"But mah class balance!"

File: OP takes a quick break from posting.jpg (69KB, 500x496px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 500x496px

>>52942119
>eventually you just end up simulating an MMO

>>52942119
You described it yourself: a fighter can't just alter reality, a cleric can't pick a lock, and a wizard can't go 10 rounds in the ring bare knuckle brawling with an ogre.

That's called niche balance. The problem 3.5 had was that Wizards could do literally everything: they could alter reality, they could pick locks (Knock spell, or failing that, just disintegrate the lock), and if they really wanted to brawl an ogre (even though it would be easier to just disintegrate the ogre) they could just load themselves up with buffs beforehand.

If you want to bring real class balance to 3.PF, you need to place real restrictions on casters. There needs to be things they simply cannot do, period, no matter how many spells they know. Either that, or have certain spells come with a price that cannot easily be paid, such as how spells in CoC can make you lose SAN.

>>52942243
>they could just load themselves up with buffs beforehand.
Well yeah the level of buff spells was too much. But then I suspect part of the issue is wizard faking spell lists. Sorcs were far more limited on how many spells they had overall so if they massed up on buff spells they'd have less for anything else.

>>52942243
stoneskin.
bull strength.
enlarge.
done.

>>52942119
Hey man, glad you're back.

How's it going?

>>52942119
Forgot the dick gun and skull codpiece.

>>52942684
you could have two guns come out the eyes for extra hardcore mega violence.
and another come out the mouth.
no homo.

>>52942119

>every class has to be equally viable in every situation

This is not and has never been the point of balance.

Balance does not mean everyone operates identically or that nobody has distinct capabilities. It means that, overall, everyone has a roughly equal ability to interact with and make meaningful choices in the context of the game.

It can include rules and guidelines to ensure everyone is equally viable in a certain context. In a game built around fantasy combat, like D&D, everyone being roughly equally able to fight makes sense.

Likewise, if you designed a game entirely around the idea of hacking, you'd want every possible character within the system to be equally capable at hacking.

But, again, 'equally capable' does not mean 'the same'. Even if you define a specific context that everyone needs to be mechanically competent in, you can still accomplish this in different ways, whether by defining roles or categories of activity or by having multiple distinct and interesting mechanics to play with, with the combination also working very well.

It's always a misunderstanding that balance means everyone can do everything, and aside from ultra rules light systems I can't think of any RPG systems where that is actually the case.

In Pathfinder Society, they handle this by making 12 the max level.

File: all-queens-chess-legal-moves.jpg (64KB, 600x364px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x364px

>”Classes were a mistake.”
There, now that that's out of the way...

>>52942119
>How much balance is too much and how much is not enough?
There are two answers, depending on your preferred method of play:

First, there are Rollplayers who are just playing a character class as merely a component in a game.
If this entirely valid method of play is the case, then too much balance is when any unit is virtually exchangeable for another. Differentiation of the classes adds complexity and interest to the game and by homogenizing them to the point where a sniper and gladiator can easily do each other's jobs, then why bother having different classes at all?
Too little balance is when the game is easily figured out and broken by units that are absurdly powerful in one situation and useless in another, thereby making the game about only pursuing and exploiting favorable situations.

continued...>

>>52942712
you mean on the codpiece right?

kiss right arm, spin your gat. kiss your left arm, rev chainsaw. do a squat, missile launchers come out. flip em off with both middle fingers. codpiece flips up, guns come out of eyes, then mouth. Mad Dog em, guns pop out of your eyes and mouth.
"Sup?"

>>52942734
Tiers are noticeable at 1st, and considerable starting at around level 4. That is the point at which casters become quadratic.

>>52942742
honestly, its pretty fucking weird to roleplay as traditional medieval classes. Its hard to put yourself in the mind of someone with the power of a god.

I mean ffs, if clerics could heal wounds just by touching people why would you even have doctors?

File: ClassGear.jpg (270KB, 692x546px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 692x546px

>>52942742
Second, there are Role-players that consider their characters to be people that exist and interact within the game world.
If this entirely valid method of play is the case, then too much balance is when a character is restricted from behavior that a person would engage in, simply because of the game abstraction of their “Class.”
If the Cleric can't even try to pick a lock if he's trapped in a cell with a lockpick, if the fighter can’t even try to use an active magic device, or if a wizard can’t try to tumble out of the way of the ogre and throw a skull into the gate release to drop it on the ogre’s head, or if there is any simple action that could be attempted but is restricted because of Class, then balance has gone too far.
A bard that takes the Class Feat “Chandelier Swinging” should always be better at it than a character that doesn’t. But if a person in the game world decides to try to swing from a chandelier, they should not be prevented from the attempt due to rules.
The Cleric, as a person, has the ability to put the lockpick in the lock and try to unlock it, even if their ability and skill stats would mean they have no chance of success.
They might not be able to succeed at picking the lock, but they should be able to succeed at picking up a small tool, placing it in a small hole, and moving it around ineffectively.

Too little balance, from a role-playing perspective, is when there are some Classes that are so clearly superior in situations that the party find themselves in, that there is no longer any plausible reason for the party to stay together. If one or two characters could easily take on all the challenges presented and the other characters, as people, have no reason to be there, then they shouldn’t be and that is a problem for the continued game.

File: Requiem_VIII_020.jpg (3MB, 4080x2775px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4080x2775px

I'd like to take this opportunity to post some cool robots

and that is all.

>>52942119
To be frank, from a roleplaying perspective, I just don't see what the point of the traditional classes are. I mean, obvious, paladins, rangers, fighters and rogues all have obvious historical roles, but since when can people call down fireballs, heal with a touch without praying for a miracle, or just do all the outrageous shit casters get away with at level one?

>>52942839
None of this shit fits within the historical, medieval paradigm. Even the mythology is bastardized and hashed together in some crude amalgam.

>>52942801
I don't care whos right.
I don't care who wins.
I'm fighting for the side with a star spangled robot dinosaur on it.

What I'm saying is, each mythology has its own flavor. And each flavor has a different taste. You might like each flavor on its own, but that doesn't mean you should mix them all together.

You'd think for people who cringe when people put ketchup on eggs, that this wouldn't be that hard a concept to understand.

File: FunToo.jpg (143KB, 1191x897px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1191x897px

>>52942781
>>52942781
>its pretty fucking weird to roleplay
>Its hard to put yourself in the mind of someone
Yup.
Fun too.

>with the power of a god.
Well, blessed with power from a god.
Subtle difference.

>I mean ffs, if clerics could heal wounds just by touching people why would you even have doctors?
This is more of a world building question, but they're simply different avenues of healing.
Prehaps clerical healing is not readily available everywhere.
Perhaps knowing how to tend wounds when you can't get magical healing immediately would be common place.
Perhaps some choose not to be healed because they worship an opposing deity without healing as a domain.

But yeah, if healing clerics were everywhere and cheap, there would be almost no doctors, just like it's rare to see an apothecary nowadays.

>>52942897
Rifts will always be the exception.
Like that time you tried sushi and actually liked it.
Or that time when you were a kid and you mixed all the soda flavors together.

>>52942956
I mean, I get why other people don't like it. I just wish people didn't have to give me crap about it. Its my one, trashy dime novel pulp paperback treasure.

>>52942920
>What I'm saying is
While I don't disagree, I do wonder what you're talking about.
Besides the ketchup and eggs thing.

Although I've done that, more out of a celebration of ketchup than an attempt to dine well.
I like ketchup.
Vinegar.
Tomato.
Dash of sugar maybe.
It's good stuff.

But putting it on a remotely decent steak is criminal.

>>52942920

I'm not quite sure what your point is? Are you criticising the very premise of D&D style cultural mishmashes?

>>52943042
I was saying clerics and mages break the game and are retarded. there is no historical precedent for wizards or clerics, they do not belong to any mythology and are nothing more than a bunch of con artists and hucksters.

>>52943065
YES.

Its a terrible idea. Your combining cultures that have nothing in common, using them as generic templates and then applying the most debased, filtered and watered down version of each.

Rifts at least tries to take other cultures and ideas and give them each their own unique stylizing.

>>52943125
Rifts just has a western flavor, is all. If people don't like westerns, action movies and old cartoons they won't like rifts.

>>52942724
>Balance does not mean everyone operates identically or that nobody has distinct capabilities.
Well there are those that cry their fighter should be able to flex his muscles and bend reality and teleport without magical items to assit them. I think they also often complain about "weaboo fightin magic" though too.
But really though ensuring that every player has the ability to interact and make meaningful actions in the game is between players and the DM more than the system IMHO.

>>52943099
>I was saying clerics and mages break the game and are retarded.
Huh.
It didn't sound like that.

>there is no historical precedent for wizards or clerics, they do not belong to any mythology and are nothing more than a bunch of con artists and huckster
Huh.
You didn't sound retarded.
Are you on the spectrum or similarly affected in some way that leaves you troubled by concepts such as "fantasy"?

>>52943099
FFS, that dude in Conan had to have an entire legion of followers in order to turn into a giant snake. You can summon 3 of them at first level if your a druid.

>>52943125

And if I happen to enjoy global fantasy, cultural mishmash and kitchen sinks?

I can understand not liking them, but a personal preferences on your part isn't exactly universalisable.

Are culture-specific settings fun? Sure! I've played in a bunch of interesting ones focusing on a particular style and theme and it's been interesting.

But there's also a simple joy in a setting where western dragons, hydra and eastern dragons all coexist alongside judeochristian paladins, wuxia martial artists and pagan priests. It's a bizarre blend that doesn't quite make sense, but screw it, why not?

>>52943125
>Your combining cultures that have nothing in common, using them as generic templates and then applying the most debased, filtered and watered down version of each
As opposed to...?

Are you of the opinion that reality should be meticulously copied in a fantasy setting?

>>52943153

Entirely depends on the system. In a system with powerful mages, it makes no sense to constrain fighters to the laws of reality. Systems like the Tome of Battle make sense in that case.

And while to some degree you are correct, the system still needs to provide a baseline and it is not an excuse for poor design that a GM can or should work around it.

If one player has every option they need to make interesting decisions on their sheet, while another needs to consistently play 'Mother May I?' with the GM to get anything done, that is worthy of critique.

>>52943157
what I'm saying is there is nothing to support the idea that insanely overpowered PC's make for good drama at the table. Why is magic so immensely powerful?

