Why are wizards so strong in DnD?

>>53032316
because all the stuff in 1st and 2nd edition that kept them on the plane of mere mortals was progressively stripped away and no new constraints were added in their place. In earlier editions it was much easier to be interrupted, you could mis-cast or fail to scribe scrolls to your spellbook, your HD was tiny, and spell resistance was more common and more potent.

This isn't to say that they didn't still become gods at really high end play, but it took a lot longer and being level 10 with 20 HP meant they were always on the verge of death.

>>53032316
Wizards are fine in DnD. It's non-casters who are weak.

>>53032590
spbp

>>53032316

Because the design priorities of the people making it leaned heavily towards magic.

Just look at the priorities given. In the Pathfinder core book, there is 148 pages of spells. More than twice as many for any other individual section... Save magic items.

At that point how powerful magic is is almost irrelevant. Sure, the magic options the system presents are overall far stronger than the mundane ones, but the real advantage is the scope.

That ratio tends to hold true through all core content for the conventional forms of D&D and its offshoots. Casters just get more stuff because, for whatever reason, the people designing it enjoy writing and creating spells and magic more than attempting to bodge the d20 framework into an actually satisfying mundane combat system.

There have been efforts, but they've either been decried within their edition (Tome of Battle/Path of War) or have been so different they put off a lot of purists (You know what I'm talking about.)

tl;dr Wizards are strong in D&D because whoever wrote the game liked magic more than they liked basically anything else, and that's where their passion and creativity went, as opposed to literally anything else.

Every level gives them new powers
Every level non casters get lets them do their one thing better

>>53032477
So much ^^ this

File: 1479543772683.jpg (164KB, 900x804px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 900x804px

>>53032316
They're actually not as bad in 5th edition dnd.

>>53032714

5e kinda reinforces the points made in >>53032678

Casters aren't that much more directly powerful than other classes, it's true. But the utility and versatility gap is still enormous, and leads to a lot of the same issues long term, even if they're not as immediately obvious.

5e is a far better game, but it seems like this whole thing is an implicit design issue with how D&D is thought of, to the point a lot of the core audience don't seem to see it as an issue. Deviating from it seems to get a strongly negative response from the core fanbase.

>>53032749
>5e is a far better game
>4e is a far better game
>We turn everyone into casters
>That's balance!

Or

>play 2e
>everything's balanced well
>wizards aren't martials
>martials aren't wizards
>clerics aren't rogues
>rogues aren't druids

>>53032807

>4e is a far better game
>We turn everyone into casters

I want the ignorant lies to end.

Magic is basically "do this cool shit." That makes it really easy to think of more cool shit for wizards to do. That gives them more options, which can be strong in its own right, and increases the chances that some of those options are going to end up flatly powerful on their own.

Look at the typical items in a vague rant about how bullshit wizards are: "Flying teleporting invisible death ray instakill assholes with better stats than the fighter and they can turn into fighters and they get out of combat stuff and and and..." Now go through them one at a time: Why can wizards fly? Because it's a cool thing you could imagine doing with magic. Why can wizards turn invisible? Cool, makes sense with magic. Death rays, cool magic. Save or dies, cool magic. Buff stats, cool magic. Every time wizards can do something, overpowered or not, it's usually because it's a cool thing you could see being done with magic.

Put simply, they're not well designed. They're piles of stuff, and since the stuff is more or less labeled Awesome, not surprisingly the pile tends towards the higher side of the power scale.

See clerics or druids for an alternative example: They're arguably MORE powerful than wizards in 3.5, but they don't get mentioned as much. Why? Because their pile of stuff is constrained by less awesome themes, so even though they end up more mechanically potent, it's not as awe-inspiring a pile. It's a functional pile, but you can tell the designers weren't brimming with glee as they added shit to it.

This is also why every attempt at buffing martials to match pisses off grogs: The only way to compete with a pile of stuff labeled Awesome is to start piling Awesome onto your own thing, which ends up "weaboo" (Bo9S) or "video game" (4e). Nerfing casters pisses (hopefully different, but I know better) people off because it destroys something Awesome.

>>53032316
A few spells were badly worded, and far to many sups in 3.5.

Also, creating items and scrolls is FAR too easy and cheap.

All versions of d&d after 2e, should be trashed.

>>53033056
The actual process of writing the scroll requires one full day for each level of the spell inscribed.
Protection scrolls require six days of work. During this time, the spellcaster must be undisturbed, breaking only for food and sleep (and then for a minimum of each). If the spellcaster halts before the transcription is completed, the entire effort fails and all work done to that point is for naught.
After the work is completed, the DM secretly checks for success. The base chance is 80%. This can be increased or decreased by the materials used. For every level of the spell, 1% is subtracted from the success chance, but every level of the spellcaster adds 1%. Thus, a 15th-level mage (+15) making a scroll of a 7th-level spell (-7), using papyrus (-5) and writing with a cockatrice quill plucked with his own hand (+5) would have an (80 + 15 - 7 - 5 + 5 =) 88% chance of success.
If the number rolled on percentile dice is equal to or less than the required number, the attempt succeeds. If the roll is higher, the attempt fails, though the player has no way of knowing this.
If the attempt fails, the scroll is cursed in some way. The DM secretly decides an appropriate effect based on the spell that was attempted. A failed attempt to create a fireball scroll may result in a cursed scroll that explodes in a fiery ball of flame upon reading. The player character cannot detect the cursed effect until it is too late.
Note: A remove curse spell will cause this faulty scroll to turn to dust.

Plus, the cost was very high in gold .

Compare that to 3.5's crafting items/scrolls

>be caster
>create scrolls
>pay 1 gold and .0001 exp
>have unlimited scrolls/items

>>53032979
>implying 4e wasn't a video game

>>53033191
Alright, I've decided to become the bait. Why, exactly, is being 'a video game' a bad thing? Video games are a way to have fun in a structured and easily understandable way. Depending on whatever mechanics you decide to use, a video game takes a particular concept and executes it (hopefully) in a way that focuses on that concept.
The very first objection I can think of is
>but I can't have creative freedom within the confines of a video game
which is bullshit, because if you were going to hold autistically to the rules, you were going to hold autistically to the rules anyways.
So seeing mechanics that emulate popular video games doesn't really bug me. This might be because I played video games before I played D&D, but I still don't get it.

>>53033280

The idea that 4e mechanics emulated videogames is a lie anyway, or at best a gross misinterpretation of the rules by people with limited experience of them.

>>53032316
Because D&D is a conglomeration of high magic settings where magic pervades every layer of existence (typically as a natural ambient field in most settings, Forgotten Realms has a specific conversion mechanism called the Weave layered over realspace so it doesn't touch the destructive unfiltered Pure Magic beyond) allowing for a dynamic range of altering or outright rejecting mundane reality's rules.
Of course, this doesn't mean wizards are particularly stronger than clerics, druids, or sorcerers. Or warriors armed with specialized magical equipment.

>>53032807
>>everything's balanced well

HA HA HA HA HA.

>>53033365
>Or warriors armed with specialized magical equipment.
Bad argument because there is no reason spellcasters can't equip things that warriors can.

>>53032316
Obviously because magic can do anything, and any wizard with his astounding Int score should be able to do all the spells, not just a narrow theme of them. Also fuck those sword users, too much like the jocks that the writers still hate from high school. Long live Int in place of Cha and mental tricks being mightier than the sword, m'lady!

>>53033191
>implying 4e was a video game
>implying that would be bad if it were true
>implying 90%+ of D&D players don't treat it like a video game regardless of edition

>>53033643

I always find this especially funny since 4e, rather uniquely, didn't have any video games based on it.

>>53033759
That's largely because the guy in charge of that killed himself.

>>53033790

...No? Online tabletop integration is not a videogame.

>>53033408
>Bad argument because there is no reason spellcasters can't equip things that warriors can.
Except, you know, proficiencies and class benefits. It varies a bit by edition, but let's say 5E since it's the current one. Even at level 20, an abjuration wizard is only swiping in with one attack per round (as he gains no Extra Attack features), and therefore his awesome +3 vorpal sword is not going to be nearly as effective as it would be in the battle master's hands, who gets four attacks per round (and can tack on four extra attacks for two selected rounds per rest). Also, he's going to be disadvantaged on that one attack unless he purchased longsword proficiency from somewhere.

If you want the lore for that, then it's because the fighters spend a lot of time training with those weaponry, whereas the wizards don't. If a wizard did, he would not be a full wizard, he would be a multiclasser.

>>53033901

Except wizards often get better use out of their magic items than martial classes do.

It's the same general problem. Martial magic items make them better at doing the one thing they can already do. Magic user focused magic items just give them more versatility.

>>53033402
Um.....anon, 2e is incredibly well balanced.

>>53033999
>What are Dart Fighters
>What is high level play
>What are Elvish Fighter/Magic Users
>What are Paladins
>What are Barbarians
>What is stacking haste with other attack/movement speed effects

>>53033981
That depends on edition, anon. You're colored by 3.5 and arguing from a vantage of 3.5.

There's not a lot of magic items for casters in 5E, for example, beyond the classic rod or staff that give them a few extra spell casts per day. Or the extremely high end stuff, which lets them get the rough equivalent of +1 or +2 modifiers on their spell to-hit and damage as though it were an enchanted weapon. But a Staff of the Magi isn't a common piece of gear.

3.5 sacred cows making the designers let them stay broken as fuck

>>53032316
Because D&D's rules aren't built for the player to play a real character, but for them to play a sword and sorcery movie archetype. At that point, of course wizards are OP- just look at the source material D&D steals from.

>>53034057
Dart fighters? darts still did SHIT damage, so who cares?
Highlevel play? Explain
Elvish fighters/magic users had level limits, and some rough penalties, not to mention the curse of elvish con/strength.
Pallys rocked, true. But it was so fucking rare to roll one up, no one ever really had any. (unless you cheated on rolls)
Barbs were nothing special.
Haste? nothing special there either.

>>53034093
>But a Staff of the Magi isn't a common piece of gear.

It shouldn't be in any edition. However too man shit dm's allow it to be common and buyable at the corner magic shop.

>>53033365
>Of course, this doesn't mean wizards are particularly stronger than clerics, druids, or sorcerers. Or warriors armed with specialized magical equipment.

Martials can never have the sheer utility of a dedicated caster. They can perfectly be the main damage dealers in a party (unless you have a warlock of course, but warlock design is weird in general), but outside of combat are far less useful than a caster. Sorcerers are giant pieces of shit compared to wizards outside of combat, and warlocks do blasting much more efficiently, which is why sorcerer 18/warlock 2 is such a meme multiclass

>>53034189

You can't really call it shit GMing if they're just following advice given to them in the DMG. At that point it's bad design.

