>Caster types have various useful spells that serve them in

File: 129013143034.jpg (13KB, 458x321px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 458x321px

>>55371888
I'm playing Mutants and Masterminds so I have no idea what you're talking about with "casters" being the only ones with options.

>>55371888

Maybe. The alternative is let them be the undisputed BEST at combat, so they dont feel so bad about having nothing else.

As in, a martial with a sword still clears a room faster than a wizard's best spells.

>>55371888
Have you tried not playing WotC owned D&D?

>>55372299
Who would ever willingly do that?

>>55372380
I don't know. Why would anyone ever willingly play WotC owned D&D?

>>55372412
Probably because those are some of the best games on the market. Easily top 10, if not top 5.

>>55371888

But anon, you are describing only 2 fantasy roleplaying systems.

>>55371888
Nah, just introduce anti-magic zone and drink the wizards' tears.

>>55372440

You are talking about sales, right? Because you are definitely not talking about quality.

How about I have your enemies start wearing armour that lessens magical damage, then have a mini-campaign of finding the man creating anti-magic armour and letting the party decide his fate, you all getting loot in the process such as a helmet with an eye emblem on it's forehead that looks at any man that relies on magic and emitting a ear piercing hum sound only by casters, or an iron shield that absorbs magical attacks and then redirects them at you?
How about that Mr.Magic man?

>>55372498
Couldn't magic man just loot that gear and use it against other magic man, and otherwise just focus on summoning magic and buffs/debuffs that don't deal damage anyway?

Also, that doesn't fix non-magic man still doing shit all when he isn't killing things.

>>55371888
Play in a non-magic setting or in a setting where magic has actual restrictions.

>>55372562
He might, he might. That would be pretty smart of him in all honesty. Or maybe it would start to change his magic, making it weaker and him slowly get weaker and weaker after using magic.
Also, I'm just shitposting, we all know anybody smart doesn't play to win in these games, they're about having fun and being an ultra god of superkilldeath that one shots every encounter and makes the table hate you doesn't seem that fun.
Then again, this is OP we're talking about, maybe he is that big a faggot.

>>55372466
No, talking about quality. You seem to have a different opinion, but overall the general consensus in the roleplaying community is that they are not simply good, but great games.

If you passionately believe otherwise, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

>>55371888
Why not play 4th edition?

>>55372759
Because I'm not a faggot.

>>55372746
Not him, I was the anon you were talking to before him, but I concur. I prefer AD&D 1e compared to the other sets, and while others can play what they want, I'm not going to play them. Oh well, at least if everyone is having fun, then it's fine to me.

>>55371888
Who would ever willingly play a non-caster in d&d?

>>55372746

>bandwagon fallacy

And I'm certain back in the day Zeus really did chuck lightingbolts from the clouds.

>>55372861
People who don't play to win

>>55372861
People who think knights, soldiers, and/or warriors are really cool?

>>55371888

because martials are better at damage than wizards are.

like, massively better.

when was the last time you saw a creature that was immune to a martial attacking it with a magical weapon, literally all I can think of are oozes.

how common is fire resistance? cold resistance? fire immunity, lightning resistance, poison immunity, all common as dirt.

legendary resilience allows you to no sell the wizards ninth level spell, won't do shit to an axe to the face, melee and ranged weapon attacks scale FAR better than wizard spell save DC, especially since they don't have to worry about magic resistance or magic immunity or any other shenanigans.

and when you're playing caster in the first three levels you are one bad roll from death at all times, its a nerve wracking experience and likely the cause for all these paranoid wizards.

skillful types also tend to do less damage than martials because their bonus damage to make them competitive in combat is gated behind arbitrary restrictions like a rogues sneak attack.

you ever seen a level ten rogue get stabbed to death by two quicklings? fuck you ever seen a rogue try to fight on its own full stop? I have, its fucking hilarious.

basically, if you want to contribute to the team while at the same time pulling your weight in combat, pick a caster or a skillmonkey, if you want to be an autistic murderhobo who can eat damage that would tpk a caster party then proceed to shit out unholesome amounts of damage during his turn, you pick a martial.

its in the fucking name, martial types for martial situations

>>55372865
>bandwagon fallacy

Saying that something that is popular and well-received is popular and well-received isn't bandwagon fallacy, it's literally a statement of fact.

Your subjective opinion of its quality is contrary to the subjective opinion of the majority of roleplayers. You can argue about your subjective opinion, but that's not quite the same as your claims about the ultimate quality of the game being objective.

I hope understanding this helps you in the future.

File: I'd like to apply.jpg (44KB, 500x316px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x316px

>>55372778

>>55372949
t. Martial

>>55372949
This guy gets it.

>>55372953
>contrary to the subjective opinion of the majority of roleplayers.
>Majority....
Did you poll all the roleplayers?
If you didn't, then your post is based on zero facts.

>>55373091
>all the roleplayers
Polls work on polling samples of the population.

And, there's never been any evidence that contradicts that the majority of roleplayers play D&D, with 5e being the dominant game, followed by 3.PF. Everything from convention stats, amazon sales numbers, and online gamefinding sites corroborate with that assertion. Even the old /tg/ polls revealed that the majority of /tg/ played D&D, moreso than any other game, even non-RPGs.

Do you have something that might lend credence to your assertion of the contrary?

>>55372440
>Probably because those are some of the best games on the market. Easily top 10, if not top 5.
You mean worst.

>>55373297
That's quite an extreme opinion. I won't even hesitate to call it hyperbole.

>>55373330
3.x is objectively terrible game, not the least because of the effect it has on the fanbase. Go on, just try to get someone whose first game was 3.5 to play something that isn't based on it...

File: 1503646150317.jpg (107KB, 657x548px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 657x548px

>>55373356
>objectively

Demonstrably false.

>Go on, just try to get someone whose first game was 3.5 to play something that isn't based on it...

Likewise, demonstrably false, and not really relevant to the discussion.

If you want to continue to propose that your personal subjective opinion, one that only a minority of roleplayers share, is actually an objective truth, than please say so, so that I can end this discussion with you by saying that you don't respect other people's opinions and thus can't discuss something as subjective as the topic of roleplaying games.