It completely breaks the immersion, in all your traditional sorceror/ wizard tropes cantrips and charms are nothing compared to the godlike feats casters pull off on a routine basis, and a laying on hands is an honest to god miracle in most stories, it happens, at most, once or twice in a lifetime.

D&D just completely breaks immersion by indulging in these insane power fantasies.

>>52943210

What you mean to say is 'I do not like or enjoy high powered games'

Which is fine. You do you. But anything else is just badwrongfun stupidity.

>>52943178
>And if I happen to enjoy global fantasy, cultural mishmash and kitchen sinks?

Thats my point.
They don't.

It comes out as generic and bland and doesn't really appeal to anyone. Its just that its the only game thats got a brand logo that people recognize.

>>52943249

> doesn't really appeal to anyone

...So, you're stating that your personal preferences and opinions override massive global sales figures and popularity? Beyond simple direct statements to the contrary in this thread.

I mean, I'm not particularly fond of D&D for a lot of reasons, but this is just ludicrous.

>>52943232
What I'm saying is that you have poor taste and should be ashamed of promoting it in others.

>>52943272

Ahh, so you are indulging in badwrongfun stupidity. Well, at least you're being honest about it now.

>>52943271
>massive global sales figures
the only thing you have is brand recognition. You have a brand, it sells, you're going to ride it until the wheels fall off then your going to blame me for telling you the truth about why it sucks and why nobody wants to play it.

You know in Rifts there are classes that range their power from vagabonds and city rats all the way to cosmo knights. So obviously there is a complaint "Well the game isn't balanced." Well it's not D&D, the idea of classes in Rifts is very different, hence why there is such a long list of them. There are classes that fit not only different styles of play and roles but different styles of games. You don't worry about cosmo knights in a campaign designed for a group of city rats. That's like saying D&D is unbalanced because a dragon is stronger than a goblin.

>>52943281
No, see, there is a difference.
There is a difference between recognizing you have cancer and finding others who have cancer and building a support group, and injecting yourself with cancer and spiking the water supply so others will too.

>>52943210
>in all your traditional sorceror/ wizard tropes
>in most stories, it happens, at most, once or twice in a lifetime.
You are fiercely adhering to a scope not shared by everyone.

>D&D just completely breaks immersion by indulging in these insane power fantasies.
This is at least a defensible point.
Magic in D&D is often too exponentially powerful to make sense internally.

But check out the 4400.
There was a character that developed the ability to, essentially lay on hands.
He set up a health ministry and cured dozens of people a day.

Stop pretending that your myopic ideal of "What Magic SHOULD Be" is the only reasonable or acceptable one.

D&D needs to dial it back a bit, not have PCs wait a lifetime for a miracle.

>>52943291
Rifts is a pill for hyperactives and legit retards to focus on while they are trying to get their shit under control.

D&D is an autism accelerator.

>>52943290
>>52943271
>...So, you're stating that your personal preferences and opinions override massive global sales figures and popularity?
I'm pretty sure he's saying his personal preferences and opinions override everything

>>52943332
>Stop pretending that your myopic ideal of "What Magic SHOULD Be" is the only reasonable or acceptable one.

Its not what magic SHOULD be, its what people are willing to accept when they suspend their disbelief.

You might convince an old man that you caught a really big fish, but hes not going to believe you caught a whale.

What I'm saying is that without suspension of disbelief, your story will cease to be immersive, it will come off as boring and cliched, and you'll be stuck with a lame ass setting with people checking their phones and waiting for when its time to leave.

>>52943337
Okay, so what system is good then?

Honestly you sound so intelligent right now that yous should make a kickstarter to do a video on how "if you like system X you're dumb even though I have no data on it, I'll just say it's true so it is" and plan 25 videos and take 5 years to only get the first 6 done and deny any scientific data that opposes your thoughts. (If you don't get it I just insulted you)

I've heard people tell fish stories more engaging than most d&d adventures. That's how fucking boring they are.

>>52943153
>But really though ensuring that every player has the ability to interact and make meaningful actions in the game is between players and the DM more than the system IMHO.
While this is true to an extent, if the system gives one class pure versatility and power and gives another class neither, it kinda puts extra strain on both the players and the DM to work together to have fun in SPITE of the egregious balance issues.

Putting it another way, you can't have a weight lifting competition where a 16 year old varsity weight lifter and Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime are in the same weight class, mainly because what's difficult for one is easy for the other and what's easy for the other is damn near impossible for the one.

>>52943384
>(If you don't get it I just insulted you)
go to be, kid

File: The Sixth Time.gif (47KB, 408x410px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 408x410px

You can answer this stupid, stupid question for yourself if you have a functional process for evaluating the success of a game. You just need to figure out a grading rubric. Your question reflects not a desire to learn so much as a staggering inability to make decisions and think critically.

>>52943370
>Its not what magic SHOULD be, its what people are willing to accept when they suspend their disbelief.
It's not what people are willing to accept when they suspend their disbelief, it's what YOU are willing to accept when you refuse to suspend any disbelief.

>You might convince an old man that you caught a really big fish, but hes not going to believe you caught a whale.
And you are asserting that nobody can tell any old man that they caught any fish bigger than a minnow, because you don't think it's possible.

Also, PEOPLE HAVE CAUGHT WHALES!

>>52943400
FUCK YOU
IM THE BIG KID NOW
GIVE ME YOUR LUNCH MONEY

>>52943424
JOKES ON YOU
I'M BROKE NIGGA!
CATCH THESE HANDS!

Honestly, somebody just needs to shove your head in a garbage can and give you a wedgie.

Nobody can take me down a peg without removing me from the board.

>>52943337
>Rifts is a pill for hyperactives and legit retards to focus on while they are trying to get their shit under control.
>Rifts
You misspelled "Pathfinder" m'boy.

>>52943468
What i'm saying is, Rifts helps unfocused people focus.

Pathfinder makes people who are already too focused focus harder.

>>52943398
This!

Once you get into it and you understand what you're doing, 3.PF boils down to
>Did you pick a mage?
>>If yes, cast X spell to win.
>>If no, (full) attack until HP is gone or mage wins.

I can play a D&D game while having solitaire que'd up on my laptop and all I have to do is pick a martial and say "I attack the closest enemy within range of my sword/bow."

What I'm saying is, "Yet at the same time,".

>>52943400
Well I've been in a D&D game where I rolled a rogue but then the entire adventure gave me no opportunity to do anything as a rogue and mostly I got kicked in the nuts the whole game. I really only made the character to fill out the group's roles. If I had been t old to go for something else or given the chance to switch I would have... probably didn't help the DM of that game thought being nasty to me would endear himself to my sister (never did).

Really though it's easy to slant an adventure or even just part of one for a particular class, and if your entire adventure is slanted for warrior skills it is annoying for everyone else to just sit there and watch as much as it is when the wizard solves everything... or the DMPC does everything while the party is forced to watch.

>>52943514
Not gonna argue, but D&D can be fun.
I doubt you can be.
Boring games are boring because of boring people.

>>52943517
>probably didn't help the DM of that game thought being nasty to me would endear himself to my sister (never did).
What kinda fucked up thought process is this? Do you and your sister fuck with each other a lot and he mistook that as you two hating each other or something.

>>52943548
>Boring games are boring because of boring people
Bad games are often bad because of bad people too. "That Guy" stories generally blame "That Guy" for their autism or shitty attitudes, not the system they're playing.
Are there systems that are objectively bad or have poor aspects to them? Yeah. But we're not talking about playing FATAL here.

>>52943517
>the entire adventure gave me no opportunity to do anything as a rogue
>I really only made the character to fill out the group's roles.
>If I had been given the chance to switch I would have
>the DM of that game thought being nasty to me would endear himself to my sister
I was not expecting THIS flavor of stupid in this thread.
You've added unexpected spice to this tepid gruel of banal stupid shitposting.
Thanks.

>>52943560
In the past me and my sister fought a lot. She had some issues when I joined the D&D group because they were "her friends."
There was a game years later run by the guy she married where one of the other players picked up on a bit of our fighting and started being nasty to me in game. My sister actually spoke up about it before I did in that case and it ended it real quick.

>>52943548
>I doubt you can be.
No, I can be quite fun when I actually give a shit about the game and my character has more than two options worth a shit talking.

>>52943589
>tepid gruel of banal stupid shitposting.
noice

>>52943641
Sounds like she felt sorry for you because you were retarded.

>>52943731
I feel sorry for you because you can't find your way back to Livejournal.

File: 1472307853311.png (173KB, 1876x919px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1876x919px

Sure, classes have niches and there always wil be specialists, but a situation with fightmans who can only swing their weapon really hard (plus maybe one or two noncombat tricks) and fullcaster shenanigans needs a fix.

Sure, we risk the problem of 4e, but that is not a necessary conclusion. A warblade, a beguiler, a dread necromancer and a psychic warrior make for a viable, balanced party while each of them has sufficiently unique mechanics and playstyle.

Balance doesn't need to be made at the cost of flavor, that is the lazy way out.

>>52942119

Classes are unnecessary. Build your character in whatever way you want.

>>52942243
Or get rid of vancian magic because it's fucking terrible
You might as well just not play 3.pf, it's possible to find worse systems but you really have to try.

>>52942839
At some point we have to just accept that D&D was never about historical accuracy in the slightest and learn to enjoy it anyway.

>>52944083
It was a high fantasy adventure game that essentially came out of wargamming. Anyone that thinks it was supposed to follow some aspect of history needs their head examined.

>>52943548
So people who can't make shitty systems be fun are destined to never have any fun, and people who are fun can make any system work? Is this the fucking Calvinism of game design?

>>52944179
>So people who can't make shitty systems be fun are destined to never have any fun, and people who are fun can make any system work?
So very close.
"People who can't make flawed systems be fun are destined to never have any fun, and people who are fun can make any system work."

>>52942119
I don't think options need to be balanced on the high end, people will find the best and they'll abuse it, so it's not worth making the time and sacrifices to get a wide spread of options for the really optimized.

But I do want balance on the low to mid end. I don't mind playing something weaker, roleplaying is my first priority in a roleplaying game and I'll take sub-optimal choices if it gets me the flavour I want. The problem comes when there're trap options or broad styles too weak to compete with others, because at that point it starts to impair roleplaying. It's frustrating when you can't play your character concept because the game requires too many resources into making something effective for you to afford flavour, or when your desired options aren't strong enough for you to play your character competently that they won't be useless.

