718613
>In 3rd it's more like martials have to politely ask if they can hit you a few times, please. But not too hard! That's rude.

A lot of "improvements" in 3e negatively impacted non-caster (and even some caster) classes. Everything getting Con bonuses massively increase the amount of hp everything had at higher levels making direct damage dealing less effective than Save or Die/Suck. Attack bonuses and ACs were unbounded (previous editions mostly stayed to a bounded range of +10 to -10 equivalent to +10 to +31) making it almost impossible for high level to miss or be hit. Shifting to Fort/Ref/Will saves and then making saves "good" or "bad" made PC much more vulnerable to magic. Iterative attacks meant that while PCs got more attacks per round each new attack gained was less of an increase in damage output. And there is a lot more.

>>96718670
No, the point of "find solutions to encounters other than combat" is not "balancing combat mechanics. Try again.

>>96718758
Kind of startling how much can be done and no one in the process asked for one second if it was too much. This is so common in game design, and I mean in video games too, that I'm not sure why it happens.
>Have ten ideas for fixing a situation
>Any one solution would fix it
>Pick all ten
Never fails. It's uncanny. This is how things get shit up in iterative editions or game patches.

>>96718831
Okay? Fine? Have it your way?

Noncombat solutions don't need help being designed because those can also be gotten around with sheer roleplay or doing the groundwork to prep the success. You don't even need skills or investments for it. That's how my current Dark Heresy character manages to gather information an progress their story. Avoiding having to role at all. And avoiding combat like the plague. Since they aren't built for it. Noncombat doesn't need a design powwow as such. Since roleplaying is stronger than roll playing in such a situation anyway.

Are you happy? I'm not sure this is what you wanted to hear.

>>96718890
Everything you do in a game is roleplaying, including combat. Roleplaying is making decisions. There is nothing outside of roleplaying in a roleplaying game.

Non-combat solutions certainly can require skills, investment, and resources.

>>96718895
>Non-combat solutions certainly can require skills, investment, and resources.
But they don't NEED to. That's the beauty of it. And why not having noncombat choices isn't as big a deal as it seems on paper. Just role play it. In my experience, DMs will give you TONS of leeway in what you can accomplish without rolling for it, or having matching skills, so long as you put in the effort step by step. Rolling only really comes up when you launch right in to
> I want to do X
Rolling is like the brute force solution for social or noncombat encounters. Only really needed for more technical skills. Like if you want to build a house yourself, you can't BS that by just walking around and talking to people. Though can simply.. pay someone qualified to do it. This stuff is just about using your head. Not your character sheet.

Combat encounters, however, tend to be fixed systems. For a reason. Cause we don't want Timmy suddenly saying his character can cast Dragon Slave at will and you can't prove he can't!

>>96718941
But they can. That's the beauty of it. By introducing different costs for different courses of action, you can create a game where the best option isn't always the same option, which is exactly what we want.

>>96718869
Well a fair amount of the team that did 3e came from the MTG team after WoTC bought out TSR. So they applied ideas and skill that worked there to the new toy they just bought not realizing the problems with that and their testers played the game more like 2e rather than the new game it was. It was very pretty compared to 2e but was an absolute mess when you got into it.

>>96718973
I admit, it often slips my mind that DnD was bought out lock stock and barrel. Picking up someone else's work with no notes to guide you either is naturally going to go sideways.

>>96718950
If you want combat but for social encounters, Exalted did that. And quite well. The 'issue' is you can bail out of it at any time by punching the other guy in the face. Since combat supersedes other kinds of encounters by the rules. So you can always just pull your sword out and stab the guy if you are losing the argument...

Also that you can just flat out NO someone by spending willpower, but that's way too important a resource to abuse that. It sorts itself out.

>>96710360 (OP)
It was the initiative modifier. Weapon speed meant you added the weapon speed modifier to the initiative you rolled, but spellcasting added the level of the spell to the initiative modifier. So a fighter at 10th level could hurl three daggers faster than a caster could throw a 5th level spell, which means they were a threat monsters could not ignore - and could easily disrupt spellcasters casting since any damage could disrupt a spell.

>>96714716
White room theorycrafting is nonsensical in a game run by humans.

>>96719017
>I admit, it often slips my mind that DnD was bought out lock stock and barrel. Picking up someone else's work with no notes to guide you either is naturally going to go sideways.

