Is having balanced mages a meme?

>>54215794
>is it even worth trying to balance mages with martials when it's clearly not what the average person wants?
but it clearly is what the average person wants otherwise there wouldn't be so many threads about it. not everyone wants to roleplay as a spell-flinger

File: 1488106554657.jpg (38KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x375px

>>54215817
>/tg/ is indicative of the greater roleplaying community at large.

File: 1498266853766.png (292KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 512x512px

I know you put a lot of work into your bait, anon-kun, but WFRP 2e already solved this problem ages ago with thematic magic and a risk-reward system that encourages smart use of powerful magic.

Hell, if you must use DnD, the old school editions never had this problem at all, since almost any powerful spell could be interrupted (necessitating teamwork), and wizards had a slower XP progression. This resulted in martial who were capable generalists and important shieldwalls, with casters having much needed specialized and powerful magic.

tl;dr back to the Paizo forums, sweetie, the village misses its idiot.

>>54215794
to put it in real world terms wizards v. martials should be John M. Browning v. a good boxer. Sure one guy can make machineguns, but when the boxer jumps JB the only way he can defend himself is with a .22 in his sleeve.

>>54215844
>WFRP 2e already solved this problem ages ago
And yet hardly anyone runs it in comparison to something like D&D, making it less than nothing.

You'd honestly have a better chance of finding a game for 4e, and that game's dead as shit.

>>54215849
How the fuck is the boxer getting in close enough to JB to strike him when JB has access to guns?

That's like saying "oh, well an AMF fucks up mages real good, don't matter if the martials are fucked now too since all their magic items are worthless and shit.

>>54215794

I've never understood the 'Martials are for new players' thing.

In most versions of D&D, you're not going to learn a fucking thing playing a martial character, other than 'well this sucks'. You have no ability to interact with most of the systems in the, and the only interaction you can have with combat is extremely dull.

Wouldn't a beginner class be able to interact with a lot of different systems, letting the player experience the system, but do so in relatively simple and straightforward ways, if you really did need a 'tutorial class' of some kind?

File: 049.gif (3MB, 384x372px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 384x372px

>>54215864
Wait, you're SERIOUSLY going to try and make an argument from popularity? You realize you've already conceded the point, right?

>>54215897
Martials are great because they introduce the concept of rolling and how combat generally functions without bogging the players down with too much information.

That and most newbies really want characters that can hit people with sticks and shit, so playing a martial is perfect for them until they get bored mashing the A button and wish to learn how to actually play the game.

>>54215925

So, wait, you want there to be a class for new players that doesn't actually teach them how to play the game? What's the point?

And even then, that argument only really works if there's a single, designated class for it. It in no way necessitates that all martials are similarly simple/underpowered.

Aside from the point that giving new players boring, underpowered characters sounds like the absolute best way to turn new players away from the system.

>>54215910
When it comes to tabletop RPGs, popularity is a factor if you're unable to play with friends (assuming you have any in the first place) and your only means of gaining a group is hunting on game finder or roll20.

If a system is obscure and nobody has heard of it, it doesn't matter how much the system does "right" because finding groups that actually run it is about as rare as trying to find a Snipe in the woods somewhere.

It sucks, but that's the name of the game.

>>54215936
3aboos aren't used to logic, dude.

>>54215925
This kind of thinking is cancer and a large part of what keeps (non-4e) D&D behind other games in quality.

>>54215953
Don't bother responding to it. It's obvious the avatarfagging weeb doesn't accept popularity as an argument because it never gets invited to games in the first place.

>>54215878
Has access to guns is much different than always being able to punch something to death. You just have to sneak up on him, or trick him. JMB is a powerful wizard, you can't just expect to walk up and win.

>>54215936
>So, wait, you want there to be a class for new players that doesn't actually teach them how to play the game? What's the point?
It does teach them how to play. It teaches them how to roll for stats, how to roll for attacks, how to keep track of HP, positioning, and how to calculate damage.
>Aside from the point that giving new players boring, underpowered characters sounds like the absolute best way to turn new players away from the system.
Newbies aren't going to know the difference until they leave their bubble and explore other classes within the game, such as the Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Sorcerer, or Paladin.
>>54215961
>This kind of thinking is cancer and a large part of what keeps (non-4e) D&D behind other games in quality.
Yet which game is much easier to find groups for?

>>54215953

There's a solution to this- Not being a lazy shit.

If you find a system you like, learn to run it yourself. GMs are always in demand, and with online services for finding groups and games being larger and more active than ever you've got plenty of options for finding interesting players.

You might need to do some filtering to find a decent group, sure, but if you're not prepared to put in the effort you shouldn't bitch about it.

>>54215982

But you directly contradicted what you just said

>so playing a martial is perfect for them until they get bored mashing the A button and wish to learn how to actually play the game.

So all the things you claim it teaches them isn't actually playing the game? So what's the point?

Also, newbies aren't blind idiots. It's very easy to tell that someone else can do way more than you can, and it's a shitty fucking experience.

Man, I love that in my city there're way many more games of absolutely anything than 3.PF. 5e isn't even the most played either. So the majority of players in my city aren't brain rot zombies who adhere to the "Casters>Martials" mentality.

I bet you think Hercules is an anime character.

>>54215794
>i'm not creative enough to think of how martials could be interesting so i'm going to play a class that has a deus ex machina bullshit solution to every problem i encounter.

>>54215985
Here's the thing though, even if I decided to run a game of [insert fantasy heartbreaker here], I could be spending weeks, months, maybe even years trying to find a group of players to run for since most players wouldn't have heard of it.

Then you add in the additional time that you'd have to spend filtering out the undesireables and it basically turns into a crapshoot either way. I'd rather just run D&D since I know what it is and it'll be much easier to find people for it.

>>54215953
Some games just take more work in finding than others.

>>54215982
>Yet which game is much easier to find groups for?
In my personal experience over the last 6 months? GURPS.

Some game systems just require more work to find games in than others. If you're lazy you can't complain with being stuck with bottom of the barrel stuff.

>>54216013

Or you could not, you know, lie.

Days, weeks, maybe months at the utmost if you're running something ridiculously niche and obscure. And that includes filtering. You really have no idea how gamefinder sites work outside of D&D games, do you?

>>54216000
I didn't contradict myself, you just misunderstood the premise of my argument. Learning how to track HP or roll attacks or keep track of positioning is basic shit that everyone should be aware of before they get into the nitty-gritty of the system itself.

Then once they've had enough time to understand what's going on, you start introducing them to classes that have access to magic in some capacity and BAM, a whole new world to explore and an entire section of the game that opens up for them to explore.

File: hercules.jpg (45KB, 800x633px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 800x633px

>>54216005
>I bet you think Hercules is an anime character.
Ahem

>>54216045

You explicitly contradicted yourself. Backpedalling doesn't change that.

Also, you're making it sound like a bait and switch. Introduce players to a boring class which doesn't do anything that matter, force them to suffer that for a while before introducing a class which doesn't care about any of that and just wins with magic.

What's the fucking point?

>>54215794
>mages were supposed to be for experienced players anyways while martials were easy mode classes
Easier =/= weaker.
You have Battlemaster in 5e which is easier to play and understand than Eldritch Knight, and Battlemaster is actually stronger.

You don't even have an argument to begin with, so go back to the drawing board and come with a better one.

>it's clearly not what the average person wants?
But it's, everybody wants to be competent and bring useful stuff to the table, you'll never find a majority of players in a system wanting to be useless and completely irrelevant, you'll find surprising that when asked most people want to be as powerful or even more than other players in the table.

File: Projecting.jpg (34KB, 490x333px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 490x333px

>>54216012

>>54215953
I know the basementdwelling neckbeard is kind of a meme here, but if you don't have the social graces to get two/three other people to play with, you should probably choose a hobby that is not 90% social interaction.