>>52942119
>you just end up simulating an MMO because every class has to be equally viable in every situation
You have never played an MMO have you? That barely describes GW2, and that's it.
Also
>obvious bait comparing level 20 wizards to level 1 fighters

>>52942119
Having people capable of different things is fine. It's when you clear overlap or allow someone to render others useless that it gets bad.

I mean, imagine an RPG where all the classes are Olympic athletes. Somebody might be good at running fast, somebody might be good at lifting weights, somebody might be good at rhythmic gymnastics. This is fine, as long as all of these skills can contribute to what the game is about in some form.

If however, you add on top of this a Wizard class whose ability is to shapeshift into any Olypmic athlete for a combined total of 1 hour per day, it'll be hard to keep people relevant. I mean, how often is any given skill needed for a long enough period that the Wizard spending 5 minutes as that class wouldn't be better?

That's the sort of thing you need to be careful of with balance. It becomes unfun when a player starts to question why they even picked their character and had them along on this adventure when another character of the clearly better class would have been so much better.

The issue is 3e. Not even DnD, just 3e. And it's very easy to figure out why.

Dungeons and Dragons originally stuck to Greyhawk, which was a very low magic setting. So the Physical prowess of Fighters was extremely dependable while wizards were often a liability. Having someone in the party who couldn't defend themselves was DANGEROUS, but wizards made up for that with a bunch of utility. But it was still... not a great class. But it was the thing that drew in new people to the game with curiosity.

They started working on 3e as just another normal version of DnD. Fighters were fucking GOOD at fighting, but not much else. Then they got to developing Wizards and went "Hey, these are kind of our money maker. Why don't we go with a HIGH MAGIC setting instead of the normal one, and make Wizards baller as hell?" And they did, without ever changing the Fighter for the new context. So you specifically had low-magic setting Fighters alongside high-magic setting Wizards, and it kinda fucked up the balance.

In a setting where EVERYTHING is magical and magic powers are considered mundane, there is no reason for martial characters to not have some access to magic. Are you seriously gonna tell me your character has been practicing with the sword for decades, and in that time never dedicated ANY time to learning the spell True Strike? In a world were a good tenth of the population can probably cast that spell? Bullshit.

Fighters should have had access to some basic levels of magic in a way that fit their play style. Maybe not 4e levels of bullshit, but they should have at least had something, instead of being literally autistic sword weilders who refuse to use magic in a setting where it's extremely common without any actual reason for brushing it off.

Please tell me this thread is just trolls trolling trolls.

You can't all be this retarded.

>>52944562
I made a serious response to the OP question, but most every other post seems exactly that.

>>52942119
>eventually you just end up simulating an MMO because every class has to be equally viable in every situation
What is that even supposed to mean? An MMO with classes where every class is equally viable in every situation is a pretty damn shitty MMO.

>>52945065
Ssssh, he's trying to rag on 4e for being "too balanced", don't ruin it with logic.

>>52942243
>You described it yourself: a fighter can't just alter reality, a cleric can't pick a lock, and a wizard can't go 10 rounds in the ring bare knuckle brawling with an ogre.
and this is why point buy is superior to non-point buy.
Every.
Single.
Time.

>>52942243
>they could alter reality, they could pick locks
Which is the same.

File: IMG_0784.jpg (25KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 259x194px

>>52942839
Well, Frank, it really depends on how much magic exists in the setting. If you as the GM think the setting would be better with less magic, then there's less magic in your setting. Of course, talk to your players before making that call; they are just as important to the game's enjoyment as you are.

Also keep in mind that lv.1 wizards should be considered as apprentices or rookies; they're curious, (relatively) young, and just getting the hang of this magic thing. Pic related.

>>52945121
This.

>i want to play a covet holy warrior who acts like holy assassin
>you can just get holy powers and invest in stealth!
>thanks you point buy!
Vs
>nuh paladin and cleric is heavy armor no rogue stelth

Tbh class cucks arent human.

>>52946575
You know you can do a DEX Pala/Cleric in all modern D&Ds (technically 4e has a dedicated Avenger class for them)?

>>52946589
And be inferior in everyway to either rogue or non stelth paladin/priest while point buy gets you to play your character tailor made as how you like, see and want?


Again you seem to be a class cuck who doesnt grasp this go multiclass paste with your mouth.

>>52943548
>Boring games are boring because of boring people.
Huh, so my group just suddenly became boring at the point we switched systems, and then became interesting when we switched again. Weird. It's almost like it's easier to have a fun game in a fun system, assuming you're not one of the two extreme ends of the spectrum of "interesting," but that clearly can't be the case.

>>52942593
You seem to be ducking anon's point, which is that each of the end goals (reality is altered, the door is opened, and the ogre is defeated) can easily be accomplished by the caster, whereas the fighter and rogue can each only accomplish one of the three.

>>52942119
>classes

>>52946589
You could but 1) you'd be shittier at DEX based skills than the Rogue or Bard due to the way that class proficiencies work and 2) you'll be shittier than every other Cleric/Paladin of equal level who invested in the right stats.

As opposed to point buy where I can be a holy assassin who garrotes heathens in the name of our lord at the cost of X points, which everyone else in the party would have, which scales with how many levels I bought in those abilities.

>>52942119
>and a wizard can't go 10 rounds in the ring bare knuckle brawling with an ogre.
Clearly you aren't talking about D&D, because wizards can obliterate ogres in a barefisted brawling

>>52942119
>How much balance is too much and how much is not enough?
True balance is hard to achieve, at least reach a point in where everybody is useful, instead of a couple of classes outclassing in every field ever literally everybody else.

>>52942637
Kek, no, even faster
Polymorph, now wheres that ogre?

>>52942734
that doesnt solve shit when they allow caster classes that break the system since fucking 1st level

>>52947782
This. Reminder that Polymorph->Sleep->Disintegrate kills with one failed save in 5e, which is much less save or die than 3.X.

>>52943383
Suspension of disbelief and immersion is the sole duty of the reader/player. You really can't do a whole lot if someone just refuses to play along, and moreover you shouldn't cater to that autistic asshole at all.

>>52944060
Does anyone else actually like Vancian magic?

Especially in more old school systems, I like how it forces magic users to make hard choices and think about what they're going to use that day.

>>52946883
>And be inferior in everyway to either rogue or non stelth paladin/priest while point buy gets you to play your character tailor made as how you like, see and want?
>>52947740
>1) you'd be shittier at DEX based skills than the Rogue or Bard due to the way that class proficiencies work

There are ways to get class proficiencies AND this is only true for the shittiest edition (which BTW also allows multiclassing but w/e).

2.) you'll be shittier than every other Cleric/Paladin of equal level who invested in the right stats.

>>52946589
>And be inferior in everyway to either rogue or non stelth paladin/priest while point buy gets you to play your character tailor made as how you like, see and want?


This is ALSO only true for the shittiest edition, and only because DEX was a trap stat in them (and only until ToB came out, or you are playing PF). You wouldn't be any shittier than a dex rogue as a dex cleric. You'd have the same amount of shittiness in the character because it was DEX that was sucking hard.

>As opposed to point buy where I can be a holy assassin who garrotes heathens in the name of our lord at the cost of X points

You don't even need to be the cleric/paladin class for that you fucking autist.

> which everyone else in the party would have

Yes, because pointbuy removes niche protection and homogenizes characters, we already know this.

>which scales with how many levels I bought in those abilities.

I'm not sure how that matters, but sure.

tl dr; You are both either retarded or trolls.

I'm going to run a superhero game or something where everyone has mechanically identical options available to them but every aspect of the fluff related to their abilities is 100% up to each player. Should be good.

>>52948031
I always kinda like Vancian because it is easy to skin it into something resembling Taoist magic, with the caster carefully enchanting paper talismans each day in order to cast your spells. I think if spellcasting is spontaneous and EASY, why would anyone in the setting NOT be magic?? I like the idea that spells need time and care to prepare them.

So do the magic users you guys play with ever run out of spells?

I'm just genuinely curious. Shouldn't wizards have to rest to regain their spell slots/prepare more spells?

>>52942119
Depending on your definition of balance, the game would be perfectly balanced if everyone had an equal part to play in the grand story. Even if one class specialised in on area, as long as those areas would vary, the game would be balanced.

I think the game becomes too balanced (bland) when every character steps over into the other character's areas of expertise.

I think there is too little balance when a character doesn't feel somewhat equal to another character.

This is usually more dependent on the gm (and players), but the system can encourage imbalance (or balance).

>>52942119

>I prefer having things classes clearly can't do. A fighter can't just alter reality, a cleric can't pick a lock, and a wizard can't go 10 rounds in the ring bare knuckle brawling with an ogre.

But that IS MMO balancing.

If I'm playing FFXIV, my Scholar can't tank Iftit while the Paladin kicks his ass and the Ninja keeps us alive. We are each good at different things.

>>52943981

>Sure, we risk the problem of 4e, but that is not a necessary conclusion.

But 4e had each class play meaningfully differently even within the same role.

A monk, Sorcerer and ranger are not remotely the same even though they are all focused on trying to make the other guy dead fast.

>>52948128
That's another thing that leads to the problem of fifteen minute workday. Wizard blows his load of his best spells in the first encounter solving it easily, then retires to rest for the next day. Sure, sometimes the party is under time restraints but having every single task be timed to prevent this stretches believability. It's a real annoyance either way.

>>52948299
>It's a real annoyance either way.

This is why I prefer not having daily resources for any class.

>>52948069
>1
Throughout D&D's history, regardless or edition, your class will have a base assumption as far as how you build your character because only certain stats work off of your class's abilities. You can't, for example, have an INT based Fighter and still keep up with a Fighter who valued STR and CON because nothing in the Fighter's toolkit benefits from high INT.
>2
Point buys don't homogenize characters unless everyone in the party specifically goes out of their way to build their characters exactly as one another. When I said "which everyone in the party would have," I meant that everyone would start off with the same amount of points, which you'd know if you had good reading comprehension.
>3
It means that regardless of your character's concept, if you buy X levels in Y skill, you're going to be just as good at doing Y as any other character who bought X levels, as opposed to D&D where your class determines how much you can get out of a particular stat.

