Now I made a "superhero systems do high fantasy better than

bump because I want this to be explored but I have no clue how to answer it.

>>54208862

From the people who are actually complaining, nothing.

Their complaints aren't rational, they're based in the dumb 3.PF double standard that only spellcasters are allowed to have nice things.

As you point out, in vidya and, heck, in most other RPG's it isn't a thing, but a vocal minority of the RPG community still cling to it as if it is somehow objectively correct.

Personally, I'm fine with Martials doing all sorts of things. Healing, guarding allies, buffs and debuffs, special maneuvers of all kinds. Although Darkest Dungeon uses it differently, the various movement manipulation abilities they get are also very cool.

>>54208862
There are plenty of systems grounded in reality where martials have a lot of options in combat, I wouldn't use a superhero system for that kind of game though, that being said martials still need more options than what's offered in 3.pf and 5e

>>54209082
3.PF has taught an entire generation of roleplayers that casters need to be capable of anything other than full attacking, and that a martial capable of anything more than full attacking is mechanically no different then a wizard.

It fucking hurts to be honest.

>>54209228
I hate that DnD is so combat heavy and simultaneously has such a boring combat system for martials

>>54209247

Well, they tried to fix that for 4e and a chunk of their core fanbase rebelled over it, so they basically abandoned it. It's a damn shame.

>>54209247
That's why the only D&D systems I'll run or play are AD&D 2e or D&D 4e. I'm considering picking up some older editions when I have the time.

2e has always been a fucking blast for me. Add on that it's older than I am, and you get a nearly limitless amount of third party shit you can use as needed.

4e at least has fun combat when you fix the health bloat.

>>54209270
Honestly while I like 4e a lot it makes sense why it wasn't successful in that it was so different from 3.5, they could have stayed closer to 3.5 while still fixing martials which would have been more commercially successful

>>54209314
Never played 2e, how does it fix martials?

>>54209339
You still had casters bitching when supps like PoW were released.

I argue a large part of the issue is where full caster players get the majority of their fun/satisfaction from: upsetting the vast majority of obstacles with straightforward and effortless application of their spells, and lauding the shear ease of such success over the heads of their martial peers.

>>54209446
The problem with PoW was that it made martials feel like they weren't mundane, if you buffed the combat manouver system, added really good feats exclusive to martials, and merged spell casters you could fix the problem with out alienating the 3.5 player base

>>54209566

I never really understood this, for PoW or 4e. Then again, it might be because I came to D&D from other RPGs, rather than the reverse? The idea of non-magical characters having abilities tied to a resource management system just never seemed strange to me.

>>54209566
But Martians aren't mundane in vanilla D&D 3.PF anon. That's why they have access to large HP pools, and supernatural/extraordinary feats and class features.

A man who can single handily go toe to toe with an ogre without magic items is not mundane in any way.

>>54209082
This. I've literally never seen this weirdly stark mundane/notmundane divide anywhere but 3.pf. Myths, novels, movies, games, I can't recall another system/setting that inspires the same STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM principle over a guy with a sword doing weird shit.

>>54209339
In hindsight, yes, it would have been more commercially successful. That doesn't mean it made sense that everyone reeeee'd over literally "it's not 3.5".

>>54209619
martials not Martians. Fucking autocorrect.

>>54208862
Darkest dungeon is a game, it has very low verisimilitude. Idiot.

>>54209645

It's funny that you act like that means anything.

>>54209189
haveyoutriednotplayingdnd.tiff

>>54209645
Dungeons and Dragons is a game, it has very low testosterone. Faggot.

>>54209351
It doesn't. 2e still has overpowered, do-all casters and all martials can do is get more attacks.

>>54209656
Its funny that you act like it doesnt. Darkest dungeon is designed around strategy game mechanics, which do not share the same priorities as an RPG. The reason people dont want healing surges and sensu beans in their games is the same people wouldnt want something like that in their fiction: because they're not children.

>>54209680

Martials are still relatively competitive in 2e, since mages are weaker and the XP scaling favours martials the majority of the game. They also get more side benefits like followers, and the general lighter and more improvisational approach of the system fills in the gap a bit. It still isn't great though. The combat is more fast than it is deep.

>>54209668
Dungeons and Dragons is a roleplaying system. You could no more compare it to Darkest Dungeon than you could compare it to checkers: it bears only a passing resemblance in its design priorities.

>>54209686

Ahh, so you believe your taste is objectively correct. Well, we're all willing to wait until you mature a little bit and realise you aren't special.

>>54209701

No, Dungeons and Dragons is a Roleplaying Game. The Game bit is important too, right alongside the Roleplaying bit.

>>54209686
I take it you don't read much.

Fiction, especially fantasy, is full of situations where a character gets back up and keeps on keeping because they either found an internal reserve of energy (second wind) or because someone give them words of motivation.

For the sensu beans: mythology is fucking chock full of healing foods you cock sucking troglodyte.

>>54209686
See rune quest, more realistic than DnD, martials can still do more things than full attack and aren't worse than casters, there are options to fix caster supremacy in both high and low realism games, it's just that 3.PF doesn't have them

>>54209704
No, I just believe that a narrative should have diagetic justifications for things that happen, and that scarcity is important.

Try actually arguing rather than just dropping trou and shitting on the thread. You may learn something.

>>54209727
You aren't going to win with that argument he's just going to yell at you about realism

>>54209566
That's sort of what this thread is about, this weird idea that as soon as you name your sword attack it's magic and only casters can use magic.

Beyond that, problem for who? I see a shitload of bitching about 4e martials not being martials, but weirdly it's never from their perspective. eg "EVERYONE IS CASTERS NOW BOOO" rather than "Well shit, I just want to play a guy who hits things." So... is this a problem with people wanting to be mundane, or people wanting OTHER people to be mundane, as sayeth >>54209446


>>54209645
>atmospheric gritty Lovecraftian dungeon crawler
>very low verisimilitude
fite me

>>54209727
Bad fiction, sure, which can often include myths. Many mythical cycles and epic poems are celebrated as prototypes, but rarely are the lauded as masterpieces.

