Sacred Cows in D&D

>>53155732
Alignment.

>>53155732
Alignement.

Setting.

Rules everywhere.

Just everything, Anon. I really prefer people that run homebrews.

>>53155732
>so access to good combat spells
You're a fucking idiot. Conjuration dominates Evocation in power spells hands down. What you just did was shit on Evokers by making them unable to cover their own weaknesses - when Evokers weren't even the ones breaking the game.

>>53155732
Half-orcs. Do I even need to explain this one?

>>53155772
Can you tone it down a little, I was just talking. I'm probably not as worn to the really broken stuff since I don't play with optimizers too often. Can you name a few of the conjuration spells that are classically powerful that are 3rd level and under?

Not the worst/most harmful carry-over, and quite frankly, it doesn't really bug me that much, but I feel like Paladins and Clerics are close enough in concept that they could be condensed to one class without losing much.

Just make some "Justice" domain for Clerics and you'll probably get just as much out of it.

>>53155910
>Can you name a few of the conjuration spells that are classically powerful that are 3rd level and under?
Grease, Glitterdust, Stinking Cloud, Sleet Storm, Lesser Orbs for damage, Web.

Literally never had someone cast gate or wish in a campaign I was running.

>>53155732
The biggest issue with it is the one thing that will never ever change -- the d20 roll to resolve essentially everything. It's just way too swingy and luck based. But the d20 will never ever change about D&D. A 3d6 system would be so much better.

>>53155738
Alignment it basically nonexistent in 5e. Has less of an impact, ruleswise, on a character than whether they grew up as a dirt farmer or street orphan.

>>53156072
Eh, gotta disagree there. Clerics are full-on casters, whereas Paladins are, at their core, knights (or, at least, armored fighters) whose martial prowess is enhanced by divine blessing. It's a bit of a stretch, but think of the Old Testament. You've got guys like David and Joshua who were exceptionally skilled at war thanks to God's blessing, and then you've got guys like Moses and Elijah who didn't so much fight as act as God's agents through whom He performed miracles.

For me, anyway, that's how I see the difference between a Paladin and a Cleric.

I don't think its built up that much baggage. It broke the mould with 4e, for better or worse, and then reshaped itself into something more familiar with 5e.

Spell lists and how magic functions in general may be one of the holdovers, which is why 5e still sometimes gets the LFQW complaint levelled at it.

>>53156072
Being from a religious family I see paladins and clerics as having completely different purposes.
A cleric is one who studies the deities works and preaches it in a temple and does community service.
A paladin is more like a divine tool, an agent dedicated to that deity, a divine champion. A paladin was given a mission and works on behalf of that deity in matters that requires killing/hunting stuff.

A cleric may travel to a distant city with the purpose of preaching to the people there of building a temple.

A paladin will travel around the continent, hunting down demons, searching for a lost relic or doing some other kind of mission in the name of X deity.

>>53155732
Grappling.

Only because it seems to be the one form of fighting no RPG can get quite right.

>>53155910
The problem that you're not getting is that "wizard with highly limited spell schools and literally nothing else" isn't a compelling class. There is a reason that you saw Dread Necro and Beguiler and Warmage, what with their tons of class features that helped them develop into good classes, instead of that.

>>53156370
I like Exalted grappling

>>53156370

I think they should renaming all mentions of Grappling/Clinches/whatever into "Wrasslin"

>>53156370
Grappling is boring and quite limited in a fantasy setting where you wear armor and fight monsters with a group. Grappling is only useful in one on one engagements, when you're not encumbered by armor and against someone who is around the same size as you.

I'm not surprised that no one bothered to make it actually work in a ttrpg.

>>53155732
One of the problems with the general class balance that I think is *utterly unavoidable* no matter what else they do, until they change their mindset, is this idea of certain classes being useless in certain kinds of scenes.

Combat, Social, Dungeon-Crawling and Wilderness with less common others seem to be the main categories of D&D situations requiring problem-solving using character abilities.

Even putting aside specific balance concerns of say Fighter vs Wizard on number of situations you're useful for, it doesn't line up with the heroic fantasy genre at all that the Fighter does nothing except in a fight. If you read a fantasy novel, everyone is able to do different things that are useful or progress the story in any type of scenario. Social scenes can involve anybody. Combat scenes involve everybody. Everybody is getting their own kind of focus while they adventure.

It's also not fucking FUN. If your issue with this is that it genericizes classes - because there's only one way to participate in a type of scene and if everyone has it then they're all the same - then the design problem should be addressing that there aren't enough *ways* to participate in that type of scene. Make those ways.

>>53156380
Prohibiting a wizard from casting spells of the two schools that antagonize the two schools he focused in is hardly limiting at all.

>>53155732
>keeping the exact same feature distribution among classes and sticking to the established roster
>classes as unsplittable bundle of features
>perhaps classes in general
>hiding away tons of little mechanics in supernatural abilities, extraordinary abilities and feats and working around their own magic system with those
>the six attributes should at least be on the table as changeable
>prestige classes with jet more little mechanics strewn throughout

>>53155732
Refusing to give all classes a set of exchangeable abilities that are expanded with supplements.

>>53156495
Bullshit. If someone picked in such a way that Conjuration and Transmutation were banned they'd be a total gimp compared to anyone who had them.

>>53156558
That's a murderhobo's way of thinking.

>>53156466
>heroic fantasy genre
There's a ton of baggage from the fact that D&D was originally built around pulp fiction rather than heroic fantasy, but people try to shoehorn it into heroic fantasy when many of its mechanics imply the opposite.

Also, removing gold-for-xp removed a key balance lever. Similarly removing some of the wargaming elements like morale and reaction tables hurt D&D by making everyone tend to fight to the death, and the only guaranteed way to get XP becoming combat.

>>53156646
No, it's the way of thinking of anyone who isn't an idiot. Conjuration and Transmutation aren't just overpowered in combat, but they have immense noncombat use too.

>>53156646
This is how I know you don't play much D&D if you bitch about blasting spells

>>53156558
Don' you see never seeing divination, enchantment, illusion or necromancy spells will make wizards more interesting somehow

>>53156698
All the other schools are basically useless, then?

I'm tired of endlessly discussing balance with retards that play ttrpgs like they're playing WoW.

>>53155732

Magic seems to upset a lot of peoples games in 3.5, a lot of it is shit dm'ing, but there are some issues with it.

Go back to the 2ed, and 99% of those issues are gone. (Using the saving throws for 2ed.)

Get rid of a bunch of sup spell books, and that takes care of the other 1%.

>>53156668
I always wondered why there wasn't anything in the books about morale. It seems like a logical thing to include and design around. I often have failing groups of enemies break and flee in games I run in WFRP, and narrative it's much more sensible.

>>53156750
Do you just not understand what Conjuration and Transmutation have?

>>53156164
Wish is rarely efficient for pcs to use, and gate is actually fairly situational spell, really, not something that you need to keep in pocket.

>>53155732
5e has proved that martials being cucks compared to casters is the ultimate sacred cow.

>>53156813
Using 2E saving throws in 3.5 won't stop someone from using spells that ignore you as a target or ignore your saves entirely. If you don't have FoM, there's really nothing you can do if a Wizard decides to drop a Solid Fog on you.

>>53156813
>Get rid of a bunch of sup spell books
The 3.5 supplements only added to the core problem, not created it, and many times, offered alternatives to the more powerful spells in core, anon.

>>53156862
>Solid Fog
>>53156813
>Get rid of a bunch of sup spell books,

>>53156435
>Grappling
>Only when not encumbered by armour

No

>>53156955
Solid Fog is core you fucking mouthbreather.

>>53156813
And, rework the fucking stupid item/scroll creating shit.

Make it like 2nd edition.

Did I mention spell components?

3.5, made wizards easy as hell. Like training wheels for that class.

And go back to the early editions art work.

Holy fuck the new shit is fucking horrible.

>>53156981
>Did I mention spell components?
Read: Suck cock if you're an evoker but be untouched if you use conjurations, because apparently butter, animal hooves, and peas are difficult to get. Oh, and divine spellcasters ignore all of this bullshit anyways so you did nothing to them.

>>53156959
What kind of grappling are you talking about?

>>53157024
Meh. 3.5 was fucked up all over.

I ain't even going to try to defend it.

>>53157030
Different anon, but grappling in armor has been a part of every military that used armor around the world since people found that throwing a dude to the ground makes it easier to stick something sharp in them.
Fucking sumo wrestling is descended from battlefield grappling mainly involving hip throws and palm rushes to knock armored men over.

>>53156831
He does, but have you ever tried 'gimping' yourself and not using them?
Your spell selection becomes more boring and limited, you have to dig and use uncommon spells, but the power is still there.

>>53157060
So let's stop, because 3.5 was not the end all of the game.
As an earlier anon said, one of the biggest offending sacred cows, maybe the biggest, is the separation of what magic can do, and what can't be done without magic. Even in 2e and 4e, where fighters were incredibly solid warriors, then could rarely achieve anything outside of that whilst mages had both combat and the variety of things outside of it in easy repertoire.
Requiring magic for built in versatility is a problem that commonly strikes D&D and Shadowrun.

>>53157066
I call that tackling. Grappling to me is immobilizing someone or pinning them in the ground.

>>53157111
>trying to find different, unconventional solutions to problems instead of just killing your way through every challenge
>boring

>>53157114
Utility has always been the MU's gimmick. They can solve a problem with a wave of a hand, but they can only do it so often - and you need to pick right.

>>53157111
No, it isn't. You become subject to SR all the time because Conjuration and Transmutation's buffs were what let you get around it, you lose most of your no-save spells, lose most good buffs, lose the entire Polymorph line, including Shapechange and Alter Self, and lose core make-beatstick-better spells like Enlarge Person and Haste.

>>53157146
>I call that tackling. Grappling to me is immobilizing someone or pinning them in the ground.
You have an odd definition of what grappling is, anon.

>>53155732
3d6 stats. They are an obsolete legacy mechanism that aren't used for anything since third edition. We don't roll against stat, we roll and modify the result by stat determined amount. Instead of writing down 14/+2 we should cut off the bloat and just write +2, that's your stat.

>>53157114
Mages have versatility. So? Nothing wrong with that on the prima facia.

The problem comes when they have unlimited versatility. Via scrolls, items, and far too many spells per day.

Example: A mage can fly over a canyon that takes the fighter 2 days to walk around.

The mage can blast open a door that a thief would have to struggle with to pick, or the barb would have to beat on.

The mage can cast AoE's that hamper/stun/kill enemies, that would take the fighter a dozen rounds to do.

But, if the mage spends all his slots on knocking open doors, he runs out of spells before he can cast that fly spell. So there is a limit to his power.
Meanwhile, the fighter swings, and swings again, and swings some more. And......that's it as far as his "versatility" goes. Which seems like it would suck, but he also gets increased armor, better weapons, HP, and bab. It doesn't increase his versatility, but it does increase his survival. So a case could be made, that the fighters survival ability is his versatility?

>>53157201
>just write +2, that's your stat.

That would take some of the creativity out of things.

Terminology. You don't even think about it after awhile, but Armor Class and Spell Slot are stupid terms.
Numerology. We need not be beholden to ye olde 20 level standard progression and hit die systems.

