What edition of dungeons and dragons is better for what?
3.5e for meme DnD with rules for everything
4e for playing IronMan in Middle-Earth
5e for playing a bunch of polyglots obsessed by their past
>>47562324
why meme dnd? is there a normal dnd?
>>47563345
AD&D2
>>47563371
Bitch please, AD&D 1st edition or GTFO!
>3 elves on the image and only one human
>all elves have faces delibatery copied from lotr/hobbit actors
top kek
>>47563371
>>47563402
I have played OSR, is it the same as AD&D2?
>>47562324
>4e for playing IronMan in Middle-Earth
More like playing Conan in a land of bigger fish
Remember that a goblin can kick starting character's ass and town guards are level 3 NPCs in that game
4e for the best set of mechanics for high fantasy combat and adventuring.
3.PF/5e for the game which most 'feels like' D&D.
>>47563468
You're right next time I'll use this line
1st Ed - No, just nothing.
2nd Ed - A good challenge and not made for players to be OP.
3.0/3.5 - Min-Max up the ass, made for players to be powerful.
4E - If you like video games and non-traditional D&D this is for you.
5E - Good new players and actual role-playing.
>>47563968
Are players less powerful in 5th that 3rd and 4th? The whole 'adventurers are just naturally better' shit really put me off 3.5, would rather play someone who started out relatively average but eventually got slightly above average through luck and perseverance.
>>47563968
>actual role-playing
Fuck off. 5e does no more, and no less, to support roleplaying than any other edition.
>>47564052
Three lvl1 players in 5e can be put in difficulty by 5 bandits if terrain works against them.
Pathfinder or fantasy craft which one haves more OP players?
>>47562279
1e - old-school dungeon crawling
AD&D1 - medium-fantasy roleplaying (Middle-earth power level stuff; it breaks down past "name" level)
AD&D2 - epic fantasy roleplaying ("save the multiverse" stuff) and Planescape
3.x - toilet paper
4e - slighly nicer toilet paper you don't necessarily want to be the first to shit on, but still remembering its purpose is shit-related
5e - introducing new players to RPGs though a well-known brand name before moving on to a better system
What do you guys hate about 3.X?
>>47564234
You mean aside from being intentionally designed to be unbalanced and to actually and deliberately *punish* people who took the classes that the author didn't like (Monte Cook got bullied in school; jocks/martials have to get owned by the nerds/casters to make him feel better)?
>>47564234
>What do you guys hate about 3.X?
When I was first introduced to 3.X (when it was 3.0), I wanted to make a fighter. The first thing I didn't like was how the DM assured me that I wanted to take this very specific set of feats and how the stuff I thought would be fun would make me less "useful" than the other characters. The second was the grid-based combat.
>>47564117
Or just luck. Hell, my party got TPK'd by some wolves
>>47564435
Git gud
>>47564075
Yes it does.
Personality and background force players to give a little thought as to their character's past, personality and motivations.
This helps new players solidify their characters in their minds and makes them realise that they are more than just a bunch of numbers on a sheet of paper.
>>47564537
Backgrounds were in previous editions
>>47564537
If you need mechanics to 'force' your players to roleplay, either your players are shitty or your dm is shitty.
i feel that 5e haves less options than other editions
D&D Tiers
God Tier
BECMI
B/X
Good Tier
AD&D 1e
AD&D 2e
Okay Tier
OD&D
4e
5e
Shit Tier
Dragon Strike (the shitty version played with VHS tapes)
Lower than Whaleshit Tier
3.0
3.x
Wannabe Tier
Palladium Fantasy
FantasyCraft
Wannabe Whaleshit Tier
Pathfinder
Oh Shit, Naga, What Are You Doing Tier Tier
FATAL
>>47564575
They were never an essential part of the character creation process as they are now. They were an optional thing that a lot of new players just ignored.
>>47564581
We're talking about new players who've never played D&D or maybe any tabletop RPG before. They're not experienced roleplayers so something like 5e backgrounds is helpful to them.
>>47564607
In what way?
>>47564581
I don't think it's mechanics forcing the characters to roleplay, but rather to use the character's background to translate into mechanics. Even if you don't think your character really fits anything, like a recent example where a PFfriend of mine couldn't choose between Charlatan or something else, I just suggested taking what proficiencies/languages his character would have from those two.
>>47564663
>We're talking about new players who've never played D&D or maybe any tabletop RPG before. They're not experienced roleplayers so something like 5e backgrounds is helpful to them.
Ah, well, that's the problem, then. If they're new they shouldn't be playing in the first place.
REAL roleplayers don't need mechanical background advantages.
>>47564663
They are as ignorable now as they were before. Most people I've played with do little more with backgrounds than look for the one with the best skills. I don't think they even realize you can customize them. If your players don't want to roleplay, they won't. Nothing will "force" them to.
>>47564607
It does mechanically by a fair amount, but I think it's also a lot less restrictive with actual character concepts which more than makes up for it for what I want
>>47564726
>>47563425
Depends on exactly which OSR game you played. OSRIC is 1e, For Gold and Glory is 2e, S&W White Box and some others are OD&D, and most of them are B/X.
>>47564636
>Race-as-Class editions
>anything but garbage
>>47564738
It sounds like the people you play with are just powergaming twats.
You'd probably be more comfortable with 3.PF than 5e.
>>47564745
You mean the fact that you can't choose from 150+ pointless feats and powers?
That's a good thing. 3.5 and 4e just gave you the ILLUSION of choice.
In 3.5 you had hundreds of options but a handful were just objectively better than the others.
In 4e you had hundreds of options but they were all virtually identical with minute differences (pic related)
>>47564854
>choice
2e
Kits
>>47564854
>that pic
Good bait.
>>47564854
>You'd probably be more comfortable with 3.PF than 5e.Personally I prefer 4e over either. Everything was rather flavorful in that edition, from backgrounds to paragon paths to epic destinies to the classes and powers themselves, despite your misleading example.
>>47562279
3.5 is for if you want the option to build your own game world from the ground up
4 is for people who don't want that option and want a simple system that is easy to understand and play and keeps the game moving quickly
5 is for everyone because it is the perfect edition of dungeons and dragons and if you say otherwise I will write you a wall of text explaining why you are wrong
>>47564726
>If they're new they shouldn't be playing in the first place.
Write it in the sky in gossamer tear drops.
At least you're an honest retard.
>>47564945
>I prefer 4e
So you don't really like D&D then.
You probably play LoL or DotA as well don't you?
>>47564967
>4 is for people who don't want that option and want a simple system that is easy to understand and play and keeps the game moving quickly
Are you memeing me?
4e combat is as slow as molasses. I've literally spent entire sessions on one fucking encounter.
>>47565010
I guess I don't.
Never liked MOBAs, MMOs, or anything 4e has been equated with. Weird huh?
>>47562279
Simple.
