Why do people complain about fighters having nothing to do out

>>52977527
>It's okay that fighters are gimped because other classes can do their jobs and out-of-combat jobs

I mean, what would you suggest?

The name fighter kind of leads to a narrow mindset.

>>52977615
Playing something other than a fighter.

File: tfw.jpg (26KB, 797x428px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 797x428px

It's honestly historically wierd to have fighters who aren't somewhat proficient in magic, combat drugs, medicine, animal handling, navigation, hunting and roguery.

The overspecialized fighter's 100% an artifact of D&D being derived from reductionist 19th century Kriegsspiel-style tabletop wargames.

>>52980497
there is also the fact that description of activity meant something in AD&D, but means nothing in any current iteration of any RPG out there (not just D&D - in any game you have mechanics>description and GMs who can't into creativity).

File: Musketeer.jpg (365KB, 688x524px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 688x524px

>>52980497

This, plus the pseudo-fantasy setting means most of the time they don't even get a gun like their source which would help equalize them.

The OG fighter was something like this, a military officer with a sword, a gun, and a breastplate that led lesser soldiers into battle because Chainmail was a variant of a historical wargame where it was decided to replace artillery with significantly more mobile but otherwise functionally identical wizards.

>>52980497
I mean, if a Fighter is supposed to be the heroic rank and file soldier, most soldiers aren't very well trained in anything but being able to follow orders.

I think the main problem of the Fighter is that most people see the class a TownGuard++, when in reality it should be portrayed as "The One Man Army." But no one really bothers to try to balance Fighters to be a fantasy version of a Hollywood action hero.

>>52980736
Figter used to be class that ended up getting castles and armies so at high level campaigns players would have something to hold off legions of demons summoned by that evil sorcerer while they are killing him

>>52977527
Because i want to be a fighter.

File: Shy_Guy_Warrior.jpg (72KB, 500x544px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 500x544px

>>52980782

That should be something the fighter should have retained: the ability to call upon an army or at least a party of warriors to aid him. They wouldn't even have to be great fighters, just good enough to follow orders and function as a logistics line or do things where three additional pairs of hands would be useful. Fighter should be the Ice Climbers of classes!

>>52977527

BASIC BITCH D&D FAG DETECTED

It's not hard to do things outside of fights as a fighter. The problem is, you are limited by your imagination. Fighters can easily be jacks of all trades.

>>52977527
Because D&D was never intended for narrative-heavy campaigns. It was all about dungeon-crawling and monster-slaying. It was only later, when people started wanting more out of their campaigns, that problems with classes having nothing to do outside of combat arose. The Fighter was never meant to represent anything more than a bit of armoured muscle.

If you want to avoid this problem, you should try a classless system, where everything comes down to what your character's stats are and what skills they have. Then you can make a character however you please, avoiding or embracing archetypes as you like. You can still make a combat monster if you want, but you could also make a character with a more varied skillset.

>>52977527
This could be an interesting thread, but then it turned out into "le d&d classes".

Fuck you all and classes too

>>52981231
The mechanics of the system don't support that.

>>52980002
But then, what's the point of playing a fighter then? Combat generally happens maybe once or twice in a four hour session so outside of those instances, are you just supposed to sit around with a thumb up your ass while the rest of the party gets to contribute to the campaign?

>>52983366
Yes they do. Your skills have uses in general adventuring and anything that can't be shoehorned into one of those could be rolled with basic stat modifiers.

>>52983516
Fighters don't get nearly enough skill points to get anywhere close to being "jacks of all trades."

>>52983366
I don't know about you, but the fighter in my last game was most useful person both inside (dealt the most damage and locked enemies down so no one else would get hurt) and outside (handled logistics, negotiations, lorekeeping, and first aid) of combat, but that might've been because everyone else was an idiot that could've done all those things better than the fighter if they'd only tried.

>>52977527
why do people complain about trap options when there are other options that aren't as big traps

>>52983605
I don't understand, you've answered your own question.

>>52983559
>skill points

Have you tried not playing 3e/Pathfinder?

In 5e DnD my fighter dwarf archaelogist had a bunch of skills too, just thanks to the skill proficiency stuff in the system. I dont think theres a problem with fighters not getting skills, but rather casters getting a lot of spells to handle anything.
Granted, in the game I'm in, theres usually about one or two encounters between rests.