>>53157219
And you are sorta reinforcing what I am saying, that there is an artificial divide created primarily from D&D's war game roots.
Fighters consistently have lesser skill sets and less overall survival assets than would be expected from a traveling mercenary sort, and Gygax could tell you a lot about how the "limits" on mages stopped his places from going roughhouse on his games.
In actual practice, a party isn't going to push on if the members of it can't contribute, so even if the mage blows all their spells definitively aiding the party, the party will stop to allow them to recover. For all the sword swinging the fighter can do, he can't win the battle alone, so his ability to do a single thing without limit is actually limited.

>>53156668
>Similarly removing some of the wargaming elements like morale and reaction tables hurt D&D by making everyone tend to fight to the death, and the only guaranteed way to get XP becoming combat.

Aren't there some rules about doling out XP for accomplishing certain feats? It's all up to the DM's discretion but I imagine, like, "Congratulations on successfully solving the murder on the Orient Express, all of you get 800 XP" can't be too unheard of.

>>53157293
>the party will stop to allow them to recover.
If there's time.

Once that mage is out of spells, or has nothing left that will help at that moment. He's fucked. He'll be happy there's a fighter nearby at that point.

Also, we're sorta assuming that mages are all high level. I'll agree that by 6th or 7th level, they far outshine most other classes. At low levels though, they're pretty friggen weak.

>>53157350
>Once that mage is out of spells, or has nothing left that will help at that moment. He's fucked. He'll be happy there's a fighter nearby at that point.
This also happens to assume the pc is throwing spells out every round. I generally do not assume complete foolishness on part of the player, any argument can be proven if the default assumption is idiocy from start to finish.

>>53157338
There are. Some dm's do just that.
I agree with the other anon though, that removing moral and reaction tables hurt the game.

Also, thieves earning exp from stealing, mages for casting spells/making items, fighters for fighting, etc. Plus certain classes required MORE exp to level up.

They really fucked the system up.

>>53157243
Frankly I don't see how '14' would be more creative than '+2'.

>>53157364
>This also happens to assume the pc is throwing spells out every round.

Depends on the circumstances.

3 encounters in the dungeon. The mage casts how many spells?

It would depend on each situation. Which makes this almost silly to debate when we're talking "in general".

What's the mage doing when not casting? shooting a crossbow? swinging a staff? Being useless? Reading a poem?

>>53157293
>In actual practice, a party isn't going to push on if the members of it can't contribute
Also keep in mind that for some reason the base expectations are that, no matter your level, you get about four encounters in an adventuring day that take about 2-3 rounds.
Good GMs can expand that and make it more taxing and interesting, but that's not something you should expect. If anything, they tend to err on the low end so as not to risk dangerously overextending of party resources.
The problem here is the wizard is stacking up spell slots, spells, magic items, and whatever else, while the fighter is only ever given enough hit points and fightan' power to deal with those ten rounds. He's stuck playing the same game he was at level 1. Part of the problem is that player agency in building characters and optimizing has grown while the challenges they have to overcome have been pretty much static, but there are really problems down to the core mechanics.

They got rid of the magic item golf bag but they failed to get rid of the magic spellbook while they were at it.

Half the spells in the PHB shouldn't be in the list to begin with and what is there is available to any spellcaster on level up for free. No effort required. That smacks of "wealth by level."

>>53157350
>Once that mage is out of spells
Yeah, then he has to get by using just the scrolls and wands he has hoarded. While a Fighter at low hit points is just fucked, end of story. A Wizard can push much farther than the martials can keep up and contribute.

>>53157370

Meh. Taste then, I guess.

Just +2 as a stat, looks stupid to me. I wouldn't dick with it.

>>53157425
You're assuming a lot.

>mages having wands
>mages having scrolls
>mages having a hoard of both
>fighter has NOTHING

>>53155732
Ability scores are the one that trip me up every time I try to design a better D&D. (As opposed to just a good RPG.)

Basically everywhere you can apply an ability score, it's to modify something that's already determined by some other statistic. You could just give everyone a bit more points worth of those other stats and all the math would work out the same. Skills are the obvious example, but it applies to things like saving throw bonuses and base attack bonuses too.

It's not just that it's a redundant thing that offends my design sensibilities (though it totally is that too). It ends up having wide-reaching effects on what character archetypes are effective, so anything that shares a prime ability score works and everything else doesn't, and bard/paladin works better than cleric/paladin even though nobody actually chose that as a design decision. And because that doesn't always do the right thing, there are various feats and class features to patch around things having the wrong ability score, adding even more stuff we don't need to fix that.

If you just dropped the ability scores and relied more on skills and class features, the whole thing would come together more easily. But it might not be D&D anymore.

(The other solution would be to use ability score rolls for almost everything and drop things like skills. That's also a valid solution, but it's simple enough that someone has probably already done your exact preferred way to do it.)

>>53157424
>Half the spells in the PHB shouldn't be in the list to begin with and what is there is available to any spellcaster on level up for free. No effort required.

Yep. Instead of making the player roll to learn the spell. And limiting the spells per day.

>>53157448
>If you just dropped the ability scores and relied more on skills and class features, the whole thing would come together more easily. But it might not be D&D anymore.

Ability scores give the players a feeling of uniqueness, beyond just a "normal thief", or "standard fighter".

>>53157350
>If there's time.
I'd bet money that 99.99% of all games that have been run since the dawn of the hobby did not involve the party being on the clock.
>He's fucked.
Everyone's fucked because they can't do their jobs without the mage's help.
>He'll be happy there's a fighter nearby
Fighter's probably not going to cut the mustard on his own, and if the mage gets in trouble the fighter has no tools to get him out of it.
>At low levels though, they're pretty friggen weak.
Arguably at low levels they're at their worst, because they have encounter-ending shit like sleep while other classes have 16 hit points, d20+3 to hit and do 1d6+2 damage once per round.

>>53157338
That's why I specified guaranteed. IIRC, 5e gives some more guidance for this style of XP allocation

>>53157442
Those are all quite reasonable assumptions.

>>53157493
>I'd bet money that 99.99% of all games that have been run since the dawn of the hobby did not involve the party being on the clock.

You have to fight your way into the kobolds lair. It's not timed, but you either run in, cast a couple spells and then leave. You don't sit up camp in the first room, wait 8 hours and then go on.
>Everyone's fucked because they can't do their jobs without the mage's help

there are tons of games that have NO mage in it. So you're out of your mind there.
>encounter-ending shit like sleep

Limited to HD, and Saving throws. Also, sleep can be stopped by a turn in the hallway or terrain. Or distance. It's not encounter ending unless the DM groups up the bad guys, and allows them to just stand there and wait on the mage to cast.

>>53157442
What good is fighter's gear if he's at too low hp to use it? Honestly now, who you'd rather have by your side when running away from enemies: a wizard having used all his spell slots or a fighter with 3 hp?

>>53155732
Hugeass spellists. Realism attempts when describing skill difficulties

>>53157528
None of them are reasonable anon.

Unless you're talking about a specific version of d&d.

But in general, if the party's mage has a horde of wands, then the fighter likely has potions, and other items.

>>53157556
>there are tons of games
We are in a D&D thread talking about D&D.

>>53157601
And i've played in dozens of them where no one played a mage.

>>53157577
Skill lameness due to unwelcome "realism" is what upholds caster supremacy as impossible to dethrone, together with >>53156466

Address both to some reasonable degree and you make a way more fun game IMO.

>>53155732
Healing is fucking BORING

I love playing healer in a wide variety of video games. Shooters, MMOs, turn-based strategy, RTS (commanding forces with healers for mad value), hell -- even MOBAs. Dwarf fortress, setting up my hospital? Hell yeah. Memorizing all the surgeries and medical chemistry in Space Station 13? Killer fun.

Give me a system where I'm not gnawing my fingers off in boredom for picking healer.

>>53155732
>the weirder spells being inaccessible without finding them within the setting
How do you think wizards get new spells, anon? Do you think they just appear in the wizard's brain unbidden?

>>53157670
>I love playing healer in a wide variety of video games
That's your problem.

>>53157707
Mate it's a legitimate concern. There should be a variety of roles to fill and filling those roles should be fun. Healing, as a dedicated role, is not as core to the game as combat and casting, so it always feels like an afterthought that got shoved partway below the surface for how useful and popular it is, but never got to be a building block like hitting people with a sword or fireball.
Emulating video games is a bad idea, but ignoring the lessons they can teach in game design and falling decades behind is also foolish.

>>53157707
I dunno man, there are a lot of things that can make healing fun -- in single player and multiplayer.

It doesn't JUST have to be clutch timings -- rewarding knowledge of mechanics can be just as satisfying.

Too often healing in tabletop is just "I move over next to him and cure moderate wounds" -- meanwhile your Fighter is at least getting to do flanking and funneling and shit, to say nothing of what the Mage is cooking up.

>>53157785
>Healing, as a dedicated role,
It's not meant to be a dedicated role you dingus. There's a reason the cleric comes with anti-undead fuckery and okay combat abilities as standard.

>>53157806
It has proven undeniable at this point that there is demand for it as a dedicated role. Perhaps the sacred cow to let go of is that healing can't ever be interesting enough to stand on its own?

>>53157850
>It has proven undeniable at this point that there is demand for it as a dedicated role.
No it fucking hasn't. Pure healers, like Divination-specialist wizards, should be NPC-only.

>>53157862
I think this is definitely a winner, the way you naturally spring to defend it so rabidly proves its sacred cow status.

>>53157919
If you don't have combat abilities, what are you doing in a dungeon? Go wait at the surface with the rest of the NPCs.

>>53157933
Healing is a party of combat.
And even then a dedicated healer can hurt things, Channeling to do both at once is an example of how to make healing interesting and fun.

>>53157954
>Channeling to do both at once is an example of how to make healing interesting and fun.
But you can already do that you retard. The Cure X Wounds family are invertable.

>>53156380

In fantasy age you pick arcana like domains, you only start with two and barely get any. You advance in them slowly. It'd be nice to have more spells, but it's kind of nice to be restricted, too.

>>53157803

What ideas do you have to make it more fun with p'n'p? Doen' have to be related/fittable to DnD, just throw in some ideas.

I'm asking because I pondered over the same question for homebrew. Only thing I came up with until now:
- make healing less frequent, so casting a "simple" healing spell gains more importance
- make all simple healing effects indirect (like lifelink from MtG) or a regen effect with high duration at most, so the priest still can do something else

>>53156466
>If you read a fantasy novel, everyone is able to do different things that are useful or progress the story in any type of scenario
No. Not even close. Do you exclusively read badly written YA shit?

>>53158004
In other games spell schools usually don't vary in power between "do nearly anything you could want a spell to do, get around any defense" and "90% of this spell school is cockblocked by a single effect".

>>53157954
I'm going to let you in on one of the bits of D&D that's been largely covered up by 40 years of misunderstandings: Combat is a fail state. Ideally, you get in, get the loot, and get out fighting as little shit as possible. By making healing fun, you are encouraging the fail state.

>>53155732
Ability scores and ability modifiers being different things.

>>53158067
Well then they sure failed by making the fail state the most versatile and expansive part of the game. Like shit son thats basic game design. You dont make the fail state fun

>>53157974
>But you can already do that you retard.
That's what I typed. Channeling. As in Channel Positive Energy. Used in Pathfinder to either harm Undead or heal the living around the Cleric. Or Channel Divinity. In 5e it's another choose the effect ability that can be used to Turn Undead, or whatever your domain gives it. Unsurprisingly, the Life domain gives an area healing effect.
Cure Wounds having the cool double feature going for it as well is what one might call "another example".