>>52948128
>>52948299
>>52948318
Martials tend to run out of HP before casters run out of spells. In a 5e game I was in, the Fighters in the group opted for more rests than my sorcerer did because they needed more HP and time to refill their proficiency dice.

>>52948355
You are putting the carriage before the horse.

You don't pick a class and then pick how you want to play. You decide how you want to play, and then pick a class that fits.

>>52948396
>You don't pick a class and then pick how you want to play
I actually do, but I started on VtM, not D&D

>>52948436
They were both pretty terrible system, so my condolences.

>>52944036
URealms is this, now.

>>52948452
That's life, we had fun. Even at 13 we realised there were too many dice rolls in the storyteller system's combat and homebrewed a streamlined version.

>>52948396
The problem is that some playstyles are so bland that everyone can do it (I want to be a melee guy who hits things really hard) while other playstyles are just not available due to not fitting within the constraints of the default classes (I want to be a melee guy who uses his intellect to dispatch foes).

Either you go for generic character #2351 or you don't and end up being punished for it by the system not giving you enough benefits to offset the penalties of ignoring your class's niche.

Then you add multi-classing to the mix and now you're just sitting there asking "why even have classes if I can just combine them together" and "Why do I need to take these worthless abilities just so I can get the one ability that ties it all together?"

>>52948355
>You can't, for example, have an INT based Fighter and still keep up with a Fighter who valued STR and CON because nothing in the Fighter's toolkit benefits from high INT.

My favorite fighter build in 4e is entirely INT based (Eladrin Knight).

>>52948523
Another reason why 4e is the best edition.

>>52948516
>(I want to be a melee guy who uses his intellect to dispatch foes)

How does that make sense in universe? Wouldn't an intelligent character realize "Hmm, being in melee despite not having either physical power or any spells to buff myself up is kinda stupid, innit?".

>>52948552
>tfw too intelligent to lose a fight
But seriously, why shouldn't it?

>>52948552
>How does that make sense in universe?

Did you not see the Sherlock Holmes movies? That's more or less how they make him work. He's not stronger or faster, he's smarter and much better tactically.

>>52948516
>"why even have classes if I can just combine them together"

>"Why do I need to take these worthless abilities just so I can get the one ability that ties it all together?"

Good points, and the reason why 4e style multiclassing rocks, while 3.5 style sucks.

Multiclassing class based systems are essentially just very chunky pointbuys.

>>52948568
Why shouldn't it what?

>>52948591
I saw, and if that's a thing in your universe, the game should have something like 4e's melee training.

Do note that Sherlock in fantasy land would be at the very least an artificer or an alchemist though, not a fighter (he gets his shit pushed in a lot too, his INT-fighting only seems to work against idiots).

>>52948625

>Do note that Sherlock in fantasy land would be at the very least an artificer or an alchemist though, not a fighter

He doesn't seem to do much with either tech or magic. He's just smart.

>>52948656
>He doesn't seem to do much with either tech or magic

The guy makes silencers and adrenaline syringes as a hobby.

>>52948625
Why shouldn't it make sense in universe?

>>52948552
>How does that make sense in universe?
Tavi from "Furies of Calderon," Batman, Sam Winchester from "Supernatural," Sherlock Holmes, etc.

In fantasyland, it's very easy to justify an INT based Fighter, just have them focus more on being brutally cunning rather than cunningly brutal.

>>52948663
Craft is a skill that anyone can technically have though.

>>52943210
Wait. So you're saying that your immersion is broken by a paladin channeling divine power to heal someone in a fantasy setting because when it is mentioned in other fantasy stories, it does not happen all the time?

Do fighter characters winning 1v4 melee's not break your immersion? Because that shit is not anywhere close to reality and it is a pretty standard combat in most games.

>>52948674
Because a smart character would know what his own talents are?

Like, Pointdexter knows he's no good in a fist fight, so he doesn't get into one... unless he's inside a mech, or using magic. Because why gimp yourself by fighting in a way that you are not capable of?

>Tavi from "Furies of Calderon," Batman, Sam Winchester from "Supernatural," Sherlock Holmes, etc.

These guys are also all really fucking ripped (except Tavi?, I don't know that series). Batman is basically "Olympic level athlete in everything" strong. They also all use tools to enhance their abilities further, and thinking is their "main" thing, not being good fighters.

This is also an issue with the system, not with classes, anyway. If INT has a combat application built in (either by a specific combat action like "create opening" or "figure out weak point" or something like that, or feats like Melee Training) then an INT fighter works and makes sense.

>>52948725
Yeah, sure. We are talking about a guy who was willing to make sense of the mad ravings and voodoo mysticism, but he totally wouldn't use spells/magical shit if they were available because...?

>>52948803
>Because a smart character would know what his own talents are?
And if being smart is what is making him good in a fight? Why gimp himself? Its not gimping if its what makes him strong. Its a fantasy game, use your imagination. I would let a level 20 thief literally steal someone's heart if a campaign got that far. You haven't given an actual reason why an intelligence based fighter couldn't make sense other than "the designer didn't put it in", which is not an actual argument against the anon who said that's what he wants.

>>52948803
>Because why gimp yourself by fighting in a way that you are not capable of?
An INT based character can survive in melee provided he has both the tools and the knowledge to dispatch their opponents. Look at Van Helsing for goodness sake.
>Batman is basically "Olympic level athlete in everything" strong.
Which doesn't matter that much when you're fighting people like Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Killer Croc, and Clayface on a daily basis.
>They also all use tools to enhance their abilities further, and thinking is their "main" thing, not being good fighters.
Yet they pull off impressive wins against clearly stronger opponents by thinking, rather than just overpowering their opponents through brute force.

File: official_roleplaying_game_tier_list_2017.png (2MB, 1988x2060px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1988x2060px

>>52944060
>You might as well just not play 3.pf, it's possible to find worse systems but you really have to try.

This list contains about 20 of them.

File: 1378038474887.jpg (38KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x667px

>>52948950
>Pathfinder
>Better than 5e

>>52949007
It is, though. Pathfinder has ten times the character design choices, and that's WITH adjusting for the fact that most of them suck. Chargen in Pathfinder is actually interesting, the combat is fun rather than being an overly-structured mess like 5e. The math is shit, admittedly, and 5e fixes it, but 5e is so fucking bland because the lazy kike developers wrote out a half-assed game then refused to come up with any feats or new chargen content, instead burping out of their fat cheeto-bloating mouths, "HOMEBREW IT!"

>>52948877
>And if being smart is what is making him good in a fight? Why gimp himself? Its not gimping if its what makes him strong

You still haven't explained HOW. Just "He smart he strong!". In some campaigns (where Sherlock Holmes fighting makes sense) that's fine. In some, it isn't.

>I would let a level 20 thief literally steal someone's heart if a campaign got that far.

Good! I'd let a level 20 Fighter fight scores of enemies alone. Or gods. Or Titans. And come out as the victor.

>You haven't given an actual reason why an intelligence based fighter couldn't make sense other than "the designer didn't put it in", which is not an actual argument against the anon who said that's what he wants.

The reason is that the Fighter class's point, the reason for its existence is to be the apex of physical prowess. It is the archetypical strong man clad in heavy, armor big weapons and shield. Weathering the storm and blowing enemies around with awesome might.

Bitching about it not rewarding INT is missing the point (and hell, you can even work around in a bunch of class based systems that aren't D&D). If you decide you want a character who applies INT, or a more broadly, trickery to combats, you'd pick a class that does that.

>>52948893
>An INT based character can survive in melee provided he has both the tools and the knowledge to dispatch their opponents. Look at Van Helsing for goodness sake.

Good! Make mechs and other tools that utilize those things part of the INT-fighter class pack. Call it, say, Artificier maybe?

>Which doesn't matter that much when you're fighting people like Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Killer Croc, and Clayface on a daily basis.

It means he's not Stephen Hawking punching out people with his brain from a wheelchair. He's a well rounded character with 18s in everything.

>Yet they pull off impressive wins against clearly stronger opponents by thinking, rather than just overpowering their opponents through brute force.

Okay.

>>52949104
I didn't notice that you put F.A.T.A.L. in okay tier when I first posted so your bait won't work against me.

>>52949141
And d20 modern.

>>52948950
You should at least put some effort into your bait mate.

>>52949141
I was about to post a sad kitten replying to your biting of the bait, but well done, if a bit late

>>52943144
Rifts north america does for sure, but south America and japan/china don't feel very western.
Nor does phase world or wormwood, nor Atlantis, and england and africa certainly dont either.
If you dont run your games out of rifts books about NA it doesnt have much western feel

>>52949137
>In some campaigns (where Sherlock Holmes fighting makes sense) that's fine. In some, it isn't.
Why wouldn't this make sense though?
>If you decide you want a character who applies INT, or a more broadly, trickery to combats, you'd pick a class that does that.
So are you saying that combat doesn't require strategy then?
>Good! Make mechs and other tools that utilize those things part of the INT-fighter class pack. Call it, say, Artificier maybe?
Why are you assuming that the only way that an INT based Fighter can succeed is through making mechs and machinery?
>It means he's not Stephen Hawking punching out people with his brain from a wheelchair.
He might as well be considering that each of his opponents are magnitudes stronger than him.
>Okay.
Is this you admitting you're wrong?

>>52949266
>Why wouldn't this make sense though?
Because Sherlock Holmes doing that is fantastic as shit. Not everybody wants that to be a part of his world. For example, those that want to play strong fighters may be a bit upset if the smart wizard ALSO gets to be good at melee combat because "He fights like Sherlock Holmes from that movie!"
>So are you saying that combat doesn't require strategy then?
No? I'm just saying that the fighter is not the strategist class. The Warlord, for example, is. Hell, you could make the argument for the rogue too.
>Why are you assuming that the only way that an INT based Fighter can succeed is through making mechs and machinery?
It's one way of how it'd apply in D&D. It's not the only way.
>He might as well be considering that each of his opponents are magnitudes stronger than him.
No? He's still fighting with strength, and dexterity and constitution and whatever. He's just also smart that acts as a tiebreaker.

Besides, with all the prep time shenanigans Batman has, he's basically a wizard with tech instead of magic who rolled 18 on all the other stats as well.

>Is this you admitting you're wrong?

It's me admitting that heroes since Odysseus sometimes outsmart enemies.