>1E: Nostalgia (feel) and satanism :^)
>2E: Nostalgia (design)
>3.X: Interesting characters (mechanically)
>4E: Combat
>5E: New/casual players
Each of these are worthwhile qualities; no edition is better or worse that the other, they simply do different things.
>>47565095
Strange indeed.
You should try MMOs and MOBAs. If you like 4e you'll probably enjoy them.
>>47564967
In 5e, XP values for monsters are comparable to 2e. Unfortunately, the XP curve is not.
>>47565137
1e and 2e have a fairly similar feel if you enable GP=XP in 2e. You just lose Gary's ornate writing.
>>47565211
Hey dumbass, why did you use the same colors multiple times?
>>47565240
But why would you want to get rid of Gary's ornate writing?
>>47565266
I didn't, that's LibreOffice's automatic coloration. I don't care enough to adjust them, because the graph isn't really readable anyway.
>>47565193
"Never liked" implies I have and did not.
>OD&D
Fantasy conquistadors, expedition style games with lots of resource management. Combat is heavily abstract. Meant for lots of wacky house-rules. Classes determine party role and some vague flavour while leave most basic adventuring tasks up to roleplay.
(Hobbit/Pulp-horror power level base)
>AD&D
As OD&D but more spot rules for both combat and adventuring. Opens up more options for demihumans which carry over to all further additions.
>2e
Proper adventure style games with a mix of fighting, journeying and role-playing. Combat is less abstract. Still quite bit of resource management but less so than 1e. Classes determine role but have more specific options for determining flavour. Lots more opportunities for mechanical customization with proficiencies.
(LotR/Pulp-adventure power level base)
>3e
High adventure style quests with more focus on direct challenges, combat and game mechanics. Combat is much more intricate. Focus on ability use as well as management. Classes determine general character power-level and are more specific in terms of flavour while being less specific in role. Many basic adventuring tasks are covered with rules and character abilities. Many many options for mechanical customization with feats and multiclassing. Less houserule friendly but features lots of wacky splatbooks.
(Pulp-adventure scaling to Action movie PLB)
>4e
High adventure style quests with wuxia or diablo style tight tactical combat. Combat is both intricate and abstracted though powers. Focused more on moment to moment ability use and roleplaying with little resource management. Despite role titles all classes are combat capable and mostly determine flavour and combat style. None combat challenges are left up to very general mechanics and role-playing. Neither splatbooks or houserules feature greatly
(Pulp-adventure scaling to Hobbit-movie/action-movies scaling to wuxia PLB)
>>47565292
Because it's not really that good.
>>47565299
>>47565193
MOBAs and MMOs both precede 3.x, so I'm not sure why you'd need to like 4e to enjoy-
Oh. Right. They're not REAL Aeon of Strifes or Ultima Onlines or something. I just got that.
>>47565240
>You just lose Gary's ornate writing
So you lose the feel, is what you're saying?
>>47565307
Fair enough
>>47565337
Of course they preceeded 4e. They were the inspiration for it. The D&D devs were playing a lot of WoW at the time 4e was being designed.
>>47565344
>the way the book is written
>related to the way the system feels in play
>>47565344
Shouldn't "feel" be determined by dm playstyle?
>>47562279
OD&D, best for playing a fun game with friends.
Basic D&D, best for playing a fun game with friends who have no wargaming experience.
AD&D, best for playing a game with friends who demands some munchkinism and hundreds of pages of rules they can cite that the actual designers didn't use themselves.
Wizards of the Coast's games that aren't all that related to D&D, best for theorycrafting ideas that would never fly in an actual game on the worst forums created since the birth of the internet and shouting over angrily when it's left by the wayside by everyone involved the second the eponymous "New Edition" hits the next Gencon. (because everyone knows what's important isn't to play the game you enjoy, but the game that's popular with the in-crowd right now)
>>47565324
>5e
Mix of 3e and 4e style questing with more open tactical combat. Combat is intricate but not as rule focused as 3e or 4e. Mechanics permeate most activities but are generally pretty loose. Some resource management but more ability focused. Classes still greatly determine flavour and most are heavily combat capable but have more out of combat effects. Like in 3e characters tend to get a large toolbox of abilities. Even more customisation is added with subclasses and backgrounds.
Houserules are encourage and supported by the system but not necessary, few splatbooks yet to be released.
(Pulp-adventure with little direct scaling)
>>47564328
This is a dumb misreading of the Ivory Tower essay, and Monte Cooke did Numenera/The Strange and it's pretty cool so stfu faglet.
>>47565324
>>47565519
>To sum up and add some additional thoughts
>A&OD&D
Heaviest focus on roleplaying and houseruling. Tightly dedicated to dungeon expedition style. It's more a collection of mechanics than an actual system.
>2e
Focus on roleplaying and slightly on light mechanical customisation. Split focus on expedition and heroism
>3e
Heaviest focus on mechanics and mechanical customisation with a very vague idea of the intended style of play. Heavier power scaling than any previous addion which falls apart at high levels.
>4e
Still a vague sense in terms of style of play but mechnically tight in terms of combat. Best I could imagine is groups prefered adventure style with Final Fantasy fight transitions. Mechanics mostly focus on combat and leave everything else to the party. By far the best support for high level party adventuring of any game.
>5e
Vary vague in terms of mechanical focus and theme, sort of a 3e light with 2e power scaling. Much more focus is put into representing character personality with mechanical choices. Probably the most houserule friendly since 2e.
>>47565728
Buttsensitive caster player detected
>>47565400
It should, but it ain't.
>>47564234
Ivory Tower game design. Trap options. Massive disparity in character class power/ability.
If rules pundits are putting the various character classes into 'power tiers' (which is most definitely a thing), then there's a problem with the game.
If the GM has to make a concerted effort, and I mean serious mental gymnastics, to make all the characters feel useful at some time, there's a problem with the game.
If one class can perform the main focus of a second class (which is far outside the intended realm of the first), that’s probably an issue.
If that one class can outperform the second at its’ (the second’s) main focus, that’s a big issue.
If that one class can outperform almost any other class at their varying main foci (and still do plenty of other things none of those other classes can do), then the rules should never have left the drawing board.
>inb4 "herp derp, wizards are masters of the arcane arts, fights swing a stick! It's realistic"
>>47565878
Will martialfags ever stop whining about 3.5?
Just move on you cucks. That was 2 editions ago.
>>47565972
>Will martialfags ever stop whining about 3.5?
No. Deal with it.
Especially in a discussion about things that were wrong with that edition, which is SPECIFICALLY a discussion in which "martial vs caster" disparity should fucking arise.
>>47565972
>person asks why people dislike game
>people give reasons
>retard goes "lol y u mad?"
>>47565972
Dude, settle. I haven't played 3.5 in over 10 years, and don't give a shit about it. If someone asks what's wrong with it though, i'm going to answer.
>>47565994
>>47566037
It's always the same thing though
>waaaaah my muscleman isn't as powerful as the wizard ;_;
Do you have any legitimate criticism of the system instead of bitching about your shitty fightercucks?
