Is 4e really as bad as people say it is?

Post the original .png without the image artifacts.

>>47420098
No, it's pretty good

>pic related
The first one is a fighter attack with the keyword invigorating, that allow the fighter to get temporary health points when hitting a creature with hit
The second one is a rogue attack with the rattling keyword
It allow the rogue to get bonuses against the enemy based on an intimidation roll, if I remember well
It also can be used melee or ranged and use a dexterity roll instead of the normal strength roll of melee attacks
The last one also use dexterity for the attack roll but target the reflex defense of the target, a defense that is most of the time lower than AC

Yes, 4e is full of unique and diverse power, you just need to actually read them.

>>47420143
So, it's the same except for pointless minutiae. Gotcha

>>47420158
>pointless minutiae
The core part of the attack is pointless minutia ?
Alright, 4E is not for you, go back to whatever you were/are playing

>>47420098
I know bait but in game these do function differently.

Crushing Surge provides temp. hp.

Disheartening Strike puts a debuff on the enemy

And Piercing Strike hits reflex which makes it more accurate against most monsters.

All are more intresting than "Full Attack"

>>47420170
Not him but I honestly don't see how those "differences" add anything to the game. Wouldn't that just slow combat down to a crawl? How long does the average battle in 4e last?

>>47420170
All three of them only deal damage and apply some insignificant effect.
None of them do anything other than damage. None of them allow you to see into the future, walk on water, transform into an animal, talk to spirits or anything else that's actually interesting.

>>47420191
play a fucking wizard boyo.

>>47420188
1-4 hours

>>47420194
Ah, yes, the great utility of 4e wizard that's limited to dealing damage, dealing damage to an area, dealing damage in a movable area and dealing damage over a random amount of turns

>>47420188

it depends what you're looking for in a game.

4e makes its tactical combat a big deal, where even small differences between powers can add a lot of nuance and tactical decision making to an encounter. 4e fights can last a while, but they're meant to be involved and interesting, enjoyable in their own right.

If that's not your thing, fair enough, but you can't really criticize 4e for doing that it was built around.

>>47420188
Those difference change the consequences of the attacks, making them more than "I hit for X damage"
They are there for tactics
The fighter tank more thanks to the first one, the enemy takes debuffs thanks to the second one and the last one have more chance to hit

>>47420197
So basically one battle in 4e can last an entire session. And that's... a good thing in your opinion?

>>47420191

>I can't break the game in half, so it sucks

Proof that 3.PF morons hate balance and good game design

>>47420206
What do you want your wizard to do ?
Also, casters in 4e do a lot more than that
It just depends on the caster

>>47420098
Yes it is full of nice powers powers that are so nice they had to make lvl 35 monsters immune to spells of lvls under 20 cause a lvl 10 char could kill them.
Also if you go buy the rules and you want to as a gm you can just send one aoe attack at the group and they all have to pass i believe they all had to pas a check of 15 on each pice of there gear or it was destroyed. Oh and also according to the rules a blind deaf player still has a 50% chance to hit a stealth ed char.
Forth is a power gamer's dream and is about as balanced as a pro football team playing against a group of 8 year olds

>>47420219
>So basically one battle in 4e can last an entire session. And that's... a good thing in your opinion?
Only with bad players/DM
If you/your players can't think deeper than "I hit him with this attack", it will take forever

>>47420227

So what you're telling me is that you never played 4e?

>>47420223
>balance

Why does everything have to be "balanced" these days?

Balanced != fun.

D&D isn't a competitive game so there's no need for any kind of balance. The DM is free to change mechanics and rules as he sees fit.

>>47420224
See >>47420191
What other casters are there? Clerics with their great choice of heal, fry, heal and fry simultaneously and give HP above maximum?

>>47420230
This.
Had a solid group where everyone actually made an effort to understand how they should fight in various situations and combat flew by, it was awesome.

>>47420206
>you can summon succubi to dominate your enemies, which is nearly always an instant death sentence
>you can bind people in an illusion they can't leave or create illusionary, one way walls
>you can create prismatic fields for your friends to punt people back and forth through
>you can resurrect the dead, teleport across the world, etc.

oops you're retarded

>>47420234
Most of the critics regarding 4e could be avoided if the people who made them actually played the game and/or read the books

>>47420239

Balance is incredibly important in cooperative games. If people aren't equally able to contribute to the group effort it's less fun for everyone involved. One player doing everything and the others being cheerleaders is not a good experience.

Also, the Oberoni fallacy. Look it up.

>>47420239
>Why does everything have to be "balanced" these days?
Maybe because before 3e, balance was the norm, and it only ceased to be a factor for one edition, 3e?

B/x and BECMI excepted due to the thief being a truly retarded character as a single classed type.

>>47420244
Half of the classes are casters

Play the game
Read the Player's handbooks
Then we will listen to you

>>47420248
>you can summon succubi to dominate your enemies, which is nearly always an instant death sentence
So, a Save or Die? Great game design right there.

>you can bind people in an illusion they can't leave or create illusionary, one way walls
A fancy description of paralysis. But hey, it's something other than DAMAGE

>you can create prismatic fields for your friends to punt people back and forth through
What?

>you can resurrect the dead
>wizard
lol

>>47420098
As a comparison, here's what the powers would look like if they were written with 3.5 writing standards.

Crushing Surge (Ex)- The feel of your weapon crunching against the enemy puts your heart back into the fight. As a standard action, make a melee attack against a single creature in range. If you hit and deal damage, you gain temporary hit points equal to your con mod. At level 21, double your weapon's damage dice with this attack.

Disheartening Strike (Ex)- The bite of your weapon is deepened by the sting of your ire. As a standard action, make a melee or ranged attack with a light weapon against one creature in range. If you are trained in Intimidate and the attack hits, the target takes a -2 fear penalty to attack rolls until the end of your next turn. At level 21, double your weapon's damage dice with this attack.

Piercing Strike (Ex)- A needle-sharp point slips past armor and into tender flesh. As a standard action, make a melee attack with a light blade against a creature in range. The attack targets reflex instead of AC. At level 21, double your weapon's damage dice with this attack.

Also keep in mind that these are fighter and rogue powers. In 3.5 fighter abilities were "You get a feat from this list at level 1 and every even level and that's it." The list of feats? Usually +1 to attack with a specific weapon, +2 to damage with a specific weapon, and then the ability to lower attack to increase damage.

>>47420269
Raise Dead is a ritual for any class.

>>47420273
>Also keep in mind that these are fighter and rogue powers. In 3.5 fighter abilities were "You get a feat from this list at level 1 and every even level and that's it." The list of feats? Usually +1 to attack with a specific weapon, +2 to damage with a specific weapon, and then the ability to lower attack to increase damage.
That's more realistic and doesn't involve animu fightan moves or florid descriptions straight out of a bodice-ripper novel

>>47420288

>More realistic

Tell me again how this is relevant to a game involving dragons?

>>47420269
>So, a Save or Die?

Not remotely, its a summons that allows you to dominate people, but only for one round per encounter. So this can range from being largely pointless (if nothing is around, all you may be able to do is make the monster attack its friend) to a virtual death sentence (forcing them to run through traps, etc). Its up to the PCs to capitalize.

>A fancy description of paralysis.

The illusion doesn't paralyze you. One keeps you from leaving the illusion, the other keeps you from seeing or moving past the wall until you interact with it, pretty useful.

>>wizard
>lol

Sorry you have brain problems.

>>47420286
So, fighters are also casters now?

>>47420297
If you invest the feat to get ritual caster, yes.

It's very solid. Runs smooth, players will have various cool, powerful tricks and abilities no matter what class they're playing, and the gm will have monsters with more stuff going on than either "8 hit dice, +12 to attack, and AC 20 and thats fucking IT" or "Every spell in the players hand book 3 times a day as a spell-like ability". However, it's pretty slow, very tactical, and the ideas they had to try and put some focus on the non combat aspects of RPGs like skill challenges didn't really work. Still, if I didn't have like a full dozen really good vaguely fantasy games I'd play first, 4th would still be on my list. Though admittedly pretty far below, say, 13th Age.

>>47420300
I guess I found the true caster edition now

>>47420254
It's the DM's job to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to contribute something to an adventure. There should be traps for the rogue to disarm and guards to pickpocket. There should be magical runes and puzzles for the wizard to decipher and, of course, there should be goblins for the fighter to cleave in half.

That's the DM's job.

Why does everyone need to be equally skilled in combat? Why is 4e so entirely focused around combat and nothing else?

>>47420260
Clearly you never played 2e if you think it was balanced.

File: 18yfb0zlw3lnkjpg.jpg (135KB, 688x1000px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 688x1000px

>>47420288
>more rea-
aaaaaaaaaaand we're done here, folks.

>>47420302
>Though admittedly pretty far below, say, 13th Age.
13th Age has no grid tactics.

>>47420307

Because combat has always been the largest part of D&D, but pure wordcount. There are more rules for combat than anything else, so it's logical to expect combat to be a major component. In most D&D games, combat was the main thing, even in 3.5.

So 4e went all out on making the combat actually good, and succeeded at it.

Also, the system exists to support the GM. A good system will give players varied but balanced capabilities to let them interact with the game and the world, which the GM can work with to give each player something to do. If a GM has to wrestle with a system and go out of his way to make some players feel relevant, it's a bad system.

Your argument also falls apart given that, in 3.5, a wizard was better at every problem you list than the 'appropriate' classes, because 3.PF is garbage.

>>47420319
It has proximity zones. Not that much different

>>47420288
>more realistic
>btw my wizard can now stop time

You're right, fuck this samey gay-ass shit.

Back to 3.5, where the shit's intense and varied.

Okay, I hit it with my axe. Power attack.

Now I'll wait 20 minutes for the rest of my party to finish doing their biggest damage moves, then I'll do my biggest damage move,.

>>47420329
>In most D&D games, combat was the main thing
If you'd played any old D&D, you'd know that exploration was the main thing, with combat as a punishment for fucking up.

