Caster Supremacy

>>50399206
Because some autists can't accept that being able to conjure fireballs with your mind is clearly superior to hitting shit with a stick.

>>50399206
What's he point of measuring things by level if the levels don't accurately rate characters against each other? It's just poor game design.

If high level casters are much more powerful than high level martials, it's obvious that low level casters are much less powerful than low level martials. At what level should they be equally powerful?

>>50399228
some people may be able to hit someone with a stick before they are done conjuring

File: one_of_those_days.png (307KB, 322x591px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 322x591px

>>50399206
>That's the way it's supposed to be in fantasy
Yes, because Dungeons and Dragons is the only way fantasy can be modeled, right?
There's no way magic could be bound exclusively to divination or enchantment, or done with regards with runes, or in the forms of curses and blessings only. Magic is always powerful and only available to player characters.
God, I hate you people. I want to play a no-magic setting so I can get people to come up with clever mundane solutions instead of spending an Xth-level spell slot.

>>50399229
Wizards are meant to be stronger than fighters. It's not bad design it's intentional.

>>50399324
Doesn't answer my question.

>>50399206
Then why even have martial classes if there's no point to playing them?

>>50399318
>There's no way magic could be bound exclusively to divination or enchantment, or done with regards with runes, or in the forms of curses and blessings only.

Yeah and who the hell is going to want to play a fortune teller or a soothsayer character whose only skill is herbal medicine and reading the bones?

>God, I hate you people. I want to play a no-magic setting so I can get people to come up with clever mundane solutions instead of spending an Xth-level spell slot.

So what's stopping you?

>>50399341
The point is that it's in keeping with the fantasy tradition that casters > martials.

>>50399346
There is. Even after I tell my players that wizards are far more powerful than fighters some still choose to play fighters because they like the appeal of a martial class. People don't just play a class because they think it's the strongest in terms of gameplay mechanics.

Because two characters of the same level should be about equal in terms of power. If not then it should be exponentially harder for the more powerful class to level up than the weaker class. Let's say 10x exp requirements

>>50399378
>Because two characters of the same level should be about equal in terms of power.

That's just like your opinion man.

>>50399346
>everything is about utility
What's the point of ever playing anything but a minmaxed broken as fuck character?

Because some people realize the point of the game is not to steamroll through everything, but to have fun, lots of people have fun playing as a non-wizard even if they aren't the best mechanically.

Ugh, this shit again. Why did we think getting rid of Quests was a good thing? Sure it filled up the first page, but it kept the real SHIT down at the second while the Generals and the truly noteworthy threads stayed at the top.

>>50399393
Why have the level system in place at all if it isn't an accurate measurement of power in any case involving two characters of difference classes?

>>50399371
Then why act as if it's better to play them?

>>50399393
That's just like, proper game balance and design, man.

>>50399394
Then why play casters if the point is to not steam-roll everything? You can't have it both ways.

>>50399350
>Yeah and who the hell is going to want to play a fortune teller or a soothsayer character whose only skill is herbal medicine and reading the bones?
I'm going to let you think about how that relates to wizards and fighters.
>So what's stopping you?
I'm waiting out my current campaign to pitch one for Barbarians of Lemuria or whatever it takes to get a no-magic fantasy setting.

>Play wizard
>Steamroll through all encounters due to spells being OP.
>Never get challenged
>Don't have fun
>Play fighter
>Get challenged
>Have fun

>>50399371
>The point is that it's in keeping with the fantasy tradition that casters > martials.
That's just patently false for the following reason:

>There is. Even after I tell my players that wizards are far more powerful than fighters some still choose to play fighters because they like the appeal of a martial class. People don't just play a class because they think it's the strongest in terms of gameplay mechanics.
It doesn't matter if they can bind demons to their will, at the end of the day the wizard is just some faggot in a bath robe. Every story worth a damn is a tale of warriors, not wizards. Every hero of legend, a powerful WARRIOR who wins with a mixture of cunning, strength, and possibly divine intervention.

>>50399405
Because it's an accurate measurement of power in any case involving two character of the same class.

>>50399407
Balanced = boring. Some classes will always be better than others.

You want a balanced game? Everyone is a >male human fighter. Happy now?

>>50399407
Because magic is fun, being able to mess around with it to solve problems is fun, not because it's good for fighting monsters (the most boring part of the game).

>>50399371
>The point is that it's in keeping with the fantasy tradition that casters > martials.
The fantasy tradition usually has powerful wizards as old and experience, which indicates magic is not an easy path that you can complete faster than a man with a sword can get good with a sword. Conan the Barbarian took down his share of mages as well. I don't think the D&D caster supremacy is actually as widespread in fantasy fiction as you think it is.

But besides that, can you find confirmation from anyone at wizards that they were actually trying to have casters outpace martials? I'm not convinced it wasn't just a mistake.

>>50399430
Or you can actually try to make a game that has reasonable trade-offs in exchange for power. You know, like someone with a brain would.

>>50399430
>You want a balanced game? Everyone is a >male human fighter.
Yeah, or you could have a game made by smart people.

>>50399439
>But besides that, can you find confirmation from anyone at wizards that they were actually trying to have casters outpace martials? I'm not convinced it wasn't just a mistake.
Aside from OP being a dick snorkeling retard, it's a known fact that Monte Cook had a hardon for casters so hard that he thought the 3.5 fighter needed nerfs and the wizard needed buffs. Suddenly, all becomes clear.

As an aside, wizards will always be better in D&D as long as they make magic as retard proof as it has been.

>>50399437
Then play a bard

You have enough magic to have it's use be fun, but not enough to solve every possible problem with it

>>50399429
Warriors might make better protagonists in literature since they are the underdogs (i.e. they are inherently less powerful than wizards) and they are more relateable to the reader since they cannot solve problems and defeat enemies by casting spells.

Having said that there are plenty of works of fantasy wherein wizards are the protagonists. From Earthsea to Harry Potter.

>>50399422
To be honest this. Power isnt fun for some people. They rather struggle. I prefer Shadowrun magic.

>>50399478
>Warriors might make better protagonists in literature since they are the underdogs (i.e. they are inherently less powerful than wizards) and they are more relateable to the reader since they cannot solve problems and defeat enemies by casting spells.
Casters are generally not that powerful compared to a warrior, given that in literature spellcasting usually either has actual drawbacks, or requires insane expertise to pull off consistently (and at that level, a warrior with comparable training would be a fucking god), so the minute ye olde armored knight steps up in your shit you're stuck hucking fireballs rather than gallavanting about searching for minions on other planes.

>>50399404
I'll take this shit over quality threads once in a blue moon getting slid to page 10 by shinigami quest, two Naruto quests, and thirty other shitty awful garbage quest threads.

This thread as a whole is shit and it's only about to get shittier. I'm with >>50399404
On this.

>>50399475
Except it's not just 3.5

Every edition of D&D except for 4e (which, let's be honest, isn't really D&D) has casters reign supreme over martials.

It's not an accident. It's intentional. Casters are meant to be more powerful and versatile which indicates that although training with a sword will get you faster results, studying magic yields stronger results in the long term.

I don't see a problem with this. Martials tend to shine in the early game whereas caster shine in the late game. How is that unfair?

>>50399477
But bard magic is only useful for date raping and doing drugs while inventing rock and roll.

File: 1468640926233.png (96KB, 230x295px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 230x295px

If supernatural powers are supposed to be better than mundane powers, then why is the monk way worse than the fighter?

>>50399404
Threadly reminder to butthurt questfags (who probably made this thread in the first place to slake their thirst for shitposting) will never ever NEVER get quests back no matter how much they whine.

>>50399532
u fookin' wot m8?

Aren't 3.5 monks retardedly OP?

>>50399509
Honestly, all we needed was a ban on Anime Franchise Quests. Or just Franchise quests in general, excluding /tg/-related properties. I could handle a JoJo Quest every now and then, and a 40k quest couldn't hurt.

>>50399532
Because monks only get supernatural powers once they die and reach enlightenment/god/whatever, untill then they are just men hitting things with their fists, bakabaka.

>>50399496
This guy gets it.

Also I like Shadowrun too, even if magic is better than everything else there too. Fortunately the difference isn't enough to matter and the mage will get geeked anyway.

>>50399537
In all honesty I'd just like Heretical Love Quest to return on Weekends. I'm fine with everything else going down the shitter.

>>50399515
>Except it's not just 3.5
3.5 is the most egregious example. In earlier editions a fighter vs. a wizard of the same level would not be such a blowout, especially because the fighter has the advantage of good saves working for him. In later editions (barring pathfinder, a shameless 3.5 clone), the wizard has been significantly toned down. In 5e the wizard is still really strong, bit the fighter still wins in terms of sheer combat prowess.

>which, let's be honest, isn't really D&D
It's dungeons and dragons 4e, literally the definition of dungeons and dragons.

>I don't see a problem with this. Martials tend to shine in the early game whereas caster shine in the late game. How is that unfair?
Because tabletop games are a cooperative medium, and timmy isn't going to be having fun when bob and his stupid fucking god-wizard is hogging the spotlight 24/7 and making any sort of challenge from the DM a pointless exercise that only serves to stroke bob's raging ego.

>>50399557
Shadowrun does a good job handling the power difference between magical and non-magical characters thanks to the essence mechanics.

High end adepts are hard to kill and can punch ghosts in the face, but high end street samurai will always hit harder, always

See this is why earlier editions of D&D are clearly superior, mages have incredible power but level up more slowly, fighters are able to build forts and gain followers, gaining the trust of powerful npcs while wizards are usually treated with suspicion. Also, if wizard takes a hit the spell they were casting is gone no take backs a and the spell books they carry around are expensive and difficult to replace. Also material components would actually mean something and not be ignored because of a spell component pouch or some bullshit.

I can still remember having to get my parties cleric to bless a strip of leather each day so that I could cast Mage armour.

>>50399582
>>50399557
Also magic users in Shadowrun have more personality thanks to the setting and game mechanics pretty much forcing you to archtype. But the little individual mods for each Awakened is my favorite.

When will fightards ever learn?

Your job is to carry the party through the early levels, till the spellcasters get their full game on. You don't like it play something else.

Oh wait D&D's the most popular system by far, guess what that says balancefags? Nobody cares about balance.

>>50399573
>3.5 is the most egregious example. In earlier editions a fighter vs. a wizard of the same level would not be such a blowout, especially because the fighter has the advantage of good saves working for him. In later editions (barring pathfinder, a shameless 3.5 clone), the wizard has been significantly toned down. In 5e the wizard is still really strong, bit the fighter still wins in terms of sheer combat prowess.

Okay cool. So caster supremacy is only a thing in 3.5 then.

>It's dungeons and dragons 4e, literally the definition of dungeons and dragons.

You know what I mean.

>Because tabletop games are a cooperative medium, and timmy isn't going to be having fun when bob and his stupid fucking god-wizard is hogging the spotlight 24/7 and making any sort of challenge from the DM a pointless exercise that only serves to stroke bob's raging ego.

Timmy has been hogging the spotlight for the first few sessions isn't it time that Bob had a go? Perhaps Bob should have rolled a wizard when the DM explained that wizards are more powerful later on in the game.

>>50399613
>When will fightards ever learn?

They won't. Intelligence and Wisdom are dump stats for them.

>>50399624
>Timmy has been hogging the spotlight for the first few sessions isn't it time that Bob had a go? Perhaps Bob should have rolled a wizard when the DM explained that wizards are more powerful later on in the game.
Timmy couldn't have been hogging the spotlight for the first few sessions, because the fighter's theater rests almost solely in combat. Unless the game was pure combat, Timmy got to have his moment to shine like everyone else, until bob got 2nd level spells and decided that he was sick of actually playing a game and ruined everyone's fun by having almost as much narrative power as the fucking DM himself.

>>50399538
>Aren't 3.5 monks retardedly OP?

No. Rather the opposite problem. They're retardedly trash.