>>53155772
>You're a fucking idiot. Conjuration dominates Evocation in power spells hands down. What you just did was shit on Evokers by making them unable to cover their own weaknesses - when Evokers weren't even the ones breaking the game.
and that's the kind of gamist debates that rage in the D&D community.

gamism is D&D biggest baggage

>>53155732

Character levels - such an outdated concept, completely unncessary and easily converted to a point-buy system.

Alignment - DnD made the mistake to bind certain in-game mechanics to alignments and that's the only reason why they still serve a (pointless) function. Some might see them as a guideline for new player, but the same could be achived by a character building tutorial for newbies which wouldn't tie down experienced players.

Classes - I wouldn't say classe per se have to go, but classes as they are now are terrible. Waaaay to restrictive. Multiclassing also is just an unnecessary and complicated way around the problem. If classes serve as kinda "that's my job" description with a little bit "I can do this unique stuff, because of special training for my field" sprinkled in between, I would be okay with them.


Also I wish they would use the clear ruledesign for powers etc. from 4e again, that was one of the few good thing about that edition. They could add discriptive flavour text in addition, not instead of it.

>>53158097
Every successive edition of D&D once Gygax was booted has been more and more extensive failure to actually understand what they were working on.

First casualty: The entire reason for avoiding fights in the first place. If you look at pre-WotC editions of D&D, you need a shitload of XP to level up, and monsters give you comparatively little, but you also get xp for treasure recovered at a 1-1 rate, which gives the players incentive to look for cash and avoid fighting things as much as possible, because that's a waste of resources you could be using to find more loot. When you look at lit like that, the reason for wandering monsters becomes more obvious as well. They're there to stop you piss-assing around too long, because the longer you hang around working on a single door the more likely it is that something's going to come along and drain your resources. Morale and reaction rolls and light all play into this as well.

Really, the greatest crime of WotC was breaking the incentive loop (that was already shaky in 2e) and then not fully excising and replacing it. And, unfortunately, it's gone broken for so long that any attempt to do so (like 4e, or having 6e be some sort of modernised AD&D variant) is pretty much guaranteed to be seen as 'not real D&D'.

>>53158067
It's not a fail state if people have fun, and for many players, combat is the most fun part of the game.

If your first thought when reading that statement is "then they should make combat less fun" you need to sit down and really think about what you're talking about here.

>>53158215
Which was fixed in 4th edition to the cries and whining of how it was "ruined".

Why in this thread about sacred cows are people talking about 3.5, a game that came out 14 years ago?

Isn't the most recent version of the game the only relevant one?

>>53155732
Roleplaying: Alignment

Gameplay: Classes

>>53158333
Holy shit, this is the first new D&D troll I've seen in almost a decade.

>>53158381
I don't catch your meaning.

I'm not saying 5e is the only version of the game worth playing if that's what you were thinking, only that it doesn't make sense to whine about sacred cows from past editions that have since been removed.

>>53158333

Yes.
I think the biggest thing I've seen in d&d over and over is this idea of planning your character sheet above your character. When you make a world of darkness character your first thought has to do with who they are. Personality, appearance, gender, etc all come up and matter to you, as much as any combat/skills.

In d&d you think "I kind of want to play an archer" or "I really want to try like a rogue who's good at tripping" etc. Those ideas form the character and backstory is almost always secondary. I don't think every single person does it... But I think that even good role players think this way when making d&d characters. I think classes are a big part of that.

It's not even like ....a horrible thing. Just a thing. Idk

>>53158333

Not really. Tabletop games can still be played when they are old. It isn't like they vanish or are so similar as to be basically the same shit so why not just use the newest version. Because they vary, they just fill in niche needs for different groups. I've known older people who only play the original DnD, people who only play 3.5 , some 4, and some 5.

Tabletops tend to age pretty well.

>>53158399
This is setting up that bad old dichotomy that there is a "right" way to make a character and a "wrong" way, when what matters is what you do with them in the game.
A bad player will have a bad character, however they make them.

>>53158433
No. This is the bullshit that got us the 3.5 Monk.

>>53158215
You mean simulationism.

D&D wouldn't even be here without gamism.

>>53158215
>gamism
>bad

>>53158215
>>53158613
A balance of narrativism, gamism, and simulationism makes for a good game. There's no objectively correct balance, but I'd certainly agree that narrativism is being culled too much by the combined forces of gamism and simulationism both in the community and in the text.

>>53158652
Gamism is the one that has no "selfish" purpose.
Gamism is instead used to achieve other goals.
Gamism is used to make the narrative flow with mechanics that encourage player characters to be proactive and interact with the story.
Gamism is used to make sure that the fearsome order of Monks that have assassins and spies everywhere are actually mechanically simulated in universe in a way that makes them a force to be reckoned with, and not a bunch of chumps.

Gamism is essentially just a name for conscious, goal oriented game design.

>>53158399
It's possible to design a system in such a way that characters built for optimal combat still end up being interesting people, and characters built to chase a convoluted backstory are still guaranteed to be at least competent.

I wish more games treated that like the goal.

I really think you need both sides of the coin to make a good character. Like if your character's goal is to overthrow the unjust King Florence, or they're an archer, neither of those things are actually that interesting to me as a GM. But an archer who wants to overthrow the unjust King Florence - someone with both an idea what they're trying to do and an inkling of how they're going to accomplish it - I can start piecing together adventures for this person.

File: 1484274517124.jpg (3MB, 2400x3600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2400x3600px

>>53155732
I have no problem with the spells themselves but the design of them gives me a headache. Huge chink of the PH is just spells and each spell description and it becomes a chore playing a M-U or having to play with or run for M-U because they are based around a million little finicky things.
I'd rather have a set of archetypal spells with slight keyword changes, rather than little mini rule blocks.
There are a lot of things wrong with shadowrun but I have to say it's nice having a mage with a concise list of spells with a fairly intuitive set of effects.

I also think there are way too many separate magical classes and way to few thief/rogue type classes. I'd rather Sorcerers be subtypes or archtypes of Wizards than a separate class. I'd rather Druids be subtypes of Clerics again. The Warlock could go under either. I don't think Bards should be full-mages.

I'd rather clerics be the mid-point between physical-guy and magical-guy rather than magical-heal-guy.

I'd rather the really old-school level 1-6 spells rather than 1-9.

Aside from magic the way way AC, DR, HP, temp HP and Saves interact needs to be figured out because as it's crazy inconsistent. Mechanically I know what they do but what are they meant to represent in the rules? What makes a +DR different than a +AC? If HP is meant to be luck and dodging and stamina why do I get a disease when a mutant rat damages me and why are all the most damaging weapons big heavy and on fire, what does that have to do with my luck?

>>53158737
Nope. Gamism has its own goals and is therefore "selfish" in that it may place them above the goals of the other two. All three can be used to enhance each other, thus the need for a balance. Some simulationism makes gamist decisions more meaningful and increases versimilitude that enhances narrativism. Some narrativism gives simulationism and gamism "payoff". Gamism makes simulationism more practical and enjoyable (or assists the goals of the system in some other way) and provides a continuous channel for narrativism.
They also can harm each other in poor balance. Simulationism can take away opportunities for narrativism to thrive and bog down gamism. Gamism can over abstract and push out simulationism, and is often too inflexible for narrativism. Narrativism has a tendency to ignore details that simulationism may present which further the system's goals, and may inhibit gamism's goals of satisfaction.
Gamism is not concerned with the goals of the other two, it can harm the verisimilitude or trigger some games academic into a ludonarrative dissonance priapism all in the name of achieving only part of the game's goal- governing the immediate moment-to-moment interaction of player and game.

>>53158896
You say a lot, but you don't say what gamism's goal actually is.

I mean, I can think of some things, but they are more mis-applied gamism than actually goals in themselves (using dice pools for no reason, or ivory towering it up).

>>53155732
Wizards.

>>53159188
I was purposefully avoiding that because it's its own subject with some caveat.
Gamism usually seeks to create a "satisfactory" experience out of the game mechanics, specifically the players' interactions with them. Gamism is often tagged as the force that creates and maintains systems of mechanical balance, including the placement and difficulty of challenge, the systems of agency and ability and how they are fairly split between players, risk vs reward, etc.
Ultimately though gamism answers to the specific call of the system while still limiting itself to the "gamey" mechanical tools. So the gamism of a horror game might not look so "balanced" by most conventions, but the game mechanics still seek to serve the desired "satisfaction" that the game intends in its players. Explicitly, however, when the methods cease to be mechanical codifications and move to the realms of narrativism or simulationism, and there may be a fuzzy boundary in some places, it cannot be stretched to include them, the approach changes to their philosophies. So gamism does not encompass narrativism just because a game has a largely narrativist focus with few written mechanics, rather that's a game with minimal gamist influence. Similarly gamism does not encompass simulationism as it approaches the subject from the opposite side of abstraction.

>>53156815
Because that's a thing that's much better adjudicated on the fly by the DM rather than having it determined by a table or dice roll.

>>53155732

>Lets strip away the texture and history of D&D and have a generic fantasy instead.

You haven't suggested any new and compelling spells, or mechanics, besides
>take away the memorable stuff, and limit what spells wizards can cast

>>53159321
>Ultimately though gamism answers to the specific call of the system while still limiting itself to the "gamey" mechanical tools. So the gamism of a horror game might not look so "balanced" by most conventions, but the game mechanics still seek to serve the desired "satisfaction" that the game intends in its players

This is exactly what I mean when I say that gamism doesn't have a defined goal. It always serves a vehicle for narrativist or simulationist goals. It's only purpose is to make those other things work and feel well.

I sort of purged myself of the GNS theory though, so I'll just assume our definitions are so different that we aren't even discussing the same things, only things that are called the same out of legacy/convenience.

>>53159434
In RPGs, especially tabletop RPGs they're all linked, but to see gamism in a relatively clear environment, working for its own benefit, look at a game like Tetris, Solitaire, or Super Hexagon, where narrativism and simulationism are only afterthoughts if present at all. The goals of gamism can be independent of these other philosophies.

>>53159566
Right, I only meant in the context of RPGs. Even the most gamey RPGs (RPGs where the system is literally just an expansion around a wargame, for instance), the mechanics are (or should be) chosen/used because their level of abstraction and method of combat resolution fits with the other goals of the gamey.

>>53159434
>Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play strategies. The listed elements provide an arena for the competition.
>http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/

>>53156116
You forgot Melf's Acid Arrow you summerfag. That spell was infuriating in 2nd ed.

>>53159730
I didn't forget shit. It's an awful spell that's beaten out in practicality by Lesser Acid Orb in every way but range. 2d4 damage is a joke tier spell in a game where that's not even enough to kill a first level character and it scaling in duration makes it even worse in a game where combat's over in 2-3 rounds.

>>53157428

Congratulations, you have successfully demonstrated the concept of "sacred cow" - something that has no rational reason for existing, but that people don't want messed with due to feels.

>>53156180
Percentile dice are also superior to the d20 and something I prefer above the 3d6 desu senpai.