File: mPKgUwT_d.jpg (13KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 306x306px

>>54215953
You can find games on roll20 right now for WFRP 2e, and it remains one of the more popular systems in Europe and especially Poland (where it was basically their DnD). All of this from a game by a smaller company that has been out of print for years and years. Of course player numbers will be lower than the flagship franchise in pnp and its shameless ripoff. That doesn't make it some botique game no one had heard of, and it still had no relevance to the fact that it solved your problem years ago. I'm sorry, dude, your "argument" isn't.

>>54215974
>shit, his points are objectively correct, better complain about anime images!

Have another smug Aqua, anon, just for you.

>>54215794
How to fix mages-
-Enemies target the mage and his spellbook
-The Mage must keep track of spell components, and is given means to hold onto them, from mundane items such as moss and algae to things found in certain locations
-Good old 1e rules with mages using other people's spellbook and the stuff with calculating the worth of a mage's spellbook
-Mages level up the slowest
-Spells have versatility, you can cast the flurry of a magic missiles missiles in relation to caster level, or just cast one missile out of the barrage or something similar
-Mage is just on the ride of the adventure seeking to further study and personal power, is a liability if not supported and an asset when he can do the same for his party
-Adaptable tactics targetting ranged and magic users respectively
-Spell failure consequences, use of counterspell, and means to disput spellcasting.

>>54216063
But Anon, punishing players for choices is always a good idea! They should have the time an energy to sort through and research all the options!

>>54216030
>Or you could not, you know, lie.
I'm not lying though, you even confirmed it yourself.
>Days, weeks, maybe months at the utmost if you're running something ridiculously niche and obscure.

>>54216063
>What's the fucking point?
To not overload the players with too many options before they even understand how the dice rolling mechanics work.

It's not rocket science, it's the same reason most GM's don't start off their games around Level 10 when running games for newbies.

>>54216117

But by your own logic, starting people off with limited casters like Rangers, Bards or Paladins would make significantly more sense and fulfil the role better. And, again, that's only the case if you accept the rather stupid notion that a 'tutorial class' is necessary.

>>54216057
Hercules is a pretty cool guy.

Eh protects little girls and doesn't afraid of anything.

>>54216087
Only one class uses spellbooks and there're feats and class features that get rid of material components completely and this just ignoring there're still tons of powerful spells that DON'T use material components at all.

And on top of that looking for material components makes the game tedious for everybody and just makes the game focus on casters even more

>>54216106

I said something completely different to what you falsely asserted, yes.

>>54216129
This.

Level 0 does the whole tutorial thing better anyway, if you think you need it.

>>54216068
>But it's, everybody wants to be competent and bring useful stuff to the table, you'll never find a majority of players in a system wanting to be useless and completely irrelevant, you'll find surprising that when asked most people want to be as powerful or even more than other players in the table.
You're assuming that people will know as much about the system as you do though. I mean, my first character was a Rogue and I didn't feel useless throughout the campaign because we were in a crypt where my expertise came in handy.

In an unoptimized party, everyone's useless but they have fun anyways.

Honestly, the only time I've ever played a game with mages where they weren't explicitly just better than everyone else was GURPS with ritual path magic.
Mages can do more than D&D but the players have to figure out the spells themselves and the GM gets a lot of leeway to balance things out by making the spell expensive enough that there is a real risk with trying to cast it.
D&D isn't going to change and there's no real desire for it to. The closest anyone came was 4E but they had to change how every other class operated and people refused to accept that.
The fanbase is very rigid and nostalgic in their ways. Wizards will always be more effective, wizards will always be able to completely break the game with a flick of the wrist. This is what D&D is, love it or hate it.

>>54216087
>The Mage must keep track of spell components, and is given means to hold onto them, from mundane items such as moss and algae to things found in certain locations
Ah yes, we shall make the game less about the mage by having there be sessions where everyone lackeys with him into a cave to scrape up guano. Not even magic guano, just regular ol' bat shit.

File: wow its fucking nothing.jpg (28KB, 600x491px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x491px

>>54216078
>it remains one of the more popular systems in Europe and especially Poland

>>54216139
>What is hyperbole
You exposed yourself anon. Nobody wants to wait months just to play some obscure indie shit when they already have systems like D&D that you can find people for in less than a week.

>>54216171
Not that anon, but I'd rather wait half a year than to resort to playing 3.pf.

>>54216171
>EVERYTHING ELSE THAN D&D IS INDIE SHIT

>>54216171

Facts would disagree with you.

Games aren't 'dead' just because they're not the most popular. With the current state of roleplaying, how connected everything is becoming, it's never been a better time for finding a group for pretty much anything. You blinkering yourself and only sticking to entry level systems doesn't mean that isn't true.

>>54216149
It's your fault for living in a shit-tier continent.

>>54216012
>martial character can come up with something creative and risky to solve our problem
>or we can just let the character with deus ex machina bullshit perform maybe one roll with his highest stat to solve everything
>or we can just cut out caster classes entirely and run a game that isn't d&d.

>>54215794

Correlation is not causation. Spellcaster edition survives not because its good, but because of the OGL essentially babykilling any edition of DnD to come after it.

>>54216147
This. The spell component feature is bad in concept and execution.
At best you get a little bonding moment with the wizard and the ranger walking out in the woods looking for moss but consistently dedicating time to the wizard collecting supplies so he can do his thing is just bad because it gives more focus to a singular character.

>>54216193
>>54216194
>>54216213
If my goal is to create a campaign to run with rando's within a week or two, my best bet will always be the system with the most popularity.

>>54216278
But why would your goal be to get the worst roleplaying experience you can?

>>54215794
>So what I'm wondering is, is it even worth trying to balance mages with martials when it's clearly not what the average person wants?

You're assuming that the average 3.PF player is aware of the issue. The group I used to play with absolutely refused to believe it when I told them, even after going over some pretty blatant examples. The people who are still playing those games are either unaware, or they've realized the tier list and are still playing and balancing their games around it. In either case, it's going to be a very narroe subset of people who play the game, know about the problem, and choose to not do anything about it.

3.5 is not popular because of this. It's popular in spite of it

>>54215817
Speak for yourself.

I don't want martials and casters to be balanced. Casters should always be more powerful. Just my opinion though.

>>54216267
>Popularity doesn't mean a thing, it still sucks.
>You should play this obscure game that only 50 people worldwide have actually heard of, it's great because nobody knows about it.
All you're missing is the baret and heavy eye liner and you'd fit in on /mu/

File: 1476352554972.jpg (31KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 625x626px

>>54216348
Here, have a (you).

>>54216310
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it's the worst system ever.

>>54215897
Martials are just easier to play for new players since they don't have hundreds of spells to chose from. Just roll to full attack.

>>54216278

I've just had a revelation. D&D is the fast food of roleplaying games.

Sure, it's not the best quality meal you can get, but you can get it basically anywhere, any time, and with basically the same experience. And sometimes you really do want a greasy burger or a bucket of chicken wings.

But it's still not a replacement for actually going to a restaurant. Restaurants have their disadvantages, of course. The quality can be a bit unreliable, you need to do some more research given the variety of what's on offer to find something to your tastes, and if you're only used to fast food a lot of how it works, being seated at a table and waiting ages for the meal to come might seem strange and inconvenient.

But for people who actually go to restaurants, you know there's a quality of experience you can enjoy there which those who just stick to fast food would never be able to enjoy.

>>54216370
>You should just swallow the shit I present to you, like the other little goyim.
All you need is the little hat and you'd fit in on /pol/

>>54216381
Just because you like it doesn't mean it isn't.

>>54216348
If that's what you want, then it'd be trivial to take a system where they were balanced and then just give casters double XP or cap martials at a certain level.

It's far easier to unbalance a game than to fix one.