>>55373356
I grew up on 3.5e and had no problem moving to Exalted and later Anima, nor did any of the friends in my friendgroup with a similar experience. Of course this is just anecdotal evidence, but I'm not sure what effect you're trying to describe.

>>55373435
>Demonstrably false.
Go on and demonstrate, then.

>>55372886
So,retards.

>>55371888
Just specialize the caster types so that every class can bring something useful and something powerful without some being able to do everything.

>>55372460
You don't have to do complete anti magic though. Once had a magic detector that reacted to spell being casted in the wilderness around an antagonist lair, so the group had to approach man vs wild style or they would alarm the enemies too soon.

File: 1503075686577.png (1MB, 921x647px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 921x647px

>>55372460

>the wizard just runs out of it and casts an instantaneous conjuration spell
>try to follow but slowed down by armor
>the magic boots that helped me run faster don't work anymore
>mfw

>>55372498
>mages aren't overpowered because you can homebrew a bunch of shit to target them specifically

>>55372953
>Saying that something that is popular and well-received is popular and well-received isn't bandwagon fallacy, it's literally a statement of fact.

That isn't a fallacy, true.

>No, talking about quality. You seem to have a different opinion, but overall the general consensus in the roleplaying community is that they are not simply good, but great games.

This is, though.

Just because something sells well and has very numerous fans doesn't make a thing good. This is as true for Justin Bieber, Twilight, as it is for D&D.

The effect is distorted for D&D because it has such a huge dominance on such a small market, since Hasbro/WotC is backing it.

>
And, there's never been any evidence that contradicts that the majority of roleplayers play D&D, with 5e being the dominant game, followed by 3.PF.

If majority of people are eating at McD, is it because McD is good, or is it because it's convenient and affordable?

This is what 5e is. Convenient. It's everywhere and it's not offensively bad. Which is par for course. D&D had always been a pretty solid mid-tier system.

File: 4fac8d8ae734e.jpg (47KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 480x360px

>>55373194
>It's widely played, therefore it's good
And now I'm going to make an analogy with all the shitty things in move, tv show, litterature, and all the entertainement business and then you're going to go "nu uh! muh critics!" and then I'm gonna say that rpg critics are not on par, at all, with literary critics, and you're gonna say "nu uh! you don't have it either!" and it's going to be long and tedious

So to keep it short, it's a bad game and you're a dipshit

>>55373482
Not before you tell me whether or not you think your opinion is objective truth or not. I don't want to waste any more time arguing with someone who can't accept that other people might have opinions different than their own.

And, basically, if you agree that it is subjective, since the very concept of their being a universally agreed-upon standard for what makes a game terrible or not is ludicrous, there's no reason for further demonstration, since people enjoying the game is enough to show that the game is not terrible, especially when we're talking about the majority of people who play roleplaying games.

I think this discussion is over.

File: 1891870489.jpg (79KB, 680x721px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 680x721px

>>55371888
>Should we scrap the idea of dedicated, unskilled warriors as adventurers altogether to introduce more game balance?
No, they still have their uses. Then again, I'm just here to say that I would hold Megumin's hand and not let go.

>>55373559
That's just argumentum ad populum, though. Something doesn't have to be "universally agreed upon" for it to be objectively true.

>>55373559
Please, go to /lit/ and do this with Twilight.

I want to see what happens.

>>55373550
Yes

>>55373610
He'd probably just get banned.

>>55373559
>bad game design can't be objective
What blows my mind with this shit is that game are not fucking art. It's not a fucking book, it's not a painting, it's not a sculpture.
It's a fucking book of rules. Of fucking course it can be objectively bad.

>>55373639

If you need to do a bunch of stuff to rein in one group specifically, doesn't that mean that group was overpowered? Otherwise they wouldn't need to be reined in.

>>55373554
>Just because something sells well and has very numerous fans doesn't make a thing good.

That's not what's being said.

The statement is "The majority of the roleplaying community believes it is good."
And that's true.

If you disagree, your opinion is that of the minority. That's nothing to be ashamed about, but it should make you hesitate a little before trying to assert your opinions as anything other than opinions that most people disagree with, such as in the case of recommending what games people you are unfamiliar with should play.

D&D is good for a lot of reasons, enough that it's actually almost silly to have to make such an obvious statement. It's probably best to try and understand them, instead of assuming that everyone is simply wrong and that they only like it because they're stupid and you are so much smarter than them.

>>55373675
No no, I meant that since you're overpowered, I'll make it harder for you too win.

>>55371888
>>Caster types have various useful spells that serve them in a plethora of situations
>>They also need to be good in combat because TTRPG usually emphasize combat
>>Skillful types have various useful skills that serve them in a plethora of situations
>>They also need to be good in combat because TTRPG usually emphasize combat

Then why not only having those?

>>55373668
The rules are used in different ways by different people, and different people want different things out of different rules.

It's subjective, through and through.

You don't like D&D? That is your SUBJECTIVE opinion, because you disagree with the rules, their usage, how you used them, and so on and so forth. That doesn't invalidate the people who do like D&D, enjoy and agree with its mechanics, and use them in a manner that aligns with the style of game they enjoy.

Comprehend this much? Life is going to be hard for you if you can't.

File: 1501923893787.jpg (87KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 400x400px

>>55373571
DELET THIS

>>55373734
that's literally what OP asked

>>55373749
>It's subjective, through and through.
No it isn't. Your fallacy doesn't become any less fallacious just because you keep repeating it.

>>55373749
>You don't like D&D? That is your SUBJECTIVE opinion, because you disagree with the rules, their usage, how you used them, and so on and so forth. That doesn't invalidate the people who do like D&D, enjoy and agree with its mechanics, and use them in a manner that aligns with the style of game they enjoy.
People liking something doesn't mean it can't be objectively flawed.

Bad is a poor word to describe it by, so the others are out of line saying that, because that IS subjective.

D&D is flawed, though.

>>55371888
Just play a good game like anima: beyond fantasy

I'm trying to address this very thing in the RPG I'm writing I know, I know, just like everyone else

My primary way of addressing this is to do something similar to D&D's half-assed band-aid that is Three-Pillar Experience. Every skill, every roll, every choice that a character makes should be directly tied to one of those three things (Combat, Exploration, Social Interaction). No classes, but different skills that excel in one of those three things (whether it's sword swingin', spell slingin', or song singin'), players progress via choosing different skills upon level up, and all the skills tie back to one of those core things.

