Apologize.

>>51791186
Why? I never hated it

>>51791186
I'm sorry I lost you, or let you be stolen from me by a friend who "borrowed" you. I don't think I could ever replace you. I-. I moved on to play traveler. I'm sorry I can't even reference you now.

>>51791186
For what?
It's a genuinely good book that attempted to fix martials' main problem: lack of narrative-influencing options. Unfortunately, it both failed and wasn't well-received by caster-fags who claimed it was "weaboo fightan' magic".

It deserves more respect and to be banned less. The best book of the 3.5 line and one of the few saving graces of the system. Thank fuck DSP are following in its footsteps with their Path of War stuff.

>>51791186
I'm sorry I succumbed to the hatememe. You're actually a good book.

This is a shit book, I'm glad I've never wasted money on this piece of garbage.

>>51791314
You can't just say "I don't like thing" and not elaborate on exactly what you actually didn't like about it.

>>51791186
imo one of the more interesting elements of this and other books towards the end of 3.5 is how you can see them testing mechanics that they would go on to include and expand upon in 4th edition.

I also think that the soulknife would have been much better in the style of these classes rather than as a psionic kensai.

>>51791353

Well, he technically can, it's just pointless bitching rather than adding anything to the conversation.

>>51791353
Well you CAN but your opinion might not be held in very high esteem and people may even be suspicious of your motive in not explaining.

>>51791214
it is weeaboo fightan' magic
t. a guy who hates casters

really, there is no way to fix melee in 3.5 without completely changing the way it and magic work.

I'm sorry for making fighters irrelevant by releasing fighter 2.0: actually fun to play edition

>>51791353
not that guy, but the book is bad.
its not bad because the stuff presented in it doesn't work, or even that it doesn't make melee viable, but because it completely changes the way melee fighters have to be in the world. there will never be a normal knight; they will always be freaks who flip around lighting their blades on fire, teleporting, spinning in circles, etc.
crusaders are arguably grounded but the built in fluff of being, you know, a crusader, ruins them too

>>51791511
Eh, true, but DnD without Vancian magic in the from that grognards are used to can hardly be considered DnD.
Just look at 4e that tried to change things up, and ended up being labeled as "too videogamey", when it was just trying to turn DnD into what it was trying to be from the very beginning - a wargame.
Seriously, anything in 3.5 that isn't related to combat is either caster-exclusive or not fleshed out at all.

>>51791186
No. Fuck you.

>>51791547

Except that's bullshit.

Nothing stops you making a 'normal knight' using Warblade as a chassis. Fuck, I've done it before and it works fine.

>>51791186
Needed to make a return in 5e desu.
>>51791547
There shouldn't be 'normal' PC knights under D&D's rules for magic, because 'normal' people (read: people who don't use magic) are irrelevant after a certain point.
If you want to play a system where non-magical resources are limited, D&D is a really poor fit.

>>51791554
im not saying get rid of vancian magic at all. in fact i would move back to a more classically d&d system were wizards have to announce they are casting at the beginning of a round and can't get spells off until the end. this would allow meleers to run and get in cover or run up and grapple them to the ground and stop the cast before it goes off

>>51791605
Even a warblade is going to be standing around in a kung fu fighting stance, spinning in circles to hit everyone around him, doing kung fu mind clearing techniques to shrug off spells, and somehow empowering his blade to slip right through armor.

>>51791616
read my post right be low your own. magic shouldnt be an instantaneous meme. if it takes a while to cast a spell, normies can tackle you to the ground and stop it and stay relevant.
i agree that if people are flying around normies are going to need some magic to compete, but the basic idea is still the same; get a bracelet of wings or whatever, fly up, and tackle the wizard to the earth before he shoots the fireball

>>51791511
I'd argue that you could pull off bo9s style classes without going full magic, although I'd argue that high-level martial should have abilities that are extraordinary and rival magic.

To really "fix melee" though you'd probably have to throw out most of it and start from the ground up incorporating tactics and techniques like disarming and tripping into the class which would then effect feats and require more work although I'd argue feats are unbalanced anyway.

>>51791637

Why? What is forcing you to do that?

I played a Warblade who was a dude in armour who was good at hitting things really hard in a variety of useful and interesting and ways. So basically just a 'normal knight', only actually useful and fun to play.

>>51791637
>Kung Fu fighting stance
Every fighting style in the world uses stances, even knights using longswords had stances. There's nothing that says they have to be "one leg up, while you make a high pitched Kenshiro noise"
>spinning in circles to hit everyone around him
You mean like Great Cleave, which is apparently fine?
>doing kung fu mind clearing techniques
Again, nothing implies this has to be some mystical eastern shit. Why can't he just be shrugging it off with GRIT and MANLINESS?
>somehow empowering his blade to slip right through armor
Because knights never targeted the joints, or slats in armor, to bypass it?

>>51791689
i guess you just ignored what maneuvers and stances really are then. its pretty hard to play a warblade without them and if you are using them, you are doing exactly what i described.
ive played every class from the ToB in multiple campaigns and there's always been numerous other users NPC and PC alike and none of them have ever been "normal" knights simply by the nature of the classes

>>51791186
I'm sorry I fucked up OP's power fantasy

>>51791637
>kung fu fighting stances
takes 2 seconds of google to find german or italian fencing manuals, rename the stances and you're now full european
>spinning circles to hit everyone around him
nobody forces you to take that ability, roleplaying is still an option and even a suboptimal warblade is better than a fighter
>doing kung fu mind clearing techniques
replace kung fu with devotion and you've crusading knights. And before you go "but it didn't work entirely like that", you're playing a fantasy game, not a reality one.
>empowering his blade to slip through armor
and here's something historical knights actually did, look for a weak point and slip a blade through it


I see absolutely no god damn problem

>>51791353
Ok, so let me elaborate: I think D&D 3.5 is a flawed system in higher levels, and the way they found to fix it was to make martial classes tougher. The problem is that it ended up like some kind of weird anime-style characters that doesn't make much sense and doesn't fit in your classic fantasy/sword and sorcery settings.

If was to play 3.5 again, I would play in lower levels, using E6 rules for instance, so I wouldn't need this crap to balance the game. Btw, the game is not even supposed to go on for so long, characters should retire around level 10. Check out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9vECzikqpY

>>51791697
>Every fighting style in the world uses stances, even knights using longswords had stances. There's nothing that says they have to be "one leg up, while you make a high pitched Kenshiro noise"
read the stance descriptions
>You mean like Great Cleave, which is apparently fine?
great cleave is dumb too dont strawman me
>Again, nothing implies this has to be some mystical eastern shit. Why can't he just be shrugging it off with GRIT and MANLINESS?
read the maneuver description
>Because knights never targeted the joints, or slats in armor, to bypass it?
read the maneuver description; that's not what youre doing.