From what I remember TSR was working on a "3e" of their own but according to WotC team "it was too much like 2e" so they threw everything out that they didn't like and started from scratch on there own.

>>96710360 (OP)
"High level casters were gods!"
And high level fighters were rulers of men and commanders of literal armies. They gained full on armies by the time wizards were finally getting their first 6th level spell, because the experience points were calculated based on worldbreaking power - which is why thieves had entire guilds before either fighters or magic-users got into worldbreakign shit.

>>96719061
Yes, that's bad game design. Try to keep up.

>>96718613
Gee, I wonder why that happened.

>>96718443
We're talking about fucking D&D you faggot, the only actual rules are for combat.

>>96718363
I want to step in and say the reason that random stat rolls in OD&D worked is that the stats did almost nothing as of the three original books. They also structurally worked because people like rolling and thus it feels like you're already playing the game, rather than doing homework before you're allowed to play the game.

AD&D has like fifteen different random roll systems offered because Gygax fucked this up with Greyhawk and had to start trying to unfuck it by making the random rolls less and less random.

>>96720714
It really is wild to think the issue was never that wizards were OP. It's that fighter got nerfed to less than half strength.

What the fuck.

>>96719043
>White room theorycrafting is nonsensical in a game run by humans.
Not really.

If it's like, "oh you need to take these specific three spells from four different books, and then you're God," then fine, no GM is going to let you do that. But, if mechanically I am using just the core and dishing out 20 damage and you are dishing out 5 in the white room, the expected play experience REALLY has to be VERY different from the white room for us to be balanced.

Yes, the GM can just warp his entire campaign to produce only the scenarios where your character is about as good as mine, but we're trying to design a good game here, not make the GM do everything.

>>96720937
>It really is wild to think the issue was never that wizards were OP. It's that fighter got nerfed to less than half strength.

I loved Baldur's Gate 2 (which used 2e rules) and played a very heavily modded version that vastly improved enemy AI. I also played permadeath and had mods that greatly restricted resting.

The net result is what D&D should be from a combat perspective. You needed mages for the tough battles, but you also needed fighters decked out in powerful gear for most enemies or your spells would be quickly depleted. Also BG2 used 'Weapon Grandmastery', which meant by lvl 13 or whatever, a fighter would have 3 attacks per round and, of course, 18/00 STR or higher, meaning an average over 12 x 3 = 36 dmg per round. On top of that plenty of the tougher enemies had magic resistance (2e MR, meaning a flat number, not 1e MR that fell after level 11), and they used various spell protections like Spell Shield, Globe of Invulnerability, Spell Turning, etc. Fighters alone dead, Mages alone dead just like Saint Gygax intended.

>>96716942
I'd hardly call +25% of the fighters required XP to be FOREVER.

>>96720714
I fucked your sister.

>>96719043
No, it's the only balance that matters.

>>96710360 (OP)
>reddi
Rent free.

The idea of class balance is that each class has its role that isn't trod on by other classes in flagrant ways. Not equality.

>>96722356
>The idea of class balance is that each class has its role that isn't trod on by other classes in flagrant ways. Not equality.

Your defense of Reddit perfectly coincides with your lack of reading comprehension. BTW how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast today?

>>96722356
No.

>>96721885
HUH?!
>misses crit confirm

>>96718269
>4e is cool.
Shut up 4rrie adults are talking

>>96722369
>BTW how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast today?
Pretty damn pissed off since your mom promised to make it after I gave her the best sex of her life.

>>96720924
No we're not.

>>96720932
I find it fascinating that the building of Ad&d was about failing forward, adding exceptional Strength in Greyhawk and never correcting the imbalances it caused until 3rd ed.

>>96721665
MR is another example of this.
Some monsters get one-shot: mr% is introduced to nerf magic-users.
It feels unfair to Wizards: mr% is reduced by 5% per level above 11.
Now some unique monsters can be one-shot again: mr% reduction onlh applies to Magus for those unique monsters (meaning the mr% is reduced only for 16+ lvl Magus, not mere Wizards or puny magic-users).
Come Ad&d 2e, all that clumsy logic isn't understood, rm% is fixed, making monsters too resistant to high level magic.
New rare spells are introduced to nerf mr% like Khelven's whip or reduce mr%.
Come D&D 3e, all that clumsy logic isn't understood, super rare spells like Magical Resistance are now common.
4e has the wisdom to ignore it entirely.
Until 5e where they gave up and said "da boss can choose to save 3/day, fuck magic- users, now it is balanced lmao" which is just a way to admit that the save system is so shit your DM is advised to Fudge dices...
5.5e seems to just give more legendary saves because even 3/day isn't enough...

