>RPG theorycrafting
>a "fighter" is any character who can both directly deal large amounts of damage in combat, and tolerate a large number of attacks, whether through evasiveness or tankiness.
>"fighter" is less a class than a standard for combat effectiveness. In D&D, a monk is effectively a variant fighter because its unarmed strikes stand in for weapon proficiency, its ki pool can be used to simulate Second Wind, and so on.
>"wizard" is anything that has NO INNATE COMBAT ABILITY. Certain features may allow it to OCCASIONALLY break this rule. A literal wizard, for example, could spend a spell slot to cast Fireball, to temporarily contribute to offense in a fight.
>But a "wizard" could also be a squire who helps the fighter in and out of heavy armor and keeps his steed in good condition.
>"rogues" and "clerics" are lopsided fighters, one only able to muster offense, one only able to muster defense.
>some "rogues" and "clerics" trade one side for a disproportionate effect on the other side. For example, a literal, D&D rogue gains Sneak Attack, with the understanding that they can't withstand an enemy's undivided attention.
>a D&D cleric's defense is almost as good as a D&D fighter's, often even getting the same armor, but instead of sacrificing offense for even more defense, they get indirect benefits (in the form of magic).
Three of these archetypes are defined by what they *can't* do, or at least what they shouldn't be able to do consistently.
>>44425249
Agree with all of them except the part about the wizard. You're forgetting to factor in spell slots. If you want to define everyone in terms of being a fighter, a wizard is a "Potential fighter" who can, depending on what spells he chooses, opt to specialise in defence, offence, or a mixture of the 2. But then you're forgetting about stuff outside of combat and class features meaning the whole theory isn't really feasible.
I think you mean "D&D theorycrafting", bruh.
>let's bitch about casters for 500 posts
Jesus /tg/, take your meds.
Isn't that just an awkward way to describe the roles 4e uses?
>>44425861
It's really nothing like the roles 4e uses.
e.g. under this paradigm, a more typical wizard build is a "rogue," while a summoner wizard is a "fighter," despite both being controllers.
>>44425385
We're doing more than bitching about casters though.
Imagine a 5e warlock with Hex and Agonizing Blast. At late game, they can roll up to eight dice of damage each turn. But at the same time, they have d8 hit dice and are restricted to light armor. Under the rules above, this guy is neither a wizard nor a fighter, but a rogue. The player should be concentrating on either dipping in and out of combat, or on staying close to a tank, the same way a literal rogue would. At the same time, the warlock isn't emulating any part of an actual rogue except its ability to participate asymmetrically in combat. That's something a GM should encourage and reward.
What's the point of this thread?
>>44426078
To both about how wizards can flip flop between any and all archetypes while doing better than everyone since apparently al wizards have access to all spells at all levels.
>>44425249
Baically you are proposing a lasers&feelings fantasy hack.
I dig it.
>>44425249
OD&D
>you're a fighter. Everyone else sucks dick at fighting
>you're a cleric. You can cast shit and heal
>you're a magic user. You can use magic. Don't even try to do anything else. Just sit your old ass down and cast.
>you're a specialist. You do everything that isn't fighting or casting.
>You're a dwarf. You're a dwarf.
>You're an elf. You're still just and elf.
>You're a halfling. You're what specialists should be.
I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to apply D&D class names to this when what you're shooting for is a sliding scale between combat and non-combat dudes.
But magic is better than swinging a piece of metal, therefore casters should be better in any situation than non casters, I mean, is not realistic that a dude who just trained himself in wearing metal and beating people with a stick would surpass someone who can bend the universe to his will.
>>44425889
So they have subroles?
>>44425249
Really sounds like you're describing a less sophisticated version of 4e class roles
>>44426142
...aaaaand here it goes.
>>44426120
Reading comprehension man
>>44426365
lowqualitybait.jpg
>>44426467
>Can't refute his point, lets ad hominem
>>44426467
Name calling is a sin of losing the argument.