>>53159605
RPGs have multiple goals going on for them at all times. This is why they need all approaches working in harmony, and why they can conflict.
I think one of the more common conflicts I run into with them is in conflict resolution. Gamism has a large spotlight during combat because a major goal of most RPGs is a combat system which stands alone as an enjoyable and rewarding experience, but what happens when a combatant drops? Simulationism will want to decide based on the specific wounds and their placement and the combatant's toughness and physique. Gamism will want a more abstracted and simple rule, roll a die and leave it to chance, maybe compare with his Con score so as to reward players who invest in it, anything to make the combat itself feel more satisfying. Narrativism might demand that important rivals live to fight another day but most worthless mooks were put down so as to emphasize the power of those left standing. The fact that the system has multiple goals is what allows and sometimes forces the approaches to contradict one another.

>>53159790
>Percentile dice are also superior to the d20

95% of the time they are exactly the fucking same, except you are rolling 2 dice instead of one.

>>53157004
nothing will ever be as good as 80s D&D art

more disco wizards! more cheesecake!

>>53159622
Thank you for the reminder.

>>53159799
>Simulationism will want to decide based on the specific wounds and their placement and the combatant's toughness and physique.

Not necessarily. Simulationism doesn't have to mean realism, and the level of detail is not inherent; as long as things keep being consistent with the setting's internal logic above all else, it should satisfy the simulationist urge.

> Gamism will want a more abstracted and simple rule, roll a die and leave it to chance, maybe compare with his Con score so as to reward players who invest in it, anything to make the combat itself feel more satisfying.

I don't think the level of abstraction has anything to do with how gamey something is. You can have very abstracted mass combat rules, for example, that are still pretty simulationist, without rolling to hit for every single bullet.

Con score's very existence should be backed up by what purpose it serves, not "Oh, if we have this stat we may as well reward it" (I get your point, just thought I'd mention).

>Narrativism might demand that important rivals live to fight another day but most worthless mooks were put down so as to emphasize the power of those left standing

Right, this doesn't conflict with gamism. It conflicts with simulationism.

>>53157579
Unless the Fighter has infinite potions, he's still going to run out of HP long before the mage runs out of spells.

Also, where's the Fighter getting these potions from? 2+INT skill points ain't gonna be enough to craft a potion that's worth a damn.

>>53157482
If you need stats to determine why your character is unique, chances are they weren't all that unique in the first place.

>>53157619
Neat.

>>53156278
D&D clerics are NOT Moses or Elijah, they wade into battle and can take a beating, similar to paladins in ways that makes me understand OP's opinion on it. Paladins are very different still, but there is no pacifist cloth-wearing priest-type class in D&D 5e and I'd rather focus on the ability score differences, auras and other magical effects over strict spells etc.

>>53158320
The only reason why combat is "fun" is because everyone across the board have more HP than most attacks will deal in a single blow.

If it was as it was back then, where characters only received a fraction of the HP they'd receive now and creatures were actually designed to be more than festive XPinatas, and you got more XP from avoiding combat and gathering treasure instead, more people would realize that combat is a failure state and would actually try to avoid it.

>>53157146
Not even in DnD is that considered the end of grappling, that's called pinning.

You can even still act, usually at penalty. So it could be something as simple as an arm lock while you deck the guy or drag him around. Even old treatises use "grappling", it could be as simple as grabbing the guys sword arm. Or just look at something like Judo.

I can't even think off the top of my head of any system that incorporates grappling where grappling only includes pinning them to the ground.

>>53157670
God please no.

Do not bring holy trinity bullshit into roleplaying. It may not apply to DnD but it's one of the worst sacred cows in video games.

"Healing" in combat shouldn't be some kind of in-depth mechanic. The focus should be on the person, the character. The focus should be on being a Cleric, or a tribal Medicine-Man and that should go far beyond healing in combat.

>>53160238
>but there is no pacifist cloth-wearing priest-type class in D&D 5e

Literally the basic cleric. They only get heavy armor with some domains.

>>53157670
4e.

In 4e, healing is done alongside actually being a character.

In other D&D, it's usually relegated to out of combat (5e you drop a few healing words if the barbarian's down, 3.x you may cast Heal if somebody didn't get oneshot if you are a high enough level, but otherwise you are focusing on punching people, and the same goes for non-WotC D&D).

>>53157493
>sleep
>encounter ending
>5e

lol at 3rd level it's what, max 56 hp if you use your second level slot? even if you roll max that won't be "encounter ending" for anything that the fighter/barb couldn't have dealt with anyway

on average it can take 1-2 enemies out of the fight at level 3, which is incredibly strong, don't get me wrong, but it's not more powerful than say, the fighter's action surge, or the barb's rage. Especially considering how limited your spell slots are at early levels.

>>53160259
>if we made combat less fun, then people wouldn't like combat as much!

holy shit dude this guy's hilarious

>>53157681
You would be surprised how many people play that way, or at least have only a superficial challenge to obtaining new spells...

Having played D&D since 2nd ed, it often feels like there are all sorts of things that exist within the ruleset as a legacy from earlier editions, which made sense at the time because they worked with other rules that have now been abandoned. For example, Fighters no longer get castles and retinues as they level up, this weakens them in higher level games while the wizard is still able to call upon multi-dimensional creatures for aid.
Magic item creation is another area - in 2nd ed, creating a magic item was only for the most powerful wizards, it required the 8th level spell permanency in addition to a whole host of other spells depending on the item to create, all sorts of special ingredients that had to be obtained via roleplaying and thus a serious input of a player's time as well as their character's. Then 3.x decided nah, you can just do it with a feat, a whole bunch of gold and some XP (but don't worry wizards, because you don't take more XP to level up anymore) and at a much lower level. 4th ed went even further, making it super easy for even a relatively low level wizard to churn out tonnes of cheap disposable magic items

>>53160984
AD&D magic item creation made no sense, unless the wizard was suicidal. Making a +1 sword took so many resources for such little benefit overall that nobody right in the head would have done it.

Not saying the WotC item-treadmill was a good solution, but it had to go swing in some way for it to make sense.

Having a keep for fighters was really shitty, and not in any way comparable to the phenomenal cosmic power of high level wizards, cause you were entitled one, but you still had to do it for yourself.

>>53158008
Making healing fun in a PnP setting requires work from the DM and perhaps making clerics a little squishier.
Example: The party is in combat, the fighter's just been battered by a burly hobgoblin chieftain and is near death. Things look grim, he could use a healer.
In DnD as it stands, the cleric is well armed and armoured, so getting in close enough to heal the fighter doesn't present much of a problem, even without the numerous buffs available to him. So the DM needs to be more creative, have other hobgoblins move in to intercept the cleric while their boss finishes off the downed fighter, or use skirmishers to threaten the rogue and wizard so that the cleric has to choose between helping them and rescuing his friend. This can be hard to pull off without coming off as That-DM.

Now imagine if the cleric was squishier: Getting in close to the fighter now puts him at risk of getting squished by the same hobgoblin that did his friend in. He still has some protection and some buffs to help him, but he'll need to be more tactical to win the day, perhaps getting the other party members to cover him with ranged weapons or use some sort of wizardly spell to drive the hobgoblins back

>>53158008
>- make healing less frequent, so casting a "simple" healing spell gains more importance

4e did this. You had 2 heals/combat at low levels at most, and number of heals/day were limited by surges.

>>53156370
They named the skill Grappling
You can't use it to grapple on to a target.
You can't use it for disarm.
It can barely be used to wrestle.
Can't be used to climb.
Also
>and against someone who is around the same size as you.
Literally bad skill. Its pointless if its useless with anything that has size modifiers.

>>53156668
I have to agree that a lot of issues with the game that do exist are resolved when you re-introduce 'old school' mechanics.

>Wandering monsters prevent to a degree the five minute work day and a lot of issues with casters potency.

>Morale as you stay stops fights dragging endlessly.

>XP for gold encourages exploration and allows progress for something other than killing. ( I tend to give XP for any difficult situation resolved whatever the method )

>Ignoring to a degree 'balance' and neatly packaged combat encounters actually forces players to think outside the box in dealing with that dragon at level 1.

>Ignoring the need for the party to be 'balanced' itself with a 'tank' ' healer ' and ' dps' role , which comes from MMOs rather than D&D.

Long story short the game has been tainted by narrative based design and people's expectations from video games. Not that it was ever without its flaws but a few tweaks greatly improves it.

>>53159356
The trouble with having no framework at all for that is that it can lead to arguments, particularly if you have That-DM, or That-Guy playing. It's not like putting something in would require much work on the designer's part either, there are fear spells and the like IIRC in D&D

>>53160516
Really? Maybe WotC are learning then, because in all previous editions, clerics have armoured up

>>53161165
>roles = video games
No, what the fuck are you on? You'd get murdered without a Cleric in the party nearly every time and a party without a warrior is extremely gimped.

>>53161226
Not sure what that guy is on about, fifth edition clerics have access to medium armor while the archetypical Life Cleric gives you heavy armor proficiency.
However, there is a pacifist monk archetype in the Unearthed Arcana that becomes a fairly decent healer with a fairly neat peace/war dynamic.

>>53155772
Angry neckbeards. This is something we can all agree should fade away gently in the night.

>>53156116
This, conjuration makes everything trivial af

T. Focused Specialist Conjurer player

>>53161286
This. Tabletop rpg games, then muds, then video games. It's just a really efficient system and caught on, but old games came up with the idea first. Except unlike in video games you can switch up that meta and vary shit up for novelty or have other systems in place. In video games you don't have the dynamic system of a dm, shaping the world beforehand, the option to homebrew/modify shit easily, etc., so breaking the meta just makes you fucking useless.

>>53161286
>a party without a warrior is extremely gimped.
Our party lost its warrior and exchange it for a magus and since then is a fucking cake walk
>Druid, Magus, Bard and Witch

>>53161668
That's 3.PF, which has jack and fucking shit in common with AD&D. Not having a warrior in AD&D is not even close to the same thing as not having a warrior in 3.PF.

>>53161696
Sorry, didn't realize you were talking about AD&D

>>53161624
A thing worth noting is the fact that there was a shift in the sort of balance that is between classes. OD&D each class had a unique role in the entirety of the game, in which they either excelled at, or were the only ones who could even attempt. Basically, what we call spotlight balance, where each character interacts best with only a limited part of the game. This shifted to a more "general" form of balance between characters, where everyone interacts with all parts of the game, but do so using different tools, so that everyone stays engaged. I massively prefer this type of play (leads to a lot more versatile characters with a lot more interaction), but it's still something that evolved concurrently with videogames and so it's new and not "classic".

>>53161080
It encouraged to search dungeons for magic items instead of staying home and make them.

>>53161765
>still something that evolved concurrently with videogames and so it's new and not "classic".
If that were the criterion for classic then nothing past 1974 would count as classic.

This thread just confirms that 3.5 is a mistake

>>53155732
Polyhedral dice. Games should be playable with the dice you scrounged from Monopoly and Sorry!

>>53161777
The (much preferable) alternative would have been to keep it hard/high level thing, but make magic items actually good instead of a sword that gives +1 hit and damage costing half your life.

>>53161789
That's essentially the problem with grogs, yes.

>>53161883
That's what always bothered me about D&D pre-3E.

>magic items are ULTRA RARE(except not, because loot tables really love throwing them at you)
>holy shit, a magic longsword!
>+1
>enjoy your 1 DPR upgrade per swing if you have literally no STR bonuses, faglord
>literally more useful for getting around immunity to nonmagical weapons than the damage increase

Too bad 3E went in the opposite direction.

>>53155732
Attributes. A fighter is strong, a wizard is smart, why do they need a strength and intelligence stat to drive that point home?