I don't understand why "monsters get one-shot" is a problem. You're the DM. You can just add more monsters.

>>96717989
>>96718189
If Fighter, angry Fighter, and outdoorsy archer Fighter can all justify separate classes, breaking up the monolith that is wizards would be drastically better for the health of the game.

And simply narrowing the options makes the game far easier to design, since then instead of having to account for 500 possible spells a character might have, it's gonna be like 60. Then you can worry about fine-tuning each spell list in order to make sure illusionists or diviners can pull their weight.

>classes

I can play a generalist wizard in Prowlers and he's perfectly balanced with a specialized wizard and they're both balanced with a completely mundane fighter.

>>96726533
> Baphomet gets one-shot
> adds d4 Baphomets in the next fight

One of my DM did just that, we would for example fight 2 dragons because he assumed that one would resist our spells and the other end polymorphed into a sheep - so we would actually fight only one, the other was there to deplete us of our "save or X" spells. Only problem is that if they're both lucky, we are fighting 2 fucking dragons - the fight goes from hard to deadly.

That said, problem goes both way - Orcus one shot our Fighter on round one (poisoned) and the DM didn't have a problem with that, it's only us desintegrating his bbeg which was an issue.

>>96727092
So what? If the players die, they just roll up new characters. There's part of the game. That's why you have hit points, to determine whether or not you die.

>>96717989
2e schools were the perfect breakdown. You should only be allowed to cast your school. Yeah, the spell list should be reviewed for whatever you consider ballpark balanced, but the beauty is they aren't balanced in all doing the same thing. So only the Evoker is going to be throwing Fireballs. The Illusionist better think of a way to trick him. Maybe the Diviner will see him coming and give his fighter buddy a potion of fire resistance. Or the Enchanter will just charm his ass. So, so much better.

Having too many options (i.e. 1000 spells in 5e) is just retarded. Having a couple dozen spells leads to all them being known and used. And sure, since spell restriction reduces mage power, throw them some more combat options like crossbows or whatever. Or less them cast more often in exchange for more situations where their school of magic just won't help.

>>96727410
Terrible.

>>96727192
That's the issue with Saves though - bypassing hp. You fell from a tower or get hit by a boulder, you lose hp, there's something consistent here. Whereas a Save often goes as 'the spell does nothing" / "you are dust", it's sad that we are at the 5ed of this game and it still isn't fixed: hp should be used to moderate the effects of spells (funnily enough only a few spells do that).

Yes, save or lose is terrible design, and D&D is terrible. That's not in contention. It's also the case that there's nothing wrong with players dying.

>>96727410
>So only the Evoker is going to be throwing Fireballs. The Illusionist better think of a way to trick him. Maybe the Diviner will see him coming and give his fighter buddy a potion of fire resistance. Or the Enchanter will just charm his ass. So, so much better.
D&D has always relied too much on challenge strictly being A has bigger number than B. More HP, better AC, better saves. It doesn't use enough rock-paper-scissors choices to create challenge.

It's why Napoleonic wargames were such a popular choice. The three simple dials of cavalry beats artillery, artillery beats infantry, infantry beats cavalry provides plenty of scenarios beyond. "Muh infantry has 10 hp your infantry has 8 hp".

>>96727451
>It's also the case that there's nothing wrong with players dying.
Anon.. that's murder. You're suppose to kill their characters. Not them.

Weak.

>>96727092
>One of my DM did just that, we would for example fight 2 dragons because he assumed that one would resist our spells and the other end polymorphed into a sheep - so we would actually fight only one, the other was there to deplete us of our "save or X" spells. Only problem is that if they're both lucky, we are fighting 2 fucking dragons - the fight goes from hard to deadly.
>Balancing combats based on the parties makeup
I could never have so little respect for my friends.

>>96711463
because the point of the wizard is to be a escort quest that's a living bag of a limited number of cheat codes.

Wizards were weak, less equipped to fight even than your average peasant, and needed constant protection.