>>52949405

>For example, those that want to play strong fighters may be a bit upset if the smart wizard ALSO gets to be good at melee combat because "He fights like Sherlock Holmes from that movie!"

Wouldn't that be a fighter still, not something a wizard can do?

I mean, a Sorcerer and Bard are both Cha-based but they don't have the same abilities.

>>52943337
It doesn't sound like you have ever read the rifts rules let alone played in a game.
Can you get retarded powerful in rifts? Sure, but its not likely if you don't start at least up there on the power scale.
Ive never played in a game where a GM allowed anything and everything.
If the majority of the party is dragon's or tougher and you choose to make a mortal man of arms type character its not the systems fault. Its you, anf possibly your GM for not mentioning the huge power disparages.
Rifts is playable and fun. Its nice to be able to play a heroic godling and not feel like its mearly a +2 to a few stars and nightvison. There are something like 30 dragons now, and most at least feel different enough care which one you pick.

Honestly rifts is fun, if you hate it because your to into the idea of all lv1's should be killing dire rats and consider 2 orks the BBG your the retard autistic one.

>>52949422
>Wouldn't that be a fighter still, not something a wizard can do?

Sure. I like how PbtA hacks often give something like that to "fighters" (using Edge for combats).

But OD&D didn't really do that shit (and honestly didn't really need to because of how stats, skills, and character generation in general worked). WotC D&D just needs time for the option to appear, since as I've said, you can do INT based "fighter" builds in all.

>>52948227

It's the formatting thing. The people who bitch about 4e saw the standard templates and made no effort to look further or actually understand how the system worked.

>>52949104
>Pathfinder has ten times the character design choices, and that's WITH adjusting for the fact that most of them suck. Chargen in Pathfinder is actually interesting
Sure, I'm going to totally give this to you

And? just because pink shit is pink doesn't mean is better than aa awfully done stew

>>52949405
>For example, those that want to play strong fighters may be a bit upset if the smart wizard ALSO gets to be good at melee combat because "He fights like Sherlock Holmes from that movie!"
Sherlock Holmes would just be an INT based martial, just like how clerics are WIS based casters.
>I'm just saying that the fighter is not the strategist class.
Well they should be, considering how so many creatures in D&D are physically stronger than them.
>It's one way of how it'd apply in D&D. It's not the only way.
Then why bring it up?
>No?
Yes, most villains in his rogue's gallery would murder him in a straight up brawl, yet he's able to take on Superman because he's smart enough to take advantage of their weaknesses. Either way, Batman was just one example.
>It's me admitting that heroes since Odysseus sometimes outsmart enemies.
So why are you so deadset against INT-based Fighters if you're admitting that heroes are known for being able to outsmart foes?

>>52949480
You can make an INT based Fighter in the same sense that you can make a DEX based Wizard.

You can, but it's not recommended.

>>52949636
>Sherlock Holmes would just be an INT based martial

Sherlock Holmes in an RPG is the "shitty" kind of INT based martial because he's like "I do the same things like the fighter but roll INT!".

This is stupid. This is boring. This is devaluing the unique niches of the stat of INT and STR when you can just use one to roll for the other. If your system has INT-combat rolls that aren't attacks but, say, "spot weakness", then you also don't have this problem.

>Well they should be, considering how so many creatures in D&D are physically stronger than them.

But they aren't. Fighters and fighter-type classes have the most HP and damage. They are the closest to being on even footing with monsters.

And D&D is not a solo game anyway, so you can leave the strategy up to the guy who focused on being a strategist.

>Then why bring it up?
To show you a fucking example that Sherlock Holmes fighting is not the be all end-all of INT based fighting?

>Yes, most villains in his rogue's gallery would murder him in a straight up brawl

Most of the villain gallery he inherited, maybe. He's stronger than most of his own mainstay villains (Joker, Riddler, Two-face, Penguin, Catwoman, etc.). Sure, sometimes a Bane turns up, but Bane also CRACKED the shit out of him.

> yet he's able to take on Superman because he's smart enough to take advantage of their weaknesses.

Preptime, batwank and you know, last time an actual mech suit.

>So why are you so deadset against INT-based Fighters if you're admitting that heroes are known for being able to outsmart foes?

Because you don't have to be INT BASED to be able to outsmart enemies. Odysseus was wily but that was on TOP of being a stupid good fighter.

>>52949703
I could make an INT based "Fighter" (martial, possibly heavily armored combatant in melee) in every WotC edition that'd be at least on par with a standard STR build.

>Speaking about comic or book characters
They dont work on rpg because all they do is planed by the writer, they fail or succed under writer demand. Batman has survived being punch by an angry god through several reiforced concrete walls, he has outran the Flash, he knocked down gods with one punch, he punched with the force of a nuke once, etc

Batman is the least consistent character in comics, Punisher is the second.

>>52942937
>Well, blessed with power from a god.
>Subtle difference.
They've got more power than Jesus, yet their gods are oddly specialized. This is bonkers.

>>52944261
Looking forward to your F.A.T.A.L. LP, m'lord.

>>52949505
But they sure made every effort to sound obnoxiously smart while whining!

>>52949890
>1
Stats are already devalued as a martial class because dealing damage is the most inefficient means of dealing with enemies.
>2
Barbarians and paladins would be the martials that are the closest to being on even footing with monsters, not the Fighter.
>3
Even if D&D isn't a solo game, there should still be some degree of variance as far as how you approach obstacles.
>4
Nobody said that he was, you just misunderstood it as being a hard fact, rather than an example.
>5
How do you propose to outsmart anyone without any INT smart guy?

>>52949905
>I could make an INT based "Fighter" (martial, possibly heavily armored combatant in melee) in every WotC edition that'd be at least on par with a standard STR build.
Care to show us then?

>>52949905
Ok
I want one for 5e and another for 3.5e. That would be easy, only 2 out of all the editions

>>52950149
>Stats are already devalued as a martial class because dealing damage is the most inefficient means of dealing with enemies.

In the worst edition.

>Barbarians and paladins would be the martials that are the closest to being on even footing with monsters, not the Fighter.

They are "fighter-type" classes, and they are supposed to be on equal level, unless you are playing the worst edition.

>Even if D&D isn't a solo game, there should still be some degree of variance as far as how you approach obstacles.

There is. But that doesn't mean you need to exchange what a class's most used stat is.

>Nobody said that he was, you just misunderstood it as being a hard fact, rather than an example.

Because it's a "hard fact" of the shitty type of INT fighter.

>How do you propose to outsmart anyone without any INT smart guy?

You can have more than one high stat. You can have skills. Fighters not can't be smart, they just can't be weak (usually).

------------------------------------------------------------------

You are focusing on a SINGLE class based system that isn't even very well designed and extend its problems to all other existing class based systems. Your argument also boils down to "this hammer sucks cause I can't use it as a screwdriver" when you complain about it. I'm personally done since this is going nowhere and isn't going to any time soon.

>>52950161
3.5 has warblade, 4e has Eladrin Knight, 5e I'd need to look over the UAs how to best grab INT shillelagh, but I'm about 80% certain it's possible, or just make him split INT/DEX.

I'm not going to spend the next hour building characters though.

>>52943153
Because "reality flex"needs less changes to the system than other ways of class balance.

For example if we divide tasks within the game (roughly) into three parts:

-Killing people and fighting, intimidation. Power.
-Skills, stealing things, diplomacy, stealth. Guile.
-Knowledge, dealing with ghosts and weird things. Mind.

With such divide we will need to change the system and classes on the basic level. Fighter should not be "whack an enemy for a couple of rounds and if he doesn't have magic you maybe kill him". No. At around medium level he should become "I make a step, mob dies. I throw an axe, mob dies. I shoot arrows at the boss it is in real fucking pain". His attacks should be analogue to save or die spells for most normal enemies.

Rogue won't be dabbling in skills with some of them not even pulling it to Olympics level. He should be able to steal pants from people in such a way they won't be able to notice it until later. And he should do it reliably. When you want to scout some place you should not ask wizard to cast a spell - you should send a rogue and it should be a better choice.

And wizard gets to deal with riddles, ancient texts, weird creatures, things that don't have a physical body and other such nastiness. When it comes to combat against say epic bosses he will be the one to find and open the way to exploit their weakness. Destroy an artifact, break a magical link and so on.
______________

But such changes mandate to make a full rewrite of the system.

>>52950324
>how to best grab INT shillelagh
You can't

File: One more bit of this shit, and I swear....jpg (24KB, 288x252px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 288x252px

>>52950334
>a full rewrite of the system.
So, making a different game.
A TTRPG that's not Pathfinder or D&D.
Hoo boy, that looks like a lot of fun.

>>52950324
>In the worst edition.
There's no reason to have high STR since high DEX gives you both defensive boons and a can be used to determine attack and damage.
>They are "fighter-type" classes
So martials?
>There is. But that doesn't mean you need to exchange what a class's most used stat is.
There is when the game makes it so a class can only choose between being generic or being useless. It's the same thing if you're a high DEX wizard.
>You can have more than one high stat.
But you need at least two high stats to play your class, which means that you'll have less high stats to distribute to anything else.
>your argument also boils down to "this hammer sucks cause I can't use it as a screwdriver" when you complain about it.
Actually, the argument boils down to "why can I only use this hammer to drive in nails when I have this part that would normally pull nails out?"

You're right though, this argument is pointless because you lack reading comprehension and you're stubborn.

>>52950492
>There's no reason to have high STR since high DEX gives you both defensive boons and a can be used to determine attack and damage.

Which fucking edition?

In 3.5 STR beats the shit out of DEX for damage. In 5e, it is still more damage to use two handed STR weapons, just not to the same stupid degree. In 4e your class matters more than your weapon. In every case heavy armor compensates fully for not having high DEX.

>So martials?
Yes, but the rogue is also a martial, but not beefy, Insects and bugs etc.

>But you need at least two high stats to play your class

One of them can be INT. Hell, some sub classes expect it to be INT. To say nothing about how you don't really need any skills for combat, so you are free to pick up whatever knowledge skills you want.

>You're right though, this argument is pointless because you lack reading comprehension and you're stubborn.

Well, I have been defending fucking 3.5 edition D&D of all things because some autist here can't imagine that there are class based systems where stats are not as fucked up as in D&D. So sure, I1ll take stubborn.