>>53161944
So you can mechanically resolve questions like 'am i strong enough to move x', 'am i smart enough to figure out y'

>>53161944
>>53161965
and to provide variety between fighters and wizards, etc.

>>53161965
A diceroll alone already does that.

Just give the fighter "add +5 to your dice rolls when doing physical strength stuff" and "add +5 to your dice rolls when doing knowledge and logic stuff" for the wizard, and you sidestep the whole shebang with stats.

>>53162499
Congrats, you've just given the fighter a strength attribute score of 5 and the wizard an int attribute score of 5.

>>53162518
Yes, and saved having to note the strength/INT attribute for every character ever, making the character sheets a lot more spacious and simple.

>>53162545
You haven't saved anything, since you have to note that new ability down. Probably using more space, since Str: 5 doesn't exactly eat a whole lot of room.

>>53162573
str:5 doesn't, but
Str: 5
dex: 0
int: 0

etc. does.

>>53162593
Regardless of how you feel they'd best be represented on a character sheet, you're still using attributes.

>>53160725
Your retardation reminds me a lot of the devs who made Thi4f.
>"Hey fellas, y'know what would make our stealth based game better? If we remove most of the stealth entirely, made combat the primary focus, and double the health so combat takes longer to resolve."
Besides, you say "combat" as if it's actually fun in the first goddamn place.

>>53158896
Fuck off back to the Forge. GNS doesn't reflect actual playstyles or player preferences

>>53162725
Does that place even exist, still? It's been like, decades.

>>53162744
Dude is quoting Forge/Edwards jargon almost word for word.

>>53162757
Ok, but is the forge even still a thing?

>>53162545
so basically an irrelevant gain for anyone with basic reading comprehension/math skills. i am sorry if this hobby is too complicated for you, bud.

>>53156364
This

>>53155732
The core design goal of specific, limited investment for specific, limited outcomes. The basic idea of Rule Specificity as opposed to Universalism it applies.

The crux and majority of issue with D&D and all the hundreds of clones and things that based on it is that you need to pay a specific gimmick tax to do a specific gimmick.

A fighter without Power Attack cannot trade tohit for +dmg. A wizard without the spell "Detect Magic" cannot detect magic. A fireball is defined as being a ball of fire that hits precise location + precise damage. It does no more and no less than this. The Ranger, at lvl x, gets the ability to do y. Y can only be used to accomplish y.

It creates classlocks and introduces innane requirements. It means skills aren't defined as what your character knows, but what your class gets you access to. If you don't have Trap Finding, find no traps, be useless when they're around. It means trying to do something requires a feat which requires a feat which requires a feat. To use a sword you need proficiency + BAB + str + bonuses, and using it for Combat Expertise is different from Power Attack is different from lunge or charge.

It means everyone is a bundle of variously put together "I'm allowed to do X". Then naturally those classes who gets an X with slightly larger degrees of freedom just win the game. A fighter gets weapon focus! A druid gets Wildshape. A wizard gets the ability to decide what their "I can do X today" is via spell picks. A rogue gets a +dmg that only conditionally triggers.

Setting up a system where the rules are universal and then characters specialize take more effort, but create a much better gameflow. Unfortunately that means no easy ability to say "THE FIGHTER HITS STUFF", so it's much, much harder to sell and requires actual design competence.

>>53163155
Is there an example of a game doing this?

>>53163339
Black Company setting for D&D. Allows fighers to reselect feats, and wizards buy spells as general categories ("Create Fire" covers all uses from spark to firestorm)

>>53163155
And the worst bloody part of the entire goddamn morass is that you then get something like Combat Expertise or Power Attack or Two Weapon Fighting and it's *shit*, you need another 3-4 feats to upgrade them to their full capacity, and the total bonus they apply is +10% or +2-4 dmg or +2 AC which changes nothing, involves no new tactics, and requires no extra decision save for the fact that other people can't get that tiny, miniscule bonus to their specific, miniscule weapon, which is lost when they try something else. Then multiply that entire bullshit by *4000 for every class + skill + gear + feat + spell interaction in the game, BUT give Wizards, Clerics and other full tier casters the conditional ability to go "Nah, fuck those rules, I turn into a bear with +every stat and wreck face now" and the entire game just doesn't fucking work.

>>53163339
Savage Worlds, GURPS, CortexPlus, Powered by the Apocalypse depending on playbook. "here's the option everyone has, and here's the specialitis that make some people much better at some options"

There's no problem with requiring investment for special abilities, but there is a problem when that investment is both so inflexible as to be hyper-specific /and/ locks you out of any other options. A mage casts spells, but can't do anything else. A fighter only ever fights. The moment that is lost, the character is effectively out of the game.

Say whatever memesters will about GURPS, it has its problems, but at least the combat chapter applies to everyone equally and the options are universal. Basic Attack, All Out, MoveAndAttack, Defend, Telegraphic Attack are options anyone has. Someone who specializes in fighting are just much, much better at fighting. You don't need a special techinque and 3 levels to learn how to hit someone harder. If you specialize in fighting, you get better at it, but you get better at the options everyone already has. Your magician ends up disarmed and magic-less? At least they can try to pick up a rock to hit someone with. You don't need "Improvised Weapons" the Feat to /not/ have a constant -20% to hit on basic weaponry and screw it, your BAB means you won't ever hit a lvl 3 orc in leather anyway so why even try.

And hey, if you want to get a little better going forward, some skill in Rocks is possible and doesn't require wasting an entire class level on Halfling RockBasher which utterly cripples your spell-by-level, CL, attributes and XP gain.

>>53163155
>The core design goal of specific, limited investment for specific, limited outcomes.
welcome to the wonderful of gamist RPG design, anon

>>53155910
>Can you tone it down a little, I was just talking.
No, faggot. Either man up and deal with insults like a grown-up or go back to Reddicks.

>>53155732
(1)Very existence of Fighter and the like. Classes without magic do not belong here. At all.

(2)Alignments.

(3)Idiotic attempts at realism.

>>53156466
>If you read a fantasy novel, everyone is able to do different things that are useful or progress the story in any type of scenario.

Utter and complete bullshit. Even in novels where characters are roughly equal in competence, instead of being a hero with awesome power and a bunch of mildly useful sidekicks, when it is someone's time to shine, for the rest of the party it is the time to fail and contribute nothing. The only consistent exception is battle.

>>53163155
>Setting up a system where the rules are universal and then characters specialize take more effort, but create a much better gameflow.

The exact opposite is true. Classes/levels may be an imperfect method, but is the ONLY method that doesn't observably result in a degenerate gameflow as soon as the game system tries to so something with more power and options than vanilla action heroes.

>>53164147
>Classes/levels may be an imperfect method, but is the ONLY method that doesn't observably result in a degenerate gameflow as soon as the game system tries to so something with more power and options than vanilla action heroes.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...whew wh~ew, goddamn...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Holy fuck anon, thanks for that, I needed a good fucking laugh. Jesus christ, wew lad.

The concept of magic users. D&D has some classes which are reasonably narrow - fighters fight, thieves do sneaky shit, monks flail around uselessly. It also has some classes which seem reasonably narrow - wizards do arcane magic, clerics do divine magic, and druids do nature magic. Except that those three kinds of magic are so insanely broad that you can fit literally any supernatural concept into them, from throwing fire to creating planes. D&D would be so much more interesting if types of magic were extremely narrowly defined, and the magic classes had to specialize in only one or two areas rather than getting the entire plethora.

Either that, or roll Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Monk, and the non-magical aspects of Ranger into a single class called Adventurer.

>>53163775
>Savage Worlds

Objectively shit. Even its basic resolution mechanic has fucking epicycles in it. Easily collapses into a degenerate state, and is boring even when not broken.

>GURPS

Can't handle anything beyond grittiest mundane mortal games, and probably even those only due to the fact that in such games nobody expects contents of your character sheet having much effect.

>Basic Attack, All Out, MoveAndAttack, Defend, Telegraphic Attack are options anyone has. Someone who specializes in fighting are just much, much better at fighting.

Ineffective options are NOT OPTIONS. Period.

>Your magician ends up disarmed and magic-less? At least they can try to pick up a rock to hit someone with. You don't need "Improvised Weapons" the Feat to /not/ have a constant -20% to hit on basic weaponry and screw it, your BAB means you won't ever hit a lvl 3 orc in leather anyway so why even try.

Entirely the same as having no skill at fighting.

>>53162676
By that criteria, everything is attributes.

The point at hand is that instead of a general thing that everyone must interact with, you can easily seclude it off as a specific thing some classes interact with, some don't.

You could literally replace the entire stat system with "write down 2 things your character is good at and 1 thing he's bad at" (limit to the classic 6 attributes if you want) and nothing of value would be lost.

>>53164204
Well, why, thanks for your well-thought out argument.

If only someone was able to produce even one other argument when pointed to the fact that every single classless system produces degenerate gameplay above vanilla action hero level.

Mental ability scores. It's shit to be told you can't play the game because your character's intelligence isn't high enough to solve this puzzle or come up with that strategy, and it's even more shit to have players try and get you to play the game for them because "my character is smarter than I am." Make hamburger out of those cows, and make a better game for everyone.

>>53155732
>What do you feel like the worst/most harmful carry-over is?
The idea that a non-magical class can contribute to the dynamic of the party's overall power level when everything past a certain degree. It's like allowing untrained children to lead a full-scale military engagement and being surprised that the brass is incompetent and spends most of its time playing pokemon go.

Also, modern D&D makes it too difficult to die. Either double the damage or half the HP but don't claim that HP is a combination of all this bullshit but then boil it down to numerical values that either go up (from healing) or go down (from damage) like the video games that inspired 3.PF.

File: 1485490137140.jpg (49KB, 564x470px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 564x470px

>>53164392
Oh good god man, please *wheeze* I can't take much more. Wew, thanks for that man, I appreciate you trying to alleviate a bait thread with cutting edge comedy.

You're a saint and a national treasure, keep shining on you crazy diamond!

>>53164418
6/10, I felt genuinely annoyed at your stupidity, but you're going to need to do better than that if you want rage.

>>53164315
>Ineffective options are NOT OPTIONS. Period.
Cool, I'll remember that whenever people bring up 3.PF's large repertoire of splats.

>>53158880
>I'd rather have a set of archetypal spells with slight keyword changes, rather than little mini rule blocks.
>There are a lot of things wrong with shadowrun but I have to say it's nice having a mage with a concise list of spells with a fairly intuitive set of effects.

The problem with applying the Shadowrun concept of magic to DnD lies in the fact that DnD magic is leaps and bounds more powerful, and cannot be made otherwise without dropping all pretenses to emulating the fantasy genre.

>>53164454
>"Oh no, an opinion that doesn't match mine, MUH AUTISM CAN'T HANDLE THIS!"
FTFY

I'd recommend better games but y'know what they say about pearls before swine.

>>53164147
Like what? Because DnD is pretty much Vanilla Action Heroes.

I'm not sure what you're talking about otherwise. Mystic Empyrean? Does something like CoC fall under Degenerate Gameplay or Vanilla Action?

>>53163155
Have you tried NOT playing 3.pf?

>>53164510
Dude, making him explain the joke ruins everything that makes it funny.

>>53164024
>man up and deal with insults like a grown-up

Confirmed fifteen-year-old edgelord. How about you grow the fuck up and learn to disagree with people without needing insults to make you look tough?

>>53164452
Consistence of your responses is quite admirable, but the same can't be said about their originality.