File: 3ee.jpg (23KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x600px

>>47420307
>there should be traps for wizard to disarm and guards to dominate. There should be magical runes and puzzles for the wizard to decipher and, of course, there should be goblins for the wizard to save-or-die.

>>47420344

Yeah, no.

It's a system descended from a tabletop wargame. Any attempt to argue otherwise is historical revisionism.

>>47420293
>>47420310
Not him, but just because it's a fantasy game doesn't mean that realism goes out the window entirely.

There has to be some consistency in the world for players to suspend their disbelief.

Please explain to me how a fighter can regenerate hit points by hitting something with his sword? It's fucking nonsense!

>>47420307
>Clearly you never played 2e if you think it was balanced.

Oodles moreso than 3e.

Fighter, magic user, cleric, fighter-magic user (basically a slightly more durable magic user), and fighter-magic user cleric, for example, all seem nicely balanced to me. Single classed wizards and fighters can both specialize (if the wizard gets ridiculous stat requirements).

>It's the DM's job to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to contribute something to an adventure.

Nope! I pity the new school players who think its the DM's responsibility to tailor the world to fit the character. Its the DM's responsibility to be *impartial*.

>>47420355
Hit points have always been an abstraction, playing it like anything else is stupid as fuck.

>>47420355

Because Hit Points are not, and have never been, a measure of physical health. If you actually read the rulebooks, they're described as an abstract measure of minor injuries, stamina and the will to fight. Regaining HP does not mean closing up wounds wolverine style. it can mean knocking an opponent back to catch your breath, or feeling a surge of adrenaline as your foes fall before you, giving you a push to keep fighting.

The whole 'martial healing' problem has never existed, and the fact that it was brought up by 5e's lead designer just goes to show how awful he is at his job.

>>47420353
Just because the original combat system was a wargame, doesn't mean that combat is something you want to happen.

File: 1449730913221.jpg (86KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 625x626px

>>47420252
This. And
>posting in a bait thread

>>47420344

Fuck your exploration, I have legend lore, teleport circle, and wish.

Tell me where the thing is, give me the thing, now I'm at the bad guy, now he's dead.

>>47420344
Not so much "punishment for fucking up" but "in dungeons, the inevitable result of monsters that are faster than you and see better than you vs slower, blindier guys with torches wandering in the darkness."

>>47420355
Hit points aren't meat points. Fighter presses on, giving him advantageous position from which he can detect and deflect an attack.

Alternatively, if hit points ARE meat points, fighter just straight-up rips the chunk of enemy flesh off and sticks it to himself.

>>47420347
Wizards don't exactly fare well against traps -- unless the DM is kind enough to have all his traps be sprung by summoned monsters.

>>47420390
>Alternatively, if hit points ARE meat points, fighter just straight-up rips the chunk of enemy flesh off and sticks it to himself.
Like that makes sense

Why has there been a huge bump in 4E-related trolling the past three days?

>>47420234
Uh yeah i played it from day one till a month or 2 after the essentials book came out and we had some questions and called the company and they said to look to the essentials book for the info and yet in that book it said these where alternative rules but the guy on phone said no they are now the official rules. In that book the rules i mention are there also if you think i am wrong about it being a power game look up old builds that had pc that where lvl 10 to 15 that could kill the lvl 35 gods in less than 5 rounds

>>47420098
>Is 4e really as bad as people say it is?
No.

I know it's bad etiquette to /thread your own post, but anything else that can be said about the topic has been said hundreds of times before, so...
/thread

File: 8338601.png (33KB, 361x327px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 361x327px

>>47420399
If we're talking about meat points, it does. As much sense as meat points themselves, in fact.
Also:
>In his setting fighters aren't unstoppable, all-asimilating juggernauts

>>47420404
Summerfags gearing up.

>>47420329
>Because combat has always been the largest part of D&D

This is the problem when kids who were raised on MMOs start wanting to play D&D.

D&D is a roleplaying game. It's main focus has always been storytelling and adventure. Combat has it's place in D&D but it's not the focal point. Nor is it the only way to solve a problem or to gain experience.

4e is a tabletop MMO. I don't even think you need a DM to play 4e since everything is balanced out of the box and creating an "encounter" is just a matter of selecting monsters that fit certain roles and that meet an adequate challenge rating.

Classes are divided into roles (controller, striker, defender, etc...) abilities are homogenised so that nobody feels left out, and players see combat as the focal point of the game and a means to obtain ep1c l00t.

It's a brainless, soulless husk of the true essence of D&D and roleplaying.

>>47420411
>also if you think i am wrong about it being a power game look up old builds that had pc that where lvl 10 to 15 that could kill the lvl 35 gods in less than 5 rounds

You're retarded. Meanwhile, a level 3 wizard can indeed defeat and indefinitely incapacitate the tarrasque in 3.x

File: jolly elf.png (61KB, 261x212px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 261x212px

>>47420421
>D&D is a roleplaying game. It's main focus has always been storytelling and adventure. Combat has it's place in D&D but it's not the focal point.

>>47420411
>CustServ is bad
Very valid complaint. Has no bearing on the actual rules. Most of the people they hired to do custserv hadn't even read the rules themselves. I'm serious.
>There are people who play this game that powergame therefore it's a game for powergamers
Fallacy, straight-up.

>>47420421
>4e is an MMO
>using meme arguments
It doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean that I'd be a fool to assume you're serious.

>>47420421

Pure historical revisionism. If you look at the books themselves, they prove you wrong.

Because in those books? The things you pay for, the things which took the game design effort to create? Combat is the largest part of the system.

I'm the kind of faggot who loves weird and wonderful indie roleplaying games. Games with no combat, games with light rules, abstract mechanics and all of that stuff. I enjoy that sort of thing.

But I also like D&D. Because sometimes I don't want narrative complexity. Sometimes I want to hit orcs in the face with a sword. That's what D&D is for. That's the niche it occupies and does well, and that's always been the case.

>>47420191
>None of them allow you to see into the future, walk on water, transform into an animal, talk to spirits or anything else that's actually interesting.

All of those things are in 4e.

The first is 90% of the Prescient Bard's Schick.

The second is a ritual.

The third is an at-will Druid power.

The fourth is a Shaman power.

>>47420421
In nearly all RPGs ever, combat is the only part of the game where you have to spend most of it watching how awesome other people are. That's why a focus on combat makes sense. That does not imply 4e's slow, tactical combat is good.

>a tabletop MMO

Did you know that words mean things? You just contradicted yourself.

>>47420355
>There has to be some consistency in the world for players to suspend their disbelief.
Consistency and realism are very different things, even if realism generally implies consistency. Depending on the setting, there can be dozens of ways to explain martials performing superhuman feats.

File: 1415014583899.png (91KB, 180x219px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 180x219px

>>47420421
>It's main focus has always been storytelling and adventure. Combat has it's place in D&D but it's not the focal point.

You can't really believe this.

>>47420366
>Nope! I pity the new school players who think its the DM's responsibility to tailor the world to fit the character. Its the DM's responsibility to be *impartial*.

You couldn't be more wrong. The DM is not a computer that just rolls monsteres attacks and deteremines what loot players get.

The DM's job is to make the game FUN for the players. All the players. Part of that entails making sure that everyone is appropriately engaged.

>>47420443
>That does not imply 4e's slow, tactical combat is good

Fuck you nigga I love it

All other games pale in comparion to 4E's wonderful combat these days

Except SoS

Publish the fucking game Jimmy

>>47420452

The top three combat systems in RPG's, IMO, are Song of Swords, Legends of the Wulin and D&D 4e. They all work completely differently, but each does a great job of achieving their goals.

Oddly enough, they also pretty cleanly map on to the old GNS labels, with 4e as Gamist, Song of Swords as Simulationist and Legends of the Wulin as Narritivist.

>>47420449
>The DM's job is to make the game FUN for the players. All the players. Part of that entails making sure that everyone is appropriately engaged.

No.

The GM's job is to simulate a setting. The imperative to find and create the fun falls on the players.

It's the players job to make a character that fits the setting and pitch for the game, not the GM's job to make a pitch and a setting that fits the characters. This is probably the worst mentality Dungeon World and its ilk have contributed to the hobby.

>>47420319
Which is one of several major reasons why I'd play it before fourth.

>>47420468

The GM's job depends entirely on the group you're playing with. I agree with the other guy, but you're free to play it the way you want and that your players enjoy.

>>47420459
Man, Legends of the Wulin is so great. I was so happy when I got my physical copy, even though I'm sad that the company that made is/was so profoundly awful and fucked up and shitty that there will never be a single supplement or future print run.

File: TUsD0tz.png (606KB, 568x519px) Image search: [Google]

606KB, 568x519px

>>47420435
Yeah there have always been lots of rules for combat (most of which were optional) but that doesn't make it the focal point of the game.

You can play D&D different ways. A hack and slash dungeon crawler is just one of those ways.

>>47420444
It makes no sense for warriors to be able to do half the Naruto-tier shit they can in 4e.

I want to play a high fantasy game not Final Fantasy: the tabletop game.

>>47420445
>Everyone plays the game the same way I do.

You can't really believe this.

>>47420486

>Physical copy of LotW

I am so fucking jealous

>>47420449
>You couldn't be more wrong.

Nope, I'm right. People like you would be fucking eaten ALIVE in OSR-land. The DM is not there to be a nursemaid. He presents the world and the scenarios.

>The DM is not a computer that just rolls monsteres attacks and deteremines what loot players get.

The DM presents the scenario and milieu, and portrays NPCs and monsters, builds the world, etcetera.

>The DM's job is to make the game FUN for the players.

The players' job is to approach the campaign and use his abilities and the factors of the environment to progress and thus have fun. The DM is never obliged to engage in this favoritism nonsense.

When you learn that in a good RPG, actions have consequences, and that players are responsible for their own PCs' survival, they become drastically more engaged and entertained.

Play some OSR or pre-WotC D&D nigga, for once in your life. It won't kill you.

Note: endorsement of pre WotC or OSR titles as being non babbymode does not imply other RPGs or later editions are babbymode, I love all D&D editions, etc.

