>fighter has to justify doing shit beyond "I hit it with

>>48413531
ok.

>OP is upset again

Just kill yourself already.

OP, have you ever heard of a "warblade"? Or if that's still not within your tastes, have you ever heard of "fourth edition"? Or is the only D&D you know circa 2003?

Have you ever even PLAYED D&D, or do you only mope about it on 4chan? Because nigga, 2003 was a long, long time ago.

>>48413531
Yeah, I found this a little annoying too. 4e was good for fixing a bit of it, to be sure.
I think a big problem is that a lot of DM's know that a high level wizard is Gandalf or Merlin, but forget that a high level fighter is Achilles, Heracles, or Beowulf. A high level wizard can turn himself into a dragon and teleport between worlds, but a high level fighter can rip a Dragon's arm off with his bare hands and slay a hundred warriors without breaking a sweat.
Treating high level fighters as being extremely skilled but not astounding warriors was always a mistake.
Most people would acknowledge that these days though, I think. Or at least in my neighborhood they do.

File: WHY SO MAD HATEFUL LAD.jpg (36KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x600px

>>48413531

>>48413531
>>48414843
>I think a big problem is that a lot of DM's know that a high level wizard is Gandalf or Merlin, but forget that a high level fighter is Achilles, Heracles, or Beowulf. A high level wizard can turn himself into a dragon and teleport between worlds, but a high level fighter can rip a Dragon's arm off with his bare hands and slay a hundred warriors without breaking a sweat.

This right here - it's not the system that's really creating the problem that has OP salty, it's the way that magic is conceptualized in general that makes it inherently stronger in any system built to use it.

>>48413531
Which edition, faglord.

> needs a feat to
...theres you're problem, OP, you're playing 3rd ed.

I stopped at what I consider 'Best Edition' (adnd2). "Balance the classes? AHahaha you stupid fuck, thats impossible, because 'balance' is an arbitrary definition. The only way you could ATTEMPT that was if you vanilla-ised ALL the classes and just made them an 'identical skeleton framework with interchangeable modules'.
Oh look, its 3rd 4th, and now 5th edition.
"The classes are balanced! That should satisfy people!"

MFW the idea for 'balance' is stupid. IF a class having power that yours doesn't, bothers you, either defect to that class, or RUN A GAME where the balance is (as YOU see it) 'more appropriately distributed' so monks aren't useless pieces of crap or something.


Balance?
Fuckoff, this is like a religious apologetic.
I know you have faith in class balance. You argue with the other neckbeards about it for 15 years, we'll be here getting deeper into the modules and getting GEAR which matters as much as class powers ever did.

>>48413531
There are two very different groups of people who want to play dnd, that wizards is designing for.

Most of The wizard players want high powered superhero tier magic. Wont be happy without it.

Most of the fighter players want Conan power tier style adventures . Wont be happy playing a Wizard.

This is why you heard a lot of people bitching about

>IN 4E YOU HAVE TO PLAY WIZARDS WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!

alongside the seemingly contradictory

>IN 4E YOU CAN'T BUILD A WIZARD YOU HAVE TO PLAY A SHITTY RANGER TYPE.

Most of the fighter players want (A).
Most of the wizard players want (Z) .

Obviously these things don't work together in the same game. Wizards didn't seem to get the memo, however, as they're doing it again in 5e.

4e catered to neither group, it did like, (K). Somewhere in between what the two groups want, pleasing neither of them.

>>48414925
Well feats, so it must be 3.x or later, One of the feats is Improved Unarmed, so it's got to be 3.x.
Oh look it turns out OP is complaining about worst edition and generalising.

>>48414901
I don't even think that's a universal issue. After all, nothing forces a system to have magic be something earth-shattering and easy like some do.

I think the biggest issue is people assuming that because magic as a concept can theoretically do anything, that means that any individual mage has to be able to do everything.

>>48415784
>I think the biggest issue is people assuming that because magic as a concept can theoretically do anything, that means that any individual mage has to be able to do everything.

I agree. I've seen plenty of systems that manage to balance caster and martial characters. They all have weaker magic than high end D&D magic.

>>48415040
It's amusing to me that you speak up for 2nd, but denounce the project of making the classes into vanilla skeletons with a variety of interchangeable modules. 2E was all about vanilla and forcing quite idiosyncratic classes (such as the Ranger, Druid and Bard) into molds that just didn't fit them.

>>48415637
don't forget 5th ed, where magic was neither particulary powerful, dangerous or noteworthy.

The wizards action does not really change the fight tempo. The effects of the spell end at the same time as the fight.

WOW. So magical! Fifth ed is cookie cutter mode. You've got some amorphous dough blobs without any sharp edges. These are your characters, wouldn't want there to be a balance issue, so we got rid of all the edge.

>>48416319
I think I hear you, but I either don't understand, or don't agree. Vanilla 2nd ed wasn't vanilla, it was core, there was little alternative for it to be the mundane flavor to.
The core class-types (warrior/priest/rogue/wizard) were the set, and the classes were 'packages' filed under each type?

Didn't fit them? I want to be receptive to whatever you're saying, but thats not compelling rhetoric yet.
Being a druid fit quite well under the catchall of 'variant priest', for instance.
If you didn't like it, you asked the gm to tweak up a priest of nature differently.