>>53164487
>Cool, I'll remember that whenever people bring up 3.PF's large repertoire of splats.

This is one the basic starting points of 3.PF discussions.

Thing is, even core 3.0 with all shit options thrown out still has considerably greater gameplay variety and choices than just about any system ever brought up as DnD's superior.

>>53164583
>waaaaah he said a bad wooooorrrrrrd!
fuck off back to whatever safespace you crawled in from.

>>53164487
You should, that's one of the primary problems with the game. Trap options is like the second thing people warn you about.

>>53164508
Now you're just trying too hard.

>>53164504
You're kidding, right? D&D magic is ludicrously powerful for the fantasy genre. Most settings would consider your average mid-level D&D wizard an impossibly powerful archmage, if not some form of deity.

File: 1376692384780.jpg (40KB, 800x804px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 800x804px

>>53164614
>Thing is, even core 3.0 with all shit options thrown out still has considerably greater gameplay variety and choices than just about any system ever brought up as DnD's superior.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...OH MY GOD! *slaps knee* wew, goddamn man, another gem.

Keep 'em coming mate.

>>53164510
>Because DnD is pretty much Vanilla Action Heroes.

Vanilla action heroes are what is called "not real classes" and "classes less powerful than just one of my class features" in DnD.

>Mystic Empyrean?

"Narrativist", i.e. not actually a game except in the most technical sense of the word.

>Does something like CoC fall under Degenerate Gameplay or Vanilla Action?

Like what? Call of Cthulhu? Under both.

>>53164639
I'm just saying man, if you're defending 3.PF at this point in time, you'd do better giving us the number for your handler than for anyone ITT to pretend that you're here for a genuine discussion.

>>53164748
If you're genuinely making the "lel jocks" argument, I think your handler needs to be fired.

File: 1474249028578.jpg (13KB, 280x272px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 280x272px

>>53164825

>>53164846
C'mon, mix up the material. This is just getting boring.

>>53164676
>D&D magic is ludicrously powerful for the fantasy genre.

Utterly false. Let's take as an example Codex Alera books, because that's what I read last. Codex Alera's furycrafters are pretty smalltime compared to shit that fantasy heavyweights like Rand al'Thor or Pug the Magician can pull off. They need to cooperate with each other for more hardcore feats (do note that those harcore feats involve, say, burninating hundreds of foes in seconds and rebuilding a stone fortress on the fly so its walls are twice as tall). And yet in the first book alone we witnessed a guy single-handedly casting supernatural fear on an entire fucking army at least in high thousands. Without using glitches in the system, no DnD casters would be able to replicate this feat.

What DnD magic actually is we call "ludicrously flexible". Each individual feat of DnD magic is, as a rule, way below what it was in its source of inspiration. A Wall of Fire cannot instagib hundreds of heavy cavalry. Animate Dead cannot make a whole realm of obedient undead servants retaining skills they had in life. But DnD spellcasters can have both, despite them originating from different stories, and dozens other tricks on top.

File: 1485973414084.jpg (10KB, 480x271px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x271px

>>53164861

>>53164908
>A Wall of Fire cannot instagib hundreds of heavy cavalry.
What?

A wall of Flame can easily devastate a platoon of rank-and-fodder soldiers.

4e tried to kill a lot of my least favorite cows, but tg collectively decided that 4e not being dnd would be a nice meme.

The one cow it didn't kill that I wish it did was 3-18 ability scores. Odd stats not mattering exists for no reason other than tradition.

>>53165063
It sorta exists for feats and more granular stat advancement, but yeah...

>>53164725
This is just bizarre. You define things via class, and anything which falls outside of it is "Not a real class" and therefore must be this other thing.

I mean how does CoC fall under both those categories? I'd consider it vanilla action hero, since that's what a large amount of tabletop is. Leaping tables, saving the princess, planning and executing a heist for a corp. What exactly about CoC, Shadowrun, DH or Exalt is "degenerate"?

Hell I find those systems easier to balance out parties. In DnD I strive to keep the parties in check, because the difference between someone who is Level 4 and someone who is Level 6 is just way too easy a spotlight to steal. In the past I've usually made use of milestones.

In classless systems someone who has a more established character may excel in one area, or have a wider skillset but the newer guys are still able to keep pace relatively easy. I don't need to fiddle with the mechanics

>>53165129
It's for feats.

>>53160048
Ic
The wizard has a "horde" of wands and scrolls, and items, while the fighter has not even a healing potion.

Well. That seems like a totally fair and balanced comparison. Thanks msnbc.

>>53160533
4e...where every class is a caster!!

> My fighter does healing surge!!

GTFO with that shit

>>53163457
>And the worst bloody part of the entire goddamn morass is that you then get something like Combat Expertise or Power Attack or Two Weapon Fighting and it's *shit*, you need another 3-4 feats to upgrade them to their full capacity

Wtf? You mean the PC has to grow and get better? He doesn't start at max power?? Zomg!!!

>>53165343
>My fighter gets a second wind

>>53165343
>Call them Hit Die
>People calm down
Truly 4e brought out the hypocrites.

>>53165343
You didn't play it.

>>53165428
You clearly didn't read the post you linked to. Are you illiterate or just an asshole?

>>53165530
Fuck no.
I bought the phb and read it the day it came out.

Healing surges and dragonborn in core was enough to show me that it was stupid and not for us

>>53165552
Whatever faggot. The poster was crying that you had to take more than one feat to reach the peak.

> Waaaa waaaa i can't be the best without multiple feats!! Waaaa waaas

>>53165319
Nobody said the Fighter couldn't have healing potions but healing Xd8+Y damage when an enemy has already bloodied you isn't going to help all that much in the long run, especially since chugging those potions triggers an AoO, so all that health you just got back can easily be lost in an instant, setting you right back square one.

If he's buying potions, then that's less money that he has to invest in weapons, armors, and magic items to boost his numbers as well.

To say nothing on the fact that potions are single-use items that heal a finite amount of HP while scrolls and wands can actually change the state of combat in an instant.

>>53165552
Considering he plays 3.PF and defends it, probably both, with a dash of "autist" to really bring the retardation together.

>>53165612
If wizards can learn spells that allow him to gain an incremental benefit as soon as they learn it, why can't the Fighter gain feats that give an incremental benefit as soon as they learn it as well?

In the time it takes a martial to get good at grappling, most equal leveled encounters will be against large creatures that can't be grappled and the damage they deal will be less than what's required to survive against the same encounter.

Meanwhile, Wizard summons "Black Tentacles" and performs an AoE grapple against everyone within range of the spell, which coincidentally has no such limitations as the Fighter's grapple even though they're both equal leveled and (should) be capable of performing the same feats, even if the scale is different.

>>53164024
wow whoa please don't hurt me mr badass

>>53165686
Because wizards aren't fighters. And fighters aren't wizards.

They're different.

Why don't wizards get d10 hd?
Why can't wizards wear plate?
Why can't fighters make magic items?

>>53165641
I don't play 3.5 and I have never defended it.

But it's stupid to think that PC's shouldn't have to grow in skills and abilities.

Crying that you need multiple feats to reach the peak, is silly.

>>53157442
Wizards can make wands and scrolls as part of their basic class features. Them having a stockpile of both is a completely reasonable assumption, no matter what loot the DM's been dropping for them.

>>53156518
What, like spells? Or maneuvers? Or you mean being able to swap out class features for other ones?

>>53155732
Classes

Dice

Rules

OP

>>53166074
There's two problems with that. First, requiring multiple feats to reach the peak means any new feat chain you invest in starts at level 1. Once you get to the top, you have to start over with the next chain, and you're no better than a first level fighter would be.

Second, that's not how magic works. If a wizard decides to learn evocation at level 5, they start with fireball - they don't have to spend their spell slots for the next couple of levels building up with magic missile and resist elements.

Feats would work a lot better if you got less of them, but they automatically advanced - so you pick two-weapon fighting, and then every five levels you get a new attack. Then if you pick up the power attack chain at 5, you automatically get cleave and great cleave rolled in. And so on.

>>53157803
This is why 4e Warlords will always be my favorite "healer" class. They were extremely proactive in getting things dead and making the party do more cool shit. Healing being a minor action as a rule in 4e in general only helped that.

>>53166250
>wizards have infinite wealth with which to make magic items of course
>as well as access to every single spell ever all the time
>and infinite time to make magic items no matter what else may be happening in a game
>what do you mean Schrodinger's Wizard?

>>53166029
>Why don't wizards get d10 hd?

Polymorph.

>Why can't wizards wear plate?

They don't need to, because they have spells that protect them just as well, or better.

>Why can't fighters make magic items?

Good fucking question.
--------------------------------------------------

You are confusing "improves quadratically" with it being a niche, or at least a niche worth protecting.

It's not.

>>53166345
>Take that Strawman!
>And that! and that!
>Haha, I have soundly defeated yon strawman, that makes your unrelated argument invalid.

>>53166345
>wizards have infinite wealth
Once they're beyond level 11, yes. Planar binding means that anything worth less than 25000 gold is free for them. More if it's a magic item.

>>53166439
>planar binding
>you don't have to offer the servant being anything at all!
>those rules are just for grognards
>the GM would NEVER enforce anything that might accidentally gimp a wizard
>infinite wishes for everyone! Relaly!

>>53166439
So, you've never played D&D with an actual GM, I see.

>>53166554
If by actual GM you mean one that houserules everything? Sure, i've played with a couple.

>>53166529
>hasn't read the description of noble djinn
>doesn't realize you can keep doing this until the charisma check succeeds
>doesn't realize you only need this to work once so you can get a scroll of shapechange and a belt of magnificence then use zodar form to make your own wishes

laughingwizards.png

>>53166345
Just to actually take your argument for the closest I can to "seriously" for a moment though.

Let's assume we're talking about a level...3 Wizard for now. Low, but enough where they start getting some cash under their belt.

The cost of crafting a scroll is
>spell level x caster level x 25gp.
Leaving out the EXP cost to keep things simple.

Assuming for a moment you're crafting as many scrolls as you possibly can at level 3, assuming the Wizard has normal Wealth for his level.

The highest spell level a Wizard has at level 3 is 1, so each scroll costs
>3 x 1 x 25=75 gp per scroll

At level 3, Wealth rules say a Wizard should have about....2,700 gp.

Let's assume he only has half of that for crafting, and got the other half in...sex toys or something, fucking Wizards man.

So our Wizard has 1,350 gp to craft with.

Each scroll costs 75 gp as above, so oru Wizard is capable of crafting
>1,350/75= 18 scrolls

18 scrolls is way more than enough to last you long enough to get enough gold to start crafting higher level spells, especially when you remember these scrolls are your last resort anyways.

>>53157482
>charater is unique because a score is 11 instead of 10

>>53164333
At that point youve gotten rid of almost all mechanical crunch to the game, so why are you even calling it an "rpg", when you're basically just writing a story.