>>50399206
This, in and of itself, is not bad.
Bad was the idea introduced with 3.0 that Fighters and Wizards leveled the same way, same rate.
Putting everyone on the same XP chart, and basing Challenge Ratings and Encounter Levels around character level, introduced the concept that very different character classes could and should be equivalent to each other, level to level.
Now, there are a number a factors that led to magic users being far more potent in the 3.x era, but those factors don't play into the core problem, they just magnify how noticeable they are.

>>50399229
Levels, originally, were only meant to measure character progression, never as a judge against each other, outside of others of the same class.
When classes had separate progression tables, this distinction was easy to see.

Ultimately, under a system where everyone shares the same progression and earns the same experience per encounter, it is a very reasonable thing to feel there should be some parity between classes.
Worse though is when the focus shifts from equally useful to equals in combat and there is just no way to reasonably satisfy that goal and maintain a diverse and unique set of character styles, outside of weekly balance patches.

>>50399206

Try running an adventure where your characters are lucky to get a 2 minute breather, nevermind 8 hours of rest. Shit goes downhill for casters very quickly once they run out of spells while most martials will pass fatigue related checks that cone on with extended adventuring/siege/running away.

>>50399613
Have you ever been in a campaign that went past level 11? Be honest.
>Implying popularity equals quality
>>50399658
Also a solution. 5 - minute adventuring days can take a hike.

>>50399642
Low level wizards are horrible in any combat situation and need to be carried by martials. Their spells are useless and hit like wet noodles whilst they die if an enemy sneezes at them.

Again, if wizards are so great then nothing is preventing Timmy from rolling one.

>>50399206

It's not a matter of fantasy tradition so much as a matter of level measurements being accurate. If you are so incapable of imagining a world where a martial can be useful next to a caster, than a level 1 martial should represent Conan-tier exceptional hero who shows up once in a generation, and a lvl 5 caster should represent a greenhorn fresh-out-of-the-academy apprentice.

Level should not be a measurement of how long you have been training, but a general measurement of your effectiveness to a party of adventurers. If they are of similar level, they should be of similar effectiveness. If you need to adjust what each level "represents" for each class to make it make sense to you, so be it, but level should matter as a measurement.

>>50399472

At this point, you're not even trying. A Lawful Evil player is going to complain about a need to fix the system to fit your worldview rather than realizing it as a vehicle for fun times.

Man, have you missed the point.

>>50399228
Considering hitting shit with sticks is clearly superior in real life, I don't see why that shouldn't carry over to gaming.

>>50399677
In 3.5, THE caster supremacy edition, the wizard can end combat with a single spell. Sure, he can only do this twice before his brain fizzles out, I'm not going to say wizards START overpowered as fuck, but that is very much a thing.

>>50399206
You've ceased to teach the lesson that everyone should learn that magic doesn't solve every problem. Same way a sword or gun doesn't. The same way talking doesn't.

The reason why caster supremacy is a thing is because DMs are afraid to check people.

It's laziness or a lack of creativity and challenge that encourages over reliance on magical powers. Fuck 'em if they call it railroading because you need the world to chase you up a tree and throw rocks at you for it to be a worthwhile adventure. You had to have the chance to fail and fall and be humiliated no matter how many magic missiles you can cast or what your sword damage is.

Even fucking Elminster gets his ass pimped now and then no matter how powerful he is.

>>50399206
You say SJW like its a bad thing.

>high level wizard
>blows up monster with a flame spell

>high level fighter
>cuts monster in half with +5 greatsword

What is the difference?
No class is extremely better than the other. It all comes down to how the player rolls.

>>50399430
In a good system, balance is when classes are close enough in terms of overall power, not identical.

>>50399698
Because magic doesn't exist in real life. Even the strongest MMA fighters alive wouldn't stand a chance against someone who can charm them and control their minds, throw up a wall of flame at their feet, become invisible, summon 1d12 silverback gorillas to rip them to shreds, etc...

>>50399677
>hit like wet noodles

You aren't seriously talking about blaster casters, are you?

A Wizard doesn't need to nuke the entire fight with a fireball to win it. Even if a Caster can Entangle or Sleep half of the enemies, that's a major advantage. At that point, you just need some on half-decent in melee to help clean things up, rather than someone specialized like a Fighter.

It's a good thing that there aren't any full casters that have a d8 hit dice and decent armor, right?

>>50399717
Except that's not how it works. It's more like this:
>high level fighter
>long heated battle with a monster that he'll probably lose

>high level wizard
>instantly defeats monster with any of a couple dozen spells, no challenge involved

>>50399717
The difference is that you're a dumbass

Sorry

The actual difference is that wizards don't blast things if they're trying to be optimal, they put them to sleep, or petrify them, or use an instant-death effect, or mind-control them, or throw them into an alternate plane etc. etc.

Damage in 3.5 is the slowest and most inefficient way of ending a fight

>>50399732
And? Even if magic did exist in real life, who says it's that easy. If it takes 12 hours of chanting and the sacrifice of a fresh bushel of bananas to summon a gorilla squad, it's not the sort of thing that will win a fight when the MMA guy is busting down your door 2 hours in.

That's the problem with claiming magic is inherently superior, because magic isn't inherently anything except for magical.

A setting could have Wizards with nothing but the power to turn fire blue. Would you still say that should be inherently superior to martial?

Ultra powerful spells being quick, safe, and reliable isn't the norm across fiction.

>>50399732
Yes, and even the cleverest stage magician wouldn't stand a chance against a fantasy hero. I don't see your point.

>>50399712
Elminster gets pimped? By fucking who? Deties? Ao?

Personally, I've found the change in the martial/caster dynamic be a lot like changes in Warhammer, be it Fantasy or 40k.

After a particular point (in this case, 3rd ed D&D) it became more about tiers and effectiveness and builds rather than simply creating a character and using your skills in concert with the other players to succeed.

Feats were a horrible idea in terms of balance. All the interesting stuff martials could do was put behind an artificial wall, where casters don't really have the same difficulty. If anything, I'd have made specialist casters the norm, and access to other schools would be feat-locked.

>>50399778
True but we're talking about D&D and its vancian casting system here right? The rules for magic are fairly well established. If a high level D&D vancian caster existed in our world not even every MMA fighter in existence would stand a chance against him or her.

>>50399780
Nothing a fighter does in D&D is inherently magical so the point is moot.

>>50399732
We get it, you like your subtlety. Fighters and Barbarians don't do the "limits" of mortal men. They are the epic heroes that myths are spun on about and they kill monsters with nothing but their heads and their skills.

You wanna go for the unbalanced actions of magic to compare to a lowly mortal. How about the overpowered physical and tactical exploits of characters who do their jobs without the need to cast a spell? And then exaggerate them too?

>>50399751
With all of the abilities, feats, and good equipment, a fighter has just as good a chance to instantly defeat a monster as the wizard.

The only reason for a long drawn out battle would be due to resistances and absurd amounts of health, which could just as easily work against magic.

>>50399785
Demons. And a lack of using his head.

>>50399847
Then D&D is poorly designed. It'd be like placing a stage magician and a fantasy hero in the same game and claiming they're both viable choices.

>>50399944
But that's called being a Charlattan Rogue anon...

>>50399944
Both fighters and wizards are perfectly viable choices. They're just not equally as powerful.

File: 1476672519004.jpg (60KB, 516x493px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 516x493px

>actually responding to all the bait

Good work, guys.

>>50400017
There's not much else to do on night /tg/, all the good threads I have open are going at a post every 30 minutes.

Also just out of curiosity
>>50400000

>>50399847
>True but we're talking about D&D and its vancian casting system here right?

More specifically, we're talking about the caster supremacy most infamous in 3.5.

OP puts forth that it isn't a bad thing, because 'logically' a caster should beat a martial every single time, and there's no situation or setting where the reverse is true.

That's why it's bad. From a game design perspective it's bad to have classes that aren't even remotely balanced, and trying to justify it by saying 'well, realistically magic should be better' is just lazy, because the people who made the setting or system are the ones who decided how strong magic was.

3.5 decided Wizards should be better, and then lied about it by acting like Fighter was somehow more than a glorified NPC class. If it was honest about its intent to be a game all about Wizards, you wouldn't see as much complaining.

Look at Ars Magicka or Mage: The Awakening. They're games all about Wizards doing cool shot and being better, but they didn't feel the need to add in a Soldier class that sucked in comparison and pretend like it was a legitimate option.

I think it should be said that, coming from a token male human fighter, if you feel like you're having a bad time because the caster is being kowtowed to, there might be more of a problem with your group and/or DM than with the system itself.

In a game where cooperation is key and everyone wants to feel like a great adventurer, if Clyde just rubbed his balls all over the table after decimating another legion of skeletons, maybe casters could use a good nerfing, or maybe, more reasonably, you need to tell Clyde not to be a showboating cunt and that he's putting himself and his ego before the other players. Maybe the DM needs to put in the effort of finding a way where Clyde, while not rendered useless, can't just nuke/mind control/transmute/bullshit his way out of a problem. I'll admit, that's what wizards are built for, but a clever DM can always find a way.

But all this aside, the point isn't to show who's RPG-peen is biggest, but to work together to solve problems. A martial should be thankful that the guy who conjures 50-foot walls of fire is on his side, and the caster should acknowledge that without the martial around to soak up all the prolonged beatings, the caster would be like a piñata with a fancy light show.

>tl;dr if wizards got rid of their superiority complexes, fighters stopped moaning like victims, and DMs got creative with their challenges, we'd all get along

>>50399989
But they're not. Fighter simply can't do its job at high levels. Meanwhile, Wizard not only can do its own job, but most other classes' jobs. Again, it's like a fantasy hero and a stage magician.

>>50399206
>Why does /tg/ act like this is a bad thing?
Largely because you keep making troll threads about it in this very fashion I guess despite it being such an overdiscussed topic that you likely weren't even playing /tg/ games yet when every possible variation of this discussion was already had.
So basically it's entirely your fault I guess.

>>50400044
>From a game design perspective it's bad to have classes that aren't even remotely balanced,
But DnD wasn't "combat balanced" from the get go, there were always skill monkeys and such who didn't balance in combat but served other roles. Why is caster superiority any different?

>>50400087
Because casters are good at all the roles, not just combat. They solve any problem the other classes can solve with the right spells.

File: 180px-Dungeon_Master's_Guide_2e.jpg (29KB, 180x245px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 180x245px

>>50400044
3.5 might have taken it too far but I do agree with the premise that casters should be more powerful than fighters at high levels. Maybe it's because I started playing during 2e and that's how it worked then.

Martials would shine in the early game and casters would shine in the late game. It took twice as much XP for a wizard to reach level 2 than a rogue for example which also helped balance it out.

I honestly don't see what's wrong with this. The notion that two different classes of the same level should be equal in power is nonsense and simply impossible to achieve.

>>50400078
A fighter can totally do his job provided the DM balances encounters around the fact that fighters are weaker than what CR system expects and the rest of the party consists of other tier 4 or 5 classes.

The problem is not what the fighter can or can't do, or what the wizard can or can't do. The problem is that the system expects both to be in the same party when that simply does not work.

3.5 is 4 loosely-interconnected tabletop RPGs in one, and any one of those RPGs works absolutely fine on it's own. But since this is never explicitly stated and has only been found via trial and error, 3.5 instead looks like 1 hideous ugly mess of a game designed to extend suffering

>>50400098
While that may be true, that also means to do the things another class does you generally have to specialize and lose out on other capability. Just because a wiz can do it, doesn't mean they should, right?

File: idea vs actual.jpg (91KB, 1200x905px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1200x905px

>>50399206
>Anyone who picks these options has to be essentially the minion to players who pick those options
>These options are so blatantly weaker than those options to the point that they might as well not even be included in the game

I thought these games were supposed to be fun for everyone? This seems like extraordinarily poor design to me.

>>50400098
If casters are so great then why don't you roll one next time? Nothing's stopping you right?

>>50399430
>Because it's an accurate measurement of power in any case involving two character of the same class.