Play 4e
Play 2e

>>55373766
Yeah but you could at least just say that at least of the skilfull types are warriors and empharize about how warriors are well rounded adventurers.
And it could make to say that mages types are a lot more specialized. (Magic is very hard and requires specialization, mages are rare so it's statiscally impossible for them to be really good at other things,ect...)

>>55373194
>Polls work on polling samples of the population.
Funny...

Then why isn't Hillary potus?

Polls are unrealistic and not reliable at best. At worst, they're biased and phoney.

Saying the majority of (x), dislikes a thing without asking a majority of (x), leads to false findings.

>>55373789
>D&D is flawed, though.

No one said otherwise, and really, all games are.

>People liking something doesn't mean it can't be objectively flawed.

An "objective flaw" is something like early editions of OWoD and how the dice mechanic actually made it so that you had a higher chance of critical failure the more skilled you became. Most "objective" flaws get fixed before a next edition gets printed, and most are actually even errata'd before that.

Compared to that, D&D has very few "objective" flaws. It certainly has a lot of subjective ones, especially depending on who you ask (and who they played with), but nothing quite on the level of anything resembling a major objective flaw. People will complain about it being too deadly or not deadly enough, about certain themes or flavors or mechanics they personally don't like, or about how the game is not balanced in the way they like, but those are all still subjective opinions. And, even if people do agree on something like it not being balanced, how unbalanced it really is and how important that is to the overall game remains highly subjective.

Hence, why most discussion about D&D dives quickly into the realm of subjectivity, especially because people are trying to prove such absolutely subjective statements as "D&D is terrible".

>>55373194
>Do you have something that might lend credence to your assertion of the contrary?
Two things.

1) lots of free PDFs online means people aren't buying what they get free
2) 3.5 is old. People playing it already have the books the need. Thus sales aren't an indicator of people playing.

>>55374029
I can find no flaw in your post. Well said.

>>55374041
Would you happen to have any sort of evidence whatsoever? Simply saying "we can't be certain" doesn't really do much to uproot what evidence we do have.

Basically, all the best evidence we can get points to D&D being the most popular game by a wide margin. If you could produce some better evidence that contradicts what we do have, you might have something worth saying,

>>55374149
I agree that d&d is the most common. That's based on what I've seen. But I don't see everything. And polls are rarely reliable.

If your evidence is "muh polls", then you've got no evidence.

>>55372299

Hey 4e was pretty good on that front. Mostly because it made 'Use skills' the core of everyone outside of combat rather than having spells replace skills.

>>55374206
THIS
If spells aren't the go-to out of combat resolution mechanic, the balance rights itself to a spectacular degree.
Maybe not perfectly, but a fuckton.

>>55371888
I think that people in general really underestimate the versatily of having superhuman strength.

>>55374196
Polls, sales, convention stats, gamefinder sites, all point to it not just being the most common, but dominating by a wide margin.

Even if we extended the margin of error to ridiculous amounts and went ahead with your somewhat unreasonable decision to throw out any and all polls, the evidence all seems to show that D&D is played by the majority of people who play roleplaying games.

If you just want to keep saying "you've got no evidence" when you haven't produced any evidence of your own to contradict what evidence we do have available, I don't even know how you intend to argue anything other than an appeal to uncertainty.

>>55374377
>I think that people in general really underestimate the versatily of having superhuman strength.
People really do.

I mean, it's not like being able to lift a metric ton doesn't open up just as many options as having high DEX or INT or anything. Then again, D&D isn't really known for giving martials love in this regard, especially if they focus on STR.

>>55374377
>DM's in general really underestimate the versatility of having superhuman strength
It seems like everyone forgets that 14+ in a stat makes you abnormal.

It's like how people will make an 18+ strength character and describe them as "yeah I was just some average guard" while they're able to dead lift 1000 pounds

>>55374495
Yeah, but that's because of the d20 making a +4 bonus good but not THAT good. If you were rolling 2d6 like (despite my problems with it) Dungeon World, +4 is a big fucking deal. They'll usually only be beaten by an average person on a fumble.

>>55374377
It's not that they underestimate it, it's that the mechanics for representing Strength suck shit in every modern edition.

>>55374562
It's more that the mechanics are intended to be used with a much wider range than simply "strong guy vs. weak guy" but things like "house cat" vs. "dragon," yet while still allowing some chance of exciting contests between things like a human and a troll or even a giant.

It has weaknesses, especially when trying to ask questions about realism on the lower end of the spectrum, but it makes up for it by making its actual use during the game not just a forgone conclusion and instead a dynamic feature that can lead to unexpected (ie, exciting) results.

>>55374562
Forgot to mention that 3 out of 4 of those editions have casters that dominate most STR guys in STR contests.

>>55374649
It's not exciting, it's shit. That's one of the things that should be nearly deterministic.

>>55374694
To each their own, I guess.

>>55374681
How does that work? Is it clerics buffing themselves to become better fighters?

the only real option is to make martials into superhuman powerhouses but neckbeards dont want that because most are history autists that want them to be realistic fighters in an unrealistic world

so martials are pretty much shits out of luck

>>55374704
3.5: THE ENTIRE POLYMORPH LINE. There are things in core that give you 41 STR before enhancement bonuses or anything - at level 12.
PF: Druid pets can start with 20 STR and they gain access to better STR bonuses than other classes, Summoner gets a pet with absurdly high natural STR just from size bonuses, Synth Summoner IS the pet with high STR.
5E: Polymorph again, except now nobody can actually beat you.

>>55374649
Yeah, but then you also get situations where the party barbarian loses an arm - wrestling contest to some regular schlub because 1d20+5 loses to 1d20 26.25% of the time instead of only 5.4% of the time on 2d6.

>>55374543
True, it's why I like how 2e handled ability checks

>>55374289
>Making Intimidate checks with Arcana
Asshole do you SEE how magically spooky i am?

Miss those utilities.

>>55374704
CoDzilla only sort of counts because they actually invest for their STR. Unless they're Animal or Transformation domain, in which case they don't have to lift a finger, they get Polymorph and/or Shapechange and then get to apply it to outcheese everyone.

>>55374746
That's why for an arm wrestling contest you have both participants just Take 10, or not even roll.