>>47420098
Is this "babby's first 4e bait" week?

>>47420421
>D&D is a roleplaying game. It's main focus has always been storytelling and adventure.
As someone who mainly plays games focused entirely on adventuring and storytelling, I can tell you that you're completely full of shit.

>>47420334
Uh, dude.

Those are waaaaaaaaaaaay different from 4e's grid.

>>47420497

If something takes up the majority of the wordcount, it's safe to assume it's the largest and most important part of the game. If it isn't, then the designers fucked up and wasted a lot of effort.

>>47420501

see

>>47420477

>>47420497
>You can play D&D different ways. A story focused exploration game is just one of those ways.
Do you see why the assertion that
>It's main focus has always been storytelling and adventure
Is open for debate?

All of this literally boils down to "Your opinions are wrong"

>>47420501
>>47420468
>>47420449

This seems like an oddly binary approach on both ends of this argument to an issue that most DM's don't treat as such and it's confusing me

Most DMs don't do the Dungeon World thing where everyone builds a setting together on the first session, but I'm also pretty sure DMs are supposed ask their players "hey what kind of campaign do you want to play" before they pick the setting and come up with the quests

>>47420468
>The GM's job is to simulate a setting. The imperative to find and create the fun falls on the players.

Wow... I sure hope I never have to play with you as my DM. Sounds aboout as enjoyable as going to the dentist.

If your players aren't having fun, 9 times out of 10 that's your fault as a DM. It's literally your only job.

>>47420497
>You can't really believe this.
Oh fuck off with that shitty argument. If you try hard enough, you can use any system to run anything. That doesn't mean, however, that some systems aren't blatantly designed to be used for specific types of games.

>>47420532

Ignore the OSRfags, they're quick to trumpet their pure and right way of playing roleplaying games whenever they're given the opportunity. Just let them stew in their pit of nostalgia.

>>47420421
Adventure, maybe. Storytelling? HELL NO. Intentional stories are a wholly optional part of an RPG. There will always be a plot or story or whatever that emerges organically. And chances are, it will be at least as good as the most masterful piece of storytelling fiction ever imagined.

>>47420497
>>Everyone plays the game the same way I do.

No, dipshit, it's the fact that the books are 85% combat rules and exploring dungeons. Storytelling can be a part of a campaign, even a major part, but the game and mechanics are built for killing dragons.

>>47420444
>Depending on the setting, there can be dozens of ways to explain martials performing superhuman feats.

Unfortunately, I don't think you'll ever convince a major 3e fan with a grudge against 4e that this is the case.

3rd edition hinges on the simple premise that magic is special, and nonmagic is not special. This is built into everything: items, creatures, terrain, obstacles, and even classes. A magical beast is special, a normal beast is not. A magical item is superior to a mundane item, 100% of the time. Magical terrain and obstacles are powerful threats, magical spells always trump material items, and magic itself is a free resource that replenishes daily without any penalty and requires no significant effort whatsoever.

And of course, this applies to classes. If your level 20 fighter attempts to leap 30 feet in the air, that's wrong. He's not magical, and therefore he's not special. Jumping 30 feet in the air is special, so he can't do it. Nevermind that a level 1 mage could cast a spell to leap 40 feet in the air, that's different. That's a special ability that can do special things.

That's why you get the "weeaboo animu MMO shit" response whenever you discuss 4e, because it breaks a fundamental tenant of 3rd edition. 4e allows everyone to be special and do special things, even if they don't cast spells. Clearly, that is wrong, heretical, bad, no good, terrible, and utterly ruining all that is good and decent.

Doesn't matter if your epic level fighter is basically the psychotic offspring of Heracles and Gilgamesh bumfucking and letting their kid be raised by wolves until he could throttle Tarasques with his bare hands, benchpress adamantium golems, and bludgeon ancient red dragons to death with his cock. To a certain subset of players, he will always be a noncaster, and therefore never be special.

>>47420532
>but I'm also pretty sure DMs are supposed ask their players "hey what kind of campaign do you want to play"

You really don't. The DM tells them what he has prepared. Depending on improvisation level of course.

>>47420501
Why do you think that "making the game fun" means handholding the players and fudging dice rolls etc...

A fun game should be challenging and the possibility of death should be real.

Dark Souls is a fun video game for that very reason.

Literally, the only reason people play D&D is to have fun. It's not a competitve game like MTG or Starcraft.

As the DM, you're in the driver's seat. You've got full control over the setting, the storyline, the ambiance, and even the rules. If the players aren't having fun, chances are, you're doing something wrong.

>>47420567

This lingering tendency is possibly the most toxic effect of 3.5 on roleplaying as a hobby.

>>47420567
>tfw you'll never bludgeon ancient red dragons to death with your cock.

Why even live?

>>47420567
SCREENCAP THIS MAN

>>47420532
>but I'm also pretty sure DMs are supposed ask their players "hey what kind of campaign do you want to play" before they pick the setting and come up with the quests
Not really. There is never a lack of potential players and always a severe lack of DMs, so generally the DM states what kind of game he wants to play and then the players themselves ask to join.

>>47420537
>It's literally your only job.

>literally

Anon doesn't know what words mean, I guess.

The job of the DM in no order:
1. Create relevant elements of setting
2. Create adventures
3. String adventures together into a plausible chain of events
4. Create NPCs
5. Create monsters
6. Help PCs with rules
7. Arbitrate the rules
8. Play the NPCs
etc etc

The players have the following jobs and responsibilities:
1. Make a character (MAYBE)
2. Understand the rules (MAYBE)
3. Roleplay

That's it.

>>47420501
As someone who's soon to run N1, you know what my prime concern is? That my players enjoy themselves.

In all cases, however, the reader should understand that
AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which
can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in
no case something to be taken too seriously.

>>47420591

All of those 'jobs' of the GM are to create a fun experience for the group. If you create something that nobody enjoys and that doesn't add to the experience, you might as well not have bothered.

>>47420567
If everyone is special then what distinguishes magical beings and abilities from normal folk?

Non-magical creatures shouldn't be able to teleport and jump 30 feet in the air. That's just fucking obvious.

>>47420617
>Non-magical creatures shouldn't be able to teleport and jump 30 feet in the air. That's just fucking obvious.
And they don't
Good thing we agree

>>47420617

Why? You make an assertion, and then have nothing to back it up.

>>47420591
Okay I got a bit carried away. But it's ultimately the only job that matters.

Nobody will care about anything else as long as they're having fun.

>>47420580
>Why do you think that "making the game fun" means handholding the players and fudging dice rolls etc...

Because that's what the people I responded to meant it as. They were hiding behind the crutch of "its the DM's responsibility to protect players from their own shitty attitudes and shitty decision making" in order to argue that balance doesn't matter, ie that terrible, nonfunctional choices in RPGs are okay because the DM MUST handhold and MUST show extreme favoritism.

Fuck the pathetic entitlement mentality of new wave players that I never see in practice more than once per 5 years, only on /tg/

>>47420637

You know, when you're telling other people what they believe and they're disagreeing with you, you might want to reassess your argument.

>>47420591
>Here's the DM job: Make it fun for the players, but instead of saying it like it is, I'll give you a list of all the things that make things fun for the players.

File: 1460675586888.jpg (58KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x600px

>>47420637
>assuming assumptions
>defendidng ivory tower design
I sure hope you're a troll

>>47420622
Because even in a fantasy setting, the world needs to be goverend by some basic principles such as the laws of phsyics for people to invest in it.

Any creature who can defy natural laws is, by definition, supernatural or magical.

An ordinary human fighter should never be able to do this except under extraordinary circumstances. It should not be a "daily power" that he can use once a day. It makes no fucking sense.

>>47420594
Gygax would be the first to tell you that actions should have, you know, consequences, and that the job of the DM is not to nursemaid That Guys and to shield them from their own shitty decisions, but to merely roleplay NPCs, present encounters, the world, etcetera.

Once players realize you're there to be fair and not to fuck them nor to give them handjobs, they are perfectly capable of making decisions on their own.

>>47420607
I find that the shitty players that require free handjobs and favoritism treatment are solo affairs.

>that nobody enjoys
Not a concern. Unless I trip into a whole colony of That Guys, which beggars the mind for its impossibility.

The vast majority of players want a fair and impartial arbiter DM, not the kind of garbage that ensures equality of results for every player.

>>47420654
>Ordinary fighter

If he was ORDINARY, he'd be a warrior.

>>47420660
I see you're still confusing 'making sure things are entertaining' with 'masturbating your players under the table.

I don't think they'd enjoy me just stroking their ego-boners without giving them a bit of a challenge.

>>47420651
I was arguing against people supporting ivory tower design, actually (that is, people who think balance is bad). But at least you tried!

>>47420654

>Because even in a fantasy setting, the world needs to be goverend by some basic principles such as the laws of phsyics for people to invest in it.


Why? Once again you're making an assertion and not backing it up. You're just saying 'It has to be this way because it has to'.

>>47420654
>An ordinary human fighter should never be able to do this except under extraordinary circumstances. It should not be a "daily power" that he can use once a day. It makes no fucking sense.
In 4e, you are already a nonstandard human as soon as you hit level 1 or 2
You are one of the best of your race a few levels before 11 and a supernatural being after that
Level 21 onwards, you are a virtual half-god

>>47420353
And Youtube is a dating site but for all the talk of people getting laid from it, seldom do they.

>>47420642
To the surprise of no one but the supporters of "spotlight design" such as that which 3e endorsed, fun becomes vastly easier to obtain when you stop worrying about precious feelingz and trying to keep all players at an equal level of success and failure.

The "exploration" axis of the game stems entirely from people, well, exploring a world that has some pretense of consistency.

>>47420680
You're still a retard for assuming what other people do.
But it's okay. If we all weren't retards, we wouldn't be arguing in this thread.

>>47420639
If people cannot follow the reply chain, that's their fault.

>>47420654

Then in what way can a Fighter contribute at high levels?