And yet for calculating CR a Fighter, Monk, or Rogue level is equal to a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid level.

>>50400125
Exact equality might not be viable, but they should at least be comparable. You're not providing any reason why they shouldn't be except "that's how they've always done it" - meanwhile, having them be of comparable power means all players can contribute and be part of the group without the GM having to go out of their way to have Aquaman episodes.

>>50400146
The fact that martials are weaker than casters doesn't prevent people having fun playing them. Even in 3.5 people still roll martials knowing full well how gimped they are.

If you're a powergamer who isn't having fun unless he's "winning" in a non-competitive RPG then I suggest you roll a caster.

>>50400154
I don't think anything's stopping him other than the fact that constantly rolling wizards, especially when it's not a class you gravitate towards, all for the sake of being reasonably effective at facing the challenges of the game, makes playing the game feel like shit. At least, that's where I think he's coming from.

>>50400154
I just stopped playing 3.PF.

>>50400163
Explain to me how you would balance martials and casters without giving martials spells or spell-like abilities of their own?

Worlds and stories are much more interesting if there's a variety of powers. For example, a person so fast that he becomes imperceptible, a person so strong that they can destroy the ground beneath their feet, sending shockwaves of rock at their opponents, or even a person who has perfected the defensive arts to such a point that they automatically reflect all attacks.

>>50399206
>They accept that that's just the way it's supposed to be in fantasy.
That's not how it's supposed to be in fantasy, though. Wizards are supposed to perform dark and powerful rituals to wreak havoc on the world, which are interrupted just in the nick of time by the dashing fighter or quick-witted rogue. Then they turn into a monster and get stabbed to death after a brutal fight. That's how it's always been, and that's how it should be.

>>50399206
If you honestly, legitimately have the problems mentioned in this thread then the problem is not in the game, but the DM.

>>50400218
Reduce the power and versatility of magic until it's on par with the fighter and rogue, but different in role. Make it closer to Shadowrun in terms of effectiveness. Current wizard-level magic is solely the domain of monstrous beings and those who have made pacts with them, as beyond normal casters as dragons are beyond normal warriors.

>>50400218
Shadowrun

>>50400237
A wizard can do all of those things.

Just join us bro. Why not visit your local Imperial college of magic on the next open day? Put down your sword and join the master race.

>>50400218
Limit how many spells can be cast in x amount of rounds or maybe make other spells take x amount of rounds to cast.

Make Material components mean something.

Limit access to spells based on school, like only x amount of non-school specific spells.

File: I_Don't_Care_If_It's_a_WWII_Setting_I'm_Playing_Fighter.jpg (115KB, 685x517px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 685x517px

>>50399698
>>50399228

Ask these guys how well "hitting it with a stick" did for them.

>>50400218
Rename the Warlock to Wizard. Done.

>>50400290
>>50400293
So basically gimp wizards until they're nothing but frail old men chanting over candles and reading bones while fighters slice through enemies like butter? Gotcha.

File: eba.jpg (56KB, 579x567px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 579x567px

>>50400290
>Fighters suck, fighters are so terrible, oh my god do they suck
>Let's fix fighters by gimping wizards till they are as bad as fighters

>>50400286
This. A fighter should have armor of deflecting spells and a mage cleaver blade by the level of a wizard doing his dangerous casting shit. Fighters are equipment based while wizards are character based. It's up to the dm to actually do this though.

>>50400319
Ooh, you really beat that strawman good! There's stuffing everywhere!

>>50400319
You should try playing Shadowrun at some point

>>50400293
>>50400290

Shadowrun also has one thing that D&D usually lacks and autists throw a hissy fit over when included: guns.

>>50399688
>At this point, you're not even trying.
I don't have to try. You already know I'm right, yo're just making excuses for a flawed system.

>>50400324
Yep. Then readjust the CR system to deal with the weaker classes, so the less-powerful fighter and wizard fight enemies they're on the same level as.

>>50400324
Nice try buddy boyo, you can't trick me into thinking that the issue isn't both of them.

>>50400331

You mean...like monks? Like the monks who in spite of having abilities worded to counter mages can't counter shit because a wizard can just attack them outside of their LoS?

>>50399206
>deviating from the standards set forth by Howard and Tolkien regarding martial/melee and magic/sorcery

da fuq you doin nigga

>>50400339
Cybernetics also help. It's always more efficient to use cybernetics to boost stats than to use magic

Magic can do some things that tech can't, but everything that both magic and tech can do, tech can do better

This is only true in 3.5 version of DnD. Every single other rpg system has good martials. Even in 2e where wizards became gods fighters were still good despite being not as versatile.

>>50400331
You're assuming the two are attacking one another which, while possible, is ignoring the thought that the wizard could just be hogging all the glory of the party by being the broken piece of shit he is.
Fighter gets to walk into combat to whittle away at what he's attacking.
Wizard throws a save or die and ends combat instantly.
Fighter now has his one fucking job, being useful in combat, taken away from him from the dude who could already do everything else when, by the standard of levels, the two should be relatively equal in strength.
Fighters either need weaboo fightan magic or to come up to par with the mythological martials
Hercules, Achilles, Gilgamesh, Odysseus, Conan, Beowulf, Thor, St. George, Guan Yu, Erlang Shen, Jacob, Lancelot, Galahad, Samson, Goliath, Roland, Cu Chulain, and possibly Sun Wukong as a multiclasser are all examples of martials at varying levels of strength but for some reason in D&D and Pathfinder, THE examples of high fantasy, martials never go past
>swing sword at dude really well

>>50400430
Heh.

>>50400355
Then the dm needs to make it work. Honestly, the only reason this exists is because the dm lets mages walk as op characters. Simply saying, the pendant you got as a child protects you from those LOS spells. Or maybe pull a Harry Potter and say your mothers love or something.

The only reason mages are op is because the dm allows for them to be op while restricting the martials.

>>50399716
Back to tumblr with you.

>>50400437
Hence why they got rid of save or die

>>50400437
Then why doesn't the dm give the fighter the powers to compare to the mage?

With a powerful blow from world render you tear apart the souls of enemies in a 80ft radius. Save or die roll for enemies. Congrats.

The problem isn't from the system but shitty dms.

>>50400481
>Taking hour old bait
Anon, why?

File: monte cook origin story.png (145KB, 830x974px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 830x974px

>>50400497
Muh realism.

>>50399206
>Why does a fighter is equal in power to a wizard?

Because magic

>>50399206
Holy could kick most mages shit in and all he does is yell and train his muscles. Or maybe Flex Mentallo whose body is so perfect he can manipulate reality by flexing. If your definition of fantasy only includes realistic physical combat and nonsense magic then you probably are a boring dm

>>50400437
Weeaboo fighting magic is the only thing that can bring fighters on par with wizards.

Ironically the people who complain about caster supremacy are the same people that don't like weeaboo fighting magic. Talk about cognitive dissonace.

>>50400497
It is not the DM's job to redesign the fucking game just so that the fighter's one goddamn job isn't subsumed because the wizard reached level 5. Its not the GM's job to have to boost the strength of the fighter so much because the the design team is incapable of balance and taking their heads out their ass with "muh realism". The GM should only have to make minor adjustments to make a system work for what he wants, not entirely change the leveling/scaling for multiple classes when he is paying good goddamn money to get that right out the book.
>>50400485
They still have ways of removing more enemies from combat in one turn than the fighter will have the chance to over the entire combat scene.

>>50400528
That comic actually explains these threads quite well.

Butt Hurt people who can't be wrong because it's what kept them from offing themselves for all these years. Kinda sad really.

>>50400528
>muh nerds getting back at jocks

This isn't the 1970s anon.

Casters are powerful at the beginning of a fight, but get weaker as the fight drags on.

Martials maintain an average utility throughout the whole encounter.

It's up to the DM to present an encounter that can't be one-shot.

>>50400555
Except all the nerds on /tg/ are complaining about caster supremacy. Have you even read the thread?

>>50400555
>Everyone who doesn't agree with me is literally an MSpaint caricature
Smh anon.

>>50400497
Because to each their own

It's a matter of taste, some people like to be demigods, others like to be folk heroes, others like to be town guards

>>50400549
>It is not the DM's job to redesign the fucking game

If you really think that then you're a shit DM
The DM can do anything, if he want to redesign the whole fuckin game nobody gonna stop him

You're a shit stain and possess a Chad mind

>>50399206
>Jerry Supremacy
>Why does /tg/ act like this is a bad thing? You're like the D&D SJWs wanting everyone to be equal.
>I basically tell my players at character creation now: "Jerry's high level character will be far more powerful than everyone else's high level characters".
>So far nobody has complained. Not even everyone other than Jerry. They accept that that's just the way it's supposed to be in my campaigns.

Fixed that for you, OP.

File: Rama.jpg (89KB, 564x773px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 564x773px

>Not just being a reincarnated God with supernaturally proficient archery, horse-riding, swimming and swordsmanship skills and absurd physical statistics

I mean seriously, it's like you guys arbitrarily decided to draw a line in the sand around casters past which your suspension of disbelief simply fails.

Why can a man not simply be so good at what he does that it might as well be magic?

This is, of course, in itself innately "magical" but it is different from "Being A Wizard", so you still have your caster/martial divide, it's just you aren't needlessly limiting the ability of one of these groups.

A fighter should be able to cut off arms and legs and heads with a single hideously precise blow, or master mystical principals that let them leap over mountains and fight spirits in parallel planes of existence.

Hell, my favourite systems are all classless.

Nothing in Rune Quest stopping you from building a god damn tax clerk if it please you.

Which is neither a fighter nor a caster, but a social/clerical skillmonkey

>>50400549
>ways of removing more enemies from combat in one turn

Hitting multiple targets at the same time is the entire point of a caster. That's like saying that if you have artillery with limited ammunition, then there is no point to even have infantry.

>>50400546
I'm fine with not having fightan' magic if the latter part of that post happens. I'm fine with the wizard chanting for an hour then destroying an entire city by dropping a fuckheug fireball on it so long as the equal level fighter could do the destroy the same city in the same amount of time dedicated to it with the same amount of money put into it.

If the wizard destroys a city by putting down 10 gold and chanting for an hour then the fighter should tear the entire city down with his bare hands in an hour.
>>50400614
You're missing the point you fuckstick. The DM bought the fucking books and all the fucking tools. He shouldn't have to change the entire fucking game when the product he bought should have been more or less balanced. Its not that the DM can't, its that he shouldn't fucking have to.

>>50400549
I honestly cannot figure out why you are so upset. The point of dnd, any edition, is it gives dm the power to make a world and changes he sees fit. Even says in the rule book.

Then you claim its not part of the game? But you complain about casters (from the rule books) being op because its part of the game? While dm changing stuff is as well?

I can't figure out if you're upset by the rules, mechanics, your dm, your group, or just your life.

Giving the fighter powers to match the wizard is part of the dm's job.

Love, Forever dm.

>>50400639
What's the point of having different classes if the both accoplish exactly the same things with the same amount of effort?

>>50400316
>I play a warlock
Had a chuckle at this.

File: yoko1.jpg (70KB, 426x640px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 426x640px

>Have to get into a castle
>Player 1-"I cut the gates in half"
>DM-"No, you're just a fighter, it's not realistic and is stupid"
>Player 2-"I fly over it with my fly spell"
>DM-"Go ahed"

>>50400591
It really is. So the arguing about which is better is pointless. Because it's taste and the dm should have figured out which type of game is going to be played before level 20.

>>50400639
Or you could have fighters and wizards do different, but equally important and challenging, things

But then 4e did this and everyone complained, so I guess it's just not an option

>>50400624
The point of the caster is not just to hit multiple enemies at the same time, its to be the multi-tool that makes adventuring all around easier. The fighter should be taking the primary role in combat and having the wizard suddenly preforming the fighters role along with his actual role at the same time is bad design.
>>50400656
Different flavor leads to different circumstance. You can catch the wizard out while he's chanting and start a fight. You catch the fighter 30 minutes in and the city is already halfway destroyed but likely a bit tired. It presents different conflicts and differing challenges for the party, making them have to change up their strategy based on whom they're facing rather than just ignore the fighter entirely unless he's richer than Dr. Doom.
>>50400654
I'm upset because you're getting more work when you paid money specifically not to work. WotC should make fighters and wizards equal since its their job to do so.