>>52984059
Of course. I only reference 3.pf because OP's problem doesn't exist in other editions, or any halfway decent game for that matter.

>>52980736
What sort of fucking setting do you live in?
Even in a modern setting, a western ordinary grunt has a lot of skillpoint in what is Scribe skills. Many ranks in repair, and a lot of prophecies in weapons, vehicles and equipment.

Fantasy grunt would still a lot of skill ranks, and officers even more.
"I hit shit" doesn't work unless the system has a acrobatic and grappling system, that works properly.

>>52984415
It exists in 4e and even 5e.

>>52985066
It doesn't exist in 4e and it's mitigated heavily in 5e by proficiency system and backgrounds although the spell thing is still an issue a bit in 5e

>>52983510
Might be compensated by doing some talking, if GM's interpetation of talking isn't "a series of Persuasion checks"

>>52977527
Stop playing DnD, honestly. Its class/level system means that everyone is defined by their ability to kill, and progression means killing better.

If you want to play a good roleplaying game, just try anything but DnD and its derivatives, really.

File: smug anime girl 417.png (117KB, 372x351px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 372x351px

>>52986737
>It doesn't exist in 4e

>3 trained skills
>dogshit class skill list

>>52986851
I always here about the gurps meme on here but haven't really looked into it. Id love to try out shadow run but have heard it's really heavy on book keeping, what's GURPS like?
(I haven't been playing tabletop very long, I've only ever played pathfinder now for about half a year with my current playgroup. So long enough to see some of the flaws with the rogue class and the Challenge rating system.)

>>52986869
Between themes, backgrounds and then the ability to take ritual caster or the martial equivalent (the name of which escapes me right now) it is a non issue

>>52986944
That's still a shitty base compared to other classes.

>>52987061
Yes but it doesn't relegate them to uselessness unlike another edition we all know

>>52986932
GURPS and Shadowrun are both good, but require an experienced GM to do properly. It's very easy for a rookie to get overwhelmed with all the shit they get thrown at them by those systems.

I would recommend something simpler, like Storyteller, specifically cWoD (Vampire the Masquerade, Mage the Ascension, Werewolf the Apocalypse, etc.). If you don't mind Star Wars, I think the FFG systems (Edge of the Empire, Age of Rebellion, and Force and Destiny) are some of the best games out there. But honestly, pretty much anything other than DnD and its derivatives is better than DnD and its derivatives.

>>52977527
Because they aren't good in combats either, specially compared to the classes you mentioned, Cleric in case.

>>52983516
>2 ranks per level
>Able to compete against casters who get the same or more plus spells that completely bypass skills
5/10

I play Anima, thank god that doesn't happen there.

>>52986932
GURPS is pretty brutal compared to D&D. Especially with a new GM. For all the shit it gets for its complexity it is not actually harder than D&D but it puts a lot of strain on GM.

If you have an experienced GM with ready setting for which he choose what rules he wanted to use and all the other stuff - it's really good.

For a new group it may be a little daunting to get into because your GM will need to put a lot of work into preparing a game.

On the other hand playing fighter there is satisfying. I still fondly remember the time when some corrupt guards tried to harass our group and my character, as a warning, kicked one them in the knee so hard it bent the other way.

>>52983605
Because people want to do the things that are trap options, and there's rarely a full replacement that's NOT a trap option.

There's no reason for trap options to even exist in a system unless the developers are retarded, the players are retarded, or it wants ivory tower design (which is just a combination of the previous two).

>>52983583
I don't want to sound like a cunt, but that post is meaningless for what we're discursing, it means nothing, it brings nothing. Roleplaying is a skill everybody can have and doesn't depend on the system, you can also have a smart wizard player doing the same while still being back up by the system. Fighters aren't back up by the system, Casters are, your Roleplaying Fighter is still at disadvantage. So even if we give you that and asing a point for it, your Fighter gets 1 point for being smart, 0 for mechanics, Wizard dude gets 1 point for being smart, 1 for mechanics, wizard wins.

All of this if we discourse the worst editions of D&D and clones of course.

>>52983605
1. There shouldnt be trap options in system that tells you all options as equally powerful
2. Very few people allow ToB or Psyonics so not always can pick non trap options for the character concepts you want to play

>>52981077
They also leveled faster in pre3rd D&D.