BUT a few times per day, they get to go "nah we're not dealing with this shit" and just completely negate a problem that they have the spell for in their book and prepared for casting, original reality of the situation be damned.

If the spell isn't overpowered, the otherwise worse than useless wizard is not worth dragging around.
The players ARE meant to have access to the options, but because adding to the list of cheat codes is strong, they need to be hunted down and/or payed for just like other characters getting magic items to expand THEIR effectiveness and repertoire.
>Why did you create spells that ruin the game if they get cast more than three times, moron?
That's literally the entire point. Why do ults exist in video games why can't you just spam them all the time, why don't superpowers put their entire military budget into mass nuclear bombardment, bruh are you serious?
>Why did you create a game mechanic for which the only reasonable defense is simply negating it, moron?
Because they're generally not supposed to be prevented, it would defeat the entire usefulness of the class. The primary limiting factors are Saves making them not 100% reliable in the first place whenever they target enemies, that you have a very limited number of them in a game that is already heavily about resource management, that you can only use the ones you prepared, and that you only have a limited list to even prepare from.

>>96728353
Oh yeah, that's what a player wants to do when they sign up to play a game about exploring dungeons and fighting monsters. He wants to be an escort quest.

So what if ults exist in video games? We're not making a video game. You'll need a different argument.

The point of "the only defense is negating it" is that that is a stupid way of designing a mechanic, retard. There are more possible ways of resolving the effects of a spell then "either you lose the game or the spell is completely wasted". That's literally the most boring and least fun way you could possibly design a game. It's no coincidence that D&D, being the first iteration, is also the worst.

>>96728371
Nothing is stopping you from bringing another fighter or cleric if you'd prefer. Why do retards hear about options they wouldn't use and then pretend that if you don't do it the author will send a 6 man hit squad to kill you if don't choose to use it.

>>96728404
Can't refute anything I said, huh? lol

Running away from the argument already? I know you still have the thread open and are waiting for an opportunity to re-join the discussion at a later point, so you can pretend to be someone else. I'll know when you do, and I'll know which post is yours. You lost the argument, and you will continue to lose every argument you ever participate in for the rest of your life.

>>96728410
>debate me bro
I have enjoyed playing squishy wizards who pop off occasionally a few times a day and act as force multipliers. I have played frontliners who keep the squishy wizards safe. Both are enjoyable. Kindly go back to WoDg or whichever bullshit storygame hole you crawled out of.

>>96728746
That's great, but I didn't say anything about whether they're enjoyable. That's not what the discussion is about. Try again. This time, it might help if you actually read the fucking posts. Retard.

>>96728353
>because the point of the wizard is to be a escort quest that's a living bag of a limited number of cheat codes.
Congratulations on singlehandedly providing the strongest and most coherent argument ever for dismantling the wizard class at it's core and starting over from scratch.

Escort quests suck. They are the worst thing ever made in gaming.

>>96716302
This is a complete persecution complex.
Its like you live in a fantasy world where a Battlemaster Fighter isn't just the protagonist of every combat encounter you put one in.

>>96718338
If you want to play community theater go ahead, but combat is the heart and soul of TTRPGs and is 90% of what you're paying for when you buy a rulebook.

>>96715251
>Treasures tables area spook
That is not a take I expected to ever see, but here we fucking go

>>96728751

>>96728371
>Oh yeah, that's what a player wants to do when they sign up to play a game about exploring dungeons and fighting monsters. He wants to be an escort quest.
>>96728746
>Be me
>Sign up to game about exploring dungeons and fighting monsters
>Enjoy playing wizard
>Enjoy escorting wizard
Sorry about your short term memory loss. Hope it clears up for you soon.

In other news >>96711463 here you (or someone) asked "why isn't the game completely different thou?". Which is beyond retarded to ask when it's one of the earliest games ever written.
>but but but my big brain thinks
Gygax was riffing this shit and played more games every month than you have in the last five years. Simply accept that you are (attempting) criticising of something you don't even have a novices understanding of and move on.

>>96728811
>Escort quests suck. They are the worst thing ever made in gaming
Vidya do escort quests poorly. Also I wouldn't call having a party MU an 'escort quest' even with the superficial similarities.

>>96728841
No it isn't.

>>96727410
People would only ever play Necromancer or Evoker if that was the case.

