Does 5E fix the martial/caster power gap?

Big step up from 3.5/pathfinder at least at mid levels. Haven't done a level 15+ campaign yet though so I can't say for them.

No, because it can't be fixed. But it greatly lessens it.
Majority of powerful spells - such as Fly, Invisibility, Cloudkill, require you to concentrate on them. You can only concentrate on one spell at a time, so you can't be a flying, inivisible and untouchable jackass with five hundred different defensive spell on your person.

In terms of combat, Martials are actually useful and have a role within the group.

However, they're still boring as sin to play with very few interesting options to play with in the majority of cases.

Outside of combat, the utility gap is essentially unchanged. You have skills and bugger all else, while casters have all the utility magic can provide.

>>52332398
>No, because it can't be fixed.
4e disagrees.

>>52332229
It reintroduces it.

Less than 3.PF tho.

No, but it's a pretty fun game as is.

It seems to take on the philosophy of "in a setting where magic is pretty common among exceptional people, you don't have to be a wizard to use magic". It's pretty easy to play a sword-swinging common born dude in armor clad who just happens to know a few handy spells because they're clever or made a deal with a mage or whatever.

>>52332466
Stop bringing up your tactical wargame, it's irrelevant to the DnD discussion.

>>52332466

As someone who likes 4e, there are arguments that the way 4e fixed it was changing the thematic basis of the system. I prefer the way 4e did it, but I think it's somewhat fair to say that while you hold true to a lot of the principles people seem to associate with 'real' D&D (One to one relation of mechanics to fluff, primarily), then the caster/martial disparity is somewhat impossible to close if they continue, along with the 'martials must be entirely mundane' idea.

>>52332588

D&D 4e is an RPG. Attempting to redefine things you don't like to exclude them from conversation is extremely petty and utterly pointless.

>>52332660
When your product is so shitty that half of your playerbase leaves for a knock-off made by literally whos, you know you fucked up.

>>52332660
OP didn't ask about 4E, he asked about 5E. He didn't ask for a comparison to 4E either, so you're the one in the wrong thread, friendo.

>>52332720

And that is relevant to the point, how exactly?

>>52332745
Follow the comment chain cupcake.

>>52332398
Denies that the caster/martial disparity can be fixed.

>>52332466
Refutes that statement. Stating that 4e fixed the caster/martial disparity.

>>52332588
Denies against all evidence that 4e is D&D

>>52332754
The point is, it "fixed" the problem by introducing much more other problems, WoTC will never try this again, and you should stop being an obnoxious 4rrie and bringing up your shitty game when nobody asks you to.

>>52332602
>'real' D&D
That's just the thing. 3.5 seriously fucked up the martial/caster dynamic by removing most distinguishing features of martial classes and giving casters the tools to reliably invalidate what little niches martials had left.
And yet that very same 'Diablo edition' is considered 'real' D&D?

>>52332229
It lessened it, but it didn't fix it entirely.

>>52332813

No? It fixed the problem by changing the basis of the game, as I described in >>52332602. Doing something not in your preference isn't innately a problem, it's just a different approach that some people enjoyed and some people did not.

>>52332869
See my point about your shitty wargame. Glad we agree on the issue.

>>52332907

Except it isn't a shitty wargame, it's a very enjoyable RPG which simply makes a different set of fundamental assumptions about-

Ohh, you're a troll. Right, sorry, it always takes me a while to pick up on things.

>>52332941
>it's a very enjoyable RPG
All those who left DnD for Pathfinder clearly disagree. WoTC clearly disagrees to, since when creating 5e they scrapped everything from their failure.

File: tarrana_qt.png (534KB, 535x815px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 535x815px

It "fixes" it by reducing spells to damage. Poison? That's just damage now, so it might as well not exist. A fighter can kill a few goblins and suddenly become immune to poison and disease. Why? Because 10% of the community threw a bitchfit over being able to reduce ability scores, so they nixed it. Now everything is damage. Mind flayer mindblast? That's straight damage. See, if it can't be represented by damage, it doesn't belong in 5e, because anything else would unbalance the game. SoD spells are not nerfed but instead completely reduced, they are effectively fireball, there is no fucking difference. There is no point to playing a caster or a martial because they both deal damage in different ways, their roles are essentially the same, and now thanks to 5e neutering everything to straight damage, DPS is all that matters. Damage escalates by level which was never fixed and the game is so overly structured that, while it's hard to build a shitty character, none of your choices actually matter and are there to give the illusion that you can build interesting characters when in fact you essentially only have 2 to 3 options by class.

The feats are complete shit. 5e is so bad at balancing feats that some of them give ability score bonuses (+1 instead of +2, as in the feat is only worth half a feat) and since you have to give up ASIs there is basically no reason for them. In fact there's no reason to trade ASIs for feats at all, seeing as ASIs are buffed out to hell, going from nonexistent to +1 per 4 levels to +2 per 4 levels, meaning that every fighter is going to end up with 20 Strength, so ability scores might as well not exist at all, they are just another supporting mechanic for the main mechanic of leveling up, they don't define anything unique or interesting about your character. All level 20 rogues have a 20 Dex so why even bother having Dex if they are all going to have the same fucking Dex?

5e is chock-full of shit but it's an ok edition.

>>52333073

>it's just a different approach that some people enjoyed and some people did not.

>>52332941
>Except it isn't a shitty wargame, it's a very enjoyable RPG

Except the only roleplaying mechanic 5e has is the stupid fucking background mechanic that just adds extra bookkeeping and does stuff that most players either did already, or didn't do because they didn't want to define their background at that point. D&D tries to add cool new RP mechanics to show that it's with the times and can jive with all these narrativist games that are being shit out by every flannel-clad yuppie with a blog, when in reality most people play D&D because it stays the fuck out of the way of the roleplaying, which really doesn't need rules. This is why AD&D, despite being an autistic shit mess, is still probably D&D's best edition. Pretty much all the rules were combat. And you know what? That was good, because that's the only time we really need the rules. We don't need rules for whether you convinced the bartender of some shit, that evolves naturally in conversation. You're playing a 20 Charisma character and are roleplaying him at passable level for a shitty high school film project? Okay, he probably gives you the shit you want. Lack of diplomacy / persuasion rolls meant no "OMG NAT20 I AUTOMATICALLY SEDUCE ORCUS" bullshit that is going around the community these days thanks to Critical Roll and similar garbage. And 5e just eats it all up, and encourages it. In fact part of the reason Merals raped chargen to death was so people would share more tabletop stories online instead of talking about their builds. So we get stupid-ass nat20 / nat1 LOL stories that are fucking garbage. So yeah, 5e is a """roleplaying game""" but if you are holding it up as a standard for that then you are the kind of idiot that the TTRPG community needs less of.

>>52333144

...Holy fuck, you're very angry.

>>52332229
Define "fix"

>>52333073
>since when creating 5e they scrapped everything from their failure.

Exactly. This is what is so fucking retarded about the Wizards of the Coast design strategy. "If we fucked something up once, let's bury it and never speak of it again." So instead of getting a consistent improvement with each new edition (like with something like GURPS where each edition is an evolution and perfection of the system) we get an entirely new game system, because each time they dump their notes in the fire pit and start from scratch. As a result, D&D's fanbase is so fractured that there is no possible way to pander to all of them without creating a bland shitmess like 5e. In fact most of why 5e is good, is BECAUSE it's bland. It's easy to learn and doesn't have many mechanics beyond the basic D&D ones that everyone knows. Yet it adds just enough stupid shit that, against the background of normalness, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Like the 20 level cap, 20 stat cap alongside unprecedented ASI-by-level rate, shitty feats, overly-structured classes, and stupid-ass AD&D legacy multiclassing. Not to mention the stupid healing surges and 1/day fighter abilities. And the fact that PVP is fucked because damage outputs get ridiculous for some reason. Why is this? I will never know. For starting from scratch, Wizards manages to make the same fucking mistakes over and over, while throwing the few gems of progress they make into the trash alongside everything else.

>>52332398
>No, because it can't be fixed
Yes, it can.

>>52333202
>As a result, D&D's fanbase is so fractured
d&d fanbase is fractured because its made from people that should be playing different rpgs but somehow are playing d&d.

If I like 70s progressive rock, I search for bands that do that kind of sound, I dont keep trying just new (and old) mainstream rock bands and then complaining that they arent what I want

>>52333202
Sad thing is, that's how TSR handled it. They fixed a lot of 1E's shit in 2E. Then WotC and Hasbro came along and fucked the whole thing six ways from Sunday.

>>52333159
By "fix", OP is referring to soothing the ravaged, bleeding anuses of anyone who tried playing a martial in D&D 3.5. Disregarding the fact that most 3.5 players were bluepilled as fuck when it came to playing casters, and just dumped fireballs and other damage spells, and ignored the more powerful options. Or that most spellcasters weren't jackasses who set out to obliviate the rest of the party by creating wands of knock or scroll of knock or find traps or whatever. That's not to say caster supremacy doesn't exist, it does, and it's a serious problem. But it's become such a meme that it infuriates everyone to the point that the 3.5 IDF comes out in every thread and creates a huge shitstorm. The result is something like 5e where all spells deal straight damage and shit like Fly is nerfed... why? Oh because fighters have difficulty damaging flying opponents. So buff ranged combat. If your fighter carries zero ranges weapons then he deserves to be beaten by a wizard who flies over his head. What's funny about that last sentence, too, is that martialcucks will literally call it out as an example of caster suprmacy. They think that if a wizard can do anything that requires some level of thought to counter, it should be removed, or nerfed into oblivion. "Wizard casting spells means I need to take out my javelins instead of swinging muh stick? JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE CASTER PATRIARCHY". They are pretty much approaching Tumblr-feminazi levels of self-indulgent delusion at this point. They are so full of themselves thinking that any time a caster does something to one-up a martial, it is another example of caster supremacy. They use everything to feed their persecution complex. As a result, casters are nerfed into just being shitty and boring, because neither group understands what balance actually means.

>>52332229
By fixing the power gap I hope you mean widening it so as to make the casters completely unreachable by the rough brutes?

>>52333073

I would imagine a large portion of those people didn't actually play it before moving onto Pathfinder. I know I was one of them, and looking back now 4e introduced a lot of ideas that I actually like and have seen adopted in newer games (to me). That being said I do ultimately agree with the guy who said its more tactical wargame than RPG, for better or for worse.

>>52333202
> It's a "4rrie is buttblased because 5e is more popular than his game, and he does not understand why" episode

>>52332229
Book of Nine Swords did more to fix the power gap than 5e did.