File: 1475694197470.png (98KB, 375x307px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 375x307px

>>51791637
>spinning in circles to hit everyone around him
>doing kung fu mind clearing techniques to shrug off spells
Yeah all that stupid weaaboo fightin magic like whirlwind attacks or raging to help with a save, oh wait-

>>51791740
fun fact: if you're above lv 3 you're no longer playing a normal human regardless of what class you play

lv 6 and you're above what's theoretically possible

>>51791740

No? I'm refluffing things in ways which are suitable for the character I want to play/ You know, the thing everyone is always capable of doing. And it doesn't even take effort. Holding it up as some kind of barrier or restriction is fucking meaningless.

>>51791762
see >>51791771
and >>51791547

File: 1482895906446.png (176KB, 1586x1130px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1586x1130px

>>51791765

>The problem is that it ended up like some kind of weird anime-style characters that doesn't make much sense and doesn't fit in your classic fantasy/sword and sorcery settings.

>doesn't fit in your classic fantasy/sword and sorcery settings.

Pic related

>>51791771
hey matey here's a fun idea

You. Do. Not. Have. To. Follow. The. Book. To. The. Letter.

Its not a videogame

and if we're going to play like this then I'm going to heavily complain about how wizards are complete and utter DBZ levels of bullshit and should be more like Merlin

>>51791795
Oh, you're baiting. Sorry, my bad, I made the mistake of engaging you.

>>51791776
see >>51791771
making up what you want the stuff in the book to mean is not following the book and is nto an argument for its quality.

>>51791795
and the fighter is so mechanics bare he can't accurately represent a knight either

so I'm giving 2 inaccurate options, one of them is efficient, one is not

>>51791805
*sigh* see >>51791811

>>51791808
not baiting at all. successfully argue against me if you really think youre right

>>51791771
>great cleave is dumb too
So what exactly in your opinion SHOULD martials be allowed to do without it being anime magic?

>>51791829
i also argued that melee needs to be wholly revamped to make it work (and that ToB is not the way to do it). understand my argument before you try to refute it.

>>51791811
>>51791833

Except its not making stuff up.

It's...Slightly different fluff.

And fuck, it's not even that different. Some disciplines are explicitly supernatural but you can play a Stone Dragon/Iron Heart warblade whose maneuvers consist of nothing explicitly supernatural or even slightly out of the ordinary.

You're literally arguing that this weird mental block you seem to have somehow makes the book bad.

>>51791804
I'm ok with gods and demigods, but Conan doesn't do any of that anyme-style power moves you see in this book.

>>51791837
see my other posts...
they should do what real knights did: grapple you so you can't move, wrestle you so you're vulnerable, and then stab you to death.

>>51791844
and I'm saying that revamped option does not exist unless you're presenting your own homebrewed class that does it more accurately

so if you do not have said homebrewed class you have literally no argument against including ToB classes

>>51791616
>magical resources
Bleh, but it works just the same wither way.
An ordinary person just plain doesn't wield the type of wealth and magic a PC does.
>>51791662
So what's the difference in 'normalcy' between wearing a magical item and acquiring the ability to do what the magical item does through training?
The only difference I see is that you have to rely on putting on all your magic items at the beginning of the day, while the wizard and weeb fighters don't.
If you really want to close the differences between the classes, you should bring wizards down to earth, both figuratively and literally. Beyond casting times:
>Magic has much more nuance than 'I memorize the spell'- certain situational factors, like the state of the sun, season, and star alignment, are a factor
>Magic has an actual cost for every spell cast- basically, you have to write a scroll before you can cast the spell, each and every time you cast the spell. None of this spell focus shit. The difference between wizards and non-wizards is that wizards know how to write scrolls and are better at casting them.
>There are some things that magic just can't do, like make new things, create sentient life, or revive the dead.
>Spells are lower-power, sticking at or under about level 5. We Warlocks now.
It'll piss off blaster casters, but some people enjoy setting up a situation so that the sun is just right to fucking roast a warlord with a Sun Focus spell.

>>51791850
if you have to change the book then the book doesn't work. mechanics and fluff are equally important and if one is bad it taints the entire thing. especially in a system like d&d (and to a greater extent 3.5) where fluff is baked into the crunch

>>51791852
no but he does plenty of the more down to earth maneuvers available in the book
that's like saying its impossible to play an illusionist wizard because the book only lets you ban 2 other schools instead of every single one other than illusions

>>51791868
"this is all we have" doesnt make it good, dingus
>>51791870
the difference is that d&d is european fantasy. putting on magical items is something that actually happened in western fantasy, but weeaboo fightan magic isnt.

>>51791859
If we want to go by absolute realism and not look at mythology at all then they should be useless against dragons and most other monsters and have a maximum strength cap.

>>51791623
Ahhhh the good old days, where a single arrow hitting a wizard would spoil his spell, and possibly kill him.

>>51791903
>they should be useless against dragons
wut? dragons weren't that strong in real mythology bud.
if i was arguing for "absolute" realism there wouldnt be any monsters or dragons at all.

>>51791878

So you're ignoring the evidence of the various non-supernatural disciplines available?

>>51791902
oh boy, you just pulled the european mythology one?

FANTASTIC

Ban every single magical class because literally none of them accurately represent magic in european mythology
Literally every single one.
After all you said it yourself
>"this is all we have" doesnt make it good, dingus

>>51791902
>weeaboo fightan magic isnt

>Then took place the first twisting-fit and rage of the royal hero Cuchulain, so that he made a terrible, many-shaped, wonderful, unheard of thing of himself. His flesh trembled about him like a pole against the torrent or like a bulrush against the stream, every member and every joint and every point and every knuckle of him from crown to ground. He made a mad whirling-feat of his body within his hide. His feet and his shins and his knees slid so that they came behind him. His heels and his calves and his hams shifted so that they passed to the front. The muscles of his calves moved so that they came to the front of his shins, so that each huge knot was the size of a soldier's balled fist. He stretched the sinews of his head so that they stood out on the nape of his neck, hill-like lumps, huge, incalculable, vast, immeasurable and as large as the head of a month-old child.
This description goes on for three more paragraphs.

>>51791916
tfw my entire group are 3aboos :(
>>51791925
again, read the book. you can't just make up your own descriptions for the options presented in it

>>51791947

I am reading the book right fucking now. I am seeing entire disciplines full of manoeuvres with perfectly mundane fluff. What the fuck book are you reading?

>>51791932
thats because d&d is based on LotR, etc which were in turn based on european mythology. what's your point again?
>>51791942
youre describing a JOOCY dude flexing while fighting. how is that weeaboo fightan magic?

>>51791898
Mate, Conan would paly like a level 6 barbarian or something. He doesn't have supernatural fighting ability, he often runs away when he's outnumbered and one time he was almost killed by a fucking gorilla.

>>51791992
Play*

>>51791983
D&D doesnt accurately represent Lotr magic either

The system is beyond flawed with all kinds of weeaboo spells like creating a house out of nowhere and coating everything with a silly layer of grease and as a result you should not play magic classes

>>51791920
Work on your reading comprehension; I said if we DON'T look mythology since you want to ignore martials doing anything beyond what real knights could do.
If you want dragons and other monsters to be exactly as described as in mythology than casters should probably be too.
>if i was arguing for "absolute" realism there wouldnt be any monsters or dragons at all.
So you don't want absolute realism but martials should only be able to do what real knights could do?


