True facts: The concept of this book, and martials having powers

>>54606003

>*rebuttal "argument" based on hurt feelings and no logic, including an ad hominem*

The 5e has maneuver in the core, right?

>>54606059
Only for battlemaster fighter.

>>54606059
For a single fighter archetype, and it's kind of limited, iirc?

>>54606029
>proving the OP right in a single post

>>54606003
I actually think it approaches the problem from the wrong angle. While martials do need to get some nicer things, I think the bigger problem is that mages need to get less things.

>>54606003
>True facts: The concept of this book, and martials having powers in 4e, wasn't bad at all, and in fact needs to be brought back.

Yes, agreed.

>The only reason you would disagree is if you're a caster who is afraid of martials being equal to you because it reminds you of the jocks being better and more popular than you in high school.

No, lazy. At least you're up front about just wanting to start a slapfight.

4e failed on poorly-chosen terminology and questionable art direction, and that's really depressing to think about.

File: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.jpg (559KB, 2501x999px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 2501x999px

Nerds and other losers just can't stand the idea of Chad being the superior party member.

>>54606108
This is about the long and short of it. DnD doesn't need a huge variety of activated/limited use powers for Martials; while a huge fan of turn to turn options myself, something more limited along the lines of Fantasy Crafts tricks+no feat gating for basic maneuvers like trips and disarms to remain viable from 1-20 would have served 3.5 better alongside a downwards rebalance for casters. Options are there in the system, it's just that the numbers do not support them.

More so than the martials being weak, caster spell lists being so incredibly powerful invalidated so many goddamn adventure ideas. It's pretty damn hard to write around the wizard having scry+teleport+gate, etc, and that's just utility stuff.

>>54606059
Yes, but they're shit because they are balanced against Champion's class "features". Champion should have had four attacks, and Battlemaster should have resembled Warblade.
Book of Weaboo Fightan Magic for 5e when?

>>54606131
>No, lazy. At least you're up front about just wanting to start a slapfight.
I'll be completely honest anon I haven't had sleep in a fucking while and I honestly do want a thread about how those things weren't bad and only added that last part due to my tiredness/ shitposting being the only way to get a thread noticed these days. So you right, you right, that part was unneeded.

I mean, I do genuinely believe part of the reason martials are weak is due to caster players, on some, perhaps multiple levels, but that is a conversation that isn't gonna go anywhere so no need to start it.

File: 3030020000_01full.png (30KB, 140x125px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 140x125px

>>54606003
isn't this book the book that make warriors cast spells as well


better not nigger, I do not like that at all

>>54606059
manouvers are bought.

3,5 you can disarm by anouncing the action to the dm and doind the checks
5e niggers are too dumb and disarming gets locked until a single archetype with lvl3
manouvers is retarded nigger shit, 5e is a ghetto system

>>54606186
>They're shit
They're one of the best martials though, best DPR and battlefield control martial around. But you have to remember 5e is dial down to 1 compared with some of the past D&D editions, back in 3.5 you killed an army of mariliths at 10th level? now 10 goblins can still obliterate you at 10th level

>>54606170
Fantasy Craft has an awful lot of skill gating for basic manoeuvres like trips and disarms. Actually it requires you to pump a variety of skills just so you don't get locked down by an enemy deciding to spa trip or whatever.

>>54606202
>isn't this book the book that make warriors cast spells as well
Wait what?

>>54606202
>isn't this book the book that make warriors cast spells as well
I am reasonably sure spell swords are older than 3.5, friend. Probably older than D&D, infact!

File: 1435961027148.pdf (374KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1x1px

>>54606186
>Book of Weaboo Fightan Magic for 5e when?

just use this

>>54606193
The fighters=jocks so they must suffer meme just irritates me, because i remember the days it was tossed around as a joke and then somehow migrated into unquestioned orthodoxy. It's easy to understand how D&D evolved to a place where wizards can do anything - that magic spells get to break the rules while the guy with mundane skills has to operate within the rules but with higher numbers just feels intuitively right.

>>54606247
Still dozens of times worse than ToB.

>>54606289
casters are weaker in 5e so there's less of a gap to fill

>>54606247
>Implying any GM is going to let me use it
I don't want to sound like a cunt, and I'm sure you did that with the best intentions, I'm also not blaming you, but I hate most homebrewers for what you just did, just because your GM uses it doesn't mean other GMs are going to give it a go, when we say "I wish we had this" we mean officialy, homebrews don't help 99% of the time.

>>54606202
It lets the Fighter-equivalent cast such amazing magical spells like "I attack and ignore damage reduction" or "I charge and full attack" or "I Whirlwind Attack twice" or "I follow your movement when you move" or "I block an attack/spell with my sword" or "I charge and so do my allies". The Paladin and Monk/Ninja/Eldritch Knight equivalent classes get maneuvers that are magical, but those classes had magical abilities in the first place.

>>54606269
>- that magic spells get to break the rules while the guy with mundane skills has to operate within the rules but with higher numbers just feels intuitively right.

It does, and in theory this could be done in a way that doesn't make you go "why not just play a wizard." Sadly, D&D has not done this, and it probably never will.

>>54606202
>3,5 you can disarm by anouncing the action to the dm and doind the checks
And then you eat an attack of opportunity, botch the roll, and get disarmed yourself because you don't have the feats for it. If you're up against something that can be disarmed in the first place.

>>54606322

Oh wow, this post in one sentence encapsulates one of the big problems that /40krpg/ constantly suffers from.

>>54606322
Get a better GM

>>54606407
Most GMs do that.

>>54606068
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jm_eUQSYAk

>>54606322
>>54606416
You're kind of a dumb cunt, especially if your entire argument is based around you admitting you have the persuasive abilities of three-foot tall mosquito.

>>54606068
I honestly think if any sort of revised PHB comes out, they just need to make battle master and champion be one and the same. Champion is just so worthless on it's own. Make up a third archetype, like I dunno, one focused on making dual wielding better or something.

>>54606442

You literally cannot make a persuasive argument when the other person's position is defined entirely by their feelings. An argument against feelings is by definition a personal attack, and feelings can't change by logical argument.

>>54606447
>Champion is just so worthless on it's own

...doesn't it have, like, the highest potential reliable damage output among martials?

Regardless, I think the Champion should continue to exist because I want there to be a basic Fighter option who's just a straightforward warrior, the same as how the Rogue gets the thief and the Barbarian gets the berserker.

>>54606442
Or you don't get how the well is poisoned so that homebrew is autobanned from almost every table and won't even be entertained, you dumb fucker.

>>54606398

I'm not familiar with them, what happened?

>>54606003
Just play 4E.

>>54606230
I'd argue that skill-gating for them is a cheaper/easier investment than feat-gating; particularily egregious was comparing, say, Pathfinders grapple chain to FCs grapple-chain. In Pathfinder, the grapple chain is Unarmed Strike/Improved Grapple/Greater Grapple, and the first two feats only buys the ability to punch someone without getting an AoO and being able to grab someone without an AoO. The only thing that's an actual upgrade, instead of removing a terrible in-game penalty they slapped on the maneuver, is the third feat, which lets you spend both your actions on grappling instead of just one. Versus FC, where the grab feats start with a special stance that lets you reflexively trip or grab when someone misses you, a modifier on your unarmed strikes that lets you sprawl people who fail an attached fort save, and a trick that turns trips into risky, limited use, hard-hitting piledrivers. On top of that, the real investment you're going into is Attack Check vs Attack Check for disarm, Notice for Feint (who DOESN'T want notice? But the value of sensory skills being too high is another argument), Sense Motive for Distract, Athletics for Grapples, and Acrobatics for trips. Most characters, just by going into their normal skill progression, are going to be highly resistance to at least half or more, before they even start investing to resist. And there's nothing wrong with player characters having specific maneuver weakpoints; gives them something to worry about. The Soldier with shit Sense Motive is now going to have a reason to punch the taunting bandit with good CHA instead of just fighting the biggest damage dealer first.

For all its flaws FC had the right idea with feat design; they're flavorful, fun chains that have you buying new maneuvers and abilities instead of boring +2 modifiers or removing terrible penalties.

>>54606475
>.doesn't it have, like, the highest potential reliable damage output among martials?
If combats lasted more than 12 turns, they don't.
<12 turn combat? Battlemaster is king
>12 turn combat? Champion is king

>>54606442
See, what I said, most homebrewers think homebrewing is allowed in every table. Fun fact: It, by an incredible large margin, isn't.

>>54606312
Monsters aren't and ToB still didn't close the gap between spellcasters and martials, it just put martials where they should have been in the first place.

>>54606500
12 turns is pretty long for combat. D&D is balanced around combat lasting between 4-6 or so turns, if I recall correctly.

>>54606003
I argue that world changing and encounter solving magic should be removed from the hands of players entirely, and used only as a plot device.

Nerf casters. Hard.