Though I feel that the best way to fix the gap is to make caster's spellcasting rarer and more difficult to pull off. Instead of blowing their load every battle and immediately taking a nap, higher-level spell slots should take an entire week to come back, or otherwise have a long casting time while lower-level spell slots aren't consumed at all. Kind of the way 5e did things with cantrips and spell slots, but to a more extreme degree.

Then you have shit like the party trying to protect the wizard as he spends three or four rounds getting off a heavy-duty Meteor Shower spell, or something like that, while a lower level party has the wizard throwing out sparks here and there, with maybe a single heavy-duty spell he can cast.

>>52333369
.... Did you even read my post? I complained about ASIs literally doubling, and once per day abilities being bad, and somehow you got from that that I like 4e?

4e had a lot of great ideas. It is my least favorite D&D edition but I give it credit on a lot of levels. For one, it actually balanced the numbers (to-hit numbers) for the first time in D&D's history. It wasn't perfect but it was a step in the right direction. Damage was somewhat more balanced among classes, as everything was brought into the same framework. Most of what made 4e fail, was the Dungeons and Dragons brand name. It just didn't work. It's like the Starship Troopers movie: it wasn't bad, but it really wasn't Starship Troopers, was it? It took me a long time to appreciate the 4e design choices, before I realized that 90% of 4e's good ideas were probably arrived at by mistake. My theory was confirmed when 5e came out a few years later and everything good about 4e was thrown in the toilet, while the shitty parts of 4e were kept in. This led me to formulate the Murphy's Law of Wizards of the Coast Game Design, whose contents should be self-explanatory.

>>52333441
>Book of Nine Swords did more to fix the power gap than 5e did.

Yep, making everyone a spellcaster, does help to fix the power gap between martials and spellcasters. The old "if you can't beat them, join them" strategy. It's effective. A bit of a cop-out, but effective. And ignores the fact that most of why people hated Book of Nine Swords was not the balance, but the stupid fucking shitload of rules involved in playing a martial just to be on par with wizards (and still not be).

>>52333441
>Though I feel that the best way to fix the gap is to make caster's spellcasting rarer

Agreed. Wizards should get cantrips, and then one spell per level per day. Period.

I am full-on buttfucking serious, by the way. This isn't bait or trolling. D&D's spellcasting seriously needs to eb restructured like this.

The caster/martial disparity, at least in terms of utility, cannot be fixed without changing some fundamental assumptions of D&D.

You cannot have entirely mundane martials constrained to the rules of the real world function on the same level as high fantasy wizards. It just does not work. The two are functionally incompatible.

So how can you make it work? Either Martials need to do more, or Casters need to do less.

The Book of Nine Swords or 4e approach is one way of doing this, giving martials more resources to use to do awesome stuff, suspending the idea that they're entirely mundane (Although Bo9S can still be fluffed as such) or no longer having a strict one to one link between fluff and mechanics.

AD&D had elements of both, with casters being slower and weaker and martial classes having a lot of ancillary benefits that later editions of D&D scrapped.

>>52333460

Using a resource based mechanics does not mean something is a spellcaster. That's a rather ridiculous D&Dism which doesn't mean anything if you actually think about it.

It expands the gap from where it was in 4E actually.

>>52333481
This desu. Bring casters back to where they were in Basic.

>>52333460
>stupid fucking shitload of rules
It's literally the same system casters use. What are you talking about?

>>52333663

No? The Manoeuvre system is very different to spellcasting, but it's also pretty simple. Certainly no more complicated than magic.

At this point I don't think there's any way to fix the martial power gap because as a group no one knows what they want the balance to look like.

You have people who love weeaboo fightan magic, cinematic swashbuckling, "normal" knights, and people who are dirt farmers with swords and all of them fucking hate each other. If you appease one side grogs will harp forever about how a fighter is doing stupid anime bullshit while the other will whine about only being able to run around and stab things.

At that point as a company why bother?

>>52333074
As someone that plays an angry cleric of the war domain, i find warcaster to be a pretty useful feat.

that said, i did take variant human, so i had a feat to use anyways.

>>52333460
Honestly, I liked the way maneuvers worked. They weren't spells, they were 'attack AND' for the most part. You make an attack AND the attack hits touch AC. You make an attack AND attack a second enemy. You make an attack AND stun them if they fail a DC.

It was an interesting way to make playing a martial more fun than
>full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack.

And what shitload of rules? 'Use selected maneuvers once per encounter' is too difficult?

>>52333470
I think that instead of just a single spell level per day, a wizard's spell selection would each have requirements, like the Book of Magic's Binder. If you take Summon Monster as a spell, you first have to capture a creature of some kind, put it into a ritual, and then it's a pumped up magical version of itself that you can summon. You can't just automagically summon a fiendish tyrannosaurus, you have to capture a T Rex first.

Or maybe give higher-level spells a longer casting time. Rather than spending 1 round to be able to throw meteors down, you spend 3 to throw 3 times as many meteors down. Same damage per round, but an interruption is bad news.

And finally, give spells a longer delay between uses. Instead of one spell slot a day, each individual spell a wizard uses has its own delay. Firebolt or whatever has a Recharge of 2 rounds, once you have the requirements (Like bat guano or whatever), so you can only throw it out once every three rounds. But Time Stop or whatever can only be used once a month, or whatever.

A sorcerer would have less requirements, but only knows a handful of spells. A wizard would know a shitton of spells, but only a limited amount of time to fulfill the requirements.

>>52332229
4e did its best, but 5e stuck its dick right in there and opened it up again.

>>52333490
>Using a resource based mechanics does not mean something is a spellcaster.

It does when you mechanically structure it the exact same way.

Book of Nine Swords did it in 3.5, then 4e applied it to the entire system.

>>52333663
>It's literally the same system casters use.

Like i said, it's a stupid fucking shitload of rules. The same triangular spell matrix bullshit that 5e maintains then claims it's not Vancian casting on a technicality (which is actually correct, but 5e magic is still shite).

>>52333481
>AD&D had elements of both, with casters being slower and weaker and martial classes having a lot of ancillary benefits that later editions of D&D scrapped.

An unprepared wizard was mincemeat. d4 hit dice, shitty armor and automatic spell failure on taking damage put a serious dent in their power. Without miniatures, it was also pretty much impossible to consistently have them shielded from melee by the tougher guys. However, the system still had the built-in potential for abuse - when given time to just cast a few spells in advance, a wizard was an invulnerable, unreachable killing machine that completely left fighters in the dust. At high levels, they had spells that invalidated entire classes.
I don't think attaching great risk to great rewards is "balancing" when the reward disparity between classes is that enormous.

>>52333931

But the Book of Nine Swords doesn't structure it the same way? Manoeuvres work completely differently to spells.

4e used a single universal power system, sure, but Bo9S was distinct from other parts of 3.5.

>>52333798
And don't forget, if you were one of those three classes, you had methods of regaining those maneuvers mid-combat. Not to mention stances that were permanent bonus' given you weren't prone.

>>52333798
>They weren't spells, they were 'attack AND' for the most part. You make an attack AND the attack hits touch AC. You make an attack AND attack a second enemy. You make an attack AND stun them if they fail a DC.

You are so simple-minded it's actually kind of funny. No shit it wasn't ACTUALLY spellcasting, you moron. We are talking about the mechanics here.

> And what shitload of rules? 'Use selected maneuvers once per encounter' is too difficult?

I can design dice mechanics that use algebra and they won't be too difficult for most of /tg/ since they graduated high school for the most part, but that doesn't mean they are a good idea. Stop using the "if you don't like over complicated mechanics you just lack the brainpower for them" argument, it's stupid beyond belief.

>full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack.

Ahhhhh there's that false dichotomy again. Remember, there are two (2) choices: either play a boring full-attacking fighter, or use once-per-day prepackaged fighter maneuvers. Those are the only two game design options for how martials work. Merals said it, so it must be true!

Ignoring the fact that forcing Martials to be able to do their cool stuff only once per day, actually hurts them. Why limit it?

>>52332229
There should be a power gap

>>52333798
>You can't just automagically summon a fiendish tyrannosaurus, you have to capture a T Rex first.

Except the faggots who play D&D will never accept that. Go float that idea in the 5eg. Go float the idea of kill spells having huge backlash damage, or forcing the caster to make a save or die himself. They will shoot down the idea and when you ask for reasons why they will stutter and go "b-b-b-b-because it's stupid, that's why!" See, D&D is set up a certain way, where casters don't need any input to their spells. They can't have any cost. All the stuff you're suggesting is kind of cool (except the recharge shit which is a nightmare to bookkeep for), but it will never be part of D&D. Because a D&D spell having an in-written cost or downside, is antithesis to the very fabric of the game for some reason. Partly because D&D is high fantasy not low fantasy, but mostly because D&D players are autistic pieces of shit.

>>52333968
>4e used a single universal power system, sure, but Bo9S was distinct from other parts of 3.5.

How does that go against anything I said?

>>52333969
>And don't forget, if you were one of those three classes, you had methods of regaining those maneuvers mid-combat.

More shit to mark up and erase on my character sheet! Wonderful! What's that you say? Use tokens? Use dice? How about design a non-resource-based system for interesting martial combat, you stupid fucks. Why does "interesting" equate to spending superiority dice, or encounter powers, or whatever else bullshit you've pulled out of your ass? Why can't you just make martials do good things that I don't have to spend like spells? It's bad enough this game is so based around Hit Points that I have a tally going 360 degrees around my character sheet, but now I need to constantly track whether I've used up six different class features, my Second wind, my racial daily, and all my fucking superiority dice? Fuck off. Playing a martial in 3.5 was literally better because choosing how much to Power Attack was more fun than deciding which shitty maneuver with an edgy name to use next.

>>52334047
Please, don't make a fool of yourself like this.

This is one of the most embarrassing posts I've seen on 4chan, and that's coming from someone who witnessed someone trying to explain why he was uploading pictures of his sister shitting on his chest in /b/.

>>52334022
No, that's stupid.

>>52334131
Then explain how I am making a fool out of myself. The reason D&D magic is overpowered shit is because casterfaggots whine about powerful magic having any downsides, while martial fags whine about irrelevant shit like Fly being OP because they don't have a goddamn ranged weapon.

Give the martials abilities to counter casters' bullshit. For example there was a feat in 3.5 that let someone do a normal DC 20 spot check to see an invisible person. It was high level, sure, and it grated against the normal mechanics that give invisibility a straight bonus to Hide, but it was at least a good idea.