It's not remotely realistic for a fighter to be able to block the attack of a Dragon or Giant. The force would shatter him.

It's not realistic for something with the strength of a human to cleave a sword through a stone golem.

>>47420702
arguing on /tg/ over literally anything, no matter how pedantic raises the ol' testosterone level, making sex immediately following it more pleasurable

>>47420654
>Any creature who can defy natural laws is, by definition, supernatural or magical.

Good.
Fighters now train so hard, they become supernatural by level 3.

>>47420691
in 4e, the standard town guard is a 50 hp guy who will brutally ass rape nearly any level 1 or 2 PC 1v1.

>b-but minions

The human minions listed, last time I checked, are all normal rabble and thugs with cloth and clubs, nothing professional about them.

File: giant+head.jpg (84KB, 500x354px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 500x354px

>>47420567
>I have not read the Tomb of Battle
>I have not read Orietal Adventures
>I have no idea what I'm talking about and am just spewing raw conjecture

>>47420503
I liken to the argument between 3.P and 4th to be like that of two old biddies who will sit together and argue with each other because everyone else they have ever loved or known has either faded away or gone. All they have is each other and they spend what precious little time they have together bickering about old wounds.

>>47420744

The same people who make the statements he's arguing against are those who talk shit about the Tome of Battle. Also, I've not read Oriental Adventures, but from what I've heard it's utter wank.

>>47420191
>>None of them do anything other than damage. None of them allow you to see into the future, walk on water, transform into an animal, talk to spirits or anything else that's actually interesting.
Umm... you know, that is what rogues and fighters supposed to do, tab and hit enemies with their weapons. Considering they can't do magic they can't do those things you listed.

>>47420654
>Because even in a fantasy setting, the world needs to be goverend by some basic principles such as the laws of phsyics for people to invest in it.
It's governed by the 4E laws of physics. In 4E, the world was made out of constantly shifting elemental matter by the Primordials, then given actual consistency, purpose and life by the Gods. There was no Big Bang. There is no reason for the laws of physics in their universe to be the same as the laws of physics in ours.

>>47420306
Depends on what you mean by "caster edition".

If you mean "every player character can theoretically gain some sort of magic during their lifetime, if they invest sufficient time and effort," then yes. But then again, anyone could multiclass Wizard in 3.5.

If you mean "only casters are viable, and all other characters are shit," then no.

>>47420654
>>47420764

I had an IRL encounter with a guy like this.

He tried the old 'Invent blackpowder in a fantasy setting' trick, and went nuclear when I told him that the setting operated on the principles of medieval alchemy.

It wasn't that his idea wouldn't work. I even gave him a few suggestions, that a stabilized compound of Fire bound in Earth would be an excellent basis for a form of blasting powder, but he just couldn't accept a universe which didn't obey the exact same rules as the real world.

>>47420734
>in 4e, the standard town guard is a 50 hp guy who will brutally ass rape nearly any level 1 or 2 PC 1v1.
The standard town guard is not a standard human

>The human minions listed, last time I checked, are all normal rabble and thugs with cloth and clubs, nothing professional about them.
Those are standard humans

>>47420219
Battles can last an entire session in every version of D&D especially in 3E where you need to look look into 3 different books before every step you take. Unless you play AD&D where your entire party can get wiped in 3 turns.

>>47420617
>If everyone is special then what distinguishes magical beings and abilities from normal folk?
10% Luck
20% Skill
50% Concentrated power of will
5% Pleasure
50% SLAM
100% Reason to remember the JAM

>>47420421

This. While all the versions of D&D are combat focused, 4e is combat-centric to the exclusion of everything else. It's basically a skirmish wargame with some notes on exploration, social interaction, etc.

I've been playing D&D for decades now. We gave 4e a really good try: two campaigns of about six month each. In the end, we went to other games: shadowrun, WoD, and of course 3.5. for all its problems, and they are considerable, in 3.5 you can tell a story and have an adventure, whereas in 4 you can't, at least not without hacking it out of recognition.

It's telling that we're embracing 5e. It's not that we were married to 3.5. That system has its own serious problems.

Ultimately, I'm trying to move my group to GURPS. You get balance, flexibility and ability to have both solid combat rules and story-friendliness.

>>47420761
If you're going to say an edition hinges on something that it doesn't, you might as well give up arguing, because even aspects of the core books refute your ideas.

You're just upset and enjoy conjecture.

>>47420784
>The standard town guard is not a standard human

There is no fluff whatsoever anywhere that supports it. He's simply listed as a town guard, and again (in slightly different form) in the monster vault.

>Those are standard humans

They are flavor texted as incompetent rabble armed with sticks and armored with T-shirts actually.

>>47420800

Nothing stops you roleplaying or creating a narrative in 4e. Literally nothing. You have no point and are regurgitating memetic garbage. If your groups didn't like 4e, fair enough, but don't use that as part of an argument that it's a bad system or that it can't do certain things.

>>47420654
>Any creature who can defy natural laws is, by definition, supernatural or magical.
>An ordinary human fighter should never be able to do this except under extraordinary circumstances.

See, this is the mentality in a nutshell.

Why do you consider the fighter to be ordinary? Think about ancient mythology for a moment. Beowulf killed a dragon with his bare hands. Achilles was said to fell ten men in a single blow. Samson slaughtered a thousand Philistines with a jawbone of an ass.

An epic level fighter is neither ordinary nor magical. Throughout mythology, epic warriors have done legendary deeds without a single spellcraft or enchantment.

Thus I ask you to try to accept a simple points of view. A hero can be extraordinary without being enchanted, epic without being a spellcaster, legendary without being magical.

>>47420811
>A town guard is not trained for his job
There is some things that don't need fluff, just common sense

IMO, actual roleplaying doesn't need written rules. 4e gives rules where they are needed.

File: bait Darkest Dungeon.png (121KB, 553x585px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 553x585px

>>47420098
Well I guess this thread proves that the OP bait pic still works.

>>47420828
>There is some things that don't need fluff, just common sense

And your insistence that "human town guard" is supposed to be anything but a "human town guard" isn't common sense, its merely your personal tastes.

>actual roleplaying

Its the flavor of an NPC town guard. It has little to do with roleplaying as the PCs will never know what his stats are unless they pick a fight or see them in action.

>>47420421

This. How the hell are you supposed to keep up with constant patches and errata? My books were obsolete like a month after they came out. Any time you look something up, you had to open your Binder of Holding to check to see if the rule changed, was rewritten, or even exists anymore.

>>47420861
>And your insistence that "human town guard" is supposed to be anything but a "human town guard" isn't common sense, its merely your personal tastes.
When did I say that a human town guard wasn't a human town guard ?

>Its the flavor of an NPC town guard. It has little to do with roleplaying as the PCs will never know what his stats are unless they pick a fight or see them in action.
It has everything to do with roleplaying. He is a town guard, he followed a training, they shouldn't fuck with him.
Even if they never know his stats, they know they are higher than those of a peasant BECAUSE he is a town guard

When people say "4e is combat centric and has nothing else" I wonder what they think skill challenges are.
Skill challenges were frequently shoddily implemented, poorly written, and may have been a half-baked idea... but they did exist.

I also wonder what 'non combat rules' they think it's missing compared to 3e.

4e is literally 3e with fixed mechanics. They're the same damn core game, just with balance fixes.

>>47420098
It has it's problems because the games designers dared too much with some things and too little with others but there's a very good game in there if you know how to look and what to houserule.
In general it would have been a huge success if only it wasn't called D&D.

>>47420825
Yes he can be extraordinary but not supernatural.

If everyone is supernatural there's nothing special about arcane or divine powers.

A high level fighter should be no match for a high level wizard.

>>47420865
You were expected to use the online Rules Compendium.
One of 4e's major flaws (as someone that likes 4e) is that the lead web developer was literally a nutjob who committed murder-suicide, leaving a lot of it in the dirt.

But both the character builder and the rules compendium were functional, and it was expected that your group would have at least one account to maintain characters easily.

That said, the game doesn't break any harder than 5e or 3e does by just not using the errata.

>>47420882

So the concept of 'level' has no meaning?

Since levels are, you know, meant to be a general measure of power. Two things of the same level should be equivalent. That's literally how it's meant to work.

>>47420882
You are just angry that wizards are not superior to fighters. Stay mad!

File: 4chan.jpg (72KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x450px

>>47420882
>Yes he can be extraordinary but not supernatural.
>extra + ordinary
>super + natural
>synonym for above, beyond or greater than + synonym for expected or normal
>both mean literally the same thing, and yet one is expected to be worse than the other

>>47420882
The special thing is that they are arcane or divine powers.
You seem like a very entitled caster player.

In meta-4e-land, there are many paths to power. THis is literally laid out in the PHB1.

There's being 'Martial'. This is where you put effort into getting heroically swole.
There's being Arcane, where you put effort into getting heroically zapmagical.
And there's Divine, where you put effort into getting heroically godlike.
And Primal means you choose to become heroically covered in dirt and leaves and spirits.

They're all equally paths to Heroism. I'm not sure why you think one should be better than another.

And Shadow was mostly meh but hey you get somewhat heroically OwTheEdge.

>>47420098
>Is 4e really as bad as people say it is?

No, far from it.
It just didn't suit my tastes and needs.
I have several friends who have had enormous amounts of good fun with it.

>>47420923
Don't forget Psionic, where you put effort into getting heroically Professor X-like.

>>47420907
>>Yes he can be extraordinary but not supernatural.
>>extra + ordinary
>>super + natural
>>synonym for above, beyond or greater than + synonym for expected or normal
>>both mean literally the same thing, and yet one is expected to be worse than the other
Synonyms never mean exactly the same thing
Extraordinary is "outside the ordinary" and Supernatural is "over the nature"
In a fantasy settings, all magical beings are "over the nature" (supernatural) but are "part of the ordinary" (not extraordinary)

>>47420901
>Two things of the same level should be equivalent.

No they shouldn't.

Two fighters of the same level should be roughly equivalent. At least when it comes to fighting.