>>53161085
Positioning and movement, if you've already bit the bullet and accepted the grid, can make any role more interesting.
But "just" that is far too accepting of the flawed building blocks in the core of the game. D&D seems to be built around a couple design philosophies that might appear practical or even common sense in nature. The all-things-equal combat cycle is very simple blow trading using few modifiers, and the ancient damage vs hitpoints elevator. There's a solid reason for this, the core has to be simple so all the write in rules, tacked on additions, and extra options don't obscure the sight of any new or confused player. Spells, combat options like maneuvering, grappling, or positioning, special abilities and actions, etc, all manage to add a kind of depth to the core, but do not change the simplicity of that core. Simplicity is an understandable goal, but a better complexity vs depth ratio at the heart of the game and perhaps a reduction to the outer shells could make martials more interesting by giving them combat options besides trap investments, full attacks, five foot steps,and whatever one trick they've gotten almost good at after a five feat investment. At the same time, a better ratio of complexity and depth could serve the limbo-marooned healer role. They need not be better at shoving hitpoints into shit, for example a more robust wounds system (hint, no reason to not kill two birds with one stone and tie that to the martial's improvements) and a better thought out buff and debuff system would give them lots of choices, challenge, agency, and relevance to make the game more interesting and probably enjoyable.
Spellcasters currently sit atop a throne of options that they can get away with hoarding because the basic system doesn't give others the depth and possibility space that "Whatever my magic spell says happens, happens" gets away with while other roles are restricted to a weak foundation overburdened with makeshift crap "options".

>>53166664
>If by actual GM you mean one that houserules everything?
Mate the DMG empowers GMs to enforce WBL. That's not a house rule.

>>53167103
>ignoring the written rules for spells
>not a houserule
sure

>>53167170
Which part did you not understand?

>>53167189
I should be asking you that question.

>>53166554
>So, you've never played D&D with an actual GM, I see.

No DM i've ever played with would allow that bullshit. If the players cried too much about it, the dm would do something twisted, like say "Ok, fine, I'll allow it, but be aware that NPC's will be doing that nonsense as well"

But I can't seriously see it being allowed.

>>53166789
Nah, only ability scores.

Let's go by baby steps.

-Instead of 0-20 ability scores that you derive your modifiers from, let's go straight with modifiers
-notice that a difference of 1-2 on a d20 is fucking nothing, up the step to something meaningful, like 4-5.
-since your range is now -4, 0, +4, notice you may as well rate your stats as bad/average/good
-You don't really need to note the average ones, so how about you note only the good/bad ones?

>>53167298
Normally it'd be handled with an out of character discussion like that, but failing that, if you want to play a Schrodinger's Wizard there's nothing holding the DM back from playing a Rocks Fall DM.
Congratulations, you now exceed wealth by level by 50,000 gp, the hoards hungry ghosts lurking in the dirt beneath you pop out and surprise round you.
Well would you look at that, you've been killed or at least Intelligence drained to the point you can't cast spells anymore. Nothing in the rules prevents this from happening. You can start over at level 1.
Player vs DM is a bad way to play and a good way to lose your character.

>>53167395
>lose your character
It's a good way to lose your group, since anyone that puts up with that from a DM is a beta cuck.

>>53167333
>lets play dnd with d10's and call it different

>>53167424
>It's a good way to lose your group, since anyone that puts up with that from a DM is a beta cuck
>The dm is only there to give treasure out
>anything else and the players are cucks
mkay' anon

>>53167395
That the DM can at any point decide to fuck your character isn't really an argument worth making to prove that something isn't broken.

I mean, what are you arguing exactly? That since the character isn't more powerful than the DM everything is OK? Is that really the bar you want to use?

>>53167460
There can still be smaller modifiers, differences in bonuses due to level, etc, this is just for stats.

But you know what, sure. Still not >>53166789

>>53167511
No mate what we're just saying that DM is empowered to enforce the rulebooks. Wizards may be "broken" but they don't have infinite wealth because players don't get infinite wealth. It's grinding squirrels and Pun-pun builds, that stuff don't work if your DM is awake.

>>53167511
>That the DM can at any point decide to fuck your character isn't really an argument worth making to prove that something isn't broken.

I don't know that that would be the DM fucking the pc's. I mean if the PC's are breaking the cosmos, then NPC's would as well. Including creatures.

>>53167598
>Wizards may be "broken" but they don't have infinite wealth because players don't get infinite wealth.

I have noticed that a lot of /tg/ in their stories and stuff, often have had a dm that ALLOWED them to abuse the wbl guides.

>>53167598
If by enforce you mean change the rules for how spells work, they really aren't. To stop the wish thing from happening means you either need to change planar binding, the writeup of outsiders that have wish as a spell-like ability, spell-like abilities, or wish itself. That's not rules as written, no matter how you spin it. All of those are houserules.

>>53167729
>>53167729
>enforcing WBL
>clearly houserules

wat?

>>53167649
Such stories also include clerics who were allowed infinite free actions on their turn to create chickens because because DMs have final say in how many free actions are allowed based on what they decide is reasonable. Mostly, they're just stories. I've heard of one such DM existing, but his table was just an intentional shitfest of meme builds and abuse.

>>53167752
Show me how you'd enforce wbl without changing the things i've listed, which are clearly houserules.

>>53167803

Taxes.
Increased cost of everything due to the massive influx of gold to the region/setting.

Just to name a couple.

>>53167864
Do give fuel to the /pol/

I guess someone already said that complaining about sacred cows on older editions is stupid and was dismissed.

>>53167864
His money never leaves his hand since he's using it for magic item crafting.

>>53167864
Sure, those are valid setting changes. Won't stop the wizard from having infinite wealth, but you can totally do those.

It will deeply fuck your fighter, though. So in the theoretical fighter vs. wizard match he probably won't have any equipment at all.

>>53155732
>Hopefully it's inflammatory enough to get attention.

Gotta respect that open troll.

>>53167912
Magic items have a cost. For materials, etc.

It leaves his fucking hand, you're being stupid. He doesn't evaporate the gold, he spends it.

>>53167944
Not once he starts using planar binding.

>>53167752
>>53167803
Sounds like WBL (? not really familiar with D&D) contradicts PHB.
So, with two sets of rules that are both "right", it would strike that the rule is really "houserule that shit so everyone has fun".

>>53167899
(You)

>>53167920
I get your point. I think it's not exactly accurate tho.

IF the dm allows the mage to violate the wbl standards in place, and taxes, (in their various forms), isn't enough to fix the wbl, then I'd expect that the wizard will end up spending so much of his power and spells, PROTECTING his hoard, that the subject becomes moot.

In the "unlimited wishes" argument, I'd rule that other wish granting creatures were taking offence at the wizard abusing the power of their fellow creatures, and rally an attack on his castle/tower/person.

>>53156432
quite

>>53167965
>Sounds like WBL (? not really familiar with D&D) contradicts PHB.
Not at all. The DM sets the pace and the setting of the game. He's guided by the WBL, the PHB isn't really factoring in where WBL is concerned.

>So, with two sets of rules that are both "right", it would strike that the rule is really "houserule that shit so everyone has fun".
In those cases that rules clash, I agree.

>>53168004
Look, the entire point of a wish economy is that once you enter it gold becomes meaningless. The wizard doesn't have a horde because why the fuck would he need one? All he has to do is summon a genie whenever he wants something, and that takes a single level 6 spell slot. And again, he can make those wishes himself without involving an outsider by using shapechange. Or a ring of three wishes. Or several other methods that i forget at the moment.

You may not like it, but in a fighter vs wizard fight, the wizard has infinite wealth past level 11 and the fighter doesn't. That's rules as written.

>>53168089
>That's rules as written.
>Clearly violates and twists WBL

Pick one.

>>53168125
Rules as written for
>WBL
>3 or 4 spells, multiple creature writeups, the actual rules of magic

pick one

>>53157370
well, how do you generate those stats? d4? Kills the curve, for one thing.

>>53168173
>3 or 4 spells, multiple creature writeups, the actual rules of magic
You need not violate this. You just need to have a DM that is awake. There are infinite options available to him, which is why you're better off coming to an out of character agreement. It's the same as crafting wondrous items, apparently you should be able to double your wealth by level with them, but the rules suggest the DM give the player a limit like 25% WBL in which he can hold crafted items. If you're purposefully ignoring good intent and abusing the systems whenever possible you should be removed from the game.

>>53157411
Why isn't your fighter getting magic items?

Also, have you considered this problem is created by playing what is functionally an NPC class from before they had those?

>>53168236
Same rolling, but note down the modifier instead of the roll.

Pull cards with arrays on them.

Realize rolling is an outdated mechanic.

>>53168265
>Why isn't your fighter getting magic items
No. Just NO.

All magic goes to the mage. ALL magic items, potions, EVERYTHING.

Now, we'll compare an optimized lv 20 wizard, to a lv 3 fighter......because that's how /tg/ rolls.

>>53168264
Hate the game, not the player.

>>53168309
There's really no need for strawmen.

Google lvl 20 wizard vs lvl 20 fighter with WBL limits for both if you want.

>>53167395
>if you want to play a Schrodinger's Wizard

I wish this meme would die already.

>>53168264
>fetishizing WBL this much
Let's take a look at what the actual book says, shall we? WBL is a 2 paragraph blurb on page 135 of the DMG

>One of the ways in which you can maintain measurable control on PC power is by strictly monitoring their wealth, including their magic items. Table 5-1: Character Wealth by Level is based on average trasures found in average encounters cmopared with the experience points earned in those encounters. Using that information, you can determine how much wealth a character should have based on her level.
>The baseline campaign for the D&D game uses this "wealth by level" guideline as a basis for balance in adventures. No adventure meant for 7th-level characters, for example, will require or assume that the party possesses a magic item that costs 20,000gp.

So no, WBL does not empower the DM to rewrite abilities, spells, or core rules to fit their needs. It's supposed to be a guideline to help you design encounters as a DM.

>>53165343
>>53165578
>idiot who wants tabletop to have healbots like video games
>hates 4e without ever playing it
What a surprise.

>>53167920
>It will deeply fuck your fighter, though.

This is basically the easiest way to describe 90% of the houserules meant to keep the Wizard in line desu. They end up being minor inconveniences to the Wizard who's still laughing at everything standing in his way while the classes who were already struggling at being relevant just get fucked even harder.

>>53159790
whats the difference? between them and a d20?

>>53165343
>My fight does healing surge!!

You don't actually know what healing surges are do you?

>>53160516
>they are wearing cloth because they have no heavy armor
They have light and medium proficiency, so even if you're a dex based cleric you're not going to be armorless. Even trickery will generally use medium armor, as the only downside is that they're worse at stealth, which is a small price to pay. If you're not wearing armor and tanking some damage, you're gimping yourself.

>>53168485

3d6 stuff is more solid. Ya don't ever fuck up big, but the downside is you never really do amazing either. It's all based on skill points more than the roll.

D20 allows for you to fuck up in a monumental way, but also win big. It swings more whereas 3d6 and more "accurate" dice tend to swing a lot less in that regard.

Not the guy you replied to, though. Just jumping in to say that before the inevitable shitstorm of people debating the merits and flaws of each system.

>>53161668
>we have a party full of casters in 3rd edition and it's easy

no shit?

>>53164392
Fuck it, I'll bite.
>the fact that
_assertion_ that
>every single classless system
Either you've played a LOT of games, or you're talking bull.
>produces degenerate gameplay
What the fuck do you mean by this? You're going to have to define your terminology here. Do you mean "stops working mechanically?" or "stops emulating the chosen genre" or "encourages transfeminism" or "stops being satisfying for gamist play" or something else?
>above vanilla action hero level.
Again, we're going to have to nail this down, because everything's relative. I think I have a better feel for what you mean than the last point but... still.

>>53155841
Yes. What's wrong with pastel green skin?

>>53168919
He clarifies here >>53164725

Which I think Shadowrun shows him to be an idiot and wrong by the majority of his definition. But since part of his definition is "not real classes", then he cannot be wrong by the full definition he is using.