> inb4 some martial cuck spergs out with "no it's not! fighter abilities should be able to automatically counter everything a wizard does 100% of the time because if a wizard ever beats my big strong meat man, it's an example of why the D&D devs were all pathetic virgins who thoughts brains > brawn"

>>52333074
>playing a caster or a martial because they both deal damage in different ways
So how do you fix it because going back to 3.5 where a caster can end any engagement in several different ways while the martial can only go through HP is even more bullshit.

>>52334004

What in the holy fuck are you even talking about? Do you even know how the Book of Nine Swords worked?

>>52334126

>I'm an idiot so people shouldn't get fun mechanics to play with

>>52334257
>Then explain how I am making a fool out of myself.

I don't think I can. You don't have the base level of intelligence to understand what people are talking about, so no one can explain anything to you.

>For example there was a feat in 3.5 that let someone do a normal DC 20 spot check to see an invisible person.

Like, have you never heard of the listen skill? It existed in 3.5. Detecting an unarmored invisible person trying to move quietly had a DC of 10, or opposed to a move silently check.

File: Power Word Kill 4e.jpg (88KB, 480x581px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 480x581px

>>52334047
I guess 4e really did do everything right.

>>52334235
1-10 fighters should be stronger, 11-20 wizards should start to take the lead

>>52334340
>Detecting an unarmored invisible person trying to move quietly had a DC of 10, or opposed to a move silently check

Cool. You know they're there. You know what else lets you know that? A sword between the ribs.

>>52334257
>magical backlash
There are one of two ways this can happen
Either its major enough that casters just flat out avoid those spells and thus you change the feel and more or less remove those spells without actually removing them or you make it so small that it does nothing. Just tossing a coin to see whether you or your opponent is out of the fight is dumb and will only be used in situations where they, both as a caster and as a party, should not win.

>>52334311
> anyone who doesn't want to erase a hole in their character sheet over the course of the campaign, and be limited to doing a cool whirlwind attack to only once per day because of arbitrary reasons, is an idiot.

If that's your stance, I will argue no further.

>>52333309
>Actually said martialcucks unironically
>Actually thinks casters are now total shit
110% total autism right here folks

>>52334383

>I don't understand how the mechanics I'm complaining about work

>>52332398
>it can't be fixed
This is absolute bullshit.

>>52334346
Yeah. See, I like that. Because it's a very powerful spell but it has a consequence. High-risk high-reward as opposed to no-risk high-reward.

>>52334374
Another option is to give the save a flat bonus (something that D&D devs have a hateboner for for some odd reason) to reflect the fact that it's a more powerful spell and thus for balance it should be easier to save against.

Or put hit dice / level limits on the victims like cloud kill and the like.

But that requires actual thought and effort, so let's just make finger of """"death"""" deal 7d8+30 necromantic damage instead. See, it's necromantic damage, so it's different from a fireball! It's still a cool death spell! It's still cool, right guys? Right guys? Right?

>>52334415
> I've never played 4e so I think a computer keeps track of which dailies I've used so far.

>>52334347
No, that's not what levels mean.

>>52333074
>I'm playing a combatant, who wants to hurt people
>What's that? Do damage (the mechanical quantification of "hurt")? Fuck that!
There are people who really think this way.

>>52334476

Except you were talking about the Book of Nine Swords too, as if it worked the same way?

>>52334004
>We are talking about the mechanics here
Just because you can't use a maneuver consecutively and repeatedly doesn't mean it's automatically identical to spells.

>only once per day
What?
I never saw anything like that. Where did you get that from?

I mean, if you want to full attack repeatedly or abuse Pounce and iterative attacks you can. It's just boring as hell because you just do the same thing repeatedly.

Fuck feat taxes, though.

>>52334047
Yeah, probably not. A guy can dream, though. I was thinking something like Spell Component or Focuses, just exaggerated. You could buy a 'T-Rex focus' from a different wizard who makes a living binding animals, it'd just be expensive. And once you have that, you can summon a fiendish T-rex.

>>52334126
If you can think of a system that isn't resource-based and isn't boring, go for it.

I already did, for my homebrew RPG that'll never see the light of day.
The way it works is that each maneuver has 'qualities', both negative and positive. A Power Attack would be a maneuver that has a -2 Attack quality, but a +2 Damage quality. A different maneuver could be, say, a +4 (Swift Action) quality, but then you'd need to make up enough negative qualities for it to be at a 0. Like, say, -2 Attack and -2 Damage. Or a -2 'limited to X weapon type' attack.

Then as a martial levels, they replace or update their maneuvers and combat style. A monk-type or brawler-type martial would essentially get a free -2 'limited to unarmed weapon type' and a -1 'no armor' quality to their maneuvers instead, so you could get 'Clever punch' with a +3 to attack, or 'heavy punch' with a +3 to damage, or whatever. All sort of custom attacks and stuff. High level martials would get a free -1 quality called like 'Superiority' or whatever.

>>52334452
>Finger of death is just fireball
>Raises target as zombie who always under your control
Looks like someone isn't planning long term

>>52333309
>casters are nerfed into just being shitty
AHAHAHA
Fuck right off with this shit. Casters are still the best classes in 5e its just now the other ones can keep up. Cleric and Bard are now followed closely by Pally.
>if your fighter carries no ranged weapons
Yes because this is the problem here in 3.5, the fighter not bringing a bow with him and not the fact that the wizard will never just be flying but surrounded by half a dozen force fields and summons to take hits for him.

I want 4e contrarians to leave

>>52334500
> In other words, you can’t use an expended maneuver again until you rest for a brief time or perform a specific action in combat that allows you to recover one or more expended
maneuvers.

It's resource expenditure. It's spellcasting. Come up with another excuse for why I can't do the maneuver again.

> inb4 "i'm tired"
> inb4 "well abstraction of luck"
> inb4 "muh narrative"

>>52334529
Or, y'know, I could just kill them with a fireball and raise them as a zombie. Better yet I can kill multiple targets with a fireball and get loads of zombies.

>>52334569
Fighters have to refill their pocket Sand bar man

>>52334347
So we can have two sets of classes suck for half the game, assuming anyone plays a full campaign. Great idea!

>>52334540
>Yes because this is the problem here in 3.5, the fighter not bringing a bow with him and not the fact that the wizard will never just be flying but surrounded by half a dozen force fields and summons to take hits for him.

So delete protection from arrows which was a gay-ass spell anyway? And windwall. Those spells always get forgotten yet somehow the fact that a wizard can FLY was the big issue in 5e, so fly had to require concentration. It's not enough for wizards to be less powerful, they have to be less cool, too.

>>52334584
>Raise them
They're not permanently under your control, creatures at higher levels are usually immune to fire damage, and that requires multiple spell slot uses than just one

>>52334569
>It's resource expenditure. It's spellcasting.

Not all resources are spells you fucking troglodyte.

File: 1365123765761.gif (2MB, 320x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x200px

>>52334604
>assuming anyone plays a full campaign.

And levels 1-10 get more play than 11-20, so martials will be stronger overall. I don't see what you're whining about, martialcuck. You want casters to be worthless little geeks like they were in 1e, too? Oh look I can cast magic missile then die! Yayyy! That way you can feel like a big man beating the shit out of those mean pesky wizards. Is Gygax giving you hate-wood for spellcasters from beyond the grave, or is something else going on here?

>>52334569

>It's resource expenditure. It's spellcasting.

>>52333490

>>52333309
>Oh because fighters have difficulty damaging flying opponents. So buff ranged combat. If your fighter carries zero ranges weapons then he deserves to be beaten by a wizard who flies over his head.
Except that scales off of dex, which is a secondary stat to most fighters. And let's not get started on how shit ranged combat is if you're not dedicated.
>hat's funny about that last sentence, too, is that martialcucks will literally call it out as an example of caster suprmacy.
Except a wizard can do that with a single spell choice and has a shit ton of other options. A fighter has to be specially built from the ground up to even attempt to counter that.

>>52334668
Calm down, anon. You're going to have a stroke.

>>52334668
Alternately why not just design the game well from the start?

>>52334657
>Not all resources are spells you fucking troglodyte.

That's true. You can also expend ammunition, potential energy, gamers' patience, and similar things. None of that explains why my swordsage's blade of fire attack can only be used once before resting.

OH yeah, that's right.

Because it's magic.

As is 4e fighter abilities. In fact if anything they are even more so.

>>52334696
>Because it's magic
That doesn't explain it either, you mongoloid.

>>52334604
>>52334486
This ain't an MMO niggas, it's not like they're useless either, just less powerful overall, level 20 wizards should be demi-gods

>>52334675
Except nothing is being expended, you stupid jackass. It's a dissociated mechanic with no link to the actual in-game world, therefore it doesn't actually exist and it's just an asspull by shitty developers. Get the fuck over it and be glad that 4e players are even allowed to still exist.

>>52334683
Thrown weapons scale off strength.

A javelin now and then isn't much a problem, and you're going to fight flying monsters eventually anyway. Why not take them?

>>52334696
Your swordsage's blade of fire attack requires you to refuel your blade, obviously.

Or it's a technique that requires qi or whatever the fuck.

... Or do you think Monks are casters too?

>>52334694
Because apparently, "designing the game well from the start" translates to "make every character a caster like they were in 4e."

4e martials ARE casters, by the way. Deal with it.

>>52334719

Oh, is there the bit where I point out that grid combat is an innately disassociative mechanic and you run crying and pretend you can't hear me?

So let me get this straight, edition wars now are all out shitflinging between all editions?
Hilarious

>>52334668
Here's your (You), I guess?

>>52334734
>Javelin
>Tiny range
>D6 damage die
>Late level monsters immune to nonmagical weapon damage
Great idea there

>>52334735

>4e martials ARE casters, by the way. Deal with it.

No? Because that's either a lie or a statement of profound ignorance?

>>52334748
Seems everyone capable of even the barest level of reason is tired of it.

>>52334696
>Because it's magic.

Not all magic is spells you fucking knobgoblin.

>>52334748
>now

>>52334742
>Oh, is there the bit where I point out that grid combat is an innately disassociative mechanic

Except it's not, because it still corresponds to real-world positioning. Also your argument falls apart when I point out that you can play without a grid and just use a freeform battlemat.

Also hit points are not a dissociated mechanic because they represent a character's well-being and toughness, as well as their ability to survive in combat.

Whereas martial spellcasting bullshit represents an expenditure of something that doesn't exist, anywhere in the game world.