File: 1340433133397.jpg (103KB, 384x313px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 384x313px

>>50400669
>Have to get into a castle
>Player 1-"I cast magic missile on he gates and melt them"
>DM-"No it's not realistic and is stupid"
>Player 2-"I use a grappling hook and scale the walls"
>DM-"Go ahed

>>50400639
Ahhh so you have some weird ass personal problem with the dev team.

Tbh I am fairly certain you're the only person who unironically believes this and are just samefagging to make it seem like your opinion is important. I think we should give you a name like that one barney fag.

>>50400676
4e "solved" the problem by giving martials spells with silly names like "reaping strike" and "vorpal tornado".

Everyone is essentially a wizard in 4e.

>>50400384
Best part about guns is that both casters and sammys can use them. Actually the best part of Shadowrun is its better to be clever/and or tactical then powerful.

>>50400723
The point of dnd is to put work into it. Seriously. You're mad at the game mechanics when a literal mechanic of the game is to make shit up so its fun.

You are legit retarded buddy.

>>50400754
And that's a problem because?

>>50400723
>WotC should make fighters and wizards equal since its their job to do so.

No it isn't.

>>50400723
Even if the caster can perform the fighter's role, he can only cast so many spells before he runs out and becomes useless. Any fight that drags on belongs to the fighter because they can keep doing their thing forever.

>>50400797
Because homogenised classes aren't fun. I want to play D&D not tabletop WoW.

>>50400675
Now if only the 3.5 devs had actually catered to this instead of expecting parties to be drastically imbalanced internally

Like, imagine if in PHB1, the classes were separated out into power categories, and the book was quite clear on how the power categories can be mixed within a single party, but probably shouldn't

All the bullshit arguments about caster supremacy would cease to exist because no one would make a fighter for a party otherwise consisting of a cleric, a sorcerer and a druid and expect to be able to pull their weight, so no one would be left feeling screwed over by a shitty system

>>50400823
>no one would be left feeling screwed over by a shitty system

You would still have martial cucks crying about how casters are OP guaranteed.

>>50400746
>problem with the dev team.
When I am paying them money for a product I shouldn't have to start changing shit that should have been handled by them. Wanting balance between classes is not some grand request or sweeping change like implementing a whole genre switch, its something that should be more or less there right out the box.
>>50400784
And why should I have to make up even more shit for one player because either Wizards or Paizo were too lazy to do that.
>>50400806
The issue comes in that their thing is practically nothing past certain levels. Sure the wizard can only do shit for so long but he's at least doing shit while in some systems
>coughpathfindercough
the fighter can't do jack shit with most of his builds.
>>50400823
Patchwork but at least a solution.

>>50400848
No, no you wouldn't

Because those martials would be playing clerics or druids in high power games and doing martial shit, but with a massive power hike from wildshape/self-buffing spells. It's really easy to fluff a cleric as a non-magical fighter in 3.5 if you want to.

>>50399206
>You're like the D&D SJWs wanting everyone to be equal.
>what is the difference between cooperative and competetive games
op equals faggot

>>50400823
The bs arguments should have disappeared since day one, simply because the dm runs the adventure.

The main mechanic of the game is making shit up to make it fun. A good dm would have properly set the game up with the players so they're all on the same page of power levels or just slightly tweaked things to put everyone on the same page.

The only ones arguing are those who don't know how to adapt and the people blinded by numbers on a page.
Ie. The retards.

>>50400893
D&D is not a competitive game therefore class balance isn't an issue.

>>50400853
Yeah you're just really butthurt. People blow away every single point you make and you try to put the scraps together as an argument that is about as sad as orphans on christmas day

The point of the game is to make shit up. If you can't do that you have been playing wrong or should find something besides dnd to play. Some games just aren't for certain people. No harm in that. But don't keep arguing about this when your point is mute in every possible away except your poor feelings.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. See you in the troll thread you make tomorrow.
^3^

>>50400930
DnD is a CO-OPERATIVE game, and therefore class balance IS an issue

The only games where balance is not an issue are single-player games

>>50400895
I... what?

What the hell do you think tabletop RPG systems are for?

>>50400945
Class balance isn't an issue in cooperative games.

Let a level 15 wizard be stronger than a level 15 fighter, that's fine.

But ratchet up lethality and make XP requirements differ. Add roleplayed constraints for leveling up. A wizard who makes a career of shooting fireballs at kobolds and sleeping in a tent should never achieve the kind of mastery a wizard who spends his time in a tower surrounded by books will.

It makes no sense that a fighter and a wizard can murderhobo all day and advance their skills at the same rate.

I liked Ars Magica's way of doing it, where being a wizard is such a total commitment you end up hiring muggles to do basically everything for you, and you still have to magically extend your lifespan to master even one or two schools of magic.

>>50400941
Do direct me to these posts that "blow every single point" out of the water, I'd very much like to see them as thus far i've seen nothing but excuses that put even more work on the DM.

>>50400965
I would disagree

Granted, it's not as much of an issue as it is in a competitive game, but in a co-operative game, you still want the various players to be contributing in approximately equal amounts

>>50400966
I'd personally prefer if the levels were still different but wizards have a higher level cap. They have further to go up than fighters but can't just get there by roasting owlbears.

>>50400957
Hmmmm... Maybe role playing with some base line mechanics.

Dnd differs slightly by allowing the dm to actively modify the system to balance to the needs of the players.

Whether this is good, lazy or a combination is a matter of opinions.

>>50400324
Well when magic in most RPGs can do literally fucking everything you have to ask yourself one of two things -

-Why the fuck are mages allowed to be so strong

-Or why the fuck are martials allowed to be so weak

One archetype of the game shouldn't be so powerful in comparison to the others that it invalidates their existence. That's just shit game design every faggot on /tg/ loves to defend for some reason.

>>50400992
It's up to the DM to ensure that all players are engaged and given equal opportunity to shine.

If one player is overshadowing all the others to the detriment of their enjoyment of the game then perhaps it's time the DM stepped in.

>>50399206
>Carry a null stone that makes you invincible to all magic and make magic (enchanted items, enchantement, spells, whatever) within a few kilometers inactive
>Use you axe
>???
>Profit

File: 2016-11-26_203330.png (41KB, 862x83px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 862x83px

>>50401070
>>50401070
this.

>>50401044
True but at what point of imbalance is the DM expected to cover for? At what point is he going to just stop trying to balance the base game along his normal DM stuff and just see if another system isn't as imbalanced/doesn't require as much regular work to get working for all his players should they even want to keep playing.
>>50401070
And now you're ruining the game for the wizard instead of him ruining it for you.

>>50400979
Oh god you can't read. I'm so sorry. At least It explains why you haven't btfo'd and why you don't understand that being a dm means you have to do more work then reading a book, which it basically says in the book.

And I know you are a troll. It's just fun to argue with someone every now and then. I'm sort of tempted to send you my favorite bird picture.

>>50401087
>and know 1 class get BTFO so the 15+ other class can be used

so its a good thing ?

>>50401087
You assume you are fighting another player wizard which dnd is not built for. Unless you care about a npcs feelings for some reason.

>>50401087
The dm could throw something in to make it work. It isn't as hard as you seem to think. And that's sorta a part of a dms duties/ should have been figured out before the game even started.

File: 1474593733209.jpg (68KB, 813x960px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 813x960px

>>50400784
The point of having a system is to reduce the DM's workload by attaching his own work to something that already exists. The problem comes in when the system is so horribly broken that the DM is forced to remake the system to the ground up.

The guy is complaining that it actually takes more work to make 3.5 functional than to make one's own system from the ground up. That's fucking horrible.

>Then why don't you make your own system?

As he said, you shouldn't have to. If you buy a product, let's say a car for this example, you generally expect that car to be functional and require some amount of maintenance. Yeah, you put in work, and the car works for you. The 3.5 car, however, looks like it works so you buy it at full price, but then it turns out that all the internals are fucking ancient rusted spare parts cannibalized from 2 different cars of different models that someone bent into geometric shapes while an animal of unknown origin crawled into the engine block and died.

It's kind of fucking infuriating that you were lied to about that car being ready to drive off the lot, right? And that even now people are suggesting you should just fix it up. Maybe you can get that chop shop of horrors running, but it's gonna take more effort, more money, and probably more experience than you have. And all the while you try to fix this eldritch monstrosity the ones who sold it insist that nothing is wrong with the car, you were just driving it wrong.

People buy systems and settings because the work is done for them. If they wanted to do the work themselves, they wouldn't buy the system. Can you then see why a failure of a system that causes more work than it alleviates might be a bad system? Why /tg/'s standard response to anything is to stop playing D&D? But then, this topic is about why D&D shouldn't be played. The suggestion to make something else doesn't help, because it's AGREEING with his stance that 3.5 is bad without contributing to the discussion.

>>50401097
So because I want to play a fighter I should have to force my GM to do even more work on top of all his other shit just so I remain relevant past level 5 instead of just having the dev make it so I am out of the box? That's not only stupid but being a massive asshole.
>>50401112
Only if none of the other players are playing a caster.
>>50401123
Once more, a fighter's only job is to be good in combat. If the wizard overshadows him in combat, which he will do, the system is imbalanced and possibly ruining the game for said fighter when he discovers that, unless the DM grants him a whole bunch of magic items to turn him into a psuedo-caster, he's stuck doing nothing.

>>50401087
People have fun playing D&D in spite of its so called imbalances. If your group thinks that wizards are so overpowered that the game isn't fun for them then maybe it's time to try a different game, or just ban wizards alltogether. Nothing is stopping you.

>>50401070
Why are you assuming that you're supposed to be competing against the wizard? Again, D&D is not a competitive game. You're supposed to be working together to overcome the challenges set out by the DM.

>>50401164
>So because I want to play a fighter I should have to force my GM to do even more work on top of all his other shit just so I remain relevant past level 5 instead of just having the dev make it so I am out of the box?
Yes. If you feel "useless" past level 5 your DM is probably doing something wrong.

>>50401174
>If your group thinks that wizards are so overpowered that the game isn't fun for them then maybe it's time to try a different game, or just ban wizards alltogether
Do you know of a high fantasy system where martials are equal to casters?

>>50401152
No the guys is trolling, being shown legitimate options to deter his trolling and then coming up with bs to justify it.

Its quite a fun game to watch him/you/it/faggot squirm to come up with ways to make your sad bait stay relevant.

Dnd isn't tricking anyone. It's a system that expects you to put time into it to modify it. You don't have the time then you need to find a more rules based system. I heard gurps is great this time of year.

>>50401201
4e

>>50401164
Yup. It's the dms fault. He should have put more effort in keeping you relevant. Give you a cool sword or hat or something.

Sorry you have a shit group anon. I like playing fighters myself and I never fell behind wizards in the campaigns I've played. Maybe I'll invite you for our next session.

>>50401213
I'll give it a look.
Does it do so by nerfing casters or buffing martials?
I've been looking at mutants and masterminds for just such a reason on top of some others.
>>50401207
The only one squirming is you to try and get out of the argument by labeling any dissenting opinion "trolling".

Why are people SURPRISED that the guy with access to the limitless powers of the cosmos is more powerful than the guy with big muscles and a pointy stick?

>>50401164
Lol It's pretty obvious you never were a dm.

>>50400930
how retarded can you be? in a competetive game (such as MtG), you need imbalance, trap options, etc. ivory tower design was a failure exactly because the WOTC faggots didn't realize that D&D being a cooperative means you can't make the transfer.

>>50401233
Mix of both

>>50401233
It basically makes everyone a caster.