>>54216406
this

>>54216374
How is that bait? I'm just stating my opinion.

>>54216428
It's not like I'm the only person who likes it though.

File: 1a775e970748bf5bc26698d5397b43fb1454381846_large.png (56KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 200x200px

>>54216149
Concession accepted.

>>54216448
It's not like I'm the only person who doesn't like it though.

>>54216406
Except that sometimes a dnd campaign is so exceptionel that it will surpass any other campaign in your life.

I doubt the same could be said for a type of fast food.

File: fat fuck.jpg (140KB, 800x619px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 800x619px

>>54216406
>>54216443
>Food Analogy

File: 1454607119569.jpg (5KB, 234x230px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 234x230px

>>54216416
>He likes something I don't
>Must be a /pol/ack

>>54216468
Outside of /tg/ most people enjoy 3.PF or at least have a neutral opinion on it. The only reason you think it's a bad system is the same reason why most feminists think that men are rapists in the making.

Echo chambers are a hell of a drug.

>>54215794
Mages are perfectly balanced in 5E which is also the most popular edition of D&D , and most played RPG at the moment.

I don't see your point.

>>54216470
I'm pretty sure if you got lost in a desert with nothing to eat for days and found a burger , it would be the best-tasting food you ever ate.

Also the same can be said for other systems.

>>54216511

Being able to enjoy something doesn't stop it being a bad system. I've enjoyed 3.PF games in the past, but I'm aware enough of how it works to know that a significant part of it is despite the mechanics, rather than because of them. These days I'll only ever play 3.PF with a GM I really trust to be able to wrangle the clusterfuck into something worth playing, and most of the time people with those skills have already moved on to better systems.

File: Three Randomly-Placed Lines.png (2KB, 444x444px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 444x444px

>>54216512
>perfectly balanced
Good goy. Now go have 8 combat encounters between long rests.

>>54216512
Please, mages are still more powerful than martials, it's just that it's all balanced out since everyone has the option to become a mage.

>>54216512
I don't know if I'd say perfectly, but it's fairly clear from the changes between it and 3.5 that most players wouldn't notice a drop in power as long as their wizard still has spell slots.

>>54216494
>Maybe if I ignore the point of his post everyone will think my post has one.

>>54216546
Right, those 4Element monks are really overshadowing the pure martial Open hand ones.

I'd also much rather have a Ranger over a Battlemaster fighter. Spells are just so good in 5e

>>54216563
>Spells are just so good in 5e
They really are. Since each spell can now be buffed by spending a spell slot of a higher, your spells never really stop being useful.

>mages are for experienced roleplayers, which is why it's okay for them to be more powerful.

This has never been, is not, and will never be true. Casters aren't even mechanically complex. The appropriate applications of their spells is obvious, and the classes of D&D and PF have no meaningful or actual depth.

Besides, most grognards play white male human/dwarf fighters, Paladins, Rangers, or barbarians.

>>54216594
Except in 3.5 spells scaled automatically without having to use a higher level slot.

>>54216563
The ranger's _spells_ are actually really good.

Which is why it's a pretty nice steal for the bard, who is actually a real caster, not a shitty half one.

4 Elements monk is not a caster in any way.

>>54216626
>But the rangers spells are good!

And that just proves my point. Having good spells isn't enough to salvage the class.

>4elements mon isn't a caster

You said yourself that every class had the option to become a mage, and that's the monk subclass that gets the most access to spells by expending Ki

It's objectively the most caster subclass of monk, but apparently it doesnt count because it proves how stupid your argument is.

>>54216622
Not really, a lot of spells in D&D lose their niche once you get access to better spells.

Like can you give me a reason why anyone would prepare Cure Light Wounds when they have access to Mass Cure Light Wounds?

>>54216663
>Having good spells isn't enough to salvage the class.

Only if it's a half caster.

>You said yourself
I did not, I'm a third party that felt that I should interject.

>>54216668
>Like can you give me a reason why anyone would prepare Cure Light Wounds when they have access to Mass Cure Light Wounds?

Exactly because it takes a lower level slot.

That said, I'm not sure why you'd prepare CLW anyway, except for low level absolute emergencies.

>>54216477
Even edited the applefaggotry in that is excruciating

>>54215925
Holy shit a Diablo player

>>54216663
Monk gets spells way too late and way too overcosted.
When you're a 17th level char and you get a light cantrip in exchange for other feature you aren't better than a 17th level martial char.

Not even in 3.5 just having "spells" made you better.

Also the problem of ranger is that outlander fighter is pretty much stepping on your turf. Beastmaster is shit because you get useless features (anything related to beastmaster), Hunter is pretty good actually, as damage dealer and as a caster, but people still feel outlander fighter is better, which doesn't really.

>>54216737
>Exactly because it takes a lower level slot.
But even then, CLW is inferior to MCLW because it only cures one person while the Mass version can cure multiple people.

>>54216715
>Casters are OP
>But not these casters, they don't count because theyre weak

As opposed to 3.5 where even being a half caster was enough to put you above any pure martial

>>54216822
Well, mostly because pure martials fucking suuuuucked so hard in 3.5 it's amazing, although I'm not sure if I'd put 3.5 Paladin above Fighter DESU.

>>54216045
I had three completely new players in a oneshot recently who had to be specifically told to roll a d20 each time they made a new attack or skill check. Even though I flat out told them several times that they would always be rolling a d20 unless I specifically called for something else they still kept asking before each roll if it was the d20 they were meant to roll.
And these aren't complete idiots either, two have Masters Degrees in STEM fields.

>>54216822
Paladin and Ranger weren't half casters in 3.5, they were 1/3rd or 1/4th casters. Half casters are the Bard, the Favoured Soul, etc those who reach 6th level spell slot. Paladin and Ranger (shit in 3.5) only got till 4th level spell slot. They couldn't cast shit till 4th level, a Barb was already better than those too.

So I dunno why you say we said "spells make you better", no, being full caster o half caster makes you better. I can have spells and be a full martial Barb if I pick a race like gnome and that doesn't make me better than an ork Barbarian at all

>>54216876

IIRC the categories of caster in 3.PF are one third, two thirds and full, for the most part.

>>54216876
He has been strawmaning the whole thread, he's twisting facts about 3.5, applying a false logic to those twisted facts and then argument against them.

>>54216900
>one third
I always thought that was the case, but many people, even devs call them from time to time 1/4th casters, dunno why, so I used it both (1/3rd or 1/4th casters) just in case I was forgetting something.

>>54216862
I'm doing a master's degree in analytical chemistry, and I can tell you with full confidence, that having an MSc in a STEM field is 100% compatible with being a complete idiot.

>>54216862
Isn't STEM just an expensive idiot test?

File: Im+sorry+small+not+sorry+small_2031cb_5816859.jpg (86KB, 569x807px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 569x807px

>>54215864
Wat.
>Is balancing mages even worth it? What system even does such a thing?
>"Well, here's a system that does it well."
>Doesn't count because it's not popular!

If you'te going that route, grab an Xbox and play fucking Fable 2, where I feel pure magic builds are perfectly balanced with pure melee or ranged.

>>54216965
No, that's the humanities. STEM is for autism.

Source: currently studying in a STEM field.

>>54216983
There's no point in going on about how a system fixes a problem when nobody fucking plays the system.

>>54217012
I can see that actually.

>>54217014

>nobody
>Any number less than the maximum is zero

>>54217014
If it indeed fixes the problem, then the solution would be to implement said system.

So shut your whore mouth and start up a WHFP group you goddamn chickenshit cockmongler.

>>54217094
I have no problem with 3.PF or how it handles mages and martials. I'm just trying to figure out why people keep trying to "fix" D&D when it wasn't broken in the first place.

>>54217107

Because it was broken. That you can work around it doesn't stop the problem existing.