>>47566124
You are being so fucking stupid right now, I'm beginning to think you secretly hate 3.5, and are trying to make the playerbase sound (even more) retarded.
Please stop with your obvious bait.
>>47566124
That IS legitimate criticism.
See also: >>47565780
>>47566178
It's not though.
Explain to me why you feel that a fighter should every be as powerful as a wizard.
>>47566124
>Do you have any legitimate criticism of the system instead of bitching about your shitty fightercucks?
Yes, I do. My complaints are:
-Ivory Tower game design. Trap options. Massive disparity in character class power/ability.
-If rules pundits are putting the various character classes into 'power tiers' (which is most definitely a thing), then there's a problem with the game.
-If the GM has to make a concerted effort, and I mean serious mental gymnastics, to make all the characters feel useful at some time, there's a problem with the game.
-If one class can perform the main focus of a second class (which is far outside the intended realm of the first), that’s probably an issue.
If that one class can outperform the second at its’ (the second’s) main focus, that’s a big issue.
If that one class can outperform almost any other class at their varying main foci (and still do plenty of other things none of those other classes can do), then the rules should never have left the drawing board.
Did you not understand that those are complaints? Besides, it's not about "waah, my fighter isn't as powerful as a wizard", it's the idea that wizards make all other classes entirely obsolete, and thus pointless. Why bother playing anything else? And why make it a massive headache for DMs to make other classes useful, without making a challenge that can still just as easily be solved by the wizard?
Like I said - it's about rules design, not whether a wizard *should* or *shouldn't* be more powerful than a fighter.
>inb4 "you're a shit GM / you have no creativity"
>>47566210
because game balance > realism.
>>47566210
Pic related, idiot.
>>47566210
The fighter does not have to be as *powerful* as a wizard, but he should be as *useful* as a wizard.
Otherwise, you are punishing the player for making the *wrong* choice of class. Why even put a *wrong* character class in there? Why punish people for wanting to play the game?
Do you get it now? Or are you going to continue to meander around the point like a simpleton?
>>47566210
A "level" in terms of player characters denotes approximate capability. A level 20 warrior should be as capable as a level 20 wizard. It is blindingly obvious this is not true. The question then shouldn't be "how do we strengthen the warrior up to be on par?" it's "Why is the caster so ridiclously powerful compared to everything else?"
Also ypur argument indirectly relies on realism (why should man with stick be as strong as man who twists reality?!) and has no place in a discussion about game balance.
>>47566240
I disagree.
Same level doesn't mean similar power fucktard.
Level indicates power relative to members of the SAME class.
>>47566312
Fighters are shit because the class is only good at one thing: hitting things with a stick and maybe occasionally bending bars.
It really is a class for mindless morons that requires absolutely no tactical thought beyond "which monster should I hit in the face now?"
>>47566354
See>>47566366
Same level != same power
Martialfags need to be gassed.
>>47566239
>it's the idea that wizards make all other classes entirely obsolete, and thus pointless. Why bother playing anything else?
If the game designers saw fit to include a wizard that can do all that, then you SHOULDN'T play anything else. If you choose to be useless, then that's entirely your fault. Not the game's. Nobody's forcing you to be a mundane sword-swinger in a game about hyper-powerful magical beings.
>3.5E "muh Wizards"
Go over onto the OSR thread and ask how many first level parties have killed the 13th level Wizard in Tower of the Stargazer.
>>47566354
>a discussion about game balance.
This isn't a discussion about game balance you cuck.
It's a discussion about which is the best edition of D&D.
D&D was never balanced. It will never be balanced. It wasn't MEANT to be balanced. It's a fucking tabletop RPG not Starcraft.
You martialcucks always bring your bullshit about how your gay Conan wannabes should be able to hold their own against Elminster even though it makes no fucking sense.
Just fuck off with your class balance bullshit. Go play fucking WoW or something where you can bitch about class balance on the forums all day long.
>>47564328
>>47564368
>>47565878
3.5 is incredibly unbalanced out of the box, but if you're aware that its unbalanced, and aren't a huge knob like (like >>47566366 and >>47566382 and >>47566386 and >>47566387), it's very easy to balance your character to the rest of the party.
Example: Whenever I play 3.5 with inexperienced players, and the party comp isn't lacking in anything, I play bad but flavorful classes. Even if the class is unbalanced, I know enough of the system to balance it. Hell, in one of my most memorable canpaigns, I ended up playing a half-decent Truenamer of all things.
This, by the way, touches on the single strongest suit of 3.5 that never gets mentioned: although the options may be unbalanced, almost all of them are unique.
What other edition lets you play an Ogre, or a Mindflayer? Where else will you find classes as mechanically diverse as the Binder, Totemist, or Warblade?
Hell, even all those underpowered and forgettable prestige classes that 3.5 is full of usually have some unique 1/day or 3/day ability that's unique or interesting.
Now, I'm not saying that this makes up for 3.5 being a clunky and unbalanced system. All I'm saying is that 3.5 has its strengths in its character creation in a way very few other RPGs match; I've played 3.5 over 10 years, and I've never played the same character twice!Also, 3.5 is free, which is a huge plus
>>47564581
>>47564075
>>47564726
>deny that 5e doesn't support roleplay
>accept that 5e has mechanics that support roleplay but disregard it anyway
How do people make it past elementary school?
>>47566386
>If you choose to be useless, then that's entirely your fault. Not the game's. Nobody's forcing you to be a mundane sword-swinger in a game about hyper-powerful magical beings.
So why are they both presented as equally valid options?
Nevermind - you don't actually want to engage in any sort of thought.
Congrats on being an autismal moron, and a pretty crap troll too - we can all see it from a mile off. At least it vaguely approaches some form of entertainment.
>>47566433
Fine, then: Why is a warblade more powerful than a fighter, when they both swing swords at stuff? How is that 'realistic?'
>>47566386
our argument is literally "Well if you dont like it then just play wizard". Well, what if someone doesn't want to play as wizard? What about people who just really like role play and want to play a warrior type? Should they be punished to a life of complete uselessness after a few levels?
>>47566460
>So why are they both presented as equally valid options?
They are equally valid options.
Just not in terms of power.
Some people want to roleplay a fighter or a barbarian and that's fine.
Just don't expect to be as powerful or versatile as a wizard.
>>47566466
I can't answer that question as I no longer play 3.5 and I don't even know what a warblade is.
>>47566467
>Well, what if someone doesn't want to play as wizard?
Play a different game that isn't about casters then. You chose to play D&D, and you chose to play a class that the game rules and fluff don't support. You have nobody to blame but yourself.
>>47566387
>>47566537
I actually want to see what happens on this one.
>>47566467
No but they should just play a Warblade.
>>47566535
Warblades were one of the better classes in pic related
>>47566569
Why is warblade > fighter? how is that realistic?