>>52334742
>grid combat is an innately disassociative mechanic
Not really. People in real life take up space, and move through space. A grid helps represent that.

Ideally you'd go grid-less and just use measurement, but it does save time measuring.

>>52334769
Oh fine, it's not spells. It's still magic. 4e martials aren't martials. They are casters. The semantics changes nothing except your hate-stiffy for casters. You hate them so much you want to be one. Now ain't THAT Freudian?

>>52334762
That's because most people have stopped playing D&D, except for normies.

>>52334792
>>52334793

Now we get to the fun part.

I guess both of you have never been in a melee? I mean, most people in the modern world never have a chance to, and I've only been in a few for reenactment purposes.

But you know what you learn in a melee? That tactical grid combat has no relation whatsoever to how a fight actually goes.

See, in a grid combat you are always aware of the relative position of everyone involved. It's easy to make decisions from that perspective, to know when you're most needed, if an ally needs help or if there's an opportunity to exploit.

In a real melee? You can pay attention to what's directly in front of you, maybe a little to your left or right, and listen for footsteps behind you so you can avoid getting stabbed in the back. You won't know if your best friend is on the ground ten feet away getting murdered because you are concerned with preventing yourself from dying.

Tactical grid combat is innately disassociated from the reality of a melee. Instead? It creates a way of simulating the sort of dramatic, cinematic battle we see in fantasy movies and read in the books. And it does a damn good job of that! But that is what it is. A narrative, disassociative mechanic. Not a 'realistic' one.

>>52334831
No one said anything about realistic, you dumb fuck. Sorry to ruin your expert-knowledge-based (read: I play boffer swords with my friends on weekends and the neighbors stare) trump-card, but we are talking about the in-game world, where, yes the combat is a bit more cinematic. It's not "narrative" you fucking mongoloid. You don't even know what narrative means. At best it's gamist.

> inb4 you try to move the goalposts with "well GNS is shit anyway"

Still, the fact remains that the grid represents the actual position of everyone in the combat in the game world. Give or take a few inches so that they can fit on a grid.

Martial-casting doesn't represent anything in the game world except post-hoc rationalized bullshit like "i'm too tired to disarm him again" which if you really had been in a "melee" you would also know.

>>52334901

Wait, so now the in game world obeys genre conventions? And it's somehow not narrativist? You are so very amusing.

If that's okay, then why is people only using their special attacks at key opportunities not? That's just another genre convention, with no more or less basis in the game world than the idea of cinematic combat.

>>52334901
>martial-casting
Keep in mind, a round is only 6 seconds. Do you think that in a fast-paced battle, a well-trained fighter would start using the same exact move and twist of the wrist and special, uh, disarmy action repeatedly like a 6-year-old beating their brothers in Mortal Kombat by pressing the A button repeatedly?

>>52334917
You decide when the key opportunities happen. Therefore they are not opportunities.

>>52334945

You decide when your character needs to move across the room to help a friend, regardless of lack of line of sight or communication necessary to do so. It's no different.

>>52334931
He doesn't need to do it repeatedly if he does it right the first time. But if he fucks up disarming the guy once, he might try it again. If failing is a reason to stop, then swordfights would end after the first swing. If you think people don't try to do the same shit more than once in a swordfight then you have never been in or even watched one.

>>52334969
And that's why the maneuver recharge is a simple standard action attack. A fighter tries to disarm, fails, then swordfights a little more so that he can disarm again.

>>52334969

But just above someone has declared that D&D runs on cinematic combat rules in setting, so why does how people use techniques have any relation to the 'real' sort? Isn't cinematic combat a better source, based on what >>52334901 said?

>>52334986
> each standard action attack represents a single sword swing

lol

>>52332229
To put it into terms of 3.5 class tiers, a 5e Wizard is tier 2 like the 3.5 Sorcerer, while the Champion Fighter is Tier 4 like the 3.5 Barbarian.

The gap is much smaller, and less classes fall at the extreme ends. Furthermore, simply being a spellcaster is no longer a guarantee of power. Paladins are one of the best classes, while Rangers are one of the worse, and they get the exact same casting progression.

If you ban a few key spells from the Wizard's (and by extension Bard's) spell list, then things get even better.

>>52335009
> he quotes a thing that has no relevance to the discussion at hand

lol

>>52335038
> It takes a full six seconds to try to disarm anyone again

Are you the same guy claiming he was in a ton of swordfights?

>>52334960
yeah except your friend might say "hey help me!" and you go to help him. So it is much different. Of course if you let your players metagame and communicate freely and take 20 minutes to decide how they move, then yeah you'll get bullshit results.

>>52335020
>tier 2
Not even. Loremaster maybe but regular wizard naw. Every 5e class is, in 3.pf terms, tiers 3 or 4.

>>52335073

Try hearing someone cry for help from twenty feet away across a crowded space full of clashing steel. I get the feeling you won't hear much.

Isn't it strange, how you're willing to jump through hoops to justify one mechanic because it's old and familiar, yet you vilify another which is directly comparable just because you're not used to it?

>>52332229

>Grab hand crossbow
>pimp it out
>do the build.

Yes.

>Outside of combat.

Noooooope

>>52335097
The definition for Tier 2 is that it has a handful of ways it can break the game. The Wizard and Bard techincally qualify, since they can pull of Simulacrum+Wish nonsense, use True Polymorph to hilarious effect, or just raise an army of Skeletons to break action economy utterly.

Granted, those are all restricted to very high levels, but it is something to account for. Without those though, I'd agree fully. Outside of those even 5e's best casters are nothing too outstanding.

>>52335101
>Try hearing someone cry for help from twenty feet away across a crowded space full of clashing steel. I get the feeling you won't hear much.

Another sign you haven't been in any kind of swordfight, mock or otherwise. Are you this retarded? Even in a busy workshop I can hear people calling from farther away than 20 feet. Do you even understand how far 20 feet is? If it was a fucking gunfight that might be one thing.

> Isn't it strange, how you're willing to jump through hoops to justify one mechanic because it's old and familiar, yet you vilify another which is directly comparable just because you're not used to it?

Well, one actually contributes to my enjoyment of the game, and the other makes me mark up my character sheet and keep track of random shit for no discernible reason beyond "well we wanted to make fighters work like spellcasters because we thought it was cool." And ignore all the ways to make martials interesting that DON'T involve resource management.

But, point taken.

>>52335174
>mark up my character sheet
JUST
USE
A
FUCKING
INDEX
CARD

WRITE THE ABILITY ON THE FRONT
KEEP IT WITH YOU, FACE UP WHEN FIGHT STARTS
THEN WHEN YOU USE IT IN BATTLE
TUUUUUURN IT OOOOOOVEEEEERRR.

AND THEN WHEN YOU RECHARGE MANEUVERS

TUUUUURN IT BAAAAAAAAACK.

Bam. Fixed. I fixed all the problems. Now you can wipe up the aftermath of the messy orgasm I just gave you, you can now play a warblade or swordsage or whatever the fuck. It even works with the Crusader's stupid recharge mechanism, because you can shuffle your index cards and pick out random ones.

>>52335165
Skele army only breaks the game under very specific circumstances. Any opponent that can cast any AoE will destroy those skeles before you can get em to do anything and leave you with just a few minions. And a DM could just say that your 11 skele's become a swarm instead so they only count as one for action economy's sake. Simulacrum+wish relies a lot on interpretation. That leaves true polymorph which will deny you your spells in that form. So they're still strong but not quite that strong.
Loremaster wizard is another matter entirely. Str based hold person and forceballs put him into t2 imo.

>>52335229
>I fixed all the problems

Or I can not add a bunch of shit to the game and just play an RPG with martial options that DON'T require a lot of extra bookkeeping and add nothing interesting to the experience as a result of said bookkeeping.

Example: Dungeon World.

>>52335268
>recommends Dungeon World
>literally 'ONLY ONE CHOICE EVER' the game
>doesn't even let you pick your own names for your character

Hah. I don't know how it deals with martials, so this is completely unrelated to the argument, but fuck that game.

Anyway, how DOES DW deal with martial options?

>>52335268

Speak for yourself man. I love resource systems in combat.

The problem of doing without resource systems is that you need to reply on the various basic actions available to people, and creating interesting and useful basic actions that are actually worth using aside from 'Just hit the guy' is really damn hard. To the point I've never really see a system do it in a way I found fun, because they were either too weak, too boring or just worse than hitting the guy again.

>>52335234
Well, the specifics aren't as key there. My main point is that aside from a few gamebreaking elements that the Wizard can do, the game is largely balanced between casters and non-casters.

>>52333202
Damage is super low in 5e, except at low levels, just like every D&D ever.

>>52332229
Not entirely, but yes. Martials aren't total dead weight past level 6 or so.

>>52334273
Not him but short of tearing down the entire structure and rebuilding it like 4e did, there isn't really anything that you can do to totally fix the disparity between martials and mages.

Martials would start off with not only the most attacks, but would also have special abilities that allow them to perform "martial maneuvers" depending on how many ranks they have in a particular skill.

Like maybe they gain an attack for making an attack with arcana that allows them to perform a melee ranged dispel magic. Maybe if they use acrobatics, they can shift around the battlefield up to their movement while making their attacks. Maybe if they use nature, they can make an attack that causes an opponent to fall for natural hazards. etc. etc.

It might not be much, but at least it'll give martials choices beyond just attacking and dealing straight damage all the time.

>>52335366
Not really. DPR keeps up with monster health scaling. Quite a few classes can keep up 40-60 dpr for a for quite a few encounters.

>>52335268
>Example: Dungeon World

Aaaaaaand now we know for sure to stop arguing with him.

>>52335268
You're going to have to bookkeep anyway. Magic items with uses/day, subdual damage, normal damage, superiority dice, buffs from others... Hell, even a barbarian has a number of rages it can use per day.

Welcome to TRPGs.

>>52333074
Shadows from the monster manual only have one attack: Strength drain. Ability score reduction does still exist in some forms.

>52332229
Assume that in each version of D&D a fighter has the equivalent power of a street thug.

>1e
Casters are like rural cops

>2e
Casters are like city cops

>3e
Casters are like superman

>PF
Casters are like the entire just league

>4e
Casters are like muscular street thugs

>5e
Casters are like batman

>>52335174
>And ignore all the ways to make martials interesting that DON'T involve resource management.

Why don't you elaborate?

How, besides resource management, do you give someone a cool thing to do without them wanting to do that one cool thing every round all day?