The followers got split off into a feat that anyone could take (and was based off CHA) and leveling speed was uniformized.

File: e2149a07bcb5fbc99b65706e8efa015b[1].jpg (37KB, 736x610px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 736x610px

>>52977527
>If you want to have fun and be useful, you should play a different class
This is what your argument is. It gets even worse when you throw magic into the mix and you effectively get a split between those who can do everything well and those who can do one or two things decently.

I get that classes need to be (over)specialized to make the party construction viable, but rather than separating between mundane and magical we should give everyone a very specialized form of magic. Get rid of the "wizard" and split the various schools up between various classes. This is why I like the Dread Necromancer and Beguiler from 3.5e for example. Especially the latter, who's basically a rogue if rogues didn't suck outside of skill checks. They're still skillmonkeys first and foremost, but they can do something useful in almost every situation.

>>52977527
I've never liked this assumption, but it speaks of an assumption at how we play rpgs.
>>52977615
this guy gets it.

Instead of a fighter, you're playing a
>soldier
>mercenary
>gang enforcer
>veteran
>gladiator
>tactician
>thug
>treasure hunter
etc.

Use your imagination. That's what this game is all about. A player who is looking for "something to do" might need a scene or a hook to get their imagination going, and then you give them the opportunity to add something.

>>52987699
The fuck is "psyonics"?

I know about PSIonics, but what's that thing?

>>52989663
I mixed the name Psyche (from Psychic Warrior, a Psionic) and Psionic

File: Anima.jpg (302KB, 1190x998px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1190x998px

>>52987408
sell me on anima
'Coz from this pic it doesn't look so inspiring

>>52989914
Oh, dont get me wrong, is crunchy, and a mess for new players, but if you like crunchy its fun. It only have 3 books for players (Core, Ki and Magic/Psychic powers). Is a point buy system with "classes", so martials can have magic, psychic powers or ki if you want to pay for it. It follows the rule that if everybody is overpowered nobody is.

>>52981231
^this

>>52980782
And they still can.

If your DM and group isn't shit.

>>52981231
No, you're limited by the mechanics and how much your GM allows. Meanwhile other classes with the mechanics on their side aren't as limited as you.

4/10, work harder next time.

>>52977527
>Why do people complain about fighters having nothing to do out of fights when you should be a rogue if you want to be a martial with great noncombat skills, or a cleric if you want to be a guy with a big weapon and armor but also noncombat magic?

Because, a lot of little whiny gamers don't want to stay in their own lane. They want a character that can do everything, and do it well. They want to be "special", by being a wizard who picks locks better than a pure rogue, they want to be a fighter who can tank against an army, but still move stealthy and heal and read scrolls to cast spells.

99.99% of the complaints about fighters, are made by little bitches who like to bitch. They're hung up on WOW and anime, and have no place in normal games.

Why do I have to sacrifice the ability to tumble or swim to get ranks in Profession (Guardsman)? You have to gimp yourself even harder than an Intelligence based skill system already does to make a character of any interest or even any sense.

>>52990128
the mechanics don't "limit" fighters any more than they do other classes.

It's a give/take.

Give extra HP, top armor, bigger feat selection
Take skill points and spells

I'm sorry you're retarded and have never played with a good dm.

>>52977527
>kimono, pantyhose, miniskirt
High tier taste, could do without the ears and tail though

>>52990242
You don't sacrifice anything.

You choose. Want Tumble, but don't have the skill points? Take it next level then. Skill points aren't unlimited.

Look at it like this..

>Why do rogues have to sacrifice taking 4 ranks in every knowledge skill, just so they can be stealthy and disarm traps?

Your argument makes exactly no sense.

>>52990128
don't reply to bait

>>52990242
>You have to gimp yourself even harder than an Intelligence based skill system already does to make a character of any interest or even any sense.
>make a character of any interest
>any interest

"I can't RP"......the post

>>52990354
Yet Casters don't even need to ""roleplay"" (mother may I is not roleplay) and do everything I do and better, odd right

>>52990388
Oh?

Casters can disarm better than a rogue?

They can have a favored enemy bonus better than a ranger?

They can wear plate mail, carry a shield, and swing a longsword better than a fighter?

Wow........Casters are very impressive.