>>47565878
>>47564234
Conversely, this is one of the things I most LIKE about 3.X. I actively dislike the idea that characters actually have to be competent in a field that they wouldn't be. A lifelong Expert chef who lives in a cushy city and gets roped into an adventure throughout the cosmos wouldn't be expected to handle a sword as well as a veteran duelist (at least not initially).
The idea that characters HAVE to be mechanically useful (particularly in combat) is just so constraining.
Now, obviously, not everyone will be happy with this arrangement and appeal to "fairness" or the idea that levels should be comparable between classes as well as within. But, at the very least, a system should be flexible enough to handle disparities. That was my problem with 4e and equal level-based attack bonuses for everyone.
>>47566467
You can still play a fighter but just don't expect to be as powerful as a wizard when you reach high levels unless you have some seriously badass artifact weapon or some shit.
Really how fucking hard is this to understand?
You are a man with a stick and you expect to be able to compete with someone who can manipulate cosmic forces? Just fuck off.
>>47566581
>warblade > fighter?
Because undefined source of powers. A fighter has his physical form, experience, and training. A warblade has that, plus Weaboo fightan magiks. Duh.Because they have different media inspirations that are simply thematically different.
>>47566366
>two level 20 characters
>Well clearly they shouldn't be considered equal
...
>>47566433
>cuck
...
Ahem, anyway, from where I jumped in it was most definitely a discussion about balance, imbecile, and as balance is an important factor of gameplay it should be considered, you dullard, especially when trying to decide which edition to play, you assinine twit.
>>47566538
Oh right, I forgot how in the handbook it mentions wizards rule the kingdoms. Also all the DnD worlds share that. Also DnD stands for Wizards and Dungeons. My mistake, I tend to have narcaleptically cancerous alzheimer's lupus.
>>47566466
A Warblade has 12 HD, +4 Skill Points, better action economy, and is Int based. This means your fighter can have skills and professions outside of Perception.
You know all that cool creative shit, like knocking an enemies over with a blow to the legs. Warblades can do that out of the box thanks to maneuvers, which provide lots of in-combat utility and you don't pay out the ass in feats just to do your basic job. You have more options than just "I move I attack, and next turn I full attack".
Thematically speaking they're the same thing, it's just that a Warblade knows how to use his knowledge of fighting and tactics to hit his enemy where it hurts. His class features reflect this instead of making him a glorified NPC.
>>47566535
>Someone asks for criticism of 3.5
>criticism of 3.5 delivered, focused on lack of balance
>attacks critic, ignores point of argument
>point of argument restated and reiterated
>shifts goalposts, argues "realism" versus "balance", presents strawman argument
>Realises it's not an argument he can win
>Shifts the goalposts again to argument of "roleplaying" versus "balance"
How many more times would you like to dance around the topic at hand, present strawmen, and shift the goalposts? Would you like to actually address the concerns of the original criticism, i.e., the DM needing to perform mental gymnastics to make any non-wizard class useful/trap options/poor balance?
Please, do the world a favour and rid us of your lack of intelligence.
>>47566589
Imma ask this question a third time, because you seem to be ignoring it.
>Warblades his people hard with sticks, learning different and better ways to hit people (maneuvers) with sticks as experience is gained.
>Fighters hit people hard with sticks, learning different and better ways to hit people (combat feats) with sticks as experience is gained.
>Warblade is unequivocally better than a Fighter of equal level
How is this realistic?
>>47566625
they very clearly say that the weaboo figtan magiks are not actually magic, but purely mundane techniques gained from experience. Yes, even the ones with fire. Why is a Warblade's experience so much better than a Fighter's?the media that inspired D&D had fighters wielding artifact swords and killing gods; they should absolutely be more powerful than they are now
It's obvious bait /tg/, stop biting
>>47566674
I really liked how you dodged the question there, and didn't even touch on how it's completely unrealistic for two stick-swingers of equal level to be so obviously and overwhelmingly on different levels.
>>47566693
Meh. Shitstorms are fun.
>>47566680
>How is this realistic?
Well, for one, Warblades are clearly inspired by anime and other Eastern sources, which make them objectively superior to the European-derived Fight class.
>>47566680
Because the Warblade/Tome of Battle classes are much better designed. Most of the late 3.5/Psionic classes are. Contrary to popular perception 3.PF actually get BETTER the further you stray from the options presented in the CRB.
>>47566727
>Fight
FightER.
Fucking phone.
And any and all arguments are decisively resolved with the point that nobody MAKES you play the shit classes. Don't like them? Play a better class. Don't like any of the classes that smart people play? Then go play a different game. It's that simple.
>>47566680
>not actually magic
Book of Nine Swords: Chapter 3: Blade Magic
P. 37:
"A martial maneuver is a discrete extraordinary or supernatural effect...".
PHB 3.5 p. 143 distinguishes between the different special abilities; a supernatural effect is very clearly not mundane.
Also, the chapter is called Blade Magic.
People read the things they talk about, right?
>>47566727
Oh thank god, I thought you were actually serious for a bit. Glad to see that it's actually just advanced baiting
>>47566588
I think you've sort of misinterpreted my criticism.
I wholly agree with your statement "I actively dislike the idea that characters actually have to be competent in a field that they wouldn't be. A lifelong Expert chef ..."
That's a-ok in my book. A chef who's suddenly pulled into an adventure should be utter crap with a sword, to begin with at least.
My point was that a wizard can do all the wizard things, AND make the rogue useless by casting Fly, Invisibility, and Knock, AND make the fighter useless by summoning powerful monsters AND/OR polymorphing into some other massive creature.
The fact that the 3.x wizard can do all of these things (i.e. do a shit ton of stuff no-one but a wizard can do, but also do what the rogue does better than the rogue does it and summon a creature to do what the fighter does better than the fighter does it), but the rogue and fighter are still presented as equally valid options is poor game design.
>>47566443
This. what people never remember about 3.5/PF is that your character feels unique both in mechanics and roleplay in a way no other edition can do the same.
Not even fan favorites such as AD&D 2e.
>>47566749
How are you this fucking dense that you've completely missed the point multipul people are trying to point out to you?
Ok look, i'll spell it out for you
>D&D is a COOP game
>People who play coop games like to help the rest of the group out towards the end goal.
>Hence, people like to be a valuable part of the team
>THUS when you have one class that completely renders another class useless, people start to wonder why bother
>Not everyone wants to play a wizard
>Dont play wizard, you dont amount to shit
>Hence, 3.5 is shit
Any questions?
>>47566731
You're right, it is much better designed. It's also unrealistic. By your own logic, its OK for a wizard who controls the fabric of reality to be better than a guy who swings a sword. There is no such distinction between fighters and warblades.
There is no reason why one sword-swinging class should be better than another at equal level.
>>47566813
>what people never remember about 3.5/PF
>PF
Surely you jest? PF's greatest flaw is that it cut away from the varied uniqueness of 3.5's options.