>>52333144
Hello Virt or Virt copypasta troll

>>52335672
Thank you anon

File: 43d.jpg (76KB, 900x563px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 900x563px

>>52333074

This is what PF weebs actually believe.

It's too bad about all those vaccines, or maybe you could handle a game that acknowledges everything boils down to numbers without having some kind of mental breakdown.

>>52335928

That's a completely shit argument. It's the equivalent of defending the statement "Well every encounter boils down to win or lose, so just toss a coin".

>>52333441
Bo9S is awesome, but because introduces new mechanics, ideas and good scaling power. Bu a Fighter is worthy 3, a Warblade 4, and a Wizard 56. Bo9s does nothing for the gap.

>>52333798
>It was an interesting way to make playing a martial more fun than
>>full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack full attack.

I love Bo9S, but if you play a 3.X fighter in that way, you are a retard that deserves to be bored.
A good combination of weapons and tactics goes a long way.

>>52336410

Except the system does nothing to support that. Absolutely nothing.

All actions save attacking do more harm than good without heavy feat investment, and aside from that your only real options are playing 'Mother may I?' with the GM.

>>52334734
>Thrown weapons scale off strength.
And thrown weapons have always been garbage that do shit damage.

>>52335234
>Any opponent that can cast any AoE will destroy those skeles before you can get em
So...only casters?

>>52336498
Tunnel fighter martial or if your DM allows for cleaving optional rule.

>>52335292
Basically, each class has "class damage" die. When they do a successful attack, they deal class damage.

These can be buffed with +1 or such by weapons, but that's still class damage based.

Martials generally have a 1d10 class damage, and that's the highest.

Why don't martials generally have utility?

>>52336547

Because it's hard to justify it beyond skills (which aren't enough) without getting into things which people hate, like narrative powers, metagame mechanics or allowing martial characters to exceed human limits.

>>52336576
>exceed human limits
Which has always been stupid, because anytime a character has higher than 18 in a stat they've exceeded human limits. Or when someone hits level 2 and suddenly has twice as much HP.

>>52335672
There is no substantial difference between 3.5 and PF. I see your point, but the post is misleading in that particular regard.
(I still liked it)

>>52332229
No. In combat they're only slightly worse, within tolerable levels. They don't have access to AoE, but they have higher consistent single target damage. They are boring as fuck to play in combat.

Out of combat, they suck and are boring as fuck to play.

All in all, a huge step down from 4e.

>>52336596

Oh, I'm fully aware it's stupid, but it's one of those things that seems to set people off. As long as it's in small ways they can ignore or talk their way around it isn't a problem, but the idea that martial characters aren't entirely mundane and make perfect sense by the standards of real life humans makes them flip their lid.

Fuck that, is my view. I want mythic sorcerers and powerful wizards right alongside herculean warriors and barbarians who can split the sky with their battlecry and sunder the earth with a mighty blow. It's the only way to make it even halfway fair.

>>52332720
>implying that zombies who play pathfinder qualify as "people"

>>52336576
>allowing martial characters to exceed human limits
I still have no idea why people get into such a fit about this. You're a goddamn Hero in a high fantasy setting, why would you, an individual who's supposed to be up among heroes ranging from Odysseus and Beowulf to Achilles and Hou Yi.
>>52336596
>higher than 18
In my mind once you reach 14 you're at olympic levels. Past that and you're superhuman.

>>52336434
partially true but not tragic. there is always space for either
- a buff
- a magic item
- a spare feat
- a specific weapon rule

that will come out as useful when shit hits the fan.
The system should help more? hell yes.
What does not is barely something. But at low levels DR and other shit is a lesser problem, so you can use a bow or throw an axe and do something useful.
At higher levels, is more likely you have access to some, or all, of the above.

>>52336643
>once you hit 14 in a stat, you're an olympian

Sadly, the rules don't reflect this. In order to beat the world long jump record, you would have to have 30 for a strength score, with a running start, or a 24 for a strength score, for the standing category..

>>52336699

This shit always annoys me. I wish more systems were like Legend and embraced the idea that mundane things like skills be just as awesome as magic.

Legend had a DC of something like 25 or 30 for Athletics, Climb or Acrobatics to just straight up fly. Ridiculous? Maybe, but pretty awesome nonetheless.

>>52336699
One, that's not 5e rules.
Two, that's to accomplish the feat automatically, as with the same effort as walking. Any GM who doesn't let you roll athletics to go above your normal limits is bad. I personally do it as multiply the modifier you roll by your normal limit. So rolling a 15 is a +2 and thus you multiply your normal long jump by two. Be a real hero.

>>52336699
Some other records: In order to beat the world high jump record, you would need a strength score of 22 (running), or 24 (standing)

In order to beat the world deadlift record, you would need to lift 1,015 lbs. To do this, you would need a strength score of 34.

>>52336745
These are the 5e rules, read the rulebook. The problem is that the rules here suggest a limit, which they also suggest can be broken in "some circumstances" This is intolerably vague, and offers no real advice for new GMs. Also, your solution is retardedly complex. Just set a DC appropriate for the heroic scale of your campaign. For instance, in a super heroic campaign, olympian level feats might be on a DC 10, or in a more constrained and gritty game, they might be DC 25, etc, etc. Good luck figuring this out as a newbie though, for all the shit advice the book gives you. You clearly didn't.

>>52334126
Didn't they print cards specifically for this problem? What more do you want? Go to computer if it's too much for you, ya whiny bitch.

>>52336863
>retardedly complex
Fukkin how? Its one damn roll then simple multiplication. If don't already have the roll modifiers committed to memory after 1 month of playing you're doing something horrendously wrong.

>>52336868

The character builder can even automatically output the cards you need, and there's plenty of sets of fanmade ones with nice art. It's just laziness and looking for excuses.

>>52336896
It's Virt.

>>52336923
Explains a lot.

>>52336863
>These are the 5e rules
What the hell was the mention of 24 str about then?

>>52336959
You seem confused. The Long Jump rules set a minimum strength requirement. Whether that's above the typical strength limit for a character is irrelevant to the point.

>>52337031
I'm confused as to what the mention of 24 str was about as it has no other meaning on the sentence. I know that the max str you can get is a 24 on barb but that wasn't even stated in that original sentence. Regardless, its a stupid rule that means that a level 20 adventurer, a demigod in their own right, cannot beat a very well trained human.

>>52334550
I want 3aboos to have explosive diarrhea for the rest of their lives. I doubt they'd notice as they are used to rolling around in shit.

>>52337086
>Regardless, its a stupid rule that means that a level 20 adventurer, a demigod in their own right, cannot beat a very well trained human.

Welcome to 5e martial design. I'm not saying the rule makes sense, I'm saying that's the rule, and it's dumb as fuck. You are definitely confused. The mention of 24 str is just saying what strength you would need in 5e to beat the current real world standing long jump record.

>>52334718
At level 20 EVERYONE should be demi-gods.

>>52337191
Then why mention the 30 str? And no, current long jump is about 29 feet so you'd need 29 str for it, not 24 with raw.

File: 8th gate.jpg (89KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1280x720px

>>52337225
You can't use muscle to warp reality

unless you're might guy

>>52337234
Read the post again confused anon. I gave stats for both standing and running long jumps. They have different records, different rules, and thus different strength requirements.

30 str gets you beating the running record, 29 strength you fall just short of it in a virtual tie.

>>52336735
>Legend
Anon you wouldn't happen to have a pdf of this RPG you are talking about. I'd like to take a look at it.

>>52337265
Holy shit I got really fucking caught up on that double period at the end of the sentence thinking you were doing ellipses about how sad standing long jumps were.

>>52333144
>Lack of diplomacy / persuasion rolls meant no "OMG NAT20 I AUTOMATICALLY SEDUCE ORCUS" bullshit
You can't crit on skill checks, anon. You never could. If a character is unseduceable, they're unseduceable. No matter how high you roll.

>>52332229
Reduces. Doesn't fix.

>>52337364
Virt* ftfy friend that guy is definitely Virt.

>>52332466
4e got rid of the martial caster disparity by getting rid of both martials and casters and giving all characters a grab bag of powers.

The closest you could be to a caster was "can you cast rituals", combined with rituals that can't be cast in a hurry and have no combat utility, and the fact that literally everyone can cast them.

So yes.

When you allow people to play neither casters nor martials, there is obviously no caster martial disparity.

>>52332398
Agreed. It can't be fixed. Fixing it requires giving a magic alternative to martials, and then people say they're not martials anymore.

>>52337446
>being able to slice a sword in different ways is the same as casting spells
Perhaps at later levels the difference was lessened but I have never played a high level game.

>>52337225
Wizards should be the only ones allowed to be demi-gods because of the shit they have to go through at low levels

>>52337262
>Hercules punches a river to clean the nastiest stables ever in minutes.
>Popeye does everything by punching shit hard
>Cú Chulainn throws his spear over the fucking horizon.

And before you say "B-b-but they're demigods,"

>Merlin half demon or son of fucking Satan depending on the story
>Circe literal fucking goddess of magic
>Medea her grandpa was Helios the fucking sun god


Fuck off.

File: dude who swing sword gud.png (176KB, 1586x1130px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1586x1130px

>>52337480
Just use this anon. But yes, wizards who can cast 9th level spells are equivalent to actual gods in mythology.

>>52337473
>shit they have to go through at low levels
What shit? The fact that they can still do comparable damage to marshals? The fact that they have 4 less health on average? The fact that they have to wait until level 5 to invalidate martials?

>>52337605
I think he's talking about IRL wizards. You have to be 30 years a virgin before you gain your magical powers, and during those early years/levels, the fighters are getting all the action.

Wizard is the ultimate "power through enlightenment" beta fantasy, and WotC knows this. It will never not be good.

>>52337605
1D4 HP

>>52337774
Oh no, how awful. You have to sit at the back where you can't do any-oh fucking wait you're a goddamn caster and are not hurt at all by having to position yourself at the back where you are now safe from 90% of enemies you would face at that level as they would have to run past the entire rest of your party.

>>52334696

...the 4e swordmage is an ARCANE class.

It's expressly a spellcaster.

>>52334969

That is why Fighter powers tend to have Reliable. So they are not expended if they fail.

>>52337470
4e has neither 'real martials' nor 'real casters'. Everyone is book of nine swords characters, nobody is either mundane and skills based, nor does any character have real spellcasting either.

>>52337840
One Spell Per Day

>>52338206
And that one spell can still end an encounter on its own.

>>52338266
There's more than one encounter a day. They're allowed to shine in one, fine.