>>52990307
Rogues have more than enough skill points that they can usually pull off both the standard rogue skills and have some leftover for flavoring or improving their character. Most classes end up with enough that they can at least fill their role comfortably. Wizards are sometimes better than Fighters are Climbing and Swimming, a Strength based skill, because Fighters may be taking something like a single skill point per level. I'm not saying Fighters should be jacks of all trades homie, they shouldn't just get 8 skill points to do whatever and impinge on other classes niches, but rather skills should be distributed in a more sensible way.

>>52990421
>Casters can disarm better than a rogue?
Yes, heat metal or grease just for example
>They can have a favored enemy bonus better than a ranger?
Actually yes too, and not like favored enemy is good, is useless as fuck +4 to damage? worthless, +4 perception? achievable through familiar or spells,
>They can wear plate mail, carry a shield, and swing a longsword better than a fighter?
Are you joking? you meant as those actual weapons? yes, cleric, duskblade, favoured soul, etc for example. You meant as the bonuses? yes, almost every caster ever for example.

We're discussing 3.PF, right? or did we change to another system? because if not, then you migh have a point

>>52990421
>He doesn't know there're spells that literally give you Smite and Favoured enemy for hours/level of a Paladin/Ranger of your caster level
Anon...I...

>>52990421
Casters can indeed buff themselves up to do maneuvers better than a rogue, partly because rogues have terrible CMB anyway, but hell the casters can outdo the fighter too if they want. They never want to though because maneuvers are 90% pointless

Who gives a fuck about favored enemy bonuses when HP damage is the worst way to beat monsters and casters can pull out bigger damage spells anyway if they want to feel gimped by being mere blasters?

They can have a higher AC and piles of defenses that fighter's can't even dream of. They can again buff themselves to be better combatants, or just summon in more monsters to do it for them.

And the thing is that if any given caster could do ONE of those sorts of things, it might not be so bad. But every one of them can do all that and more. That's what makes casters OP. It's fine if magic can do everything, but a single class shouldn't be able to do everything.

>>52990499
>Yes, heat metal or grease just for example

Yes, heat that wooden door up and then cast grease at it. That should totally not alert anyone from the smoke. (also, the mage is now down 2 spells), just to get by the first of many doors. Oh, I forget, that tg casterfags think wizards have unlimited spells.

>is useless as fuck +4 to damage
If a +4 bonus is worthless, then you have shit DM, and are playing some weird version of D&D. Or would you be willing to give every attacker on you, a +4 bonus , since it's worthless?

>We're discussing 3.PF, right?
I was discussing 3.5. But I hear it's basically the same as pf?

>cleric, duskblade, favoured soul
Those classes all cast grease and heat metal?

>>52990521
>or hours/level of a Paladin/Ranger of your caster level
>>52990521
Playing with too many sups, can lead to issues in your game anon.

>>52990442
PF has an optional ruleset called Background Skills which goes a long way toward addressing the poor skill distribution problem and is pretty great for the 1 skill Fighter problem, but it's bloated down with a bunch of extra stuff and a partial skill revamp and probably needs GM tweaking to prevent abuse. You could easily end up with a bunch of barbarians who all happen to have a ton of skill in knowledge(nobility) for no reason in a political intrigue campaign, that sort of thing. I'd like to see more official attempts at improving skills.

>>52990588
>. But every one of them can do all that and more. That's what makes casters OP. It's fine if magic can do everything, but a single class shouldn't be able to do everything.

Oh, yes, the unlimited spells again........

Want wizards to stay in their own lane? Then make the classes stay in their own lane. It's not that difficult. I'm sorry your DM is shit.

>>52990704
>Is not that these classes are shit, is that your GM is shit for not limiting the rest of classes beyond what the system tells him
Oh you
Well, what else should have expected of a bait since post 1
Was enjoyable while it lasted

>>52990652
Next time use Disable Device not Disarm when refering to open doors, disable traps, etc, disarm is a combat maneuver in where you remove a weapon from your opponent's hand.

>>52990652
>Can casters do these?
>Yes to all
>W-well...d-doesn't matter because I don't allow it
Again, anon, the system works in their favour, you're free to do whatever you like as a GM, but that doesn't mean the system isn't rigged, hope you can separate system from what you, as an individual, do.

>>52990833
>Next time use Disable Device not Disarm

Sorry, there's some bleed over from 2e into 3.5 on terminology.

>>52990704
How do you tell a tank to stay in its own lane when it takes up multiple lanes by default?