>>54217107
I don't have problem with cancer so I dunno why people want to cure it. It never happened to me therefore it doesn't exist.

>>54216278
Yeah, I guess that's the best way of making a game that will likely be no fun and fall apart quickly.
Online roleplaying is like online dating: Quick and simple is nice but if there's no commitment, don't expect it to last long.

>>54217107
And this, kids, is what we know as autism

>>54217119
If you can work around it then it's no longer a problem now is it?
>>54217122
>Comparing a tabletop game to a fatal disease
>>54217136
>Liking something that I don't like makes you autistic.

Man, and they say /pfg/ suffers from autism.

>>54215794
>So what I'm wondering is, is it even worth trying to balance mages with martials when it's clearly not what the average person wants?

As an experiment, the next time you run a game, let people pick their classes and then announce that casters will start 10 levels ahead of martials. See if they find it enjoyable and fair.

>>54217128

That doesn't really make sense though?

Online dating actually has a significantly higher success rate in creating long term, successful relationships compared to equivalent data from real life events. The data driven algorithms they have access to these days are really fucking good.

>>54217173

But if you are working around it, that means a problem still exists, and people shouldn't be expected to fix problems in products they purchase for pleasure. They might end up doing so, sure, but that the problem existed is still a valid criticism.

>>54217173
>Liking something that I don't like makes you autistic
No, saying something doesn't exist just because you don't see it (even though tons of other people see it and there are factual proves of its existance) is what makes you autistic.

And even though I'm not the other dude, yeah, the cancer metaphore is identical to your stupidity. Just because you didn't run into a problem doesnt mean the problem doesn't exist, can your autistic mind wrap aroudnd that concept?

File: 1489295787956.gif (335KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 400x400px

>>54217184

>>54216934
Probably cause their caster level was calculated as 1/4th of their level (which was something that PF removed).

>I bought a car with no wheels, but is not a problem because I don't want or know how to drive
k.

File: hey man.png (322KB, 491x335px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 491x335px

>>54217197

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

10KB, 480x271px

>>54217204
*yawn* weak bait.

>>54217014
This has already been disproven, but you mysteriously ignored the guy's post.

Almost like you're...trolling or somethingm

>>54215794
Thank god, someone who thinks like me, see I GM Fantasy Craft, and in this system martials are the shit while casters are meh, so I have this players who can't stop complaining about how unfair that's it. I don't see a problem, that's how the game is, martials are more complex therefore they ought to be better, while casters are more simpler so they must be weaker. They always try to appeal to the "they have the same level therefore should be equally valid" argument which is stupid.

>>54217218
If you don't plan on driving the car then what's the problem?

File: 1487233373587.png (80KB, 211x244px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 211x244px

>>54217252
>This has already been disproven
>Anecdotal evidence is now proof

File: Hercules.jpg (16KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 640x480px

>>54216057

>>54215794
>I personally don't see a problem with it as mages were supposed to be
Then part of the problem. And your type of players should be chunned out of the hobby

>>54217186
>That doesn't really make sense though?
I think it does.
>The data driven algorithms they have access to these days are really fucking good.
Which take time and effort to fill out and are hidden behind paywalls. Time, effort, and money are all commitments and while they give you a smaller pool, you are more likely to create something successful and long-term.
Choosing the most popular system and throwing something together in a week with randos is the gaming equivalent of Tinder.

>>54217272
ok, so what purpose does this thread and discussion have if you limit it to ridiculous claims and the one argument that you can absolutely only play DnD?

>>54217328
you may not have noticed the irrelevance of the post you are answering to. this thread does not nor did it ever have online dating as a general theme.
you have been led astray, i would advise you to stop responding and focus on the subject at hand.

>>54217311
Martialfags deserve to be purged the most. They force their way into every game and throw up a fit whenever they're not as powerful as whatever flavor of the month anime protagonist they watched recently.
>"Why can't my Fighter jump onto the dragon and hack its wings off?"
>"Because your STR score only lets you jump about 10 ft. into the air."
>"THAT'S FUCKING BULLSHIT I HATE YOU SHIT DM WORST GAME EVER CALL THE COP I HATE YOU I HOPE YOU GET ASS FUCKED YOU FUCKING KEK!"
I love running games and seeing the joy fade from the martialfag's face as the Druid's animal companion outpaces him in every single way. It's even funnier if they brag about how high their AC is before I throw in an enemy that forces a Will Save.

>>54217328

Fair enough. It just bugs me at times that the myth about online dating being shitty is consistently perpetuated, despite data to the contrary. But online dating and hookup sites are very different things.

>>54216348
Ars Magica is head and shoulders over D&D in this case. You actually play a wizard, do magical research and deal with wizard problems.

>>54217360
Keep the good work, anon, the more you do the better for the rest of players that will leave D/D and play better games.

File: hqdefault.jpg (26KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 480x360px

>>54217272
>listed roll20 games
>anecdotal

>>54217377

Ars Magica has the benefit of actually being designed for that though, while D&D achieved it by accident through shitty design.

>>54217360
oh no, (gasp) he is hating on the marsians!
i am going to write something to him in hope of changing his ridiculous opinion that is certainly truthful and meant to further this thread !!11111one!

>>54217377
Yeah but it's worthless because you don't have martial players you can lord it over.

File: really makes you think1.gif (2MB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 460x259px

>>54215794

>Is having balanced mages a meme?

Yep.
I've been running 3.PF and the like for about 10 years and never had this problem with wizards being OP.
It's probably a combination of my players not being cheesy powergaming faggots, and me not being a shit DM.
We don't play 100% RAW, but anyone who does is doing it wrong.
The only real core mechanic of 3.5 is:
>roll d20
>add whatever bonuses you get for doing the thing you're doing
>compare it to a target number
Everything else is yours to fuck around with.
And I've even changed up the core mechanic in some instances.
Whenever I see people bitch about "caster supremacy", it really makes me wonder what weird cringy shit must be going on in their games.

wow, this thread is shit
op is retarded

>>54217451

Because assessing how you and your group have made the game work isn't useful, relevant or important.

File: 1493227658901.jpg (388KB, 1284x980px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1284x980px

>>54217451
>3.5 is a good system if you rebuild it to be good

>>54217354
I'm following the conversation thread about how not being to slap a group together in a week makes a system unplayable.
Take your own advice if you don't like it.
>>54217370
Agreed, which is why it felt like a good analogy for >>54216278

>>54217473
not that guy but it is.
you play games for fun.
you all are grown up and can see unfairness, at least i hope you can.
RP games are not meant to played to "win", they are played for the experience.

>>54217451
>We don't play 100% RAW, but anyone who does is doing it wrong.
Following the rules of a game is wrong? I mean, in this case it's because 3.PF, but games have rules to be followed and is to be expected to such rules be fair, not for Players/GM to fix, that should be done by the devs that's why they're paid for
>what weird cringy shit must be going on in their games.
Is called following the rules of the game.

>>54217501
>RP games are not meant to played to "win", they are played for the experience.
Again with the "win" argument, is a matter of everybody bringing stuff to the table, of everybody feeling useful, If I'm playing a monk and suddenly the Druid's familiar outclasses me in everything I'm not useful, I bring nothing and I don't have fun, is not a "I need to win against the druid"

>>54217412

Everyone also makes a non-magic using character to play while their mage is doing research so you sort of do.

How can these obvious bait threads get so many posts?

You know you can ignore, or at least sage, right?

No. The idea of "full casters" should be mechanically canned in any setting that has them, and narratively moved to the background. Merlin and Gandalf should not be player characters.

Notable exceptions are when we're talking relative power-levels where everyone is shooting lightning out of their ass, and either divinwly charged or boosted by wizardry, at which point practically everyone playing is a full caster, anyway.