A thief or a wizard should not be as good as a fighter in hand to hand combat.

It's really not that hard to understand. I know all the classes are homogenised in 4e but really a fighter is fundementally different from a wizard.

You cannot expect a fighter to defeat Elminster for example without some sort of magical or divine aid.

>>47420939
>In a fantasy setting
Not in mine.
Does my fantasy setting stop being a fantasy setting?

>>47420935
oops, I forgot that one, I think because it wasn't listed in the PHB and nobody in core used it.

I think Ki was originally going to be a power source until they realised there was literally nothing differentiating it from Martial besides 'Asia'.

>>47420905
Wizards are superior at casting spells. Fighters are better at hitting things with a sword. What's the problem here?

>>47420923
Why are you talking about 4e as if it's relevant anymore?

There's no such nonsense in 5e. Things are back to normal now.

>>47420943

I'm not making an arguable statement here. I'm telling you how levels are defined and what they mean in a game mechanics context.

If two things of the same level aren't roughly equivalent in power, then they shouldn't be the same level. Full stop. This is not opinion, this is based on the objective definition.

>>47420882
>A high level fighter should be no match for a high level wizard.

please an hero now. you are literally the worst kind of cancer that is killing good game design.

>>47420960
Because we're in a 4E thread.

>>47420943
Yes, a fighter is fundamentally different from a wizard. A fighter does decent single-target damage and controls an area around him, stopping foes from passing through, standing against the tide.

Meanwhile, a wizard operates from range and focuses on wide-area damage, as well as walls and zones.

The fighter goes into a bunch of enemies and goes "you ain't fucking moving". The wizard's job is to funnel them towards the fighter appropriately.

You'd have to be pretty dumb to think that's homogenous, they play very differently.

Unless you think being two different Mages in Chronicles of Darkness 'homogenous' because 'they both use spellcasting rules'.

>fighter vs wizard argument again

Epic Level 6 solved this problem literally decades ago and it works with every D&D edition to date why are we still having this debate

We just had this thread, why are we doing this again?

>>47420239
>D&D isn't a competitive game so there's no need for any kind of balance

Kill yourself retard.

>>47420943
Yes they should be equivalent and you are wrong. Otherwise the whole level system would not make sense. Otherwise nobody would play anything else but wizards and 80% of the game would never be player by anyone.

That is plain and simply stupid game design and you are just stupid for thinking it is a good idea.

File: b8.jpg (8KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 225x225px

>>47420988
Because you keep taking the b8 m8.

>>47420987
Because playing epic, high-level nonspellcasters in a DnD context is fun, which Epic 6 doesn't achieve. It's alright at what it does but it's literally only playing a third of the game.

>>47420957
No, why would it stop ?

>>47420876
>When did I say that a human town guard wasn't a human town guard ?

>>47420784
>The standard town guard is not a standard human

>>47420420
>summerfags
Stop, we've been over this. Its the same few shitposters that have always been here

>>47420997
Maybe the people who think that fighters are boring to play should, in fact, be playing wizards.

>>47421006
Then you saying "in a fantasy setting" is bullshit, because clearly that's not the case in every fantasy setting. I'm willing to bet that's not even the case in most fantasy settings.

>>47420997
Originally, levels weren't comparable between classes because they used different XP tables. They got rid of that in 3e, though.

>>47421027
But my character concept is a grizzled veteran of a hundred battles, not some fancy ponce in robes with a pointy hat and a stick. And then the game punishes me for this by making my concept less fun to play than the other one.

>>47420865
>>47420899
Practically speaking, you probably needed more than one member of the group to get through that paywall, because you couldn't even write a character sheet without the online character builder or a binder full of power cards.

4e got greedy. It saw the trend of media and software developers forcing users to subscribe to things that they used to be able to buy outright, charging people more money for less value, and it wanted a piece of that racket. It then took the racket too far, charging too much more for too much less value, and consumers naturally retaliated.

>>47421033
This is an argument that seems true on the surface but is actually false - for the vast majority of the days of class-tables, equal XP generally meant that you were all within one level of each other.

>>47420239
Because players would no longer play those parts of the game that art shit, some may try for novelty and curiosity but that is not how people function.

You do not make all parts of your game viable so people will only play like 50% of it so your work as a developer is only 50% successful so half of the time you spent on the product was for naight. Plus those players that would like to play those parts that are shit now hate you.

>>47421033

6 of one, half a dozen of the other. You can just as easily say that similar XP values should be comparable.

>>47420958
I for one love psionic monks. The whole enlightenment and mind over matter aspects of psionics meshes wonderfully with monk and ki can easily be fluffed into psi points and vice-versa.

>>47421009
Please read again the two lines and don't add/remove words while reading

>>47421056
Not to mention that ki always seemed kind of out of place to me in D&D before psionic monks came along. Like, if it's just energy gained from physical training and discipline, why don't Fighters use it?

>>47420958
They started tossed out shadow and primordial near the end too. Shadow had potential, but primordial wasn't really much different than arcane

>>47421048
Except for dual-class and multi-class characters. And for characters who had high prime requisite abilities, as they earned extra XP as a reward for rolling so well, as though having a high score in your most important ability wasn't reward enough.

>>47421027
You are still talking "maybe" meaning you have no idea what you are saying
>>47421033
and that was a good thing they did, the whole idea was stupid.

>>47421047

Playing 4e without the character builder is no harder than playing a 3e caster without one, or an Exalted character (god, what a clusterfuck of a system).

That said, as a 4e fan I 100% agree with your statement. The lack of online tools (no online tabletop, no paperdoll viewer, etc.) meant that the price of DDI wasn't worth it. There was not enough content to justify a regular subscription.

File: 2e Core Class XP.png (44KB, 1293x727px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1293x727px

>>47421048
I made a chart of it a while ago.

Whats with all the bait shitposting about 4e lately? Did something happen to make people remember 4e exists?

>>47421082
>That druid XP curve
Why ?

>>47421046
Less powerful doesn't mean less fun to play.

That's me saying that my character concept is a clumsy rogue with 6 DEX but the game punishes me for it.

If you want to be able to control time, hurl gigantic fireballs and summon demonic and divine entities then you should roll a wizard.

If you want to hit things with a big sword you should roll a warrior.

>>47421053
>viable

Viable in what sense? In a combat situation?

Are you saying that fighters are not viable when it comes to fighting?

>>47421078
My group shared a DDI account just for the compendium. That was really, really useful. If only they hadn't shut down the virtual tabletop it might've actually been worth it to have individual accounts

>>47421094
>inb4 Summer

>>47421102
Because druids reset their XP to zero when they give up the Hierophant position.

>>47420943
>You cannot expect a fighter to defeat Elminster for example without some sort of magical or divine aid.

Conan the Barbarian fought and killed plenty of sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards throughout Howard's stories, often without any enchanted air whatsoever. That's because the sword and sorcery setting presented magic in a far more taxing and costly manner than 3rd edition's "wiggle your fingers to stop time, raise your eyebrow to summon twenty elementals" style.

You insist that the fighter is inferior to the wizard, but that is not a guarantee in fantasy literature. That mentality is one of 3rd edition's greatest flaws, that special classes get special treatment purely because they are declared magical.

>>47421082
What the fuck happens to druids at level 15?

>>47421094
There's the 4e general that's been up for days.

>>47421033
>Originally, levels weren't comparable between classes because they used different XP tables.

The level XP difference virtually never mattered (except for thieves, a class I hate and which never should have been added, and for druids, which have an unbelievably bizarre XP progression system), at least in the direction that's intuitive. In some editions clerics progress faster than fighters at certain stretches. Either way, it is virtually never a relevant balancing factor.

File: Druid Organisational Structure.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>47421116
They get a promotion.

>>47421115
>You insist that the fighter is inferior to the wizard, but that is not a guarantee in fantasy literature.
True, but it's a safe bet in the D&D universe.

Conan wouldn't stand a chance against Elminster.

That said, fighters can be just as powerful as wizards if they're weilding magical weapons.

>>47421105
>Are you saying that fighters are not viable when it comes to fighting?
Actually, yes.

>>47421113
Shouldn't that result in an upward spike, not a downward one? If you can't reach level 16 until you go all the way back through levels 1-15, that makes it harder to get there, not easier.

>>47421132
>a class I hate and which never should have been added

Please elaborate.

>>47421157
>True, but it's a safe bet in the D&D universe.
Then D&D is shit.

>>47421160
You don't lose levels. Your XP gets set to 1, but you're still level 16.

>>47421170
Thief skills were really badly explained, and resulted in lots of people thinking that the other classes couldn't do any of those things at all.

They also had really low values.

>>47421078
Playing a caster in previous editions just seemed easier because the spells took up less cognitive space than all the powers in 4e. Instead of every single class having a unique power list that you probably aren't going to completely memorize, casters before that usually had some variation of wizard spells or cleric spells, with non-casters being able to opt out of all that bookkeeping and have a character sheet that can easily fit on one page.

Exalted is indeed a huge mess, but that's neither here nor there.

>>47421170

The tl;dr is that imo thieves steal from other classes (how appropriate) by taking what should generally be standard adventurer fare and make it into a super select skill, thus starting the trend of "you can't do it unless its on your character sheet."

According to "a random guy who played thieves on the internet," the thief is supposed to be merely better at these skills and they're super powers. Well okay, too bad it never said this anywhere and thus bloomed into the modern skill system (which is ok, I guess, but doesn't fit S&S very well), not to mention its eternally unclear how wall climbing or lockpicking, for example, is supposed to be arbitrated by nonthieves.

>>47421105

>Less powerful doesn't mean less fun to play.

And what if someone wants to play a fighter that doesn't play second fiddle to wand jockeys and rod nobblers?

>>47421203
So to get to level 17 you have to reach the amount of XP normally required to get from 16 to 17, plus the amount of XP normally required to get from 1 to 16. That should still be an upward spike.

>>47421210
>a random guy who played thieves on the internet,
>not knowing who Mike Mornard is
Wall climbing for non-thieves is in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and 2e core.