>>54606475
I'll admit, I'm not the most knowledgeable on the system, but I don't know how it could be considering none of it's abilities have anything to damage, unless you count grabbing a fighting style that does more damage. And easier crits, I guess. That said, if it does have the highest potential damage output, I would love to know how.

>>54606003
Now I agree the fighter is useless in 5th ed, I tried hard to make one. Thanks to them making the 1st (5-6) levels suck to keep out muilt-classing, unpowered them at the levels they tended to own in the past. Barbarians out damage them and need less equipment. Rangers and Paladins have useful skills and unity spells. 5th made STR next to useless playing into the 90Ib DEX fighter (most marry sues in moives/shows today).

>actually wanting all classes to be equal
casters being overpowered is baked in to dnd lore at this point

i mean would you rather go explore in the tower of a powerful wizard, or of a guy who can hit things with a hammer real good?

>>54606489

The 40kRPGs are a dead line. FFG lost the licence, and GW isn't renewing it. So what they have is what they get, and they're missing a LOT of material. They have one single turbo-autist that makes a ton of homebrew for the missing stuff, but any mention of homebrew causes a shitstorm for a number of reasons. People still deep down want official material but also realize that there will never be any more, causing angst. But the biggest thing is 8th edition changed the canon and the homebrew uses the newest books, which leads to nucanon/trucanon shitflinging. Everyone has a different view of what 40k feels like, so when that feeling is attacked, they strike back. As an example, Mechanicus Tech Guard (old canon) vs Mechanicus Skitarii Rangers and Vanguard (new canon). The former is seen as old news and not exciting, and the latter is seen as disrespectful to the source and a cash grab. Neither side gets along, and thus there's argument.

>>54606561
The thing is the guy who can hit shit with a hammer real good should also be a warlord with a fortress and a small army at his call.

That's what fighters used to be like, before 3e fucked everything up.

>>54606447
>Champion is just so worthless on it's own.
Spoken like a true wizaboo. Why don't you try playing one?
>Make up a third archetype, like I dunno, one focused on making dual wielding better or something.
So like, Ranger?

>>54606532
How I hate GMs that can not deal with players having a choice. This in 5th ed where there is very little choice to be had

>>54606463
>You literally cannot make a persuasive argument when the other person's position is defined entirely by their feelings.

That's when it's the easiest, since they have nothing to ground themselves on. I'm sorry you can't actually talk to people.

>>54606479
>>54606516
What I fail to understand is why you want to act like everyone is as stupid as you must be, and to act like there's a universal blanket ban in order to try and support a largely empty argument.

Aside from you relying entirely on anecdotal evidence to support your points, you really don't have much of a case if you're hoping to lament about some fictional "most" groups when these are groups people wouldn't want to play with from the start. If you really want to pretend everyone in the world is mindlessly stubborn and won't listen to any suggestions, I guess that just means I'm dealing with people I should probably not bother with, and end the conversation here.

>>54606003
If you like martials so much why wouldn't you play GURPS or the Riddle of Steel or Mythras or whatever?

>>54606582
>Ranger
>Better at dual wielding
Not better than your fighter who also gets to add Str/Dex to the off hand, and at 1st level instead of 2nd like Ranger

>>54606581
That army was fluff and ribbons, and still nothing compared to what mages got.

>>54606601
You can still have a choice and create change in the world without being an overland flighting god mate.

>>54606533
Pretty sure it's the crit-fishing coupled with Great Weapon Master letting you re-roll the 1s on damages with a Critical.

>>54606631
Only because the retards decided that magic=near unstoppable divinity.

Despite nearly every hero of myth being an extraordinary man punching wizards and gods alike into submission.

>>54606561
>i mean would you rather go explore in the tower of a powerful wizard, or of a guy who can hit things with a hammer real good?

5e has both a CR 12 archmage and a CR 12 warlord statblock to use for that. I guess the warlord would have a castle rather than a tower though.

>>54606612
Sure, I have no fact, only 5 different cities, 2 different countries, 12 different groups and almost 20 different GMs which is anectodal evidence, I don't care you're the luckiest mofo around and you can come to your GM with D&Dwiki homebrewed stuff and get a "sure" 10/10 times, I can't. I dind't find a single GM that accepted homerules from other people. So, in what way "use this" helps me? nothing, it doesn't help me, your homebrew doesn't help me in the slightless, so your post replying to "I wish we had this officially" is useless.

>>54606684
>Sure, I have no fact, only 5 different cities, 2 different countries, 12 different groups and almost 20 different GMs which is anectodal evidence,

Anon the fuck you doing having so many groups and DMs.

>>54606003
The book was only bad cause it made existing martials useless

>>54606612
>your anecdotal evidence doesn't matter
>but mine does
>also I don't know how talking to people works

>>54606684
This is bs, everybody accepts homebrewing

>>54606707
They were already useless anon.

>>54606707
They were already useless.

>>54606701
I traveled a fucking lot. I still do.

>>54606711
I accept homebrewing. Hell, I homebrew a lot of stuff myself. I find it fun.

>>54606701
Not him, but it is called being an oldbeard and/or being in a job that requires mobility, like say the military.

I'm 41 and been in a similar number of groups over the 30 or so years I've been playing.

>>54606684
2 cents - After 20 years of gaming in a collage town, I agree with this. I go as far to add 3 parity stuff rarely even gets looked over.

>>54606711
Everyone accepts homebrewing from inside the group. The only times I've ever seen homebrew that came from out of the group get greenlighted were community-wide agreed upon houserules for 4E and in a ToB-only game, homebrewed martial disciplines from GitP.

>>54606707
Did it manage to make them double useless?

>>54606761
Blame the deluge of shit third party products from the d20 glut for that one.

>>54606709
The key idea is that we're throwing out all arguments that rely entirely on anecdotal evidence to support them. More importantly, even if some groups don't allow any 3rd party material, that really doesn't mean anything, and trying to press that as if it were a point is just a really lame attempt at dismissing 3rd party material right off the bat.

>>54606475
Champion is pretty good. It get really ridiculous when you go Half-Orc for Savage Attacks (extra damage die on a crit) with a greataxe (1d12), and then take the Great Weapon Master feat to add a +10 to damage (you could also take the UA feat but it is pretty minor and not many people actually play with UA stuff).

But even without all that, it's still pretty good. People forget that Fighters get extra attacks, up to four at level 20. That's a lot of rolls that could be an 18 or 19 crit.

>>54606821
Third party material gets dismissed because it's almost never allowed.

>>54606869

>things aren't allowed because they aren't allowed

circular

>>54606812
Yes and most Pathfinder 3th party is not play tested as well as it should. We tried play with the Psi-powers book once. The combo of the Psi healer and a Cleric broke the game. Doing this was the GMs idea so it did not stop until a level 4 we were took out a elder Dragon

>>54606684
>D&Dwiki

That's not the entirety of homebrewed stuff, and is a particularly poor example because none of that is really published and almost none is peer reviewed.

In general, the homebrewed options DM's tend to dislike are those for player characters. However, most DM's have absolutely no problem with homebrew for NPCs, items, subsystems, dungeons, traps, and so on.

So, just suggest to your DM to look at a homebrew for ideas for NPCs and the like, and after they've looked at the material, ask if the material seems balanced enough for PCs.

>>54606869
If you're relying on personal anecdotal evidence for the entirety of your argument, consider yourself dismissed.

>>54606934
But, anon, 3pp Psionics from PF are literally a carbon copy from 3.5 Psionics, I can't find anything new from that book a part from improving stuff that needed to be improved like Soul Knife

>>54606849
Hell, even with just 3 attacks at level 11, I think the odds of getting a crit hang somewhere around 1 in 3, don't they?

Why greataxe and not greatsword? More dice to re-roll off of Great Weapon fighting style. 4d6 re-rolling 1s or 2s once is better than 2d12 re-rolling 1st and 2s, isn't it? And the average damage of 4d6 is a bit higher than the average damage of 2d12.

>>54606953
That ToB for 5e got posted in here several times, I tried to bring it to two different GMs, no chance. That's why I maybe started a little mad with the reply.

>>54606971
And homebrewing being allowed isn't anecdotal evidence?

>>54606934
That's probably a failure to understand the rules more than it is Vitalist actually breaking the game.

>>54606994
Looking through it, that example is not a particularly good set of homebrew as far as balance goes. I'd really hesitate myself to include several of the options in the book.

It definitely needs more playtesting, and I've always felt that homebrew should err on the side of being weaker, rather than stronger, than official options.

>>54607021
Are you trying to say no one ever allows any third party material? Because, you'd have to provide evidence of that before your argument held any weight.

>>54606149
>poorly-chosen terminology
Like what? That a bunch of PFaggots can't accept they're fulfilling basic roles within the party's composition in order to succeed unless they're all broken as shit wizards?

>>54607120
Geez, those edition war scars still haven't healed for some people, have they.