>>50401233
4E needs casters and buffs martials. The result is meeting somewhere in the middle.

>>50400437
>Hercules, Achilles, Gilgamesh, Odysseus, Conan, Beowulf, Thor, St. George, Guan Yu, Erlang Shen, Jacob, Lancelot, Galahad, Samson, Goliath, Roland, Cu Chulain, and possibly Sun Wukong as a multiclasser are all examples of martials at varying levels of strength
>>50401237
See above list

File: yeek.png (155KB, 640x700px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 640x700px

>>50400098
You are right, the problem is not always of balance, but rather synergy and purpose.
When discussing the problem, some people even get impression this is a PvP thing.

In old dungeon-crawl design, you needed fighter to keep magic-user/druid/cleric from getting hit, because that would have interrupted their spells ( I like the old 1d10+spell delay as init system ). You needed rogue for checking out traps and picking locks. You needed cleric for patching up and wizard for magic.

But in 3.5 focus shifted away from dungeon crawling, but the system didn't really mature in same way.
You got classes which can outperform dedicated class with their secondary abilities ( druid's animal companion outperforming fighter, wizard outdoing rogue with spells ). Plus didn't help that some classes were just weak and couldn't even shine in their own role ( monk ).

And it is not necessarily because of the core class design ( while shabby ), but game system and encounter design. Wizards and fighters both get 2+int skill points, but wizard gets much better off since it is the only stat he/she needs.
If encounter is designed poorly, a caster might just solve it with a single spell - hell, even campaigns might be just skipped because DM didn't account a single spell.
Or if casters are missing, the wholly martial group is in trouble if there are flying or invisible enemies unless they are decked in magical items ( or think smart, but that's a premium ).

The imbalance isn't inherently bad, but the imbalance should be in check/balance, since otherwise a single class gets to shine while others have to sit around bored while the caster solves the problem for them.

>>50401251
4e casters aren't as powerful as 3.5 casters though, not by a long shot

>>50401262
None of those are as powerful as elminster, larloch or any high level D&D wizard.

>>50399206
>Barbarians of Lemuria
My nigga, that's one of the best settings out there
10/10 taste

>>50401233
See the trolling comment was a test to see if you were actually trolling or just retarded. If you cared about the subject you would've defended the later points as well.

If you were trolling then you would've just made a comeback about the trolling accusation without defending your original point.

It's a pretty solid test that actually works quite well if you ever need to use it in the future.

>>50401278
And that's why people say that DnD is stupid

>>50401301
>That's why dnd played by the base books is stupid.

>>50401301
Who says that? Anally anguished tg posters? D&D is the most popular tabletop RPG by a significant margin. It's gotta be doing something right.

>>50401278
Yeah...in other words, wizards don't follow myths, or other fiction, and basically D&D makes it as strong as they do, with nothing to base it on. Even Merlin, and Gandolf, and Merlin from that Disney movie aren't half as strong as casters in DnD

File: MAGIC.png (594KB, 600x840px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 600x840px

>>50400146
>This seems like extraordinarily poor design to me.
Ya nailed it. D&D 3.5 is a game created two editions and 15 years ago, the only reason anyone plays it or tries to defend it is out of either nostalgia for the system they started out on, laziness because they don't want to learn a new system, holding up Dungeons&Dragons as a sacred cow of the industry, or they actually believe what they're saying in which case they are retarded and should seek a professional to help euthanize them

>>50401318
Of course it's doing something right

It came first and established an early relation between it's own name and the hobby it is a part of, that's just about the smartest thing you can do to keep a product relevant

>>50401321
What's your point? If you don't like d&d then play something else.

>>50401318
More people don't play DnD, than play DnD, therefore, they're also doing something wrong.

>>50401285
I didn't respond because the points were fucking stupid. I bought D&D thus I expect it to work. It requires major overhauling just to have a basic yet major component, class balance, work. The devs have thus fooled me into buying their crap system to do more work than I should be reasonably expected to do to make something work. I've no problem learning more shit. I do have problem with spending money on crap when it should work for its basic goal, fun, high fantasy adventures for the whole group. If someone makes the mistake of going fighter without knowing of the flaws beforehand a basic goal is now unfulfilled as the whole group is now not enjoying the game.

>>50401331
I usually don't, but that doesn't mean, I can't point out shit is shit.

>>50401334
Retarded logic. The vast majority of tabletop gamers started with D&D and it is the most popular RPG out there to this day.

But like I said, you're free to play whatever you want.

>>50401335
The devs are geniuses to trick idiots like you to buying their system when there are pdfs of them everywhere online.

If the whole group isn't enjoying the game you need to have a talk with your (most likely) shit dm. The guy in charge.

>>50401340
>I don't like it therefore it's shit

That's not how it works anon.

>>50401361
It's pretty retarded logic, that doing something right, dosen't mean it can't be improved. Or being popular means it's good, or without flaws. There's a reason why playtesters exist, and why even the developers constantly try to improve the game.

>If you don't like it, don't play it.

isn't something that invalidates complaints.

File: 0224579de63d7c20d9865ce57c43df60537d14c7.png (64KB, 716x720px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 716x720px

>>50401207
Again, no one denies that any system will need work to function well. GURPS needs work, too, and a bit of fine tuning on which rules you use. The complaint is that D&D 3.5 requires a disproportionate amount of work in order to function properly. To the point that you have to change basic mechanics or create entirely new rulesets to balance it.

See, caster supremacy isn't the only problem. The CR system as a whole is horribly broken. Some of the arguments in this thread say Wizards and Fighters aren't directly fighting one another. However, this is not totally true. A huge amount of higher level monster have access to the Wizard's arsenalin the form of spell like abilities. Those Save-or-Die spells that let the Wizard stomp around encounters? Monsters use them too, and they're more than capable of disabling the entire rest of the party while the Wizard duels them. Not just spells, either. Monsters nearly always outclass the Fighter in base mechanics via sheer size, more attacks, higher strength than the Fighter can get with magic items in the book, higher AC than the Fighter can overcome with magic items in the book, and higher attack bonuses than the Fighter can defend against with magic items in the book.

The game assumes a certain level of power, and Fighters can't compete with it. So the DM now has to monitor the potentially overpowered monsters, play them stupidly and avoid their best moves, use them at a lower level than CR would indicate, or make their own monsters. On top of making their own magic items to give the Fighter a chance. Once again, it's simply better to make your own monsters than use the ones provided, and that is a problem.

If you have "modify" a system by throwing out 90% of its rules and making your own, it's a bad system.

>>50401374
Although he is straying from original point, you can have valid criticism towards D&D's game system.
You could argue very well that it would make sense for wizards to curbstomp martials, but it doesn't help if such situation makes the game system worse.

>>50401389
Every game has its flaws. There's no perfect system out there it's all down to personal preference.

I like playing wizards in fantasy games and I love D&D because wizards can do really cool things there.

If you don't like it, play something else.

>>50401374
That's my opinion. Everyone's opinions may be valid, in liberal land, but that doesn't mean individual opinions don't exist. Anyway, aren't you going to argue back, instead of this?

>>50399206
Easy solution:
People with arcane power can't use arcane items. They mess up their magical currents or some shit.

That way, your non magical characters get to hoard the magical items and will become roughly as strong as the magic users.

>>50401390
Oh hell yeah the systems bad. I won't argue that.

But the threads specific problem (and the one the previous poster was arguing about) is an easy in group fix.

Dnd is definitely bad, but if people are going to post about how bad it is they should expect that people will propose solutions instead of just joining their pity party.

>>50401434
I think casters generally invalidate martials. I think that's DnD's flaw, and I'm going to keep pointing it on, based on my personal preference. I also don't like your non-argument.

>>50400564
Yea now it's about raping women because they won't have sex with you

>>50401416
>You could argue very well that it would make sense for wizards to curbstomp martials, but it doesn't help if such situation makes the game system worse.
But the fighter and the wizard aren't fighting each other. They're fighting the goblins or the zombies or the wererats.

>>50401436
What's the point of arguing over something subjective? Shall we argue about whether or not Coldplay is the greatest band ever?

>>50401465
Anyone can play a martial in any edition of D&D and have fun.

If you can't just because you think wizards are OP then that's your problem.

>>50401509
Anyone can play with a bag of shit and have fun

If you can't just because you think it stinks, then that's your problem.

>>50401486
Just because something is subjective, doesn't mean you can't argue about it. That's really lazy, and it's pretty obvious you're trying to hide behind the word.

Also, even if you aren't fighting each other, it dosen't help to be useless. But I guess you'll talk about how some people like being useless, and it's subjective as well.

>>50401486
It was perhaps bad wording, I didn't meant to imply PvP at any point. But they do lack synergy.
3.5/PF as it is, has problem where casters don't really need for martials/skill monkeys to stick around since they can at later levels since their spells can do whatever they can ( or class features, like druid's animal companion ).

>>50401524
>the martialcuck gets triggered

>>50401553
>the castercuck gets triggered

>>50401541
I've been arguing with you for 30 minutes but you still can't fathom how people can like things you don't like.

>>50401548
Casters need to be babysat by martials at lower levels. When this is no longer the case and casters can finally stand on their own two feet the martials get their panties in a twist because they're no longer hogging the spotlight.

File: 1464790595717.png (61KB, 261x212px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 261x212px

>>50401562
Yep I'm really triggered that I'm playing the most powerful class in the most popular game while all you can do is cry about how wizards shit all over you and beg your friends to try your shitty obscure game.

>>50401589
>Casters need to be babysat by martials at lower levels. When this is no longer the case and casters can finally stand on their own two feet the martials get their panties in a twist because they're no longer hogging the spotlight.
So the game is horribly broken one way for the first half, horribly broken the other way for the second half, and you think that makes it balance out to a good game?

>>50401589
Both situations shouldn't really happen. Casters shouldn't be near-useless at beginning, and martials shouldn't get deprecated half-way.

>>50401589
>hogging the spotlight
This might be true if the game were purely combat, but its not. Casters are as effective outside of combat early on as martials are in combat. So martials lose their fucking job while casters get even better at their own and martials are just supposed to lie there and take it.

File: 1406251649932.jpg (89KB, 600x849px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 600x849px

>>50401486
>But the fighter and the wizard aren't fighting each other. They're fighting the goblins or the zombies or the wererats.

The other problem comes in when they're fighting the Dryad that Charms the Fighter at will, the Dragon that Forcecages the Fighter at the start of the fight, or the Demon that throws Fireballs from beyond the Fighter's effective range.

3.5's problem isn't caster supremacy, it's magic supremacy. Spells are easy to cast, always work to some degree, and there are so many that there's a spell for everything. But most of all, they're not limited to casters. Monsters get that shit too, and anything with spells is going to have an advantages against anything without.

>>50400218
>Explain to me how you would balance martials and casters without giving martials spells or spell-like abilities of their own?


Armor.

>>50401589
For 30 minutes, you've been putting your fingers to your ears, and going "La la la, I can't hear you. I like it, so your opinion isn't valid!" while not once trying to engage in the actual argument.

>>50399206
I had fun rolling up a mage killing fighter. A specialist with no magical talent, but was prepared with speicalized gear and entered fights with wizards with a plan in mind.

>>50401632
>>50401634
It's balanced in the sense that both martials and casters have their time to shine. Martials are not completely useless in the late game either. There are plenty of magic resistant or immune enemies.

>>50401637
Martials can be useful outside of combat too if you need to break down a door, intimidate someone perform any sort of athletic feat, etc...

>>50401685
>Martials can be useful outside of combat too if you need to break down a door, intimidate someone perform any sort of athletic feat, etc...

Okay.

>>50401639
Don't forget that there are counters to spells and spellcasters... In the form of other spells.

Pretty much every interesting mechanic in the game is attached to a spell

>>50401685
>Martials can be useful outside of combat too if you need to break down a door, intimidate someone perform any sort of athletic feat, etc..