>>47420158
>hey guys if you ignore all the side effects the ability causes, all spells are the same, just a damage roll.

If the abilities had actually been written out so you were able to comprehend them, you wouldn't have bothered posting. Don't double down on the retardation.

>>47421170
Thieves, as they were added to DnD's early editions, were literally included so that classes could do less.

Originally, everyone could sneak around and unlock things. It was just what heroes DID. The literature backed it up. The Grey Mouser was a bit sneakier than Fafhrd but both of them were sword-wielding heroes.

With the addition of the Thief, suddenly it's mostly a thief-only thing.

>>47421223
I know very well who he is. Its also largely irrelevant, since even if Gygax had him in mind with Greyhawk, that doesn't mean the authors of subsequent editions had him in mind.

>Wall climbing for non-thieves is in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and 2e core.

No shit.

File: 2e Priest XP table.png (32KB, 397x525px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 397x525px

>>47421217
That diagram was run straight off the XP tables, I'll go redo it.

>>47420211
Of course you can criticize it for that. It's supposed to be a roleplaying game, not a fucking wargame. Having such an absurd focus on combat makes it significantly worse.

File: 2e Core Class XP.png (43KB, 1293x727px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 1293x727px

>>47421251
>No shit.
You were the one who said it was unclear.

>>47421267
There we are. I had a feeling something was weird.

>>47421203
>>47421210
>>47421248

Thanks for explaining.

>>47421192
Okay then. Go play something else.

>>47421215
You're going to have to be more specific.

A fighter can be just as deadly as a wizard in combat but will never be as versatile.

Also, at low levels, fighters are much more useful in combat situation than wizards. It's not until much later in the game that the wizard starts to shine.

>>47421273
>a focus on good combat rules is bad
>despite combat being the only part of the vast majority of RPGs (thank God for that) where people spend most of it waiting for them to stop being punched in the face or waiting for their allies to be finished being, at least 50% of the time, better than them

>>47421248

That's something I really liked about 4e.

It's something that anyone could learn to do without dealing with 'Cross class skills' and bullshit like that.

Take it as a background skill, bam you are decent at it (And damn good if you are dex primary or secondary)

>>47421295
>You were the one who said it was unclear.
Depending on edition.

>>47421298

Someone who can match up to archmages and come out on top in a fair fight. Because you know, fighter. It's literally the one thing his class does.

>>47421324
>>47421210
>its eternally unclear
That doesn't read like 'depending on edition' to me.

>>47421311
If you're spending upwards of an hour on the average combat, you're not playing an RPG. If the game you're playing defines its characters by their combat functionality, you're not playing an RPG. If you're at the table to roll big numbers and move your token around on a grid, you're in the wrong hobby.

>>47421333
A fighter can potentially defeat an wizard in combat. I don't see what the problem is here.

>>47421348

If you're the sort of person to tell people they're having fun wrong, you have less place in this hobby than any playstyle you'd speak out against. GTFO. Magical realm ERPers do less damage to the community than people like you.

>>47421355

How? The Wizard can fly, he can call up walls that negate ranged attacks and he's got save or dies the fighter could never pass. Hello anything with a Will Save.

>>47421363
Stay mad, /v/ reject autist.

>>47421372
The fighter will have to benefit from some sort of magic item that supresses magic.

Otherwise yeah there's no way that a wizard who can open portals to other dimensions and bend the very fabric of reality is going to be defeated by a fighter who's skill is basically to be able to lift heavy things.

Wizards have weaknesses you know.

>>47421355

Not on his own he can't.

>>47421348
what if I told you that the lines between 'RPG', 'board game' and 'war game' are pretty much arbitrary and you can 'pretend to be your character' in pretty much any of them?

Car Wars is an interesting example - as written it was just a wargame with some fluff, and then with very few rules additions, suddenly gaming magazines had entire adventures with stories published for it. Proper adventures, too, not just a 'battle scenario'.

>>47421348
>You can't roleplay if there is no written rules for roleplay

>>47421414

Which item would that be?

A scroll he can't use?
A staff he can't use?

>>47421348
>If you're spending upwards of an hour on the average combat,
I don't mind that part at all. I do mind the idea of nuance, rules depths, etc. on combat being inherently bad. The amount or depth of rules for combat does not directly correlate to its length. 1e has the most impenetrably baffling initiative system, but its also ultra quick to resolve once you understand it.

>>47421434
I'm pretty sure there are items that fighters can use that grant resistance to magical effects.

>>47421423
He can under the right circumstances.

>>47421458
>I'm pretty sure there are items that fighters can use that grant resistance to magical effects.

Such as? He can't get access to Anti-magic field and spell resistance is very, very weak.

>>47421458

So a fighter needs magic items to beat a wizard but the wizard doesn't need magic items to beat the fighter, they are just a bonus?

>>47421215
Those who live by the wand shall die by my blade!

>>47421466
There was actually a story of a guy in 3.5e who was given free reign to build a straight wizard who would fight against a straight fighter, and the goal was to optimise them to fight against each other.

The fighter straight out lost every single attempt. Nothing they could do could beat the wizard going "I time stop, go Ethereal, sink into the ground, and gate in dragons".

File: tier wars.jpg (563KB, 1060x1171px) Image search: [Google]

563KB, 1060x1171px

>>47421458
>>47421466
In 3.x, while fighters are doomed to toil many tiers below wizards, the most underrated thing is a gryphon or dragon mount or whatever. Because Hover. Because (in a debris filled area like a dungeon or town) it breaks line of sight, making it impossible to use targeted spells on you from 30' away or more, and AoE spells are generally a little easier to deal with. A slight help, anyway.

>>47421466
>>47421479
Yeah I mean a fighter has never beaten a wizard in combat. It's just never happened in D&D ever.

In all seriousness, it depends a lot on the wizard, what level he is, what spells he has available etc...

It's totally possible for a fighter to defeat a wizard with or without magical items.

>>47421505
Sure, but you need to stack in the deck in the fighter's favour in almost every way.

The immense array of Save-or-Suck/Die spells in existence mean that the fighter needs to win initiative or otherwise surprise the caster in question, which assuming the caster is using their abilities intelligently, is very difficult.

>>47421531

Not really. Not all casters can deal with, say, someone behind a metal tower shield with a ring of spell turning or on a hovering mount. No line of sight to target, can't affect directly with AoEs.

Just as an example.

Yes, the caster is still 3+ tiers ahead of him.

>>47421585
Why is the fighter benefiting from equipment and companions not of his class while the mage is assumed to be unequipped?

>>47421609
No assumptions whatsoever are being made of that nature. However, a wizard doesn't benefit nearly as much from two way full cover or line of sight blocking.

In fact you appear to have fundamentally misunderstood my comment so I don't have high hopes for your next post.

>>47421621
There's no point arguing with him.

He won't be happy unless fighters can literally defeat wizards naked and blindfolded by crushing their skulls with their bare hands.

>>47421647

If the Wizard is ALSO naked and blindfolded? Sure.

>>47421585
>someone behind a metal tower shield

Doesn't work. Tower shield explicitly doesn't block LoS for spells in 3.PF because, and I quote this from memory "the caster can just target the shield".

>>47421273

Dude, D&D has always had involved combat, even back when combat wasn't something that you went out of your way to get into.

4e focusing on combat is fine so long as the rules aren't finnicky and don't get in the way of your agency as a player.

>>47420239

>Why does everything have to be "balanced" these days?

Because having classes that become weaker as time goes on and classes that only get better the longer they survive is fucking stupid.

Especially if the game assumes that everyone in the party is around the same power level and able to freely contribute to the solution to an obstacle that's blocking their progress.

>>47421105

>Are you saying that fighters are not viable when it comes to fighting?

Yes.

A fucking bear can match, pound for pound, the raw damage of a fighter of equal level while having the benefits of feats that allow them to naturally gain buffs and templates.

>>47421801

A druid can also summon that bear, and then turn into that bear, doing the job of two fighters while simultaneously casting spells.

>>47420879

But it looks like a video game! All the things you can do are laid out simply and the dm can easily see a full list of what his party can do and therefore accommodate it when planning an adventure which is now super easy to balance! Sounds awful haha


Real talk tho 4thed was pretty solid. People are dumb. But I'm not gonna play it so.

>>47421298

>A fighter can be just as deadly as a wizard in combat but will never be as versatile.

By design, the Fighter suffers from being too broad and too general.

Feat taxes means that in order to perform certain actions well, he'd need to invest at least a fourth of his feat slots towards one particular tree.

Most maneuvers and strategies he could've easily performed in older versions of D&D are either hidden behind a feat or rendered useless due to the fact that some creatures are immune to it or are bigger/stronger/tougher than him or both.

Even in terms of straight damage, the Fighter will never be able to deal enough damage to one-shot the creatures that he's expected to handle due to most having high AC, Damage Reduction, spells, high CMD (If PF), coupled with the fact that the most swings the Fighter is throwing, the less BAB he's able to apply to his attacks.

To say nothing on the fact that in order to even perform those extra attacks, he has to already be within melee range of his opponent, which just opens him up to a full round action and eating shitloads of damage before he can even perform his turn.

By contrast, anything the Fighter can do through the aid of a feat, a mage has access to as a spell that he can freely switch out as long as it's on his spell list.

>>47420288

>Realism

Yes, a fighter being useful for once is much less realistic than a guy who can turn bat shit into a fireball.

>>47421801
>>47421836
A bear can't wear armour, magical items or dual wield vorpal blades.

This argument is retarded.

Fighters are gear dependant, sure, but they're not weak.

>>47421899

>A bear can't wear armour, magical items

...yes they can.

Armour for animals is called Barding.

>>47421918
Fine. If you want to be autismal about it...

The average bear won't bear wearing armour. The average fighter will.

>>47420617

>If everyone is special then what distinguishes magical beings and abilities from normal folk?

The fact that the fighter can jump 30 feet into the air while the average peasant cannot?