>>52990917
>Again, anon, the system works in their favour, you're free to do whatever you like as a GM, but that doesn't mean the system isn't rigged,

Fighters have HP far in excess of wizards.
FIghters have better weapon selections, armor choices and a shit load of combat/general feats, above a wizard.

If the wizard spends all his spells, on utility functions (like opening locks), he's gonna be a shitty mage for the party when combat occurs.

>A Troll.....quick mage, blast it!
>Srry, no can do, outta spells, cause I wanted to be a better rogue than the rogue! lol....casters rock eh?

File: Jervar1.jpg (56KB, 329x408px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 329x408px

>>52990963
>Not using tank-sized lanes.

>>52990965
>scrolls
>wands

It is like you don't even caster.

>>52990965
>Fighters have HP far in excess of wizards.
Doesn't matter.
>FIghters have better weapon selections, armor choices and a shit load of combat/general feats, above a wizard.
Also doesn't matter.
>If the wizard spends all his spells, on utility functions (like opening locks), he's gonna be a shitty mage for the party when combat occurs.
No more useless as a Fighter with no HP though, which is more likely to happen before the wizard runs out of spells.

>>52990923
I understand, but you misleaded us into thinking other stuff and that's why we told you heat metal (that affects 1 extra target per 2 caster levels) and grease (that has an area) for disarming opponents.

Knock spell in a wand is regarded as the most useful way of opening doors, its pretty fucking cheap for what it does.
Then there's the feat from complete arcane that, as long as you have a summon monster prepared spell, you can summon at will 24/7 without spending slots a weak as fuck monster, you could use that to trigger traps for examples. There are other ways though.

Disable traps is a trap option though, the CDs are so high not every rogue might accomplish it, I know, I played one with every rank and a +3 from feat to Disable device and Spot and I was at best disabling 1/4 of them, and spotting 1/4 too.

>>52990983
Shit, I forgot.

To /tg/, wizards have unlimited spells, and unlimited scrolls and wands.

My bad.

>>52990704
Unlimited? No, but past the first few levels wizards will be racking up enough spells that they're going to be hard pressed to run out even intentionally, not to mention scrolls, wands, staves and plenty of wondrous items that store/cast spells without using their own.

As for making the class/niche protection, that would be greatly aided by making the fighter and rogue actually powerful enough at their jobs that they can't be replaced with spells. Or maybe just cutting the casters down a bit. If the fighter can only ever be Conan, then the wizard should have to be specialized into enchantment to play at being Thulsa Doom, not freely running around with more magic than all the Greek gods combined.

>>52991032
Wizards get "scribe scroll" as a first level extra feat, why wouldn't they make more scrolls to offset their piddly spell slots? They can also make magic items as well as an extra feat, why wouldn't they make a wand for their more ubitquitious spells like grease, fly, or invisibility?

If you're going to be salty about being proven wrong then why did you even bring up the argument?

>>52991020
>you misleaded us into thinking other stuff
totally unintentional m8
>>52991020
>Knock spell in a wand
IF you DM has allowed you to find one, or you've spent the time/money/exp on making one. We don't play with a magic item shop on every corner.

>complete arcane
Holy shit that book led to more bullshit.....Toss it away, because it's disruptive and fucked up.

>Disable traps is a trap option though, the CDs are so high not every rogue might accomplish it
Yes, traps are difficult, and often dangerous. If adventuring was easy, women and children would do it.

>>52991032
Might sound odd, but I never ran out of spells as a Wizard, surely not before the martials wanted to sleep to recover HPs and other stuff. Must be because IM NOT A FUCKING BLASTER CASTER.

>>52991086
>Wizards get "scribe scroll" as a first level extra feat, why wouldn't they make more scrolls to offset their piddly spell slots?

>Knock
>First level wand or scroll creation

Oh...that's impressive.

>>52991095
Takes literally 8 hours and 250 gp to create a knock spell wand with 50 charges or 25 gp for a scroll of one use, anon, is not impossible at all. If the fighter has money for full plates, shields, bows, arrows and greatswords I'm fucking sure I have money for scrolls and wands.

>>52991102
>Might sound odd, but I never ran out of spells as a Wizard

Of course you didn't. You opened all locks, disarmed all traps, and buffed yourself up to be a better tank than the fighter......all before lunch, and still had 902 spell slots left open.