>>47566813
>>Play Core Fighter, Ranger, or Rogue
>>Much Full Attack
>>Extreme Unique
>>Moist Fulfilling
>>47566833
If you cared about group dynamics and good co-op, you wouldn't play a useless character class like the Fighter. You can CHOOSE to be a valuable member of the team, or you can CHOOSE to be a useless drag on the enterprise. Really, playing a fighter makes you selfish, since you're choosing to play a class you know is shit and hurting the group while you do, rather than play a legitimate and useful class.
It all comes down to your choice.
>>47562279
1e: For when you want to be a hipster faggot playing something purely for the "geek cred".
2e: For all your grim and gritty swords and sorcery mixed with wacky 80s pulp needs. It's unbalanced as fuck but you can always roll a new character.
3.P: Strictly for manchildren who never learned there were other (possibly even better) ways of doing things and who are used to getting what they want if they cry hard enough.
4e: For abused puppies who just want someone to love them.
5e: Drink the koolaid edition
>>47566784
Oh no, I understand the criticism (we've all been around the block a few thousand times, I'm sure).
I would whole-heartedly disagree with your assessment. It really depends on what you think "equally valid options" means. If you think that to be equally valid two items should have roughly similar performance in an area (say: combat mechanics), then you might be inclined to think that an imbalance is poor. If, however, if a valid option is the creation of a character to roleplay a specific role then that option is valid if it successfully portrays the role.
I am of the opinion that it is okay for there to be massive imbalance if it suits the thematics of the setting. If your default idea of a system constrains the abilities of a rogue or fighter (or the godawful samurai in OA), then that's how it is.
It's difficult, for instance, to make a character that's bad at combat in 4e. That's a bad thing in my book.
>>47566853
> There is no such distinction between fighters and warblades.
But there is. Martial Maneuvers are explicitly defined as Extraordinary or Supernatural abilities. Please know what you're talking about.
>>47566862
To expand on this, it's worth remembering that each of the characters in that pic were only at about 6th level. That's the level of fighter who's slaying medusas and manticores.
if you took that power, and extrapolated it to 20th level, You should be having near Superman levels of physical power.
>>47566928
They're extraordinary and supernatural, but they're still swinging sticks at people. The same experience that a warblade puts into swinging sticks should not be superior to the experience a fighter puts into swinging sticks.
It's like wizards and clerics. Both are bending the universe at their whim, but from different sources. Obviously the wizard is supeiror, but not by much, and not in all ways. The source of their magic is not important in their balance, only that they are both casters.
Similarly, the source of their stick-swinging is not important in their balance, only that they are stick-swingers.
>>47566929
>>47566862
This is logically unsound. Just because a particular subset of a populace don't obey the laws everyone else does (Wizards) does not mean that another subset necessarily will/can/should receive similar treatment.
Also, do note that mythological heroes would have Divine Ranks and levels in 3.X and are very clearly NOT just high level martial classes, because that is the conceit of the system.
>>47566749
>smart people
It sure takes a buncha schoolin to see the single atrongest class, yessiree.
>>47566784
He can probably create delicious food too. And if he can't he can use conjuration to bring a creature who can.
>>47567012
It is if you're trying to create a balanced game. There i no reason god-like manliness should be inferior to god-like mental powers
Also, if you look at what the characters did and what they killed, you can absolutely determine their powerlevel
>>47567012
And Merlin, Circe, and Morgan le Fey were all half fucking demon but they get to be the poster children for casters.
What is good for the fucking goose is good for the fucking gander.
>>47566862
Shows you never played it or gave little thought to it.
You can literally build a character that can bull rush a titan into a mountain, a monk that can redirect flying boulders with his fists, a rogue that is so quick he is unseen or a paladin that can one shot a dragon with his lance.
All the game requires from you is creativity and time to learn how to be that which you want to be.
>>47567010
>they're still swinging sticks at people.
No. Blade Magic (emphasis on magic, as that is literally the title of the chapter) can create supernatural effects, like a fire storm or creating literal daggers of ice, turning into a font of spiritual energy that can heal HP or whatnot.
Warblades use martial maneuvers which are explicitly NOT mundane craft.
>>47566906
And therein lies the problem. Wizard is mich, much better at combat than fighter, amd fighter is spwcifically dor combat. Same with Barbarian. Wizard can also rogue better than rogue can.
>>47567012
Hey, stat Merlin for us real quick. You know, possibly greatest wizard ever know? dedinitely a mythical character at any rate. Anyway yeah, stat Merlin for us and compare him to a PC please.
>>47567076
but are they changing the very laws of the universe with their swords? are they stopping time, or creating demiplanes, or raising the dead to do their bidding?
No, they're swinging sticks in new and more potent ways. Just like fighters.
>>47567046
>There is no reason god-like manliness should be inferior to god-like mental powers
Why not? If it can be measured, as you suggest, then there may be discrepencies.
If you want to play a martial that is as good in combat as a Wizard is in 3.x, play a Wizard and rename it Fighter. That's easily enough done.
>>47566760
>>47566772
>>47566812
Holy shit, virt really is back. Jesus, the guy can just not let go. Shitposting across /tg/ fits all his old MOs.
>>47567010
Keep in mind what happens when a caster is out of spells or gets grappled by someone.
>>47567120
how is having these discrepencies more realistic than not having them
>If you want to play a martial that is as good in combat as a Wizard is in 3.x, play a Wizard and rename it Fighter. That's easily enough done.
Literally the worst part of 4e and what made it shit. If you want every character to feel the same and have the same mechanics, 3.5 is not for you
>>47567141
Trick question, the caster has Freedom of Movement active.
>>47567092
>And therein lies the problem.
It's only a problem if you think a master of the cosmos shouldn't be better at combat than a guy with a stick.
>stat Merlin
Depending on how Celtic you want to go, probably something like Druid 15/Sorcerer 5/Bard 3+/some combination of Lyric Traumaturge or whatnot.
>>47567097
> are they stopping time...
Actually, yes.
Diamond Mind: Time Stands Still
Devoted Spirit: Immortal Fortitude: cannot die to HP loss
or Strike of Righteous Virality: hitting people heals yourself.
Desert Wind: Inferno Blast: deal 100 points of AoE Fire damage.
>>47566906
>It's difficult, for instance, to make a character that's bad at combat in 4e. That's a bad thing in my book.
For my part, I think that's okay. My favorite RPGs are the ones that are *about* something. 4e doesn't hide what it's about: playing adventurers with the potential to become legends. Everything about the game is built around that and supporting cinematic, dynamic combats, and that's pretty cool. It certainly doesn't do it perfectly and starts to collapse under its own weight at high levels in combat, but hey.
Basically, I'm not asking for a generalist, rules-as-world-physics RPG. I'm not going to ding Blades in the Dark for making it hard to play a character who isn't a criminal--that isn't the point, y'know?
I'm not going to run 4e if I want the characters to have mixed combat ability or to be a group of everyman types, but I don't think that makes it a worse system.