Seems good to me.

My point, if I had one, was arguing about class balance is stupid, and I'd rather appeal-to-authority-fallacy and worship Jeb Cook and Gary G as gods and gospels, declare the system un-needing of meddlesome well-wishers arguments, and just get on with playing the game,
because honestly, the gear we could have gotten in the time we spent arguing about class balance? Really? Really?
Was it a good use of our time, in return for imaginary power? Because you got your class tweaks. I hit the dungeon and got more gear with my time. Whee! Magic items. Wooooo.

>>48415784
>>48416002
Got to agree, every system I've ever seen do magic well at the very least limited the variety of magic available to any given mage.

>>48416002
>>48416937
I think there's 4 main parts to how good magic is. In D&D, spellcasting is safe, fast, powerful, and versatile.

To get a more sensible magic system, you basically need to reverse some of those, so that magic is either risky, time-consuming, limited, or specialized.

I think a sweet spot to aim for is two upsides and two downsides. Having magic be risky rituals that are expensive and time consuming, but are powerful and can accomplish a lot of effects, puts it into a rarer utility role. Having the opposite means you get something better for blasting, but without as much power or utility.

File: idontlikething.jpg (86KB, 500x628px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 500x628px

>>48413531

>>48416855
>The wizards action does not really change the fight tempo

Are you fucking serious? A fireball killing lower level enemies by the dozens is notchanging fight tempo? Hypnotic pattern essentially SoD-ing in an AoE is not changing the fight tempo?

>The effects of the spell end at the same time as the fight.

Except for all the ones that don't.

>>48413531
When did you realize your bait sucks?

>>48413531

I realized D&D was garbage when I realized that I had to fudge most of my rolls just to make sure that any enemy I threw at the party didn't immediately die due to the wizards playing smart.

I mean, I'm not going to fault them for acting intelligently but it becomes a hassle running for mixed party and seeing the martials on their phone because they knew the Cleric and Wizard would just SoL/SoD any enemy the party fought, leaving them to clean up the mess once the enemy was helpless.

>>48413531
I realized it was shit because every single other game uses point buy rather than the arbitrary increments that are levels, a dice system with more granularity like a d100, dice pool, or more than one dice, and avoid a set in stone class system beyond a few recommended archetypes, just as an example.

D&D is never getting its mechanics fixed to that extent in the name of keeping on to its identity. There is nothing wrong with liking D&D, but claiming that it is the best system for fantasy adventures and such is wrong.

Can someone ban this shitposter with an agenda already? He's been doing stuff like this the past several weeks with the same bait OP image.

>>48414901
I find the problem a lot of GMs fall into is the "equal encounter" problem. A GM in 3.5 wants to challenge a high level party, so they make a high level encounter. The easiest high level encounter are single target: I.e. "the party is level 18, here's a red dragon of CR 18."

Because of this, the spellcasters can go nuclear and completely dismantle one target. Meanwhile, the warrior gets to chip away a few HP.

An equally CR 18 encounter might comprise of sixteen CR 10 creatures (citation, I dug out Pathfinder and did a little math), or two fire teams from an evil overlords elite army. Suddenly, beset from multiple angles with a swarm of enemies and badly outnumbered by foes who, despite being individually interior are a credible threat in numbers, the mage *needs* the warrior to ablate damage and drop foes. But running 16 enemies sucks, so most GMs just don't.

>>48413531
You meant Dungeon World, didn't you?

>>48414843

I disagree with your point that fighters should be conceptually fantastic. They should not. A D&D fighter should, even at level 200, be just an asshole with a sharp piece of steel and nothing cool about him. Because that's the concept of a D&D fighter. You can't change that; he has to be an uncool scrub that is shit and pathetic.

HOWEVER: he should be balanced, mechanically, against mages and clerics and whatnot. This is a pure numbers game, you adjust his numbers and the numbers of other classes until balance appears. But you don't change the underlying concepts of either. Fighters will always be uncool, unwashed illiterate peasants even if they do 2d1000 damage per hit to 4d20 targets as a normal action and wizards do nothing to anyone.

>>48418804
>16 CR 10 creatures

Their saves are so bad (relatively) that the wizard is going to obliterate them with like 2-3 AoE save spells.

Also, the wizard defenses are again so high that they don't really pose a threat. 3.PF scaling is really out of whack (which can be fun, just saying that it really doesn't support the many small enemies" thing for balanced encounters).

>>48418903
That isn't why spellcasters are better. Give 3.5 fighter a sword that instantly kills any target he attacks, not hits, without a save and make all of the wizard's attack spells always do only one damage. The wizard is still going to be much, much more useful to the party because the utility of the magic grossly eclipses the numbers game.

>>48416937
3.5 does do that for wizards, though, at least a little bit. I don't know why most people seem to miss this part but they don't actually know their entire spell list. The DM has almost complete control over what spells the wizard has access to. However most campaigns take place in Generic High Fantasy Land where every podunk town has a Magical Library with every spell able to be copied down for free.

It's really not a great system, but there are tools there.

>>48418903
>Because that's the concept of a D&D fighter.
That never was the concept.