I mean you're free to have whatever sort roleplay fantasy game you want but it seems like you're insisting that things are flawed for not catering to your very specific tastes alone.

I could have sworn that at least one of the 3.X player handbooks told you it was okay to call and fluff your dumb class abilities/skills/feats whatever the fuck your heart desires.

Fuck, I'm trying to copy some descriptions from the book to prove the blithering idiot wrong, but the OCR on the italic text in my copy is fucked up. Anyone got a download link to a better version?

File: Warp Spasm.png (283KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 300x450px

>>51791983
>He next made a ruddy bowl of his face and his countenance. He gulped down one eye into his head so that it would be hard work if a wild crane succeeded in drawing it out on to the middle of his cheek from the rear of his skull. Its mate sprang forth till it came out on his cheek. His mouth was distorted monstrously. He drew the cheek from the jaw-bone so that the interior of his throat was to be seen. His lungs and his lights stood out so that they fluttered in his mouth and his gullet. He struck a mad lion's blow with the upper jaw on its fellow so that as large as a wether's fleece of a three year old was each red, fiery flake which his teeth forced into his mouth from his gullet.
>There was heard the loud clap of his heart against his breast like the yelp of a howling bloodhound or like a lion going among bears. There were seen the torches of the Badb, and the rain clouds of poison, and the sparks of glowing-red fire, blazing and flashing in hazes and mists over his head with the seething of the truly wild wrath that rose up above him. His hair bristled all over his head like branches of a redthorn thrust into a gap in a great hedge. Had a king's apple-tree laden with royal fruit been shaken around him, scarce an apple of them all would have passed over him to the ground, but rather would an apple have stayed stuck on each single hair there, for the twisting of the anger which met it as it rose from his hair above him.
>The Lon Laith ('Champion's Light') stood out of his forehead, so that it was as long and as thick as a warrior's whetstone. As high, as thick, as strong, as steady, as long as the sail-tree of some huge prime ship was the straight spout of dark blood which arose right on high from the very ridge-pole of his crown, so that a black fog of witchery was made thereof like to the smoke from a king's hostel what time the king comes to be ministered to at nightfall of a winter's day.
Insert Super Saiyan joke here.

ITT
>M-muh feels
>NO MY FEELS
>Your rights end where my feelings begin!

>>51792082
I really don't see how you're getting that from this thread? It's just a bog-standard internet shit-flinging argument. No "Muh feels" involved.

File: laughing bakas.gif (124KB, 590x333px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 590x333px

>>51791771
>he interprets everthing in the book exactly as written and with no personal creative influence
You must be a fucking barrel of monkeys on game night.

>>51791983
>thats because d&d is based on LotR
So ban all the spell casting classes because mortals in LotR can't use magic on anywhere near that scale?

>>51792169
Well, it's not like we argue with logic. Most of these threads are us arguing our emotional viewpoint, or trolls attacking them. Half these threads are "if you get mad and reply to me, I get to call you and autist, which means I win, then we go for round two, four, seventeen, and twenty!"

>>51791762
>look for a weak point and slip a blade through it
You mean like... Emerald Razor? Jesus you're fucking stupid.

>>51791186
What's up with the /v/ tier no-effort thread we have been seeing recently?
"Apologize", "Blocks your path", etc.

>>51791852
Roland, King Arthur, Arash, Lancelot, Bedievere, Kay, Diarmuid, Diomedes, Beowulf, Ali Talib, Odisseus and Sigurd are all normal humans in their stories.
That's like, half the people on that image.
Some pretty impressive people btw.

>>51791878
>you have to change the book then the book doesn't work.

Wrong.

The book is a tool, now a law.

>>51792603
Funnily enough, Gygax never wanted magic user to be a player class. It ended up on d&d due to one of this friends

>>51792838
No, that's pretty true if you have to unfuck the mechanics, but it takes little to no effort to reflavor something.

>>51792924

Yeah. The principle is generally correct, it's just being applied in the most stupid way possible.

And as said above, it's not even true. There are disciplines in the book with entirely mundane fluff that you can use with the exact same sort of description you'd give a core book fighter without it even being a refluffing.

>>51792044
It was in the 3.5 dungeon master guide. It explicitly said that as long as the mechanical effects were the same and you didn't go overboard you could fluff your abilities as you wanted. The example for going overboard was a fireball spell being described as a summon of a dragon that then proceeded to breath fire on the enemy.

>>51792816
welllllllll, arthur was said to have fay blood, odisseus was favoured by the gods

>>51791186

>read the maneuver description

By drawing on your mental strength and physical fortitude, you break free of a debilitating state that might otherwise defeat you.

Your fighting spirit, dedication, and training allow you to overcome almost anything to defeat your enemies.

It's literally what has been said. Have YOU read the maneuver description?

Or are you arguing that mental strength, physical fortitude, fighting spirit, training and dedications are all exclusive to Kung fu?

>>51793288
For >>51791771

>>51793288
We already know hes an autistic idiot, do you really need him to admit it?

>>51793288
To him, anything that isn't on the corebook and doesn't boil down to "full iterative attack" is magic weeaboo kong fu bullshit

>>51791771

>read the maneuver description; that's not what youre doing.

Emerald Razor

You stare at your enemy, studying his every move. You mentally probe his defenses in search of a weakness. A lesser warrior could spent long minutes pondering this problem, but you see an opening and seize upon it in an instant.

Your understanding of combat, your keenly honed mind, and your capability to read your opponents make you a deadly combatant. When you focus your mind, even the most elusive opponent becomes an easy target.

It's literally what are you doing.

>>51791554

desu you just need to give martials more options(for example, more meaningful and not completely crippling to your accuracy called shots, the stances thing in BoNS to allow greater tactical options) while putting more restrictions on casters. The issue with D&D 3.5 is that casters have too many options and fighters have too few, but giving them the same style of options like 4e did(daily, per session, per encounter powers for everyone) doesn't solve the problem. It just hides it.

Honestly, I prefer 4e to 5e, but D&D has been fucking up wizards and clerics progressively worse for years, and 4e wasn't really a step in the right direction, it just kind of stalled out. But their reaction to 4e not being terribly popular with their core fanbase? JUST DO THAT LAST THING THAT WAS POPULAR, BUT WORSE! One failed innovation lead them to bringing back all of 3.5's worst flaws, while inventing entirely new ones(advantage system, for example). Nevermind that the first book they released resurrected some flaws we hadn't seen since 2e(Oh you want a shield? Well here's the list- Shield. That's it.) and weird shit like not having fire damage in the first book. Honestly that's one of the worst sins. Once upon a time you could functionally run a game from just one book. Nowadays, half the key features are hidden in other fucking books.

>>51791804

I always hate this list collection. Give me fucking citations on this shit, I've read King Arthur mythology and never heard of half these "arthurian" fucking feats of strength. That and uh...