Just because he doesn't rub bat shit all over his hands to generate fireballs doesn't mean that he isn't magical in some way. Fucking Hercules wrestled a Nemean Lion with his bare hands yet just because he doesn't cast spells, it makes it seem less than realisitc?

>>47421944
A druid-turned-into-bear without magical gear is, in fact, stronger, than fighter WITH magical gear.

>>47421899

>A bear can't wear armour, magical items or dual wield vorpal blades.

You know what can? A Druid.

And he can turn into and give those effects to a bear.

>>47421944
The average fighter also won't be decked out in magical items with a combined value in the hundred thousands of gold.

>>47421677
>Tower shield explicitly doesn't block LoS

...hence why I gave a nonmagical means of hovering (a flying mount) which kicks up debris or dust to give total (nonmagical) concealment. A ring of spell turning, though hardly easily available, is also a truly amazing item if you can get one since "targeted" spells are surprisingly broad.

>>47421959
Hercules was a demigod, the son of Zeus, not an ordinary human.

>>47421967
In terms of raw strength score, sure. But melee guys aren't hurting for raw damage, ever.

>>47421983

And which mythological wizards where completely human?

>>47421996
And Merlin was half-demon and Gandalf was an angel reincarnated.

>>47421967
>>47421972
>>47421979
The guy said bears were stronger than fighters, not druids.

Why do you guys have such a hardon for fighters if they're so useless?

Let's assume that you're correct and that fighers are the most gimped useless class in D&D, how do we fix them?

>>47421414

>The fighter will have to benefit from some sort of magic item that supresses magic.

You realize that the Fighter would be disabling his own magical gear right?

Even then, how is he using an AMF if he doesn't cast magic?

>>47421983

A lot of ancient Heroes had divine blood.

Also: Name me a wizard who can do half the shit D&D wizards can. I'm talking turning into dragons while summoning angels and creating a consistent stream of cascading light and fireballs in a matter of seconds (turns).

>>47421959
>he doesn't cast spells

Few people who are divine "cast spells" except in the context of D&D, but in D&D terms divinely favored individuals have divine spells, even though say Sir Holger was not intended to be a spellcaster per se.

Clerics of Kord etc. are there for, amongst other things, Herculean types. Or if you want to be extra autistic, Hercules just plain had the demigod 'template.'

>>47422015

>how do we fix them?

Well that depends. If we keep wizards the same way? We need to give Fighters some crazy ass utility abilities to keep up or at least be slightly useful outside of combat (or allow them to approach combat from different angles outside of "I charge and full attack).

If we want to keep fighters feeling "grounded" then we need to seriously nerf wizards.

>>47422005
I think you're quoting the wrong guy, but Gandalf is most similar to the various good beings that have spells or spell likes and can take humanoid form, like metallic dragons, celestials, and of course, deities and avatars (see: Fizban the Fabulous, who is one part Gandalf and one part Yoda).

Mythology is merely one portion of D&D's inspiration. S&S is its main inspiration. There's a whole list in the back of the 1e AD&D to help you guys who are unfamiliar with the genres D&D tries to emulate.

>>47421621

>Fighter gets a metal tower shield, a ring of spell turning, or a hovering mount.
>Wizard gets nothing.

>No assumptions whatsoever are being made of that nature.

Fucking martialfags, I swear to christ.

>>47422043
D&D hasn't been an Appendix N simulator since 3e.

>>47421981

Where is the fighter getting all this bullshit and why doesn't the wizard just time stop and summon/gate shitloads of monsters to take him out?

You're assuming that all wizards are evocation based, which is bad because evocation is by far one of the weakest wizard schools to focus in.

>At will spells are literally just slightly better basic attacks

so? they're spells you use over and over. the fighter has a daily where he hits everyone that comes near him and also forces everyone to come near him

>>47421899

You can actually buy armor for animal companions.

The druid can buff his animal companion while simultaneously being a bear himself.

Finally, a vorpal blade (let along two of them) won't help you if you cannot get within range to use it, which is pretty bad considering the bulk of the druid spell list is "generate difficult terrain."

>>47422018
Moorcock and Tolkien both had characters who would appear to be arcane in the context of D&D that could destroy fortresses singlehandedly with their spells, which is well beyond the power of a D&D wizard, and Luthien could likewise put what is effectively a demigod at least to sleep, something also beyond the power of a D&D wizard.

Generally, you're best looking at the source material for analogs. The Shadow X series, plus Haste (and some sort of very powerful lightning attack that can destroy armies), has close similarities to stuff used in Chronicles of Amber, for example.

>>47422043
I quoted the wrong guy.

I meant to quote >>47421983

>>47422046
Man, you are BAD at reading comprehension. Really, really bad.

Earlier, I pointed out, again, that I made no assumptions that the fighter could equal the wizard, and even pointed out that the wizard is stronger. I further pointed out that the wizard is welcome to a tower shield and griffon if he thinks it would be remotely as useful for him.

>>47422015
We begin by retooling an entire feat system and getting rid of feat trees.
Give all maneuvers to all fighters and make hem affect more monsters.
Give fighters more skill points and focus skills.
Give fighters ability to straight-up break through debilitating effects and save-or-sucks.
Give fighters extraordinary abiities such as leaping 30m in the air or breaking through walls, kool-aid man style as they level up.
And that's just the obvious things.

>>47421983

And most wizards aren't ordinary humans either.

Hell, the bulk of spellcasters in fiction can't even match up to 1/10 of the power and utility of a 3.5 mage.

Even then, whose to say that Fighters can't have divine blood and that's what makes them powerful? I mean, they were originally based off of greek heroes and demigods.

>>47422081
>destroy fortresses singlehandedly with their spells, which is well beyond the power of a D&D wizard, and Luthien could likewise put what is effectively a demigod at least to sleep, something also beyond the power of a D&D wizard.
I think you're underestimating D&D wizards. Zagyg trapped either 8 or 9 demigods in his basement, for example.

>>47422062
Many of D&D's really good, broken spells were about as good and broken as they were in AD&D, BECMI, B/x, or OD&D. Some worse (conjurations don't seem to be affected by magic/spell resistance in 3e, not sure how that used to work), some better (a lot of shit that was no save just die/lose in OD&D got less borked over time).

Basically you won't see worse martial/caster disparity than in OD&D.

Where you really run into trouble is stuff that has no precedent in S&S or other materials.

>>47422081

>Moorcock and Tolkien both had characters who would appear to be arcane

>Tolkien

>Arcane

Ooohh boy this discussion again.

Also I sure do remember that time Gandalf flew into the sky, turned invisible and summoned 3-4 angels to fight that Balrog. Or when he just floated up out of that pit cause he was like "nah son".

>>47420219

4e's battles are good because you can make bombastic setpiece battles that are crazy as fucking hell. they handle big encounters and shit better than anything else.

for example, I did the airship version of the final fight from Fury Road with my players. Leaping from ship to ship, crashing them into each other, players were throwing quips at one another....it was great. There was something amazing about the fighter leaping solo on a ship full of monsters, activating his daily, allowing him to attack everyone adjacent to him, kill almost all of them while the rogue grabbed the controls and pointed the fuck down. It's true that these things can be done in other editions but it's way messier. An attack that slides all enemies close to you and you attack everyone adjacent to you is better than taking 15 turns to attack everyone adjacent to you. If that makes sense.

we play dungeon crawl classics now and they like it more

>>47422092

You're giving the fighter in this scenario gear that would give him an advantage over the wizard while simultaneously ignoring the fact that any wizard worth his salt isn't going to be targeting his bitch ass anyways.

You can claim whatever you want but it doesn't make it any less biased.

>>47420098
My group and I enjoy it. It really favors MMO style combat, it really helps bring the group together for everyone to have something interesting to do in order to move the battle along.

>>47422065
Hmm.

>Where is the fighter getting all this bullshit

The very inexpensive stuff he could have by level 6 (gryphon and shield, not the ring)? Who the fuck knows or cares?

>You're assuming that all wizards are evocation based,

No such assumption made... ever. However, your ability to affect something you cannot see to target, and cannot affect by a nontargeted spell either, may be difficult. One thing I find likeable about dragon mounts is that their insane speed means that in many environments they cannot be targeted before they are in melee.

Also, evocation is one of the few ways to even affect an enemy you cannot see to target.

> why doesn't the wizard just time stop and summon/gate shitloads of monsters to take him out?

Moving goalposts much? The initial statement is still true: not all casters can handle enemies they cannot see to target, and cannot hit with nontargeted spells either. Obviously, level 17+ types who are willing and able to gate cheese are a caster who can handle such, but I never pretended otherwise, not even for a single post.

>>47422119
That actually sounds pretty cool.

Most people here just seem to be complaining that 3.5 sucks because fighters aren't as powerful as wizards.

>>47421273
I've never been a big fan of roll-to-talk. In my groups we usually throw out the social-rolls in favor of actually roleplaying. If you want to interrogate, intimidate, barter, or bluff... you have to actually do it. I really prefer systems that cater to combat and let you make the rest of it up as you go.

>all of these moronic fucking posts about what DnD is supposed to be

look faggots, ADnD1e is literally something that would annoy most of you. First off, you'd all start crying that it was SJW as fuck because Gary flat out states in the DMG that if your player is sexist or racist, ban them for life and try to get as many other DMs to follow you on the path. He literally told people to blacklist shitty players.

He said the rules for DnD are just there to provide some boundaries so it's a game at all, but otherwise just about everything can be thrown out. He only wanted to keep some basic concepts alive. Levels, XP, classes....a couple other things. After that, he didnt give a fuck. If Gary walked in on some people today playing DnD 2e and someone was like "this is my homebrew class the fursuiter" and they were all using content he didnt design and was all homebrew he'd be fine"

4e was fine to him too. He liked it. Now fuck off

>>47422110
What am I supposed to do about a newfriend who thinks Gandalf is arcane? Your stupidity burns me.

I'll give you a hint, I'm talking about a character of non divine birth who was explicitly taught to do something magical.

You now have my permission to cry.

>>47422164

>What am I supposed to do about a newfriend who thinks Gandalf is arcane?