Where exactly is a martial getting the skill points for Intimidate, Jump, Climb, and Swim, while also having high enough charisma and strength to make use of them while not giving up too much in other more important areas?

And don't forget that in addition to their spells, a caster also gets skills. What's stopping the Cleric from having high strength or the druid having his bear take down that door?

>>50401722
>Pretty much every interesting mechanic in the game is attached to a spell

Why is this surprising to you?

There are only so many ways you can swing a sword or an axe. Magic is limitless.

Which do you think is going to provide a more interesting and varied gameplay experience?

>>50401751
well in Pathfinder, maybe making CMB based abilities not shit at even mid level, getting rid of needing to use a feat for every CMB skill you want, WITHOUT it fucking your shit up with AOOs? That'd be a really nice start.

>>50401751
Because it invalidates the existence of playable classes that don't get spells

>>50401791
No. It just makes them less versatile and less interesting to play for experienced players.

Fighters are great for new players since they're simple and straightforward. There's nothing wrong with that.

>>50401751
Well frankly the game I bought is supposed to be a fantasy heroes role playing game. Sounds fun.

Who wants to play Gandalf? Cause I got 2 Legolases a Gimli, a Conan, and an androgynous harry potter.

Most heroes in the types of stories D&D is supposed to be good at are not Wizards. Yes those stories have magic users in them, but if there is a singular protagonist, it is rarely a wizard. Same goes for classical fantasy stories.

Warriors and Rogues are what heroes and legends are made of.

Course I play 5th edition D&D which I feel got balance significantly tighter. Casters are still nuts, but their best stuff tends to be making the fights a cakewalk for the fighter. Both sides needed.

guys, if you are worried about your fighter being outclassed at higher levels, just use some of your loot to buy magic equipment and become a BETTER murderhobo.

Hell, maybe even buy a portable magic house and a plate of infinite food, or something.

>>50401830
>Most heroes in the types of stories D&D is supposed to be good at are not Wizards. Yes those stories have magic users in them, but if there is a singular protagonist, it is rarely a wizard. Same goes for classical fantasy stories.
>Warriors and Rogues are what heroes and legends are made of.

This is simply not true. Go read Ursula LeGuin for example or, more recently, Harry Potter.

>>50401870
>Most.

>>50401751
There are hundreds of ways to fight, including throwing things, grappling the enemy, tripping, and all that stuff.
But it's gated behind specific feats that mean if you don't specialise in one specific technique like tripping people up or holding onto people, you take damage for doing things. Additionally monster stats are scaled to sometimes make these things useless. They have to roll to attack the enemy.

Meanwhile wizards can learn infinite spells and clerics get all spells each level.

If fighters had abilities tied to strength or dex instead of feats and wizards only could learn a number of spells that would still not fix the difference but it would help.

This is clearly a troll thread but I'm bored so whatever.

DnD is a roleplaying game. The system exists in order for people to play out a fantastical story as PCs based on characters from fantastical novels or stories.

If you're playing an epic level fighter than you probably expect your PC to be powerful like epic level fighters from myths. Like Hercules or Rostam or a bajillion other characters who regularly slew dragons and wizards and demons and such.

Pretty much nobody wants to play as the useless side character who lost importance as the story goes on or who can't provide even a little help against the badguy.

Saying "thats how the game is" is meaningless if the game isn't fulfilling the roleplaying requirement. If your Hercules type fighter feels more like Krillin than the whole roleplaying fantasy is shattered. Thats a problem with the system.

If the system gets in the way of roleplaying then the system has issues. Therefore Caster Supremacy is a bad thing.

>>50401880
It's unlikely that you'll end up with a party of 5 wizards at your table. So yes, most PCs are not wizards.

>>50401890
Thank you, though discarding opposing opinions as trolling is not a good thing to do.

>>50401589
Or the system could make it so both choices are valid for the entire game rather than for only half of it

Someone post the PLAYER LEVELS ARE INDICATIVE OF PLAYER POWER cap.

A level 15 fighter should be tough as a level 15 fighter because they're both level 15.

>>50401870
People keep bringing up Harry Potter as an example. Why? The spellcasting in Harry Potter is nothing close to 3.5 casters. They even outright state that their death spell would lose in a straight fight to a dude with a shotgun.

If someone came to the table and wanted to play a Harry potter like character, they'd basically be asking to play something with a bunch of cantrips to do basic shit all day long and the ability to brew potions to do anything fancier than that.

The closest thing would probably be a Warlock for the sheer focus on at-will magic, and guess what? A Warlock isn't going to dominate the game like a Wizard, because it isn't as massively versatile and powerful.

D&D casters are far beyond any depiction of wizards I've seen in any media, outside of maybe D&D novels. They have unlimited cosmic power at the drop of a hat, and don't need to specialize at all and can do everything equally well.

What's so difficult about having the Wizard sacrifice Raw power to get that versatility, or having to only take a single school of magic to get all that power?

>>50401919
>D&D casters are far beyond any depiction of wizards I've seen in any media, outside of maybe D&D novels. They have unlimited cosmic power at the drop of a hat

That's what makes them so cool though.

>>50401828
>>50401919
>What's so difficult about having the Wizard sacrifice Raw power to get that versatility, or having to only take a single school of magic to get all that power?
Or better yet allow martials to do stuff like trip, intimidate and so on without putting huge barriers in the way like feats and AoOs and skills systems.

>>50401870
>Harry Potter

Not something D&D is meant to emulate, honestly. It's a wizard society in a modern setting. Where D&D is (supposed to be) Sword & Sorcery in Generic European Middle Ages Fantasy Land, Harry Potter is just Sorcery in a setting built around it. There's one sword in the entire series and the MC touched it once. Even then, the author has said wizards would probably lose to muggles.

Plus Harry doesn't usually win just by casting spells. He's got elements of a guile hero to him and more often utilizes his environment. Wizard/Rogue as fuck.

>>50401951
That still won't change the fact that a wizard can just instantly gate in demons or summon 1d6 fighters who can do the job better than the party's fighter.

>>50401943
So why can't fighters be cool? Why can't they by RAW do things like threaten someone to death or sweep a dozen people off their feet with a swing of his spear? And be able to follow that up with kicking their falling weapons into another guy's neck?

Wouldn't that be awesomely cool as well while the wizard is casting glorious empowered fire from the astral plane?

>>50401943
That's a matter of personal preference. I would argue being able to stop time, summon a bunch of angels to deal with the problem, teleport to your private demiplane, scry to see if the problem is solved, teleport and cast a kill spell if it isn't, then teleport back to have sex with a succubus harem would get pretty boring after a while.

That said, if you want some weird Wizard game where you play gods, that's fine. That doesn't excuse the game pretending that Fighters and Wizards are equal when they are oh so clearly not.

Whether it is or isn't right for them to be stronger isn't the issue. The fact that the system advertises itself as a cooperative team game, pitches all these different classes at you as options for equals, only to pull out the rug later and reveal that one of you is Michael Jordon while another is a mentally handicapped Steven Hawking is just shitty.

>>50401965
No, but every step helps. We may be putting a bandaid on a sucking chest wound but you gotta start somewhere while waiting for the pros to get here.

>>50401890
>If your Hercules type fighter feels more like Krillin than the whole roleplaying fantasy is shattered. Thats a problem with the system.

This, basically. While in the series proper anyone that's not a Saiyan is useless, there's a reason Xenoverse made Humans and Namekians viable.

>>50401951
>>50401965
Both are needed in order for the game to work. Martials need to have more interesting options available to them, or at least have the default assumption be that they can do neat stuff like that. Casters need to have their massive list of options limited in more ways to prevent them from doing absolutely everything at once.

I would argue that literally every other edition of D&D except 3.5 does this fairly well one way or another.

>>50401970
>>Wouldn't that be awesomely cool as well while the wizard is casting glorious empowered fire from the astral plane?

>The wizard desperately tries to convince a crowd to look his way as he twists and bends the very fabric of space
>But no, they're look at the warrior, who's just juggling four swords, a flail and a kobold without dropping a beat while retelling the time he slew ten men with one swing

>Caster Supremacy Anonymous 11/26/16(Sat)14:45:22

>>50399206
>that's the way it's supposed to be
according to who? Magic is a fictional thing, it can be as strong or weak as people want it to be, it isn't bound by realism. Many fantasy settings have magic as being heavily flawed or possibly dangerous/corrupting to use, or requiring decades of study just to learn to cast a simple fireball.

I know this is a bait thread, but come on now. Don't act like casters being superior to martials is some sacrosanct axiom. Outside of DnD it's largely nonexistent, usually with casters and martials being on even footing, and they never seem to run into problems with realism or whatever. And in fact you see many other fantasy stories where the villain is a sorcerer overcome by some rando knight with a sword and board.

>but obviously being able to nuke an entire army with a wave of your hand is superior to hitting it with a sword!
Sure, but you're talking about a magical technique that might be inaccessible to all but the highest masters of the art, or require several sacrifices, or require several mages working in unison, or require rare and expensive ingredients, or require extreme meditative focus that is impossible in a battlefield scenario, or require forbidden knowledge that slowly consumes their sanity. The comparison is technically true, but it's disingenuous in the extreme to imply that magic can't have caveats or pitfalls that make it more balanced. And that's not even mentioning the fact that spindly nerds tend to fold like a bad poker hand when they catch an arrow or blade in their body.

>>50401963
Therfore using Harry Potter as an example of a wizard protagonist is flawed by your own words.

>>50401965
It'd help, wouldn't it?

>>50401970
Fighters can be cool. Fighters should be cool. I have no problem with fighters doing cool things I'm just tired of hearing people bitch about wizards since they're my favourite class.

>>50401972
When you reach that level of power is generally when it's time to retire your character.

I'm not opposed to trying to balance wizards and fighters but that's hard to do when you look at the way the both work fundementally. Wizards can literally do anything at higher levels. Fighters are limited by the laws of physics and their strength of arm.

One solution would be to give them spell-like powers ala weeaboo fighting magic but for some reason people are opposed to the idea.

>>50402021
>When you reach that level of power is generally when it's time to retire your character

I thought you were trying to argue that high level Wizard play was the only reason to play. At the point when you do have those crazy options, it's hard to lose if you're careful.

>that's hard to do when you look at the way the both work fundementally. Wizards can literally do anything at higher levels. Fighters are limited by the laws of physics and their strength of arm.

It really isn't. There's no godly law that says Wizards have to be able to do literally anything at higher levels. It would not be strange to force Wizards to specialize in a single school to the exclusion of all others, or make it so taking several schools caps your power level. Say you make it so that whenever a Wizard gains a level of spells, they only gain it for one school. So they can get one school to level 9, or all the schools to level 1.

Then, you simply have to accept that Fighters can do extrodinary things without needing to use magic or be Demigods. This doesn't sit well with some people, but you don't have to go full Weaboo with it. The example I like to use is Beowulf, who strangles monsters with his bare hands, holds his breath for hours, and does other amazing feats while just being a paragon of human physique.

From there, you just add on options for maneuvers and tactical stuff. They don't need to be super weaboo, but a high level Fighter should at least be matching the basics of low level spells. Knocking something unconcious, forcing something to fall over, hitting something with extreme accuracy, these should be things that are pretty basic to a martial character at that level.

Then, add onto that more utility for those martial characters, either in the form of more skills or just general utility options.

It isn't impossible to reconcile the gap, but you have to tackle it from both angles.

File: macgyver.jpg (116KB, 1100x840px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1100x840px

>>50401880
>Most

Ahem.

>>50402064
>It really isn't. There's no godly law that says Wizards have to be able to do literally anything at higher levels. It would not be strange to force Wizards to specialize in a single school to the exclusion of all others, or make it so taking several schools caps your power level. Say you make it so that whenever a Wizard gains a level of spells, they only gain it for one school. So they can get one school to level 9, or all the schools to level 1.
That would just make wizards boring and limited. It's clear you don't play one so you probably wouldn't care.