>>54209743

So, no, you believe your opinions are correct, and you're just here to be an asshole about it to other people. Fuck off.

>>54209785
No, I understand that some people like different things. The only aspect of this that's at odds with your own opinion is that I think people who need their heroes to dust off all the damn time are children. Which they are. Which you are, in fact.

>>54209769
Part of why the martial/caster divide is so pervasive is because it plays directly into the "Revenge of the Nerds" fantasies pushed in geek culture.

Man, fuck geek culture.

>>54209769
I mean martials in 4e do feel greater than mundane, that's not a defense of 3.PF though when more mundane systems lack caster supremacy

>>54209803

>I respect your opinion even though I'm going to judge you for it

Fuck off

>>54209816
That's part of it but non int casters are also usually more powerful than martials, and it's possible to play martials who rely on guile over raw force

>>54209770
You're so full of cocks you've become retarded.

I hope to God you neve breed.

>>54209803
You're ignoring that there are realistic systems that lack caster supremacy and have more options for martials than full attack

>>54209846
If you take OP at face value, he is too. He's saying that people who like high fantasy games would be better off doing away with the pretense and just playing a superhero game. He's come to one of the core criticism of 4e, among other games, from a different angle.

>>54209699
Only reason martials have any sort of relevance in AD&D is because combats are much faster than they were in 3rd+.

Casters are *way* better at pretty much everything. A mage with stoneskin can actually outmelee a fighter.

>>54209881
You seem to have a wire crossed somewhere. I just joined this discussion and have yet to say anything about problems related to caster supremacy. Unless Im missing something.

>>54209873
Are you going to sit there and tell me that every chapter of the Illiad, for example, is necessary and compelling? or that Beowulf isnt just a mary sue? or that Sun Wukong is a deep and well developed character?

>>54209701
Not really. D&D ( particularly in 3rd and 4th ed) pretty much became a party combat game with Role Playing interactions.

File: 1495020465753.png (45KB, 489x301px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 489x301px

>>54209816
"Revenge of the Nerds" is a factor, but so are "white knights," in the sense that people want to play strong and charismatic protectors who will stick up for the bullied, which is where you get martials/paladins.

I also doubt "Revenge of the Nerds" is a large factor, because there are many who love the "white knight" archetype and playing it. I think the real rub comes from dissonant standards: martials are held to reality and casters aren't. Pic related.

>>54209916
The problem is that mages can do everything, AND combat. A simple solution would be to pair back the amount of magic that casters can use, forcing them to do things that other characters cannot (i.e. not combat). Other systems do this and it works great.

>>54209934
In practice, sure, but ideally thats not what they intended to make (in 3x's case anyway). The prof of that is that nobody would reflexively identify them the way you have. Granted, its what they're best at.

>>54209942

If you look at how the 3.PF design teams approached their systems, and they way they treated the spell as a fundamental unit of design, they had some kind of caster bias going.

>>54209927
I asumed that you initially joined the argument to defend how 3.PF handles martials, but if your only problem is that you don't like martials that are more than mundane than it's simply a matter of taste

>>54209971
Do you have a source on that? Ive always assumed that no design logic was used in 3e, and Id love to hear what they thought they were doing.

>>54209883

I'm not sure how you get that read from the OP. Especially since I was around for the first thread, and I'm pretty damn sure he was just sincerely curious and interested as to whether it would work better.

Although yes, 4e is a system about fantasy heroes, awesome people who do awesome things. It's a large part of why I love it, and I don't think pointing it out is a criticism. It's an expression of an alternate preference, but if the game was never trying to achieve something, you can't really complain that it fails to do so.

>>54209982
Thats not my argument either. Im just arguing against having mechanical features that have no diagetic grounding. Im fine with Exalted, for example, because it explains the origins of the PC's abilities and why they are set apart from mundane people.

>>54208862
Too gamey.

>>54209989

Look up the old Monte Cook ivory tower stuff. There's also little elements like the 'Spells' chapter being the largest part of the entire PHB, dwarfing everything but the magic item lists. And how the magic system applied to mortal wizards is used to represent literally all forms of special ability, with most races and creatures having their most definitive and thematic abilities generally boiling down to 'functions like x spell'.

>>54210002
The designers seem to think they were trying to achieve something, otherwise they wouldnt have called it Dungeons and Dragons. We dont need to go there though, because, believe it or not, thats not an argument that I feel like having: we all know eachother's points, and its always just going to be different strokes for different folks. Ironically, a stroke is just what both games have effectively experienced.

>>54210020

You're stating a preference for a certain kind of game design. And that's fine. But a game failing to suit your preferences is not an argument that it's a bad game or a bad design decision.

>>54209971
>>54210030
That's what happens when the only thing you're almost not awful at designing is spells. Fuck knows they had no idea how to design anything else, and that shows. It shows real bad.

>>54210030
Im familiar with Ivory Tower, I was hoping to hear that they employed something more principled, albeit obviously broken. Thanks anyway.

>>54210052
Assuming that you're making a game designed to suit and support a narrative, how is it incorrect to demand some accounting for the game within the narrative. There are no characters which fly apropos of nothing. None which can turn invisible without some manner of explanation. Why should it be then that player characters get a pass?

I agree that its a difference of opinion. Defend yours.

>>54210052
Not that guy but imo he has a solid argument, one of the biggest advantages TTRPG has over other mediums is the freedom and immersion they provide rather than robust gameplay, balance and enjoyable gameplay are important but you shouldn't sacrifice immersion for them

>>54210020
So tell me, how is a Wizard's background/justification of their powers being "studied until I gained godlike powers" except-able, but "I studied/trained until I gained godlike powers" not when it's a martial character?