>>54217504
no creativity in a fantasy game that is teambased and to some degree made up on the spot?
you are giving rules too much authority, a group can sit together and change them as they feel fit.
Just take the Rules as suggestions.

>>54217501

In system design terms, it is not.

The group is able to adapt the game to their preferences in the name of creating a fun experience. This is something that's taken as read. It's so ubiquitous it doesn't need mentioning.

However, relying on that as part of your system design is being lazy, and the more parts of your system a group has to fix, ignore or alter to make it functional, the worse the system is and the more it deserves to be criticised because of that.

>>54217481

I actually don't mess with anything class related because of balance issues.
But we play at a very high power level, and most of the time, characters are buffed in some way beyond their class.
Most of the stuff with the core mechanic we change is things that don't make sense to use a d20 for.
For example, a strength check. A d20 roll makes it too random.
You're usually strong enough to do something, at least after a few attempts, or you're not.
So we use d6+str mod, and divide the DC by 3.

>>54217473
see
>>54217501

>when a 3.Autist leaves his general

>>54217564
see
>>54217560

>>54217545
This. Gandalf was a DMPC, he wasn't a regular player.

>>54217532
you missunderstand me apparently.
im all in favour of toning down mages as having super powerful mages are detrimental to the experience for non-mage classes.
If you play a class because it is the most powerful you are playing to win, this has no place in RP-games.

>>54217560

Nah I'd rather have a system that's easy to mod, because no game is ever going to be 100% perfect for you and your group.
For me, that's definitely D&D/d20 system

>>54217583
see
>>54217598

>>54217598

>D&D
>easy to mod

...What?

>>54215794
the truth is that D&D 3.x is popular because of unbalanced mages and doing whacky shit with them. not that i would want to partake in such crap.

>>54217592
>Dude says he plays monk
>"If you play a class because it is the most powerful you are playing to win, this has no place in RP-games."
Yeah, he's clearly playing to win

>>54217543
It's these, a general, or one of those stupid fucking pseudoquests.

>>54215864
>And yet hardly anyone runs it
>a discontinued game
>hardly run
gee, i wonder why

>>54217617
If you ignore all the rules it becomes easy to mod I guess
>>54217598
To me is M&M or BESM but whateves

>>54216013
>Here's the thing though, even if I decided to run a game of [insert fantasy heartbreaker here], I could be spending weeks, months, maybe even years trying to find a group of players to run for since most players wouldn't have heard of it.
Bitch, I sat down at my LGS and starting reading and I was approached by two guys within the same hour to join their group or play a 1 on 1 game.

Seriously. Absent some 3.PF addicts most gamers are willing to try anything once.

>>54217504
>Following the rules of a game is wrong?
The rules allow for the DM to adjust the rules and basically do whatever he thinks is best to keep the game going.
No ruleset is going to work perfectly because there is such a large human element to the game. No one could possibly predict every permutation that the ruleset will be run through.
This is literally how every rpg I have ever played works. Nothing is bulletproof.

>>54217647

But there is a difference between tweaking things to preference, and large chunks of the game straight up not being fit for purpose. The former is to be taken as read. The latter should be pointed out and criticised as bad design.

>>54217617

If you put even a little bit of thought into it then anything you home brew will be more balanced than the core books. I personally wouldn't consider it a selling point of the system but some people seem to love that about 3.PF.

>>54217560
you may critizise as much as you want, i am not arguing in favour of the systems or their creators.
Im merely stating that an experienced player or group can adjust system accordingly to their group and that there is no reason not to do it.
>It's so ubiquitous it doesn't need mentioning.
...have you seen this thread?

>>54217617

Yep.
I made a 5 page document for converting normal D&D 3.5 into a modern/sci-fi action shooter style game.
About 1.5 of those pages are either 1 of 2 simple charts, or empty space.
If you want autistic detail, I also made a document for a bunch of weapons, gear, advanced cover rules, ect.
We've run I think 4 successful campaigns from that.

File: happy1.gif (148KB, 340x340px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 340x340px

>>54217640

I'm also a pretty big fan of M&M.
There's a lot of neat stuff there!

>>54215794
>You could be the exemplar of a human combatant. Strong, Courageous, capable of taking on the greatest beasts
>Or you could be the guy making the enemy fight itself with a wave of its hand, turning himself invisible and making meteors rain from the sky
https://youtu.be/zFuMpYTyRjw

Magic is Magic, of course it's going to be stronger than anything a person could do normally. The issue is it doesn't make for balanced game design.

>>54217670

Yes. And I am reasonably certain that all the complaints about caster supremacy come from people who are perfectly aware that the GM and group can make things work. We've even gone over a few different methods you can use.

But the key point is that they shouldn't have to.

>>54217536
Kicking your neighbour's servants is an old and true method of showing off your magical superiority.

>>54217621
"you" as in "one"
how about you read again what i wrote and see that not everyone is always implying or pointing their finger at you.
i never implied anything about anyone in this thread and to think otherwise is ridiculous.

>>54217671

Ahh, so 'easy to mod' means you aren't actually using the rules at all. That makes sense now.

>>54217647
>No one could possibly predict every permutation that the ruleset will be run through.
You can obviously had predicted the OPness of casters though, that shit was easily spotted. 3.PF even made it more obvious to the point is silly to argue there's no such a thing.

This wasn't some unforeseable shit.

>>54217687

Magic is whatever you say it is. It is arbitrarily powerful. Just saying 'magic is implicitly stronger than what people are normally capable of' isn't a statement of fact, it's you creating an arbitrary double standard with no foundation other than your own assertions.

>>54217687
Wizards that powerful in mythology tend to be opposed by heroes who can no-sell their spells and smash apart physical challenges. The ur-example is Beowulf.

>>54217704

As I've already said, the only core mechanic in D&D is d20+mod vs DC
Maybe you're taking about home brewing new classes or adjusting current ones?
There's an amount of work involved there, but it's hardly challenging.
And there's a mountain of content online if you're lazy.

Did you think by "mod" I somehow meant we were following RAW?

D&D can also be easy to tweak, but you have to be careful about going overboard.

>>54217692
you are correct.
Keep in mind however that you are buying material from acompany.
this company does not have an obligation to have a perfect system ready for you and while one system might be perfect for one group it sucks ass for another.
chances are you are not happy with the common games in this hobby: your options are to either change the system or tune it to an acceptable point.

>>54217724
no you

>>54217755
>this company does not have an obligation to have a perfect system ready
>only a perfect system has fighty guys and magic users at roughly equal power level
>only a perfect system would even mention any imbalances in the system explicitly
You are the problem with modern consumer culture.

>>54217709

>You can obviously had predicted the OPness of casters though
This may come as a shock to you, because you've barely ever read the core books, if at all,
but D&D 3.5 is barely even a roleplaying game.

Its a dungeon crawling adventure, where your only objective is to gather loot and kill monsters, with the DM manual telling you its a good idea to loosely attach a story to it.
If you were to actually play the game 100% as intended, the stuff casters can do is practically fluff in most cases.

It's when you turn it into a roleplaying experience, and one player can use magic to live out his fantasies, and the other can only kill monsters that you get this kind of caster envy.

>>54217755

Customers should criticise products they find unsatisfactory and shop around for things which better fit their needs. The company doesn't have an obligation, sure, but their failure deserves to be pointed out so people will be disincentivised from purchasing the product due to the issues it suffers.

>>54217752

It honestly sounds like you're barely using the system at all

>>54217805
>If you were to actually play the game 100% as intended, the stuff casters can do is practically fluff in most cases.

You mean shit like druid having a pocket fighter in the form of a level 1 feature or the cleric buffing themselves to incredible heights?

Even in straight crawling casters dominate the game.

>>54217805
Older versions of D&D were even more focused on the dungeon crawling aspect and yet people don't try to claim that those aren't RPG's.