>>96728850
No, sorry, I understand it far more than you, and certainly far more than Gygax. That's why I don't play dogshit games like D&D. Because I have taste. The wizard is bad, D&D is bad, and you don't understand anything about game design.

>>96728852
I can spend the rest of the day talking to you about how cool of a Goliath Monk I am and we wouldn't need to spend a dollar on it.
But if it came time for my Goliath Monk to prove how cool he was in an imaginary fight, suddenly we'd be arguing about rules and what you can even do in a fight and when the enemy gets a turn against my imagination, and suddenly we'd want a rule book there to arbitrate it.
If you look at any TTRPG handbook, its all about rules for making a character so he can't just be immune to everything and able to kill everyone with one punch like we're on a kindergarten playground, and rules for how those characters fight one another.
The rest is all imagination.

>>96728877
Any TTRPG handbook, except for the ones that don't include combat at all, and have rules for everything else. Retard.

>>96728857
>Because I have taste.
What's your weekly game then?
In before "we've been having problems scheduling a session"

>>96728856
>People would only ever play Necromancer or Evoker if that was the case.
Not when an Conjurer summons a t-rex to stomp your ass, or an Enchanter charms you into having gay sex with your party's fighter.

>>96728893
Just started a new campaign, Prowlers and Paragons. We're in character creation.

>>96728881
Yeah, you can play community theater any time with those, but they're not games at that point.

>>96728902
Yes they are.

>>96728897
>point buy character creation system to make your own oc donut steal
My condolences.

>>96728916
I'm sorry you have bad taste.

>>96728371
>He wants to be an escort quest.
If it means having access to the big flashy cheat codes, yes. People like timmy factor. And spikes and johnny's recognize the usefulness of rule-bending.

>So what if ults exist in video games? We're not making a video game.
Okay, how about GX moves in pokemon cards then.
Or Signature Abilities in FFG Star Wars.
Psionics or even more fitting Spells in Sine Nomine games.
The idea of a limited use bombastic high-impact ability that has to be saved for strategic use is hardly a video game only concept. Vidya got the idea FROM ttrpg.

>>96728410
there's no need to. your logic is self-evident in its fallacy.

>>96728811
because vidya escort quests never contribute. They're pure luggage.

>>96728919
No, my logic is flawless. Refute it or concede.

>>96728895
good luck with that T-rex, I'm behind 7000 skeletons, who have no boners I'm afraid, only bones. to pick. with you. rattlerattle.

>>96728921
it is visibly self-refuting. I need do no such thing, you did it for me.

>>96728928
It isn't, so you concede.

>>96728371
>There are more possible ways of resolving the effects of a spell then "either you lose the game or the spell is completely wasted".
>implying DMs "lose the game" when players use limited use game features to bypass an obstacle

>>96710360 (OP)
>"every class is equal is power at every moment in time and during every encounter."
No, good balance is:
>Every character option is good at what it does while having gaps in its kit filled by the rest of the party

>>96728919
>because vidya escort quests never contribute. They're pure luggage.
Yeah, and I don't want luggage around that MAY be able to get me out of one encounter a day that forces all encounters to be balanced around that because the wizard might do it to any one of them. I'd rather nothing be designed around the luggage. Play a normal ranged DPS or something instead.

>>96728935
No, not implying that at all. I'm not referring to the GM, I'm referring to a particular creature or character in the fictional world losing. Generally, death or incapacitation prevents a being from achieving their goals, whatever those goals might be. That's what we call losing in the context of tabletop games, which usually don't have pre-defined win conditions.

>>96728918
picrel being the what he thinks is good taste

>>96728371
>It's no coincidence that D&D, being the first iteration, is also the worst.
I didn't expect someone to be running defence for 5e in this thread.

>>96728965
That's strange, I don't see the word "edition" appear in my post. So I know that you don't actually believe that "iteration" was referring to "first iteration of D&D" rather than "first iteration of RPGs". Why did you lie? Trolling is against the rules. I'd rather not have to have you banned permanently.

>>96728974
>So I know that you don't actually believe that "iteration" was referring to "first iteration of D&D" rather than "first iteration of RPGs".
Unless you are claiming dnd 5th is the same iteration as adnd then the differentiation is irrelevant. If so then you are
substituting an argument for word play then we have nothing else to talk about.

>>96729014
Okay so either you're trolling or you're a retard.
I said, exactly, this : That D&D is the first iteration of RPGs, and therefore is the worst iteration of RPGs. That's it. No word play, nothing complicated. I didn't mention any edition. I'm sure even you can understand that.