>>48419808

Yeah. Sage because yet another stupid troll thread, but in Chainmail, high level fighters fight as eight men, sufficient to bust a hole in an enemy line like Sauron at the start of Fellowship. Also like Sauron, when a high level fighter (called a superhero) steps up to the front, enemies all have to make a morale check immediately or flee. He can see invisible creatures, and can shoot a passing dragon out of the sky on a 2d6 roll of 7 or 8, I forget exactly, but it's not a very hard shot. That's considerably more powerful than "I'm a regular guy and I hit things with a metal stick lol."

>>48418903

The issue with that is that martials are forced to deal with the shitty mechanics and the fucked math while the mages are able to ignore all of it because "lol magic."

Beyond that, I mean, you can make a character who is just some asshole with a weapon but still give him something that makes him more interesting than just "I attack" until one side is dead.

The fact that there are so many games where martials get just as many meaningful choices as their mage counterparts is proof that there is at least some merit that supports martials as being interesting archtypes in and of themselves.

Hell, off the top of my head, you can use a sword to

>Swing
>Stab
>Pommel strike
>Parry

Which would cover all the basic damage types plus defense.

Not to mention, how each type of sword has their own qualities that makes them unique, coupled with the various types of sword stances and stances.

>people still taking the bait

He's an autist. Just leave him alone.

>>48413531
>needs a special feat to hit things with his fist (improved unarmed strike)

Did you know that you can still hit things with your fist? It's just a fucking stupid idea just like it would be in real life to punch someone with your fist.

>needs a special feat to allow momentum from one attack to carry through to another enemy (cleave)

Try "cleaving" people in real life faggot

>needs a special feat to move then attack (spring attack)

I'll give you that one

>wizard shoots fireballs and teleports

I'll also give you that one.

Still, quit getting angry at 3,5 cause it's 2 editions ago now.

File: op coat of arms.jpg (60KB, 528x960px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 528x960px

>>48413531

None of these are problems in any edition prior to 3.5 or any attempt to build upon/recreate older editions as is done by OSR systems like Lamentations of the Flame Princes, Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, Adventurer Conqueror King System, etc.

File: 86546.jpg (612KB, 720x920px) Image search: [Google]

612KB, 720x920px

0e-based retroclones are best D&D. Do you agree?

Why/why not?

Magic is usually world-breaking, because magicians have access to all the non-magical stuff too. Shadowrun does it better than any other system:
>no teleportation
>no fabrication effects
>no resurrection
>no time manipulation
>no contingency effects

But mages are still OP, even with these heavy restrictions and with mundane characters getting kick-ass tech. The only way it's balanced is because everybody targets the mages first.

>>48418804
16 cr 10 enemies is an even bigger joke than one ,lcr 18 dragon.

Instead of casting disintegrate a couple times the vaster just uses one banshee wail and instantly ends the fight

File: 3.PF Brain Damage.png (221KB, 720x1368px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 720x1368px

>>48420934
Maybe once retards like you stop defending it and trying to force me to play it.

>>48420934
>Did you know that you can still hit things with your fist? It's just a fucking stupid idea just like it would be in real life to punch someone with your fist.

>Try "cleaving" people in real life faggot

But we're not playing real life, we're playing fantastical heroes killing trolls and dragons and shit.

>>48413531
First time I played actually
>3e
>Roll pretty fucking high according to my DM (three 18s, two 16s, one 14)
>Pick Monk because I like independent stronk men who need no equipment plus wrestling and martial arts
>Literally outclassed by the Druid, who had only a 15 as best stat, in every field ever since the first fucking level
>Outclassed by the cleric in every field ever as soon as we hit 3rd level
Didn't stay to see more

Later friends, and new groups, tried to make me play more but always ended in a similar way, either you were a full caster or you ended literally being useless. People loving casters didn't help either, for example once I wanted to play a shifter barbarian who could, thanks to a serie of shifter PrCs, get ridiculous Str, but GM and players went nono because "cheesy", but Druid master of many forms who turned into a 12 headed cryohydra was ok I guess because no one complained coz "magic, doens't have to explain shit".

>>48413531
The best way to deal with the system as a DM is to ignore it. Its perfect from a players perspective but after level 5 just chuck that shit out and improve. The second I stopped running the game by its own rules is the second it became a good game. I end the fights when I feel they should end. I make players or monsters fail DC's as I see fit. The enjoy meant of my players has skyrocketed since I started doing this. Every player feels like they are useful and are doing good, Fights are always a "challenge," everything flows nicely.

Did we really need another one of these threads?

>>48413531
I realized DnD was shit when I started reading other systems, and realized that casters didn't have to be better than martials, and that every roll didn't have to be an uninteresting binary success/failure type thing.

>>48422211
I realized I did not care when I played with system fags.

>>48415040
Its not about "balance" exactly. Its about each player getting the same amount of screen time. Classes should be geared so that no class outshines the other in that regard.

Its also about classes not stepping into each others areas. Whats the point of a class when another can do the same thing more efficiently and better? Its the same reason why Blue gets so much flack in MTG. Its the color that consistently does what the other colors do but better.

>>48414901
I don't know about other campaigns, but in 5e, a hundred warriors are going to dismantle any Hercules type character you put up to fight them, while a caster with AoE spells might stand a chance.