Must be contrarian bias then.

>>54217820
Expectation
>This game is shit, martials aren't equal to mages
>Thanks for the heads up dude, we'll play GURPS from now on!
Reality
>This game is shit, martials aren't equal to mages
>Whatever retard, you rolling up a character or not?
>o-okay...

>>54217805
you would have a point if it werent for the tons of official campaigns that literally can be bypasses with casters.

I dare you, pick one, make two groups, one full martials and one full casters and see what happens. My groups did it, casters had a cakewalk while martials run into TPKs everytime. The "it's a dungeoncrawler so casters aren't that OP in there" shit is false as fuck.

>>54217755
The company has an obligation though of selling what they advertise, they advertise martials as having the same power level as casters and that's false, therefore customers can and should complain.

>>54217854

That is part of the problem, yes. People who are ignorant or simply don't care about the problems restricting the choices of others and refusing to consider alternatives really sucks.

>>54217832

>You mean shit like druid having a pocket fighter in the form of a level 1 feature or the cleric buffing themselves to incredible heights?
A CR1 wolf is hardly a pocket fighter.
The two classes obviously have a different power curve.
And a level 1 wizard is basically useless.

>Even in straight crawling casters dominate the game.
You've never even played such a campaign.

>>54217799
>>54217820
fuck me you guys have no chill.
read again where i glorify the companies.
read again where i was talking about a "perfect" system (hint: it doesnt exist, i was talking about personal preference)
you guys are focusing on the completely wrong things.

>>54217898

Level 1 wizards have Colour Spray. They kick ass.

Fuck off, we've had this thread three times at least in as many days.

>>54217860

>casters walk into a trap
>they all die

>rogue spots trap
>they don't die

>>54217896
Yet more often than not, the faggots who screech the loudest about imbalance issues still show up every week regardless, so why should people learn a new system when most of them are happy with the system they've got?

File: lol7.1.png (32KB, 128x128px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 128x128px

>>54217905

>>54217933
>Casters cast "detect traps"
>Locates every possible trap within range and avoids them easily.

>Rogues spot trap
>Fail to disarm it
>Kills themselves and anyone standing behind him.

>>54215794
We had a massive thread about this literally just yesterday.

I guess yours is less actively antagonistic but it's still pretty clearly trying to rile people up.

>>54217898
A 1st level druid has a bear with 3 attacks that deal 1d8+4, 1d6+4 and 1d6+4, 18 str, 14 con and 15 AC. This is on top of being a druid in PF

And not him but yeah, I did, many times, groups with Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Psion, so many times, and they were easy as fuck, then played with martials (the same game so we had previous knowledge) and we run into impossible situations and TPKs.

Is something when we're bored and we don't want to create a campaign, we run a premade like is heroquest or similar.

>>54217946
Because 3.5 is 'balanced' the same way MTG is 'balanced' and attracts the same fans.
What the fuck are the mods even good for if they won't prune this thread?

>>54217730
I remember some Polish or maybe Czech hero from an old tale used a 16 kg metal mace, that he heated up in the smithy beforehand, as a method of dispatching an evil wizard. He stuffed it down the wizard's throat.

>>54217969
>trying
>as we're 200+ posts in
Also, countersage.

>>54217986

Eh, at least MtG has ban lists and competitive balance to a degree. 3.PF is way worse.

>>54217986
>What the fuck are the mods even good
Oh, they keep out the writefags, drawfags, smutfags, and questfags of course. Wouldn't want them lowering the quality of the board and taking attention away from thought provoking threads like this one.

>>54217946

I'm not really sure how to respond to an out of the left field assertion that doesn't really seem to logically lead anywhere.

>>54218012

Those first two is a shame, the third is arguable, the last one is an absolute necessity.

>>54217933
My last Scout (rogueish character with the same features) with a 16 on Wis and 16 on Dex, max ranks on spot and disable, could only detect 50% of traps, and disable 50% of them (so could only remove 25% of traps in the game) assuming average rolls (11), we ended dying. It was an official game so not "DM fiat" thing. So no, having a rogue doesn't save you in the slightless.

You could though have tht feat that allows you to summon weak creatures at will without spending spell slot and make them run in front of the party, but you need to be a caster for that.

>>54218007
3.PF has errata that can be viewed on the SRD, so it's about the same.

>>54218007
>>54217986
MTG is a competitive 1vs1 game though

>>54217971

We're talking about core D&D, not PF with expansions.

>>54218032

It's way less effective

>>54218032
Errata is usually to drag martials even more into the mud. Chances are you'll have less balance problems ignoring erratas than following them.

>>54217860
On the other hand playing adventures without casters is pretty interesting. Though you need experienced players.

>>54218040
And it works even worse.

>>54217964
No such spell exists.

>>54218023
Your DCs were way too high for the characters.

>>54218043
>not PF with expansions
Bear familiar is PF core though.
Exapansion gives you a T-rex or a Spynosaurus which is balls to the walls so much better than fighter.
Expansions gives you 5 Spynosaurs at 5th level all at 5th level animal companion that are basically an entire group of martials.

You know nothing.

Also at 5th level a druid in 3.5 can turn into a bear and have a deinonychus that poisons and spits acid that only the most optimized Barb could be able to match.

File: image.jpg (45KB, 620x659px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 620x659px

>>54215844
>>54215910
>>54216078
>>54216456
THERE'S ONLY ROOM FOR ONE AQUA POSTER AROUND THESE PARTS, BUCKAROO

>>54217933
>casters walk into a trap
>they all die

just send a familiar/summon/skellington ahead

this is 101 stuff man

>>54218081

No, the bear you described is nothing like the bear in the core PF rulebook.
Its irrelevant anyway, because this discussion is about core D&D.

>>54218089
Reminds me of a mudkip. No meme implied.

>>54218065
>Your DCs were way too high for the characters.
Official game for that level.
Look
16 Wis and Dex is +3
Full ranks is 4
+2 to Spot and Disable from feat
Total bonus is +9 at 1st level
The lowest level traps were is 20+21
You need a 11 to spot, and then another 11 to disable. That's 50% to spot, another 50% to disable. 1 out of 4 traps were going to be disabled, guess what happened? the other 3 killed us.

Meanwhile a conjurer of the same level with the summon a mosnter at will withotu spending spell slot sends the monster in front, it activates all traps and dies, summon again, dies, summon again, till all traps were already activated.

>>54218092

Summons don't last nearly long enough for that to be effective for clearing a dungeon, and even if they did, they could still trigger traps that kill the party.

>>54218145
Reserve feat summons.

>>54218139

What the fuck were you playing that expects level 1 PCs to regularly tackle situations where the lowest DC you encounter is a 20?
Also
>Meanwhile a conjurer of the same level with the summon a mosnter at will withotu spending spell slot
The fuck are you talking about?

>>54218145
Well it's not like the Rogue is going to disable any traps with great efficiency, so you might as well go with the sacrificial lamb than the Rogue who THINKS he knows what he's doing >>54218139

>>54218163

What?

File: 1377089708983.jpg (82KB, 700x714px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 700x714px

>>54218170
>Another martialfag who unknowingly admits that he's never read the book.

>>54218145
Conventional followers, and bindings.

Gygax's original group didn't tackle the Tomb of Horrors alone, they had at least one player bring a hundred+ footsoldiers and minions.

>>54218170
It's called a dungeon
The game was shadows of the last war I think

>>54216381
I think the concept of playing with a bunch of random people without spending time filtering contributes to having a bad experience.

>>54218182
Yeah, and I had a motherfucking 16 both in dex and Wis and spent a feat (making me useless for anything else), the average rogue is going to have less so he's going to fail more.

Game is clearly not made by martials but they still advertise it like it's.