>>53032316
Because Chads reeeeeeeee3eeeeeee

>>53034189
5E doesn't even have that core, there's not even prices listed for magic items.
Hell, there isn't even a projected curve of what kind of magic items player characters should receive and when, other than a general sort of expectation that martial based classes should have a magic weapon (not even necessarily a +1 weapon) by level 7 or so when resistance to nonmagic starts getting spread around.

>>53034207
And that's fine. Wizards are a toolbox, fighters are a sledgehammer. Sledgehammer's not as versatile and in the end has only one real obvious application, but nothing in the toolbox does the sledgehammer's job.

>>53034270
But what if i take the toolbox and hit someone with it.

>>53034316
Probably going to dent your toolbox, my dude.

>>53034316
It'd be far less impressive than you expect.
Wizard damage per turn sucks in 5E unless they're burning their six highest level spell slots (which they cannot replenish or acquire more of by any means [except that one Epic Boon AKA post-20 content that no campaign ever uses]).

>>53034270
>>53034316
>>53034334

But from what I understand of 5e, casters are still damn good in combat anyway.

If they're roughly equal in combat, but one is wildly better outside of it, isn't that obvious?

Even if one is an unsurpassed master of combat, being basically irrelevant when not smacking people in the face seems like really boring class design.

>>53033999
Are you stupid or something?

>>53034209
Where in the DMG does it say "every wizard gets a staff of the magi"?

>>53034352
Anon was correct.

2e is the most balanced of the d and d editions.

>>53034249
That would suit us. We play low magic games anyway.

We seldom have a lot of magic items, or even weapons.

There's no fucking magic shop in our games.

>>53034209
>You can't really call it shit GMing if they're just following advice given to them in the DMG. At that point it's bad design.

>The DMG says to give out staves of the magi like it's candy?

Can you tell me what page that is on please?

>>53032316
>yeah let's see how you fare when I'm attacking you behind your back
>I don't need dumb tricks, my enchanted sword is just fine
>yeah, but do you have these many HPs?
>stop laughing

>>53034542
>>53034620

The DMG has rules for magic item availability that scales by level. Read between the lines, moron.

>>53034351
>casters are still damn good in combat anyway.
>If they're roughly equal in combat,
Nah, not really. They can't keep up with Fighters and Monks spike way past them at level 17, totem barbarians are a little less consistent but get the benefit of being the closest thing to invincible (whereas wizards are always glassy and will shatter with a punch, and there's no way to protect themselves from that flaw in 5E because of how movement has been fixed compared to previous editions).
(if you want to talk about flying up, nearly everyone can use a longbow and fly is concentration-based, so if they get hit and break it, they can enjoy the fall to their certain demise)

>>53034711
>Read between the lines
>The RULES DEMAND (x)
>My reading between the lines , which is slang for making shit up that isn't there....means the game is shit.

wtf logic is that?

>>53034711
>The DMG has rules for magic item availability that scales by level
Now you're just lying. All it has, the only thing it has, is what level items of varying rarity should begin appearing at, saying "legendary items should not be found before character level 17 (because it will skew our already-tenuous CR system)", for example.
It doesn't say how many legendary items a level 20 character should have, if they should even have any. Much less does it say they should have the specific item they want.

>>53034778
YOU ARENT READING BETWEEN THE LINES!!!! FUCK YOUR LOGIC!!

>>53034778
That's good game design, anon. If we rely on the GM to build half the system themselves, they'll become more invested in our product and think it's good! Rule 0 means we don't have to actually put any effort into the game. Just mod it until it's good. Nobody plays TES games vanilla.

>t. bethesda

Yes, I'm salty

Don't play 3rd edition. 4E evens things pretty well.

Know what, /tg/?

Why not just give martials magical qualities? Not stuff like spells, but things like superman-level strength and endurance.

Makes fighters more like Guan Yu and Beowulf, than guy-with-armor-#2.

>>53035756
Why not play a system that makes martial combat fun? Why fetter yourself to an outdated and shitty system that isn't working for you?

>>53032316

>D&D, a game by WIZARDS of the Coast, favors wizards

i think i've stumbled onto something lads

>>53036147
Because I'm not an autist that focuses more on mechanics than story. I value the ability to convey a narrative quickly and easily, but don't want to get bogged down in mechanics. That's basically Anima. At the same time, I've no desire for a rules-light system where combat is ill-defined. I've tried Savage Worlds already - no thank you.

File: lmao.gif (1MB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x188px

>>53036392
>That's basically Anima.
>The game that requires an excel formula to calculate damage

>>53032316
Magic is for roleplayers who want to have fun the easy way with spells.
Martial is for roleplayers who are experienced enough to have fun and interesting situations just with proper RP.

I speak from own experience.

>>53036444
Reread his post me'laddo

>>53036900
I said a system that makes martial combat fun, not excel formula based like Anima. Nobody would bring up Anima as an example of fun, ever. I don't get why he doesn't like Savage Worlds, but whatever. He can stick to D&D if he thinks the three systems in the world are Anima, D&D, and Savage Worlds.

>>53036392
>Because I'm not an autist that focuses more on mechanics than story.
Mechanics tell a story. Such as that of the fighter who was trained in physical combat all his life just to be outclassed by the druid's animal sidekick.

>>53034808
Then fucking spell it out for us you fucking genius.

Make an actual fucking argument instead of autistic screeching

>>53032979

When I'm designing caster classes I always restrict them strongly to a central theme. OR, when I'm playing a caster, I try to take spells that suit a central theme.

The main issue is that a 'generic' mage has access to spells that damage, debuff, and buff. THEN, they also get summons, conjurations, mind control and illusions. THEN they get crazy unique stuff, like demiplanes or magnificent mansions.

Most classes that don't do "generic magic" can get some of these, but not all. Fighters can damage and debuff, maybe even buff, but it's oftem harder for them to summon allies or beguile enemies. Thief classes can pick locks and sneak, bluff enemies into giving away critical facts and even damage/debuff, but they're STILL missing out on stuff like Demiplane.

My first character, a 5e Warlock, had Eldritch Blast for consistent ranged damage. He also had ritual casts of Alarm and Purify Food & Drink for camp bonuses, Detect Thoughts for interrogation, Sleep & Hideous Laughter for debuffs, could deal mass AOE damage with Shatter or Fireball, could identify loot as a ritual, and could cast Haste or Fly to buff allies. At higher levels he'd have been able to cast spells like Demiplane and Create Undead.

He WAS fun to play (at first) but completely lacked a niche and just straight up outperformed the rest of the party in a ton of fields (though not in combat). Not to mention the high Cha made him be THE party face for a couple of sessions (until a a LG paladin joined).

My last character, a Ranger, had three abilities at the same level. Deal damage at range, deal damage in melee, track enemies over distance. The third one I didn't even use.

The point of DnD isn't about balance, it's about having fun rolling dice and making a story.

It isn't some shitty E-sport you retard.

>>53037159
That being said, the existence of 'levels' implies balance. Otherwise, why have them at all if a level 20 wizard isn't approximately similar in power to a level 20 rogue?

>>53037180
Classes shouldn't be equally good at everything. A level 20 rogue shouldn't be able to go 50/50 with a lvl 20 fighter in a straight fight. Otherwise why bother differentiating your characters at all?

Also trying to balance classes competitively against each other is retarded. Like the PvP scene in dungeons and dragons is unbalanced. Oh no!

>>53037430
>Like the PvP scene in dungeons and dragons is unbalanced. Oh no!
More like the PvE balance favors casters extremely heavily.

>>53032857
Having different resource mechanics for different classes is a very important aspect for many people because having thematic mechanics goes a long way towards making a game actually carry its theme (this is why not GURPS isn't the premiere RPG on the planet).
Meanwhile, 4E was so disliked that a complete shitshow like paizo managed to thrive next to it.

>>53037430
>Classes shouldn't be equally good at everything.
That is not what balance means.

>>53036147
>Why not play a system that makes martial combat fun
Haven't found one so far. All the supposedly "fun martial-focused" systems were either rules-lite trash or went into the super-simulationist direction a la Riddle of Steel. Meanwhile, modding DnD martials is pretty simple.

>>53037544
D&D 4e.

File: laughork.jpg (14KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 225x225px

>>53037560

>>53037544
Alright, what do you find fun? Seriously, if casting traditional D&D spells counts as fun, then literally Book of Nine Swords.

>>53037665
>Alright, what do you find fun?
My metrics are:

- Different kinds of classes/archetypes need different resource systems. Casters use mana/spell slots/focus/etc, martials are unlimited/per encounter/idontgiveafuck. ultimately though, there needs to be mechanical distinction.

- combat needs options, and these options need to be viable even without speccing your character around them, because full attacking each round is boring.

- combat needs to be somewhat mobile, because movement creates options and options are good.

- combat needs to be not only tactical but also strategical. Stacking modifiers is nice, as is the thought of "winning combat before it's begun" because you stacked the odds in your favor.

- ability to react to your opponents. this gives more options, that's good.

Oh, I should mention, there's also Legends of the WU Lin, but that's kinda niche and doesn't do anything besides crazy kung fu well, so it's not relevant for "knights with swords and wizards" games.

>>53037748
Shadow of the Demon Lord maybe?

I'm not sure why BoNS/Path of War/4e doesn't fit though. Just use essentials/psionic classes.

>>53037824
>4E
No separate resources, combat maneuvers aren't viable due to high CMD, choices are nonexistant and stacking stuff is pretty much impossible by yourself.

>Path of War
Path of War is decent and I use it for my (somewhat modified) 3.5 games for some martials.

>Shadow off the Demon Lord
I dislike the core mechanic because I dislike bane/boon systems in general because it somehwat discourages stacking modifiers by capping the benefit. In 3.5 you can stack +30 with different situational, magic, skill etc boni, here it's capped at 6.

Don't know what BoNS is.

>>53037748
What you're asking for ultimately requires a lot of mechanical complexity to function, because your ideal game
>Depends on a lot of variables
>Requires that the tide of combat be able to change very quickly
>Accounts for multiple archetypes and the mechanics they entail
>Doesn't depend on an ideal build
>Permits multiple actions, all of which ostensibly have meaningful ramificatons that need to be accounted for
Which honestly sounds like it requires a lot of crunch to function properly. Maybe if they actually made use of the billion skills and spells for some d20 games.
Saga Edition seemed pretty decent, even if it's tied to the d20 and Star Wars. And Jedi are still overpowered. I had considered doing a hack for D&D.

>>53037881
>No separate resources

Hence why I said psionics and essentials.

>combat maneuvers aren't viable due to high CMD

4e doesn't have CMD. That's Pathfinder. I guess you may mean improvised actions being a bit less reliable, but that's an easy fix, if you want it.