>western
>son wukong
>guan yu
>karna
>rama
>ali talib
>houyi
>abaangui
>arjuna
>parashurama

Nevermind that the Green Knight isn't laughing off his own beheading because he's so tough, he's laughing it off because he has a magical item given to him by... I think the lady in the lake? Some fae spirit, I believe, anyways, that makes him immune to all harm. Makes me question the rest of these "Feats of strength" when one of the examples is literally just a guy with a really sweet magic item. Oh, and Samson was strong because of the blessing of god(and, it's implied, the same is true of most of the Knights of the Round Table, ESPECIALLY including Galahad and Gawain).

Nevermind that atleast 50%- ATLEAST- are gods or avatars of gods, and there's some pretty heavy repetition on the list(I think there's three heracles? Not sure).

Fuck this list, it's a shitty fucking meme.

>>51793591
>Nevermind that atleast 50%- ATLEAST- are gods or avatars of gods,
And this wasn't true for mythological Wizards?

>>51793617

Yes. It was not uncommon for gods to be wizards. However, there are also plenty of wizards who were not gods(merlin, for example). And if you presented me with an argument about how mortal wizards should behave based on a list of godly wizards, I would dismiss them, too. This is an excellent list for playing exalted, not so much for a mid-fantasy dungeon crawler.

>>51793591
Where does it say "western" on the list? Even some of the ones that aren't western aren't exactly eastern either.

Even dropping the heracles and thor listings, you've got some pretty strong non-divine people. Even the ones that are "a guy with a really sweet magic item" are still reasonably good warriors in their own right, considering that they earned their really sweet magic item. About what you'd expect at the high levels.

>>51793672
>However, there are also plenty of wizards who were not gods(merlin, for example)
You're an idiot.

>>51793763

Merlin's not a god. What's your problem with this? I mean he's kind of unclear what he is, but that's what happens when druidic traditions are forcibly converted to christian.

The only people who hate this book are cuckolds who believe their mundane fighters ought to liberally offer their boi pussies to alpha male casters.

>>51793736

Well, the second post, for example, and it's inherently a response to criticism of the BoNS, which pretty universally comes from people who want western inspired fighters, not eastern/muslim/hindu(which is... does that qualify as eastern? I don't know), so including eastern fighters on the list is pretty fucking disingenuous.

>>51793858

And you make it sound like Western style warriors can't do cool shit. They don't have to run on cloud like Wuxia fighters but they can do more than " I swing sword" at least

File: Frank%20Frazetta%20(Lightning%20Sword%20HD)[1].jpg (357KB, 920x1243px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 920x1243px

>>51791511
>>51791547
>>51791554
>>51793392

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times; CALLED SHOTS ARE CANON WITHIN THE DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE

Every single fucking edition includes rules for wounds and roleplay based combat.

The only reason anyone says martials aren't viable is because they give casters leniency and martials no leniency.

"Oh, you want to use powerful winds to sweep enemies off their feet and over the edge of a cliff? Sure!"

"WHAT? YOU WANT TO CUT MY CASTERS ARM OFF? FUCK YOU, THAT'S BULLSHIT!"

Casters and the DM's that advocate for them are a bunch of babies that aren't willing to apply the same level of lateral thinking to martials even though they apply it to casters.

That's literally the only thing that is holding them back.

P.S. Vancian magic is literally garbage.

>>51793925
No they aren't and no they don't you fucking retard.

>>51793829
Not him, but d&d style magic doesn't really belong in mythology.
The average myth magician can see the future, make prophecies, brew potions, etc.
Actually doing big stuff is the exception not the rule, and most of the big magicians weren't humans (or not entirely humans).
Pointing at Merlin as an example for D&D mages is specially bad because most of what he did was rather lowkey.
Talked the Lady of the Lake into giving Arthur a sword, enchanted a rock so only the worthy could pick the sword, saw things to come, shapeshifted Uther into someone else, found a chair that would kill anyone unworthy of sitting on it, etc.
Hell, most gods in any mythology you care to name are rather underhelming compared to high end d&d wizards

>>51793829
>unclear
Merlin is a half demon

>>51793829
>>51793971
He was the Antichrist who got baptized and decided he didn't want to be the Antichrist anymore. As a kid. And he could walk and talk and see the future within basically no time because he got blessed by God for disowning his demonic heritage.

File: Dungeon Masters Guide 3.5 - Page 28.jpg (303KB, 799x1094px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 799x1094px

>>51793967
>waah, I'm a fucking inbred dick-shit retard that doesn't know how to read! WAAAAAAH

Read a fucking book once in your miserable life, fat retard loser.

>>51794060
Oh wow it's a -2 penalty that's totally the same thing as what you were talking about.

Oh wait no, you're still retarded.

>>51794096
Uh, dude, it literally says that those rules can be used as guides. IE, it's advice for how a DM could handle damage to specific areas. There's also mention in the Monster Manual of limbs being severed, specifically with Trolls.

So yea, you may want to take care in who you call a "retard".

>>51794060
>>51794096
I've always found it odd how there were rules for cutting your way out of the throats of giant monsters and beheading or dismembering certain enemies, but whenever you want to apply that elsewhere in the game, the DM always (or usually) stonewalls you.

Like, the implication, and even the rules as that anon posted, are printed pretty clearly that you can make on-the-fly tactical decisions for martial combat. Why wouldn't you be ever not be able to?

>>51793887

yes, I agree. But the solution isn't "I hit things and instantly heal" or "I swing at things with my sword and deal sonic damage from the wake"

>>51794259
Because it's a really, really fucking bad idea to apply those rules universally? Martials aren't the ones who can game their STR to massive levels without literally centering their entire build around it, nor are they the characters with the highest attack bonuses. It'd also make blowing off limbs the optimal strategy because of the loss of actions involved.

>>51793355
>implying the core rulebook isn't filled with unrealistic weeaboo anime magic >>51791772

>>51793925

I'm the fourth guy, the reason I mentioned that is because the called shot rules are weak as fuck. The benefits they give are nowhere near as powerful as the limitations on them should imply. It says something awful that after years of trying Shadowrun has finally let me play a legitimately fun swordsman character, and it's entirely because of the way the game functions and the way it treats damage and called shots being so much better than D&D.

A game primarily built around guns and ranged combat is better at modelling sword combat meaningfully than D&D.

>>51794022
>>51794045
>muh facts!
Whatever nerds, obviously all casters should have access to any powers attributed to demi-gods but martials can't do anything an olympian athlete can't.

>>51791547
But...I mean the books in general point out that PC tier people are rare as fuck. Like there are still going to be armies filled with level 2-3 warriors.

>>51791637
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-YbSsDtl-U&feature=related

Weeaboo as fuck.

>>51794269
Because those are obviously the only options, right?

Read the thread, no one has been arguing for that.

>>51794306
>Because it's a really, really fucking bad idea to apply those rules universally?

But it's not? And even if you think so, you can just not apply it universally, unless the DM thinks it enhances the drama is certain circumstances.

Negative hit points aren't universally applied, so why do specific injuries need to be?

>>51794404
What anime is this?

>>51794306
>It'd also make blowing off limbs the optimal strategy because of the loss of actions involved.

Not if you impose a penalties for called shots, such as what they were in 2nd edition, where the attack suffered an initiative penalty and an attack penalty.