>>54218194
It's a feat that allows to summon a pretty pathetic creature as long as you have a summoning spell memorized. In combat it is only good for distractions but in exploration it is great - trigger all the traps, touch weird items and so on.

>>54216470
That's basically just having a really nice night with a group of friends where it doesn't matter the food you're eating so much as the excellent company that you have.

>>54218170
Reserve feat summons
As long as you have a summon spell you can summon a weak ass elemental at will without spending shit, the creature is so weak is only worth for triggering traps, flanking, distraction, etc

File: 1448486357258.jpg (191KB, 970x617px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 970x617px

>>54218273
>D&D prevents you from having good games
>But we had a good game recently
>Well it doesn't matter because you were playing with friends
You fags crack me up.

>>54218309

>D&D prevents you from having good games

Pretty sure nobody actually said this. You can have fun in D&D, but the point is that the mechanics can be more of a detriment than an asset to the experience.

>>54218294
>>54218271

>using some obscure non-core caster feat breaks the game
color me shocked

>>54218317
Or dnds mechanics can help you have a good time.

>>54218309
he is right, I can eat shit with friends and enjoy it if we are having a good time

After the fact, I still wouldn't recommend eating shit, though

>>54218317
If you had fun then how exactly were the rules a detriment?

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

13KB, 280x272px

>>54218354

File: the great firestorm.jpg (206KB, 1920x878px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1920x878px

>>54218353
There is literally no way a game with a Resurrection mechanic can help me have a good time.

>>54218348
Don't worry, I let you pick whatever you want for your rogue...oh wait, is all shit.

Also
>obscure
Literally in Complete Arcane, I bet anything that isn't Core is obscure for you
The other anon was playing a Scout, from Complete Adventurer a book that came AFTER Complete Arcana

>>54218348
Security by obscurity isn't.
Balance by obscurity isn't.

>>54218374

>Literally in Complete Arcane
I'm looking in there right now, and I don't see it.
What page?

>>54218356

Because it's possible to have fun while also being aware that some parts of the experience were less fun than others, or knowing that the GM had to put in extra effort to let you have fun due to the system not properly supporting him.

Why haven't you homebrewed an entire game yet, /tg/ ?

Are you really that dumb that you can't copy paste mechanics from different games and mix them together in a cohesive way to enhance your game sessions?

>>54218385

What book is it even in?
I'm looking in complete arcane right now like the other guy said, and I don't see anything matching the description I've been given at all.

>>54218405
Because it is in Complete Mage p. 47. Other Anon needs to check his sources more.

>>54218435

Ability is irrelevant. That it is an obligation when dealing with systems that are not fit to purpose is the problem.

>>54218435
Why haven't you made an entire game from zero? fucking lazy fags

>>54218435
Because the last time that went down and got popular we got Pathfinder.
Literally four people will play your fantasy heartbreaker for three sessions before running back to D&D because they don't care.
Or they'll just quit after session one.

>>54218453

I've literally made entire systems as a joke one off.

>>54216278
Have you considered having friends? It is amazing what you can do if you've got a group of buddies - all you really have to do is ask, "Hey, when we finish this campaign, want to try [other RPG system]? It looks neat!"

>>54218490
If you homebrew systems to become popular like Pathfinder then you are doing it wrong.

>>54218435
Because there is enough systems to use beyond D&D.

>>54218451
you want a solution.
there are a multitute of solutions stated in this thread and the last three we had this week.
the fact that taste is subjective makes it impossible for anyone to create a system that works for everyone.
if you have a solution that is not creating your own game, altering existing games into a form you enjoy or playing premade but ultimately flawed system i would love to hear it.

>>54218529

I feel like you're missing the point entirely.

>>54218562
please tell me then, i would appreciate to understand the existence of this thread.

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

132KB, 1x1px

Another caster vs martial thread? Time to post this balanced homebrew of D&D. You will never have balance issues with this game.

File: im mad comic.png (150KB, 700x615px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 700x615px

>this thread

>>54218603
>>54218774

Because it's a criticism of game design itself. People try to handwave away or dismiss criticism of the game based on the fact you can fix it, which is ludicrous. We have every right to expect a functional product and to complain if we don't receive one.

>>54218790
>There are people who are still complaining about 3.PF in 2017
>When the community not only accepts that it's a flawed game but have actually created homebrews that fix the bulk of its issues.
Wew lad, I'm glad that I wasn't born with low-functioning autism such as yourself.

>>54218790
a functional product?
for a game that is not PvP?
you do realise there are people with different tastes and there is no one true taste?
what is functional for one player is hot garbage for the other one.
you are basically saying " i am entitled to a game tailored for me".
the problem here is that everything is subjective in this hobby.
I am not defending companies, im just yet again stating that the nature of this hobby makes it near impossible to make a fitting system for everyone.
yes, i did understand the premise and still think its delusional as fuck.

File: fesh pince will looking.png (255KB, 646x596px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 646x596px

>>54218790

I concede. You are absolutely right. I think you're being overly capitalistic in your approach about it but sure.

Now then, is there a purpose to have this thread? You've bitched and complained about the broken game.

But this isn't the first time you've made the thread. Or the second. Or the first.

I've only been on /tg/ for a few years and I can promise you I've seen a caster vs martial disparity/D&D magic system bitching thread up almost every single day. Last night there was one near the bump limit. I wake up this morning, that one is done and this thread is a new bitching thread at 250+ posts. With 40 unique posts.

You've had this thread not once, not twice, but literally hundreds of times. Have you been on this website for more then two weeks? Then you've seen every argument.
>this game is not balanced
>hur dur it IS balanced / I never had a problem with it
>wizards should be better then le sharp stick man
>implying Hercules couldn't beat up your stage magician
>use my shit homebrew rules and you won't have this problem!
>homebrew doesn't count reee

There you go, I've summed up every single one of these threads, literally thousands of posts and thousands of threads over the past few years. Why does it need to be created again?

Just make this fucking thread a general if all you faggots want to do is argue about it every single day in and every single day out. If you want take even a single solution, then what's the point of even arguing. Endlessly bitching about a project that isn't going to get fixed any time soon?

>>54215794
Is this just a remix on the same bait thread we've had two days in a row?

>>54218997
Yes.
Incredibly (or not, I guess) it still hasn't been pruned.

>>54218949

Some things are not. Being told all classes are equal, for example, and then having some be clearly more potent than others matters, especially in a cooperative game. The system has lied to you, proven itself not fit for purpose, and deserves to be criticised as a result. That some people view the unintentional bug as a feature is neither here nor there.

>>54218915

People are still lying and making false statements about it, and its shadow hangs long over the games industry. If we don't remember its flaws, we are doomed to repeat them.

>>54218951

this thread was made by pro-casterfags, If there's a purpose to it, you should ask them.

>>54217854
But I don't want a system where full spellcasters aren't superior to foot-sloggers, I don't want that kind of enforced balance because it makes no fucking sense.

I'd rather there simple weren't any full spellcasters, and that they simple become a part of the background. The idea of martials being boosted to the power of experienced wizards is absurd.

>>54218081
>Bear familiar is PF core though.
Wait wait wait wait wait.

I can have a fucking BEAR as familiar in PF?

>>54219063

>The idea of martials being boosted to the power of experienced wizards is outside my preferences

ftfy. There's plenty of mythological and fictional foundations for it, and it makes perfect sense to apply it in appropriate settings. If you don't like those settings, then that's fine too, lower power systems will likely suit you better.

Hey guys.
Do you remember the days when don't feed the troll is a thing we used to say?

>>54218951
Holy shit this guy is literally right. How do we recover from this?

>>54219063
This. I literally hate the idea of demigods-like fighters.

I don't want fighters to be buffed. I want casters to be raped.

>>54219116
It's something that stopped after they deleted sage. Deleting sage was a mistake, and this thread is about to reach 300+ replies. Expect a new one by tomorrow morning.