>>54210124
That's not his argument, he could have been clearer with what his point was, but that's not his argument

>>54210124
Because magic is established as a THING that people can learn. If Dungeons and Dragons established some kind of weaboo fightan magics it would be fine. See my Exalted example. You're coming at this assuming I want all martials to be dirt farmers with rakes. Im perfectly comfortable with martials having a greater capacity, but they need to explain HOW that works. Whats even stranger is that they've made an attempt to do that sort of thing with monks, but they've always under performed.

>>54210121
Verisimilitude is subjective. I find casters being walking gods, threatened only by other casters, when compared to their relatively feeble martial counterparts, to be a massive break in immersion.

>>54210121

I've never had any trouble getting immersed in a system because of meta-mechanics or whatever you want to call them. I got into RPGs where they were just an accepted part of how things worked, which is why I find it bloody confusing when people flip their shit about them. Narrative currencies, per scene abilities, story powers that operate at a narrative level are things I've always been able to interact with without any negative impact on my experience of a game.

>>54210095

Because the in universe events are explained and supported at the time. That the mechanics and systems that govern those don't map onto them one to one isn't a bug, it's a feature. It lets you focus on moments that matter, letting you actively have a hand in pacing and guiding the story.

And, again, it isn't for everyone. I'm not saying that your preferred playstyle is wrong. But you can go fuck yourselves if you're trying to say that your preferred playstyle is somehow 'right' or superior.

>>54210149
That was his arguement, >>54210165

>>54210121
But it's only compromising his immersion because of his entirely subjective feelings that "I read weird books until I can shoot lightning out of my dick" doesn't break immersion, but "I put myself through training from hell until I can shoot lighting out of my sword" does.

>>54210172
He wasn't defending caster supremacy though, nor was he complaining about martials being more than mundane, he seems to specifically have a problem with mechanical effects which realistically couldn't be from a mundane source being fluffed as mundane

>>54210174
Its less that its wrong, and more that its a poor angle of approach. Its perfectly possible to get good results from poor methods, especially with something with so many emergent properties that relies so heavily on creativity. The point is that without some kind of mapping, to borrow your term, you run the risk of creating a sequence of events that the players cannot readily grok/explain. Will they be able to some of the time? Sure. But not all of the time. Therein lies the flaw. While thats not necessarily dangerous to the immersion of seasoned players, it is dangerous to the impression of newer players, who can quickly learn to dissociate the narrative from gameplay.

>>54210229

>realistically

And this is why that point of view is stupid. The idea that martials have to be 100% realistic while magic can do anything is dumb. Myths and legends contains countless accounts of heroes doing impossible things just because they were that damn good, no magic to be seen.

>>54210196
If you read you would realize is that all he wants is a non mundane explanation in the fluff for martials with powers

>>54210165
The justification is left to the GM and the player, just as it is with Wizards.

We have no idea what kind of studies the wizard underwent, what discoveries they made, or risks they took. All we know is they have access to X spells, Y times per long rest, because "study"

That explanation is on par with a barbarian having rage powers because he's "super angry"

You're asking for fluf that is intentionally left open. D&D is not a White Wolf game, it's purposefully left vague so it can be molded to the needs of the GM and crew.

Monks are underwhelming because they're mechanically dependent on at least four different attributes, an are thus spread too thin.

>>54210229
This is close to the truth. Its less that I have a problem with it being fluffed as mundane, and more that its fluffed as nothing.

Why do player characters get healing surges (for example)? What is physically, or spiritually different about them that allows them that power?

Thats not to say Im against power fantasy, because Im fine with Exalted, because there is a line between normal people and heroes.

>>54210244

It's only been a problem for one group of people, in my experience. People who started with D&D.

Other systems? No issue. Heck, most new players don't even think about that until explicitly informed of it, and I don't bother because it isn't relevant. I tell them how the game works, tell them they can fluff thing show they like as long as it fits the theme is appropriate to the context, we play the game and it's great.

So fuck you and your 'poor angle of approach' bullshit. You don't like it. That is the only rationale you are holding, so quit trying to be faux-objective about it.

>>54210260
And if he actually read the books he would realize that the vast majority of martial powers are already fluffed/categorized as supernatural or extraordinary.

RTFM people.

>>54210268

Because they're the main characters of the story. It's that simple.

>>54210264
That doesnt answer my question though of why they've just given up on explaining the logic behind non-diagetic powers. Its fine (to an extent) to admit there is no excuse, which is where at least some people Im talking to have landed, but then we're having a different discussion.

Im aware of why monks are underwhelming from a mechanical perspective

>>54210268
I mean 4e is high enough fantasy that healing surges fit, but I can agree with your position just not your example

>>54208862
What's the difference between martial and spellcasters if they both have spells? How can you say they're not spells, if they are mechanically equal or very similar?

If the only difference between martial and spellcaster is that one has a sword when the other doesn't, the separation is devoid of meaning and you shouldn't try to make it. I think the problem is not people who considers that "martials" shouldn't have spells (or whater name you want to give it). The problem is people who believes that spellcasters should be weak nerds without armour and swords.

Have an all "martial" game or an all spell-caster one.

>>54210289

They haven't given up on explaining it. They've given it a narrative explanation. That you don't like it doesn't stop it existing.

>>54210272
>people who started with D&D
Thats most people these days.

How am I being faux objective when you just agreed that there was a hazard to the design? I agree that Im motivated by opinion and conviction, but at the very least I can explain why I feel that way, and why I believe that deserves to be taken into account. Im not just spitting something back onto my plate and shaking my head like a child.

>>54210312

Or, alternatively, you have both make use of the same fundamental set of mechanics, but in distinct and interesting ways.