>>55374377

If only martial actually did have superhuman strenght, most DMs wont let you carry a boulder even at 20 STR

>>55374649
>and instead a dynamic feature that can lead to unexpected (ie, exciting) results.
Yeah, it's so exciting to watch Smash Meatchunk fail checks in the things he specialized in while everyone else succeeds because the bonuses are tiny until 15 levels into the game.

Fuck OFF with this shit.

File: 1475011898477.jpg (87KB, 545x521px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 545x521px

>>55374704
>Is it clerics buffing themselves to become better fighters?
Not him, but for the Big Three:

>Wizards
As the other anon mentioned, the polymorph line. As early as level 3 (in 3.5e) you can get some limited use out of it, and it only gets more obscene as time goes on.

>Cleric
You only need one,LITERALLY ONE, buff that makes up for the BAB and hp gap between cleric and fighter and gives you some bonus STR to boot: divine power. You can use Persistent Spell shenanigans to cast it once and make it last all day, or you can use some Complete Champion stuff to cast it spontaneously (if you have the war domain, which you have no reason not to have if you're playing a melee oriented cleric). ONE spell makes you a fighter but with a very extensive spell list.

>Druid
Doesn't even need a spell to do the same thing as the cleric. He only needs a feat: Wild Casting (and really, why would you ever NOT take that feat as a druid?). You can argue about the pros and cons of druids vs clerics (druids are better at melee with lower investment/less shenanigans but can't use armor or magic weapons and have a less powerful spell list), but what's clear is that both of them outshine the fighter with relatively little investment.

>>55374783
>CoDzilla only sort of counts because they actually invest for their STR.
Divine Power already adds +6 STR though. Even assuming that the cleric has a paltry 12 STR, divine power buffs it up to a respectable 18 str. Now let's assume the cleric had very good rolls and started out with 16 str. That's boosted up to a whoopin' 22 str. How can a fighter even hope to compare?

>>55374859
Divine Power is an enhancement bonus: it's gradually obsoleted by gear or gets persisted to stand in for a +6 belt while also buffing their core statistics up to the Fighter's level. The real problem child in the Cleric's spell list is Righteous Might, which isn't just personal, it would be a much healthier spell if it wasn't, but it gives +8 size bonus to STR for a single size increase.

>>55374847
That's really not how it ends up being if you've actually played the game. And played the game in a fashion that wasn't specifically so you can get angry at it.

>>55374810
>Take 10
Pretty sure you can't do that in that kind of situations.
> not even roll.
That's really unexciting. Why even have die at that point?

>>55374839
Which is stupid. If you allow casters to break physical law barriers then so should martials. Otherwise casters are basically Gandalf the Grey if we don't arbitrarily apply restrictions to martials but not casters.

>>55374910
Yes, it is how it actually ends up being. You'd have to be retarded or actually lying to think otherwise.

This is why, mechanically, you restrict spellcasters into support/healing roles and let the fighters actually be the best at fighting. That way, Rogues offer their skills, Spellcasters offer supporting magic, and Fighters are there to actually fight.

>>55374961
By about level 5 you can see bonuses higher than +10. On a d20 roll, that's fairly significant.

Also, why are you so angry and petulant?

>>55374884
>it's gradually obsoleted by gear
Yeah, the strength bonus does. The extra hit points and especially the BAB increase are what makes it worth your while start to finish though. The strength bonus is just icing on the cake.

Also, remember how I said that it can be quickened through Complete Champion shenanigans (a certain prestige class if I remember correctly)? Now imagine casting divine power and righteous might in the same turn. You "lose" one turn to become a gore machine that makes the fighter look like a heavily armored pack mule.

>>55374495
>>55374562
>>55374839
I personally think that the stat system is just outdated design. It's way too granular.
What's even the difference between a guy with 15 DEX and one with 16? Would you think of them as any different?
DnD should just go full perks. You could have a "superhuman strength" perk, and any character with it would be remarkably strong, or a "superhuman dexterity", or both, or none of those kind of perks in which case the character is just about average in term of body.

>>55375003
On stats? No you don't. You might see a +8 from a raging Barbarian that has a STR buff on him. You're not seeing more than that.

>>55374913
>Pretty sure you can't do that in that kind of situations.

It's exactly for those kind of non-stress situations where there's no chance of anyone dying or getting hurt. If they're arm wrestling to see who lives and who dies, that might be a different story.

>That's really unexciting. Why even have die at that point?
Probably as a tiebreaker for people of equal strength?

>>55374732
The line autists draw for verisimilitude in D&D is pretty bizarre, but I think I understand it. Their vision of a fighter is legends like Conan, Hercules, and Samson. An ability like "can move around the battlefield really fast" sounds more like an anime character than a gritty warrior. I do think it's possible to create abilities that emphasize martials being larger than life without triggering these autists, but I guess it's not worth the time and effort.

>>55375038
If they're a half-orc and get Guidance, that's +10.
And, still, +8 is pretty big chunk of a d20.

>>55375117
That's involving 2 spells, tunneling STR and having a racial bonus, and using the Barbarian's limited rage uses/rounds - and it's still not enough to make them reliable in an opposed check.

>>55375147
>moving goalposts

Okay boss.

>>55375186
I didn't move the goalposts, that was my point from the beginning.

>>55371888
Could you stop with these caster supremacy threads before I shoot myself you weebs?

>>55375235
Your point went from "bonuses are tiny until level 15" to "a +10 isn't significant on a d20 roll at level 5."

Which is largely just you being silly, but you are a silly person who likes to say silly things so I'm not going to hold it against you.

>>55373701
>"The majority of the roleplaying community believes it is good."

citation needed

>>55375312
+10 with a Cleric fellating a hyperspecialized raging Barbarian isn't significant in the grand scheme of things. I don't know why you think it is.

>>55375412
>hey, let me ignore your point to say something I think is amusing

Ha, clerics performing felatio on angry barbarians! You do love saying silly things. You are so silly sometimes.

>>55375412
Would saying +8 instead help relax your autism?

>>55375454
>There isn't enough differentiation between stats
>BUT WHAT ABOUT SUPER STRENGTH BARBARIAN WITH A THIRD OF HIS BONUS COMING FROM ANOTHER CHARACTER AND A BONUS THAT'S *STILL* WITHIN FAILURE RANGE OF BASIC ACTIONS?