>>52991095
>you've spent the time/money/exp on making one
Well it's quite easy to make one since the martials will likely need 8 hours to recover all their lost HP and all.
>Yes, traps are difficult, and often dangerous.
Even for the class whose whole purpose was disabling traps? It shouldn't be possible to replace an entire class's niche with a 10 ft. pole and a Barbarian.

>>52991144
>Takes literally 8 hours and 250 gp to create a knock spell wand

Fuck, sorry, I forgot that wizards on /tg/ have unlimited money and down time as well. My bad.

>>52991167
Okay, doesn't change the fact that the Fighters were asking for rest more often than I was.

File: horse.jpg (62KB, 600x853px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x853px

>>52977527
I think two things can be done to improve fighters, either make them proficient in leadership and commanding, or make them proficient in smithing and enchantments.

Making them proficient in leadership represents the sort of front line commander that you might expect of a fighter. They have troops at their beck and call, and they make the rest of the team fight better. Sort of like a banneret or purple dragon knight, but without compromising the ability to fight.

Meanwhile, the fighter proficient in smithing and enchantments represents the lone champion type of fighter, who had magically enhanced his armor and weaponry to make up for his lack of skill with spellcraft. Flaming poisonous swords, nigh invulnerable armor, and very good skill with a blade ensure that this fighter can duke it out with a wizard despite the range disadvantage.

>>52991167
Yes, the magic of using wands, scrolls and winds of cover.

>>52991191
Yeah, I forgot that martialfags dumped INT as well. My bad.

>>52991191
If I don't have 250 gp for a wand, neither has the fighter for his armor and weapons.

>>52991191
>A trivial amount of money and time is the same as unlimited money and time

I don't even what.

>>52991191
>Fighter can buy 2000 GP in full plate, shield and greatsword
>I can't buy 250 GP in a wand
Your mind works in misterious ways

>>52991144
>Takes literally 8 hours and 250 gp to create a knock spell wand with 50 charges

Wut?

>>52991192
Why were the fighters injured?

I thought mages "broke reality" each round and slaughtered everything in their path?

You must be doing it wrong.

>>52991169
>It shouldn't be possible to replace an entire class's niche with a 10 ft. pole and a Barbarian.
Unless that niche is "beating people to death with a stick"

>>52991238
But anon, wizards have EVERY spell they'd need in a wand/scroll.

That's not a trivial amount of time/money.

there have been a dozen spells mentioned here itt. And wizards are assumed to have wands of each.....always. Because "wizards"

>>52991268
>Why were the fighters injured?
Because they ran into melee to attack the enemy, took damage while dealing damage back, and every so often they ate a crit or two and lost a sizable chunk of their HP.

>>52991315
Need a knock wand? The wizard just happens to have one.
Need a grease wand? the wizard has that too.
Need a wand of (x)? Yes of course....the wizard has that one(s) as well.

top kek

>>52991342
Which bought the squishy wizard time to cast. Still though, your lv 1 wizards should have cast time stop (from a wand he'd made while eating lunch), and prevented that damage to the fighters.

>>52991286
Barbarians get trap sense at +1, gain extra HP from their rage, and get uncanny dodge as well. They can theoretically be better trap finders than the Rogue, simply because they have the natural inclination to avoid/survive traps better and you don't need a check to intentionally set off traps.

>>52991374
>Which bought the squishy wizard time to cast.
Which allowed the Fighter to avoid losing more damage than if I did nothing while also gaining bonuses towards subsequent attacks since the enemy is busy tripping over their own feet.

>>52991351
A knock wand is understandable, but a grease wand? why? there're some spells that are useful in many situations, others don't, you should prepare the former. Are there perfect spells for every situation? yes, should you prepare those? no, you should prepare the second or third better spell that coincidentally also works for other situations, this way with one spell you can face severa possibilities and you save spell slots that way, that's how you Caster, that's Caster 101, knowing what spells prepare.

Even if you're dumb there're lists on the internet that tell you what spells prepare at every level and you almost never will face a problem because, again, there're spells that deal with a great amount of situations.

>>52991391
And much more HP to take the damage from the traps.

What if the trap is a simple alarm type? And stealth is important (stealth being the rogues bread and butter). How's the barb going to deal with that?