>>54607093
>homebrew should err on the side of being weaker
Unless is meant to fix something see wot4e monk

>>54606975
The psi healer can take healing from anyone at any time and heal someone else. Pathfinder Cleric heal area of effect as a bonus action. So everyone got healed but only 2 needed it. Start every round fully healed. Psi Melee fighters/Tanks get Damage Reduction. See where this is going

>>54606979
>Why greataxe and not greatsword?
Greatsword = 2d6 + 2d6 (Crit) + 1d6 (Half Orc's Savage Attack) = 5d6, or 5 to 30 damage

Greataxe = 1d12 + 1d12 (Crit) + 1d12 (Half Orc's Savage Attack) = 3d12, or 3 to 36 damage

I'll grant you, though, that they're pretty comparable, and with Great Weapon fighting style, greatsword may edge greataxe out overall.

>>54607110
Actually you'd have to provide evidence of third party material being allowed more often than it's banned.

>>54607136
When one side refuses to accept that there are any flaws at all, or worse, attempts to call those flaws features and then continues to not only claim superiority but taint the waters of possible players, yes i'm salty. Both 4 and 5 have some large flaws but any PF player, not even 3.5 guys most of the time, will claim their shit don't stink.

>>54607162
Not at all, because the "argument" of third party material doesn't rely entirely on the idea that all groups must accept it. It doesn't even rely on the idea that most groups accept it.

On the other hand, your attempt to dismiss it relies entirely on all groups never accepting any form of third party material, and at best you only have anecdotal evidence that some groups don't.

>>54607147
Thats literally the cleric's problem though, not the psy classes.

>>54607060
I know right? No one wanted to play one even after we broke it. We paid 3 NPC Vitalist to follow us a max mind group range at first. Then someone muilt-class for a few levels.

>>54607093
>I've always felt that homebrew should err on the side of being weaker, rather than stronger, than official options

y tho

>>54607185
>When one side refuses to accept that there are any flaws at all, or worse, attempts to call those flaws features and then continues to not only claim superiority but taint the waters of possible players, yes i'm salty.

Holy shit, I knew that people who got in deep in the edition wars were crazy, but I didn't realize anyone so butthurt was still around and hadn't just killed themselves.

You're one hell of a survivor.

>>54606934
>CR 19 dragon as a 4th level party
Let me triple doubt that. That monster insta drops to 0 HPs anyone at that level with one attack, and it has 6. Even if you heal him back he's prone, if he stands up he dies.

That monster also has spells that rape your party.

>>54606447
They need to just bite the bullet and give maneuvers to every martial archetype except champion. Champion can go without so the autists that can't not use options presented to them have a containment class.

>>54607210
>We paid 3 NPC Vitalist to follow us a max mind group range at first
Why not pay 3 lvl 20 wizards though?

>>54607149
With Great Weapon fighting, greatsword is 15 to 30 damage, while greataxe would be 9 to 36 damage.

>>54607149
Greatsword average dice damage with GWF: (3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6)/6=4.166...*2=8.33...
Greataxe average dice damage with GWF: (6.5+6.5+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12)/12=7.33...

20STR Halforc Champion Greatsword damage per swing at 70% accuracy: .7*13.33+.15*(8.33+4.166)= 11.2054
Greataxe instead: .7*12.33+.15*(7.33*2)=10.83

15% of 7.33 isn't enough to make up for the greatsword's higher base damage.

>>54607254
It's only a one-time reroll. Mathematically it just means your 1s and 2s are the dice's average roll

>>54607219
Largely to prevent unforeseen combinations from dominating the game.

In general, the goal of homebrew should be to make it match the strength of official material as closely as possible, but when the questions are "does this seem a little strong to you?" and "does this seem a little weak to you?", the latter will simply have no effect on the game since no one will choose it, while the latter will have a large effect on the game because people will be encouraged to pick it.

For Homebrew, which is perpetually in playtest mode, it's always best to play it safe and to slowly improve unerpowered abilities rather than having to nurf too strong ones.

>>54607208
It is not play testing with pathfinder rules. There were other stuff that a sold play though would have seen. They just nerfed 3.5 rules (based on not playing the classes- I could tell that right off) . We tired it with just the Psi classes to make the GM feel better. To weak on their own. He had to down power a lot so we did not end up in more than the 2 TPKs

>>54607254
Not quite because you only get to rerolls your 1's and 2's once. If you get a 1 or 2 again on your reroll, you're stuck with it.

>>54606560
>first six levels are useless
>Action Surge
>useless
>bad for dipping

>>54607304
Action surge - I give is some what useful in combat. I Still would not play a fighter anytime soon and not seen anyone in the past play one.

>>54606493
But 4e has problems and I want to play a better 4e! Where's the game that built on 4th's ideas the way 4th built on 3rd?

>>54607381
Plus if you're multiclassing, starting Fighter 2 gives you CON proficiency for concentration too, and heavy armor. It's a great dip

File: Strike! The game of Tactical Combat and Heedless Adventure.pdf (1MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1x1px

>>54607422
There are options...

>>54607452
Fuck off Strikefag

>>54607422
4e built on 3.5? That's news to me.

>>54607452
That's a worse 4e.

>>54607452
Stop shilling Strike! Why does /tg/ keep shilling Strike?

>>54607470
Shit nigga, look at OP. ToB was 4e playtesting.

>>54607422
That's the issue, 4e was so fucking massive that while peeps in /4eg/ have been trying to figure out how to do a 4e heartbreaker, the one thing everyone is certain is that you need to go full time, because of just how much 4e had.

>>54607470
It was an attempt to solve 3.5's issues that people complained on forums at the time, taking inspirations from wargames, cardgames and, yes, vidya (not that it's bad, 3.5 took from vidya too).

>>54607422
4e lost the edition war, badly.

File: Koala.jpg (763KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

763KB, 1024x768px

>>54606166
I wouldn't speak to either of those people

>>54607470
ToB then SW SAGA then 4e was a steady change from 3.5 to 4e

>>54606479
>>54606516
>homebrew is autobanned from almost every table
Then explain why WotC created a website more or less solely for the sharing of homebrew, on which it is entirely possible to make several hundred dollars just by posting a single class.

>>54607470
>4e built on 3.5? That's news to me.
D20 system.
Same stat bonus chart.
Unified level/exp progression for all classes.
Prestige classes became paragon paths.
Similar skill systems, ranks simplified to training.
Same defenses, just switched to attack rolls instead of saving throws.
Standard/move/minor/immediate(Swift) action economy. Just got rid full round actions.

Off the top of my head.

>>54607438
trust me, I loved muilt-classing weapon users. 5th just Nerfed it so bad I well never try it and yet to see anyone else do so.

>>54607653
Because it's easy money for no effort. You're still stupid if you think it's allowed at most tables.

>>54607680
I bet anything posted there becomes owned by them so a get place to (not steal) ideas from

>>54607560
I feel that within the 3e-4e spectrum, Saga was probably the sweet spot.

>>54606447
It was in the playtest, but for whatever reason they made it just a single archetype upon final release. they willfully made it suck.

>>54607219
Aside from other reasons given, the author is more likely to underestimate the power of material that they're writing than they are to overestimate it.

For similar reasons, it's often better to homebrew narrow abilities rather than broad ones. Consider this example:
>When you hit an enemy with a melee attack made with a martial weapon, you may choose to strike with enough force to destroy the weapon, resulting in a critical hit.
Now, this could have been written to extend to all melee weapons, right? Exotic and simple and all that. However, if somewhere else in the game, there's a Weapon Proficiency (Other Motherfucker) that allows you to swing the dwarf as a bludgeoning weapon, a broader version of this ability would allow you to sunder one of your party members. Which is never a good idea.

>>54607680
>You're still stupid if you think it's allowed at most tables.
But then how are people making hundreds of dollars off of posting material? If it's never allowed anywhere, how is it getting purchased?

>>54607797

Because when it gets listed on the OFFICIAL website, it becomes semi-OFFICIAL, and thus okay to use.

>>54607797
Being allowed at 10% of tables is still enough to make you money. Same reason 3.PF third party is a thing.

>>54607706
This is actually exactly why I posted some of my material there--not because I wanted to make money off of chumps, but because I'm very fond of a particular fantasy archetype and wanted to get my two cents in on how it should be represented. Especially since its representation throughout various editions has varied so wildly.

>>54607797
Players buying it thinking their DMs will give a shit

>>54606202
>3,5 you can disarm by anouncing the action to the dm and doind the checks
>5e niggers are too dumb and disarming gets locked until a single archetype with lvl3
Check p. 271 of the 5e DMG.

>>54606170
This. Wizards can do too many things too well (better than non-caster classes that specialize in those things).

Take fightan magic away from wizards, give it to fighters except refluffed as superhuman skills. Make the wizards into "the class that can do SOME of what you do, but not as good" and "the class that can do something no one can do without trivializing everything".