Y'know, the way most successful RPGs of the type do it. Letting everyone use resources, letting everyone have cool things, but making the practical side of the mechanics the focus rather than obsessing over subsystems.

>>54210305
It fits the tone, sure, but the point remains that its not explained anywhere.

>>54210286
Im curious how you feel about DM fudging for sake of narrative then. Not even fishing for an opportunity to be confrontational. I just want a better impression of where you're coming from.

>>54210174
I'm fine with meta mechanics but the specific example of someone healing wounds with encouragement would be immersion breaking for me

>>54210289
It's because they intentionally didn't explain anything. Even magic has no actual explaination. That's the entire point, since D&D was designed to be kitchen sink fantasy.

>>54210320

Let me clarify then- People who started with 3.PF.

But why the hell should we let that restrict RPG design? Why should we let that define the scope of what can be done? The industry clearly hasn't, and although D&D is still the biggest it's lost market share significantly. Breaking away from the D&D model, doing things differently and exploring new options is only a good thing for the hobby. Even if some of those attempts don't work, plenty do, and we've got a wider and more interesting variety of experiences available as a result.

>>54210313
What is that narrative explanation then, because for the examples Ive given no explanations have been returned.

>>54210357
Magic is at least explained as some kind of universal force which is either harnessed or channeled.

>>54210343

100% okay with it. The rules are there to guide and support the GM, not constrain them. They should take action wisely and carefully, keeping the good of the group and the game as a whole in mind, which includes not fudging too much and risking losing all sense of consistency. But if they make that call, I'll trust their judgement.

>>54210250
He's fine with mythical heroes as well he's just has a really specific position that he communicated poorly and both of you are to antagonist to understand each other's positions

>>54210350

HP isn't wounds. It is, and has always been, an abstraction. It represents fighting spirit, stamina and minor injuries, with significant injuries only occurring below zero HP.

Unfortunately, despite this being the listed definition in every edition of D&D, they also fuck up and treat it as meat points on occasion, and the lack of consistency is what creates the problem.

>>54210359
Thats like asking why ergonomics shouldnt restrict the design of consumer products. If there is a misuse-hazard in a design then its lazy not to work out that problem. I definitely agree that things should keep moving far, far way from D&D.

>>54210360

Of what, exactly?

>>54210378
And martial powers are explained as a personal force which is channeled and released.

Are you against sorcerers and bards, since their powers come from within?

>>54210385
Then we're arguing on two totally different levels. I agree with you in your support of fudge-for-good, but what Im criticizing is rules and systems as written, under the assumption that newer or less creative users will employ them as written.

>>54210407

Nope. Ergonomics is relatively objective, based on physical factors that don't really change, although our ability to cater to them does. It's completely different to RPG design.

>>54210426

Now I'm confused what you mean.

>>54210412
Lets just do 4e healing surges for now. Why can player characters use them while commoners cannot.

>>54210413
Thats not quite a fair comparison since bards and sorcerers channel magic explicitly, but if you're willing to accept that explanation then we cant really continue the argument, as whether thats a cop-out is a matter of opinion.

>>54210378
The way DnD handles hp is bad, because of effects like poison and swallowing that only occur on hit they only make sense as meat points but I would be fine with healing moral with encouragement in other systems

>>54210429
And in some cases its not. We've both recognized a certain hazard in certain types of players when using artifacts with certain designed features. What makes the design and ergonomics of a game different from those in any other instruction manual?

>>54210466

Because they're the main characters. That's literally it. Heroes don't die easy, even ones who are apparently frail or sickly, and getting beaten down doesn't mean they'll stop.

The hero of an action movie might come out of a fight bloody, bruised and limping, but he'll still be able to kick ass the next time, and the next and the next. That is the basis for healing surges.

>>54210476
The way DnD handles many things is bad. We're in agreement in that regard.

>>54210328
They stop being "both" and become two kinds of spell-casters then. Use a different word if you wish, but they stop being different things and become two categories of the same.

For example anima has several supernatural sources of power with different and interesting mechanics. But it insists in considering ki a more "martial" thing, in a system where warrior spellcasters are a perfectly valid option, despite the fact that ki is not and doesn't feel less magic than psychic powers or the "actual" magic of the setting. This is a big mistake.

I simply don't understand why people is afraid to say that his warrior is magic (ie a spellcaster) when saying "it's magic" would suffice to explain dragon ball or yu yu hakusho to a kid or an adult with no contact with fantasy (the genre).

>>54210476
Oops wrong post
I meant to reply to >>54210403

>>54210489

Then they should read the damn instruction manual and take the game on its own terms, rather than making stupid assumptions.

Although I take issue with this

>different from those in any other instruction manual?

Because loads of systems have done this, in a vast variety of ways. There is plenty of precedent within the hobby of it working, and working well.

>>54210466
The thing you don't seem understand is that magic has been, is, and will always be a narrative cop-out. That's why the creators of D&D made it so god damn broken.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that martials have never been described as being mundane. Thus a magical cop-out labeled as !magic is perfectly fine.

>>54210511

Alternatively? They're all heroes, who do awesome things in different ways.

The idea that only spellcasters get special abilities is a pure D&Dism you won't find anywhere outside its bubble.

>>54210500
I guess we could get into an argument over whether action movies are necessarily compelling narratives, but if it makes you happy then I suppose that is an explanation. Thank you.

>>54210516

That's the consistency issue. Despite claiming one way in the book, they act another and just make it weird and confusing.

>>54210520
As Ive said before: its possible to get good results from poor methods.

>>54210511

Because you're missing a key bit of cultural awareness- Namely that in the cultures that style originates from, south east asia in general, the idea of mundane skill being able to achieve supernatural effects is something that's taken as read. They don't call it magic because it isn't magic, and they feel no need for it to be magic- The idea that someone can, through pure focus on mundane skill, go beyond what is 'realistically' possible is something they just accept as standard in those kinds of setting. Look up Wuxia fiction for an excellent example of this.