>>48422239
Even you know that's bullshit.

>>48421478
Thats not min maxing at all. Nigga are you for real? Min maxing is taking a THING say always scoring a critical hit and then disregarding absolutely everything that does not favor that THING. Then once you have broken that THING you apply it to the game with rules completely unprepared for that THING to be done so well.

All your picture represents is having more OPTIONS to deal with a problem not breaking one or two of those options to always work by strict definition of game rules.

>>48418903
Show me on the doll where the martial touched you

>>48422246
No, I really don't. Because bounded accuracy means that the hundred warriors are going to be able to hit him a good portion of the time. Meanwhile, he's able to kill 4 a round.

Meanwhile, the wizard has access to spells that can kill dozens of them per round. So it's the difference between killing them in 4 rounds, or 25.

>>48421478
>trying to force me to play it.

I don't. Never have. Also I am the guy you replied to, I play 3.5 still but I don't got out shilling unlike 90% of RPG fans who go TRY MY LE EPIC SYSTEM all over goddamn Reddit and now on this site as well.

>>48422332
Well of course you're retarded so they will clump in perfect AoE groups. A hundred warriors will kill basically anyone in a round or two except for legendary NPCs

>>48422378
But your having fun wrooooooong, anonkun.

>>48413766
This thread should have been over with this post.

>>48422332
>Bounded accuracy
So then no Hercules type of character is possible.

>>48421930

Casters are why I've relegated 3.5e to Epic 6.

File: tmp_18119-8bFRU8zl-1736266070.jpg (96KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 640x480px

>>48413531

>>48422393
>people don't realize that a high level fighter can slay 100 warriors without breaking a sweat
>haha--ha n-no, 100 warriors will k-k-ki---beat any character in 1 or 2 rounds you're retarded

You seem to be backpedaling here friend!

If all the enemy is spread out, warlocks (full casters) are able to keep up with the fighter, and even outpace them. But if they're clumped up, as if to go to battle in formation, a wizard/caster type can destroy them with the following spells in basically 1 or 2 rounds:

Meteor Swarm
Mirage Arcane
Firestorm
Otiluke's Freezing Sphere
Raise Dead (precast)
Reverse Gravity
Storm of Vengeance
Tsunami
Control Water (depending on how your DM handles armored individuals swimming, and how fast they are allowed to swim)
Whirlwind
Wish

High level casters are the hordebreakers in 5e. High level casters are the out of combat experts in 5e. High level martials are the slightly better at single target damage than casters butlers in 5e.

>>48413531
>never swung a real war axe or sword
>has never cut into non-filet meat
>has never chopped firewood or the like

But cleaving through feet of sinew, flesh and bond and properly aiming for vital parts is soooo easy, I mean, I've stabbed into a piece of pre-cut meat with a kitchen knife before, that's why I'm an expert on the topic of fighting a moving, thinking, parrying target.

Also some peasant's punch is just as devastating as a professional boxer's / martial artist's. :^)

>>48422862
I can tell your that summon water and food is no easy job either, and I have tried for many years.

>>48414843
Neither Gandalf or Merlin fit into D&D high-level wizards. They're both nowhere powerful enough. They wouldn't even be wizards, Merlin would be a sorcerer and Gandalf would be a cleric

>>48413531
>le casters are totally OP
>they can cast meteor swarm 'n shiet
>what? a fighter of the same level could catch one of those meteors and hurl it back at the wizard?
>LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU BECAUSE I ONLY DO THINGS THAT ARE EXPLICITLY MENTIONED IN THE CRB AND HAVE NO FANTASY AT ALL, THIS GAME IS JUST ROLLING DICE, WHAT IS ROLEPLAY? NO BECAUSE FANTASY IS NOT WHAT A FANTASY RPG IS ABOUT.

>>48418903
>>48419869
>D&D books give Hercules, Achilles, Beowulf and other fantastic as fuck heroes as example of high level fighters
>"Fighter concept in D&D was never fantastic and it shouldn't be"
I'm getting mixed signals

>>48422708
I didn't say a high level fighter wouldn't die, they both would die horribly to 100 warriors. There is no fighting chance, you are purposely lining up the pins so the caster can kill them all - including it being a flat grassland they are fighting on, and you are purposely using only the PHB and not the DMG entries for handling battles of this scale to do your white room bullshit.

100 of anything will probably kill any single target that doesn't have legendary actions to keep itself from dying horribly.

>>48422950
It's ok you like 4e, but you have to realize there're tons of other editions in where that doesn't happen

And 4e has its own set of problems

>>48423007
There is literally one edition. The OP is literally saying 3.5 is all D&D.

>>48422950
I just love th fact that when someone points out a spell would not work or there are characters that can bypass them, the spell mutates into a new spell before the end of the round along with them being able to cast six spells at a time and always have contingency for 10 spells above 8th level.

>>48423026
In 3.5 you can't catch and hurl back a meteor with a fighter, anon.

>>48422862
You are not a d&d character and d&d is not a game about realism

>>48423005
To me the expression "without breaking a sweat" kindof implies not dying. Are you a second language english speaker?