>>52332229
No but it's a big improvement from other editions.

>>52338286
And then two, then three, then every encounter because you're in some magic land if you're getting more than 4 encounter in per session.

>>52338297
Edition. Singular.
It's a huge step up from 3.5, but a big step down from everything else.

>>52332229
Fix? Yes. Abolish? No.

The power gap still exists. Wizards can shoot fireballs and fighters can't, that's never going to change. Martials don't and will never have the same kind of raw power as spellcasters. But what it does do very well is make every class have something useful to do. Yes the sorcerer is probably going to be shitting the most damage, and he's going to feel good and successful about that. The fighter on the other hand gets to do something different but also important, namely protecting the team and engaging big threats head on to control the battle. Rogues get to pick a target and ruin them, etc.

Everyone has things they can do, and it feels good to do them. I've played a sorcerer and it was tons of fun to blast shit harder than anyone else. Then I died and played a bladelock and ended up handling diplomacy and playing an odd mix of support and backup melee. Then another game I played generic fighter and even though I didn't rip things asunder the way the cleric and wizard could, being able to stand in front and just shape the field, preventing any from passing, drawing fire, etc was tons of fun.

And there's lots of overlap between classes, it's up to you and your gm to just do a good job but 5e does a great job of making sure that you'll find a balance between what class you want to play and what you want to do.

>>52339555
>namely protecting the team and engaging big threats head on to control the battle

Well, marking is a purely optional rule. Without optional rules they have trouble actually keeping the enemy where they want it.

>>52339584
Depends on which way you spec. I specifically wanted battlefield control so I played the battlemaster fighter, and put a lot of emphasis on the tactic abilities. I didn't do quite as much damage and couldn't take quite as much damage as maybe the champion, but I had way more fun being able to exert control over the battle with the different tactics.

And again, good players and a good GM are required for a good game. A bad GM could obviously ruin the entire team by just deciding "lol every single goblin is going to ignore the fighter and suicide into the sorcerer no matter what even if you use every ability to prevent it" a bad GM can always ruin everything because they control everything.

>>52339649
>And again, good players and a good GM are required for a good game. A bad GM could obviously ruin the entire team by just deciding "lol every single goblin is going to ignore the fighter and suicide into the sorcerer no matter what even if you use every ability to prevent it" a bad GM can always ruin everything because they control everything.

I'm not really a fan of 'Rely on the GM making enemies not very smart' over the rules actually providing support for it.

>>52339649
>A bad GM
Bitch that's a fine GM. Do you think every monster is stupid? Why should the 6 goblins remained engaged with the fighter when casters are a known force and a common one? Blitz the mage would be the same practiced concept as blitz the commander but even more important because battlefield leadership can't huck fireballs.

>>52338111
When your definition of "real martials" is people autoattacking you should probably think about why your assumptions are retarded.

>>52332229
Not even a little bit, though despite what this guy says>>52332398 it CAN be fixed, it's just that there is a sector of the community that think it shouldn't be. 5e is marketed towards these people.

>>52332229
Are its classes better balanced than 3.5 Fighters vs CoDzillas and Wizards? Yes, but that's not the question you should be asking.

Are they better balanced than 3.5 Factotums and Bards(halfcasters) vs Warblades and Wildshape Rangers and Psychic Rogues(martials + 4th level casters) vs Dread Necros and Warmages and Beguilers(T3 full casters)? Fuck no, and it's infinitely less interesting to play than that kind of game too, so no, I can't really say it fixed anything that 3.5 didn't already fix.

>>52339692
That's not at all what I said and you fucking know it. My point is that a bad GM can completely negate what your class is supposed to be good and force you to be useless. It's not "Rely on the GM making enemies not very smart" it's "Don't metagame to fuck over your players". That means don't just make every single lock unpickable and every trap undetectable when you have a rogue who focused on being good at those things. If you have a spellcaster don't just make literally every area have unbreakable antimagic fields for no reason other than to cripple the wizards. If you have a fighter don't just bump every enemy's AC and reflex higher than he can ever beat to fuck him over.

Yes there should be challenge, and yes sometimes you should push harder on some classes to force more ingenuity and teamwork. But don't just take everything your characters want to do and completely negate it because you're a shitty DM who just wants to WIN against your players. That's not roleplaying, that's a strategy game that you literally can't lose.

>>52339711
My point wasn't that the enemy should never try to gang the mage, my point is that if you have a character specced for battlefield control, don't have every single enemy negate all his abilities with meta knowledge they shouldn't have.

>>52339775

>That's not at all what I said and you fucking know it.

No, I don't know that. I'm saying that the fighter has very few features to actually perform that stated task without optional rules. He's not exactly a 4e fighter who could mark and punish.

>>52339724
The definition of "real martials'" according to all my martial-playing friends (I'm a casterfag, not a martialfag) is "does not fight with special powers with special mechanics, and relies on primarily on attacks, combat maneuvers, and skills." IE: they make use of a universal framework of mundane combat options rather than having any kind of powers or spells.

The fact that you can't imagine a combat framework having more than "autoattack" beliefs your own limited game experiences.

Martialfags tend to be clamoring for mechanics like rq6 combat, or GURPS martial arts, or at the very least, d20 Conan combat.

They define martials' as much by what they do not have as they do by what they do have, just like casterfag do regarding casters.

A caster has a large list of very different spells they can use, and those spells are powered by a shared resource pool. (Spell slots, mp, whatever). They also often center on different subgames of combat than martials. Debuffs, buffs, battlefield control, attribute damage, etc.

>>52339775
>My point is that a bad GM can completely negate what your class is supposed to be good
Well, see, there's your mistake: you're assuming the class is SUPPOSED to be good at something when there are no mechanics actually backing it up.

You'd think this method of thinking would've gone the way of the dodo over a decade ago after people kept getting trashed for pretending that 3.5 Fighters were great at defending their allies when they had jack and fucking shit to make enemies attack them over the squishy spellcasters/rogues, but nope.

>>52339799
Cool, that's not only not my definition of a 'real martial', I think they're fucking retards.

>>52339799

See, as a martialfag...that sounds boring as fuck. Give me special subsystems and fancy powers in my martial stuff.

>>52339775
>class is supposed to be good
Fighter has nothing naturally about rooting enemies. If you want to keep dudes in place then you go tunnel fighter and pick up sentinal and PAM. Battlemaster has nothing about stopping enemies in place. Battlemaster is about damage with gaining a small advantage. If you want to be a real tank you go EK or Samurai.

>>52339836

Mind you, Sentinel requires optional rules as feats are not default in 5e.

>>52339853
>as feats are not default in 5e.
If your DM is a jackass who wants martials to be shit, maybe. Optional rules are shit in the DMG and even then most all of the actions should be standard but feats are regular ass things that only terrible GMs would not allow unilaterally.

>>52339882

That doesn't stop them being optional rules. They are not actually the baseline for 5e.

>>52339825
I'm inclined to agree. I didn't like 4e as it meant shitty casters. I prefer d&d as a full on fantasy superheroes game.

But the people I know who actually play martials' in D&D hated 4e gameplay because the martials had individual powers and gimmicks and supernatural abilities.

Martial/Caster divide is unsolvable, because any complete 'solution' involves removing at least one of two in a fundamental way.

Admittedly, further progress in closing the divide could be made by making the core combat rules more varied and interesting, and by making skills sufficiently better as to be more competitive with magic, without giving martials' individual powers like 4e did.

But they didn't bother to do that.

>>52339896
If you tell people "no feats" in 5e, and it's not a convention one shot with pregens, you will not have any players.

>>52339934
>Martial/Caster divide is unsolvable, because any complete 'solution' involves removing at least one of two in a fundamental way.

Only by those guys definition. 4e had both martials and casters fine.

>>52339956

That's all well and good but that doesn't make the point wrong. Base 5e doesn't use feats.

>>52339964
This. I had fun playing Wizards and multiple martials and they really felt nothing alike.

>>52339999

Heck, Swordmages and Fighters were both defenders and they didn't feel the same. Swordmages had bursts and blasts and my favourite trick, teleporting an enemy in the middle of his attack so he hits his own ally rather than your friend.

>>52339964
There's a reason you hear "4e martials' are just wizards" alongside " 4e doesn't even have wizards"

That's poor communicating, perhaps, but they're not mutually exclusive. It definitely illustrates that "what defines (thing I like) to me and makes it likeable" is absent in 4e, for more than one group of people.

On my end, it has a shitty joke characters in place of casters. On others' end, it has fake wizards instead of martials.

Everything that defines what either group of players is looking for is absent in 4e.

>>52340028

>On my end, it has a shitty joke characters in place of casters.

Why? What couldn't 4e casters do that you wanted between powers and rituals?

I mean, 4e characters spellcasters can do all sorts of bullshit that 3.5 spellcasters can't. Like 'Come back in time to finish the fight and rez yourself' for one warlock ED.

>>52339999
This point isn't "4e classes feel the same" though some people do think that. I have heard that argument.

This is "there's no acceptable fun 4e analogue for the thing I liked in 2e/3e, just some shitty bait n switch with similar names"

>>52340039
It's not what they can or cannot do, its the small pool of accessible distinct abilities per character combined with the 4e power framework instead of a shared resource for spells. Psions have the shared resource bit but have further reduced variety of abilities.

So I play 5e or Pathfinder if we're playing some form of d&d.

>>52340091
>It's not what they can or cannot do, its the small pool of accessible distinct abilities per character

But 4e wizards have a spellbook to allow them a much larger pool than anyone else as they can swap out memorized spells easily.

>>52340091

So non-D&D games don't have real spellcasters? As very few of them use spell slots.

>>52340114
Most of them do have a shared magic source.

MP and Strain systems, for instance.

>>52340106
True, wizards are closer than everyone else, but they still have AEDU. You can't choose to have more uses of one spell and less of another.

>>52340177

So basically 'Wizards are only wizards if they use exactly the 3.5 spell system'?

>>52332229
Drunk rant .


I feel like the answer to the power gap problem in 5e was "fixed" by forcing abilities onto classes when they level. A lot of these abilities give Disadvantage to spell casters spells or give each player specific advantages /immunities to caster spells . Other abilities give the martials more combat options but I don't feel like it is customizable eneough.

The majority of people who play 5e or DND in general don't really make it to high level so all these things are not a issue . But once you get past lvl 10ish all of these abilities stack up into a bloated mess . Combat is just adding up advantage from this , disadvantage from that, resistance to this and it the combat for me the DM at least loses its flair .