>>47567097
Also, since you've clearly never even read the book, one of the Swordsage's optional packages allows it to drop a HD (d8 to d6) and just take spells from the Wizard/Sorcerer list (This can potentially be quite powerful, as Swordsages have a very fast way of recharging their maneuvers/spells). That would very much not be like what a fighter is doing.
>>47564117
Or raw chance. I had a PC get one-shot at level one, first attack of the campaign.
It surprised even me, but luckily an ally stepped in and healed 'em up. Still, that gave me an appreciation for 5e's grittiness.
PCs are not superheroes anymore, and that's the one thing from 3.PF I'm so fucking glad to see gone.
>>47566904
What about OD&D, Moldvay B/X, Mentzer B/X, or Rules Cyclopedia?
>>47567190
This is just further proving my point. The skills one gets by studying martial techniques and becoming the world's most powerful warrior are comparable to the abilities of reality-warping bearded men. Why, then, can't a fighter do things that incredible/powerful?
>>47567264
Only person who hasn't read it is >>47566535
>>47566124
It makes good encounter design almost impossible for a DM if you have top and bottom tier characters in the same party
>>47567407
>studying martial techniques
Though clearly not the ones the Fighters are learning from. Martial Maneuvers are explicitly different from what Fighters do. They're, in some cases, outright magical. They're not just hitting people with sticks; they're creating supernatural, magical effects, in the same way that a Paladin or Ranger casts spells. Which Fighters, in the conceit of 3.x, don't do (without magical equipment).
>Why, then, can't a fighter do things that incredible/powerful?
Because the conceit of the fighter is that he cannot do that. A martial adept can, which is why they do. This is not hard to understand. Would you stat Hercules as a Warblade? Perhaps. Perhaps not. He's probably fine as (any martial class)20 + a few levels of Outsider + Divine Rank of 0.
>>47562279
AD&D is best for wandering around, looting, and fighting things in an underground maze where all of the corridors are mysteriously 10ft. square.
3e/3.5 is best for wandering around, looting, and fighting things in an underground maze where all of the corridors are mysteriously 5ft. square.Did they actually nerf this guy? I mean, he's 1/8th original size now.
>>47566862
I get that it's boring as a fighter to just say "I full attack" but maybe you should have thought about that during the character creation process.
That's what fighters do. They hit things with their swords. It's not really a class that has a lot of options when it comes to combat. But you knew that when you rolled a fighter right?
The other option is to create a weeaboo fighter which will give you the choice between using Blade Beam, Omnislash, Renzokuken etc...
I really don't understand why somebody would roll a fighter and then complain that all they do is hit things with their axe.
What the fuck did you expect to be doing as a fighter?
>>47567586
Nope, he's Large in 5E so that's still a 10 foot cube as far as I can tell. He can hold one Large creature or four Medium or smaller ones, so that seems to imply a 10x10x10 space.Since it's a cube it really should be eight Medium or smaller creatures since it also has vertical space, but whatever.
>>47567190
This raises further fucking questions.
Why is master of the cosmos a player option?
Why is master of the cosmos presented on the same level as everything else?
Why is master of the cosmos less reliant on nonguarenteed things than everyone else?
It is constantly said a martial needs good gear to be effective. Why doesnt a wizard need good gear? All they need is one or two spell books and they're good to go.
>>47567588
If I am a high level fighter I expect to be doing things in awesome ways (read, ways that cause awe in others). I should be dismembering people, or a whirling dervish of death, or a fluid ballet of gore, or a vision of graceful lethality. There should be options on how to fight, built into the class. And really, no one should be better at it than a fighter. It is his sole purpose of being. At level 20 his stats should be so utterly ridiculous that you should feel dirty playing him.
>>47565731
>Saying the same things in a different way
OD&D is best if you want fantasy roleplaying and puzzle solving session. Rules are only for things that can't be solved through role-play. Characters are pretty average so they need tricky plans, special items and NPC back up.
>AD&D is just that with a few more rules to use. Also a lot more random tables for the DM
>2e is if you want the above but with more mechanical options for your character as well as a heavy focus on heroics instead of tricky plans and hireling mobs
>In the case of OD&D the players really don't need to know the rules beyond the bare essentials
>However this all requires you to have some faith in your DM's ruling ability
>The books don't do shit to explain their core philosophies and intended way of play. Much like bible interpretations it's 90% fan theory.
3e is if you want a full rule set and lots of mechanics to play with. You want to build a powerful character and fight lots of monsters with extensive combat rules. Most things can be covered with a roll of some kind.
>Requires some faith in the other players or understanding on whether the rules will be for role-playing or power-gaming
>Requires understanding of the rules
4e is best if you want the old style of rule lite adventuring but you still want extensive combat rules. If you really care about combat balance and doing cool things in a fight then its great. If you want rules for thing that aren't combat it sucks.
>However character customisation only really effects how you fight and even then characters aren't that varied
>Fight's can take forever
5e is best if you want a full rule set but want the rules to reality easy to understand. You want to customise your character but you don't want to worry about optimising him.
>It's sort of a jack of all trades master of none system with no primary focus
>The balancing isn't perfect but it's better than 3e
>>47567588
The problem isn't that the class has few options in combat, it's that combat has few options for the class. Characters making proficient melee attacks should be able to do more than just swing their sword, they should be able to disarm foes, trip them, knock them about, make precision strikes on vitals, hobble them with leg blows, make spinning elbows to try high-risk instant knock-outs... but instead, the system is mostly just "Make an attack roll, if you hit, deal your weapon damage." The few options that are available require intense specialization or are completely worthless to attempt due to the penalties.
This wouldn't be a problem if spellcasting was as simple as martial combat, but clearly it's not. In 5th Edition, Wizards get cantrips that let them make the same "Roll vs. a defence/save, on a hit deal your damage", but from range and throwing magic damage that's often way harder to resist. If Wizards just got cantrips, and NOTHING ELSE, the classes would be balanced. They're not balanced because wizard spells do crazy shit that completely outpaces anything and everything non-casters get by leagues and bounds. Spellcasting is more versatile, it has deeper mechanics, and spellcasting characters get access to a resource (spell slots) that by and large, when expended grants them SIGNIFICANTLY better combat ability than non-casters.
There's basically three ways to balance this kind of system.
1) Make martial combat universally more complicated and with resources and mechanics as deep as spellcasting (i.e. Tome of Battle).
2) Make spellcasting as simple and narrow as martial combat. Wizards just get to choose one of several flavours of at-will magical damage attack, about as varied as the weapon table in the PHB.
3) Restrict spell slots to non-combat spells. Basically, casters are limited to cantrips for attacks, and force them to use utility magic like Identify and Fly and Invisibility, and that combat-useful spells can be disrupted easily in battle
>>47567530
So one sword-swinger's technique is more powerful than the other's just because, even though they're the same level?
And this is acceptable?!
Oh, but wait, now you're gonna say level is just supposed to balance two characters of the same class, and its just a coincidence that the party starts at the same level and fight level-apropriate enemies.