>>48423043
desu, meteor swarm is a garbage example of a op spell with any form damage resistance applying to each sphere.

You want something like force cage or reverse gravity for broken ass shit.

>>48423043
Deflect Arrows, retard.

>>48423064
Are you literally retarded?
I was pointing out that OP has no idea what he's talking about with cleave, "le it's not realism" is nonsense, because the creatures in D&D aren't balloon animals, no mere peasant has the strength to cut through feet thick of armour, flesh, bone and sinew and is likely not skilled enough to lead a blade effectively between the ribs of an opponent in the heat of battle without getting it stuck.

Physics are physics, iron is still iron, flesh is still flesh, bones are still bones, sure there may be dragons with bones as hard as adamantium, but when it comes to humans, bone density is still the same as in real humans, that is why hardness is a thing.

>>48423007
I have never even played 4e in my entire life, I stopped with 3.5e and have not yet returned to P&P because of work schedules. Even in 3.5e you could roleplay over rollplaying. What kind of rulebook nazis have you been playing with?

>>48423165
>le physics only apply to martials argument

>>48423195
Probably ones that think that a 20ft gorge magically becomes a 22ft gorge when the party levels up.

>>48423043
>if the rulebook doesn't explicitly state it, it literally cannot happen
Mate, get your nose out of the book and start using that brain of yours. You can apply deflect arrows to it with a higher DC and the fighter taking fire damage in the process. You can even catch ballista bolts and falling debris for example.
Why is it so hard for you wannabe P&P players to understand that not everything must be a railroad or video game?

>>48413531
Three years from now

>>48421794
>fantastical heroes
>heroes

No. Of course if you approach it with the idea of "my character is a/the hero, he should be able to do x" you're going to be butt frustrated that he doesn't have certain abilities by default, just because that's your expectation of a hero.

D&D is best when you play regular or skilled people who got to where they are by hard work and learned from actual experiences.

File: hes-right-alt.jpg (34KB, 426x257px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 426x257px

>>48413547
first post worst post

>>48413766
>system isnt shit, there is a class not affected by shitty rules

ok.

>>48423244
Actually, that's one of the things it explicitly says you can't do at all, ever.

>Unusually massive ranged weapons and ranged attacks generated by spell effects can’t be deflected.

>>48423244
>Unusually massive ranged weapons, such as boulders hurled by giants, and ranged attacks generated by spell effects, such as Melf's acid arrow, can't be deflected.

>>48418804
>The easiest high level encounter are single target: I.e. "the party is level 18, here's a red dragon of CR 18."
>Because of this, the spellcasters can go nuclear and completely dismantle one target.
This.
It wasn't truly high level, but I remember in a game once the DM sent at us a singleenemy that he later admitted was supposed to be a boss battle.
I was a spellcaster, so of course I polymorphed it into something similar and chucked it down a chasm. I can tell the DM wanted to bullshit so much to make it not work but luckily he had more integrity than that.
What was something similar a fighter of an equal -or even higher- level could have done? Nothing. He would have had to slowly chip it's HP away.
Casters/Martials are inherently unbalanced.

>>48423165
> no mere peasant has the strength to cut through feet thick of armour, flesh, bone and sinew and is likely not skilled enough to lead a blade effectively between the ribs of an opponent in the heat of battle without getting it stuck
Fighter characters are not "mere peasants". Having even a single level in fighter already means the character is unusually strong and skilled. If it's unlikely a character could pull something off you roll the dice.

>>48423203
>implying
If a spell conjures a physical object, such as a sword that is not a magic sword, the sword still is a physical object that obeys the rules of the plane it comes from.
If the sword was magic, or made of magic to be more specific, I don't care if a scrawny wizard with 6 STR can slice through 300 people at once, because it's magic.

>>48417616
no game that wasnt called deendee would get away with this kind of shit. any small-fry developer would be ridiculed or, more likely, ignored.

>>48423071
I never said that.

>>48423285
No. A level 1 fighter is militia at best. An average infantry man is level 3 at best.

>>48423374
Then you're jumping into an argument you didn't start and don't understand.

>>48422223
people think system does not matter are literally idiots

>>48423278
>>48423270
With 22+ STR and the ability to lift half a metric ton over your head, why would you think that a horse-sized boulder or ballista arrow that weighs less than your maximum capacity falls under the definition of 'unusual'?
Again, you're just reading the words, you have no creative input, you should never be DMs, or heck even players because you sound like the people that just want to be railroaded along. Just play a videogame or read a book by yourself if you want that.

>>48423381
Straight from the 5e player's handbook, which is what I was talking about

>Not every member of the city watch, the village militia, or the queen's army is a fighter. Most of these troops are relatively untrained soldiers with only the most basic combat knowledge. Veteran soldiers, military officers,trained bodyguards, dedicated knights, and similar figures are fighters.

>>48423412
Says the anon choosing to compare 5e to a 4e argument, and do so without understanding 5e at all manages to try and make a 3.5e comparison instead.

I knew exactly what was said, and simply pointed out your argument was bullshit, and since then you have been desperately to try and make it make sense.

>>48423438
>AND ranged attacks generated by spells
Lets see, mmmm, yes, meteor swarm is a spell, so you can't.