For 3.5, I'd probably suggest something more like a dexterity penalty to your AC temporarily, and an attack penalty.

>>51794429
>But it's not?
BRB making a gish with perma-Wraithstrike and running around as a polymorphed *insert thing with sky high STR here*. I hope everyone likes limbs flying off every round thanks to being able to hit with max Power Attack.

>>51794462
It's not an anime. It's Fire and Ice.

>Apologize

No. I genuinely loved you and your sister, Expanded Psionics Handbook. The only thing I'm sorry for is that I made friends with shit taste who wouldn't allow either in their games.

>>51794379

>level 2-3 warriors
>while arguing that PC tier people are rare as fuck

if you're doing this, don't give standard soldiers class levels, even from NPC classes. Unless you only ever start your games at level 5, in which case, I think i see why your games always end up way overbalanced in favour of wizards.

DESU I never get why /tg/ talks up wizards so much. Clerics and Druids are just objectively stronger, and don't suffer as much in the early game, even in 2e.

File: 1377455835437.jpg (42KB, 495x636px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 495x636px

>>51791186
>no subsystem in 5e is remotely as interesting of ToB

>>51794422

Except all the people arguing in favour of the ol' weaboo book of fittan magic. I wasn't saying those were the only two options, I was refuting that the weaboo book of fittan magic was the solution. Notice how I never said anything about base 3.5 being good or even better? Because they're both bad, and we need a different system. Fuck, I've put forward MY views on how to fix martials a few times.

>>51794479
>perma-Wraithstrike
>running around as a polymorphed *insert thing with sky high STR here*.

Aside from how long it would take you session-wise to achieve that, still sounds cool as fuck.

Again, why are DM's so hesitant to add fun?

>>51794375
I wish a fighter could do the things an olympian athlete could

>>51794466
>Not if you impose a penalties for called shots
That penalty cannot keep up with attack bonuses, full stop, and it gets so much worse when you consider CoDzillas and gishes. Even shitty ass Fighters are hitting with their first attack 95% of the time by the end of the game, what the fuck do you think is going to happen when you have someone with massive boosts to their attack bonuses and STR on top of that?

>>51794502
>even in 2e

Dude, have you ever played 2e?

Pure casters are FUCKED.

>>51794531
Because it's not actually fun. It tilts the game towards SoLs even more and makes playing a martial suck way harder because now enemies are removing your limbs in addition to punching through your AC like it's nothing.

>>51794534

somehow pathfinder made it WORSE. I'd have to focus on it hardcore(skill focus as a feat ATLEAST) and be level 4-5 to pull off olympic level high jumps.

>>51794538
>Even shitty ass Fighters are hitting with their first attack 95% of the time by the end of the game, what the fuck do you think is going to happen when you have someone with massive boosts to their attack bonuses and STR on top of that?

You could make it reflex based then, where your attack opposes the enemies reflex save. Works well enough against spells.

>>51794524
How hard would it be to convert ToB rules to 5e?

>>51794589
That's also a fucking terrible idea because reflex saves scale terribly.

>>51794584
Not really.

It would make more sense to wear armor then, since it could protect you from being torn to pieces.

Again, this is all assuming that it's applied universally, and not asymmetrically.

>>51794480
Sorry, I don't speak weeaboo moon runes.

>>51794563

>and don't suffer as much in the early game, even in 2e.

context my man. Wizards in 2e have one spell a day, at first level. Unless your DM is a retard and your party is metagaming to shit, enjoy fucking about with a hand crossbow you're barely proficient with, jackass!

At least my level 3 cleric of Athena is decent with a sword when my four spells a day run out.

>>51794589
only if you give fighters a bonus to overcome the enemy's reflex save every few levels to ensure they get to be the best at it

and maybe an inherent penalty to it when you're not in your natural form

>>51794609
Very, both games work off of completely different assumptions.

>>51794529
>I was refuting that the weaboo book of fittan magic was the solution
Which, again, is not what anyone in the thread has been arguing.
Work on your reading skills so you don't waste your time arguing with strawmen and tilting at windmills.

>>51794619
>reflex saves scale terribly

Okay, then just make it AC based as usual, but take into account what body parts are covered by armor and which aren't.

Ontop of this, called shots provoke an AoO

>>51794621
>It would make more sense to wear armor then
Nope, sorry, that'd be miss chance because attack bonuses scale much faster than AC.

>>51794524
>no system in 5e is remotely interesting

>>51794671
It's too bad that there are spells and weapons that let you completely ignore armor.

>>51794681
>nope, sorry

Wrong! If you base it on armor coverage, then yes, it DOES make more sense to wear armor, since it would be harder to deal specific injuries to parts of the body that are armored.

How does this not make sense?

>>51794502
I have no idea what you're trying to say.

>>51794667

>>51791224
>>51791229
>>51791535
>>51791605
>>51791697

and so on.

Maybe you should read the thread before accusing others of not having read the thread.

>>51794700
>it's too bad

No its not? Those would still be there whether or not you allowed specific injuries. Specific injuries though would allow the potential for someone to permanently remove a spellcasters ability to cast spells, which is why DM's and casters are so fucking hesitant to include them.

THEN AGAIN, you could just heal a lot of this shit with a regular "heal" spell and get along with things, no biggie.

>>51794743

... how? Which part? What don't you understand? There's two sections to that post, and three distinct comments. Which one are you having trouble with?

It's really ironic to see someone utterly fail to explain what they mean while saying they don't understand what someone else is saying.

>ITT: The real reason why minimalist systems are popular.
Less rules mean less rules to argue over

The real reason non-magical characters are often less powerful than magical ones is because game designers easily get the "realism" bug when it comes to stuff they've heard about (melee combat, bows and arrows, etc), which is absent when they're designing a magical system, for reasons that should be obvious. Non-magical abilities are anchored to reality and must depart from there, magical abilities can start from anywhere. Just a consequence of human psychology.

>>51794763
What do you not understand about there being more to the concept than "hurr I attack spellcaster"? A Fighter or Rogue or Monk is in more danger of getting limbs chopped off because they're constantly in the fray.

>>51794778
You said that you didnt like tob because it does away with classic crusader

I objected because characters in universe don't constantly take PC stuff, so there would still be plenty

You then brought up wizards, which i never mentioned anywhere, and said not to give soldiers class levels

>>51794818

... kinda. I like systems that mange to have universal mechanics(IE shadowrun's die pools) while applying them in vastly different ways for different roles. Manages to make each "class" play massively differently without having hugely different mechanics for each.

>>51794479
Good luck getting high enough level to make that build! Which I still don't see a problem with, considering what casters can do

>>51794538
>Even shitty ass Fighters

Good to know we're dealing with someone who isn't partisan in this convo.

>>51794584
Except it is. I've run several campaigns with this in it and every player enjoys the fuck out of it. Project some more.

>>51794700
It's too bad that a single shot from an arrow could hit your caster in the throat and disable his ability to cast any spells with verbal components until he's healed.