>>52991351
A level 1 spell and a level 2 spell aren't that outlandish for a wizard to have a wand for mate, it's not like they're situational.

>>52991268
>broke reality each round
Hehe. That seems to be how these arguments go.

It's too bad that most fantasy rpgs aren't that interesting.

>>52991437
>there're lists on the internet that tell you what spells prepare at every level

>A list on the internet that predicts what a clever DM will do every session

That is impressive.

>>52991167
Wow, this is "trying to tweet at Wendy's" levels of salt

>>52991439
What sort of alarm trap are we talking though?

>>52991464
Actually there's, why? because your DM is using a system called D&D 3.5, and that already reduces the possibilities of what might happen. And even if he goes great lengths to avoid it, the firsts in suffer the consequences are the martials.

>>52991459
If your setting's reality can be broken by throwing grease on someone and unlocking the door, that says more about your skill as a DM more than the power of a mage.

Just saying.

>>52991456
Of course they're not outlandish later on.

It's outlandish to think that you have one at level 1, or can create lv2 spell wands at level 2. Or that you'll get to lv 3, and then burn the exp to create wands before caster lv 5.

At higher levels, mages SHOULD be dangerous and clever and prepared. But the assumption that mages at lv 1 can handle traps better than a lv 1 rogue.....is just friggen silly.

And these debates always assume that the mage is high level.

>>52991535
>and then burn the exp
Not in PF though, item creation doesn't burn exp, actually there isn't exp burn in PF, system which btw made magical craft piss fucking easy

>>52991489
How about a pressure plate that rings a bell?

Or a door with a fucking string on the backside of it, that you can't see.

Doesn't even have to be the spell alarm to raise an alert if triggered.

>>52991555
PF is retarded then. I knew there was a reason I didn't play it.

Honestly, 2nd edition has the best item creation rules...that keep the game balanced.

>>52991557
>How about a pressure plate that rings a bell?
How would that work exactly?
>Or a door with a fucking string on the backside of it, that you can't see.
If I can't see it, how would the Rogue see it either?
>Doesn't even have to be the spell alarm to raise an alert if triggered.
I was just asking because depending on the nature of the trap, the rogue's not going to have an easier time than my Barbarian would.

>>52991577
To be fair, AD&D also had way more interesting magic items than "item that grants X to [stat]" and "item that emulates X spell."

Fuck, I remember reading one entry where it was like an automaton that gave pepsi to people if they put money into its slot. You won't find anything like that in WotC era D&D.

>>52991535
Nobody assumed that but you because that wasn't mentioned anywhere but in your mind.

A caster at 1st level is not going to blow the system away, he might render a combat moot with a color spray once or twice.

But at the same time a rogue isn't going to open or disable much traps as a 1st level, remember that traps have a DC of 21+, so at the very fist 21, assuming Int 3 and 4 ranks and +3 from a feat that's 10. You're going to spot only half the traps and then only disable half of those, so your group is going to eat 3/4 of the traps, and that assuming if they're all 21 DC, because there're CR1 traps that have 24+ DC.

>>52991591
>How would that work exactly?
It's a pressure plate that when activated, pushes a small bell off the bottom of the plate, to ring 1 floor down. Creating a noise that alerts the guards you didn't want alerted?

>>52991591
>If I can't see it, how would the Rogue see it either?
Because rogues know what to look FOR. They're trained to carefully inspect the door from every angle and run a wire along the crack, or use a mirror......feel for a bulge in the wood that could be from a nail on the opposite side. The barb is trained to crush things with a club.

>depending on the nature of the trap, the rogue's not going to have an easier time than my Barbarian would.
True sometimes. Sure. But not always.

>>52991619
>To be fair, AD&D also had way more interesting magic items than "item that grants X to [stat]" and "item that emulates X spell."

A vastly superior system for balance and entertainment. No doubts.

>>52991654
>The barb is trained to crush things with a club.
But barbs have trap sense, one might think they can sense traps...

>>52991654
>Because rogues know what to look FOR.
So would I, both classes get trap sense+1 at the same level.

>>52991628
>But at the same time a rogue isn't going to open or disable much traps as a 1st level,

But he can do it all day, every day. He doesn't need spell slots (with a limitation). And.....I believe that only rogues can spot traps above a certain difficulty?
(Honestly, it's been a while since I did 3.5, so i could be mistaken)

Finding traps, isn't trap sense anon.