>>54606202
Not that I think BM isn't fucking shit with a joke for a maneuver list that's literally worse than a 5th level Warblade in terms of interesting options, but as far as basic combat maneuvers go all they get is the ability to do damage while doing the same combat maneuver everyone else is.

>>54607225
It's like Dwarf Fortress, if you survived each of the big things it can throw at you nothing will be able to stop you except boredom. And hate is a pretty good protection from boredom.

>>54607535
There's no justice in the world

>>54606003
The concept was not bad. The reason it was needed was - that is being the fact that basic combat system in 3.5 it pretty shitty.

>>54608146
Nah, it's just that you have a different taste for what you want out of combat than most people.
It might be surprising, but most people actually don't want combat to be too complex, and while 3.5 may be complex in regards to building characters, combat itself is relatively simple.

File: 1439773380537.jpg (460KB, 1008x757px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 1008x757px

>>54606202
Many of the battlemaster maneuvers are things that can be done with contested checks, like Shoving to knock someone prone using athletics.

The difference for battlemasters is that they turn a contested check into a save with extra damage. There's no chance that you roll low to flub it, and you'll be able to trip someone along with your attack instead of in place of it.

>>54608353
I don't really think that's good enough to be a limited use maneuver.

>>54608339
>combat itself is relatively simple.
I full attack while hasted with a +5 Keen Falchion at +36/+36/+31/+26/+21. The enemy is 40% concealed and I have Blind-Fight, so I roll 5 percentile die and reroll 2 of them. 2 of them are critical threats so I roll 2 crit confirm checks, one of which works. Afterwards I roll 10d4.

That's NOT 'relatively simple'.

>>54608414
That's high level, and still largely straighforward compared to other games, especially because most of that doesn't involve making many decisions, it's just a process of resolving a full attack.

>>54608455
>and still largely straighforward compared to other games,
Well it's pretty easy to tell you don't actually play other games from that.

File: 14316822_915442001893181_4047231703079581107_n.jpg (75KB, 600x810px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 600x810px

>>54607555
your gf would, Cuckoala

>>54606235
>>54606245
if you see a question mark you will realize the person was asking you, it wasn't telling you.

>>54608493
What part of "I full attack" isn't straightforward? That's the decision being made, and the rest of your post was just what needed to be resolved.

Compared to games where you have to sit and wait while one guy spends five minutes agonizing about which body part he's going to target for the twentieth time without realizing that his decision is largely inconsequential, it's very straighforward indeed.

File: 1489785256533.jpg (13KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 200x200px

>when the wizard starts getting full of himself so you put him in his place

Best feeling

>>54608746
>while one guy spends five minutes
Stop playing with handicaps.

>>54608782
alternatively, start using a chess timer

>>54608746
This is the most embarrassing defense of 3E's basic combat mechanics I've ever seen. It's okay that they're shit because you have no options without being a spellcaster so a retard can pick what they want to do quickly, even if it'll take ages to actually resolve? Are you for real? Get the fuck out of here.

>>54608836
I explained why his criticism was unfounded, because despite appearances, yes, his entire post was a single decision in combat.

Now, it's unfair for you to act like I said that all of 3.5 can be reduced down to "I full attack" or that his string of words is even the norm for full attacks.

So please, check yourself.

>>54608866
No, you tried to cover your ass. It's shallow, not simple. If your party is getting hamstrung for five minutes trying to pick a body part to shoot in Savage Worlds even when the answer is blindingly obvious or they could just shoot without aiming, they're going to get hung up on whether they should use a combat maneuver in 3.5.

>>54609064
>It's shallow, not simple.

I get a strong feeling you're just kind of here to hate, rather than understand. I'm trying to explain what most people want out of a combat system, and how extremely tactical combat isn't actually all that popular and in part one of the reasons why 4e pushing that approach received a fair amount of resistance.

You're right, in that 3.5 combat could potentially have a lot of decisions that could take upwards of several minutes (like anyone playing a high level spellcaster), but that's actually one of the reasons why most people did not play above level 12. For most people, combat in 3.5 was actually rather straightforward and didn't involve all that many decisions, but at the same time the game allowed people who did want a lot of decisions an opportunity to play in that style if they wished.

3.5 combat was, for the most part, quite flexible in terms of complexity. At its base, the combat is built on a very simple framework, but how far it goes from there is up to the group.

That's why 5e, while adopting many of the lessons explored by 4e, tried to at least retain some options for the people who aren't really all that invested in the nuances of tactical combat and just want to plop down a character and roll some dice. While it's great for "us roleplayers" to despise people like this, just like people derided that bioware writer who said she wished that video games had an option to let players skip through battles like they could skip through cutscenes, the truth is that there are a variety of people who come together to play tabletop games, and it's not a bad idea for games to try and accommodate a variety of playstyles.

>>54607861
>champion announces disarming for the DM
>"but you can't"
>take the DMG from behind the DM's shield and quote page
>battlemaster gives you the stink eye
I dont have a DMG around but is 5E really hiding the options from the players?

>>54607861
>DMG

>>54609272
Battlemaster not only should not take that maneuver anyway, but should realise that when he does it, you do a fuckload of extra damage as well.

>>54609251
I understand perfectly: you're projecting your dislike for tactical combat on 'most' RPG players and turning a blind eye to how dysfunctional the framework you're jacking off to actually is.

>>54609362
I love tactical combat and have only played 3.5 three times ever since I switched to 4e. But, I can at least recognize what most people want out of games, and why people generally preferred 3.PF over 4e, and why 5e is now the most popular game on the market.

Tactical combat isn't for everyone, and that's why 4e is a good game, but it doesn't have the broad appeal that 3.5 had or that 5e has.

>>54609459
>and why 5e is now the most popular game on the market.
Because it's like monopoly.

>>54609497
You're right, I guess that's why Pathfinder has less players than 4e.

>>54609523
>Implying Pathfinder isn't Monopoly: Special Edition

>>54609542
Pathfinder might be bad, but it's not Monopoly bad.

>>54609551
You don't understand.
I'm not saying it's as bad as Monopoly. I'm saying it's the most popular game on the market for the same reason than Monopoly is.
It doesn't matter if the game is good or not, if everyone is playing it, then everyone will keep playing it.

>>54609551
Both are characterized by houserules that make the game even worse.

>>54609577
>It doesn't matter if the game is good or not, if everyone is playing it, then everyone will keep playing it.

I guess that's why people still play 2e, right?
Or how 4e didn't lose out to a non-D&D game?
Or how 5e is actually pretty good and you're just kind of saying random shit?

>>54609659
>I guess that's why people still play 2e, right?
The new version of Monopoly came.
>Or how 4e didn't lose out to a non-D&D game?
Can you fucking believe it, they made a new version of Monopoly with special cards, dices, and new rules so it can be strategic and shit?! It's NOTHING like MY Monopoly. I want MY Monopoly BACK! Oh look, another company just made Nomopoly, it's exactly like the old Monopoly, let's play that!
>Or how 5e is actually pretty good and you're just kind of saying random shit?
Oh, FINALLY, Monopoly got back on track! Let's play the new Monopoly!

>>54606499
>I'd argue that skill-gating for them is a cheaper/easier investment than feat-gating
Especially when you consider that Fantasy Craft makes it plenty easy for martial characters to get a solid skill base. Low-skill classes get 4+Int skill points per level, and those skill points go farther than the same number would in Pathfinder due to the vastly condensed skill list Fantasy Craft uses. Plus Fantasy Craft is designed to encourage more well-rounded stat spreads, rather than hyperspecializing in one or two core stats, so it's trivial for a martial character to have a +1 or +2 Int bonus (as well as a positive Wis bonus, which many combat maneuvers key off of). And if all that isn't enough, there are quite a few Origin options that can further help out your skill spread by providing Paired Skills, extra skill points, and/or extra Origin skills. Several of these are even specifically combatant-oriented options, like Gladiator or Vanguard.

>>54609706
>random inane shit

Well, I guess that's about as far as you go.

>>54609706
Doesn't your second point contradict your first point?

>>54609791
>No it's true, D&D is famous because it's the best game ever, there is no peer pressure or brand recognition involved at all I swear!
Talk about inane shit bud

>>54609836
The discussion is about what most people prefer. I suggest you calm down, quit strawmanning, and generally stop making a fool of yourself.

>>54609831
Would have if it was the exact same situation on the market. It wasn't. D&D 3 was enormous in popularity and it cemented the brand. Also, 4e was way more different from 3 than 3 from 2.

>>54609862
>strawmanning
You don't know what this means.
Beside, you're shifting the goal post. I talked to you only because of your "and why 5e is now the most popular game on the market."

I don't care if you say it's about preference. I tell you it's not about that, but mostly brand recognition and peer pressure.
Like a lot of people, I played D&D for years simply because I didn't know any better and I had no real choice in the matter because it was what everyone else was playing. You can't say I "choose" to play D&D even if I bought the fucking books.

>>54606003
No, I just think that introducing special martial classes with wushu powers and anime sword beams was the wrong way to try and balance the game.