> choices are nonexistant

.... explain?

>stacking stuff is pretty much impossible by yourself.

Blatantly false. one of the worst things about it imo is that there's a ridiculous number of small, situational modifiers. Also not sure "by yourself" matters when it's supposed to be a team game.

>BoNS

Book of Nine Swords, the 3.5 predecessor to Path of War

>>53037748
Sounds like you want Dungeon Crawl Classics.

>>53033083
>Note: A remove curse spell will cause this faulty scroll to turn to dust.
Does this mean you can just cast that on every scroll you make so at least it won't fail at a critical time?

>>53037899
>What you're asking for ultimately requires a lot of mechanical complexity to function, because your ideal game
Not really
>Depends on a lot of variables
Arguable, as this is a very vague point
>Requires that the tide of combat be able to change very quickly
Again, yes, but this does not necessarily increase mechanical depth, although it makes the situations happening in-game more complex.
>Accounts for multiple archetypes and the mechanics they entail
That's mechanical width rather than complexity. 50 different classes each with a different core mechanic is no more complex than 5 that all use the same. the player can decide himself how many he wants to combine, and manage that stuff by himself. The DM is only concerned with the monsters mechanics which are "behind the curtain" and so can be simplified.
>Accounts for multiple archetypes and the mechanics they entail
No shit, having balance is kinda important if character building is to be fun, but balance =/= complexity
>Doesn't depend on an ideal build
see above
>Permits multiple actions, all of which ostensibly have meaningful ramificatons that need to be accounted for
Yes. While having 3~4 viable actions each turn is definitely more complex than "I use my daily if the enemy is a boss", It's what makes combat mechanically interesting, and I like crunch.

>Which honestly sounds like it requires a lot of crunch to function properly
somewhat. As I said, I use a modified 3.5.
>Saga Edition seemed pretty decent, even if it's tied to the d20 and Star Wars
Saga is actually exactly the direction I'm going with this.
>And Jedi are still overpowered
That's somewhat of a meme. It's just easier to be useless as a non-Jedi

>>53037916
>Hence why I said psionics and essentials.
still tied to that godawful role system they thought up for 4E though

>4e doesn't have CMD. That's Pathfinder
Yup, mixed up my terms. I blame the whiskey. 4E didn't have basic maneuver stuff at all except as powers IIRC.

>.... explain?
"You can only trip this guy if you have a power for that"

>Blatantly false. one of the worst things about it imo is that there's a ridiculous number of small, situational modifiers
Stuff like that is very important so the "before" the combat doesn't become obsolete and the game sin't reduced to a series of set piece fights with no impact on each other.

>Also not sure "by yourself" matters when it's supposed to be a team game.
That's just bullshit. Mechanically forcing teamwork is dumb and just makes you feel like your character is incompetent by himself. Another reason why roles are cancer.

>Book of Nine Swords, the 3.5 predecessor to Path of War
Ah, always abbreviated it as Bo9S, I do use that for some flavors of martials.

>>53037988
>Sounds like you want Dungeon Crawl Classics.
Will check it out.

>>53038054
>"You can only trip this guy if you have a power for that"
This is something that I hear (as a non-D&D player) that confuses the hell out of me - why is something like a shield bash or tripping a guy considered a skill or power or whatever for anyone, especially martials?
It's a fairly basic thing to do.
What other things aren't classes assumed to know?

>>53038054

>Yup, mixed up my terms. I blame the whiskey. 4E didn't have basic maneuver stuff at all except as powers IIRC.

Nah, it exists. It's just generally less effective than using a power as a power will come with some damage as well.

>>53032316
Because wizard players kept whining and thrashing whenever WotC tried to balance their favoured class, or buff other classes.

>>53038054
>still tied to that godawful role system they thought up for 4E though

Yes, pointing out that maybe the guy in heavy armor and shield is good at defending people and that the wizard is supposed to be blowing shit up and the cleric is supposed to be healing sure is fucking terrible.

"Roles" are a label. They have no in-game significance aside from telling you what the character is good at. In a way it's just like Class was in OD&D.

>4E didn't have basic maneuver stuff at all except as powers IIRC.

It has grapple/pull/push and a very handy chart to improvise any sort of maneuvers.

>"You can only trip this guy if you have a power for that"

See my above answer.

>Stuff like that is very important so the "before" the combat doesn't become obsolete and the game sin't reduced to a series of set piece fights with no impact on each other.

That's why shit like Surges and different conditions were pretty cool.

>That's just bullshit. Mechanically forcing teamwork is dumb and just makes you feel like your character is incompetent by himself. Another reason why roles are cancer.

No, having a role doesn't mean you are incompetent, it means you do one thing really ,really well.

But if you want to have multiple roles, you can always just Hybrid.

>>53038084
>>53038085

4e logic for improvised actions is this:
>can be don at any time
Less good than At-wills
>can be done with preparation or when the time is right
on the level of encounters
>can be done with lots of preparation and/or very specific circumstances
on the level of dailies.

>>53038085
Honestly it's been years since I played 4E, if they have a wiki or something where stuff like that is presented could you direct me to it, because I'm honestly curious if we just missed something elementary like that.

>>53038111
>"Roles" are a label. They have no in-game significance aside from telling you what the character is good at. In a way it's just like Class was in OD&D.
Their significance is that they informed the mindset that went into power design, which led to people getting powers that do stuff for their role, which leads to "needing" to "fill" certain roles for a combat effective party. Hence the often cited MMO comparison.

>It has grapple/pull/push and a very handy chart to improvise any sort of maneuvers.
Honestly, if stuff like tripping someone or kicking his weapon away isn't in the core rules explicitly, how can you say the rules want to do martials justice? That's like saying you can theoretically construct railguns in DnD so it's a scifi game.

>No, having a role doesn't mean you are incompetent, it means you do one thing really ,really well.
semantics, challenges are designed around the guy who does stuff really, really well, so not being that guy in that situation means you suck.

>But if you want to have multiple roles, you can always just Hybrid.
Roles are tied to classes though, so if the class you want doesn't have the roles represented in his powers that you want you're Shit out of luck.

>>53032316
Thanks guys.

>>53038174
>Honestly, if stuff like tripping someone or kicking his weapon away isn't in the core rules explicitly, how can you say the rules want to do martials justice?

They are though. They are covered by improvised actions or by powers. Both of which martials have access to.

>semantics, challenges are designed around the guy who does stuff really, really well, so not being that guy in that situation means you suck.

False, classes can totally pull the weight of their secondary-tertiary role. You can build a Fighter as a very competent controller/damage dealer on top (or rather, partly because of) of being a Defender. And you can even multiclass for leader powers if you want to fill that as well.

>Roles are tied to classes though, so if the class you want doesn't have the roles represented in his powers that you want you're Shit out of luck.

Hence you'd hybrid. So you have the powers you want. Do you understand how hybrid works?

>>53038174

>Their significance is that they informed the mindset that went into power design, which led to people getting powers that do stuff for their role

...wait, so it's a bad thing to tell players what their class is good at?

As the D&D Rogue has always basically filled the Striker role even before it had a name. They do a big hit of damage (Backstab/Sneak Attack) but don't survive it anywhere near as well.

4e Roles are also rather soft compared to MMOs. I've played in groups with no leaders, no controllers and no defenders before. It changes HOW you play but doesn't make it impossible like it would an MMO. I'm willing to bet you could make a perfectly functional party out of 4 characters of even the same role (Though Striker would be easiest)

>>53037916
>Hence why I said psionics and essentials.
Don't essentials still have Atwill/Encounter/Dailies?

>>53038174
>Their significance is that they informed the mindset that went into power design, which led to people getting powers that do stuff for their role, which leads to "needing" to "fill" certain roles for a combat effective party. Hence the often cited MMO comparison.

Forgot this, but the only role you need to fill in 4e is Leader.

And you don't even need to be good, you just need to have 2-3 heals in the party.

>>53038244
Some do, but some (mostly the martials) are different.

They gain no dailies (instead mostly passive improvements), and they gain reusable encounters instead of getting new ones, which translates into "x times per fight" abilities instead of how it functions for others. A good example for what to expect would be the 5e battlemster fighter.

You can technically still pick up dailies with your utility slots, but you can also just will those with at-wills instead.

>>53038242
>...wait, so it's a bad thing to tell players what their class is good at?
No, defining a central combat role for a class and aligning all his abilities around that is bad, because classes should be different in "what they spend to do stuff" and in what they're allowed to do.

>As the D&D Rogue has always basically filled the Striker role even before it had a name
Except that's wrong.

>I'm willing to bet you could make a perfectly functional party out of 4 characters of even the same role
4 leader definitely works, but everything else kinda breaks down because of power limitations.

>>53038276

>No, defining a central combat role for a class and aligning all his abilities around that is bad, because classes should be different in "what they spend to do stuff" and in what they're allowed to do.

But even two classes of the same role play differently. Heck, two different people of the same class can be built differently. You can build fighters for example to be excellent at damage, area control, single target lockdown or being the toughest nut to crack on the battlefield.

>>53038276
>No, defining a central combat role for a class and aligning all his abilities around that is bad, because classes should be different in "what they spend to do stuff" and in what they're allowed to do.

But classes have secondary roles and a bunch of powers break what a class is supposed to do.

Obviously, there's more and less supported classes in this sense, but you could build a Paladin for example to cover whatever the hell you want, especially if you hybrid it.

>Except that's wrong.

It's technically not wrong, just not the full picture. Rogues really were burst damage, only this was supposed to make them good at doing solo takedowns while they go ahead to scout.

This whole thing stems from the different spotlight balance 4e and OD&D have. OD&D each character had the spotlight at different parts of the game, making different sort of contributions. 4e every character contributes in all parts of the game, they just do it differently.

>4 leader definitely works, but everything else kinda breaks down because of power limitations.

You can do a 4 anything party, you just need to pick up minor action heals from multiclass feats or hybriding. More team synergy on top of that helps, of course.

That's all you need, really.

>>53037154
So, simple question is, how do we fix this?

>1. Buff martials by giving them 'ki attacks'.
I don't personally like this one. If you make a 'pure martial' like a champion fighter, you should be allowed to play it no-magic.

>2. Buff martials by expanding their range of abilities.
Essentially, this means letting them do more than 'roll to attack.' Adding Battlemaster style manuevers to all classes would (imo) add a lot better variety.

>3. Nerf casters by giving them less spell options.
My personal choice. Even the 'limited' Warlock 5e spell list gives a ton of variety. Make spellcasters have to commit to a style or school.

>>53032316
Cause they're artillery pieces who got all their weaknesses removed. So if your Fighting Man is a, say, rifleman, then your Wizard is a fucking Gundam.