Btw 1 cubic meter of rock weighs 2.5 tons, you'll need way more str than 22.

>>48417616
>>48423330
Stop playing 3.5. Play 0e or some shit and the level one wizard may be able to cast sleep, maybe. On an enemy who isn't intelligent to hit him while he's casting it, thus causing him to lose his ONE spell for the day.

Then after that one cast, success or not, he has to rest EIGHT hours before he does it again. That's with a check for wandering monsters every ten minutes. Six checks per hour and a one in six chance of actually having a wandering monster bump into you means an average of eight encounters while the wizard is trying to sleep.

Oh, and you have to start casting at the beginning of the round and don't get your spell off until the end, during which time you're a sitting duck. And that's with no attacks of opportunity for your fighters if they just walk past your guys and stab you right in the gut.

The only thing about that that changes at higher levels is more/better spells, but you level slower than the fighter or thief too.

3.5 is not the only edition of D&D.

>>48423478
>meteor swarm casts literal meteors

>>48423498
Literal or not you can't catch them because spell explicity says you can't catch them

>>48423565
>Spell
Feat*

File: Disparity Bingo.png (669KB, 750x900px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 750x900px

>>48423244
Oh, great, the 'just be creative!!' argument. You allow stupid shit like that, and stuff gets REALLY dumb, really, really fast. A caster still benefits much more from 'creativity'.

>>48423565
Not the one you were initially responding to, just wanting to say the following.
>D&D is literally about following every single rule to a tee 100% of the time
>stupid rules have never ever been ignored for the sake of fun
>you shouldn't ever use your fantasy in a fantasy roleplaying setting

>>48423627
This, being creative is something everybody can take advantage of, but then you still have mechanics who heavily favor casters, Creativity+Mechanics > Creativity

>>48423671
The problem is that you need to break rules and play creatively to have a fighter not be shit, whereas if a caster did the same it would be game over for anything but another comparably powerful caster

>>48423671
Ok, lets ignore the rule that you can still catch ranged magic attacks and heavy objects.

With Str 22 you can only lift up to 520 lbs
With Str 29 up to 1.400 lbs

Spell says the meteors (rocks, usually with high quantity of Fe) are 2 cubic ft. The average rock (on Earth) has a density of 2.5 (more if it's one with high quantity of Fe), that means a 2 cubic ft rock weighs 1440 lbs.

You can't even lift it, less catch it and hurl it back at the caster. And I'm not even taking into acount the extra kinectic energy from the meteor falling.

>>48423671
>lets play this system in where I have to change 1001 things to make it balanced
How about, hear me out, how about, no, srly, listen, how about, for real, you play a non broken system?

>Be druid
>Pick I dunno, wolf or doge as AC
>Literally better at melee than fighters and literally better at everything than monks from 1st level

>peoples still taking the bait

Just let him die. OP makes this thread every weekend because he has nothing better to do than shitpost all weekend.

File: 1467606080822.gif (997KB, 500x475px) Image search: [Google]

997KB, 500x475px

>>48423986
Does OP need a tabletop group? There is a general up for that :^)

There is only one solution:
High level fighters get all the abilities of all legendary heroes combined (Hercules, Cu Chulainn, Beowulf, Gilgamesh, etc.).
High level wizards cast with the Shadowrun restrictions.

This would be balanced.

>>48424077
What he needs is a nice refreshing cup of boiling bleach, but he probably doesn't have a group either.

>>48424108
And a level 1 fighter gets all the fighting and athletic abilities of all real humans combined. A level 1 fighter beats every Olympic athlete at every event and wins every martial arts tournament.

Wizards can break the laws of physics right away, fighters have to wait for level 2.

>>48424184
Umm. No?

Fighter is bypassing olympics athletes at like, level 6. Not level 1.

At level 1 he's simply trained in the proper use of a ridiculous number of melee weapons.

And he can only compete against Olympic wrestlers (and a handful of other athletic tasks against their respective athletes) with a large number of feats invested, if he can do it at all.

>>48424108
This would be a completely different game. It would be easier to just play shadowrun.

>>48424299
That's what the anon you are replying to wants to change.

>>48424299
Why would anybody want to play a shit-tier fighter like that? I'm saying fighters need to be much better so they can compete with wizards. Level 1 fighter = better than all real humans combined. Level 20 fighter = better than all legendary heroes combined. If it's from a story >100 years old and it's not explicitly magic then the level 20 fighter should be allowed to do it.

>>48424312
I use Shadowrun only as an example of a good magic system.

>>48424184
At that point what do you even use to challenge the players, short of buffing everything except the PCs across the board so much the change is made almost redundant? A game where your choices are to be a) a god or b) a slightly refflufed god would be boring as fuck unless everyone involved was a superb roleplayer.

An easier solution would be to nerf casters

>>48424472
>An easier solution would be to nerf casters
Not really, system takes into account how powerful casters are, if you nerf casters you also have to nerf encounters.

3e is like a house of cards, you move one and suddenly everything starts falling.

>>48424342
>If it's from a story >100 years old and it's not explicitly magic then the level 20 fighter should be allowed to do it.
John Carter of Mars masters astral travel by the second Barsoom novel, The Gods of Mars (1913). I'm especially pleased that this is allowed when wizards can't teleport.