It balanced fighters vs casters by turning fighters into casters.

>>54610035

There's nothing wrong with wushu powers and sword beams though.

Especially for a high-fantasy game.

And considering the bullshit casters do in D&D I'd say it's definately been leaning hard into the high fantasy end of the spectrum for a while now.

I liked that to have higher level disciplines you needed to pick certain number, type, etc of disciplines, like if you were creating a tree of techniques.

>>54610074

You're confusing structure for substance.

>>54609944
Strawmanning means presenting an argument no one said in order to avoid the actual topic at hand, like you just did, all so you can rant and cry about how you feel betrayed by your own insistence to stay within your comfort zone. No one said D&D is the best game better, or that peer pressure and brand recognition didn't play a part in its success.

5e is the most popular game on the market, and it's not solely because of brand recognition or peer pressure. Even you recognize that much, considering how you had to resort to using "mostly", which is still a fair amount of unsubstantiated conjecture on your part which is largely dismissed by the fact that simply being the new D&D doesn't automatically make you the most popular game.

One reason why 5e is so popular, and continues to grow in popularity? Because it chose to take a step back from making combat feel like a tactical wargame as much as 4e did, because the general roleplaying population actually isn't as fond of overly tactical rulesets. It chose to appeal to what most people wanted, and that's why it not only attracted new players, but has retained them.

I don't think you really appreciate just how popular 5e is, either. It's the game with the largest playing population ever, and it's continuing to grow, and not just because of brand recognition. It has done a fair job at trying to be a game that can cater to a wide variety of tastes so that even players with wildly different tastes can sit down together at the same table, and it has largely succeeded in that regard.

If you want to pretend that brand recognition is the sole reason for 5e's popularity, you're just blinding yourself to some very simple truths about the game, and why people choose to play it.

>>54610152

> It's the game with the largest playing population ever,

I'd like a source on that please!

>>54606383
Like how?

>>54609944
I was just pointing out that your argument contradicts itself and is largely just baseless conjecture, and is absolutely devoid of anything resembling a logical argument.

It's basically just a shitpost on your part.

>>54606475
Champion is good and really consistent, my problem was that it got boring for me after awhile.

>>54608339
You confuse simplicity and shallowness with streamlining. Mutants&Masterminds while working on mostly the same engine has much better combat. It's cleaner has less caveats and works smoother while having more easily accessible options. Even martial only fight while mostly staying in semi-realistic power levels is pretty interesting and runs faster than in D&D.

D&D on the other hand gates simplest (and not actually that powerful) options behind levels and feats making you pay through the nose to be at least half-competent and what you do while adding a tons of restrictions on the side.

When realistic characters in GURPS start looking like epic heroes compared to a character from dedicated fantasy system you know you have problems.

>>54606108
This is almost right, I think.

What I think the real problem is isn't necessarily that mages can potentially do so many things, it's that some caster classes are insanely flexible in which spells they can personally use.

Examples of this issue are Clerics being able to pray for literally anything when they prepare for spells, and Wizards having the ability to accumulate lots of new spells. "But Wizards have to have a spellbook," is not an intelligent rebuttal, because it doesn't take into account that removing almost all of a class' features in order to create challenges is not actually fun for anyone.

>>54606003
If I wanted my martials to be spellcasters, I'd make them spellcasters.

>>54610089
1) Special classes make the existing classes that I actually like even more irrelevant, which has no appeal at all to me and many others
2) If I wanted gay ass shonen powers I would play a shonen anime rpg. You're basically trying to nag people who like one genre into accepting and playing an entirely different genre that they have no interest in
3)You have to be a newfag or a troll to still be trying to beat this dead horse.

>>54610283

Not to mention telling people that wizard are balanced because "YOU JUST HAVE TO LIMIT WHAT SPELLS THEY CAN TAKE" still means you have a fuckhuge list of shit you have to decide whether or not granting this one thing will totally ruin your adventure or not and make sure it doesn't measure up against the various obstacles you've made.

If D&D is meant to be a good "beginning" RPG then that's just sad...

>>54610089
I wholeheartedly agree

>>54610320

>1) Special classes make the existing classes that I actually like even more irrelevant, which has no appeal at all to me and many others

What???

2) If I wanted gay ass shonen powers I would play a shonen anime rpg. You're basically trying to nag people who like one genre into accepting and playing an entirely different genre that they have no interest in

lol u serious m8

tell me what 'genre' exactly are you talking about here?

>3)You have to be a newfag or a troll to still be trying to beat this dead horse.

and an ad hominen too

what exactly is the point of this? Just hurr anime is gay wushu for faggots?

Yea thank you for that.

>>54606561
>balance means all classes must be equal
Nah. Dread Necromancer, Warblade, Beguiler, Psychic Warrior. All different classes with different playstyles, all Tier 3.

>>54610320
1. They sucked already and half of them couldn't even perform correctly
2. You're already playing a game with magical girl
3. I agree

>>54606561

>casters being overpowered is baked in to dnd lore at this point

No it's not???

Where in the lore does it say wizards are the most powerful of beings?

What paragraph, what character, what specific bit of lore says that wizards are just objectively superior to martial characters? If you're just going to point to what the character's are capable of then- you do understand what fluff and mechanics are right?

You have basic game design knowledge 101 right?

>>54610283
Remove generalist spell lists and replace them with mandatory specialization?

Higher damage and lowered the crit range of martial classes universally.

One thing I discovered about 3.PF is that I can be a dick, arrogant character as long as I'm a caster, GM has to literally DM fiat to humiliate my character.
I can't as a martial, I always have to play as the humble, coward character with martials, because the moment I sound cool or try to scare my enemies it's going to bite me in the ass.

>>54610492
Back in 3.5 one of my GM had this homerule: when you crit you max damage (don't double it) and stagger the opponent for 1 turn. We also only played with T4-2 classes.

>>54610501
>GM has to literally DM fiat to humiliate my character.

Not at all. In fact, your entire line of argument is so ridiculous, I can't help but feel like you're just being facetious for the sake of getting a response.

>>54606003
This book came out more than a decade ago. Do you honestly think anything novel will be discussed in this thread?

>>54610035
You're wrong.

>>54606003

How about instead of having martials, just make casters that specialize in close range magic and being hard to kill?

Except in 3.5 you could already do that, so why even have martials?

>>54606108
Both of which 4e did.

Almost like it's...the best edition, or something.

>>54610717

I saw an interesting discussion that went like this:

Some player prefer to have simplistic characters with straightforward mechanics while others like having a wide variety of complex shit they gotta manage and deal with. There's nothing wrong with either it's just, preference.

D&D has the problem where martial characters fall into the former simplistic design (I swing my sword) and casters fall into the latter complex design (I have 50 spells each with different effects). It tries to appeal to both players in essence.

The PROBLEM is that balancing these two options is really tricky. Because your first instinct might be to think "Well if it's just preference then why not have them be equal" except if the simple class is just as effective as the complex class you're getting an equal amount for less effort. Players who like complex characters want to feel like their fiddling and choices matter so giving them the edge is usually preferable.

Except this then makes the issue where anyone who puts in the effort to perform well in the complex class is now outperforming anyone who prefers the simplistic class and those guys are basically told no you're in the kiddie pool deal with it which isn't exactly a fair tradeoff.

Basically D&D needs to tell one of these groups to fuck off and deal with it but they won't cause that'd mean cutting thier potential playerbase in half.

>>54610953

I don't know that any of the people that I play with (5e) prefer it to be overly simplistic. If they play martials it seems to be that they prefer the flavor of a badass over the flavor a scholar in robes.

Like, I had this guy who wanted to be an edgy assassin so he played assassin rogue for a short time but then remade his character as a shadow monk because sneak attacking every round had him bored to tears.

Gunsmith artificer is also one of the least liked classes in our group since its best course of action most of the time is to shoot its gun

>>54611111

That is another problem yes. If you wanna be a sword fighting badass and have more options than "I full attack" or if you wanna spew hellfire at enemies and just want a trusty standby you can roll every round then the game basically tells you to go fuck yourself.

>>54610931
It is, but lacked OBFUSCATION.

Srsly, 5e do some abilities almost exactly as in 4e, but obfuscated the cogs

>>54610420
>Where in the lore does it say wizards are the most powerful of beings?
The fact that there are several spells in the PHB that are named after mages while martials get jack and shit for even so much as a cursory reference?

>>54610953
Right, and wrong.

Remember when 5e was all about modularity? Classes should hadbe the same. They tried poorly with the Champion / Battlemaster dichotomy: simple approach and options.
Wizards should be the same. Specialists should be only their school, but "overpowered", and generalist weaker.

>>54606003
I played nothing but martials in 3.5 and I thought that book was kinda lame and that 4e was total dogshit. There are ways to make martials good that aren't "powers" and it involves reigning in wizards to not have insane encounter-ending powers.