>>54210528
The problem likely stems from the use of a class system then. Dungeons and Dragons divides those who use magic from those who do not. As such, it makes little sense for people who are on the non-magic side of the fence to be using what seem like magical abilities with no explanation. If the game were more open you could explain it any way you liked.

>>54210550

But you've given no rational argument for why the method is poor. The only point you've raised is that, because D&D has always done it x way, people might be confused to see it done y way. That does not contain any actual relationship to the merits of either method.

>>54210531
>The idea that only spellcasters get special abilities is a pure D&Dism

Call of Cthulhu

>>54210511
Depends on what the martials are capable of, mundane combat is more complex than what's described in 3.PF and martials could have more abilities while being mundane, past a certain power level though you have to have an explanation for how martials are capable of seemingly supernatural feats

>>54210565
You find that mentality all over the world. Even in Western media. See "mundane" superheroes like Batman.

>>54210565
In fairness, its the system's responsibility to establish things like that. You cant expect players to know without any cues exactly what mythological traditions you're drawing on for the logic of your game.

>>54210605

But the system, at least the one I'm thinking of, does tell you that. If you actually read it, rather than assuming it works the same as the game you already know.

File: 1482895906446.png (176KB, 1586x1130px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1586x1130px

>>54210597

True, but the south east asia example is a nice consolidated hub of it which doesn't get people quibbling over details. I suppose pic related should have been posted before now, though.

>>54210565
Then don't have fucking magic, as people would consider your fireball is mundane and made with skill.

>>54210586

Has plenty of special abilities and unique tricks available to non-casters.

>>54210581
I have.

Here >>54210244

and you agreed with it, in part

Here >>54210272

>The point is that without some kind of mapping, to borrow your term, you run the risk of creating a sequence of events that the players cannot readily grok/explain. Will they be able to some of the time? Sure. But not all of the time. Therein lies the flaw. While thats not necessarily dangerous to the immersion of seasoned players, it is dangerous to the impression of newer players, who can quickly learn to dissociate the narrative from gameplay.

Nowhere have I made appeals to tradition. I dont even play D&D and have no interest in its purity or respect for tradition.

>>54210626

Nope. Both can coexist. Wuxia heroes interact with Daoist sorcerers and priests. They might also practice Kung fu, but magic exists alongside it as a distinct, separate form of power. Generally much more ritualistic and indirect, although some fiction versions do include combat magic of various sorts.

>>54210578
Try and see that D&D employs two types of magic. One is a label that is applied to specific group of powers. The Orr is the narrative magic, which applies to any ability beyond the physically possible.

Ki, Rage, Cunning, Focus, Conviction, Favor, Mana, Spells Per Day, Psionics are all just different labels for narrative magic, in an effort to create a more diverse range of choices for players.

The issue is they fucked up mechanically and gimped anyone who used magic that isn't labeled as magic.

>>54210611
You accused him of not having that bit of cultural awareness though, which is why I made my comment. Its the game's responsibility to provide that context. He could be an idiot though. Dunno.

>>54210649

I feel like I explicitly disagreed. People who have already made assumptions might not get it, but new people introduced to the idea that the logic of roleplaying games can be more flexible than direct mapping seem to be more flexible overall, able to accept that different games make different assumptions and work in different ways.

>>54210659
It's more that he's understandably pissed at DnD and is to angry to realize that his opponent isn't defending it

>>54210659

A fair point. Games should always do a good job of conveying the assumptions they make to the players.

>>54210649
>I dont even play D&D
Tell you've at least read the rules for at least one addition. Please.

>>54210651
Perhaps then its a problem of pattern recognition. There is a thing called magic. Only certain classes can use it. Those who do are uniformly more powerful.

Im curious what you think of my argument that having ungrounded mechanics is an ergonomic hazard.

>>54210667
Well, in fairness, you admitted to having observed the problem as described, even if in a discrete group of players.

>>54210684
I believe that the grounding of mechanics is a task D&D leaves up the the GM/world builder.

Which means the quality of the narrative, as always, is dependent on the dedication and skills of the GM.

But that has always been the nature of D&D.

>>54210682
Oh I have. Started on 2, grew up a 3aboo, dabbled in 4e and quit before 5e. Ive kept up, but I play other things.

>>54210596
This is why I'm proposing the destruction of the difference between spellcaster and martial, instead if keeping them separate but throwing a bone to the later. Using this two categories is the D&Dism (with precedents, like everything in D&D) and not derivative shit like caster supremacy.

You either want to play a grounded dude or a super powerful hero. The later can have a sword if he wants. That's it. No faux "martial".

This is also why the "they're all heores" argument makes no sense. Your spellcaster/superguy/shaolin monk being a heroe doesn't make him less magic. (And if your wizard doesn't use magic but just logic, science, etc. he is no spellcaster, of course).

>>54210713

Yes. But it is not a problem with the method itself. It is problem with people who have learned an inflexible system having trouble adapting to a flexible one. Some manage it just fine. Others do not.

>>54210732
Sure, but it still means that it encourages bad habits in a fraction of users.

>>54210728

Again, the idea that anything that exceeds the limits of realism must, implicitly, be magical is a very arbitrary assumption rooted very specifically in D&D. Almost no other media treat it that way.

>>54210723
DnD is weird though in that the core rule books lack an explicit setting but that the world described by the rules system is so specific that it only works with settings built with very restrictive assumptions

>>54210748

By the same logic, it could be argued that 3.PF's way of doing it was the inferior method, because it created the issue of inflexibility in the first place.

I wouldn't argue that, because I think doing so would make me a badwrongfun asshole. System design is very subjective, and while some things can be more clinically assessed things like design philosophy almost entirely come down to personal preference and playstyle.