>>51794746
Really, such outrageous statements as "it deserves to be banned less", "it's actually fun to play" and explaining that there are plenty of abilities that can be themed as mundane rather than weeaboo fightn magic is the same as aggressively arguing that anime magic abilities is the one and only true solution for martial combat?

Maybe you should work on your ability to actually read and interpret the posts you claim to have read so you'll make less of a fool or yourself.

Like seriously, I can't tell if you're baiting or just retarded, poe's law I guess.

>>51794853

That was my first comment in the chain, friend, and the second half about wizards was a general reply to the thread, which is largely about how wizards are TEH BEST.

And what I'm saying is that level two-three warriors are still going to be atleast a little stronger than a level one fighter in most games(depends on build but... yeah, speaking generally, it doesn't help to assume your fighter is good at optimisation), so that means that those soldiers are "PC tier", they just don't advance beyond low-level PC tier characters.

>>51794890

These are people defending the book, and atleast one was clearly saying that it flat improved martials. If none of that ca be interpreted as them thinking it's atleast A solution, I'm really curious what you'd have to see to reach the conclusion that someone is supporting the book as a solution.

Also, I do kind of agree with the one guy. Strip out certain manoeuvres and stances and refluff the ones you keep and you could probably make a solid martial using the Crusader as a base. I've considered it a few times, even. But that's not really a defence of the book, in my eyes, because by that logic 3.5 is flawless because I can fix any problem you can point out.

>>51794818
minimalist systems are popular because of the agony of assembling 5 players on a regular basis.

Podcasts have convinced people that RPG's are about LARPing and letting the DM handle all the shit that isn't LARPing.

>>51794930
....Okay? I still don't see how thats relevant to me saying classic knights are still going to be around even with tome of battle.
Also 'Sometimes as strong as a level 1 fighter' isn't really what PC tier means.

>>51794849
>What do you not understand about there being more to the concept than "hurr I attack spellcaster"?

Ummm, nothing, which is exactly my point you braindead idiot, that there IS a lot more to combat than that.

>A Fighter or Rogue or Monk is in more danger of getting limbs chopped off because they're constantly in the fray.

AGAIN, as its been repeated numerous times, only if it's universal and not asymmetrical.

Fighters, Rogues, and Monks are not in danger, because A) The fighter is wearing heavy armor, B) the rogue RARELY is ever supposed to wade into combat anyway, B) Monks have plenty of AC bonus from their abilities, and eventually gets native spell resistance which makes spellcasters as effective as martials.

>>51794972
the book has merits so why are you surprised people are defending it?

yeh sure 3.5 has a ton of flaws and throwing everything out is probably the best solution and what not but given the fact that there are a good number of situations where doing so is not a practical solution (aka the only decent games around are in 3.5, pretty common) there's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out why ToB can enhance your experience.

The guy who said it "flat out improved" martials followed it up by talking about fun. And its extremely hard to argue that ToB classes don't have a shitload more options, tactical choices and non combat interactions than your standard martial class which for a lot of people makes playing the character more fun.

>>51794609
The closest way to do it would be to just compress all the maneuvers in ToB and make it a Monk archetype, letting them spend Ki points to execute the maneuvers.

I know an anon tried to homebrew it (he talked about it in a /5eg/ thread once), but I don't know if he succeeded at doing so.

>>51794972

The Tome of Battle did flat improve martials. Any corebook martial character can be done better via the ToB.

>>51795045

>noone is defending the book
>here's people defending the book
>just because they like it doesn't mean they're defending it
>well this one is clearly defending the book
>well of course people are defending it if they like it

I'm so confused by this exchange.

>>51795053

being stronger doesn't mean better bub.

>>51795071
>noone is saying ToB is the perfect solution
>here's people defending the book
>yeh but they're not saying the book is perfect, just that its enjoyable
>WHY ARE YOU NOT LETTING ME MOVE THE GOALPOSTS

>>51795045
People hate on 3.5 because it's an easy target, and was the one that AD&D players hated for getting rid of their beloved THAC0.

The amount of content released for it alone makes up for most of its flaws.

>>51794972
>These are people defending the book
Which is not the same as arguing that it's the one true solution that you must quest to refute, you autist.
>atleast one was clearly saying that it flat improved martials
wewy, at least one person
I disagree with them but besides the point, do you really want to reduces this argument just to wheather any one person thinks it's better?
The point is that the thread has not been just or even largely talking about how weeaboo magic is the only way to fix martials and you pigeonholing ANY positive or non-negative talk about the book as such is outright moronic.

This reply chain started when I responded to you at >>51794269
Where you're "refuting" the idea that the solution to martial combat is
>"I hit things and instantly heal" or "I swing at things with my sword and deal sonic damage from the wake"
The issue being that no one is arguing for that and discussion is more about how arbitrarily some bo9s abilities are separated from core class abilities. Iron heart surge is stupid weeabboo kung-fu magic but a barbarian rage to help saves is fine. It's only weeaboo magic because you insist it must be and it's only all or nothing because you want to argue against a simple strawman rather than all the actual points people have been making.

>>51795071
Where did anyone claim that no one is defending the book?

Seriously are you baiting or delusional?

>>51795071

>>51795045 said it best

> And its extremely hard to argue that ToB classes don't have a shitload more options, tactical choices and non combat interactions than your standard martial class which for a lot of people makes playing the character more fun.

3.PF is a bad game, but the ToB/PoW is one of the best things to include to make it less shit.

>>51795132
>it's a melee ability
>dat means its weaboo magic

Right, so swords = weaboo even though they were used in Europe before Japan ever created their first swords.

Right.

People can fuck off.

>>51795053
not to mention it gives martials more out of combat utility because many of the maneuvers let them do unique stuff

last time I played a warblade I got a LOT of mileage out of the mountain hammer line

>>51795071
>being stronger doesn't mean better bub.

Actually, by definition, that's exactly what that means.

>>51795190

There are aspects that are improvements, and aspects that are steps back. Like I've said a few times- if I had the inclination to ever play 3.5 again, the first thing I'd do is gut tome of battle and try to make it good. But they abandoned good with bad when they moved forward into 4e.

>>51795200
I don't think you properly read and/or understood my post.

>>51795222

Ah, okay, so then I disagree. Tome of Battle is useless.

Because no matter what you want to do, pun-pun can do it better.

>>51795223

Can you actually point out the steps back? Because I don't see any.

>>51795225
I was referring to the people who use that term, not specifically anything about your argument.

I agree with your post though, especially how Monk abilities aren't considered "HUURRRRR WEEB MAGIC", but ToB's abilities somehow are.

>>51795243

mostly the fluff and design ethos. The actual ideas(manoeuvres and stances) are good, but if you look at individual stances and manoeuvres you quickly realize that instead of improving what non-magic martials can do, they just gave those martials magic by a different name.

The mechanics are all fine, in theory. It's the execution of them I have a problem with.

>>51795294
Well the monk was always a handout to people who wanted more weeaboo style abilities, same as the ninja although both are underpowered.

Anyway, like I said even just things like barbarian rage or whirlwind attack or spring attack falls under "weeaboo magic" with the way haters in this thread seem to be defining it.