>Then, you simply have to accept that Fighters can do extrodinary things without needing to use magic or be Demigods. This doesn't sit well with some people, but you don't have to go full Weaboo with it. The example I like to use is Beowulf, who strangles monsters with his bare hands, holds his breath for hours, and does other amazing feats while just being a paragon of human physique.

Yes but holding your breath for hours isn't impressive when a wizard can do it indefinitely or just teleport to somewhere with air. Neither is strangling a monster when a wizard can just kill it instantly with a single word.

I honestly think that the way to make fighters as interesting and powerful as wizards is weeaboo fighting magic. Fighters in western mythology are just unimpressive compared to D&D wizards.

>>50402021
I think Wizards shouldn't be able to do everything, personally. There are eight schools of magic, but Wizards have access to all of them at no penalty with the option to specialize and get better at one. Supposedly he gives up two other schools, but there are ways around that and it's just an inconvenience.

Meanwhile Fighters technically have access to all combat maneuvers, but they take penalties and AoO that will automatically cancel what they're trying to do if hit (Wizards get an easy check to keep an interrupted spell, Fighters lose their turn.) They can specialize in one maneuver to become decent at (and still lose to large monsters), but suck at everything else with no way around it. They have feat taxes to be good at basic combat options, and anything that might cool is locked behind a specific chain that might force you to take useless stuff you don't want.

I think Wizards should be way more limited in the schools they can access, with feats possibly giving access to weaker versions of schools you don't have. Start specialized, branch out as you go. In the example above, the Wizard can teleport and have his succubi harem, but he can't scry or time stop and his kill spell is shit against that day's monster so he needs his summons or he's fucked.

Fighters should have unpenalized access to combat options with the opportunity to specialize or get more utility. Start generally in combat and focus as you go, hopefully getting good enough to compete with monsters that may be stronger.

>>50399477
>You have enough magic to have it's use be fun, but not enough to solve every possible problem with it
And then we gave 5e where Bards are both better skill monkeys than thief AND have the most varied available spells in the game.

>>50402111
>That would just make wizards boring and limited

Really? With the sheer volume of spells that exist in 3.5, not being able to learn literally every single one of them is too limiting for you to have fun with?

>a wizard can do it indefinitely

Pretty sure Waterbreathing has a more limited duration than that, but even if it doesn't, holding your breath for hours is also useful when it's poison gas and not water. Teleporting somewhere with air also doesn't help if you're actually trying to get somewhere.

And further, this ties into the first suggestion of limiting a Wizard to a single school, so that you can't waterbreath/teleport/instakill/summon a dragon, and you have to actually choose one that might not be as helpful all the time.

>Fighters in western mythology are just unimpressive compared to D&D wizards.

Dude. EVERYTHING in ALL mythology is pretty unimpressive compared to D&D wizards.

Zeus? He shapeshifts and throws lighting. That's like what, level 10? Sun wukong? Who cares if you can somersault for miles when teleporting can take you that distance, further, or onto another dimension.

Give a Wizard enough time and they could probably create an entire planet and recreate the old and new testament on it.

If you use D&D Wizard as your baseline for 'impressive', then of course everything else seems boring in comparison.

>>50402147
Bards in 5e not being half-casters like Paladins and Rangers was a mistake. Dial back their spells, then let College of Lore pick up limited spell slots for levels 6+ similarly to how a Warlock does it.

>>50399324
It's intentional bad design, even worse.

File: delicious.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

Martialcuck tears are so delicious.

Please keep crying. I'm sure the designers will balance maritals for 6e lol

>>50402111
>I honestly think that the way to make fighters as interesting and powerful as wizards is weeaboo fighting magic. Fighters in western mythology are just unimpressive compared to D&D wizards.
Well, you're not wrong. A lot of people who say "fighters are supposed to be bad" also say "fighters shouldn't be able to do magic-like stuff" instead of making fighters awesome.

>>50401361
>vast majority of tabletop gamers started with D&D
in the USA. in Germany they started with DSA

>>50400218
There is many ways to do it but generally they fall in 2 paths.

1. Nerf casters
2. Buff fighters

The buff can be made in many ways. From giving some mythical abilities to more simple - like making fighters lethal. I mean really lethal. No bullshit about bashing someone with the sword over the head for a minute.

Fighter got close to someone who has no fighting skill? Head rolls from the shoulders. Someone casts a spell in AOO radius? Hands fall to the floor. Demon tries to run by the fighter to get to the wizard? He cleaves his gut open and monster trips on his own entrails. And so on.

So you are either trained in combat and can protect yourself or you are not and getting close to some professional is almost "no save you die".

>>50401434
>I like playing wizards in fantasy games and I love D&D because wizards can do really cool things there.
t. shitty player.
lok, i get your liking it, however it's entirely selfish. RPGing is a team-activity and you're overshadowing the rest

>>50401609
>Yep I'm really triggered that I'm playing the most powerful class in the most popular game
t. shitty player
the joke isn't on the other anon, the joke is on the people to game with you IRL (assuming that there are any)

>>50400669
The funny thing. In 3.5 you can beat through castle walls with bare hands at around level 6.

High-level fighter should be able to outmanoeuvre a wizard because they're great tacticians.
Well, you cannot defeat a wizard just by running at them and screaming, but if you set a trap or get close before they notice...

>>50402285
Or the 3rd path, doing both.

Say you do something like make Fighters far and away better combatants than anyone else, with great hitpoints and saving throws, excellent damage, and have any sort of maneuver system be more freeform so you don't need a bunch of feats just to trip someone. Then you make it so Wizards have very few spells per day, have the spells they can find for their spellbook entirely selected by the DM, make spellcasting take time, and make specialization cut them off from certain schools.

Or, you could give martials better manuevers with a variety of effects that are quire reliable, with some sort of resources so they can do more complex attacks and heal themselves throughout the day. Then you dial back the Wizard's spells and utility so that they don't have quite as many weird things they can do to instantly win a fight, putting the two on more even terms as far as the conditions they can inflict.

Or, you could do something a bit more simple, giving martials some more basic skill competency, some basic but easy maneuvers, and a few more utility options, while also cutting down on spell slots, the automatic spell scaling, stacking buffs, and the more major spell abuses. This would close the gap less well, but still bring everything more in line.

Or, you could play 2e, 4e, or 5e respectively.

it makes sense to have caster supremacy, because we are talking about settings where the fabric of reality itself is so intrinsically bound to Magic that it is like Electricity to the modern day.
not electronic devices, the concept of electricity.
so logical progression:
a man who lifts weights can punch another man (fighter)
you upgrade that, give him an axe, he has more head-smashy efficiency (barbarian)
but there is also this man who can shoot an arrow at badguy and kill him from outside the barbs range x50 (archer)
that is far more efficient
now you have this guy who spent years studying and experimenting, and manufactured a way to not only launch an arrow at the guy at double the range of the archer, but also have the arrow explode so the surrounding half a mile behind the guy is now covered in a glacier (alchemist)
idk about you but that's a damn slight more efficient than punching a dude.
in the real world, you simply have to replace the analogy with guns.
a rifle is better than fist, and a swarm missile launcher is better than a rifle.
if you want a universe where martials and magic are balanced, you opt for low-fantasy. where mages are as rare as Merlin, and the spells they know are incredibly limited, and what spells they do know are usually either incredibly situational, or their usage is severely capped (stamina, mana, preparation or otherwise).
caster supremacy exists because mages are exclusive to fantasy settings, in the same way mechs are exclusive to mecha settings.
if you argue against caster supremacy, you might as well be saying "why can't I, a grunt infantryman, compete with this giant 40-foot gundam? this is unbalanced!"

>>50402329
Right, because the guy struggling to find enough points to put into Int is going to outsmart the guy who's been pumping it since level 1.

I'm sure those sneak attacks and traps will work great on someone who's covered in wards, probably has invisible bodyguards and familiars watching out for him, and has a Contingency set up to help save them from a surprise attack.

>>50399206
The problem is that mages get spells that invalidate entire classes.

This is the reason why I give XP for picking a lock or finding a creative way across a chasm, but not for magicking your problems away.

>>50402344
Frankly I would have preferred True20 second edition. There is a lot of good ideas there but they are not refined enough.

>>50402350
>"why can't I, a grunt infantryman, compete with this giant 40-foot gundam? this is unbalanced!"

If the game lists the class options Grunt Infantryman and Giant Gundum right next to eachother, claims they're balanced in a team, and all the math in the system points to a level 10 infantryman being equal to a level 10 gundum, then that's a legitimate question.

If being the most basic level of alchemist is enough to make glacial nukes, then why is it being offered as an equal option next to a guy who punches things? Why aren't the first 10 levels of alchemist basic medical knowledge until you get to the point where you and punch fighter are on an even level?

Why is the system lying to you a good thing?

>>50402350
having said that, you do need to understand that while casters are inherently more powerful, that does not mean you need to instantly opt for the most powerful option to appeal to your DM's fantasies of being able to pit his munchkin build casters against your own,

if you and your party want to play a group that resembles the traditional DnD oldschool party where the caster is more or less a token character, by all means, go for it! because you can absolutely get a fun and fulfilling campaign out of playing that, as many others have and currently do.
and if your DM scolds you for not picking the most powerful powergamer-optimized magus-fucking-blackblade-with-fireball-flurry-bullshit over your homely little oldschool lotr party? they are shit as a DM. because all they want is to be a munchkin and for you to do the same so they can have LE EPIC SPELL FIREFIGHTS.

just because casters are more powerful, doesnt mean you need to be

final note: if your party is consistent of mostly more powerful casters and you're joining in as the sole fistfighter, it may be wise to reconsider for the sake of not being the weakest link, crunch wise; I am referring mostly to you as a party, not as individuals.

File: cofused kittey.png (325KB, 382x417px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 382x417px

I don't get it. Why do parties haved to be balanced? It could simply be another trait of a character that the other PCs look at him and say, "Oh yeah, that's our freid, Firnyouth, the mighty wizard. His magical powers have helped us all greatly on our quest. i sure am glad to have a powerful mage like him in our team!" I think tat power disparities in a party can make for more interesting roleplay. Not everyone has to be optimized for fighting. You could apply my reasoning above to any other character of any other class that's a better combatant than the other PCs.

TL;DR I'm a huge raging faggot who loves cock and the division of labor

File: 1478867266494.png (1MB, 1400x2400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1400x2400px

Because playing a fighter in a game where the wizard is a one man show and doesn't let anyone else accomplish anything is fucking boring. Nobody thinks the wizard shouldn't be powerful, the wizard just shouldn't be out shining the entire group at every turn. I'm blessed with the wizard players I have, because they focus their spell lists around making the entire group shine, and only once and a while step into combat.

>>50402379
largely because equality in that sense is referencing the roleplay, the alchemist and fist fighter are day and night in the damage output category, but as I said, opting for the most powerful choice in crunch doesn't always have to be the end scenario.

>>50402380
Or, crazy idea here, we could play a game that won't fall to pieces as soon as someone picks a weaker class than everyone else or picks up a stronger spell that sounded cool.

If I want to play a game with a group that resembles a traditional oldschool party, I'll just play the older versions of D&D where a Wizard can't do everything by himself.

>>50402318
How? Unarmed damage is limited to 1d3 and your strength modifier shouldn't be much higher than +5 and that's only with strength enhancing magic items. Stone has a hardness of 8, so you can't damage it at all.

Even if you do get a strength mod of +6 or higher, you're only damaging it 1/3 of the time. It'd take like 30 minutes to do and I wouldn't really count enhanced strength via an item "bare hands."

So, in the context of a world steeped in magic, that is built on and around magic, the martial is a black sheep. Why are they exluded from the life blood of the world? There are any number of ways to justify giving them innate magical abilities, both from a mechanical stand point and a flavor standpoint. It's fantasy, let the high level warrior break boulders and move at the speed of sound. Give him the possibility of being a great tactician or diplomate...i mean really, just spread out the class features or incorporate a stamina system, it's not that hard.