>>54219116

I know it's a shit thread, but getting angry at people on the internet over tiny and irrelevant differences in roleplaying games we play is quite cathartic. And this kind of thing has happened so many times that there's actually a pleasant familiarity to going through the same old patterns and arguments and insults.

>>54218951
>you've made the thread.
This thread was made by someone who thinks casters should outright outclass martials because

>>54219220
BECAUSE WHAT

>>54219107
He meant as animal companion for druids

For familiar? no, that's silly, you can have only a wolf the size of a big horse, but no bear, sorry.

>>54219156
I don't even want casters to be raped, I just want the type of casters that are demigods to just not be playable, or simply stated to not be meant to be played, or moved to epic/mythic-tier levels. There's no inherent reason for them to exist as playable characters, nevermind how much it fucks with the verisimilitude of the settings in which they exist.

The real question is how we'd make the bookish sort of characters genuinely playable without breaking fucking everything. I guess making them into bard-like classes could work, like utility-driven priests and advisors and scroll-keepers.

File: Hater.gif (138KB, 233x137px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 233x137px

>>54219235
JUST BECAUSE! THERE IS NO REASONS NEEDED!

>>54219240
WELL NOW I'M JUST FUCKING SAD I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY Q_Q

>>54218435
I'd imagine it'd turn out more "Frankenstein monster" than "good salad"

>>54219278
I really think bard as a class is just a meme. I mean what does a bard do that a wizard/mage can't do?

Why should the bard even exist? Just because we have folk tales about bards?

>>54219278
In fantasy stories even weak wizards are useful because they have knowledge. They know who built some tower, what experiments were ran there, what weak points monsters have, they can brew a potion that applied to a weapon allows harming invincible enemy. They are the support guys that make sure party never rushes unprepared without needed tools.

>>54219297
It depends solely on you. If you are retarded then your homebrew system will be retarded. If you know what you are doing it will be fine.

Remember, D&D and Pathfinder weren't made by a group of +190 IQ nerds. It was made by a bunch of retards that trial and errored until they found a ground they enjoyed.

>>54219108
Well, yes, just to be clear, if you are specificlly playing demigods where every playable character is effectively a full caster anyway with lightning coming out of it's ass, that's perfectly fine.

But at that point, we're not talking "Fighters" and "Rogues" anymore, we're talking the god of darkness and assassins, and the god of violent deaths.

The issue is that wizards are always Gandalf and Saruman or even Sauron, but the martials are Gimli, Legolas and Strider, when putting them on the same level as wizards would make them fucking Kratos.

>>54219329

...Yes? Bards have a thematic role in fantasy stories, so they make sense as a class.

>>54219338
>brewing potions
That's the job of an alchemist though. Let's say we have "alchemist studies" as character background and we don't actually depend on wizards for potions. What sort of niche could a wizard even fill?

>>54219329
>I mean what does a bard do that a wizard/mage can't do?
Well for one, in context, the bard would be playanle, and bard-like classes would fulfil the archetypical niche of bookish adventurers that aren't rogues and fighters of some make or model. Did you read the fucking posts? Because the point seems to have gone straight over your head.

>>54219391
There is not much different between wizards and alchemists in stories. They are more or less just the shades of the same thing.

>>54219387
Look bro, I'm just saying. But D&D will be a lot better if we are only allowed people to play
>fighters
>rangers
>clerics
>barbarians
>druid
>paladin
>rogue
We don't need the others.

>>54219430
I didn't, I just so an opportunity to attack the bard and went for it

>>54219439
Why do we need Barbarians when they're just fighters with a more wild bend to them. That's a background, not a class.

And Druids are just Clerics with more gimmicks.

And Paladins are just a hybrid of Clerics and Fighters.

>>54219338
Yeah, we just need a couple of classes like that, and we're actually pretty golden, imho.

>>54219455
Fair enough. Bards are faggots. I just needed an example for character type in a mechanical sense.

>>54219465
Well for that to work you need also better monsters. Not just HP sponges but things that have pretty specific vulnerabilities, hunting patterns and so on. Think Witcher. Geralt is a powerhouse by his world metric and knows some magical tricks but he still needs to make his research and make sure that he is ready for the right kind of monster.

>>54219465
Also creators of Spheres of Might for PF said they are making a 'scholar' class that it like this.

>>54219439
>Allows CoD zillar
>Doesn't allow ToB
>"will be a lot better"
Clearly not for martials

>>54219527
>Not just HP sponges but things that have pretty specific vulnerabilities,
The problem with this is that the group will have to carry a whole bunch of junk "in case its ever useful", and I don't know if that's a good mechanic.

>>54216348
Do you ever play martials, if not then stop being a selfish prick

Instead of making these same repetitive threads, why don't we talk about solutions instead?

I'll write a .pdf that has 50 ways to reduce or fix the caster vs martial disparity. Anyone want to help add some to it?

>>54219545
On the other hand, the Spheres stuff appears to be broken-ass shit from ear to ear, and seems like it should've just been it's own system from scratch, though. Also, 3pp, so /shrug.

A 'Scholar' class would be extremely welcome, though. There's not really any alternatives for Cleric/Priest- or Wizard/Sorcerer-type characters if you cut out full casters, which is pretty shitty.

>>54219613
That's why you have wizard who can prepare everything needed from random shit, magical chanting and some snot.

File: job-tree.gif (68KB, 620x588px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 620x588px

>>54219385
It's all about levels. Some people prefer low level play, but you can't stay low level forever. You can give the game a flat power curve (so a high level character isn't much better than a low level one), but then people who prefer high level play lose out. No one's saying that level 5 fighter should be a demigod, but if you keep levelling up, where else is there for them to go? Either they become a demigod or everyone is capped. It doesn't mean taking away the ordinary fighter who is just a well-trained soldier but that's a low level concept, not a high level one.

Maybe it would make things clearer if characters upgraded to new special classes at given milestones, so instead of thinking of a level 1 fighter and a level 20 fighter as the same class, the fighter is just the low level version of the class that becomes a mighty paladin or a demigod of war later on, while the wizard would be a mid or high level version of the basic scholar class. And when a player upgrades their class it's up to them or the DM to decide how to explain their new power. Then nobody will be confused about what exactly a level 20 "fighter" is supposed to be.

>>54219767
Yeah, splicing Spheres with True20 instead of PF probably would have been better.

>>54219208
You know anon, things that make you feel good can still be very bad for you. Ask any alcoholic.

>>54220159
I can stop at any moment.

>>54220176
Can you anon? Can you really?

>>54217575
/pfg/ doesn't act like this.

>>54216348
>t. Jason Bhulman

>>54219767
Blame Ssalarn, he ruins any company and project he joins.
Though SoP is pretty good for a 3pp magic replacer, and aside from a few specific builds the system tends to be much less broken than Vancian Wizards and also allows for more flavorful characers and builds, actually encouraging specialization in a specific theme or skill rather than being generalist masters of everything that 3.pf casters are

>>54217575
Fuck you, /pfg/ fucking loves martials and takes every chance they can get to shit on Paizo and Vancian Casting. Why else do you thing they try to inject PoW, SoP, NJollyKineticist, and Psionics into nearly all their games?

>>54215817
>this guy wants men and women capable of bending the fabric of reality to their whim to be equal to people who can swing swords good

This is why they can't be balanced without imposing actual penalties on players

>>54221559

Only if you make stupid assumptions about the nature of magic

>>54215794
What I don't understand is why "The Dark Eye" isn't mentioned in those threads. Is this system that uncommon outside of germany? It really is great, and while mages are powerful in this setting as well, they are nowhere as godlike as in DnD. And in germany this system is played as much as D&D.

>>54219385
Gandalf was a martial though.