>>52950471
There is no other way. You either add "reality flex" to close the gap or you take another system. Choose what you want.

>>52950641
>Defends 3.5
>Calls others autists
Just popping in to say, D&D really does cause brain damage.

>>52950717
I never said I wasn't.

And it's probably 3.5. I remember being happy before it.

>>52944482

Modifying what you're implying, if it's a high magic setting, fighters should naturally have easy access to enchanted weapons, so while they might not be casters themselves, they should know how to use a wand of magic missile and start an adventure with one because that's just a useful thing to have, or a wand of fire which they could use primarily to burn and engrave things and perhaps as a weapon if nothing else. Martials are the tool user class, so they should get a bunch of neat tools to use: think Link of TLoZ or the Barbarian and Rogue from NetHack.

>>52942839

Wizards began life as a very hasty refluffing of an 18th century artillery piece. At their core, they're anywhere between three centuries and beyond ahead of all the other classes in terms of tactical ability: if things were more balanced, the martial classes would have access to early repeating, breach-loaded firearms.

I have to say I think one of the problems with 3.x was they expanded the use of some stats and how they went about skills. Depending on your DM you might have to roll skills for everything. Suddenly INT is no longer a dump stat and you may even be worried about CHA. Paladins no longer have a real dump stat...

This is easily compounded if your DM didn't read anything on skills and wants you to roll multiple times for the same check and rolling bluff every time you don't say absolute truth.

I think prestige classes added to the issues ontop of that...

>>52943581
>Don't hate the player, hate the game.
>Despite it being both the crappy player and the crappy game.

>>52943517
This is a reason why whenever I run games, I let the players decide on what they actually WANT to play. This isn't an MMO, we don't need two dps, and a tank. If a player wants to heal, like, actually wants to save their friend's character in game via healing, then fine, they'll do it. Not because, "Oh shit, what happens if I get hit? Hey Anon, mind playing a cleric?"
That's stupid. Why have someone be forced to do something they don't want? Don't you guys like your friends? If you force them to do stuff they don't like, they won't show up.

>>52942119
>Rifts

File: IhaveNoSidesAndImustKek.jpg (31KB, 250x323px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 250x323px

>>52948950
>F.A.T.A.L in ok tier
>the first response doesn't mention it

>>52952305
see >>52949141

>>52949007
>>52949104

I am a 3tard and I prefer PF, but the pic is clear bait. Moreover, taken in context, 5ed and PF should be equal but appealing to different people (and sometimes the same people wanting different things)

>>52948950
>Dogs in the Vineyard
Forge bullshit is the only thing that can be more cancerous than White Wolf.

>>52950717
Not him, but I often post here how much fun I had with 3.5/PF, decades.
I cannot understand how much anal is a good part of /tg/ about the system. Is rally "wizard molested me as a kid" tier and is not justified but by the dumbest interpretations of spells and world-building.

>>52954753

Fuck yourself. I hate the endless tide of shitty rules light games with no original ideas, but DitV is one of the examples of a legitimately good one with actually interesting mechanics.

>>52951117
This is why I like to consolidate martial classes, so they're not as niche.

>>52954855
Ahahah what the fuck

>>52954753
>>52954855
>>52954970

wow you fags sure have me convinced, with such strong arguments.

>>52954995
DitV is a confusing catastrofuck good for railroading.

>>52954995

In short, then-

Unlike most rules light indies, Dogs in the Vineyard actually has mechanics worth a damn. Assigning dice to character traits is interesting, letting you directly set the importance of various things about your character. This shows up in a lot of systems, but DitV uses it well.

The mechanics are odd but cool. Each side in a conflict rolls dice for each relevant trait (more on how you determine which traits are relevant later), keeping all the dice in front of you. Each side takes turns putting forth a pair of dice, with the aim of the opponent being to beat your total.

If you can beat their number on two dice, you're fine. If you can beat them on one dice, you get an advantage. If you can only beat them with three or more dice, you suffer consequences for each dice you use over two.

This makes low dice traits interesting as those 1's and 2's you roll need to be spent eventually.

The other thing that plays into this is the games escalation system. It has four stages, IIRC- Words, fists, weapons and guns. Each one opens up more traits, but also increases the potential danger to everyone involved.

The actual experience of rolling off, of knowing what you have access to now and what you might have access to later, figuring out how to best use your resources and also what that means in terms of how those traits come into play is an experience I found very compelling. I'd love to see another game take the ideas, perhaps adding a little more crunch since DitV is somewhat lacking in any mechanical layers beyond those basic interactions.

>>52954811
You can't understand because you're too autistic to understand why people have differing opinions, even when they give reasons for why they prefer other systems besides 3.PF.

For me personally, once I started games that had a point buy system, it was hard to go back to class based systems due to how restictive they are and the combat is dull as rocks because of how much HP everyone has vs. how much damage everyone deals.

>>52954811
All it takes is the system ruining a game once.

>>52954811
If you had fun with 3.PF just think how much fun you'd have playing a system that adds to the fun instead of detracts from it!

>>52942119
>muh MMO boogieman

Oh yeah, i know who you are, you are the one who thinks that figthers shouldnt be able to do anything than roll for damage and that "roleplaying your attacks" compensates for lacking in answers compared to mages.

>>52948950
>tfw you like both 5th edition and savage world

>>52956023
And you're the kind of weeb who wants to split mountains with your half human half demon katana wielding character.

>>52956570

Is there a reason that them doing so is any less ridiculous than a wizard doing the same thing with a spell?

>>52956617
Mundane is not magic

>>52942119
>Now personally I think this becomes a slippery slope where eventually you just end up simulating an MMO because every class has to be equally viable in every situation.

Why is /tg/ so retarded about mmos
the whole fucking point of class balance in mmos is that each of the 3 roles are needed equally, not that they're all the same. Healers are completely different than dps, which are completely different than tanks. There is NEVER a situation were every class is equally viable. In wow, /tg/ favorite game to compare, a warrior cannot do the same work as a priest, and rogues and priests can't tank. Back when I played priests couldn't DPS either but that might have changed.

Even in the most modern casualised version of wow, a warrior can never be a healer, nor will a mage ever tank.

It's almost like /tg/ heard about mmos in passing, never even tried to play them and just decided to use it as a generic insult without really know what it means because elitism towards video games

>>52956661

Yes? And why shouldn't mundane skill be able to achieve that kind of thing in a high fantasy setting?

It depends on the metaphysics of the setting. And there is more than enough mythological and cultural precedence for mundane skill and hard work yielding superhuman results, but in a way which is seen as entirely natural. Wuxia fiction is an excellent example of this.

There's plenty of ways it can be done. Arguing that only one of them is allowable or appropriate is just stupid.

>>52943383
>What I'm saying is that without suspension of disbelief, your story
it's a game
people play it because it is enjoyable. Suspension of disbelief does not even need to be a part of it.

>>52956686

It's the layouts and templates thing.

People who make this kind of comment look at the UI and assume that all classes play the same, just like they looked at 4e's templates and layout and assumed that, because it all looks the same, it is the same.

Because for some reason, obfuscating things and presenting two very similar sets of mechanics as if they're different is more appealing to some people than presenting two very different sets of mechanics in a simple, straightforward easy to understand way.

>>52948355
>You can't, for example, have an INT based Fighter and still keep up with a Fighter who valued STR and CON

How would that be true in point buy systems anyway
>dude with high physical abilities and high skill in sword
is always going to be better at fighting than
>dude with high intelligence or IQ or mind or whatever and high skill sword

>>52956845

Some point buy systems let you choose, or relatively cheaply reassign, which stat you use for attacks, instead of innately tying it to one.

>>52948396
>telling DnD players to go against how the game has trained them to think

Good luck with that, anon.

>>52956821
>People who make this kind of comment look at the UI and assume that all classes play the same
It just baffles me that despite being such a popular genre of vidya, tabletop RPG players just know fucking nothing about it, and to this very fucking day, still spout bullshit that is completely wrong.

>>52956845
>How would that be true in point buy systems anyway
In some point buy systems, they allow you to gain abilities that work off of different stats when making an attack action.
>dude with high physical abilities and high skill in sword is always going to be better at fighting than dude with high intelligence or IQ or mind or whatever and high skill sword
Which is generally why every major war fought and won was due to smart generals employing brilliant tactics rather than brute force, right?

>>52956944
Its been established that D&D causes brain damage, so having a good system with clear cut rules that actually fosters strong cooperative play confuses and angers the 3aboo.

>>52956883
>>52956947
>Some point buy systems let you choose, or relatively cheaply reassign, which stat you use for attacks, instead of innately tying it to one.
>In some point buy systems, they allow you to gain abilities that work off of different stats when making an attack action.
so does D&D
and either way, it's not something "inherent" to point buy systems so using that as an example of the superiority of point buy systems is kind of missing the mark.

>Which is generally why every major war fought and won was due to smart generals employing brilliant tactics rather than brute force, right?
Which is why I said "better at fighting" not better at commanding at an strategical or tactical level

Do I really need to specify better at "melee combat"? It's kind of obvious what I meant m8

>>52956976

Being fair, it is understandable why some people found the transition difficult.

Going from a clunky, barely functional system with enough ambiguity and vagueness that every group who played it long term more or less created their own system very loosely based off it to a tightly designed system that actually works and responds badly to the kind of tweaks and modifications that were constantly necessary in 3.PF must have been incredibly jarring.

>>52957012
>so does D&D
D&D tries to do something like this but the problem is that in most cases, you'll need to look up the specific means of producing an INT based Fighter and you'd have to convince your DM to let you play it since not every DM likes and allows splat books.
>Do I really need to specify better at "melee combat"?
Even in that sense, you can find people like Musashi who employed fairly strong strategies that allowed him to overcome opponents, such as showing up to a duel late or fighting in a position where the sun was at his back.

>>52957110
Using strategies to compensate for your weakness still doesn't change the fact that in a straight up fight you are worse than the other guy.
And taking this back to D&D, a fighter with str con and dex 8 can still use strategy to compensate and beat a str con dex 18 fighter.

So, to put this specific derail to rest, the post mentioned specifically, how in D&D, a fighter that doesn't put points in str and con is not going to "keep up" with a fighter who does. That is still true in a point buy system if you leave your physical abilities low, your are not going to keep up in a fight with another character who does have high abilities. And in both point-buy or not point-buy you can compensate by strategy, or by somehow using mental abilities to replace physical thanks to some special rule or another.