>>50399206
Mechanically it makes it not fun for those who are not casters, especially if said casters are dicknozzles who blatantly rub it in your face. It's a game, everybody is supposed to have fun, but for some reason both sides have to be autistic about it either bawling their eyes dry while swinging their replica katana at their dog or smugly smirk at everybody and hog all the attention to themselves while sucking on Monte Cook's shriveled dingle dongle and misquoting old Latin phrases as spells.

In most settings however: Are you telling me that there is absolutely no magic involved in a fighter who can lift a boulder over his head, hit somebody five times with a greatsword twice their size and successfully block a giant the size of an air craft carrier's swing with a equally sizable metal bat with a dingy metal plate they call a buckler? All the player characters are magic one way or another, wizards just take a more literal approach to magic.

>>50402393
you're right, but then comes the main argument againt caster supremacy, which is essentially "making everyone else feel unnessescary"

this is why bard is a terrible class, because anyone who wants to spend the time making an intelligent scholar can go fuck themselves because bards are apparently omniscient.

>>50402393
It's okay if it is intended and is a conscious choice of the players. It's not okay if the system tells you "you are a godlike swordmaster" and old lady beats you to a pulp with her grocery bag back on her way home.

>>50402402
>>50402419
This is where low fantasy settings bring everything together.
which is what oldschool DnD does well.

>>50402428
well you see friend,
thats what we call a Magus.

>>50402442
Nobody is saying they should be balanced.

When I sit down at a table, and some guy keeps magicking away all the problems before I get a first or second turn in, I'm going to leave the table.

>>50402455
I just call them Weeaboo Stab-n-Zap

>>50402393
Let me give you an anecdote, just so you can see where someone might be coming from with this.

I played a game as a swordsman of some skill. Still a bit green and fresh out of his training, but surely more than a match for a few Orcs. So thus, he set off east, to aid in the war effort. There, he met a few others, a roguish sort, skilled with daggers, a sorcerous indivual who weilded arcane power, and a man of the forest. He claimed to be a druid, and showed me a wolf he had managed to tame. I thought it an odd bunch, but regardless, we teamed up to take out a bounty on some orc raiders in the nearby woods.

Once we came across our quarry, the druid whispered a few words, and the forest rose up to entangle the crowd of orcs. I rushed in with my blade alongside the wolf, though it was clear they were rather helpless in the lush growth. I easily dispatched a few, only to turn and see that the druid's arrows along with his wolf had already finished the rest.

Then the realization hit me. This druid has magic enough to take out an entire orc raiding party by himself. He has a wolf to aid him, to be certain, but what use was my blade here compared to another hound? With the cut I was getting from the bounty, the druid could easily purchase several trained hunting dogs to help dispatch his foes.

So I left. What sane man would bother tagging along just to do the job of a dog?

File: Carl_XVI_Gustaf_of_Sweden_ca_1950.JPG.jpg (11KB, 279x231px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 279x231px

>>50399573
>they fixed the problem in the latest edition
>I'm going to complain anyway

>>50402458
this is a valid argument, to which the reasonable response is to disable mages from accessing spells that can do that shit.
i think its reasonable to admit that while casters should be innately more godly-powerful than fist-men, being able to solo run a campaign because you have a spell list that literally bypasses every utility in the game borders on the absurd.

*oldschoolfagging intensifies*

>>50400565
I guess caster supremacy could be solved with good old cannon fodder coming non stop, then it's just matter of time when wizard uses all the spells.

>>50402412
Improved Unarmed Strike
Superior Unarmed Strike
Power Attack

1d6(base) + 4(Str) + 6(PA) ~ 13

You can also add Flying Kick for 1d12 damage on a charge and repeatedly charge the wall with your leg for ~ 19 damage.

>>50402481
>i think its reasonable to admit that while casters should be innately more godly-powerful than fist-men

As many have pointed out, that isn't reasonable at all. The author of the setting has total control over exactly how powerful and easy magic is. Wizards being gods among men is just as likely as Wizards being simple oracles who can't do much except function as a radar.

Nothing about the concept of magic is innately stronger than doing things mundanely.

>>50402483
that works excellently if your DM allows the guy playing the fighter to play 12 of them simoultaneously and hope to god he doesnt throw a caster that has unlimited casts of relatively potent offensive spells at you.
human wall tactics tend to overwhelm fighters much sooner than casters too.

File: 1346618354976.jpg (30KB, 348x480px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 348x480px

>>50402393
It's because in 3.5 the Wizard can do all divisions of labor by himself because spells are just that broken.

>Rogue gets a skill roll to pick a lock; Wizard casts Knock and the door unlocks itself with no roll or chance of failure
>Rogue gets a skill roll to find traps or secrets; Wizard casts Detect Traps and finds them with no roll or chance of failure
>Bard gets a skill roll to try to gain allies; Wizard casts Charm Person and makes them friendly
>Fighter can fight monsters; Wizard casts Summon Monster I-IX and gets a small army of fighters that might be better at fighting
>Or casts Polymorph and turns into a monster better at fighting

And so on. One the easier quick and dirty ways to balance a Wizard is to just ban the spells that do someone else's job better than they can.

>>50402505
This is true, as magic is an abstraction that can be dialed to whatever you want.
i guess i was unconsciously referencing the vanilla crunch of DnD/PF, where that is the case.

>>50402473
Money? Friendship? A righteous cause? Whatever reason PCs join up in the party in the first place. It all depends on the character.

>>50402524
to make it into low fantasy however, you would have to tell your casters about 80% of their spellbook is arbitrarily banned or on-approval list only, or play a system based in low magic.
like harry potter, which is unbelivably nonmagical when you compare it with timestopping witches and druid fuckulator 9000s

>>50402514
3.5 is infamous for having broken as shit casters. Just don't play 3.5 if you don't like its (admittedly ass backwards) mechanics.

>>50401685
>if you need to break down a door
Knock, level 2 spell. It opens, and I quote "...opens stuck, barred, locked, held, or arcane locked doors. It opens secret doors, as well as locked or trick-opening boxes or chests. It also loosens welds, shackles, or chains (provided they serve to hold closures shut)." No chance of failure.

>intimidate someone
2+int skills a level, and no reason to invest in intelligence or charisma in a class that already needs to invest in the other 4 stats.

Also, Charm Person, 1st level spell. Suggestion, 3rd level spell. Lesser Geas, 4th level spell. Dominate Person, 5th level spell.

>perform any sort of athletic feat
Jump, 1st level spell. Spider Climb, 2nd level spell. Fly, 3rd level spell. Dimension Door, 4th level spell.

>>50402493
>Actually taking unarmed strike feats

You got me there, a Fighter can indeed punch through stone. I would rather not specialize in punching shit when Amulet of Mighty Fists is more expensive than a weapon, but there you go. Power Attack I fucking forgot about Power Attack alone would probably be enough if unarmed strikes weren't automatically nonlethal damage.

>>50400725
> i use levitate spell
You get on the other side

> i use a grappling hook
Roll athletics to throw the hook.
Roll climb.
If you fail you take damage.
The DM rolls to see if someone hears the hook.

>>50402556
If you have a good two-handed weapon and right feats you probably can cut through a castle wall at a little under a minute. Sieges are nuts in DND world.

And around level 12 chargers can probably just break down castle gates with one attack.

>>50401685
if you were to go down that route, it can very easily slip into the pit of "the entire dungeon is a DMZ, and every enemy you face from here on in is magic immune."
you might as well have played a no magic campaign because you have now legswept (what is likely to be) 1/2 or more of your party completely in combat, and assuming they were casterbabbies, also in utility.
bringing casters down to size doesn't mean neutering them entirely.

>>50402534
>Friendship?

We'd met within only a few days. It was mainly business at that point.

>Money? A righteous cause?

These were the more driving factors for most of the group, but this is a war effort. How righteous is it for me to claim money for the druid disabling a group of orcs just because I stabbed one before he got around to it? How am I helping the war effort when I'm utterly superfluous? How long is this war going to exist to profit from when a single druid seems more than capable of taking out a half-dozen orcs by himself?

It is entirely reasonable for a swordsman to shake his head, take his pay, and try his luck somewhere his services might be in more demand.


The roleplay reaction to the caster solving all the party's problems isn't to marvel at him and thank him for his help. It's to contemplate why you even bothered coming along when he could do it all by himself.

And then on a meta perspective, you as the player realize that if one druid could do all that by himself, and a level 1 fighter is considered equal to a level 1 druid, why don't I just play a second druid and actually contribute something to the party, instead of being a burden?

>>50402593
I love your flowery wording when describing your sessions anon.
admittedly another solution to this was mentioned earlier; cut down on spell slots (DnD 5e style)
you'll find your party druid is a lot more helpless when he only prepared that spell once and he has to fight TWICE IN ONE DAY DURING A WAR GOD FORBID.

>>50402619
But that's the problem - it's boring. You basically ask to do to druid/caster the same thing was done to fighter. Make them lack options. Only if fighter lacks them due to his small repertoire the druid will just not be able to use them due to small number of "bullets".

>>50400384
>everything that both magic and tech can do, tech can do better
Correction: Tech can do it EASIER. Not better.

A magician could theoretically cast spells that could level city blocks and kill everyone within. But it'd probably give him an aneurysm, and he'd have to have such an insane level of magic initiation that it would take you years of campaign play to get there. Tech-wise, you just need a big-ass block of C4, intelligently distributed and set off.

>>50402636
the other alternative is to limit his spell options so black tentacles isnt an innate spell for druids.
or anyone.
black tentacles is overpowered.

>>50402619
Pretty sure he either had two entangles, or one entangle and one cure light wounds.

Which brings me to cure light wounds. Yeah, I had more HP than his wolf, but his wolf also automatically trips things, and the wolf and druid and cure light wounds has far more than me combined, and the wolf is ultimately disposable.

My point is that with one spell he got rid of an entire orc raiding party, and even without that him firing arrows and the wolf attacking people is going to outpace me. Even if the wolf dies the Druid is still a decent archer.

He has so many resources at his disposal that even if we did go through a gauntlet of a ton of fights, I would have died before him, because it would have been the wolf going down, me going down, and them him either winning, fleeing, or dying because he was at range.

And again, imagine how amazing we'd be at that war if I was also a druid instead. Then we could have 3 frontliners with me and two wolves, and have even more entangles each day to invalidate fights.

And of course, I wasn't the DM for this. The DM was the sort of person I see in this thread. The sort who insists the balance problems of 3.5 don't exist because a caster has limited spell slots per day. Ignoring the fact that even without spells a Druid is still better more useful than my fighter.

Of course, the animal companion does trail off after a few levels, but by that point the Druid has even more spells. And his existing spells are better because spells improve as you level.

And it just cycles back to the question, if a Druid is that good with just one spell slot, and his main weakness is not being able to cast it as often, why not play a second one, double the spell slots, and get my previous character as a bonus class feature?

>>50400821
>Because homogenised classes aren't fun. I want to play D&D not tabletop WoW.
What was the mechanical difference between playing a Wizard or Cleric, other than the bonus differences in attack roll, a few class features, and the fact that you're given access to different spells in the master list?

Honestly, I'm curious. There's this assumption that classes weren't "homogenous" in earlier editions, but I've found that the play difference between them was a matter of what you had access to, not really a matter of it being a completely different game. Which is just as true in 4th Edition.

>>50402680
It isn't even Black Tentacles. Just Entangle. Which isn't quite as devastating, but at low levels not being able to move and getting a -2 to dex and AC might as well make you helpless. It basically was just picking them off at our leisure. 10 rounds is a lot of time to kill off any orcs that get loose and finish the rest.

>>50402682
i think I posted >>50402680
at around the same time as you.
limiting the druids magical capability brings him closer (but still not equal) to you.
the next options are:
>you become a swordsman with access to magic (Magus) to bolster your existing martial prowess
>you gain the use of Martial abilities (non supernatural) which come close or rival the power of the now limited caster friends spellbook. (idk, 5e maybe?)