Big difference.

>>52991723
as seen here >>52991628 the rogue isn't going to be finding a whole lot of traps either. To be honest, Rogue sounds like it's only good as a first level dip, rather than something that you specialize in.

>>52991702
To be honest we used the rogue to find traps but the wizard to disable them because it was a spell but if used the spell the trap was disabled for sure, rogue didn't want to risk his life with a roll, he learned the bad way.

File: Skills Revamp Proposition 2.0 - Sheet1.pdf (66KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1x1px

>>52990660
Here's a quick mockup proposal of an easy fix to Background skills. I'm not sure if limited professions should also appear in the third column, so like Profession(librarian) for wizard and Profession(guard, soldier, sailor) for Fighter when they can already pick it from the second column.
This results in minimum skill characters getting 3 times the skills to work with without touching anyone else's niche, and high skill characters getting an (appreciated) drop in the bucket to things they already do well while losing nothing.

>>52991691
But do they get Trapfinding?

Trap Sense is more of a danger sense that goes off just as dangerous things swing into action, it won't tell you that there's a trap on the door, but if you set off the trap then you suddenly have the impulse to get out of the way, before someone like the fighter or sorcerer would notice the trap coming at them.

>>52992086
>But do they get Trapfinding?
If they dip one level into Rogue they would.

File: Skills Revamp Proposition 2.0 - Sheet1 (2).pdf (68KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1x1px

>>52991820
And expanded to cover all Core Classes in PF. As an even simpler solution, you could make Role skills = Class Skill - Background skills
This is just more tweaked.

>>52991167
Did you ever met reserve feats from 3.5? Don't remember what they got in PF but in 3.5 you could summon an elemental and keep him all day resummoning him on death. Here is your trap disabling device.

The fighting actually is done better through summons instead of buffing. I still remember the fucking celestial lions pride that just pounced on a blackguard and shred him to death.

Teleportation all day, around 5-10 of your favourite spells don't even needing a book, GREATER FUCKING INVISIBILITY with extended duration.

Playing wizard is like playing another game.

>>52991351
Yes, and in case you need really big guns or situational spells there is ways to change a couple of slots on the fly, sometimes even during combat.

Though I personally never used knock wands - we never cared about who can hear us so melee guys were just going through the doors juggernaut style.

>>52991702
When 3/4 of traps hit him in the face?

He can do it all day only if cleric will raise him after each death.

>>52988112

It never ceases to amaze me why that was abandoned, Not to mentnion it would have worked really well with 5e's archetype set up but I guess you can't step on the sacred cow that is bat man wizard.

>>52990260
assuming pathfinder for the sake of math and argument;

Yes, the fighter does get a decent hit box and he CAN select the heaviest of armors. however most do not due to cost (early levels) and punishment (dex cap and armor check penalties are a bitch)

The fighter does not get a bigger feat selection, he simply gets more, which he needs to spend on feat taxes to get the feats that he needs in order to do his damn job. As for skills the average fighter would have a +1 mod to int, meaning 3 skill ranks a level, that means only 3 skills that the fighter can select for out-of-combat usefulness. Too bad he has to at least spend one of them on a semi-combat skill otherwise he is hindering the party.

>>52987271
>>52987491
hm, i gotcha. so is storyteller like, a specific system? and vampire the masquerade settings using the storyteller system?

>>52998051
Yes, Storyteller is a system that Wife Wolf uses for their World of Darkness games.

For new players, especially if they are going into it from D&D, I'd actually suggest New World of Darkness. White Wolf cleared the system a lot in it. Though many people consider the new setting to be not as good as the old one.

But if you wanted to say play into Hunters (killing vampires, werewolves and so on as +/- normal humans) nWoD is probably better.

>>52980782
>>52981077
Not only would that complicate the game for minimal gain, your minions would be gone as soon as someone casts a fireball. That was and always will be a shitty class feature.

>>52998407
Oh I get it, if the fighter brings a bunch of minions to the battle, it's a problem, but if the wizard brings minions to the battle, it ain't no big thang.

Christ alive, I hate this hobby sometimes.

>>52991374
>admits that the only reason the fighters are fighting is to let wizards do their work
lel

>>53000244
Sad part is that he thought that he was being clever. This >>52991374 is why you don't start an argument with 5 INT kids.