>>54210728
It's possible to balance mundane and magical options, it's just that DnD doesn't

>>54210753
Not at all. See the drastically different official settings. The issue you're describing evolves from the common mentality that the GMs power and influence on the "core" mechanics being employed is and should be limited. This is not the case.

>>54210611
Anima was my first system, my knowledge of D&D is mostly limitad to /tg/ and I mantain that ki doesn't feel less magic than the others. The fluff is irrelevant. You can't say that kameha is more mundane than a magic death ray if they share a world and setting.

>>54210633
Like?

>>54210779

But you can. Wuxia settings explicitly say this. Someone refining their Fire Chi to the point they can throw a punch and launch a fireball is explicitly more mundane than a sorcerer casting a spell or binding a demon to summon a ball of flame. It is an entirely logical extension of the settings assumptions and metaphysics. All you're saying is that you don't find it intuitive.

>>54210778
All the official settings either still contain most of the content described in the core rule book or have supplements made to make them functional, 5E for example has a hard time handling low magic settings, or settings with few magical power sources because so many of the class options that are magical

>>54210650
Now I just have to accept that I don't understand how. And it's not cause D&D, I can assure you. What exactly makes the wizard supernatural/magic/divine and not the shaolin monk? How can a simple peasant know?

>>54210831
Fluff dependent, it could just be for martials that in universe the peak performance of the human body is simply higher

>>54210830
That would be because D&D has never been about being mundane. Even level 1 fighters or rogues are extraordinary.

>>54210752
False. Call it magic, a miracle, sorcery, supernatural. It's the same.

>>54210831

At least in the south east asian model, because Ki and its cultivation is a natural thing shared by everyone. 'Kung fu' means diligent effort, that hard work can make you stronger. This doesn't just apply to fighting- A peasant working the fields may have Kung fu, a bureaucrat putting his utmost into his duties may have Kung fu. And in Wuxia fiction, these somewhat mundane applications often end up complimenting the heroes martial arts.

Magic, while interacting with Chi, is explicitly consorting with and drawing on powers that are other to that entirely natural growth of the self.

>>54210871
Which makes it restrictive in the types of settings and campaigns it can handle

>>54210878

But it isn't. It can be, but different settings, mythologies and metaphysics might treat one, two or all of those things as extremely different, distinct elements with their own unique connotations and associations.

>>54210856
Why aren't wizards also stronger then?

>>54210828
Rather than not intuitive I see it as arbitrary.

>>54210905

Because they focused their training on different things, obviously.

Although even a 'weak' D&D character is still physically far beyond what we generally expect from an ordinary human.

>>54210900
Except you can easily nerf classes across the board to match the requirements of low-fantasy. Official settings do not do this in order to preserve the sense of power and authority WotC expects their player base to crave.

>>54210921

And for someone from that cultural framework, they would see your insistence that they aren't different as arbitrary.

I find it interesting, to explore storytelling in cultural contexts which make those kinds of different assumptions. It's less interesting to just assert my ideas of how things should work over everything, instead of being open to alternate ideas.

>>54210927

>easily

Nope

>>54210905
They haven't improved their body through physical training.
Would you agree that the martial arts depicted in the Kung fu movies that don't involve Ki while unrealistic are mundane? Martials function like that in the theoretical setting

>>54210933
Reminds me of when I tried explaining the differences between magic and Psionics, but they kept adamantly reverting to "they're both just magic."

Which was really odd, because I asked him if he thought the same about the Force, and responded that the Force was not magic, since Star Wars is science fiction (hah), and they explain it with mediclorians (no idea how to spell that).

>>54210951

Metaphysically, all expressions of martial arts in those movies involves Ki/Chi/Qi, but I assume you're talking about the more overt displays of it, lightfoot techniques to dance upon water and such.

File: Enso.jpg (13KB, 262x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 262x360px

>>54208862
Take any game system and attribute to the effects that the game deems "super natural" to the natural, the mundane.

It is simply a matter of doing so and telling people it is so.

>>54210902
The same in the sense that they are supernatural (for us, the ones playing the game). They all are the product of belief and imagination, not observation. For us, of course.

>>54210940
You should put some "Kong Fu" into your games anon.

>>54210986

I'm not saying it can't be done, although I'd question the point of doing so. But D&D is such an enormous part magic by volume that removing it would be an enormous amount of work.

>>54210976

That's fair. From an out of character meta-perspective, yes, anything which exceeds the limits of what we know in the real world can be considered supernatural. But that doesn't change the nature of things from an IC perspective.

>>54210996
Removing it is as easy as saying "no"

Plus, the less spells and powers your players have, the easier it is to design encounters that match their level as a group.

>>54210268
>What is physically, or spiritually different about them that allows them that power?

They're adventurers in a high fantasy setting where magic is so ubiquitous their mom was probably chugging CMW pots when they were in the womb to get over her sore back

>>54210927
Not really if you want to use most of 5Es content, you have to include enough races from the pub to give good options for each class and you have to have at least 6 different forms of magic to keep the classes separate in the fluff, not to mention that martials are still boring in 5e and that your campaign has to be combat heavy enough to properly drain the pcs of resources because the classes are balanced around frequent encounters

>>54211015

It really isn't if you want to do so with any degree of consistency. Removing such a major element from a system should be done carefully and deliberately, fully considering the implications and how they'll affect the game. In D&D's case, how exactly you'll run it with the vast majority of the meat of the system missing. At that point you're basically just running a rules light low fantasy game, so why not find one actually made to the task rather than dealing with the lingering clunk of D&D?

>>54211021
Wouldn't illusion spells be the equivalent of magical pain killers?

>>54210923
But why?

>>54210951
There's a point when it stops being mundane, though. And even the simplest unrealistic move becomes retrospectively "supernatural but subtle" instead of mundane if you explain to me that they are doing that with the same power others use to fly to make fire balls.