Which is why he's a retard.

>>53169023
Hmm, I think I see.
So Vanilla Action Heroes is... Lvl 1-3 fighters in D&D and other characters of similar capability? Tanky, couple of good skills, hits stuff with a stick? And anything more powerful than that can't be done classless?
I might have suggested M&M, or maybe Vampire, or GURPS, or a dozen other things, except I have no idea what he means by "degenerate play."
Unless he thinks that Mekton system is so unbearably sexy he can't help but go full magical realm. That would be degenerate.

>>53156364
>>53156278
If Clerics were actually full on casters that would be good but they're always given maces, heavier armor and obligation to be a frontliner. If you made the clerics a full on priest, casting class it would be a lot better.

>>53169219
Purely depends on how you play them.
I've always seen the four man band D&D party as Fighter and Rogue up front wrecking shit, with Cleric and Wizard hanging back, piling on the buffs and Cleric nailing any spare kobolds that make it past the Destructive Duo up front.

>>53160984
>Fighters no longer get castles and retinues
Good. What the fuck good is a handful of low-level NPCs at the cost of a hundred years of bookkeeping?

>>53161944

In old-school D&D, it was because you rolled attributes, and they constrained your choice of class. "Rolled high on into, guess I'm a wizard guys".

In later D&D, it was a simulationist thing - being strong gave you base competency in areas X, Y and Z stength-related things.

In point-buy systems, it's pretty redundant, because every fighter buys the same strength (maybe deviating by one), which makes all fighters identical in terms of strength-related skills, so they might as well be folded into class.

>>53164315
>Ineffective options are NOT OPTIONS. Period.
A million times this.

>>53164487
>Cool, I'll remember that whenever people bring up 3.PF's large repertoire of splats.
That large repertoire of splats is shit. If they condensed all the meaningful choices into one single book, it would be a better game.

>>53169431
Fight non-ludicrous wars and border skirmishes
More chances at drama, interpersonal fun
Ranger: "I forage" Wizard: "I conjure food" Fighter: "I dunno, I have people for that shit"
Castles are sick, and also rad

>>53164527
Yes.

That reasoning there was why I don't.

>>53164315
there's nothing ineffective about those options.
And there's nothing remotely the same about that example situation.

Reading comprehension, you lack it.

>>53165220
>This is just bizarre.

No, you're ignorant.

>You define things via class, and anything which falls outside of it is "Not a real class" and therefore must be this other thing.

A real class is a class that has class abilties. Not a real class is what initially fighter was called, due not having any and therefore not being worth shit. But the same logic applies to classes which class abilities are useless.

>What exactly about CoC, Shadowrun, DH or Exalt is "degenerate"?

CoC - does not properly reflect source material, actual game part has pretty much zero depth or interesting mechanical choices in it, and masquerades that fact by being swingy and making PCs super weak compared to what they face.

DH - does not properly reflect source material. Incredibly filddly for very little payoff in terms of abilities during actual play. Once you bring characters on the level of actual Inquisitors and daemonhosts and shit to the table, the game breaks, or reaches what I call degenerate state, where rolling is a formality. Because placing both hive rats and Bloodthirsters on the same RNG going 1-100 was an idiotic choice. Unless of course psykers break the system before.

Exalted, well, by seriously asking what is wrong with it, you've proven that you're just an idiot. But to name just the main problem, character generation in every edition of Exalted is insanely fiddly and time-consuming, and combat is supposed to be intricately tactical, thus allowing all that crunch to pay off. Yet it isn't. Exalted 1E's combat is making normal attacks for hours on end until someone gets really unlucky or everyone gets bored, Exalted 2E is same shit, except also very deterministic, and avowed fans of the system regularly give tacit admissions that it does not work by talking how you should have other goals in battle than defeating the other sise.

>>53168270
Are you saying filthy cards are the way of the future, you foul degenerate? Get off my /tg/.

>>53166074
>>53165612
A fighter picks Weapon Focus as a Feat, and their core class features are getting Feats. Weapon Focus provides +1 to hit.

A wizard picks spells as their core class feature and a wizard picks Fireball as their 3rd level spell. The core feature of a fireball is that it "deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6)"

This means that a wizard invests once, gets Fireball, and Fireball remains useful as they level up. A fighter invests once, gets Weapon Focus, and then have to pay another feat for Greater Weapon Focus. Specialization. Offhand attacks. Damage. Want to try something else? Well there's only so many feats, you can't change them, and if you don't get the one you need now you're automatically behind. The core fucking issue isn't that people grow over time, it's that the metris they grow buy are uneven despite there being mechanics specifically for fixing that brokenness. If fighter physical feats were changed to something like "Get a bonus = 1/4th your BAB", then suddenly their progressive base attack bonus ties into their class features. Casters get Caster Levels as a core mechanic that ensures all their picks stay relevant. At the core of it, the fact that others don't also have a level relevant metric for increasing their abilities is the central problem. +1 to hit is also +1 at lvl 14, where good AC is >40 and your +1 might as well not exist.

>>53165220
(cont.)
Shadowrun is the only system here that largely works (depending on edition) and is actually interesting as a game. But it is way lower-powered than DnD.

>Hell I find those systems easier to balance out parties.

Those systems, except DH, which has a semi-class system, but Exalted most of all, also have a problem of nonexistent party balance, when characters optimized for different situation play entirely different games. A social monkey of the exact same EXP as a killing machine at best can stay alive and contribute next to nothing during combat, at worst will be casually obliterated. And vice versa. In essence, characters are not even playing the same game.

The same fucking shit happened in every WW game, too, once characters crossed into the elder territory.

>In DnD I strive to keep the parties in check, because the difference between someone who is Level 4 and someone who is Level 6 is just way too easy a spotlight to steal.

I wonder what sort of person may fail to figure out that the EXACT PURPOSE of levels is delineating big fucking differences in power between characters. I mean, they not always fulfill it, not nearly, thanks again to classes like Fighter, but the idea should not be hard to get.

>In classless systems someone who has a more established character may excel in one area, or have a wider skillset but the newer guys are still able to keep pace relatively easy.

Only if that class system deals with vanilla action heroes and slightly better vanilla action heroes, and nothing stronger.

In Exalted "a more established character" easily may be worth many hundreds of freshly generated PCs. Even in DH a top rank acolyte basically leaves novice no chances to compete.

>>53169611
Zero mechanical function, then?

>>53168578
Fucking learn to read. Or at least actually do it. I was talking about percentile dice.

>>53168125

False dichotomy. The correct answer is that the rules are mutually contradictory, and therefore shit.

>>53169809
>making PCs super weak compared to what they face.

But that's the point?

>>53169809

Exalted 3E's been out for more than a year now, genius.

>>53169858
You're saying that like it's important.

>>53169809
>CoC - does not properly reflect source material, actual game part has pretty much zero depth or interesting mechanical choices in it, and masquerades that fact by being swingy and making PCs super weak compared to what they face.
Christ, I don't know where to start. It might not have mechanical (I assume you mean character build) options on the level of 3.5e D&D but it's still very enjoyable. Unpicking a well-written mystery using the tools your character has is still a real challenge. Not representing the source material is something for another day, but I fundamentally disagree.
>DH - does not properly reflect source material. Incredibly filddly for very little payoff in terms of abilities during actual play. Once you bring characters on the level of actual Inquisitors and daemonhosts and shit to the table, the game breaks, or reaches what I call degenerate state, where rolling is a formality. Because placing both hive rats and Bloodthirsters on the same RNG going 1-100 was an idiotic choice. Unless of course psykers break the system before.
I don't think you're really supposed to get tot he Bloodthirster tier of power with actual DH, you need to go to the other 40k RPGs to do that well. I'm also fairly sure the core rulebook tells you so. Other criticisms are valid.
>Exalted, well, by seriously asking what is wrong with it, you've proven that you're just an idiot.
Like all explicitly anime-flavoured /tg/ stuff, Exalted is a turd.

>>53168919
>Either you've played a LOT of games,

I did, and I ran a lot of games too. Exalted, almost everything else White Wolf, GURPS, Dark Heresy, Savage Worlds, and that's counting only those I have extensive experience with.

>What the fuck do you mean by this?

Mechanical breakdown: the resolution degenerating to the state where rolling of dice is practically meaningless, or conflicts are resolved in one roll (this is rarer), or resolution takes forever in real time. And/or there is no meaningful player choices.

Experience has shown me, that in DnD, no matter the edition, you need to actively work on making things this bad. Classless systems, once characters become something greater than mundane mortals, often do the job for you.

>Again, we're going to have to nail this down, because everything's relative.

A character with no overt superhuman abilities, who deviates from reality by no more than would be acceptable for an action movie protagonist.

>>53170114
Hmm.
Vampire The Masquerade might hit what you call a degenerate state, but only right at the far end of the power spectrum. Up until then there are various "trump" powers but they can all lock down each other depending on circumstance.
Mutants and Masterminds never went full meaninglessness, at least no easier than D&D 3.5 (I'm going to discount tricks equivalent to Pun-Pun for other systems, nothing's perfect).
Witchcraft and Conspiracy X 2.0 both function well with powered characters, and while starting characters can be a bit Vanilla as you put it, they progress rapidly without losing relevance (unless designed as pacifists).
The Cinematic Unisystem games Buffy and Angel go a little beyond the vanilla level too, without collapsing in on themselves.
FATE.... ehhh... Depends on your outlook, but people do run perfectly fulfilling games at high power levels if you like that sort of thing. Same with the Smallville system, Cypher (I think?)
Champions works fine at higher power levels.
GURPS... I don't think I've seen GURPS fail utterly except at the Dr. Manhattan end of Supers, but the load on the GM is extreme and front-loaded.
Shadowrun is perfectly functional and has player characters with trans-sonic reaction times or who can shoulderbarge a truck.

>>53169279
That's basically how D&D worked before 3rd fucked everything up.

>>53170348
>>53156364

>According to the second edition Player's Handbook, the cleric class is similar to certain religious orders of knighthood of the Middle Ages such as the Teutonic Knights, the Knights Templar, and Hospitalers, which combined military and religious training with a code of protection and service. Archbishop Turpin (of The Song of Roland) is an example of such a cleric.
Get BTFO with your clothie clerics meme. They've had same THAC0 as Rogues and access to better armor, but casting spells were more valuable than smacking things with stuff, and you didn't want to be hit while casting. That's the whole reason for backlining.

>>53170114
Let's break this retardation down.
>the resolution degenerating to the state where rolling of dice is practically meaningless
A mage's spells will, more often than not, resolve whole combat encounters before the rest of the party even gets a chance to roll.
>conflicts are resolved in one roll (this is rarer)
Many skill checks in the game only allow for one roll to resolve an action.
>resolution takes forever in real time.
Combat falls under this criteria in D&D as well since everyone has so much health that they'll never be KO'd before round 5 on average. The only times when this isn't the case is if the DM goes out of their way to throw something out of their level that can kill them in 2 rounds/player (usually because they think the party can handle it but fails to account for an ability or poor luck) or if magic is involved.
>there is no meaningful player choices.
Martials
>I (full) attack the monster until it's dead
Mages
>I cast one of several game-ending spells.

>>53169014
Why not just orcs? We've moved away from demonizing orcs, they're now more like Vikings and the Huns with a little less romanticization.

>>53171504
>They've had same THAC0 as Rogues
wat?