>>48424472
Fantasy settings shouldn't have guns, or if they do they should be inferior to bows. In that case it doesn't matter if you're peak human condition, you still lose to 100 peasants with pointy sticks. And legendary heroes are supposed to be fighting literal gods.

>>48421794
Also, new to the convo, but cleaving things happens. The whole two handed cleave many faces thing is possible, if unlikely.

>>48424546
When did I bring peasants or guns up anon

And the power of mythological characters doesn't translate very well at all into a roleplaying game, because they weren't conceived with anything resembling that context in mind. A clever player with a character with the sheer strength of Hercules wouldn't have any trouble with anything ever

>>48424698
>A clever player with a character with the sheer strength of Hercules wouldn't have any trouble with anything ever
Another thing Shadowrun gets right, is enemies use the same build system as PCs. He can fight another level 20 fighter.

And Sherlock Holmes is another qualifying legendary hero, so certainly there can be lots of scheming before the actual fight.

>>48424767
>Another thing Shadowrun gets right, is enemies use the same build system as PCs. He can fight another level 20 fighter.

That's kind of a non-sequitor, I think. You don't need to use the same way to build PCs/NPCs to allow for an NPC that can match the players in abilities.

All having the same build rules does makes building an NPC from scratch a chore, most of the time (may not be true for simple systems).

File: expeditionplanning8.jpg (268KB, 1261x875px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1261x875px

>>48422994
The Achilles people and the numbers people are correct. Fighters originated as a representation of the heroes used in Chainmail wargames (this was carried over to OD&D level titles, so a 1st level Fighter was a Fighting Man, a 4th level fighter was called a Hero, a 5th a Myrmidon, etc. etc.)

Part of the issue with the fighter/magic-user dichotomy is that the scope of the game nowadays has expanded to try and emulate fantasy fiction that often involves a great journey - but D&D from the outset was a game about plundering dungeons for riches to equip a conquering army, an adjunct to the Geneva group's fantasy war-game called Chainmail.

If your Wizard can fly the group to Mordor (or any other known and mapped location), either through the Fly spell, Teleport, or on the backs of summoned Giant Eagles, then stories like this immediately lose all tension and impact. But if the primary objective of the game is located underground, in deep and dark unexplored dungeons which cannot be surveyed from the air or easily mapped out, and where wandering encounters are frequent drains on spellcasting resources, and where it's possible to get lost and lose the ability to retreat to safe resting spaces (Gygax got his players to draw their own maps, and didn't correct inaccuracies) then the magic-user becomes a lot weaker.

In short wizards are so potent because they've been divorced from the context that limited them. Fantasy novels often feature well mapped settings with known destinations and emphasize outdoor adventurers, if not outright journeys, but these do not necessarily translate well into D&D's ruleset, despite many people over the years trying to bash the ruleset into a shape that fits.

>>48422950
>the rules aren't flawed
>this is because you can just make stuff up

That's a retarded non-argument and you should kill yourself.

File: editionwars.png (67KB, 700x583px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 700x583px

>>48426151
Note that the implied "end-game" was that naturally, players would use their accumulated wealth to build an army and conquer - essentially transitioning once more into Chainmail.

This is another situation where the Fighter's leadership prowess would have given a great advantage over the Magic-User. The Magic-User could certainly rain arcane death for a time, but in the face of a large army can do only so much - and unlike the Fighter could not recruit as many followers (many of these would be fairly weak apprentices as well). A lot of their gold would be sunk into magical research as well (though costs varied depending on edition).

AD&D's shift away from gold as a source of XP meant that adventures could now revolve around personal objectives (and in fact, 2nd edition's ruleset awarded XP on the basis of "actions taken to advance the class ethos" - fighters got XP for fighting, mages got XP for casting spells, and so on), which de-emphasized the implied strategic end-game and meant that the Fighter's natural advantages in this field were rendered somewhat moot.

>>48426226
Except in old school D&D where the system was meant to be less than complete and the DM was meant to make rulings about what being a strong-ass bad as fuck fighter meant you could do, and that was explicit. There were no feats. There were no skills.

>>48413531
3.5 != all of D&D.

>>48424767

A third thing Shadowrun does well is clear division of party roles. You need someone who can deal with magical threats, and you need someone who can deal with the Matrix. It's also almost mandatory to have a Face. That balance of necessary specializations within the team, combined with a chargen system that lets characters have modest but useful abilities outside their speciality, means no-one dominates and few characters are useless.

>>48413531
(you)

>>48424958
>may not be true for simple systems
Like some editions of D&D?

>>48426375
>buttrustled by OP
>can't resist replying
>tries to look all nonchalant with his kool kid memeposting

Everyone knows. Everyone can see.

>>48413531
>implying class choices are supposed to be equally balanced

You seem to be stuck in the mindset of a power gamer. Players aren't supposed to fixate on which class is statistically "best." That would be completely missing the point of the game.

File: 1360353546001.jpg (182KB, 800x798px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 800x798px

Dungeons and Dragons is indisputably the best role playing game system on the market today.

>>48426151
Not really. Fighters started out as Conan, etc. At least that is where they were supposed to end. Sure, at the beginning they were just a veteran foot soldiers. But by the end they were supposed to be lords.