>>55374649

>exciting

For the DM maybe, since hes the one who gets the laugh

>>55375547
That's how you're viewing what was said?

>There isn't enough differentiation between stats

Oh, what a dramatically different statement than the idiotic "bonuses are tiny until level 15." Why, your new statement almost sounds reasonable, as an expression of your personal opinion.

>>BUT WHAT ABOUT SUPER STRENGTH BARBARIAN WITH A THIRD OF HIS BONUS COMING FROM ANOTHER CHARACTER AND A BONUS

Doesn't stop it from being right, and it's not even that dramatic.

>THAT'S *STILL* WITHIN FAILURE RANGE OF BASIC ACTIONS?

You don't really roll for anything that would be considered a basic action. You'd know this if you'd actually played the game.

But, as amusing as you are, I think I'm getting a little tired of how silly you are trying to be.

>>55375770
Give me a reason not to view it that way and maybe I'll consider looking at it differently. Give me a reason to think that an extreme corner case that isn't likely to happen even comes close to disproving the vast majority of stat bonuses being within -1 to +8 for the majority of the game, or that that's healthy when breaking out of a tanglefoot bag or web is DC 16 or DC 20 against straight Strength.

>>55375972
>disproving the vast majority of stat bonuses being within -1 to +8 for the majority of the game,

Because stat bonuses are part of a larger equation, and bonuses can get quite ridiculous by level 10, let alone level 15? With some stupid builds, you can even see really stupid strength scores, like a +2 LA minotaur that comes with a +8 str adjustment. That's not even talking about some of the silly template stacking I've seen, including some games with ridiculous DMs that allowed a character with over 30 str at 8th level with some silly half-dragon thing.

Also, why should your fringe cases of tanglefoot bags and web be so important, when these also have alternate ways of breaking them beyond strength?

What I'm hoping you realize is that your opinion has been noted, but you might take a moment to realize that the game offers a wealth of experiences that might be beyond your own limited experiences.

>>55376172
I'm not sure why you thought arguing that low bonuses are fine because LA races exist and give large bonuses to stats that don't actually compensate for being behind in levels was a good idea.

>>55371888
>>Martial types are usually good in combat
THEY CAN ALSO HAVE FUCKING CASTLES, LEAD FUCKING ARMIES, MASTER ENTIRE ARMORIES OF WEAPONS, AND CONQUER ENTIRE FUCKING NATIONS

>>55376339
But then wouldn't a more apt name for them be something like Warlord?

>>55376313
I was hoping that you'd stop insisting the bonuses are tiny when that's not necessarily or even usually the case, with a quick demonstration that would hopefully shut you up with just how dramatic and easy it was. Hell, I just took a look, and the half-dragon template gives you a +8 to strength, what the fuck.

Maybe this is all above you. Maybe you didn't understand the part about stat bonuses being part of a larger equation? I don't know. All I know is that you like things being different, and that's fine, but that doesn't make how it is necessarily bad.

>>55373860
>Play 2e
Best edition.

>>55376450
Look at the LA on that template you braindead fucktard.

>>55376504
+3? That's not too bad for a non-spellcaster.

But really, you need to focus on what I'm trying to tell you instead of hoping to divert the argument.

>>55376573
What you're trying to tell me has no worth because you're repeatedly insisting that no, stat bonuses *totally* doesn't stay within a range of about 10 on a d20 for most of it, trust me guys I know what I'm talking about.

Even though characters will have maybe 22 in their primary stat at level 10, 24 if they're ultra focused.

Even though starting from level 15 you get a massive spike in stat bonuses from tomes/wishes and before that point it was a slow grind of +1s from levels and occasional +2s from enhancement bonus gear.

Even though the most you can achieve with levels, inherent bonuses, enhancement bonuses, and +2 racial bonuses is 36 in a stat if you started with a 20. That's a +13, which isn't even enough to beat things you were dealing with at level 1 all of the time. That's a problem that no other subsystem in the game has.

Nope, none of that matters because someone can cripple their character by taking a terrible template solely for STR.

>>55371888
Honestly I think Barbarians are the proper martial class. They resemble a lot of classic archetypes (including Achilles, for one) but still have cool abilities and flavour you can work with.

The problem with Fighters is that their niche is penned in. You can't be the skill guy, you can't be the rage guy, and you can't be the magic guy. So what CAN you be, thematically? A generic rank-and-file is really the only option, and that's more of an NPC than an adventurer.

But see, in most myths, the martial warriors who aren't ragemonsters are cunning. Odysseus is a quick fighter who tricks bigger opponents and has cyclops eyes stabbed out to make his escape. A lot of norse heroes are prided on their ability to out-think their enemies Loki-style, too. They tend to be worse in straight-up duels than their ragey counterparts, but they can outplay them in the right conditions.

Basically what I am saying is that most mythical "generic" martials are more like some kind of half-way point between Rogues and our current Fighters. Some of them are just demi-gods or wield magic weapons.

>>55376819
The reason the Barbarian fits that more is that the concept is expandable in a way "generic fight man who fight gud and is mundane" isn't.

>>55376819
That logic is exactly why Legend jettisoned the Fighter class and was better off for it.

>>55376733
What I'm trying to tell you are focusing on one part of a larger equation, and you personally feel that that part should be larger.

That's your opinion, man.

I understand your complaint, but I'm hoping you realize that your main issue is that you're not really appreciating the tone and style of the game (it's not Marvel Superheroes), as well as that the game presents trying to trump things with raw strength as not the best way of doing things. That's why you have checks that include things like your base attack bonus rather than just your raw strength to represent being able to apply that strength effectively.

Understand yet? Now, we can go back to helping you accept that a +13 is not some negligible addition to a roll, and that it could easily be increased beyond that with circumstantial bonuses, race/class choices, and so on and so forth? Even Raging pumps it up to +17. And that number is also added to things like base attack bonuses for certain checks that result in numbers that start to make the dice roll rather insubstantial at higher levels?

Look, I get a strong feeling you're just a hopeless guy here to argue and you won't give up, so I'll just go ahead and say that your opinion has been noted. I don't know what you're hoping to achieve from that, but I guess knowing that someone has heard your opinion is very important to you.