>>53034057
>What are Dart Fighters
Shit range, and with how multiple attacks work, you'll get -one- dart out before the battle is in melee and you'll either risk hitting your allies or are yourself preoccupied by a sword in your face.
>What is high level play
No worse than in later systems.
>What are Elvish Fighter/Magic Users
Level limits, slower experience gain, can't wear armor.
>What are Paladins
Fucking awesome that's what.
>What are Barbarians
Hard to get and harder still to roleplay properly, but rewarding if done right.
>What is stacking haste with other attack/movement speed effects
Losing a year of your life every time you cast it, that's what. Would you do that in every casual situation?

2e -was- really well balanced, despite them not even caring that much about balance back in the day.

>>53034559
Basic D&D was more balanced, by virtue of having less stuff. AD&D added more to it and messed it up a little.

Still better than later editions, though.

>>53038276
I had a game entirely made out of strikers.
It was bloody and hard, but the barbarian specced into durability, the rogue got items that raised her AC and made her invisible to make sure that worked out. The ranger stood at range and relied on bating the enemy into good positions so they could use their lower numbers to their advantgage while the warlock locked down the most dangerous enemy with offspec abilities.

>>53037490
>different resources
>in AD&D 2ed

>>53038414
>I don't personally like this one. If you make a 'pure martial' like a champion fighter, you should be allowed to play it no-magic.

>Essentially, this means letting them do more than 'roll to attack.' Adding Battlemaster style manuevers to all classes would (imo) add a lot better variety.

They are the same fucking thing. one is just called "Ki" the other "Martial dice". They are both "X times/short rest" abilities with different fluff.

>My personal choice. Even the 'limited' Warlock 5e spell list gives a ton of variety. Make spellcasters have to commit to a style or school.

Agreeing the shit outta this though.

>>53038473
I'm not talking about AD&D, what's your point? And even then, in 2nd Casters had slots, martials did not.

Gygax lost the IP and suddenly the designers didn't have to abide by his idea that heroes should be strongmen and villains evil sorcerers.

>>53038477
Something I force my players to do in my skulls and shackles game.
The sorcerer has a special rule that any spells she picks must fit into her bloodline, aquatic, leeway is given to make it possible to pick evocation spells, but all must be cold damage.
The Oracle must chose spells accoding to "the spirits" and if it don't fit, it's not applicable.

It straight up ain't on their spelllists otherwise.

Turn on gestalt after having made casters narrow as shit and I have a really balanced party into the level 10s.
Difficult, but absolutely balanced.

>>53038477
Different fluff goes a long way.

> "I expend one point to kick them in the balls and stomp on their face"

> "I expend one point to launch a blast of wind from my hand, tripping the enemy. My stone spirit familiar will then attack them while they're down."

I think martial specific abilities should be more like "create an opening for your allies" or "use a sword technique to bait an enemy into overreaching." Shit like trips, shoves, grapples and power attacks should be universal.

>>53038520
Sure, but I can describe just about any effect as martial, if I try hard enough.

> "I expend one point to launch a blast of wind from my hand, tripping the enemy. My stone spirit familiar will then attack them while they're down."

> "I throw a bola at the enemy to trip him, and then my pet wolf goes to town"

>>53038533
To be honest. That sounds fucking awesome.

>>53032316
because cantrips are a mistake. the choice to do magic should be relevant, and being able to do magic without expenditure of time/gold/spellslots is rubish.
i like my wizards to be squishy fools in cloaks that, with preperation time, can level a kingdom, but when ambushed or forced to expend their options basicly fucked.

>>53038513
This doesn't really count because I'm just using 5e as a base for a casual campaign, but in the setting I'm writing normal classes are replaced with custom caster classes. They're all designed to fill different rolls and none get normal "spells" so much as unique powers tooled to their theme.

One class, for example, exclusively uses spells that deal force damage. Another class doesn't cast spells, its a 'pet' class that creates autonomous generic goons.

If I were running vanilla, I'd just levy some severe penalties for learning spells out of your preferred school. It's harsh, but that means your illusionist is really unlikely to just call "fuck it" and melt the encounter with a barrage of fireballs. I mean, the ranged fighter can't just go "fuck it" and cleave the whole room up with a battleaxe.

>>53032590
I do sinicerely hope that you are aware that the very moment non-casters reach the ridiculous and stupid caster power-lvls, D&D will lose it's last vestiges of credibility in representing the core fantasy genre, or really anything but bottom-shelf weebshit like Slayers or something.

This is not what Tolkien was writing about. This is not what Howard was writing about. It is not what any respected fantasy writer was doing. Post-TSR D&D is a cancer that is destroying the genre.

It's nerfing bathrobe faggots to shit and preferably removing "divine magic" at whole is what we need, not buffing martials.

>>53038543
>>53038533
Oh yeah, agreed. I'd just like to see that implemented directly into the system rather than requiring houseruling.

One of the things that drove me out of my last campaign was me always wanting to do shit like use the Mobile feat and bonus-action attacks to sprint through packs of enemies disarming them. Sounds like a dual-wield ranger tactic? Does to me, but it's not really a thing the rules encourage because grappling runs off Str and rangers love their Dex.

>>53038567
This.

>>53038567
You can do both.

Grounded fantasy at low levels, epic fantasy at high levels.

Maybe have some sort of "paragon" tier in the middle. Have like, 10 levels for each perhaps.

>>53038594
That's great, then you can chose what kind of campaign you have.

>>53038574
For the record, disarming isn't really great in 5e anyway cause they can just pick the weapon back up (unless you are throwing it into your bag or something other suitably silly thing, I guess).

But yeah, all the combat maneuvers being tied to Athletics (not even just strength, but athletics) is pretty silly.

>>53038567
Except most martials can't even deal with the CR they're supposed to deal
Monk and Rogue in case

>>53038621
Specially if you take into account Monks, fuck this, martial arts are about tripping, grappling, and other combat maneuvers, yet monks suck at that super hard.

>>53038628
Martial arts really should have Acrobatics grappling at least.

And then give it to other classes as a fighting style.

>>53038628
I fee like, if they're suck at damage compared to every other martial (the moment you allow feats, slightly below if you don't allow feats), at least monks should have been a martial BF controler, but no, wotc doesn't want monks to be good.

>>53038661
They have stun, which is really powerful sure but due how monks need ki for literally everything is a feature you're going to use very few times for very specific cases, that's all a monk is in 5e.

I had an idea for an alternate power system for 'martials' versus 'casters' in terms of 'stances' versus 'arts'.
Stances would have five properties:
>Style the stance originates from
>A small passive bonus
>A Momentum property (basically, do this thing and you gain Momentum used to fuel powers)
>Powers you spend Momentum on
>A Stance-ending Finale, which spends all your Momentum in one go to create a single powerful effect
Your power level as a Stance user would depend on how much Momentum you could hold at once and how many Stances and Styles you know, and how quickly you can replenish them.
There would also be the concept of Shifting Stances, where you retain half of your Momentum when your shift to a stance of a different Style (to represent the difference between Stances you have to undertake), all of it if you shift to a Stance of the same Style, and you lose all of it if you change to a Stance of a rival Style, because the Stances are diametrically opposed.
Arts would be fueled by pools of Mana/Stamina, happen once, and be similar to casting a spell, with:
>School the Art originates from
>Mana required to use the Art
>Specializations of the Art (basically, spend more mana to get additional benefits)
>Duration, obviously
>An Overchannel, which risks magical backlash in exchange for an additional or special Specialization
So you could have people that use both Stances and Arts, or simply Stances, or simply Arts.

>>53038747
Most combats simply don't last long enough for that source of resource management to be relevant.

Don't get me wrong, it's a really cool concept.

>>53032477
>HD was tiny

I see how the rest of the things kept them in check, but they had a lower hit die than d6 at some point?
Really? a d4? or a coin? That sounds incredibly shitty.

It's been 14 years. Can't we come up with something new to collect (you)s at this point?

>>53038567

Who gives a fuck what those old farts were writing about. low power levels = no fun. Casters should be retarded broken, martials should be retarded broken.
Heroes and villains should be doing battle on an epic scale, in which the fates of towns, nations, empires, worlds and eventually planes of existence hang in the balance.
If I wanted to play as a shitty serf who is barely better than a crippled autistic retard I wouldn't, I'd just kill myself because holy shit how can anyone have such fucked taste.

>>53038987
d4 was a thing once, yes.

>>53039024
Have you tried Exalted? It sounds just like your thing.

In Pathfinder atleast, I think Casters being that much more powerfull than non-casters is a bit of a meme. Casters need to prepare or just happen to have the appropriate spells to be really effective at shit. There's a variety of this that can happen though that throws a wrench in your plans.

The difference is that casters get a lote more options, especially out of combat. This is obviously a problem that can make non-casters a lot less fun to play but I wouldnt say that has much to do with being "strong".

>>53032316
my experience is that spellcasters are not stronger only easier.
To efficiently play a martial you have to deeply understand the rules and be able to make that combat happens on your terns
basically what >>53036568 said

Casters have literally 1/2 if every book dedicated to them, martials no even a 1/4
And martials have to play mother may I to do anything interesting

>>53038987
wow is this what it feels to be old

>>53038987
Welcome to the magical world of OD&D.

It's honestly not that bad, you aren't supposed to get hit anyways.

>>53038567
>>53038567
The biggest problem was that D&D is not made to represent traditional fantasy. Somehow it was twisted into that through the years, but at its core it's a compelete ly different thing.

Most adventures are not dungeon crawls nowadays. And yet due to D&D's power curve many other types of adventure do not make sense (what challenges can there be in a city where 99% of the population is level 0 or 1?) How many fantasy worlds (that did not follow D&D's trail) have a version of divine magic? D&D style Vancian magic is extremely rare, and it's waaay too schizophrenic (as its designed with balance in mind instead of logic). D&D's HP/hit dice system is a mess the further forward you go in editions (daggers are completely harmless to high level characters, and HP not being meat points is irrelevant when 8 goblins can't kill a wizard they're completely surrounding while he's dancing salsa)

>>53034220
This, honestly. This is why.

>>53037002
>you need an ezcel sheet for anima1!1!1!
Sorry you are retarded anon.

Try I'd say try gurps. But if anima is too hard I feel making a GURPS char might be too...

>>53032316
Because martials are given limitations and wizards aren't. You've got the angry martial and the kung fu martial and the swords martial and the kinda holy martial and the pet owner martial and the sneaky martial and these are strictly divided. Meanwhile, wizards get ALL the spells.

Compare with, say, the Final Fantasy Tactics games, where there are about as many different caster classes as martial classes.

>>53038174
>Their significance is that they informed the mindset that went into power design, which led to people getting powers that do stuff for their role, which leads to "needing" to "fill" certain roles for a combat effective party. Hence the often cited MMO comparison.