>>54606235
>>54606202
>>54606245
>spellsword
>martial
>not a spellcaster

Nothing means anything anymore, jesus christ.

>>54612028
No amount of nerfing the wizard is going to make a straight-by-the-PHB 3.5e fighter fun to play.

>>54607120
PFaggot here. We were wrong. Had we known what the future would've been like, we would have sided with the 4rries. Now wer're stuck in the unending hell that is Paizo, PFS based Eratta, and /pfg/

Please, send help!

>>54612140
You can only help yourselves.

>>54612140
This man does not speak for us. 4e is and remains the worst RPG of all time.

>>54612218
Paidrone detected
>>>/paizo/
Unless you're ione of those faggots that unironically likes the current discord-meme culture of /pfg/.
Or you could be Virt. Thats always an option

>>54612218
It's not even the worst edition of D&D,

>>54606003
I fully agree with everything you said, save for the whole "fact" bit. It's an opinion... a based opinion that I happen to agree with, but an opinion nonetheless.
>he only reason you would disagree is if you're a caster who is afraid of martials being equal to you because it reminds you of the jocks being better and more popular than you in high school
There are lots of reasons someone could disagree. Maybe they just have shit taste. Personally, 4e already exists, and is perfect as it is, and I'm glad there isn't any new-book power-creep to make me create a ban-list for my games.

>>54612298
>>54612294
Pathfinder sucks, but at least it can potentially be fun to play. 4e is terrible.

>>54612298
Yeah, that would be 3.x.

>>54612347
Throwing corn encrusted turds at each other can potentially be fun, but at the end of the day you are still rolling around in shit. Which is what you are doing when playing Pathfinder.

>>54612218
Oh come on. 4e is completely functional as written and that alone puts it above a huge swathe of published RPGs.

>>54612028
No, even if every full caster didn't exist martials would still be shit. Why do you think that every time a martial gets into T3 it's because of ACFs and feats that literally give them spells or abilities like Wild Shape?

>>54606108
Give fighters more skill points/class skills, add more high level and scaling combat feats.

Remove combat summoning. Remove Wild Shape for anything beyond basic animals. Remove save-or-die spells. Remove 9th level spells.

>>54612140

>Send help

http://thedesignmechanism.com/resources/TDM110%20Mythras%20Imperative.pdf

Might not help you if you want better D&D, but I'll do what I can.

>>54612509
You do realize that Wolves and Bears are "basic animals" right?

>>54612509
What's that going to do aside from move the game towards save-or-sucks and no-save crowd control? Plus "more high level and scaling combat feats" is vague: you do realize that ToB maneuvers exist to fill niches that martials actually needed covered, right?

>>54606003
>The concept of this book, and martials having powers in 4e, wasn't bad at all, and in fact needs to be brought back.
I agree that the *concept* wasn't bad. The execution was however.
If we want to have a system where non-magic PCs are an option and we want to create some degree of parity between them, we need to make melee combat less abstract and give melee dudes more options than just "I full attack".

>>54612771
What exactly would need to be fixed about the execution?

>>54612662
So what? No fighter, barbarian or paladin is going to be outclassed by a wolf or bear, even with equal HD.

>>54612729
>TOB maneuvers
I said fighters, not martials. TOB should be an alternative to standard martial classes, not a replacement for them.

>>54612872
Except that's effectively what happens in games with a Druid that knows what they're doing.

Think about it, we're talking about a creature that already has special abilities on hit, being flanked by a Druid, who can cast spells, while wild-shaped into that creature, with the option to summon more
of that creature by dropping one of his spells.

Meanwhile, to equal the effectiveness of a bear, the Fighter would basically have to take every feat to git gud at grappling and he'd have to sacrifice one of his attacks for the turn in order to do it.

>>54612872
>by a wolf or bear, even with equal HD.
You never took a look at druid class, did you? those animal companions get goodies on top of what they're, like bonus to Str/Con/Dex, feats, etc.

>>54612990
Yeah, that's why I also said to add more high level/scaling combat feats. Hell, even as is a fighter is better at grappling than a bear could ever be. Better BAB>size bonus every time, and Weapon Supremacy means grappling does not save the other guy from your greatsword. Add better feats for area denial, taunting, getting more out of crits (status conditions, etc), and most importantly, remove the restriction of "realism." A high level human fighter can easily have a Str score of 33, meaning he has a heavy load limit over a full ton. Let him actually use that. Let him throw enemies without needing a dozen feats that suck and restrict you based on "size." Fuck that, if I can lift the frost giant, I'm going to throw the frost giant. A level 20 barbarian can move over 3 tons while raging! Let them actually USE it, and stop worrying about realism.

>>54613242
Know what they don't get? +5 mithral spiked full plate, adamantine weapons, tower shields, and combat feats.

>>54613377
Leather barding and much higher natural AC makes that pretty irrelevant.
Mouthpick
Tower shields are shit.
Yes they do.

>>54612140
I wish you trolls stopped falseflagging.

And generally just stopped trolling.

>>54613416
Tower shields are mobile full cover, so no, they're awesome. Also, I was talking about Wild Shape, not animal companions.

>>54613355
>Yeah, that's why I also said to add more high level/scaling combat feats.
First off, what does this even mean? Because 3.PF is over a decade old at this point and we still don't have a T1/T2 martial. Also, high level is irrelavant because most games end around level 10-12, assuming it's not a low level campaign that ends around level 6 or so.
>Hell, even as is a fighter is better at grappling than a bear could ever be.
He could be, but the thing you need to realize is that the bear grapples you AFTER he's already landed an attack while the Fighter has to choose between attacking and grappling.
>Let them actually USE it, and stop worrying about realism.
Here's the thing, if martials can lift and throw large (or bigger) enemies then the mages can do so too with spells like telekinesis.

That's the flaw of martials by design, there's nothing that they can do that wouldn't have a greater effect if employed by a mage.

>>54613543
Costs a standard action to use it as cover. I shouldn't have to explain to you why that's bad.

>>54613543
Mobile full cover doesn't matter against creatures that either force a reflex save (which you'll be taking stacking armor check penalties on btw) or have effects that occur regardless of line-of-sight.

>>54613421
Hey Troll-kun, where have you been? The thread's almost to bump limit by now.

>>54613543
If we're talking about Wild Shape you have way more options. Apes and similar forms can wear armor and use weapons if the Druid's proficient in them.

>>54613421
Fuck off Rory

>>54606003
I just don't like martials having blatantly magic shit like throwing your sword as a line attack and it magically comes back to you and yet its still not magic somehow

or other martials just blasting fire all over the place with no daily limit

Fuck that, do it right or go home. I don't care if you tone casters way down, that's fine, but fuck this shit.

>>54613760
>>54613818
What is wrong with you?

>>54614097
Welcome to /tg/'s Pathfinder community, not even we like out own game! Why else do you think we spend most of our time masturbating and talking about 3pp rules, or how Paizo just released rules for fighting with Stilleto heels or what have you.

>>54614150
Seriously, all I get is this vibe that you've got a vendetta against the game being discussed here.
Most of /pfg/ discussion is actually about the game. The shitposters are a minority that we just end up ignoring because they're largely harmless and generally inconsequential, even if they do do dumb shit like always making the /pfg/ early just so they can use an offtopic image.

You really shouldn't pretend your shitposting is more important than it actually is.

>>54614207
>we
Welp, that explains the autism.

>>54614150
>we
Welp, that explains the autism.

All this thread needs is the "eternally triggered bitch-anon" faggot and we'll have everything.

>>54614543
We had a number of 4rries already.

4e is best edition, I like having "abilities" more than just "I swing my sword"

>>54614543
ETBA pretty much fell off the face of the earth once posting that phrase got him and a few other faggots banned on sight at once.

>>54614543
>>54614706
Oh look, eternally-triggered bitch anons.
Still getting triggered every time you see "3.5"?

File: 3e imagination.jpg (619KB, 2288x1631px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 2288x1631px

>>54614706
I know, frankly I was just testing to see if the phrase carried an autoban like posting as Jim Profit used to. I also miss the guy that made these images.

>>54614543
What amazes me is that eternally triggered bitches like yourself still are living up to the whole eternally triggered part, and not finding it hilarious.

>>54614779
Good to see you. I missed you buddy. Have you seen Checkmark-kun, Defender of All Things Palladium lately? I miss him as well.

I'd like for one thread, just one thread, to mention 3.5 without having the system war trolls decide to show how much losing the Edition War has scarred them.

>>54614797
Honestly, I think the ETBA guy might be the guy who shows up in every 3.PF thread going on about how everyone's a troll who needs to put on a trip or some shit.

It'd certainly make sense considering they both use the same arguments to defend 3.PF.

>>54614848
You're gonna be left waiting a long time for that. They're not called eternally triggered because they quit easily.

>>54606532
I would argue that that kind of magic should take more time than swinging a sword.