>>55377028
>but I'm hoping you realize that your main issue is that you're not really appreciating the tone and style of the game
You mean the tone and style that every other mechanic in the game contradicts? Skills start higher, scale faster, and have a much higher variance than attributes do even without hyperoptimization that results in level 6 Bards with +50 to Diplomacy. Even if you removed attributes this would be true. Saves do the same thing but to a more reasonable extent. Attack bonuses? Same thing. So no, I'm not going to accept that it's a stylistic choice when I look over at skills, where the difference between a level 1 Rogue and a level 20 Rogue can be a whole +60. I'm not going to accept that when a Fighter goes from swinging +5s to +40.

>>55377130
>Skills start higher, scale faster, and have a much higher variance than attributes do even without hyperoptimization that results in level 6 Bards with +50 to Diplomacy. Even if you removed attributes this would be true. Saves do the same thing but to a more reasonable extent. Attack bonuses? Same thing.

Notice how those are things based around expertise and experience? Things you learn?

Do you get that? Do you?

And that how those all fit together with the base stats as the base? Kind of why they're called base stats?

>>55377179
See, now you're just reaching for any justification.

>>55377279
...

...How old are you? Genuine question.

>>55377293
Old enough to have been playing D&D long before 3.0 came out.

>>55377351
I'd like a number.

>>55377358
Not happening.

>>55376819

I think part of the problem is that anything outside of a full attack in dnd isn't really covered by the rules and Grappling is famous for its horrible rules

so you basically play Mother May I with the DM

>>55377375

If he played before 3.0 came out, I assume he's at least around 23.

>>55371888
>posting this thread with a picture of a mage that does nothing but explode>post a picture of a martial type who's very useful
Nice twist.

>>55377179
Look, if the stat system was really working 100% as intended like you say it was, 4E would never have slapped 1/2 level scaling on checks to correct for the problem.

>>55377517
>look, if people liked how tieflings were in previous editions, 4e would never have made their forehead-horn draenei ripoffs.

>>55377691
A fluff change isn't comparable to a mechanics change at all.

>>55377736
>the manner in which my fallacy was demonstrated was not exact, allow me to explain a difference!

That's nice. Go on, and tell me more about how 4e made nothing but good decisions and all of its changes were direct attempts to address perceived issues with the previous edition.

>>55377818
>and all of its changes were direct attempts to address perceived issues with the previous edition.
This is true about all of the mechanical changes, so...

>>55377885
>This is true about all of the mechanical changes, so...

0/10, apply yourself.

>>55377901
Except that's literally true. It's blindingly obvious.

>>55377953
I don't remember anyone complaining about intelligence not being added to reflex saves.

>>55377988
I do and I remember the stat-replacing feats from 3.5 that are responsible for its existence.

>>55378003
No, that's just you being moronic and not realizing that it's the result of them deciding that the saves should each be decided by one of two stats, and after strength was added to fort and charisma to will, they stuck intelligence on reflex because that's how 4e designs things.

Notice how in 5e, they went away from that? Because 4e saves had gone one step too far into gamist nonsense?

>>55378035
>not realizing that it's the result of them deciding that the saves should each be decided by one of two stats
Because of what happened when they didn't do this. 3.5 Fighter saves are not pretty.

>>55378060
Funny, because that in particular didn't improve fighter saves in 4e all that much, because their two best stats ended up going to the same save.

>>55378107
If you were a Battlerager, otherwise your best stats were STR/WIS or STR/DEX.

I wonder how many more decades we will continue to have this argument.

>>55377404
He was playing D&D at 6 years old?

>>55378138
That's what the game tried to make happen, but the best powers being con based and HP proving more useful than trying to improve their weak defenses made all fighters have Str/Con as their best stats unless you were trying something drastic.

>>55378243

Yeah, it wouldn't be the first time I've heard of a six year old child playing tabletop games (albeit poorly). Then again, that's at the bare minimum.

>>55378267
No? A cursory look at a handbook would tell you that you're wrong. CON is something you don't ignore but if you're not a Battlerager you'd have to be retarded to focus on it over WIS or DEX based on what you're doing.

>>55372865
I still pray to Poseidon for just one good wave to hit the west coast.

>>55378190

until wizard fellators and nostalgic nerds admit that martials are getting the short end of the stick

>>55376339

They actually dont, and its not like magic users couldnt do any of that stuff too

all this complaining, but can you do any better?

humor me with your best shot
can you make a class that is equal in power, utility, and flexibility as a wizard as a martial
in combat and out of it, must be something that definitively would end any and all debate, and match the most ridiculous powergamed magic user in the same setting

criteria
>must be balanced, can fill its own niche without ever being overshadowed
>must be magic optional, can match a wIzard blow for blow, even if you forgo magical tools
>must be unique, it must do its job with skill and muscle and not just rename spells with muscle attacks

come on, show some creativity instead of crying

>>55378533
If you're going to play 3.5, then you know that in exchange for all the good points of the system you have to deal with the flaws. I just force martial classes to use the book of weeaboo fighting magic.

>>55378580
>They actually don't
Depends on the edition

>When a fighter attains 9th level (becomes a "Lord"), he can automatically attract men at arms. These soldiers, having heard of the fighter, come for the chance to gain fame, adventure, and cash. They are loyal as long as they are well-treated, successful, and paid well. Abusive treatment or a disastrous campaign can lead to grumbling, desertion, and possibly mutiny. To attract the men, the fighter must have a castle or stronghold and sizeable manor lands around it. As he claims and rules this land, soldiers journey to his domain, thereby increasing his power. Furthermore, the fighter can tax and develop these lands, gaining a steady income from them. Your DM has information about gaining and running a barony.

>In addition to regular men-at-arms, the 9th level fighter also attracts an elite bodyguard (his "household guards"). Although these soldiers are still mercenaries, they have greater loyalty to their Lord than do common soldiers. In return, they expect better treatment and more pay than the common soldier receives. Although the elite unit can be chosen randomly, it is better to ask your DM what unit your fighter attracts. This allows him to choose a troop consistent with the campaign.