I should point out that MMOs got those role designs from D&D in the first place.

So your argument basically the MMO comparison boils down to "D&D4e is dumb and bad because it copies D&D" to which the only appropriate answer I can think of is "Hurr durr, oh really?"

>>53041866
It's not a direct copy of D&D. MMOs took those designs from D&D, yes, but they gave them their own spin, modified them to fit an entirely different mindset - and then 4e took that mindset and brought it back to D&D, bringing it to full circle.

I like 4e fine, but don't pretend like there wasn't a crucial extra step there.

>>53038471
We had a very Leader heavy game once. I believe we had a Bard, a Cleric, a Paladin(the most Leader-y of Defenders), a Ranger(new player), and....something else I can't quite recall, maybe a Shaman or something.

We still died, though more because the first-time DM got assblasted that we were winning his "epic" fight (consisting of multiple solos for parties 5-6 levels above us, and hordes of normal non-minion monsters that turned into nuclear bombs the second anyone touched them. So he just had a DMPC come in and instant kill us with no save, then bragged about how he "beat" us.

Needless to say he wasn't allowed to DM again.

>>53041935
I barely noticed any change in how roles worked from AD&D to 4e. Your typical party consists of the squishy guy who punches people in the face, the big guy who gets punched in the face so the squishy guy doesn't have to, you have the healer to make sure everyone else's faces stay in one piece after being punched, and then the utility guy who spends most of the time hiding from things that want to punch his face.

>>53041935
Your problem is that you are screaming about how that mindset was the mmo boogeyman, rather than having a dedicated system that is both upfront in presentation (which is a theme of 4e) and classes working off the same basic framework like most rpgs on the market.
Do realize that D&D's long time method of having different classes having at times wildly different subsystems is a gross anomaly.
The only other game I can think of that isn't a retroclone or OGL game that approaches the same levels is Shadowrun, and that has the same issue of magic invalidating all other options, including quasi-magic technology.

>>53039024
If you think the tenseness of struggling to survive while lost in some god-forsaken dungeon far away from civilization, being stalked by monsters beyond human imagining with the last ounce of oil for your lantern running dry sounds boring, I'm afraid the types of games you're interested in playing are so vastly different from the types I prefer that they can never be reconciled.

>>53042015
>Shadowrun, and that has the same issue of magic invalidating all other options
It does? I thought Shadowrun's issue was that you were running three different adventures because the astral realm, the matrix and meatspace are separate and that PhysAds were on par with Street Sams, shamans on par with technomancers, etc.

>>53040625
The errata literally comes with an excel formula for calculating combat damage. Unless you want to spend all of your time doing table lookups with the system's clunky as fuck combat formula, although calling it clunky as fuck is redundant when the entire system is clunky as fuck.

>>53043101
I guess you haven't read the manual.

You're supposed to write it down. You do not calculate your damage in relation to your ST every time you swing, because it is always the fucking same, unless your ST changes.

Do you memorize D&D weapon damage too?

>>53043430
>Do you memorize D&D weapon damage too?
You don't?
Its 1 or 2 dice.

>>53032316
Because D&D works on the principle that magic can literally do anything, while also on the principle that magic is a single class feature rather than being divided up the way mundane skills are. Which is why you get a class whose features are "does literally anything" in the same game as classes whose features are "fights stuff" or "sneaks around."

>>53032316
Well, this gonna sound like flame or trolling, but: in a magical world of the fantastic, a person that can use magic, on a whim, clearly has the upper hand against anything that cannot use magic. It's more like common sense really. If in the real life you could use magic, sooner or later a magocracy would rise. And we, the non-magic plebs would clearly be enslaved. It couldn't be happening right now and we wouldn't know: some magic can be subtle!

>>53043512
You're an idiot.

>>53043512
>some magic can be subtle!
Not with blunt people like you advocating for it

>>53043540
I am? Maybe I got hit by a spell to reduce my intellect. I wouldn't know. I'm not a wizard. I could pick up a sword and become master on it. Then some guy on a tower make it so warm that I can't touch it, rendering me useless. Or charm me to be his puppet. See? Magic, anon. It solve all the problems. You either have it, or you're fodder.

>>53043572
Clearly, because you're making so many stupid assumptions your argument is basically circular.

>>53043572
>Some guy in a bathrobe who has to spend 20 minutes doing the Macarena while waggling his fingers to light a candle on fire
>Better than the guy who can juggle mountains

Whatever you say anon.

>>53034733
>Monks
Hahaha
No
Only just above rogues at the very tail end of leveling. Barbs, Paladins, and fighters do the most damage.

>>53043512
And I'll add more: the only way to fight magic reliably, is with magic, different magic, magic items or alchemy (who is basically magic chemistry); or even artificing (magic science!)!
So, you will need magic. Even if you don't want magic or to use magic, you will end up needign and using magic in a way or another, to fight more magic, because everything is magic.
And that's why magic is so powerful: magic is the answer to every problem ever. You can even pray, to get divine magic!
And a character that has free access to all this magic, clearly will be strong. How he wouldn't be? He is the core of the entire game, with everybody else on the sidelines.

>>53043572
>Magic, anon. It solve all the problems
It doesn't. They way you present its power is retarded superhero bullshit. We humans can manipulate energy but we can't create stars and move galaxies or even cure cancer. Having acess to power doesn't mean you can use it do whatever you want or ever learn to do it at all.

>>53043651
Well if you can juggle mountains you're problably borderlien fantastic, making you magic. So, you're a wizard on your own right. You're using magic to fight magic. You're part of the problem anon. Not the solution.

>>53043712
You can do all this things in DnD. Cancer is a matter of one cleric spell away. Create stars and moving galaxies is moot, because you can change and travel planes, making it basically the same thing. Do you even magic?

>>53043718
The only thing magic is these gainz.

Just because you're jealous of my rippling biceps doesn't mean you can try to pretend I;m a Wizard you fucking nerd. Now hold up, we're passing Charybdis and I'm giving you the most epic swirly of your life.

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

176KB, 1586x1130px

>>53043512
>>53043572
Once more, gotta break this shit out for the autists who cannot comprehend that limiting martials to real life while wizards become as strong as gods is hypocritical, especially if you want to directly compare the two. You hold them to the same standard.

>>53043737
>Do you even magic?
You mean superpowers, that's what magic in DnD resembles.

>>53043718
False dichotomy. In a magical world of the fantastic, some things aren't magical - just fantastic. Like giants, dragons, and people who can move mountains with their raw might.

>>53038987
Anon 3.5 wasn't that long ago.

>>53038987
>I see how the rest of the things kept them in check, but they had a lower hit die than d6 at some point?
>Really? a d4? or a coin? That sounds incredibly shitty.
And this was when you weren't guaranteed max HP at first level, so lots of mages started the game with 1 HP!

>>53043759
Well, DnD is a SUPERHERO game. The least and most meeky character can shrug off poison like it was a dog shaking its body to remove water on the fur. You can lift a car with maybe 14 STR, which is not even that much compared to the levels of strength most charatcers have. You can fall from the sky and survive, get up and keep fighting almost indefinitely: you simply won't get tired of fighting an army for hours.

>>53043737
That's because D&D is shit. In any reasonable fantasy setting, magic would have hard limits and real costs. Meanwhile, D&D Wizards are basically Q, but with more bat shit and sulfur.

>>53035756

Then you get called a weeaboo

Or the "Realistic" players complain because they want to be Hard Men! who make Hard Choices! Because it the only way they can get hard anymore

>>53042015
>Do realize that D&D's long time method of having different classes having at times wildly different subsystems is a gross anomaly.
And this is imho the reason why DnD was so wildly successful. Because a lot of people WANT the wizard to play different from the fighter and to be useful in different situations than the fighter. It follows a very intuitive logic.

>>53043744
Your exampls all sounds fantastic. But none of these examples are of wizards. If a guy coulf flat a mountain with a hit of a hammer and other could lift the sun, imagine the example of a wizard?
> Random Guy 1: Created an universe with a fart, then destroyed it with a cantrip
> Random Guy 2: Accidentally turned entire species that predates mankind into birds on a bet, that's why today we have chickens
> Random Guy 3: Lighting bolt. Lighting bolt so hard, he created lighting
> Random Guy 4: Might be the God that all the religious flame were based on. We're not sure.

>>53043847
>Meanwhile, D&D Wizards are basically Q, but with more bat shit and sulfur.
Sounds accurate

>>53043928
>>53042015
Expanding on this:
DnD does this. It's wildly successful.
Shadowrun does this. It's wildly successful.
GURPS can do this. It's wildly successful.
DSA does this. It's wildly successful.

see a pattern here? All crunchy systems that do well have different subsystems for different classes.

>>53039594
ikr.

Do you remember how rogues only took 1250 XP for level 2 and Mages took 2500, and how a lot of the powerful spells could knock you down a level because of the XP costs?

That doesn't even consider that every character you made was a 3d6 straight roll, no swapping stats, so you didn't pick your class based on preference, but rather on what your randomly generated character might be good at.

We had to crawl the dungeon uphill, in the snow, both ways.

>>53033759
The most recent XCOM games have heavy influence from D&D 4e, if I'm not mistaken. But that's it, really.

File: divinity original sin.png (210KB, 280x375px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 280x375px

>>53044059

>>53043949
>imagine the example of a wizard?
What we currently fucking have you stupid idiot. D&D wizards do with level 9 spells shit that gods did not and could not do.

>>53043685
>Above rogues
Are you sure?
Math tells me Monks are actually behind every martial, and a fucking lot if you allow feats.

Rogue deals 2d6+5+10d6 = 47 without feats or anything
Monk deals 4d10+20 = 42

And Rogue only needs to hit once to deal most of his damage (sneak attack)

>>53033643
>implying 90%+ of D&D players don't treat it like a video game regardless of edition

Fucking this. I think the only reason people reacted so strongly was because 4e was so blatant about by using words like"Striker" and "Defender", and measuring everything in squares.

>>53044012
Not gonna lie that sounds more painful than fun, especially trying to account for 3-6 party members all leveling at different rates.

On the other hand... an actual feeling of achievement when you level up! Characters you get attached to because they've survived impossible odds! Class balance that makes a semblance of sense!

>>53044370
Anon, if you feed this troll anymore its stomach will rupture and we'll be cleaning wizard cum off the captcha window for weeks.

File: 1487263958843.png (23KB, 759x471px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 759x471px

>>53044440
>2d6
Where are you getting 2d6? Crossbow?
That being said they do still rise above on average.