>>54614848
If we're being completely honest for a moment, most of the shitposting is coming from one dude who can't help but defend 3.PF whenever someone implies that it's less than optimal for everything.

Even then, he's probably either a false-flagger or a shitposter that got banned from /pfg/ for being too autistic to discuss the system civilly with other people within the general.

>>54614566
>>54614848
I honestly don't think they are all 4e fans, or doing it because of the edition war.

One guy up above said it clearly. He hates D&D because he felt like there was no other system and that he had been forced to play it, trapped because of its popularity. It's that kind of hatred that comes from convincing yourself that you are a victim, and I honestly have no idea how to resolve that kind of hate.

>>54615016
Please, just stop. You're probably the same guy who makes those "When did you realize D&D is garbage?" troll threads and somehow still expects people not to realize that he's just an angry contrarian.

>>54615090
I'm just saying man, most of the posts that come from your average D&D hate thread is from one dude angrily going on about how everyone who dislikes D&D is a troll, ETBA, a contrarian, or some other nonsense word that basically boils down to "someone who does not share my opinion.

If people hid those threads and went on about their business, they wouldn't reach bump limit every other time they get posted on the board. By responding to threads you don't like, you're only encouraging people to post more threads on that topic because they know that they'll hook one stubborn autist who will keep giving them (you)'s through minimal effort.

And I know it's the same dude because if you go through the archives, it's always the same argument of "anyone who hates D&D hates it because it's popular" while insulting everyone who disagrees with them.

A neon pink ninja hides their presence more effectively.

>>54606684
This is true to an extent, in general my groups have only allowed minor homebrewing that we all agree on. They haven't really entertained ideas of homebrewing that changes the system.

>>54615016
That's kind of a roundabout way of thinking, and hardly "honest." People shitposting about 3.pf goes well beyond them simply saying it's "less than optimal for everything."
I don't want you to think I'm saying all criticism of 3.pf is shitposting, but lets not kid ourselves that there isn't a fair amount, and I wouldn't be surprised if this negativity in turn spawns other shitposting, to the point where you can't discuss any edition without people shitposting about it.
It all comes down to simple system warring, and it's pathetic whatever "side" you're standing on. You're no better than the people who defend 3.pf, and in many ways worse.

>>54606247
Wow. Those are some genuinely garbage rules.

>>54615193
You ARE the guy who makes those "When did you realize D&D is garbage?" troll threads, aren't you?
Fuck off, and quit trying to talk like you're not a shitty obvious troll.

>>54607149
From what I understand some people prefer the greatsword purely for the fact that it has a higher minimum damage.

Long time GM here. I'm sort of against rules expansions and I feel that I might be in the minority. The more stuff you tack onto the game, the more difficult a time I have in managing and balancing it all. This is a major issue that I have with games like Pathfinder where the learning curve is immense if you really want to allow everything 'the community' expects.

I don't really understand the hunger for external expansions. You can play the bare-bones fighter a million different ways with a little creative flare.

>>54615226
Most times whenever people bring up 3.PF (assuming we're not talking about bait threads that feature the "when did you realize D&D was garbage" image), it's because they're new or they're asking about how to optimize, or rules for how to do something like mass combat.

Someone offers up a point that will either be genuine advice or they'll say something to the effect of "try another system," which depending on the situation may be good advice, except few people offer up alternatives in their initial post.

Then the dude comes into the thread and starts sperging out, usually by insulting the original poster who said "try another system" and then it becomes a back and forth where nobody can say anything without either being accused of being a troll or the thread is derailed so much that people don't even remember what the OP was even talking about.

347 posts later, the thread dies and the process starts all over again. If you don't believe me, check the archives.

>>54608376
Oh... battlemasters are famous for using the tripping attack friendo.

File: v4n2wgahs8bojsanenb38of0uw7ojbunahhajpgirp_sqkuc7oc8vz-9zdarvx0hveisqsoiljmoetw_1b-dl47h3dl3auzazmenxe8t4ccnqxgiojs.png (9KB, 747x409px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 747x409px

>>54615266
The minimum is important, but the other reason people like it is because greatswords are more reliable.

>>54615252
Why are you angry? Did I say something that upset you?

>>54611811
That's because those mages invented that spell. I doubt you would be able to find the original martial who invented a specific maneuver

>>54615193
I'm getting mixed messages. Your first part of your post makes it sound like you think it's one guy, but then you address people, and then you are back to trying to saying it's one guy.
And, it's not really a stretch for people to argue that D&D gets a share of hate because of its popularity. That's the other side of the popularity coin and is common knowledge, not some austere argument.
As someone just tired of shitposting in general, if you know there's this one guy constantly and endlessly catching your system warring bait, be a dear and stop trolling him already.

>>54606003

I agree. There should be more options for ranged, however.

Remember, we exist.

>>54606108

Also this. My GM described our objective to us as we crested a hilltop, and all of the horrible things and enemy army between us we'd need to contend with.

My character's response was, "Oh, I see it. We'll just teleport there."

>>54612788
Well specifically, the book didn't really fix the martial that already existed that people would've wanted to see expanded upon. It just introduced a bunch of magic weeb fighter classes who could do everything they did and more.

In this sense, even if you wanted to play a super buff fighter who just uses his strength to get through battle, you would still get fucked by choosing one of these since they use magic.

>>54615362
And that's the problem.

You crack open the book and you can find the marks that mages have left upon the world all over the place but finding a martial with similar status? Good fucking luck.

I mean, there are plenty of stories of masters who teach their pupils some ancient martial arts technique and yet for a world of dragons and magic, you rarely see any mention of such beings within the setting.

Even for Monks...

>>54615318
Yeah, that's true as well.

>>54615365
>And, it's not really a stretch for people to argue that D&D gets a share of hate because of its popularity. That's the other side of the popularity coin and is common knowledge, not some austere argument.
The thing is, when it's the only argument you generally see being lobbed in defense of 3.PF, it kinda becomes tiresome to see it being used anytime someone states that 3.PF is flawed.

Especially when the popularity of the system barely has anything to do with the conveyance of the rules themselves, or the quality of the community who exploits those rules for personal gain.

>>54615308
I feel like you're trying to prop up "your side". I've watched a number of these confrontations unfold. It's nothing like people on "your side" being sensible while the other side simply shouts at them. They're not MS Paint comics.
People on this board seem to genuinely hate 3.pf for a variety of reasons, but that really doesn't excuse the shitposting. And there's plenty of genuine shitposting, more than enough that I wouldn't be surprised if people have started to get sensitive about it. I have yet to see "When did you realize WFRPG was garbage" threads or the like.

>>54615513
It has a lot to do with how much people shitpost about it though, and why it's a target for trolls like yourself. Or, do you make those "D&D is garbage" threads for any other reason? Fuck off already.

>>54615594
Do you know why people shitpost about it though? It's because people know that if they make a thread about 3.PF, a shitload of people will come in and defend their opinions for why it's the best/worst thing to happen to tabletop in forever.

It also doesn't help that the board is painfully slow even on the best of days, so more often than not these threads have little to no competition because every other thread is about WH40K, MtG, or is a general.

>>54615569
>People on this board seem to genuinely hate 3.pf for a variety of reasons
Don't make the rookie mistake and believe that most of the bullshit people say on either side is genuine.

People shit on 3.PF because it's the easiest target to shit on. It happened to smut threads and it happened to quest threads as well.

People just love talking about things they hate and since this is the internet, they don't have to hold back from giving their opinions.
>I have yet to see "When did you realize WFRPG was garbage" threads or the like.
That's because it's not as popular as something like D&D. If it was and more people read it, they'd most likely shit on that game too.

>>54615513
Are you sure it's in defense of the system, and not just against the shitposting directed at the system? If we had to ask why 3.pf gets so much hate its way, its popularity would probably be the foremost reason. Almost definitely. Partially because the majority of /tg/ has played 3.pf at some point so people can actually discuss it at length, but largely because people are upset that it still is popular despite not having aged well. It also being a go-to system for a lot of people must be especially irksome for people who'd like lesser known games to be more popular.
In the end though these are all poor reasons for this continued system warring, and doesn't really do much except spread negativity.
I know wanting to lessen the negativity on 4chan is silly, but can't we just lessen it in /tg/ at least?

>>54615430
And what of 4e's route where they don't use magic?

>>54615865
>I know wanting to lessen the negativity on 4chan is silly, but can't we just lessen it in /tg/ at least?
/tg/ is in the worst state it has ever been in, if only because everyone that made /tg/ great packed up and left in response to all the unnecessary shit that went down in the past.

>>54616138
>Implying that smutfags, ERPers, and questfags made /tg/ great/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuCCIYEfzCs

>>54616239
No one believes those people contributed anything outside their own threads. He's talking about the post-Nazimod exodus, and later a lot of writefags and drawfags leaving for sites like Reddit and Tumblr.

>>54607021
Food for thought, PF is one giant homebrew of 3.5.