My group I'm dming just hit lvl 20 for our 50th session last weekend . Lots of rounds of combat my 5 player group can manage to give themselves advantage to either my spells saves or give me disadvantage to attack rolls . While giving themselves advantage . Getting so many disadvantages makes it nearly impossible to hit , and if your advantaged it gives you a high chance of hitting / saving .

If you consider druid to be a martial I think they fucked it up . The hp system makes killing them a pain . They transform and take the hp of the animal ...Sounds fair but the second they get low they can pop back to human just transform into another creature . Also the shapechange spell is obnoxious , last weekend the druid turned into the Balor they were fighting....Obnoxious

>>52334584
Finger of Death is a way to get around resurrection, only True Resurrection functions, and they have to destroy the zombie first. Hide it away in a demiplane, and the creature is essentially perma-dead.

>>52340183
>I can't read.
No.

Shadowrun mages would fit that definition of caster just fine.
So would the ones in buffy RPG.
So would the ones in GURPS (several magic systems)
.
So would the ones in Conan.
So would the ones in true 20.
Final fantasy.
Elder scrolls.
RuneQuest.

4e is very much the odd man out.

>>52340106
And you can have like, infinite rituals.

Making up new ones isn't even hard.

>>52340209

And ones like say, Through the Breach, are not spellcasting? As spellcasters are limited in options but have infinite usage of them?

>>52340209
Okay, not the anon you are arguing with.

Spellcasters are only spellcasters if they can optionally reuse the same spell over and over?

>>52340216
Never played through the breach.

But that sounds more like X-Men than a game I would choose if i wanted to play a mage.

It could be fun for other reasons, but it's not likely going to scratch my "play a mage" itch.

>>52340222
>Is it still a mage if each spell can only be prepared once and there is no common powersource?

>Do they "cast spells"?
sure.

>Do they scratch the "I wanna play a mage" itch?
Not very well.

>>52340264
>Is it still a mage if each spell can only be prepared once and there is no common powersource?

But why is a "common powersource" important for a mage?

Either way... psionics still exist in 4e.

>>52340264

>But that sounds more like X-Men than a game I would choose if i wanted to play a mage.

You have a VERY limited definition of 'Mage'.

>>52340273
Psionics give you the common powersource at the cost of the other half of what makes mages enjoyable. Their variety is abilities is further narrowed.

Common power source is important for the flexibility that makes mages fun.

>>52340276
It's about what makes mages fun in games (since games are what we are discussing), not a literal or literary definition.

>>52340209
>4e is very much the odd man out.

4e has waaaaaaaaay more in common with 3.5 than Shadowrun or GURPS when it comes to magic.

I'd argue that ALL of D&D magic is the odd man out.

>>52340298
Only in the spells themselves, not how they're used or the resources you would drain, he's talking about his definition of mage, and how 4e does not fit it.

>>52340297
>Psionics give you the common powersource at the cost of the other half of what makes mages enjoyable. Their variety is abilities is further narrowed.

Psionics gets a MASSIVE pile of at-wills. Like, as many as other classes get at-will AND encounter. They can then boost any of them to bigger versions.

>>52340311

But Shadowrun mages are massively limited in spell options. A shadowrun mage tends to know 3-6 spells as every single one of them costs exp to learn.

>>52340297
>Psionics give you the common powersource at the cost of the other half of what makes mages enjoyable. Their variety is abilities is further narrowed.

They are about as varied as SR mages (basically using the same system except can't "overdrain" themselves) and you seem to be fine with that?

>>52340311
>not how they're used or the resources you would drain

Both 3e and 4e (and 2e and 1e) have "fire-and-forget" spells. You start with a "magazine" of individual spells prepared and you cross each one off as you use it.

4e just shifted some of them to a per-encounter basis and said that you couldn't prepare any one spell more than once.

Compare to Shadowrun, where you simply know all your spells and can use any of them as many times as you want (though you have to make a skill check to avoid getting fatigued each time you cast).

>>52340319
Not him but i'm starting to see why people hate psionics
>>52340324
I'm not the guy you were talking to, but it seems to me it's not the number of spells you have it's the resources behind them that interest him.
>>52340335
I didn't say the other guy, or possibly you, was logical in his preferences. Just saying what his deal seems to be.

>>52340311
That definition of course being, the overall type of gameplay I'm looking for when I want to play a mage.

But yes, in the specific individual effects, 4e has several direct analogues to 2e/3e effects.

>>52340324
You can continue to get more spells as you gain XP.

>>52340328
I remember the majority of 4e Psionics being direct damage, with optional rider effects. Am I misremembering that? It has been about 7 years since I played 4e.

>>52340335
Shadowrun mages are like 3e sorcerers that way.

>>52340352
It's a combination of the resources, and the breadth of the *types* of effects doable.

>>52334273
Make it so that Casters can only resolve encounters by damage while giving Martials can end engagements in several different ways?

I still don't think the guy who is an elite soldier should be in the same league as a divinely gifted person or a person who has mastered the arcane. im not sure why people demand that it be "balanced". if you cant have fun roleplaying anything then you're probably doing it wrong

>>52340375

>I remember the majority of 4e Psionics being direct damage, with optional rider effects. Am I misremembering that? It has been about 7 years since I played 4e.

4e Psionics was mostly control, honestly. The Psion was very heavy control, the Monk was melee control (Despite being a striker it had a VERY strong control subtheme). Ardent was ally support and Battlemind was in need of a better defender feature but also 'Fucking invincible' with all it's sources of damage reduction and temp HP.

I mean, there wasn't really anything that did Psychic damage as easily as psionics but it didn't really have damage as a focus, even it's striker had a lot of control.

>>52340375
>I remember the majority of 4e Psionics being direct damage, with optional rider effects. Am I misremembering that? It has been about 7 years since I played 4e.

Basically everything in 4e does damage on top of having an effect. But there's shit like forcing enemies to attack each other, for example (pretty nice if you have someone with a mark set up).

Why not simply make the abilities of martials explicitly magical as well, but channeled in a different way?

So like, a wizard learns to cast spells, while a martial learns to channel energy to jump a thousand feat in one go.

>>52340404
>Basically everything in 4e does damage on top of having an effect.

Mostly because 4e went hard on 'HP is your ability to keep fighting, not just meat. Something shattering your morale will do some damage and being at 0 HP doesn't mean that an enemy died, just that they are no longer part of the battle'. Someone killed by an ability that also causes petrification is likely permanently petrified for instance.

>>52340401
Because you're stupid.

>>52340410
Because people want to be like Legolas without having to be so superhuman that you can be called magical. before you try to say otherwise Legolas is what fighter was based on originally.

>>52340401
Here's the problem with that argument, man.

I can have fun playing anything, so long as I'm with a good group. Fuck, I could enjoy FATAL with dudes I enjoy hanging out with.

So this idea of the fact that issues in the rules shouldn't matter is absolute horseshit. I can roleplay without anything, I don't need a set of rules to allow me to do it.

And that means that the only shit that really matters in an RPG is it's mechanics, rules, and balance. It's literately the only reason to use a set of rules, everything else is just bullshit.

>>52340401
>I still don't think the guy who is an elite soldier should be in the same league as a divinely gifted person

Well, no. That would be Heroic Fighter and Epic Fighter. What with Demigod being an ED and all.

>>52340427
yeah but, samwise is the real hero of the lord of the rings movies, even though gandalf is a divine angel wizard

>>52340401
Hercules, and Beowulf, and Jason, and Odysseus all disagree with you, Jason most of all as he was entirely human but held his own with demigods.

>>52340401
This is fine, as long as the game is up front about it.

Play a mortal in a WoD game, and you'll suck compared to all the other players with vampires, werewolves and Mages. And this is fine, as the game is up front about it.

Also >>52340432

>>52340440
If that was meant for me here
>>52340426
I was referring to the books, not the fucking movies, good as they were, they completely shat on Aragorn's character.

>>52332814
Tell me more, anon. How did it differ to previous editions and how did previous editions solve the issue?

>>52340524
For one, in older d&d, higher level fighters have kingdoms and armies at their command.

Think of having leadership as a class feature, only better.

>>52340401
That's the thing. A simple 'elite soldier' shouldn't be equal to someone who's mastered the arcane...

But a recently-trained soldier should be equal to someone who meddles in the arcane.
A well-practiced soldier should be equal to someone who is moderately skilled in the arcane.
An elite soldier should be equal to someone who is beginning to grow great in the arcane
And finally, the LEGENDARY, SWORD-WIELDING HERO should be equal to the ARCHMAGE, MASTER OF THE ARCANE.

See the thing? Characters of equal level should be equal in total strength to other characters of equal level. Of course a level 10 fighter shouldn't be equal to a level 15 wizard.

>>52340571
Point them all out, please very few people here in this thread have the AD&D books.

>>52340571
They also had faster progression and better saves, and could singlehandedly eliminate mooks equal to their level / turn.

And wizards knew less spells, cast them slower, lost them if they got hit at all, had to spend more time to prepare them and only had a chance to learn new ones on levelup (admittedly, some spells were even more bonkers instant death than the 3.5 ones).

>>52340375
>Shadowrun mages are like 3e sorcerers that way.

No, they really really aren't.

Shadowrun Mages
-can cast as many times as they choose
-can cast at any intensity they choose
-must make a skill-based roll to determine the effect of each spell on each cast
-must make a skill-based roll to avoid fatigue (based on the chosen intensity) on each cast

3e Sorcerers
-can only cast a limited number of spells each day
-can only cast a limited number of spells of each spell level per day
-have a caster level that determines power of all spells with no choice or cost
-spells have a set effect independent of skill checks (sometimes there's a damage roll)
-spells do not cause any fatigue and casting does not carry any inherent risk

>>52340025
>mark enemies as swordmage
>move away so they can't do shit to you
>your only opponent is an angry Rogue who will hit you back if you so much as look at them
Nonoptimal or not, I loved that combo so much.

>>52340426
>Because people want to be like Legolas without having to be so superhuman that you can be called magical.

Legolas was a fucking ELF.

How much more fucking magical do you want?

>>52332229
Fix it, no. Drastically narrow it, yes.

>>52340613
I don't have those ad&d books anymore either, I was going from memory. Fuzzy memory at that. Last time I played pre-3.0 was in 2004 or so.

But the anon in >>52340614 seems to have more info for you.

>>52340615
Shadowrun mages can't cast as often as they choose. Eventually strain catches up with you and you pass out.

>>52340655
Only if you're failing your drain rolls.