>>53044546
>Crossbows
TWF Shortswords for free actually
If you add handcrossbow then is pretty sure it'll also have SS and deal +20 (feat) and +5(bonus action handcrossbow) for a total of 47+25 = 72 leaving monk crying even more

>>53043810
Don't forget that by RAW you died at 0 HP.

So imagine rolling 1 for your HP. Any amount of damage would kill you, no save no nothing.

>>53044546
With the new totems barb doesn't need PAM anymore, there's a 14th level feature of tiger (?) that gives you a bonus action attack every turn when you rage

Srly, they should kill Berserker, it's even more worthless now

>>53044886
You don't necessarily take PAM just for the bonus action, you take it for the reaction as well.

>>53044546
Every time I see that it makes me die a little inside because of how low it is.

>>53044977
Battlemaster fighter can reach 150 ish damage in one turn with Action surge and spending all their d12 from maneuvers

>>53044977
How low what is? Monk or all of em?
Cause that list is without burning any resources at all. Paladins can smite every attack and battlemasters can use all their maneuvers. And that's with the most basic equipment, not with any magic shit that you're expected to have by a certain point.

>>53045031
That's still really low.

>>53045114
>150
>really low
Fucking what?
That's fucking half a CR 20 monsters HP
Not even accounting for magic item bonuses assuming you silvered instead.

>>53045407
They're blowing everything they've got at once. Suffice it to say that no, I don't consider that enough.

>>53045114
I remember my DS Monk/Psywar dealing 80 on average per hit, he could only hit twice in her turn but everytime they attacked him at melee he could retaliate with two hits, each dealing 80. I defeated two Maryliths at 13th level in their turn, pretty awesome

File: 1388064493922.jpg (44KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1280x720px

I play a Wizard in 5E and it's the first time I've been a caster for over a decade and it feels really good

I do basically no damage but I have a ton of utility with illusions, walls, control spells and polymorph
I just wish I could concentrate on more than one spell sometimes, my non-concentration spells are really shitty, like a scorching ray does 15 damage who even cares

>>53043430
>You do not calculate your damage in relation to your ST every time you swing
Wasn't talking about that. Was talking about the literal excel formula: Floor[( A-D-a-10*AT )/100] *fd. There's no good reason for a tabletop game to have such a complicated resolution for a single attack roll.

Compare to GURPS, which was brought up previously:
>Roll at or under skill to hit target
>Target rolls at or under defense to avoid
>Roll damage, subtract DR, apply wounding modifier

Notice how you don't have to subtract a random number every turn and do a table lookup, or plug the values into a fucking spreadsheet? I do.

>>53046383
If you want to deal damage and have AC over the roof go Bladesinger with GFB shenanigans

I made a sorcerer/bladesinger who was dealing as much damage as the Battlemaster with GWM in melee while having slightly more AC

File: suprised pepe deep in thought.png (126KB, 800x769px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 800x769px

What if we just make martials more lethal and gave them cool combat maneuvers that they can use to re-position themselves or debuff enemies?

File: The_Book_of_Weeaboo_Fightan_Magic.jpg (42KB, 360x471px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 360x471px

>>53047402

File: Damn, he got me.png (57KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 625x626px

>>53047555
I mean shit that actually makes sense. That splat was full of dumb animu BS. Like, it makes sense if a Fighter could roll to trip an opponent, and roll for a Coup de Grace or attack roll with advantage, or use feints to get easy hits on his opponent or just plain smack 'em upside the head, causing them to be disoriented for a couple of turns, making their attacks less accurate.

>>53032316
I feel like wizards are fine, it's the spell selection that's whacky and fucked.

Test

>>53047619
You just described ToB.

>>53047821
In the context of D&D 3.5e and the worst it has to offer, ToB is downright pleasant and playable. At least it helps bring martials closer to casters.

>>53037991
You could. If you can cast it.

Is there really no system to force Wizards to specialise, if they want to know certain spells? Like, a Wizard has to choose which school of magic to learn, and can't use magic outside of that? A fireball Wizard can't open locks, and a lock-opening Wizard can't conjure fireballs?

It seems like such a simple solution, that I'd be surprised if it hadn't been tried before. Yet every time I suggest something similar in these kinds of threads, I never get a response.

>>53048314
No, I agree it seems reasonable enough and I've been thinking of doing such a thing for years. Yet apparently it "limits" them too much...

>>53048334
Try something like the 5e Mystic.
You don't have spells, you have a low number of Disciplines, spell-like effects that come in bundles.

If you want to fly, you have to pick the whole mutation package.

>>53048314
Specialization? it actually makes them stronger
I played a focused conjuration specialist and good lord that was uberbroken

>>53048314
Specializing makes wizards more powerful, not less. You would have to make them single-college wizards, and even then you'd need to ban half the colleges in the game because of how fucking broken they are (conjuration, divination, enchantment, illusion, transformation come to mind). This is exacerbated if you play Pathfinder, which heaps bennies on wizards who specialize.

>>53048403
Broken how, exactly?

>>53048461
I had 3 forbidden schools (can't pick spells from them nor cast from magic items) but got 3 extra spells per day to my school of choice (conjuration), had +4 to Str/Con to all my summons for free, summoning takes a standard action (not full round), had a teleport at will Int+3 times per day and there's a feat that essentially everytime I cast a conjuration spell I summon a 10x10 fog in me, near me or in my target near my target that gives -2 to Saves (so fucking them if you cast something like web) on top of 20% concealment shenanigans

>>53048458
Which 3 schools did you give up?

>>53048529
Teleport at what level?

>>53048589
the usual, evocation, enchantment and necromancy. Illusion is another people disregard, but I didn't remove it because shadow kind of spells that some times come in handy

>>53048603
Level 1. Abrupt Jaunt might as well make it impossible for melee to hit you, since you can interrupt their attack action as they're starting and oh look, you're outside of their reach, they automatically fail.

It is only a 10 ft teleport, but even that is pretty strong in the right hands.

>>53048603
Abrubt jaunt, as an immediate action you can teleport 10ft

Monster charges and attacks? teleport, laugh in his face

>>53048458
The problem with making single college Wizards is that half of the schools will give you a shitty character. An evoker would suck so, so much.

>>53048659
Exactly. It's much better to just play a different game where martial characters are good in their own right.

File: wack-a-hack.gif (1MB, 500x239px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x239px

>>53032683
What if we gave fighters an "attack list" of special attacks that they can make by spending "attack slots"? It works exactly like spells, but they end up with powers that casters can never have.

It would rapidly become some animu-tier shenanigans, but it might even the playing field.

>>53045700
>one player should be able to solo an equal CR monster in 1 turn
No.

File: eatit.gif (440KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 400x225px

>>53038567
>I do sinicerely hope that you are aware that the very moment non-casters reach the ridiculous and stupid caster power-lvls, D&D will lose it's last vestiges of credibility in representing the core fantasy genre, or really anything but bottom-shelf weebshit like Slayers or something.
hahaha oh wait, are you being serious?

>>53038567
>This is not what Tolkien was writing about. >This is not what Howard was writing about.
Ah, so you're all for Wizards only being able to act when plot progression demands it? No spells per day because magic only gets used at climactic moments, right?

Stop being a fucking moron, anon. And get out of your mom's basement.

>>53048744
Yes.

>>53048685
So...D&D4e?

>>53048826
No. CR is not level. CR is CR. CR means they should have 4 dudes fighting them of a level equal to that CR and having an average time, coming out without much health or resources lost.

>>53045407
It's almost like Fighters could do that before without having to expend resources or something, and when they actually had resources to expend they were a lot more effective.

>>53048906
1/4 of resources was my understanding

>>53048910
Okay. Show me the math of an AD&D fighter soloing a pit fiend with no magical items other than silver.

>>53048906
Yes. You're not convincing me that a max STR Fighter throwing literally everything they've got all at once and hitting an enemy 9 times with extra damage for each should only do half of a threatening monster's HP. Fighters could do that before with no resources.

>>53048894
Never played it myself and I've never met anyone who has.

>>53048744
In 5e a party (4-5 guys) is going to face 6-8 encounters of their level (CR) per day, I'm pretty fucking sure that a fighter, spending all his resources, should be able to kill one monster of his CR taking what I just said into account.

>>53033759
I think the Neverwinter MMO was based on 4E, actually. I could be wrong though

>>53048943
Disregarding that they literally can't be harmed by less than +3 weapons, they only have 58 HP. A 18/00 level 20 Fighter is swinging their nonmagical zweihander around for 2d8+8 for 5/2 attacks a round with a THAC0 of -3 vs an AC of -5. If it wasn't for +3 or better to hit and their spells, they'd be killed in 2 rounds flat every time.

>>53048971
You are wrong.

>>53048971
I wish, maybe that way it'd actually be good. They used the names of some classes and abilities and 'dailies' as the name for their super meter esque skill, that's it.

>>53048943
Hmm

What lv fighter? And only a silvered weapon?

>>53049031
Oh wait, silvered weapons do half damage. That's still a kill in 3 rounds if they don't kill you first or decide to not fight you.

>>53049061
Level 20
Yes because 5e math almost never assumes that you have a +X weapon and only that you have silvered it to get past the non-magical damage resistance.
>>53049031
>2 rounds flat
So a 5e fighter?
Cause all 4 superiority die add 24 damage on average disregarding all the conditions now applied. Pit fiend is dying in 2-3 rounds every time, even if you don't action surge. And then you wait 1 single hour to get it all back since fighters are a short rest class.

>>53049149
>And then you wait 1 single hour
You say that like that's not a major consideration.

>>53049255
It's so major consideration that the game says you aint going to get more than 1-2 short rests per day. Been in 4 different groups and played in AL twice, 1 short rest per day is the usual, 2 is pretty rare, but never had 0.

>>53049255
Its not considering you just solo'd a pit fiend and you are either
A)Done with your solo dungeon since your DM is a sadist if he sends you through more
B)Able to do your normal damage since your friends didn't need to blow anything.

>>53049149
You do realize that their 18 AC isn't negligible at any level in 5E, right?

And at any rate, why is it that one Fighter blowing limited resources with automatically assumed hits is only as effective as another Fighter that's doing their thing at half damage?

>>53049431
>18 AC
+6 Proficiency
+5 Str
Even if you're going full ham with GWM you still hit on 12.
Because one is doing it with a regular sword and armor while the other one needs supreme magic items to even hurt the dude if
>>53049031
>literally can't be harmed by less than +3 weapons
is true.

>>53049582
>you still hit on 12.
You say that like that's not a fucking shit hit rate that will tank your DPR.

>>53049582
Oh, and we're also completely ignoring the 'getting' hit aspect of being a fighter going against a goddamn pit fiend.

>>53049753
A 20th level fighter can handle a few slaps from a greater devil.

>>53048685
no that's dumb

>>53050139
No dumber than D&D magic.