>>52957214

Some pointbuy entirely disassociate the two. They make every stat useful in combat in some sense, and let you choose which stat goes to attack/damage since it's the most important thing of all.

In those systems, a physically powerful fighter is no more effective than a mentally or socially powerful one, since they abstract things and focus on what matters to the character and their abilities rather than attempting to follow 'realism'.

>>52957214
>Using strategies to compensate for your weakness still doesn't change the fact that in a straight up fight you are worse than the other guy.
Why? Because you deem it so? Like I said man, there are plenty of examples of fighters who made up their lack of power for brains, it's the basis for several martial arts styles all across the orient.
>a fighter with str con and dex 8 can still use strategy to compensate and beat a str con dex 18 fighter.
He really can't, even if he won initiative and did something to give his opponent disadvantage, all his opponent would have to do is hit once and it's over since he'd have a penalty to his HP, AC, and attack/damage bonus.
>That is still true in a point buy system if you leave your physical abilities low, your are not going to keep up in a fight with another character who does have high abilities.
As was previously stated, in some point buy systems, you can buy abilities that would allow you to use a MNTL stat instead of PHYS.

>>52957257
>Some pointbuy entirely disassociate the two.
>some
exactly my point. It's not an inherent advantage of point-buy. It's an advantage of specific point-buy systems.
So just specify which system it is you're wanting to say is superior. Otherwise people will just think of games like gurps, vampire, or shadowrun, which are all classless and yet still have "high physical abilities=better at melee combat"

>>52957214

But the strategies are part of their strength. That's like saying 'he used his superior skill to parry all my attacks. In a proper fight I'd beat him'. Power is power no matter the source.

>>52957328

Actually shadowrun let's you do physical combat with mental stats. Mind over matter is a hell of a drug.

>>52946575
I mean being a holy assassin is entirely possible in D&D. I can think of 6 ways to do it off the top of my head.

>>52957351
>But the strategies are part of their strength
at some point you guys stopped talking about actual in-game stats and started talking about metaphysical concepts and let me tell you, I don't care about arguing the meaning of strength. So sure, a smart guy can figure some trick and beat a strong guy

but in an actual game, barring any specific rules that allow a perfect replacement of physical stats with mental stats, (like shadowrun, as the other guy corrected me), a guy with high physical stats is going to be better at hitting and killing people in melee than a guy with low physical stats.

>>52957379
You are entirely correct, and I admit my mistake. I had forgotten about that.

>>52957380
>>52946575
there are like 5 prestige classes that were literally that in 3e, pretty sure also a few kits in 2e, and an entire base class (avenger) in 4e. Choosing "but I can't be a holy assassin in D&D" as an example was a really poor choice lol.

Not to mention in everyone's favorite system to hate on, 3.x you can just multiclass.

>>52957452

>other guy

Both me actually.

>>52949952
I think if he wanted to, Jesus could have just fucking pulled a dinosaur out of his robes to fuck shit up.

>>52957472
it's okay, I'm also you

>>52942637
You've done nothing.

Stoneskin will offer some defense, bulls strength will give you some extra strength, and enlarge will give you another +2, with a -2 dex (and medium's being able to hit you easier)

A fighter would rip through a mage buffed like that, in a few rounds. It's unlikely the mage would get more than a hit or two in before he was squished.

File: 1416034478057.jpg (64KB, 565x668px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 565x668px

>>52942119
>>52942243
>just alter reality
Spellcaster is a fucking wierd concept for a party role. "Casting spells" is not a definitive role, it could mean nearly anything. Idealy everyone can alter reality they just don't do it by snapping their fingers. A Fireball is just a bunch of fighter attacks at once, invisibility is just a convenient thief thing, charm person is just diplomacy for ugly people.

Here is better one for your standard do-anything magic-user: Panic-button. The spellcaster is a jack-of-all-trades AND a master of all trades but only for a limited time. The caster has a hard limit on the magic available to them or their magic is risky enough they must limit their use of it. They can suddenly turn the tide of a challenge but even at high levels they have to be careful when they choose to do this. Sure they can do anyone's job but only momentarily so they are constantly in the support position.

I think this is how the Magic-user was originally intended to function. At that time however he could also sneak and the fight and cleric could pick locks. They class determined the pace. The fighter was good at fighting but his high HP made him a solid candidate to try disarming traps or vanguarding any dangerous endevor, he was fast and messy. The M-U could do ery amazing things suddenly but his low surivability meant he had to be slow and tricky. The Cleric was moderately tough but could lend power to himself or others making them on par with fighters, a steady supporter able to make small bursts.

You could have a party of all fighters, all M-Us or all Clerics but it will alter how fast and flexible you are.

tl;dr
>Class can determine things other than what you can and can't do
>Class can determine the pace at which you act.

>>52942684
Dick guns are a criminal offense in Coalition States territory, anon.

>>52943027
The sad thing is that Warhammer 40k invaded the United States and stole the "over the top mashup" audience that should have belonged to Rifts.

>>52943144
I've always thought of Rifts as the old US Manga Corps animes mixed with Cannon Films.

>>52943291
There's also the fact that it was designed by a guy who typically ran groups of 12+. So it was okay to have people that were worthless in combat because they wouldn't be playing the same night the juicer was murdering a platoon of dead boys.

File: 1402254642075.png (570KB, 948x535px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 948x535px

>>52942119
This might be a nice place to ask.

I'm homebrewing for a low end sci-fi setting (think Lost Planet or Starship Troopers). One of the classes I've added was a melee focused swordsman of sorts for the crazy fucker who wants to fight hostile xenos in grorious melee combat.

What are some cool abilities or features you could give to said madman'c class? Primarily looking for out of combat or utility abilities in a general sense

>>52958707

The sword class from XCOM 2 might be a good thing to reference?

Mobility is something they'll require, in combat an out. Maybe give them some access to gadgets/special equipment that lets them be super fast and agile, it's a generally useful skillset.

Maybe give them some morale/courage abilities too? An intense resistance to fear or panic, an aura of confidence and awe in the other troops for what they can do, giving them some social stuff too.

Maybe factor in some secondary medical knowledge? They study anatomy to better understand their foe, so they're also decent at first aid and battlefield medicine.

Perhaps some degree of insight into the enemies themselves? Fighting up close you learn more about the opponent than most would shooting from afar, gleaning their strengths, weaknesses, or perhaps even their intentions from it.

>>52942119
5e has pretty good balance
I would however say that the fact nearly every class can cast spells is pretty stupid
also multi classing can get pretty dumb.
Play a wizard to level 5 and then just put one level on to fighter and you've got a wizard that can have 20 AC

On the whole caster vs martial balance I really liked the way the retroclone Beyond the Wall handled things in that magic was a powerful mechanic that was capable of heavily altering the course of the story but came with the caveat that the most difficult spells were time-consuming and difficult to perform and came with the possibility of getting royally fucked up if you failed your roll. It really worked with the narrative tone of the game that magic was a powerful and dangerous force that most people wouldn't want to mess around with.

>>52942119
>THAT PIC
>kiss right arm, spin your gat.
>kiss your left arm, rev chainsaw.
>Do a squat
>Missile launchers come out behind your back
>Flip 'em off with both middle fingers while holding the chainsaw sideways.
>Skull codpiece flips up
>guns come out of eye sockets
>another gun comes out the mouth.
>Mad Dog em, give em the crazy eye
>Guns pop out of your eyes and mouth.
sup?

>>52958865
Actually, read the multiclass rules again. You don't get Heavy armor from multiclassing fighter/paladin, only medium.

What you want to do is multiclass Cleric instead, as Life cleric gets it as a feature.

If you multiclass Fighter, you do it for the Action Surge.

>>52958865
>>52960960
Older editions just put spell failure when in heavy armor. I do think there were plenty of groups that ran elf/half-elf fighter/mages and prayed the DM would eventually toss them some elven chainmail or some other enchanted equipment to help their caster live. I don't recall at the moment what 3x's rules on that were.

Most of the complaints of casters do seem heavy on theorycrafting rather than practice to me though. Sure your wizard to allot the majority of his spells to various buffs and things taking from other roles, but then after 2 magic missles and a burning hands he's no longer useful in combat... unless they constantly fudge what their prepared spells of the day are.

>>52959329
nice

>>52956570
actually no, im the one that thinks fighters should also have abilities that make sense for fighters such as coordinated attacks with other palyers, maneuvers and different kinds of attacks with their weapons, sweeps, cleaves, you name it.c
I also think Wizards shhould not be able to outdo fighters in fighting and heavy lifting and rogues in lockpicking, sneaking and stealing.

>>52957110
>muh roleplaying

no. roleplaying doesnt outweigh actual gameplay weaknesses. a wizard can also roleplay his character and let the DM accept that to make him even better.

the entire fucking argument is retarded.
A lot of systems have abilities for fighters to use.
Such as giving them different attacks with their weapons that allow them to hit multiple oppoents, allow them to cripple oponents, allow them to move in the enemies turn etc.

Somehow people think thats equivalent to "magic" because 3.5 has conditione them to think that anyhting mundane just rolls dice to do damage.

>>52957351
>superior skill

Yes, if that superior skill is actually represented by the mechanics opposed to by you roleplaying something.

>>52942243
3.5 is easily solved by removing broken spells completely from casters.

Anon (you know who you are),
Show me on the doll where the wizard touched you.

>>52961577
>Most of the complaints of casters do seem heavy on theorycrafting rather than practice to me though.
That's because you were lucky enough to have never dealt with a mage who knows what he's doing.

>>52962980
>no. roleplaying doesnt outweigh actual gameplay weaknesses. a wizard can also roleplay his character and let the DM accept that to make him even better.
That's not what I'm saying and you know it.
>A lot of systems have abilities for fighters to use.
Yeah, and the majority of them are either hidden behind exhaustive feat taxes that won't become relevant in the time that you'd want them to be or they're trap options that lose effectiveness as you gain levels.

>>52962997
Thing is, if you did that then you might as well not even have casters in your campaign because most spells in their spell lists are broken as fuck by default.

>>52963161
>playing D&D with people who know what they're doing
Don't do this. D&D is for introducing people to tabletop. You leave D&D behind when they get it and never look back.

>>52963186
Well thats not well done either then.