By 9th level, a fighter is expected to own land, to be a lord, to have a personal guard and just overall be an important figure in the lands. This is from the best edition, 2e

>>55378627
Personally, I'm gonna say no, because it's not fucking worth the time to fix a horrendously broken system and I'd rather make my own if it comes to that.
But maybe the Action Hero homebrew by Ziegander on GitP is worth looking at, if you really do care.
If I really wanted to make a homebrew fighter magic optional that kept up with a T1 class, it would be so horrifyingly detailed with all the utility options and class-exclusive bonus feats it could acquire that I would have to basically write another sourcebook myself.

>>55378938
The sensible solution is to bring magic down to earth, rather than opening up so many avenues.
>>55378755
2e was also about the pcs getting to the point where they need not be crazy adventurers, settling down and running shit as kings or pursuing their own life goals.

>>55371888
What I want to know is, why do people keep choosing martials, knowing full well that they suck? It's not like the party requires one, anything they can do can be done better by a caster. Are they just too dumb to think about their actions more than "me hit thing with stick"?

>>55379094
Because a party of five full casters breaks the DM before everyone gets too bored of the current campaign to continue, so he leaves and the party is left to jerk off among themselves.
Basically, it's the same reason why a wizard doesn't always pick optimal spells for the day- there's an implicit social contract not to break the setting at the earliest possible convenience.

>>55373998
>Then why isn't Hillary potus?
I never really got this particular brand of retardation. None of the polls said that Hillary was 100% guaranteed to win, just that she was incredibly likely to win. Christ, she did get the majority of votes (not that it matters), so it's not like she just got completely destroyed.

>>55373998
>Then why isn't Hillary potus?
Electoral College was weighted with Republicans who wanted a win, no matter what.

>>55374029
>DnD has no objective flaws
>5E isn't 4E

>>55379094
Maybe they don't know. Maybe they lack system mastery. Maybe they're playing a game where martials aren't shite.

Or maybe they THINK they have system mastery but they actually don't. A friend of mine, in a game I was running, decided to go with Cleric 1/Cavalier|Samurai|Kensei 1 at second level, solely so he could buff his sword with negative energy for the Kensei's sole special ability, which is drawing your sword and doing slightly more damage than you would have ordinarily for a horrifying AC penalty.

He could have just, of course, played Cleric, but he thought it would be really good since I like human antagonists and minions. It was just terrible. The Kensei part actually made the Cleric part objectively worse.

>>55371888
>ctl+f "Fantasycraft"

Aright here's the thing. Combat Skills are not exclusively swinging weapons and shooting projectiles. There's tactics involved that can be applied in many walks of life, as well as skills related to battle that have multiple uses.

WOTC and friends figure the Fighter has to be someone who Fights and little else. This conceptualization is what they're doing wrong, among many things, but particularly related to this thread.

Fantasycraft gives us, for example, the Soldier. Yeah, they get combat feats and good fighting stats. By default though, they also get bonuses to Purchasing and Appraising weapons, armor, and equipment. This can mean things like working in tandem with a dedicated party-face character to make sure you're not getting ripped off in a deal and optimizing your reward profit expenditures. It can mean that the mage didn't prep Identify but the Soldier can say "Give me that" and tell the party what it does through experience with weapons, magic or otherwise, and let them know if it's something to use or something to sell.

Nevermind that being a combat veteran in a lot of fantasy settings comes with boons of free passage, hospitality, reputation and even titles or positions of power.

The 3.X baseline fighter is a shit class. Not because martial characters are garbage, but because WoTC fucked up.

If you're tired of martials being useless, either play a system that wasn't made by wizard-cock-sucking bitches or homebrew a fix because you're Aware of the problem and therefore probably not so ignorant of the rules that you couldn't toss together an easy fix.

>>55379094
>>55379343

simple, they have Fun playing martials even if they are subpar and they know it

you do know what Fun is right? it's that thing other people have when you aren't around

>>55379445
>simple, they have Fun playing martials

No, the Barbarian player was having fun cutting everything in half because Barbarians don't suck

The other guy was falling down holes all the time and just generally tripping all over himself because he was playing a Cavalier derivative, and Cavaliers are awful

>>55378627
Scrap Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, and Bard. Fold all of them into Fighter and Rogue as different archetypes. Basically, Fighter encompasses any heavy armor using martial type and Rogue encompasses any light armour using martial type. Both of them explicitly get the ability to do beyond-mortal-capability style actions at 5th level. By the time Wizards are getting Wish, Rogues are capable of running across water while Fighters can hurl javelins at targets miles away.

>>55379571

So 2E then

File: 1449291979184.jpg (2MB, 1813x1118px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1813x1118px

>>55372949
>Martials are better at damage.
When cranked out to hell, maybe, but the same is true of Evokers. If you haven't run into something immune to damage then good for you, but
>Fine- Swarms.
>Weapon-Breaking effects
>AC buffs
>Offensive penalties.
>Stealth effects that permit no perception skill check to counteract, likely combined with lethal offenses.

Plus a handful of scenarios where the Right Weapon is difficult to come by, though that tends to result in a quest to get the Right Weapon so that's not as big an impediment.

Don't get me wrong, I know damn well how much you can crank off a Frenzied Berzerking Discple of Dispater handing out crits on a Lion Totem Barbarian Pounce charge for hundreds at low-mid levels and only scaling higher as they go. I saw an evocation specialist in the same game going incantatrix to crank their damage spells up to equal result, if not surpassing them at times.

Resistances and Immunities have bypass options to consider. If you're focusing caster damage, you're going to make sure you've got a way to deal with "nope".

I'm trying to find "legendary Resilience" as a feature but I guess you might be talking about just high-level survivability?

>Low level caster deaths.
Very true. Gotta work to survive to that 5th or 6th level unless you're cheesing like hell.

>Skillful types deal less damage.
If we're talking high-optimization characters, if you've got a high damage intent then there's anti-immunity options for sneak attack and plenty of magic items that will add to it, potentially handing out more damage dice per attack than the rogue-type has HD. Nevermind the "per sneak attack die" or that PF sap option.

Though credit where it's due, I've been the dumbass rogue dying in a flower of death. It is hilarious.

Point being; Damage focus is not martial exclusive, which is a large part of why non-combat options should not be kept away from or exclude martial character types, classes, and options.

File: cc88169c98af02162042dcf4e306ee85.jpg (2MB, 1105x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1105x1536px

>>55379094
Maybe because people like playing as martial characters? Maybe because almost every single mythological hero, protagonists in movies or tv shows or whatever, are martial type characters?