>>53050159
>this thing is dumb so we should make other things dumb
just make magic not dumb

>>53049582
Well, first off, Pit Fiends in 5E are CR 11 and are taken on at way different points in both games so it's not exactly a good point of comparison. Second, the AD&D Fighter has to deal with half damage without a +3 weapon whereas the 5E Fighter only deals with that if they don't have a silvered weapon or a generic magic weapon just for bypassing this. Third, that's a comparison against the AD&D Fighter, a class that can do very little but autoattack without DM intervention, and NOT the martial classes that had resources to spend like BM does. Fourth, it's also using just the base weapon specialization rules and not BECMI's weapon mastery per-weapon abilities, nor the later version.

>>53050439
>Pit Fiends in 5E are CR 11
What?
https://astranauta.github.io/bestiary.html#Pit%20Fiend

>>53050439
>a class that can do very little but autoattack without DM intervention

But doesn't -everything- in the game require DM intervention?

>>53050457
http://5e.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devils.htm#pitFiend

Now I'm confused.

>>53050551
Only in the loosest interpretation. If your Fighter in 5E wants to trip someone, he's got rules for it right there. An AD&D Fighter doesn't, so the DM has to pull something out of his ass or locate optional rules that are potentially not even in the core books.

>>53050595
>fear aura
>magic resist
>dc 21 hold monster
>avg 104 dpr with +14 to hit
>cr 11
He likely meant to put cr 21. The +14 alone means they cannot be cr 11 since proficiency bonus at 11 is +4 and what you posted is only 21 str.

>>53050657
>If your Fighter in 5E wants to trip someone, he's got rules for it right there.

What if he wants to do something that has no rules at all?

I find that adding more options to fighters, paradoxically enough, only reduces their options: it makes you feel like you absolutely need to have a rule in the books to be able to do something, so if there's nothing there at all, the very laws of physics within the game forbid you from doing it. Earlier editions had no such problems, with only the bare minimum in the books and the rest up to you.

>so the DM has to pull something out of his ass

We call them "rulings", anon, and they're not a bad thing to have.

>>53050703
>Playing "mother may I"
I already did, is an awful game

>>53050703
It's not that the AD&D Fighter can't do anything, it's that the 5E Fighter is using everything he's got and is struggling to compete against an AD&D Fighter who isn't even trying to be creative *and* is swimming against the current due to having to do half damage. Equalize the situations and it's very obvious which of the two is better.

>>53050782
Again, what if your fighter wants to perform some feat to which there are no rules?

"Mother may I" will always come up in D&D, sooner or later, whether you want it or not. You might as well make it a core part of the gameplay and adjust expectations accordingly - it'll lead to more creative play, less constrained by what the book says.

>>53050787
>is struggling to compete
Lets get the terminology correct at least. He's doing completely average and is remaining competitive. Whether that stays as you scale up both of their items is another matter.

>>53050864
You are not competitive when you need to go take a 1 hour nap between every fight to keep pace.

>>53051089
So having to take a lunch break ever 3-4 encounters disqualifies while having to get an extremely rare magic item to even do damage does not?

>>53047821
Except he missed the parts that people hate(?) about ToB, which is weeb blade magic. Shit like Time Stands Still, catching your sword on fire with sheer martial prowess etc.

>>53051223
>Shit like Time Stands Still
2 attack actions is weeaboo now? Shit, I guess the 5E Fighter is the most weeaboo, they can't even avoid having that.
>catching your sword on fire with sheer martial prowess
Swordsage and Jade Phoenix Mage only. Both of those classes are explicitly magical.

File: IMG_2413.jpg (104KB, 996x1044px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 996x1044px

Because casters have magic to make up for lack of situational advantages. In an open blank field of kill shit casters have spells that do different things while a martial would need to have say like a scaffolding to knock down or a shaky bridge to break.
That aside most casters play their best when supporting the materials on their team, giving the martials the openings they need to do their badass thing.
Don't make it an us vs them thing and everything plays out nicely.

>>53051217
Silvered weapons are extremely rare?

File: IronHeroes.jpg (140KB, 500x676px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 500x676px

>>53051223

Well, the problem was that they decided to make martials awesome and also decided in the same book to add Wushu to D&D, so unfortunately the two were linked in 3.5.

I think a Book of Chivalry, built around the concept of mundane but clever and skillful knights would've done a lot better. It could've been a very early version of the Battlemaster, with a lot more options but without losing a sense of grit.

Of course, it probably would've ended up like some horrible primeval ancestor to Iron Heroes in the end. And I think the fundamental conceptual problem was inevitable; the ToB came out in like 2006, when HEMA wasn't very well known and the conception of Western martial arts as having been very dumb and basic was still common.

>>53032316
Because its a game "designed by a comitee", a comitte that dont have enought experience with rpgs to be able to participate in a good way

>>53051347
Didn' see>>53049133
>silvered weapons do half damage

>>53044212
Y'know, yeah, It IS basically 4e with action points.

>>53051696
I didn't realize it at first, but I was getting some major deja vu and wondering why it seemed so familiar in the first couple of hours or so. Warriors getting abilities that weren't just "hit thing with stick" and were just as good as spells and the focus on creating zones of several different elemental effects that meant the battlefield looked like a magical warzone by the time you're midway through a fight is what tipped me off.

It's not even funny how much inspiration it took from 4E, and the worst part is that it will never be recognized that way because hurr durr 4E = MMO.

>>53043689
This implies that those who have the capacity to wield magic know how to properly use it. There's a reason almost every major setting has a mage's academy in some form or another. You also have to factor in experimentation to get desired results. Someone somewhere experimented for years to find out that all you needed for a fireball was bat poop or sulfur. Then you have to take into account that people are greedy and, if someone did find out how to cast a fireball with a certain amount and combination of ingredients, would they be willing to share that secret? Or would they keep it to themselves to gain an upper hand?
>>53043737
And this is one thing fantasy RPG players and gms take for granted. The hand waving of leveling to instantly gain an influx of knowledge and experience without having to be taught or train. Hell, you could roleplay that shit out (and probably get experience out of it, not to mention future RP contacts) to scribe those new additions into your spellbook or train for a while to master a new feat or ability increase.

Reading some setting novels will corroborate this shit. Strahd's been hyped to shit for years yet it took him decades to master the art of a simple Scrying spell.

File: So-Now-What.jpg (310KB, 640x915px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 640x915px

>>53048685
>>53047402
Bare with me for a moment, but consider this option (For 3.5):

Take the less nonsensical stuff from Weeabu Fightan Magic.
Take the Skill Tricks system from Complete Scoundrel.
Apply +3 Sledgehammer of Houseruling.
>Each so selected manouver can be taken for varying amounts of skill points spent
>Pre-requisites might include a feat if particularly good, another Skill Manouver (or whatever you want to call it) and/or some amount of ranks in relevant skill/BAB of X or potentially Weapon Focus with used weapon, apply some reason based on exact manouver
>Give martial classes a bonus pool of skill points (relative to how heavily martial they are) every level or every X level that they can spend only into skills related to manouver and buying manouver (Or hell, just make them a separate thing point system if you like)
>Alternatively base the pool of bonus skill points gained on the class's BAB
>Allow players to use Skill Manouver any time, but make it require a skill check, failure of which makes whatever they were connected to also fail (like if you fail a Strike ability, even though you succeeded on the attack roll, your messed up fancy shit helped the enemy block), maybe make an exception to Nat20s, where the attack (not the manouver) still succeeds, but you don't threaten a critical.
>You can also do this with stances, but maintaining a stance either requires a balance/[insert relevant skill] check, or you sacrifice a movement action (or both. If you fail the check, you lose the movement action)

Does this seem like a salvageable idea?

>>53051860
No. Skill checks bloat out of control in 3.5 very early. Go look at Incantatrix and then realize that it was easy as fuck to make a character who could nail that DC 54 check for 6 free metamagic levels every time.

You've also added a significant amount of rolling that will rarely matter beyond level 5.

>>53051927
Fair point.

Really the only reason I included the Skill checks (though skill requirements I think is a good idea for investment), is that there has to be a reason for the players not to use these special abilities every single turn, but just giving them a manouver limit feels very artificial.

What if instead of skill checks, for strikes at least, the enemy would receive a reflex save or something like that?

>>53051860
What if you played 4e D&D? What if you played Fantasy Craft? What if you played GURPS? What if you played Savage Worlds, or Fate? Stop trying to save a long-since sunk ship. You're bailing water a thousand feet deep in the sea. You aren't going to be the one to fix d20; others have already tried it and have done a far better job than you ever could. Just play a different game.

>>53051990
It's not really possible to do it in such a way that it either won't feel artificial or won't break the game in some major way. Games with similar concepts, like Shadowrun, have mechanics built from the ground up with that idea in mind. 3.5 doesn't.

>>53052035
>Implying this is about fixing the ship and not about seeing what the ship can be turned into
I barely even play 3.5 but there's such a lot of stuff in there that it's fun to play around with the idea of how to mix and match things and create something potentially better.

Also this "boo hoo, someone probably did it better so now I shouldn't even try" bullshit is not becoming of someone who plays TTRPGs.
If people thought like that, Forever DMs would never exist.

>>53052100
>"boo hoo, someone probably did it better so now I shouldn't even try"
More like, "Someone already did it better so I can use that now and save myself the trouble. Now I have more time to game and my games run smoother because of it! I'll build off of their already better system and fine-tune it to my needs, rather than make myself do a considerable amount of work that's already been done for me."

>>53038567
>bottom-shelf weebshit like Slayers or something.
behead those who insult Slayers

it's top-shelf weebshit, thank you very much

>>53052052
>like Shadowrun, have mechanics built from the ground up with that idea in mind
>glares at 5E Technomancer.
But yeah, 3.5 got a little retarded with skill checks. Though it was great as a bard having all your bard songs have a DC equal to your perform result.

>>53052154
I was referring more to spellcasters and Drain, since it's a fundamentally similar concept to what he's going for, just executed way, way better in every single way.

>>53052052
I don't know.
You're probably right, but as I said to the other guy here >>53052100 it's about throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Besides, the more I experiment with a bad system, the more I understand why it's bad. If I wrote it off the first time I found out it's just bad and moves on to a better system like >>53052140 suggests, I would miss out on learning opportunities, and I wouldn't know how to fine-tune that system further, and I'd just keep hopping from other people's versions to new ones without ever really getting why it's better, if at all.

And to me, that's not as much fun as learning how a game works, how it doesn't work, and why.

Also to clarify again: I barely play 3.5. I'm just giving a thought experiment. And when I play, I generally play with friends who also like to mess around with it and see what sticks.