>>51795319
fluff is easy to change, and I mean incredibly easy
all you need to do is rename everything to various techniques described in european fencing manuals and heck even the 9 swords thing can be easily changed to various fencing schools

and the design ethos has issues sure but compared to vanilla fighters I'd hardly call it a step back

>>51791186
I've never had a problem with Book of 9 Swords, but then I've always felt the best way to do D&D fantasy is to have all PC's be supernatural in some form or another right from Level 1, as it'd be more entertaining than what most people are suggesting(a lot of people seem to want D&D to be so low fantasy you might as well just run a Historical campaign using BRP)

>>51792882
honestly as much as Gygax did a great thing when creating D&D, most of his personal ideas regarding it were hot garbage

>>51794502
>if you're doing this, don't give standard soldiers class levels, even from NPC classes. Unless you only ever start your games at level 5, in which case, I think i see why your games always end up way overbalanced in favour of wizards.
agreed, personally I feel even a Level 1 Fighter should be the equivalent of at least 5 unclassed men in combat

>>51795319
unfortunately there's a limit to what you can do to improve a Martial class's abilities without encroaching upon traditionally magical abilities, at least if you want Martials to be even with Magical classes(especially if you're trying to minimize nerfing the magic classes)

>>51795319
>they just gave those martials magic by a different name.

now you're just trolling

>>51791637
That's some fine bait, surprised 5 people fell for it.
In case you were wondering anon was describing things fighters already do, more or less.

>>51795345

Yes, I agree with this sentiment, atleast for the way Barbarian Rage is handled. I wish it was more of a risk-reward thing, instead of a flat buff that you can only use so often per day.

>>51795379

the fluff influences the manoeuvres though, hence why there's a ton of manoeuvres that do things like heal you when you deal damage or let you use your sword to pull off ranged attacks. You'd have to gut those entirely.

>>51795427
>>51795421

this is why 4chan is unusable for discussion. Fuck you.

>>51795240
So, by your own logic, 3.5 isn't worth playing at all then because you can do pun-pun and win forever.

>>51795464

No, because I don't believe being able to be stronger is being better. That's the stance I'm arguing AGAINST. Sure, having more options for how to build is good, but just because something is stronger doesn't mean it improves that- in fact, considering nothing else is really on par with the power of TOB, it reduces options for "optimised" builds, because there's really only the one book to look at.

>>51795404
>unfortunately there's a limit to what you can do to improve a Martial class's abilities without encroaching upon traditionally magical abilities

The problem here is that in D&D, "traditionally magical abilities" includes FUCKIN EVERYTHING.

Pretty much anything cool ever done by anybody in any story every got made into a spell at some point, and even the PHB wizard is like Merlin and Sauruman and Circe and Moses and Aang and Turjan and Baron Samedi and a guy with a flamethrower--all at the same time.

About the only things a 3.5 wizard CANNOT do are wear armor and heal, and whoops! one of those is divine magic instead.

>>51795433
>there's a ton of manoeuvres that do things like heal you when you deal damage or let you use your sword to pull off ranged attacks. You'd have to gut those entirely.
I'd argue against that, I mean again referring to barbarian rage it can give temporary hp similar to "healing".
A simple mechanical or even just thematic tweak could be enough to make things work especially considering how hp is already an abstract that incorporates all manner of things.

>>51795433
I mostly just allow Epic Feats to be usable, and lower or remove some of the pre-requisites.

>>51795494
>in fact, considering nothing else is really on par with the power of TOB, it reduces options for "optimised" builds, because there's really only the one book to look at.
But that's not a fact, that's bullshit.
Casters destroy anything in 3.pf.
If bo9s being too much stronger and not on par with other classes reduces options for optimised builds then that should be even more true of casters.

>>51795529
There's plenty of interesting epic stuff but you'd have to reject it using the criteria that many in this thread are pushing because it's too magical because anything beyond what an actual real knight could supposedly do is magic.

>>51795494
What is your definition of "better" then? You need to explain your warped logic to people who don't live in your fucking insane fantasy land.

>>51795506
>The problem here is that in D&D, "traditionally magical abilities" includes FUCKIN EVERYTHING.
That, and they made spells what should be marital abilities
Why is "Knock" a spell? Automatically opening a locked/shut door should be a martial thing, not yet another tool in the casters toolbox.
Why is it that fighters have to take feat taxes just to grapple, trip, and disarm at an acceptable level but a caster gets web, grease, and heat metal?
Why is it rogues have to specialize in disguises, which utterly fail against both mundane and magical forces, but wizards can simply cast alter self?
Who needs a bard or paladin to smooth talk anyone when you can just charm person?

The central problem is casters can do anything and are backed by rules fiat, while everyone else has to play mother-may-I with the DM just to do a similar and more vulnerable to disruption effect. To make matters worse because this dichotomy exists DMs nerf non-casters abilities to do mundane alternative to spells because "the caster had to pay for it their limited spell slots"

>>51795506
>About the only things a 3.5 wizard CANNOT do are wear armor and heal

You left out "fighting house cats"

>>51795605
I solve this problem by removing the "spells per day" and make every single spell require a skill check via spellcraft.

Problem solved.

>>51795694
>game Spellcraft check with the thousands of ways to do this
>Suddenly infinite spells
Why did you think this was a good idea?

>>51795494
You have no idea what you're talking about.

File: ohDKCIO.jpg (45KB, 750x591px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 750x591px

>>51795506
>About the only things a 3.5 wizard CANNOT do are wear armor and heal

>>51795710
>game AC with the thousands of ways to do this
>game Ability saves with the thousands of ways to do this
>game grappling with the thousands of ways to do this

Wow, great argument there. Why did you think you were being clever?

P.S. If they roll a 1, it fails regardless of how you "game" it.

>>51795494
Everything in ToB except for the two gish PrCs is T3 or high T4, you colossal retard.

>>51795404
>honestly as much as Gygax did a great thing when creating D&D, most of his personal ideas regarding it were hot garbage
Care to elaborate?
I don't really know much about d&d history and who came up with what
and that sounds more interesting than another weeaboo fightan magik shitfeast

>>51795778
>P.S. If they roll a 1, it fails regardless of how you "game" it.
Retard detected
>To make a skill check, roll 1d20 and add your character’s skill modifier for that skill. The skill modifier incorporates the character’s ranks in that skill and the ability modifier for that skill’s key ability, plus any other miscellaneous modifiers that may apply, including racial bonuses and armor check penalties. The higher the result, the better. *Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure. *

>>51795818
Don't listen to that anon, he probably just disagrees with Gygax.
Gygaxs reasoning is internally consistent, it's just the premise Gygax uses is what triggers people
i.e. a Lawful Good person does not inherently have a problem with slavery and a Lawful Good person WILL kill orc babies.

>>51795778
Skill checks don't auto-fail on a 1 stupid. That's a dumb house rule that spread for some reason.