>>54210968
Imho the Force is just space magic.

>>54210328
>practicality
>stop obsessing over subsystems
>let everyone have cool things

WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE!?

Real talk though:

>make everyone use resources

Mages have material components no one ever fucking enforces or give enough thought to. Lets see fuckers get a rod of amber or a pinch of bat guano out in the fucking sticks. And no, not every podunk small village and trading post has a fucking "magic shop" laying around for you to restock on components.

>>54211015
You aren't left with much if you say no there's only 3 mundane class options in 5E, 4 if you don't consider the monks ki magical

>>54211042
Illusion could be used for a degree of pain control, sure.

Enchantment where the real Novocain is though. No brain, no pain.

>>54211047

Why would a Wizard be less physically adept than a warrior due to their different methods of training?

I... Does that even need an answer?

And it only stops being mundane from an OOC perspective. The way people view it IC might be completely different. Again, going to Wuxia fiction, the supernal skill of martial artists is viewed with amazement and appreciation, but also without any sense that it's 'magical'. You're admiring the fruits of their hard work in cultivating themselves and their Chi, an activity everyone partakes in to a greater or lesser extent. Nothing abnormal or not mundane about it.

>>54211012
Maybe, but for rules (and martial/spellcaster bullshit is rules first and foremost) the player's perspective is a priority.

>>54211051

That only really lends to making casters more annoying/less fun to play though, which isn't really a win either.

>>54211085

Rules also need to properly convey the tone, themes and ideas of a setting. If it's a setting where supernatural martial skill is considered normal, then the rules should treat it as such.

>>54211047
The simple solution is to cap martials at extreme feats of skill and strength, martials might be able to do crazy stuff but it's all fluffed as mundane

>>54210466
I'm 90% sure that RAW NPCs who are important enough to have stats and more than one HP have one healing surge per day, which is only relevant outside of combat or when receiving healing from (99% of the time) a PC, but you didn't know that because you got your information from a nerd who read a post by a nerd who read a post by a nerd who read a post by a nerd who read a post by a nerd who read the opening paragraph of the 4e PHB

>>54211080
>Why would a Wizard be less physically adept than a warrior due to their different methods of training?

Why would the warrior and the wizard be different things? It only makes "sense" in cultures where magic is associated with women.

I like how we've gone from talking about to improve martials and grant them greater agency in a game, to capping them as mundane for the purpose of low-fantasy games.

Frightening really.

>>54211134
You could have completely mundane martials that could compete with casters depending on setting and rules

>>54211051
By 'make everyone use resources' I don't think he means spell components. I think he means things like Spell slots which are a thing you have to manage throughout the day aside from HP.

Giving martials a stamina pool that they could use to spend on more complicated maneuvers or just boost their skill checks, attack rolls, and damage would help a lot.

>>54211128

...What?

>>54211091
>That only really lends to making casters more annoying/less fun to play though, which isn't really a win either.

If it kills powergaming spellcaster shitters it's a pretty big win

Bet you'd pitch a bitch if I let the ranger shoot his 1d6 dmg bow without any arrows

>>54211158
Correct. However this is not possible with any iteration of D&D casters.

>>54211171

>Tracking ammo

Bugger that for a game of soldiers. Granular bookkeeping in general is something I prefer to avoid.

>>54211173
Definitely but DnD is shit

>>54211164
Last time this was suggested people reee'd too

The flat truth is they don't want Martials to be equal. Full stop. there's no 'misunderstanding' here. They want Martials to be 'equal' to Casts like tumblr wants men to be 'equal' to women

>>54211173
Eh, it's possible at the lower levels of spellcasters, or with certain half-casters or NPC classes.

You could make it work in most editions, it would just require more tweaking and houseruling in some cases over others.

>>54211186
Except 4e. 4e was pretty mechanically sound.

So sound that "everything felt the same or too gamey"

>>54211190

Are there any spellcasting classes in 3.PF who are as low tier as non-mundane martials?

I know you can run Tier 3/4 games pretty well with limited casters and Tome of Battle/Path of War classes, but that seems like it'd defeat the point.

>>54211187
Yeah, I really don't get it. Even in the cases where you think magic is the greatest thing ever, you still lose nothing if the system still tracks levels as being equal in power, so that a level 10 fighter is as strong as a level 10 wizard.

All you have to do in that case is say 'fighters in my game aren't allowed to go above level 3, and wizards start at level 3', and you basically have the same effect.

>>54211203
>fighters capped at 3
>wizards start at 3

What the fuck are you drinking nigger?

>>54211200
Tier 3 is one method if you go for Warblade alongside Bard and Beguiler and things like that.

Otherwise, you're stuck with Adept (the NPC caster class), Healer (who only gets healing spells), and Truenamer (who is mechanically non-functional).

Those fall on a similar level to Fighters, Rogues, and partial casters like Rangers.

It could be done, but I'm also not sure that sort of 3.5 game would be very fun. Ideally, you could use Adept as a baseline and craft some new caster classes around it for a bit of variety, and also clean up feats so martials can have more fun options.

>>54211226
His point is that martials are so handicapped people against parity may as well be level capping them. The idiocy of the statement is an intentional assertion of incredulity.

>>54211234
At that point I'll just pitch my home brew system to new players.

Players tend to feel "cheated" if you make too many modifications to a system.

>>54211226
Whatever these people who think that a caster will always beat a mundane no matter what and this is a good thing are.

Some people want fighters to be 100% realistic, and want wizards to be stronger than them all the time. So assuming you had a perfectly balanced system where levels actually meant something, that would probably give them exactly what they want.

>>54211256
The sad thing is that martials aren't realistic in DnD, completely mundane sword fighting is much more complex than what's depicted in DnD and modeling that complexity would really help the power level or at least the enjoyablity of martials

>>54211168
Why wouldn't a warrior learn magic? And understand please that I'm not saying all warriors but a warrior. Our warrior, the one who is exceptional because he's the PC.