>>52340626
He was also the best Fighter in the group, Aragorn and Boromir were both Rangers, Gimli was also a Fighter, Gandalf was an extraplanar entity disguised as a wizard, and the rest were Hobbits, you know, Rogues

>>52340614
Why did they change it from that and the stronghold stuff? it seems that equalizing progression would not have harmed fighters much, they still would have murdolated wizards face to face.

>>52340655

Honestly, unless the mage is pushing super hard the amount drain matters is very very little. It's pretty easy to reliably cast at your magic level.

Even moreso if you have a medkit/training in first aid, in which case drain can be vanished damn fast to become even more of a non-factor.

>>52340663
Actually, now that I think about it Gimli was a Barbarian.

>>52340696
>First aid to counter strain.
Been playing Shadowrun regularly since 2009. I have never seen anyone attempt this. It has never occurred to me, or I would have tried it. Though, I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone even take first aid. Magical healing every time.

>>52340735
(And then we bring them to a doctor).

>>52340735

Yeah, Drain mentions it can't be cured with magical healing (As opposed to saying it can only be cured with natural healing)

First aid isn't magical healing.

>>52340663
That's the point. Legolas was a warrior, and he was supernatural. "Elf eyes" and all that, remember?

If Legolas is the template for Fighters then Fighters should be supernatural as well.

File: pai mei 1.jpg (52KB, 360x554px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 360x554px

>>52333074
>Poison? That's just damage now, so it might as well not exist.
Get the fuck out. If you're not even going to read the 5e rules, you have no business being in a thread about 5e. Poison is a damage types and ALSO a condition. It is not straight damage.

Fighters never gain immunity to poison.

There are a lot of effects that are not damage. There's an appendix of conditions, plus a lot of spells which have esoteric effects like Banishment.

Feats all do something significant. Even the shitty ones are still 'Get thing, and also still get part of the ability score increase you chose not to get.'

You're fractally wrong. Now get out.

>>52340762
No he was all natural, and I don't remember that shit in the BOOKS, He wasn't stronger or faster than anyone else in the fellowship, he was just more agile and more graceful.

>>52340755
It's generally when I have to do something big that I pass out.

I remember one time during a car chase I created a forcefield at an angle to ramp us over an intersection of busy traffic to escape. Force field are generally flimsy, I had to get a lot of successes to get the gm to allow it to support an armored truck, even for a round. The weight of an armored truck and how much force that would exert was mentioned, and the groups advanced math player did some napkin calculations.

I managed the intersection, and then passed out. Was pretty cool though.

>>52340783
>elves aren't supernatural

get the fuck out, pleb

>>52340838
Read more Tolkien, his elves wers more graceful and agile than humans not stronger, not smarter, only wiser because immortality, they were not inherently magical, save for the elf lords who were more akin to Maiar as in Gandalf, AKA Mithrandir Or Olorin of The West, than they were humans.

It's not a problem in the first place unless you're playing a competitive war game.

You don't need to balance a fucking RPG. Wizards aren't fighters, and fighters and wizards are not supposed to play the same or be equally powerful at different stages of the game.

>>52340838
>All elves have magic
Of course a dh'oine would think that.

>>52340872
It's not about avoiding
>Hurr Durr it's not a fair fight between the wizard player and fighter player.

It's about avoiding
>The wizard is so much more useful than the fighter the fighter isn't a useful party member/just sits there bored much of the time because he's not relevant.

>>52340905
Which, if you GM a game properly, will never happen, even if the wizard is objectively more powerful at later levels.

>>52340929
Not in PF or 3.5 or 3e, do not lie again.

>>52340426
>before you try to say otherwise Legolas is what fighter was based on originally.

A guy in leather/cloth whose primary weapons were a bow and a knife?

>>52340663
>He was also the best Fighter in the group, Aragorn and Boromir were both Rangers, Gimli was also a Fighter, Gandalf was an extraplanar entity disguised as a wizard, and the rest were Hobbits, you know, Rogues

Holy shit, you are fucking retarded.

Boromir wasn't a Ranger, he was a fucking WARRIOR and unequivocally stated to be mightiest of the fucking Fellowship. Get your head out of your ass and stop trying to talk about LotR like you're an authority on it when it's obvious the only thing LotR-related you've seen is Hackson's elf-wank.

>>52333202
>ASI
What?

>>52340987

ability score increase

>>52340944
Have you read the books? Legolas was a prince of the Sindarin Elves a master archer, not sure if the books said anything about the knives, I really need to do a reread.
>>52340980
He was, in the books, or their appendices stated to have been a Ranger of Ithilien, as I remember them anyway, before Faramir took the job as their Captain, so you fuck off.

>>52341031
>Have you read the books? Legolas was a prince of the Sindarin Elves a master archer, not sure if the books said anything about the knives, I really need to do a reread.

Yep. I can tell you haven't. Legolas only had two weaponsin the books: a bow and a knife.

>He was, in the books, or their appendices stated to have been a Ranger of Ithilien, as I remember them anyway, before Faramir took the job as their Captain, so you fuck off.

Check this out:

>"Boromir grew to be a valorous warrior, interested in arms, warfare and tales of old battles and would serve as a commander to the military of Gondor."

- The Lord of the Rings, Appendix A, "The Númenorean Kings", "Gondor and the Heirs of Anárion", "The Stewards"

>>52341031
And since when are the title "Ranger" in LotR and the class "Ranger" in D&D synonymous?

>>52341092
They always have been Rangers were based on Aragorn.
>>52341090
Oh two mistakes when I haven't read the fucking books again in more than five years, fucking sue me, you asshole.!
Perhaps I assumed that Boromir had been trained similarly to his younger brother in tracking, hunting, and so on, all pursuits a warrior would find incredibly useful, i apologize for presenting it as fact. Two mistakes, seriously, go fuck yourself.

>>52341131
Yeah, I totally missed when Aragorn cast Magic Fang on his wolf animal companion, Arondight

>>52341142
Not all Rangers have animal companions, not even most do, one subclass does, as far as I know, and they're called Beastmasters, so go to hell, it is fact that rangers were based by Gygax on Aragorn.

>>52341150
Rangers get animal companions for free at level 4, in 3.5, and 'animal followers' were a thing in 1e and 2e.

4e was the first showing of the 'beast mastery' archetypes.

Also, even in 1e they still got druid magic for some weird-ass reason.

>>52341172
Yeah and he had a horse who followed him everywhere and would only allow him to ride it? sounds like an animal follower to me.

>>52341172
As for the druid magic, I think that was an extrapolation from his Althelas usage, and being in touch with nature, and for future reference the words; based on, do not mean directly copied, they mean somebody took the idea and added to it or altered it in some way.

>>52341131
>Two mistakes, seriously, go fuck yourself.

Next time, don't make such obviously bullshit claims and you won't have to get your fee-fee's hurt when someone checks you.

>>52341246
I never claimed Legolas didn't have a knife, just that I didn't remember it from the book, because the bow was far more prominent. The knife rarely got a mention and unlike the bow din't get a name perhaps that's why I forgot it.
As for Boromir being a Ranger, I just thought that is what would be his class, as he somehow got from Gondor to Rivendell entirely alone in the books. Maybe instead he's the Barbarian and Fighter is more a Combo of Gimli and Legolas.
Lastly, I said I was sorry for presenting that he was ranger as fact, you really didn't need to be a rude fucking asshole for no reason.

Just asking has it ever occurred to people that some people have a different idea of fun and balance? Do we really need to argue bullshit about a system that some people here like and others dislike when they will never agree?

>>52341307
Yes, and yes, Where do you think we are?

>>52341324
Fair point. While I'm at it can somehow add furries and magical realms to this argument?

I really just want another chance to play an gay anthro possum monk.

>>52341307
>Just asking has it ever occurred to people that some people have a different idea of fun..

Well, that's entirely reasonable stance to ta..

>... and balance?

Nope. Balance is actually a (difficult to, but still) measurable thing in a game.

I like to assume the best and will think that you meant people place different importance on it, though, which is again, an entirely reasonable thing.

However, >>52341324

>>52341329
I think someone already did, I could be mixing up threads though.

You know, I’ve never understood from where this whole ‘Fighter should be realistic’ meme has born. Maybe is because save from Neverwinter Nights I’ve never played 3.5 so my D&D experience has been BECMI/2E/4E and I played a Wizard only in the BECMI and I had to work hard for every spells I ended up writing in my book since they were even rare than a White Elephant in Antartica and the Fighter had enough HP to get a Dragon Breath in the face. But this aside how I’m supposed to want my Fighter to be a mere human when I reach level 20. If my fighter is in the same world of Don’t Mess with a Wizards when he is Wizarding and I Kick Arse For the Lord, then past level six I do expect him to becoming a fucking demigod out of an Anime or some Irish legends. I expect my Level 14 Fighter to throw javelin with his foot that can kill whole lines of soldiers, just like I do expect my Thief to be a frigging Ninja, sure Wizards could be able to do some serious shit but the whole Awesomeness factor should be equally distributed among the Class. If I want realistic Fighter I would rather play in the 1 – 6 level but once the game reach level 10 reality is going to take the back seat.

>>52341477
Fighters were pretty realistic in 1e and 2e, and the balance was superb, as I understand it, the problem is that Wizards bought the game and let a faggot who thought wizards were gods and martial should be ants for them to crush, and ran with it for 3e and 3.5.

>>52341523
Fighter was absolutely not realistic, at least at higher levels. He could potentially attack 20 (1HD) enemies at once, for example.

Also, while Mearls & Co can go suck donkey dicks, a lot of the problems of 3rd edition came from trying to remove un-fun mechanics from the game; it just happens that those un-fun mechanics were all checks and balances for spellcasters. Also, they did not playtest shit above level 6 at all, and playtested using the same assumptions as AD&D, and it shows.

>>52335268
>retard world
Or i can play anima because even fucking anima is less fucktarded than DW.

>>52341991
They are opposite ends of fucktarded.

>>52342058
At least anima has the courtesy of having everyone work off the same fucking rules.

>>52339799
That's a really poor definition and you should be ashamed for typing it.

What's the fucking point of being in a high fantasy world like D&D where being able to fly, summon demons, and stop time are class features yet the Fighter is still limited by what's possible in the real world?

>>52342124
Huh? What unique rules do PbtA characters have?

Or you mean between PCs and NPCs?

>>52342167
Pbta?

>>52340209
>GURPS mages
>Use the same fucking system as skills and psionics

bitching about 4e being same-y

You are so fucking retarded.

>>52342317
Powered by the Apocalypse.