This kind of "don't even touch it, for it is tainted" attitude makes me feel like people either have terrible friends or just consider RPGs like a second job.

>>53052188
But Fading is Drain, and it's entire system is shit.

>>53052208
>I wouldn't know how to fine-tune that system further
Why would you need to if you moved on to better systems?

>>53052208
The problem is that I've seen tons of people hack away at projects exactly like what you're doing. Inevitably, it ends in one of three ways.

A) Scrap the whole fucking system and start from scratch with something that's inspired by the original game rather than beholden to it. This is how games like FantasyCraft and Legend came to be.

B) Throw their arms up in frustration and quit when they realize that 'wait, this isn't gonna work'. I've lost count of abandoned d20 projects.

Or... C) Produce a gigantic pile of shit that is barely playable because they Sunk Cost Fallacy'd right into finishing something long after they realized that their shit blew, or by sheer incompetence, failed to realize there was a problem or wrote it off. This is how you get your Naruto d20 homebrews, and rarely, official games like BESM d20. It's also how you get buttfuck stupid mechanics like GMC's combat, where average dudes have a 10% chance of hurting each other in a duel.

>>53052282
Because the guy specifically suggested that once I moved to a better system, I fine tune it, and I was pointing out how if I just move on all the time, I'll never get the experience to do it.

>>53052288
Not saying you're wrong, but you're kind of assuming I want to ever publish what I homebrew.
I'm here throwing out ideas to think over stuff me and my friends will experiment with, because it's one of the way we as a group have fun, as I said explicitly at the end.


Also, in order to scrap the system and then build something from scratch without making the same mistakes as the system did, you first have to see what the system fucked up. Hence the experimenting.
I'm not sure if you mean to imply that people should just magically figure out how to make a brand new system and not fuck it up out the gate without first examining how other people made games before both right and wrong, but that's kind of what your argument comes down to if you take a step back.

I mean I actually do have a game (once again, for my friends, so don't worry you won't be forced to play it) in the works, and for all the reasons and more mentioned here, it has nothing to do with d20, but I wouldn't have come up with half the ideas for it if I didn't think "why does X suck in d20, and how could I fix it?"

>>53033191
>implying 3.x and pf weren't video games

>>53052396
Fine-tuning will come naturally with playing the new system. General gaming/GMing principles may migrate, but on the whole your system-specific insights won't be applicable. So you play the new system, and if there's any gums in the works, you solve it then. "These classes/skills/feats are problems, so let's see if I can homebrew them to be better" isn't going to translate when the new game doesn't have those classes/skills/feats or already fixed them.

If you have fun fucking around with a system, that's fine and all, but I can't see working on a lost cause like D&D as anything but a waste of time.

>>53052396
Yeah I have an abandoned Discord for sci-fi worldbuilding stuff. I'm not too fussed, it's mostly a thing I made to design it rather than to have it played. Sometimes the point is to discuss the design and use what you've learned later.

>>53052396
>you first have to see what the system fucked up.
Sure. Which is why you play it, note what's wrong, and ask about issues you didn't notice in communities that don't have a userbase of windowlicking paste eaters. Here, something I have bookmarked to prove my point:

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/13/optimizing-a-dd-3-5-monk

>>53038987
>>53043810
>And this was when you weren't guaranteed max HP at first level, so lots of mages started the game with 1 HP!>>53044630
>Don't forget that by RAW you died at 0 HP.
>So imagine rolling 1 for your HP. Any amount of damage would kill you, no save no nothing.
This.
At level 4, our wizard had a HP total of 5.
The DM gave him a Ring of Regeneration that was fiated to keep him alive.

>>53032316
Poor game design.

>>53043101
>Excel formula
>Simple equation
>"Excel formula"
Someone hasn't done his PEDMAs!

>>53055901
D&D attack resolution:
>1. Roll 1d20+to-hit bonus, compare to AC
>2. Roll damage
>3. Subtract DR, if any
>4. Subtract damage from HP

GURPS attack resolution:
>1. Roll your attack skill
>2. Roll target's defense skill
>3. Roll damage
>4. Subtract DR, if any
>5. Multiply by wounding modifier
>6. Subtract damage from HP

Anima attack resolution:
>1. Roll your attack skill
>2. Roll their defense skill
>3. Subtract your attack skill roll from their defense skill roll
>4. Subtract 20 for absorption from that
>5. Subtract 10 * AT from *that*
>6. Divide it by 100, round down
>7. Multiply by weapon damage
>8. Subtract damage from LP

Or:
>1. Roll your attack skill
>2. Roll their defense skill
>3. Subtract your attack roll
>4. Look up the difference on a table
>5. Find the percent on the correct AT column
>6. Look up your damage on another table, or multiply it
>7. Subtract damage from LP

Yeah, a simple equation. Anima's combat resolution is totally fine and doesn't involve unnecessary math or overcomplicate a single attack's resolution, nope.

>>53056114
Is more complicate, sure, but if you have played it a little it become almost instantly. I remember thinking it would take forever, but is actually pretty fast with the damage table in the char sheet.

Is not like you're doing rocket science.

>>53056258
You're not doing rocket science, no, but you're unnecessarily complicating every damn attack. The fewer steps you have in an attack roll (generally), the better. Compare D&D to GURPS. D&D sacrifices active defenses and wounding modifiers for speed, while GURPS uses active defenses and wounding modifiers for accuracy. Anima is just a pile of math because Spaniards have no idea how to deisgn a system. There's nothing gained from the way it does damage.

>>53050857
>"Mother may I" will always come up in D&D
>D&D
I believe you've misspelled "any game with a GM."
It's an easy mistake, the keys are right next to each other.

>>53056664
Every game as "Mother, may I." It's the speed at which you reach that point. D&D reaches that point faster than others. Sometimes much faster.

>>53038613
I think he was being somewhat sarcastic, because this is exactly what 4e did, and to a lesser extent, other editions.

The tiers are meant to be arrayed by their impact on the world, and the world is sort of supposed to evolve and "awaken" alongside them until their final, massively defining campaign.

The "Heroic" Low-Level Tier is meant to be you having an impact on a local level. The duke sending you off to clear out goblins or whatever.

The "Paragon" Middle Tier steps it up to countries where you might avert/cause wars or slay a powerful dragon that is terrorizing the entire kingdom.

The "Epic" final tier involves world changing events, and even further beyond into the planes.

I vaguely remember this being alluded to in the 5e book. 3e also referred to its final tier as "Epic". In 4e it was laid and spelled out exactly like this.

>>53056587
Actually that is from rolemaster.

Plus spaniard avg iq is under 95you are not dumber than spanards right anon?

>>53057231
That just makes it worse, because now it's the same level as d20 hacks. It wasn't even some resolution mechanic they made up and got irrationally attached to, it was somebody playing a shitty game and somehow thinking that it was worth copying. Probably the same way d20fags think d20 will work for everything if they just refluff feats.

>>53060472
But d20 does work for everything, at least its core mechanics of:

>Roll a d20 to resolve actions, higher is better
>Skill points
>Feats
>Class-based level system

There is nothing wrong with the fundamental chassis of the d20 system, it's just taken 'til 5e to work out all the kinks.

>>53061015
K

>>53061015
>There is nothing wrong with the fundamental chassis of the d20 system, it's just taken 'til 5e to work out all the kinks.


That's funny stuff.

>>53033999
This. I am currently running a 2e campaign, and it feels like everyone gets equal opportunity to shine, because every character fills a unique niche.

>>53061383
Because 2e was great. It was after that, that shit got stupid.

>>53056114
>Doing elementary school level math and checking charts that should be right there are different steps for anima combat but checking AC for D&D is rolled into the attack roll

If you want to make anima attacks look drawn out and complicated you don't need to be biased like this, you can just talk about how attacks can be countered by their own attacks or how using a power in reponse to an attack can be drawn out

>>53041579
fuck

>>53032678
>Just look at the priorities given. In the Pathfinder core book, there is 148 pages of spells. More than twice as many for any other individual section... Save magic items.
Magic is more special and need more definition and boundaries by its nature. People can imagine combat better and need less rules to describe and "model" it.
I get your overall points, but this one is bullshit. Is something you want to see but is not an explanation of the focus, just of the mor rules needed to model something people has less familiarity with.

>>53062837
>Magic is more special and need more definition and boundaries by its nature. People can imagine combat better and need less rules to describe and "model" it.

That........is actually a good point anon.

>>53032678
>There have been efforts, but they've either been decried within their edition (Tome of Battle/Path of War)

Those books are fine (at least ToB that I used and liked) but they just fix a bit the number of feats needed to do X by a martial, or their overall number of option. Heck not even that, but some player is less imaginative and needs a specific rule for a specific combat move. Nothing is bad about that and there is space to add more.

But if you exclude stuff like IHS and the Crusader for the action economy standpoint, the books do nothing to lessen the gap. If they do, is like
Normal Martial: 1
ToB: 2
Wiz/cleric 30
If the wiz/cleric are played in the way most people think they are supposed to be played, with access to all spell, never wild/dad magic, no taint, and with the best interpretation of the spell text, and with access to shit like nightsticks.
So yeah, if you want ToB go for it and have fun (you will) but the problems lies part in the way casters are written, and part in the way some people think are supposed to be played.

>>53062851
Again, this does not deny the clear design problems or the fact that the math is "off" for stuff like concentration, and we could go on hours. We know. I am not in denial about the problems, but I think they can be mitigated in base of the options given and the playstyle.
But the "number of pages" thing and any similar argument is a fallacy.

>>53050439
>Well, first off, Pit Fiends in 5E are CR 11
How to lose credibility in one sentence

Why are Mages so strong in World of Darkness?

>>53062920
It's more like normal martials are a 3, highly optimized martials like Dungeoncrashers are an 8 ToB classes are 10s, and CoDzillas are 100s.

In a game where 9-11 is the sweet spot.

>>53064371
ToB classes just for the defenses. A Dungeoncrasher, Zentharim Fighter with improved trip, glaive, combat reflexes/robilar feats + dungeon magazine and the Charge feats (the ones to bull rush and trip several opponents and the one to subtract from AC and increase PA) are MAD but if that shit is pulled off is really scary.
One could even take IHS by feats, desu.

>>53064631
Assume at least 13+ in each stat by 12th level.
Power Attack
Improved Sunder
Improved Bull Rush
Combat Brute
Shock Trooper
Goad
Zehntarim (free)
Dungeoncrasher I
Dungeoncrasher II
Combat Reflexes
Robilar' Gambit
Combat Expertise
Improved Trip

Human, 2 other feats for combat reflexes in base of the campaign (I would go for colse combat to avoid grapples, and a second one at your choice). Perhaps quickdraw for stuff like whips and bolas.
Add a +5 to strength checks for the dead level rules.