>>47567826
No class is better at hand to hand combat than fighters or barbs.
>>47567941
>Characters making proficient melee attacks should be able to do more than just swing their sword, they should be able to disarm foes, trip them, knock them about, make precision strikes on vitals, hobble them with leg blows, make spinning elbows to try high-risk instant knock-outs...
You can do all that in 5e with combat manoeuvers.
>Spellcasting is more versatile, it has deeper mechanics
Well yeah there are literally hundreds of spells with unique and useful effects. There are only so many ways you can swing a sword.
If you feel limited as a fighter why not roll a wizard/sorcerer and see if you enjoy it more?
>>47567941
Everything you suggested was done by 4e.
It was reviled.
>>47568036
>No class is better at hand to hand combat than fighters or barbs
Except for Clerics and Druids, and even Wizards with a bit of elbow grease.
>>47564075
Having played and DM'd several Adventurer's League games, I can attest to that. I haven't played in a while because I've been put off of D&D for a while because of the players and constraints of Adventurer's League.
>>47568079
I'm talking about 5e not 3.5
>>47568064
This.
Trying to give everyone the same number of "skills" and giving everyone a "resource" is something that belongs in a video game not a tabletop RPG.
The result is a game where everyone has the same "powers" just with different names and flavour. Homogenisation is not a good thing.
Fighters are fundementally diffrerent from Wizards and should be treated as such.
A fighter will simply never have as many options in combat as a wizard due to the nature of the two classes.
Fighters will always be limited by the laws of physics. Wizards are not.
1st Edition is for people who are masochists and REALLY like polearms and -4 STR. This is the only edition that is not a Caster Edition, and even then only barely.
2nd Edition (AD&D) is best for people who like Dungeons & Dragons and like weird, nonintuitive or even counterintuitive rules. And a LOT of them. This is the Caster Edition, but in a less obvious way than 3E or 4E, and the caster really has to work for it and never quite becomes invulnerable - just objectively better than everyone else.
3rd Edition is best for people who like to powergame. This IS the Caster Edition, wherein past a certain point you're either a spellcaster or you're being controlled by one to some greater ("You fail your Will save and are now dominated") or lesser ("We need to stop now, Galstaf is out of spells and we can't face the boss without them") extent.
4th Edition is best for people who like tactical miniatures combat. This, too, is THE Caster Edition, but they cleverly hide this by making literally every class casters, but then calling some of those classes "warlord" or "fighter" instead of "wizard".
5th Edition is best for people who like Dungeons & Dragons and want a clear and concise set of rules. This is a Caster Edition but no more so than 2E, and actually arguably less so since spells and magic items never become as balls-to-the-walls crazy as they did in 2E.
>>47564840
Anon, your elf will never be fucking special.
It's just another fucking elf.
>>47568697
That's not a very good example.
Elves are probably the only non-human race to actually have some diversity in terms of personality and appearance in their midst. Probably because they're so close in appearance to humans.
1e was turning a wargame into something more intimate.
2e was basically more of the same, but with 100% less recently-booted creator.
3e looked for different ways to answer the questions raised by 1e and 2e.
By 3.5, those answers have gotten bloated and over-complicated to a ridiculous degree.
4e *seems* like it's better at answering the questions...until you realize that it's actually answering entirely different questions than the other dnd games.
5e is an attempt to somehow make all of this make sense without having to admit that 79% of 4e was a mistake.
>>47568753
Yes, some are white, and some are black.
Some are woods, and some are also woods but less woods than the woods ones.
But they all have a sword, and a bow, and magic.
They're all Link.
You don't need a class on top of being an elf.
Just be an elf.
>>47568778
A drow rogue, a wood elf ranger and a high elf wizard are all very different character archetypes anon.
We get it. You don't like elves.
OP Here,I think that every system works when your group and master are really roleplaying
>>47565424
>OD&D, best for playing a fun game with friends.
Unless your friends are a bunch of no-fun faggots who try to make sure everything has rules.
>>47564726
>If they're new they shouldn't be playing in the first place
>>47565240
>enable GP=XP
the single most retarded rule point
>>47567950
>And this is acceptable?!
Don't see why. A guy who had actual swordsmanship training in addition to his combat experience and physique is obviously going to be better than someone who is self-taught, provided the latter isn't some freak of nature genius.
Just play Fantasy Craft
>>47566766
>People read the things they talk about, right?
>extraordinary OR supernatural
Original poster was wrong about the "set your sword on fire " shit being non-magical... buuut the warblade doesn't get those maneuvers anyway.
>>47567074
>implying you can't do this in 4e
>implying you aren't massively more supported to do this in 4e
The only one that doesn't exist in 4e is the lance-pounce-smite/rage shocktrooper/power attack builds that shat out thousands of HP damage in 3.5; to which I say good riddance, but if you miss that shit, yeah, 3.5 is your game.
It's been years since 4e got the rug pulled from under it.
You don't need to spread misinformation anymore. You "won". You can admit you have never opened the book and are just regurgitating what you heard from others. It doesn't matter anymore.
>>47562279
I see Thranduil but I don't recognise any of those other copyright infringements.
>>47566299
Dubs speaks the truth
I think the biggest disconnect between the schools of thought is that a fighter is "just a guy with a stick".
Why is this the base assumption? If a high level wizard is someone who makes reality their bitch, than why isn't a high level fighter somone who can punch rocks apart, move a river, or any of the other things mythological warriors like Hercules and Gilgamesh do. Where is it explicitly written that warriors have to be mired in reality when none of the other classes come with such notion?
I'm fine with powerful wizards, but why hasn't anyone written a version of the fighter that tries to emulate the feel of epic heroes? Why must fighters be "the realistic one"?
>>47572521
>why hasn't anyone written a version of the fighter that tries to emulate the feel of epic heroes?
It's been done. This problem only exists in D&D, and not even all it's editions
I've always found the real problem with 3.X is that in making everything a feat, they really stuck it to the martials. Everything clever you might do in any of the earlier editions now requires a feat to get it.
Imagine the hell it would raise if in making a wizard, you got one school of magic at the beginning, and had to spend a feat every time you wanted access to another school.
>>47573290
I would be totally fine with that
In fact, that sounds like a good idea, it's a bit rediculous the sort of shit even a level 1 wizard can pull, not in terms of power but in terms of variability.
Of course, implementing such a limitiation would also have to involve nerfing the fuck out of conjuration and transmutation by taking all the weird spells placed in those schools that shouldn't be there in other schools
>>47568036
>You can do all that in 5e with combat maneuvers.
Poorly, or else requiring intense specialization.
>If you feel limited as a fighter why not roll a wizard/sorcerer and see if you enjoy it more?