To my mind that is what is missing from most of the current edition (3,4, even 5). The idea that a fighter is supposed to become some sort of lord/ruler.

Since the concept of henchmen has been removed, not to mention the entire guidance for creating keeps/etc, the fighter has become less than what he used to be in my opinion. That inspirational leadership noble etc part should have been retained in the newer editions at later levels. Just part of the base fighter class, at higher levels you could have henchmen that would follow you and have your back. Forming the core of your army leadership when you built a keep.

>>48426667
I addressed this in the follow-up post: >>48426242 and yes, I agree with you.

>>48424342
Well at level 1 the fighter already *is* better than the wizard. The wizard doesn't start to surpass until around level 7 or 8. It's high level gameplay where wizards are better than fighters. At low levels it's the other way around.

As for having wizards crappier, more like shadowrun levels, you probably want to disallow all fullcasters + summoner if you want to accomplish that.

As for beefing up fighter, you'll want to drop all combat Maneuver feats, or grant them automatically at certain BAB levels, and change a bunch of other martial feats so that they are instead available to anyone with acertain BAB rather than requiring feat shots.

And then you need to come up with a collection of superpowers a fighter can take as he levels up, to give him the utility he lacks (because his damage is already among the best).

Easy solution: stick to tier 3 casters and make all martials path of war martials.

Hard solution: stick to tier 3 casters and redesign all martials to be tier 3/4.

The latter will be a lot of work. Good luck.

>>48427262
>redesigning martials will be a lot of work
Especially where he seems to have very little idea of how the system he's complaining about actually works, or what the problems are.

>Fighters are bad? Make them better at murder!
No anon, fighters are bad because the only thing they're any good at is murder.
Their skills are shit and the have no skill points, Combat maneuvers suck because there's feat walls in the way and even then the enemy defenses scale too fast in comparison to your maneuvers, martial Mobility is crap because (unless you're a barbarian with pounce) you can't move and attack without being shit at it, and most importantly, you have no utility or battlefield control abilities, just attacks that do damage.

>>48426512
What's the point of the game? Please tell me.

>>48426553
If you mean the 0e PDF, you're right.

>>48424299
>system models heroic human capabilities on levels 1 to 6. 14 levels to go, guys!
>le epic levels
great going, D&D designers!

>HEY GUYS D&D SUCKS
>I HAVE SOME IDEAS FOR HOW TO FIX IT
>HEY ISN'T THERE MORE THAN ONE VERSION OF D&D THOUGH?
And then just crickets chirping.

Just fucking play OSR you plebs.

>>48427988
Yes?

It's a super hero game with fantasy medieval trappings.

That's why I play it to begin with.

If i want a game with badass normals, I'll play a game that does that instead.

>>48428020
>OSR
If some friends *really* want to, maybe. But I'd rather play 3 or 4 or 5 than OSR.

>Clunky mechanics
>Rigid character builds
>Everything is focused on Dungeoncrawls, something I make very sparse use of at all

>>48426384
and these don't have other issues? is there really a d&d cult following that ignores how mediocre the game system in every incarnation is? and that gamers would tear the rules to shred if it wasn't for the brand (d&d's biggest asset)?

>>48428032
i doubt that this is what people really want. i think people get sucked into this because of the brand. i also think gamers love hack-and-slash style fantasy which is d&d's biggest strength (aside from brand).

>>48428086
>and these don't have other issues?
Not major issues that are fundamental to the systems.
>is there really a d&d cult following that ignores how mediocre the game system in every incarnation is?
There is no system of which I'm aware that does gritty dungeon crawling better than Swords & Wizardry Complete, which is a reprinted 0e with rules clarifications and with a lot of the supplementary stuff built in.
>and that gamers would tear the rules to shred if it wasn't for the brand (d&d's biggest asset)?
There are plenty of retroclones that you could give to people who don't know the rules of old school D&D (thus they wouldn't know that's what they're playing) and they'd have a blast.

>>48426242
This is pretty cool but I want to point out gold is an alternate EXP track in more recent editions, although no one wants to look it in the eye.

>>48426384
>Like some editions of D&D?

Yeah, but those also don't build NPCs like players. AFAIK, only 3rd does that.

>>48413531
I haven't had any of those problems and I've been playing AD&D since 1981.

>>48413531
Cleave is a physics breaking ability anon. Weapons don't cut through armor unless it's really shitty and they don't cut through the torso afterwards if they do.

>>48426512
Ok, next game you are required to play a monk, and the rest of the party is a Wizard, Druid, and Cleric.

>>48426667
> Fighters started out as Conan, etc. At least that is where they were supposed to end
The high level Fighters are Hercules, Achilles, etc example appeared in several editions of D&D, anon, they migh have started as Conan, but wotc wanted us to believe they could be Hercules, which is a fucking lie

>>48426512
something something same experience same levels something

If you want to fix D&D first you have to get rid of the Magic>Everything else concept that is embeded in the brain of the vast majority of the fandom, just because you're a caster doesn't mean you should be better than every other non caster player of your same level

>>48426242
>AD&D's shift away from gold as a source of XP
You mean 2e changing it to an optional rule?