Yep, run away bitch.

>>96728124
Sooner or later, it comes down to fate.
I might as well be the one.

>>96719017
>So you can always just pull your sword out and stab the guy if you are losing the argument...
I actually did something for that when I once had a diplomancer in my game. We both agreed that just turning people into fanatics, while fun, would be too disruptive. So instead characters who lost a diplomacy duel got penalties on actions, including in combat. So that guy, who is duty bound to fight you, but you convinced him that you are actually in the right? He is going to get -5 penalty on all of his attacks (in case of diplomancer it was more like -10 most of the time). That greedy merchant you convinced that charity is good for his soul? He is going to be sucking hard at all of his profession and other trade related rolls as long as he persists in being a greedy bastard. And so on.

>>96739602
The tortured soul angle. I don't hate it. But how far diplomacy can go in a game is always up to the GM. It's only mind control if you allow it to be. In the case of Exalted... well once you get in to charms it kind of is regardless. Thus the willpower loophole, I think. If a DM really doesn't want you doing something, they can have the NPC drop a willpower.

Which is fine in the long view. Recovering those isn't easy, and it has other mechanical effects. Slowly wearing someone out of willpower is a valid strategy.

>>96713293
>Imagine running a convention game and the girl playing the cute little wizard elf casts "Rope Trick, I climb up the rope, Yay!". And so you tell the rest of the party "As Alina scampers up the rope and the extradimensional portal closees, you see the Drow (wink), the Orc (wink wink), and the black torchbearer you hired for 1 gp per day (wink wink wink) race up the rope behind her, as agile as monkeys. The portal is now closed and won't reopen for 4 hours, what do you do?"
What's the joke here? is it supposed to be rape or consensual?

>>96718758
>Iterative attacks meant that while PCs got more attacks per round each new attack gained was less of an increase in damage output. And there is a lot more.
how did it work previously?

>>96740169
You simply got more attacks. The end. Similar to 5e Extra Attacks, only if you weren't a warrior you were out of luck and got nothing of the sort. And that's on top of the way better hit points and ability to use good weapons and armor.
Basically figther gone from something like 3 attacks without penalties in AD&D to 4, but with progressive penalties and other classes also got bonus attacks AND better hit points than they had in AD&D. Same goes for many monsters.

If before you were doing +20/+20/+20 now you got +20/+15/+10/+5. Which a serious downgrade.

>>96742456
did other classes like paladins get that too? I think it one edition they were a subclass or something

>>96742584
All "warrior" classes did. In 2e this was:
>Fighter
>Ranger
>Paladin
>Berserker (from that one Viking sourcebook)
>Runecarver (also from the Viking sourcebook)
In 1e, paladin and ranger were presented as options (or sub-classes, if you prefer) for fighters in the PHB.

>>96713397
Yes, are later editions not like that?

>>96728371
You cannot even fathom the sheer fucking joy that my Magic-User party member, who I escorted through multiple dungeons felt when he finally acquired fireball. I've never seen a man so instantly excited to start burning down entire sections of dungeons.

>>96719085
Wow what a fucking smoothbrain take... I will pray for u anon

>>96710360 (OP)
Why would you want to be useless most of the time? Did you sign up to not play a game?

>>96743654
Not surprised that you can't come up with any argument.

>>96743901
I'm not an OSR player, but you aren't really "useless most of the time". In combat, sure. But you are there, playing the game, making decisions, helping with thinking and moving things along, etc.
It's a very different kind of game from modern D&D as far as I can tell where the usefulness of your class doesn't dictate what you can do as much.
Or something like that, that's mostly the impression I get looking from the outside.

>>96710360 (OP)
TSR Magic Resistance is good in the sense that it does a lot to balance wizards, and it harder to punch through than 3.PF or subsequent.

It's a bit awkward in that your spell slot having to punch through MR and saving throws is a bit of a feels bad moment. However, it encourages non-combat utility and crowd-clearing magic. I think that works better with power distribution in AD&D, although it steps on the Thief's toes somewhat. The thief skills have always been a bit of an awkward aspect of AD&D, however.