You clearly don't understand anything about game design. In a class and level-based RPG, all characters should have useful, meaningful options and tools at their disposal, and they should be comparable in both scope and effectiveness. If a level 20 Fighter is good at only one thing (for example, combat), a level 20 Wizard should either (a) be equally good at only one thing, or (b) be inferior but capable at two or three things. If that Wizard is good at nine or ten different things, the Fighter should be as well, or else you have FAILED AT GAME DESIGN.
>>47568064
>Everything you suggested was done by 4e.
>It was reviled.
4th Edition had significant problems that had nothing to do with balancing martial characters and spellcasting ones. It wasn't backwards compatible with any previous edition. It didn't have an OGL. It provided a lot of little modifiers to rolls which made it very complicated. The magic item treadmill was stupid and felt forced. It changed a lot of the lore for races and some classes. Hybrid multiclassing was complicated as well.
True, some people didn't like how all classes used At-Will / Encounter / Daily powers... but not all classes followed that structure. The Ardent, Battlemind, and Psion instead had a reserve of Power Points they could use to augment their At-Will powers, in return for having no Encounter powers. Monks could use their powers to improve their movement abilities instead of just augmenting attacks. Barbarians got passive bonuses whenever they use a Daily ability. They did it, just not early enough and frequently enough to fix the problem.
If you want a good example of what 4E would have looked like if classes played significantly differently, but where martial and casters are still well-balanced, check out 13th Age.
>>47573581
I dream of WotC re-releasing 4e as D&D tactics and continuing support
There isn't really a game like it out there. Aside from Strike!, and Strike! sucks
>>47573859
Strike! does indeed suck, and again I'll recommend 13th Age. It doesn't use grid-based combat, instead going for abstracted distance, but it's surprisingly tactical regardless. Classes are legitimately distinct from each other in how they work, and they're all about as powerful and versatile as each other. It's not perfect but it's pretty great.
>>47573581
>You clearly don't understand anything about game design
Yes, please teach me about game design Mr 12 year old 4e babby who learned about D&D by watching the Big Bang Theory.
You are using a video game design concepts and trying to apply them to tabletop gaming. When will you retards realise that the two mediums are not the same.
Wizards have always had more options than fighters for OBVIOUS reasons. Classes have never been balanced and they never will be.
Players like you are CANCER to D&D. You only view the game in terms of what you can do in combat situations.
Pic fucking related.
>>47574022
Agree to disagree, buddy
>>47566124
Why even have a class system though then? If using magic is meant to be objectively more powerful then it shouldn't be tied to specific classes instead every class can get it's own sort of magic as they advance. Having some classes get access to it right from the start while others never get access is just stupid, it defeats the entire point of having classes.
>>47574022
>You only view the game in terms of what you can do in combat situations
>Implying it is somehow native to 4e and not D&D as a whole, at least since 3.0
>>47563404
The dwarf too, if you looks closely.
>>47570409
Why? It gives a non-combat primary objective to adventures - get the treasure vs kill everything in sight
It lets the GM ramp up the pressure with fewer but tougher monsters, since between 2/3 and 4/5 of the XP is coming from gold and magic items, so fights become more intense but their infrequency keeps them from dragging down the game.
>>47562279
1e for Gygaxian dungeons
2e for nostalgia
3e for cheese
4e for combat
5e for fun
>>47574022
The problem here is that the viewpoint of D&D being more like a video game than an interactive novel came from 3e
By including so many options, so many ways to optimise, so many hard and fast rules, it straight up encourages optimization.
And yet 3e is the only one in which balance is so out of whack that it is practically nonviable to have a wizard and a fighter in the same party unless the wizard's player is being very polite and limiting himself for the sake of others.
Now that's just how D&D is, if you want a game with less strict rules, there are plenty out there, but D&D is no longer amongst them
>>47574022
>Yes, please teach me about game design Mr 12 year old 4e babby who learned about D&D by watching the Big Bang Theory.
Ad hominem.
>You are using a video game design concepts and trying to apply them to tabletop gaming. When will you retards realise that the two mediums are not the same.
Straw man fallacy.
>Wizards have always had more options than fighters for OBVIOUS reasons. Classes have never been balanced and they never will be.
Nirvana fallacy.
>Players like you are CANCER to D&D. You only view the game in terms of what you can do in combat situations.
Ad hominem and straw man fallacies.
>>47573581
But 13th Age purposefully designed certain classes to be "simple", creating a disparity between classes, causing them to fall back and become inferior options, throwing class balance out of whack. It fails to follow your advice all the way and only uplifts some martials
>>47575396
Interesting position. Could you elaborate further on how it does so, and give some specific examples? I'm honestly interested to know your reasoning behind this.
>>47575680
Not the guy you're talking to, but the rulebook explicitly gives a list of classes by complexity, and granted, it doesn't perfectly line up with classes in order of power, but it comes pretty close
Spellcasters are just better in 13th Age though, because they can deal the same damage with an at-will as a martial can, but can target physical or mental defense instead of AC, and 13th Age doesn't have weapon proficiency bonuses, so they just do more damage in general
>3.5e
Fantasy Craft is better
>4e
MMOs are better
>5e
Dogshit scraped off the floor of a Greek restaurant is better
>>47568164
>Fighters will always be limited by the laws of physics
Only for a certain band of genre. If your game does not play exclusively to that genre, well...
>>47575765
Well, when comparing a Fighter and a Wizard (for example), they'll both do roughly the same maximum and minimum damage but Fighters have greater consistency with their attacks (Deadly Assault, Precision Attack, Heavy Blows) and overall higher defences and stamina than Wizards. There's also the fact that Wizards get access to a grand total of EIGHT utility spells, which massively reduces their versatility compared to what a Wizard can do in 3E or 5E D&D.
So, 13th Age basically does something similar to a combination of all my balance suggestions here >>47567941 . Some martials have greater complexity, though not all of them, and spellcasters have narrower, more basic magical attacks with utility magic not being as useful in the midst of battle, and coming at an opportunity cost. With that in mind, I don't think 13th Age fails to follow my advice at all, quite the opposite in fact.
>>47562279
3.5 is still the best, even with all the caster wank.
>>47564537
Personality and background are both good things to have, but unless everyone in the group is super new and hasn't read any kind of "how to roleplay" type guide those are both going to be things that the majority of players will be aware of and be doing anyway.
So, it's nice that they're in the game for the newbies and the rollplayers but that's not really going to help most players.
>>47563968
0d&d is for what d&d would be without players (that had different views of what d&d should be and in theory should be playing different games) decided how d&d should be
>>47566366
>Level indicates power relative to members of the SAME class.
Then why does the fucking book say that literally nowhere, retard?
>>47566903
Why does the useless choice exist, you living abortion.
I shouldn't bite on super obvious bait, but if it's just plain okay for a wizard to be a million times better than a fighter, then how is that fair to someone coming to the game who doesn't know everything about it to know that they're screwed if they want to use a sword?
>>47568764
The wargame thing was already dead and gone by 1E; 2e reintroduced grids as part of a Players' Option book that nobody ever used for anything besides the grandmastery/expertise rules and the new weapons list.