No sense to have spellcasters and martials, unless you introduce a cultural excuse t make them opposites that only works for systems designed to represent a single culture.

>>54211330

Because the two sources of training take different focuses, one physical and one mental. That the default assumption is that the two are separate, or even opposed, is somewhat intuitive.

But that doesn't mean you can have exceptions. I fucking love spellsword class types, mixing swordplay and straight up magic. But their existence shouldn't make the concepts of people who want to play pure warriors or pure wizards any less viable, and since they're less iconic than either 'pure' option it makes sense that they'd have less presence overall.

>>54211330
Personal distaste of magic, magic is genetic and therefore he doesn't have access to it, magic requires a time investment that he's not willing or capable of making, he doesn't have access to someone to teach him magic, depends on setting really

>>54211366
>Because the two sources of training take different focuses, one physical and one mental. That the default assumption is that the two are separate, or even opposed, is somewhat intuitive.

This is the real D&Dism and the cause of all "caster supremacy" problems. You don't need this and it's not intuitive. Nobody questions Gandalf and the Witch King having swords.

Magic doesn't even need to be mental at all, for fucks sake.

>>54211371
Yeah, but those are all additions. The natural state is the one without them. We're just too used to a couple of those additions to consider they're not should not be necessarily the norm.

>>54211404
Magic also doesn't have to be so powerful and versatile that a typical warrior would be disadvantaged for not learning it.

File: wallpaper_Walkthrough Map_ White Plume Mountain.jpg (3MB, 1800x1571px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1800x1571px

>>54208862
>>54209247

A lot of the martial/caster problem comes from the fundamental fact that D&D generally does not take place in the sort of megadungeon context that it started with, in which the game is fundamentally about managing resources smartly in order to descend further (where tougher monsters lurk but also better treasure)

Fighters represent a "wager" method - they bet their HP in direct combat, and receive abilities to improve the bets they make (better AC, better weapons, better attack/saving throws), allowing you to sometimes kill things without losing the HP an encounter would have "cost" you. So long as you have HP, you can keep making wagers.

A Magic-User represents a very different paradigm. Magic-User spells tend to be specific solutions of limited duration, but generally only single-use (since to rest the party must often return to the dungeon). Fly allows you to traverse a crevasse or broken bridge. Knock opens a locked door quietly (so the Fighter doesn't need to bash it in noisily and attract attention), Sleep deals with a pack of Orcs, and so forth.

Thieves and Clerics represent various mixes; the Thief gets an additional set of wager-type abilities in Thief skills, and the Cleric receives some of the Magic-User's spellcasting but focused around improving the chances of Fighter wagers.

Since getting to the deeper levels often requires getting past many obstacles, the resource pressure on a Vancian wizard is significant. This limitation is very diminished if the party is instead doing a wilderness journey or other campaign format where encounters and obstacles are very rare.

Darkest Dungeon changes this up by making all class abilities into probabilistic wager; all classes get re-usable abilities. One-shot solutions to problems are instead externalized into consumable items.

tl;dr caster/martial issues are partly a consequence of the changing context in RPGs

>>54211444
Agreed, 5E for example has relatively balanced classes if you're throwing the recommended amount of encounters at the players, it just falls apart if you don't or the players find ways to avoid combat

>>54211437
But normally it is at least one of the two (or extremely useful), least it stops being marvelous and therefore not magic.

>>54211506
Yes, magic is usually quick, easy, or powerful, but usually not all three at once. Some settings have magic that is very slow, very risky, or very weak.

A warrior wouldn't have need for slow rituals, might not want to waste time learning a few parlor tricks, and doesn't want to risk his life on a spell that could backfire and kill him.

Only in cases where magic is all 3 is it so overwhelming that one would be a fool to not learn it, and in those cases you have 3.5

>>54211544
Magic is not only thunder blasts coming out of your ass.

A spell that makes your steel sharper will always be useful, no matter how slow. A spell that cooks for you is the dream of all tired travelers, although not very powerful. Specially if combined by the spell that attracts deer to hunt.

Every wandering warrior capable of having those would try to have them, for the same reason nobody hunts with bows today unless it's for the sake of using the bow. We have to suppose that the wandering warrior is capable of learning those if they exist and we don't add unnecessary and arbitrary limitations.

We can add this limitations, and it's not bad per se. But it's an active decision, not the default the we think it is.

>>54211597
And that's also supposing they exist. Magic is arbitrary, who knew?

>>54211607
Yes, but writing (a setting, a system, a story) is not.

>>54211650
Yes, and if writing one of those where you want a reason for warriors not to use magic, then you simply include one of the many reasons people have given for magic to not be something everyone wants to or is able to learn.

>>54211664
>you want a reason for warriors not to use magic

No reason to want that beyond D&D.

>>54211680
>no reason to want a thing in a story to be true rather than false

Yeah, sure

File: TheManse OSR game.pdf (132KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1x1px

Another caster v martial shitflinging thread? Good time to post my homebrew! In this game, casters and martials are well balanced while being fundamentally different.

Darkest Dungeon is a lot easier and has a lot less player choice than I like in my RPGs m8. It's easy enough to, and you are very much encouraged to, master DD mechanically and at that point you have basically won the game (even the fact that you *have* a concrete win condition), the rest is just a matter of time.

That level of fixedness is necessary in a vidya but a TTRPG offers a much wider variety of player options, and that's not even getting into mechanical options but about the fact rather than 'you can do this or this' you can truly choose to do anything in pen and paper.

Having been in your prior thread, I think your response to people who didn't agree with you is reductionist, and I think your interpretation of DD abilities as 'superhero abilities' over 'fantasy abilities' is entirely a personal assumption.