>>51791186
Ways to make the Weeaboo Fightan Magic good:
make its styles impact in more than simply high dmg or maneuver attacks and stances.
Strikes that reshape the earth around you, immobility stances that let your astral form wander or make you step across time by simply becoming immobile for years, blasts that cut every piece of equipment in exactly seven parts, and so on.
not just variations on 'damage constitution', 'feint very well' and 'jump and do additional damage'.

>>51795778
>game AC with the thousands of ways to do this
And proceed to not get targeted ever as unless you're a spellcaster, you just blew all of your resources on that and killed your offense.
>game Ability saves with the thousands of ways to do this
With two specific classes or a handful of PrCs by making a secondary stat boost them, all of which are MAD.
>game grappling with the thousands of ways to do this
And run into the brick walls of Freedom of Movement and enemies that are straight up immune to it.

How in the fuck are any of these equivalent to infinite spells if you know how to optimize skills?

>>51795829
> *Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure. *

Retard detected, since the spellcraft check is used as a means of attack (in the simplest of terms) it counts as an attack roll, thusly, a 20 is an automatic success and a 1 is an automatic failure.

Try harder, dumbass.

>>51796216
It's a skill check, it flat out does not work that way and no implementation of skill checks as attacks works that way. Fuck off, dumbass.

>>51796122
>you just blew all of your resources on that and killed your offense

You've never played a martial, have you?

>>51796273
>trying to argue with the rule book over a house-rule I use
>butt-blasted because he's a dumb retard who's trying to apply core rules with my own house-rules

Not how I DM it, get over yourself, and I never will DM it the way you want ;)

Let the salt flow

>>51796275
Yes I have, that's why I know that's exactly what happens if you get your AC to levels where monsters have trouble hitting you.

>>51796296
Because a 95% chance of having infinite spells is so much more balanced than a 100% chance of having infinite spells. How fucking stupid are you?

>>51796296
If you're going to talk about house rules you might as well talk about a dream you had once because no one knows what the fuck you're talking about.

>>51793591
Some of those are stretches or misinterpretations or mish-mashed events.
For example, "Arthur killing a thousand men with a sword strike", that's an extremely liberal interpretation of the line from Le Morte D'Arthur, which is just Arthur drawing his sword, and then slaying an army of men. It probably wasn't with the one draw.
Another of Lancelot killing a dragon with a branch, that's two myths slapped together. Lancelot killed a dragon quite normally with a sword, and killed a fully armed and armored knight with only a branch in a completely separate incident.

Others are from older myths, such that Sir Kay is immortal and supernatural. That comes from the old welsh myths of "Cai" rather than the later english myths of "Kay".

>>51796357
>Because a 95% chance of having infinite spells is so much more balanced than a 100% chance of having infinite spells

Yes, it actually is, you dumb fuck, or do you not understand the difference between a 100% certainty vs a 95% certainty? And who's saying that it would be 100% anyway?

As for my campaigns, I've devised a system that removes vancian magic by requiring Wizards to have spell-books, where they must either learn or create the spells themselves, and use the runes from the pages of their spell-book in order to summon the power from them, but requires a willpower check as they "will" the magic from the pages along with whatever verbal and somatic components are needed, which is 10 + spell level vs Willpower bonus.

As for sorcerers, I restrict them to 2 schools of magic and they still abide by spells per day.

Divine spellcasters require a holy item in order to channel their spells.

>>51796362
>I say that my rule has an automatic failure if you roll a 1

>"no one knows what the fuck you're talking about"

?!?!

Confirmed for being a butt-blasted retard with zero reading comprehension.

>>51796475
>I restrict them to 2 schools of magic
You mean you completely fucked them for no reason unless they like Conjuration/Abjuration because none of the other schools are worth talking about.

>>51796475
>And who's saying that it would be 100% anyway?
Anyone who understands how easy it is to optimize skills? Incantatrix used a similar mechanic to get free metamagic based off of Spellcraft checks and it was retardedly overpowered even with huge DC leaps. Why do you think "cast spells for no cost with Spellcraft checks" is somehow balanced?

>>51796564
Illusion is shit compared to Conjuration, the spell school that does nearly fucking everything, and a Sorceror without Abjuration might as well be a dead man walking.

File: Waboo Fightan Magic.gif (3MB, 500x260px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x260px

>>51791637
>>51791547
Yeah, I know right? Look at this weaboo using his kung-fu to negate arrows, and fight multiple foes. Disgusting

It's not like anyone could ever possibly use those mechanics to represent grit, guile, skill, and all around Conan-style badassery. IMPOSSIBLE

>>51796507
>You mean you completely fucked them for no reason

I explain it in the lore.

Sorcerers, as a class described in the players handbook, are described as having "inborn talent" and "raw power". So I took that to the next level by making each sorcerer be unique in what spells they can cast by each school of magic being an aspect magic as a whole.

And if you really think Sorcerers got fucked over, that's hilarious, considering you clearly don't comprehend the implication given to Wizards. They are required to learn the spells first, merely leveling up doesn't grant them a plethora of new spells. Each spell must be found and learned individually. Sorcerers merely level up and, "unlock" more of their own raw potential.

>none of the other schools are worth talking about

>illusion
>useless

Lmao, opinion discarded.

>>51796589
>Sorceror without Abjuration might as well be a dead man walking.

Lol, yea, oh geez, what am I going to take as a school for my sorcerer, Adjuration, which gives me Alarm, Shield, Resistance, Explosive Runes, Fire trap, and Banishment...

OR Illusion, which gives me color spray, silent image, shadow walk, and fucking project image.

>>51796654
Do you WANT to die to anything mind-affecting? Because that is what will happen.

>>51796700
>Do you WANT to die to anything mind-affecting

How are they going to target me when I'm invisible, and using Project Image to cast my offensive spells so that I remain invisible, while maintaining multiple copies of that Project image, all running around, obscuring the enemies view and keeping them from ever targeting me?

>>51796826
Any form of sight that ignores illusions? This isn't hard.

>>51796864
Oh, you mean like True Seeing?

You mean that spell right?

The spell that's part of the Divination school?

>>51796940
Or blindsight, or blindsense, or tremorsense, or lifesense...

>>51796957
Oh, so nonmagical extraordinary abilities?

So, okay, you summon a monster with one of those.

>color spray

Wow, you've wasted your spell and now you and your summon are incapacitated.

>>51791186
Really good thread OP, but I think we need to talk about were-mimics.

>>51791186
Nothing to apologize for. I pimped this book hard to players I DMed for.

File: 1464804187572.jpg (49KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 960x720px

>>51791186

>>51797005
Color Spray still allows for a full save, along with suffering from being a 1st level spell so enjoy 11+ Casting Modifier.

>>51797741
It also straight does not work on most things with blindsense, tremorsense or lifesense due to most creatures with those qualities being blind to ordinary sight

>>51797820
I just pointed out one flaw.

Another is anything with spell resistance, any of like 15 items that negate spells of certain levels, some armors, a score of racial abilities and traits along with anything that is immune to stunning.

>>51791852

Conan is probably playing an e6 campaign. Where more down to earth martials are at home. If you want to go past 5th or 6th level though you better be prepared to visit weeaboo town because most of the things that are considered appropriate challenges at that level get pretty bananas.