>>96743919
"In the only part of the game that fucking matters, sure"

lol

>>96743398
Jesus what an awful game

>>96740169
>>96742456

To be specific Warriors made 1 melee attack per round between levels 1~6, 3 every 2 rounds between 7~12 and 2 attacks per round at 13+. Those with weapon specialization got an additional .5 attacks per round for 3/2, 2/1 and 5/2.

Warriors could also make a number of individual attacks equal to their level against a group of 1 HD targets. For example, if fighting 10 1 HD orcs a 5th level Fighter without weapon specialization could attack 5 of the orcs each round.

>>96727596
Rock shreds paper!
Paper shatters scissors!
Scissors slice rock!

>>96744832
Oh yeah, right the weird 2.5 attacks.

There is also the fact that warriors got way more attack bonus than other classes.
Over 20 levels
Warrior effectively got +19 to attack
Priest +12
Rogue +9
Wizard +6

In 3.5 you'd need to do something like this:
Full BAB classes get 1 HD per level
3/4 BAB classes get 1/2 HD per level
1/2 BAB classes get 1/5 HD per level

Each HD adds +1 t to BAB, gives you HP and saves as normal.
As a result Fighter would be 20 HD (20d10+60(con)~170 HP), +20 attack and full saves,
Rogue would have 10 HD(10d6+30(con)~65 HP), +10 attack and half saves
Wizard would have 5 HD (5d4+15(con)~27 HP), +5 attack and shit for saves without magicking something

That would be closer to AD&D setup.

>>96716243
Because different people have different ideas of what a "ruined game" is.

>>96746027
Wrong. It's objective.

>>96728857
Retarded no games who understands nothing.

>>96747470
Yep, that's you.

>>96747587
No u and your dumb posts.

Just stop giving the kid replies already. He's always so obvious.

>>96712352
We have redditors like puckee who crosspost openly here

>>96747991
Yeah, you certainly are.

>need speech and free hands AND material components
>must find spell to know it, don't just pick it. Means every wizard doesn't automatically use the same OP spells

these two things alone would have solved the wizard problem. That and the stupid idea/rule "if TSR published it, it HAS to be allowed in game" for some reason, were the beginning of the downfall of AD&D, especially when the first class splats came out for 2E. I moved on to better games when 3e hit, but always laughed at all the power gaming bullshit builds on the various forums as shit degenerated.

>>96744832
>Warriors could also make a number of individual attacks equal to their level against a group of 1 HD targets. For example, if fighting 10 1 HD orcs a 5th level Fighter without weapon specialization could attack 5 of the orcs each round.
that sounds pretty cool. I wonder why they removed that.

It vaguely reminds me of the rules for extras in exalted. extras was basically a game term for unimportant characters, they had rules that turned them into easily killable canon fodder.

>>96718189
>but infinite cosmic power but only 5 times a day
1st level spells are not and never have been "infinite cosmic power" I am really fucking sick of this stupid hyperbolic bullshit.

>>96749106
>these two things alone would have solved the wizard problem.
The first applies to many spells.
The second just means the wizard is a pretty mediocre caster that gets overshadowed by Sorcerers and massively overshadowed by Clerics/Druids.
You are retarded, never speak about game design again.

>Earliest versions of DND
>FIGHTAN MAN and MAGIC USER
>Both perform the exact same in melee because there's no differences in HP or weapon damage or AC yet
>But Magic User gets one (1 singular) spell per adventure and can only use daggers
>If you level up enough, you may even get a second spell per adventure
>Supposed to be fed a steady supply of scrolls and wands and magic items only they know how to activate instead
>Loot tables ensure daggers are rare magic items
>Thus Fight Man will pull ahead just from being better geared

I mean it needs work, but I kind of don't hate the idea?

More generally competent with one big ace up the sleeve. With balance ensured by itemization instead. Fight Man will probably be decked out easily while all the weird items go to the wizard since he's the only one that knows what they do. Still the guy you go to for esoteric knowledge. Rather than the Femur Breaker in human form you are obligated to drag around because someone decided to play one.

>>96710360 (OP)
>>must find spell to know it, don't just pick it. Means every wizard doesn't automatically use the same OP spells
This is the primary soft limiter that got lost over time as it depended entirely on how much of an ass your DM was or how unfortunate you were with RNG. The moment Wizards got to pick from a fixed list and didn'0t have those shackles came off.