Considering its one of the most played systems currently in existence, your point is moot.

>>54606247
This is pretty much exactly what I was looking for and failing to find in 5e. Thank you, sincerely.

>>54614150
>rules for fighting with Stilleto heels
wat

>>54606003
People didn't like its recharge and perencounter mechanics. Just like they didn't like 4e.

A lot of players want to play as their character not as a narrator.

>>54615294
>The more stuff you tack onto the game, the more difficult a time I have in managing and balancing it all.
Unless, of course, the system itself does that.

> You can play the bare-bones fighter a million different ways with a little creative flare.
All of which range from mediocre to shit.

>>54606003
Literally the only gripe I'll ever has is they're thinly veiled casters. If they made it feel like martial I'd love it.

>>54606447
>I honestly think if any sort of revised PHB comes out, they just need to make battle master and champion be one and the same. Champion is just so worthless on it's own. Make up a third archetype, like I dunno, one focused on making dual wielding better or something.
honestly it's pretty easy to houserule them together already

>>54607773
>a broader version of this ability would allow you to sunder one of your party members. Which is never a good idea.
Are you kidding, this is a fucking awesome idea.

File: tumblr_o66jk88WiR1ul4s9zo1_1280.jpg (113KB, 1080x1350px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1080x1350px

>>54610420
>Where in the lore does it say wizards are the most powerful of beings?

It says so in the canon of western literary tradition that fantasy is based on. Was Merlin just some other knight in King Arthur's court or was he something else in a league of his own with inscrutable properties? Was Gandalf equal to Gimli or Boromir? When, outside of video games (that are heavily influced by D&D) have you really ever seen a powerful wizard portrayed as either as a rare and extremely powerful ally or big bad that lesser martial types, like Conan, must struggle with greatly to overcome?

Fundamentally "magic" inhabits the realm that is off limits to even the zenith of human capability. That's what makes it magic. It's what makes it fantastic. Powerful magic will always seem intuitively capable of greater feats than good fightan.

>>54618364
>Was Gandalf equal to Gimli or Boromir?
No, because he was a demigod, not a human. And he sure wasn't a player character.

>>54618449
>No, because he was a demigod, not a human. And he sure wasn't a player character.

But that's the thing. D&D tried to take the literary archetype of Gandalf and make him a playable character because they were throwing everything and the kitchen sink in there.

The inherit incongruity of that causes a subconscious constant trend towards magic overpowering martials, even if the conscious mind says that they must be balanced with Frodo. D&D is partly a literary game and deep down nearly everyone believes a fireball should be more powerful than a punch.

File: angryaboutscrolls.jpg (50KB, 417x600px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 417x600px

>>54618364
I mean, sure, being a magician is better than being a swordman. But players having magic kind of sucks because it either means they are reliably better than the swordman because they read the correct books, or they lose all their power because of ~mystical horseshit~ sometimes.

No, I don't have a solution to this, because fuck me.

>>54618580
To be honest, if WOTC put more time into considering the average casting time of a spell instead of standardizing it, casters would be nerfed pretty hard. It would make counterspelling without dispel magic possible, and it makes stopping casting a possibility without being in melee range to start with. Its dumb that reality altering ninth level magic and detect magic take the same 3 second span to cast.

>>54615390
Wasn't one of the PrCs focused on ranged combat? Well, thrown weapon combat. I remember it being pretty cool.

>>54618728
If I was hired to write D&D, I would honestly do this. As well as limit about half the spell list to specialists only.

You want a big show-stopping multi-target save or lose? Fine. But it's not gonna work against everything and you're gonna have to stand there for three rounds without getting hit before it goes off.

>>54618826
>>54618728
It's sorta meh, gameplay wise, for a player to be "casting... still casting.... aaaaand still casting BOOM!.

I'd prefer a mana-flow sort of system, where you can do "something" while collecting mana for a big spell at least.

>>54618844
Thats what feats are for anon.

As it is, casters don't need any feats at all to be competitive. By increasing the amount of time it takes to cast something, it also makes feats more important, as new ones could be added to allow you to, say, move half speed while casting. Or to cast a level 0 or 1 spell while charging a bigger one. Maybe even level 2 or 3 with another feat on top of that.

Spellcasting would get a lot more involved in almost every way with more time on higher level spells, Because its not something you just throw out anymore.

>>54618864
>Thats what feats are for anon.

Required feats are cancer. But rolling some of those into class options is okay.

>>54618874
Well yeah. Obviously.

What i meant was that design philosophy as a whole would change and casters as a class would be better for it.

>>54606003
Except Martialfags were the ones who got #triggered by this book.

>>54618826
>>54618728
You mean, like they did in AD&D before WotC made casters gods?

Say what you like about Gygax and Arneson, they knew how to balance the fucking game better than anyone after them.

>>54618898
Because damage wasn't the goddamn issue, retard.

>>54618907
Haha, no.

Gygax just plain hated wizards, which is why it seems like it, but even he got a bunch of mail saying "Wiazrd is breaking campaign, halp, wat do?!" ... to which he answered "You fucked up when you let them get past level 5".

Wizards have been broken since forewer. The only way they "worked" within the boundaries of the game was when Gygaxian DMs had them on tight as fuck leash in spell acquisition and just randomly killed them off periodically.

>>54618907
More like every other system ever. Even anime doesn't allow that shit most of the time. And if they do, its usually a DMPC archetype to start with.

>>54613377
They actually do. Is like you didn't even play the game at all

>>54613543
>we're talking about wild shape
NATURAL FUCKING SPELL
Also Dire Gorilla or whatever, boom, I have all of that, shields, barding, weapons, whatever. What now?

>>54618911
Because all ToB did for martials was give them damage, right? Oh wait no, it gave them a shitload of in-combat utility and things you could literally never do with any martial before.

>>54618728
Another route could be making combat casters function more like fighters or rangers in how they deal damage.Likewise utility caster should function more similarly to other utility classes.

>>54619493
Thats also a way to go.

Rather, i don't see why both can't be a thing

>>54615569
see >>54615866
People aren't always going out of their way to shit on the system until they meet a 3aboo who gets buttblasted whenever someone posts "have you tried not playing D&D?"

The 3.PF shitters are their own worse enemies.

>>54606979
>Hell, even with just 3 attacks at level 11, I think the odds of getting a crit hang somewhere around 1 in 3, don't they?
27% to get at least one crit in a turn. If you have advantage, chances go up to 46-ish percent

File: Lidský císař.jpg (159KB, 870x712px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 870x712px

Actually, i find i funny that you can have super-enchanted gear that gives you massive boost to armor class, yet, there are not many poeces that give resistance to magic.

Just make every higher lvl enemy wear some reliable resist magic gear. I mean, if you can wear legendary artefacts +5, +6 or more, why can't they give like 90 percent magic resistance just from the sheer aura of magic that radiates from them. +1 armor = 18 magic resist, +2 = 36 etc. If you run to +6 and more, give the magic resistance AOE effect.
Also, play with npcs like you would in a game. Everyone concentrates all the firepower at the wizard first.

>>54620967
Spell resistance doesn't do shit against many many spells and doesn't stop them from buffing their party until they can't lose.

>>54606003

Some people, like a lot of TG, hated it because it was out of genre.

The trope of the warrior that just trained and trained until their performance crossed into to the realm of the explicitly superhuman. Is not a part of the stories that formed the foundation of western fantasy.

However it is a part of the stories that form the foundation of modern Japanese fiction; which anime/manga and jrpgs are.

Since so many western gamers are sticklers for genre purity and hate all things Weaboo, especially the older ones.

They rejected the Book of Nine Swords and the foreign tropes that it was introducing.

>>54620967
This makes the game unfun. And >>54621087

>>54621124
Who is Roland for 300?
Who is Gilgamesh for 500?

Also, if using a demigod (Gandalf) for the wizard base, why not use a demigod (Hercules) for the fighter base?

>>54621087
>>54621201
The fact that spell resistance does not work against many spells is silly.
Also, regulate buffing by setting maximum amount of magical energy that can be safely bound to a living organism without explosion. So you can't run around with strong magical items and protected by several wards. You have to pick or risk wild magic.

>>54621221
But then people will just default to debuff spells since not only is the target weakened, but now the more you debuff, the higher chance there is of the creature exploding.

>>54621639
No no, if the guy is unwilling you have to overcome his magic resistance and saves to debuff him. And then i said wild magic, not exploding. His hair can turn green, he can transform into a giant, the caster of debuff can grow rabbit ears...

>>54621785
Oh, then the mage will just cast spells that ignore magic resistance and doesn't allow a save.

>>54621804
Yeah well, those spells never make a sense. Even area of effect spells should have a check against magic resistance. Mortal caster is never strong enough to be able to disregard magic resistance of anything. He should be forced to work around it. The only exception is if the target is willing.

And i rarely see a mage that studied divine magic and what can happen if you buff one person with normal magic and divine magic at once... oh boy