OH I know he's not a "wizard" that's why I said "Ohhh boy this discussion again" while geentexting Tolkien and Arcane. Because he's the go to "Wizard example" when people bring up tolkien.

>I'll give you a hint, I'm talking about a character of non divine birth who was explicitly taught to do something magical.

... who exactly?

>>47422065
>why doesn't the wizard just time stop and summon/gate shitloads of monsters to take him out?

Why are you assuming that we're talking about a level 30 wizard with access to spells like time stop and gate?

>>47422105

>I think you're underestimating D&D wizards.
>Zagyg trapped either 8 or 9 demigods in his basement, for example.

Zagyg apparently isn't bound by stuff like... rules? Or spells? He's a "mad archmage" but stuff like that is wholly beyond the limits of the D&D spell system.

Likewise, destroying a fortress generally requires nonsense on the level of a locate city nuke, or a huge amount of patience and a staff of disintegrate.

Repeated Earthquake spells could conceivably be the cause. The descriptions are so terse its hard to say.

Epic spells, should you resist vomiting enough to peruse them, could work, but have strange limits, especially considering both arcane-ish types I refer to didn't have hordes of acolytes and such.

>>47422162
>Gary flat out states in the DMG that if your player is sexist or racist, ban them for life and try to get as many other DMs to follow you on the path
Where's that?

>He said the rules for DnD are just there to provide some boundaries so it's a game at all, but otherwise just about everything can be thrown out.
Wrong. He says NOT to fuck with the system too much, because then it's not AD&D and your players won't be able to move between campaigns with different GMs (and thus different houserules) easily.

>>47422125
>You're giving the fighter in this scenario gear that would give him an advantage over the wizard

I am giving him gear that would be perfectly normal and logical for him to have, and in the context of D&D nonmagical to boot (even though that's unnecessary), that a great deal of casters will be unable to deal with.

>while simultaneously ignoring the fact that any wizard worth his salt isn't going to be targeting his bitch ass anyways.

Earlier it was mentioned a tower shield is useless because you can just target it, now you mention he's not going to use targeting spells, just pick a side.

>You can claim whatever you want but it doesn't make it any less biased.

You are the one resorting to pure projection due to not even understanding what the claim was about (that many casters can't deal with it).

>>47422153

Except for the fact that there are ways for a caster to affect someone even if they cannot see them, the fact that there are spells that would allow them to quickly maneuver around your shield, the fact that you're giving the fighter a mount that's uncommon just to give the fighter an added edge, and the fact that you're assuming that the fighter and the wizard in this scenario isn't the highest level possible so that we can measure their strengths at their peak.

>Who the fuck knows or cares?

If you don't give a fuck then just admit defeat and crawl off to your hole.

You're just making yourself look dumber by the post.

>>47422194

OK let's assume a more reasonable level. 10-13.

The wizard casts summon monster a bunch and now the fighter has 3-4 demons/angels who can fly attacking him. His ring of targeting does nothing since these are summoned monsters and all it takes is one of these things stunning or paralyzing him for a turn for the Wizard to risk a save or suck spell or just continue buffing/summoning more demons/angels.

Also the wizard has a ring of protection and a cloak of invisiblity and like 10 wands/scrolls with any spell he can think of.

>>47422079
>>47421972
>>47421899
>>47421836
>>47421801

Speaking of bears, remember Bear Lore? This is what shoehorning every monster into identical stat blocks and templates accomplishes. It is dictated exactly what the DC is to know things about a monster of each level, even if it's something as elementary as knowing where cave bears live.

>>47422202
According to his stat block, he's F8/W18/I10 in 1e.

>>47422162
D&D is shit, thats as much detail as needed. It is a toxic pollutant ruining new players every year.

>>47422187
>OH I know he's not a "wizard"

Yet you or someone else keeps desperately bringing up Gandalf again and again. And again and again we remind him that he is of no relevance to D&D wizards, despite the similarity in name.

If it helps, Cohen the Librarian is not the same thing as a Librarian from 40k, and Preston the Cleric from Equilibrium is not the same thing as a Cleric from D&D.

>Because he's the go to "Wizard example" when people bring up tolkien.

Not in this thread, despite my repeated attempts to remind faggots that he isn't.

File: 1211983139444.jpg (63KB, 484x247px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 484x247px

>>47422254

And dire bears attack with their claws. An average human will only be able to figure this out 5% of the time. Stop the fucking presses.

>>47422225

its in the unearthed aracana

>>47422194

>Why are you assuming that we're talking about a level 30 wizard with access to spells like time stop and gate?

Because what's the point of arguing which is stronger if the participants aren't at their peak level of strength?

The fact that a level 20 wizard can insta-gib a level 20 fighter just shows how weak the fighter is, which renders the argument of "which is better" inherently moot.

>>47422254

Yea but I'd much take that than having monsters be a literal class with an attack/saving throw progression.

Like that was ONLY D&D 3.5's idea. Even earlier D&D's would just go "Just... adjust... the numbers?"

>>47422119
My DM is big on using space. Shouldering orcs off battlements, collapsing scaffolding, bashing guys through walls... Makes the whole experience much more dynamic.

>>47422260
Ok. Still wouldn't help him with demigods. The "no divine beings" clause in, say, Gate is pretty clear cut.

>>47422266

Better than an average human dying to a house cat 90% of the time.

>>47422265
Wait, why is Gandalf not a wizard?

>>47422302

Because he's an angel, using divine power.

>>47422281
Wizards can research their own spells, you know.

>>47422268
Where?

>>47422302

He's a divine entity. An angelic being.

He's not of this world, born of the aether, etc.

He's not some human who sat down read a book and was like "oh this is a 'spell' huh!?" he was brought into existence fully formed with his abilities.

>>47422226

Ok, how about this?

Why doesn't the wizard have a familiar that would allow him to see past the fighter's shield?

Why isn't the wizard packing scrolls, wands, staffs, etc. that are prepped with spells?

Why isn't the wizard wearing magical items that would allow him to fly, turn invisible, gain DR, or any of the other effects that would aid him in this battle?

Why isn't the wizard using something like summon monster to produce a creature that keeps the fighter busy while he preps for other spells?

This is why your argument is shit, because you're giving the fighter gear that's "logical for him to have" while neglecting the same benefit to the wizard and calling shit fair.

Your build isn't infallible and you're not as clever as you think you are.

>>47422242
>Except for the fact that there are ways for a caster to affect someone even if they cannot see them

Which not all casters will be able to deal with. This is the original claim.

>the fact that there are spells that would allow them to quickly maneuver around your shield,

Best of luck on that.

> the fact that you're giving the fighter a mount that's uncommon just to give the fighter an added edge,

Everything of a given cost is generally equally uncommon. ITs called WBL.

>and the fact that you're assuming that the fighter and the wizard in this scenario isn't the highest level possible so that we can measure their strengths at their peak.

I made no assumptions on that topic. None. I said "not all casters can handle it." You have severe reading comprehension failure. Not all casters are max level wizards.

What is tragic is that not only have you yet to present an argument of any sort, but you have yet to even disagree with me, as I began by noting that some casters will be able to handle it and that this doesn't ameliorate the 3+ tier difference between them.

>If you don't give a fuck then just admit defeat and crawl off to your hole.

Its called WBL, genius. Even NPCs have stuff. Other ways exist, of course.

>>47422314
Man, I am clearly not enough of a nerd to participate here.

>>47422247
Its perfectly reasonable for a wizard to resort to summoning. And if it works, it works. It is particularly smart to summon angels and demons both, since even if he somehow has protection from evil stops the demons, it won't stop the angels.

>>47422274

>Because what's the point of arguing which is stronger if the participants aren't at their peak level of strength?

Probably because if you follow the reply chain no assumption of even beginning to reach parity was claimed? I was quite upfront that this will help against some casters, not all.

>>47422155

its not their fault

4e's early modules were horrible and played like 3.5 dungeons

room to room. small groups of weak enemies. zzzzz

later modules, and i mean near the end, got amazing. they realized that you could have ccrazy shit happen. a four hour long battle is amazing if done right.

>>47422309
>Wizards can research their own spells, you know.

Yes. "Conjure and imprison demigod" is beyond the limits of D&D spells, period. The strongest spell for the purpose is Gate, which cannot begin to coerce even a quasideity. This is more artifact level background, not someone who was ever a PC.

>>47422315
>Why doesn't the wizard have a familiar that would allow him to see past the fighter's shield?

If you wish to sic your familiar into every dust cloud that exists, more power to you.

>Why isn't the wizard packing scrolls, wands, staffs, etc. that are prepped with spells?

No one says he didn't, only persistent strawmen.

>Why isn't the wizard wearing magical items that would allow him to fly, turn invisible, gain DR, or any of the other effects that would aid him in this battle?

No one says he didn't.

>Why isn't the wizard using something like summon monster to produce a creature that keeps the fighter busy while he preps for other spells?

No one says he didn't. Blocking in tight quarters and spell-likes are among the best uses for summoned monsters. On the other hand, if there's anything like a wall of summoned monsters so dense I can't fly through, I'm going the other way. In fact, if I see evidence of conjuration at all and I'm a low tier pleb, I'm going to scoot.

>This is why your argument is shit,

Your argument is shit because you have yet to make one, and in fact you have yet to even disagree with me.

>while neglecting the same benefit to the wizard and calling shit fair.

Not at all, I make no assumptions whatsoever on that front. All that was claimed is that not all casters will be able to handle an uber-mobile foe they cannot see to target or hit indirectly. You may feel to actually disagree with me at any point. Feel free.

>Your build isn't infallible

Since I pointed out it was very, very fallible and inferior to the point of being 3+ tiers below a wizard, I'm going to have to say... ok?

>and you're not as clever as you think you are.

I am certainly more clever than a guy who thinks he is making an argument and is not, and even thinks he is disagreeing but is not.

>>47421981
>...hence why I gave a nonmagical means of hovering (a flying mount) which kicks up debris or dust to give total (nonmagical) concealment.

...

But then why give him a tower shield at all?