>>96750042
glad you survived the stroke anon

>>96750024
man, imagine being a young white man in Victorian England attending class taught by a white man with your white male classmates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2c5QHtgFxY&list=RDv2c5QHtgFxY&start_radio=1

>>96750024
It's just too bad that dealing damage to hit points vs AC stops being a viable combat method after like 3rd level.

>>96749277
Compared to anything a fighter can do, they certainly are.

>>96711754
>You used up almost all your spells before now fighting those "useless gay minions" in the prior rooms? I guess they're not so useless after now. LOL, no I won't wait while you take a short rest on my cavern floor.
K, meanwhile I leave yer dungeon and flood it with water, destroy the foundation, and bury in a tomb of your own making. Spells? Oh, yeah, I don't need those. Look up the rules for followers and mining equipment. OP is a faggot.

>>96749106
Why are there over powered player options in the game?

>>96744405
Combat probably comprises maybe 20% of any given AD&D1e session, not counting deliberate dungeon crawl modules or similar.

At the beginning of combat, the Magic-User has most likely slept an entire group of monsters. That is a higher contribution to the survival of the overall group than perhaps even a Cleric, if the encounter goes well.

You have 3e onward MMO brainrot.

>>96750982
lol cope

>>96750732
Pretty bad, yeah, but the basic idea is sound. It's something I've wondered at myself.

Basic competence in melee for FIGHT MAN and MAGIC MAN is sound. This prevents us from needing to introduce x number of mechanics to the wizard to make up for being an incompetent boob with less HP than a hamster on suicide mission. Which then would force us to buff the fighter to make up for that. Which now put us in the current arms race DND is stuck in. Gearing is also a much better way to control the experience in general and easily divides classes along flavor. Even with only 2 spells an adventure, Wizards should have tons of scrolls and other items only they know how to use to play with. Which, personally, I find more engaging in that feel of mysticism than having 20 spells I can cast at will.

The real trick here, I think, is combat balance. This is where things fly apart. Modern encounters are overloaded. I think that's the hidden major problem behind everything else. Too many enemies per encounter. Too many encounters. Which only makes sense in a video game where each encounter is designed to use every resource you have since you get them all back between fights. Healing resources included. So now we have to make sure you take as much damage in fights as possible as a shit test of your build? We don't NEED a lot of shit to fight constantly if the greater pool of potent resources is both gone and harder to get back, and you can throw a few minor challenges everywhere so people still get stab things to make it feel more dangerous than it is. Best of all, the wizard is also competent enough at this to participate.

>>96753463
No, it definitely isn't sound.

>>96753642
You only play wizards, right?

>>96753663
You really are incapable of engaging with ideas, aren't you? You have to make up a narrative about the other person so that you can pretend they can be dismissed. How feminine.

I don't play casters or martials. I would not debase myself to the level of a "game" with an arbitrary divide such as that.

>>96753762
Rather than launch in to a hysterical response, you could state your case rationally instead.

>NUH UH!

Isn't a response.

>>96753861
You first, woman.

>>96753867
I already did.

Also I'm aware you're here just to cause shit and drag down discussion.

>>96753893
No you didn't, and you're the one dragging it down. Dealing damage is not valid class concept and never will be in any system.

>>96753927
Is this directed towards the fighter or wizard? Because in the wizard's case, there's nothing there to indicate this is the case. In the fighter's, that's sadly already how DnD works. Though you'd have my agreement that fighters need a better shtick. Just making everyone more or less competent in melee and having specialties fall along other lines (like ranger, rogue, so on) isn't a new concept though. But it is one of the more sound solutions. Since a class who can only deal damage presents design issues.

Nope, you still don't get it. Class systems are simply bad.

>>96754001
There are plenty of classless systems for you to play, anon. Why do you haunt DnD threads instead of playing the games you want with your friends?

Unfortunately, the burden of civilizing subhumans with bad taste falls to me. But I'm more than happy to do it.

>>96749106
Why are there over powered player options in the game?

>>96749106
If it's published it's part of the rules stay mad DMoid

I'm late to this thread but it's funny how many smooth-brains think OP is saying AD&D wizards were too constrained and therefore the balance was bad.

>>96755671
>he doesn't know

>>96755671
spoken like someone who never had d4 hp, a slingshot and chill touch to survive until level 2

Yeah that's what I'm imagining when I sign up to a game of imagination to play a wizard, a guy with a slingshot

>>96760037
depends on the style of fantasy

up