But must i remember everyone that 4E exists and actually did that in a way that worked from an early level by making "powers" a seperate category from feats? Its literaly that easy.
Just make it somehting different from feats and give martials a number of them they can take simmilar to how casters can take a number of spells.

>>52963209
>D&D is for introducing people to tabletop.
D&D is for sectioning off the bulk of the undesirables from the rest of the hobby.

>>52963251
>Well thats not well done either then.
Clearly, otherwise we wouldn't be having a "fighter vs. wizard" debate for the umpteenth time this week.

>>52963326
its less fighter vs wizards and more 3.5e vs fighters.

>>52963320
You wouldn't have this hobby without it, stripling. Stay stupid. It's amusing.

>>52964378
Just because it "created" the hobby doesn't mean that it isn't a flawed game, nor does it mean that its fanbase is any less comprised of undesireables that would ruin games running better systems due to the play style that 3.PF encouraged back when it was the big boy on campus.

Tabletop has evolved past D&D, and for good fucking reason but we both know that you're just going to plug your ears and continue throwing around insults so go ahead, stay stupid.

>>52942119
Play a classless system.

Classes are okay if all you're interested in is a pure combat game, or similar game where discreet roles (like a ship crew or something), but they're awkward and stifling in more narrative-focused games.

Why is a Cleric different from a Shaman? They're both respected members of a religious tradition. Why are Fighters and Paladins different? They're both experienced martial artists. Why are Wizards, Mages, Sorcerors, Warlocks and Witches different? In everyday language, they all mean the same thing (barring gender differences).

In more narrative-focused games, a system that denotes specific skills and attributes is better, because it makes it easier to compare the relative strength and weakness of characters who are built around similar concepts. It also enables more creativity on the part of players and GMs, where they don't have to homebrew a whole new class just for one player's concept - they can just construct something reasonable from the elements the system provides.

Most of the classic D&D classes are holdovers from when the game was a strict dungeon-crawler. Game design has come a long way since then.

>>52965761
>but they're awkward and stifling in more narrative-focused games.

I mean, they work perfectly well in Apocalypse world.

Classes work in any system where archetypes can be codified. They may not be the best approach always, but for focused games it works well enough.

>>52965761

I think class based systems can work, it just depends what you're going with.

I quite like the way 4e did it, focusing on each class being interesting and mechanically distinct, giving them a default theme but being very open to refluffing. For almost any concept, you can find a set of mechanics that will feel appropriate and give them interesting and useful mechanical options to use in that part of the system.

And then of course you get quasi-class systems, whether it's the guided pointbuy of Careers in Dark Heresy (even if they eventually moved away from that) or Legends of the Wulin's broad archetypes.

I think the ability to create a distinct and thematic set of mechanics is the real strength of class systems, which you can add back into more freeform development systems with quasi-classes of various sorts.

Without them, every ability has to function on its own, in a vacuum, and not interact in harmful ways with other abilities present in the game. A class or quasi-class lets you create a more complex, interconnected subsystem, and making the classes exclusive lets you explore mechanics that would otherwise not be feasible due to those potentially harmful mechanical interactions.

i'd like to start a game by having to choose between different flavors of similar power level.

i would like to play a warrior without feeling less powerful than anything else i could have been.Unbalances restrict choices, arguing against that means that you simply don't care about the game side of RPGs at all.Yet it exist.

Playing with characters with different power levels is unrewarding for the players who got the shortest or longer stick and also harder to balance the encounters around for the DM.

I do firmly believe it is possible to design a game where classes are different, flavorful and true to their concept.You don't need to give fighters bullshit power to keep them relevant.
I also do believe that *small* differences in power level can be cancelled by the need of covering diverse roles in a 4 man party: you can have a slightly stronger wizard if the best way to play it is debuffing the enemy while the warrior classes are the only ones which can dish out the dps.

looking at PF/D&D3.5 proves my points.The spellcasting classes are just built to have infinite choices, versatility, gigantic effects and a quadratic scaling in spells/day. you can't have balance with that.

>>52947740
Don't try to discuss with the addle brained D&D players anon.

>>52956570
The ancient Irish were weebs?

>>52943514
I'm sorry you've had a shit dm

>>52968457
Meh, you can only do so much when the system does everything in its power to make Fighters worthless.

>>52968481
We've never had this issue. A fighter is a core class in any group.

Of course, we don't have a shit dm.

>>52968584

And how much extra work has the GM had to put in to make it work?

Because that's the important bit. A good, well designed system supports the GM, minimising the amount of extra work they have to put in. A bad, poorly designed system inhibits the GM, increasing the amount of extra work they have to put in.

If the fighter in your group is effective and relevant, it's likely due to effort your GM put in, whether continuously or at some earlier time when they established a few principles to make them work.

But your GM being able to do that doesn't stop it being bad design. Heck, that they have to do it proves that it's bad design.

>>52968584
Well congrats then, you're playing with a GM who felt pity for you and fought with the kiddie gloves on.

>>52968703
No extra work really.

It's just not a magic focused group. We'll likely be lv 4-5 before we even find a low level item.

>>52968717
>you're playing with a GM who felt pity

>Our DM
>Pity

lol......pick one anon.

>>52944482
>So you specifically had low-magic setting Fighters alongside high-magic setting Wizards, and it kinda fucked up the balance.
This post has the nicest, least crunchy explanation of the development of the martial versus caster disparity I've ever read.
When I checked back in to see where this thread went, I honestly wasn't expecting quality.

>>52968758
>lol......pick one anon.
If your Fighter was able to keep up with the mages past level 6, it's because the DM had pity for you. Then again,
>It's just not a magic focused group. We'll likely be lv 4-5 before we even find a low level item.
This explains everything, you didn't reach the point where the game starts to shit on martials yet.

>>52968788
>This post has the nicest, least crunchy explanation of the development of the martial versus caster disparity I've ever read.
>When I checked back in to see where this thread went, I honestly wasn't expecting quality.

It's what almost all the "lol fighters suck" threads contain elements of.

It's always monty's magic campaign, and fighters fall behind? Shocker.

>>52968815
>It's what almost all the "lol fighters suck" threads contain elements of.
>It's always monty's magic campaign, and fighters fall behind? Shocker.
See, compare this with the quality content and simple communication of reasonable concepts from the other post.

This poster's position may be discernible, but it is hardly as clear and it's primary purpose appears to lessen the compliment I paid to the previous poster and mitigate its worth for no apparent reason.
The previous anon's post was not touching on new concepts, just expressing a concept regarding an often discussed topic particularly well.

>>52968814
>This explains everything, you didn't reach the point where the game starts to shit on martials yet.

Ohh ic.

can you tell me exactly what "point" the game starts to shit on them?

Is it lv3, lv 5, lv 17? Or some other tangible point?

>>52969222

Level 6 is the generally accepted point of no return. It's bad before that, but gets so much worse.

>>52969222
Around level 7+. After fullcasters start to get their 4th level spells.

>>52943384
Anonita

>>52969276
>Level 6
>>52969282
>Around level 7+.

So around 4th lv spells.

Question: How many of those "reality breaking 4th lv spells", do these mighty wizards have per day?

>>52969383

And right here is when you start missing the point

>>52943271
>override massive global sales figures and popularity?

Since people are limited by what they know yes, he can be right.


Also sales is a shitty system to gauge quality, its like facebook where you can just thumb up, (but replace thumb up with a sale), you can't know if the guy that didnt brought the game dont know the game or dont like it.


You can't also gauge how much someone hate or like the thing.
If we change rpg books with pets, someone being arachnophobic and not buying a spider as a pet and someone just not liking spiders counts as same thing

>>52943548
>Boring games are boring because of boring people.
Fatal would like to have a word with you

>>52969391
The argument is that wizards fight better than fighters, and pick locks better than rogues, and cleric better than clerics and bard better than bards......

And somehow, these wizards have unlimited spells always on tap.

>>52969403

The point wasn't about quality, popularity is irrelevant in discussions of that. He was stating kitchen sink fantasy settings don't appeal to anyone, which is a straight up contradiction of established fact. There is an audience which supports it, ergo there are people it appeals to.

>>52969403
Some people play games that may not be their first choice....but it happens to be their only choice.

And ya, sales aren't a good gauge. Otherwise, twilight is a classic work of art, and 50 shads of grey is really good writing.

>>52969443

Yep, it's over. You've purposefully misunderstood the points being made to reinforce your own beliefs and will continue to argue against a point that isn't being made, because it's easy to win and feel smug because you're right.

>>52969472
Well, if you say so anon, then it must be correct.

>defines hypocritical

>>52969443
Imagine if soldiers in the real world had an ability to carry 2-3 rockets for a manpad or anti-tank launcher that didn't weight anything at all. And also replenished each day if they were used. For free.

And now soldier can also each day decide what exactly his "rockets" will do today and he has a shitton of variants that he can choose from. In fact he can learn new variants by spending about as much money as one physical rocket will cost.

>>52969222
>can you tell me exactly what "point" the game starts to shit on them?
I did
>>52968814
>If your Fighter was able to keep up with the mages past level 6

>>52942801
>Tfw I will never be able to urinate napalm in battle with maximum homicidal capacity.

>>52944110
it was meant to emulate fantasy fiction. the first RPG was an attempt at genre simulation.

>>52943178
>It's a bizarre blend that doesn't quite make sense, but screw it, why not?
you say it yourself: suspension of disbelief.
besides, I don't want to adventure in a mishmash that makes no sense. I want to bein stories comparable to european medieval myths.

>>52969450
although his point was that people play the game in spite of the crappy setting, not because of it.

>>52945121
Except for the time that you roll what you would have point-bought anyways.

>>52942119
Theres a simple solution to this. Use a classesless system. While it wont be 100% balanced its a lot easier to ban one option than it is to rebalace a class or outright ban a whole class.

>>52975795
See I think making a pure balance is just boring and pointless anyways. Making all classes work essentially the same means there is no purpose to class system. Going to a classeless system means it's now all about what abilities people chose or buy right? And then it becomes the issue of who buys the "wrong skills/abilities". It is easier to simply ban problem classes or problem abilities/spells (aka not letting wiz's have every spell that allows them to solve everything without the rest of the party). But then people will argue that the system must be "bad" if you have to restrict anything... but every system restricts something, unless you want level 1 fighters geared in +5 everything gear.