>>55379588
Maybe? I never played 2E, but I think the big issue with Fighter is that too many "man who fights well" archetypes got parceled out into their own classes.

In my own 5E game, I luckily have no Monks, so I've just been letting the Champion Fighter and Assassin Rogue get more and more wuxia as the campaign gets higher in level. Rogue wants to run across falling rubble to reach a baddy on the second story of a crumbling keep? Go for it. Fighter wants to tie a rope to a javelin, hurl it into the dragons flank, and then climb up the rope to cut the dragons wing off? Roll for it.

>>55379610
>Maybe because people like playing as martial characters? Maybe because almost every single mythological hero, protagonists in movies or tv shows or whatever, are martial type characters?

Culture heroes are half rogues with all sorts of cunnin and shit anon. The ones that aren't usually are martial types kitted out with magic shit.

>>55373534
If your armor slows you down that much, you have poorly made armor

>>55379630

Well in Core 2E every martial class was a "Warrior" subclass. The base "Warrior" was Fighter, which had some pretty good stuff. You could only qualify for Paladin with obnoxious ability score requirements, which, good luck rolling those, and they got spells, while the Fighter got followers (and a castle) as class features.

The only Rogue subclasses were Thief and Bard, which was pretty much what you'd expect.

>>55379681

Maybe he's just playing an edition which has weird armor rules and wearing full plate harness is like wearing a pregnant main battle tank.

Meanwhile, in older editions
>Suits of full plate armor are as rare as powerful magical items in most fantasy campaigns. Magical sets of full plate are artifacts to be treasured and hidden away, the objects of glorious quests.

>In most campaigns, the number of sets of full plate armor can be counted as easily as the numbers of crown knights who owe their allegiance to the king. In many kingdoms, it is a crime to possess a set of full plate armor without royal permission, as a wise king keeps any armorer capable of such craftsmanship at his beck and call.

>Full plate armor is one of the greatest gifts a great lord can bestow upon his followers. It is a prize as coveted for the status it confers as its monetary value. A suit of full plate armor will often be a gift presented to great knights upon great service to the realm, or as an incentive to attract a knight errant of unquestioned prowess to the king's private circle.

>In addition, full plate armor is the most technologically advanced armor available in the later medieval and high chivalry settings. The special touches and custom enhancements added by the few living master armorers are what give full plate armor its increased armor class rating over the more traditional forms of field plate. At prices that start at 4,000 gold pieces for a simple, unadorned suit, full plate armor represents the crowning achievement of the armorer's ultimate goal--to forge for man a new skin of steel, as flexible as his own, but as invulnerable as anything in the land.

So you can choose from "you move at 1/3rd speed in armor" or "your armor is awesome and super special"

>>55373555
If something designed to be enjoyed is enjoyed by lots of people then it's objectively good at its task

>>55372949
My dm makes us fight ghosts like all the time. Otherwise I completely agree with you.

>>55379911
Ghost-touch weapons kinda fall under an equipment fix. Right tool for the right job.

>>55378755

Its still a shitty workaround the balance because why the fuck would this be something that is necessarily tied to the fighter?, couldnt the wizard automatically gain apprentices and a magical lab?

>>55371888
I want to fuck megumin

>>55371888
You should stop playing DnD

>>55371888
Can we just start a "I don't understand fantasy and therefore I demand 'balance' in outdated editions of D&D" general?

>>55380441
>I don't understand fantasy
>magic MUST be better or it's not fantasy!
>>55380212
Wizards do at 10th level, iirc. At that point, it's expected for the wizard to retire from adventuring entirely, however, for personal pursuits.

>>55380463

well, thats kinda dumb because that rules expect that your adventurers would suddenly want to stop being murderhobos which doesnt happens in most games

>>55380441

>implying 5e solved the problem

youre a dumb faggot

>>55380744
The game also expected people to retire their pcs at 10th level.

>>55380790
Well, that doesn't happen in my games.

>>55380790

but why?, was level 10 epic back in 2e?

>>55380441
If the game is gonna have levels, those levels should mean something, especially if it's pitched by the books as a way to gauge how powerful a character is.

If you want all-powerful wizards, then a balanced system is better for everyone, since you can just give wizards double xp to unbalance it to your taste as you see fit.

>>55380463
>Martials and casters MUST have the same the chance of succeeding at any given task at any given time
>if they don't, it's not balanced.
>>55380744
>implying you've ever played 5e, I've ever played 5e, OP isn't just being a shitter by throwing out guranted reply bait
>implying being imbalanced in combat is a bad thing when fantasy is at most 1/3rd combat
>implying you want a game with perfect combat balance between all characters which carefully balances racial bonuses and quirks, cost, levels, and statistics, but you're too fucking dumb to play war games when all you want is to swing swords and sling spells

We have this thread 8 times a day, every single day you dumb faggot. You have two options.
1)stop playing with murder hobos and make sure the spell casters have a situation more interesting and thought provoking than "I cast save or die on the 87th Orc this session"
2)if all you want is combatcombatwombats then play a dungeon crawler, war game, or board game.

>>55380855
They quit "random" adventures. Only broke out their gear for special threats.

>>55380832
So you are bucking the assumption of the game, and it's the game's fault?
Are you playing 2e?

>>55380879

>I have no arguments I only want to complain about the topic!!!

I have played 5e also, so blow it up your ass and return to your waifu threads you piece of shit

One thing I will note is while casters and skillful classes generally have damage and utility, fighters generally have damage and survivability.

That utility usually comes at the cost of squishiness.

>>55380964
>I have no arguments so I'll tell you to go back to a waifu thread!
>ha. That showed him :^)
Do you appreciate the irony and hypocrisy as you type your responses, or does it only dawn on you that you're retarded after you press the post button? Maybe if you could manage to read more than a single line before your eyes gloss over and start to cross you'd see that there was in fact a brief answer for OP. Unfortunately for you, you're clinically retarded and will never be able to balance the inate disparity between casters and martials. That would require you to know how to have fun
Newfag.

>>55381019

>ill call him a newfag!, that will distract him from the fact that Im an obvious hypocrite faggot that just wants to moan about a thread he doesnt likes that bad!

We can keep this all night